The other day, while cycling through the Old Town of St. Augustine, Florida, I saw something that just may be a viable alternative to much of what we have today:
Here's a close-up view:
At least it's better-conceived, and probably better-constructed, than the Titanic was.
Speaking of which...By now, you've probably heard that Sunday (the 15th) will be the 100th anniversary of its sinking. Jeffrey Harrison, a University of Florida law professor and the author of the blog Class Bias In Higher Education, took the occasion to make comparisons between that disaster/tragedy and the law school debacle. Of the capsizing of the "unsinkable" ship, he tells us, "If you cut through the details, it was about hubris, greed, disorganization, carelessness and uncertainty." In his post, he proceeds to list the "warning signs" that you are in a "law-school Titanic."
If you've read some of my previous posts, you know that much of what professors Harrison and Campos, as well as bloggers like Nando, say about law school can just as easily be applied to almost any graduate program besides medical school and to much of undergraduate education. Entire states have been deforested, and digital programs rendered obsolete, over the number of words that have been used to describe the "crisis" in higher education. What those who write about the "crisis" fail to tell you is that, more often than not, they themselves are complicit in at least part of it.
For too long, schools with graduate programs have pressured departments and professors to get as many students as possible into graduate school. In a previous post, I described some of the reasons for this. Actually, most professors don't have to be pressured too much: They'd rather work with graduate students, if they have to work with students at all. And, in their tenured positions, most are oblivious--some willfully so--of the horrendous market for professors, which are what most graduate students want to become. If, during the course of a program, a student expresses any sort of anxiety about the market, he or she is likely to hear something like, "The good ones always get jobs." A few years later, when that student finishes a PhD and can't get an academic position, he or she is told--by the very same professor, "Well, academia isn't for everybody."
In fairness, though, I must say that the carelessness, greed and hubris of such a professor pales in comparison to the degree to which academic administrators and education loan providers exhibit those same traits. They exploit the market and the hopes and dreams of young (and, sometimes, not-so-young) people to maximize, not only the amount of revenue that comes to the school in tuitions and state subsidies, but also the funds that come in the way of grants. Administrators build campus housing that has more in common with condos in the better parts of most cities than it does with the dorms of my undergraduate years, gymnasiums that are more like the kinds of health clubs that are found in said condo buildings, laboratory facilities that are used by a handful, if any, people, and other monuments to their egos. When Donald Trump builds things that are so unnecessary and hideous, he is rightly lambasted; the administrators in question get away with such practices only because they do it on a smaller scale and because they can hid behind the sacrosanct status of their educational institutions.
What most of them don't know--or ignore--is that the economic system can't sustain their relentless building. Unless a sudden tide of jobs with six-figure salaries washes over the employment landscape, more and more graduates are going to founder on the desiccated landscape of the job market. That means more of them will default on their loans, and, at some point, nobody will want to lend students money.
There are already signs that the system is coming apart. Minneapolis-based US Bank, which has about 3000 branches, got out of the student loan business at the end of March. As of 1 July, JP Morgan Chase--the nation's largest bank--will no longer offer student loans to anyone who is not already a customer of the bank. That means that if you don't have a savings or checking account, credit card--or student loan--with JP Morgan Chase, you won't be able to borrow money for school from them. If other banks follow suit, will the Federal government increase its lending to students? And, if it does, how long will it be able to sustain high levels of student lending--and defaults, if the market for graduates doesn't improve?
To extend Professor Harrison's Titanic analogy, as the ship of higher education and the job market for its graduates is taking on water, the band continues to play on.
Here's a close-up view:
At least it's better-conceived, and probably better-constructed, than the Titanic was.
Speaking of which...By now, you've probably heard that Sunday (the 15th) will be the 100th anniversary of its sinking. Jeffrey Harrison, a University of Florida law professor and the author of the blog Class Bias In Higher Education, took the occasion to make comparisons between that disaster/tragedy and the law school debacle. Of the capsizing of the "unsinkable" ship, he tells us, "If you cut through the details, it was about hubris, greed, disorganization, carelessness and uncertainty." In his post, he proceeds to list the "warning signs" that you are in a "law-school Titanic."
If you've read some of my previous posts, you know that much of what professors Harrison and Campos, as well as bloggers like Nando, say about law school can just as easily be applied to almost any graduate program besides medical school and to much of undergraduate education. Entire states have been deforested, and digital programs rendered obsolete, over the number of words that have been used to describe the "crisis" in higher education. What those who write about the "crisis" fail to tell you is that, more often than not, they themselves are complicit in at least part of it.
For too long, schools with graduate programs have pressured departments and professors to get as many students as possible into graduate school. In a previous post, I described some of the reasons for this. Actually, most professors don't have to be pressured too much: They'd rather work with graduate students, if they have to work with students at all. And, in their tenured positions, most are oblivious--some willfully so--of the horrendous market for professors, which are what most graduate students want to become. If, during the course of a program, a student expresses any sort of anxiety about the market, he or she is likely to hear something like, "The good ones always get jobs." A few years later, when that student finishes a PhD and can't get an academic position, he or she is told--by the very same professor, "Well, academia isn't for everybody."
In fairness, though, I must say that the carelessness, greed and hubris of such a professor pales in comparison to the degree to which academic administrators and education loan providers exhibit those same traits. They exploit the market and the hopes and dreams of young (and, sometimes, not-so-young) people to maximize, not only the amount of revenue that comes to the school in tuitions and state subsidies, but also the funds that come in the way of grants. Administrators build campus housing that has more in common with condos in the better parts of most cities than it does with the dorms of my undergraduate years, gymnasiums that are more like the kinds of health clubs that are found in said condo buildings, laboratory facilities that are used by a handful, if any, people, and other monuments to their egos. When Donald Trump builds things that are so unnecessary and hideous, he is rightly lambasted; the administrators in question get away with such practices only because they do it on a smaller scale and because they can hid behind the sacrosanct status of their educational institutions.
What most of them don't know--or ignore--is that the economic system can't sustain their relentless building. Unless a sudden tide of jobs with six-figure salaries washes over the employment landscape, more and more graduates are going to founder on the desiccated landscape of the job market. That means more of them will default on their loans, and, at some point, nobody will want to lend students money.
There are already signs that the system is coming apart. Minneapolis-based US Bank, which has about 3000 branches, got out of the student loan business at the end of March. As of 1 July, JP Morgan Chase--the nation's largest bank--will no longer offer student loans to anyone who is not already a customer of the bank. That means that if you don't have a savings or checking account, credit card--or student loan--with JP Morgan Chase, you won't be able to borrow money for school from them. If other banks follow suit, will the Federal government increase its lending to students? And, if it does, how long will it be able to sustain high levels of student lending--and defaults, if the market for graduates doesn't improve?
To extend Professor Harrison's Titanic analogy, as the ship of higher education and the job market for its graduates is taking on water, the band continues to play on.
.jpg)
.jpg)
RMS Titanic was owned and operated by White Star Line. White Star was owned by International Mercantile Marine (later United States Lines). IMM was owned by...J.P. Morgan.
ReplyDeleteCoincidence? Sure. But money is money and greed is greed and it was ever thus.
Hi Dona,
ReplyDeleteI've been perusing through your blog for a while now, so please bear in mind that some of the observations that I'll provide here may pertain more to the blog as a whole as opposed to this one particular post. Although I'll freely admit that the Titanic comparison is what caused me to post here today. Also I'm not sure whether this is of any importance, but I'm familiar with the contents of the number of "Let's shoot evil wicked law school dead" blogs. So it might be a bit more of a broader comment on the whole "we've been scammed" movement, I hope that's acceptable.
With this introduction out of the way I'll move right on to the main course.
Nobody forced you or anyone else into working in higher education.
Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and said - get this monster loan and go to law school/get an MBA/obtain a PhD in obscure Nordic literature.
These were all free choices made by free people, acting in a given environment and at a given time. And the people chose to invest in themselves, hoping for a future job that would not involve manual labor, would come with some prestige and would be - let's be blunt - comfy.
Falling back on the comparison - you guys all chose to board what you're now calling the Titanic, paying for tickets with loans, because you didn't like travelling in a smaller boat without an orchestra and a bar and the "Titanic" was the fastest, most prestigious way to travel.
And, let's be honest for a moment, had the "Titanic" taken You where you wanted to be in a timely fashion most of you would consider buying tickets for it a good investment.
But the problem is that boats sometimes sink due to no fault of their makers, markets go belly up and economic problems occur, well, cyclically.
Furthermore, if those of you who went down the law school = cash and diamonds and PhD = comfortable job at the U routes had bothered to conduct your own research some of the findings might have suggested that going all crazy on student loans wasn't exactly prudent.
The job market for attorneys in U.S. hasn't been good for years now due to 2 simple factors - overproduction of JD’s and the export of legal jobs abroad/firms using paralegals instead of JD’s.
In academia it is ( and that's hardly a new trend ) pretty much the norm that a freshly-minted PhD gets to travel the globe as a nomad for a few years, switching from one post-doc fellowship/fixed-term lectureship to another until some institution has an opening for a tenure-track position.
and part II:
ReplyDeleteSo these weren't exactly easy job markets to begin with when many people took the student loan plunge and when the crisis happened they became abysmal job markets.
But few people bothered to check the weather forecast before buying tickets for the Titanic and even fewer took into account the possibility of a sudden, unexpected storm.
Now consider for a moment that it may indeed be argued ( which I believe was mentioned in hon. Judge Schweitzer's recent ruling ) that graduates looking for additional education should act like responsible/educated consumers and carry out their own research before taking the big student loan plunge.
Ultimately, in my opinion, the idea that "the system" is more responsible for an individuals woes than the individual himself is a bit hard to defend. The next obvious step is the cry for a bailout.... And a another bailout hardly seems like something the economically-frustrated United States is able to do at the moment.
To summarize, I do believe that a lot of "we've been scammed" movement ( law school and higher ed ) is at least partially grounded in the whining of irresponsible people who were raised in the good times and are used of things going there way.
Well, life doesn't always work that way and generations before us have found that out already. If the weather is bad sometimes a boat ( even as big as the Titanic ) will take more time to reach the port. And complaining about the price of tickets, the ship possibly sinking or shooting the captain do not make that trip any easier.
Anyways, just my few thoughts. Good luck in all endeavours,
avid_reader_PhD:
ReplyDeleteIn some cases, promises were genuinely broken. If someone quotes you a price for a Lexus and then gives you an Audi after you've paid, then that's fraud, even if the dealer is notoriously dishonest. It's no defense for the dealer to claim that the consumer "should have known" about the fraud.
Federal laws regarding student loans were retroactively changed in 1998 to remove bankruptcy protections and statute of limitations protections for federal student loans, and again in 2005 to remove these protections for private student loans. I repeat, these changes were _retroactive_ and could not reasonably have been foreseen. You can't blame a student for failing to predict future acts of Congress. Those students did not enter into their current student loan agreements knowingly. They signed those agreements under one set of laws, and then Congress later retroactively changed those laws.
Most student loan activists have as their top priority the restoration of standard bankruptcy protections and statute of limitations protections for student loans. They're not asking for a handout. They're just asking for the same rules as the rules that were in effect ten or twenty years ago when they signed their loan agreements.
A loan agreement involves the informed consent of two parties. You can't expect students to hold to their end of the agreement while giving the other side (government and commercial lenders) a free pass to change their side of the agreement whenever they want.
DJ:
ReplyDeleteWell, I am a JD with a PhD... in law ( yes, yes, you can all start throwing rotten tomatoes now after this admission ). So not meaning to sound like a jerk, but I have some vague idea about how contracts, loans, breaches of such, et cetera work. Most of that knowledge is grounded in the real world, because I practice law.
And offering a fool-proof guarantee that the global market won't crash is a dicey idea to say the least. Markets do crash, house prices go down ( and later go back up ), so you can't really compare that to buying a car.
More like buying a commodity that's being traded on the market and whose value is also to a degree based upon the general condition of that market.
Now, in most European States ( I don't specialize in US common law, sorry ) legal statutes that arise out of Roman Law ( most jurisdictions in Europe with the exclusion of the UK ) usually follow the old Roman tradition of lex retro non agit.
That means that as a general rule anyone who entered into a student loan contract when the old law was binding would find the old version applicable in their particular case.
Anyone who entered after the changes went into effect - tough shit.
From what you're saying some ( not all ) of the "we're so mad" crowd might have a bit of a case, although that's based on whether US common law excludes legal statutes from being changed retroactively ( an area I don't specialize in so I won't elaborate here, you do claim that in US laws can be changed with retroactive effect, again I won't argue due to lack of specialization in US common law ).
However, you're talking 1998... then 2005... Your average B.A. takes 3 years, right? M.A. takes 2? J.D. is how many in US? 3? PhD's on the average should take no more than 4 years.
So it does seem like a lot of the people you're claiming got bit on the ass by the retroactive change of laws signed up for the loan willingly when the new laws excluding the possiblity of removing that particular debt via bankruptcy were already in effect.
So yeah, in most cases the "student activists" are asking for a bailout and special treatment. The "occupy Wall Street" kids even had it as one of their "demands", went along the lines of "Remove all student debt, now". No asterisks, no fine print.
I understand bailouts seem to be the way to go in US right now, but the simple fact is you guys as a nation probably can't afford any more of them and it will likely kill your economy stone cold dead if the government chooses to bail out all the student loan crowd. Now it is really not the time for the US government to be tossing free money around like there's no tomorrow.
and part deux:
ReplyDeleteNow, moving right along, bankruptcy protection from student loan debt...
Are you honestly kidding me?
Fact of the matter is that the system most likely won't work then in a capacity you guys are used to.
An idea that someone offers a loan to a student on preferential ( no collateral ) terms, while not exactly falling within the realm of charity, is nonetheless an expression of social approval of pursuing higher education.
And yes, regardless of what some of the JD crowd is saying in US right now, you do receive a service, a title, and most importantly - knowledge out of the transaction. These things cannot be taken back.
Call me cynical, but if student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy I can completely see people taking them, completing their education with them, then calmly filing for bankruptcy, shedding the debt and moving right along to use their education to make money in the real ( non-campus ) world. Perhaps that would involve hopping to another state, or Canada, but that doesn't seem like mission impossible.
So once you add bankruptcy into the mix with student debt you will most likely end up in a situation in which student loans will become less and less available, or available only to people of some wealth ( collateral ). And then the same crowd that's complaining right now will complain about the system being unfair.
In addition, a lot of the "we got scammed" crowd is yelling their degrees are worthless right now ( the JD crowd is even claiming that listing a JD on a CV is detrimental to one's career nowadays... ), but as the market recovers we will observe less and less of this outcry.
And yes, even the "scammed" JD's will, for the most part, quietly delete their little blogs and jump at the opportunity to make some money in legal services if and when the market recovers.
I can also bet you a 100 bucks that our host here - the highly educated and greatly disillusioned lady Furiosa - might re-consider her decision to quit working in higher education if NYU or, hell, even Florida State tosses a tenure-track, real health and dental insurance teaching job her way. She'll slowly phase out blogging then and will start working towards that PhD.
All things considered, the amount of people who can claim that they got hit by the "retroactive law change", which you're saying took place in 1998 and/or 2005 doesn't seem to be that great, taking into account the fact that we're in anno domini 2012.
So it does seem, quite frankly, more likely that we're dealing with a quite a lot of whiners who are asking for a bailout.
wow..it's fantastic blog. i like this post. it's contains really nice information that enhance my knowledge...
DeleteMarketing Degrees
avid_reader_PhD,
ReplyDeleteYour numbers are off. The nominal time frame for a Bachelor's degree in the US is four years. The actual average is closer to 5. To give you an idea, published graduation rates (e.g. US News & World Reports) are based on the percentage of students completing their Bachelor's degree in six years. A master's degree is 1-2 years and a Ph.D is four years minimum. Three years to Ph.D is VERY unusual in the US -- probably fewer than 1% of incoming students manage this. Five years is very common, and in humanities subjects, average time is around 7 years. I have enough experience with the European system to know where you're getting your numbers from. Your numbers are fairly accurate for Europe but not for the US. The US system is different. (European countries also have far fewer problems with student loans.)
Loan defaults don't happen overnight. The problems and financial stresses build over many years after graduation. I do not think you are correct in claiming that 1998 and 2005 are irrelevant in 2012. Many, in fact most, student loan defaults right now involve students who were in school during that time period.
Your rationale against bankruptcy for student loans could also just as easily be applied to bankruptcy for debts incurred in the purchase of any rapidly depreciating asset (such as computers) for which cost recovery is impossible, and yet the legal system unquestionably allows those (not without considerable effort, but the point is, they ARE in principle allowed).
DJ:
DeleteI'll be fairly blunt, if someone is taking 7 years ( Sweet Mary and Joseph, S-E-V-E-N years ) to do their PhD they simply shouldn't start it.
Ok, maybe I can understand if someone's doing it part time, while working. Otherwise if you need 7 years, you're probably not really that interested in the field you're writing your thesis in and should re-arrange priorities.
Most schools in Europe offer PhD stipends for 3 years. I don't think US Euro gents are inherently smarter than you guys and girls over in the colonies.
"Many, in fact most, student loan defaults right now involve students who were in school during that time period."
^^ If I get some reliable stats on the above I'll concede.
But if we're talking bankruptcy - you can't compare education to a computer. The PC you bought in 1997 is probably long in the garbage and is worth 0.0 USD, while the engineering degree you got in 1998 still has value in the marketplace.
Computers or other rapidly depreciating assets usually go one way in terms of value - down.
This doesn't apply to education, hence once you allow student loan debt to be shed in bankruptcy you'll start seeing all the tricks I mentioned.
Unless of course you believe that Nando or some other "law school scammed me" bloke isn't going to accept a job offer in legal services for 70k a year ( which, assuming the market recovers, will not sound that unreasonable ) out of pride or whatever.
I do agree that seven years is too long for a Ph.D. As a corollary, it follows that almost no one currently enrolled in a humanities Ph.D program should be pursuing such a Ph.D, since excessive time to completion is the norm in those fields. (The "100 reasons not to go to grad school" blog says the same thing, in more words: humanities Ph.Ds aren't worth it.)
DeleteBut you can't compare European Ph.Ds to American Ph.Ds and say that one group is smarter than the other based on time to degree completion. The academic systems are very different, and defy such simplistic comparison. To give one example: the USA does not have anything like Habilitation, which is an additional hurdle that many Europeans (and not Americans) must navigate in order to qualify for a faculty appointment. Sure, getting a Ph.D in Europe is faster, but getting a Ph.D + Habilitation is not.
DJ
DeleteI never said Europeans are smarter, quite the contrary in fact, please re-read my post. We might be slightly more sophisticated people on the average, but smarter - nope :-).
In terms of excessive time of completion I remain adamant - if someone needs more than 3 or 4 years to defend a thesis in humanities he's not really interested in the field. He might be looking for an extension of college life or something of such nature.
Habilitation - you can absolutely get a faculty appointment in many places in Europe with a bare, non-habilitated, PhD.
Also, Habilitation is most often achieved 5, 7 or even 10 years after one gets a PhD ( for example in some countries you need to have at least 1 book published in the field before you're considered for Habilitation ) so it cannot be considered as an excuse for someone in US to take more time with their PhD.
Sure, Habilitation is a hurdle, but it is a hurdle we Europeans have to deal with well after our PhD.