There is a lot to digest in this post - and if you didn't read it, you won't get the pun (and you don't deserve to!). While the post is a kind of "thinking out-loud" put to paper, Woolley makes some great points about the university conundrum (he is writing specifically about Canadian universities, but I think it applies to the US as well). With so many options in front of students, why are the classes that one might think of as the most valuable (courses that teach skills that will be most profitable after graduation) often under-subscribed while "fluff" courses are so popular?
Education has some serious issues, both for our neighbors to the north and here in the US. Woolley points out that some of this problem is likely due to the poor preparation we give to college students. From my own experience, if I didn't seek out career guidance, I likely would have graduated from college even more poorly prepared than I was. It wasn't until my senior year that I had somebody to help me with putting together a coherent plan for my career, and he was not employed by the university. Instead, we connected through a business society for students. He gave me invaluable guidance (for which I am extremely grateful) that I should pursue the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation. I had studied business administration and finance in college, but lacked the type of training that would make me valuable to an employer. My timing was especially poor as I entered the job market in 2010, just as thousands of well-qualified, experienced financiers were seeking employment after the fallout of the financial crisis. In pursuing the CFA charter, I gained the skills that helped me get into my current career in financial analysis and (now) credit risk analysis.
I imagine that I am a fairly bright individual, and though the resources available now are far and away better than they were over a decade ago, I didn't have a clue what I was doing in college. I am currently pursuing further education, in part to make up for what I should have done as a full-time student. I went to a school counselor, and even met with a few professors during
office hours, and still my education leaned more toward "fluff" than
substance.
So what went wrong?
One issue - I didn't know enough about what I wanted to do with life. As someone that has now spent nearly a decade in finance, I still don't exactly know what I want to do with my life. I have way more interests than I have time, and my freshman year I spent split between political science, economics, and journalism. After my freshman year, I had dropped the journalism bit, and instead focused on finance and business with a minor in politics that focused more on social theory and economics than political systems. Still, I graduated with very little insight as to what employers might want from a prospective employee in those fields. I took courses across a wide variety of subjects, from western swing to accounting to theatre history to biology. Fortunately, I was able to find work quickly (probably as a result of applying to anything that bore even a passing resemblance to finance and investment analysis).
Had I known what I know now, I likely would have done several things differently. First, I would have chosen an institution where I would have worked with experts in the fields that I am most interested in (political/experimental economics, finance, statistics). I instead chose a school where I could play football. While I love playing sports, I don't think the trade-off was worth it. I don't think this is stressed enough to high school students - we put a lot of emphasis on going to college, but not nearly enough emphasis on choosing which school to go to and what to study. The "what to study" should be the most important factor in the "where to go" equation, but it didn't even cross my mind when applying to schools. I mostly thought about things like location (I wanted to be in the mountains, close to a beach was a bonus), cost (despite trying to go somewhere to keep costs minimal, I graduated with over $20k in debt), and overall academic reputation (at least I considered that piece!). Since I didn't give much thought to what I wanted to study, I didn't put nearly enough emphasis on where I should go. None of the top 3 schools I applied to my freshman year would have made the cut.
Second, I would have spent more time doing research projects or internships. This is a crucial piece of the educational experience that does not get enough attention. I think education would ideally have more time spent outside of a classroom doing real work. If a typical degree took six years instead of four, but the extra time was spent in a real world setting doing real work, I think the overall product (i.e. the laborer/employee) would be much better. This could also greatly reduce the cost of education because a student would be able to earn income while attending school instead of foregoing any earnings while getting a degree.
And third, schools need to improve the onboarding and academic advising process. Almost all the advice I got from the two universities I attended was " to earn a degree in Major X, you need to take courses A, B, and C." What about asking if Major X is the right one? The advisors in universities need to take on a more prominent role in helping students navigate the academic experience. Woolley wonders if there is a bit of homo economicus to blame as colleges might steer students toward courses that may be more profitable but aren't as beneficial to the student. Since all students are charged a flat rate for full time tuition, it is in the best interest of the college to have more students taking Literature of the Western World from the professors that make half (or less) than the professors that teach Advanced Econometrics or Business Law. Another explanation in the blog is that this information isn't intentionally hidden, people are just less interested in knowing which courses are most valuable so it isn't as visible.
One other explanation that Woolley doesn't cover, but Bryan Caplan gives great insight into, is that of signaling. If a degree is more about getting a high GPA in a subject that tells employers that I would be a profitable hire, then why waste time taking difficult courses that I might not do well in? Instead, I will take the bare minimum of difficult coursework to get my degree, and the rest will be in fluff classes to pad my GPA. While I didn't do this personally in college (as a result of my indecisiveness, I took major courses in several subjects which used all my extracurricular slots), I know people who did. Once they met the bare minimum for the degree, they filled the rest of their schedule with known fluff. I admit to doing this in my final semester of high school. Knowing that I was already accepted to college, I took the easiest classes I could and had a great time.
As the price of college soars, the points Woolley raises are important. As an aside, I'm amazed at the thought that universities aren't awash in money. With how much they charge for tuition, I can't understand where it all goes. If anybody knows where I can see itemized financial statements for public universities, pass that along (I know, I could search, and I'm sure I will get around to it... eventually...).
No comments:
Post a Comment