3 ms·

> I think a reality that will hopefully soon catch up with societal stigma in the United States is that college isn't right for everyone The idea that this sti

> I think a reality that will hopefully soon catch up with societal stigma in the United States is that college isn't right for everyone The idea that this stigma exists is mostly a conservative pundit talking point used to justify cutting education budgets. If you look at labor market data, it's unsubstantiated. And if you visit middle America, you'll find plenty of people with disdain for college degrees. The United States doesn't have an over-abundance of people with tertiary degrees. The USA in the bottom half of the developed-world pack for 25-34 year olds, less than half of whom obtained ANY form of post-highschool education -- including community college. More importantly, many high-growth fields are also high-tech and require tertiary education or exceptional self-teaching. The problem isn't an over-supply of college educated workers. Rather, the problem is an unwillingness to subsidize tertiary education together with the misconception that college without accompanying training in employable skills is a worthwhile investment.

niftich 10y ago
What do tertiary degrees get you? If you're an employer, why would you want to employ these people?
- antisthenes 10y ago
  Most notably computational finance and research in the natural sciences (material, biochem, physics) all require tertiary degrees since those courses are simply not available at the undergraduate level. The benefits of hiring these people by the financial and the pharma sector should be obvious.
  - throwawaysocks 10y ago
    It sounds like you've confused tertiary with post-graduate. Tertiary typically means post-secondary. Secondary typically means US high school or equivalent. (from wiki: " The World Bank, for example, defines tertiary education as including universities as well as institutions that teach specific capacities of higher learning such as colleges, technical training institutes, community colleges, nursing schools, research laboratories, centers of excellence, and distance learning centers.[1]") So the electrician with a CC degree has a tertiary education. Of course, so does the Ph.D. Hopefully that clarifies the magnitude of the fact that fewer than 1/2 of young Americans obtained a tertiary degree...
  - niftich 10y ago
    Sure, but these fields are known for being selective, and objectively requiring a very high level of domain-specific knowledge. Presumably, they will remain this way in the future, despite the cost of education rising. Notably, if the field doesn't objectively require a very high level of domain-specific knowledge, but rather a general baseline command of a broad topic, eg. software development?
    - throwawaysocks 10y ago
      > Sure, but these fields are known for being selective Lots of fields that aren't so selective also require a tertiary (= post-highscool) education of some form. Most notably, a huge swath of jobs in health care that involve patient contact. > Notably, if the field doesn't objectively require a very high level of domain-specific knowledge, but rather a general baseline command of a broad topic, eg. software development? It's of course possible to become a competent software developer without a tertiary education. I know, I did it (programming job offers right out of high school). But it's not common, and the secondary education system in the USA isn't set up to enable that sort of thing at scale. IMO it should, but it doesn't, and subidizing tertiary education is far more likely to succeed, and at lower cost, than such a drastic reform to such a huge sprawling institution.
- throwawaysocks 10y ago
  The answer is mostly completely obvious, and the fact that you're even asking makes me wonder if you're trolling (EDIT: apologies, I over-reach). Here are some categories of jobs for which most people don't or can't self-teach, or where a tertiary degree is the default route: Huge swaths of the medical profession (MDs, BSNs, PAs, DOs, Pharm.D.'s, ...) Non-BSN nurses and expert tradesmen and craftsmen (tertiary == post-secondary, which includes community college!!!) Engineers Lawyers, clerks, etc. Accountants Actuaries Industrial scientists and their surrounding support structure Lots of mid- and uppoer-level management in every sector (many of these roles really do require a tertiary or higher command of statistics and other skills) Educators The whole army of support roles that require an excellent command of written language (good communicators are hard to find, and more often than not have tertiary degrees... those English majors really do often actually learn how to very write well) Even software engineers. I know it's an unpopular opinion round these parts, but the huge majority of excellent software engineers have a tertiary education in CS or a related field (Math, physics, etc.). Could all this stuff be taught without a four+ year degree(s)? Some of it could. Most of it couldn't -- not well, at least. In short, employers hire these people because it's either impossible or very difficult to find people who are ready to work in these roles (or, in rare cases, are even legally permitted to do so) straight out of high school.
  - niftich 10y ago
    It was a genuine question, and here's why: if these advanced degrees possess such importance to their respective fields that employers will refuse to hire anyone who hasn't attained them, that simply means that the employers have outsourced a large portion of their on-the-job training to public education. This is troubling, as why should my [insert some other college degree] subsidize companies of lawyers, accountants, actuaries? And if the above is true, the signalling theory also holds -- by an applicant showing up with the degree, they demonstrate that they've taken significant steps to increase their attractiveness and employability to the employer. It's a competitive advantage. And that competitive advantage is eroded if a large fraction of the population also attains the same degree.
    - throwawaysocks 10y ago
rhino369 10y ago
>The USA in the bottom half of the developed-world pack for 25-34 year olds, less than half of whom obtained ANY form of post-highschool education -- including community college. There are really only 5-6 countries who have significantly higher tertiary attainment than the US. US is definitely not bottom half of the developed-world pack for 25-34 year olds.

niftich 10y ago

What do tertiary degrees get you? If you're an employer, why would you want to employ these people?

antisthenes 10y ago
Most notably computational finance and research in the natural sciences (material, biochem, physics) all require tertiary degrees since those courses are simply not available at the undergraduate level. The benefits of hiring these people by the financial and the pharma sector should be obvious.
- throwawaysocks 10y ago
  It sounds like you've confused tertiary with post-graduate. Tertiary typically means post-secondary. Secondary typically means US high school or equivalent. (from wiki: " The World Bank, for example, defines tertiary education as including universities as well as institutions that teach specific capacities of higher learning such as colleges, technical training institutes, community colleges, nursing schools, research laboratories, centers of excellence, and distance learning centers.[1]") So the electrician with a CC degree has a tertiary education. Of course, so does the Ph.D. Hopefully that clarifies the magnitude of the fact that fewer than 1/2 of young Americans obtained a tertiary degree...
- niftich 10y ago
  Sure, but these fields are known for being selective, and objectively requiring a very high level of domain-specific knowledge. Presumably, they will remain this way in the future, despite the cost of education rising. Notably, if the field doesn't objectively require a very high level of domain-specific knowledge, but rather a general baseline command of a broad topic, eg. software development?
  - throwawaysocks 10y ago
    > Sure, but these fields are known for being selective Lots of fields that aren't so selective also require a tertiary (= post-highscool) education of some form. Most notably, a huge swath of jobs in health care that involve patient contact. > Notably, if the field doesn't objectively require a very high level of domain-specific knowledge, but rather a general baseline command of a broad topic, eg. software development? It's of course possible to become a competent software developer without a tertiary education. I know, I did it (programming job offers right out of high school). But it's not common, and the secondary education system in the USA isn't set up to enable that sort of thing at scale. IMO it should, but it doesn't, and subidizing tertiary education is far more likely to succeed, and at lower cost, than such a drastic reform to such a huge sprawling institution.
throwawaysocks 10y ago
The answer is mostly completely obvious, and the fact that you're even asking makes me wonder if you're trolling (EDIT: apologies, I over-reach). Here are some categories of jobs for which most people don't or can't self-teach, or where a tertiary degree is the default route: Huge swaths of the medical profession (MDs, BSNs, PAs, DOs, Pharm.D.'s, ...) Non-BSN nurses and expert tradesmen and craftsmen (tertiary == post-secondary, which includes community college!!!) Engineers Lawyers, clerks, etc. Accountants Actuaries Industrial scientists and their surrounding support structure Lots of mid- and uppoer-level management in every sector (many of these roles really do require a tertiary or higher command of statistics and other skills) Educators The whole army of support roles that require an excellent command of written language (good communicators are hard to find, and more often than not have tertiary degrees... those English majors really do often actually learn how to very write well) Even software engineers. I know it's an unpopular opinion round these parts, but the huge majority of excellent software engineers have a tertiary education in CS or a related field (Math, physics, etc.). Could all this stuff be taught without a four+ year degree(s)? Some of it could. Most of it couldn't -- not well, at least. In short, employers hire these people because it's either impossible or very difficult to find people who are ready to work in these roles (or, in rare cases, are even legally permitted to do so) straight out of high school.
- niftich 10y ago
  It was a genuine question, and here's why: if these advanced degrees possess such importance to their respective fields that employers will refuse to hire anyone who hasn't attained them, that simply means that the employers have outsourced a large portion of their on-the-job training to public education. This is troubling, as why should my [insert some other college degree] subsidize companies of lawyers, accountants, actuaries? And if the above is true, the signalling theory also holds -- by an applicant showing up with the degree, they demonstrate that they've taken significant steps to increase their attractiveness and employability to the employer. It's a competitive advantage. And that competitive advantage is eroded if a large fraction of the population also attains the same degree.
  - throwawaysocks 10y ago

rhino369 10y ago

>The USA in the bottom half of the developed-world pack for 25-34 year olds, less than half of whom obtained ANY form of post-highschool education -- including community college. There are really only 5-6 countries who have significantly higher tertiary attainment than the US. US is definitely not bottom half of the developed-world pack for 25-34 year olds.