Brilliant post in the Times' opinion section written by a handful of unemployed recent graduates. 40% of 20-somethings move back in with their parents. As many have said before, finding a job is no picnic in this economy, even for well-heeled college graduates, as the writers appear to be.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Sunday, July 17, 2011
A Generation of Debt Repayment
The Scotsman, a British newspaper, features an article discussing the era of debt repayment in Europe. Tom Friedman's op-ed discusses the upcoming clash of generations, as the baby boomer generation continues to enjoy the relative comforts available today while future generations are left to service debt.
Countless government programs have made people's lives easier and more comfortable over the past 70 years. We've built roads, provided health care and income to people in need, supported children's education and health, set up mechanisms to support Americans in their retirement, promoted investment in new industries, encouraged homeownership among groups that haven't traditionally been homeowners, and fought a number of expensive wars. And some of it we've paid for along the way, and much of it we haven't. And in the coming generation, that money will have to be repaid - which is going to make sustaining the types of programs Americans are used to (and, many would argue, need) at the same time is going to be very difficult. As a young person, it's demoralizing the think about the fact that my generation will help fund the expenditures that were racked up without much attention to their cost, and at the same time try to fund our own lives.
If money is being diverted to servicing debt, we aren't going to be able to buy as many things. A bit less consumerism is probably a good think for individuals, but it's going to drastically alter the way the economy functions and produces jobs. There's already evidence of that - big purchases like cars and overs are down substantially from a decade ago, and per capita consumer spending has decreased by more than twice the maximum previous percentage in any recession, and it doesn't show any signs of turning around. The employment situation for 20somethings isn't good - even traditionally lucrative fields like law are suffering (see the comments as well).
What needs to happen to snap out of this funk? An economist I'm not, but working to reduce long term debt obligations while maintaining government programs in the present seems like a wise start. We can't afford to drastically curtail government spending right now, but we have to in the long run. A substantial part of a long-term strategy needs to include spending cuts for defense (an industry that appears to be concerned about the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). I know defense spending can be good for constituents, but the goals of our defense policy shouldn't include financing high-paying private sector jobs. I realize that education is a large cost for this country, but how is it possible that so many people are rallying for cuts in schools (and sneer that teachers, who only work ten months a year, are overpaid) while so few pay attention to the things that really put a dent in our wallet?
Countless government programs have made people's lives easier and more comfortable over the past 70 years. We've built roads, provided health care and income to people in need, supported children's education and health, set up mechanisms to support Americans in their retirement, promoted investment in new industries, encouraged homeownership among groups that haven't traditionally been homeowners, and fought a number of expensive wars. And some of it we've paid for along the way, and much of it we haven't. And in the coming generation, that money will have to be repaid - which is going to make sustaining the types of programs Americans are used to (and, many would argue, need) at the same time is going to be very difficult. As a young person, it's demoralizing the think about the fact that my generation will help fund the expenditures that were racked up without much attention to their cost, and at the same time try to fund our own lives.
If money is being diverted to servicing debt, we aren't going to be able to buy as many things. A bit less consumerism is probably a good think for individuals, but it's going to drastically alter the way the economy functions and produces jobs. There's already evidence of that - big purchases like cars and overs are down substantially from a decade ago, and per capita consumer spending has decreased by more than twice the maximum previous percentage in any recession, and it doesn't show any signs of turning around. The employment situation for 20somethings isn't good - even traditionally lucrative fields like law are suffering (see the comments as well).
What needs to happen to snap out of this funk? An economist I'm not, but working to reduce long term debt obligations while maintaining government programs in the present seems like a wise start. We can't afford to drastically curtail government spending right now, but we have to in the long run. A substantial part of a long-term strategy needs to include spending cuts for defense (an industry that appears to be concerned about the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). I know defense spending can be good for constituents, but the goals of our defense policy shouldn't include financing high-paying private sector jobs. I realize that education is a large cost for this country, but how is it possible that so many people are rallying for cuts in schools (and sneer that teachers, who only work ten months a year, are overpaid) while so few pay attention to the things that really put a dent in our wallet?
Saturday, July 16, 2011
New York Law School Rakes In Dollars While Students Flounder
Legal news seems to be hitting the mainstream; this article in the Times is follows up nicely to my post from several days ago about law schools.
The article confirms the anecdotes I've heard from my former college classmates who have entered law school: schools are focused on increasing their rank in US News and World Report instead of teaching or finding jobs for students. Part of this focus involves deceiving would-be students about their prospects for employment following graduation. Stories like this, combined with stories like this, make me wonder if investment bankers are the ones running schools.
Richard Matasar is the dean of New York Law School (which, for the record, is not New York University Law School). He's long claimed that schools that don't serve their graduates' interests should shut themselves down - since, of course, the objectives of a law school are to prepare its students to become lawyers. That makes sense to me. I'll excerpt some relevant quotes, but the entire article is worth reading.
N.Y.L.S. is ranked in the bottom third of all law schools in the country, but with tuition and fees now set at $47,800 a year, it charges more than Harvard. It increased the size of the class that arrived in the fall of 2009 by an astounding 30 percent, even as hiring in the legal profession imploded. It reported in the most recent US News & World Report rankings that the median starting salary of its graduates was the same as for those of the best schools in the nation — even though most of its graduates, in fact, find work at less than half that amount.
[I teach math, so I think I can tackle this: If most graduates earn less than half the reported median salary... someone's made a mistake in the reporting.)
Asked if there was a contradiction between his stand against expanding class sizes and the growth of the student population at N.Y.L.S., Mr. Matasar wrote: “The answer is that we exist in a market. When there is demand for education, we, like other law schools, respond.”
[Shouldn't law schools be leading students, not following them?]
The article outlines how the school increased the number of students who enrolled and earned an extra $6.7 million, while only adding costs of about $500,000. Law schools are so profitable that some of them send 20-30% of their revenue to other parts of the university to subsidize less profitable departments (not NYLS, which is an independent school). NYLS's enrollment allowed the school to improve its bond rating for an upcoming building project; some argue that adding more students to the class makes it tougher for graduates to get the few legal jobs available. See below:
“At a school like New York Law, which is toward the bottom of the pecking order, it’s long been difficult for our students to find high-paying jobs,” said Randolph N. Jonakait, a professor at N.Y.L.S. and a frequent critic of Mr. Matasar’s. “Adding more than 100 students to an incoming class harms their employments prospects. It’s always been tough for our graduates. Now it’s tougher.”
The article states clearly, as others have done, that law schools overstate their employment numbers and make impressive claims ($160,000 salary!) with a lot of data missing (only 26% reporting). How is it that schools of all types feel that they can review important statistics, disregard the ones they dislike, and promote a farcical version of the truth? It's upsetting when teachers in Atlanta or Philadelphia change students' answer keys, it's embarrassing that there are countless degree programs from for-profit colleges that leave graduates with no job prospects and huge debt, and it's shocking that law schools seem to be doing something similar. While they're not outright lying, they set the bar for ethics and disclosure lower than I'm comfortable with.
I'm not sure how many readers have experience with this side of the education world, but if you do, let us know about it in the comments.
The article confirms the anecdotes I've heard from my former college classmates who have entered law school: schools are focused on increasing their rank in US News and World Report instead of teaching or finding jobs for students. Part of this focus involves deceiving would-be students about their prospects for employment following graduation. Stories like this, combined with stories like this, make me wonder if investment bankers are the ones running schools.
Richard Matasar is the dean of New York Law School (which, for the record, is not New York University Law School). He's long claimed that schools that don't serve their graduates' interests should shut themselves down - since, of course, the objectives of a law school are to prepare its students to become lawyers. That makes sense to me. I'll excerpt some relevant quotes, but the entire article is worth reading.
N.Y.L.S. is ranked in the bottom third of all law schools in the country, but with tuition and fees now set at $47,800 a year, it charges more than Harvard. It increased the size of the class that arrived in the fall of 2009 by an astounding 30 percent, even as hiring in the legal profession imploded. It reported in the most recent US News & World Report rankings that the median starting salary of its graduates was the same as for those of the best schools in the nation — even though most of its graduates, in fact, find work at less than half that amount.
[I teach math, so I think I can tackle this: If most graduates earn less than half the reported median salary... someone's made a mistake in the reporting.)
Asked if there was a contradiction between his stand against expanding class sizes and the growth of the student population at N.Y.L.S., Mr. Matasar wrote: “The answer is that we exist in a market. When there is demand for education, we, like other law schools, respond.”
[Shouldn't law schools be leading students, not following them?]
The article outlines how the school increased the number of students who enrolled and earned an extra $6.7 million, while only adding costs of about $500,000. Law schools are so profitable that some of them send 20-30% of their revenue to other parts of the university to subsidize less profitable departments (not NYLS, which is an independent school). NYLS's enrollment allowed the school to improve its bond rating for an upcoming building project; some argue that adding more students to the class makes it tougher for graduates to get the few legal jobs available. See below:
“At a school like New York Law, which is toward the bottom of the pecking order, it’s long been difficult for our students to find high-paying jobs,” said Randolph N. Jonakait, a professor at N.Y.L.S. and a frequent critic of Mr. Matasar’s. “Adding more than 100 students to an incoming class harms their employments prospects. It’s always been tough for our graduates. Now it’s tougher.”
The article states clearly, as others have done, that law schools overstate their employment numbers and make impressive claims ($160,000 salary!) with a lot of data missing (only 26% reporting). How is it that schools of all types feel that they can review important statistics, disregard the ones they dislike, and promote a farcical version of the truth? It's upsetting when teachers in Atlanta or Philadelphia change students' answer keys, it's embarrassing that there are countless degree programs from for-profit colleges that leave graduates with no job prospects and huge debt, and it's shocking that law schools seem to be doing something similar. While they're not outright lying, they set the bar for ethics and disclosure lower than I'm comfortable with.
I'm not sure how many readers have experience with this side of the education world, but if you do, let us know about it in the comments.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Teach For America Placement in Memphis
Memphis schools are in the process of laying off teachers - including veterans and four from Teach For America. New hires were to be restricted to placement in only four schools (the lowest performing schools in the district, per the article) - I'll return to that later. The superintendent anticipated having over 500 job openings for this fall, but ended up with fewer than 200, meaning 60 out of 100 2011 Teach For America corps members who were to be in the district are still unplaced. The placement landscape looks somewhat bleak, but if you're a 2011 corps member in Memphis (or elsewhere) I'd love for you to comment and update others on what the latest information is. I wrote a post that can be found here about my experience with placement, and as I said, the process is a fickle one and can shift quickly. If I had to guess, I would guess that TFA may try to place teachers in the surrounding area or in charters to make up for the decreased demand from Memphis schools.
Something that concerns me each year is that each corps gets larger and larger while teaching positions get harder and harder to secure. I know of people who have gone unplaced and had to take the emergency release, which means that they packed their bags and moved home - in essence, setting themselves back a year in their professional development. Overestimating open positions by more than 300 is definitely surprising, and now there appears to be a number of corps members who are currently at institute with a lot of job uncertainty.
Finally, I want to return to the fact that the union negotiated an agreement that new hires would be hired only in the city's four lowest-performing schools. That's just... frightening. Unions argue (vehemently) that more senior teachers are more effective, and by sequestering themselves in the more manageable schools in the city, the union's members are protecting themselves from having to teacher where they're most needed, essentially saying "We give up on those students - our members don't want to teach there." This setup prevents young teachers from building relationships and learning from veterans and seems likely to foster an us-versus-them mentality that can't be a good work environment. Wow.
Something that concerns me each year is that each corps gets larger and larger while teaching positions get harder and harder to secure. I know of people who have gone unplaced and had to take the emergency release, which means that they packed their bags and moved home - in essence, setting themselves back a year in their professional development. Overestimating open positions by more than 300 is definitely surprising, and now there appears to be a number of corps members who are currently at institute with a lot of job uncertainty.
Finally, I want to return to the fact that the union negotiated an agreement that new hires would be hired only in the city's four lowest-performing schools. That's just... frightening. Unions argue (vehemently) that more senior teachers are more effective, and by sequestering themselves in the more manageable schools in the city, the union's members are protecting themselves from having to teacher where they're most needed, essentially saying "We give up on those students - our members don't want to teach there." This setup prevents young teachers from building relationships and learning from veterans and seems likely to foster an us-versus-them mentality that can't be a good work environment. Wow.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Law School Lawsuits
I'm neither a lawyer nor a law school administrator, but recent issues in legal education have brought the spotlight of the mainstream media to law campuses around the country. This post regarding Thomas M. Cooley Law School links to lawsuits the school has filed against posters who allegedly wrote about the school in a negative manner on a number of websites. At least some of the posters claimed to be students at the school. There has been widespread attention on the students at elite law schools who struggle to get jobs, the graduates who are unable to payoff their astronomical student loans, and the schools which give generous scholarships that are almost mathematically impossible to keep. Given that many law schools appear to be misrepresenting the employability of their graduates in order to convince prospective law students that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an education at their school is a good investment, it's unsurprising that there may be government investigations on the horizon. I'll keep an eye on the developments described in the first link, and as always, invite comments from people who know more than I do.
Going to professional school is expensive; time-consuming; and, it seems, risky. With many highly-educated, well-credentialed people having trouble finding work, what will happen to the students who today are in middle schools or high schools? As Thomas Friedman says, the focus on technology, skills, and efficiency means "It's not your parents' job market."
No kidding.
Going to professional school is expensive; time-consuming; and, it seems, risky. With many highly-educated, well-credentialed people having trouble finding work, what will happen to the students who today are in middle schools or high schools? As Thomas Friedman says, the focus on technology, skills, and efficiency means "It's not your parents' job market."
No kidding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)