More Kids Need Trade School....
-
Perhaps the best bet for elites who don’t want to go to college and risk injury.
This falls in line with my idea of becoming a developmental program, but for players not quite making that top shelf status.
-
It’s pretty logical, although the kid is still misguided in my view by missing out on a magical year of basketball.
-
IDK Even in one year a young man can grow a lot as a person given a well rounded education and the social interactions at university. Kids play basketball year round from an early age, many cut out all other sports and specialize early on. They didn’t do that before. Jordan played golf in the off season, not pickup basketball…and it didn’t seem to hold him back. Interesting topic, I just don’t know where the line should be. Even the pros should be taking more time away to let their body recover.
-
There’s plenty of studies out there that pretty strongly indicate specialization in sports and playing year round is pretty detrimental to the long term development of an athlete.
-
Wiggs, Embiid, and Ben Mac loved being in college. Ben had to go, poverty, he didn’t want to. I don’t remember anyone being so happy to be in college. Food, hot shower, a bed, heat and ac. He gives back so much too. He needs something good to happen for him!
-
I think college would be fun for most guys, you get treated like rock stars and get a chance to win games and championships. This is an interesting route but I think it could be better than RJ’s to go overseas. If you train for 12 months and keep it under wraps, then go workout from teams. You may not have as many knocks on your game but you won’t have as much experience in a team setting. On RJ’s deal, it’s very risky in alot of ways. He could get injured as he could in college of course. He could show that he isn’t as good against players that probably are below major D1 college skill level. You also have to figure that it is a huge change to up and move to another country especially for a teenager.
-
It’s an interesting concept. I know I think it would be a better choice than playing a year overseas. Talk about risk…
Thinking just about the top shelf players… why not be “all in?” It’s your ticket to fame and fortune.
Do you think players lift their public relations stock by playing a year of college ball? Usually doesn’t produce a national championship.
Why not refine your game at a higher rate?
The window of opportunity can be so small. That one big contract is a game-changer concerning income over their lives.
I think college ball shows all their weaknesses. Might as well spend a year with the coaches who know how to find and work through weaknesses.
I don’t know… think out loud.
-
@drgnslayr Being a college star is great publicity. Personally I don’t much care for the nba, but I do follow former Jayhawks.
-
@dylans we few, we happy few…
-
College is a scam. The more guys that realize that they don’t need college, the better it is for the college game.
-
I follow what you are saying.
For those top shelf players… what good does it do to go to a school for 8 months? Are any of those guys diehard for the school they play for? Probably few.
And what does that do for the fans? Really? If we land several top shelf guys because we know how to recruit… just what does that say for our school?
What does it say when we win a national championship with a bunch of 4-year guys who grew up eating-breathing KU?
What does it say when we win one with a bunch of guys who never heard of KU before a year ago?
The game is littered with “win at any cost.”
I appreciate the NBA more now because it isn’t putting on any misconceptions. It’s pure capitalism and not ashamed of it.
-
Well, you can let kids avoid college altogether, but that can seriously hamper them later. Maybe schools can work with education specialists (and the certifiers, to avoid being like UNC).
Schools could, for example, create 1 and 2 year certificate programs that actually give them help in transitioning to adulthood, with classes in modern communications, math, basic financials and insurance, life planning, health, etc. Make them available to the regular student population as part of major requirements. Set them up as attractive alternatives for players who think they are OADs and TADs, so they have some practical benefit from going to college. And if they end up having a reason to stay, they can still progress toward more.
Enrolling 1-year kids in classes that are just designed for traditional 4-year students does no one any good.
-
@mayjay You’re intentions are good, but we’re going to put these institutions that scam regular students out of many thousands of dollars each, in charge of these certifications? Maybe at JUCO rates.
Just related to the athlete, I will always be opposed to adjusting for these prima donnas. Go pro. If college BB is so unfair, go do something else. If you want to come to college and be a student, then do that.
Why is it always the search for ways change CBB to fit the demands of a few, or to benefit them? Keep the focus on the Garretts and the Agbajis, and you have a wonderful sport.
College, at these exorbitant rates, with the easy grants and student loans, is the biggest scam going.
-
@HighEliteMajor education has about a 10% increase in hourly earnings per year of schooling. If we run a giant scam we’re absolutely horrible at it.
-
@FarmerJayhawk Sorry, but post secondary education is a scam because there’s no reason attending a 4 year public university should cost what it does. It’s also a scam in that it’s total BS that society says you have to go to a university in order to be successful in life.
College/university isn’t for everyone and that’s okay, but the message corporate America and the government put out there is that you can’t be successful in life without going to college. That mentality is why there are so many unfilled skilled labor positions out there. Too many people fail to tell students that aren’t academically fit for college there are alternatives to college. There needs to be more technical and trade schools promoted to kids who either can’t afford college or don’t have the grades for college so they can get trained and certified in a trade and make really good money that way without going so deep into debt that they’re paying for it decades later.
I will also say definitively that the quality of teaching for gen. ed. classes at universities and community colleges is negligible.
So I will say that universities are a scam and a racket because there’s no good reason they should cost what they cost other than greed.
-
Texas Hawk 10 said:
@FarmerJayhawk Sorry, but post secondary education is a scam because there’s no reason attending a 4 year public university should cost what it does. It’s also a scam in that it’s total BS that society says you have to go to a university in order to be successful in life.
College/university isn’t for everyone and that’s okay, but the message corporate America and the government put out there is that you can’t be successful in life without going to college. That mentality is why there are so many unfilled skilled labor positions out there. Too many people fail to tell students that aren’t academically fit for college there are alternatives to college. There needs to be more technical and trade schools promoted to kids who either can’t afford college or don’t have the grades for college so they can get trained and certified in a trade and make really good money that way without going so deep into debt that they’re paying for it decades later.
I will also say definitively that the quality of teaching for gen. ed. classes at universities and community colleges is negligible.
So I will say that universities are a scam and a racket because there’s no good reason they should cost what they cost other than greed.
There are a few reasons for the major increase in costs (which are a problem). Administrative bloat and disinvestment from the states. Faculty salaries aren’t going up much, and there are fewer tenure track faculty positions per FTE than there were back in the day. And the off-tenure track positions have grown 18x quicker than tenure-track. In real terms, spending per pupil has significantly declined, so universities have pushed some of those costs to students. To put some numbers to it, the best estimates we have are that for every dollar states cut higher ed expenditures, schools raise tuition by about 20 cents.
I’ve also always been beating the drum that more people should go to trade schools and JuCo’s. I did my first 45ish hours as a dual enrollment student while I was in HS so I was able to graduate much quicker. But it’s absolutely a fact that the wage returns to a college degree are increasing as the economy changes and a higher share of jobs require a BA+. Despite its warts, and there are a few, a college degree is more than worth it for almost everyone who gets one.
If you want to follow how a state is really going to suffer by disinvesting in higher education, follow Alaska. The state is cutting expenditures by about $150 million immediately. They’re shuttering entire campuses and canceling programs.
So the tl;dr version: are our universities absolutely as efficient as possible? No. Are they still a great investment for most students? Absolutely.
-
The main reason that tuitions have increased so dramatically is the easy money available through federal grants and student loans. The universities have a nearly blank checkbook. No standards on what degrees the money can be used for. Go major in classical dance and French literature, and then, amazingly, you can’t get a job worth squat (see, @FarmerJayhawk, your 10% stat is an AVERAGE. Many, many folks waste their time).
Now, supposedly, it’s a crisis (student loan debt). Folks using fed loans, to pay for useless degrees, and they can’t payback the money because they’re resulting jobs are inadequate vs the money owed.
Reminds me of the mortgage loan crisis … when the government loosened loan standards so much that folks that had no business buying a home were given loans. When the rubber met the road, they couldn’t pay.
College is a scam — colleges paid millions in lobbying fees related to opening up and loosening student loan and grant standards.
-
Came across this reference today
with this out of the NY Times
-
HighEliteMajor said:
The main reason that tuitions have increased so dramatically is the easy money available through federal grants and student loans. The universities have a nearly blank checkbook. No standards on what degrees the money can be used for. Go major in classical dance and French literature, and then, amazingly, you can’t get a job worth squat (see, @FarmerJayhawk, your 10% stat is an AVERAGE. Many, many folks waste their time).
Now, supposedly, it’s a crisis (student loan debt). Folks using fed loans, to pay for useless degrees, and they can’t payback the money because they’re resulting jobs are inadequate vs the money owed.
Reminds me of the mortgage loan crisis … when the government loosened loan standards so much that folks that had no business buying a home were given loans. When the rubber met the road, they couldn’t pay.
College is a scam — colleges paid millions in lobbying fees related to opening up and loosening student loan and grant standards.
Fully aware what an average is. To be more precise, it’s the average treatment effect in this context.
The high quality research on impacts of student loans on tuition are on extremely narrow programs that comprise a small fraction of university revenue. In a former life I reviewed and critiqued their budgets. Met with their lobbyists, CEO’s, or financial people if I wanted.
Lobbying expenses for the entire education industry was about $40 million last year, and the vast majority is for appropriations related to research, not Title IV financial aid. For example, KU employs exactly 2 people to lobby (one state, one federal) and doesn’t contract out. They’re both nice people. I’ve personally been lobbied by one of them. KSU has exactly one person lobbying. Her name is Sue, she’s great. They also hire a firm to handle more of their ag business. Their salaries are accessible via KPI’s database of state employee payroll if you’re interested.
The proportion of students that “waste their time” is really low. The underemployment rate for college graduates is well under 10%. While many graduates’ first jobs don’t always require a college degree, the data suggest almost all move up the ladder to jobs that do relatively quickly (<5 years). Otherwise the 10% average return would be MUCH lower.
Some disciplines in the academy are sick. I’ve been on that beat for years. Grievance studies, for example. Google it. But the vast majority of us do high quality work on research and teaching. Do you mind showing your actual data distribution of the returns to a BA+? I’m a scientist. I don’t care for anecdotes.
Some of the lowest paying majors play vital roles in society. For example, social work always ranks very low on salary (unfortunately) but social work is a crucial part of our society. The mission of the university isn’t just to train people to get work and make money. There’s more to education than vocation. The role of the university is to preserve and advance human knowledge, not simply train workers.
KU has one of the best special education programs on the planet. Those folks don’t make much. And in fairness to KU, they were constrained by KBoR on admissions standards for years. They wanted to take fewer marginal students, but the state board imposed low standards on the university.
We absolutely need loan reform. There are many things we can do: make them pay some debt if the borrower defaults, tie loan eligibility to outcomes and price increases, and the like.
If our public institutions really are a scam, maybe the country would be better off without us? Like I mentioned earlier, keep an eye on Alaska’s workforce over time. The state is radically disinvesting in higher education at a time when it needs more educated workers. Maybe we should let the for-profit folks take over with their sky high default rates, predatory lending practices (mostly targeting veterans), and just as low quality instruction.
-
Bwag said:
Came across this reference today
with this out of the NY Times
Eh, I think Stephens vastly overestimates the amount of radicals that seek to purify campuses ideologically. I’m not on the political left for the most part, and have never had a student do anything like what Stephens describes. The vast, vast majority of students are here for the right reasons and behave like adults. There are a few nutcases that get outsized attention (like at Evergreen) but things are generally very peaceful and open exchange of ideas is welcome.
I’m all for alternatives to college if it’s the right choice for the individual. Like I said earlier, more should go the trade school/JuCo route since many come in unprepared for the rigor and culture of a university.
-
@FarmerJayhawk See, you have no objectivity. You’re taking it personally. You can’t objectively look at the scam that is college education, and recognize the deficiencies. Please don’t take it personally. No one is saying “all” of it. No one is implicating you.
And you gave a sentence to loan reform. Which is the point. Which is why college costs have ballooned. Easy money. It’s simple economics, no different (generally) than when reason prices go up at an auction when there are more bidders. Rapids when the channel narrows. More available purchasers.
What we should do is govern the public institutions. Pare them back. Place significant limits. Understand that public institutions are like the government. They bloat. They aren’t operated like private business (generally). Colleges are on the positive end of that, though, meaning, they adhere much better to the bottom-line than other government run ventures. But they are ever-expanding.
The fact is that the costs for a well-rounded education are now too high. There is value to four years, a broad scope of knowledge, the experience, maturing. We all agree there. But the cost now is too high. You’re right, there is more to education than the dollars earned. But there is a point (that we are well past) where that consideration becomes minimized. Taking the useless classes now is not worth it given the cost, given the alleged student loan crisis. Heck, KU shuffles off many freshman/sophomore to teaching assistants. A glorified JUCO.
And look, I’m sorry, but for what “social workers” do – they could take an 18 month certification program with a semester internship and be fine. But no, they need Algebra, they need two sciences, they need electives, etc. When college was reasonably priced, sure. Now, the money spent for that luxury is prohibitive.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@FarmerJayhawk See, you have no objectivity. You’re taking it personally. You can’t objectively look at the scam that is college education, and recognize the deficiencies. Don’t take it personally. No one is saying “all” of it. No one is implicating you.
And you gave a sentence to loan reform. Which is the point. Which is why college costs have ballooned. Easy money. It’s simple economics, no different (generally) than when reason prices go up at an auction when there are more bidders. Rapids when the channel narrows. More available purchasers.
What we should do is govern the public institutions. Pare them back. Place significant limits. Understand that public institutions are like the government. They bloat. They aren’t operated like private business (generally). Colleges are on the positive end of that, though, meaning, they adhere much better to the bottom-line than other government run ventures. But they are ever-expanding.
The fact is that the costs for a well-rounded education are now too high. There is value to four years, a broad scope of knowledge, the experience, maturing. We all agree there. But the cost now is too high. You’re right, there is more to education than the dollars earned. But there is a point (that we are well past) where that consideration becomes minimized. Taking the useless classes now is not worth it given the cost, given the alleged student loan crisis. Heck, KU shuffles off many freshman/sophomore to teaching assistants. A glorified JUCO.
And look, I’m sorry, but for what “social workers” do – they could take an 18 month certification program with a semester internship and be fine. But no, they need Algebra, they need two sciences, they need electives, etc. When college was reasonably priced, sure. Now, the money spent for that luxury is prohibitive.
Of course I’m objective about it. I’m a professional that studies education for a living. If my work is biased or shoddy, I don’t get published and I get fired. To say my employer is running a scam is factually incorrect.
The empirical evidence is that public disinvestment and administrative bloat are the two major drivers of the increase in costs. There’s great work out there on how Pell Grant expansions have actually lowered tuition. On your assertion that increases in aid drive increases in tuition, you’re partially right. That effect is VERY strong in the for-profit sector, much less so in the non-profit piece of the market.
Just paring the institutions back won’t do much. It’ll accelerate placing students in classes taught by adjuncts and TA’s, not tenured professors. Universities need to spend more on instruction and research, less on administration. Again, the research shows disinvestment reduces the proportion of students who graduate and wages later in life.
I believe a well-rounded education is good for people, and a degree should be more than job training. I’ve said costs are too high many times (especially since I just finished paying tuition 4 years ago). The drivers of those costs are many and complex. But the best research out there shows the opposite of what you suggest.
-
@FarmerJayhawk I’d be very interested in the info on the Pell Grant connection. Not something I’d seen before but would like to review, if you have it handy. If not, now worries. I’ll look for it.
Just one article, this one from Forbes, that has some decent info.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@FarmerJayhawk I’d be very interested in the info on the Pell Grant connection. Not something I’d seen before but would like to review, if you have it handy. If not, now worries. I’ll look for it.
Just one article, this one from Forbes, that has some decent info.
I’ll track it down. I’m buried in papers at the moment but I’ll find it. Good review from Forbes. Preston does good work too (AEI types are usually top notch).
Off the top of my head, Doug Webber’s work on passthrough is interesting as well. John Bound and Sarah Turner’s work is really good too. But this has been a fun discussion. Always a good sparring partner, HEM.
-
@FarmerJayhawk Likewise … appreciate the conversation.
-
@mayjay Yeah, one of those classes you suggest should be “How not to blow 100 million dollars by the time you retire”.
-
@wissox Precisely! That, and, a multi-media class with lots of those PSA’s in the 80’s showing the frying egg, with the narration “This is your brain on drugs.” Maybe Reefer Madness for comic relief?
-
This whole segment is precisely why we should only talk about football, basketball and when extremely bored, baseball.
Oh - and cartoons. Specifically the Angry Beavers.
-
@nuleafjhawk I’ve always liked you, but not so sure anymore. Your disparaging of the national pastime is chagrining me.
-
@wissox How 'bout my Astros??? Aren’t they a powerhouse?
-
KUSTEVE said:
@wissox How 'bout my Astros??? Aren’t they a powerhouse?
Just took my Cards to the woodshed a couple weeks ago. Ouch.
-
@KUSTEVE Didn’t know you were a Stros fan. They are indeed a powerhouse. They come up here next week to play the Sox. I might go. I like watching them play.
-
@wissox I was an original Royals fan until they decided to fleece the fans, and run out a triple A team instead of a major league team. And I lived in Houston for years, so it was a natural fit for me.
-
KUSTEVE said:
@wissox I was an original Royals fan until they decided to fleece the fans, and run out a triple A team instead of a major league team. And I lived in Houston for years, so it was a natural fit for me.
Didn’t the Astros fleece the fans for while … tanking, and building a championship level squad? They won less than 60 games in 2011, 2012, or 2013. Kinda like the Royals? We’re big tent, us Royals fans, would welcome you back. But man, the Astros are fun to watch and going all in grabbing Greinke was awesome.
-
@HighEliteMajor They were real bad for like two years, but then they improved. It wasn’t a way of life like KC. I still root for KC against every other team in baseball except the Stros. i was glad they didn’t give away Merrifield, who i like a lot.
-
@HighEliteMajor We’re (Sox) in the 3rd year of a rebuild and it’s been painful and there’s question marks whether it will really lead us to glory like the Royals and Astros, and Cubs. Sox are pantsing the Tigers right now and when it’s over the Tigers record will be 32-77. They are on pace for a historically bad season. Heck if they go .500 in their remaining 51 games they will still only win 57 games, and they are highly unlikely to play .500. It’s bad for baseball. This team sucks. They’re a bunch of no names, but apparently Detroit has a good farm system.
What shocks me is how quickly the Royals slunk back into bad baseball. Even though they’re a rival to me I hope they don’t go another 25 years before another playoff birth like they had.
-
@KUSTEVE Houston is the 4th largest TV market. The Astros should do better than they historically have, but man are they good now.
-
@KUSTEVE My dad alway believed that it was a law of nature that you had to be a fan of a team where you lived. Never understood that myself. But you never decided to a Tampa Bay fan?
After the Royals, I do enjoy the Astros the most, even tho they are in the wrong league.
-
@mayjay I like the Rays and the Bucs, but I don’t bleed for them. I think the Rays do more with less than any team in baseball.
-
@KUSTEVE What years did you live in Houston, if i may ask?
-
@nuleafjhawk 1996-2008.
-
@KUSTEVE Oh - past my time. We lived there from 1979 - 1987. I keep forgetting I’m older than everyone else!!
-
@mayjay - interesting comment. I grew up supporting the old Kansas City A’s and have retained my fan-ship. Fortunately, I lived in Oakland for quite a while when one could buy outstanding seats on the cheap just by walking up before game time. I continue to follow/cheer for KC area teams, but my baseball fandom has shifted to the Dodgers because I live in the area. They’re consistently good and the stadium is usually full. However, they are only on subscription TV, so I follow online and via radio. Y’all have it really good to get Royals and Chiefs games locally!
-
I’m a homer fan of sorts as well. Live in SW Kansas and I cheer for the KC Missouri Chiefs 7 hours away, KC Missouri Royals 7 hours away, true love Kansas Jayhawks 6 1/2 hours away, and occasionally the okc thunder 5 hours away. I don’t hate the Rockies 5 1/2 hours away either. If St Louis was closer I’d be a cardinals fan. Hands down the best baseball experience I’ve had (very limited experience though I’ve just visited the 3 aforementioned teams stadiums).
-
@dylans where you at?
-
@dylans We are grateful you aren’t a fan of a closer team to you. It would be Shockering, to say the least.
I would guess we could accept you being a fan of the NWOSU Rangers in Enid.
@Gorilla72 I live in SC now. Left KU in 78 for UMichigan Law, and moved from KC to DC area in 1981. I never adopted my father’s fandom philosophy, thank goodness! Proud KC fan all the way. My last game at Royals Stadium was when Cal Ripkin was making his farewell tour. Gonna get back to AFH (1979!) this coming year, I hope!
-
@KUSTEVE As I recall you did a stint in Liberal, I’m 30 miles north in Sublette.
-
@dylans Sublette…been there many times…
-
dylans said:
@KUSTEVE Houston is the 4th largest TV market. The Astros should do better than they historically have, but man are they good now.
The Astros have historically been a pretty good franchise. They’ve ready only had two era’s of consistently being a bad franchise. 1962-1968 before divisional play existed and 2009-2014 when the current core was being drafted, signed, and developed. Other than those two windows, the Astros have never had more than 2 consecutive losing seasons.
The Astros just have never been an elite franchise, but they have historically been a good franchise.
Outside of my 2 years at KU, I’ve lived in Houston since 1991.
Pro football in Houston has always been far more disappointing than baseball has been here. Soccer has been a huge disappointment the past few years as well because the Dynamo owner refuses to spend any money on good players or refuses to re-sign the good players we have.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I guess it depends upon your definition of success. The Astros didn’t even win their division from 87-96 and from 2002-2016. The market indicates they should have a blue blood level of success. I’d be flat out pissed if that was KU basketballs results.
Baseball to baseball the Yankees didn’t win their division from 83-93 and 2008-2018, but won more than one World Series also. Dodgers are the other bigger market team and they’ve have more success in their division, although not too many World Series wins of late.
I do half way expect the astros to win it all this year, so they’re coming up, but vastly underachieved more than just in the tanking years.
My Royals on the other hand have been a much more consistent cellar dweller.
-
@mayjay Gotta root for the Hooker Horny Toads! Heck they have T-shirt’s that say it’s a location not a vocation, gotta love the ability to laugh at yourself.
