College in America

[SimplyOwnage]

the American education system fails, nuff said.

 

[Binge Artist]

^^That's true. I would never tell everybody to go get a degree regardless of their situation or interests, and my other posts on this board reflect that.

Very nice. We are now this (<------>) close to becoming friends.

Our disagreement seems to be of the positive/normative sort. You say education does help land jobs, and I say it shouldn't.

Anyway, what we have here is a disconnect of sorts, between the education folks have and the jobs they do. In America, there are people who spent four years studying French Literature only to manage a Pizza King. IMO, this is a considerable waste of time and resources, making a very inefficient economy. And sure, as you would say, having that degree helps those folks get new jobs, should the pizza market ever go south. However, from a practical perspective, after a year or so at the Pizza King, their mastery of the French language would probably be pretty similar to a first year student. Which makes one wonder why someone with a four year degree SHOULD have an advantage in job markets where their degrees aren't directly job skill related.

 

[Cyc]

In Canada, a French degree would almost certainly land you a federal or provincial government job starting at $58,000 or higher.

In a perfect world, I think companies should be forced to hire on the merit system, with a strict weighted calculation for education and work experience. This top-down approach would completely eliminate the need for affirmative action, as well as nepotism. We could also do away with the confounding 'x factor' that comes with job searching.

Of course this would better compliment a strong public education system such as we have here, and most of Europe. I'm not sure the US would be ready for such a step.

 

[Binge Artist]

Yeah, but what does "merit" even mean.


If you're trying to hire a guy to dig ditches, do you go for the guy with the PhD in geology, or do you go for the guy with the big, muscley shovlin' arms?


IMO, the best system would be for management to select the skills they deem most important, and then give tests to measure those skills. In that way, it wouldn't matter if a guy learned from a $30 K university, his experienced uncle, or the internet. The best man would have the job.

 

[Cyc]

Yeah, but what does "merit" even mean.


If you're trying to hire a guy to dig ditches, do you go for the guy with the PhD in geology, or do you go for the guy with the big, muscley shovlin' arms?

Well, that's the thing. If the guy with the PhD wants to shovel ditches, I don't see why he shouldn't have first crack at the job. In my opinion, that guy has earned the right to work at any position he wants at the lower income stratas, up to his competitive level.

Now you may rightly assume that the other guy would be a better ditch-digger. That's not the point. In this case, the employer's best interests fall to the wayside to accommodate for merit. In this case, the geology degree >> muscly arms. Too bad, so sad for the employer.

IMO, the best system would be for management to select the skills they deem most important, and then give tests to measure those skills. In that way, it wouldn't matter if a guy learned from a $30 K university, his experienced uncle, or the internet. The best man would have the job.

In a socialized system, all (ahem) men would have equal opportunity to pursue the credentials needed to work. So they would have no excuse, and no option but to prove themselves in an academic or hands-on training setting before being shifted into the qualified candidate pool. Now obviously we're allowing for one form of training to transfer over to other positions. This allowance is justified in my mind, by discipline, and the demonstration of work skills in a standardized setting.

I understand that my philosophy is controversial, and how it flies in the face of how the system currently works. This is just how I would prefer things to work. This is a form of technocracy that I don't expect to happen in my lifetime.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Well, that's the thing. If the guy with the PhD wants to shovel ditches, I don't see why he shouldn't have first crack at the job. In my opinion, that guy has earned the right to work at any position he wants at the lower income stratas, up to his competitive level.

Now you may rightly assume that the other guy would be a better ditch-digger. That's not the point. In this case, the employer's best interests fall to the wayside to accommodate for merit. In this case, the geology degree >> muscly arms. Too bad, so sad for the employer.

I'll say it again. Why would a hirer of ditch diggers care about anything in a potential employee except his ability to reliably dig ditches the way the boss wants them dug?

Or is it that you actually foresee a world where the degree denigration treadmill has trodden to the point where any old Joe needs a PhD to even be considered for the most menial of legal jobs? Maybe I have too much faith in humanity, but I seriously think there'd come a point long before that when the general public just wouldn't put up with it anymore. I'd say you'd start seeing uprisings right about when 'Cashier Position: Masters Degree required' started becoming common.

In a socialized system, all (ahem) men

I really don't know how to ask this without coming off as curt, but I'm really just asking for clarification, honestly: What exactly are you implying here?

would have equal opportunity to pursue the credentials needed to work. So they would have no excuse, and no option but to prove themselves in an academic or hands-on training setting before being shifted into the qualified candidate pool. Now obviously we're allowing for one form of training to transfer over to other positions. This allowance is justified in my mind, by discipline, and the demonstration of work skills in a standardized setting.

I understand that my philosophy is controversial, and how it flies in the face of how the system currently works. This is just how I would prefer things to work. This is a form of technocracy that I don't expect to happen in my lifetime.

I'm fairly socialist-leaning myself, and am strongly for more publicly funded and nationally standardized education. For example, I'd be all for the US investing in the facilities for almost all its high school graduates each year to go on to either bachelors degree, associates degree, or trade schools, for the cost of less than a year's wages at minimum wage, per year, in tuition. (I.e. the amount that a person with so-so credit might be able to borrow.)

However, I fail to see how the government enforcing strict regulations about the educational attainments for EVERY job helps. I don't see it as unreasonable to make it illegal to be a doctor without having gone to medical school. But I don't see how the common good is helped by every ditch digger required by law to be a member in good standing of the People's National Guild of Ditchdiggery, entrance to which is only through the rigorous 2 year post-baccalaureate program they offer. I don't think this kind of practice is doing North Korea much good.

 

[Cyc]

I'll say it again. Why would a hirer of ditch diggers care about anything in a potential employee except his ability to reliably dig ditches the way the boss wants them dug?

Or is it that you actually foresee a world where the degree denigration treadmill has trodden to the point where any old Joe needs a PhD to even be considered for the most menial of legal jobs? Maybe I have too much faith in humanity, but I seriously think there'd come a point long before that when the general public just wouldn't put up with it anymore. I'd say you'd start seeing uprisings right about when 'Cashier Position: Masters Degree required' started becoming common.

No, I'm actually being very positive in my hopes that this sort of system would come about. Perhaps even delusional. I foresee a world where automation has made jobs optional, thus balancing the employer:employee relationship by making the employee less desperate for a paycheque.

I really don't know how to ask this without coming off as curt, but I'm really just asking for clarification, honestly: What exactly are you implying here?

Binge used the word "man" twice, so I make a joke... Looking back, I can see how it might have been misconstrued.

I'm fairly socialist-leaning myself, and am strongly for more publicly funded and nationally standardized education. For example, I'd be all for the US investing in the facilities for almost all its high school graduates each year to go on to either bachelors degree, associates degree, or trade schools, for the cost of less than a year's wages at minimum wage, per year, in tuition. (I.e. the amount that a person with so-so credit might be able to borrow.)

However, I fail to see how the government enforcing strict regulations about the educational attainments for EVERY job helps. I don't see it as unreasonable to make it illegal to be a doctor without having gone to medical school. But I don't see how the common good is helped by every ditch digger required by law to be a member in good standing of the People's National Guild of Ditchdiggery, entrance to which is only through the rigorous 2 year post-baccalaureate program they offer. I don't think this kind of practice is doing North Korea much good.

lol @ ditchdiggery. No, I'm not suggesting that every profession submits itself to unneeded bureaucracy, just that if someone who is hiring ditchdiggers finds himself with a resume from someone with a M.Sc. on his desk, he is obligated to atleast interview that person. Maybe this M.Sc. spent 8 years studying and wants to mix things up a bit, lose some weight or gain some muscle mass. Whatever the reason, I see the job as his perogative, not the employer's.

Consider it legislated rewards for merit.

 

[Changed]

As a holder of a bachelors degree in English, I can say without a doubt that college is worthless. :D

That's why I'm beginning my masters (in American literature) in September. :D

But really: I studied English because it interested me. I'm going back after a year off because that candle-- the burning candle that represents my love for knowledge -- has rekindled itself. Not to say that I've stopped learning after my undergraduate education ended: you simply can't measure your intellectual progress in a largely solitary environment-- that piece of paper is nice too.

Most kids these days walk like zombies: high school, college, party party party, graduate, cubicle, house, wife, kids, retirement, death. Is our culture to blame, or are these kids the cause for our culture?

'Simple love of knowledge'; that's how I justify ~$20k debt for a masters.

I'll probably end up teaching English in Korea or China by this time next year...

 

[rant*N*rave]

Keep in mind that having an undergraduate degree majoring in biology doesn't make you a "biologist" any more than having a politics degree makes you a political scientist.

At my university, yes it does, and that's entirely my point. I've already worked on funded research, have the lab skills necessary to step into any lab-based company job, and am writing a 6-credit thesis to graduate. There was a distinct reason I went into my particular major at my particular college...

Let's hope that employers aren't hiring with your mindset. As a student yourself, don't you find that a little self-defeating?

Not at all! I won't be applying for any accounting jobs... That's really what I'm getting at - you should go to college for what you want to pursue, not just to go to college. In this economy, yeah, a person might be more likely to apply for a position outside their field, and they might, in fact, be qualified, but the person with experience inside the field is a much better hire most of the time. I got a job with a software company, even though my schooling is in biochem, *because I was able to demonstrate my comp sci abilities* (I'm extremely proficient in programming/server management based on my own self-education, and I was able to prove my worth to the company during interviewing/testing).

A part of me agrees, only because I'm amused imagining a class of non-technical whitebread suburbanites graduating high school with honors and working at Taco Bell. That's the technocrat in me I guess.

On the other hand, we are becoming a less labour-intensive society of people. I feel that higher learning makes sense as a preoccupation in a low-demand market. Even if it confers no 'ditch-digging' benefit to society.

My statement was less to do with this than with the fact that most science majors get into science because they wanna do science - not many people "just get" a chemical engineering degree - but it's true too.

 

[Bedhead]

As a holder of a bachelors degree in English, I can say without a doubt that college is worthless. :D

College? Or an English degree?

My statement was less to do with this than with the fact that most science majors get into science because they wanna do science - not many people "just get" a chemical engineering degree - but it's true too.

Entirely true. Why would anyone want to spend more time in class rooms (3 hr+ labs ON TOP of regular class, checking up experiments at ungodly hours... etc) than other majors, unless they enjoy it?

Flipping fruit fly vials at 2am pisses me off a little but it doesn't make me want to switch majors.

 

[oohcow]

I disagree with what some BLers have been saying such as "Don't go to college if you don't know what you want to do"

BULLSHIT!!!!!

An undergraduate degree IS the new highschool diploma. Your Job should be to go to college and finish in 4 years.

Both my parents, step-parents, almost ALL my friends parents, currently do something (and have been for 20-30 + years) in a COMPLETELY different field than what their undergraduate degree was.

College is an experience. Honestly, you will NEVER have it in your life again. EVEN if you are older and go back, its not the same as being 18 and in fucking COLLEGE.

Dorm life, apartments, townhomes, bars, greek life, partying, all that shit. That and college goes HAND in HAND period. Honestly, I love college. Its like 4 years of amazing-ness... How could you pass that up.

Lol, just pace yourself. You got 4 years to make this crazy while still getting a degree.

After that, there is graduate school... (which i guess is the new college degree if undergrad is the new highschool diploma)

Peace

 

[scureto1]

Both my parents, step-parents, almost ALL my friends parents, currently do something (and have been for 20-30 + years) in a COMPLETELY different field than what their undergraduate degree was.

That sentence says a lot about the point of view you're coming from. If you have that kind of support network and can go to college easily then I agree 100%. But for some people, survival comes first and getting a job or a trade sooner is more important. Something where they learn a skill that applies directly to a job they can do immediately benefits them more than the fun and networking of college.

I wasn't saying this to bash you or anything, and for the most part I agree with you. But you gotta recognize that many people come from waaaaaaay different backgrounds and for them, the reasons you listed are totally inappropriate and don't apply.

 

[oohcow]

^ I have met people from a less wealthy background than myself. In my experience these are the ones that already have MUUCHHH better work ethic than similar kids from my background.

 

[scureto1]

I wasn't trying to say anything about who has the better work ethic. I was just saying that for you, if you finish college and still don't know what you want to do (like a humanities degree, or english, or any of the other degrees discussed) you will still be okay because you have a good support network. A person without a support network who finishes college with a degree that doesn't lead directly to a job is in serious trouble, because now they have the debt that came from college and no job (and associated income increase) to help them deal with it.

 

[satricion]

^^
I completely agree. That's why socioeconomic background influences outcomes even within people who have degrees.

 

[oohcow]

I wasn't trying to say anything about who has the better work ethic. I was just saying that for you, if you finish college and still don't know what you want to do (like a humanities degree, or english, or any of the other degrees discussed) you will still be okay because you have a good support network. A person without a support network who finishes college with a degree that doesn't lead directly to a job is in serious trouble, because now they have the debt that came from college and no job (and associated income increase) to help them deal with it.

Ok point taken =)

 

[ThaiDie4]

*edit: I meant you weren't the only person I disagreed with on this matter love. Man, reading it as directly targeting you really makes me look like a huge bitch. Sorry about that!

haha, when I read your reply I figured you meant "weren't", it's all good glad we cleared up any misunderstandings

 

[wizekrak]

Honestly, I think most people should take a year off between high school and university. Very few people know what they want to do when they graduate high school so they go to college and major in something just because it seems like the thing to do. Having the year off would give them a chance to find themselves or find their passion in life. Considering the cost of american post secondary education you'd be accruing a lot of debt if you were going to college just to go to college without a career in mind.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

^I would agree with this.
I definitely felt like my dad pressured me into going to college. I graduated high school at 17 and was a totally carefree partying pot head at the time. My only real exceptional skill was my ability to play guitar, and I was always against the idea of going to college for a Performing Arts degree (even though I have since reconsidered my stance on the issue after considering the whole "college should be a great experience" angle, not just thinking about practicalities in terms of job opportunities.)
Basically I was "too practical" to do what I really wanted to do, but was still being pressured to attend college and had no idea what direction I should go in.
Needless to say I fucked up my first year at community college, really representing the family name, and wasted about $3000.
I was lucky enough to have all my fuck-ups at community college though. I had some friends that went to private universities like RIT and UofR (I'm from rochester) and had no idea what they wanted to do with their lives either, and they weren't half as fucked up as I was at the time! Yet they were the ones who wasted 10x the amount of money that I did.

 

[wizekrak]

Yeah I didn't know what I really wanted to do (or have the confidence to go for it) until I was about 21 and already done a degree. In Canada though tuition is cheaper, it was about 3k a year for tuition when I started.