Is going to college beneficial or is that a lie?

[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..

.

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.

That is a misleading statistic. Not that you'd care of course.

 

[The Rabbi]

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, 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?

I don't think so.

That actually was the suggestion in Murray's book Real Education. Offer a test like the CPA test and this way employers know a candidate who has the certificate has certain job skills. Much cheaper and more effficient.

 

[High_Gravity]

I was told by another poster i will not name that too many people go to college. The reasoning is that its all a lie that college teaches you the skills to get a higher paying job.

Why do too many people go to college? Because they've been sold a lie that going to college gives you skills to get a high paying job.

i went to college and got a degree in my field and secured a higher paying job because of the skills I acquired. Not only did I learn the skills I also received a degree that certified I was qualified for the prerequisites for the job. Before anyone thinks I left something out this is literally all the poster gave me to go on. Anyone agree with the posters premise?

It depends, I know people that have gotten degrees while in the Military and they can't find work. I know a girl who got a Bachelors degree in criminal justice than decided thats not what she wanted, and works at Dillards.

 

[Old Rocks]

The value in a college education, imo (and I also hire and fire at work) is that you have a more well rounded knowledge. Things like literature, psychology, history, and government. It is hard for some people to understand why one would need to have a basic understanding of chemistry if they are studying law, but I have found in my 57 years that everything I learned in college has come in handy in some way, in my life and career.

Can one succeed without a college degree? Absolutely.

I have worked 50 years in industry, mostly as a millwright, a few years working on a core drill, inspector for soils engineering labs, and fought fires. One never knows what small peice of knowledge will be very important. One thing for sure we do know, is that ignorance is far more expensive than education has ever been.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Yeah.....and? You are of course aware that engineering, science, accounting and finance majors all have to take writing and communication courses as part of their basic courses aren't you? My son is a junior in the college of engineering at his university and spent the summer in an internship with BP in Alaska this summer. To finish his internship, he had to do a presentation to the upper management on the engineering project he had done for them. The commonality between him and a liberal arts major is that they both know how to write and communicate. The difference between him and a liberal arts major is he knows something about a subject in demand by employers to do a presentation on.

 

[KevinWestern]

That actually was the suggestion in Murray's book Real Education. Offer a test like the CPA test and this way employers know a candidate who has the certificate has certain job skills. Much cheaper and more effficient.

I believe this is the idea I was trying to get across to Unkotare/Darkwind the other day, to no avail. Perhaps I could have done a better job at presenting my argument...

 

[KevinWestern]

I have worked 50 years in industry, mostly as a millwright, a few years working on a core drill, inspector for soils engineering labs, and fought fires. One never knows what small peice of knowledge will be very important. One thing for sure we do know, is that ignorance is far more expensive than education has ever been.

I think most will agree that knowledge is important. However, the big question is whether or not college (from a general view) is effectively supplying that necessary knowledge/experience to students (and if not, is there a better way to supply it?).

$50k is a lot of money and is putting a lot of folks in debt ($1 trillion collectively as of a few years ago); is there a better way for employers to screen potential applicants, and for students to learn the skills necessary to succeed in a given job?

.

 

[Londoner]

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.

The anti-intellectualism inside of the Republican Party is not an accident.

Whenever a small group of people control a large group of people, they need to create an intellectual environment where their power is not effectively analyzed or criticized. This is why they killed Socrates, this is why the feudal lords drugged the surfs with religion.

The posters on this board are protecting the concentrated wealth that manipulates government and monopolizes our major sectors. They are obedient serfs, and they are as stupid as the system requires them to be.

 

[Unkotare]

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

If that were the case we would not have so many positions going unfilled due to a lack of sufficiently skilled candidates (see H-1b Visa thread).

 

[candycorn]

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.

That is a misleading statistic. Not that you'd care of course.

It's from the BLS...please explain how it's misleading with your "years of education"...

 

[KevinWestern]

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

If that were the case we would not have so many positions going unfilled due to a lack of sufficiently skilled candidates (see H-1b Visa thread).

Perhaps I could revise my statement to read "produces too many individuals who are over educated in areas that the economy doesn't need".

 

[AmazonTania]

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.

In your current labour market, you have 47.6 million people who don't have a college degree. The labor force among the bachelors, masters and dictators are all lumped together when it comes to BLS numbers, so that sort of skews the statistics. Regardless, the population of educated individuals are much larger than the uneducated. Also those who are educated participate more in the labour force than those who are not as educated, hence the large gap in the unemployment rate. The fact is most college graduates are in debt and are unemployed. Low skilled employers are not going to conduct a rigorous screening process between a non college graduate and a college graduate.

Regardless, I really don't see the glorification in telling your labour force that you need a college degree just to be able to clean bathrooms, wait tables and ring cash registers.

 

[Unkotare]

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?

.

It's just a little weird is all.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's from the BLS...please explain how it's misleading with your "years of education"...

I know you didn't direct that question at me, but (to jump in here) the chart might be considered misleading because it implies that it is the education itself that results in the higher pay. As I mentioned earlier, students from wealthy communities with good K-12 schools are much more likely to attend college than students in poor communities. I'd argue that the students from wealthy communities would have a lower rate of unemployment, earn a higher wage regardless of college.

As a sort of wonky example, I'm sure you can make a chart that shows the cost of someone's shoes and their unemployment/salary status. The more expensive the shoe they wear, the higher paid they generally are.

However, does that necessarily mean that the shoe is the reason they are receiving the higher wage?

.

 

[KevinWestern]

What is your obsession with accounting?

I just fucking love accounting, alright?

.

It's just a little weird is all.

Actually, I don't really like accounting. But (as a sidenote) I did marry an accountant.

.

 

[candycorn]

It's from the BLS...please explain how it's misleading with your "years of education"...

I know you didn't direct that question at me, but (to jump in here) the chart might be considered misleading because it implies that it is the education itself that results in the higher pay. As I mentioned earlier, students from wealthy communities with good K-12 schools are much more likely to attend college than students in poor communities. I'd argue that the students from wealthy communities would have a lower rate of unemployment, earn a higher wage regardless of college.

As a sort of wonky example, I'm sure you can make a chart that shows the cost of someone's shoes and their unemployment/salary status. The more expensive the shoe they wear, the higher paid they generally are.

However, does that necessarily mean that the shoe is the reason they are receiving the higher wage?

.

Well, I can't interview all respondents to the survey...

Here is a chart showing it over a span of time:

 

[candycorn]

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.

In your current labour market, you have 47.6 million people who don't have a college degree. The labor force among the bachelors, masters and dictators are all lumped together when it comes to BLS numbers, so that sort of skews the statistics. Regardless, the population of educated individuals are much larger than the uneducated. Also those who are educated participate more in the labour force than those who are not as educated, hence the large gap in the unemployment rate. The fact is most college graduates are in debt and are unemployed. Low skilled employers are not going to conduct a rigorous screening process between a non college graduate and a college graduate.

Regardless, I really don't see the glorification in telling your labour force that you need a college degree just to be able to clean bathrooms, wait tables and ring cash registers.

You're making a value judgment. While being underemployed during a recession and sluggish recovery is not preferable, it beats unemployment pretty handily.

I agree that "telling your labor force" that they need X schooling when less would do just fine is poor. Long term it leads to more turnover because someone with a Phd. would likely need to make more than a job that has that Phd. as an artificial requirement would pay. One of our competitors has that problem in fact; they want someone to have a Bachelors of Science degree for a job that didn't require one for a long time before the new regime seized power. And that job is open right now after having two girls fill it intermittently over the last 2 years.

 

[Avatar4321]

The answer is simple: It depends.

College can be beneficial. So can not going to college.

You can learn things in college. You can also complete drink yourself into a stupor and never learn a thing.

You can learn things not going to college. You can also not learn anything.

We need to get out of this mindset that having a degree makes you intelligent. No. Having a degree just means you paid for and went to classes long enough that they gave you a degree. You can pass classes without actually learning anything in the long run. I could describe a few Trig/Calc classes I aced and yet cant remember half of what I supposedly learned.

Degrees are meaningless if you don't remember what you "learned" to earn them. Learning to work would be alot more beneficial for alot of people.

 

[AmazonTania]

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.

In your current labour market, you have 47.6 million people who don't have a college degree. The labor force among the bachelors, masters and dictators are all lumped together when it comes to BLS numbers, so that sort of skews the statistics. Regardless, the population of educated individuals are much larger than the uneducated. Also those who are educated participate more in the labour force than those who are not as educated, hence the large gap in the unemployment rate. The fact is most college graduates are in debt and are unemployed. Low skilled employers are not going to conduct a rigorous screening process between a non college graduate and a college graduate.

Regardless, I really don't see the glorification in telling your labour force that you need a college degree just to be able to clean bathrooms, wait tables and ring cash registers.

You're making a value judgment. While being underemployed during a recession and sluggish recovery is not preferable, it beats unemployment pretty handily.

Not really. If your alternatives are working close to minimum wage and going on disability, most people would choose disability. Especially if transportation is a big expense as part of your budget. People have trade offs and often determine what is the best opportunity cost for them to take.

Not saying everyone is like this, but there is structural problems going on with the labour market and the amount of jobs being created that people would rather be unemployed than take them.

Oh, and just so you know, being on disability doesn't contribute to the unemployment rate. At all. Just another indicator to consider.

I agree that "telling your labor force" that they need X schooling when less would do just fine is poor. Long term it leads to more turnover because someone with a Phd. would likely need to make more than a job that has that Phd. as an artificial requirement would pay. One of our competitors has that problem in fact; they want someone to have a Bachelors of Science degree for a job that didn't require one for a long time before the new regime seized power. And that job is open right now after having two girls fill it intermittently over the last 2 years.

Schooling helps in the long term. Not necessarily in the 'here and now.' There are plenty of people who pursue majors totally outside of their careers. These people probably would have been better not going, but it's not to say that these people wouldn't be where they are right not without a college degree. The more common you make a college degree, the less it's worth.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's from the BLS...please explain how it's misleading with your "years of education"...

I know you didn't direct that question at me, but (to jump in here) the chart might be considered misleading because it implies that it is the education itself that results in the higher pay. As I mentioned earlier, students from wealthy communities with good K-12 schools are much more likely to attend college than students in poor communities. I'd argue that the students from wealthy communities would have a lower rate of unemployment, earn a higher wage regardless of college.

As a sort of wonky example, I'm sure you can make a chart that shows the cost of someone's shoes and their unemployment/salary status. The more expensive the shoe they wear, the higher paid they generally are.

However, does that necessarily mean that the shoe is the reason they are receiving the higher wage?

.

Well, I can't interview all respondents to the survey...

Here is a chart showing it over a span of time:

This chart proves you don't know waht you're talking about.