Is going to college beneficial or is that a lie?

[Unkotare]

Yup, but with too little work ethic and too much 'self-esteem.'

As a side question, why do you think nowadays accountants (for example), who were successful in their profession 30 years ago with just a CPA, are now required to have a 4-year-degree as well?

What is your obsession with accounting?

 

[The Rabbi]

With nearly 50% unemployment/underemployment how productive can they really be as a whole?

Good question. One issue with our current higher education system (in my opinion) is that it does not adapt well to abrupt changes in our economy.

Right now jobs are still somewhat scarce, and we need young people who are willing to take lower-skilled positions so that we can keep things moving along a bit.

However, they are not willing to take these positions because many of them are much too educated and have quite a bit of student loan debt, and wouldn't be able to (mathematically) meet their monthly obligation of $600 working at McDonald's. So they hold out and stall in hopes of landing the job that pays $50k.

In the absence of college, perhaps those same individuals would have been able to get by at McDonald's (or wherever they fit in) for a few years to keep the ball rolling, then enter into an apprenticeship into a more lucrative field when the economy expands once again.

I feel the current system is a bit rigid and produces way too many highly educated individuals (with debt) than the economy actually needs.

That might have been a bit of a rant, but perhaps some of it makes some sense..

.

It's not necessarily that the jobs are scarce. It is that there is a mismatch between the skills people offer and the needs employers have.
That's the whole issue in a nutshell.
There are few skills taught in college that are marketable in today's economy. And conversely much of what is taught is detrimental. I mentioned the entitlement mentality earlier.

 

[Unkotare]

Facts are not your friend.

Sure they are.

Critics of the Liberal Arts Are Wrong | TIME.com



Revenge of the Liberal Arts Major

Your Times article is written by a History professor. No bias in her opinion piece. I'm sure there are still buggy whip manufacturers who think they have a crackerjack of a product too. Loof, no one is saying that having liberal arts classes in college to help develop a well rounded person is undesirable....just that getting a degree in liberal arts does not make you very employable.

Read the second link.

 

[rdean]

Maybe thats what the poster meant to convey. Still its pretty much a known fact that people with degrees make more on average than people without them.

Reasonable people can't dispute such obvious facts. Worse, there are 3.8 million jobs that are going unfilled because of a "skills gap". Can you imagine unemployment if those jobs were taken? It would drop a whole point at least, maybe two.

Trade schools

Blocked by Republicans.

 

[rdean]

Not all college degrees have equal marketable value.

It's especially important for anyone thinking about taking out student loans for a degree to evaluate his future earning potential. Too many graduates are saddled with massive amounts of debt for degrees that have virtually no economic value. The fact that such loans are handed out without an appraisal for the value of the education is fraud, imo.

Maybe thats what the poster meant to convey. Still its pretty much a known fact that people with degrees make more on average than people without them.

Yes, but what's happened is that overeducated graduates have taken jobs that used to require only a high school education (of course, the illiteracy rate among high school grads makes requiring a BA for a barrista job more understandable as well).

"Over educated" is worse than just a little or having none.

 

[rdean]

Maybe thats what the poster meant to convey. Still its pretty much a known fact that people with degrees make more on average than people without them.

They also enjoy greater job security and shorter periods of unemployment after a job loss.

Needless to say a college degree is no guarantee to a higher paying job or job security, but both are extremely difficult to realize without a four-year degree.

Wrong on all counts.
Some of the stats are because the groups are self selecting. If you shut down all colleges the same people who would have gone will still do better than the people who would not have gone.
We see the unemployment/underemployment rate of recent grads is close to 50%. That represents tremendous waste, both of time and money. Many people in college had no business going in the first place. They would have been far better off training as welders or mechanics--areas where they had actual talent. Instead they waste their time taking courses they dont really understand and being subjected to indoctrination by ivory tower liberals.

and being subjected to indoctrination by ivory tower liberals.

Such bullshit. No one masters indoctrination the way the Republican Party does and clearly, you are "proof".

 

[rdean]

They also enjoy greater job security and shorter periods of unemployment after a job loss.

Needless to say a college degree is no guarantee to a higher paying job or job security, but both are extremely difficult to realize without a four-year degree.

Wrong on all counts.
Some of the stats are because the groups are self selecting. If you shut down all colleges the same people who would have gone will still do better than the people who would not have gone.
We see the unemployment/underemployment rate of recent grads is close to 50%. That represents tremendous waste, both of time and money. Many people in college had no business going in the first place. They would have been far better off training as welders or mechanics--areas where they had actual talent. Instead they waste their time taking courses they dont really understand and being subjected to indoctrination by ivory tower liberals.

How can you possible prove that? Basically what you are saying is that people that are college bound are predetermined to be successful. Thats not even close to being true. There are a lot of billionaires and millionaires that would disagree.

Not a lot. A "few".

 

[rdean]

If you are not majoring in math, science, engineering, computer science or healthcare...you would probably be better served enlisting in the Army for four years, get paid to learn, and come out with a marketable skill and experience, plus money for college.

You could do both. Do Military first. They teach a lot about teamwork, working in groups, helping others, all the things Republicans call "socialism".

 

[KevinWestern]

Yup, but with too little work ethic and too much 'self-esteem.'

As a side question, why do you think nowadays accountants (for example), who were successful in their profession 30 years ago with just a CPA, are now required to have a 4-year-degree as well?

What is your obsession with accounting?

I just fucking love accounting, alright?

Now, what's with your habit of avoiding answering questions directly?

.

 

[rdean]

Not all college degrees have equal marketable value.

It's especially important for anyone thinking about taking out student loans for a degree to evaluate his future earning potential. Too many graduates are saddled with massive amounts of debt for degrees that have virtually no economic value. The fact that such loans are handed out without an appraisal for the value of the education is fraud, imo.

Right wingers like Rick Santorum and the bulk of the Republican Party that agrees with him make no distinction.

Science is a faith, evolution a lie, climate change a conspiracy, education is for snobs and liberal college professors only want to turn your kids into communists.

It's one of the reasons Red States are a mess and only get by with money from the very "liberals" they hate. Worse, they try to blame it on minorities. The US over all is 71% white. Many of the Red States, like Kentucky and Tennessee are 90% or more white (just like the Republican Party). So they can't blame it on minorities how ever hard they try. It's following 150 years of destructive and discredited conservative policies.

You're so full of shit.

Kentucky QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Tennessee QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau


Now explain Mississippi

Mississippi QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Kentucky - 88.6%
Tennessee - 79.3%

So I didn't have the exact numbers memorized. Does it change anything?

There's Tennessee and Kentucky. Both in line for handouts. How do you explain that? Both states with higher population of whites than the US as a whole. Where are donor states like New York and Illinois and California? Why are they supporting Red States like Tennessee and Kentucky when those Red States have more white people?

Well?


Well?


Thought so.

 

[Asclepias]

Wrong on all counts.
Some of the stats are because the groups are self selecting. If you shut down all colleges the same people who would have gone will still do better than the people who would not have gone.
We see the unemployment/underemployment rate of recent grads is close to 50%. That represents tremendous waste, both of time and money. Many people in college had no business going in the first place. They would have been far better off training as welders or mechanics--areas where they had actual talent. Instead they waste their time taking courses they dont really understand and being subjected to indoctrination by ivory tower liberals.

How can you possible prove that? Basically what you are saying is that people that are college bound are predetermined to be successful. Thats not even close to being true. There are a lot of billionaires and millionaires that would disagree.

Not a lot. A "few".

No there are a lot of millionaires and billionaires that will tell you emphatically that college is not necessary for success. Most if not all of them don't consider having a job to be the definition of success.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's not necessarily that the jobs are scarce. It is that there is a mismatch between the skills people offer and the needs employers have.
That's the whole issue in a nutshell.
There are few skills taught in college that are marketable in today's economy. And conversely much of what is taught is detrimental. I mentioned the entitlement mentality earlier.

If colleges aren't supplying the specific skills that employers are looking for (which I agree with), then why do employers continually insist on all of their entry-level applicants to have 4-year-degrees? Isn't that a tad inefficient (especially given the students are paying tens of thousands of dollars and putting themselves into 10+ years of debt to obtain those degrees)?

This is not necessarily a question directed at you, just a general thought that came to mind.

 

[rdean]

How can you possible prove that? Basically what you are saying is that people that are college bound are predetermined to be successful. Thats not even close to being true. There are a lot of billionaires and millionaires that would disagree.

Not a lot. A "few".

No there are a lot of millionaires and billionaires that will tell you emphatically that college is not necessary for success. Most if not all of them don't consider having a job to be the definition of success.

No, a few. And even those few send their kids to college. This is some ridiculous myth pushed by the right wing. Only a fool would believe such nonsense and you are not a fool, so why would you think I am?

 

[Asclepias]

Not a lot. A "few".

No there are a lot of millionaires and billionaires that will tell you emphatically that college is not necessary for success. Most if not all of them don't consider having a job to be the definition of success.

No, a few. And even those few send their kids to college. This is some ridiculous myth pushed by the right wing. Only a fool would believe such nonsense and you are not a fool, so why would you think I am?

I dont think you are a fool. I just happen to know differently. I know for instance that wealthy people send their children to college for the networking opportunities and so they can learn how to purchase businesses that employ people instead of getting a job.

 

[candycorn]

With nearly 50% unemployment/underemployment how productive can they really be as a whole?

Good question. One issue with our current higher education system (in my opinion) is that it does not adapt well to abrupt changes in our economy.

Right now jobs are still somewhat scarce, and we need young people who are willing to take lower-skilled positions so that we can keep things moving along a bit.

However, they are not willing to take these positions because many of them are much too educated and have quite a bit of student loan debt, and wouldn't be able to (mathematically) meet their monthly obligation of $600 working at McDonald's. So they hold out and stall in hopes of landing the job that pays $50k.

In the absence of college, perhaps those same individuals would have been able to get by at McDonald's (or wherever they fit in) for a few years to keep the ball rolling, then enter into an apprenticeship into a more lucrative field when the economy expands once again.

I feel the current system is a bit rigid and produces way too many highly educated individuals (with debt) than the economy actually needs.

That might have been a bit of a rant, but perhaps some of it makes some sense..

.

The unemployment rate for college educated individuals is much lower for those without.

I tend to agree with you about the rigidity of the system but be that as it may, the degree one gets in college means something to employers...right or wrong....it is the case.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not necessarily that the jobs are scarce. It is that there is a mismatch between the skills people offer and the needs employers have.
That's the whole issue in a nutshell.
There are few skills taught in college that are marketable in today's economy. And conversely much of what is taught is detrimental. I mentioned the entitlement mentality earlier.

If colleges aren't supplying the specific skills that employers are looking for (which I agree with), then why do employers continually insist on all of their entry-level applicants to have 4-year-degrees? Isn't that a tad inefficient (especially given the students are paying tens of thousands of dollars and putting themselves into 10+ years of debt to obtain those degrees)?

This is not necessarily a question directed at you, just a general thought that came to mind.

They dont necessarily. But for those jobs where they do, the degree is a screening process. Someone who went and was graduated at least has demonstrated some kind of ability to complete some task or other.

 

[KevinWestern]

The unemployment rate for college educated individuals is much lower for those without.

I tend to agree with you about the rigidity of the system but be that as it may, the degree one gets in college means something to employers...right or wrong....it is the case.

Again though, is it the actual college education - itself - that is making these individuals more employable, or would they have been more employable regardless?

A middle class person (person A) who comes from a great schooling system (K-12) and is part of a sound family unit (I'd say) is probably more likely to attend college than a poor individual (person B) who attended sub-par inner city schools and received a sub-par education, etc.

If you were to put those two individuals side by side pre college, I would expect person A to find a job well before person B.

Know what I mean?




.

 

[Unkotare]

You prove my point with every post. Please post what institution granted you a bachelor's degree and when this was conferred.

I have two undergraduate degrees and a masters with a dual concentration.
.

I didnt know you could buy those at WalMart.
Your lack of education is astounding. Your lack of precision in the terms you use is abominable. Your lack of ability to support any assertion you make is frightening. I cannot imagine you set foot in a university other than to sweep the floors.

The Rabbi is on the warpath today!

 

[KevinWestern]

They dont necessarily. But for those jobs where they do, the degree is a screening process. Someone who went and was graduated at least has demonstrated some kind of ability to complete some task or other.

Yes definitely, I agree that college serves as a screening process.

But if that's really the only real value our economy is deriving from our collegiate system (or at least the primary value), I have to say that it's quite an extravagantly long, expensive, and inefficient screening process (to say the least).

I mean, can't employers just evaluate an individual's high school GPA + perhaps some sort of extended, 1 year aptitude test students can take shortly thereafter? Is it beneficial to our economy for students to have to pay for a $50,000 "ACT Test" - so to speak - that sucks up four entire years of their life?

Sure, you learn "life skills" at college, but you'll also learn life skills actually living life (over the course of those same four years) if you were to enter the workforce directly after high school.



.

 

[Unkotare]

No, I wrote "Facts are not your friend." I posted facts. You have not posted facts.
I think we are beginning to see the issue here.

You have to actually read the links to get the facts found therein.

I did. Did you?

I sure did.