This generation of kids...

[JimWagner]

I know that when I was 18 I was clueless about pretty much everything and thought I knew it all. I lasted one quarter in college and dropped out of that and joined the Navy.

Four years later I had a much better idea of what I didn't know and what I wanted to know. I worked for a year after the Navy and then went back to school. That time I wanted to be there, applied myself, got my education and then began my career.

40 years later, looking back, I'm glad it worked out that way.

 

[1961MJS]

...
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.

Hi

This isn't DIRECTLY related to the whole thread, but I checked several individuals who many Americans use to get their news and opinions from, and what degree(s) they have.

1. Rush Limbaugh attended College for 3 semesters while working at a radio station. Dropped out.

2. Michelle Malkin earned a degree in English

3. Ann Coulter earned a degree in History and then her law degree.

4. Maureen Dowd earned a Degree in English.

5. Mike Royko briefly attended a Junior College.

6. Keith Oberman earned a degree in Communications arts.

7. Rachel Maddow earned a degree in Public Policy.

8. Walter Cronkite attended college at the University of Texas Austin where he worked on the Daily Texan.

I find it interesting that the "journalists" I've heard of don't have journalism degrees, not a one. Not even the god of the evenning news Walter Cronkite.

 

[Yeps]

I find it interesting that the "journalists" I've heard of don't have journalism degrees, not a one. Not even the god of the evenning news Walter Cronkite.

My brother's friends who studied journalism and English were very upset when he, who studied poli sci, philosopy, and economics, got a gig writing for the NY Times. It is interesting how things work.

 

[LizzieMaine]

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.

And there's the rub, really -- when you're "distinguishing the top tier" these days you're basically identifying that tier as those people who could afford to buy their way into it. With the cost of higher education climbing to ridiculous levels, more and more people are finding themselves over a barrel -- they get run into debts that'll take a big hunk of their working life to pay off, but if they *don't* do it, they're being convinced they have no hope of ever getting a decent job. Even though there's no guarantee they'll ever actually get such a job even if they do what's expected of them. The idea that the current higher education system leads to a genuine meritocracy falls to pieces the closer you look at it.

What the current system has given us is the basic equivalent of a shakedown racket. Unless you're lucky enough to get a free ride -- a bone thrown from the master's table -- your advancement up the ladder in life is being more and more defined by your ability to buy your way up.

 

[Cricket]

I actually received my degree in journalism, and I am thankful for it. But it was no sugarcoated at all by my advisor.

"Your college debt is going to be more than what you will actually make. You need to be in this for the love of it not the paycheck."

Boy, was he right. I owe more to Sallie Mae now than what I make in a year.
But it was kind of my own fault. When some loan officer tells you that you can get a loan "up to $7,000" what do you think a red-blooded 20-something year old is going to do? lol

I am glad that I did get my degree but I agree with some posts I have seen on this thread. Quite honestly, I could have walked into my paper with writing skills and probably got the job. But the legal side of journalism was a foreign land to me until I do the courses. So it balanced out for me.

But then again there was always that fear that if I didn't get my college degree then I wouldn't be successful. It was bounded in my head as a child. "You must go to college. You must get a degree."[huh]

 

[JimWagner]

Unless you're lucky enough to get a free ride -- a bone thrown from the master's table -- your advancement up the ladder in life is being more and more defined by your ability to buy your way up.

Not disputing that at all, but when was it ever not so?

The difference today is that more parents and students are willing and able (they think) to go deep into debt for that college education. And the colleges are certainly responding to the demand.

Pre WWII that wasn't true and a correspondingly smaller percentage of the population were college graduates. The ones who went to college were pretty much the children of the well off. I believe the post war GI Bill started the modern education ball rolling.

My parents were only able to put 1 of their 5 kids (not me) through college. As a Vietnam era veteran I certainly took advantage of the GI Bill. But putting my own 2 kids through college was on my tab.

I can only wonder, given the current economic outlook, if my kids will be able to put their kids through college when the time comes.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Not disputing that at all, but when was it ever not so?

It wasn't really so long ago, actually, that a working-class person could make a pretty good living for themselves without having to worry about higher education or the expenses associated with it. Even my own experiences, a mere thirty years ago, could probably not be duplicated by a working-class kid today -- and *that's the problem.* Upward mobility for today's working class is being severely limited by a system that seems designed to keep it "in its place." Unless they get one of those free rides, or are willing to take on extortionate debt, they're stuck.

Sure, the really outstanding working-class kids might get the free rides, but *if you're middle class, and especially if you're upper middle class, you don't have to be outstanding to have a chance in life.* You can slack your way along with a C average, just showing up, partying and drinking all you want, and being as outrageously non-conformist as you want -- but you'll still collect your degree, and there you go. The working-class kid will have to keep her nose flat to the grindstone all the time just to get in the door of college, let alone how committed she'll have to be once she gets there. And if she doesn't make it, even with all that, well, she was just a quota kid after all.

And the worst part of it is, too many people today think it's fine, because "those people aren't like us anyway -- they didn't even go to college."

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The idea that the current higher education system leads to a genuine meritocracy falls to pieces the closer you look at it.

You're not wrong! At my current institution we essentially cannot fail anyone because they pay so much to be here. Currently £7000 a year (3 year degree) for undergraduate for in-state (England/Wales/NI) students. This can't be good.

When I was off to university, the concept of £21,000 debts just for tuition was unfathomable and certainly unworkable for myself and my parents. Fortunately I grew up in a country where University is a free ride for everyone, and therefore is really quite selective in its admissions policies. Degrees still mean something!

bk

 

[kamikat]

Around here, we seem less and less able to cope with a bit of snow. Not sure why it is that schools close or start late when everybody else in Denver manages to get to their (non-government) jobs. It just makes it inconvenient for parents. The kids aren't to blame.

Have you looked into giving your daughter reading assignments or some other learning activities?

Part of it is very practical. Around here, there is less and less money each year for snow removal. That means they are less likely to put down sand/salt and have fewer plows to cover more and more roads. The other part is our litigious society. A few years back, our school opened when the weather was bad and there was a school bus accident. The county got sued and that started the practice of closing at a single flake.

 

[reetpleat]

Hi

This isn't DIRECTLY related to the whole thread, but I checked several individuals who many Americans use to get their news and opinions from, and what degree(s) they have.

1. Rush Limbaugh attended College for 3 semesters while working at a radio station. Dropped out.

2. Michelle Malkin earned a degree in English

3. Ann Coulter earned a degree in History and then her law degree.

4. Maureen Dowd earned a Degree in English.

5. Mike Royko briefly attended a Junior College.

6. Keith Oberman earned a degree in Communications arts.

7. Rachel Maddow earned a degree in Public Policy.

8. Walter Cronkite attended college at the University of Texas Austin where he worked on the Daily Texan.

I find it interesting that the "journalists" I've heard of don't have journalism degrees, not a one. Not even the god of the evenning news Walter Cronkite.

I think years ago, there were not so much degrees and schools of journalism. the field was more loose. But these days, while many people without degrees become news people and opinion people, a degree in communications or journalism is a good route to working in that field.

Of course, I could also says that if they did have degrees in journalism, they might be little more inclined to give people facts and news instead of bombast, bluster, and pandering. Without mentioning any particular names or political leanings of course.

Many years ago, when i studied communications, i read an article or text book or something that mentioned that the future of journalism in a big part lay with those who became experts in other fields, then also got into journalism. For example, a legal scholar who could then write knowledgeably for a paper or program or website about the legal subjects.

 

[reetpleat]

And there's the rub, really -- when you're "distinguishing the top tier" these days you're basically identifying that tier as those people who could afford to buy their way into it. With the cost of higher education climbing to ridiculous levels, more and more people are finding themselves over a barrel -- they get run into debts that'll take a big hunk of their working life to pay off, but if they *don't* do it, they're being convinced they have no hope of ever getting a decent job. Even though there's no guarantee they'll ever actually get such a job even if they do what's expected of them. The idea that the current higher education system leads to a genuine meritocracy falls to pieces the closer you look at it.

What the current system has given us is the basic equivalent of a shakedown racket. Unless you're lucky enough to get a free ride -- a bone thrown from the master's table -- your advancement up the ladder in life is being more and more defined by your ability to buy your way up.

You write this as if this is a new development. Until the GI Bill, college, and leadership positions lay for the most part, in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, or at least upper middle class.

Perhaps we could argue that costs are getting too high and aid too low. But we are far better off than prior to world war two when you had no hope at all.

 

[reetpleat]

It wasn't really so long ago, actually, that a working-class person could make a pretty good living for themselves without having to worry about higher education or the expenses associated with it. Even my own experiences, a mere thirty years ago, could probably not be duplicated by a working-class kid today -- and *that's the problem.* Upward mobility for today's working class is being severely limited by a system that seems designed to keep it "in its place." Unless they get one of those free rides, or are willing to take on extortionate debt, they're stuck.

Sure, the really outstanding working-class kids might get the free rides, but *if you're middle class, and especially if you're upper middle class, you don't have to be outstanding to have a chance in life.* You can slack your way along with a C average, just showing up, partying and drinking all you want, and being as outrageously non-conformist as you want -- but you'll still collect your degree, and there you go. The working-class kid will have to keep her nose flat to the grindstone all the time just to get in the door of college, let alone how committed she'll have to be once she gets there. And if she doesn't make it, even with all that, well, she was just a quota kid after all.

And the worst part of it is, too many people today think it's fine, because "those people aren't like us anyway -- they didn't even go to college."

But you can hardly blame college for the reduction in good working class jobs. Outsourcing, automation and technology, and the shift from manufacturing to a service industry has done that. And to get into that sphere, college education may be very useful or necessary.

Of course, if a working class guy with a college degree wants to move to India, he can still make what would be considered a good living. or could he. he might find himself pretty outclassed by a large population of bi lingual, college educated employees.

Go to China or India and try telling them that college is overrated and they should not go. You will be laughed out of the room.

Granted, most of these people are getting technical and scientific degrees, and i will assume you agree that that training is useful and pays off.

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

In 1983, my tuition was $309.00 TOTAL at a state school in Illinois.

In 2010, my neighbor's tuition is $5,500.00 TOTAL at the same state school in Illinois.

In 1983 my starting salary was $24,000.

In 2010, my starting salary would be $55,000 (or less).

Tuition 18x
Salary 2.3x

Does this look like a good thing to anybody?

 

[Paisley]

The idea that you can't make a decent living without a degree is a bunch of baloney. I think only three of our admin staff here at the office have a four-year degree: the IT guy, the managing partner's assistant and I. None of us had any formal training in what we do for a living. I don't think the HR director had ever had a college course when we hired her.

When we were looking for a word processor, I didn't care at all about degrees. I've known too many college-educated knuckleheads to be impressed by the fact that someone had completed a course of study.

On average, college educated people do earn more. That doesn't mean that a given individual will earn more with a college degree.

 

[LizzieMaine]

But you can hardly blame college for the reduction in good working class jobs. Outsourcing, automation and technology, and the shift from manufacturing to a service industry has done that. And to get into that sphere, college education may be very useful or necessary.

The problem then is -- is a college education as readily available to a working class person as it is to a middle class person. In this day and age, no it isn't. Taking on the sort of debt required for a college education may seem reasonable to a person from a middle-class background. To a working class person, it's often an impossible burden. A friend of mine worked her way thru MIT by slinging cole slaw at Kentucky Fried Chicken -- but with costs what they are now, even the hardest working working-class kid would find it impossible to do that today.

If college is *required* as the standard of a reasonable living, it has to be equally available to all. Otherwise, the system is every bit as unjust and vicious as one which denies jobs to people because of their race.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Perhaps we could argue that costs are getting too high and aid too low. But we are far better off than prior to world war two when you had no hope at all.

I dunno -- my grandfather, with an eighth-grade education, owned his own successful business for nearly forty years. He was a widely-respected figure in our town, and nobody much cared if he'd been to school or not. It wasn't a certificate that mattered then -- it was what you were capable of doing.

 

[reetpleat]

The problem then is -- is a college education as readily available to a working class person as it is to a middle class person. In this day and age, no it isn't. Taking on the sort of debt required for a college education may seem reasonable to a person from a middle-class background. To a working class person, it's often an impossible burden. A friend of mine worked her way thru MIT by slinging cole slaw at Kentucky Fried Chicken -- but with costs what they are now, even the hardest working working-class kid would find it impossible to do that today.

If college is *required* as the standard of a reasonable living, it has to be equally available to all. Otherwise, the system is every bit as unjust and vicious as one which denies jobs to people because of their race.

I agree. But rather than arguing about how unimportant college is, or how awful it is that college educated people look down on un college educated people, you should be jumping up and down demanding both good high school education, and college preperatory education, as well as encouragement for the working classes, and demanding more affordable options. Of course, given the cost of junior or community college, and even state schools,$5000 a year or so) plus financial aid, I do not at all think that the cost of an education is out of the hands of the working class. Not everyone needs to go to harvard.

 

[1961MJS]

The problem then is -- is a college education as readily available to a working class person as it is to a middle class person. In this day and age, no it isn't....

Hi Lizzie

There's a bit of a strange deal going on here. A truly middle class person can't afford college without massive scholarships and aid. A truly poor person can get to college for free, without a part time job.

I really dislike the way the scholarship system works now. You have to be truly rich to send your kid to a "good" school without a scholarship. This is because the cost of college is far to high. I have no clue where the money all goes, but if I went for $309 a semester and the cost is now $5500 (apples to apples comparison), there's something wrong going on. Salaries haven't gone up that much and neither has housing, milk, bread or meat. Where DID the money go?

later

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course, given the cost of junior or community college, and even state schools,$5000 a year or so) plus financial aid, I do not at all think that the cost of an education is out of the hands of the working class. Not everyone needs to go to harvard.

You fail to factor in the fact that the working class person usually *also* needs to be working full time to earn a living in the midst of getting an education. A lot of us are on our own at 18, and food and clothes don't come cheap. The idea of parents continuing to pay support for college kids is often impossible in working class families.

A four-year BA program at the University of Maine, for a Maine resident who doesn't live on campus, runs approximately $11,700 a year. That's $46,800 for the full four year deal. That's ridiculous, no matter who's paying it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Hi Lizzie

There's a bit of a strange deal going on here. A truly middle class person can't afford college without massive scholarships and aid. A truly poor person can get to college for free, without a part time job.

An *exceptional* truly poor person can. The mediocre poor person, the B or C student, doesn't have a chance. But if you're a mediocre middle class person, well, the colleges are full of them. *That* is the injustice.