|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:34 pm Post subject: ... |
 |
|
The solution to this is undergraduate accreditation.
And for professional schools, it doesn't matter. Even a Harvard Law degree is limited to passing a state BAR exam.
Meanwhile, "real" degrees increase in price far exceeding the standard of living.
Having done an on-site MA, a distance MA, and a DELTA, I find the value of being on-site for a research degree extremely overvalued.
And, ultimately, don't do any education that isn't accredited.
I believe Phoenix, for one, is.
Hasn't some place like Eastern Kentucky University been the same shite anyway? (I chose that because I believe it's Taksin Shinawatra's alma mater).
Again...for-profit universities? Which isn't? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lastrova
Joined: 30 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| toadkillerdog wrote: |
| Students can avoid the whole student loan trap by doing what I did. Work your way through school. I worked full time and went to school full time for 5 1/2 years (BA and MA). With effective time management it is not so difficult. |
That would require a great deal of maturity, personal initiative, and the ability to delay gratification. Many students who stay in school to pursue ever more education are trying to escape the responsibilities and cares of real life. One problem I have with student loans is this assumption that an 18 to 22 year old is actually old enough, mature enough, capable enough to manage their own money. This is based on what evidence? The majority of students have had almost zero instruction in personal finance and economics. Oh, but they're old enough, so they deserve it. No, it doesn't work that way. Giving a kid who's just learned to walk an expensive pair of sprinting shoes makes equal sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
In keeping with a theme brought up several times on this board, law school: what a scam?
| Quote: |
Mr. Wallerstein, who can�t afford to pay down interest and thus watches the outstanding loan balance grow, is in roughly the same financial hell as people who bought more home than they could afford during the real estate boom. But creditors can�t foreclose on him because he didn�t spend the money on a house.
He spent it on a law degree. And from every angle, this now looks like a catastrophic investment.
Well, every angle except one: the view from law schools. To judge from data that law schools collect, and which is published in the closely parsed U.S. News and World Report annual rankings, the prospects of young doctors of jurisprudence are downright rosy.
In reality, and based on every other source of information, Mr. Wallerstein and a generation of J.D.�s face the grimmest job market in decades. Since 2008, some 15,000 attorney and legal-staff jobs at large firms have vanished, according to a Northwestern Law study. Associates have been laid off, partners nudged out the door and recruitment programs have been scaled back or eliminated.
And with corporations scrutinizing their legal expenses as never before, more entry-level legal work is now outsourced to contract temporary employees, both in the United States and in countries like India. It�s common to hear lawyers fret about the sort of tectonic shift that crushed the domestic steel industry decades ago.
But improbably enough, law schools have concluded that life for newly minted grads is getting sweeter, at least by one crucial measure. In 1997, when U.S. News first published a statistic called �graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation,� law schools reported an average employment rate of 84 percent. In the most recent U.S. News rankings, 93 percent of grads were working � nearly a 10-point jump.
In the Wonderland of these statistics, a remarkable number of law school grads are not just busy � they are raking it in. Many schools, even those that have failed to break into the U.S. News top 40, state that the median starting salary of graduates in the private sector is $160,000. That seems highly unlikely, given that Harvard and Yale, at the top of the pile, list the exact same figure.
How do law schools depict a feast amid so much famine?
�Enron-type accounting standards have become the norm,� says William Henderson of Indiana University, one of many exasperated law professors who are asking the American Bar Association to overhaul the way law schools assess themselves. �Every time I look at this data, I feel dirty.�
IT is an open secret, Professor Henderson and others say, that schools finesse survey information in dozens of ways. And the survey�s guidelines, which are established not by U.S. News but by the American Bar Association, in conjunction with an organization called the National Association for Law Placement, all but invite trimming.
A law grad, for instance, counts as �employed after nine months� even if he or she has a job that doesn�t require a law degree. Waiting tables at Applebee�s? You�re employed. Stocking aisles at Home Depot? You�re working, too.
Number-fudging games are endemic, professors and deans say, because the fortunes of law schools rise and fall on rankings, with reputations and huge sums of money hanging in the balance. You may think of law schools as training grounds for new lawyers, but that is just part of it.
They are also cash cows.
... |
Article goes on for 7 pages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
That article is as hilarious as it is terrifying. This Wallerstein fellow provides me with a lot of amusement:
| Quote: |
| WHEN Mr. Wallerstein started at Thomas Jefferson, he was in no mood for austerity. He borrowed so much that before the start of his first semester he nearly put a down payment on a $350,000 two-bedroom, two-bath condo, figuring that the investment would earn a profit by the time he graduated. He was ready to ink the deal until a rep at the mortgage giant Countrywide asked if his employer at the time � a trade magazine publisher in New Jersey � would write a letter falsely stating that he was moving to San Diego for work. |
| Quote: |
| Instead, Mr. Wallerstein rented a spacious apartment. He also spent a month studying in the South of France and a month in Prague � all on borrowed money. There were cost-of-living loans, and tuition of about $33,000 a year. Later came a $15,000 loan to cover months of studying for the bar. |
| Quote: |
Today, his best guess is that he should be sending $2,000 to $3,000 a month in total, to lenders that include Wells Fargo, Citibank and Sallie Mae.
�There are a bunch of others,� he says. �I�m not really good at keeping records.� |
| Quote: |
MR. WALLERSTEIN, for his part, is not complaining. Once you throw in the intangibles of having a J.D., he says, he is one of law schools� satisfied customers.
�It�s a prestige thing,� he says. �I�m an attorney. All of my friends see me as a person they look up to. They understand I�m in a lot of debt, but I�ve done something they feel they could never do and the respect and admiration is important.� |
[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Re: The NYT article on Law School.
I just think it's sad that there are many people who do desire to study law, but their desire and pursuit is being cheapened by the large amounts of law schools and the number of students who shouldn't even be in law school in the first place. There was a time when law school was very restrictive, and therefore only the best and brightest could go on to eventually practice law. Compare that to what law school is today which seems to be nothing more than a $150,000 crapshoot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Also if the individual can show that he has been disadvantaged in getting a job. It should be discharged completely. The fickle cold blooded manner of hiring and the way individuals are not hired through personal like and personal dislike is a disgrace to America and humanity. |
The UK has a generally good hiring system.
If you can prove that someone less qualified got hired in your place, you can sue the interviewer.
To a much greater degree, companies hire based on academic and other merit.
By law, all government job vacancies have to be advertised and selections justified before a regulator.
Personal likes, nationality, looks are mostly irrelevant. that is how the UK tends to keep ahead of the rest. Its economy draws the best and brightest (from all over the world) based on fairness and real qualities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.downbylaw.org/reaction-to-nyts-is-law-school-a-losing-game-192011.html
Lots of reactions to the NYT piece on law school.
The employment stats produced by law schools are crap. Maybe they decided to copy the NBER and BLS and publish whatever made them look good. Any claim by a school that charges tuition should be audited by an independent third party organization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone remember the Slate piece from a few months ago?
| Quote: |
A Case of Supply v. Demand
Law schools are manufacturing more lawyers than America needs, and law students aren't happy about it.
Is law school not all it's cracked up to be? During the recession, the logic was ubiquitous: The economy is terrible�better to wait it out! It is a three-year fast track to a remunerative, respectable career! It's not just learning a subject�it's learning how to think! Law school, always the safe choice, became a more popular choice. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of LSAT takers climbed 20.5 percent. Law school applications increased in turn. |
http://www.slate.com/id/2272621/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
The UK has a generally good hiring system. |
You must be joking - the UK's labour market is equally blighted by incestuous recruitment practices.
| Quote: |
If you can prove that someone less qualified got hired in your place, you can sue the interviewer. |
You can bring a case to the tribunal if you have been discriminated against on grounds of race, gender, disability etc at the recruitment stage, but where you suspect that you are more qualified than the successful applicant it is next to impossible to do.
| Quote: |
| To a much greater degree, companies hire based on academic and other merit. |
This couldn't be further from the truth. The UK's labour market is the very antithesis of a meritocracy. The privately educated continue to completely monopolise the recession-proof jobs, like medicine and law, while also dominating banking.
Elsewhere, employer groups have pushed successive governments to open the labour market to other countries which are far from securing wage parity under the guise of 'skills shortages'. It's an extremely competitive labour market and ultimately, it is a case of who you know as opposed to what you know that counts the most.
| Quote: |
| By law, all government job vacancies have to be advertised |
In the public sector many jobs are advertised but the decision has already been taken internally. The interview process is often just a rubber stamping process. My experience of the public sector tells me that it is incredibly corrupt, one reason I am gald that it is being massively scaled back.
| Quote: |
| that is how the UK tends to keep ahead of the rest. |
Are you actually being serious? The UK's labour market is terribly poised - there are five times more unemployed than actual vacancies - and unemployment is officially close to 8%, although as with most statistics this figure masks the likely real number. Beyond that - like anything else matters - it's economic 'recovery' is extremely fragile, and the unemployment rate is forecast to increase further by some.
On the other hand, if you argued that its system of student loans was much fairer I would very strongly agree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Madigan wrote: |
The Frontline Vid is heartbreaking! I really feel students should be able to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy courts.
The amount of coercion the government puts on student debtors is disgusting. It really has got to end. |
That was a great documentary, but I was somewhat frustrated that Obama's approach - send infinitely more through the degree treadmill - mirrors that of our own government in the UK. When will these fools began to understand that in austere times, this is a hugely lose lose policy to pursue. Our respective economies simply cannot support suitable employment for that number of graduates. At the same time of course, this eats furthermore into the public purse.
Incredibly, in light of the housing collapse, we see yet another American government pursuing a policy which leaves the tax payer underwriting risks caused by its policy. It's just an incredibly bad policy for university expansion invariably leaves the poor much poorer, the tax payer further stretched, all the while the social elites continue to dominate Harvard and Oxbridge - in the UK. Our politicians do not live in our world - it's complete madness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the solution is something no one wants to do, and I don't think it is possible, but....
The real problem is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can get into college. This has reduced the value of college degrees. Most of undergrad in the states is spent reviewing stuff that should have been common knowledge in Middle School.
What we need is to limit the number of people who can get accepted into colleges. Or at least, limit the number of people who can get into "Real" colleges. Have the number of admittances reflect the number of jobs opening up each year.
Everyone rags on the Korean test system, but lets be real, if you're smart you'll do well, if you aren't, you wont. Grades are highly subjective these days. Yes they may account for work ethic but with the way teachers hand out As these days I view GPA with a bit of skepticism regarding someone's intelligence or even their work ethic (it used to be a great indicator of work ethic).
For all of its failings, one thing about the Korean education system is that there is a certain faith that the public has in it in regards to the "rules". Namely, most Koreans believe and trust that if you study really hard, and do well on the test and end up going to Seoul National U or some such, you'll end up with a good job. And thanks to the "Hey he has a degree from SNU" mindset of employers, this seems to "work". It produces many failings and can leave great talent undeveloped and is poor at producing "outside the box" talent, but there is a certainty to the system. You play by the rules and you will be rewarded.
Most of us now have little faith in Higher Education or in our employers or in the job market. Even if we end up getting a job at a major company like an Enron, who's to say that it won't just all disappear one day? Throw in all of the debt games and everything and there is a major crisis of confidence in "the system". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
I think the solution is something no one wants to do, and I don't think it is possible, but....
The real problem is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can get into college. This has reduced the value of college degrees. |
The reason I find myself disagreeing with your solution is that I find myself disagreeing with the perceived problem you've laid out here. The economic value of college degrees is meaningless; it might be of concern to wealth-lusting worker drones who see it as a ticket to improving their lot, but that's not what college should be about.
College degrees should be economically meaningless. College should be about self betterment, lifestyle, and understanding, not about job training. Businesses should be training their own employees. This creates a sense of investment, which is coducive to a good environment for workers. And even better, this means the government doesn't even need to try guessing how many students to allow to train to meet the number of jobs they suspect will be available, since employers will just train directly as needed.
This in turn will cause college costs to drop dramatically, because most Americans will have no interest in college if they don't think it will translate into a job. This in turn will ensure the people who should be attending can attend at minimal cost, while those who should not be won't wish to, which will have the happy further consequence of not saddling people with undischargeable student loan debt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
I think the solution is something no one wants to do, and I don't think it is possible, but....
The real problem is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can get into college. This has reduced the value of college degrees. |
The reason I find myself disagreeing with your solution is that I find myself disagreeing with the perceived problem you've laid out here. The economic value of college degrees is meaningless; it might be of concern to wealth-lusting worker drones who see it as a ticket to improving their lot, but that's not what college should be about.
College degrees should be economically meaningless. College should be about self betterment, lifestyle, and understanding, not about job training. Businesses should be training their own employees. This creates a sense of investment, which is coducive to a good environment for workers. And even better, this means the government doesn't even need to try guessing how many students to allow to train to meet the number of jobs they suspect will be available, since employers will just train directly as needed.
This in turn will cause college costs to drop dramatically, because most Americans will have no interest in college if they don't think it will translate into a job. This in turn will ensure the people who should be attending can attend at minimal cost, while those who should not be won't wish to, which will have the happy further consequence of not saddling people with undischargeable student loan debt. |
When I wax idealistic I'd have to agree with you. Ideally one should be hired based not on their degree, but on their experience and their aptitude. Unfortunately the real world... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CHUD
Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Location: KR
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Yeah, it's a terrible scam. There's Keiser, Uni of Phoenix, etc. And this one, owned by Goldman:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/62044940/
| Quote: |
| Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Carrianne Howard dreamed of designing video games, so she enrolled in a program at the Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale, a for-profit college part-owned by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. These days, the 26-year-old makes her living in a way that doesn't require a college diploma -- by stripping at a topless club. Like many investors, Goldman, owner of 38 percent of the Art Institute's parent, Education Management Corp., was drawn to for-profit colleges by their rapid growth and soaring stock prices. Bloomberg's Cali Carlin reports. (Source: Bloomberg) |
Frontline did a great piece on this topic:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid |
I think mises is right in a sense.... however, think back about the situation 10 years ago X-gubbmint money
Many of my cohorts at Prudential Property and Casualty (PRUPAC) were similarly qualified with B.S. degrees and fighting to climb the corporate ladder. Prudential paid for MBA degrees if the employee had the ambition to pursue it. Univ of Phoenix or Western Internation University (both Apollo Group) would accept a cadaver , so, as a way to move up and earn more money I did that. I admit that it's a worthless piece of paper, but at that time everyone in corporate was all about "education." I think that its a combination of Gubbmint money and the false religion of post secondary education that feeds the beast. BTW- PRUPAC no longer exists- its now part of Liberty Mutual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Could the tide be turning?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-10/strayer-shares-tumble-as-new-enrollment-at-for-profit-educator-slides-20-.html
| Quote: |
Strayer Education Inc. led declines among for-profit colleges, with its shares falling the most in almost 11 years, after the company said government scrutiny of education companies discouraged students from enrolling.
The Arlington, Virginia-based company, which operates 87 campuses and an online university, fell as much as 26 percent in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading. New student enrollment for the winter term that started last week declined about 20 percent from a year earlier and may slow earnings growth, the company said in a Jan. 7 statement.
�Negative publicity� over the last four or five months and distractions from government scrutiny of the company hurt enrollment, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Robert Silberman said on a conference call today with investors. Barack Obama�s administration has proposed new regulation of the industry, and Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat, has held hearings about for-profit colleges� sales practices, government student-loan defaults, dropout rates and student-debt levels.
�You have to bear in mind the difficulty that students go through in terms of deciding to go back to school,� Silberman said. �There are always a lot of reasons not to do it. And negative publicity in the last four or five month certainly has had an impact.� |
It isn't just Strayer, they are all down. Suffice to say, I'm happy that negative publicity is having an impact, but I won't feel more comfortable until there are actual market signals discouraging people from going to these craptastic for-profits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
