An Open Letter to the American People (signed by 61 Nobel Laureates )

[quote name='dmaul1114']To be fair, he's all about getting out of the rat race as fast as possible.[/quote]

Very good. Once out of the rat race, then what? Well, it is infinite number of choices. With your advanced degree, you're limited to a few options. If they remain lucrative, great. If not, somebody will claim the field became oversaturated.
 
I've realized, while trying to stay up with this little discussion, how far removed I am from the mentality of a lot of you when it comes to life philosophy.

Those of you who are arguing against FOC seem to have what I've commonly heard referred to as "East Coast Mentality" which is career is number one in life, and it defines who you are. Especially from dmaul with what he says about how important career is and how little importance having a family is.

I guess I have "West Coast Mentality", where for most people, Career is a necessary evil. What happens outside your career is what you are really living for (Family usually, and friends).

I am assuming a lot, if not all of you, are residing in the East.

Anywho, just making an observation, I think it's interesting how different parts of the country are raised with different focuses and priorities...... carry on.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. That's all my comment to FoC meant. I don't look down on regular folks who work a trade and raise a family.

I simply personally have more respect for people who better themselves intellectually and don't settle for just earning a paycheck and supporting a family.

I didn't say I don't respect such people at all, I simply have more respect for people who have loftier goals than just making ends meet and raising a family.

One can have those goals and also choose to get educated and work in a career that advances something rather than just providing a service. Of course all these trade services are needed by society so I do respect people who do them. I just simply value more people who have loftier goals. That's all.


As for the other crap above, what can I say. Even us highly educated folks have tempers, especially when making the mistake of getting in debates with people like Koggitt over stuff they know nothing about.[/quote]

I'd just like to see all the nay-sayers try and explain their position to the average manual worker looking to immigrate to the USA. Seems to me all these conservative types are always pushing to raise the wall on the border while talking out the other side of their mouth about how much they respect the working man.

Fact is USA isn't letting you in from some third-world country unless you're ready to pay for a collegiate education, program a computer, heal the sick, peform ground-breaking research, or pump a large amount of dough into a US corporation. And isn't that evidence of a tacit valuation in of itself.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Very good. Once out of the rat race, then what? Well, it is infinite number of choices. With your advanced degree, you're limited to a few options. If they remain lucrative, great. If not, somebody will claim the field became oversaturated.[/QUOTE]

Huh? I'm going into academia. I just have to bust ass for 6 years to get tenure then I have job security for life. Though I'll keep busting ass to get promoted to full professor after that, and will always work hard just because I love my work and think it's important.

I'm not in it because it's lucrative. Academic jobs in social science are not remotely lucrative given the amount of time it takes to get a Ph D and the amount of hours you work as a professor for that salary. You do it because you love the work, it's pretty much a job only work-a-holics need to apply for.

That was my point, I don't view working to make a living as the "rat race." I like my work, and do it for that reason, as well as to pay the bills. I don't work just to pay the bills like people in the rat race do.
 
It's just that a good career can lead to a good life. Like that NYT article said, women don't want a guy that can't support a family. You can bitch all you want about how you don't want those kind of women until you realize that those are the only kind of women. There are exceptions of course but the article does tell some good stories about people marrying young and not making it because of finances.

On the flip side, what the hell is the point of living if you don't have any time to enjoy it?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Those of you who are arguing against FOC seem to have what I've commonly heard referred to as "East Coast Mentality" which is career is number one in life, and it defines who you are. Especially from dmaul with what he says about how important career is and how little importance having a family is.
[/QUOTE]

I am from the east coast, but I don't know that it's a east coast mentality. It's just an advanced degree--particularly Ph Ds who want to stay in academia, mentality. There's plenty of people on the east coast who are all about working as little as possible and spending time with family etc. But maybe the workaholic thing is more prevalent out here, I've never lived out west.

But it's definitely a Ph D mentality. You don't put all that time into getting a master's and Ph D if your career isn't your main life focus. You do it because you interested in a field and want to devote the bulk of your time to making advances in that field.

That doesn't mean I don't have a social life. I have a long-term girlfriend (in the same field) and a several close friends I hang out with once or twice a week.

As for family, it's not that I don't care, I just don't enjoy children nor have the time or patience to raise any of my own. Even if I wasn't career centered that would likely be the same as I've just never had a desire to have kids, even back when I took work less seriously as an undergrad etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']
On the flip side, what the hell is the point of living if you don't have any time to enjoy it?[/QUOTE]

Well...

1. You have to enjoy doing the work. Not just "not mind doing it" but actually enjoy it.

2. Like I said above, I still have an active social life. Not wanting children helps with that as you can do social stuff whenever you want, rather than your life being consumed by work and raising children. Of course some enjoy children and that's fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']I'd just like to see all the nay-sayers try and explain their position to the average manual worker looking to immigrate to the USA. Seems to me all these conservative types are always pushing to raise the wall on the border while talking out the other side of their mouth about how much they respect the working man.

Fact is USA isn't letting you in from some third-world country unless you're ready to pay for a collegiate education, program a computer, heal the sick, peform ground-breaking research, or pump a large amount of dough into a US corporation. And isn't that evidence of a tacit valuation in of itself.[/QUOTE]

It looks to me like you are missing the point of the illegal immigration concern conservatives have.

Most people WANT to allow blue collar labor into the country. Most people are fine with it. They just want them all accounted for when they come.
 
Yeah, they just want people to go through the proper channels to get into this country instead of just showing up and asking for a job.
 
FoC -

Those were the most recent 2008 statistics. I dunno when exactly they surveyed it, but I'd guess it was pretty recent.

thrust -

You're not actually against liking your job are you? Everybody thinks that a career is a necessary evil if they don't like it. What Dmaul is trying to say is that he enjoys his work. I'd say that anybody who doesn't enjoy their work has set themselves up for a lot of misery. Personally I will enjoy my life outside of my career, I plan on having a family, I live on the east coast, but I also don't plan on having a career I hate so I can dread going into work every day just wishing for it to be over so I can enjoy something. I'm going to spend a lot of my life working, I think it's a good idea to enjoy it.
 
No absolutely not. My father absolutely loves his job with a passion, and I'm very jealous of him. I think it's important, if possible, to enjoy what you do.

I guess what I'm talking about is what's most important to you in life. Because most people, myself included, don't spend most waking hours with what's most important to them, but it's necessary that we do so to support ourselves.

When I talk about the east coast mentality, I'm mostly talking about priorities. My friends that have lived on the east coast talk about how people out there are generally super ambitious in their careers, comparatively. People out here, out West, tend to be pretty lax about their jobs, and even if they enjoy them, they are nothing like the Japanese, where obsession with work is a virtue. On the East, I'm told, society smiles more on obsession with work.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It looks to me like you are missing the point of the illegal immigration concern conservatives have.

Most people WANT to allow blue collar labor into the country. Most people are fine with it. They just want them all accounted for when they come.[/quote]

That's a nice sentiment. But the government under Republican leadership had a long time to change their immigration policy, and they didn't do it. It's all about opening the large door to educated and skilled workers, while opening a much much much smaller door to unskilled labor (that usually comes with preconditions such as political asylum or a commitment to enter the armed forces)
 
I think you are over exaggerating.

Those same evil Republicans supposedly love the cheap labor force streaming across the boarder as well, right? Because it's higher profit margins for their greedy corporate backers, right?

I actually believe there is some truth to that, but it applies to both parties, unfortunately.

I think Educated and Skilled workers, compared to the illegals, are in a vast minority, and are usually kept overseas so we can outsource all our work for cheap that would otherwise cost a lot more (see India).

Of course Republicans have failed on immigration, but I don't think it's for the reasons you think it is.

Immigration reform remains the one issue neither party will appropriately address any time soon.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']No absolutely not. My father absolutely loves his job with a passion, and I'm very jealous of him. I think it's important, if possible, to enjoy what you do.

I guess what I'm talking about is what's most important to you in life. Because most people, myself included, don't spend most waking hours with what's most important to them, but it's necessary that we do so to support ourselves.

When I talk about the east coast mentality, I'm mostly talking about priorities. My friends that have lived on the east coast talk about how people out there are generally super ambitious in their careers, comparatively. People out here, out West, tend to be pretty lax about their jobs, and even if they enjoy them, they are nothing like the Japanese, where obsession with work is a virtue. On the East, I'm told, society smiles more on obsession with work.[/quote]

Meh, I've certainly never met someone who would rather be working than not. I doubt any of that is confined to any region either. It would probably depend more on the job. Either 1) You really want to make a ton of money and so you're dedicated to the job for that purpose or 2) You think what you're doing really matters and so you're dedicated to it for that purpose. Discounting any outside pressure, of course.
 
[quote name='SpazX']FoC -
Those were the most recent 2008 statistics. I dunno when exactly they surveyed it, but I'd guess it was pretty recent.[/quote]

Glad to hear it.

Now, geographic distribution, please.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Glad to hear it.

Now, geographic distribution, please.[/quote]

That's no separated for that. They have surveys for different regions as well, you can find whatever you want at www.bls.gov.

Though I don't see how that's really relevant - obviously if you live in a place where there aren't any jobs that require a degree then the degree doesn't matter. That still doesn't change the average. I have no doubts that you can find several places in the US where your job prospects aren't any different with or without a degree.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think you are over exaggerating.

Those same evil Republicans supposedly love the cheap labor force streaming across the boarder as well, right? Because it's higher profit margins for their greedy corporate backers, right?

I actually believe there is some truth to that, but it applies to both parties, unfortunately.

I think Educated and Skilled workers, compared to the illegals, are in a vast minority, and are usually kept overseas so we can outsource all our work for cheap that would otherwise cost a lot more (see India).

Of course Republicans have failed on immigration, but I don't think it's for the reasons you think it is.

Immigration reform remains the one issue neither party will appropriately address any time soon.[/quote]

For the record I wasn't saying the immigration policy was evil - it's just a fact of life that educated people are considered more valueable to corporations, governments, and countries - no matter what political rhetoric you hear coming out of the nearest politician.

You're right in one respect - USA isn't taking in enough skilled workers, and that back-ass policy is going to hurt us in the long run.

http://www.coha.org/2008/07/skilled...tion-policy-threatens-us-economic-well-being/
 
[quote name='SpazX']Meh, I've certainly never met someone who would rather be working than not. I doubt any of that is confined to any region either. It would probably depend more on the job. Either 1) You really want to make a ton of money and so you're dedicated to the job for that purpose or 2) You think what you're doing really matters and so you're dedicated to it for that purpose. Discounting any outside pressure, of course.[/QUOTE]

Yep, that's it in a nutshell, and I fall in category 2.


[quote name='SpazX']
Though I don't see how that's really relevant - obviously if you live in a place where there aren't any jobs that require a degree then the degree doesn't matter. That still doesn't change the average. I have no doubts that you can find several places in the US where your job prospects aren't any different with or without a degree.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm struggling to see what he's getting at here. Just trying to find something to support his view that college education is a waste of time I guess.

Which is pointless given I, and everyone else, has conceded that college isn't for everyone. It's just one way to get into a decent paying job, but not the only way in many fields. Yeah, engineering, medicine, law etc. you need degrees, but plenty of trade fields and even stuff like computer science you'll make more money faster by not spending 4+ years in college.

We've conceded that point, so I'm not sure what crusade he's on here with challenging those statistics. People with degrees make more on average--nationwide and within region/city from other stats I've seen. But that doesn't mean that everyone with a degree earns more than people without a degree in their field, or that college gets you out of the "rat race" faster which seems to be his main concern.

We've conceded that point. I just wish he'd quit crusading against college as being useless for everyone. It's not for everyone, but it's beneficial for many or most IMO. Be it through just the value of learning or having a higher earnings ceiling in their field (at the expense of delaying entering the workforce).
 
[quote name='SpazX']That's no separated for that. They have surveys for different regions as well, you can find whatever you want at www.bls.gov.[/quote]

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/atlanta/qcewkentucky.txt

This article is all I could find about Kentucky.

It doesn't mention education or college.

...

I dug a little deeper ...

Here are wages in my field in my metro area:

[SIZE=+1]Computer and Mathematical Science Occupations [/SIZE]
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_31140.htm#b15-0000

Do you notice anything missing?
 
It may be a tough stat to find as that's probably a field where most people in most of those postions have college degrees....so it may be hard to find a large enough sample of people working as say, database administrators, who only have high school diplomas to be able to compare mean/median salaries.

Just think of your situation. You got out of college and had a hard time getting a job because you were up against people who probably mostly had experience AND a degree--or just a lot of experience. While you had a degree and little to no experience probably.

Think of how much worse off you'd have been straight out of high school. Not saying the college was helpful, and maybe getting some technical certifications would have been faster and easier and got you on the market before it was so saturated. But it's not like the degree hurt your chances--though not doubt it was frustrating to put in the time and not have it pay off afterwards.

Again, college gets higher wages on average, but that doesn't mean it pays off for everyone. There's some look involved. This article is pretty good on this as it shows median salaries by education (more outdated the the info posted earlier though) but also tallks about how it doesn't pay off for everyone and that there are various factors to consider when deciding if college is the right thing to do.

http://www.salary.com/learning/layouthtmls/leal_display_nocat_Ser285_Par409.html

This from BLS also has the 2007 wages along with unemployment rates by education level. I can't find anything state level either though.

edupay.jpg


There's just no disputing that on average education pays off. But that still doesn't mean that it's for everyone and that some people don't end up getting screwed as the market in a field changes over the 4+ years their in school--as the above article mentioned (and as happened to you).


Edit: The census has earnings by education level by state, but it's very outdated (given the last census was released in 2000).

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/earnings/call1kyboth.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']It may be a tough stat to find as that's probably a field where most people in most of those postions have college degrees....so it may be hard to find a large enough sample of people working as say, database administrators, who only have high school diplomas to be able to compare mean/median salaries.

Just think of your situation. You got out of college and had a hard time getting a job because you were up against people who probably mostly had experience AND a degree--or just a lot of experience. While you had a degree and little to no experience probably.

Think of how much worse off you'd have been straight out of high school. Not saying the college was helpful, and maybe getting some technical certifications would have been faster and easier and got you on the market before it was so saturated. But it's not like the degree hurt your chances--though not doubt it was frustrating to put in the time and not have it pay off afterwards.

Again, college gets higher wages on average, but that doesn't mean it pays off for everyone. There's some look involved. This article is pretty good on this as it shows median salaries by education (more outdated the the info posted earlier though) but also tallks about how it doesn't pay off for everyone and that there are various factors to consider when deciding if college is the right thing to do.

http://www.salary.com/learning/layouthtmls/leal_display_nocat_Ser285_Par409.html

This from BLS also has the 2007 wages along with unemployment rates by education level. I can't find anything state level either though.

edupay.jpg


There's just no disputing that on average education pays off. But that still doesn't mean that it's for everyone and that some people don't end up getting screwed as the market in a field changes over the 4+ years their in school--as the above article mentioned (and as happened to you).


Edit: The census has earnings by education level by state, but it's very outdated (given the last census was released in 2000).

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/earnings/call1kyboth.html[/quote]

I think that's a pretty good summary. There will always be outliers, but on the whole education definitely raises your value.

It should go without saying - but I want to head the "but Bill Gates..." people off at the pass. If your parents are rich, can introduce to to well-connected people, and you are extremely self-motivated then there's a chance you can become a major success without anything more then a HS education and specialized training. You might also win the lottery.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']We've conceded that point, so I'm not sure what crusade he's on here with challenging those statistics. [/quote]

We'll get there ...maybe.

I can make that advantage in pay shrink if we lay out some ground rules.
 
Someone explain to me how we got onto this topic.

How did we get so far from making fun of those people who express disdain for science and public funding of science?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']We'll get there ...maybe.

I can make that advantage in pay shrink if we lay out some ground rules.[/QUOTE]

There's always going to be ways to shrink it, as average stats like that never tell the story for everyone at the individual level. There's always outliers.

But in the big picture, education pays off--on average.

For some people, and in some places, not as much. Take those old Kentucky census stats show a smaller difference, for instance. Kentucky isn't a great place to be with advanced degrees, or even college degrees to some extent. I grew up in WV and it's the same, you go to college to get the hell out of these rural areas. There's not much there job wise relative to other places. I have one university that has a semi decent department related to my field (a sociology department that has a criminology division--sort of) so I couldn't really go back even if I wanted to.

And it's much easier to get a job without a college degree in places like KY and WV as not as high a percentage of people in the job market have them. Somewhere like DC it's hard even with a degree as everyone has one, and many have master's or above, so often a bachelor's doesn't get your foot in many doors.

So beyond just being whether you want to make as much money as quickly as possible being a factor in whether college is worth it for you, you also have to factor in the market for your field in your area. If everyone in it has a bachelor's you better at least have that. If they don't, maybe you can get by with connections and some certifications etc.

Again, the value and need of college varies greatly from person to person, field to field and area to area. But it's silly to be so deadset in the mind frame to think that it's a waste of time for everyone, everywhere. Just as it's silly to say that college is for everyone and is the best way for everyone to make a good living. As is usually the case, the truth is more complicated and lies in between the extreme views.
 
[quote name='dmaul']What in? I don't expect great intellectual debates with somone with masters degrees in computer science or engineering. They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically etc., so I wouldn't expect them to be more articulate about say politics than my plumber.[/QUOTE]

Engineers don't know how to think critically, that's a good one. You know there is a world out there beyond those ivy covered walls, right?

You must be really fun at parties.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']^So, no ground rules, huh?[/QUOTE]

There's no need to waste time on that. On average college pays off. Sometimes it doesn't. I'm not interested in the specifics of when it doesn't pay off. I've already conceded many times that it's not for everyone, and not by any means the only way, or always the best way, to make a nice salary fast.

You just need to stop implying that college is useless for everyone, in every field and we'll be all square. For some people college is the best way for them to achieve their goals--financial and other wise. For some people it's not.

There's no debate here.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And it's much easier to get a job without a college degree in places like KY and WV as not as high a percentage of people in the job market have them. Somewhere like DC it's hard even with a degree as everyone has one, and many have master's or above, so often a bachelor's doesn't get your foot in many doors.[/quote]

Just FYI - DC is a town of connections. It's who you know more then what you know.

Don't just take my word, there are plenty of high profile examples.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901964_pf.html

College is a place where you can make those connections.

I just don't want you to that guy who comes to DC with a bunch of letters after your name only to get jaded when you're fired to make room for a kid who believes "Touched by an Angel" is a documentary.
 
[quote name='camoor']Just FYI - DC is a town of connections. It's who you know more then what you know.

Don't just take my word, there are plenty of high profile examples.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901964_pf.html

College is a place where you can make those connections.

I just don't want you to that guy who comes to DC with a bunch of letters after your name only to get jaded when you're fired to make room for a kid who believes "Touched by an Angel" is a documentary.[/QUOTE]

Oh don't worry. I've been in the area for grad school for 6 years. :D Have little desire to stay after graduation. I was just using it to make the point that it's near impossible to get jobs in many cities without at least a degree. Often you need a degree (or advanced degree) AND connections. Though you're right, with the corruption out there many times it's all the connections.

[quote name='bmulligan']Engineers don't know how to think critically, that's a good one. You know there is a world out there beyond those ivy covered walls, right?
[/QUOTE]


You read that wrong. The latter part of what you quoted was the point I was making. There's not as much reason to expect an engineer, computer scienctist, chemist etc. to be more informed on politics just because they have a degree. Versus someone with a social science degree that had to take a lot of political science, history, sociology etc. to get their degree.

I cared little about politics until college, majoring in journalism and minoring in sociology started my interest. I can't imagine that would have happened if I'd stuck wtih computer science and not had to take so many classes in poli sci etc.

Clearly engineers can think obviously critically, but there's not reason to think they're degree has led them to seek out staying informed on politics. They may be informed, but their degree would have little to do with it versus someone that had a degree in political science, history etc.

And I'm quite fun at a party, thank you very much. Though probably not as much as you as I'm sure people love watching you get your ass kicked when you make smart ass remarks like you do on here all the time.
 
Sorry, but you've given no compelling evidence that we should expect a social science major to know anything more about politics than my plumber, or the guy who designed my car. I'm sure you're an expert in social engineering, but politics is a completely different theatre than the subset of leftist thought pervading social studies in academia.

I would theorize that the capacity of higher educated people to identify, integrate, and apply new information would make them very informed in political thinking, were they so inclined to read a newspaper, regardless of their specialty. I could be wrong, but I thought that the superior mental faculties of advanced degree holders could transpose their abilities into many other types of knowledge readily. But perhaps those skills are only taught in the theoretical sciences, not the lowly applied sciences.

I guess that makes you in partial agreement with me that science, or at least, the applied sciences aren't what advances society after all. They're merely cogs in the machinery of the truly advancing fields of critical thought and analysis. I'll enjoy the solace in a half agreement.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There's no need to waste time on that. [/quote]

Correct.

If we lay down ground rules, use the data on income levels at various education levels, use the average or range student loan ranges and interest rates to obtain various levels of education, we could construct an age when college or other advanced degrees pay off.

Is 18? 28? 38? 48? 58? 68? 78?

Well, we'd have to crunch some numbers and I might be wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll shrug and say, "I'm wrong. Oops."
 
This thread isn't even about who's (sp?) dick is bigger. You guys are just arguing whether you should use inches or centimeters. See ya.
 
[quote name='depascal22']This thread isn't even about who's (sp?) dick is bigger. You guys are just arguing whether you should use inches or centimeters. See ya.[/quote]

OK. We'll get back on topic.

A lot of very intelligent people prefer Obama to McCain.

OK, that's nice. Most people at that level of formal education do.

/thread

Feel better?
 
You know, I think the biggest problem with governement and politics is all of us engage in the monday quarterback mentality. We think we are experts, we think we know everything, but I doubt any of us has been in elected office or ever ran for one. Class president doesn't count.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']You know, I think the biggest problem with governement and politics is all of us engage in the monday quarterback mentality. We think we are experts, we think we know everything, but I doubt any of us has been in elected office or ever ran for one. Class president doesn't count.[/quote]

How about college dorm council?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Engineers don't know how to think critically, that's a good one. You know there is a world out there beyond those ivy covered walls, right?

You must be really fun at parties.[/QUOTE]

Holy crap, did he actually say this?

What in? I don't expect great intellectual debates with somone with masters degrees in computer science or engineering. They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically etc., so I wouldn't expect them to be more articulate about say politics than my plumber.

That's an actual dmaul quote?

HAHAHAHA

Dear god...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Sorry, but you've given no compelling evidence that we should expect a social science major to know anything more about politics than my plumber, or the guy who designed my car. [/quote]

All I was saying is that people who major is social sciences, political science, history etc. are going to have to take many more classes related to history and politics than someone who does engineering. So they're going to learn more about these topics in college and be more likely to be interested in and stay informed on politics in the future.

More likely being the key, of course some of them won't be and many people who majored in engineering or didn't go to college at all will be much more informed. But its hard to argue that taking numerous political science classes etc. doesn't spark more interest in the topic on average among these students.



I would theorize that the capacity of higher educated people to identify, integrate, and apply new information would make them very informed in political thinking, were they so inclined to read a newspaper, regardless of their specialty. I could be wrong, but I thought that the superior mental faculties of advanced degree holders could transpose their abilities into many other types of knowledge readily. But perhaps those skills are only taught in the theoretical sciences, not the lowly applied sciences.

Of course that is true for every major. I'm just saying interest is likely to be higher on average among thosue who got those skills plus spent a ton of time directly studying politics and history during their college careers. They have the skills and were forced to learn about and think about political issues.

I guess that makes you in partial agreement with me that science, or at least, the applied sciences aren't what advances society after all. They're merely cogs in the machinery of the truly advancing fields of critical thought and analysis. I'll enjoy the solace in a half agreement.

Nope. I'd agree education is only one part of the machine, but not science. Science is much more than a COG. One can think critically about cancer, but they aren't advancing a damn thing if they aren't in a lab testing treatments or prevention strategies etc. and finding factual ways to deal with the disease.

The same is true in every discipline. One can think of how to prevent crime, but is doing nothing to advance this if they're not working with police, or prison treatment programs etc. to apply their ideas and rigorously test whether they work.

Critcal though/philosophy is key, as it brings the ideas that science tests. But ideas along get no where if they're are not tested by science. Philosophy once thought the world to be flat. Science proved it to be round.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Correct.

If we lay down ground rules, use the data on income levels at various education levels, use the average or range student loan ranges and interest rates to obtain various levels of education, we could construct an age when college or other advanced degrees pay off.

Is 18? 28? 38? 48? 58? 68? 78?

Well, we'd have to crunch some numbers and I might be wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll shrug and say, "I'm wrong. Oops."[/QUOTE]

If you're willing to do it, knock yourself out. I've already conceded that college isn't going to be the quickest way out of the rat race for many people, so I have no stake in this issue.

I also have no personal interest in what age it pays off for me. I'm sure it will be damn old, probably in my 50s or later given I'll be 30 or 31 when I start my real career. But like I said, I didn't go into this field for the finanacial benefits.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
That's an actual dmaul quote?

HAHAHAHA

Dear god...[/QUOTE]

Like I said, it was phrased a bit poorly. All I meant was my saying that people with degrees in social science and related fields should be more informed on politics didn't necessarily extend to engineers, computer science majors etc.

NOT because they can't think critically. Of course they can, their fields are built around critical thought.

But because they weren't forced to take a ton of political science classes, history classes etc. relative to people who majored in political science, history, sociology etc. and took a ton of classes.

Most kids going into college don't give a shit about politics. I've taught a few freshman level classes and these kids no jack shit about politics, with a few exceptions. The ones who have to take political science classes over there 4 years are more likely to gain more interest in the topic, than those who do not take those types of clases or only take one 100 level course as an elective.

Graduates in every major should have the critical thinking skills to be informed about politics, they just may not have the interest--and if they do it probably wasn't from exposure to the topics during their studies but just an interest they always had or developed on their own.

That's all I meant.
 
I don't expect great intellectual debates with somone with masters degrees in computer science or engineering. They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically etc., so I wouldn't expect them to be more articulate about say politics than my plumber.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Graduates in every major should have the critical thinking skills to be informed about politics, they just may not have the interest--and if they do it probably wasn't from exposure to the topics during their studies but just an interest they always had or developed on their own.

That's all I meant. [/QUOTE]

You can't say one thing and claim to have meant the exact opposite
 
[quote name='Koggit']You can't say one thing and claim to have meant the exact opposite[/QUOTE]

It was poorly phrased. The last part of what you quoted: "so I wouldn't expect them to be more articulate about say politics than my plumber."

Was the point I was trying to make, it just wasn't worded well. All my posts in this thread have been about how the overall value of college is in learning to think critically about issues and consider diverse points of view--in response to people saying it was just memorization

Clearly I'm not going to post that engineers don't have that skill. Every graduate of any half way decent college should get that benefit.

I simply left a word or two out here:

"They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically etc."

It should have read:

"They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically about politics and social issues etc."

I just don't expect the college experience of an engineer to have got them interested in politics. They were either interested already or got interested on their own. And if they got interested in them, they clearly have the critical thinking skills to be informed about the topic.

On the other hand people who took a lot of political science and similar classes may have gotten interested as a result of their college experience. I know I did, I didn't care jack about politics before taking some poli sci and history classes as an undergrad. Classes expose you to new ideas. My whole career is based of getting interested in Criminology from taking an intro to crim class as an elective, then deciding to minor in sociology and take several more crim classes.
 
I'd understand if you were speaking strictly of polysci majors, but I don't think you are.

What's the difference between the social science classes you took as a journalism major and the social science classes I take as a physics major?

At UW Seattle, every student in the College of Arts & Sciences is required to take 25 credits of I&S (social sciences). Journalism, Physics, History, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc -- they all have the exact same requirement. Those 25 credits can even be completely disconnected from American politics. Even foreign languages can satisfy the requirement. You can major in journalism, learn Japanese, and get a degree. You can major in electrical engineering, learn Japanese, and get a degree all the same. Why would you expect the Journalism major (or history, or whatever) to be more informed than the engineer?

Your bounds seem awfully arbitrary to me. The whole "grad program rank matters, undergrad rank doesn't" thing also seems pretty arbitrary.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
What's the difference between the social science classes you took as a journalism major and the social science classes I take as a physics major?
[/quote]

It could vary by school I guess. As a journalism major I had to take 4 specific poli sci classes, 4 specific history classes, 3 econ classes etc. We didn't have many electives, they had our classes mapped out for us. I guess they wanted future reporters to have a good knowledge of these things. We only had like 9 or 12 hours of true electives where we could take whatever we wanted.

We were also required to choose a minor, and I choose sociology which gave me more. A lot of people minor in poli sci or history in the journalism program.

Where as, my friends that majored in engineering, chemistry etc. didn't have that, they just had a lot of electives too choose from, and could have taken no political science classes if they choose, or at most only had to take the lowest level introductory course.

But you're right, and other schools may require more social science classes among people in engineering, CS, hard sciences etc.

he whole "grad program rank matters, undergrad rank doesn't" thing also seems pretty arbitrary.

I never said undergrad ranking doesn't matter. I just said you made a bit too much of it.

Grad rankings matter more, as in grad school, especailly at the Ph D level, you are working directly with faculty not just taking classes from them. So it's important to gain the experience you get doing research with the leading faculty in your field. And having connections with these top scholars is crucial to getting a good job--particularly in academia. Who you're letters of reference are from are huge in where you get academic interviews. Being from a top school and having letters from leading scholars who are friends with other top scholars in other universities will get you interviews over people with more impressive CVs.

It's always important to go to a good school, I won't dispute that. But it's more important at the graduate level for a variety of reasons, in my opinion. Undergrad, as long as you have a high GPA from a decent school you're ok. My undergrad school is tier 3 in the US News rankings (so somewhere in the 51st-74th percentile--they only give exact rankings to the top 50%) and I got into the what is the top ranked graduate program in my field in their rankings.

So I guess my point is there is benefit for sure to going to a top ranked undergrad school, but there's not a lot of harm done in going to a lower ranked one. Where as at the graduate level, it's more important to be at top program, both for the experience and for trhe connections and reputation getting your foot in the door for interviews at other top schools.

But I will also say the grad school rankings are fairly aribitrary. For instance, my program rankings only go through like 12 or 13 schools as that's all the Ph D programs in my field that have been around long enough to be ranked. For the most part, I think students are fine at any of these schools. They all have solid faculties. Of course, it matters more in a field with 100s of Ph D programs, especially since you'll be in competition with a much larger pool of graduates every year.

Edit Also, one thing I'd add about undergraduate programs, is that at top schools/programs the senior faculty don't teach a lot of undergrad courses. For instance, in my program, most of the senior faculty at most teach one upper level undergrad course a year, and many only teach grad level courses. A lot of the undergrad courses are taught by adjunct lecturers and ABD Ph D students. So at top schools sometimes undergrads have less access to the faculty that earn the school that ranking. While the grad students are still getting taught by them and working on research with them etc.

Just one more thing to consider when thinking about undergrad rankings vs. graduate program rankings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']If you're willing to do it, knock yourself out. I've already conceded that college isn't going to be the quickest way out of the rat race for many people, so I have no stake in this issue.

I also have no personal interest in what age it pays off for me. I'm sure it will be damn old, probably in my 50s or later given I'll be 30 or 31 when I start my real career. But like I said, I didn't go into this field for the finanacial benefits.[/quote]

However, you're convinced college is the most efficient route.

You need to stop explicitly stating "On average college pays off." unless you want to lay some ground rules. Then, the math can decide.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']However, you're convinced college is the most efficient route.[/quote]

No I'm not. I've said many times for people that want to make as much money as quickly as possible it's probably more efficent to not go to college and to just learn a trade and be smart investing the money you earn vs. delaying work force entry 4+ years.

You need to stop explicitly stating "On average college pays off." unless you want to lay some ground rules. Then, the math can decide.

By on average, I mean the mean/median salaries above. That's indisputable. They're clearly higher and have lower unemployment rates. Ground rules can change that, for instance I'm sure it's not true in a lot of fields and those averages are no doubt inflated by high paying fields like engineering, medicine, law etc. etc. which require degrees or advanced degrees for entry into the job market.

But on average, it's higher. End of story. Is it higher for everyone? Nope. Is it higher in every field? Nope. Does it vary by area? yep. But it's indisputably higher on average when you lump everyone together as in those BLS stats. That's all I'm saying. It's higher on average, it's needed in some fields, and you get more benefit if you don't major in an oversaturated field. That's all I'm saying. there are tons of exceptions where college isn't ideal for someone.

Again, if people only care about making $$$ as fast as possible, then they shouldn't go to college in many cases. They'll get their $$$ faster by working hard in a trade and being smart with money.

It's a win-win. They get their precious $$$ faster and I have less people who don't care about learning and just want a degree in my classes.

As for the ground rules, it's hard to set anyway. Is your goal to get out of the "rat race" as fast as possible? Or is it to earn the most salary possible over your life time? For the first, college isn't always the best. For the latter college probably wins more often since you have a higher ceiling with a degree in many fields. But even in both cases there will be exceptions to those general trends.

So it's really a pointless exercise. Everyone just needs to evaluate their goals, the field they want to work in, the area they want to live, and decide if college is a worthwhile investment for them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Someone explain to me how we got onto this topic.

How did we get so far from making fun of those people who express disdain for science and public funding of science?[/QUOTE]

Beats me. I was incredibly disheartened by the anti-intellectual bullshit in the first half of the thread ... now I'm just bored.
 
I was going to say something simmilar to TRQ. Except it's not anti-intellectual, it's wannabe intellectual.

When will this thread get off the merry-go-round?
 
[quote name='trq']Beats me. I was incredibly disheartened by the anti-intellectual bullshit in the first half of the thread ... now I'm just bored.[/QUOTE]

I'm bored as well, hence the long posts. Procrastinating writing the boring last chapter (data collection methodology) to my dissertation prospectus.

But I'm glad to have drowned out the anti-intellectual bullshit. Though it wasn't that drowned out, see bmulligan's post above on this page.
 
bread's done
Back
Top