5 ms·

>> Part of the problem is that the last few generations have been told the same thing: blue collar jobs aren't "good" jobs. You need to go to college so you can

>> Part of the problem is that the last few generations have been told the same thing: blue collar jobs aren't "good" jobs. You need to go to college so you can get a "good" job sitting at a desk because those other jobs are below you. If you take one of those blue collar jobs then you've failed and aren't "achieving your potential". I think another part of it is that even low level office jobs now require some sort of degree simply because everybody has one. It's no longer something unique to have on your CV hence why so many people seem to be going for Masters degrees too. I know so many people only getting out of education in their late 20's and many of them got a degree, struggled to find a job, so went back for the Masters to give them ad edge. Another problem all this education causes is lack of experience. If you decide at 16 or 17 that you're going into a trade you can get an apprenticeship and build up experience. If you go to college 'because that's what people do' and struggle to find a job based on your degree when you come out it's hard to even get a job in retail or sales because you're 23 with no experience. One solution might be to only offer loans for degrees that lead to a job (doctor, lawyer, architect etc.) and consider things like History or Music a luxury.

pwthornton 10y ago
Education is not job training. And a good education should prepare you to switch careers. Comparing higher education to job training is especially damaging in a fast paced economy with new fields and jobs popping up all the time.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
>I think another part of it is that even low level office jobs now require some sort of degree simply because everybody has one. This is the key problem - education is often positional good, since not every job seeker can be better educated than the others. >One solution might be to only offer loans for degrees that lead to a job (doctor, lawyer, architect etc.) and consider things like History or Music a luxury. Better is to make asking about and providing your college background illegal, with some exceptions for doctors/lawyers/engineers/etc.
jinfiesto 10y ago
I'm skeptical of not allowing loans for degrees that don't lead to jobs. The fact that a statistical argument can be made, like "Only 30% of music majors have jobs out of school" totally obscures the fact that there are causal factors that determine career success out of school. I don't think the issue is degrees that don't lead to jobs. I think much of the issue is people beginning degrees that they have no business beginning. I suppose this is probably related to to many people going to college in the first place? I majored in music. It's pretty easy to tell who will have a reasonable career after college. The people who are well prepared succeed. The people who aren't usually flounder and subsequently go on to flounder after school. Should we be telling people who are likely to succeed in their field that they can't get loans to study something they will probably do well at because of all the asshats that apply to these programs with little preparation?
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  I can see your point. Let's take music for example seeing as you majored in it and I am also quite invested in it. I can't think of too many music jobs that require a degree. It tends to be an industry where you work hard, from the bottom and learn as you go or you teach yourself. There are legitimate reasons to study it as a degree but are you really getting $60-100k of value from it? Some people might but even a lot of the people prepared to succeed are not going to get that amount of value out of it and likely could have got the information they need for their future through an online course, on the job training, or a community college course. My main point is that a lot of people are doing degrees when they can get the information they need elsewhere, much cheaper, and they are not getting value for money. Unless we can convince people college isn't something they have to do being more specific about which degree paths get loans is the only way I can see to prevent those people taking out loans they will never be able to pay back.
  - jinfiesto 10y ago
    Continuing the example, I'd say that at the non top-tier level it's pretty important to have a degree if you want to make more than 60k a year. It's really hard to justify charging more than 20$ an hour to parents of prospective students if you don't have some sort of degree. I'm assuming that most music majors will go on to teach. Granted, this isn't the only thing you need to be successful, but it's a pretty important component. I doubt that anyone who is going to succeed at an instrument could get the information they need from a community college. It sounds elitist, but pedigree is very important in music. The community is not particularly open about sharing information, so very few people (relatively speaking) really know what they're doing. And they tend to keep it to themselves/students. Additionally, music is pretty unique in that very few people study music in college without having already studied it seriously for 10+ years prior. Typically, if you've been playing that long, you've applied to specific schools with specific teachers in mind. I don't think anyone that plans on being successful in the field will be able to get much from whatever clown is teaching at the local community college. Further, teaching can be surprisingly lucrative. Teachers that consistently put out competition winners at the state+ level can charge upwards of 100 dollars an hour. Top tier teachers in the LA area charge 300+. The most expensive I've ever seen was 700 /hr. (This is true for piano, which is my frame of reference. I'm not sure what music teachers in other instruments make.) Continuing some of the above points, basically every really good pianist in the US comes from one of two "lineages" of pianists. Either they can trace their teachers back to Schnabel, or back to Josef and Rosina Lhevinne. I would be very surprised to hear of any 2nd generation student of Schnabel's or 1st generation student of the Lhevinne's teaching at a community college, much less online. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's really not possible for the students who would succeed to get the information they need in a cheaper form. But back to the initial point, I'm not convinced that cutting off entire paths of degrees from receiving support in the form of loans won't represent some sort of massive loss to society. Consider all of the potentially lost art/literature/music? At any rate, I feel like either college should just be subsidized by the state, or let people just be personally responsible for what they choose to study (which is what we already do.) I'm heavily in favor of the former.
BenElgar 10y ago
I think the idea of offering loans only for 'vocational' degrees is extremely damaging. It leads to people taking 'Software Engineering' degrees rather than computer science or maths or physics when really these less directed degrees generally allow people to explore what they are really most passionate about. The idea of a university is not a place where one goes to get a piece of paper that certifies one as competent to perform a job - that should merely be a side effect - university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual. I acknowledge this is a rather idealistic view of our higher education institutes but I think it's one we should strive to make a reality.
- icebraining 10y ago
  It leads to people taking 'Software Engineering' degrees rather than computer science or maths or physics when really these less directed degrees generally allow people to explore what they are really most passionate about. I share your concerns; on the other hand, is signing up for a 3-to-5 year course really the best way to help people discover their passion? As an exploratory path, it sound expensive both in resources and in time wasted for the student. Around here, we have something called "summer university" wherein high-school students can spend a week or two getting an high level overview of the college course. It's extra-curricular, so few attend, but seems like a similar approach introduced into the regular HS calendar (say, the last two months), getting everyone to try a few courses of their choice, could provide even more exploration for much lower costs.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  > university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual As long as we continue to believe this, nothing will change. Universities indoctrinate, lets not be naive. Most schools have little interest in widening the perspectives of students. They are on a mission to unify perspectives. Indeed I would say that universities are more responsible for our Idiocracy than television - graduates really believe they have become enlightened when in fact they have been programmed.

pwthornton 10y ago

Education is not job training. And a good education should prepare you to switch careers. Comparing higher education to job training is especially damaging in a fast paced economy with new fields and jobs popping up all the time.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

>I think another part of it is that even low level office jobs now require some sort of degree simply because everybody has one. This is the key problem - education is often positional good, since not every job seeker can be better educated than the others. >One solution might be to only offer loans for degrees that lead to a job (doctor, lawyer, architect etc.) and consider things like History or Music a luxury. Better is to make asking about and providing your college background illegal, with some exceptions for doctors/lawyers/engineers/etc.

jinfiesto 10y ago

I'm skeptical of not allowing loans for degrees that don't lead to jobs. The fact that a statistical argument can be made, like "Only 30% of music majors have jobs out of school" totally obscures the fact that there are causal factors that determine career success out of school. I don't think the issue is degrees that don't lead to jobs. I think much of the issue is people beginning degrees that they have no business beginning. I suppose this is probably related to to many people going to college in the first place? I majored in music. It's pretty easy to tell who will have a reasonable career after college. The people who are well prepared succeed. The people who aren't usually flounder and subsequently go on to flounder after school. Should we be telling people who are likely to succeed in their field that they can't get loans to study something they will probably do well at because of all the asshats that apply to these programs with little preparation?

k-mcgrady 10y ago
I can see your point. Let's take music for example seeing as you majored in it and I am also quite invested in it. I can't think of too many music jobs that require a degree. It tends to be an industry where you work hard, from the bottom and learn as you go or you teach yourself. There are legitimate reasons to study it as a degree but are you really getting $60-100k of value from it? Some people might but even a lot of the people prepared to succeed are not going to get that amount of value out of it and likely could have got the information they need for their future through an online course, on the job training, or a community college course. My main point is that a lot of people are doing degrees when they can get the information they need elsewhere, much cheaper, and they are not getting value for money. Unless we can convince people college isn't something they have to do being more specific about which degree paths get loans is the only way I can see to prevent those people taking out loans they will never be able to pay back.
- jinfiesto 10y ago
  Continuing the example, I'd say that at the non top-tier level it's pretty important to have a degree if you want to make more than 60k a year. It's really hard to justify charging more than 20$ an hour to parents of prospective students if you don't have some sort of degree. I'm assuming that most music majors will go on to teach. Granted, this isn't the only thing you need to be successful, but it's a pretty important component. I doubt that anyone who is going to succeed at an instrument could get the information they need from a community college. It sounds elitist, but pedigree is very important in music. The community is not particularly open about sharing information, so very few people (relatively speaking) really know what they're doing. And they tend to keep it to themselves/students. Additionally, music is pretty unique in that very few people study music in college without having already studied it seriously for 10+ years prior. Typically, if you've been playing that long, you've applied to specific schools with specific teachers in mind. I don't think anyone that plans on being successful in the field will be able to get much from whatever clown is teaching at the local community college. Further, teaching can be surprisingly lucrative. Teachers that consistently put out competition winners at the state+ level can charge upwards of 100 dollars an hour. Top tier teachers in the LA area charge 300+. The most expensive I've ever seen was 700 /hr. (This is true for piano, which is my frame of reference. I'm not sure what music teachers in other instruments make.) Continuing some of the above points, basically every really good pianist in the US comes from one of two "lineages" of pianists. Either they can trace their teachers back to Schnabel, or back to Josef and Rosina Lhevinne. I would be very surprised to hear of any 2nd generation student of Schnabel's or 1st generation student of the Lhevinne's teaching at a community college, much less online. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's really not possible for the students who would succeed to get the information they need in a cheaper form. But back to the initial point, I'm not convinced that cutting off entire paths of degrees from receiving support in the form of loans won't represent some sort of massive loss to society. Consider all of the potentially lost art/literature/music? At any rate, I feel like either college should just be subsidized by the state, or let people just be personally responsible for what they choose to study (which is what we already do.) I'm heavily in favor of the former.

BenElgar 10y ago

I think the idea of offering loans only for 'vocational' degrees is extremely damaging. It leads to people taking 'Software Engineering' degrees rather than computer science or maths or physics when really these less directed degrees generally allow people to explore what they are really most passionate about. The idea of a university is not a place where one goes to get a piece of paper that certifies one as competent to perform a job - that should merely be a side effect - university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual. I acknowledge this is a rather idealistic view of our higher education institutes but I think it's one we should strive to make a reality.

icebraining 10y ago
It leads to people taking 'Software Engineering' degrees rather than computer science or maths or physics when really these less directed degrees generally allow people to explore what they are really most passionate about. I share your concerns; on the other hand, is signing up for a 3-to-5 year course really the best way to help people discover their passion? As an exploratory path, it sound expensive both in resources and in time wasted for the student. Around here, we have something called "summer university" wherein high-school students can spend a week or two getting an high level overview of the college course. It's extra-curricular, so few attend, but seems like a similar approach introduced into the regular HS calendar (say, the last two months), getting everyone to try a few courses of their choice, could provide even more exploration for much lower costs.
karma_vaccum123 10y ago
> university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual As long as we continue to believe this, nothing will change. Universities indoctrinate, lets not be naive. Most schools have little interest in widening the perspectives of students. They are on a mission to unify perspectives. Indeed I would say that universities are more responsible for our Idiocracy than television - graduates really believe they have become enlightened when in fact they have been programmed.