Interesting article in today's NYT

[CTUCK1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/sports/hockey/10hockey.html?ref=sports

[cbuckser]

As I have written elsewhere, this is a major issue for NCAA hockey today. Cornell has lost three committed recruits to major-junior programs in recent years (Jordan Escott, Ben Thomson, and Mark Scheifele).

[Josh '99]

"All we can do is explain all options to a kid and tell him not to give up eligibility too soon. For some players, the C.H.L. is absolutely the way to go, but for many others, if you can get an education and play hockey, college is the better route."

[College Hockey Inc. executive director Paul] Kelly's best example might be the Chicago Blackhawks' captain, Jonathan Toews, who is from Winnipeg, Manitoba, but who chose to play at North Dakota for two seasons before being selected third over all in the 2006 N.H.L. draft.

Going to UND for two years and then going pro qualifies as "get[ting] an education"?  Suuuuuure.

[Trotsky]

As I have written elsewhere, this is a major issue for NCAA hockey today. Cornell has lost three committed recruits to major-junior programs in recent years (Jordan Escott, Ben Thomson, and Mark Scheifele).

Then again, in another era those guys might not even have considered college in the first place.  There seems to be more mutual awareness of all the options, and though I don't like losing commits I have to think more choice is for the best.

[Rosey]

Going to UND for two years and then going pro qualifies as "get[ting] an education"?  Suuuuuure.

Going to university for four of your most productive years, spending most of it drinking, partying, playing video games, and generally goofing off, AND paying $200,000 for the privilege, qualifies as getting an education?

Just a warning: I am about to go on a serious tangent here.

It's amazing what 12 years of reflection does for one's opinion of Ivy League schools.  E.g., noting what a scam the financial aid system is: that it is couched in altruistic terms, but in reality is just price discrimination engineered to extract as much as possible from every family.

Should I ever be in the position to make a personal judgment about this, I think I would be more likely to spend $200,000 in 2011 dollars on buying my hypothetical kid a business and telling him or her to figure out how to make it more profitable, while spending his or her free time reading, traveling, or tinkering.  Frank Zappa said it best: "If you want to get laid, go to college; if you want to get an education, go the library."

College would be little more than a pretentious money pit without networking, which is why I feel especially sorry for parents who blow $40-50G/year on unknown private schools where the diploma doesn't even carry a name with weight.  And even with that, eventually employers will realize that there are better ways to find smart people than looking at the name on the diploma: I already tell my HR department not to filter out diplomas without education sections because I know plenty of clever, motivated people who never went to college, and plenty of dumb, lazy people who did.  As much as I loved my Cornell experience, I have come to the conclusion that it was little more than a luxurious way to extend adolescence by four years.  I was one of the few who managed to extinguish my debt early: most are not so lucky.

So to get back on topic, I think this kid, even if he doesn't make it in the pros, will not be worse off solely by virtue of not getting a college degree: if he's smart and motivated, he'll be successful regardless, and won't have a pile of debt or have paid the four year opportunity cost.  Just my 50¢ (accounting for inflation).

[phillysportsfan]

I think you are dead on with that quote from Frank Zappa. I am about to graduate and looking back I think I would have been better off going to some decent state school, would have saved a lot of money and probably wouldnt have learned any less. In most classes I took, the professor basically just followed the flow of the book and so by reading the textbook you usually got a better, clearer explanation than any teacher could ever tell you

[Chris '03]

Nothing to see here. Carry on. Delete at will....

[billhoward]

Heh! The one time I got picked up was in the library. Once in four freaking years, but that's still better than never.

[Trotsky]

College is like a sewer.  What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.

[Jim Hyla]

Going to UND for two years and then going pro qualifies as "get[ting] an education"?  Suuuuuure.

Going to university for four of your most productive years, spending most of it drinking, partying, playing video games, and generally goofing off, AND paying $200,000 for the privilege, qualifies as getting an education?

Just a warning: I am about to go on a serious tangent here.

It's amazing what 12 years of reflection does for one's opinion of Ivy League schools.  E.g., noting what a scam the financial aid system is: that it is couched in altruistic terms, but in reality is just price discrimination engineered to extract as much as possible from every family.

Should I ever be in the position to make a personal judgment about this, I think I would be more likely to spend $200,000 in 2011 dollars on buying my hypothetical kid a business and telling him or her to figure out how to make it more profitable, while spending his or her free time reading, traveling, or tinkering.  Frank Zappa said it best: "If you want to get laid, go to college; if you want to get an education, go the library."

College would be little more than a pretentious money pit without networking, which is why I feel especially sorry for parents who blow $40-50G/year on unknown private schools where the diploma doesn't even carry a name with weight.  And even with that, eventually employers will realize that there are better ways to find smart people than looking at the name on the diploma: I already tell my HR department not to filter out diplomas without education sections because I know plenty of clever, motivated people who never went to college, and plenty of dumb, lazy people who did.  As much as I loved my Cornell experience, I have come to the conclusion that it was little more than a luxurious way to extend adolescence by four years.  I was one of the few who managed to extinguish my debt early: most are not so lucky.

So to get back on topic, I think this kid, even if he doesn't make it in the pros, will not be worse off solely by virtue of not getting a college degree: if he's smart and motivated, he'll be successful regardless, and won't have a pile of debt or have paid the four year opportunity cost.  Just my 50¢ (accounting for inflation).

And what happens if he/she doesn't want to run a business? I don't know about today's college, admittedly having gone in the dark ages, but there is no way in hell that I would have thought about becoming a physician without college, and grad school. Maybe I'm a slow learner, but it took time for me to see it. I also know it was the best decision that I could have made.

[Towerroad]

Going to UND for two years and then going pro qualifies as "get[ting] an education"?  Suuuuuure.

Going to university for four of your most productive years, spending most of it drinking, partying, playing video games, and generally goofing off, AND paying $200,000 for the privilege, qualifies as getting an education?

Just a warning: I am about to go on a serious tangent here.

It's amazing what 12 years of reflection does for one's opinion of Ivy League schools.  E.g., noting what a scam the financial aid system is: that it is couched in altruistic terms, but in reality is just price discrimination engineered to extract as much as possible from every family.

Should I ever be in the position to make a personal judgment about this, I think I would be more likely to spend $200,000 in 2011 dollars on buying my hypothetical kid a business and telling him or her to figure out how to make it more profitable, while spending his or her free time reading, traveling, or tinkering.  Frank Zappa said it best: "If you want to get laid, go to college; if you want to get an education, go the library."

College would be little more than a pretentious money pit without networking, which is why I feel especially sorry for parents who blow $40-50G/year on unknown private schools where the diploma doesn't even carry a name with weight.  And even with that, eventually employers will realize that there are better ways to find smart people than looking at the name on the diploma: I already tell my HR department not to filter out diplomas without education sections because I know plenty of clever, motivated people who never went to college, and plenty of dumb, lazy people who did.  As much as I loved my Cornell experience, I have come to the conclusion that it was little more than a luxurious way to extend adolescence by four years.  I was one of the few who managed to extinguish my debt early: most are not so lucky.

So to get back on topic, I think this kid, even if he doesn't make it in the pros, will not be worse off solely by virtue of not getting a college degree: if he's smart and motivated, he'll be successful regardless, and won't have a pile of debt or have paid the four year opportunity cost.  Just my 50¢ (accounting for inflation).

Kyle

Having just had the privilege of forking over nearly 200k to Cornell (I did not qualify for a discount) I have a slightly different perspective but share your cynicism. My daughter was a Bio major and did well in spite of the Bio Dept's best and sometimes incompetent instructional efforts. She worked very hard and acquired sufficient skills to get a good job and after a few years went to Grad School in Micro and Cellular Bio with the intent of returning to industry. I think my investment will pay off but my daughter gets the credit for putting in the sweat to extract the value. We all know the Big Red Tape will not offer up its treasures without effort.

I think a lot of people are reevaluating the value of a traditional education. Going to Cornell for 4 years and getting a degree with mediocre grades in English Lit, Sociology, Psychology etc is going to be very hard to justify from an economic perspective. A pretty bad financial investment. That is the reason why we are seeing new models of education popping up. My son is finishing his degree in math while serving in the Air Force. He has to view regular on line lectures do homework on a schedule and take proctored exams. The interesting thing about this model is that the lectures could be delivered by the best in the business in a "canned" format. Homework could be graded in India and only specialized local support required for students needing extra help. I think this is the future and the competition cant come too fast.

So I think the value is there to extract if you work hard but if you dont then you are just wasting your money.

Ok, time to get off the soap box.

[Trotsky]

And what happens if he/she doesn't want to run a business? I don't know about today's college, admittedly having gone in the dark ages, but there is no way in hell that I would have thought about becoming a physician without college, and grad school. Maybe I'm a slow learner, but it took time for me to see it. I also know it was the best decision that I could have made.

You're not alone.  Without the people and professors I met at university I'd be immeasurably poorer in a hundred intellectual ways, and I wasted plenty of time there, too.  The thing I loved about college was it was such a varied and liberating experience it even permeated my own adolescent density.  That's not something I could have gotten alone in a library.

It was a bargain.

[Larry72]

I'm with Jim.  And although I'm not a physician, my Cornell education (such as it was for those other CU students from that era will attest) has stood the test of time pretty well and for me was "required" even though not necessarily for my career.  A lot of us became critical thinkers without really knowing it. Most of us became surprisingly worldly.  And there's nothing better for networking.  Even though a lot of today's students and grads are far better connected, there is "something" about the four-year on-campus experience that is irreplaceable.

Very few of the 1200 or so Division I hockey players at any one time will ever play in the NHL.  So, why not get a good or great education and hopefully have a fabulous experience?  It's something that is never lost. And do really think that Joe Nieuwendyk's Cornell education didn't help him along the way in getting the GM job in Dallas?  Or Gary Bettman's for that matter!  My $.02!

Larry '72

[phillysportsfan]

College is like a sewer.  What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.

Exactly, thats my point whether you go to Cornell or anywhere else, it doesnt make a difference, its what you put into it, Ivy league schools are overrated

[Towerroad]

Trotsky & Larry

I don't want to sound too negative, I too got a great education at Cornell once I figured out how to extract the value by working hard and interacting with professors. I think that, along with learning to write, were the most important things I took away from my time on the hill. But the reality is that when I went to CU the cost was about 80% of my Dads annual salary, he had a good job. Now I think that number would be closer to 150% and students are being burdened with debt much heavier than I took on and the job market is much more daunting and demanding.

There is a growing body of commentary that questions the "education is the way to a better life for everyone" mantra that is constantly being sold to us. The cost of a college education is rising faster than health care and the administrations appear indifferent unable to exert control and improve academic labor productivity. Some significant fraction of those that are now going to college would be much better off with a technical/trade education at least from a financial perspective.

Finally, I have to say that the difference between my daughters experience and mine in terms of quality instruction was striking. I had the same experience that my Dad '51 had. He had great instructors in his introductory classes for the most part. I did to (except for Chem 107, I still bear the scars) My daughter found the intro classes in many of her major classes indifferent. Her words to me were "I had great instructors at Cornell the problem was that very few of them were in my major."

She learned how to manage the big red tape and extract value and is tougher and better off for it but I am not sure she or I would recommend that someone study Bio at Cornell.