Does a college degree still pay off financially?
- Thread starter Clak
- Start date
- Status
Thekrakrabbit
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
I may not be an expert, but am I incorrect in thinking that college is best used as a tool to break into a field that it would be unsafe to enter without prior knowledge of it? Areas that have an impact on people's lives should be tread upon with caution such as people who handle drugs, or doctors/paramedics, etc. If you're talking about becoming a programmer, then you can learn that without a college degree but as far as health-related things go, perhaps prior knowledge does make sense.
On a related note, I think its common sense that the degree you get and the area you enter in to should be quite specific (and, obviously, well paying enough to keep you comfortable). Getting a "business" degree or some other general degree is why you see so many people have "degrees" but end up working at the same job as some guy who barely finished high school.
On a related note, I think its common sense that the degree you get and the area you enter in to should be quite specific (and, obviously, well paying enough to keep you comfortable). Getting a "business" degree or some other general degree is why you see so many people have "degrees" but end up working at the same job as some guy who barely finished high school.
BillyBob29
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']
On a related note, I think its common sense that the degree you get and the area you enter in to should be quite specific (and, obviously, well paying enough to keep you comfortable). Getting a "business" degree or some other general degree is why you see so many people have "degrees" but end up working at the same job as some guy who barely finished high school.[/QUOTE]
It really depends on what you want out of college. If you get a really specialiized degree, you do potentially limit your job opportunities. If you go with a more general degree, say accounting for example, you open yourself up to a variety of different industries, all of which have to have accountants.
Of course the more specialized position will probably pay more but may also be more difficult to attain.
Either way, having a degree today basically means your potential employer will actually read the rest of your resume. Without a degree of some kind, it seems employers are just instantly tossing your resume/application in the shred pile.
On a related note, I think its common sense that the degree you get and the area you enter in to should be quite specific (and, obviously, well paying enough to keep you comfortable). Getting a "business" degree or some other general degree is why you see so many people have "degrees" but end up working at the same job as some guy who barely finished high school.[/QUOTE]
It really depends on what you want out of college. If you get a really specialiized degree, you do potentially limit your job opportunities. If you go with a more general degree, say accounting for example, you open yourself up to a variety of different industries, all of which have to have accountants.
Of course the more specialized position will probably pay more but may also be more difficult to attain.
Either way, having a degree today basically means your potential employer will actually read the rest of your resume. Without a degree of some kind, it seems employers are just instantly tossing your resume/application in the shred pile.
kainzero
CAGiversary!
[quote name='BillyBob29']Either way, having a degree today basically means your potential employer's Human Resources department will actually read the rest of your resume. Without a degree of some kind, it seems employers are just instantly tossing your resume/application in the shred pile.[/QUOTE]
Not only is there a disconnect between degrees and their effectiveness, but there's also disconnect between who's responsible for employing you and who actually sees your resume.
As much as I think learning Philosophy could help with training someone in management, the HR department might not see that.
Not only is there a disconnect between degrees and their effectiveness, but there's also disconnect between who's responsible for employing you and who actually sees your resume.
As much as I think learning Philosophy could help with training someone in management, the HR department might not see that.
[quote name='kainzero']Not only is there a disconnect between degrees and their effectiveness, but there's also disconnect between who's responsible for employing you and who actually sees your resume.
As much as I think learning Philosophy could help with training someone in management, the HR department might not see that.[/QUOTE]
Interesting enough the IT director for my old company has a degree in Philosophy
As much as I think learning Philosophy could help with training someone in management, the HR department might not see that.[/QUOTE]
Interesting enough the IT director for my old company has a degree in Philosophy
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='62t']Interesting enough the IT director for my old company has a degree in Philosophy[/QUOTE]
I had a philosophy professor in college who had a masters from MIT in theoretical physics. He was a
ing genius.
I can't imagine how pissed all the philosophy grads out there must have been :lol:
To be in the philosophy racket you need to be smart as balls. I went to a few of their professional debates and it was way over my head. In a weird way I kind of miss it.
I had a philosophy professor in college who had a masters from MIT in theoretical physics. He was a
ing genius.I can't imagine how pissed all the philosophy grads out there must have been :lol:
To be in the philosophy racket you need to be smart as balls. I went to a few of their professional debates and it was way over my head. In a weird way I kind of miss it.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Also - the Matrix was the worst thing to ever happen to Philsophy 101
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']THANK YOU. I'm glad I wasn't the only one that thought it was reductionistic bullshit.[/QUOTE]
It's a great action movie. And Descartes, OK I see the relevance.
But there's only so many times that you can have the guy who wears sunglasses everywhere try and make an analogy to the matrix. I just want to tell that kid "You're proving Sartre right, asshole!"
It's a great action movie. And Descartes, OK I see the relevance.
But there's only so many times that you can have the guy who wears sunglasses everywhere try and make an analogy to the matrix. I just want to tell that kid "You're proving Sartre right, asshole!"
[quote name='camoor']I had a philosophy professor in college who had a masters from MIT in theoretical physics. He was a ing genius.
I can't imagine how pissed all the philosophy grads out there must have been :lol:
To be in the philosophy racket you need to be smart as balls. I went to a few of their professional debates and it was way over my head. In a weird way I kind of miss it.[/QUOTE]
he must have been bored or couldn't/didn't go for his doctorate
.
I have yet to encounter a "liberal arts" or humanities person who is actually knowledgeable and interested in math and science; I have had math/science/engineering teachers/professors who were well versed in the arts however.
ing genius.I can't imagine how pissed all the philosophy grads out there must have been :lol:
To be in the philosophy racket you need to be smart as balls. I went to a few of their professional debates and it was way over my head. In a weird way I kind of miss it.[/QUOTE]
he must have been bored or couldn't/didn't go for his doctorate
.I have yet to encounter a "liberal arts" or humanities person who is actually knowledgeable and interested in math and science; I have had math/science/engineering teachers/professors who were well versed in the arts however.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah...it was a fun movie, but I thought Dark City was far better...heh.[/QUOTE]
I found Dark City was pretty but I thought the pacing was way too slow. I am a much bigger fan of Thirteenth Floor and Existenz.
Thirteenth floor - one of the most underrated movies ever. Talk about bad timing - it opened in 1999 and there is no virtual reality movie in existence that could have held a candle to the box office draw of the Matrix. It was so unfair to call this movie the poor man's Matrix but the critics were lazy that year.
[quote name='Gamer SDP']he must have been bored or couldn't/didn't go for his doctorate.
I have yet to encounter a "liberal arts" or humanities person who is actually knowledgeable and interested in math and science; I have had math/science/engineering teachers/professors who were well versed in the arts however.[/QUOTE]
I have had the exact opposite experience. Unless you count being well versed in Japanese magna as "the arts"
[/QUOTE]I found Dark City was pretty but I thought the pacing was way too slow. I am a much bigger fan of Thirteenth Floor and Existenz.
Thirteenth floor - one of the most underrated movies ever. Talk about bad timing - it opened in 1999 and there is no virtual reality movie in existence that could have held a candle to the box office draw of the Matrix. It was so unfair to call this movie the poor man's Matrix but the critics were lazy that year.
[quote name='Gamer SDP']he must have been bored or couldn't/didn't go for his doctorate
.I have yet to encounter a "liberal arts" or humanities person who is actually knowledgeable and interested in math and science; I have had math/science/engineering teachers/professors who were well versed in the arts however.[/QUOTE]
I have had the exact opposite experience. Unless you count being well versed in Japanese magna as "the arts"
Thekrakrabbit
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='BillyBob29']It really depends on what you want out of college. If you get a really specialiized degree, you do potentially limit your job opportunities. If you go with a more general degree, say accounting for example, you open yourself up to a variety of different industries, all of which have to have accountants.
Of course the more specialized position will probably pay more but may also be more difficult to attain.
Either way, having a degree today basically means your potential employer will actually read the rest of your resume. Without a degree of some kind, it seems employers are just instantly tossing your resume/application in the shred pile.[/QUOTE]
Get a specialized degree and you are in a smaller pool of people who want jobs. Get a specific degree in an area that is still thriving, and you give yourself an even better chance of doing what you intended to do.
General degrees don't mean as much as they used to. A degree in "business administration" looked good not too long ago but now there are a ton of people with degrees in the same thing and that makes the degree less valuable.
Of course the more specialized position will probably pay more but may also be more difficult to attain.
Either way, having a degree today basically means your potential employer will actually read the rest of your resume. Without a degree of some kind, it seems employers are just instantly tossing your resume/application in the shred pile.[/QUOTE]
Get a specialized degree and you are in a smaller pool of people who want jobs. Get a specific degree in an area that is still thriving, and you give yourself an even better chance of doing what you intended to do.
General degrees don't mean as much as they used to. A degree in "business administration" looked good not too long ago but now there are a ton of people with degrees in the same thing and that makes the degree less valuable.
[quote name='kainzero']I think philosophy could change your learning pedagogy which is important when picking up new skills and tackling new problems.
@Clak: makes you wonder if he wouldn't have got the job if he had no college degree.[/QUOTE]
He probably could have, our network manager doesn't have a degree.
@Clak: makes you wonder if he wouldn't have got the job if he had no college degree.[/QUOTE]
He probably could have, our network manager doesn't have a degree.
blindinglights
CAGiversary!
[quote name='camoor']To be in the philosophy racket you need to be smart as balls.[/QUOTE]
My Philosophy instructor was a full time police officer who taught various undergrad courses at my university and two other nearby ones. He had his Masters in it, but I guess he didn't like the idea of becoming a full blown professor so he never earned his PhD. He taught some of our classes in his police uniform because he just came off shift and had no time to change, even though I didn't think they were supposed to wear it if they aren't on duty.
He sent out emails to the class to not buy any of the books listed at the bookstore. When we came in he told us to buy a book that was 3-4 editions old that was like $5 shipped online. He explained "this shit hasn't changed for a long time, so there's no need to have the latest edition".
His tests were 50 question multiple choice that basically just checked if you read the material or not. His final was 100 randomly chosen questions previously asked in his tests. He would spend every class getting into some random group discussion that was so loosely related to the reading material I wouldn't have come to class if 10% of the grade wasn't attending the lectures.
I would run into him on campus from time to time and he would BS about football and baseball with me. I once asked him if he really liked philosophy since his main job was being a police officer and he said "it's pretty cool, something to do".
If he was smart as balls, his extremely casual attitude camouflaged it very well.
My Philosophy instructor was a full time police officer who taught various undergrad courses at my university and two other nearby ones. He had his Masters in it, but I guess he didn't like the idea of becoming a full blown professor so he never earned his PhD. He taught some of our classes in his police uniform because he just came off shift and had no time to change, even though I didn't think they were supposed to wear it if they aren't on duty.
He sent out emails to the class to not buy any of the books listed at the bookstore. When we came in he told us to buy a book that was 3-4 editions old that was like $5 shipped online. He explained "this shit hasn't changed for a long time, so there's no need to have the latest edition".
His tests were 50 question multiple choice that basically just checked if you read the material or not. His final was 100 randomly chosen questions previously asked in his tests. He would spend every class getting into some random group discussion that was so loosely related to the reading material I wouldn't have come to class if 10% of the grade wasn't attending the lectures.
I would run into him on campus from time to time and he would BS about football and baseball with me. I once asked him if he really liked philosophy since his main job was being a police officer and he said "it's pretty cool, something to do".
If he was smart as balls, his extremely casual attitude camouflaged it very well.
[quote name='blindinglights']My Philosophy instructor was a full time police officer who taught various undergrad courses at my university and two other nearby ones. He had his Masters in it, but I guess he didn't like the idea of becoming a full blown professor so he never earned his PhD. He taught some of our classes in his police uniform because he just came off shift and had no time to change, even though I didn't think they were supposed to wear it if they aren't on duty.
He sent out emails to the class to not buy any of the books listed at the bookstore. When we came in he told us to buy a book that was 3-4 editions old that was like $5 shipped online. He explained "this shit hasn't changed for a long time, so there's no need to have the latest edition".
His tests were 50 question multiple choice that basically just checked if you read the material or not. His final was 100 randomly chosen questions previously asked in his tests. He would spend every class getting into some random group discussion that was so loosely related to the reading material I wouldn't have come to class if 10% of the grade wasn't attending the lectures.
I would run into him on campus from time to time and he would BS about football and baseball with me. I once asked him if he really liked philosophy since his main job was being a police officer and he said "it's pretty cool, something to do".
If he was smart as balls, his extremely casual attitude camouflaged it very well.[/QUOTE]
The answer obviously varies based on where you go to school, which come to think of it also answers the OP's question of whether a college degree pays off.
He sent out emails to the class to not buy any of the books listed at the bookstore. When we came in he told us to buy a book that was 3-4 editions old that was like $5 shipped online. He explained "this shit hasn't changed for a long time, so there's no need to have the latest edition".
His tests were 50 question multiple choice that basically just checked if you read the material or not. His final was 100 randomly chosen questions previously asked in his tests. He would spend every class getting into some random group discussion that was so loosely related to the reading material I wouldn't have come to class if 10% of the grade wasn't attending the lectures.
I would run into him on campus from time to time and he would BS about football and baseball with me. I once asked him if he really liked philosophy since his main job was being a police officer and he said "it's pretty cool, something to do".
If he was smart as balls, his extremely casual attitude camouflaged it very well.[/QUOTE]
The answer obviously varies based on where you go to school, which come to think of it also answers the OP's question of whether a college degree pays off.
kainzero
CAGiversary!
[quote name='blindinglights']If he was smart as balls, his extremely casual attitude camouflaged it very well.[/QUOTE]
he sounds smart if he's telling you not to get the newest editions of the textbooks.
the nature of philosophy is discussion and argumentation--hence, why non-mathematical logic is usually a philosophy course.
he sounds smart if he's telling you not to get the newest editions of the textbooks.
the nature of philosophy is discussion and argumentation--hence, why non-mathematical logic is usually a philosophy course.
[quote name='kill3r7']The answer obviously varies based on where you go to school, which come to think of it also answers the OP's question of whether a college degree pays off.[/QUOTE]
Yeah pedigree of your school/department can matter a ton, both in terms of networking and internship possibilities while a student, and how employer's look at your degree in a stack of resumes.
As for quality of teaching, that just varies from instructor to instructor. Even in top programs, some people are great teachers, and some aren't, as people are hired mainly for their research record/potential.
At least at research universities. Liberal arts schools are very different of course.
[quote name='kainzero']he sounds smart if he's telling you not to get the newest editions of the textbooks.[/quote]
I do the same. They hardly changed any thing in the latest edition of textbook for two of my classes, so I encourage them to buy the old edition if they can find it cheaper. I even include page numbers for both versions in one of my syllabi where they did split one chapter into two and thus messed up my reading list despite not adding much new content!
Yeah pedigree of your school/department can matter a ton, both in terms of networking and internship possibilities while a student, and how employer's look at your degree in a stack of resumes.
As for quality of teaching, that just varies from instructor to instructor. Even in top programs, some people are great teachers, and some aren't, as people are hired mainly for their research record/potential.
At least at research universities. Liberal arts schools are very different of course.
[quote name='kainzero']he sounds smart if he's telling you not to get the newest editions of the textbooks.[/quote]
I do the same. They hardly changed any thing in the latest edition of textbook for two of my classes, so I encourage them to buy the old edition if they can find it cheaper. I even include page numbers for both versions in one of my syllabi where they did split one chapter into two and thus messed up my reading list despite not adding much new content!
kainzero
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do the same. They hardly changed any thing in the latest edition of textbook for two of my classes, so I encourage them to buy the old edition if they can find it cheaper. I even include page numbers for both versions in one of my syllabi where they did split one chapter into two and thus messed up my reading list despite not adding much new content![/QUOTE]
i see where you're going!
you wanted me to call you smart! :lol:
[quote name='dmaul1114']As for quality of teaching, that just varies from instructor to instructor. Even in top programs, some people are great teachers, and some aren't, as people are hired mainly for their research record/potential.[/quote]
it boggles my mind as to why people hired for research are forced to teach...
i see where you're going!
you wanted me to call you smart! :lol:
[quote name='dmaul1114']As for quality of teaching, that just varies from instructor to instructor. Even in top programs, some people are great teachers, and some aren't, as people are hired mainly for their research record/potential.[/quote]
it boggles my mind as to why people hired for research are forced to teach...
[quote name='kainzero']i see where you're going!
you wanted me to call you smart! :lol:
[/quote]
Nah, it's just most of us professors hate the damn textbook racket as much as students do. Other than people who write text books anyway!
I guess the idea is people get a chance to learn directly for experts in the field.
But I think that made more sense back in the day when only the brightest students went to college, and thus there wasn't as much "teaching" required. The best students don't really need taught, they just need information presented to them, and an expert to answer questions they had, challenge them to think critically about the material.
Different ball game today when a lot of college kids aren't at the 12th grade level and aren't ready for that.
That said, plenty of research professors like teaching and work hard at it. I'm liking it a ton more now that I'm just teaching classes I've taught a bunch of times and can really focus on teh teaching and class sessions and not slaving away at prepping new courses with writing all the lectures etc.
you wanted me to call you smart! :lol:
[/quote]
Nah, it's just most of us professors hate the damn textbook racket as much as students do. Other than people who write text books anyway!
I guess the idea is people get a chance to learn directly for experts in the field.
But I think that made more sense back in the day when only the brightest students went to college, and thus there wasn't as much "teaching" required. The best students don't really need taught, they just need information presented to them, and an expert to answer questions they had, challenge them to think critically about the material.
Different ball game today when a lot of college kids aren't at the 12th grade level and aren't ready for that.
That said, plenty of research professors like teaching and work hard at it. I'm liking it a ton more now that I'm just teaching classes I've taught a bunch of times and can really focus on teh teaching and class sessions and not slaving away at prepping new courses with writing all the lectures etc.
kainzero
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']I guess the idea is people get a chance to learn directly for experts in the field.[/QUOTE]
But... this idea really is flawed since there's a difference between being good at what you do and being able to make others good at what you do.
It's why our best basketball players aren't necessarily the best coaches, and why if we were to choose a basketball camp to attend, it'd be much more useful to learn from Coach K or Phil Jackson than it would be to learn from Kobe Bryant.
Out of my own curiosity I decided to read up on some of the mathematical greats like Euler, Newton, Descartes, etc. Is it any surprise that philosophy was a large part of their studies as well? I feel like it addresses the "Why are we even studying?" question very well and provides motivation to actually study and pursue academic pursuits.
But... this idea really is flawed since there's a difference between being good at what you do and being able to make others good at what you do.
It's why our best basketball players aren't necessarily the best coaches, and why if we were to choose a basketball camp to attend, it'd be much more useful to learn from Coach K or Phil Jackson than it would be to learn from Kobe Bryant.
Out of my own curiosity I decided to read up on some of the mathematical greats like Euler, Newton, Descartes, etc. Is it any surprise that philosophy was a large part of their studies as well? I feel like it addresses the "Why are we even studying?" question very well and provides motivation to actually study and pursue academic pursuits.
[quote name='kainzero']But... this idea really is flawed since there's a difference between being good at what you do and being able to make others good at what you do.
It's why our best basketball players aren't necessarily the best coaches, and why if we were to choose a basketball camp to attend, it'd be much more useful to learn from Coach K or Phil Jackson than it would be to learn from Kobe Bryant.
[/QUOTE]
I get what you are trying to say but that isn't the best example since team coach is different from individual coach. Hakeem Olajuwon probably not going to run a team but he is great as individual coach to learn his moves.
It's why our best basketball players aren't necessarily the best coaches, and why if we were to choose a basketball camp to attend, it'd be much more useful to learn from Coach K or Phil Jackson than it would be to learn from Kobe Bryant.
[/QUOTE]
I get what you are trying to say but that isn't the best example since team coach is different from individual coach. Hakeem Olajuwon probably not going to run a team but he is great as individual coach to learn his moves.
And bringing this back to the world of philosophy Aristotle studied at the knee of Plato who was in turn taught by Socrates. Each being (among) the best in the field at the time.
But going to the fields of science/engineering, some would argue that the "best in the field" are not at research institutions, but rather, out in commercial industry.
But going to the fields of science/engineering, some would argue that the "best in the field" are not at research institutions, but rather, out in commercial industry.
But that doesn't matter, they obviously aren't interested in teaching or they would be. For someone trying to learn the field, those in the private sector may as well not exist if they aren't imparting knowledge to those trying to learn. They'd be great to work under and learn from, but that's after school.
kainzero
CAGiversary!
[quote name='62t']I get what you are trying to say but that isn't the best example since team coach is different from individual coach. Hakeem Olajuwon probably not going to run a team but he is great as individual coach to learn his moves.[/QUOTE]
I read a book written by a high school women's basketball coach on essential basketball skills and there was a remarkable amount of detail given to post moves. Even simple things like setting a screen were covered and implementing them really improved my game.
One of my friends uses the same move as Hakeem (in the post, flashing the ball, then spinning inside) and none of us knew why it worked, nor could he explain why.
[quote name='hostyl1']But going to the fields of science/engineering, some would argue that the "best in the field" are not at research institutions, but rather, out in commercial industry.[/QUOTE]
In those fields, Universities and commercial industry have significant ties. My professors in my senior design class for Aerospace Engineering were professionals working in private industry. The Mechanical Engineering design projects were sponsored by private companies. Research is funded by private companies and you could even say that the companies are outsourcing research to research universities.
I read a book written by a high school women's basketball coach on essential basketball skills and there was a remarkable amount of detail given to post moves. Even simple things like setting a screen were covered and implementing them really improved my game.
One of my friends uses the same move as Hakeem (in the post, flashing the ball, then spinning inside) and none of us knew why it worked, nor could he explain why.
[quote name='hostyl1']But going to the fields of science/engineering, some would argue that the "best in the field" are not at research institutions, but rather, out in commercial industry.[/QUOTE]
In those fields, Universities and commercial industry have significant ties. My professors in my senior design class for Aerospace Engineering were professionals working in private industry. The Mechanical Engineering design projects were sponsored by private companies. Research is funded by private companies and you could even say that the companies are outsourcing research to research universities.
[quote name='kainzero']In those fields, Universities and commercial industry have significant ties. My professors in my senior design class for Aerospace Engineering were professionals working in private industry. The Mechanical Engineering design projects were sponsored by private companies. Research is funded by private companies and you could even say that the companies are outsourcing research to research universities.[/QUOTE]
That's because it's easier and cheaper to give departments some grant money while taking credit when the government is actual the entity incuring most of the costs. The meme that private industry is the primary driver/funder of innovation and research is false.
That's because it's easier and cheaper to give departments some grant money while taking credit when the government is actual the entity incuring most of the costs. The meme that private industry is the primary driver/funder of innovation and research is false.
[quote name='dohdough']That's because it's easier and cheaper to give departments some grant money while taking credit when the government is actual the entity incuring most of the costs. The meme that private industry is the primary driver/funder of innovation and research is false.[/QUOTE]
100% true.
100% true.
[quote name='dohdough']That's because it's easier and cheaper to give departments some grant money while taking credit when the government is actual the entity incuring most of the costs. The meme that private industry is the primary driver/funder of innovation and research is false.[/QUOTE]
Yep.
Most research has littler or no profit potential. Especially in the social sciences. Private industry isn't going to do much in the way of funding research simply for knowledge generation, public safety etc. With some exceptions of course with some charitable foundations funding the occasional crime prevention study etc.
Yep.
Most research has littler or no profit potential. Especially in the social sciences. Private industry isn't going to do much in the way of funding research simply for knowledge generation, public safety etc. With some exceptions of course with some charitable foundations funding the occasional crime prevention study etc.
[quote name='kainzero']
In those fields, Universities and commercial industry have significant ties. My professors in my senior design class for Aerospace Engineering were professionals working in private industry.[/quote]
Mine weren't, they were full time teachers, though most *previously* worked in industry/NASA. What was the point here?
Yeah, many of the universities were set up primarily *for* research and training. Collaborations b/w school and industry are the norm.
[quote name='dohdough']That's because it's easier and cheaper to give departments some grant money while taking credit when the government is actual the entity incuring most of the costs. The meme that private industry is the primary driver/funder of innovation and research is false.[/QUOTE]
Who is pushing that "meme" here? Why bring it up in this thread? Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of scientific/engineering research and a modicum of intellectual honesty would tell you that the two work hand in hand. I dont think anyone here would argue the opposite. No one has heretofore, so why'd you bring that up?
In those fields, Universities and commercial industry have significant ties. My professors in my senior design class for Aerospace Engineering were professionals working in private industry.[/quote]
Mine weren't, they were full time teachers, though most *previously* worked in industry/NASA. What was the point here?
Yeah, many of the universities were set up primarily *for* research and training. Collaborations b/w school and industry are the norm.
[quote name='dohdough']That's because it's easier and cheaper to give departments some grant money while taking credit when the government is actual the entity incuring most of the costs. The meme that private industry is the primary driver/funder of innovation and research is false.[/QUOTE]
Who is pushing that "meme" here? Why bring it up in this thread? Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of scientific/engineering research and a modicum of intellectual honesty would tell you that the two work hand in hand. I dont think anyone here would argue the opposite. No one has heretofore, so why'd you bring that up?
[quote name='hostyl1']Who is pushing that "meme" here? Why bring it up in this thread? Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of scientific/engineering research and a modicum of intellectual honesty would tell you that the two work hand in hand. I dont think anyone here would argue the opposite. No one has heretofore, so why'd you bring that up?[/QUOTE]
You're as close as it gets without outright saying so. Not to mention that academia tends to be light years ahead of everyone else. It takes mountains of research and studies before knowledge is in any usable form by the time the "best in the field" gets their hands on it. Implying that there's some sort of equitable partnership when private corporations throw a grant to some biochemistry department is a total false equivalence. Pitching in a fiver to buy a bottle of Cristal when someone else is kicking in the other $170 is not a partnership that should be described as hand-in-hand.
You're as close as it gets without outright saying so. Not to mention that academia tends to be light years ahead of everyone else. It takes mountains of research and studies before knowledge is in any usable form by the time the "best in the field" gets their hands on it. Implying that there's some sort of equitable partnership when private corporations throw a grant to some biochemistry department is a total false equivalence. Pitching in a fiver to buy a bottle of Cristal when someone else is kicking in the other $170 is not a partnership that should be described as hand-in-hand.
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 203 (100%)
[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]
Huh? That only delays one batch of people from entering for 4 years. After that, the "valve" does nothing.
Say 100,000 people graduates high school. Instead of going to work, they all go to college. It happens like this every year. After 4 years, 100,000 people get out of college, and go to work, and every year after. You've changed nothing, other than wasting 4 years and getting them in debt.
Isn't that why college isn't working?
Huh? That only delays one batch of people from entering for 4 years. After that, the "valve" does nothing.
Say 100,000 people graduates high school. Instead of going to work, they all go to college. It happens like this every year. After 4 years, 100,000 people get out of college, and go to work, and every year after. You've changed nothing, other than wasting 4 years and getting them in debt.
Isn't that why college isn't working?
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='elessar123']Huh? That only delays one batch of people from entering for 4 years. After that, the "valve" does nothing.
Say 100,000 people graduates high school. Instead of going to work, they all go to college. It happens like this every year. After 4 years, 100,000 people get out of college, and go to work, and every year after. You've changed nothing, other than wasting 4 years and getting them in debt.
Isn't that why college isn't working?[/QUOTE]
I think the theory is that people will retire during those four years, allowing the college grads to take their place. Unfortunately, it's not working out like that.
Say 100,000 people graduates high school. Instead of going to work, they all go to college. It happens like this every year. After 4 years, 100,000 people get out of college, and go to work, and every year after. You've changed nothing, other than wasting 4 years and getting them in debt.
Isn't that why college isn't working?[/QUOTE]
I think the theory is that people will retire during those four years, allowing the college grads to take their place. Unfortunately, it's not working out like that.
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 203 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']American society is ed. 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]
It's the intellectuals who are the cool kids in places like Japan and Taiwan, and they're stilled.
ed. 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]It's the intellectuals who are the cool kids in places like Japan and Taiwan, and they're still
ed.
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 203 (100%)
[quote name='docvinh']I think the theory is that people will retire during those four years, allowing the college grads to take their place. Unfortunately, it's not working out like that.[/QUOTE]
No, that still doesn't make sense, because it'll still only delay things for 4 years, once.
You have 200 people in the work force, 5 people age 25, 5x 26, 5x 27, and so on. So every year, the 5 that reach 64 retire.
Starting one year, you delay the 25 year-olds from working for 4 years. The first year, you have 195 workers, then 190, then 185, then 180. Fifth year, the delayed 25 year-olds, now 29, enter the workforce. That year, the workforce stays at 180.
Then 35 years later, you magically have 200 people in the workforce again, and you can't get another gap unless you increase the delay.
So in the end, you solved nothing. You've only managed to get everyone to work 4 years less, while accruing debt for fore years.
And then add to that the real world, where the people reaching 25 increases. So now, not only did you solve nothing, you made the future worse by releasing more people at the same time in 4 years. That's the current situation where people graduating have to complete with people who graduated in the last 3-4 years for the same entry jobs.
No, that still doesn't make sense, because it'll still only delay things for 4 years, once.
You have 200 people in the work force, 5 people age 25, 5x 26, 5x 27, and so on. So every year, the 5 that reach 64 retire.
Starting one year, you delay the 25 year-olds from working for 4 years. The first year, you have 195 workers, then 190, then 185, then 180. Fifth year, the delayed 25 year-olds, now 29, enter the workforce. That year, the workforce stays at 180.
Then 35 years later, you magically have 200 people in the workforce again, and you can't get another gap unless you increase the delay.
So in the end, you solved nothing. You've only managed to get everyone to work 4 years less, while accruing debt for fore years.
And then add to that the real world, where the people reaching 25 increases. So now, not only did you solve nothing, you made the future worse by releasing more people at the same time in 4 years. That's the current situation where people graduating have to complete with people who graduated in the last 3-4 years for the same entry jobs.
[quote name='elessar123']Huh? That only delays one batch of people from entering for 4 years. After that, the "valve" does nothing.
Say 100,000 people graduates high school. Instead of going to work, they all go to college. It happens like this every year. After 4 years, 100,000 people get out of college, and go to work, and every year after. You've changed nothing, other than wasting 4 years and getting them in debt.
Isn't that why college isn't working?[/QUOTE]
Let me explain my point using your example, let's say there are 100,000 high school graduates any given year. Out of those hs graduates about 50,000 go to college. The remaining 50,000 enter the workforce competing for let's say 40,000 jobs, which do not require a college degree. Out of the 50,000 who go to college let's say 35,000 graduate in 4 years. The remaining 15,000 graduate within the next two years. The 35,000 college grads will be competing for maybe 30,000 jobs which high school graduates cannot qualify for. So as long as you maintain a fine balance the cycle continues.
If the balance were to shift in either direction the end result is higher unemployment rates. If the shift is towards kids forgoing college the result is an unemployed and unskilled workforce. If the shift is towards kids going to college you'll end up with more unemployed college grads, who are in serious debt, but who qualify for both types of jobs. Essentially being a college grad offers you the opportunity to compete for 70,000 jobs instead of 40,000. At the end of the day ask yourself whose shoes would you rather be in and what's better for our economy.
Say 100,000 people graduates high school. Instead of going to work, they all go to college. It happens like this every year. After 4 years, 100,000 people get out of college, and go to work, and every year after. You've changed nothing, other than wasting 4 years and getting them in debt.
Isn't that why college isn't working?[/QUOTE]
Let me explain my point using your example, let's say there are 100,000 high school graduates any given year. Out of those hs graduates about 50,000 go to college. The remaining 50,000 enter the workforce competing for let's say 40,000 jobs, which do not require a college degree. Out of the 50,000 who go to college let's say 35,000 graduate in 4 years. The remaining 15,000 graduate within the next two years. The 35,000 college grads will be competing for maybe 30,000 jobs which high school graduates cannot qualify for. So as long as you maintain a fine balance the cycle continues.
If the balance were to shift in either direction the end result is higher unemployment rates. If the shift is towards kids forgoing college the result is an unemployed and unskilled workforce. If the shift is towards kids going to college you'll end up with more unemployed college grads, who are in serious debt, but who qualify for both types of jobs. Essentially being a college grad offers you the opportunity to compete for 70,000 jobs instead of 40,000. At the end of the day ask yourself whose shoes would you rather be in and what's better for our economy.
I
Indigo_Streetlight
Guest
[quote name='elessar123']No, that still doesn't make sense, because it'll still only delay things for 4 years, once.
You have 200 people in the work force, 5 people age 25, 5x 26, 5x 27, and so on. So every year, the 5 that reach 64 retire.
Starting one year, you delay the 25 year-olds from working for 4 years. The first year, you have 195 workers, then 190, then 185, then 180. Fifth year, the delayed 25 year-olds, now 29, enter the workforce. That year, the workforce stays at 180.
Then 35 years later, you magically have 200 people in the workforce again, and you can't get another gap unless you increase the delay.
So in the end, you solved nothing. You've only managed to get everyone to work 4 years less, while accruing debt for fore years.
And then add to that the real world, where the people reaching 25 increases. So now, not only did you solve nothing, you made the future worse by releasing more people at the same time in 4 years. That's the current situation where people graduating have to complete with people who graduated in the last 3-4 years for the same entry jobs.[/QUOTE]
I believe the four year delay idea was only intended as a temporary fix; like when you had Vets returning from Vietnam, you give the economy more time to absorb the influx rather than having to place all these unemployed people at one time.
IMHO, this only works if you have a healthy economy; at it stands if you spend 8-10 years in college and the magical, infinitely bountiful high-tech jobs we're supposed to have aren't around; you were essentially an indentured servant, receiving an "education tax" that someone who goes straight into the workforce does not get socked with. On top of this, you have older people who can't retire (survive on social security + savings, etc.) who are forced to go back to work and take job slots from the younger generation.
[quote name='kill3r7']Essentially being a college grad offers you the opportunity to compete for 70,000 jobs instead of 40,000. At the end of the day ask yourself whose shoes would you rather be in and what's better for our economy.[/QUOTE]
I think the issue with this is that job tiers are collapsing across the board; that there may not be any $70,000 or $40,000 level jobs...you know there's Ph.Ds who are sucking up all the bachelor's degree entry level positions? If the economic reality is that only 15k-20k jobs are available, then going for your degree is more like an exercise in life suicide. No, there's a better term even. Going for a college degree is to participate in a confidence game. If somebody told me I could put $10,000 (or more) each year under one of three pink shells and I could win a salary of $70,000 at the end, why, if this process wasn't so legitimatized by our society--wouldn't that be called a con game? So what you have is people who are forced into playing a con game due to the prevalent fear of "not being competitive enough" to survive in the workforce. Which is great for corporations and the government, because all costs for retooling society are passed to the individual...
You have 200 people in the work force, 5 people age 25, 5x 26, 5x 27, and so on. So every year, the 5 that reach 64 retire.
Starting one year, you delay the 25 year-olds from working for 4 years. The first year, you have 195 workers, then 190, then 185, then 180. Fifth year, the delayed 25 year-olds, now 29, enter the workforce. That year, the workforce stays at 180.
Then 35 years later, you magically have 200 people in the workforce again, and you can't get another gap unless you increase the delay.
So in the end, you solved nothing. You've only managed to get everyone to work 4 years less, while accruing debt for fore years.
And then add to that the real world, where the people reaching 25 increases. So now, not only did you solve nothing, you made the future worse by releasing more people at the same time in 4 years. That's the current situation where people graduating have to complete with people who graduated in the last 3-4 years for the same entry jobs.[/QUOTE]
I believe the four year delay idea was only intended as a temporary fix; like when you had Vets returning from Vietnam, you give the economy more time to absorb the influx rather than having to place all these unemployed people at one time.
IMHO, this only works if you have a healthy economy; at it stands if you spend 8-10 years in college and the magical, infinitely bountiful high-tech jobs we're supposed to have aren't around; you were essentially an indentured servant, receiving an "education tax" that someone who goes straight into the workforce does not get socked with. On top of this, you have older people who can't retire (survive on social security + savings, etc.) who are forced to go back to work and take job slots from the younger generation.
[quote name='kill3r7']Essentially being a college grad offers you the opportunity to compete for 70,000 jobs instead of 40,000. At the end of the day ask yourself whose shoes would you rather be in and what's better for our economy.[/QUOTE]
I think the issue with this is that job tiers are collapsing across the board; that there may not be any $70,000 or $40,000 level jobs...you know there's Ph.Ds who are sucking up all the bachelor's degree entry level positions? If the economic reality is that only 15k-20k jobs are available, then going for your degree is more like an exercise in life suicide. No, there's a better term even. Going for a college degree is to participate in a confidence game. If somebody told me I could put $10,000 (or more) each year under one of three pink shells and I could win a salary of $70,000 at the end, why, if this process wasn't so legitimatized by our society--wouldn't that be called a con game? So what you have is people who are forced into playing a con game due to the prevalent fear of "not being competitive enough" to survive in the workforce. Which is great for corporations and the government, because all costs for retooling society are passed to the individual...
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I believe the four year delay idea was only intended as a temporary fix; like when you had Vets returning from Vietnam, you give the economy more time to absorb the influx rather than having to place all these unemployed people at one time.
IMHO, this only works if you have a healthy economy; at it stands if you spend 8-10 years in college and the magical, infinitely bountiful high-tech jobs we're supposed to have aren't around; you were essentially an indentured servant, receiving an "education tax" that someone who goes straight into the workforce does not get socked with. On top of this, you have older people who can't retire (survive on social security + savings, etc.) who are forced to go back to work and take job slots from the younger generation.
I think the issue with this is that job tiers are collapsing across the board; that there may not be any $70,000 or $40,000 level jobs...you know there's Ph.Ds who are sucking up all the bachelor's degree entry level positions? If the economic reality is that only 15k-20k jobs are available, then going for your degree is more like an exercise in life suicide. No, there's a better term even. Going for a college degree is to participate in a confidence game. If somebody told me I could put $10,000 (or more) each year under one of three pink shells and I could win a salary of $70,000 at the end, why, if this process wasn't so legitimatized by our society--wouldn't that be called a con game? So what you have is people who are forced into playing a con game due to the prevalent fear of "not being competitive enough" to survive in the workforce. Which is great for corporations and the government, because all costs for retooling society are passed to the individual...[/QUOTE]
You misread what I wrote. I was talking about seventy thousand jobs (70,000) not seventy thousand dollar jobs ($70,000). I think you would agree that a college grad has access to a larger job pool when compared to a high school grad. That was my point.
IMHO, this only works if you have a healthy economy; at it stands if you spend 8-10 years in college and the magical, infinitely bountiful high-tech jobs we're supposed to have aren't around; you were essentially an indentured servant, receiving an "education tax" that someone who goes straight into the workforce does not get socked with. On top of this, you have older people who can't retire (survive on social security + savings, etc.) who are forced to go back to work and take job slots from the younger generation.
I think the issue with this is that job tiers are collapsing across the board; that there may not be any $70,000 or $40,000 level jobs...you know there's Ph.Ds who are sucking up all the bachelor's degree entry level positions? If the economic reality is that only 15k-20k jobs are available, then going for your degree is more like an exercise in life suicide. No, there's a better term even. Going for a college degree is to participate in a confidence game. If somebody told me I could put $10,000 (or more) each year under one of three pink shells and I could win a salary of $70,000 at the end, why, if this process wasn't so legitimatized by our society--wouldn't that be called a con game? So what you have is people who are forced into playing a con game due to the prevalent fear of "not being competitive enough" to survive in the workforce. Which is great for corporations and the government, because all costs for retooling society are passed to the individual...[/QUOTE]
You misread what I wrote. I was talking about seventy thousand jobs (70,000) not seventy thousand dollar jobs ($70,000). I think you would agree that a college grad has access to a larger job pool when compared to a high school grad. That was my point.
Yep, a college degree definitely opens more doors. The unemployment rate for those with bachelors is roughly half that for people without college degrees. Even lower for people with Masters or Terminal Degrees.
A degree isn't a guarantee to a job at all (much less one in your degree field), but you're a hell of a lot better off with one than without one since so many places want degrees even for basic entry level jobs these days.
A degree isn't a guarantee to a job at all (much less one in your degree field), but you're a hell of a lot better off with one than without one since so many places want degrees even for basic entry level jobs these days.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']The rub dmaul is that many of those who are employed with college degrees are working sub professionalism jobs that do not require a college degree.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, I think the biggest thing is not that people are employed but that they are making no where near what the degree promised them in a field that is barely related.
Like I said, I know a lot of Engineers who work at Lowes. Of course a employee will hire a college grad over a no college grad...they are basically getting a 5 thousand dollar to 1 deal on it. This is worse when it comes to salaried jobs. Hire a struggling crazy over qualified person for pennies on the dollar and then still demand that they do all the work of someone in a higher pay bracket.
The knock isnt that they are not employed but they are making about as much as someone with no degree at all. Thus questioning was it worth it?
This is one of the big reasons I choose to be a self employed freelance instead of a salaried worker. The one job I did have wanted me to work 45-55 hours a week but I would earn about the same with 2 or 3 weeks of freelance gigs each month.
Exactly, I think the biggest thing is not that people are employed but that they are making no where near what the degree promised them in a field that is barely related.
Like I said, I know a lot of Engineers who work at Lowes. Of course a employee will hire a college grad over a no college grad...they are basically getting a 5 thousand dollar to 1 deal on it. This is worse when it comes to salaried jobs. Hire a struggling crazy over qualified person for pennies on the dollar and then still demand that they do all the work of someone in a higher pay bracket.
The knock isnt that they are not employed but they are making about as much as someone with no degree at all. Thus questioning was it worth it?
This is one of the big reasons I choose to be a self employed freelance instead of a salaried worker. The one job I did have wanted me to work 45-55 hours a week but I would earn about the same with 2 or 3 weeks of freelance gigs each month.
Does anyone else see this as capital winning the class war against labor? They've working on destroying the last big union, USPS, and now they're going to suck out what's left through education.
I can only laugh when cons bitch about "class warfare" because the war is basically over...and capital won.
I can only laugh when cons bitch about "class warfare" because the war is basically over...and capital won.
[quote name='Msut77']The rub dmaul is that many of those who are employed with college degrees are working sub professionalism jobs that do not require a college degree.[/QUOTE]
For sure, which sucks. But at least they have a job rather than being unemployed. And the degree may have got them hired even though it's a job that doesn't specifically require one.
In short, having a degree can only help you on the job market, not having one can only hurt you.
With all the caveats we beat to death in this thread the first time around about not taking out unreasonable amounts of debt, not getting degrees in fields that have few job prospects etc.
For sure, which sucks. But at least they have a job rather than being unemployed. And the degree may have got them hired even though it's a job that doesn't specifically require one.
In short, having a degree can only help you on the job market, not having one can only hurt you.
With all the caveats we beat to death in this thread the first time around about not taking out unreasonable amounts of debt, not getting degrees in fields that have few job prospects etc.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
I dont know dmaul, I think its far easier to say that when you have a contract job already...its a little tough to swallow when you are 24ish out of college living at home with your parents because you have 40+ grand in student loans and cant afford to move out.
Also I would love to ask anyone, what is the right career then? To me its slightly a cop out to tell someone that they should choose the "right" career (job prospects, not having high debt ect ect) when the "right" career changes every 5 years. Discounting people who take outlandish careers like comic book history or whatever.
In recent memory the "right" careers I can name are, IT, Nurses, Teachers, Accounting, Engineering...just off the top of my head. These are all careers that I remember being danced around as the super safe careers that have very little downside.
That is clearly false, there might be a teacher shortage in America but that doesnt mean they are hiring teachers. Hell virtually every district I know of has a hiring freeze right now as they would rather increase class sizes to 40 kid than hire another teacher. There are a lot of out of work Lawyers, Doctors, Teachers, IT, Web Developers, Engineers etc etc...these are all consider very traditional careers.
I guess I think your bold statement of, "In short, having a degree can only help you on the job market, not having one can only hurt you" as a false statement. As there is no way to factually prove that in this economy. A
Also I would love to ask anyone, what is the right career then? To me its slightly a cop out to tell someone that they should choose the "right" career (job prospects, not having high debt ect ect) when the "right" career changes every 5 years. Discounting people who take outlandish careers like comic book history or whatever.
In recent memory the "right" careers I can name are, IT, Nurses, Teachers, Accounting, Engineering...just off the top of my head. These are all careers that I remember being danced around as the super safe careers that have very little downside.
That is clearly false, there might be a teacher shortage in America but that doesnt mean they are hiring teachers. Hell virtually every district I know of has a hiring freeze right now as they would rather increase class sizes to 40 kid than hire another teacher. There are a lot of out of work Lawyers, Doctors, Teachers, IT, Web Developers, Engineers etc etc...these are all consider very traditional careers.
I guess I think your bold statement of, "In short, having a degree can only help you on the job market, not having one can only hurt you" as a false statement. As there is no way to factually prove that in this economy. A
[quote name='Soodmeg']I dont know dmaul, I think its far easier to say that when you have a contract job already...its a little tough to swallow when you are 24ish out of college living at home with your parents because you have 40+ grand in student loans and cant afford to move out.
Also I would love to ask anyone, what is the right career then? To me its slightly a cop out to tell someone that they should choose the "right" career (job prospects, not having high debt ect ect) when the "right" career changes every 5 years. Discounting people who take outlandish careers like comic book history or whatever.
In recent memory the "right" careers I can name are, IT, Nurses, Teachers, Accounting, Engineering...just off the top of my head. These are all careers that I remember being danced around as the super safe careers that have very little downside.
That is clearly false, there might be a teacher shortage in America but that doesnt mean they are hiring teachers. Hell virtually every district I know of has a hiring freeze right now as they would rather increase class sizes to 40 kid than hire another teacher. There are a lot of out of work Lawyers, Doctors, Teachers, IT, Web Developers, Engineers etc etc...these are all consider very traditional careers.
I guess I think your bold statement of, "In short, having a degree can only help you on the job market, not having one can only hurt you" as a false statement. As there is no way to factually prove that in this economy. A[/QUOTE]
Besides being in debt...how can having a degree hurt you? As I posted earlier, simply having a degree means you qualify for more jobs than someone with a high school diploma. Additionally, your career path is more diverse than someone with a high school degree.
Also I would love to ask anyone, what is the right career then? To me its slightly a cop out to tell someone that they should choose the "right" career (job prospects, not having high debt ect ect) when the "right" career changes every 5 years. Discounting people who take outlandish careers like comic book history or whatever.
In recent memory the "right" careers I can name are, IT, Nurses, Teachers, Accounting, Engineering...just off the top of my head. These are all careers that I remember being danced around as the super safe careers that have very little downside.
That is clearly false, there might be a teacher shortage in America but that doesnt mean they are hiring teachers. Hell virtually every district I know of has a hiring freeze right now as they would rather increase class sizes to 40 kid than hire another teacher. There are a lot of out of work Lawyers, Doctors, Teachers, IT, Web Developers, Engineers etc etc...these are all consider very traditional careers.
I guess I think your bold statement of, "In short, having a degree can only help you on the job market, not having one can only hurt you" as a false statement. As there is no way to factually prove that in this economy. A[/QUOTE]
Besides being in debt...how can having a degree hurt you? As I posted earlier, simply having a degree means you qualify for more jobs than someone with a high school diploma. Additionally, your career path is more diverse than someone with a high school degree.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Soodmeg']I dont know dmaul, I think its far easier to say that when you have a contract job already...its a little tough to swallow when you are 24ish out of college living at home with your parents because you have 40+ grand in student loans and cant afford to move out.
Also I would love to ask anyone, what is the right career then? To me its slightly a cop out to tell someone that they should choose the "right" career (job prospects, not having high debt ect ect) when the "right" career changes every 5 years. Discounting people who take outlandish careers like comic book history or whatever.
In recent memory the "right" careers I can name are, IT, Nurses, Teachers, Accounting, Engineering...just off the top of my head. These are all careers that I remember being danced around as the super safe careers that have very little downside.
That is clearly false, there might be a teacher shortage in America but that doesnt mean they are hiring teachers. Hell virtually every district I know of has a hiring freeze right now as they would rather increase class sizes to 40 kid than hire another teacher. There are a lot of out of work Lawyers, Doctors, Teachers, IT, Web Developers, Engineers etc etc...these are all consider very traditional careers.[/quote]
I agree with this, but you also forgot to mention that the ones that Are working are probably making less than what their counterparts were making in years prior.
Btw, are you missing part of you post with the stray "A?"
Also I would love to ask anyone, what is the right career then? To me its slightly a cop out to tell someone that they should choose the "right" career (job prospects, not having high debt ect ect) when the "right" career changes every 5 years. Discounting people who take outlandish careers like comic book history or whatever.
In recent memory the "right" careers I can name are, IT, Nurses, Teachers, Accounting, Engineering...just off the top of my head. These are all careers that I remember being danced around as the super safe careers that have very little downside.
That is clearly false, there might be a teacher shortage in America but that doesnt mean they are hiring teachers. Hell virtually every district I know of has a hiring freeze right now as they would rather increase class sizes to 40 kid than hire another teacher. There are a lot of out of work Lawyers, Doctors, Teachers, IT, Web Developers, Engineers etc etc...these are all consider very traditional careers.[/quote]
I agree with this, but you also forgot to mention that the ones that Are working are probably making less than what their counterparts were making in years prior.
Actually, you Can prove it by looking at employment data. People with degrees are employed at a higher rate than those without. This is a fact and I know the same data is also disaggregated by race and gender, of which the results are very interesting to say the least. I forget if the data is broken down by field.
Btw, are you missing part of you post with the stray "A?"
- Status
bread's done