Less that 50% of recent college grads have jobs that require a college degree?

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Phokus
I highly doubt that... in engineering at least, the only females i see are asian. Lots of asian women go into 'useful' fields like engineering, science, management, etc.

White women on the other hand, i see so many of them go into sociology/psychology/english type degrees, so this finding is surprising.

This is all anecdotal of course, but i've heard people voice similar findings in ATOT.

I'm not asian, have no real link to any asian community so somebody can answer....

How common is it for an asian woman to go to college, get married, and then stay at home with the kids? Technically she went to college and is now "underemployed" although it's by choice.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Interestingly, Asian men (58.3%) did much, much better than Asian women (29.6%) (which I did find rather weird although I have no thoughts as to why). As a group Asians had the most successful male graduates and the least successful female graduates in this area. Would anyone care to speculate about that?

Maybe asian females have to deal with both racism and sexism?

Perhaps you missed the fact that taken separately, Asians and women do better than white males.

Learn to read.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Saga
There are simply a ridiculous amount of bullshit degrees, in my opinion.

Agree. 4 years to study Plato or ancient cultures of Africa and then mop floors at Subway = fail.

Looking at short term recession employment data might not be the best way to gage the worth of a college degree. Study after study after study shows that if you have a degree you make not just a little more money, but a lot more.

Yeah, there's little denying how valuable they are. I certainly will assume and push my kids to one, but I will try to gently prod them away from bullsh*t and into one that actually teaches them a profession.

How common is it for an asian woman to go to college, get married, and then stay at home with the kids? Technically she went to college and is now "underemployed" although it's by choice.

Among all the couples in our local friends, although none are Asian, all the women are either part-time or not employed at all. All have at least one degree except for one. They worked a bit after school and once started babies it fell in great part by the wayside, by choice.

 

[halik]

It's all a matter of what kind of a degree you get. History, English (actually virtually all humanities), anything that ends in "Studies", kinesiology, communications, psychology etc. equip you with de facto 0 employment skills. I'm not surprised that the jobs you qualify for when you graduate are the same ones you did in high school.

Engineering, business, marketing/sales give you actual tangible skills.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Interestingly, Asian men (58.3%) did much, much better than Asian women (29.6%) (which I did find rather weird although I have no thoughts as to why). As a group Asians had the most successful male graduates and the least successful female graduates in this area. Would anyone care to speculate about that?

Maybe asian females have to deal with both racism and sexism?

Perhaps you missed the fact that taken separately, Asians and women do better than white males.

Learn to read.

This is hilarious considering they didn't segregate based on only race or sex.

I'm not going to calculate women (although eyeballing, it's possible they are lower than white males, depending on population split), but if you assume a 50/50 split amongst asian males and females, it would be at 43.95 which would be still lower than white males at 48.5

Learn to read yourself

Also, just remember before ever replying to me, natural monopoly

 

[mattpegher]

We must remember that these numbers are a bit skewed by the many jobs that athough do not officially require a college degree are just too difficult for someone straight out of high school. Partly this is due to the poor preparation that our high schools do and low standards that they have for graduation. Here we are not talking about the average high school student but the average non-academic/ non-college bound student. This group is on average not prepared for anything but the most thoughtless positions. I agree that it is rather foolhardy to think that you are destined for a carreer with a major in art history etc, It is maybe better to say that we need some more intensive major/career counseling in undergraduate.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Phokus

Interestingly, Asian men (58.3%) did much, much better than Asian women (29.6%) (which I did find rather weird although I have no thoughts as to why). As a group Asians had the most successful male graduates and the least successful female graduates in this area. Would anyone care to speculate about that?

Maybe asian females have to deal with both racism and sexism?

Or they are majoring in interior design or some bullshit like that.

I highly doubt that... in engineering at least, the only females i see are asian. Lots of asian women go into 'useful' fields like engineering, science, management, etc.

White women on the other hand, i see so many of them go into sociology/psychology/english type degrees, so this finding is surprising.

This is all anecdotal of course, but i've heard people voice similar findings in ATOT.

All female asians I know are trying to become doctors.
The female engineers I knew were typically hyped up, overly worried, super-conservative (and likely radically Christian) white women.
Well, that's not true, there's a smattering of foreign women from South America (and technically North too), more so than I met foreign men in American engineering.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Evan
Your conclusion doesn't make any sense, data going back to 1962 shows conclusively that employers don't like hiring graduates directly out of college unless they're from the best universities in a field of demand (engineering). Your conclusion that 50% or 58% is a surprising figure shows that you haven't ever looked at the data before (which makes sense as you are an admitted layman here). Firms have never in modern history preferred to hire people with no experience unless they're especially bright and quick on the up-take. They will for very entry level positions, generally, as the 50-58% range shows. But not for positions that require actual experience. Welcome to 50 years ago.

This. Pity everyone's ignored this because I suspect it explains the OP pretty well. Note that this survey looks only at those 25 and younger, i.e., relatively recent graduates. It would be far more meaningful to look at the employment of people with a few years of experience under their belts.

I'd also like to know how they define "jobs requiring a college degree." That seems rather nebulous, and is often inaccurate in both directions. Many jobs say a degree is required ... but will readily accept people with appropriate experience even if they lack degrees. On the flip side, and most relevant here, many jobs don't formally require degrees, yet those with degrees are given strong preference. In both cases, a degree is a plus, even if it's not absolutely required.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: vi edit
It's funny that the article addresses a Political Science and a Journalism major.

Can somebody even tell you what sort of job to expect with a 4 year Poly Sci degree? Unless it's combined with something else or you have an "in" with somebody at some governmental level there really isn't a huge market for that degree.

Same thing with Journalism. Paper newspapers are dying. Magazines will eventually face a similar threat. What expectations does a Journalism major have?

What I want to know, is, would the situation be any different if all of the people who are earning "useless" soft liberal arts degrees majored in marketable areas--nursing, engineering, accounting, etc.? What if, as a result of people only earning marketable degrees, the numbers of people getting those degrees doubled or tripled? Would the number of jobs for degree holders in those areas at currently prevailing wage rates also double or triple?

In other words--would we still have an oversupply of college graduates, but this time an oversupply of those with marketable degrees? If so, how should that affect our nation's higher education policies?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: vi edit
It's funny that the article addresses a Political Science and a Journalism major.

Can somebody even tell you what sort of job to expect with a 4 year Poly Sci degree? Unless it's combined with something else or you have an "in" with somebody at some governmental level there really isn't a huge market for that degree.

Same thing with Journalism. Paper newspapers are dying. Magazines will eventually face a similar threat. What expectations does a Journalism major have?

What I want to know, is, would the situation be any different if all of the people who are earning "useless" soft liberal arts degrees majored in marketable areas--nursing, engineering, accounting, etc.? What if, as a result of people only earning marketable degrees, the numbers of people getting those degrees doubled or tripled? Would the number of jobs for degree holders in those areas at currently prevailing wage rates also double or triple?

In other words--would we still have an oversupply of college graduates, but this time an oversupply of those with marketable degrees? If so, how should that affect our nation's higher education policies?

The one part that statistics really can't address is the individual side of things. They want to put blame on colleges, or the economy, whatever. But they don't address the person behind the numbers. Two people could have a Computer Engineering degree. One could be clean cut, got excellent grades, and interviews well. The other could be a tatooted up slob of a person with horrible interviewing skills.

One's probably going to get a job offer for his first pick, the others probably going to settle for something much less than planned.

That's just an extreme example. But there's still a lot of people running around with degrees the flat out are not good workers. Their history shows that, their interview skills show that, and their pay & job offers reflect that. A degree simply won't fix it.

And then there's the matter of expectations of the individual. Some people have realistic expectations of what their degrees will get them. Many do not. As you said, there are only so many skilled positions available in a given field. If they entered a flooded field, or a low paying one, it's not the fault of the field for that pay or lack of opportunity. Some people will recognize that up front and alter their course, or answer questions on a survey honestly. Others will answer negatively in a survey and give you results as found here.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: vi editThat's just an extreme example. But there's still a lot of people running around with degrees the flat out are not good workers. Their history shows that, their interview skills show that, and their pay & job offers reflect that. A degree simply won't fix it.

That is probably true in some cases, but is it also possible that many very good candidates might not find positions simply because a large oversupply of people are seeking those positions? After all, in a horse race, only one horse can finish first even if all of the horses are running very, very fast. Thus, it is quite conceivable that a significant part of the problem may be an oversupply of people seeking out a shortage of positions and that it isn't all merit-based.

As you said, there are only so many skilled positions available in a given field. If they entered a flooded field, or a low paying one, it's not the fault of the field for that pay or lack of opportunity. Some people will recognize that up front and alter their course, or answer questions on a survey honestly. Others will answer negatively in a survey and give you results as found here.

Oh, I don't deny that. The issue is, what should we as a society do about a shortage of jobs for college graduates and college graduate overproduction? Are we suffering from having a large amount of economic waste?

What survey do you think people have answered dishonestly? Note that dishonesty in surveys can go both ways and might even neutralize other people's dishonesty.

Also, you're missing one of my points--there isn't any other "course" to "alter" to. In other words, if people only sought out degrees in "marketable" fields, we would end up with a large oversupply of people in formerly marketable fields. For example, if we were to double the number of people earning engineering degrees, the number of jobs for engineers at currently prevailing wage rates would not magically double, rather we'd just have lots of unemployed (and underemployed-and-involuntarily-out-of-field) engineering graduates.

I'm unsure exactly what your point is. Are you trying to say that we need to cut the number of seats in colleges and universities in half (which is what would probably happen if we eliminated all of the useless liberal arts majors and restricted the number of seats in marketable majors) and that far fewer people should be going to college (so that we only graduate the number of people we need in marketable fields)?

 

[vi edit]

My point is that I'm simply skeptical of many statistics without knowing more about what goes into them.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: vi edit
It's funny that the article addresses a Political Science and a Journalism major.

Can somebody even tell you what sort of job to expect with a 4 year Poly Sci degree? Unless it's combined with something else or you have an "in" with somebody at some governmental level there really isn't a huge market for that degree.

Same thing with Journalism. Paper newspapers are dying. Magazines will eventually face a similar threat. What expectations does a Journalism major have?

What I want to know, is, would the situation be any different if all of the people who are earning "useless" soft liberal arts degrees majored in marketable areas--nursing, engineering, accounting, etc.? What if, as a result of people only earning marketable degrees, the numbers of people getting those degrees doubled or tripled? Would the number of jobs for degree holders in those areas at currently prevailing wage rates also double or triple?

In other words--would we still have an oversupply of college graduates, but this time an oversupply of those with marketable degrees? If so, how should that affect our nation's higher education policies?

You're assuming everyone that gets an Art History degree is smart and capable enough to get an engineering or nursing degree. Some how, I kind of doubt that.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: PingSpikeYou're assuming everyone that gets an Art History degree is smart and capable enough to get an engineering or nursing degree. Some how, I kind of doubt that.

I agree with you, but if that is the case, then what are the implications of the knowledge that the Art History degrees have little economic value and that those people who major in that field would be unable to earn degrees in marketable fields (in addition to the knowledge that increasing the number of people entering marketable fields will not magically create jobs to accommodate the increase)?

The implicit point of this thread is that we, as a society, need to decrease the number of people who go to college (and to be more selective about who is admitted) in order to prevent economic waste, wasted opportunity costs, and the damage that student loans do to people who cannot find positions that make the debts worthwhile.

This is my signature issue, I suppose. I believe that instead of focusing on increasing the number of people pursuing higher education (for non-existent job positions) that instead we, as a society, need to focus on solving our real economic problems (which is part of what drives people into colleges in the first place). Sadly, our politicians have discovered that they can sell the promise of education to the masses and that it will assuage the public. It's much easier to campaign on the promise of more and better education, which is very touchy-feely and warm-'n'-fuzzy, than it is to address real economic issues like global labor arbitrage, immigration, and other aspects the nation's rationality factor.

 

[Svnla]

I don't know about everyone else but in my department, the minimum requirements are a related bachelor degree from an accredited university/college and at least 2 to 3 years of actual work experience (intership doesn't count).

At least four of us <myself included> have advance degrees <MS/MBA/etc.> and industry certifications.

I do not think <based on my own experience> college education is useless but to think just to have a sheet of paper of any degrees would let you get a nice cushy job with good money is a pipe dream. Experience/desire/attitude/etc. are more important.

Another thing, I remember that I read something about less than 50% of college attendees actually finished college and got a degree.

I think this thread should be in OT and not in P&N. Nothing about politics here.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: PingSpikeYou're assuming everyone that gets an Art History degree is smart and capable enough to get an engineering or nursing degree. Some how, I kind of doubt that.

I agree with you, but if that is the case, then what are the implications of the knowledge that the Art History degrees have little economic value and that those people who major in that field would be unable to earn degrees in marketable fields (in addition to the knowledge that increasing the number of people entering marketable fields will not magically create jobs to accommodate the increase)?

The implicit point of this thread is that we, as a society, need to decrease the number of people who go to college (and to be more selective about who is admitted) in order to prevent economic waste, wasted opportunity costs, and the damage that student loans do to people who cannot find positions that make the debts worthwhile.

This is my signature issue, I suppose. I believe that instead of focusing on increasing the number of people pursuing higher education (for non-existent job positions) that instead we, as a society, need to focus on solving our real economic problems (which is part of what drives people into colleges in the first place). Sadly, our politicians have discovered that they can sell the promise of education to the masses and that it will assuage the public. It's much easier to campaign on the promise of more and better education, which is very touchy-feely and warm-'n'-fuzzy, than it is to address real economic issues like global labor arbitrage, immigration, and other aspects the nation's rationality factor.

What are you talking about? Send everyone to college and they/we will ALL be better for it!?!!

/sarcasm

See my above post.

 

[zephyrprime]

It's actually a myth that we need to get more education to build the workforce of tomorrow. There's already more degrees than there are jobs that require degrees. There are many many jobs that are rather boring and low level.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
It's actually a myth that we need to get more education to build the workforce of tomorrow. There's already more degrees than there are jobs that require degrees. There are many many very low paying jobs that are rather boring and low level because the decent ones that typically pay well are being offshored as quickly as possible.

Slight correction!

 

[JS80]

Asian females = book smart get good SAT score and good grades. But when it comes to the "real" world they are scared, timid, and are generally underperformers. Take my sister for example. UCLA grad class of 2008, currently unemployed. And all her friends are admin asst, legal asst, etc. and they are all "studying" for grad school.

 

[Carmen813]

The cost of education does not compare to the cost of ignorance.

My degree is in Psychology, one of those "worthless" degrees that I've seen mentioned in this thread. Yet Human Services and Health is one of the only fields still currently hiring, and I just received a scholarship worth about $60,000 to get a master's in Counseling.

There is a lot more benefit to attending college than the piece of paper you get at the end of it.

Take China for example. They have schools that year after year produce only engineers. They graduate something like 100,000 engineers a year. However, their economy cannot support it. Many of them end up in low income jobs, such as errand boys, never using their education.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
[ ... ]
The implicit point of this thread is that we, as a society, need to decrease the number of people who go to college (and to be more selective about who is admitted) in order to prevent economic waste, wasted opportunity costs, and the damage that student loans do to people who cannot find positions that make the debts worthwhile. ...

Your point has been rebutted. Ignoring this doesn't make your point magically true.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Interestingly, Asian men (58.3%) did much, much better than Asian women (29.6%) (which I did find rather weird although I have no thoughts as to why). As a group Asians had the most successful male graduates and the least successful female graduates in this area. Would anyone care to speculate about that?

Maybe asian females have to deal with both racism and sexism?

Perhaps you missed the fact that taken separately, Asians and women do better than white males.

Learn to read.

This is hilarious considering they didn't segregate based on only race or sex.

I'm not going to calculate women (although eyeballing, it's possible they are lower than white males, depending on population split), but if you assume a 50/50 split amongst asian males and females, it would be at 43.95 which would be still lower than white males at 48.5

Learn to read yourself

Also, just remember before ever replying to me, natural monopoly

I do remember, I remember that you don't know what the term means. That's why I chuckle every time I read another ignorant Phokus thread.

And you still need to learn to read because you've failed a SECOND time. In every other race, women have roughly the same or better luck finding a job in their chosen field. So women are not being discriminated against. Also, of college educated males, Asians are the most likely to find. So now that we know that people are not racist against Asians or sexist against women when it comes to working in their field, we can deduce that Asian women have something other than those two things working against them.

But then again, you're a racist and a sexist so you have keener insight into this phenomenon.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The implicit point of this thread is that we, as a society, need to decrease the number of people who go to college (and to be more selective about who is admitted) in order to prevent economic waste, wasted opportunity costs, and the damage that student loans do to people who cannot find positions that make the debts worthwhile. ...

Your point has been rebutted. Ignoring this doesn't make your point magically true.

I must have missed the convincing rebuttal. Could you please point it out again for us? Also, just because someone claims that my point is false in spite of the large amount of evidence in favor of it doesn't magically make the rebuttal true. Could you please point to the study which shows that 90% of all college graduates find solid middle class jobs in their fields and that the overwhelming majority of college degrees prove to have economic value? I must have missed it.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Interestingly, Asian men (58.3%) did much, much better than Asian women (29.6%) (which I did find rather weird although I have no thoughts as to why). As a group Asians had the most successful male graduates and the least successful female graduates in this area. Would anyone care to speculate about that?

Maybe asian females have to deal with both racism and sexism?

Perhaps you missed the fact that taken separately, Asians and women do better than white males.

Learn to read.

This is hilarious considering they didn't segregate based on only race or sex.

I'm not going to calculate women (although eyeballing, it's possible they are lower than white males, depending on population split), but if you assume a 50/50 split amongst asian males and females, it would be at 43.95 which would be still lower than white males at 48.5

Learn to read yourself

Also, just remember before ever replying to me, natural monopoly

I do remember, I remember that you don't know what the term means. That's why I chuckle every time I read another ignorant Phokus thread.

And you still need to learn to read because you've failed a SECOND time. In every other race, women have roughly the same or better luck finding a job in their chosen field. So women are not being discriminated against. Also, of college educated males, Asians are the most likely to find. So now that we know that people are not racist against Asians or sexist against women when it comes to working in their field, we can deduce that Asian women have something other than those two things working against them.

But then again, you're a racist and a sexist so you have keener insight into this phenomenon.

No you don't remember what a natural monoopoly is because you thought competitions was better than having natural monopolies (in industries where natural monopolies would form RATHER THAN a competitive environment). You lost the argument BADLY, get over it. I chuckle everytime you post anything, because you're irrational, have no logic, no reading comprehension, etc. etc. etc.

Lemme quote you again:

Perhaps you missed the fact that taken separately, Asians and women do better than white males.

"Asians" do not 'do better' than white males, this is statistically impossible coming from the article. Learn to read.

You cannot deduce whether women do better or worse than white males based on the article. Learn to read.

And as for why other races where the females would outperform the males, it's no secret that black females outperform black males in school, for example.

Maybe that's the case for asians (except in reverse), but i highly doubt it would be big enough for a discrepancy in the outcome like they have now.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The implicit point of this thread is that we, as a society, need to decrease the number of people who go to college (and to be more selective about who is admitted) in order to prevent economic waste, wasted opportunity costs, and the damage that student loans do to people who cannot find positions that make the debts worthwhile. ...

Your point has been rebutted. Ignoring this doesn't make your point magically true.

I must have missed the convincing rebuttal. Could you please point it out again for us? Also, just because someone claims that my point is false in spite of the large amount of evidence in favor of it doesn't magically make the rebuttal true. Could you please point to the study which shows that 90% of all college graduates find solid middle class jobs in their fields and that the overwhelming majority of college degrees prove to have economic value? I must have missed it.

Straw man FTL.

Since you're making the claim, you bear the burden of proof. Several of us have pointed out how and why this survey is likely flawed, and how your premise misses the broader value of education. You have ignored these posts in favor of patting yourself on your back for your great insight. You've done nothing to refute those challenging your belief. Your "large amount of evidence" appears to be a figment of your imagination.