Is the Four-Year, Liberal-Arts Education Model Dead?

I have a BA I can write a complete sentence and,
unlike some may think, it took significant intelligence to achieve.

Still ain't fed me...

I have a BA....it housed, fed and clothed me and my children, got me a good job with a major corp......helped me start my own business, sent my kids to college, and gave me a comfortable retirement......

Not every well paying job requires a tech/science/math type degree and some jobs truly need a well rounded BA degreed person who not only is smart but can apply those smarts to their job.

..

oops, double post

archer, times change! That is the gist of what Rockdoc Franz posted in his original post. Can we not discuss this?

Are you so wrapped up in yourself that you cannot back away and view reality? Get over yourself. The BA degree does not carry the clout that it once did.

archer wrote: I have a BA....it housed, fed and clothed me and my children, got me a good job with a major corp......helped me start my own business, sent my kids to college, and gave me a comfortable retirement......

Not every well paying job requires a tech/science/math type degree and some jobs truly need a well rounded BA degreed person who not only is smart but can apply those smarts to their job.

Acher, you are right of course in saying that not every well-paying job requires a BS, MS, or PhD. Exceptions abound to everything. Not all BS majors get hired either. What is in question is the value of a LA degree to all those who achieve it. Available information reported in the article cited in the original post suggests that the classic LA degree simply does not cut it anymore. My thesis submits this has in part to do with the progressive lowering of college admission and graduation standards. You obviously are a bright and thoughtful person who would have met or did meet higher education standards than are in place today. Not every college graduate over the past thirty or more years achieved or was capable of achieving more rigorous college standards of the past. Those demanding standards of the past were a kind of weeding out process, from certain point of view, that no longer takes place. I contend that the reason a four year, liberal arts education model is no longer viable is because it's easy to get and the people who are getting it are not the kind of people (with smarts and drive like yourself) that can genuinely apply themselves in a highly competitive private sector. Having said that, I'm well aware that other factors come into play with regard to obtaining work over a lifetime. Sometimes the smartest people fail in the private sector for reasons not entirely of their own doing. Looking at exceptions is not what is of interests as much as looking at this issue in general.

deltamrey wrote: How do I really feel - a BA is worthless (but at $100,000) and the products are living in mommies back room working at the local burger joints. BUT not dead.....unfortunately.

So far, I agree with you - and it was for our generation as well. Honestly, how many of us work in the field we have our degrees in? I do, to a point. I used to, but we can see the cuts in that field all over the place (as well as other politics involved in it).

The Idea of it being only four years is long gone - very few in my age group graduated in four years, and even fewer in our kids generation will - my daughter was telling me that she doesn't know anyone - from any program - that isn't going to have to take a 5th year to meet requirements, and these are all full times students. Is this just a way to suck more money in for the college?

We were all told that going to college would get us high end careers, regardless of our majors. It was a lie then, and is a lie now. Why is this lie still promoted? And it surely is - even in ads on TV all the time.

I can see a step "back" as some would call it - not exactly a step back, due to our level of technology, but a step toward more practical thinking and action. More people getting training in practical skills, a rise in community college attendance and less attending college at all, a return to apprenticeships and journeymen. A more practical outlook on life, and less emphasis on the frivilous. I cannot see this as a bad thing.

Local_Historian wrote: [The Idea of it being only four years is long gone - very few in my age group graduated in four years, and even fewer in our kids generation will - my daughter was telling me that she doesn't know anyone - from any program - that isn't going to have to take a 5th year to meet requirements, and these are all full times students. Is this just a way to suck more money in for the college?.

Darn good question. I do not know the answer but do have a few random thoughts.

Disclaimer: This is all from memory which is not reliable as it used to be.

When I went to college in 1972 I was entitled to $167/mo in financial aid if I went to school full time. Full time was defined as 15 semester or 21 quarter hours. A bachelor's degree required 120 semester hours.

When I started recruiting in 1991 a bachelors still required 120 sem. hours but a full time student was defined as 12 hours per semester.

What defines a full time student for financial aid today? One thing for sure, the reduction in classes per semester was not because so much more is crammed into each course.

A random straggler thought. High school prep.

Seems to me that in 71 high school grads who were accepted to college were ready for a college level education. "C" high school students went to less prestigious colleges, "B" high school students went to........ and so on.

Now, or rather in 1991 many students spend a semester or a full year in sub 100 level classes learning what high school should have taught them and did not.

neptunechimney wrote: A random straggler thought. High school prep.

Seems to me that in 71 high school grads who were accepted to college were ready for a college level education. "C" high school students went to less prestigious colleges, "B" high school students went to........ and so on.

Now, or rather in 1991 many students spend a semester or a full year in sub 100 level classes learning what high school should have taught them and did not.

We are seeing a trickle up affect. Lowering of graduation standards is not only an issue for colleges, but high school as well. There is also a change in home education. WIth both parents going off to earn a living so they can get ahead, insufficient attention to education is given at home. There is not enough energy left for parents to do an adequate job in many instances. Hence, increased pressure is being placed on teachers to teach our kids those things that were normally done at home. It's easy to see the patterns that have developed, but finding a solution is not so easy. Clearly it begins with parents who are getting torn between parenting and work.
Another thing I see is that kids today continue to slide away from responsibility because the parents are at work and the kids will take the easy way out whenever they can. Development of their decision making part of the brain is still ongoing and not functioning with a long term perspective. As with all such generalizations plenty of exceptions exist.

So with that as a background, I still see colleges needing to raise their standards. Instead of admitting students who require remedial course work, let them go elsewhere. Allow the community colleges to work. They are there for the students who need more work and maturing.

Local_Historian wrote:

deltamrey wrote: How do I really feel - a BA is worthless (but at $100,000) and the products are living in mommies back room working at the local burger joints. BUT not dead.....unfortunately.

So far, I agree with you - and it was for our generation as well. Honestly, how many of us work in the field we have our degrees in? I do, to a point. I used to, but we can see the cuts in that field all over the place (as well as other politics involved in it).

The Idea of it being only four years is long gone - very few in my age group graduated in four years, and even fewer in our kids generation will - my daughter was telling me that she doesn't know anyone - from any program - that isn't going to have to take a 5th year to meet requirements, and these are all full times students. Is this just a way to suck more money in for the college?

We were all told that going to college would get us high end careers, regardless of our majors. It was a lie then, and is a lie now. Why is this lie still promoted? And it surely is - even in ads on TV all the time.

I can see a step "back" as some would call it - not exactly a step back, due to our level of technology, but a step toward more practical thinking and action. More people getting training in practical skills, a rise in community college attendance and less attending college at all, a return to apprenticeships and journeymen. A more practical outlook on life, and less emphasis on the frivilous. I cannot see this as a bad thing.

Many students finish college and still do not know what they want to do for a living. Thus it's small wonder that they are ill prepared and end up working in fields previously not imagined. Even those of us who knew what they wanted, retooling into related disciplines is not uncommon and is high beneficial in my opinion. For example, my academic training is as a paleontologist. It was my intent to be in academia. Extenuating circumstances saw me head to the oil industry sector. A quick evaluation told me that I needed to retool. I did to a carbonate sedimentologist and stratigrapher. I've continued to learn and broaden my experience within the oil industry and that has allowed me to better interact with the related disciplines of geophysics and petrophysics. Retooling is all about keeping yourself employed, making yourself more attractive to potential employers. Learning is a never ending process as you all know, but too few are willing to re-invent themselves completely because the price to do so is high and perhaps because economic and personal circumstances make it next to impossible. I still feel where there is a will there is a way. And I do not imply it is going to be easy by any means.