O.T. -- Athletics before books at Rutgers: what they're saying. (link)

[Panther Parrothead]

"It’s not exactly a secret that big-time college sports often distort priorities on university campuses. But every once in a while, something bursts into public view to put those priorities in glaring relief. A recent example is a fight that is taking place at Rutgers University. The dispute pits faculty members who want to restrain the athletic department’s out-of-control costs against some powerful alumni who want the Rutgers athletic department to spend even more money to better compete in its new conference, the Big Ten."

Read more from Joe Nocera's N.Y. Times Op-Ed piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/o...tgers-its-books-vs-ballgames.html?ref=opinion

 

[Bradlib Zannamaker]

"It’s not exactly a secret that big-time college sports often distort priorities on university campuses. But every once in a while, something bursts into public view to put those priorities in glaring relief. A recent example is a fight that is taking place at Rutgers University. The dispute pits faculty members who want to restrain the athletic department’s out-of-control costs against some powerful alumni who want the Rutgers athletic department to spend even more money to better compete in its new conference, the Big Ten."

Read more from Joe Nocera's N.Y. Times Op-Ed piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/o...tgers-its-books-vs-ballgames.html?ref=opinion

Maybe Crazy Paco could answer this but do we know that this something that we aren't doing too. I really hope we aren't. However, I think we may have run at an operating deficit in recent years, and I can't help but notice we are getting some sweet upgraded facilities in the Southside.

I'm excited about the upgrades but I wonder if we don't share in this shameful practice a bit?

I guess the hope is that upgrading the revenue sports may eventually create enough revenue to support the women's soccer team, etc.

 

[OriginalEther]

I think paco said Pitt was short about $7 million. So it's going on, like at a lot of places, but not quite as bad.

Of course, what a lot of that paper's readers didn't grasp is that Kyle flood and the footballprogram aren't likely the problem. It's the other sports that are.

I did like the one comment, though, about the Southerner asking if Yale was a good school. Society's values in some places are far more disturbing than Rutgers

 

[CrazyPaco]

In recent history, Pitt athletics has been approximately between $8 and $12 million short every year forever.

The southside renovations are being funded through donations (and probably new ACC money).

Rutgers athletic spending from the university's coffers has been crazy. Feed the beast. Rutgers has also had major strife in the academics vs athletics strife for the past decade, so this is not really new there. Pitt hasn't had that type of strife since the late 90s. Nordenberg was very pro athletics, which is obvious to anyone willing to look at expenditures, but he it was done without compromising the financial solvency or academic quality of the overall university.

 

[drunkinoakland]

In recent history, Pitt athletics has been approximately between $8 and $12 million short every year forever.

The southside renovations are being funded through donations (and probably new ACC money).

Rutgers athletic spending from the university's coffers has been crazy. Feed the beast. Rutgers has also had major strife in the academics vs athletics strife for the past decade, so this is not really new there. Pitt hasn't had that type of strife since the late 90s. Nordenberg was very pro athletics, which is obvious to anyone willing to look at expenditures, but he it was done without compromising the financial solvency or academic quality of the overall university.

All schools should fund athletics to the max, cut all programs that aren't engineering, pre-med, and pre-law related. All other majors are basically worthless and any kid would be better served getting real life experience. Disrupt the higher education system!!

 

[levance2]

All schools should fund athletics to the max, cut all programs that aren't engineering, pre-med, and pre-law related. All other majors are basically worthless and any kid would be better served getting real life experience. Disrupt the higher education system!!

You're approaching Pitt79 territory with your comments lately. I hope you are ok...

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I don't think this is unique to Rutgers. I think this is true in probably half or 2/3's of the P5 conferences. Football specifically has become such a profit center. I cannot believe that University football revenue can hide behind tax exempt status. It has nothing to do with education and why these schools were formed. It is a joke. And in a few hundred years when the USA has gone way of the Roman Empire, historians will marvel and idiocy of bastions of academia rotting into football and basketball programs. Curing cancer? Eff that, we need to solve the read option offense! Priorities people.

Hell all we have to do is look at Penn State. Where the football coach did not just become an icon, he became a total deity, cultlike in following that made him more infallible than Christ. PSU became a complete obfuscation of hierarchal reporting of a major university. Not turning this into a another PSU thread please, just using them as an example.

I have coworkers who grew up in Europe that marvel at how colleges and areas view college football with the same vigor as maybe the EPL in England, or the NFL here. "They are college kids, I don't get it".

Yeah...they are. At Allegheny, or CMU, they are.

 

[drunkinoakland]

You're approaching Pitt79 territory with your comments lately. I hope you are ok...

I mean if you think a kid needs a degree in English, Business, or Communications to manage a Starbucks or Enterprise then by all means, let's keep a system that keeps all these kids in debt so they can have a degree from IUP or Slippery Rock.

Obviously my original post was an exaggeration, and a few more disciplines need kept, but I don't think Mr. 2.6gpa needs to be going to college to get some degree so he can sell Nike stuff at Finish Line.

Full Disclosure: I have an advanced degree and I'm happy with my job. I also absolutely loved my time in college. But, I don't think it prepared me very well for the real world. I think the system is broken and needs fixed, and more kids at the bottom end of the college spectrum need to be learning how to lay bricks or fix car engines than going to school to major in something that isn't essential, just because going to college is the (white) American expectation.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I mean if you think a kid needs a degree in English, Business, or Communications to manage a Starbucks or Enterprise then by all means, let's keep a system that keeps all these kids in debt so they can have a degree from IUP or Slippery Rock.

Obviously my original post was an exaggeration, and a few more disciplines need kept, but I don't think Mr. 2.6gpa needs to be going to college to get some degree so he can sell Nike stuff at Finish Line.

Full Disclosure: I have an advanced degree and I'm happy with my job. I also absolutely loved my time in college. But, I don't think it prepared me very well for the real world. I think the system is broken and needs fixed, and more kids at the bottom end of the college spectrum need to be learning how to lay bricks or fix car engines than going to school to major in something that isn't essential, just because going to college is the (white) American expectation.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

There was a time when a college degree (any major) meant you would get a better job and make more lifetime income than those with only H.S. diplomas. Also, back then, student's did not need to borrow prodigious amounts of money to pay for the college degree. When I got my M.S. degree in 1972 I had zero student loan debt and that wasn't unusual in that era.

So "drunkinoakland" you are close to 100% correct. In 2015 there is zero economic benefit to be derived from getting a liberal arts degree in a non-technical major with grades too low for admission to graduate or professional school. Students in that category would be far better off going to trade school and learning a skilled trade as you suggest.

There is no point, economically speaking, in a B.A. degree in a liberal arts major unless you are going to teach the subject in high school or are a 3.5+ GPA student who is going to get a PhD and become a college faculty member in their major field. Note that I except getting some B.S. degrees--provided they are in math and the physical sciences and are in the GPA range (probably about a 3.0 GPA minimum) to get at least an M.S. and get employed in their field in industry (Biologists, Geologists, Computer Scientists, Chemists, etc.).

 

[levance2]

There was a time when a college degree (any major) meant you would get a better job and make more lifetime income than those with only H.S. diplomas.

Yes, and that is still the case.

A new Pew Research Center analysis, using Census Bureau data, estimates that the typical adult with a bachelor’s degree (but no further education) will earn $1.42 million over a 40-year career, compared with $770,000 for a typical high school graduate. That $650,000 difference narrows somewhat, to $550,000, according to the analysis, after factoring in the expenses of going to college and the four years of potential earnings that college graduates give up while they are in school.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/05/16/lifetime-earnings-of-college-graduates/

I actually don't disagree with your point that much, but the idea that colleges should only teach practical skills is completely in opposition to the original purpose of a college education. It wasn't until the land grant era that schools were even encouraged to offer such options. (I am an engineer, FWIW.)

The mission of these institutions as set forth in the 1862 Act is to focus on the teaching of practical agriculture, science, military science and engineering (though "without excluding ... classical studies"), as a response to the industrial revolution and changing social class.[1][2] This mission was in contrast to the historic practice of higher education to focus on an abstract liberal arts curriculum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land-grant_university

 

[NTOP]

I mean if you think a kid needs a degree in English, Business, or Communications to manage a Starbucks or Enterprise then by all means, let's keep a system that keeps all these kids in debt so they can have a degree from IUP or Slippery Rock.

Obviously my original post was an exaggeration, and a few more disciplines need kept, but I don't think Mr. 2.6gpa needs to be going to college to get some degree so he can sell Nike stuff at Finish Line.

Full Disclosure: I have an advanced degree and I'm happy with my job. I also absolutely loved my time in college. But, I don't think it prepared me very well for the real world. I think the system is broken and needs fixed, and more kids at the bottom end of the college spectrum need to be learning how to lay bricks or fix car engines than going to school to major in something that isn't essential, just because going to college is the (white) American expectation.

Problem:
Most kids whose parents have degrees & decent jobs EXPECT to get the same result. Technology has reduced a lot of mid-manager jobs & higher, not just factory workers. Those kids don't want blue-collar jobs, despite good pay scales for folks with real skills. It'll mean a lot of current college students reduced to entry-level positions in service industries or retail. So there aren't enough plumbers & electricians coming up through the system.....and a lot of kids sleeping in Mom & Dad's basement.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Levance2--I find the Pew data to be somewhat suspect because by its very nature it must be primarily retrospective (what people are earning now who graduated in the past) rather than prospective. It is also possibly skewed in a favorable direction to BA only recipients by the results for those with technical BS and teaching degrees being included.

However, that being said--I like you have no problem with people getting educated for the sake of learning. That is a noble endeavor. Unfortunately, doing only that has become so out of proportion in terms of cost (higher Ed costs have greatly outpaced the general cost of living growth for decades) that the economic benefit for persons with non-technical degrees who aren't able to go beyond the Bachelor's degree level is simply no longer there especially if you consider the negative drag of repaying student loan debt. Adding to the problem is that so many more people now get a bachelor's degree (compared to those who stop with a HS diploma than was formerly the case) that there is a glut of educated individuals without marketable skills.

This situation is why a number of prominent financial advisers strongly recommend that their clients send their average ability kids seeking non-technical degree degrees to the far less costly local JUCO for the first two years before finishing up at the best bargain in-State college for the final two years.

NTOP explains how the problem of lack of jobs for college grads with soft degrees is exacerbated in this computer age.

 

[geeman2001]

Problem:
Most kids whose parents have degrees & decent jobs EXPECT to get the same result. Technology has reduced a lot of mid-manager jobs & higher

Not just technology. Excellent jobs are rapidly getting outsourced so that corporations can find the same or better with far cheaper labor.

I'm not going to debate if that's good or bad, nor am I wringing my hands that it's EVERY job. Companies are finding that flat-out offshoring is not effective. Typically, a mix is more ideal. Often, the best workers in some skillsets are needed here, to solve priority issues 'real time' while allowing the lower priority to be performed off shore.

In fact, there's such a cry for certain skills in our country that there is also a cry among the same corporations to allow more H1B visas and the like. Far from the perception that they want this because those immigrant workers will take less money, it's the opposite. They make a premium. People with marketable skills trump their nationality, color, language, culture.

Maybe you might still see off shoring as a shame and sin ... I won't debate it. I've been on both sides. But for sure, ANOTHER shame and sin is that our schools (and parents) haven't adjusted to facilitate filling these needs with our own citizen-children. It's not like past centuries when immigration was needed because our people wouldn't take menial jobs (or we flat out lacked the numbers). Today, our citizens reject the skills and jobs because they are too ADVANCED. That's another story, but a related one.

 

[levance2]

Problem:
Most kids whose parents have degrees & decent jobs EXPECT to get the same result. Technology has reduced a lot of mid-manager jobs & higher, not just factory workers. Those kids don't want blue-collar jobs, despite good pay scales for folks with real skills. It'll mean a lot of current college students reduced to entry-level positions in service industries or retail. So there aren't enough plumbers & electricians coming up through the system.....and a lot of kids sleeping in Mom & Dad's basement.

College degrees were not expected as 100% preparation for an occupation until around the 1970s. A liberal arts education was intended to prove that you were an educated, well-rounded person exposed to lots of different material. It was big business who started pushing for expensive student/parent-funded higher education to completely replace their own training programs.

There's a reason companies like Microsoft are out there pushing STEM education or Common Core, because they'll have a broader pool of applicants to pick from, and less training to do after they hire.

Some of the courses I enjoyed most at Pitt had nothing to do with my engineering major. It would be a very sad development if future students did not have that experience.

 

[levance2]

In fact, there's such a cry for certain skills in our country that there is also a cry among the same corporations to allow more H1B visas and the like. Far from the perception that they want this because those immigrant workers will take less money, it's the opposite. They make a premium. People with marketable skills trump their nationality, color, language, culture.

Again, these are companies looking for fully qualified individuals who require minimal training. If Google really wanted people to fill those jobs, they'd train the people they already employ.

It's basically the same situation as the NFL forcing players to play in college rather than a minor league system.

 

[Pitt-Chains]

You're approaching Pitt79 territory with your comments lately. I hope you are ok...

Levance, no 79 for sometime ? Banned maybe ?

 

[geeman2001]

Some of the courses I enjoyed most at Pitt had nothing to do with my engineering major. It would be a very sad development if future students did not have that experience.

I agree with the first sentence. The History Of Art, Comic Idea, Anthro, Astronomy, and Philosophy classes, just a few I had all were great experiences that had nothing to do with my major.

On the flip side, I had a couple classes that were absolute fluff ... including one called "American Pop Culture" where we watched TV sitcoms, detective shows and award shows as part of the 'curriculum'. I wrote a mid term paper on the Grammy Awards (I believe I ranted on the injustice of Echo And The Bunnymen getting ignored while the likes of Miami Sound Machine raked in trophies). It was a nice break to have since I had a bunch of 100 level classes for my major that same term ... but not particularly enriching.

But, this was mid-80's. Had I not had exposure to these things more or less forcibly (as CAS requirements), it's likely I wouldn't have had easy means of getting them afterward (well, except for the latter subject mentioned). But since then, mass culture and improving technology to access it easilly have exploded exponentially, and there are more opportunities for people to broaden their experiences without having it packed with necessary skills in the same university degree.

 

[levance2]

Levance, no 79 for sometime ? Banned maybe ?

With that guy, nothing would surprise me.

 

[levance2]

But, this was mid-80's. Had I not had exposure to these things more or less forcibly (as CAS requirements), it's likely I wouldn't have had easy means of getting them afterward (well, except for the latter subject mentioned). But since then, mass culture and improving technology to access it easilly have exploded exponentially, and there are more opportunities for people to broaden their experiences without having it packed with necessary skills in the same university degree.

Your argument is that since information is so readily available, you should only be taught in school what is absolutely required training for a specific occupation. One could argue the complete opposite. If you want to become the best computer programmer, take specific non-collegiate training to do it and avoid that $100K of debt. That's what Peter Thiel has advocated.

I'm sure there are plenty of engineers who never use advanced calculus, nuclear chemistry, or light refraction either, but they still are required to learn it. If college was only the absolute minimum to become proficient in any single field, you'd probably be done in a single year in most cases.

 

[geeman2001]

Again, these are companies looking for fully qualified individuals who require minimal training. If Google really wanted people to fill those jobs, they'd train the people they already employ.

It's basically the same situation as the NFL forcing players to play in college rather than a minor league system.

Agreed again. In the past, corporations had bigger internal resource pools and were content to let new hirees learn their craft over several years. Such folks did learn, but by working on lower priority work, which was slow going and more expensive. Then as now, the more complex, higher priority work was handled by the more skilled on the staff (who eventually rose to that from the inexperienced ranks, but eventually made a premium once they got there).

Good or bad, they don't do that anymore. As mentioned, they look to off shore the low priority stuff. But still need highly skilled for the high priority. And they still pay a premium for that. But by not having willingness to pay for getting that experience with in-house staff, it caused the dearth of highly skilled workers. Again, good or bad. There's argument for both sides, depending on what stock you hold (if any). But, that's the situation, and it means schools (and today's parents) should be driving school curriculums to meet that need.

 

[Large Panther]

I agree with the first sentence. The History Of Art, Comic Idea, Anthro, Astronomy, and Philosophy classes, just a few I had all were great experiences that had nothing to do with my major.

On the flip side, I had a couple classes that were absolute fluff ... including one called "American Pop Culture" where we watched TV sitcoms, detective shows and award shows as part of the 'curriculum'. I wrote a mid term paper on the Grammy Awards (I believe I ranted on the injustice of Echo And The Bunnymen getting ignored while the likes of Miami Sound Machine raked in trophies). It was a nice break to have since I had a bunch of 100 level classes for my major that same term ... but not particularly enriching.

But, this was mid-80's. Had I not had exposure to these things more or less forcibly (as CAS requirements), it's likely I wouldn't have had easy means of getting them afterward (well, except for the latter subject mentioned). But since then, mass culture and improving technology to access it easilly have exploded exponentially, and there are more opportunities for people to broaden their experiences without having it packed with necessary skills in the same university degree.

Bring on the Dancing Horses Geeman.

 

[geeman2001]

Your argument is that since information is so readily available, you should only be taught in school what is absolutely required training for a specific occupation. One could argue the complete opposite. If you want to become the best computer programmer, take specific non-collegiate training to do it and avoid that $100K of debt. That's what Peter Thiel has advocated.

I'm sure there are plenty of engineers who never use advanced calculus, nuclear chemistry, or light refraction either, but they still are required to learn it. If college was only the absolute minimum to become proficient in any single field, you'd probably be done in a single year in most cases.

Actually no, my point is that the "Arts" subjects and content are more easily accessible and obtainable outside the university environment now, and not necessarily should be required to get a modern degree.

I fully endorse making complementary STEM courses required, even if not directly applicable to a major.

Not getting soft arts while I was at Pitt definitely would have likely made my experience less interesting, however. I just fear the world has changed and requiring it as a degree component is both a luxury and redundancy now.