5 ms·

I think that most people shouldn't aspire to go to college. They should learn a trade instead in order to become a plumber, carpenter, electrician, or car mecha

I think that most people shouldn't aspire to go to college. They should learn a trade instead in order to become a plumber, carpenter, electrician, or car mechanic. There are lots of occupations that don't require a college degree, yet provide a solid paycheck without the crushing mass of student debt accrued in the pursuit of a useless degree. Michael Bloomberg himself said it best: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/19/pipe-dream-skip-college-become-plumber-nyc-mayor-bloomberg-says.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/19/pipe-dream-skip-c... I'm personally surprised that this isn't conventional wisdom already.

cm2012 8y ago
I also think more jobs should be trades. Data analyst (not machine learning, but running SQL queries, etc), marketing, bookkeeping, sales, etc, dont need 4 year degrees. 1 year bootcamp could get people reliable jobs.
- hakfoo 8y ago
  What bothers me-- assuming there's still a preference for a full degree over a bootcamp certificate-- is that even clearly career focused degree paths are still burdened down with an "academia" mindset that feels dated and quaint. The old "college is about being well rounded/learning how to learn" narratives made sense 50-100 years ago, when people were going to university as more a "cultural elite" thing. The rich 20-generation legacy who attends to build his social network, mixing with the top-5%-of-his-class scholarship student and social-climbers powering their way through school, had a different set of needs. Yeah, let them study Latin and great thinkers so they can schmooze in the corridors of power. It was fine when only a few percent of the population went on to university, and the actual degree content was less important than that you got a degree. However, the kids signing up today-- especially in well-known high-revenue programs (CS, EE, etc) are in it because they either 1) love the subject matter or 2) are bootstrapping their careers. These kids have neither use nor interest in becoming cultured or well-rounded. They'll go further referencing Dennis Ritchie than William Blake. There might be a case for a writing course or two, but all those 100-level survey humanities or "fun sciences" classes you're taking to hit general studies requirements? I doubt it. Or the requirement some programs have of "at least NNN total credit-hours" even if you can technically hit all the content requirements on fewer. I'm surprised you aren't seeing legitimate universities responding to the market and producing a 2-3 year BSc program, stripped of almost all general-studies courses. You want to fight tuition increases? Get kids out in 2.5 years! I assume the endgame of this would be that a lot of literature and philosophy professors will be out of work, but this surely leads into some sort of punchline about them working at Starbucks..
  - feverfew 8y ago
    > I'm surprised you aren't seeing legitimate universities responding to the market and producing a 2-3 year BSc program, stripped of almost all general-studies courses. Funnily enough this is how it works in the UK. All BSc/BA degree are 3 years long without any GenEd requirements.
    - vonmoltke 8y ago
      Actually, that is generally only true in England and Wales. Scottish universities generally have 4-year programs with Gen Ed requirements. It's the system the US system is based on.
  - tnecniv 8y ago
    > However, the kids signing up today-- especially in well-known high-revenue programs (CS, EE, etc) are in it because they either 1) love the subject matter or 2) are bootstrapping their careers. These kids have neither use nor interest in becoming cultured or well-rounded. They'll go further referencing Dennis Ritchie than William Blake. Except it's a pretty common lament that most people who major in CS/EE/whatever don't actually learn the skills in college that they use daily on the job. Honestly, the most important thing I got out of my EE degree was comfort reading research papers and confidence that I can learn whatever I want with time and effort.
lsiebert 8y ago
That implies that college is only important for skill transfer towards an occupation. Historically, part of college was to help an individual grow personally and intellectually, to learn not just what to think, but how to think clearly, in order to better engage with civil society as an active participant. It's always a little off-putting when I see people suggest that higher education is just for a job, and discount the importance of the above. Education that teaches you how to work but not how to think is part of how you get people believing things like vaccines are bad. Trade schools are awesome, not arguing that, but so is critical thinking.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  The viewpoint that college is a place for vocational education seems to be a very common viewpoint here on HN, a similar viewpoint seems to be that it's normal and easy to pack your life up and relocate so XYZ city because cost of living is low and wages are high, or some other reason. I guess being a tech-centred community this is to be expected. I don't know about others, but for me university was an important experience as a place where I could grow as a person. It's a time where you get a few years to figure it all out before you spend the next 45 years working. Even if I could've done a 1 year course and then jumped straight into working full time, I wouldn't want to do that, and I don't think people should necessarily do that. There's more to life than getting a good qualification and getting a job that pays well. I earn more than practically everybody in my friend group, yet I'm no happier than they are. I'm not more fulfilled in my life because I have a piece of paper that says I'm good with computers.
  - sadamznintern 8y ago
    The idea that college is a place to find yourself is mostly a statement of immense privilege. I grew up upper middle class (professional parents with masters) and I didn’t spend a moment in college finding myself, I spent most of it working or networking or sleeping. My folks paid for my CS degree from a state school, but even looking at the opportunity cost I’m not sure if anybody but the already wealthy or those at elite institutions can use 4 years to do anything but try to make $180k out of college - and despite all my efforts I failed at that. > no happier The other side isn’t better. I make less than most of my friends and they, by virtue of independent wealth or higher income or elite status, are significantly happier than me.

cm2012 8y ago

I also think more jobs should be trades. Data analyst (not machine learning, but running SQL queries, etc), marketing, bookkeeping, sales, etc, dont need 4 year degrees. 1 year bootcamp could get people reliable jobs.

hakfoo 8y ago
What bothers me-- assuming there's still a preference for a full degree over a bootcamp certificate-- is that even clearly career focused degree paths are still burdened down with an "academia" mindset that feels dated and quaint. The old "college is about being well rounded/learning how to learn" narratives made sense 50-100 years ago, when people were going to university as more a "cultural elite" thing. The rich 20-generation legacy who attends to build his social network, mixing with the top-5%-of-his-class scholarship student and social-climbers powering their way through school, had a different set of needs. Yeah, let them study Latin and great thinkers so they can schmooze in the corridors of power. It was fine when only a few percent of the population went on to university, and the actual degree content was less important than that you got a degree. However, the kids signing up today-- especially in well-known high-revenue programs (CS, EE, etc) are in it because they either 1) love the subject matter or 2) are bootstrapping their careers. These kids have neither use nor interest in becoming cultured or well-rounded. They'll go further referencing Dennis Ritchie than William Blake. There might be a case for a writing course or two, but all those 100-level survey humanities or "fun sciences" classes you're taking to hit general studies requirements? I doubt it. Or the requirement some programs have of "at least NNN total credit-hours" even if you can technically hit all the content requirements on fewer. I'm surprised you aren't seeing legitimate universities responding to the market and producing a 2-3 year BSc program, stripped of almost all general-studies courses. You want to fight tuition increases? Get kids out in 2.5 years! I assume the endgame of this would be that a lot of literature and philosophy professors will be out of work, but this surely leads into some sort of punchline about them working at Starbucks..
- feverfew 8y ago
  > I'm surprised you aren't seeing legitimate universities responding to the market and producing a 2-3 year BSc program, stripped of almost all general-studies courses. Funnily enough this is how it works in the UK. All BSc/BA degree are 3 years long without any GenEd requirements.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    Actually, that is generally only true in England and Wales. Scottish universities generally have 4-year programs with Gen Ed requirements. It's the system the US system is based on.
- tnecniv 8y ago
  > However, the kids signing up today-- especially in well-known high-revenue programs (CS, EE, etc) are in it because they either 1) love the subject matter or 2) are bootstrapping their careers. These kids have neither use nor interest in becoming cultured or well-rounded. They'll go further referencing Dennis Ritchie than William Blake. Except it's a pretty common lament that most people who major in CS/EE/whatever don't actually learn the skills in college that they use daily on the job. Honestly, the most important thing I got out of my EE degree was comfort reading research papers and confidence that I can learn whatever I want with time and effort.

lsiebert 8y ago

That implies that college is only important for skill transfer towards an occupation. Historically, part of college was to help an individual grow personally and intellectually, to learn not just what to think, but how to think clearly, in order to better engage with civil society as an active participant. It's always a little off-putting when I see people suggest that higher education is just for a job, and discount the importance of the above. Education that teaches you how to work but not how to think is part of how you get people believing things like vaccines are bad. Trade schools are awesome, not arguing that, but so is critical thinking.

toomanybeersies 8y ago
The viewpoint that college is a place for vocational education seems to be a very common viewpoint here on HN, a similar viewpoint seems to be that it's normal and easy to pack your life up and relocate so XYZ city because cost of living is low and wages are high, or some other reason. I guess being a tech-centred community this is to be expected. I don't know about others, but for me university was an important experience as a place where I could grow as a person. It's a time where you get a few years to figure it all out before you spend the next 45 years working. Even if I could've done a 1 year course and then jumped straight into working full time, I wouldn't want to do that, and I don't think people should necessarily do that. There's more to life than getting a good qualification and getting a job that pays well. I earn more than practically everybody in my friend group, yet I'm no happier than they are. I'm not more fulfilled in my life because I have a piece of paper that says I'm good with computers.
- sadamznintern 8y ago
  The idea that college is a place to find yourself is mostly a statement of immense privilege. I grew up upper middle class (professional parents with masters) and I didn’t spend a moment in college finding myself, I spent most of it working or networking or sleeping. My folks paid for my CS degree from a state school, but even looking at the opportunity cost I’m not sure if anybody but the already wealthy or those at elite institutions can use 4 years to do anything but try to make $180k out of college - and despite all my efforts I failed at that. > no happier The other side isn’t better. I make less than most of my friends and they, by virtue of independent wealth or higher income or elite status, are significantly happier than me.