This generation of kids...

[reetpleat]

Wow, is this really becoming a conversation of higher education verses not?
Come one people.

I am a devout believer in higher education because I come from a family where that was often deprived from them. It was a higher lifestyle in my family and my brother and I always heard, "when you get out of college" as a preface to just about anything we wanted to do in life.

My mother was one of the first in out family to get a degree, and later a masters in special education. That didn't make her any less hands on as say someone who didn't have a diploma, but there was a foundation there, a structured and by the numbers foundation. I feel thats what you get from higher education.

Not saying that there are not a lot of immediate kin who didn't go to college and are doing well owning their own home or business or what have you. I still talk with them and some regret not going/ being able to go, if for no other reason that discovering a new dynamic about themselves.

LD

Agreed. Any kid of mine will be told in no uncertain terms that I expect them to attend college and study something rigorous, if not necessarily applicable to a job.

If, after that, they decide they want to become a carpenter or whatever, so be it.

If, of course they are just not cut out for academic achievement, can't get in, or can't get out, then we will look around for other career options from the get go.

I envy people who come out of school early when they do not mind giving up their time, and have degrees, many of which allow them to do things I can not consider, like law, architecture, working in management for a large business, etc. I could go back to school now, but sure wish i had already done it back then.

 

[Lady Day]

Why, go back 100 years or so, and you'd find people arguing that you didn't need no high falootin' educashun, 'cause ol' pappy did derned well fer 'imself on the farm. And that was just grammar school and high school.

Riiiight, because everyone who didnt go to college a century ago was some slack jawed yokel. :eusa_doh:

Come on everyone. We have to admit, high education does give most an advantage, and if nothing else a dynamic chapter in their own personal fulfillment. But not going to college is not an automatic stupid either. Geeze. Its not that polarizing, there is this thing called real world experience and both choices in life benefit from it. Neither has a monopoly on it.

Lets all have a cookie I know how to bake them myself

LD

 

[Pompidou]

Riiiight, because everyone who didnt go to college a century ago was some slack jawed yokel. :eusa_doh:

Come on everyone. We have to admit, high education does give most an advantage, and if nothing else a dynamic chapter in their own personal fulfillment. But not going to college is not an automatic stupid either. Geeze. Its not that polarizing, there is this thing called real world experience and both choices in life benefit from it. Neither has a monopoly on it.

Lets all have a cookie I know how to bake them myself

LD

I was just kidding around with the hillbilly accent, but the truth of the message was still there - for a long time, people didn't think you needed an education. I'd say the 50s were for highschool what we are now for college - where, yes, it's strongly urged that you finished, but where people still made good lives dropping out. We're that way now with college. It's strongly urged you finish, but there's still a life to be made without. It's certainly easier to get ahead with one, regardless of subject, so, if in doubt, get a degree.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Riiiight, because everyone who didnt go to college a century ago was some slack jawed yokel. :eusa_doh:

Yes indeed. As recently as 1940, in fact, less than four percent of the population had a college degree. And even today, the figure stands at less than 30 percent. That's an awful lot of slack-jawed yokels out there, durnburn it by cracky. And seriously, that's 70 percent of the population that supposedly isn't qualified for a decent job. I agree with Neecerie that this is a sign of something wrong with the system.

As I said in an earlier post, when I was in high school thirty years ago, college was by no means universally promoted the way it is today -- I think about ten kids out of my graduating class of about sixty went on to college, and if I remember right, they were all from families that already had college background. About twenty kids from my class went into the service, and the rest of us went either to "business school," where you learned typing and filing and such, or straight into the workforce. That's how the world was then, at least in this corner of it. We're all in our late forties now, and supposedly we "aren't qualified" to be part of the world we're stuck living in. Only thing is, we don't buy that. And we're not about to lie down and die anytime soon, either.

If I had a kid today, I'd want them to go on to college -- but I'd want them to do something there that would get them an actual job on the way out. Because the allowance would stop the day they turned 18. (Although ideally, it would have stopped when they were 14 and got an after-school job.)

Lets all have a cookie I know how to bake them myself

LD

I'll bring the bread!

 

[Pompidou]

Coffee's what I do best.

 

[1961MJS]

...
If, of course they are just not cut out for academic achievement, can't get in, or can't get out, then we will look around for other career options from the get go....

Hi

My daughter and my high school friend who's now a steel worker are both what one doctor called "visual or tactile learners". Neither gets much from a book, but by doing something, or looking at it (not a picture). My daughter has a better memory and logic than my son who got fairly good grades, and is in college (Accounting).

Later

 

[Undertow]

If I had a kid today, I'd want them to go on to college -- but I'd want them to do something there that would get them an actual job on the way out.

I believe this statement generally sums up the whole point Lizzie and others (and my own personal opinion) of higher education vs. none.

If someone intends to obtain a degree, they should do so in a field that actually requires said knowledge and then they should actively persue a career in that field - exactly the reason the same person would attend a trade school, or learn "real world" skills through experience alone.

If you plan to attend college, you should do so with a singular point in mind - I want to be [x], and so I will study [x].

Currently, society holds that everyone should attend college REGARDLESS of whether or not they have the slightest clue what they're doing, where they're going, or who they are. So much, in fact, that college is basically (not entirely) just another high school. However, the difference is that when you're doing poorly in college, you fail and you leave.

I certainly wouldn't recommend a listless student leave high school and learn to be a mechanic, or a plumber, or an engineer; as opposed to anything else. In fact, when I used to work in the student loan business, I always recommended kids avoid college, avoid trade schools, and start working in the field they think they want. If they were certain of their intentions in a year, they could start college. If not, move to another field. No sense in majoring in Psychology only to start working phones in customer service for some credit company.

And that's what's happening - that's how the system is broken. You take a kid fresh out of high school who says they want to be a news reporter, you start them in Journalism and Mass Communication and you get them working on their college paper. A year later, they've changed their major to English, dropped the newspaper and decided they're going to be a teacher. And after almost four years of school, they hate the idea of teaching, they finish their major in English and they get a job at Chase Bank taking customer service calls about credit cards. They've already racked up $75k in student loan debt, they already have a degree, and they sure as heck can't afford to keep going to school for another four years.

That's wrong, that's what's broken. And someone is making a whole lotta loot outta the deal. Had that same kid just started working at the newspaper off the bat, they might have realized within a week that it wasn't for them. Or they would have ended up owning the company 20 years later.

It's not Yea or Nay; it's "let's think about what we're doing for a minute".

 

[JimWagner]

It's gonna be worthwhile because

In less than 3 years that college degree will have paid for itself.

And check those unemployment rates, too.

The problem with that chart is that it actually doesn't show anything useful.

A median without a range only says that half of the sample is above that number and half below. The categories don't provide much useful information either. It lumps everyone together without regard for what discipline or knowledge areas are represented.

Clearly what you might make as an individual depends on what profession you are in and what the requirements for that profession are.

I made well above that median Doctoral degree level in 2008 and "only" have an Associate Degree.

If we're talking money, then you'd be better off to figure out what professions make the money, what the actual education requirements are for that profession, and then acquire the relevant education - whatever that may be.

 

[noonblueapples]

I believe this statement generally sums up the whole point Lizzie and others (and my own personal opinion) of higher education vs. none.

If someone intends to obtain a degree, they should do so in a field that actually requires said knowledge and then they should actively persue a career in that field - exactly the reason the same person would attend a trade school, or learn "real world" skills through experience alone.

If you plan to attend college, you should do so with a singular point in mind - I want to be [x], and so I will study [x]..

I feel completely the opposite. I went to college to get an education, not for any economical reasons. I felt then and still feel that no one should use higher education as a trade school.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Geography is also a factor. A PhD living here, in rural New England, is likely to make maybe $75,000 a year, tops, as a high school principal or some such, unless he's lucky enough to latch on at some think tank or other, running on out-of-state money. My brother--in-law, a high-school educated lineman for the electric company, makes $80 grand.

Unless you factor in such geographic variance, you're going to have some very skewed figures.

 

[handlebar bart]

The problem with that chart is that it actually doesn't show anything useful.

A median without a range only says that half of the sample is above that number and half below. The categories don't provide much useful information either. It lumps everyone together without regard for what discipline or knowledge areas are represented.

Clearly what you might make as an individual depends on what profession you are in and what the requirements for that profession are.

I made well above that median Doctoral degree level in 2008 and "only" have an Associate Degree.

If we're talking money, then you'd be better off to figure out what professions make the money, what the actual education requirements are for that profession, and then acquire the relevant education - whatever that may be.

I agree. The chart has been used twice in this thread so it was suppose to have made some big impact......I guess. I would apparently make a person with a Doctoral degree jealous with the amount this lowly blue collar guy makes.:eusa_doh: It doesn't help that this chart is naturally going to be skewed due to the large teen/student labor force and the lowpaying parttime work they typically do.

 

[Undertow]

I feel completely the opposite. I went to college to get an education, not for any economical reasons. I felt then and still feel that no one should use higher education as a trade school.

Sure, some people go to college strictly for an education; that certainly is a path one might take.

You can also attend your local library for an education, attend state college lectures without enrolling, do your own interviewing and research, compile your findings into a paper and solicit scholarly magazines to publish it. After all that, you'll have learned quite a bit as well. But why do so few people try to educate themselves, while so many simply attend college? [huh]

I too believe ends don't always justify the means. If you want to take the classical approach and attend college simply to educate yourself, then more power to you - you truly are a scholar, and you will have a long and self-rewarding path ahead of you.

On the other hand, if you're some dopey teenager who's prep school molded you into a college freshman, and whose parents pushed you to get a 4-year, what's the point in going to college? You're not going because you want an education, you're going because all your friends are going, because your school and parents are telling you to, because you don't know any other option.

God forbid that same dopey teenager take a few years off, hit the grindstone and figure out who he is and what he wants to do. And God forbid he learn anything on his own, or be self-sufficient in any way.

All I'm saying is that there are options, quite unbeknownst to very, very many college freshman. What's wrong with NOT going to school? Nothing, right. So what's with the current push to enroll everyone under the sun with a GED?

 

[Neophyte]

Sure, some people go to college strictly for an education; that certainly is a path one might take.

You can also attend your local library for an education, attend state college lectures without enrolling, do your own interviewing and research, compile your findings into a paper and solicit scholarly magazines to publish it. After all that, you'll have learned quite a bit as well. But why do so few people try to educate themselves, while so many simply attend college? [huh]

I too believe ends don't always justify the means. If you want to take the classical approach and attend college simply to educate yourself, then more power to you - you truly are a scholar, and you will have a long and self-rewarding path ahead of you.

On the other hand, if you're some dopey teenager who's prep school molded you into a college freshman, and whose parents pushed you to get a 4-year, what's the point in going to college? You're not going because you want an education, you're going because all your friends are going, because your school and parents are telling you to, because you don't know any other option.

God forbid that same dopey teenager take a few years off, hit the grindstone and figure out who he is and what he wants to do. And God forbid he learn anything on his own, or be self-sufficient in any way.

All I'm saying is that there are options, quite unbeknownst to very, very many college freshman. What's wrong with NOT going to school? Nothing, right. So what's with the current push to enroll everyone under the sun with a GED?

I kinda have to agree with this, being one of those "dopey teenagers" you mention. I kinda wish I had taken a year off between high school and college to get to know what I want to do, and to get a job and make some money. As it stands, though, I was afraid I'd forget a lot of what I learned and so decided to continue.

 

[Pompidou]

I kinda have to agree with this, being one of those "dopey teenagers" you mention. I kinda wish I had taken a year off between high school and college to get to know what I want to do, and to get a job and make some money. As it stands, though, I was afraid I'd forget a lot of what I learned and so decided to continue.

That's one thing that can happen. I regret not plowing on and getting a masters and phd all in succession after my bachelors, because after seven years, it's going to be quite a challenge to ace the GRE to even gain entrance to grad school.

But, on the other hand, if I had waited till I was serious and motivated, I'd have done a lot better in college than I did. I got by, don't get me wrong, but I knew I could get "okay" marks, you know, low B's mostly, just by showing up, for all intents and purposes, so I never really studied or anything - just kind of floated by and let pretty good things happen, instead of trying to be great. If I had gone to college now, I'd have done it all different.

So, there're two sides to the coin. Wait too long and you'll have an uphill battle early on trying to remember how to do everything you learned before. Join before you're serious and you won't really maximize your benefits.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Meh. I can think of nothing I'd like less than being surrounded by the kind of postmodernist intellectual onanism that infects the Media Studies field these days. I've read enough of that stuff to know that I couldn't ever teach it with a straight face, and if you *don't* teach it, and at least pretend to believe it, you don't get to be a member of the club. So I'm afraid they'd have about as much use for me as I have for them.

Although, I do get a kick when some of these Media Studies types quote me. If only they knew.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's wrong, that's what's broken. And someone is making a whole lotta loot outta the deal. Had that same kid just started working at the newspaper off the bat, they might have realized within a week that it wasn't for them. Or they would have ended up owning the company 20 years later.

It's not Yea or Nay; it's "let's think about what we're doing for a minute".

That's the best comment anyone's made yet on the subject. And the journalism example is spot on.

Speaking as someone with fifteen years as a reporter under my belt -- and a very good one, at least according to our state broadcasters' association -- I think I can say with some confidence that there is no skill required of a beginning "journalist" that is beyond the capability of a motivated, intelligent high school senior. If the basic ability with words is there -- and the requirement becomes more "basic" with every passing year -- there's no real reason why such a kid couldn't start right in with a local/regional paper as a stringer, covering local municipal news and such. A bit of training would be required on basic journalistic ethics, sure, but any halfway decent editor can sit the kid down, toss him a handbook, and say "Read this, don't do the things it says not to, and if you've got any questions, you come to me. Nothing you do gets into print/on the air until I vet it first, and if I see something wrong, you'll hear about it."

There's nothing that a bright kid couldn't learn thru such an informal "apprenticeship," and end up a very fine reporter with a bit of seasoning. There is simply no conceivable reason why that kid should have to spend four years and $100 grand to learn what he or she could thru practical experience on the job, except that someone, somewhere decided that journalism is a Profession, and that it therefore requires some sort of supposed Professional Certification, to be acquired at a very great expense from a properly certified institution. Well, if that's how it is, my grandfather didn't pump gas for a living, he was a Petroleum Distillate Transfer Engineer.

I think Undertow is exactly right. Someone *is* making a whole lot of loot out of the deal. We need to start asking *why.*

 

[Pompidou]

It's just supply and demand. There are a lot of people qualified at the base level for a lot of jobs. When I began opening my cafe, I had no shortage of people looking to get in on the deal. After all, they'd get so many perks for so little risk. Yet, how hard is it, really, to make any variation on a coffee beverage you see nowadays? Clearly, the bar needed to be raised above sheer competence. I would've been justified in demanding any requirements I felt like, be it four years of college education, more than two 100% beaver hats, anything. Other companies are the same. I don't think it's wrong. I ended up drafting my future owner-members list based on personal character, because my whole intent with the cafe is to karmically reward good people who I think got screwed in life, amongst other things. But, I could've demanded college to serve coffee, because the profit sharing is 100% equal between us - like communism, so I could ask anything I wanted and get it.

Colleges make the money they do because they fulfill this niche. It'd take so many facets of society changing to change this, that I don't imagine it ever will. First, companies would have to stop demanding it as a requirement. They'll likely only do this if supply exceeds demand. Second, people will have to stop valuing college as a way to get a job, and this won't happen unless the supply and demand shifts radically, and a significant portion of the population realizes it, and even then, that's not to say that most people won't keep going to college anyway, because the whole thing would be like the stock market, and when markets are low, you invest for the future. Colleges would be cheaper, and odds are business would gain an upper hand soon enough. I think the hiring mentality and the drive to get a college education is here for good.

Actually, there is a third way to go, and that's making college mandatory like high school and grammar school, paid for by taxes. Of course, this will simply raise the bar, leaving employers and applicants scrambling for another way to distinguish the top tier from the rest. There's always going to be something in that regard. Anyhow, I'm rambling.

 

[JimWagner]

I think Undertow is exactly right. Someone *is* making a whole lot of loot out of the deal. We need to start asking *why.*

You already answered that one - to make a lot of loot

 

[Puzzicato]

And that's what's happening - that's how the system is broken. You take a kid fresh out of high school who says they want to be a news reporter, you start them in Journalism and Mass Communication and you get them working on their college paper. A year later, they've changed their major to English, dropped the newspaper and decided they're going to be a teacher. And after almost four years of school, they hate the idea of teaching, they finish their major in English and they get a job at Chase Bank taking customer service calls about credit cards. They've already racked up $75k in student loan debt, they already have a degree, and they sure as heck can't afford to keep going to school for another four years.

So did you actually have a copy of my CV when you wrote this post? lol Although I did actually do my teaching degree before journalism!

 

[Foofoogal]

That's wrong, that's what's broken. And someone is making a whole lotta loot outta the deal. Had that same kid just started working at the newspaper off the bat, they might have realized within a week that it wasn't for them. Or they would have ended up owning the company 20 years later.

It's not Yea or Nay; it's "let's think about what we're doing for a minute".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:eusa_clap :eusa_clap

Where were you a few years ago and many dollars ago. (oh, how I could ramble on about this one.)
It should be required by law for kids to go to Junior college the first year out of high school IMHO.

There are always 2 ways to skin a cat so to speak. (where did that saying come from anyway? )