5 ms·

Do you think Americans were less adult in, say, 1930s, when only small fraction of them went to college?

by xyzzyz 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago
What do you mean by "less adult"? Do you think people were less adult before we had universal eduction? Are there benefits to their adulthood from it?
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  My point is that you claim that college prepares people to be adults “in every way”, so I wonder in what way today’s college graduates are more prepared to be adults than, say, overwhelming majority of adults were in 1930s, who didn’t have any college experience.
  - cbm-vic-20 5y ago
    In the 1930s, you weren't expected to have 5 years of experience for an entry level job, and they had actual on-the-job training, which no company wants to invest in anymore.
    - tcmart14 5y ago
      With as bad as some of Ford's practices were, he did have a couple decent ones. If I recall correctly, Ford essentially had his own internal engineering school where some line workers could get accepted into, become engineers and work for the company as an engineer.
      - wheelinsupial 5y ago
        I haven’t heard that one before about Ford. GM supported / took over a school and renamed it the GM Institute of Technology in its earlier years, now it’s Kettering University [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_University https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_University
        tcmart14 5y ago
        I don't have links at hand. I learned about it my History of Engineering class. But from my understanding, employees in the program worked during the day and then essentially attended classes taught at Ford facilities during the evening.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        That's great, but they only did it for white men. If you're skin color happened to be black, you couldn't advance past janitor (IIRC). It was affirmative action for white men.
        tcmart14 5y ago
        Well thats a given. This program took place during segregation when people had messed up ideas in to how the color of one's skin determines the character of that person. But we can still highlight the merits of the program and bring something similar into the modern age where people are not rejected based on skin color. Even worst than than that. Ford was a huge anti-Semite and one of his papers had major influence over Hitler who then went on to genocide millions of Jews. Dude was for sure an asshole. He also fired workers who drank or gambled during their off time and had company men who raided homes of his workers.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      For the kinds of jobs that were available in 1930s, the employers today will in fact hire just about anyone, as the labor shortage is enormous. The sort of jobs you are thinking about, employers do typically require a college degree, but that’s just a self-licking ice cream cone: if only few people had college degrees, employers couldn’t really require them from all candidates.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > My point is that you claim that college prepares people to be adults “in every way”, so I wonder in what way today’s college graduates are more prepared to be adults than, say, overwhelming majority of adults were in 1930s, who didn’t have any college experience. Yes, generally speaking. And they were better prepared than people from the 1840s, who mostly were illiterate (no universal education), lost most of their kids at a young age, etc. If you spend zero years preparing for something and I spend four (or 12 and 16 years), I'm going to be better prepared most likely. There are diminishing marginal returns at some point, but college is qualitatively very different than high school. This question comes up many times, as if it's a personal insult to people without college degrees. Let's imagine it does insult them (which I don't think it does); should we reject all progress for ourselves because others don't have access to it and might be offended? You have access to the Interet and I don't - are you saying you are better than me? The Internet is useless! And now we don't want to offend people in the 1930s? There are things other people have done that benefitted their lives, and that I missed out on - good for them!
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      > Yes, generally speaking. This is not an answer to a “in what way” question. I will grant you that elementary school teaching people to read, write and basic arithmetics, does indeed inculcate skills very important in adult life, but from there to argue that a marginal year of education gives you some marginal amount of human capital, only shows how weak your argument is: it’s completely useless without trying to quantify the actual learning. What if a year of college actually reduces a day’s worth of useful stuff? What a waste of time it would be, and yet totally compatible with your argument. And, it might be of interest to you, that the last month of 12th year of education, and last month of 16th year “teaches” a lot more useful stuff than the previous 4 years in terms of how it translates to increased success in adult life, as studies show. This is actually obvious to everyone, that obtaining diploma is worth more than 4 years worth of learning, but the point is that education is not about learning.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        You're really questioning the value of education past 5th grade? > it’s completely useless without trying to quantify the actual learning Most things in life can't be quantified, yet aren't useless. > the last month of 12th year of education, and last month of 16th year “teaches” a lot more useful stuff than the previous 4 years in terms of how it translates to increased success in adult life, as studies show What studies?
droidist2 5y ago
I mean, they looked more adult. If you look at a high school year book from decades ago the seniors look like they're in their 30s. Maybe this means time is speeding up, or that life was harder then which aged them, like how outdoor cats often look all haggard. Then again was life really that much harder in the 1960s?
- Schiendelman 5y ago
  I suspect that what you’re seeing is that they were less overweight, which appears to us as “older” in young people.
  - droidist2 5y ago
    That is true, and diet could be a factor. Also I read men's testosterone levels have been dropping which could lead to them starting to shave later.
- mac01021 5y ago
  Are you sure it's not just that their hair and fashion styles are those of a previous decade and that that triggers the "this person is old" neurons in your brain?
xeromal 5y ago
In the 1930s, I'm sure the majority of children worked hard lives on farms and other jobs so they were well on their way to realizing the troubles of adulthood.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  US was already majority urban by 1930, though not by much. But yes, you are correct that life was harder back then, which made people tougher.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > life was harder back then, which made people tougher Unintuitively, harder lives don't make people tougher. Intuitively, they make people more exhausted and traumatized. Look at how functional people were back then when they were elderly (though that could be due to other aspects of health). Look at anyone who has had a hard life; they wear down. Similarly, children, contrary to some pop politico-psychology, generally grow stronger if they feel safer. Unsafe kids are scared to face the world and often never develop an inner sense of security. Trauma leaves wounds that sometimes never heal. Safe kids feel like they can brave the world, and they internalize that sense of safety that their parents model and give them.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      From my experience of growing up around people who lived through war and then repressive regime and poverty, what you describe above is very much opposite to what I have seen.
brewdad 5y ago
Well, we did have to take away the alcohol for a while. ;)

Do you think Americans were less adult in, say, 1930s, when only small fraction of them went to college?

by xyzzyz 5y ago

Do you think Americans were less adult in, say, 1930s, when only small fraction of them went to college?

What do you mean by "less adult"? Do you think people were less adult before we had universal eduction? Are there benefits to their adulthood from it?

xyzzyz 5y ago
My point is that you claim that college prepares people to be adults “in every way”, so I wonder in what way today’s college graduates are more prepared to be adults than, say, overwhelming majority of adults were in 1930s, who didn’t have any college experience.
- cbm-vic-20 5y ago
  In the 1930s, you weren't expected to have 5 years of experience for an entry level job, and they had actual on-the-job training, which no company wants to invest in anymore.
  - tcmart14 5y ago
    With as bad as some of Ford's practices were, he did have a couple decent ones. If I recall correctly, Ford essentially had his own internal engineering school where some line workers could get accepted into, become engineers and work for the company as an engineer.
    - wheelinsupial 5y ago
      I haven’t heard that one before about Ford. GM supported / took over a school and renamed it the GM Institute of Technology in its earlier years, now it’s Kettering University [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_University https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_University
      - tcmart14 5y ago
        I don't have links at hand. I learned about it my History of Engineering class. But from my understanding, employees in the program worked during the day and then essentially attended classes taught at Ford facilities during the evening.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      That's great, but they only did it for white men. If you're skin color happened to be black, you couldn't advance past janitor (IIRC). It was affirmative action for white men.
      - tcmart14 5y ago
        Well thats a given. This program took place during segregation when people had messed up ideas in to how the color of one's skin determines the character of that person. But we can still highlight the merits of the program and bring something similar into the modern age where people are not rejected based on skin color. Even worst than than that. Ford was a huge anti-Semite and one of his papers had major influence over Hitler who then went on to genocide millions of Jews. Dude was for sure an asshole. He also fired workers who drank or gambled during their off time and had company men who raided homes of his workers.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    For the kinds of jobs that were available in 1930s, the employers today will in fact hire just about anyone, as the labor shortage is enormous. The sort of jobs you are thinking about, employers do typically require a college degree, but that’s just a self-licking ice cream cone: if only few people had college degrees, employers couldn’t really require them from all candidates.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > My point is that you claim that college prepares people to be adults “in every way”, so I wonder in what way today’s college graduates are more prepared to be adults than, say, overwhelming majority of adults were in 1930s, who didn’t have any college experience. Yes, generally speaking. And they were better prepared than people from the 1840s, who mostly were illiterate (no universal education), lost most of their kids at a young age, etc. If you spend zero years preparing for something and I spend four (or 12 and 16 years), I'm going to be better prepared most likely. There are diminishing marginal returns at some point, but college is qualitatively very different than high school. This question comes up many times, as if it's a personal insult to people without college degrees. Let's imagine it does insult them (which I don't think it does); should we reject all progress for ourselves because others don't have access to it and might be offended? You have access to the Interet and I don't - are you saying you are better than me? The Internet is useless! And now we don't want to offend people in the 1930s? There are things other people have done that benefitted their lives, and that I missed out on - good for them!
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    > Yes, generally speaking. This is not an answer to a “in what way” question. I will grant you that elementary school teaching people to read, write and basic arithmetics, does indeed inculcate skills very important in adult life, but from there to argue that a marginal year of education gives you some marginal amount of human capital, only shows how weak your argument is: it’s completely useless without trying to quantify the actual learning. What if a year of college actually reduces a day’s worth of useful stuff? What a waste of time it would be, and yet totally compatible with your argument. And, it might be of interest to you, that the last month of 12th year of education, and last month of 16th year “teaches” a lot more useful stuff than the previous 4 years in terms of how it translates to increased success in adult life, as studies show. This is actually obvious to everyone, that obtaining diploma is worth more than 4 years worth of learning, but the point is that education is not about learning.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      You're really questioning the value of education past 5th grade? > it’s completely useless without trying to quantify the actual learning Most things in life can't be quantified, yet aren't useless. > the last month of 12th year of education, and last month of 16th year “teaches” a lot more useful stuff than the previous 4 years in terms of how it translates to increased success in adult life, as studies show What studies?

droidist2 5y ago

I mean, they looked more adult. If you look at a high school year book from decades ago the seniors look like they're in their 30s. Maybe this means time is speeding up, or that life was harder then which aged them, like how outdoor cats often look all haggard. Then again was life really that much harder in the 1960s?

Schiendelman 5y ago
I suspect that what you’re seeing is that they were less overweight, which appears to us as “older” in young people.
- droidist2 5y ago
  That is true, and diet could be a factor. Also I read men's testosterone levels have been dropping which could lead to them starting to shave later.
mac01021 5y ago
Are you sure it's not just that their hair and fashion styles are those of a previous decade and that that triggers the "this person is old" neurons in your brain?

xeromal 5y ago

In the 1930s, I'm sure the majority of children worked hard lives on farms and other jobs so they were well on their way to realizing the troubles of adulthood.

xyzzyz 5y ago
US was already majority urban by 1930, though not by much. But yes, you are correct that life was harder back then, which made people tougher.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > life was harder back then, which made people tougher Unintuitively, harder lives don't make people tougher. Intuitively, they make people more exhausted and traumatized. Look at how functional people were back then when they were elderly (though that could be due to other aspects of health). Look at anyone who has had a hard life; they wear down. Similarly, children, contrary to some pop politico-psychology, generally grow stronger if they feel safer. Unsafe kids are scared to face the world and often never develop an inner sense of security. Trauma leaves wounds that sometimes never heal. Safe kids feel like they can brave the world, and they internalize that sense of safety that their parents model and give them.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    From my experience of growing up around people who lived through war and then repressive regime and poverty, what you describe above is very much opposite to what I have seen.

brewdad 5y ago

Well, we did have to take away the alcohol for a while. ;)