Corrections are welcome. I'm aware this has probably been mentioned before. I'll post mainly Canadian statistics because I'm Canadian. The same probably applies to the U.S and G.B, and maybe Australia.
The standards for many white-collar jobs has semi-recently risen from a High School Diploma to a Bachelor Degree. This forces many of those who are looking to get into a white-collar job to go to University for 4 years in order to obtain a degree in an often unrelated field[1], spending approximately $24, 000(or more, up to $60, 000 in Canada, $100, 000 in the U.S) PLUS government subsidies. This does not include the other costs(food, shelter, entertainment, etc.) and lost work from the 4 extra years of schooling. While this clearly does not have a beneficial effect on the economy, there is another less obvious negative effect:
children often come out of this education system with no self-sufficiency at all.
There is no way that a teenager will have made enough money from their birth until heading into University to even be able to afford tuition by themselves, let alone the additional costs. This forces these teenagers to be entirely dependant upon their guardians if they hope to get through University at a normal pace. In some cases the teenagers move out of their parents house in order to attend University, learning to shop for their groceries, cook(poorly, but they do learn it), clean after themselves, etc. However, in many cases these children live at home in order to reduce costs or are put in a living situation where almost everything is taken care of for them. "This is great!" many would say. "They get to learn in a stress-free environment, and they can focus solely on their education."
The majority of time spent at University is not actually spent in class[2]. Instead, these children are given free reign to run around for 4 years with little to no responsibility. 4 years of potentially teaching children the basics of responsibility are wasted through sloth. We are left with the products of 4 years of formal education with no self-sufficiency - young adults who think they know much, but are completely unprepared to enter the normal working world.
We are left with people like StateOfReverie, who is under the impression that he is a mature, fully functioning adult, when he is reliant entirely upon his parents supplying him money for his drug habit and material wants(not needs). We are left with people like my brother, who is literally incapable of doing anything to improve his situation, only doing so when my mother's nagging gets to be too much. We are left with people like my room mate, who has never had a job in his life, and is 100% unable to begin to provide for himself.
I think we should change up the work/education dynamics of society. Instead of having to learn general bullshit that will be mostly useless in a chosen career, we should have kids able to start education in a career, when they choose, by actually working in the environments they would be ten-fifteen years down the line in today's society, and being taught by people actually doing the work the career would entail. Let them start working a few hours a week when they turn 13 or something, and progressively let them have more hours as they age up to 16-18.
This way, they will have more financial experience, more work experience, and more educational experience than today's society when they turn 18.
It just means that current civilization is in decline. When the aggregate incompetence becomes too much, there will be a few decades of turmoil, then mankind reverts back to an older time when survival itself depends on a person's hard work. Not that it would comfort anyone living now though
Eh, lifespans are increasing in general, all the stages of life are lengthening a bit at least in the wealthy to semi-wealthy. More dependent on parents/parents money for a few more years. Retirement ages are increasing/going to increase because it's not sustainable as it is now so the workforce time will stretch a bit, and old age is increasing cause people are living longer. The gaps between generations are getting longer (so more time is focused on each kid), and have gotten longer as standard of living has increased since industrialization. And the more countries that get more developed, the more these trends will apply to them too. Lower birth rate is another one that goes with longer generation gaps.
My families been poor enough that I've had a part time job all through college, dunno if that's enough of a taste of the "real" world to make a difference though.
You left out trade schools. We will still need welders, plumbers, and metalworkers for quite a ways into the future, and yet all people talk about is going to a 4 year school and getting a degree. We have plenty of people already who have them, the labor shortages in the future will probably be from manual labor trades. Some high schools are already teaching this but it should be an option for all students. Not everyone wants to have their faces shoved in textbooks all day, they should have more options.
On topic I guess, most people in their younger 20s are more dependant then the previous generation. Back then colleges were more affordable, jobs more plentiful, job benefits better etc. Even if you have a degree nowdays, you still get shafted. You take jobs that require too much and give too little in return.
Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs actually did a talk about this awhile ago, about how the trade jobs are disappearing.
lol i dont know whether there's some history between you two but calling other users out like that is a really poor move and makes you look like a jerk.
yeah man, i'm 20 years old and my family recently lost all our money forcing me to drop out because i still somehow don't qualify for gov't aid and i prob won't be able to ever afford school
We are left with people like StateOfReverie, who is under the impression that he is a mature, fully functioning adult, when he is reliant entirely upon his parents supplying him money for his drug habit and material wants(not needs). We are left with people like my brother, who is literally incapable of doing anything to improve his situation, only doing so when my mother's nagging gets to be too much. We are left with people like my room mate, who has never had a job in his life, and is 100% unable to begin to provide for himself.
I like how you use my name in reference to your blog about creating "22 year old children". I am 18, so I guess your close enough, legal drinking age in the U.S. is 21 though, but I mean 18-22 year olds are all pretty much the same right?
There is a lot of fundamental values that are no longer taught in American education systems. The whole purpose of the whole education spectrum is to be able to study in a specific area of interest so that you can enter society as a fully functional adult who pays their taxes on times and supports the economy by buying things.
What I don't understand is why the education system doesn't address successful money management. If this were such an important concept, then why hasn't the U.S. government implemented new changes? It mainly has to do with how there is not really a national "standard" apart from SAT tests as a basis of measuring progress in different school systems across the country. It is harder to macro manage such a large system and there is no doubt that we have a flawed educational system, it is just still unclear how it will be solved with budget cuts and national debt ever so increasing.
You obviously state the large problem at hand in a very simplified view. Let's bring up what self-sufficient really means.
"Self-sufficiency is the state of not requiring any aid, support, or interaction, for survival; it is therefore a type of personal or collective autonomy"
that's wikipedia definition of self-sufficiency. If someone doesn't go to university, the obvious benefits are that they can immediately start working and start managing their money from a small scale with little responsibilities. As you make more money (attain a higher position), you gain more responsibilities hence is how the corporate ladder works.
The benefits of me living in a college-dorm settings are pretty numerous
-exposure to a large amount of people
-living by myself (yes I do all my cleaning and laundry)
- cooking. I don't need to know how to cook now, but when I am a junior/senior I will learn how to cook. And I am not going to be a mediocre cook, contrary to popular belief that doing something new makes you automatically bad at it.
-Money management - I only rely on my parents for living expenses such as laundry, food, and cleaning supplies. I think you fail to realize that you can be a successful pothead. I get this all the time, people saying negative things about this, but WHERE DO YOU GET THE RIGHT TO JUDGE SOMEONE?
Do you treat people differently because they are gay, or because they do drugs? Also, if you wanted to fix this problem, just put everyone in the ghetto and make them become hustlers. Do you know why so many poor people do it? Because it's a good paying job that lets them STAY ALIVE and have access to a life otherwise not available from other means.
whos "we" too? Is that just referring to all the "people who live in the real world"? That's a pretty derrogative term, referring to you and whoever "we" represents as the inner group
On December 03 2012 14:14 WarSame wrote: Corrections are welcome. I'm aware this has probably been mentioned before. I'll post mainly Canadian statistics because I'm Canadian. The same probably applies to the U.S and G.B, and maybe Australia.
I'm not going to say this is a correction, as I am obviously not a responsible adult, or even an adult for the most part, but I kind of find it humorous that you mention Canada, the U.S., G.B., and Australia.
Unemployment rate in the "real world" like Spain was almost at 25% in general, and a lot higher numbers for young people similar to this age bracket. That is almost an entire generation of people that are affected by a major economic crisis. If "we" are creating 22 year old children in the states you mentioned, what the fuck is going on in places like Spain and Greece? I guess we can just call them "little spartans" or something instead of children because they are going through a "real world experience" right? right?
Also, I am just going to go out on a limb here and say that you are not really aware of how the economy works if you can say
On December 03 2012 14:14 WarSame wrote: Corrections are welcome. I'm aware this has probably been mentioned before. I'll post mainly Canadian statistics because I'm Canadian. The same probably applies to the U.S and G.B, and maybe Australia.
The standards for many white-collar jobs has semi-recently risen from a High School Diploma to a Bachelor Degree. This forces many of those who are looking to get into a white-collar job to go to University for 4 years in order to obtain a degree in an often unrelated field[1], spending approximately $24, 000(or more, up to $60, 000 in Canada, $100, 000 in the U.S) PLUS government subsidies. This does not include the other costs(food, shelter, entertainment, etc.) and lost work from the 4 extra years of schooling. While this clearly does not have a beneficial effect on the economy, there is another less obvious negative effect:
children often come out of this education system with no self-sufficiency at all.
WHAT? WHAT? CLEARLY DOES NOT HAVE A BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY? I had to use all caps there because I have to emphasize what a terribly mis use of words, I guess someone was not introduced macro economics. (I think it falls under that category, I wouldn't know because I don't know anything really though
another edit: also approximately 24,000 over 4 years? You aren't really clear here because some colleges and universities tuition can be more than 24,000 a year but there are also places that will only cost you 24,000 over 4 years because of how inexpensive they are
WHAT? WHAT? CLEARLY DOES NOT HAVE A BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY? I had to use all caps there because I have to emphasize what a terribly mis use of words, I guess someone was not introduced macro economics. (I think it falls under that category, I wouldn't know because I don't know anything really though
From my limited economic experience, I was under the impression that money moving around the system (full time work) was better for the economy than low income students...
WHAT? WHAT? CLEARLY DOES NOT HAVE A BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY? I had to use all caps there because I have to emphasize what a terribly mis use of words, I guess someone was not introduced macro economics. (I think it falls under that category, I wouldn't know because I don't know anything really though
From my limited economic experience, I was under the impression that money moving around the system (full time work) was better for the economy than low income students...
there are so many things that influence a teenagers quality of life during their period in college/university. The majority of things that are bought for this period of life effects the economy in a positive way. The upper middle-class and the upper class based students are also accustomed to a higher quality of life, thereby using a higher amount of money to sustain that higher quality of life.
also full time work is a very broad definition. there are low income full-time workers all the way up to the 8 figures for full-time workers. Also when you say "the system", what are you referring to that as? and what aspects of the economy?
WHAT? WHAT? CLEARLY DOES NOT HAVE A BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY? I had to use all caps there because I have to emphasize what a terribly mis use of words, I guess someone was not introduced macro economics. (I think it falls under that category, I wouldn't know because I don't know anything really though
From my limited economic experience, I was under the impression that money moving around the system (full time work) was better for the economy than low income students...
there are so many things that influence a teenagers quality of life during their period in college/university. The majority of things that are bought for this period of life effects the economy in a positive way. The upper middle-class and the upper class based students are also accustomed to a higher quality of life, thereby using a higher amount of money to sustain that higher quality of life.
also full time work is a very broad definition. there are low income full-time workers all the way up to the 8 figures for full-time workers. Also when you say "the system", what are you referring to that as? and what aspects of the economy?
I'm confused, WarSame made a point that we are effectively creating humans that spend 4 years doing very little because we have made it harder to get white collar jobs. I'm not from the US but I interpret white collar jobs to be management positions and office work.
Believe it or not I am one of those people, I went to university for 3 years and during that time, didnt pay much tax at all. During this time I was still doing what normal students do, using doctors, free public transport, libraries etc without paying a penny.
Fast forward a few years and now I pay near enough £1000 a month in tax. I think what WarSame was getting at is that we are creating this artifical stopgap where people could be working and putting money back into 'the system' (see link) but instead, we are effectively forcing people to dick around for 3 years.
It's quite clear that someone who earns very little (students) also pay very little tax is a drain on the system, not even considering the bursaries and government spending to support low income families *edit* I meant low income families that send their children to university, which is effectively paid for by the people in the UK.
I live in New Zealand, so the situation is probably somewhat different, and my upbringing was not entirely standard. With that in mind, my parents aren't paying for my education. While there is a significant government subsidy (which I will end up paying for through taxes later on in life), I have had to raise the money myself over the last two years to be able to go to university. And these two years have changed me from a child into a man. I entirely agree with you that parents spoil their children. I think the schooling system affects it a lot as well. Most children are taught by teachers who are largely female, and don't have to deal with grumpy old men. They aren't forced to grow up nearly as quickly as you are when you're in the work force, where all your bosses are likely to be grumpy old men who demand perfection, and all the managers are the same. And you don't have to deal with authority the way you do in the real world. So yeah, in conclusion, the education system as a whole is like an entirely separate world from what really goes on, and people often remain children mentally until they leave the education system.
WHAT? WHAT? CLEARLY DOES NOT HAVE A BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY? I had to use all caps there because I have to emphasize what a terribly mis use of words, I guess someone was not introduced macro economics. (I think it falls under that category, I wouldn't know because I don't know anything really though
From my limited economic experience, I was under the impression that money moving around the system (full time work) was better for the economy than low income students...
there are so many things that influence a teenagers quality of life during their period in college/university. The majority of things that are bought for this period of life effects the economy in a positive way. The upper middle-class and the upper class based students are also accustomed to a higher quality of life, thereby using a higher amount of money to sustain that higher quality of life.
also full time work is a very broad definition. there are low income full-time workers all the way up to the 8 figures for full-time workers. Also when you say "the system", what are you referring to that as? and what aspects of the economy?
I'm confused, WarSame made a point that we are effectively creating humans that spend 4 years doing very little because we have made it harder to get white collar jobs. I'm not from the US but I interpret white collar jobs to be management positions and office work.
Believe it or not I am one of those people, I went to university for 3 years and during that time, didnt pay much tax at all. During this time I was still doing what normal students do, using doctors, free public transport, libraries etc without paying a penny.
Fast forward a few years and now I pay near enough £1000 a month in tax. I think what WarSame was getting at is that we are creating this artifical stopgap where people could be working and putting money back into 'the system' (see link) but instead, we are effectively forcing people to dick around for 3 years.
It's quite clear that someone who earns very little (students) also pay very little tax is a drain on the system, not even considering the bursaries and government spending to support low income families *edit* I meant low income families that send their children to university, which is effectively paid for by the people in the UK.
The amount of students who are in this position accounts for less than 5% of the entire workforce, all of which contribute to the economy.
So than you are saying, after your 3 years at a university, you essentially wasted your time there?
My point is, that 5% should probably more like 2%, we have inflated the need for a degree.
What i learned in 3 years at uni, i could have learned in about 6 months of doing the job i went to uni to get. I went in as an immature know it all 18 year old and came out an immature know it all 22 year old. Then i learned how to do a job and my maturity increased tenfold. Imho, we should support more vocational training instead of encouraging degrees.
I got a good degree too, the majority of my friends didnt complete degrees and spent the whole time smoking weed, sound familiar? I didnt waste my time beacuse of my own laziness, i wasted my time because i had to do the three years to get where i wanted to be when it should be encouraged for people to work earlier.
Full time education is by no means challenging or time consuming.
I really don't know whether this 4 year university education becoming the standard is bad for the economy or not. Yes a ton of these university-educated people don't use the stuff they learnt there on their jobs, so the education doesn't increase their productivity. But if they didn't go to university they would go straight onto the job market, and the thing is that the supply of jobs in many countries is already not quite enough as it is, with automation and what not we don't need as many workers as the past. In a way the 4 years of university is soaking up unemployment.
Why would you use a guy right out of high school you hardly know as an example of a university student who learned nothing?
I think you've really stretched to say people learn no skills in university or are put under no pressure. I didn't know many people in university who did not have a job as the same time. I didn't know many people who weren't hungry for independence from their parents either. It's not fun to have to rely on one's parents, it makes you feel like you can't survive on your own. But this is the state of our depressing economy. You have to volunteer for a million hours, have great grades and work experience to even think about getting a normal job. Unless you are some lucky idiot who happens to know the right person.
I don't know whether your graduated university or not, or whether you're still in high school, but this has all the persuasiveness of the grade 9 essays I have to mark. OK good, you did a tiny bit of research to support your claims. The problem is they don't support them very well, and your opinion is controversial enough that it really needs a lot. I'd give it a B if you were a kid, but 40% for an adult because it shows a lack of critical thinking. All you're doing is pointing to a random fact whether it really supports what you're saying or not, and then saying the opinion you had before you found the fact. Ok, you found evidence of how much money it costs and how old people are when they leave university. What does that have to do with what they've learned? The majority of the time is not spent in class? Well, 15 hours a week normally. + transit. + homework. Depending on your degree, that can be a lot of homework. Depending on if you care about GPA and want a job, it doesn't even matter what your degree is because you need to do better than everyone else in your degree. It's way more work than you think, certainly much more than I'd ask from any high school student.
edit: actually you didn't even use your first source properly. You reference it (an online newpaper article, a terrible source by the way) to say that graduates are going in unrelated fields for white collar jobs. That's not what the graph in your link is saying -.- It is saying EVEN with an education, those people under 30 have no yet found work related to their skills, so they're working a grocery stores and stuff (I guess some of that could be called white collar, but a lot of it is manual labour). So wow, what a bunch of 22 year old children we have that can't find good work, don't they have it easy! Basically people working the same job they had during university zz And you are trying to say the problem is we aren't teaching them any life skills! Well welcome to the reality of Canada, it's not education that is the problem...
There is this joke in business school: You need experience to get job, You need job for experience.
But the truth is, you also need a certificate, minimal degree, to even consider working in a company.
Sure we have people like me who just want to pass and get the paper to get into the labour force, but university is also a great time to expand your connections and learning. university is much more than just trying to get a paper
WHAT? WHAT? CLEARLY DOES NOT HAVE A BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY? I had to use all caps there because I have to emphasize what a terribly mis use of words, I guess someone was not introduced macro economics. (I think it falls under that category, I wouldn't know because I don't know anything really though
From my limited economic experience, I was under the impression that money moving around the system (full time work) was better for the economy than low income students...
This is horrible logic. By this logic, we should never educate anyone and just make people work and pay taxes as soon as they are physically able. From an economic standpoint, education improves production and output later on in life. It's a trade-off between some production starting right away or a lot of production starting a little later. Furthermore, those that say that they learned nothing at college and didn't need to work hard are quite naive. This is only the case if
1) You went to a terrible school (and will get a crappy job because of this) 2) You Didn't graduate 3) You don't understand the benefits of a college degree.
If your future is in some kind of management, your bachelor's isn't simply about learning "how to manage". College isn't a trade school. You learn how to network, how to interact with professional peers and superiors in an adult setting, your writing, speaking, and analytic skills improve significantly (especially if you get a degree in the humanities). There are a large number of less tangible benefits that are also far more beneficial than "I learned how to do X procedure".
On December 03 2012 15:27 Enki wrote: You left out trade schools. We will still need welders, plumbers, and metalworkers for quite a ways into the future, and yet all people talk about is going to a 4 year school and getting a degree. We have plenty of people already who have them, the labor shortages in the future will probably be from manual labor trades. Some high schools are already teaching this but it should be an option for all students. Not everyone wants to have their faces shoved in textbooks all day, they should have more options.
This is very relevant. Not everyone needs to go to college, and not everyone should go to college. A good chunk of my students, while I'm sure they're lovely people, are wasting everyone's time by getting a four-year liberal arts degree. I don't know why there's such a social stigma in the US against going to trade schools, but they are a fantastic opportunity.
For most jobs, a college education is only indirectly (if at all) useful: + Show Spoiler +
And as a result of everyone going to college unecessarily, an undergraduate degree is a meaningless minimum expectation: + Show Spoiler +
Great link by Enki. For those who did not watch, the video is about a dude from the show "dirty jobs" which is a show that films him learning as an apprentice how to do jobs that most people would really not want to do.
In his speech he tells the story of a very memorable dirty job he had castrating sheep. It illustrates how in the first world, the mentality the culture teaches us to bring to work place is misguided.
You see, he learned through research that the most efficient and humaine way to castrate the sheep was to use an elastic band to (i extrapolate) constrict blood flow to the animal's testicles. When he gets to the job, the man who castrates sheep for a living has a different method. He uses his teeth to grip the scrotum and pull the testicles off. The guy from dirty jobs is like "no, we can't do that; it's inhumaine. we should do it with the elastic bands."
It turns out the elastic bands actually fuck up the lamb and make it suffer for a week, while the teeth method actually causes minimal suffering. What we learn from this is that our ideals of proper work are fallible. Maybe safety first and excuse from hardship are not the right mentality to approach work with. That is however, what we are currently doing.
So basically hes saying "work is not about following your passion. It is about actually learning what WORKS"
One idea I want to bring to the table is that many of us seem hooked on "instant gratification." Early on we learned that some really nice things come somewhat easily. Is is possible to shake that addiction? Kids get addicted to good cooking, good cleaning and lack of responsibility. They can only escape it for so long.
The main message I would send to these people (myself included) is stop being a pussy and thinking that your intellect and your reasoning is the answer for everything life has.
Great rant, I didn't laugh, but I often enjoy reading a more cynic view of young adults (including about myself). Your brother sounds exactly like mine.
On December 04 2012 00:27 Shady Sands wrote: Wouldn't you rather have a society of children than a society of adults though? Kids are so easy to lie to and boss around
They're more playful and funny and actually have fun too
On December 04 2012 00:41 Gene wrote: the assumption that a person born into money being handed everything causes them to have any weaker a character or less responsibility is abhorrent. the apparent disrespect for them is misplaced and rude. while there is a point under the unnecessary over generalization, you're doing well off people an injustice. wealth, especially not the upper middle class wealth you are seemingly targeting, does not make people irresponsible.
your write up explicitly attacks irresponsibility indiscriminately while you cite sources and takes a drastic turn when you let your judgement do the talking.
I agree with you but I think your response is more related to your own interpretation than to the actual text. In my reading, the piece is not about wealth or lack of wealth. It is about how university is often just a refuge from the real responsibilities that most adults will eventually face.
that is what I intend to say when separating out his first few paragraphs from his last. his attack on SoR is simply an attack on his (parents') perceived wealth.
I guess it is just a one sentence flippant afterthought. tainted the rest for me when I read it again.
I hate how labor jobs are stigmatized. It's so stupid. We have these people right here rebuilding our bathroom and I look at that and I am just amazed about how they have a ton of knowledge about a lot of shit, electricity, pipelines, etc. How am I any smarter than these people?Why aren't these people paid more? Why are some people paid 10 times as much because they can make a good powerpoint presentation and give a good speech. Weird.
I'm a Canadian university student who paid his own way through university and made it through with minimal debt (<$500) even with very little government subsidies and an expensive trip to Asia this past summer. I'm graduating in a few weeks and have a decently paying job lined up in the field of my study. The majority of my free time is spent taking online courses to further my knowledge. While not everyone will fit all the same criteria, if you give a damn about school, you'll be able to achieve many of these things.
WHAT? WHAT? CLEARLY DOES NOT HAVE A BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY? I had to use all caps there because I have to emphasize what a terribly mis use of words, I guess someone was not introduced macro economics. (I think it falls under that category, I wouldn't know because I don't know anything really though
From my limited economic experience, I was under the impression that money moving around the system (full time work) was better for the economy than low income students...
This is horrible logic. By this logic, we should never educate anyone and just make people work and pay taxes as soon as they are physically able.
Half of the people in university right now don't need to be there.
Society should either call it what it is (an extension of high school) or actually make university exclusive and prestigious again.
@infinity21: I also am a Canadian graduate who worked his way through university and came out with no debt. That doesn't make what the OP says less true.
On December 04 2012 01:01 infinity21 wrote: I'm a Canadian university student who paid his own way through university and made it through with minimal debt (<$500) even with very little government subsidies and an expensive trip to Asia this past summer. I'm graduating in a few weeks and have a decently paying job lined up in the field of my study. The majority of my free time is spent taking online courses to further my knowledge. While not everyone will fit all the same criteria, if you give a damn about school, you'll be able to achieve many of these things.
I think you might be a minority or taking a degree involving computers lol..
I guess there are tonnes and tonnes of Psychology undergrads just coasting by writing multiple choice tests that might make up a large portion of the statistic of BA's working jobs that aren't suited to their education. If you were sensible or well advised when you were 16-18, you might have planned your life a little better and gotten a degree in a field that has demand for workers.
Of course there is also the factor that more people are getting degrees than ever before, thinking it is the only way to any kind of success in life. But I think that the education is valuable, so I wouldn't say it is a bad thing more people are being educated even if they don't all necessarily work a high paying job. The crux is that because you saved up so much money to pay for your education, you really want some monetary payback than just 'oh I am better informed in this area now.' The hope of all people who send their kids to university and the university students themselves is that they will have a more prosperous future. University really needs to cost a little less considering it doesn't get you as far anymore.
Spent two years working in the Army before university, don't skip classes, manage my own money, etc. I disagree with your stereotypes, basically, and your use of them (an inaccurate one too, SoR is a freshman, not a graduate) to build your conclusion.
On December 04 2012 01:27 QuanticHawk wrote: 5 starred for the SOR reference
Also, let me ride this negative wave along -
Shitty kids with sub-par intelligence go to generic shitty programs and donate heaps of money to the university so that the university can give grants/bursaries/scholarships to the students that are actually worthy of them. Wait, let me clarify, shitty kids donate their parent's money. Sometimes it's the parents who over-evaluate their kid and force them into a program which they are clearly not suited for (e.g. Asians in life science), but that's a debate for another day.
Those that are jobless and lost should first drop the attitude down a few notches, put real effort into self-development, and start making connections with people that can give them the edge that others don't deserve.
*edit: also, for the fellow Canadians in this thread: I am a U of T graduate (engineer), came out with some OSAP debt, done paying it off as of two days ago. Hurray!
i like that we are acting like this is all completely outside of the control of these "22 year old children", as if they aren't allowed to do anything for themselves until after they graduate
I'm going to try to answer most of the replies in this post. This is gonna be a long one.
On December 03 2012 14:38 DigiGnar wrote: I think we should change up the work/education dynamics of society. Instead of having to learn general bullshit that will be mostly useless in a chosen career, we should have kids able to start education in a career, when they choose, by actually working in the environments they would be ten-fifteen years down the line in today's society, and being taught by people actually doing the work the career would entail. Let them start working a few hours a week when they turn 13 or something, and progressively let them have more hours as they age up to 16-18.
This way, they will have more financial experience, more work experience, and more educational experience than today's society when they turn 18.
Something along those lines.
Co-ops(placement work) definitely would be one way to approach the problem. For the most part it would work pretty well, but I think there is a problem in getting the kids started on their careers when they are 13 or so. Many of the kids that went to High School with me still had no idea what type of career they wanted by the time they graduated, at 17 or 18 years old. 13 year olds would have even less of a clue. They'd have to make it pretty easy to switch careers or something.
On December 03 2012 14:52 ZapRoffo wrote: Eh, lifespans are increasing in general, all the stages of life are lengthening a bit at least in the wealthy to semi-wealthy. More dependent on parents/parents money for a few more years. Retirement ages are increasing/going to increase because it's not sustainable as it is now so the workforce time will stretch a bit, and old age is increasing cause people are living longer. The gaps between generations are getting longer (so more time is focused on each kid), and have gotten longer as standard of living has increased since industrialization. And the more countries that get more developed, the more these trends will apply to them too. Lower birth rate is another one that goes with longer generation gaps.
It's just continuing demographic trends.
That definitely is an interesting way to look at it, and I think you are right. However, this doesn't mean that we should be fine with 4 years going down the tube unnecessarily.
On December 03 2012 15:27 Enki wrote: You left out trade schools. We will still need welders, plumbers, and metalworkers for quite a ways into the future, and yet all people talk about is going to a 4 year school and getting a degree. We have plenty of people already who have them, the labor shortages in the future will probably be from manual labor trades. Some high schools are already teaching this but it should be an option for all students. Not everyone wants to have their faces shoved in textbooks all day, they should have more options.
On topic I guess, most people in their younger 20s are more dependant then the previous generation. Back then colleges were more affordable, jobs more plentiful, job benefits better etc. Even if you have a degree nowdays, you still get shafted. You take jobs that require too much and give too little in return.
To be honest, I know almost nothing about trade schools so I am not qualified to talk about it haha. You make good points, though.
On December 03 2012 15:48 Harrad wrote: lol i dont know whether there's some history between you two but calling other users out like that is a really poor move and makes you look like a jerk.
There's a bit of history, but SoR and I normally get along pretty well. I respect him for his honesty, among other things. I just felt that he would be a good example because most of the people in the Blog section know him, so it would make the point a bit more clearly than my 2 other examples. I probably shouldn't have used him as an example because it distracts from the main point of the post, and because he is only in his first year.
On December 03 2012 16:43 CecilSunkure wrote: Though the blog was pretty funny, still bugs me a bit. I spend a lot of time working and don't really appreciate the stereotypes :/
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to stereotype it. I tried to just show that in many cases this is what happens. I probably poorly worded what I was getting at.
On December 03 2012 17:13 StateofReverie wrote: I like how you use my name in reference to your blog about creating "22 year old children". I am 18, so I guess your close enough, legal drinking age in the U.S. is 21 though, but I mean 18-22 year olds are all pretty much the same right?
There is a lot of fundamental values that are no longer taught in American education systems. The whole purpose of the whole education spectrum is to be able to study in a specific area of interest so that you can enter society as a fully functional adult who pays their taxes on times and supports the economy by buying things.
What I don't understand is why the education system doesn't address successful money management. If this were such an important concept, then why hasn't the U.S. government implemented new changes? It mainly has to do with how there is not really a national "standard" apart from SAT tests as a basis of measuring progress in different school systems across the country. It is harder to macro manage such a large system and there is no doubt that we have a flawed educational system, it is just still unclear how it will be solved with budget cuts and national debt ever so increasing.
You are right that you are below the age I pointed out, so this doesn't apply perfectly to you. I used you as an example because many people on here know you.
I don't think the government should be forced to address successful money management. At some point people need to stop relying on a nanny-state to look after them.
You obviously state the large problem at hand in a very simplified view. Let's bring up what self-sufficient really means.
"Self-sufficiency is the state of not requiring any aid, support, or interaction, for survival; it is therefore a type of personal or collective autonomy"
that's wikipedia definition of self-sufficiency. If someone doesn't go to university, the obvious benefits are that they can immediately start working and start managing their money from a small scale with little responsibilities. As you make more money (attain a higher position), you gain more responsibilities hence is how the corporate ladder works.
The benefits of me living in a college-dorm settings are pretty numerous
-exposure to a large amount of people
-living by myself (yes I do all my cleaning and laundry)
- cooking. I don't need to know how to cook now, but when I am a junior/senior I will learn how to cook. And I am not going to be a mediocre cook, contrary to popular belief that doing something new makes you automatically bad at it.
-Money management - I only rely on my parents for living expenses such as laundry, food, and cleaning supplies. I think you fail to realize that you can be a successful pothead. I get this all the time, people saying negative things about this, but WHERE DO YOU GET THE RIGHT TO JUDGE SOMEONE?
To be honest, if it weren't for government subsidies I suppose I wouldn't really care about the people who waste 2 or 3 years before dropping out of a degree.
Do you treat people differently because they are gay, or because they do drugs? Also, if you wanted to fix this problem, just put everyone in the ghetto and make them become hustlers. Do you know why so many poor people do it? Because it's a good paying job that lets them STAY ALIVE and have access to a life otherwise not available from other means.
I don't view gay people differently, but I look down on people wasting their lives on drugs. You can enjoy them without getting ruined by them.
whos "we" too? Is that just referring to all the "people who live in the real world"? That's a pretty derrogative term, referring to you and whoever "we" represents as the inner group
On December 03 2012 14:14 WarSame wrote: Corrections are welcome. I'm aware this has probably been mentioned before. I'll post mainly Canadian statistics because I'm Canadian. The same probably applies to the U.S and G.B, and maybe Australia.
I'm not going to say this is a correction, as I am obviously not a responsible adult, or even an adult for the most part, but I kind of find it humorous that you mention Canada, the U.S., G.B., and Australia.
Unemployment rate in the "real world" like Spain was almost at 25% in general, and a lot higher numbers for young people similar to this age bracket. That is almost an entire generation of people that are affected by a major economic crisis. If "we" are creating 22 year old children in the states you mentioned, what the fuck is going on in places like Spain and Greece? I guess we can just call them "little spartans" or something instead of children because they are going through a "real world experience" right? right?
That is because those countries are pretty similar in terms of education, whereas I don't know about the other countries education systems.
Also, I am just going to go out on a limb here and say that you are not really aware of how the economy works if you can say
On December 03 2012 14:14 WarSame wrote: Corrections are welcome. I'm aware this has probably been mentioned before. I'll post mainly Canadian statistics because I'm Canadian. The same probably applies to the U.S and G.B, and maybe Australia.
The standards for many white-collar jobs has semi-recently risen from a High School Diploma to a Bachelor Degree. This forces many of those who are looking to get into a white-collar job to go to University for 4 years in order to obtain a degree in an often unrelated field[1], spending approximately $24, 000(or more, up to $60, 000 in Canada, $100, 000 in the U.S) PLUS government subsidies. This does not include the other costs(food, shelter, entertainment, etc.) and lost work from the 4 extra years of schooling. While this clearly does not have a beneficial effect on the economy, there is another less obvious negative effect:
children often come out of this education system with no self-sufficiency at all.
WHAT? WHAT? CLEARLY DOES NOT HAVE A BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY? I had to use all caps there because I have to emphasize what a terribly mis use of words, I guess someone was not introduced macro economics. (I think it falls under that category, I wouldn't know because I don't know anything really though
another edit: also approximately 24,000 over 4 years? You aren't really clear here because some colleges and universities tuition can be more than 24,000 a year but there are also places that will only cost you 24,000 over 4 years because of how inexpensive they are
Shottaz covered this pretty well. It's better for the economy to have workers than students. Obviously you do need University education for some work, but one of the points of this whole blog has been that degrees are required more than they are useful.
Yes, the cost I posted is anywhere from 24, 000 to 100, 000.
Shottaz's posts explain what I was getting at, except more clearly.
On December 03 2012 18:47 Birdie wrote: I live in New Zealand, so the situation is probably somewhat different, and my upbringing was not entirely standard. With that in mind, my parents aren't paying for my education. While there is a significant government subsidy (which I will end up paying for through taxes later on in life), I have had to raise the money myself over the last two years to be able to go to university. And these two years have changed me from a child into a man. I entirely agree with you that parents spoil their children. I think the schooling system affects it a lot as well. Most children are taught by teachers who are largely female, and don't have to deal with grumpy old men. They aren't forced to grow up nearly as quickly as you are when you're in the work force, where all your bosses are likely to be grumpy old men who demand perfection, and all the managers are the same. And you don't have to deal with authority the way you do in the real world. So yeah, in conclusion, the education system as a whole is like an entirely separate world from what really goes on, and people often remain children mentally until they leave the education system.
Thank you, this is part of the point I was trying to make. There is quite a disconnect between education and work.
On December 03 2012 21:12 targ wrote: I really don't know whether this 4 year university education becoming the standard is bad for the economy or not. Yes a ton of these university-educated people don't use the stuff they learnt there on their jobs, so the education doesn't increase their productivity. But if they didn't go to university they would go straight onto the job market, and the thing is that the supply of jobs in many countries is already not quite enough as it is, with automation and what not we don't need as many workers as the past. In a way the 4 years of university is soaking up unemployment.
Good point, but I don't think those 4 years of delay to allow for more jobs to open up are worth the the waste of time and money in many of these 4 year degrees.
There's a pipe dream I had about a Utopia which is that once we reach a certain level of automation the only jobs left would be looking after the automatons, freeing up everyone else to do whatever they like.
On December 03 2012 21:42 Chef wrote: Why would you use a guy right out of high school you hardly know as an example of a university student who learned nothing?
I covered this in earlier replies, it was not the best choice, but illustrates what I was getting at.
I think you've really stretched to say people learn no skills in university or are put under no pressure. I didn't know many people in university who did not have a job as the same time. I didn't know many people who weren't hungry for independence from their parents either. It's not fun to have to rely on one's parents, it makes you feel like you can't survive on your own. But this is the state of our depressing economy. You have to volunteer for a million hours, have great grades and work experience to even think about getting a normal job. Unless you are some lucky idiot who happens to know the right person.
I don't know whether your graduated university or not, or whether you're still in high school, but this has all the persuasiveness of the grade 9 essays I have to mark. OK good, you did a tiny bit of research to support your claims. The problem is they don't support them very well, and your opinion is controversial enough that it really needs a lot. I'd give it a B if you were a kid, but 40% for an adult because it shows a lack of critical thinking. All you're doing is pointing to a random fact whether it really supports what you're saying or not, and then saying the opinion you had before you found the fact. Ok, you found evidence of how much money it costs and how old people are when they leave university. What does that have to do with what they've learned? The majority of the time is not spent in class? Well, 15 hours a week normally. + transit. + homework. Depending on your degree, that can be a lot of homework. Depending on if you care about GPA and want a job, it doesn't even matter what your degree is because you need to do better than everyone else in your degree. It's way more work than you think, certainly much more than I'd ask from any high school student.
I'll admit I'm a poor writer. I can probably count the amount of essays I've written on one hand. What are some specific suggestions that would help make the point?
I disagree that it's a lot of homework. I get the feeling that a lot of people exaggerate their homework amounts or feel overwhelmed because they waste a lot of time doing nothing. If you're going to UofT, Waterloo, or similar level school then your complaint would be valid.
edit: actually you didn't even use your first source properly. You reference it (an online newpaper article, a terrible source by the way) to say that graduates are going in unrelated fields for white collar jobs. That's not what the graph in your link is saying -.- It is saying EVEN with an education, those people under 30 have no yet found work related to their skills, so they're working a grocery stores and stuff (I guess some of that could be called white collar, but a lot of it is manual labour). So wow, what a bunch of 22 year old children we have that can't find good work, don't they have it easy! Basically people working the same job they had during university zz And you are trying to say the problem is we aren't teaching them any life skills! Well welcome to the reality of Canada, it's not education that is the problem...
The source is supposed to show that quite a few people are getting work unrelated to their field. Mission accomplished?
On December 04 2012 01:01 infinity21 wrote: I'm a Canadian university student who paid his own way through university and made it through with minimal debt (<$500) even with very little government subsidies and an expensive trip to Asia this past summer. I'm graduating in a few weeks and have a decently paying job lined up in the field of my study. The majority of my free time is spent taking online courses to further my knowledge. While not everyone will fit all the same criteria, if you give a damn about school, you'll be able to achieve many of these things.
How did you manage to do this? Are you graduating at a normal pace(i.e. 4 year degree in 4 years)? No one I know has come close to being able to afford the full degree by themselves, and I assumed it was literally impossible. I saved up about $8, 000 heading into University, which was more than anyone I know, but that doesn't even pay for my first year.
On December 04 2012 03:07 Dfgj wrote: So edgy.
Spent two years working in the Army before university, don't skip classes, manage my own money, etc. I disagree with your stereotypes, basically, and your use of them (an inaccurate one too, SoR is a freshman, not a graduate) to build your conclusion.
My point was that you are dependant if you want to get through at a normal pace. Working in the Army for 2 years delays you from the normal pace.
On December 04 2012 01:38 bonifaceviii wrote: @infinity21: I also am a Canadian graduate who worked his way through university and came out with no debt. That doesn't make what the OP says less true.
I don't particularly disagree with most of the OP. For degrees that have very little job prospects or the individual doesn't have any passion for, it's unlikely that things will magically work out and the student will pop out of university 4 years later as a superstar. However, if a student is mature enough to take his/her responsibilities seriously, then they won't have too much trouble finding a job in their field of study and become a productive member of society.
On December 04 2012 01:01 infinity21 wrote: I'm a Canadian university student who paid his own way through university and made it through with minimal debt (<$500) even with very little government subsidies and an expensive trip to Asia this past summer. I'm graduating in a few weeks and have a decently paying job lined up in the field of my study. The majority of my free time is spent taking online courses to further my knowledge. While not everyone will fit all the same criteria, if you give a damn about school, you'll be able to achieve many of these things.
I think you might be a minority or taking a degree involving computers lol..
My degree does involve computers but it's not cs lol. Comp sci students definitely have it the best for finding a job right out of university imo. Obviously guys who did arts or history or something like that for their undergrad will have a tough time finding a job related to their field but for more technical fields (e.g. math, engineering), there's a decent number of openings in Canada. I'm in statistics btw
On December 04 2012 04:56 WarSame wrote: I'm going to try to answer most of the replies in this post. This is gonna be a long one.
On December 04 2012 01:01 infinity21 wrote: I'm a Canadian university student who paid his own way through university and made it through with minimal debt (<$500) even with very little government subsidies and an expensive trip to Asia this past summer. I'm graduating in a few weeks and have a decently paying job lined up in the field of my study. The majority of my free time is spent taking online courses to further my knowledge. While not everyone will fit all the same criteria, if you give a damn about school, you'll be able to achieve many of these things.
How did you manage to do this? Are you graduating at a normal pace(i.e. 4 year degree in 4 years)? No one I know has come close to being able to afford the full degree by themselves, and I assumed it was literally impossible. I saved up about $8, 000 heading into University, which was more than anyone I know, but that doesn't even pay for my first year.
Co-op program. It's a 5 year program and I got 2 years of work experience out of it. I honestly think this is superior to the standard study 8 months and summer off type setup. If I had gone the standard route, I can see myself being in a situation that you described. It was a combination of a lot of things that got me to smarten up and really focus on my career, some of which were from my co-op jobs.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100128.gif)
![[image loading]](http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120909.gif)
