Future of Division III

[y_jack_lok]

Colleges used to teach people how to think.  Now it's what to think, with very rare exceptions.  I can love my alma mater and be thankful for my education yet still be critical.  (Isn't that the "how to think" role of my education?)

It seems to me that this statement stands in opposition to your earlier statement "If I'm running a college these days, I'm adding courses geared toward real life application in fields where people are making money.  Risk Management and Insurance, Project Management, Logistics and Supply Chain, Banking and Private Equity."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that these are pathways where you are taught what to think vs how to think.

You haven't ruined my weekend, and I hope I haven't ruined yours. I'm also not trying to crap on you. Yes, the world (especially the U.S.) is changing -- in ways that make me sad. I'm glad I'm so old that getting left behind isn't a problem for me.

[MCScots2013]

Courses, not necessarily degrees. 

We already have courses (and degrees, actually) that teach what to think--Accounting, Mathematics, Physics, Biology--all rooted in universal norms and truths.  Isn't that why we have "Proofs" in math?

I am no fan of throwing out the core liberal arts curriculum, good sir.  Being well read and a jack-of-all-trades/master of none has served me well.

[jknezek]

Only 40% of degrees this year were earned by men and down 3% from last year (before you call me sexist, we men make up half the population and half of possible enrollees).

This is a statement with the wrong context. Men in the U.S. make up 54% of trade school enrollment. 82% of active military enlistment come from men. The U.S. population is 50.5% women. Men, fewer of us in general, are simply spread a bit more thinly. Meanwhile, more women have gone for higher education. In 1970, 20% of women 18-24 enrolled in college. Now it's 48%. In 1970 for men, it was 32-34%. Now? It's 34%.

In other words, men are pretty consistent. 1/3 of 18-24 years olds are enrolled in college over the last 55 years. Women, as opportunities to not be a homemaker or a secretary increased, have gone from 20% to 48%. The difference is found in other career paths. Men tend to go to votech schools at a higher rate and into the military at a much higher rate.

You keep pointing to this as if it's some kind of bad thing. It's not. It's just numbers and a change in opportunities for women.

[WUPHF]

College isn't necessarily trade school. It's supposed to be where you go to learn to think. Pigeon-holing a few majors as "worth it" is ridiculously narrow minded. Liberal Arts have led college education for decades. There is so much value in a well-rounded education. And that's coming from someone with a B.S. in Business Administration, a B.A. in Print Journalism and an MBA in Finance.

I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly back when a first generation college student from a one-income family could earn enough to pay for almost the entire year of housing and expenses by working full-time over the summers (me!), but it is getting harder and harder to agree with this sentiment. 

In some ways though, in the era of AI, the liberal arts background seems more compelling than ever.

[jknezek]

I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly back when a first generation college student from a one-income family could earn enough to pay for almost the entire year of housing and expenses by working full-time over the summers (me!), but it is getting harder and harder to agree with this sentiment. 

In some ways though, in the era of AI, the liberal arts background seems more compelling than ever.

Yes. The cost of college is 100% the problem. Get the cost under control, and it sorts itself out. I'm not expecting colleges to go back to the days of being able to afford it without saving, but it is out of control.

Unfortunately, a big part of the problem is expectations. My parents went to Wilkes in the 70s. Wilkes didn't have enough dorms for all the students, so my dad lived in the YMCA for 2 years, crammed in a room with 3 other guys. Just beds and a dresser. Nothing else. When I went to school in the 90s, it was 2 to a room, no AC, communal bathroom, communal laundry room, bed, dresser, closet, desk for each of us. Basic, hot, but servicable.

W&L's current upperclass housing? It's a freaking townhouse. Multiple bedrooms, full kitchen, laundry in every unit, full AC, multiple bathrooms.

My dad's meal plan? Whatever was served in a cafeteria twice a day. Mine? A cafeteria with multiple options at every meal, plus a snack option restaurant on campus. W&L now? Multiple restaurant and cafeteria style eateries serving multiple styles 20 hours a day.

Let's not touch on how athletic facilities have changed, or even how non-NCAA athlete gym opportunities have changed. Wilkes had a small sports weight room in the 70s, W&L had a dungeon weight room for whoever wanted to use it in the 90s, now there is a full lifestyle gym on campus in addition to the sports specific facilities.

Healthcare? Dad went to the hospital when he got hurt playing football. We had a nurse in the 90s. W&L now has a full healthcare facility, staffed 24/7 with a dr and multiple nurses.

And then there's the admin. So much growth in admin.

Colleges have a spending problem. They need to stop building palaces and start building functional facilities. Unfortunately, if they do so, I don't think the students will come, even if they pay 1/2 as much or even less.

It's a quandry.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

This used to be the difference between liberal arts and public institutions - one was more focused on personal development and the other on job training.  Liberal Arts got popular and many public schools shifted to compete.  Now the trend seems to be moving in the other direction and many liberal arts schools are shifting.

You're either going to be rich enough to compensate for changing trends or you have to shift to match the students you're trying to attract.

I think there will always be a market for both, but the size of that market is going to change dramatically from season to season.

[MCScots2013]

Only 40% of degrees this year were earned by men and down 3% from last year (before you call me sexist, we men make up half the population and half of possible enrollees).

This is a statement with the wrong context. Men in the U.S. make up 54% of trade school enrollment. 82% of active military enlistment come from men. The U.S. population is 50.5% women. Men, fewer of us in general, are simply spread a bit more thinly. Meanwhile, more women have gone for higher education. In 1970, 20% of women 18-24 enrolled in college. Now it's 48%. In 1970 for men, it was 32-34%. Now? It's 34%.

In other words, men are pretty consistent. 1/3 of 18-24 years olds are enrolled in college over the last 55 years. Women, as opportunities to not be a homemaker or a secretary increased, have gone from 20% to 48%. The difference is found in other career paths. Men tend to go to votech schools at a higher rate and into the military at a much higher rate.

You keep pointing to this as if it's some kind of bad thing. It's not. It's just numbers and a change in opportunities for women.

I'm not taking issue with opportunities for women and I'm not accusing you of thinking I am.  What I am saying it total enrollment is down and because total enrollment is down and one side of the equation isn't picking up the slack we need to be concerned. 

With your statistics, what is included with "higher education"?
-community college?
-online enrollment?
-votech/trade school you mentioned? (Honestly, I'm a shocked it's only 54%.  Thought that would be 3 out of 4 for trade school.)
-how many are non-traditional students/adult learners?

Colleges in 1970 could survive with 500 student enrollment.  Adjust cost of educations now and double enrollment isn't doing it since costs are well more than doubled.

4 year, traditional straight from high school enrollment is down and we should focus on that.  We can talk percentages all day, but consistent percent of an increasingly smaller number...is a smaller number.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

-votech/trade school you mentioned? (Honestly, I'm a shocked it's only 54%.  Thought that would be 3 out of 4 for trade school.)

You have to remember this includes female dominated fields, like cosmetology and massage, along with more traditionally male fields like plumbing and electrical (trades which are making very concerted efforts to recruit women, anyway).

[MCScots2013]

-votech/trade school you mentioned? (Honestly, I'm a shocked it's only 54%.  Thought that would be 3 out of 4 for trade school.)

You have to remember this includes female dominated fields, like cosmetology and massage, along with more traditionally male fields like plumbing and electrical (trades which are making very concerted efforts to recruit women, anyway).

Fair point.  I'll revise my shock to 2 out of 3.

[Kuiper]

Russell Sage merging with Albany College of Pharmacy

Creating one of the region's largest private higher education institutions with the broadest catalog of programs in the health professions and strong programs in education, business, criminal justice, the sciences, pre-med, pre-health, and arts and humanities, Russell Sage College and Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (ACPHS) plan to merge.

A memorandum of understanding, approved by both institutions' boards of trustees, calls for a merger upon approval by regulatory bodies, with an estimated completion date of fall 2027. All students will have the opportunity to complete their degree programs at their respective colleges prior to the merger and at the combined institution after the merger, and will see expanded academic, student life, and athletic opportunities after the merger is final and approved by all regulatory bodies.

The combined institution, to be known as Russell Sage, with an anticipated enrollment of approximately 4,000 students on campuses in Albany and Troy, New York, as well as online, would likely become the third-largest private institution for higher education in the Capital Region, based on current publicly available enrollment data. The merger will result in a unified institution with combined assets of approximately $246 million, including $115 million in endowment investments.

Board of Regents Approves Russell Sage's Merger with Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

On Tuesday, the New York State Board of Regents approved a proposed merger of the Russell Sage College and the Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (ACPHS). According to the colleges, they're now waiting for the U.S. Department of Education to approve the decision.

"Today, the New York State Board of Regents voted to provisionally approve a merger between Russell Sage College and the Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences," Russell Sage College President Matthew Shaftel said.

According to Shaftel, the combined institution would be called Russell Sage University and will offer programs in education, business, criminal justice, the sciences, arts and humanities and more.

The combined university, with a planned enrollment of around 4,000 students, would become one of the region's third-largest private higher education institutions with the widest offering of programs in the health professions, according to the announcement.

"Every student will have on their diploma Russell Sage University or Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences at Russell Sage University," Shaftel said.

While the full merger is expected to be complete by fall of 2027, the two campuses will begin merging in 2026, with all students dining together this fall.

Shaftel said tuitions, however, would stay the same for the upcoming year and in 2027, they "anticipate bringing them very close together."

When the approval process is finalized, he believes staffing changes at both colleges will be mininal.

"Our definitive agreement says that we're going to keep all of our faculty. We anticipate really being able to hire almost everybody coming out of this," he said.

[IC798891]

I don't want to weigh in on the full back and forth here, but I'll make two specific observations centered around my field of journalism, as it relates to the larger points being discussed.

1. Cost - I do not have a clue how private, liberal arts colleges can possibly compete with state schools when the first career stops out of college are invariably going to be the small local/regional papers/networks that all pay you a pittance while you earn your chops, hone your skills, etc.

For example, IC alumnus Brendan Burke, who now works for the NHL's New York Islanders, began his career spending nearly a decade in minor league hockey.

I think that while a lot of alums -- and I'm not speaking about Brendan specifically here -- may see the connection between their college experience and those early jobs, by the time you get to the really financially successful levels, you're crediting your own professional growth more than your alma mater. So in the mind of a prospective student, why take on significantly more debt if you're all going to end up in the same place to start anyway?

2. Skills that "Will be relevant in X number of years" - When I took Introduction to Journalism at Ithaca College in the Fall of 2001, we had desktop computers, we typed into a word doc, and saved files on disks/thumb drives before printing out sheets of paper. In my Introduction to Broadcast Production course, taken the Fall of 2002, we literally cut reel-to-reel tape with razors to edit clips.  Working at the radio station, we recorded the ABC News updates on a reel-to-reel machine, then recorded those onto mini-discs to be played in the station.

My "hands on experience" from college ~25 years ago is wholly and completely irrelevant to what the field requires today.

Today, Intro to Journalism students at Ithaca College are going out with tens of thousands of dollars worth of cameras, mics, and lights, and collaborating with drone operators to produce multimedia pieces that get edited digitally to appear on social media sites that didn't even exist in 2002.

Yeah there may be degree paths that are more stable or conducive to professional career success. But the amount of change that can occur in a single generation can make a lot of things change. And it may in fact be, the "soft skills" you learn in some of these derided paths of study that help you weather that change.

[MCScots2013]

I think you need to give yourself a little more credit.  Technology may have changed your day-to-day, but you still know how the sausage is made.  That's invaluable.  We may not build roads in the same fashion as the Romans but knowing how they did it paved the path for today's DOT.

As I said before, I'm not suggesting we kill off the liberal arts.  I'm suggesting we become more competitive.

By the way--kudos to Brendan.  Love that story. 

[DagarmanSpartan]

OR you could do what CWRU does and have a School of Engineering, a School of Management, a School of Nursing, and a College of Arts and Sciences, that way, nearly all students can study something they like!

[IC798891]

I think you need to give yourself a little more credit.  Technology may have changed your day-to-day, but you still know how the sausage is made.  That's invaluable.  We may not build roads in the same fashion as the Romans but knowing how they did it paved the path for today's DOT.

As I said before, I'm not suggesting we kill off the liberal arts.  I'm suggesting we become more competitive.

By the way--kudos to Brendan.  Love that story. 

Oh I give myself credit, don't worry, haha. I work as a journalist for my alma mater, and I love my job. I've got the requisite writing skills for sure, but what's shining through a lot is the type of soft skill stuff that get developed when you do more than just hyperfocus on one thing.

Understanding the needs of our audiences, having the ability to discern what stories will meet our goals, critically analyzing information, understanding how to write stories in a way that intersect with a lot of different paths in order to tell a "bigger" story than it might appear, even understanding why certain types of stories may (or may not) resonate in a current climate. Heck, even learning the interpersonal skills needed to communicate with a bunch of different stakeholders in an effective way. They're all things I developed significantly in courses outside of my journalism classes.

If the only thing I took in college was journalism related courses, I wouldn't be able to bring as much of that to the table, and I'd lack some of the technical expertise that this generation possesses. That's what these "Just let kids study solely what they want to do for a living and quit making them waste time learning [something someone says is unrelated]" proclamations are missing.

As for Brendan, yeah he busted his *** and worked his way up the ladder.

Another example might be gym teachers. When I went to high school in Ithaca, every single one of my gym teachers (many of whom were also coaches) either went to Cortland or IC. But if you're going to end up at the same high school teaching the same things for identical pay, why do it while incurring tens of thousands of additional debt? That's part of why Ithaca no longer has the Physical Education degree.