January 27, 201114 yr Hi everybody I highly suggest reading the linked article. I just got back from Ohio U. in Athens. My wife and I went down to see Ben Folds (always an excellent show) and to visit some old watering holes. Neither of us had been back there in a number of years and spent this morning walking around town and visiting some new additions to campus. Ironically enough we scoping out the new monstrosity of a student center when this article in one of the students publications caught my eye. It pretty much lays out the exact same arguments made in the linked articles and upstream conversations in this thread about how amenities are driving up the cost of education. This articles puts actual numbers to the abstract ideas, and gives the impacts at OU such as forcing budget cuts and other unintended consequences, such as impacting uptown businesses that have been there for years. I am probably on the record somewhere on this forum supporting the project, unfortunately I was in the unquestioning majority, swayed by shiny and new, that did not critically think about the impacts of this project. Yes, OU needed a new student center but unfortunately it did not need this project which will be a financial cross to bear by the university for decades to come. There is one particular design issue I would like to call bullsh!t on. First its now possible for students to go from West Green /lower campus to uptown/College Green by cutting through Baker and taking 3 or 4 escalators up and not walking up Athens (in)famous hills or taking stairs.The second part of my gripe is that there are no stairs immediately adjoining the escalators (think something like the tunnel to Terminal D at CLE), meaning even if you were health conscious, it's harder to take the stairs. T Baker or Bust By Stephanie Stark With a snip from the celebratory scissors, the big red ribbon was cut. President Roderick McDavis, surrounded by architects, builders, administrators and students gave a golf clap, oohing and ahhing at the unveiling of Ohio University’s newest ornament at the end of South Court Street: the new Baker University Center. Simultaneously, the citizens of southeast Ohio saw the first escalators in the area. But gliding stairways and shining pillars aside, the new Baker Center hid something beneath its gloss and glamour: a stairway to monstrous debt.Students are increasingly paying more in tuition, room and board and fees to cope with OU’s growing $13.5 million deficit while simultaneously dealing with less available resources. Students, faculty and administration have been dissecting each dollar paid and spent at the university, from Intercollegiate Athletics to the Buddhism program (or lack thereof). While the parties involved continue to eye one another in spending habit suspicion, there is a failure to acknowledge the recent $65 million investment that increasingly engulfs student pocketbooks whilst decreasingly accommodating the student body. Four years after OU’s student center spending spree, the university’s governing bodies are forced into lesser-of-two-evils debates that reach to every corner of the university, yet fail to recognize the colossal rift they walk every day. Read more at: http://backdropmag.com/feature/baker-or-bust [/i][/i]
January 28, 201114 yr Hi everybody I highly suggest reading the linked article. I just got back from Ohio U. in Athens. My wife and I went down to see Ben Folds (always an excellent show) and to visit some old watering holes. Neither of us had been back there in a number of years and spent this morning walking around town and visiting some new additions to campus. Ironically enough we scoping out the new monstrosity of a student center when this article in one of the students publications caught my eye. It pretty much lays out the exact same arguments made in the linked articles and upstream conversations in this thread about how amenities are driving up the cost of education. This articles puts actual numbers to the abstract ideas, and gives the impacts at OU such as forcing budget cuts and other unintended consequences, such as impacting uptown businesses that have been there for years. I am probably on the record somewhere on this forum supporting the project, unfortunately I was in the unquestioning majority, swayed by shiny and new, that did not critically think about the impacts of this project. Yes, OU needed a new student center but unfortunately it did not need this project which will be a financial cross to bear by the university for decades to come. There is one particular design issue I would like to call bullsh!t on. First its now possible for students to go from West Green /lower campus to uptown/College Green by cutting through Baker and taking 3 or 4 escalators up and not walking up Athens (in)famous hills or taking stairs.The second part of my gripe is that there are no stairs immediately adjoining the escalators (think something like the tunnel to Terminal D at CLE), meaning even if you were health conscious, it's harder to take the stairs. T Baker or Bust By Stephanie Stark With a snip from the celebratory scissors, the big red ribbon was cut. President Roderick McDavis, surrounded by architects, builders, administrators and students gave a golf clap, oohing and ahhing at the unveiling of Ohio University’s newest ornament at the end of South Court Street: the new Baker University Center. Simultaneously, the citizens of southeast Ohio saw the first escalators in the area. But gliding stairways and shining pillars aside, the new Baker Center hid something beneath its gloss and glamour: a stairway to monstrous debt.Students are increasingly paying more in tuition, room and board and fees to cope with OU’s growing $13.5 million deficit while simultaneously dealing with less available resources. Students, faculty and administration have been dissecting each dollar paid and spent at the university, from Intercollegiate Athletics to the Buddhism program (or lack thereof). While the parties involved continue to eye one another in spending habit suspicion, there is a failure to acknowledge the recent $65 million investment that increasingly engulfs student pocketbooks whilst decreasingly accommodating the student body. Four years after OU’s student center spending spree, the university’s governing bodies are forced into lesser-of-two-evils debates that reach to every corner of the university, yet fail to recognize the colossal rift they walk every day. Read more at: http://backdropmag.com/feature/baker-or-bust [/i][/i] I echo these sentiments. This seems to be happening with many college campuses across the country. I'm almost positive UC's tuition costs, which continue to rapidly increase are a direct result of the perpetual construction that goes on there. NKU seems to be headed down that track too. I don't know how all of it is being funded, but they are certainly building a lot of new things within a relatively short amount of time. I know a few people who go to school down there and they have the same complaints; increasing tuition costs while building unnecessary amenities. NKU seems to be placing too much emphasis on shedding their image of not being a "real" school. I've heard great things about their law school btw.
January 28, 201114 yr >NKU seems to be headed down that track too. Oh yeah -- both Xavier and NKU built new arenas within the last five years, and UC wants to build something to replace Shoemaker Center. I remember going to Shoemaker the year it opened and thinking it looked cheap. Obviously that didn't stop Huggins from fielding many #1 teams. UC and Xavier are 2.5 miles apart and I always thought they should have built a shared arena on the huge lot at Reading & MLK. But that would have saved too much money. >I've heard great things about their law school btw. My dad graduated #1 from Chase in 1981 or 82 and will be featured in the next alumni magazine.
January 28, 201114 yr ... and in terms of outcomes, it has been diluted because the focus on access, access, access has given rise to public policy aimed on getting kids in the door (whether they're college material or not) This was an issue in the mid-late 1970s. Back then there was a policy of open admissions, where if you could afford the tuition and had a high school diploma you could attend college (this was for public universities in Kentucky, I don't know about other states). But there was a concern that you couldnt properly teach or absorb a) that many students and b)the quality of student was low, that they were not prepared. So there was a push to move away from open admisssions to some standard of demonstrated performance before you could get admitted. This was the case already in the pre-professional and professional programs, but became more of a university-wide policy. So you can see how there could be a policy conflict between limiting access to the qualified (which is a bit, in terms of policy, like the German one) and maximizing access, ie.: 'gettting kids in the door'. Of course in the 1970s the cost inflation issue wasn't what it is now (based on the charts), so college was, in theory, more affordable then, too. So the access issue was seen more in terms of academic qualifications vs financial ability.
January 28, 201114 yr I think the problem is the other way around, to the extent that it is a problem: The universities are able to build all these glitzy new facilities because of how much they've been able to jack up tuition without hurting enrollment, not the other way around. Or, perhaps more dishearteningly, all these glitzy new facilities really do increase demand for enrollment at a given college more than increasing academic outcomes and career placements would. Whatever the case, though, universities would not be able to increase tuition and fees at whatever astronomical rates they've been increasing if students weren't both able and willing to pay it. They're able to pay it largely because of cheap credit, as was previously mentioned in this thread, which haunts the students only later, after the university has gotten four years of the proceeds of those loans out of the student. (Of course, the universities *also* want to keep a steady stream of alumni dollars coming in, and I'm getting a little frustrated with what I see, and am starting to wonder if other OSU alumni are feeling likewise.)
January 28, 201114 yr I really think it's a problem that goes both ways. It reminds me a lot of the housing prices, everybody knew that they were rising too fast but everybody kept buying in despite the risk for personal gain. But collectively we pushed it too hard and what we ended up was a collapse instead of what have been a period of price correction 2 to 4 years earlier. If this spending and lending orgy had been able continue we were probably going to see a collapse of several universities or even statse university systems . Luckily the recession and state budget crises probably kept this from happening due to budget cuts. Now the universities are going to have get creative getting the most out of these stranded investments. Probably by closing older facilities and selling off some other assets if possible to minimize operating costs. Another fact pointed out in the OU article that I linked was that often the approval of these decisions are made by an ever revolving staff of Administrators and a student senate who seldom are there to see such a large capitol project, as the student center, open and have little concern for the potential long term negative consequences. They can get press on the positives a when they approve it and leave the mess for the next guy. The accountability is not there in most cases. The one prof points out that the main justification for the student center was increasing applications and there by selectivity, but at the time they approved the project OU applications were at an all time high and they were one of the most selective state school. So why build this huge new student center instead of something more reasonable if you are already achieving the goals?
March 27, 201114 yr New study says college education probably not worth it: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/forget-harvard-4-degree-more-plumber-long-run-20110318-063704-224.html
March 29, 201114 yr A likely somewhat more high-falutin' presentation on this topic next month will take place via the Akron Roundtable series sponsored by the Greater Akron Chamber of Commerce, the Akron Beacon Journal, and the Kiwanis Club of Akron: http://www.akronroundtable.org/Speakers/speakers.asp?ID=451 5/19/2011 Richard K. Vedder Professor of Economics, Ohio University Presentation Topic: “Why College Costs Too Much and What We Can Do About It” Richard Vedder is Edwin and Ruth Kennedy Distinguished Professor of Economics at Ohio University, an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity in Washington, DC. He is an economic historian by training specializing in the history of American labor markets and issues such as immigration, internal migration, slavery, unemployment and education. His book, Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America, co-authored with Lowell Galloway, was the 1994 recipient of the Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award and was a Mencken Award finalist for Best Book. In addition to his several books, he has authored over two hundred scholarly papers which have appeared in The Journal of Economic History, Agricultural History, Explorations in Economic History and numerous other prestigious academic journals. Dr. Vedder has also written hundreds of shorter pieces for the serious popular press including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, The American Enterprise, Forbes and the Chronicle of Higher Education. ... Over the past decade, Dr. Vedder's research has increasingly addressed the issue of education. In 2004, he offered a critique of American higher education in his acclaimed book, Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much. The next year he was appointed by U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to serve on her Commission on the Future of Higher Education. In 2006 Dr. Vedder founded the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP), an independent research institute in Washington, DC that is dedicated to researching public policy and economic issues relating to post-secondary education. CCAP aims to facilitate a broader dialogue that challenges conventional thinking about costs, efficiency and innovation in American higher education. I expect to be in the audience and will see if I can take enough notes to give a highlight-reel recap on UO for those that miss it, especially if he says anything interesting or different from what the other articles and pundits in this thread have already said.
March 30, 201114 yr Hah! And on a completely different note, I just found this gem from last year on Best of Craigslist, from a disgruntled alumnus of an unnamed private institution of higher ed: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/1619190174.html Dear University Alumni Office, I'm sorry to hear that the university's $750 million endowment has fallen in value to $500 million because of the recession and because your bank died. I'm also sorry to hear that you're dealing with declining enrollment due to the fact that middle-class families are no longer willing or able to bet their homes on a $45,000-a-year higher education for their children. I really am. So, what I want to know is, why are you wasting money on glossy fundraising brochures full of meaningless synonyms for the word "Excellence"? And, why are you sending them to ME? Yes, I know that I got a master's degree at your fine institution, but that master's degree hasn't done jack shit for me since I got it! I have been unemployed for the past TWO YEARS and I am now a professional resume-submitter, sending out dozens of resumes a month to employers, and the degree I received in your hallowed halls is at the TOP OF IT and it doesn't do a fucking thing. You know, maybe if you wanted a little bit of money from me (and these days you'd get about $3) maybe you should send me a fancy color brochure admitting your role in the bubble economics that got us all in to this mess. For example, since 1987, higher education expenses have gone up 450 percent, while personal income in this country has gone up 87 percent, making tuition IMPOSSIBLE to afford without special financing. But, during this time, you were thriving because people could come up with the cash in two ways: 1. Get a home equity loan and use the inflated value of their house to pay for their kid to get drunk and/or raped at your school and then lose the house when the market crashed. 2. Get a federal loan. HAD IT OCCURRED TO YOU THAT NEITHER OF THESE SOURCES OF MONEY ACTUALLY EXIST? THAT IT WAS BEING MANUFACTURED BECAUSE YOU MADE PEOPLE THINK THAT ONE OF YOUR DEGREES WAS NECESSARY TO CLIMB TO THE TOP OF THE BUBBLE? Oh yes, federal loans. I've got $40,000 of those, which are in "forebearance" right now because I'm unemployed, meaning that the feds are paying the interest for a while, which is convenient for me, but not for our government which is now owned by China. You know, the idea behind federal loans was that it would allow more students to attend your university, not let you INFLATE your tuition to obscene levels! I mean, what the fuck were you spending the $16,000 per semester on, anyway? I was in a public policy program, so that meant we got to sit in classrooms and listen to Professor God up at the front of the lecture hall glorify Himself and Creation as He saw it and talk about how much smarter he was than anyone else and how much he'd learned at MIT and the RAND Corporation. Really, that's about all you did for us -- gave us a lecture hall, gave us an arrogant bastard to listen to, and gave us a room full of computers we could use sometimes, and you gave us a degree that employers look at and say "This guy knows how to write reports. Amusing." And I will be paying for this privilege until I am 51 years old. So I'm sorry that the economy's been rough on you. Maybe, if you wanted to save a little money, you could stop printing and sending brochures to my parents' house (oh yeah, that's where I live because I can't afford rent on ANYTHING). And, maybe I'll donate a little bit of money to you in 2030, when I get the loans for your imaginary education PAID OFF! Sincerely yours, Alumnus
March 31, 201114 yr It's not going to change until the federal student loan program is reigned in, but it seems politically untouchable. That said, and I'm speaking about my own situation, I worked more in low-wage restaurant and warehouse work than most people from a similar background. People always said "you're learning the value of a dollar", etc. No -- I didn't learn anything about money until I got into a lot of debt. My situation isn't too unusual and I think it's going to spur a cultural change, with people like me being very skeptical of buying a home, to take out a home equity loan, very cautious to go into business, and so on.
April 1, 201114 yr More fuel for the fire.... Read more at: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/an-anti-college-backlash/73214/# An Anti-College Backlash? By Professor X Mar 31 2011, 7:55 AM ET 173 Americans are finally starting to ask: "Is all this higher education really necessary?" Since the appearance in The Atlantic of my essay "In The Basement of the Ivory Tower" (2008), in which I questioned the wisdom of sending seemingly everyone in the United States through the rigors of higher education, it's become increasingly apparent to me that I'm far from the only one with these misgivings. Indeed, to my surprise, I've discovered that rather than a lone crank, I'm a voice in a growing movement. I hadn't expected my essay, inspired by the frustrations of teaching students unprepared for the rigors of college-level work, to attract much notice. But the volume and vehemence of the feedback the piece generated was overwhelming. It drew more visitors than almost any other article on the Atlantic's web site in 2008, and provoked an avalanche of letters to the editor. It even started turning up in the syllabi of college writing classes, and on the agendas of educational conferences....
April 1, 201114 yr Meanwhile, I was talking to someone last night who's mother is a public middle school teacher, who reports that students aren't learning how to write cursive because it's not on the standardized tests. She's in 7th grade teaching cursive. I think we learned it in 3rd grade.
April 1, 201114 yr I figured cursive was going to be something that was going to end up be downplayed with all this computer stuff going on. Schools might be spending too much time on computer stuff anyway; today's kids learn most of the stuff they need to know to be "normal" computer users on their own between social networking, looking for porn and online gaming.
April 1, 201114 yr There is strong argument that we should be teaching italic writing instead of cursive.
April 1, 201114 yr Working in the field of Higher Education, I can see some strong, strong, points from these articles. I do believe that too many people are going for Bachelor's in fields that are overcrowded or require more than just a bachelor's degree. Not enough people are going into the technical side of jobs because they've been drilled that a bachelor's is it. On the other hand, i also see too many students that lack basic skills that are so vital in the working world- public speaking, interaction with others, critical thinking and creativity, etc...all things you develop inside and OUTSIDE the classroom. Of course, you do this through extra curriculars and internships, which many students (most, even) can't be bothered with because they're more concerned with Facebook, clubs, and video games.
April 1, 201114 yr Yeah I don't mind that people are out partying. It's all the sitting around watching TV and movies that is disgusting. Some of the stats for how much TV the average college student watches per week are staggering, something like 44 hours, meaning there are a lot watching 50-60 hours.
April 1, 201114 yr Many are too busy working low-wage jobs to do extra curriculars or internships (which usually aren't paid, these days). The unpaid internship has become a great enforcer for the aristocracy.
April 1, 201114 yr Many are too busy working low-wage jobs to do extra curriculars or internships (which usually aren't paid, these days). The unpaid internship has become a great enforcer for the aristocracy. This happened to me (and most of the other nght students) during law school. We had to pass up a lot of opportunities because they involved unpaid work during business hours. Invaluable experience, there for the taking... as long as you're wealthy and don't need to hold down a job. And we were always told (by the rich kids) that if we just had more initiative, more desire, we'd be able to find time in our schedules like they did.
April 1, 201114 yr Yeah I don't mind that people are out partying. It's all the sitting around watching TV and movies that is disgusting. Some of the stats for how much TV the average college student watches per week are staggering, something like 44 hours, meaning there are a lot watching 50-60 hours. Based on stats earlier in this thread, college kids might be partying too much, not too little. I find those television numbers impossible. If that's true, they're spending more time watching TV than studying, doing projects, and going to class! Based on my experience, I didn't see anything like that in college. Schoolwork, clubs, working out, and partying filled the schedules of most kids.
April 1, 201114 yr ^I can see the TV being on 40 hours a week but being watched that much? I highly doubt that. Thank god engineering internships were paid. Or at least when I was in school.
April 1, 201114 yr And we were always told (by the rich kids) that if we just had more initiative, more desire, we'd be able to find time in our schedules like they did. No matter how true or not true that might be, the rich kids without initiative and desire still get the benefits. There needs to be a real crackdown on unpaid internships. Most are illegal, but there doesn't seem to be much done about it. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) clarifies the differentiation between a "trainee" and an employee in regard to the Fair Labor Standard Act (FSLA) by these six federal criteria: • The training given in the internship must be similar to what would be given in an educational setting, or vocational school • The training should be for the benefit of the trainee • The trainee's work not replace workers who are regularly paid • The employer receives no immediate advantage from the trainees' activities, and the employer's operations may actually be impeded on occasion • At the end of the training, the trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job • Both the trainee and the employer understand that the trainee is not entitled to wages during the training period. via http://www.californiaemploymentlawyersblog.com/2010/04/federal-criteria-defining-legality-of-unpaid-internships.html The NYT had an article about the phenomenon a year ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03intern.html
April 1, 201114 yr I'm not sure if I should publicly share my deep views and experience regarding the plethora of unpaid interns in my industry, but if anyone is down to hear the details and dark secrets of the trade (from someone who has had the "pleasure" of "mentoring" about a dozen of these kids), send me a PM.
April 2, 201114 yr They aren't watching TV. Facebook dominates their world (well that and porn for the guys). A night of hard partying isn't a problem, but three or four days a week is serious problem and it shows in the classroom. Some are hurt by jobs, though the smart or diligent kids generally have no problem holding down a job and doing well in school. Across a number of campuses, there is a general lack of curiosity about the world.
April 2, 201114 yr The girls are more into TV than the guys. There's the MTV trance, celebrity news garbage and endless reality shows for them to consume. And don't forget the Disney movies! Remember, not every college kid is a social butterfly or even a weekend warrior. Some just show up to class, are in a daytime extracurricular or two (or have a part-time job) and go home for evenings of homework and screen.
April 2, 201114 yr My evidence for a lack of TV time is that they have absolutely no cultural awareness that isn't tied to the Internet and social media (and that includes celeb gossip and movies).
April 2, 201114 yr I had a (male) roommate who watched soap operas every day in between classes. Also, many people who watch a lot of TV NEVER watch any news or informational programming. For example they've never watched or even heard of Meet the Press, despite it having been on the air for the last 50 years. When I was a kid I liked watching the political shows and the history shows. For people on this website, that's probably not all that unusual. I finally saw American Idol this week. It was mind-rot.
April 2, 201114 yr Across a number of campuses, there is a general lack of curiosity about the world. BINGO. I've noticed this, it seems that many students dont care about, well...anything. There's a lot of issues with school funding, Busing, etc...and you wouldn't believe how many students can't be bothered to even ask for a simple opinion. When I was a kid I liked watching the political shows and the history shows. For people on this website, that's probably not all that unusual. I finally saw American Idol this week. It was mind-rot I watch a lot of shows that wouldn't be considered "Intellectual" by any means- The price is right, some occassional cartoons, other game shows...with the RARE reality show. At the same time, I also like to read classic literature and history books...so i guess one balances out the other?
April 2, 201114 yr >it seems the students dont care about, well...anything. Well then just figure out a way to make money off their stupidity. Oh wait -- that's what the colleges and Sallie Mae are doing!
April 3, 201114 yr Jmech, the biggest difference in college students in 2011 and 1998 is that we shared however tenuously a common culture experienced mostly through television - kids today don't have that experience. I would say their common culture is the medium rather than the content.
April 3, 201114 yr I had a conversation with someone tonight on a related topic -- that people who are 20 seem to be totally incapable of understanding that the things they are excited about are the exact same things young people from previous generations were excited about at their age, the difference being that for generations past, to some extent that energy was focussed around specific cultural ideas. Now, "counterculture" is simply a fashion look, with a meaning differing little from formal clothing, if only because now each and every article of clothing is something to be photographed for the purpose of one's Facebook profile. Personally, because I had a teenage parents (if, technically, age 20 is still counted as a teenage year), I grew up in a hippie and rock & roll environment. Somewhat notoriously, my mom went to a Rolling Stones concert at the old Cleveland stadium when she was 8 months pregnant with me. I grew up with the Rolling Stones, Neil Young, and Crosby, Stills, & Nash being played in the house, often at a volume to be heard over the vacuum cleaner. Therefore I grew up with the idea that our age was "late to the party", so far as the whole 1960's Woodstock and counterculture stuff was concerned. But these youngsters raised with their perverted Disney Channel view of the world don't, in the least, understand the actual meaning of the music and clothing that accompanied past countercultural movements. To wear the mainstream clothing of the 60's is to them the same as to where the countercultural clothes of that time. Moreover, they actually DON'T CARE that there was actual meaning to countercultures, because they don't seem to understand that anything ever actually meant something. I really think that this skepticism started with those who graduated from high school in the 90's, who were the nexus of the hipster non-movement, and I was there right at the beginning of it in the late 90's when my curiosity took me to see "rock" groups that, as part of their act, made fun of rock & roll. These soon after came to be known as the hipster and emo and indie groups that more or less ruined rock as not just a music genre but as a medium which accompanied true countercultural sentiments.
April 4, 201114 yr When I was in school, everyone basicly watched the same shows on TV - because there were only 5 channels, no videos to rent, and no internet. Today's kids must be much more diversified from a media perspective. I never thought about that until just today. "The problem is not the quality of television, though most television is of low quality. The problem is the quantity of television."
April 4, 201114 yr When I was in school, everyone basicly watched the same shows on TV - because there were only 5 channels, no videos to rent, and no internet. Today's kids must be much more diversified from a media perspective. I never thought about that until just today. "The problem is not the quality of television, though most television is of low quality. The problem is the quantity of television." How old are you?
April 4, 201114 yr Not as old as Rob. :-D In my neighborhood, cable TV came around in 1981 if I remember correctly. I can't remember anyone having a VCR earlier than 1984, though I'm sure they were invented before then. Before those two things, we had channels 5, 9, 12, 19, and 64, and that was it. Oh, and the Atari 2600 came out about the same time. This wasn't that long ago, really.
April 4, 201114 yr Across a number of campuses, there is a general lack of curiosity about the world. BINGO. I've noticed this, it seems that many students dont care about, well...anything. I'm not sure that our current educational institutions do much to foster that kind of curiosity about the world beyond the walls of the ivory tower. In fact, there are definitely some departments where I think that the professors need additional exposure to the real world even more than their students do. The required reading for one of my girlfriend's MBA classes is the Wall Street Journal. I don't know what to think about that. On the one hand, setting an expectation that people will keep up on current events in the business world makes sense. On the flip side, you might also wish that a business school professor wouldn't need to make the WSJ required reading for an MBA course. You'd think that aspiring business leaders at that level would be seeking out at least a couple of business media on their own.
April 4, 201114 yr On the flip side, you might also wish that a business school professor wouldn't need to make the WSJ required reading for an MBA course. You'd think that aspiring business leaders at that level would be seeking out at least a couple of business media on their own. My senior year in college I had to take a 'capstone' class, where we were supposed to apply all of the principals that we'd learned in the previous three years. Basically, the class consisted of the professor (who's name escapes me now), but who was some local muckety muck in the Syracuse business scene, repeatedly reminding us of the fact that none of us knew sh!t about running a business. He was right. Invariably in any business restructuring exercise, we just ended up laying off everyone. We all thought we were real smart until the professor pointed out we were going to need people to eventually work at that facility. Meh...details. Anyway, to Gramarye's point, he mentioned that a colleague had interviewed a candidate for an entry level position in his firm. The colleague asked a series of questions related to a specific subject that had been covered in a recent issue of Business Week. Interviewee had no idea what he was talking about. It's nice to think that MBA level students would, as a matter of hand, read trade periodicals, financial publications, etc., but I'm guessing most don't, for reasons ranging from pure apathy, to lack of sufficient time based on coursework. You lose sight of the bigger picture (i.e. that there's a world out there) when you're caught up in the day to day of being a student.
April 4, 201114 yr Eh, I never found much use for business magazines when I doing MBA or MS coursework. The WSJ came in handy somewhat often, but you're out there you're better off reading about products in your industry and trade journals, watching what your competitors are doing and learning about customers/clients and their behavior. People in school often don't have an industry. Business magazines always seemed to me like they're aimed at people who are looking at business from the outside or just want to get rich. It's like, if you asked them what field they were in or wanted to get into, they'd just say "Business." Perhaps I spend enough time on the internet getting pointed to articles that affect the macro scene enough that I don't need supplemental info. When you're doing research on public companies and don't have access to something like a Bloomberg terminal, Reuters, the company's website/reports and Yahoo Finance are a lot more useful than some article that might have an agenda.
April 4, 201114 yr Also, to touch on the "youth monoculture of the past vs. hyperindividualism of modern students" topic, I'd say that Metal was at the forefront of the hyperindividualistic "that guy likes this, this other guy likes that, and she is into this other thing and that's the way it is". In 1982 metal fans pretty much all agreed that Priest, Maiden, Sabbath, Scorpions and UFO kicked ass (though there was always disagreement reading Zeppelin). You get into the late '80s and everybody was either into Thrash, Hair, Death, punk/metal Crossover or the old British stuff. Fans wouldn't go shows outside their favored sub-genre except maybe a few thrashers would show up to a Crossover show. Of course, considering the time frame, the Internet didn't split all this up; there were so many magazines, fanzines, tape trading networks, band mailing lists/club newsletters, record stores and hotlines that you could find out tons about your favorite obscure bands -- and don't forget the often-inaccurate word of mouth. When I was in high school in the '90s being into unusual stuff overall, not just music, was frowned upon... musically, not listening to rap exclusively was odd -- even those who listened to the biggest bands of all time such as Nirvana or the Beatles were looked at with a stinkeye. You get past 2002 or so, and you start to notice that nobody cares what weird stuff other young people are into, because they're all into weird stuff themselves. Weird sports teams, weird cars, weird clothes, weird food, weird movies etc. aren't weird any more. It seems that things become un-weird when there's lots of information about them on an easily accessible basis. It seems that the only way a young person can be weird these days is to dress well or have a grating personality.
April 4, 201114 yr My own belief is that music will collapse (if it already hasn't) as a gathering place of contemporary culture because there are now so many alternate avenues of communication. With this, there is less incentive to form a band, and therefore the quality of what's being produced will continue to slide. In the "Guitar Hero" thread on this site, I observed several years ago that kids prefer to play fake guitars to real ones. It's gotten so bad that they actually make fun of people who play real instruments.
April 4, 201114 yr That's OK. They also make fun of students who study real books instead of Twilight, too. Still, I agree that music is not going to be much of a gathering place of contemporary culture for too much longer. I consider that a blessing. Look at the Billboard Top 40. How much of an influence over our culture do you want that to have? :-P
April 4, 201114 yr My own belief is that music will collapse (if it already hasn't) as a gathering place of contemporary culture because there are now so many alternate avenues of communication. With this, there is less incentive to form a band, and therefore the quality of what's being produced will continue to slide. In the "Guitar Hero" thread on this site, I observed several years ago that kids prefer to play fake guitars to real ones. It's gotten so bad that they actually make fun of people who play real instruments. As someone who works in the game biz, I can tell you that Guitar Hero and Rock Band are DEAD. They've stopped making the games; people don't buy them and game stores have completely stopped taking the equipment in on trade since everybody is dumping the stuff. Just like end of disco in the States except that people haven't brought all their stuff down to the ballpark to be blown up -- yet. I'd say that all those sub-genres are what destroyed rock and roll more as youth entertainment more than anything, and as far as live shows go, smoking bans, greedy large venues, massive additional sprawl from '85-2005 and overzealous DUI enforcement were the final blows.
April 4, 201114 yr That's OK. They also make fun of students who study real books instead of Twilight, too. Still, I agree that music is not going to be much of a gathering place of contemporary culture for too much longer. I consider that a blessing. Look at the Billboard Top 40. How much of an influence over our culture do you want that to have? :-P Ever since the Balkanization of music became final around 2000, charts have been practically meaningless as far as what people are actually into. Probably only 300-400 pop records a year come out versus thousands of metal records, thousands of country records, thousands of Bluegrass records, trillons of rap records and so on. In fact, if you look at the album charts, today it only takes about 10% of of what it took sales-wise to make it to #1 as it did in the late '90s. 10%! Sales of albums overall are much higher than 10% of what they were then, but the sales are spread out over many more releases. As far as music's future goes as a form of entertainment goes though, as sprawl continues to lose popularity you'll see see it become much more important in the entertainment mix and cohesion will return to some degree.
April 4, 201114 yr As somebody who recently graduated from a top 50 college I can definitely agree with some of the sentiments on UrbanOhio that people of my generation lack any cultural awareness. I am a big believer in a traditional liberal arts education or a technical education that at least stresses the liberal arts at some level. I realize that the liberal arts do not prepare people for a job but they really do teach people how to think. School is seen by many of my generation as a way to get a diploma and be qualified for a job by taking somewhat mindless technical classes. They end up thinking that they are smart educated people but they can't remember the last time they read a book or even a newspaper (or online news). I studied abroad in Scotland for 5 months and it was instantly noticeable how much more interest EVERYBODY took in the world around them. Politics and world affairs were commonplace for everyone to discuss and only a few circles of students at home would regularly discuss these things. America is supposed to be the most creative free place in the world but my generation has been taught from a young age to take the safe route and do what we are told and we will be successful. We have had our lives planned out from the time we are in middle school. I think the recession opened peoples eyes up a little bit though and made them realize that being truly creative and flexible would be necessary to either find a job or make a job in the post recession economy. All the promises we had been told all of these years were not true, we did not get anything we want just for following the rules, getting a technical degree, and becoming part of the machine. I mean no disrespect to people that are involved in technical fields because many people I know that have technical jobs are very culturally aware and involved, I just feel that many young people today value a degree or qualification much more than the ability to actually think. My classmates were apathetic to politics, the arts, and the world around them. Someone may bring up the Obama campaign as an example of how my generation got involved, I volunteered for the Obama campaign and I felt like people were doing more because it would help them get a job than actually believing in the message. They may have leaned more towards Obama'd ideas but looked at the campaign as a way to further their self-interest than to help out their country. I could rant for hours on this subject but I am too tired and will have to save some for later.
April 4, 201114 yr So... any real evidence (not lame personal anecdotes or unsubstantiated pet theories) that proves that young people are more shallow/stupid/apathetic than in earlier times?
Create an account or sign in to comment