Distance Education

Class topics have thus far have covered the importance (or lack of importance) of education and the role it plays in economic growth. The focus has shifted towards the access and cost of distance education. Since we're going with the theory that education can help to stimulate economic growth, we then move forward to discussing how we access education and training as well as the costs of doing so. While there is the option of traditional education, distance education is increasingly becoming a viable option for advanced education and training.

So just what is distance education? As its name suggests, it's learning via distance. The instructor and learner are typically separated by space and time. Now, learners usually access distance education courses via asynchronous and/or synchronous technology. Asynchronous technology allows learners to access course materials on their own time, such as using discussions boards or email, while synchronous technology allowing learners to meet at the same time, such as web-conferencing. Now of course there are many more ways to access distance education courses but attempting to list them all would not be beneficial to this post.

Accessing distance education courses seems to be the relatively easy part. Yes, I know I shouldn't call it easy but let's not focus on that part. LOL. The hard part, for the learners, comes in financing this education/training. And this is where it gets tricky. Higher education can be financed through grants, scholarships, federal and private loans. For some of these options, it can a simple process, filling out your FAFSA for need based aids, completing applications for scholarships and grants. While the task can be daunting, learners don't typically encounter many problems in securing financing for their education.

Oh no, the problem comes after these funds are disbursed, specifically federal and private loans. Learners tend to take out these vast amounts of loan even when they don't need the full amount offered), creating vast amounts of debt in which they hope they will be able to repay once they receive their higher education degree. After all, one of the many reasons learners cite as why they pursue higher education degrees is to increase their income. Now what happens when a learner finishes their program and does not secure employment with an income to support those loans that were taken out to finance the education? Should learners only pursue programs with higher averages of incomes such as math and hard sciences?

Not all programs come with the guarantee of higher incomes (such as being a Liberal Arts major). Do we abandon those types of programs because they don't generate high incomes and which according to research, won't increase productivity as higher incomes are supposedly the cause for it. I could go more into detail but then I'd have to do another post (which I may have to!).

These are reasons as to the question education being a good or bad thing was put forth. While I certainly believe education to be a good thing, it does leave me to question why certain programs are more favorable than others.

Human-Capital Theory

Sounds interesting, right? Well it is! The Human-Capital Theory is defined as the education and training that an individual or group undergoes in an effort to to increase economic growth. Investing in human capital, similar to investing in higher education, is thought to improve economic growth. Just as I mentioned in the previous post, it is not feasible to assume that investing in education (human capital) will increase productivity.

There exists the inability to accurately measure certain aspects of cause of low/high productivity. Each individual is different and therefore will differ when it comes to personal characteristics, morals and values, and past experiences and so forth.

While I understand the premise behind human-capital, I must say that I am still a little confused about where I stand. On one hand, I agree that education and training do no guarantee increased productivity thus stimulating economic growth. But on the other hand, I regard education, specifically higher education, as something that all individuals should take part in. I think education combined with experience/training allows you to see things from a different perspective. I just feel like education is now being viewed as strictly a business and the outcome is to make the economy better. I think when you focus on such a large picture, you lose sight of what each individual can get out of it for themselves and not just for economic growth.

This is why I am confused because I can see how investing in human-capital can stimulate economic growth and benefit us all but at the same time it doesn't mean that everyone should be pushed to do so because then you begin having problems such as human-capital helping some people but not all.

Is Education a Good Thing?

My new course, OMDE 606, started off with a very interesting question; is education a good thing? Without giving the question much thought, many would answer yes, education is a good thing. After reading the article, Education: Elixir or Snake Oil (Wolf, 2002) it left me feeling somewhat confused about the question. Before responding students were assigned the role of either proponents of the argument or opponents. I was assigned the task of opposing the argument.

As mentioned in the class discussion, many people tend to list higher incomes as the reason why they're pursuing higher education degrees. Research shows that the "happier" and employee is, the more productive they are, the more the economy benefits from the increased productivity. So it would seem that it is a good thing to invest more money into the education system. I argued that just because some individuals appear to prosper financially after receiving a higher education degree does not mean that all will follow in the same path if given the same opportunity. And because of that fact, it does not seem feasible to pump loads of money into education.

However, if we are to look at education as not just a means of achieving a higher income but instead as a way to improve the quality of life (because quality of life does not always tie in with money) then the purpose of higher education becomes clear. Yes, we all want to make more money (who wouldn't) but that shouldn't be the driving force behind creating a financial deficit in the name of higher education.

Economic growth should not be measured by the amount of individuals holding degrees. If we educate ourselves on topics such as consumer spending and increased savings opportunities, maybe we would have a better shot at a positive and long term economic future.

So in your opinion, is education a good thing???