Regarding costs, at our university (gf is in med), (I was told) they have photos of administration dating back, and you can just see the expansion.
Recently, the university has sent emails about budget issues. They publish their financial statements online, so I poked around.
10 years ago, their expenses were about $320M, and now they’re over $600M.
10 years ago, their was about 24 or 25000 students, now there’s only 29000.
I sent an email and got told a bunch of bullshit about spending on what matters and new programs, blah blah blah.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I’m pretty sure most post-secondary education is subsidized. If that is the case, then people should have to compete for seats in fields where there is expected growth. I know this might lead to delays in qualified people being available, but to me, it’s better than graduating a bunch of shitheads without any useful skills.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by your first sentence, but I do agree with your second sentence–I’d rather have qualified people than a glut of idiots.[/quote]
For reference I’m in Canada. Basically students don’t pay the true value of their tuition as the university gets subsidized by the province of federally. I’m not sure if that’s the same in the US, but I wouldn’t be surprised.[/quote]
Aha! I had forgotten you were there. Actually as far as the US goes, it really is not the same at all. Our tuition is actually inflated. There are of course “educational programs” that aim to reduce tuition for some segment of the population but that is not what the bulk see when they pay the bills.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Regarding costs, at our university (gf is in med), (I was told) they have photos of administration dating back, and you can just see the expansion.
Recently, the university has sent emails about budget issues. They publish their financial statements online, so I poked around.
10 years ago, their expenses were about $320M, and now they’re over $600M.
10 years ago, their was about 24 or 25000 students, now there’s only 29000.
I sent an email and got told a bunch of bullshit about spending on what matters and new programs, blah blah blah.[/quote]
Ah, I see what you were saying. I misunderstood the direction you were going. That wouldn’t surprise me to find out ballooning costs are part of the equation for us either
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Regarding costs, at our university (gf is in med), (I was told) they have photos of administration dating back, and you can just see the expansion.
Recently, the university has sent emails about budget issues. They publish their financial statements online, so I poked around.
10 years ago, their expenses were about $320M, and now they’re over $600M.
10 years ago, their was about 24 or 25000 students, now there’s only 29000.
I sent an email and got told a bunch of bullshit about spending on what matters and new programs, blah blah blah.[/quote]
Ah, I see what you were saying. I misunderstood the direction you were going. That wouldn’t surprise me to find out ballooning costs are part of the equation for us either[/quote]
I really wonder if it’s ballooning costs (eg out of person-in-charges hands) vs poor spending choices. For the record, they just built a ~$200M stadium and ~$45M gym.
That wasn’t all University money, but still.
I think some or a lot of administration that get to decide where money goes want to leave a legacy (is this a mental complex???) and are hell-bent on spending to get their way, regardless of the long-term consequences.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Medical school is a racket designed to protect high pay for doctors. I am not trying to imply that learning medicine is not difficult but rather that there are artificial barriers into entry into the profession. These barriers also prevent alternative ideas from making it to the mainstream.
[/quote]
I generally agree with your thoughts on this thread, but you could say this about a lot of professions.
Engineer - You have to have an engineering degree just to sit for a PE exam. PE is mandatory to go anywhere in the field. In most states you can’t even put the word engineer in your official job title without your PE license.
Architect - same thing.
CPA - Need an accounting degree and 150 credit hours.
Teachers - Don’t even get me started on this one. While you can generally get a provisional license with a degree in the field you would teach, full licensure requires a teaching degree.
Lawyer - Need a UG degree and 3-year J.D. just to sit for a bar.
Even a physical therapist needs nearly 8 years of school for licensure.
Of course these things vary by state, but I don’t think they vary by much. The only exception I can think of is an Actuary. Obviously a degree in a similar field is strongly preferred, but a Professional Actuary technically only needs to pass the exams in their chosen field to earn their professional license.
We tend to place far more emphasis on licensing and licensing requirements than actually doing anything to make sure people are really qualified for most of these professions. Many of these professions then tend to draw in those that are addicted to academia instead of those that would be the most successful in the field. I like the way the Actuaries do it. Give everyone a series of difficult tests. Pass the tests to play, easy as that.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The flip side to this is what Germany does–talking with some german osteopaths (similar to our chiropractors except they are in with all other doctors at the same medical college and simply focus on that path), who are BOTH 24 AND PRACTICING this is what happens:
After high school you take your board exams. If you pass you can choose to go to medical school DIRECTLY from high school instead of a regular college. This is because medical school does not teach any english, foreign language, general history, or other “general ed” requirements. They go straight to science and it is ALL science, chemistry, biology, medicine, labs, and practicums. They cut out all the filler. You still go for 5 years I believe, but you get done with a degree and can practice privately under a senior doctor. This is roughly the equivalent of your residency in your chosen area and you make money while doing it, then later you can practice on your own. They were absolutely shocked when I told them how long a doctor here had to be in school.
That will not work here in the USA because of our standards and approach to education. Once again, a systemic overhaul would be needed to even start approaching it that way.
[/quote]
Believe it or not, UMKC has a program very similar to this. You start right after high school and it takes 6 years. Of course you still have a residency after that.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Medical school is a racket designed to protect high pay for doctors. I am not trying to imply that learning medicine is not difficult but rather that there are artificial barriers into entry into the profession. These barriers also prevent alternative ideas from making it to the mainstream.
[/quote]
I generally agree with your thoughts on this thread, but you could say this about a lot of professions.
Engineer - You have to have an engineering degree just to sit for a PE exam. PE is mandatory to go anywhere in the field. In most states you can’t even put the word engineer in your official job title without your PE license.
Architect - same thing.
CPA - Need an accounting degree and 150 credit hours.
Teachers - Don’t even get me started on this one. While you can generally get a provisional license with a degree in the field you would teach, full licensure requires a teaching degree.
Lawyer - Need a UG degree and 3-year J.D. just to sit for a bar.
Even a physical therapist needs nearly 8 years of school for licensure.
Of course these things vary by state, but I don’t think they vary by much. The only exception I can think of is an Actuary. Obviously a degree in a similar field is strongly preferred, but a Professional Actuary technically only needs to pass the exams in their chosen field to earn their professional license.
We tend to place far more emphasis on licensing and licensing requirements than actually doing anything to make sure people are really qualified for most of these professions. Many of these professions then tend to draw in those that are addicted to academia instead of those that would be the most successful in the field. I like the way the Actuaries do it. Give everyone a series of difficult tests. Pass the tests to play, easy as that.[/quote]
Yep, in principle I agree. There are certain areas, however, where I don’t think that works and medicine is one owing to the nature of having people’s lives literally in your hands. Same with a mechanical or architectural engineer who is building the complexes where hundreds of people sit all day. I do think they can be streamlined in terms of both time and cost, but I prefer a much wider “safety margin” with those things.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Medical school is a racket designed to protect high pay for doctors. I am not trying to imply that learning medicine is not difficult but rather that there are artificial barriers into entry into the profession. These barriers also prevent alternative ideas from making it to the mainstream.
[/quote]
I generally agree with your thoughts on this thread, but you could say this about a lot of professions.
Engineer - You have to have an engineering degree just to sit for a PE exam. PE is mandatory to go anywhere in the field. In most states you can’t even put the word engineer in your official job title without your PE license.
Architect - same thing.
CPA - Need an accounting degree and 150 credit hours.
Teachers - Don’t even get me started on this one. While you can generally get a provisional license with a degree in the field you would teach, full licensure requires a teaching degree.
Lawyer - Need a UG degree and 3-year J.D. just to sit for a bar.
Even a physical therapist needs nearly 8 years of school for licensure.
…
We tend to place far more emphasis on licensing and licensing requirements than actually doing anything to make sure people are really qualified for most of these professions. Many of these professions then tend to draw in those that are addicted to academia instead of those that would be the most successful in the field. I like the way the Actuaries do it. Give everyone a series of difficult tests. Pass the tests to play, easy as that.[/quote]
Yes, exactly. I was just calling out medicine in response to a comment about medicine further back in the thread.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Same with a mechanical or architectural engineer who is building the complexes where hundreds of people sit all day. [/quote]
The problem I have with this one is that you are shutting the door to many intelligent people who may be able to build the complex even better. Do you think someone with a physics or math degree isn’t equally as qualified to at least sit for the exam? You could limp through 6 years of school with a sub 3.0 GPA and still finish with an ME degree and be eligible, but the physicist does not have this as a career opportunity without going back to school and spending even more money on education.
I’d like to see this as a valid career change down the line without the need for more schooling. I don’t think it is a huge issue in regards to engineering. That field tends to work itself out, but there are individuals out there that are limited for this very reason.
Teaching is where it really becomes an issue. The best math teacher I had in high school was a retired nuclear engineer. It was one of those programs with a community college where he came in to the HS and taught us. Scrap the salary schedule and licensing and you can watch the shortage of math and science teachers disappear as those positions could easily be filled by the middle-aged that are ready to leave other careers but not quite ready to retire. You just can’t ask them to go back to school and can’t expect to pay them the same as a first year kindergarten teacher.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Same with a mechanical or architectural engineer who is building the complexes where hundreds of people sit all day. [/quote]
The problem I have with this one is that you are shutting the door to many intelligent people who may be able to build the complex even better. Do you think someone with a physics or math degree isn’t equally as qualified to at least sit for the exam? You could limp through 6 years of school with a sub 3.0 GPA and still finish with an ME degree and be eligible, but the physicist does not have this as a career opportunity without going back to school and spending even more money on education.
I’d like to see this as a valid career change down the line without the need for more schooling. I don’t think it is a huge issue in regards to engineering. That field tends to work itself out, but there are individuals out there that are limited for this very reason.
Teaching is where it really becomes an issue. The best math teacher I had in high school was a retired nuclear engineer. It was one of those programs with a community college where he came in to the HS and taught us. Scrap the salary schedule and licensing and you can watch the shortage of math and science teachers disappear as those positions could easily be filled by the middle-aged that are ready to leave other careers but not quite ready to retire. You just can’t ask them to go back to school and can’t expect to pay them the same as a first year kindergarten teacher.
[/quote]
Yes, in this context I certainly agree with you. Most especially in regards to teaching! I was looking at the issue without considering post graduates in hard science fields. I was thinking of less qualified students, but even more specifically I was thinking in the original context of medicine.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
magick—#1 is certainly beyond a two year program, even if you are general practice. I don’t blame you for not seeing that, but as a guy who works in science, you can’t even lay the groundwork for basic engineering in two years let alone medical practice. Big Hell no on that no matter how trivial the patient’s appointment.
[/quote]
?
I wrote 4 years of additional study after UG. So that would be 8 years of schooling.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
magick—#1 is certainly beyond a two year program, even if you are general practice. I don’t blame you for not seeing that, but as a guy who works in science, you can’t even lay the groundwork for basic engineering in two years let alone medical practice. Big Hell no on that no matter how trivial the patient’s appointment.
[/quote]
?
I wrote 4 years of additional study after UG. So that would be 8 years of schooling.[/quote]
I don’t know what the hell I was thinking. Maybe I confused some other post with yours. Long day and my brain’s long since been mush
Engineer - You have to have an engineering degree just to sit for a PE exam. PE is mandatory to go anywhere in the field. In most states you can’t even put the word engineer in your official job title without your PE license.
[/quote]
There is an automotive exception. Very few automotive engineers have their PE.
Engineer - You have to have an engineering degree just to sit for a PE exam. PE is mandatory to go anywhere in the field. In most states you can’t even put the word engineer in your official job title without your PE license.
[/quote]
There is an automotive exception. Very few automotive engineers have their PE.
[/quote]
I wasn’t aware of that one. I believe there are also exceptions for computer engineering.