Value of Higher Education

I have 2 teenagers living at home, both of which are entering the final stages of secondary academics in preparation for college. This has given me ample opportunity to review the current state of post-secondary academia, and here are some of my thoughts.

Other than a few key Ivy League schools, specialized schools like MIT or The School of Mines, or a school with a specialized academic offering such as Medicine, Law, Engineering, etc., accredited colleges and universities are academically the same. What separates them is not an issue of the quality of academics, but an issue of the number of applicants. That is what truly defines how difficult it is to get into any given college or university. American higher education is a business, after all, unlike the academic institutions of most other countries. A state university system will have minimum standards applied that are based on the states academic objectives, but those standards are usually at an acceptable low level. So what causes all the competition for schools?

A highly competitive school is one that students desire to attend, period. Despite all the academic hubris from those universities that consider themselves the "top tier" of higher education, it is really all about the number of applicants versus the number of seats that determines how competitive a school appears to be. The more students that apply, the less scholarships have to be offered, the less financial compromises a school has to make - meaning more financial resources, and the more scrutiny applied to applicants. After all, this being a litigious society, you have to be able to justify picking 1,000 students from 10,000 applicants. That forms the basis of a ‘highly competitive’ university, as opposed to any credentials the university may have.

My point is this. I have been top tier management for most of my life in the engineering industry. I have never distinguished between one school and another when screening job applicants, and neither have any of my peers. I have given additional hiring consideration to a particular field of study relevant to the position requirements, and have even considered transcripts on 1 or 2 occasions (very rare occurrence), but have never given credit to a UCLA graduate over Texas Christian University, as an example. I was always looking for the right person for the job, which is purely based on the individual applicant, and the educational background served 2 purposes. First was to screen the applicant against the requirements of the position, basically get you from application to interview, and second was the infrequent discriminator between 2 otherwise equal candidates (never based on the school attended).

So, in my opinion, what makes a school highly competitive is the desire for students to attend. The more students want to attend, the more financial resources a school has, and a small portion of that will actually end up being spent on students. Throw out the politics and pompous statements from the ‘top 10’ and it really boils down to what students want. You have an option, attend the University of Alaska or the University of California at Los Angeles… hmmm… will you choose the frozen state of Alaska or will you choose the sunny beaches of Southern California?

The sheer number of applicants speaks for itself. I think most academically minded students with an eye on their future would pick a university where they can stand out and focus on academics, but I believe that most university students are simple byproducts of inflated secondary academics imposed by federal/state systems that refuse to accept that everyone has different capabilities and limitations, and many will drop out in the first 2 years. So why the desire to attend UCLA over UAF? Let me see, ULCA = visions of girls in bikinis, parties, beaches, and life in Southern California, UAF = visions of cold, girls in flannel, snow, and the occasional moose. Is it really academics, or another symptom of our hedonistic society marching steadily toward collapse? For the theologian out there, a reference to Sodom and Gomorra seems apropos.

In summary, I think that an accredited university is what counts most. If you attend a university accredited to provide higher education, than you will be awarded an accredited degree, which will define your educational level. Period. Throw out the concepts of American capitalism and hedonism, and you are left with what really counts. Affordable accredited higher academia. Don’t let a failed value system define you education, and leave you in debt beyond the earnings you had hoped to gain from your degree. Caveat Emptor applies to everything with a price tag in this country, even education, and you should shop around for the best deal you can get. I could write a book on this subject, but we'll save that for another day. I recommend you save your ‘Cadillac’ money for an actual Cadillac, and not some university purporting to be the ‘Cadillac’ of higher education. Remember 'you get what you pay for' was coined by businesses, not consumers. Remember too, there is a significant taxpayer burden associated with higher education, and your money doesn't go to equally deserving students, or anywhere you might value. Be thrifty, you will be much happier in the years that follow.

There you have my 2 cents on the topic, or maybe a nickel, what are your thoughts?