Math Math PhD Bubble: What % Get Tenure?

[hamster143]

The problem is that it's a wildly successful model, and it's likely to dominate higher education unless people come up with competing models.

The reason why UoP is a wildly successful model is because it dispenses with prerequisites and minimum requirements. It's a bottom feeder that admits people who wouldn't get into any other college. And it gets away with charging lots of money (more than many state university systems) precisely because its students can't get into any place that's more respectable.

I also have to question the assumption that education will allow UofP students recoup their tuition losses. When you have an IQ of 100, getting a four-year degree and getting $60,000 into debt is probably not a very good idea.

 

[twofish-quant]

How can you say working in an investment bank is perfect after recent happenings? Look at all the people who lives have been damaged because of the machinations of quants who never really knew what they were doing.

That's why it's important to have someone working in the banks that knows what they are doing. One reason that I feel good about my job is that by being generally competent, I helped keep the financial collapse from being a *LOT* worse that it was.

 

[twofish-quant]

The reason why UoP is a wildly successful model is because it dispenses with prerequisites and minimum requirements. It's a bottom feeder that admits people who wouldn't get into any other college.

Not true. The students that I taught would have no trouble in getting into the extended education divisions of most state universities or to most community colleges. However, they ended up at UoP because the it does the job of teaching those students better than most other institutions that I know of.

Personally, I think that admission requirements and prerequisites are bogus and that MIT ought to get rid of them. Open Courseware is a baby step in that direction.

And it gets away with charging lots of money (more than many state university systems) precisely because its students can't get into any place that's more respectable.

Nope. Students are willing to pay because for the topics being taught, the quality of education at UoP is quite high, and because the scheduling works. The thing about admission requirements and prerequisites is that they make for lazier teachers. There are far more incompetent teachers at MIT than at UoP, but MIT can get away with it since the students have more preparation.

Also, I ended up with a *LOT* of respect for the students at UoP. If you teach an intro class in any state university a huge fraction of people that you are teaching are not serious people, and they consider your class a mere annoyance so that they can get drunk.

also have to question the assumption that education will allow UofP students recoup their tuition losses. When you have an IQ of 100, getting a four-year degree and getting $60,000 into debt is probably not a very good idea.

First of all, a lot of students don't pay full tuition. A large fraction of the students that I taught were ex-military, and they were probably in through some GI Bill. Also a lot of people get reimbursed through their companies. If you don't have a 4 year degree, and you have to pay $60,000 to get a bachelors, it's probably going to more than pay off in your working lifetime.

Also, there is a maturity factor. Most people that go to college at age 17 just shouldn't be there, and it's a lot easier to teach a group of 35 year olds with IQ's of 100 than a group of 17 year olds with IQ's of 120, since a lot of your time with 17 year olds is going to be spent babysitting.

The thing that I find scary and depressing about the University of Phoenix is that as an educational institution, it works and works quite well. In order to get it to work, they've had to completely wreck the model of the professorship which exists in traditional academia, which scares me because if universities don't take UoP seriously then they are going to be seriously hurting in the next decade.

 

[hamster143]

I can fully agree that 35 year olds are more mature and they can be easier to teach to. But a qualified 35 year old would be more likely to go to, say, Cal State (state-subsidized full-time tuition for residents: $4000/year), than to Phoenix for 12-15k/year, unless the entire tuition comes from someone else's pocket (GI Bill) or they lack prerequisites to such an extent (perhaps a high school GPA of 1.8) that Cal State won't take them. Generally speaking, students don't assume that quality of education in Phoenix is superior to Cal State. One highly visible factor is student-to-faculty ratio, it is about 2x higher in Phoenix than in CSU, UC or almost anywhere else. That assumption would have to be common knowledge before Phoenix can start stealing students from Cal State. Instead, it's firmly stereotyped (perhaps a bit unfairly) as a diploma mill.

Phoenix may have an advantage in online and part-time degrees, because traditional schools don't always deal with these niches properly, but it does not have much upside potential in full-time area, unless it can break the diploma mill stereotype. And, to do that, they'd have to traditionalize to some extent.

If you don't have a 4 year degree, and you have to pay $60,000 to get a bachelors, it's probably going to more than pay off in your working lifetime.

Assuming that there's unmet demand for not-too-intelligent people with 4 year degrees. More than a third of all high school students graduate with 4 year degrees nowadays. It's not clear to me that our economy needs that many.

 

[twofish-quant]

But a qualified 35 year old would be more likely to go to, say, Cal State (state-subsidized full-time tuition for residents: $4000/year), than to Phoenix for 12-15k/year, unless the entire tuition comes from someone else's pocket (GI Bill) or they lack prerequisites to such an extent (perhaps a high school GPA of 1.8) that Cal State won't take them.

It's tough to attend Cal State if you don't live in California. Two things that UoP does do well are:

1) they have a schedule system that works much better for working adults, and
2) they also have tons of satellite campuses.

I don't know enough about Cal State to know whether or not they are competitive in this area. I *do* know that they are competitive in central Texas, because none of the schools here have something similar. There are night/weekend schools, but they work on the semester system.

The other thing is that the the scheduling system that UoP uses is very good for adjuncts. Practically all of the teachers are working professionals. Also UoP has been trying to compete with community colleges, but they seem to be doing much less well on this.

Generally speaking, students don't assume that quality of education in Phoenix is superior to Cal State. One highly visible factor is student-to-faculty ratio, it is about 2x higher in Phoenix than in CSU, UC or almost anywhere else.

This is odd, because the *effective* student-teacher ratio at UoP is higher than at every state school that I've seen. Typically, the student teacher ratio at UoP classes is 1:10, and you are e-mailing the teacher and he/she is e-mailing back constantly.

I'm very skeptical about this statistic. It may be that you can get Algebra 101 classes in CalState with 1:10 student teacher ratios, but I haven't seen it elsewhere.

Phoenix may have an advantage in online and part-time degrees, because traditional schools don't always deal with these niches properly, but it does not have much upside potential in full-time area, unless it can break the diploma mill stereotype. And, to do that, they'd have to traditionalize to some extent.

I don't think they have any intent to compete for full time college degrees for 17-21 year olds, but I'd argue that full time college degrees for 17-21 year olds is the "niche". The new economy is one in which if you are always in school, you are going to be left behind.

Also, I don't think it's going to be that hard to break the diploma mill stereotype. A huge number of people that I've seen with UoP degrees are people in human resources. UoP is playing the Harvard/MIT/Goldman Sachs game of getting their people in key places.

More than a third of all high school students graduate with 4 year degrees nowadays. It's not clear to me that our economy needs that many.

If that's the situation, then we really have to change the economy.

The cool thing about working at UoP is that you actually see wealth being generated by the stuff that you teach. If you teach someone that doesn't know basic algebra, some very basic algebra, and then they can make arguments in business meetings that they couldn't make before, that's generating value.

One thing that I did when I taught out UoP is to make things very practical. Here are two or three tricks with numbers that you can take back to the office right now and help your career with.

 

[twofish-quant]

Personally I think that the you must get your degree by age 21 even if you aren't emotionally ready for college is the thing that really has to change.

 

[Sankaku]

Personally I think that the "you must get your degree by age 21 even if you aren't emotionally ready for college" is the thing that really has to change.

(Quotation marks added for clarity)

I very much agree with this. I think the modern world needs a learning model that accommodates people of any age. The sheer number of people on this forum asking about returning to school testifies to this fact.

I think that only ~20% of the people in University at age 17/18 should actually be there. Go do something else and come back when you actually know what you want to do. Removing the stigma around returning to study in your 30's 40's or 50's would be an immediate help.

Also, look at the statistics for OU in the UK - I think that might be a viable alternative to UoP for respectable distance education.

 

[turin]

Now I think I want to be a "quant".