I really want to see this new documentary called Ivory Tower:

Ivory Tower | TakePart (http://www.takepart.com/ivorytower)

Take a look at that website for all types of information on the subject of value in higher education.




As tuition rates spiral beyond reach and student loan debt passes $1 trillion (more than credit card debt), IVORY TOWER asks: Is college worth the cost? From the halls of Harvard, to public colleges in financial crisis, to Silicon Valley, filmmaker Andrew Rossi (PAGE ONE: INSIDE THE NEW YORK TIMES) assembles an urgent portrait of a great American institution at the breaking point.

Through profiles at Arizona State, Cooper Union, and San Jose State —among several others—IVORY TOWER reveals how colleges in the United States, long regarded as leaders in higher education, came to embrace a business model that often promotes expansion over quality learning. But along the way we also find unique programs, from Stanford to the free desert school Deep Springs to the historically black all women’s college Spelman, where the potential for life-changing college experiences endure. Ultimately, IVORY TOWER asks, What price will society pay if higher education cannot revolutionize college as we know it and evolve a sustainable economic model?

eLdU7uts4ws

BTW, if you are at all interested in journalism, I highly recommend another documentary by the same film maker, called Page One: Inside the New York Times.

It's on Netflix.

I don't need to ask any questions. I merely trust a Rhodes scholar and former U.S. Senator who lives and breathes these issues and has far more knowledge, concern and personal investment than anyone else.

People should think about what exactly a university president's credentials have to do with college affordability. There may not actually be any relationship. Brownwood makes a good point about OU dramatically understating the cost of attendance by advertising one tuition price and then fooling people on the backend with fees. This is a calculated decision by Boren to sell the product while undermining the credibility of the institution; Serious universities would blush at such shell games.

I think there is a substantial amount of Okies who want a cheap watered down public institution that admits all that apply and graduates everyone. That way they can get a pseudo degree and pretend we have a highly educated public. Cheap, quick, all inclusive.......and worthless.

This is a calculated decision by Boren to sell the product while undermining the credibility of the institution; Serious universities would blush at such shell games.


My own research yields the following:

University of Oklahoma total cost for in-state undergrad (http://www.ou.edu/admissions/tuition_aid/cost_estimate.html): $18,481.50
University of Texas total cost for in-state undergrad (http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/whyut/basics/finances): $25,704 – 27,096

Also, when I mentioned that OU was just about the least expensive of all top 50 public universities, that was based on tuition AND fees.


The bottom line is that for the quality of education, OU is a great bargain, even with the recent -- and necessary -- increases.

Forbes ranks OU as the #16 best value in all of American college education, and the number they quote is for tuition AND fees from 2013 (only slightly higher for 2014):

University of Oklahoma, Norman - In Photos: Top Colleges 2013: Best Value Colleges - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eidm45fglk/university-of-oklahoma-norman/)

People should think about what exactly a university president's credentials have to do with college affordability. There may not actually be any relationship. Brownwood makes a good point about OU dramatically understating the cost of attendance by advertising one tuition price and then fooling people on the backend with fees. This is a calculated decision by Boren to sell the product while undermining the credibility of the institution; Serious universities would blush at such shell games.

Well, Boren was a politician in DC for years and that is how 'selling' has worked for him his whole adult life.

Estimated Costs of Attending OUUNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS LIVING IN UNIVERSITY HOUSING
(U.S. CITIZEN & PERMANENT RESIDENT)

2013-2014 Expenses
Resident Cost


Non-resident Cost

Tuition/Fees* - 30 credit hours
$8,915.50

$21,104.50
Room & Board
$8,718.00

$8,718.00
Books
$848.00

$848.00
Total
$18,481.50

$30,670.50

The most misleading number here is that the room and board figure is for on-campus students. Almost nobody chooses to live on campus, and that's only more true now with the alcohol ban. So the number for housing they quote is $726.5/month. Does that sound realistic to you? One would be hard pressed to live in Norman for less than $1000/month. That's almost double the figure OU quotes as official if you stay over the summer.
But I'm taking it you all can't be persuaded that education is inherently valuable and thus should be provided at truly affordable prices. To me that means no loan debt for graduates. So look at it from this angle - If someone can go to trucking school for three weeks and $5000 and make $40,000/yr off the bat, why do they need college? In this case a rational person who prefers to avoid the $20,000 debt a college education brings will save his money and go to trucking school. Who benefits when an intelligent, hard working young person decides to be a trucker rather than a college grad? When Boren said he doesn't want ignorance to be our legacy, that meant something. I've never heard him use stronger language. That's essentially code for "It's time to panic". So while I'm sure the laudations make him feel good, smart people should be extremely concerned about the fact that now, it's the dumb****s who go to college, not the braniacs.

^

Freshman are mandated to live on campus.

And for those who wish to stay on campus as upperclassmen, there is space available.

So while I'm sure the laudations make him feel good, smart people should be extremely concerned about the fact that now, it's the dumb****s who go to college, not the braniacs.

No, the dumb***s are those that go to college without an idea of what their education is worth in financial terms and what they are actually going to do when they get out and then pile up debt to do it. Tragic are those that do it for sub-standard education. Thinking it is worth big debt to go to a degree factory is stupid. Maybe it is time for parents to actually sit down with their kids and help them figure out that they need to figure out what they want to do with their life and THEN decide whether or not college is right for them and WHICH college is good for them, and do this BEFORE going to college and wasting time and money.

If they are just using college to party awhile and take any class that interests them then they should probably wait, go find a job and figure out what a bad education or no education actually gets them. Save the money, save the debt.

I specifically addressed my post to smart people.

I specifically addressed my post to smart people.

Touché (a.k.a. "Too-Shay" like, fer shure, even if I may or may not agree with the entire paradigm. =)

So look at it from this angle - If someone can go to trucking school for three weeks and $5000 and make $40,000/yr off the bat, why do they need college? In this case a rational person who prefers to avoid the $20,000 debt a college education brings will save his money and go to trucking school. Who benefits when an intelligent, hard working young person decides to be a trucker rather than a college grad?

This is the exact argument the wife and I are having - and the source of some of our problems. It will cost over $150K to send our oldest son to college and then we have to hope he gets a job after that. I would prefer to open a small business for him, hire a manager that can train him to run it, and then turn it over to him in 4 years. Then do the same thing with the other son. If someone spotted me $150K to start a small business I would have gotten an AA degree at a Junior College and been on my merry way.

This is the exact argument the wife and I are having - and the source of some of our problems. It will cost over $150K to send our oldest son to college and then we have to hope he gets a job after that. I would prefer to open a small business for him, hire a manager that can train him to run it, and then turn it over to him in 4 years. Then do the same thing with the other son. If someone spotted me $150K to start a small business I would have gotten an AA degree at a Junior College and been on my merry way.

What is the purpose of an undergraduate education?

It's such a shame that everybody seems to think that education is all about job training. Universities were supposed to provide a broad-based liberal arts education to - you know - educate the student. Now you have people going to schools of higher learning who don't know the first thing about culture - the arts, literature, music, philosophy, and other intellectual pursuits. The defense of the humanities is almost a lost cause. People have accepted the redefinition of undergraduate education as a ticket to a job. Very sad. And we wonder why everything has to be dumbed down.

I LOVE this:

In a recent interview with the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Florida's Gov. Rick Scott drew a line in the sand between college degrees that he believes would lead directly to jobs in his state and, basically, all other degrees.

"If I'm going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I'm going to take that money to create jobs," Scott said. "So I want that money to go to degrees where people can get jobs in this state. Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don't think so."

The next day, Gov. Scott clarified his views further in a radio interview. "I want to spend our money getting people science, technology, engineering and math degrees. That's what our kids need to focus all of their time and attention on: Those type of degrees that when they get out of school, they can get a job."

Last year, a Florida state senator also suggested that state universities should scale back the number of psychology and political science degrees.

Unfortunately, in this tough economy, these politicians are making the all too common mistake of confusing education with training. The idea that universities should simply be factories for producing graduates focused exclusively in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields is incredibly shortsighted. While getting a job that leads toward a fulfilling career is a great reason for going to college, it certainly isn't the only one. A liberal arts education (including, for example, philosophy, art and sociology) educates the whole person and prepares students to excel in a range of careers and, even more importantly, live a life rich with meaning and purpose.

- http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19167366

How do liberal arts colleges go about doing this? Consider what they are asked to study. Students at St. John’s College study original works in mathematics and science, language and literature, politics and history, philosophy and theology. All of these books – from Homer to Shakespeare, Plato to Hegel, and Euclid to Einstein -- help students consider the deeply human questions: What kind of world do I live in? What is my place in it? What should I do with my life? How should I live a life that is worthy of my humanity? They then have a lifetime to practice the arts they have learned, to deepen their questions, and to choose with some intelligence the life that suits them best. Boundaries throughout the world are vanishing, and we need our next generation of leaders in every field, in every endeavor, to have been broadly educated across the disciplines rather than narrowly trained.

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/guest-post-in-defense-of-a-liberal-education/2011/12/02/gIQAj8plKO_blog.html

A liberal arts education can teach you to think and write clearly. One paradox of the discussion about American liberal arts colleges is that it’s taking place at the same time that employers are complaining about their workers’ lack of communications skills. According to a report by the Chronicle of Higher Education and American Public Media’s Marketplace, “When it comes to the skills most needed by employers, job candidates are lacking most in written and oral communications skills, adaptability and managing multiple priorities, and making decisions and problem solving.”

In a recent Fortune profile of Jeff Bezos, the Amazon CEO emphasized the importance of written memos for the company’s senior management team. “For new employees, it’s a strange initial experience,” Bezos said. “They’re just not accustomed to sitting silently in a room and doing study hall with a bunch of executives. Full sentences are harder to write. They have verbs. The paragraphs have topic sentences. There is no way to write a six-page, narratively structured memo and not have clear thinking.” A liberal arts education can be a great help here.

- http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_4_diarist-liberal-arts.html

I agree about the importance of a liberal arts education. I don't think OU is likely to ever offer one, however. And considering such an education will cost over $100,000 and may carry little weight in the job market, I think there are better alternatives for self-study. I would recommend the Synopticon by Mortimer Adler: The Great Ideas: A Lexicon of Western Thought: Mortimer J. Adler: 9780025005730: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Ideas-Lexicon-Western/dp/0025005731/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405324072&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Great+Ideas) . The full set is available here: Amazon.com: Great Books of the Western World (9780852295311): Mortimer J. Adler, Clifton Fadiman, Philip W. Goetz: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Books-Western-World-Mortimer/dp/0852295316/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) . These are organized as the great books of Western thought, designed to be read over 10 years by working adults, or 4 years at a liberal arts college. Most colleges have switched away from this curriculum now, with a few holdouts, like St. Johns College.
I've found just knowing what to study is more important than who teaches it to you.

For better memo and report writing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/22/Elements_of_Style_cover.jpg/220px-Elements_of_Style_cover.jpg

For better understanding of the effect of words and phrases used:
http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347723119l/567189.jpg

Cost: Less than $20.
Value: Priceless

No, the dumb***s are those that go to college without an idea of what their education is worth in financial terms and what they are actually going to do when they get out and then pile up debt to do it. Tragic are those that do it for sub-standard education. Thinking it is worth big debt to go to a degree factory is stupid. Maybe it is time for parents to actually sit down with their kids and help them figure out that they need to figure out what they want to do with their life and THEN decide whether or not college is right for them and WHICH college is good for them, and do this BEFORE going to college and wasting time and money.

If they are just using college to party awhile and take any class that interests them then they should probably wait, go find a job and figure out what a bad education or no education actually gets them. Save the money, save the debt.

I went to an extremely expensive no-name college (although I did manage to graduate with Bush's Secretary of State, the deputy Attorney General under Clinton, a nationally famous political cartoonist, the U.S. expert on terrorist groups and a bunch of other fascinating people I was lucky to call friends). My parents paid for it, no question, and I came out with a degree in American Studies that qualified me to do nothing more than go on to law school or graduate school. I had decent, but not memorable grades and you'd be shocked at how little American history I even remember these days. Most of it I've picked back up again talking with my son who went to OU. I can tell you the political science department at OU has some impressive educators, perhaps because of Boren. I don't know if they'll be famous educators, but they're good.

It wasn't until I decided for myself that I wanted to go to medical school - actually had a goal to work towards - that I settled down and got excellent grades and made myself learn. That was at 24, three years after I graduated from college.

Two points in all this rambling. If a student has a real goal in mind and they're passionate about that goal, it may not matter how old they are. If they don't, college is probably a waste of time. The attempt to give you a well-rounded educations results in students paying for two years of classes they are forced to take. When you're taking Intro to Film, Intro to Psych, World Music, etc just to fulfill requirements, I can promise you most students do not come out of the first two years well-rounded. But many of them do finish those two years in serious debt. The biggest mistake I see is kids borrowing significant amounts of money to go to tier II colleges for undergraduate. If you go to a Wash U, Tulane or Vanderbilt and have to borrow the money to do it, you are unlikely to get a significant return on your investment. That might be different for Harvard, Yale, Princeton or MIT, but probably almost no others. I luckily had two go to OU and one to the Naval Academy. One went to Wake Forest and I can tell you it was a big waste of money, except that ultimately it led to her meeting her most excellent husband. But, we weren't smart enough at the time to realize that a Wake Forest education is nice, but really carries no weight. In fact, what I told all my children was "Better a 4.0 from OU than a 2.0 from Harvard if you want to go on to graduate school."

It might be time, with college costs out of control, to talk about a two year service requirement for high school graduates. That might be two years in the military, two years in the Peace Corps, two years as a Teacher's Aide in a junior "Teach for America", or we could resurrect the WPA or the Youth Conservation Corps. Kids could pick their branch and when their two years were over, they would have seen a bit of the world, broadened their friendships and interests and might have found a calling. Maybe (appalled responses expected here) the federal gov't could give each of them two years of tuition at a state institution upon completion.

Okay, some of you guys are all over the map. Study after study comes out that says how every country in the world is beating America in math, science, engineering, etc... so the call goes out for more education funding... with the ultimate goal of leading the world in Art Appreciation? The biggest problem with that is that America doesn't have a whole lot of art worth appreciating. Now if we had been around when the Catholic Church was spreading Christianity through art, architecture, city planning, and music using their Baroque movement then maybe we would have something. But we got stuck in modernism and pop culture. Sucks to be us.

BTW - the Ovation Channel has a really good documentary (3 parts) on the Baroque movement. Very fascinating.

Here is the trailer for it:

GrVvIm5evYk

What appalls me as much as anything in this discussion is that we have apparently accepted the notion that competent writing, language, and thinking skills are apparently mutually incompatible with science, technology, engineering, and math skills. You have the latter on one end of the spectrum, and "liberal arts" on the other. The attitude to me that reflexively makes me recoil at the latter is that there is a presumption of some moral high ground in its acquisition. I am trying to determine how the prior generation(s) built a nation, went to the moon, discovered powered flight, etc. without such agonizing struggles over such minutiae.

The point is they are not mutually exclusive. It shouldn't take an act of Congress to demand that students have the capability upon graduating high school that they can spell, construct a complete sentence, and formulate a paragraph. Yet in the years since I attended elementary school, where we most certainly were taught those very things, I am so very saddened (if not angered) to discover most of those simple notions have been abandoned - and not by some overarching urge to push every student into a STEM degree. They've been replaced by feel-good notions of "free expression" and "we don't emphasize grammar or spelling" for the tommyrot of self-esteem. We've entirely lost sight of the fact that such rules exist to allow us to master the communicative skills and the language we have been given.

If employers in the public sector need certain skill sets, why is it so abhorrent to ask the public sector school system to assist in providing them? If so many parents who subsidize those public school systems recognize in a common sense manner the idiocy of feel-good, anything goes teaching, yet are powerless to stop it, what can they do but plead to their elected officials to change the course of that public education system, or pull their students out in favor of a privately funded system that will do precisely what was done as a matter of convention barely a century ago?

Common core failed in this state for a very simple reason - it finally pushed over the edge the limits to which a common threshhold of where the abstract crosses into the practical. As a third-party to a discussion on the matter, particularly as it pertained to math, an "educated" yet entirely clueless former superintendent explained in perhaps the most condescending manner possible, all prefaced with a "you just don't understand" to a parent that it was "essential" that we develop the "critical thinking skills" that teach a child "why" 2+2=4. I challenged that. There are some things that do not need to be explained and rationalized to the conceptual level to every student. They should be taught as fact. I was accused of trying to start an argument for daring to challenge a "true educator."

There is no one, single magic bullet to solve our education and employment problems. We have an out-of-control federal educational bureaucracy that sucks down more and more resources seemingly every year while returning less and less in measurable results. We have students churned out of a social promotion system that champions "trying really really hard" even though they can't spell, write, or perform basic mathematics. We have parents who either find that combating such nonsense is either an exercise in futility or are too indifferent to care. We have hyper-educated "educators" too busy being affiliated and mutually enamored with their own failing yet self-congratulatory educational "revelations." We have too many politicians pushing social agendas. And all the while, our children and our country's future pay the price.

SoonerDave - mandating that children be forced to communicate in English is about as racist as you can get (according to some people).

What appalls me as much as anything in this discussion is that we have apparently accepted the notion that competent writing, language, and thinking skills are apparently mutually incompatible with science, technology, engineering, and math skills. You have the latter on one end of the spectrum, and "liberal arts" on the other. The attitude to me that reflexively makes me recoil at the latter is that there is a presumption of some moral high ground in its acquisition. I am trying to determine how the prior generation(s) built a nation, went to the moon, discovered powered flight, etc. without such agonizing struggles over such minutiae.

The point is they are not mutually exclusive. It shouldn't take an act of Congress to demand that students have the capability upon graduating high school that they can spell, construct a complete sentence, and formulate a paragraph. Yet in the years since I attended elementary school, where we most certainly were taught those very things, I am so very saddened (if not angered) to discover most of those simple notions have been abandoned - and not by some overarching urge to push every student into a STEM degree. They've been replaced by feel-good notions of "free expression" and "we don't emphasize grammar or spelling" for the tommyrot of self-esteem. We've entirely lost sight of the fact that such rules exist to allow us to master the communicative skills and the language we have been given.

If employers in the public sector need certain skill sets, why is it so abhorrent to ask the public sector school system to assist in providing them? If so many parents who subsidize those public school systems recognize in a common sense manner the idiocy of feel-good, anything goes teaching, yet are powerless to stop it, what can they do but plead to their elected officials to change the course of that public education system, or pull their students out in favor of a privately funded system that will do precisely what was done as a matter of convention barely a century ago?

Common core failed in this state for a very simple reason - it finally pushed over the edge the limits to which a common threshhold of where the abstract crosses into the practical. As a third-party to a discussion on the matter, particularly as it pertained to math, an "educated" yet entirely clueless former superintendent explained in perhaps the most condescending manner possible, all prefaced with a "you just don't understand" to a parent that it was "essential" that we develop the "critical thinking skills" that teach a child "why" 2+2=4. I challenged that. There are some things that do not need to be explained and rationalized to the conceptual level to every student. They should be taught as fact. I was accused of trying to start an argument for daring to challenge a "true educator."

There is no one, single magic bullet to solve our education and employment problems. We have an out-of-control federal educational bureaucracy that sucks down more and more resources seemingly every year while returning less and less in measurable results. We have students churned out of a social promotion system that champions "trying really really hard" even though they can't spell, write, or perform basic mathematics. We have parents who either find that combating such nonsense is either an exercise in futility or are too indifferent to care. We have hyper-educated "educators" too busy being affiliated and mutually enamored with their own failing yet self-congratulatory educational "revelations." We have too many politicians pushing social agendas. And all the while, our children and our country's future pay the price.

Well thought out and written. I concur.

What appalls me as much as anything in this discussion is that we have apparently accepted the notion that competent writing, language, and thinking skills are apparently mutually incompatible with science, technology, engineering, and math skills. You have the latter on one end of the spectrum, and "liberal arts" on the other. The attitude to me that reflexively makes me recoil at the latter is that there is a presumption of some moral high ground in its acquisition. I am trying to determine how the prior generation(s) built a nation, went to the moon, discovered powered flight, etc. without such agonizing struggles over such minutiae.

Interestingly, the man that built the world's largest technology company agreed with you:



“It’s in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough. It’s technology, married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our heart sing.”

~Steve Jobs

Interesting article about what's wrong with the tech industry today (it's partly too MUCH STEM focus)

What Silicon Valley refuses to learn from Steve Jobs | VentureBeat | Business | by Rod Bauer, Bauer Group (http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/13/what-silicon-valley-refuses-to-learn-from-steve-jobs/)

About 15 years ago, I had a long series of interviews with Hewlett Packard in Palo Alto, back when they were still a big dog in the tech world.

Due to the background of the company, they had an incredibly strong bias towards engineers. I was applying for a pure internal business position and in the end, they still ended up hiring an engineer.

Similar situation at some other Silicon Valley companies at the time.

On the other hand, companies like Apple and now Google started showing a preference to English majors in particular. Very wise, because the irony of technology is that the written word is more important now than ever.

My brother got a degree from OCU in Psychology and went on to work as a councelor for Laureate in Tulsa and Children and Family Services after that. He then realized this was not what he wanted to do so he went to Columbia University in NYC to get a Master's in Divinity with the hopes of teaching after he was done. Well, he stopped the school one semester short (basically one class and a theseus) because he didn't want to do it any more. He then went to work as a sales rep for an art company, based out of NYC but his area was Arizona and Vegas. He moved back to NYC to be their main sales rep. Well, when 2008 hit, sales went down and the company ended up folding. No one was hiring anyone as art sales reps because people were not spending as much money as they used to. He got married, his wife got a job in OKC so they moved here. He wanted to work in oil and gas and couldn't understand why none of the oil and gas companies wouldn't want to hire him. He now works for an oil and gas contractor but he had to start out with a temp agency doing contract work for CHK and Devon then he went full time about two year later. He still does not know why he could not get the job immediately with his history and I had to tell him, no matter how you spin it, you had a Psych degree with Master's Studies (not finished, mind you) in Divinity and a sales rep background. Those are not the type of people on the top of the list for O&G companies. He was in the group that thought as long as you have a degree, it doesn't matter what you want to go into. That may have been the case 20 years ago, but not so much any more.

SoonerDave - mandating that children be forced to communicate in English is about as racist as you can get (according to some people).

I don't know about being racist, but it is highly useful to speak English properly. Having done business in about 30 countries for a couple of decades, I can tell you it is embarrassing to sit in a meeting overseas and the persons speaking English most properly are those not from the US.. It is tragic how poorly so many recent graduates communicate.

SoonerDave - mandating that children be forced to communicate in English is about as racist as you can get (according to some people).

Having worked in the LA public schools for years, I can assure you there are zero issues with CHILDREN communicating in English.

The only real issue is adults that immigrate from other countries, as it's much harder to learn a foreign language once you get past a certain age.

But that's been the case since this country was founded and if people bothered to research their own ancestry they are likely to discover that the first generation of their own family (if from a non-English speaking country) probably never learned English very well, if at all.

Boy, did this thread fall off the rails.

What's with all the anger? Is it Monday or something?

For my part, I was reading post after post about higher education as nothing more than a jobs program. I merely wanted to point out the concern that many have that education is about more than training - it's about learning. I didn't say it was mutually exclusive, I didn't say one was "better" than the other, I simply was bringing the conversation back to what higher education has been about for a long, long time which is a broad based liberal arts education and graduate schools were for higher degrees in particular fields. Today, there is a real concern that a degree is nothing more than a ticket to a better job. Reducing this argument down to a couple of book recommendations and accusing people of assuming a "moral high ground" is quite an unfair response to pointing out the ages old purpose of higher education.

My brother got a degree from OCU in Psychology and went on to work as a councelor for Laureate in Tulsa and Children and Family Services after that. He then realized this was not what he wanted to do so he went to Columbia University in NYC to get a Master's in Divinity with the hopes of teaching after he was done. Well, he stopped the school one semester short (basically one class and a theseus) because he didn't want to do it any more. He then went to work as a sales rep for an art company, based out of NYC but his area was Arizona and Vegas. He moved back to NYC to be their main sales rep. Well, when 2008 hit, sales went down and the company ended up folding. No one was hiring anyone as art sales reps because people were not spending as much money as they used to. He got married, his wife got a job in OKC so they moved here. He wanted to work in oil and gas and couldn't understand why none of the oil and gas companies wouldn't want to hire him. He now works for an oil and gas contractor but he had to start out with a temp agency doing contract work for CHK and Devon then he went full time about two year later. He still does not know why he could not get the job immediately with his history and I had to tell him, no matter how you spin it, you had a Psych degree with Master's Studies (not finished, mind you) in Divinity and a sales rep background. Those are not the type of people on the top of the list for O&G companies. He was in the group that thought as long as you have a degree, it doesn't matter what you want to go into. That may have been the case 20 years ago, but not so much any more.


I know the Executive Director of Children and Family Services. His degree is in Music.

For my part, I was reading post after post about higher education as nothing more than a jobs program. I merely wanted to point out the concern that many have that education is about more than training - it's about learning. I didn't say it was mutually exclusive, I didn't say one was "better" than the other, I simply was bringing the conversation back to what higher education has been about for a long, long time which is a broad based liberal arts education and graduate schools were for higher degrees in particular fields. Today, there is a real concern that a degree is nothing more than a ticket to a better job. Reducing this argument down to a couple of book recommendations and accusing people of assuming a "moral high ground" is quite an unfair response to pointing out the ages old purpose of higher education.I'm finding this entire discussion fascinating, since I happen to have personal experience with the subject covering four full generations of students.

My parents both came from absolutely uneducated environments. My father was orphaned by the time he was 12; my mother was born into a third-generation family rooted in Germany. He dropped out of school after the third grade; she finished high school, became a teacher, then got a teaching certificate from East Central. However in the 1920s both finally graduated from A&M in Stillwater, with lifetime certificates. And in 1930 he returned to work toward an M.A.

I was born during the final semester of his graduate work, and from day one they assumed -- finally demanded -- that I go to college. My own choice upon finishing high school was to study photojournalism at The Art Center, which was the nation's leading institution for that at the time. University of Missouri would have been my second choice. However they insisted that I go to either A&M or OU; OU won out because in the late 40s, its J-school had the better reputation.

The only direct benefit I ever saw from my B.A. after four years at OU was a recommendation that led to my first newspaper job. I have no idea today where my actual diploma is, or even whether it still exists. That's how much I value my "college education" that my parents thought was so vital. I did, however, learn the basics of my trade from a non-degree program there (that I could just as well have taken via correspondence) and I did learn the value of thinking for myself, from a single required J-school course, so it wasn't entirely a waste of time. It also allowed me to go into the military as a lieutenant rather than a private, which was the main reason I put up with it all.

Only one of my three sons finished college, although one of his brothers did attend OSU for a time before dropping out. The other brother got an associate degree from OSU's OKC institution, mainly to satisfy state human resources folk when he worked for DPS as a computer tech. I left all their decisions up to them, since I don't subscribe to the idea of forcing everyone to get that sheepskin from a college, any college, just to have it.

And that brings me to the fourth generation, my now-adult grandchildren. There are five in all, and three of the five have advanced degrees, two in medical fields. I don't think it's coincidental that their father is the one who finished college and their mother is an R.N. and now an RNP. One of the three is working toward her own RNP and her brother is in graduate school becoming a physical therapist. The third majored in business and is in the financial industry. The remaining two grandchildren chose not to go to college; one spent a year studying to become a chef and the other now raises rabbits.

Bottom line: the diplomas were the ticket out of near-poverty for my parents, meant almost nothing to me, and by the time my children and grandchildren came to consider their worth, meant very different things to different offspring.

As for the "dishonest marketing" accusation, I see that as a most redundant phrase. I consider just about all marketing, as practiced in the western world for the past century or so anyway, as dishonest by definition! Why should we expect a university to be so different from the rest of our Mad Mad Mad World?

As always from you, a fascinating story (and personal stories are the best). Your larger point is well-taken, too. Thanks for the post!

I know the Executive Director of Children and Family Services. His degree is in Music.

A lot of jobs are who you know and who is on the reference sheet.

Having worked in the LA public schools for years, I can assure you there are zero issues with CHILDREN communicating in English.

The only real issue is adults that immigrate from other countries, as it's much harder to learn a foreign language once you get past a certain age.

But that's been the case since this country was founded and if people bothered to research their own ancestry they are likely to discover that the first generation of their own family (if from a non-English speaking country) probably never learned English very well, if at all.


There are immigrates from other countries than have been in the US for many years and they still speak their native language all the time. The Asian community is a good example.

A lot of jobs are who you know and who is on the reference sheet.Over the years I've found that to be true of almost every job I've held.

One's personal network is by far the most effective employment agency known to mankind. While we have lots of snide references to "good old boy networks" the fact remains that personal contacts quite often let one know about opportunities long before they become public knowledge. I can think of only three jobs I got by applying through newspaper ads or employment agencies.

Both my newspaper jobs came about through personal contacts made long before; my software development opportunity resulted from a chance meeting at a computer supply store. My literary agent came to me, referred by an on-line friend, and she sold more than half a dozen books over the past 24 years (one of which still pays a few bucks each year in royalties).

Want ads did lead me to an RCA recruiter who got me into the defense industry for a 2-1/2 year period as a tech writer, and much later led me to G-E and a 24-year stint in the local plant (through four owners!). A commercial employment agency got me into University Loudspeakers for one of the least enjoyable six months or so I've ever spent.

Several times, though, I've learned of an opportunity from a friend, set up an interview, been accepted, and only then gone to the Human Relations folk to fill out their paperwork!

There are immigrates from other countries than have been in the US for many years and they still speak their native language all the time. The Asian community is a good example.

Right, as I said the first generation of adult immigrants usually have a big struggle learning a new language.

But for kids that move here or are born here, they all learn English pretty quickly, even if it's not spoken at home.

Kids not only learn language much more quickly, they WANT to speak and communicate in the local tongue, and often they completely drop their native language altogether.


I've spent a lot of time in Switzerland and knew a bunch of American/English/Scottish/Irish families that worked for an American tech company there. They merely enrolled their kids in the French-speaking schools. They figured it out very quickly, while the adults struggled greatly with professional lessons. The kids would often have to translate for their parents. :)

Okay, some of you guys are all over the map. Study after study comes out that says how every country in the world is beating America in math, science, engineering, etc... so the call goes out for more education funding... with the ultimate goal of leading the world in Art Appreciation?

I didn't say one was "better" than the other, I simply was bringing the conversation back to what higher education has been about for a long, long time which is a broad based liberal arts education and graduate schools were for higher degrees in particular fields. Today, there is a real concern that a degree is nothing more than a ticket to a better job. Reducing this argument down to a couple of book recommendations and accusing people of assuming a "moral high ground" is quite an unfair response to pointing out the ages old purpose of higher education.
My point with the book recommendations is that one can acquire a liberal arts education readily through self-study. It's less doable to teach oneself electrical engineering by making a habit of going to the library. Considering the cost of higher education, my suggestion is that the liberal arts be left for personal time and college be used for the career tracks most likely to be able to pay for it.

My point with the book recommendations is that one can acquire a liberal arts education readily through self-study. It's less doable to teach oneself electrical engineering by making a habit of going to the library. Considering the cost of higher education, my suggestion is that the liberal arts be left for personal time and college be used for the career tracks most likely to be able to pay for it.

I'm sorry, LRO, I wasn't even talking about your books or post. You placed the titles in context and that's valuable. I was referring to the post with the images of two book covers. I agree with you about lifelong learning 100%. I still think higher education cannot simply become white-collar vocational schools. A well-rounded education, imo, means a foundation of broad-based education. As much as the actual classroom teaching, a big value of a college education is the give and take and classroom discussion.

My point with the book recommendations is that one can acquire a liberal arts education readily through self-study. It's less doable to teach oneself electrical engineering by making a habit of going to the library.Less doable, perhaps, but it's not impossible. I never took any formal engineering courses, nor did I ever complete a semester of physics or any math at the college level. Similarly my computer knowledge is entirely self-taught. However I did manage to learn differential calculus from self-study when I felt a need for it. And over the years I've written more than 20 books about electronics, one on mathematics, and taught a course in system design at vo-tech level (involuntarily; G-E sent me to do that as part of their community service).

What's needed to make this possible is the drive to know the subject, and the willingness to do what it takes to gain that knowledge. With those, formal classes make it easier, but are not at all necessary. Without them, formal classes are at best a poor solution, and at worst a waste of both time and money.

Unfortunately in some technical areas, governments require the formal training before the student is allowed to put that knowledge to use. It's worth remembering that Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, and even Bill Gates would not be permitted to call themselves "engineers" in many jurisdictions!

There was one facet of student loans and costs that I found disturbing when I went to OU in the late 80's. I had to get a loan of 600 and change each of my last two semesters. When I went to the bursars office I learned that OU takes 10% of the loan right off the top for "juice".

Jim, your transition from journalist to technical writer is certainly commendable but not equivalent to becoming a self-taught electrical engineer in my opinion. Don't take this as a self-interested lobbying effort for lower tuition on my part; I won't be attending OU any further. The instruction isn't up to the standards available from other universities and methods of instruction (i.e. Coursera). I do think society needs to make a STEM education as affordable as possible and I'll continue to draw attention to that. There has to be a reason why only 23% of Oklahomans have a bachelor's degree and 38% of Massachusettsans have one, and I don't think it's because Oklahomans lack drive. I think the majority of the populace lacks respect for education and doesn't want to spend the outlays necessary to enable higher levels of educational attainment. Critics of the system, such as myself, are decried in an attempt to keep taxes low and the status quo humming. Btw, Jersey Boss is absolutely correct about OU skimming loans.

My own research yields the following:

University of Oklahoma total cost for in-state undergrad (http://www.ou.edu/admissions/tuition_aid/cost_estimate.html): $18,481.50
University of Texas total cost for in-state undergrad (http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/whyut/basics/finances): $25,704 – 27,096

Also, when I mentioned that OU was just about the least expensive of all top 50 public universities, that was based on tuition AND fees.


The bottom line is that for the quality of education, OU is a great bargain, even with the recent -- and necessary -- increases.

Pete,

I'm sorry to disagree, but I must point out your error. The site you linked to includes numerous categories for cost and you focused in on the $18,481.50, however, you did not include what is "disclosed" by the *.

*This estimate includes 30 credit hours, per hour fees and per semester fees. A number of public institutions report annual cost based on minimum full-time enrollment (24 credit hours). Mandatory fees include: academic facility and life safety, special event, activity, assessment, network connectivity, student facility, library, security services, transit, health, cultural, records and academic advising fees. Note: All costs subject to change. Mandatory fees listed above do not include college or course-specific fees. There are additional college specific technology and enrichment fees in many courses

Please note: This DOES NOT include the Academic Excellence fee of $60.00 per credit hour, nor does it include the college specific fees (engineering as an example) of $46.50 per credit hour. That is an additional $106.50 per credit hour NOT INCLUDED in your calculation, or an additional $3,408 per year (32 hours). Plus the semester fees not included. Same OU website, different page explaining tuition. This makes OU total tuition and fees about $22,000 per year. Tuition & Fees (http://www.ou.edu/content/bursar/tuition_fees.html)

Recheck your citation for Texas, you used the total cost (including books, room and board) for the $25K to $27K. Read through the prior paragraph on your citation and you will see:

Estimated Undergraduate Flat-Rate Tuition and Fees (2013 – 14)

Texas resident $9,346 – 10,738
Non-resident $32,422 – 37,160

FACT: From your own sources, Texas is between $18,700 to $21,400 (tuition & fees) .... OU about $22,000 year (tuition and fees). Without question, Texas is less than OU (as I initially stated) and Texas is a much better school. Texas is a member of the Association of American Universities, a group of 62 nationally recognized research universities including Stanford, MIT, Colummbia, Duke, Harvard, Rice, The UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS at AUSTIN, etc. OU can only dream of ever being a part of this. Association of American Universities (http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5474)

Please, please, please read through your sources again, checking the total cost. The fact you are confused and making the wrong assumption proves my point of OU being misleading at best.

The OU link provided specifically says the $9,494.50 for one semester: "*Excludes College Technology, Program and Course Specific Fees".

It does NOT say it excludes the Academic Excellent fees or any of the other mandatory fees. So why are you adding them back in to your calculations?

Plus, why are you using 32 hours when the calculations are all based on 30 (15 per semester)?

The only thing not factored are the items quoted; looks like those average about $500 per semester.

Possible Elective University of Oklahoma Course Offering?:

Consideration and Positive Activation of Abraham Maslow's Pyramid of The Hierarchy of Human Needs in The AmeobicCyberMillenium.

Required Reading: Don Quixote.

Grading: Pass/Fail

BTW, to demonstrate how much college tuition has gone up over the last few decades...

When I was at OU in the early 80's I distinctly remember my tuition being around $500 per semester -- all in. Books were about another $100 or so.

If you use an inflation calculator, that $500 amount would be about $1,500 today. Yet, no matter how you slice it, a semester at OU is now around $10K per semester.

So, even factoring in inflation, tuition and fees are at least 8X what they were just a generation ago.

AND, OU is *still* one of the least expensive national universities around.

Well, I don't know about deceptive, but they don't make it very clear. I've been looking and it seems there should be some disclaimer about exactly what fees are, and are not, included in the "tuition and fees." They use different terminology at different places on the site which can cause confusion.

Here it is straight from the Bursar's office - Tuition & Fees (http://www.ou.edu/bursar/tuition_fees.html) and Fee Descriptions (http://www.ou.edu/content/bursar/tuition_fees/fee-descriptions.html)

It could probably be phrased in a more straight forward, user-friendly fashion, but it seems to me that Pete's calculations are right.

The only place one will ever encounter the phrase "Bursar's office" is within the Ivory Towers of Academia.
I think the term might be a hold over from Oxford or wherever. =) even in The Great State of Oklahoma.

Edited to Add: Other than OKCTalk, of course. =)

The only place one will ever encounter the phrase "Bursar's office" is within the Ivory Towers of Academia.
I think the term might be a hold over from Oxford or wherever. =) even in The Great State of Oklahoma.

Edited to Add: Other than OKCTalk, of course. =)

Actually cruise ships have a bursar (sometimes called a purser also) too but I suppose a cruise could be a learning experience.

Well, I don't know about deceptive, but they don't make it very clear. I've been looking and it seems there should be some disclaimer about exactly what fees are, and are not, included in the "tuition and fees." They use different terminology at different places on the site which can cause confusion.

Here it is straight from the Bursar's office - Tuition & Fees (http://www.ou.edu/bursar/tuition_fees.html) and Fee Descriptions (http://www.ou.edu/content/bursar/tuition_fees/fee-descriptions.html)

It could probably be phrased in a more straight forward, user-friendly fashion, but it seems to me that Pete's calculations are right.

My parents and I sat down and figured the cost between OU and UT (full disclosure: this was nearly a decade ago but the trends do not change). At the time I was just a high schooler in TX. Not only was OU considerably cheaper that UT in state, but OU out of state was pretty much the same as UT in state.

I also take offense to suggestions that OU is somehow highly subpar to UT's. In terms of rankings, UT will always rank ahead because it is a much larger research institution. At the same time, the gap is much closer nowadays, partly because of the improvements at OU and partly because UT has slipped. There is a reason UT is trying to fire their president!

I am under no impression OU competes with UCLA or Michigan, but you can get a great education that is highly respected throughout the region. I am fortunate enough to work for one of the larger energy firms in DFW. After Texas Tech and Texas A&M, OU represents the largest alumni group in our company, even more than UT. Now that may be different from company to company. But there are several firms in Dallas and Houston that have similar makeups.

My parents and I sat down and figured the cost between OU and UT (full disclosure: this was nearly a decade ago but the trends do not change). At the time I was just a high schooler in TX. Not only was OU considerably cheaper that UT in state, but OU out of state was pretty much the same as UT in state.

I also take offense to suggestions that OU is somehow highly subpar to UT's. In terms of rankings, UT will always rank ahead because it is a much larger research institution. At the same time, the gap is much closer nowadays, partly because of the improvements at OU and partly because UT has slipped. There is a reason UT is trying to fire their president!

I am under no impression OU competes with UCLA or Michigan, but you can get a great education that is highly respected throughout the region. I am fortunate enough to work for one of the larger energy firms in DFW. After Texas Tech and Texas A&M, OU represents the largest alumni group in our company, even more than UT. Now that may be different from company to company. But there are several firms in Dallas and Houston that have similar makeups.

I think maybe you quoted the wrong person? I was agreeing with Pete.

The elephant in the room that everyone is overlooking is the rise in the number of college adminstrators has largely been the driving force behind tuition increases. Administrators Ate My Tuition by Benjamin Ginsberg | The Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2011/features/administrators_ate_my_tuition031641.php?page=all)
Simply put, US universities are becoming bloated buracracies.

The elephant in the room that everyone is overlooking is the rise in the number of college adminstrators has largely been the driving force behind tuition increases. Administrators Ate My Tuition by Benjamin Ginsberg | The Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2011/features/administrators_ate_my_tuition031641.php?page=all)
Simply put, US universities are becoming bloated buracracies.

They expanded to absorb all the education funding dollars available. That is why increasing education funding never works. They just find something else to spend the money on so no matter how much they get, they are always just a little short. The only way to find what is truly important is to see what they threaten to cut when they want more funding. The intramural sports teams are never on the chopping block.

The only place one will ever encounter the phrase "Bursar's office" is within the Ivory Towers of Academia.
I think the term might be a hold over from Oxford or wherever. =) even in The Great State of Oklahoma.

Edited to Add: Other than OKCTalk, of course. =)

A bursar (derived from "bursa", Latin for purse) is a senior professional financial administrator in a school or university. In the United States, bursars usually exist only at the level of higher education.

FighttheGoodFight,
After leaving the Navy, I planned to go to college. I was 24 years old. Since then I have had seven jobs, three of them at Hertz and I only applied for one job in my life and I didn't get it, although, they didn't call me back soon enough and I ended up at Hertz. When they did call, I was quite happy and turned them down. Every job I have had was from an unsolicited call because of my contacts throughout the IT community.
C. T.
A lot of jobs are who you know and who is on the reference sheet.

I think maybe you quoted the wrong person? I was agreeing with Pete.

Yes, I was trying to piggyback on your point. Probably should have just quoted the last part of your post...sorry for the confusion!

So to summarize the main points from this thread, for people thinking of enrolling at OU:



Tuition and fees have increased by at least 8X in the last 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, that's an increase of over 3X.
The OU Financial Aid office takes approximately 10% of all student loans to keep for themselves. This happens without any direct notice to the students. I'm not aware of any other school that does this.
Over 40% of students who take out student loans at OU do not, or are not able to, remain in a state of loan repayment. In other words they don't make the agreed upon payments. For reference, at the University of Texas, this figure is less than 30%. At Ivy League schools, it is less than 20%. I can provide the spreadsheet for those interested.
OU misrepresents the price of tuition by shifting much of the costs of attendance to fees, which are harder to keep track of.
OU is in the process of a $300 million dollar stadium expansion for football fans in the wake of a 5% tuition increase for students.


To me these facts reveal a mendacious and parasitic institution that seeks to prey on students rather than help them achieve the ultimate goals of graduation and personal success, whether in the academic world or in industry. At the very least, one would have to agree that the bureaucracy at OU needs to be exposed and officials held accountable.

To me these facts reveal a mendacious and parasitic institution that seeks to prey on students rather than help them achieve the ultimate goals of graduation and personal success, whether in the academic world or in industry. At the very least, one would have to agree that the bureaucracy at OU needs to be exposed and officials held accountable.

I think what we've learned here is that no matter how you slice it, OU is one of the most affordable colleges anywhere and that considering it's relatively high ranking among public universities, offers those lucky enough to gain admission an outstanding educational value.

So to summarize the main points from this thread, for people thinking of enrolling at OU:



Tuition and fees have increased by at least 8X in the last 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, that's an increase of over 3X.
The OU Financial Aid office takes approximately 10% of all student loans to keep for themselves. This happens without any direct notice to the students. I'm not aware of any other school that does this.
Over 40% of students who take out student loans at OU do not, or are not able to, remain in a state of loan repayment. In other words they don't make the agreed upon payments. For reference, at the University of Texas, this figure is less than 30%. At Ivy League schools, it is less than 20%. I can provide the spreadsheet for those interested.
OU misrepresents the price of tuition by shifting much of the costs of attendance to fees, which are harder to keep track of.
OU is in the process of a $300 million dollar stadium expansion for football fans in the wake of a 5% tuition increase for students.


To me these facts reveal a mendacious and parasitic institution that seeks to prey on students rather than help them achieve the ultimate goals of graduation and personal success, whether in the academic world or in industry. At the very least, one would have to agree that the bureaucracy at OU needs to be exposed and officials held accountable.

Held accountable for what? Moving heaven-and-earth to not only maintain, but enhance the state's academic flagship. The University of Oklahoma is a far better university than when I attended (Oklahoma, '73). The State of Oklahoma provided thirty percent (30%) of the university's budget during my undergraduate years. The state now provide's fifteen percent (15%) of OU's funding. President Boren is pulling it all together with "fumes" and prayers, in my opinion.
That you may know: OU was the second choice for both my children. They both earned undergraduate Bachelor's degrees at separate private institutions. OU was not the right "fit" for either of them. They do, however, hold The University of Oklahoma in high regard, and close to their hearts.
Compared to The University of Oklahoma, private colleges and universities are a financial load, I can assure you.

I think what we've learned here is that no matter how you slice it, OU is one of the most affordable colleges anywhere and that considering it's relatively high ranking among public universities, offers those lucky enough to gain admission an outstanding educational value.

And we've learned, no matter how many facts and how much logic, haters are going to hate. Obviously some just hate OU or hate the idea that you have to pay for higher education at all. If you don't value quality education than any amount is too much.

Oklahoma ranked as #2 state for recent college grads:

The Best And Worst States for Recent Grads Since the Recession - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/bentaylor/2014/07/01/the-best-and-worst-states-for-recent-grads-since-the-recession/)

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/bentaylor/files/2014/07/inh6mcyegwzrl0r_foodurksu-6x4afnudvo9oej-pdjpooknz3zwupghhetjqamw9neobafdpnklooewu-inzrvtweogcfkvmjlf2s0jyrnpjuvcbiyrjcx6cmzdvzf_g

Nothing in the above article discredits the five bullet points I condensed from this thread. In fact information from former students at a university is far more credible than something by a web journalist who has likely never even been to Norman. And as I've pointed out, a great many prospective college students are choosing to opt out altogether and begin their productive careers without the loan debt associated with university. So the comparison of OU's value relative to other schools is misguided at best; if an in-state student can't afford OU they certainly aren't going out of state. Independent-minded students can go to trucking school to join the middle class and those with medically-oriented personalities can get an associates in nursing to join the middle class in 2 years and with no debt. The high cost of all colleges now is ensuring they select for the more gullible and subservient of high school graduates rather than the independent, rational, assertive thinkers. The era of universities being the doorway to the middle class has closed, in my opinion.

To Jeep: Your confusion lies in the distinction between loan default and non-loan repayment. Many students enter deferment or loan forgiveness programs. Default rates represent the worst case scenario, and many students avoid it without repaying their loans.