Does a college degree still pay off financially?

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='panzerfaust']i'm glad i'm in the computer science field, people are really just concerned with what you're capable of.[/QUOTE]
The more I work in IT the more I see that one important skill is missing in a lot of people, social skills. That and sometimes a lack of personal hygiene....
 
[quote name='Javery']College today = high school yesterday
grad school today = college yesterday

College isn't enough anymore! So sad.[/QUOTE]

Very sad. There are some people getting Laboratory Sciience/Medical technology graduate degrees, and for what? To be a technical specialist and make $2-$3 an hour more than me with my associates degree.

So pointless.

Or the idea that you need a Masters now to start teaching at the elemetary school level.
 
entitlement to a job after college makes sense because that's what college should be for: preparing you to contribute to society by taking 4 years out to study, so that you can tackle problems that can only be accomplished after 4 years of study.

but surprise, the majority of stuff we learn in college is mostly useless and outdated.
and on top of that, many jobs require a college degree for no reason other than to have something to blame if their employee fails and the boss wants an answer.
 
[quote name='Clak']The more I work in IT the more I see that one important skill is missing in a lot of people, social skills. That and sometimes a lack of personal hygiene....[/QUOTE]

i miss having women in my classes :cry:
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']i miss having women in my classes :cry:[/QUOTE]
Eh, I've met some smelly women too...:puke:
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Very sad. There are some people getting Laboratory Sciience/Medical technology graduate degrees, and for what? To be a technical specialist and make $2-$3 an hour more than me with my associates degree.

So pointless.

[/QUOTE]

Does the graduate degree make them eligible for managment jobs? Could someone with an associates degree be promoted to lab manager? Also, is your company paying for their graduate degree?

I always wonder about the people who only have a high school diploma and worked their way up to a decent desk job with good pay after working for one company for 20+ years - what happens if they get laid off? How can they find a comparable job when those jobs now require a 4 year degree?
 
[quote name='chiwii']Does the graduate degree make them eligible for managment jobs? Could someone with an associates degree be promoted to lab manager? Also, is your company paying for their graduate degree?

I always wonder about the people who only have a high school diploma and worked their way up to a decent desk job with good pay after working for one company for 20+ years - what happens if they get laid off? How can they find a comparable job when those jobs now require a 4 year degree?[/QUOTE]
If the company has a shitty hr department, which most do, then the applicant will be shit out of luck. Too much experience and will want more money.
 
Well to be fair, a lot of the job postings I see, at least for IT jobs, usually will have an education requirement or "equivalent experience". Which never makes much sense to me, how much experience does one get at college? And how much is the equivalent?

Often they'll add an actual number, say 5 years of experience. So at least in theory, if one could get their foot in the door and stay at a company for a few years, they'd probably be better off than a college graduate. Getting hired to begin with is the problem though.
 
[quote name='dohdough']If the company has a shitty hr department, which most do, then the applicant will be shit out of luck. Too much experience and will want more money.[/QUOTE]
HR departments are often times so full of shit. Often times even breaking the policies they're supposed to be enforcing to begin with.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Does the graduate degree make them eligible for managment jobs? Could someone with an associates degree be promoted to lab manager? Also, is your company paying for their graduate degree?

I always wonder about the people who only have a high school diploma and worked their way up to a decent desk job with good pay after working for one company for 20+ years - what happens if they get laid off? How can they find a comparable job when those jobs now require a 4 year degree?[/QUOTE]

Education becomes less important on your resume after a few years of meaningful experience. However, it does help you get your foot in the door.

In my experience (big pharma) research labs require at least a college degree for a lab manager position. Any sort of real R&D work is going to require a masters or most likely a PhD.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well to be fair, a lot of the job postings I see, at least for IT jobs, usually will have an education requirement or "equivalent experience". Which never makes much sense to me, how much experience does one get at college? And how much is the equivalent?

Often they'll add an actual number, say 5 years of experience. So at least in theory, if one could get their foot in the door and stay at a company for a few years, they'd probably be better off than a college graduate. Getting hired to begin with is the problem though.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='kill3r7']Education becomes less important on your resume after a few years of meaningful experience. However, it does help you get your foot in the door.

In my experience (big pharma) research labs require at least a college degree for a lab manager position. Any sort of real R&D work is going to require a masters or most likely a PhD.[/QUOTE]


This is what I have been saying. Take away the few careers in the world that actually need very skilled labor...Doctors, Rocket Scientist etc etc. if we are speaking in a vacuum than most jobs can be easily attain within with 5ish years of work related experience....without the 24+ average debt to carry.

This again points back to the fact that college for a majority of professions is just admission to a good ole boys club.

I think the biggest thing is going through your young adult life WITHOUT the equivalent of a small house payment on your back. I have many friends who didnt go to college, some make less than me, some make the same, some make more. Making the same or more as me being a college grad doesnt bother me...its the fact that they will out save me because they havent sold their soul to student loans.

Now who is to say that in a couple years I might get a bigger break and start earning big dollars...but the trade off would be all of my hopes and dreams for my young adult life dash to make money at 30+. There are many things I wanted to do as a young adult that I will never do because of my student loan debt. I wanted to volunteer my time in a 3rd world country but the feds wont take that as payment so I cant. All of this is crazy subjective but like I said before no one seems to like to really talk about the subject, they just gloss over it.

You might not be able to afford a nice car, nice house or whatever but at least you could do some real life searching (most people dont they are lazy) before getting married and settling down. Hell I would almost had rather travel the world as a nomad for my 20s and then go to college at 30 and try to get my life together rather than spending all of my 20s working 2 jobs to pay back loans. (Hippie talk!!!!!)
 
Soodmeg - you can defer government student loans when you don't have any income. If you want to quit your job and volunteer in a third world country, do it and defer your payments.
 
Oh, I know all about deferring payments....your interest keeps racking up though. In a sense I would have to pay them for the pleasure of not paying them. No Thanks, I sold my soul and I will try to buy it back as quick as possible.

The only way to really make it work is to defer college not the payments. The important thing is the freedom of being able to make those types of choices. It just becomes not responsible once you have the debt, it only means when you come back to reality you will be in worse shape than when you left thus defeating the entire purpose of truly soul searching. Its hard to give your all helping Hungry Hungry Haitians when you know that you will need the same amount of help for yourself the second you step on US soil.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Does the graduate degree make them eligible for management jobs? Could someone with an associates degree be promoted to lab manager? Also, is your company paying for their graduate degree?

I always wonder about the people who only have a high school diploma and worked their way up to a decent desk job with good pay after working for one company for 20+ years - what happens if they get laid off? How can they find a comparable job when those jobs now require a 4 year degree?[/QUOTE]

Supposedly the graduate degree makes you more qualified for management jobs, yes.

It's "This person went to college for 4 years more than you, so they're smarter" attitude most employers have.

I got married, and started working. Had kids and lost any sort of time/motivation for going back to school. Single people kept working and going back for more education.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Supposedly the graduate degree makes you more qualified for management jobs, yes.

It's "This person went to college for 4 years more than you, so they're smarter" attitude most employers have.

I got married, and started working. Had kids and lost any sort of time/motivation for going back to school. Single people kept working and going back for more education.[/QUOTE]

I assume that your coworkers aren't just getting the higher degrees to make $2-3 more an hour, they're doing it to open up more opportunities for their careers. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Are you talking to your kids about college yet? Are you encouraging them to plan on going to college?

I don't have kids, but if I did, I still think I'd encourage them to at least get a 4 year degree, despite the rising cost of a college education. Based on my experience with some very large companies, it seems like the opportunities for people with a high school diploma are decreasing quickly.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']It's "This person went to college for 4 years more than you, so they're smarter" attitude most employers have.[/QUOTE]
man this is so ass backwards when you think about it.

"i've been working for years and picking up real experience, but instead they hired the other guy who has no experience... BUT HE HAS A DEGREE STUDYING THINGS THAT ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT"

education badly needs reforming
 
[quote name='kainzero']man this is so ass backwards when you think about it.

"i've been working for years and picking up real experience, but instead they hired the other guy who has no experience... BUT HE HAS A DEGREE STUDYING THINGS THAT ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT"

education badly needs reforming[/QUOTE]

Yes education needs reforming but not in the way you are thinking. By design you are not suppose to be as good as a college grad, college is suppose to further your ability to creative troubleshooting problems with "outside the box" thinking and give you skills,tactics and knowledge that compares to roughly 10-15 years of real world experience.

It always confuses me when people who dont have degrees take the stand of "pfft your degree doesnt mean anything," The hell it does. Even with the broken education system it still means a hell of a lot. Its unfair and very narrow minded to try and shrug off someone who has done 4 years of dictated study if not more. This is a result of America devaluing of education.

The real problem starts from K-12. There was an article and I will try to find it but it basically had it right on the money. With how the rules and regs of Americans education system are set up it basically churns out stand in line, do what your told, corporate jockeys. There are very little points in a child life where they are encouraged to really creatively troubleshoot the world around them. This in turn is the same in college where it just continues the brainwashing that everyone should be a business manger of some fortune 500.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Yes education needs reforming but not in the way you are thinking. By design you are not suppose to be as good as a college grad, college is suppose to further your ability to creative troubleshooting problems with "outside the box" thinking and give you skills,tactics and knowledge that compares to roughly 10-15 years of real world experience.[/quote]
you can't have innovative thinking unless you know the basics, and to get the basics you need experience on top of book study. people are coming out of college with no experience and they are fucked when they try to find a job. then when they get a job they don't have book study anymore.

in all my design classes in engineering, none of us went "oh well let's go and calculate the expected speed using the equation in the book!" we just built it and let it go and improved it later. and in my current job i use probably
 
my school's strategy for CS majors is to give them the basic concepts of fundamental coding in hopes it makes it easier to learn the ones we actually will need :lol:. Maybe that's more effective than it sounds, as i've always been under the impression that you have to do most of the work on your own time, and the classes really are just a supplement. but perhaps a supplement shouldn't be so expensive.

students from other schools don't seem to do much more, it's really about what the individual does on their own time, which as others said -- really doesn't require you to be at a university at all. my brother makes web applications in san francisco and I learned more from him in a night than all my years at school. now i'm getting books and studying languages unrelated to my schoolwork, because i realized i'm doomed in the job market if i just sit on a degree.
 
School can help an unskilled inexperienced person. It sort of makes up for never having any job in a particular field.
Conversely, with a lot of careers, it's just as viable (or more) to start out in a crappy position and work your way up while teaching yourself.

All I know is I've spent 16 years without a degree working along side those with degrees making as much or more as they do. It hasn't been until recently that degrees have mattered - but that's only because employers have such a huge stack of resumes right now that many feel the need to just start filtering out those without degrees or even those with just a bachelors to thin the heard. But still, a lot of employers are smart enough to realize that filtering people based on education doesn't really help you get better prospects.
 
I think a lot of whether what you learned in school helps you in your career varies by what your career is and how good your particularly program was in preparing students.

For me, I did my undergrad in journalism. I worked at a newspaper while doing it ,and what I learned in my classes was 100% useful to working at the paper in terms of already knowing how to write articles, how to do good interviews etc. Now all that stuff a newspaper could teach people if they're willing to take the time etc.

My grad school, on the other hand, was indispensable. Being a researcher really does require the training. It was helfpul in thinking critically about research, how to identify gaps in the research and build your own studies to fill them. It was helpful in getting time to really get immersed in the literature and become an expert on the field. And, finally, there were all the technical skills. Learning how to work with data and do statistical analyses--both in terms of understanding the stats and learning different software packages. And like working at the paper while doing my BS, I worked as a research assistant and got a ton of experience working on, and running, research projects though grad school which really helped the learning process and building up my CV.

So I do agree that getting experience while in school is critical. The department I work in now requires every student to do an internship for one semester. The department finds them placement, and they take a class that goes along with it were they have to identify a problem with their agency and write a paper about it--so they get to use some problem solving skills.

That's a great help I think, but at the same time I realize that not every program has easy access to internship opportunities. It's easy for us since there are lots of agencies related to CJ, especially in a major city. But for schools in smaller towns, or smaller fields of study anywhere, that's tough as there just isn't the demand for jobs/assistance to easily find an internship for every student.

In those cases the student should: 1. Re-evaluate the job market for their field and make sure they aren't wasting their time and money getting a degree that has very little job prospects. 2. Bust ass trying to find summer internships in another city if there aren't any around their college they can do during the academic year.
 
Spot on Dmaul.

I just can't help but shake my head, though, when I see these 19 year olds with this "I guess I better go to school and get a degree in whatever because that's what I'm suppose to do" attitude. Those are the people that are usually wasting their time (and someone elses money) at school. If you don't have something specific you want to spend your life in and study for, it's usually not that helpful.
 
Exactly.

Firstly its a damn shame how many students are not giving the total truth/debate about the pros and cons of college and just wind up going for the hell of going. Thats what I did. I only went to college because they offered me a half scholarship for soccer and that...you are suppose to go after high school. I took random mcrandom classes in business because that is what you are suppose to do, until finally my coach told me to do some soul searching. Long story short I did a lot of finessing and spent a lot of money transferring and shit.

I wish someone would have sat me down and told me that I could have done it a several different ways without thousands of dollars in debt.

To Dmaul point. I think what you are saying works in theory but not reality. There are so many factors and of course you have to take into account that these decisions are made by dumb high school kids. Unless they have some very neutral adults in their life the overall thought will be the same as always, "go to college just because its college." A young adult wont even know to reevaluate their current path ESPECIALLY if they happen to choose a very tradition field.

If a child was going into accounting...no one around him would tell the person that it might not be the best and maybe that should reevaluate their choose. With how our society runs its hard enough to even get people into college.

For example, I was one of the first people in my family to go to college (again mostly because I was on scholarship) do you think they really cared that I was screwing it all to hell? No they were just happy that someone from the family got into college. I think its like that to some extent for most families.

I do agree that experience in college is the way to go. I complete 2 internships while in college and 1 after. I learned more there than I did in school.
 
I really think universities have a responsibility to inform students of their job prospects before issuing degrees. And limit the number of degrees issued in fields that are already saturated.

How many more political scienticts graduates do we need? History? Economics? Do we need more CS and engineering graduates?

Let's say each state university (assuming one university per state) graduates 10 history majors each year. That's 500 new history majors each year. In 10 years thats 5,000. Have 5,000 jobs needing that degree been created in the past 10 years?

Universities really need to evaluate their departments every 5-10 years, and shuffle and reorganize. Shrink down some departments if that need has been met and enhance others. (ie hire more CS/Engineering professors and let go some philosophy/english ones)
 
I agree that Universities should be required to provide accurate and up to date info on job prospects, salaries etc. by field.

I disagree that they need to then also limit the number of majors in certain areas. Provide the info, and if people still want to major in certain things, so be it.

Nothing wrong with going to learn what you're interested in as long as you're not taking tons of debt to do so. And not everyone is taking out tons of debt for undergrad, and not just the wealthy kids. My mom didn't work and my dad had a blue collar union job. He busted ass and saved up to put his two kids through the state colleges.

Not everyone is motivated by money/career, so I have no problem letting kids major in whatever they want as long as they're provided good info on job prospects etc.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']I really think universities have a responsibility to inform students of their job prospects before issuing degrees. And limit the number of degrees issued in fields that are already saturated.

How many more political scienticts graduates do we need? History? Economics? Do we need more CS and engineering graduates?

Let's say each state university (assuming one university per state) graduates 10 history majors each year. That's 500 new history majors each year. In 10 years thats 5,000. Have 5,000 jobs needing that degree been created in the past 10 years?

Universities really need to evaluate their departments every 5-10 years, and shuffle and reorganize. Shrink down some departments if that need has been met and enhance others. (ie hire more CS/Engineering professors and let go some philosophy/english ones)[/QUOTE]

But you don't have to do same job as your major. Take Rick Levin, Yale President, who did his undergrad in History and master in philosophy
 
[quote name='eldergamer']

Universities really need to evaluate their departments every 5-10 years, and shuffle and reorganize. Shrink down some departments if that need has been met and enhance others. (ie hire more CS/Engineering professors and let go some philosophy/english ones)[/QUOTE]

The issue with threads like this always ends up being whether colleges are there to edify an individual in various disciplines or teach him a trade so he can get a job? IMO colleges were created to improve human knowledge and edify future generations. Associate degrees or trade schools are there to help one get a job. The problem today is that colleges are being run like a business rather than an institution of higher education.

Personally, I loved my college experience. I attended a research institution which allowed me to do learn and explore things that most folks never get a chance to do.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The issue with threads like this always ends up being whether colleges are there to edify an individual in various disciplines or teach him a trade so he can get a job? IMO colleges were created to improve human knowledge and edify future generations. Associate degrees or trade schools are there to help one get a job. The problem today is that colleges are being run like a business rather than an institution of higher education.

Personally, I loved my college experience. I attended a research institution which allowed me to do learn and explore things that most folks never get a chance to do.[/QUOTE]

I think that's why most people go to college today, though. To get a J-O-B. At least, that's what the conventional wisdom tells us.
"In order to get a good job, you need to go to college"

Colleges today (for the most part) are just degree factories. They're turning out 1,000 graduates a year, right? How many of those people are there just to "improve human knowledge" or are so they can get a higher paying job?

Then you see people on the news talking about the economy saying they're $40,000 in debt with their Anthroplogy or Art History degree and can't find a job.

Bottom line:
You really shouldnt go to college unless you know what're you going to get out of it, and what you're going to do afterwards. It's just become way too expensive as a means of "finding yourself".
 
Exactly but the question becomes how the hell is a 18 year old kid suppose to know when every adult and media outlet around them tells them otherwise and has been their entire life. That is the real kicker.

Its easy for us to say these things at the ages of 24+ (guessing) but think back to when you were just a dumb 18 year old right out of high school. You cant just lay it all at their feet at that age. Like I said, like I said its like the sex talk, everyone just assumes no one actually talks directly and truthfully about it. You have to inform these kids from a early age about what is going on.

I got 25+ grand worth of student loans and all I did was sign one document...they are handing out money like candy to these kids. Very few 18 year old kids know exactly what it means to have 20 grand in debt on their shoulders.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']I think that's why most people go to college today, though. To get a J-O-B. At least, that's what the conventional wisdom tells us.
"In order to get a good job, you need to go to college"

Colleges today (for the most part) are just degree factories. They're turning out 1,000 graduates a year, right? How many of those people are there just to "improve human knowledge" or are so they can get a higher paying job?

Then you see people on the news talking about the economy saying they're $40,000 in debt with their Anthroplogy or Art History degree and can't find a job.

Bottom line:
You really shouldnt go to college unless you know what're you going to get out of it, and what you're going to do afterwards. It's just become way too expensive as a means of "finding yourself".[/QUOTE]

At the same time there are an increasing number of jobs that will ask for a college degree, any kind of degree. Epically management position will ask for a degree no matter how many of experience you have. The company I used to work for used to hire people with HS degree, but last year has change it to college degree just to weed out some people.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']
Colleges today (for the most part) are just degree factories. They're turning out 1,000 graduates a year, right? How many of those people are there just to "improve human knowledge" or are so they can get a higher paying job?"[/QUOTE]

True of teaching colleges and of the teaching side of research universities.

But for research universities, research still comes first as always. The teaching side is just ran like a business as it's main function is just bringing in money to support the research and knowledge creation that most people working at a research university are truly focused on.

This is something that always comes up in these threads. The problem is that trade schools, community colleges, teaching colleges etc. are stigmatized and people don't want to go there. And with some good reason as they're also stigmatized by employers who give more weight to a degree from a major university.

In reality, for a lot of professions a trade program certification or 2 year degree from community college is a lot more efficient for getting people the needed skills to enter the workforce.

In an ideal world, the only people going to research universities would be doing things like very specialized trades like Engineering where a 4 year degree is probably needed, and anyone who wants to go on to a Master's or Ph D in their field and thus fits the research university mold.

That would be accompanied by restructuring faculty even more so top researchers get even lighter teaching loads and only teach graduate classes and highest level undergraduate courses where their research expertise and knowledge is most relevant. Have all other undergrad courses taught by faculty on teaching/service only appointments who are trained educators.

Making those kind of reforms would get people who don't care about bettering themselves etc. into the workforce faster, improve learning outcomes by having lower level courses taught by actual teachers rather than scholars like me who have no training in teaching, and let scholars like me be more productive in knowledge generation from not wasting so much of our time on lower level undergraduate course and administrative tasks that we frankly don't give a damn about.

[quote name='Soodmeg']Exactly but the question becomes how the hell is a 18 year old kid suppose to know when every adult and media outlet around them tells them otherwise and has been their entire life. That is the real kicker.
[/QUOTE]

I do agree with that. There's a delayed maturation in society today. People aren't really adults at 18 anymore.

So in some sense I like the notion of one of the republican candidates (think it was Gingrich) of offering people the option of doing 2 years of public service (be it the military or whatever) to earn scholarships. Gives people not ready to make big decisions about their future (or just not ready to do well in college, trade school etc.) time to mature and figure out what they really want to do, while also cutting down on debt through the provided scholarships.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True of teaching colleges and of the teaching side of research universities.

But for research universities, research still comes first as always. The teaching side is just ran like a business as it's main function is just bringing in money to support the research and knowledge creation that most people working at a research university are truly focused on.

This is something that always comes up in these threads. The problem is that trade schools, community colleges, teaching colleges etc. are stigmatized and people don't want to go there. And with some good reason as they're also stigmatized by employers who give more weight to a degree from a major university.

In reality, for a lot of professions a trade program certification or 2 year degree from community college is a lot more efficient for getting people the needed skills to enter the workforce.

In an ideal world, the only people going to research universities would be doing things like very specialized trades like Engineering where a 4 year degree is probably needed, and anyone who wants to go on to a Master's or Ph D in their field and thus fits the research university mold.

That would be accompanied by restructuring faculty even more so top researchers get even lighter teaching loads and only teach graduate classes and highest level undergraduate courses where their research expertise and knowledge is most relevant. Have all other undergrad courses taught by faculty on teaching/service only appointments who are trained educators.

Making those kind of reforms would get people who don't care about bettering themselves etc. into the workforce faster, improve learning outcomes by having lower level courses taught by actual teachers rather than scholars like me who have no training in teaching, and let scholars like me be more productive in knowledge generation from not wasting so much of our time on lower level undergraduate course and administrative tasks that we frankly don't give a damn about.



I do agree with that. There's a delayed maturation in society today. People aren't really adults at 18 anymore.

So in some sense I like the notion of one of the republican candidates (think it was Gingrich) of offering people the option of doing 2 years of public service (be it the military or whatever) to earn scholarships. Gives people not ready to make big decisions about their future (or just not ready to do well in college, trade school etc.) time to mature and figure out what they really want to do, while also cutting down on debt through the provided scholarships.[/QUOTE]

The one thing that no one has mentioned yet, is that colleges serve as a control valve for people entering the workforce. What would happen if the majority of people simply entered the workforce post high school? How would our economy handle this?
 
What do you mean by control valve? I think it can be debated (as we have) that college is so subjective that the vast majority of people going are not learning any more skills than an average person who just started at the job out of high school.

I think what you are saying is the same line of thinking that got us into this mess. Like I mentioned before, I think the problem is more that its being treated like admission to a good ole boys club instead of a place of true higher learning and/or true skill development.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']What do you mean by control valve? I think it can be debated (as we have) that college is so subjective that the vast majority of people going are not learning any more skills than an average person who just started at the job out of high school.
[/QUOTE]

I think he meant more maturity and work ethic.

Getting a 4 year degree shows your able to work hard (assuming you do it in 4 years) delay gratification by not making money for 4 years etc.

Where as if you're lazy, undisciplined etc. you'll flunk out of college from partying too much etc.

Also, college is more forgiving. You can have a rough semester, party too much etc. and get back on track. If you party too much, miss work etc. you're going to get fired, build up a reputation if it's a small field in your area etc.

Basically that it gives people more time to mature and develop a work ethic--back to my delayed maturation point from my last post. Most people aren't cut out for college at 18 these days, much less for a full time job with real responsibility.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']What do you mean by control valve? I think it can be debated (as we have) that college is so subjective that the vast majority of people going are not learning any more skills than an average person who just started at the job out of high school.

I think what you are saying is the same line of thinking that got us into this mess. Like I mentioned before, I think the problem is more that its being treated like admission to a good ole boys club instead of a place of true higher learning and/or true skill development.[/QUOTE]

A significant percentage of high school graduates enter college post graduation. Thus, they are not entering the workforce for 4 years, most likely 5. That's what I mean by control valve. If these individuals decide not to go to college it would have great implications for our economy. My point is that college is a completely worthwhile venture as long as you know what you are doing or intend to take your studies seriously.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']A significant percentage of high school graduates enter college post graduation. Thus, they are not entering the workforce for 4 years, most likely 5. That's what I mean by control valve. If these individuals decide not to go to college it would have great implications for our economy. My point is that college is a completely worthwhile venture as long as you know what you are doing or intend to take your studies seriously.[/QUOTE]

Gotcha, but again the very crux of that steams from teaching young adults exactly what is "worthwhile" to them. A 18 year old kid isnt going to just know that especially when the world is telling them the exact opposite.

The problem starts WELL before the college level and I think the biggest failure is waiting until after they graduate high school before diving into this topic. They only have 4ish months to plan the next 5 years of their life with barely any information other than "ughh if you dont want to be a bum than go to college."

Although I agree that college is a very worthwhile experience with unlimited possibilities but I think its are just as many possibilities pursuing other ways of post high school experience and education. Everyone needs those 4-5 years after high school to mature and grow into an adult, I just dont really agree it should cost you 25k to do it with no promise of a way to pay it back.

You guys are also ignoring the fact that even if a person knew exactly what they wanted to do and went to college with a plan they could still end up 25k in debt with a job that barely pays. Years ago people had a decent chance of being able to pay back their debt with a decent job now a days there is even less of a chance.
 
There's no reason one has to wait until after high school (or even until their senior year) to think about what they want to do. Maybe we need more stuff about choosing a career in 9-11th grade so kids can make more informed decisions about where to go for school, what to major in etc. But even then you really don't need to finalize a major until your 2nd year of college as your first 2 or 3 semesters are usually all general studies core classes.

As for your last point, so what? There's always risk involved in ever decisions we make. I get college can be a bigger risk than other things given the debt involved if you don't have scholarships or a college fund from your parents, but it can pay off if you get a degree in a field with a high demand. Again studies continue to show college grads having higher income ceilings, lower unemployment rates etc. Of course, as we've discussed, there's wide variability in that across majors and so on. So, again, there is risk involved and it's just up to the individual to decide if it's worth it. And there's not much role for universities in that other than be required to post accurate, and up to date, information about employment rates, salaries etc. among recent graduates in each field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd be more for college if we did away with stuff like general education courses. To me, that's the point of high school. It also makes college look like even more of a racket when you don't have to take anything in your field until the last two years.

I'm not going to tell my kid(s) that college is the only answer. My only advice will be to work hard in whatever it is they do. I lost sight of that while doing 21 general education classes, and then absolutely snoozed through my major's requirements.
 
The problem with that is with our crappy K-12 system a lot of students (I'd say more than half at my university) aren't at the 12th grade level in things like reading, writing and math.

I agree a lot majors require general studies stuff that's useless to that field (I'm a social scientist, but even I'll say not everyone needs to be taking sociology, psychology, intro to criminal justice etc.). But the basic English, math etc. classes are needed to make sure everyone has those skills down. With waivers into higher level classes for those who don't need them.
 
While I'd argue that English and Math competency classes are necessary in terms of a well-rounded education, they aren't in real life. There are a shit-ton of people who make more money than me who I'm surprised can spell their own names and who are never without a calculator.
 
Just depends on career. As I, and others have said, a lot more people should be going to trade school, getting 2 year degrees or certifications etc. as they just aren't cut out for college or intellectual jobs.

But for most white collar jobs you need writing or math skills, if not both. Along with decent social skills, networking ability etc.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']I really think universities have a responsibility to inform students of their job prospects before issuing degrees. And limit the number of degrees issued in fields that are already saturated.

How many more political scienticts graduates do we need? History? Economics? Do we need more CS and engineering graduates?

Let's say each state university (assuming one university per state) graduates 10 history majors each year. That's 500 new history majors each year. In 10 years thats 5,000. Have 5,000 jobs needing that degree been created in the past 10 years?

Universities really need to evaluate their departments every 5-10 years, and shuffle and reorganize. Shrink down some departments if that need has been met and enhance others. (ie hire more CS/Engineering professors and let go some philosophy/english ones)[/QUOTE]Eh, plenty of engineers have trouble finding work too, CS majors too. I should know...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem with that is with our crappy K-12 system a lot of students (I'd say more than half at my university) aren't at the 12th grade level in things like reading, writing and math.

I agree a lot majors require general studies stuff that's useless to that field (I'm a social scientist, but even I'll say not everyone needs to be taking sociology, psychology, intro to criminal justice etc.). But the basic English, math etc. classes are needed to make sure everyone has those skills down. With waivers into higher level classes for those who don't need them.[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised to see you say that to be honest. Don't you think we'd all be a lot better off as a society if everyone knew a little more about things like sociology? Seems like that accounts for a lot of the dumber opinions I hear sometimes from people.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm surprised to see you say that to be honest. Don't you think we'd all be a lot better off as a society if everyone knew a little more about things like sociology? Seems like that accounts for a lot of the dumber opinions I hear sometimes from people.[/QUOTE]

Oh for sure. But that's just a fantasy.

But the fact is most students don't give a crap and are this just there to get a piece of paper they think will get them a job. So they aren't getting much out of class in general, and especially not out of gen ed electives that they really don't care about.

American society is fucked. Too many think being an intellectual is an insult, and most of those who don't just don't give a shit and just want to have as much fun as possible etc.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm surprised to see you say that to be honest. Don't you think we'd all be a lot better off as a society if everyone knew a little more about things like sociology? Seems like that accounts for a lot of the dumber opinions I hear sometimes from people.[/QUOTE]

I suspect dmaul's point is that we need to reprioritize educational goals.

Nobody should be studying how to assemble an automobile engine if they don't know what a car is.

Similarly, if their reading and writing skills are at an atrocious level (and they are), what's the point in providing them with heady material?

Or, alternately, he's arguing against liberal arts education on the whole, advocating for a more vocational model of higher ed.

I won't claim to speak for him, however.
 
That's been the case for generations though. Look who we idolize, mostly athletes. Look at pop culture, would you rather be Richie or the Fonz? Even American films always glorify the dumbass with a gun. It's always some evil genius mastermind and the thick headed hero. Grow up in a society like that and I'm not surprised that intelligence is seen as a bad thing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I suspect dmaul's point is that we need to reprioritize educational goals.

Nobody should be studying how to assemble an automobile engine if they don't know what a car is.

Similarly, if their reading and writing skills are at an atrocious level (and they are), what's the point in providing them with heady material?

Or, alternately, he's arguing against liberal arts education on the whole, advocating for a more vocational model of higher ed.

I won't claim to speak for him, however.[/QUOTE]
Oh I agree with that, no sense in moving beyond the basics if you don't even have that mastered.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I suspect dmaul's point is that we need to reprioritize educational goals.

Nobody should be studying how to assemble an automobile engine if they don't know what a car is.

Similarly, if their reading and writing skills are at an atrocious level (and they are), what's the point in providing them with heady material?

Or, alternately, he's arguing against liberal arts education on the whole, advocating for a more vocational model of higher ed.

I won't claim to speak for him, however.[/QUOTE]

It's a combination of all that.

In a perfect world research universities would remain broad and get the best students who were interested in being well rounded scholars and intellectuals.

Teaching universities, community colleges and trade schools would not bother with the liberal arts stuff and just service those students who just want to learn what they need for their career of choice.

The problem today is too many university students fall into the second category. Especially at a lesser university. I teach 60-80 student classes and I'm probably lucky if 5 students per class fall in the first category.

But the lacking skills point is valid as well, and a majority of those in the first category are deficient in reading, math, writing etc., and even those with the 12th grade or above level just aren't interested or engaged so they're not getting anything out of the liberal arts focus at a university anyway since they're just "dozing" through it like davo above.

[quote name='Clak']That's been the case for generations though. Look who we idolize, mostly athletes. Look at pop culture, would you rather be Richie or the Fonz? Even American films always glorify the dumbass with a gun. It's always some evil genius mastermind and the thick headed hero. Grow up in a society like that and I'm not surprised that intelligence is seen as a bad thing.[/QUOTE]

It's just gotten worse over time. It's gone from just idolizing the wrong people (actors, athletes etc.) to having outright disdain for well educated people. It's a full on culture war now, where as before it was just an obsession with celebrities.

The right has attacked intellectuals for decades now, starting at least with McCarthy or not before, up to the "latte sipping, elitists intellectuals" comments of Palin and others.

And even those that don't have that disdainful view, or any hero worship of celebrities, are just lazy and don't care about reading or bettering themselves or making any meaningful impact on society. They just want to make as much money as they can, as easily as they can and spend as much time as possible entertaining themselves.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I suspect dmaul's point is that we need to reprioritize educational goals.

Nobody should be studying how to assemble an automobile engine if they don't know what a car is.

Similarly, if their reading and writing skills are at an atrocious level (and they are), what's the point in providing them with heady material?

Or, alternately, he's arguing against liberal arts education on the whole, advocating for a more vocational model of higher ed.

I won't claim to speak for him, however.[/QUOTE]

I agree on this too; as part of my gen eds I had to take a course in Women's Studies (it was either that or Jewish Appreciation)--I would have preferred another course towards something real rather than having to pay for some Liberal Propaganda.

Also I got to take Sociology taught by a commie bitch who kept telling us it was our fate to be politically dominated by the older generation (our activist hippie overlords). It would've been nice to get, I dunno, some competitive skills for the job market instead of getting mentally shit upon.
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I agree on this too; as part of my gen eds I had to take a course in Women's Studies (it was either that or Jewish Appreciation)--I would have preferred another course towards something real rather than having to pay for some Liberal Propaganda.

Also I got to take Sociology taught by a commie bitch who kept telling us it was our fate to be politically dominated by the older generation (our activist hippie overlords). It would've been nice to get, I dunno, some competitive skills for the job market instead of getting mentally shit upon.[/QUOTE]

And that's why the system needs changes. Students like you don't want these classes, and professors like me don't want classrooms full of students who have no interest in the subject matter or learning anything that doesn't have value in getting them a career so they can make more money and buy more shit they don't need.

It's a broken system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top