An interesting and disparaging take on the current education model from an Ivy League millennial

Since the author does such a great job of laying out the facts I’ll just give some relevant quotes from the article (note emphasis is mine):

With university administrators at a loss over how to navigate a Covid-plagued fall semester, I’m not surprised that students are now protesting tuition, considering gap years and asking themselves: Is college worth it?

I am surprised that it took a pandemic to get to this point. The truth is, Covid-19 didn’t break higher education. The model has been broken for a long, long time….

*When I graduated in 2013, I was six figures poorer, and felt confused by the lackluster education I received and the “bro” culture I encountered. A few years later, when I considered an MBA, it felt like déjà vu: an exhorbitant price tag, outdated pedagogy

That parallel led me to found brunchwork, a modern education company. In working with thousands of ambitious professionals on their business careers, I found that I’m not alone in my disdain of higher education: Too many of us are not getting enough out of college.

So what’s broken with higher education?

First, we all recognize the $1.6 trillion student debt problem. That’s a lot of money for an education that’s not particularly relevant or effective.

I studied economics and mathematical finance, coursework that sounds practical but was in fact largely useless to both my startup and my Wall Street career . Like many finance firms, my first employer had no expectation that recent grads (all from top universities) had adequate preparation for the job —all new hires go through intensive training programs.

Even if students were exposed to relevant material in college, they likely experienced lecture-based teaching, which remains the dominant form of instruction. A whopping 80% of undergrad STEM classes are based on lectures. But listening passively doesn’t lead to knowledge retention, and the research clearly shows that this method doesn’t work. I graduated with the highest honors, and very little of what I “learned” stuck past final exams.

Going digital caused this struggling model to break completely. Over half of college students said their professors weren’t able to effectively transition from in-person to online instruction. Technology isn’t the cause here. Poor online classes are a symptom of a failing passive education model.

I have to say it’s refreshing to see that even recent college grads see what a scam the current higher education system is.

1 Like

You’re breaking the Narrative.

The problem is miscast by saying professors are over paid. The problem has been the excessive growth of the administrative roles in these establishments. I was blown away also by what I saw while visiting colleges with my daughter. Christian College in my state sported a two story student Union which resembled a wing of a shopping mall. Stores, shops, barber shops and salons, a couple of restaurants, as well as a food court and Starbuck’s and a full service two screen cinaplex. Why???

Nah…a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle recognize the education model in the US is broken.

Or rather…there may be a Narrative…it might not be pushed by who you think it pushing it.

Did you do any research on if the companies operating there are paying for the building? Also, often building like that are paid for through donations. Seems an odd thing to focus on. It may generate revenue to help pay for other college expenses.

What is it and who’s pushing it?

Because they are revenue generators for the College/University.

Just like in a mall, the space is rented.

With many employers offering tuition reimbursement at generous levels and entering into arrangements with universities that offer online degrees, kid in high school need to be made aware that a traditional 4 year degree thar puts you into significant debt is not the only option.

My employer offers $5,000 a year reimbursement and I was able to get my associates and bachelors Degree at no cost.

I have collegaues who have got their masters degree this way. Yes it might take them a bit longer but they complete it with very little or zero debt.

We have an increasing number of high school graduates joining our organization in entry level positions and obtaining their college degree this way.

I do not see a downside - They are working, earning and paying taxes, while they complete their degree they are getting real on the job work experience and benefit from pay increases, step level promotions and even promotions into different positions after their first 12-24 months.

1 Like

Now Rutgers is claiming that speaking with proper grammar is racist. The Rutgers people don’t appear to want blacks to succeed. Better to keep them dependent. Rather than mastering our language and doing well in an interview, they would prefer that blacks sound uneducated and not get the job. That way they can blame systemic racism. :face_vomiting:

It can be scaled down in some areas but I’m not that familiar with business education and other non-science degree fields.

I’m definitely grateful for my bachelor’s education that led me to continue furthering my education and career in epidemiology.



Learn, dammit!

Stop being a dupe!

This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard “academic” English backgrounds at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on “written” accents.

This passage should be clear to anyone who takes the time to read what is written. The “familiar dogma” here is the problem. It assumes that students from multilingual backgrounds will be harmed by a focus on grammar at the expense of broader writing issues. This dogma can leave students without the strong, sentence-level foundation they need to write well. What Rutgers is proposing — and what the letter clearly says — is a shift; it is not proposing to de-emphasize grammar, but to encourage “critical awareness,” or an understanding of the history and development of English grammar, how it works, and the potential impacts of the choices made in the writing process. Rather than lowering the bar, as the critics claim, the department is raising it.


Sure…they pay nothing toward education…just admin costs. My daughter did a research paper on this subject. Her research was sound.

we need more wrench turners

Sometimes I wish I was one.

Right back atcha!

Stop being a fool!

Dammit!!! :crazy_face:

They didn’t “say” it. But they definitely meant it.

Here’s the quote where they say they need to deemphasize grammar. Which will certainly put minorities at a disadvantage in an interview. Which means that Rutgers is obviously racist. There is no other explanation. Maybe the state should pull funding?

“This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard ‘academic’ English backgrounds at a disadvantage.

Ok, all even with “dupe” and “fool”. Even if it’s with good intentions, it can get out of hand. Cool?

The fact that this criticism is coming from an Ivy League millennial is encouraging.

1 Like

Encouraging for what?

She’s selling a product.

I don’t recall Professor compensation in the article I posted? Although regarding your other points, that’s 100% accurate. Administrative costs and elaborate building costs have dramatically increased the cost of college.