Colleges, that is enough out of you

[StageLeft]

70%? I really can't see that. Maybe 70% of middle and upper class, maybe, and just enrolling, not passing.

Yep that number doesn't talk of those who actually GET degrees. I have seen numbers in the past and I'm positive that less than 70% of people who graduated, say, 10 years ago from highschool have a university degree right now.

Something I find amazing is that some people seem to think it's admirable to get a four year degree in four years. I don't know how many people take longer but when I went to school it was always a little laughable when people would take extra time, like what are they wasting that time for? I knew some people who'd take five years (some even six). Four years to get a four year degree is not commendable. It's a standard and fall below it and you're sub-standard.

 

[Zebo]

A fair shot?

The "system" as it stands doesn't give the poor a "fair shot".

What it does is chain most people to five or six figures of debt for the next 20 years, while the wealthy don't need loans at all.

There are tens of thousands of law graduates dragging 120,000-150,000 $US in non-dischargeable student loan debt, with jobs that can barely support them, if they have a job at all. The rich have no debt, and the connections to get a cushy job.

That's not a fair shot. That's being condemned like the Ghost of Jacob Marley to drag around the chains of debt.

Loans/grants are better than nothing. Totally free state supported like many Eiropean countries do is another way but I'm sure thats a good idea as campuses would be mobbed with perpetual students doing half ass work....

There is nothing you can do about nepotism it's only natural to give your own a leg up and shower them with benefits. This is why a progressive tax system works so well to dilute some of that power and give normal people a shot.

 

[little elvis]

Where I work, to get hired for a technical job (engineering, R&D,etc) a Ph.D is a defacto requirement, and for a business/marketing position, a MBA is quickly becoming a minimum requirement.

The problem is, we have a bunch of over educated/qualified people in jobs that could be done easily by individuals with a non-graduate degree.

 

[charrison]

Yep that number doesn't talk of those who actually GET degrees. I have seen numbers in the past and I'm positive that less than 70% of people who graduated, say, 10 years ago from highschool have a university degree right now.

Something I find amazing is that some people seem to think it's admirable to get a four year degree in four years. I don't know how many people take longer but when I went to school it was always a little laughable when people would take extra time, like what are they wasting that time for? I knew some people who'd take five years (some even six). Four years to get a four year degree is not commendable. It's a standard and fall below it and you're sub-standard.

Not quite skoorb. It took me 5 years to graduate, but I also graduated debt free. If I were to do it over again, I would have taken the loans and been done in 4. There are probably quite a few reasons people done finish in 4. But I will agree if you have the time and money and cant finish and 4, then there is a problem.

 

[Hacp]

Not quite skoorb. It took me 5 years to graduate, but I also graduated debt free. If I were to do it over again, I would have taken the loans and been done in 4. There are probably quite a few reasons people done finish in 4. But I will agree if you have the time and money and cant finish and 4, then there is a problem.

There is no problem. You might have just been screwed by your college in courses. I remember so many people signing up for my physics course that I couldn't get in. Math,science,engineering majors all needed that course and it was a diceroll to see if you got it since everyone would sign up the first few minutes of eligibility. I didn't get it the year I was supposed to be taking it, so all my core courses had to be pushed back a year.

I especially feel sorry for the chemistry majors. Basically, everyone including liberal arts majors tries to take the chemistry and organic chemistry courses because they want to be a health care professional. I remember signing up for organic chem; it was even more hectic than my physics class. If you're a chemistry major and miss out on that course, you're set back a whole year.

 

[alphatarget1]

A fair shot?

The "system" as it stands doesn't give the poor a "fair shot".

What it does is chain most people to five or six figures of debt for the next 20 years, while the wealthy don't need loans at all.

There are tens of thousands of law graduates dragging 120,000-150,000 $US in non-dischargeable student loan debt, with jobs that can barely support them, if they have a job at all. The rich have no debt, and the connections to get a cushy job.

That's not a fair shot. That's being condemned like the Ghost of Jacob Marley to drag around the chains of debt.

The best way for the poor to get into the middle class is go into engineering. I have a few friends who are in underrepresented groups and there are lots of help for them. Graduating with 20k debt with a 50k starting job from engineering aren't bad.

And then my new roommate is wanting to do anthropology... even though she can't really afford school. Meh. I'll convince her to switch to something useful

 

[alphatarget1]

There is no problem. You might have just been screwed by your college in courses. I remember so many people signing up for my physics course that I couldn't get in. Math,science,engineering majors all needed that course and it was a diceroll to see if you got it since everyone would sign up the first few minutes of eligibility. I didn't get it the year I was supposed to be taking it, so all my core courses had to be pushed back a year.

I especially feel sorry for the chemistry majors. Basically, everyone including liberal arts majors try taking the chemistry and organic chemistry courses because they want to be a health care professional. I remember signing up for organic chem; it was even more hectic than my physics class. If you're a chemistry major and miss out on that course, you're set back a whole year.

Don't chem majors have to take harder chemistry? I know the schools I've gone to have Ochem for liberal arts students and then Ochem for chemistry/engineering majors.

 

[alphatarget1]

Because it tells the employer that her college vouches for her ability to use the english language, comprehend written material, perform basic math, and work in a team environment. So, the employer pays her a bit more, because it is less risky to hire someone that a college has tested for these basic skills.

I'm sure your fiance isn't dumb but, there are some college graduates who don't have the skills you just described... That's why a degree these days isn't worth as much anymore.

 

[ShawnD1]

That's why those statistics are misleading. Sure, 70% of Americans have a degree, but how many of them are garbage degrees? I'd be willing to put money down that at least 35% of those people have garbage degrees.

I'll appreciate it if you don't call my degree in womens studies garbage

Don't chem majors have to take harder chemistry? I know the schools I've gone to have Ochem for liberal arts students and then Ochem for chemistry/engineering majors.

Chem majors take the same chem classes as everyone else, but more of them.

Because it tells the employer that her college vouches for her ability to use the english language, comprehend written material, perform basic math, and work in a team environment. So, the employer pays her a bit more, because it is less risky to hire someone that a college has tested for these basic skills.

Many degrees don't show this at all. Most of the English classes I've seen in high school and university were about interpretation and voodoo magic; very few of them will tell you how to write a report or where not to put apostrophe's.

We should get some kind of certificate that says we post on web forums. This is better writing practice than most university students will see over four years.

 

[Hacp]

We should get some kind of certificate that says we post on web forums. This is better writing practice than most university students will see over four years.

lol u srs?

 

[ShawnD1]

lol u srs?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I should post a report written by my lab partner since it's absolutely hilarious (and hard to read).

I'm an EE student right now and I usually take on all written work. My partner can do the phasors and the calculations, but I'm doing the conclusion and the editing just to make the paper readable.

 

[Exterous]

Depends entirely on where you went and what you studied. A degree in communications from an online university probably isn't as impressive as an engineering degree from MIT. Employers know this and take it into consideration.

I did two years at a Central Michigan University and those years were a joke. It was easier than Highschool with less homework. I had one class where the Prof said our paper needed to be turned in halfway through the year. While the 'due date' remained the same he was still willing to take them for full credit up to two days after the class ened for the semester!

Now my two years a the University of Michigan for Architecture were hard. They worked us to the bone and then worked us some more. They were merciless about the little details

Sadly there are too many places like CMU that make it too easy to get degrees. You should have to work for it and then be rewarded for your hard work/money. But now colleges are a dime a dozen yet you still have to pay out the nose to go to one. And when you go there, half the time to don't learn anything since they seem to teach to the lowest common denominator.

Sure there are still ones out there that really push you and you get to learn a lot but those typically cost even more.....

 

[frostedflakes]

One of the main problems in colleges today is the "curve". It merely encourages mediocrity and allows people to earn a degree who shouldn't have one.

And for what it's worth, I am currently in college. I see idiots passing classes they never should have.

Think about it. Do you want people who passed a class due to a curve designing your bridges, buildings, and other infrastructure?

Edit: We also need to remove the surplus of classes that liberals added in simply to give themselves jobs. I am required to take so many classes that do not in any way pertain to my major, and I feel that time could better spent in classes that will actually help me in my field.

To be fair, if somebody is designing a bridge, they won't be doing so with a 50 minute timed limit and no access to outside resources, no ability to collaborate with peers, etc. Just because a person may not be able to ace an exam doesn't mean they wouldn't be a competent engineer. Examinations also tend to completely ignore creativity, problem solving ability, and other traits which are important for an engineer to have.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Law schools have the same problem.

A new law school seems to open every month. I think the parent company of University of Phoenix owns THREE law schools, and the ABA continues to accredit these institutions, most of which are worthless diploma mills.

I get extremely angry when I hear President Obama and other government officials talking about sending more people to college. They don't seem to understand that too many people are going to college and getting worthless degrees. A lot of higher degrees like the J.D. (law, or "Joke Degree" as I call it) and MBA (Mostly Bullsh*t Academics) are pretty worthless as well.

Promoting higher education serves three functions for the politicians.

(1.) It removes a large chunk of the populace from the workforce, making the unemployment numbers look better. What if we counted students as unemployed (which is what they really are)?

(2.) Advocating higher education gives people warm-n-fuzzy feelings. It's a very touchy-feely thing to do. It's much easier to try to sell the public on higher education kool-aid as the solution to our nation's economic problems than it is to identify and address them. Addressing our real economic problems would mean having to deal with nasty issues such as foreign outsourcing, foreign work visas such as the H-1B and L-1, and immigration (legal and illegal). What politician in his right mind wants to tell big businesses that they are going to have to produce their products in the United States and hire Americans and that their profit margins will be reduced to American free market rates? What politician in his right mind wants to be mean and close the borders?

(3.) Higher education is a for-profit business for a number of politically-influential stake holders. College and university administrators and staff benefit and big banks benefit from student loans (which means that those students who cannot find degree-appropriate jobs will end up living lives of underemployment, poverty, and serfdom).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Well it doesn't really matter if the law schools are diploma mills or not, you still have to pass the bar. In fact in some states you don't even need a law degree to take the bar.

Most law school graduates will pass the Bar Exam. The average pass rate is perhaps 80% and people can take the exam as many times as they want.

Note, however, that toughening the Bar Exam so that only 25% of the people pass will leave those other 75% suffering the economic effects of three years of lost opportunity costs plus huge amounts of student loans. I cannot contemplate how creating a class of permanently impoverished and unemployable well-meaning, often hard-working people is good for society. Every society needs to have janitors and blue collar laborers, but society is more stable if they don't rightfully have higher expectations and feel content being janitors and blue collar laborers. Do we really want to create a group of angry and indignant, intelligent people who feel that they have been cheated by society? I don't see how that would benefit anyone other than education industry stakeholders.

 

[fskimospy]

Guys, 70% of people do not have degrees. That is nonsense.

It's a touch over 25% of Americans aged 25 and over that have bachelor's degrees. The percentage of people with degrees has increased slightly over time, but even the youngest cohort of 25-29 has about a 30% rate of those with 4 year degrees.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

There's a big difference in degrees.

People who get degrees in Art History and East Asian Pottery (not even joking, this was a major you could get) are going to have a tough time finding a job.

On the other hand, if you get a degree in a demanding field (eg science/mathematics/engineering), you'll have many options once you get out of school.

Let's suppose that everyone who went to college obtained degrees in engineering, nursing, and accounting. Would the number of jobs for people with those degrees at currently prevailing wage rates magically increase to accommodate all of those people or would we end up having a huge number of unemployed and underemployed-involuntarily-out-of-field people with engineering, nursing, and accounting degrees.

Oh, and by the way, we already have a large oversupply of people with science degrees, including Ph.D. scientists. Many of them are unemployed or underemployed and sometimes underemployed-involuntarily-out-of-field. The proliferation of postdoctoral positions and of people working them is evidence of this.

That's why those statistics are misleading. Sure, 70% of Americans have a degree, but how many of them are garbage degrees? I'd be willing to put money down that at least 35% of those people have garbage degrees.

The root cause of the problem is that our society is no longer generating middle class jobs. Not only does it mean that people with college degrees cannot find appropriate jobs, but it also means that people feel compelled to get college degrees in the hopes of finding a middle class job. If our economy were working better we might not have this problem in the first place.

What we are witnessing today is an Education Arms Race. In an attempt to climb above the rising tide of unemployment and underemployment misery that is engulfing the lower classes, people are going to college. Decades ago a high school diploma and a work ethic and sense of responsibility was enough to allow someone to earn a lower middle class income. Today people are trumping the high school diploma with college diplomas. But now those have lost their value and so people are heading to graduate and professional school and now those degrees have lost their value too.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Guys, 70% of people do not have degrees. That is nonsense.

It's a touch over 25% of Americans aged 25 and over that have bachelor's degrees. The percentage of people with degrees has increased slightly over time, but even the youngest cohort of 25-29 has about a 30% rate of those with 4 year degrees.

That is probably true. Many people who enroll in four year degree programs do not matriculate. What this does show us, however, is just how little of a real economic need their is for college education. Only a percentage of those 30% of the people who have college degrees actually make use of them in their jobs and we even have people with "useful" college degrees who cannot find work in their fields because we have an oversupply.

Perhaps we as a society would be much better off if we cut the number of people earning college degrees in half and stopped wasting so much time and money on unneeded higher education that lacks economic value.

 

[fskimospy]

That is probably true. Many people who enroll in four year degree programs do not matriculate. What this does show us, however, is just how little of a real economic need their is for college education. Only a percentage of those 30% of the people who have college degrees actually make use of them in their jobs and we even have people with "useful" college degrees who cannot find work in their fields because we have an oversupply.

Perhaps we as a society would be much better off if we cut the number of people earning college degrees in half and stopped wasting so much time and money on unneeded higher education that lacks economic value.

Many businesses use those college degrees that aren't in the field as a proxy for having an independently verified set of fundamental skills necessary for business along with a good enough attitude and sufficient commitment to stick with something over a period of years to accomplish a goal, all very economically valuable traits.

If you can find a better way to accurately verify things like that, I'm sure many businesses would be very interested to hear about it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

A college degree may not get you what it used to, but the fact is that many employers will not even look at you unless you at least have SOME kind of degree, even if it is east asian pottery.

Since we have a large oversupply of college degree holders, employers have the luxury of being able to require or give preference to degree holders for jobs that do not make any direct use of a college degree at all. They are just using this requirement as a proxy for IQ, maturity, work ethic, and responsibility. Decades ago, presumably many of these jobs were filled by people who "worked their way up" and who didn't have degrees.

If our education system were 100% efficient, employers wouldn't be able to require having a college degree for jobs that make no direct use of college education. The college education requirement for these jobs is completely artificial and a driver of the Education Arms Race.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Only in America is a more educated people a bad thing.

You have to ask yourself, what kind of a sick society do we live in where people feel compelled to omit degrees from their resume in order to take jobs that are below their abilities? What kind of a sick society do we live in where people are ashamed of having obtained higher education?

 

[fskimospy]

You have to ask yourself, what kind of a sick society do we live in where people feel compelled to omit degrees from their resume in order to take jobs that are below their abilities? What kind of a sick society do we live in where people are ashamed of having obtained higher education?

It's not a sick society, it's a testament to the earning power of a degree. Businesses know that if they hire someone with an advanced education that they will likely be able to land a significantly higher paying job in the near future and will quit. Businesses usually want to hire people that will stay on a year at a minimum, and so they want to avoid people with such a low probability of sticking around.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yes, there are too many who will never even use their degree in a professional capacity but that doesn't take away the mind development and critical thinking that went on there so it's not a waste.

Is it a waste? That depends on whether or not an available job makes use of those skills. Somehow, amazingly, a great many of these jobs were filled by people who merely had high school educations decades ago yet the nation did not come apart at the seams.

Also why yes the feds have distorted the education market with loans but I'd rather have a system where everyone gets a fair shot than just the privileged or very smart who slide in under scholarship.

This is the real policy issue. Let's suppose that the government stepped in and reduced the number of college degrees issued to what is needed plus five or ten percent. How would we decide who should be able to go to college? Let the best-and-the-brightest in, I say. However, the other side of the coin is that it could further cement class stratification and completely contradicts free market principals.

So, the issue is, is it better to have more economic efficiency and fewer people whose lives have been destroyed by college education for which they cannot find employment or is it better to have college education opportunity for everyone while also having hundreds of thousands if not millions of angry and indignant people who (perhaps somewhat rightfully or at least understandably) feel entitled to solid middle class jobs who cannot pay of their student loans?

It's a choice between (1.) having a better economy (less economic waste and inefficiency) and fewer suicidally unhappy people while having people who feel they have been denied opportunity and (2.) a worse economy, huge numbers of unhappy people, but opportunity for all.

I think we would be better off with the first option. Also, there would be opportunity for people--just prove on various standardized tests that you should be part of the group of people who are allowed to go to college.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Edit: We also need to remove the surplus of classes that liberals added in simply to give themselves jobs. I am required to take so many classes that do not in any way pertain to my major, and I feel that time could better spent in classes that will actually help me in my field.

I agree. At least being able to just obtain an ala carte degree should be an option. Why does an engineer or scientist need to take a class about Greek Mythology or Philosophy or Foreign Language or Medieval History? Bachelors degrees could easily be reduced to three or two-and-a-half years.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree. At least being able to just obtain an ala carte degree should be an option. Why does an engineer or scientist need to take a class about Greek Mythology or Philosophy or Foreign Language or Medieval History? Bachelors degrees could easily be reduced to three or two-and-a-half years.

'That liberals added to give themselves jobs'? What are you talking about? Those sorts of classes have formed the basis for a college education since college educations were created.