Does a liberal arts education almost “force” a student to go into grad school? How can a student acquire a job in the workforce without obtaining a more focused education?

Has the term liberal arts become so broad and loosely used that it can apply to many varieties of undergraduate education in America?

The Blaich article cites some benefits seen in students after completing a liberal arts education (such as improved standardized test scores). There is also more room for individualized attention in terms of student to teacher ratio. Seeing some of these benefits, would It be more beneficial colleges to adopt this liberal arts model?

The Jaschik article cites that many parents do not even consider sending their children to high sticker price colleges because they are unaware of the aid offered by some colleges. However, what are parents to do even after giving these colleges a chance and receiving very little aid in return? Won’t most of them have to go back to their more affordable alternatives?

Why do parents feel that a vocational school education will give their children a better chance at obtaining a liberal arts education? Can it be argued that a liberal arts education can provide both the benefits of educating and preparing a student for the workforce? Does the root of the problem lie in the fact that most of the public does not know what a liberal arts education is?

The employers in the articles emphasize that they want a worker to have knowledge of a broad range of topics as well as a focused area. This idea seems to point towards the liberal arts so should more national universities take up this liberal arts curriculum? How are students going to obtain these broader skills that the articles are emphasizing?

It seems that high school graduate rate has barely gone up or perhaps even decreased over the last couple of years. Yet there is still growing competition in the work force and many college students may even have to start obtaining some sort of post-secondary education. Why is there this increased competition when there isn’t a large percentage of students obtaining their bachelor’s degree?

Some of the articles argue that a liberal arts degree will not get a student anywhere in terms of a career. However who says that liberal arts only includes these “less competitive” majors? How are colleges going to implement some of these collaborative skills that employers are looking for?

• Is it realistic for students to take on jobs and other big financial responsibilities while pursuing an undergraduate degree?
• Are the college students that stray from the traditional college experience more “ready” for real life experiences than students who go through the traditional college experience? Some may argue that they do not because they are still living at home and rely on their parents for some basic necessities.
• Why do students who come from more affluent families tend to pursue less “career orientated” majors?
• Has financial aid shifted toward more merit based students? Is there still room for lower income students to receive financial aid?
• Why do the minority groups show the largest gender gaps in college? Do women in these groups feel that education is their best way to acquire a job in the workforce? Do the men feel that they don’t need an undergraduate education to get a job?
• Should race be a factor in determining who goes to a certain college? Are some racial groups harmed by this admission factor?
• The Grutter vs. Billinger case reiterates the idea that race will not be a factor in admitting students, 25 years from now. What do they mean when they say this? Are they implying that minority groups will have higher statistics or that  the racial breakdown in schools will be equal?
• Why is affirmative action attacked so much? Why aren’t people who make very generous donations to universities, or have legacy attacked as much as minorities in terms of college admissions? Why shouldn’t minority groups be given the chance to go to prestigious universities? 

• Does online learning as effective as learning in the classroom? Does this form of learning take away from the interactive aspects of classroom learning? What do studies show that most students prefer? Will the perception that credits earned by online classes are not as credible as an “in class” credits shift anytime soon? Or will online classes continue to be looked as substitutes of in class experiences?
• Would educators that taught before this techonology age argue that traditional learning was just effective if more effective than these “smart classrooms” equipped with all sorts of gadgets? Does the added costs of these advancements offset the “positive results” of the classroom?
• Will using online sources make students more involved and in turn more equipped and ready for the job market?
• How do universities make sure that students do not get distracted to by the different modes of technology and instead focus on the task as hand? There is also a chance that students will be more inclined to cheating. How does one ensure that this problem is as reduced as possible?
• Is the student credit hour an effective way of measuring and determining what a student does in the classroom and whether a certain amount of credits is enough to be counted as a class?
• Is it necessarily a “bad” thing that the credit hour allows students to transfer or take courses at another university? What would be the positive outcome of having a student remain at solely one Has online learning lived up to the “promise” cited in the Carey and Kelly article?
• Most of the biggest online universities mentioned are for profit. Should student be paying for these online classes? Will a student be able to make it in the marketplace having graduated from an online university?
• Liberty University grew substantially as a result of its online learning addition. Would this university have grown in number as substantially if this addition was not implemented?
• Would the hybrid/blended delivery form of online incorporation be the most successful mode of delivery in the classroom?
• Why are student often more successful when they learn online than when they learn in a face to face environment? The distraction card may not be a reason since students might be less motivated when they learn at home.
• While online learning may have some cost benefits for students, universities seem to be spending more as a result. Is it worth it for universities to spend a significant amount of money on online learning if its only going to cost them more than their traditional path?
• Will online education become so popular that this form of education will offer competition to traditional colleges? Do they need to have more optional like vocational colleges?
• Will online classes make up for professors that do not teach well? Is this the reason that students at MIT do considerably better in classes in which they learn through “blended” models of combining online learning with teacher led classroom experience? 

What should state universities do if governments keep decreasing their assistance in terms of funding the schools?
What does the gold standard mean? What should institutions such as CUNY do in order to reach this gold standard?
Will lowering the amount of research institutions make it more possible for public universities to maintain their tuition costs?

Do private education institutions in New York provide for more jobs than public institutions?
In is interesting to note the trend: for Texas  and California more of the jobs come out of public institutions rather than private institutions. However for New York City, more jobs come out of private institutions. Why do you think the trend differs for NYC? Might it have to do with the fact that California and Texas have stronger systems of public higher education?
Is receiving an undergraduate degree enough to make a decent living in this economic recession? 
Do students end up providing for most of an institutions economic needs or does a bulk of this assistance come from endowments?

Does the government neglect the amount of money needed to support higher education institutions? Do they tend to spend their money on other parts of American life which they deem as more important? 

Will faculty want to continue working in these institutions if they have such heavy workloads and wage cuts?
Instead of increasing existing faculty member’s workloads, should universities hire graduate students to teach classes?
Will eliminating small classes allow for curriculum audit?
How does a university make sure that their budget plan is followed thoroughly?
Which services and functions can be taken out of institutions in order to lower costs?

Do you think that students at lower cost universities can receive just as excellent of an education as more expensive universities?
Can universities still hire great faculty and not maintain such high tuition costs?
Can the part time faculty provide for as great of a learning experience as full time faculty?

Are online degree courses offering competition for residential colleges?
How do universities convince students to pay higher tuition if they can get the same quality of education for a fraction of the price?                                                                                             Can a good quality education be supported by lower tuition costs?

Do some institutions function more as businesses rather than as institutions of higher education?
How do public institutions support themselves in a recession? Do they have any choice but to raise tuition for students?
Do some research universities “cop out” by using graduate students to teach their freshman and seniors at the same time expecting their students to pay high tuition?
Are cheaper universities just as “efficient” as Harvard?
Are middle class families the ones who suffer the most in terms of the aid their children receive? The wealthy have the money to pay for college and a majority of the time, the poor receive a generous amount of aid so what does that leave for middle class families?
Johnstone claims that regional universities are in the most financial trouble. Should these universities cut back on research to relieve some financial burden?                                         These articles made me think about the recent claims that NYU gives an unnecessary amount of its money to its faculty members (for covering their expenses on things as mortgage or car insurance). Why do private colleges feel the need to spend so much of its money on paying professors?