The general economic context of where and when you grow up matters. Think, for example, of those raised during the Great Depression in the US or World War II in Europe who are likely to be very careful with their spending, never through anything away and finish their plates. In this regard, what should we expect from those reaching adulthood in the past years?
Daniel Cooper and María José Luengo-Prado study the impact on teenagers of the house price boom before the current crisis in the United States on educational outcomes. Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), they find that a 1% higher house price at age 17 leads to a 0.8% higher income as adult if the parents owned the home, 1.2% lower if they were tenants, after conditioning for socio-economic characteristics. These are big numbers. They can be justified by the observation that higher house prices allows more collateral to borrow for education. Indeed households with a below median non-housing wealth saw even a 1.6% boost in their child's future income. To explain the impact on tenants, I suppose one can explain it with higher tuition in reaction to larger loans, which tenants cannot afford as well.
The consequences from the recent house price crash are daunting in this context. And given that state are disengaging themselves from financing their public colleges, leading to even higher tuition, the outlook is even worse.
Showing posts with label students. Show all posts
Showing posts with label students. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
On the value of liberal arts education
I find a recent opinion article on CNN by Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, on the value of liberal arts education rather upsetting. I can understand that as the president of a liberal arts college he wants to defend this particular type of education. But his arguments ring particularly hollow, and I would have expected better from someone leading on of the best liberal arts colleges.
His selling points are the following. 1) A broadly-based education is better then professional or technical expertise. 2) Liberal arts develop critical thinking and creativity. 3) Focusing on science and engineering is a serious mistake. 4) Effective implementation of new technology requires social and economic understanding. 5) Scholarship in humanities increasingly requires scientists. 6) Flexibility is important on the job market.
I agree that an education can be too narrow. But the US liberal arts way of doing it is a waste. Undergraduate students spend less than two years worth in their chosen major, and most end up being functionally incompetent in their major as they graduate. I realize this is largely due to the fact that high schools failed to give them this broadly-based education as they water down requirements. But there has to be a better way. Send those who have not yet mastered the general education requirements to community colleges, for example.
If the US is the bastion of liberal arts, as Michael Roth claims, then he cannot claim it favors critical thinking. I am continually amazed how US students woefully lack in this regard, with few exceptions of course. They are not interested in what they are studying or the world outside. They are very passive and minimalist students. This is favored by the "anything goes" attitude that liberal arts favor.
The reason why the US is a world economic leader is that it has a scientific and technological edge, and that is has economic policies that provide good incentives, at least better than the rest of the world (and that Americans are obsessed with working). That edge is waning because other countries are catching up on the scientific and technological front and have already surpassed the US in several areas. Michael Roth apparently thinks it is wrong to try to keep that edge, and that one should focus more or social sciences, humanities and fine arts. He got the causation wrong. One can afford this when one is rich, but it does not make you rich.
I think he right on the fourth point. It is useless to engineer better crops if you cannot find a way for people to adopt them. But one does not need more liberal arts majors than scientists to achieve this. His fifth point actually shows liberal arts needs science, so science should not be discouraged.
I also agree with his sixth point. That is why one should have sufficient time to teach not just the recipes of a field, but also where they come from. This allows a student later to come up with new solutions to new problems. But the 3-4 semesters in a major do allow this. The result is that in fields where this is not sufficient students are not competent enough and end up with jobs outside their major and with low pay. Just look what pay is across majors. Liberal arts majors are consistently at the bottom, also due the fact that there are just too many of those students.
No, we should not encourage liberal arts education. This should be done in high school and community colleges. Let universities concentrate on the teaching of the core and produce truly competent professionals.
His selling points are the following. 1) A broadly-based education is better then professional or technical expertise. 2) Liberal arts develop critical thinking and creativity. 3) Focusing on science and engineering is a serious mistake. 4) Effective implementation of new technology requires social and economic understanding. 5) Scholarship in humanities increasingly requires scientists. 6) Flexibility is important on the job market.
I agree that an education can be too narrow. But the US liberal arts way of doing it is a waste. Undergraduate students spend less than two years worth in their chosen major, and most end up being functionally incompetent in their major as they graduate. I realize this is largely due to the fact that high schools failed to give them this broadly-based education as they water down requirements. But there has to be a better way. Send those who have not yet mastered the general education requirements to community colleges, for example.
If the US is the bastion of liberal arts, as Michael Roth claims, then he cannot claim it favors critical thinking. I am continually amazed how US students woefully lack in this regard, with few exceptions of course. They are not interested in what they are studying or the world outside. They are very passive and minimalist students. This is favored by the "anything goes" attitude that liberal arts favor.
The reason why the US is a world economic leader is that it has a scientific and technological edge, and that is has economic policies that provide good incentives, at least better than the rest of the world (and that Americans are obsessed with working). That edge is waning because other countries are catching up on the scientific and technological front and have already surpassed the US in several areas. Michael Roth apparently thinks it is wrong to try to keep that edge, and that one should focus more or social sciences, humanities and fine arts. He got the causation wrong. One can afford this when one is rich, but it does not make you rich.
I think he right on the fourth point. It is useless to engineer better crops if you cannot find a way for people to adopt them. But one does not need more liberal arts majors than scientists to achieve this. His fifth point actually shows liberal arts needs science, so science should not be discouraged.
I also agree with his sixth point. That is why one should have sufficient time to teach not just the recipes of a field, but also where they come from. This allows a student later to come up with new solutions to new problems. But the 3-4 semesters in a major do allow this. The result is that in fields where this is not sufficient students are not competent enough and end up with jobs outside their major and with low pay. Just look what pay is across majors. Liberal arts majors are consistently at the bottom, also due the fact that there are just too many of those students.
No, we should not encourage liberal arts education. This should be done in high school and community colleges. Let universities concentrate on the teaching of the core and produce truly competent professionals.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Students hate good teachers
Teachers often find student evaluations rather frustrating. They are contradictory, short-sighted and sometimes insulting, especially when students did not put much effort in the class in the first place. Student evaluations are also biased towards teachers who are physically more appealing. And students, with their lack of experience and expertise, are not in a good position to evaluate an expert. What more could be said against student evaluations?
Michela Braga, Marco Paccagnella and Michele Pellizzari find that better teachers get worse evaluations. The way they measure teacher effectiveness is by looking at how students do in subsequent classes. They find that teachers matter, and substantially as the teacher can explain 43% of the standard deviation in subsequent grades. But the good teachers get a worse student evaluation, which is frightening, because administrators are getting the wrong message.
From the tables, I gather that higher ranked faculty teach better, but older and researchers with higher H-indexes do worse, which is rather contradictory. I wonder whether taking into account the obviously high correlation between some of the independent variables would take care of this, or other controls, like the attractiveness mentioned above.
Michela Braga, Marco Paccagnella and Michele Pellizzari find that better teachers get worse evaluations. The way they measure teacher effectiveness is by looking at how students do in subsequent classes. They find that teachers matter, and substantially as the teacher can explain 43% of the standard deviation in subsequent grades. But the good teachers get a worse student evaluation, which is frightening, because administrators are getting the wrong message.
From the tables, I gather that higher ranked faculty teach better, but older and researchers with higher H-indexes do worse, which is rather contradictory. I wonder whether taking into account the obviously high correlation between some of the independent variables would take care of this, or other controls, like the attractiveness mentioned above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)