People are more surprised if you don't have a bachelor's degree nowadays, than if you do. Seems mostly everybody under 35 has one.
I think the consensus is unless it is a STEM degree and/or from an elite institution, gainful employment will be a challenge unless you have very good family name.
Black Med Student wrote:
People are more surprised if you don't have a bachelor's degree nowadays, than if you do. Seems mostly everybody under 35 has one.
I think the consensus is unless it is a STEM degree and/or from an elite institution, gainful employment will be a challenge unless you have very good family name.
Nope. A BA/BS is still something that less than a quarter of the population has. It may seem more common in your social circle, but it is far from common nationwide.
If you have a college degree you can easily find employment. It might mean moving or doing some work "beneath" you early on, but you'll be able to find something. If you can't find anything after six months, taking some welding classes at the local technical college. With your technical know-how and college smarts you'll be unstoppable.
No. Having useful skills is the new college degree.
Actually in many urban areas the high school graduation rate is less than 70%.
Black Med Student wrote:
People are more surprised if you don't have a bachelor's degree nowadays, than if you do. Seems mostly everybody under 35 has one.
I think the consensus is unless it is a STEM degree and/or from an elite institution, gainful employment will be a challenge unless you have very good family name.
Stop babbling and making idiotic assertions.
Black Med Student wrote:
People are more surprised if you don't have a bachelor's degree nowadays, than if you do. Seems mostly everybody under 35 has one.
I think the consensus is unless it is a STEM degree and/or from an elite institution, gainful employment will be a challenge unless you have very good family name.
You are exactly right.
Family connections, alumni connections from a elite institution are how you find jobs.
Its getting to be better to have a "skill" like plumbing, electrical, mechanic or welder. Those guys are always in high demand.
Yes. It's a very cost- and time-inneficient way of certifying a minimal level of intelligence and motivation. There have been longitudinal studies that have shown zero improvement in math and reading skills for high schoolers who go through college.
jamin wrote:
Yes. It's a very cost- and time-inneficient way of certifying a minimal level of intelligence and motivation. There have been longitudinal studies that have shown zero improvement in math and reading skills for high schoolers who go through college.
You get out what you put in (this is basically true of education from kindergarten on), but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily inefficient. One certainly has the option of making it a good investment.
I went to a school with ~45,000 students. At a school of that size, the "you get out what you put in" aspect is even greater. There are more opportunities available, and there is also greater opportunity to slack off. If you go to a school like this and do the bare minimum, you'll waste a lot of money. But if you are even marginally intelligent and motivated, you can participate in groundbreaking research, get multiple publications, network with leaders in your field, and do all kinds of other cool things within your four years.
The fact that some people don't make good use of the system does not mean that the system is inefficient. This is like saying that a medication is ineffective because some patients don't take it correctly.
jamin wrote:
Yes. It's a very cost- and time-inneficient way of certifying a minimal level of intelligence and motivation. There have been longitudinal studies that have shown zero improvement in math and reading skills for high schoolers who go through college.
I have to agree w/ Jamin on this. I was probably one of the best math students in my high school (class size of ~100 so nothing impressive) and my math skills are complete shit now. Did not take any math courses during college b/c I took Calc I and II in high school through the local community college. My reading and comprehension have improved slightly since high school but I reckon that is due to actually reading books for pleasure now, which I never did in high school. I wrote one paper in college and stopped reading and buying the textbooks after freshman year. I sure do know a lot of useless facts that help me answer Jeopardy questions though!
get out what you put in wrote:
The fact that some people don't make good use of the system does not mean that the system is inefficient.
The system is inherently inneficient. Even if you're in a major that directly corresponds to a career, such as Accounting or Electrical Engineering, half of the classes you take will be liberal arts requirements or other fluff. In the case of Accounting, I know they have to take an extra year's worth of credits in order to take the CPA exam. Why??? Why can't someone just study Accounting in their free time and then take the exam? It's because the purpose of the higher education system is to create barriers to entry into professions. Because professional fields are afraid of smart people becoming qualified in a single weekend, they have to set up years' worth of fluff to discourage people from entering the fields.
jamin wrote:
Why can't someone just study Accounting in their free time and then take the exam? It's because the purpose of the higher education system is to create barriers to entry into professions. Because professional fields are afraid of smart people becoming qualified in a single weekend, they have to set up years' worth of fluff to discourage people from entering the fields.
You call them barriers to entry, but I call it a vetting process. If I'm going to hire an accountant, I'd rather hire someone who took structured courses with a record of success (i.e., passing) and the documentation to prove it (i.e., a diploma) rather than someone who studied in his free time.
The guy who did it on his own may be just as knowledgeable as the one with the degree, but how is he going to prove it? The only people who bitch about barriers to entry are those who couldn't clear said barriers.
not a cpa obviously wrote:
jamin wrote:Why can't someone just study Accounting in their free time and then take the exam? It's because the purpose of the higher education system is to create barriers to entry into professions. Because professional fields are afraid of smart people becoming qualified in a single weekend, they have to set up years' worth of fluff to discourage people from entering the fields.
You call them barriers to entry, but I call it a vetting process. If I'm going to hire an accountant, I'd rather hire someone who took structured courses with a record of success (i.e., passing) and the documentation to prove it (i.e., a diploma) rather than someone who studied in his free time.
What a prick! No doubt, an Obama voter.
You're right that I wouldn't want to enter any field with high barriers to entry. I'd rather go into a field that has entry-level jobs and work my way up the food chain.
jamin wrote:
not a cpa obviously wrote:You call them barriers to entry, but I call it a vetting process. If I'm going to hire an accountant, I'd rather hire someone who took structured courses with a record of success (i.e., passing) and the documentation to prove it (i.e., a diploma) rather than someone who studied in his free time.
What a prick! No doubt, an Obama voter.
You're right that I wouldn't want to enter any field with high barriers to entry. I'd rather go into a field that has entry-level jobs and work my way up the food chain.
It's obviously working out well for you, seeing as how you constantly post about how satisfied you are with your career.
There will always be inefficiencies when educating a large number of people, just like there are inefficiencies in any complex system. You're making the mistake of looking at isolated cases (the guy who is so smart he can pass the CPA exam just by reading a book or two) and trying to extrapolate them to a large subject (the need to ensure corporate accountants are all receiving similar, comprehensive levels of education).
It's like manufacturing. A craftsman can hand-build a perfectly reliable car. But if you need to build 200,000 cars, you're going to have to make some compomises in quality if you want to produce them quickly for a reasonable amount of money.
not a cpa obviously wrote:
jamin wrote:Why can't someone just study Accounting in their free time and then take the exam? It's because the purpose of the higher education system is to create barriers to entry into professions. Because professional fields are afraid of smart people becoming qualified in a single weekend, they have to set up years' worth of fluff to discourage people from entering the fields.
You call them barriers to entry, but I call it a vetting process. If I'm going to hire an accountant, I'd rather hire someone who took structured courses with a record of success (i.e., passing) and the documentation to prove it (i.e., a diploma) rather than someone who studied in his free time.
The guy who did it on his own may be just as knowledgeable as the one with the degree, but how is he going to prove it? The only people who bitch about barriers to entry are those who couldn't clear said barriers.
By passing the CPA exams....
Let's be honest, once college is free, it will be the new high school.
College is an artificial barrier to entry in most careers, grad school is even more of a joke in many careers. It only works because it is exclusive. The Ivy League colleges could double their enrollment and still fill up with overqualified applicants and provide them with a quality education. But it would ruin their exclusive brand.
Liberals subscribe to two contradictory philosophies about education:
1) that education is an important investment in the work force, therefore we need more of it
2) that education is important even though 90% of it doesn't train you to do your job - it's about being an 'informed, well rounded citizen'
If #1 were true we wouldn't think going $100+K into debt for a liberal arts degree is an okay idea. If #2 then let's be happy we spend more than any other nation on higher education and stop acting surprised when it doesn't lead to better workers.
Ten years ago it was taboo to question the value of a home, because being a homeowner is such a necessity to financial stability - look how that turned out. Now it is taboo to question the value of education. Can't have it both way libs.
never wanted college wrote:
No. Having useful skills is the new college degree.
This. Around here (rural area), the guys that have made the most money since high school (almost twenty years ago) are, on the aggregate, the ones who studied and got a job in the trades, like electrician, pipefitter, auto body work, etc. The guys with the degrees are doing okay, but are/were saddled with massive college debt.
I have no problem with STEM and I will encourage my kids to go that route, but I was an English Major and even though it is often used as a joke around these parts, I feel like it really set me up for a solid career. I have worked in marketing research for years and worked my way up the food chain from a copywriter to CMO. I truly feel like my time in college as an English Major provided me with a higher level of analytical skills than most of my colleagues. I may have just been lucky.
I audited some MBA classes recently to see if I wanted to get my advanced degree, but I decided that I would wait until retirement and choose another field that was more interesting to me on a personal level: History, Literary Studies, etc.
I think that once you have reached a level where you are competent in whatever field you choose, it is up to yourself to make your own way. Obviously, the level of competence is going to vary depending on the career you choose, but that is up to each individual...
College is honestly what you make of it. We have way too many MBAs and JDs right now. The degrees are watered down. Almost all of the ACC schools (I see a good deal of candidates from solid ACC schools) offer an online MBA at this point. You now need more to differentiate yourself.
Bringing it back to the OP: It depends on your immediate circle of friends, colleagues, etc.
Most plumbers and electricians make way more than the average person with a BS. And, they are never out of work, unless they want to be.
I agree wrote:
Most plumbers and electricians make way more than the average person with a BS. And, they are never out of work, unless they want to be.
Pay and availability of work are two important factors, but enjoyment of work is also an important consideration. I spent my summers doing the physical labor involved in rehabbing houses and apartments when I was in undergrad. Now that I've worked on the finance and project management side of real estate development for a while, I can say that I'd rather be a developer than an electrician even if the two jobs paid the same. It was worth the cost of tuition just to get into a career that excites me.
Sure, work will always be available for the trades guys, but when I visit a project site and see guys who do nothing but put tiles into place 8+ hours per day or whose job is to make the exact same wiring fix in 140 apartments, it makes me damn glad I spent that tuition money.