If your middle schoolers gets really inspired after participating in the Teen Poetry Contest in my earlier post, then NC State University has a summer camp that might be right up their alley. The Young Writers' Workshop, sponsored by the NC State College of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Department of English, is a two-week, nonresidential summer camp with daily afternoon activities to help students in late elementary and middle school to develop their creative writing abilities.
The students spend two and a half hours on campus each afternoon with lessons on four different tracks: fiction, creative nonfiction, poetry, and drama (each students lists their preferences, and are placed in two different areas). Established professional writers, most of whom also teach at area colleges or high schools, give lectures, assign writing activities, put students into small groups to discuss or create something together, or work with students one-on-one on their writing.
The students-to-teacher is kept low (a maximum of 12 students per instructor) to assure that all writers get individual attention. The teen writers get instruction in such creative writing components as plot, character development, conflict, action, and more. On the final day, students invite friends and families to celebrate the creativity of the group through a public reading of the work they have produced; they also get to take home a journal of work created by themselves and their peers.
The Teen Writers' Workshop costs $250, and is open to rising 4th through 8th graders. They are now accepting applications, which require students to express what they hope to achieve through their participation as well as to submit up to two pages of their current creative writing. The deadline for applying is Monday, June 3.
For more information, check out their website or contact the program director, Laura Giovanelli, at lbgiovan@ncsu.edu.
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Monday, April 1, 2013
Monday, October 17, 2011
Do Too Many Kids Go to College?
That was the question being examined last Wednesday in Chicago, in a formal, Oxford-style debate sponsored by Intelligence Squared US, a recent American import of an English organization that sponsors academic debates among the top thinkers on various public policy issues. Each side debates, an audience votes, and a winner is determined by who has won the most votes. But the larger point, of course, is to raise the level of discussion of these issues and to expose the public to some arguments that they haven't heard before on these contentious subjects.
Appearing on the PRO side of the Do Too Many Kids Go to College? question was Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel, besides being the co-founder of PayPal and early investor in Facebook, has established the Thiel Fellowships to pay up to $100,000 to up to 20 young people or teams NOT to go to college, but to invest in their entrepreneurial ideas instead (for more information, read my earlier post). Thiel argues that college costs have gotten way out of hand, landing students with excessive loan burdens that restrict their future options. In the debate, he pointed out that, adjusting for inflation, college costs have gone up 300% since 1980--more than any other cost, including health care, housing costs, taxes, etc. He also believes many are better served if they get some life experience first, then go to college with those lessons in the real world under their belts.
Also on the PRO side was Charles Murray, co-author of the controversial book, The Bell Curve, about the role of IQ in the class structure of the US. He maintained his controversial tone, such as this quote of his from the debate:
On the CON side was Vivek Wadhwa, who writes for the Washington Post and Bloomberg Business Week while serving as the Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School. He discussed this in an international perspective, and argued that the outflow of jobs to other countries, such as India, with a high percentage of college graduates would only intensify if we don't continue to graduate our students from college.
Joining him for the CON arguments was Henry Bienen, the former President of Northwestern University. He pointed that while unemployment for college graduates may be at an all-time high, it is still only one third of the rate of unemployment for those lacking a college degree.
If you would like to watch the entire debate, or to read a transcript, you can see it on the Intelligence Squared US website.
Appearing on the PRO side of the Do Too Many Kids Go to College? question was Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel, besides being the co-founder of PayPal and early investor in Facebook, has established the Thiel Fellowships to pay up to $100,000 to up to 20 young people or teams NOT to go to college, but to invest in their entrepreneurial ideas instead (for more information, read my earlier post). Thiel argues that college costs have gotten way out of hand, landing students with excessive loan burdens that restrict their future options. In the debate, he pointed out that, adjusting for inflation, college costs have gone up 300% since 1980--more than any other cost, including health care, housing costs, taxes, etc. He also believes many are better served if they get some life experience first, then go to college with those lessons in the real world under their belts.
Also on the PRO side was Charles Murray, co-author of the controversial book, The Bell Curve, about the role of IQ in the class structure of the US. He maintained his controversial tone, such as this quote of his from the debate:
Almost everybody needs more education after high school. What they don't need is this fraudulent, destructive, antediluvian thing called a PA. The thesis of my argument is really that the BA is the work of the devil.OK, then....
On the CON side was Vivek Wadhwa, who writes for the Washington Post and Bloomberg Business Week while serving as the Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School. He discussed this in an international perspective, and argued that the outflow of jobs to other countries, such as India, with a high percentage of college graduates would only intensify if we don't continue to graduate our students from college.
Joining him for the CON arguments was Henry Bienen, the former President of Northwestern University. He pointed that while unemployment for college graduates may be at an all-time high, it is still only one third of the rate of unemployment for those lacking a college degree.
If you would like to watch the entire debate, or to read a transcript, you can see it on the Intelligence Squared US website.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Yet Another Study Shows Public Colleges Provide Better Value for Post-Graduation Salaries
So the final in my trinity of recent studies that suggest that top students don't necessarily have to pay top dollar for good educational opportunities, I turn to the "payback" study done by SmartMoney magazine. Like yesterday's study, this one is based on the salaries earned by the graduates of top colleges, which I personally think is a dubious evaluation of the quality of education. Nonetheless, it is a major consideration of most families looking at college decisions, so it is worth at least noting what these studies are saying.
So the payback scale devised by this study looks at the average salary of graduates divided by the total fees (tuition and other charges by the college itself) over four years of earning a degree. So, for example, if the average student paid $25,000 a year for four years at College X, but earned an average salary at graduation of $150,000 a year, that school would have a payback scale of 150% ($150,000/$100,000 total costs). But if the average student paid $50,000 a year for four years, but earned an average salary of $175,000, that college would have a payback scale of only 87.5% ($175,000/200,000).
Let's acknowledge upfront that the payback scale favors some universities over others. For one thing, the schools that offer programs in business or science and technology are going to look better than those that are typical "liberal arts" colleges, whose graduates may be going into such field as social work, the arts, non-profit research, or--gasp!--education, whose salaries are typically lower. The scores also don't take into account average financial aid--which would benefit the Ivy League schools, whose endowments are rich enough to offer healthy aid packages to many students--or typical years to graduate--which would make many public universities look worse, because more of their students take longer to graduate than the presumed four years. So looking at these figures with somewhat of a grain of salt, what did SmartMoney magazine find?
Based on the payback scale, the highest performing colleges and universities were the top-tier public universities. According to SmartMoney magazine, the luckiest students are those living in Georgia: Georgia Institute of Technology was their #1 "payback" school (with a payback ration of 221), and University of Georgia was #4 (payback of 186). In general, the South and Midwest ruled the top of the payback scale, with the University of California at Berkeley being the only college on either coast breaking into the top 10 (it was #10 with a payback ratio of 146).
Alas for North Carolinians, no college in the state made the top 50 of the SmartCollege listing. Our neighboring states did better; South Carolina has Clemson University, which was #6 with a 160% ratio, and Virginia had both the University of Virginia at #16 (117%) and my alma mater, The College of Williams and Mary, at #18 (111%).
It is not until you get to #19 that you find a private school: the Ivy League university of Princeton, which as a payback scale of 102. The last 30 universities on the list are dominated by private schools, with the Ivy Leagues generally scoring higher than most of the other top-tier private colleges.
You can read the article to find out the specific details about the average salaries of the three types of schools--public, private, or Ivies--and the comparative relative costs. But the bottom line is still the same: going to a very expensive and exclusive university does not guarantee you a higher salaries, particularly when you compare the relative costs of earning your degree.
Now, my point in the three posts is not to bash the Ivy League schools, or private schools in general. But there can be so much pressure about getting into "the right school" or "the best school," and I hope looking at some of this data can help middle schoolers and high schooler feel less anxious about their postsecondary education.
And I do have to admit to a personal bias. When I was in high school, I applied (and got accepted, at least to some) to Ivy League and elite/expensive private schools, but I ended up choosing The College of William and Mary, which was one of my state schools, and thus a fraction of the cost of the others. I ended up getting an excellent education at a bargain price. But since I didn't have thousands of dollars of student loans hanging over my head, I was able to choose jobs that I really enjoyed and that I thought were really valuable--jobs in the non-profit world, and then in education (leading finally to homeschooling, where I get to PAY for the privilege of spending untold hours every day teaching children!). I've never had a high salary job, but I think I've had plenty of high impact jobs. Plus, I've always enjoyed and believed in what I did--which is something that is hard to put a price tag on.
So all I'm saying is--there is a lot to consider when choosing what college to attend. Don't feel that a fancy name alone is the yellow road that will bring you to your dreams.
So the payback scale devised by this study looks at the average salary of graduates divided by the total fees (tuition and other charges by the college itself) over four years of earning a degree. So, for example, if the average student paid $25,000 a year for four years at College X, but earned an average salary at graduation of $150,000 a year, that school would have a payback scale of 150% ($150,000/$100,000 total costs). But if the average student paid $50,000 a year for four years, but earned an average salary of $175,000, that college would have a payback scale of only 87.5% ($175,000/200,000).
Let's acknowledge upfront that the payback scale favors some universities over others. For one thing, the schools that offer programs in business or science and technology are going to look better than those that are typical "liberal arts" colleges, whose graduates may be going into such field as social work, the arts, non-profit research, or--gasp!--education, whose salaries are typically lower. The scores also don't take into account average financial aid--which would benefit the Ivy League schools, whose endowments are rich enough to offer healthy aid packages to many students--or typical years to graduate--which would make many public universities look worse, because more of their students take longer to graduate than the presumed four years. So looking at these figures with somewhat of a grain of salt, what did SmartMoney magazine find?
Based on the payback scale, the highest performing colleges and universities were the top-tier public universities. According to SmartMoney magazine, the luckiest students are those living in Georgia: Georgia Institute of Technology was their #1 "payback" school (with a payback ration of 221), and University of Georgia was #4 (payback of 186). In general, the South and Midwest ruled the top of the payback scale, with the University of California at Berkeley being the only college on either coast breaking into the top 10 (it was #10 with a payback ratio of 146).
Alas for North Carolinians, no college in the state made the top 50 of the SmartCollege listing. Our neighboring states did better; South Carolina has Clemson University, which was #6 with a 160% ratio, and Virginia had both the University of Virginia at #16 (117%) and my alma mater, The College of Williams and Mary, at #18 (111%).
It is not until you get to #19 that you find a private school: the Ivy League university of Princeton, which as a payback scale of 102. The last 30 universities on the list are dominated by private schools, with the Ivy Leagues generally scoring higher than most of the other top-tier private colleges.
You can read the article to find out the specific details about the average salaries of the three types of schools--public, private, or Ivies--and the comparative relative costs. But the bottom line is still the same: going to a very expensive and exclusive university does not guarantee you a higher salaries, particularly when you compare the relative costs of earning your degree.
Now, my point in the three posts is not to bash the Ivy League schools, or private schools in general. But there can be so much pressure about getting into "the right school" or "the best school," and I hope looking at some of this data can help middle schoolers and high schooler feel less anxious about their postsecondary education.
And I do have to admit to a personal bias. When I was in high school, I applied (and got accepted, at least to some) to Ivy League and elite/expensive private schools, but I ended up choosing The College of William and Mary, which was one of my state schools, and thus a fraction of the cost of the others. I ended up getting an excellent education at a bargain price. But since I didn't have thousands of dollars of student loans hanging over my head, I was able to choose jobs that I really enjoyed and that I thought were really valuable--jobs in the non-profit world, and then in education (leading finally to homeschooling, where I get to PAY for the privilege of spending untold hours every day teaching children!). I've never had a high salary job, but I think I've had plenty of high impact jobs. Plus, I've always enjoyed and believed in what I did--which is something that is hard to put a price tag on.
So all I'm saying is--there is a lot to consider when choosing what college to attend. Don't feel that a fancy name alone is the yellow road that will bring you to your dreams.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Study Casts Doubt on the Ability of Highly Competitive Universities to Raise Salaries
On the heels of my post yesterday about a study that showed that high achieving students end up with similar test scores whether they get into the most competitive high schools or not, a study this year by researchers at Princeton University discovered a similar phenomenon in regards to the most exclusive universities. In this 2011 study, they found that most high achieving high school students who applied to the most elite colleges, but ended up going to a less competitive school (whether because they weren't accepted or chose a different school), earned the same average salaries as their peers that graduated from the exclusive colleges (Ivy League-level schools).
This study is particularly interesting because it was a repeat of a study that the same economists published about 10 years ago. That study revealed the same thing--applicants to top tier universities who attended less elite colleges generally obtained comparable salaries to the graduates of the most exclusive schools. In the first study, however, the salaries were self-reported, which left room for some, padding, shall we say. But in this follow-up research, not only were many more people included, with the time span now reaching to careers of people in their 40s and 50s, but the data on salaries was taken from more objective sources, such as Social Security information. Still, the results were the same; there was no boost in income for graduates of top colleges compared to other students with comparable test scores and such who didn't attend those types of schools.
So, the bottom line is: Big name colleges are not required to earn the big bucks. If you have the grades and test scores, along with personal qualities like self-confidence and persistence that are related to applying to these types of schools, of a viable candidate for admission, ON THE AVERAGE, you will earn as much even if you attend a less prestigious college. Depending on how much you have to pay for the big name schools, in fact, you may be better off turning them down (if accepted) and pursuing an education at a less costly alternative.
There are some BIG caveats to this conclusion, however. Graduating from a highly competitive/Ivy League type university DID significantly increase the incomes of minority students (black and Latino), students from low income families, and those whose parents did not attend college. It appears that the elite colleges do provide those types of students with skills, habits, or networks that do advance their professional chances at gaining a larger salary.
But for white middle or upper income students, the debt they might occur to attend the most exclusive schools is not likely to translate to significantly higher salaries.
Of course, we hope that earning a lot of money is not the sole criteria by which we judge our universities. Income upon graduation is an even worse stand-in for educational quality than standardized tests are. However, there can be questions about the educational value of the highly elite schools. In many of them, the focus is really on graduate education, so that a majority of undergraduate classes are taught by graduate students, who may have only a shallow command of either teaching techniques or the subject area (and sometimes, even of the English language itself!).
This is all to say that students don't need to feel that their lives will be ruined if they don't get into their desired Ivy League schools. There are a lot more factors involved in finding the right school than simply the prestige of its name.
This study is particularly interesting because it was a repeat of a study that the same economists published about 10 years ago. That study revealed the same thing--applicants to top tier universities who attended less elite colleges generally obtained comparable salaries to the graduates of the most exclusive schools. In the first study, however, the salaries were self-reported, which left room for some, padding, shall we say. But in this follow-up research, not only were many more people included, with the time span now reaching to careers of people in their 40s and 50s, but the data on salaries was taken from more objective sources, such as Social Security information. Still, the results were the same; there was no boost in income for graduates of top colleges compared to other students with comparable test scores and such who didn't attend those types of schools.
So, the bottom line is: Big name colleges are not required to earn the big bucks. If you have the grades and test scores, along with personal qualities like self-confidence and persistence that are related to applying to these types of schools, of a viable candidate for admission, ON THE AVERAGE, you will earn as much even if you attend a less prestigious college. Depending on how much you have to pay for the big name schools, in fact, you may be better off turning them down (if accepted) and pursuing an education at a less costly alternative.
There are some BIG caveats to this conclusion, however. Graduating from a highly competitive/Ivy League type university DID significantly increase the incomes of minority students (black and Latino), students from low income families, and those whose parents did not attend college. It appears that the elite colleges do provide those types of students with skills, habits, or networks that do advance their professional chances at gaining a larger salary.
But for white middle or upper income students, the debt they might occur to attend the most exclusive schools is not likely to translate to significantly higher salaries.
Of course, we hope that earning a lot of money is not the sole criteria by which we judge our universities. Income upon graduation is an even worse stand-in for educational quality than standardized tests are. However, there can be questions about the educational value of the highly elite schools. In many of them, the focus is really on graduate education, so that a majority of undergraduate classes are taught by graduate students, who may have only a shallow command of either teaching techniques or the subject area (and sometimes, even of the English language itself!).
This is all to say that students don't need to feel that their lives will be ruined if they don't get into their desired Ivy League schools. There are a lot more factors involved in finding the right school than simply the prestige of its name.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Triangle NC the Center for Bargain Colleges
The College Board released statistics this week that claimed that while the average cost per year for a four-year private school undergraduate education is now $36,000 (compared to $21,000 ten years ago), the increase in financial aid actually reduces the average per year cost to $22,000. Kiplingers followed up that data with their annual listing of the best bargains in private education, based on the average amount of needs-based, and in some cases, non needs-based grants available to reduce the actual costs of attending the school.
The top school on the list for 2010-2011 is Princeton University. However, the fifth university of their best-value listing was Duke University, located in the Durham point of Research Triangle, NC. This adds Duke to last year's rating of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as the best value among public universities, as well as North Carolina State University's inclusion as number 10.
So even though the college costs around here sound astronomical, it appears that the true costs can be significantly lower. And we seemed to be blessed with a variety of choices for "bargain" undergraduate education; I didn't any other community that had options under both the public and private lists.
I've included some of the data from the report, including graduation rates and average debt upon graduation, below. I've also included the statistics from my alma mater, The College of William and Mary, which was #4 on the list....just because it is my old school, several of my friends have children applying there, and it provides some useful comparisons to the local schools. But if you want to see the data itself, or want to look for other colleges you are considering, you can access the Kiplinger statistics at: http://www.kiplinger.com/reports/best-college-values/
Duke University
Graduation Rate, 4yrs/5yrs: 83%, 92%
Student/Faculty Ratio: 8
Yearly cost: $53,157
Average debt at graduation: $23,059
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Graduation Rate, 4yrs/6yrs: 75%, 88%
Student/Faculty Ratio: 14
Yearly cost, in-state: $15,294
Yearly cost, out-of-state: $33,184
Average debt at graduation: $14,936
North Carolina State University
Graduation Rate, 4yrs/6yrs: 37%, 70%
Student/Faculty Ratio: 16
Yearly cost, in-state: $14,390
Yearly cost, out-of-state: $26,875
Average debt at graduation: $14,996
The College of William and Mary
Graduation Rate, 4yrs/6yrs: 84%, 92%
Student/Faculty Ratio: 11
Yearly cost, in-state: $20,566
Yearly cost, out-of-state: $40,358
Average debt at graduation: $12,859
The top school on the list for 2010-2011 is Princeton University. However, the fifth university of their best-value listing was Duke University, located in the Durham point of Research Triangle, NC. This adds Duke to last year's rating of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as the best value among public universities, as well as North Carolina State University's inclusion as number 10.
So even though the college costs around here sound astronomical, it appears that the true costs can be significantly lower. And we seemed to be blessed with a variety of choices for "bargain" undergraduate education; I didn't any other community that had options under both the public and private lists.
I've included some of the data from the report, including graduation rates and average debt upon graduation, below. I've also included the statistics from my alma mater, The College of William and Mary, which was #4 on the list....just because it is my old school, several of my friends have children applying there, and it provides some useful comparisons to the local schools. But if you want to see the data itself, or want to look for other colleges you are considering, you can access the Kiplinger statistics at: http://www.kiplinger.com/reports/best-college-values/
Duke University
Graduation Rate, 4yrs/5yrs: 83%, 92%
Student/Faculty Ratio: 8
Yearly cost: $53,157
Average debt at graduation: $23,059
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Graduation Rate, 4yrs/6yrs: 75%, 88%
Student/Faculty Ratio: 14
Yearly cost, in-state: $15,294
Yearly cost, out-of-state: $33,184
Average debt at graduation: $14,936
North Carolina State University
Graduation Rate, 4yrs/6yrs: 37%, 70%
Student/Faculty Ratio: 16
Yearly cost, in-state: $14,390
Yearly cost, out-of-state: $26,875
Average debt at graduation: $14,996
The College of William and Mary
Graduation Rate, 4yrs/6yrs: 84%, 92%
Student/Faculty Ratio: 11
Yearly cost, in-state: $20,566
Yearly cost, out-of-state: $40,358
Average debt at graduation: $12,859
Monday, October 25, 2010
How Much of Your College Tuition and Fees Are Going Towards Athletics?
Earlier this month, USA Today did a fascinating study of the amount of student money that goes to support intercollegiate athletics. It seems that many colleges are supporting this programs as part of the mandatory fees that students are charged in addition to tuition. In some cases, however, the athletic fee could amount to over 20% of the tuition. And in many cases, the athletic fee is hidden under some generic title, such as "Student Activity Fee," so that students and parents have no idea that the money is going to the sports program.
According to the USA Today study, the amount that colleges have been charging for sports has been increasing dramatically; fees had jumped by 18% between 2005 and 2009 alone (adjusting for inflation). So this is a definite factor in the rapidly-escalating cost of attending college.
The relatively good news for North Carolina students is that this state isn't too bad when compared to many others, according to the USA Today data. Any guesses as to which branch of the University of North Carolina charged students the most for their athletic program? Actually, among the UNC branches listed, the highest rate was required at UNC-Asheville: $620, or 13% of the tuition total. Next came UNC-Wilmington, with a $541.25 fee (10% of tuition), closely followed by UNC-Greensboro, which bills its students $489 (9.8% of tuition). Our local universities were much lower. UNC-Chapel Hill charges only $271, or 4.1% of tuition, but the best bargain could be found at NC State, whose $159 fee represents only 2.4% of tuition (Duke University was not included in the listings).
One focus of the article is how students are not aware that so much of their money is going towards athletics because the fee is not specified. So I did a quick look at the websites of the UNC colleges listed to see if that was the case. While not an exhausted search, I could not find any student athletics fee listed by UNC-Chapel Hill or UNC-Asheville (nor at Duke). However, NC State, UNC-Greensboro, and UNC-Wilmington all had a complete breakdown of all mandatory student fees that had a clear designation of the athletics fee.
Personally, since our family has never been great sports fans, I think that fees over approximately 5% of tuition are out of line with what I think college priorities should be. However, I realize others may place a higher value on intercollegiate athletics. Nonetheless, I believe colleges should upfront information about such fees so that students and families can know where their college dollars are going. So I commend NC State, UNC-Greensboro, and UNC-Wilmington for their honesty on this subject, and I hope the other state schools will follow their lead.
If you want to see the list of the fees and percentages charged by other colleges in the nation, see the USA Today data at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-09-21-athletic-fees-chart_N.htm .
According to the USA Today study, the amount that colleges have been charging for sports has been increasing dramatically; fees had jumped by 18% between 2005 and 2009 alone (adjusting for inflation). So this is a definite factor in the rapidly-escalating cost of attending college.
The relatively good news for North Carolina students is that this state isn't too bad when compared to many others, according to the USA Today data. Any guesses as to which branch of the University of North Carolina charged students the most for their athletic program? Actually, among the UNC branches listed, the highest rate was required at UNC-Asheville: $620, or 13% of the tuition total. Next came UNC-Wilmington, with a $541.25 fee (10% of tuition), closely followed by UNC-Greensboro, which bills its students $489 (9.8% of tuition). Our local universities were much lower. UNC-Chapel Hill charges only $271, or 4.1% of tuition, but the best bargain could be found at NC State, whose $159 fee represents only 2.4% of tuition (Duke University was not included in the listings).
One focus of the article is how students are not aware that so much of their money is going towards athletics because the fee is not specified. So I did a quick look at the websites of the UNC colleges listed to see if that was the case. While not an exhausted search, I could not find any student athletics fee listed by UNC-Chapel Hill or UNC-Asheville (nor at Duke). However, NC State, UNC-Greensboro, and UNC-Wilmington all had a complete breakdown of all mandatory student fees that had a clear designation of the athletics fee.
Personally, since our family has never been great sports fans, I think that fees over approximately 5% of tuition are out of line with what I think college priorities should be. However, I realize others may place a higher value on intercollegiate athletics. Nonetheless, I believe colleges should upfront information about such fees so that students and families can know where their college dollars are going. So I commend NC State, UNC-Greensboro, and UNC-Wilmington for their honesty on this subject, and I hope the other state schools will follow their lead.
If you want to see the list of the fees and percentages charged by other colleges in the nation, see the USA Today data at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-09-21-athletic-fees-chart_N.htm .
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Facebook Investor Establishes Grants for Entrepreneurs to Establish Businesses Instead of Going to College
(Preface: Wow! It is Facebook Again! My husband has been out of town all week, but now that he is back, I've DEFINITELY going to see "The Social Network.")
Last month, I wrote a post on "Is Going to College an Economic Mistake?" that discussed the rising costs of a college education and the diminishing returns of achieving an undergraduate degree, especially if one has to go into great debt to finish the program. In that post, at least one financial adviser said that children would be better served if parents gave them $10,000 to start a business instead of paying college tuition, which would give them much more practical knowledge and experience and would, if they went to college, make their time there much more focused and valuable. The number one question I got from friends who had read that post was, "Well, great, but where am I going to get $10,000?"
Here is one possibility.
Peter Thiel, who is currently a hedge fund manager and venture capitalist, but is most famous for being a co-founder of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook (he is portrayed in the movie "The Social Network" by CSI's Wallace Langham), has established a new grant program for entrepreneurs. Called the Thiel Fellowships, Thiel is offering up to $100,000 to 20 individuals or teams (up to four people) under 20 years of age who want to pursue their technology-based entrepreneurship dream rather than go to college.
Most of the opinion pieces I have read about this program excoriate this grant program for distracting young people from college and promoting Thiel's capitalistic vision. But to be fair, that might be due to my own biases in websites and reading materials, given that Mr. Thiel is an acknowledge ultra-libertarian and I am....not. And I have to say that I don't necessarily agree that this is a terrible program.
For one thing, the Thiel Fellowships are targeted towards only 20 projects, or a maximum (if every project has the maximum number of participants) of 80. Given that there were a record 2.6 million students in U.S. higher education in 2008, that is only a drop in a drop in a drop of the bucket of college students. I don't think the Thiel Fellowships are going to dissuade any significant number of students from attending college.
But I do think that the Thiel Fellowships is an acknowledgment of something that we as parents as well as citizens as well as policy makers don't like to admit--that college isn't for everyone. So do I want my son to go to college? DEFINITELY. But if we get there and that's just not the right path for where he is in his life journey, then I think I need to let go of that. Because in the end, it is his life, not mine. And if he happens to be one of those advanced thinkers who has an idea that could transform life as we know it---like Apple Computers did, or Microsoft did, or Dell Computers did, or Google did--then this program, with not only money available, but also access to mentors of the caliber or Thiel and his associates, might be exactly what is needed. To me it looks like kind of a MacArthur genius grant for young entrepreneurs.
I am particularly persuaded by what Thiels says is the motivation behind the grant. In the video in which he announces the program (around point 15:20 on the linked video), Thiels says he established the grants because he is afraid that the increased debt that college students are taking on in order to complete college are reducing their ability and/or willingness to take the kind of risk it takes to create break-through technology that is needed to solve societal problems like alternative energy or the next level of computer applications. Again, I think he is probably right in that assessment.
So I'm not concerned about 20-80 students a year receiving money to receive an education in hard knocks instead of in the Ivy Tower (as much as I loved that time myself). Actually, my real hesitation is that this may not not really a grant program at all, but a way for Thiel to cull the brightest thinkers and to get to invest in whatever is the NEXT Facebook or PayPal or whatever.
Of course, I'm not saying this is necessarily a program for middle schoolers. But if your child wins the programming contest I included in a previous post, Thiel (or someone like him) may be offering her/him an alternative path once she/he gets through high school.
Last month, I wrote a post on "Is Going to College an Economic Mistake?" that discussed the rising costs of a college education and the diminishing returns of achieving an undergraduate degree, especially if one has to go into great debt to finish the program. In that post, at least one financial adviser said that children would be better served if parents gave them $10,000 to start a business instead of paying college tuition, which would give them much more practical knowledge and experience and would, if they went to college, make their time there much more focused and valuable. The number one question I got from friends who had read that post was, "Well, great, but where am I going to get $10,000?"
Here is one possibility.
Peter Thiel, who is currently a hedge fund manager and venture capitalist, but is most famous for being a co-founder of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook (he is portrayed in the movie "The Social Network" by CSI's Wallace Langham), has established a new grant program for entrepreneurs. Called the Thiel Fellowships, Thiel is offering up to $100,000 to 20 individuals or teams (up to four people) under 20 years of age who want to pursue their technology-based entrepreneurship dream rather than go to college.
Most of the opinion pieces I have read about this program excoriate this grant program for distracting young people from college and promoting Thiel's capitalistic vision. But to be fair, that might be due to my own biases in websites and reading materials, given that Mr. Thiel is an acknowledge ultra-libertarian and I am....not. And I have to say that I don't necessarily agree that this is a terrible program.
For one thing, the Thiel Fellowships are targeted towards only 20 projects, or a maximum (if every project has the maximum number of participants) of 80. Given that there were a record 2.6 million students in U.S. higher education in 2008, that is only a drop in a drop in a drop of the bucket of college students. I don't think the Thiel Fellowships are going to dissuade any significant number of students from attending college.
But I do think that the Thiel Fellowships is an acknowledgment of something that we as parents as well as citizens as well as policy makers don't like to admit--that college isn't for everyone. So do I want my son to go to college? DEFINITELY. But if we get there and that's just not the right path for where he is in his life journey, then I think I need to let go of that. Because in the end, it is his life, not mine. And if he happens to be one of those advanced thinkers who has an idea that could transform life as we know it---like Apple Computers did, or Microsoft did, or Dell Computers did, or Google did--then this program, with not only money available, but also access to mentors of the caliber or Thiel and his associates, might be exactly what is needed. To me it looks like kind of a MacArthur genius grant for young entrepreneurs.
I am particularly persuaded by what Thiels says is the motivation behind the grant. In the video in which he announces the program (around point 15:20 on the linked video), Thiels says he established the grants because he is afraid that the increased debt that college students are taking on in order to complete college are reducing their ability and/or willingness to take the kind of risk it takes to create break-through technology that is needed to solve societal problems like alternative energy or the next level of computer applications. Again, I think he is probably right in that assessment.
So I'm not concerned about 20-80 students a year receiving money to receive an education in hard knocks instead of in the Ivy Tower (as much as I loved that time myself). Actually, my real hesitation is that this may not not really a grant program at all, but a way for Thiel to cull the brightest thinkers and to get to invest in whatever is the NEXT Facebook or PayPal or whatever.
Of course, I'm not saying this is necessarily a program for middle schoolers. But if your child wins the programming contest I included in a previous post, Thiel (or someone like him) may be offering her/him an alternative path once she/he gets through high school.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Is the movie "The Social Network" GOOD for Reducing College Application Anxiety?
OK, so now I've REALLY got to see this movie!
I'm speaking of "The Social Network," the movie about which I wrote in a previous post as potentially misrepresenting both the study of innovation and of history (even though, admittedly, I haven't seen it.). Then today, my favorite newspaper writer on the education beat, Jay Mathews of The Washington Post, had a fabulous article about how well the movie represents undergraduate life in Ivy League schools (Mathews attended Harvard, as did Facebook founder Mark Zuckerman, although I think Mathews graduated, unlike Zuckerman).
Mathew advises college-anxious parents to pay attention to what the students are talking about in the film. According to Mathews, they talk about, ummmm, let's call it "dating," clubs, parties, technology, making contacts, making money, and so on. What they do not talk about is their classes, their teachers, their homework, their "Dead Poet Society"-like inspiration that evokes new levels of passion for their chosen fields.
And that, according to Mathews, is the reality of undergraduate education at Ivy League-level colleges like Harvard (at least, in his personal and professional experience). It is not a community of inspired learners who devote themselves to the pursuit of knowledge and forging new understanding of their chosen fields. It is a community of people who excelled in high school (otherwise they wouldn't be there), but who otherwise act like undergraduates at almost all schools--caught up in new experiences, testing out living on their own, devoted to their favorite clubs, activities, or relationships....much or most of which may have little or nothing to do with their classes.
For years, Mathews has been trying to convince people that acceptance to an Ivy League or similarly competitive schools is not like obtaining a Willy Wonka Golden Ticket, of which only FIVE exist and only that will allow you in the running to run the Chocolate Factory. The author of Harvard Schmarvard: Getting Beyong the Ivy League to the College That Is Best for You, Mathews argues that dedicated students can find at least as good educational opportunities, and in some cases, even better ones at the lesser-known, less competitive, but more undergraduate-focused universities than at iconic institutions like Harvard. He recommends that high school students (and their families) also read a new book, Debt-Free U: How I Paid for an Outstanding College Education Without Loans, Scholarships, or Mooching off My Parents by Zac Bissonette. This book, Mathew claims, demonstrates how someone who is truly passionate about their academics can create a superior intellectual program at a state university to what the typical student experiences at schools that will cost a quarter of a million dollars to complete (see my earlier post for more details on that subject).
Who knew that move would foment so much discussion on educational issues? I really do feel like I have to see it now, when before the major attraction in the movie for me was seeing Justin Timberlake, whom I like, not in a cougar way, but as someone who seems like a nice guy with considerable talents (I particularly liked his duet with Al Green on "Let's Stay Together" when the 2009 Grammy show had to find a last-minute replacement for the just-incarcerated Chris Brown).
I'll let you know what I think once I've seen it myself.
I'm speaking of "The Social Network," the movie about which I wrote in a previous post as potentially misrepresenting both the study of innovation and of history (even though, admittedly, I haven't seen it.). Then today, my favorite newspaper writer on the education beat, Jay Mathews of The Washington Post, had a fabulous article about how well the movie represents undergraduate life in Ivy League schools (Mathews attended Harvard, as did Facebook founder Mark Zuckerman, although I think Mathews graduated, unlike Zuckerman).
Mathew advises college-anxious parents to pay attention to what the students are talking about in the film. According to Mathews, they talk about, ummmm, let's call it "dating," clubs, parties, technology, making contacts, making money, and so on. What they do not talk about is their classes, their teachers, their homework, their "Dead Poet Society"-like inspiration that evokes new levels of passion for their chosen fields.
And that, according to Mathews, is the reality of undergraduate education at Ivy League-level colleges like Harvard (at least, in his personal and professional experience). It is not a community of inspired learners who devote themselves to the pursuit of knowledge and forging new understanding of their chosen fields. It is a community of people who excelled in high school (otherwise they wouldn't be there), but who otherwise act like undergraduates at almost all schools--caught up in new experiences, testing out living on their own, devoted to their favorite clubs, activities, or relationships....much or most of which may have little or nothing to do with their classes.
For years, Mathews has been trying to convince people that acceptance to an Ivy League or similarly competitive schools is not like obtaining a Willy Wonka Golden Ticket, of which only FIVE exist and only that will allow you in the running to run the Chocolate Factory. The author of Harvard Schmarvard: Getting Beyong the Ivy League to the College That Is Best for You, Mathews argues that dedicated students can find at least as good educational opportunities, and in some cases, even better ones at the lesser-known, less competitive, but more undergraduate-focused universities than at iconic institutions like Harvard. He recommends that high school students (and their families) also read a new book, Debt-Free U: How I Paid for an Outstanding College Education Without Loans, Scholarships, or Mooching off My Parents by Zac Bissonette. This book, Mathew claims, demonstrates how someone who is truly passionate about their academics can create a superior intellectual program at a state university to what the typical student experiences at schools that will cost a quarter of a million dollars to complete (see my earlier post for more details on that subject).
Who knew that move would foment so much discussion on educational issues? I really do feel like I have to see it now, when before the major attraction in the movie for me was seeing Justin Timberlake, whom I like, not in a cougar way, but as someone who seems like a nice guy with considerable talents (I particularly liked his duet with Al Green on "Let's Stay Together" when the 2009 Grammy show had to find a last-minute replacement for the just-incarcerated Chris Brown).
I'll let you know what I think once I've seen it myself.
Monday, September 20, 2010
College Tuition Costs: An International Comparison
Today was a mixed day for us. The good news was that today was the first class of our Zoo Club, a program run for homeschooling groups by the NC Zoo where they come and give two classes in our community, then we go to the Zoo for two more classes. They have a variety of topics, but this year we chose to do all four programs on the theme "Biodiversity" in honor of 2010 being pronounced the International Year of Biodiversity by the United Nations. We have three different classes broken down by age (the students range from 5 years old to 17) with almost 50 students total. The Zoo educators are great, and the classes are always fun and packed with good information.
The bad news was that this is the last class that will be taught by our treasured Miss Melinda, who has been teaching our children Zoo classes for five years now. Miss Melinda is from Australia, and now that her son has graduated from high school, they felt they had to return to Australia in order for him to be able to afford to go to college.
One issue is that since he is not an American citizen, so he is not eligible for most scholarships and student loans--which I can understand. What I can't understand is the differential in the costs of universities in Australia and here. Melinda's son was accepted into a highly-competitive computer science program at a university outside of Sydney--the only CS program in Australia with a concentration in game development. And Melinda was thrilled to find out (besides the fact that he was accepted into the major he wanted) that the tuition for his degree program would cost the equivalent of $7,000 US. That's NOT per year--that's for ALL FOUR YEARS of the program.
In contrast, a year's undergraduate tuition for in-state students at nearby University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill costs nearly $7,000--$6,665 to be precise. Of course, without the state subsidies, an out-of-state student pays $25,280 a year...just for tuition. But, then, everything is relative; even that looks like a bargain compared to also-nearby Duke University, whose annual tuition is $39, 080 (what, they couldn't make it a nice round $39,000?).
There are definitely differences between American universities and those from other nations, but still... should it really cost four times as much to go to a competitive state school as a competitive Australian one? Our family actually has personal experience with this. Just last week, my brother flew over and installed my niece at St. Andrews University in Scotland, where the year's tuition, as an international student, will cost $19,584 (but UK students pay only $2,929 to attend one of Scotland's premier universities). Compared to her other top college choice, the University of Chicago, whose annual tuition for undergraduates is $40,188, my brother thinks he's gotten a real bargain, even figuring in the costs of international travel and communications.
Oh well. Maybe this will give our children more incentive to study foreign languages....
The bad news was that this is the last class that will be taught by our treasured Miss Melinda, who has been teaching our children Zoo classes for five years now. Miss Melinda is from Australia, and now that her son has graduated from high school, they felt they had to return to Australia in order for him to be able to afford to go to college.
One issue is that since he is not an American citizen, so he is not eligible for most scholarships and student loans--which I can understand. What I can't understand is the differential in the costs of universities in Australia and here. Melinda's son was accepted into a highly-competitive computer science program at a university outside of Sydney--the only CS program in Australia with a concentration in game development. And Melinda was thrilled to find out (besides the fact that he was accepted into the major he wanted) that the tuition for his degree program would cost the equivalent of $7,000 US. That's NOT per year--that's for ALL FOUR YEARS of the program.
In contrast, a year's undergraduate tuition for in-state students at nearby University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill costs nearly $7,000--$6,665 to be precise. Of course, without the state subsidies, an out-of-state student pays $25,280 a year...just for tuition. But, then, everything is relative; even that looks like a bargain compared to also-nearby Duke University, whose annual tuition is $39, 080 (what, they couldn't make it a nice round $39,000?).
There are definitely differences between American universities and those from other nations, but still... should it really cost four times as much to go to a competitive state school as a competitive Australian one? Our family actually has personal experience with this. Just last week, my brother flew over and installed my niece at St. Andrews University in Scotland, where the year's tuition, as an international student, will cost $19,584 (but UK students pay only $2,929 to attend one of Scotland's premier universities). Compared to her other top college choice, the University of Chicago, whose annual tuition for undergraduates is $40,188, my brother thinks he's gotten a real bargain, even figuring in the costs of international travel and communications.
Oh well. Maybe this will give our children more incentive to study foreign languages....
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Why College Tuition Costs Are Rising
An article in the Los Angeles Times (home of the infamous "we can judge teacher performance" article) this weekend addressed the issue of rising college tuition costs. Entitled "Colleges: Where the Money Goes," an opinion piece written by the authors of a new book about higher education reform argues that while college tuitions have increased between 1980 and 2010 from about 3 or 4 times the 1980 rate to 11 or 12 times as much, most of the extra money is not going toward a better undergraduate experience. Four major areas of rising college expenses, according to long-term educators and writers Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus, are:
*Sports and Athletic Teams--Collegiate sports teams have proliferated as well as gotten more expensive. While the number of colleges with football teams has grown to 629 schools, all but 14 of them lose money on the sport. And other sports get little or no alumni contributions, so they lose even more money. Even the lesser-known sports expend large sums of money. For example, each varsity golfer at Duke University (they have a men's team of 8 players and a women's team of 6) costs the school $20,405 per year (you can do the math for the entire squad). Even worse is crew; at Yale, it costs $112,200 to keep a single rower participating for four years. In the end, it is student tuition that is underwriting the costs for these expensive athletes, many of whom attend on athletic scholarships and so contribute little or nothing to the collegiate coffers.
*Out-of-line salaries to attract "star" faculty and college presidents--the authors cite the case of the President of Vanderbilt, whose $1.2 million annual stipend is the equivalent of a year's tuition from 31 Vanderbilt students.
*More College Administration that is not directly related to teaching
*Luxurious food and accommodations
As someone who worked in a national educational association, I question some of their claims about unnecessary college expenses. For example, I know much of the increase of "non-academic" administrative positions is due to legislation passed by Congress requiring colleges to perform, assess, safeguard, or prevent many areas that were previously considered to be outside the purview of college responsibility. However, many of their complaints make sense to me, particularly in the area of college sports. I have long been of the opinion that professional sports should run their own talent development programs instead of having colleges do it. However, I am definitely biased in that area, as I have neither interest nor aptitude in any sport.
None the less, it is generally considered that higher education costs compete with health care costs as the fasting-rising expenses in our economy. And, like health care, if we can't find a way to put some brakes on the ever-increasing costs, I fear that a college education will become increasingly unaffordable for the average family.
*Sports and Athletic Teams--Collegiate sports teams have proliferated as well as gotten more expensive. While the number of colleges with football teams has grown to 629 schools, all but 14 of them lose money on the sport. And other sports get little or no alumni contributions, so they lose even more money. Even the lesser-known sports expend large sums of money. For example, each varsity golfer at Duke University (they have a men's team of 8 players and a women's team of 6) costs the school $20,405 per year (you can do the math for the entire squad). Even worse is crew; at Yale, it costs $112,200 to keep a single rower participating for four years. In the end, it is student tuition that is underwriting the costs for these expensive athletes, many of whom attend on athletic scholarships and so contribute little or nothing to the collegiate coffers.
*Out-of-line salaries to attract "star" faculty and college presidents--the authors cite the case of the President of Vanderbilt, whose $1.2 million annual stipend is the equivalent of a year's tuition from 31 Vanderbilt students.
*More College Administration that is not directly related to teaching
*Luxurious food and accommodations
As someone who worked in a national educational association, I question some of their claims about unnecessary college expenses. For example, I know much of the increase of "non-academic" administrative positions is due to legislation passed by Congress requiring colleges to perform, assess, safeguard, or prevent many areas that were previously considered to be outside the purview of college responsibility. However, many of their complaints make sense to me, particularly in the area of college sports. I have long been of the opinion that professional sports should run their own talent development programs instead of having colleges do it. However, I am definitely biased in that area, as I have neither interest nor aptitude in any sport.
None the less, it is generally considered that higher education costs compete with health care costs as the fasting-rising expenses in our economy. And, like health care, if we can't find a way to put some brakes on the ever-increasing costs, I fear that a college education will become increasingly unaffordable for the average family.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Is Going to College an Economic Mistake?
Another provocative article in the Washington Post last week argues that sending children to college is not a good economic investment. "Some say bypassing a higher education is smarter than paying for a degree" by Sarah Kaufman suggests that soaring tuition prices are reducing the economic benefits of a college degree. According to the statistics in the article, the differential in annual salaries between high school graduates and those with a bachelor's degree has narrowed, as has the difference in unemployment rates, particularly now that college graduate unemployment is at an all-time high. Also, as the article points out, the average college degree earnings hide huge discrepancies between disciplines; the high wages of business majors or accountants look good compared to high school graduates, but those graduating with degrees in anthropology, social work, or preschool education may not be any higher than the compensation for high school graduates.
Compounding the problem, according to these financial advisers, is the burden of debt many young graduates have from their student loans. Paying off that debt causes many to postpone major steps in their lives: buying a house, having a family, opening their own business. Many can't pay and end up defaulting; this not only ruins their credit (and thus, perhaps, their chance to rent an apartment or arrange a car loan), but may prevent them from getting some jobs (or have the government garnish their wages if they do get the job).
What do these experts say parents should do instead? Invest that money in their children's future. The $200,000 (minimum) it costs for four years at a highly-competitive private college would, if invested in T bill with 5% interest over 50 years, grow to nearly $3 million by the children's retirement age. For those with not-such-deep pockets, at least one adviser says to give your children $10,000 to open their own business. This, he argues, will teach them more life lessons than any college course, and will make them more motivated in whatever college education they do pursue.
Of course, as the article itself admits, there are non-monetary benefits to attending colleges. It is for the intrinsic value of the college experience that I would want my son to go, not for the guarantee of a job with a big paycheck. But it is an interesting perspective to keep in mind. Even in middle school, it is easy to start getting caught up in college-mania, worrying about doing the right test-prep to get high enough scores and taking enough AP classes to ensure our children get into that "perfect" school, whatever it is--Harvard? MIT? Stanford? St. John's? University of Chicago? Whatever. If the voice in your head ever says, "But I'll ruin my children's lives if I don't prepare them well enough to get into (substitute educational Nirvana here)," this article provides some good food for thought.
And regardless of what I think about the article, I just have to ask: Is there really any bachelor's degree program that is worth a quarter of a million dollars?
Compounding the problem, according to these financial advisers, is the burden of debt many young graduates have from their student loans. Paying off that debt causes many to postpone major steps in their lives: buying a house, having a family, opening their own business. Many can't pay and end up defaulting; this not only ruins their credit (and thus, perhaps, their chance to rent an apartment or arrange a car loan), but may prevent them from getting some jobs (or have the government garnish their wages if they do get the job).
What do these experts say parents should do instead? Invest that money in their children's future. The $200,000 (minimum) it costs for four years at a highly-competitive private college would, if invested in T bill with 5% interest over 50 years, grow to nearly $3 million by the children's retirement age. For those with not-such-deep pockets, at least one adviser says to give your children $10,000 to open their own business. This, he argues, will teach them more life lessons than any college course, and will make them more motivated in whatever college education they do pursue.
Of course, as the article itself admits, there are non-monetary benefits to attending colleges. It is for the intrinsic value of the college experience that I would want my son to go, not for the guarantee of a job with a big paycheck. But it is an interesting perspective to keep in mind. Even in middle school, it is easy to start getting caught up in college-mania, worrying about doing the right test-prep to get high enough scores and taking enough AP classes to ensure our children get into that "perfect" school, whatever it is--Harvard? MIT? Stanford? St. John's? University of Chicago? Whatever. If the voice in your head ever says, "But I'll ruin my children's lives if I don't prepare them well enough to get into (substitute educational Nirvana here)," this article provides some good food for thought.
And regardless of what I think about the article, I just have to ask: Is there really any bachelor's degree program that is worth a quarter of a million dollars?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)