|
On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys. THIS This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit). Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores. Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs. I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers. Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around.
My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major.
Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career.........
it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt.
I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before.
|
On December 13 2012 08:38 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university. Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high? Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...) But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students. I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another. ...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part? Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.
You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.
Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.
As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you). Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate. In what sense?
While elementary school educators work the least, there aren't any educators (K-12 or professors) that get "large breaks" throughout the day, "significantly more" days off than a typical job, or massive summer breaks (the retirement benefits and job security are very questionable as well). Even elementary school teachers work all day, and when they're not teaching their class, they have several other faculty-related things to do (faculty meetings, workshops, homework to grade, extra tutoring, administrative appointments beyond their class, etc. etc.). Once you're into middle school or high school teaching, the workload is already higher than your average worker; not only do you have class throughout the day, but you have significantly more homework to work through, workshops and meetings to attend, etc. etc. Furthermore, this stuff goes on through the summer, too. Summer isn't just some kind of break for teachers like it is for young students; there are things like job evaluations, summer workshops (lasting days in some cases), and additional meetings to re-evaluate school and teaching policies. Sure, summer isn't as hard for teachers as it is for other professions, but teachers have a much higher workload during the school year than most professions do.
And don't even start with professors. They work far more than anyone else out there for far less pay.
|
On December 13 2012 09:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university. Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high? Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...) But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students. I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another. ...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part? Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.
You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.
Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.
As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you). Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate. In what sense? While elementary school educators work the least, there aren't any educators (K-12 or professors) that get "large breaks" throughout the day, "significantly more" days off than a typical job, or massive summer breaks (the retirement benefits and job security are very questionable as well). Even elementary school teachers work all day, and when they're not teaching their class, they have several other faculty-related things to do (faculty meetings, workshops, homework to grade, extra tutoring, administrative appointments beyond their class, etc. etc.). Once you're into middle school or high school teaching, the workload is already higher than your average worker; not only do you have class throughout the day, but you have significantly more homework to work through, workshops and meetings to attend, etc. etc. Furthermore, this stuff goes on through the summer, too. Summer isn't just some kind of break for teachers like it is for young students; there are things like job evaluations, summer workshops (lasting days in some cases), and additional meetings to re-evaluate school and teaching policies. Sure, summer isn't as hard for teachers as it is for other professions, but teachers have a much higher workload during the school year than most professions do.And don't even start with professors. They work far more than anyone else out there for far less pay.
I don't necessarily buy this. While i have a ton of respect for teachers and I think it is an admirable profession, Summers off is a HUGE bonus. It eats at me every so often that my vacation consists of 2 weeks a year and a nonpaid vacation week during Christmas. If I knew I had to work hard throughout the year but had 2.5 months off to travel and live my life I would take it in a heart beat.
|
On December 13 2012 09:16 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 09:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 08:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university. Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high? Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...) But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students. I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another. ...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part? Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.
You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.
Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.
As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you). Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate. In what sense? While elementary school educators work the least, there aren't any educators (K-12 or professors) that get "large breaks" throughout the day, "significantly more" days off than a typical job, or massive summer breaks (the retirement benefits and job security are very questionable as well). Even elementary school teachers work all day, and when they're not teaching their class, they have several other faculty-related things to do (faculty meetings, workshops, homework to grade, extra tutoring, administrative appointments beyond their class, etc. etc.). Once you're into middle school or high school teaching, the workload is already higher than your average worker; not only do you have class throughout the day, but you have significantly more homework to work through, workshops and meetings to attend, etc. etc. Furthermore, this stuff goes on through the summer, too. Summer isn't just some kind of break for teachers like it is for young students; there are things like job evaluations, summer workshops (lasting days in some cases), and additional meetings to re-evaluate school and teaching policies. Sure, summer isn't as hard for teachers as it is for other professions, but teachers have a much higher workload during the school year than most professions do.And don't even start with professors. They work far more than anyone else out there for far less pay. I don't necessarily buy this. While i have a ton of respect for teachers and I think it is an admirable profession, Summers off is a HUGE bonus. It eats at me every so often that my vacation consists of 2 weeks a year and a nonpaid vacation week during Christmas. If I knew I had to work hard throughout the year but had 2.5 months off to travel and live my life I would take it in a heart beat.
...But that doesn't happen. At least in Minnesota, teachers don't just get June-August off; while they get far more time off than usual, they still have to be around for administrative-related business throughout much of the summer. Yea, you can probably take a week vacation to travel here or there, but that's no different from other professions. Furthermore, teachers generally get paid far less during the summer or not at all.
|
It seems to me that currently people who go to college generally come from parents who also hold degrees. Yet, they cannot pay for college so they get loans. They go through University and get their degree, then enter the workforce. They can eventually pay off their student loans, but they can't save enough to pay for their kids college when that time comes around, so the cycle continues.
But with the increase in demand for University (as said in the OP due to corporations cutting training, as well as the fact that a degree is somewhat commonplace these days, i.e. you need one to get a decent job, or else TONS of experience) and the increase in tuition prices (>>inflation) AND coupled with the recent economic recession AND the fact that recent graduates have been hit the hardest (about 7.7% unemployment nation-wide, but something crazy like 20% for recent college graduates, and even higher for young people without degrees) which means statistically they will have much less successful careers than their parents (look it up, there some interesting stats on what unemployment once in your career means for your future, and the effect it has on a career path if you suffer from it early on--see motleyfool.com) then something has gotta give.
It's like demand is going up, but consumer spending potential is going way down, but cost to supply the service is going way up as well. Hrrrmmmmm...
but i'm no economics stud, so tear me apart. GOgo
|
On December 13 2012 09:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 09:16 Sadist wrote:On December 13 2012 09:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 08:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?
Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...) But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students. I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another. ...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part? Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.
You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.
Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.
As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you). Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate. In what sense? While elementary school educators work the least, there aren't any educators (K-12 or professors) that get "large breaks" throughout the day, "significantly more" days off than a typical job, or massive summer breaks (the retirement benefits and job security are very questionable as well). Even elementary school teachers work all day, and when they're not teaching their class, they have several other faculty-related things to do (faculty meetings, workshops, homework to grade, extra tutoring, administrative appointments beyond their class, etc. etc.). Once you're into middle school or high school teaching, the workload is already higher than your average worker; not only do you have class throughout the day, but you have significantly more homework to work through, workshops and meetings to attend, etc. etc. Furthermore, this stuff goes on through the summer, too. Summer isn't just some kind of break for teachers like it is for young students; there are things like job evaluations, summer workshops (lasting days in some cases), and additional meetings to re-evaluate school and teaching policies. Sure, summer isn't as hard for teachers as it is for other professions, but teachers have a much higher workload during the school year than most professions do.And don't even start with professors. They work far more than anyone else out there for far less pay. I don't necessarily buy this. While i have a ton of respect for teachers and I think it is an admirable profession, Summers off is a HUGE bonus. It eats at me every so often that my vacation consists of 2 weeks a year and a nonpaid vacation week during Christmas. If I knew I had to work hard throughout the year but had 2.5 months off to travel and live my life I would take it in a heart beat. ...But that doesn't happen. At least in Minnesota, teachers don't just get June-August off; while they get far more time off than usual, they still have to be around for administrative-related business throughout much of the summer. Yea, you can probably take a week vacation to travel here or there, but that's no different from other professions. Furthermore, teachers generally get paid far less during the summer or not at all.
Not necessarily. Here in Michigan if you are a teacher with a Masters (seems fairly easy to get compared to some other Masters degrees) and say 10 yrs experience, you can make like 70k with summers off. Thats pretty fucking amazing to me. Im an engineering major and with the job market nowadays Im not sure Ill be making 70k in 10 years and I sure as hell wont be getting 2.5 months off.
Obviously this can vary from District to District but I would be willing to bet 2.5months off happens more often than not.
Also, with theres quite a bit of Job Security in the teaching field once you have been in a district for something like 10 years. Obviously it can be VERY stressful early on and you will be first out if your district makes cuts.....but once you have been there for a while you have it made. Nowadays with the economy with the way it is......I have tremendous fears about ever being able to own a house. Things like......If i lose my job how easy/soon will I find another one with similar pay? Its quite a scary picture.
|
On December 13 2012 06:04 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 05:17 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 12 2012 10:24 Sub40APM wrote:
Pretty logical progression really. Death of blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style ---> growing importance of college degree as a signal for employers 'look, iam more qualified' ---> growing demand for college ---> growing exploitation of people's hope for a better life by colleges to jack up tuition --> dilution of just a generic college degree --> increased competition for 'elite' degrees ---> higher costs all around.
I guess the real problem is a bit deeper. Why did all the blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style die? Why does USA no longer need many blue collar workers? IMHO the answer is threefold: 1. More automation (a lot of manufacturing is now done by robots, construction and farming involves much more machinery etc) 2. Loss of blue collar jobs to cheaper countries like China, India, Mexico etc. 3. Overall saturation and diminishing resources, i.e. very little unused land left in US, huge oil and industrial supplies imports (less easy to get resources left in US). I guess you can't really revert these three phenomena bar some huge ecological disaster or a world war. The only possible ways forward are increasing inequality and debt or complete revamp of educational system. What do you think? This is just an extremely good post and actually touches on a thread I made earlier back in the dizzle. This succinctly summarizes the long term economic problems of the U.S.; the "automaton creep" is not going to stop anytime soon. Sure it's taking over menial jobs, but it's presence is slowly being felt in medicine and law even. What's going to be left are managerial roles, servicing roles or programming that are going to increasingly demand higher and higher education as competition is squeezed. Frankly, I don't exactly see a solution here quite yet...
Well, look at Japan.
Automation is far beyond that in US, big population on a tiny peace of land, no resources, all manufacturing either done by robots or moved to China.
Results?
Great living standards and life longetivity, extremely low crime rate, very low unemployment, little inequality and small external debt.
If not for 2011 tsunami, Japan would be even better.
A lot of it has to do with proper education and good conditions for high tech businesses.
Sure, students in Japan also have to take loans, and it's difficult for many to find a good job straight after graduation, but in general the situation looks better than in US. US needs a revamp of its educational system.
|
On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student. My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter. -He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree. -He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years. -He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters. -He can't afford to pay back his loans -Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free. What happens when the house of cards falls down? A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along. I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+. I don't really pity him if that's his mindset. The wife should work as well. He should have saved up more money. He shouldn't have accrued 40k in loans for a teaching degree. And if your internship thing was true, if he planned on investing 40k into a degree, he should have took the damn time to see the prerequisites to get a job afterwards. You're telling me he only found out after he invested years of his time and substantial amounts of money what the market is like afterwards? That's pure stupidity, straight and simple. It's not like he pays virtually any taxes or anything if he's working full time at $15/hr as a sole earner and has a spouse that doesn't work with two children. In fact, he's probably receiving welfare at that level. Part of it is on him to plan his life better and not mindlessly go down a certain path with no clear objective.
I really dislike the attitude and side of the argument you take with such highlights as "he should have saved more money", "he should have thought more about his degree", and "it's not like he's paying any taxes anyway".
None of those deal with the problem that a dude with a college degree has no way to enter the field of his choice due to having to work to feed his family and not being able to participate in a very specific 'after-schooling' credentialing program that generally takes over a year to complete and provides a very modest raise afterward.
You are busy attacking the character of a person who pursued a higher degree with the best of intentions and sure, maybe a bit of ignorance, when the whole point has nothing to do with him, but the system that is in place here.
You think my brother is the ONLY student debt holder who has no intention or means to pay back his loan?
You think what he's doing is not a common practice in this nation?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but of all the people I know with significant student debt, only ONE of them is doing anything to deal with it in the intended fashion of paying it back. Everybody else is busy with paying the bills of life and looking for a way to extend the duration of their loan so that they never ever have to actually pay.
Cry more about how irresponsible my brother is. In the mean time, the college loan bubble will burst.
|
On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university. Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high? Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...) But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students. I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another. ...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part?
Well, who cares. It doesn't change much for them anyway.
In my field an average professor gradutes 20 PhDs. Only a few of those highest degree holders manage to find a skilled job outside of university (most employers prefer not to hire eggheads). Then for ~10 PhDs left without a job there will be only one professor position during their lives. If those PhDs who land a job are paid 5 times less and have no job security, it doesn't change the picture much, since anyway the career prospects are beyond horrible.
|
Man, I didn't know it was that bad over there.
|
On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys. THIS This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit). Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores. Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs. I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers. Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around. My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major. Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career......... it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt. I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before.
It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)
I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time.
It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business.
Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building.
I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.
And to top it off, Engineering majors are still getting hired in droves. Not all sectors of the economy are hurting. For example, if you wanted to go into Accounting or Engineering, you're pretty much going to get a job if you performed well, had internships, and applied when they were hiring. But if you sat on your ass, had a C+/B- average, and did nothing to distinguish yourself from your peers, you're less likely to get a job.
Because it's not that there are no jobs out there. There's only relatively less jobs out there. The top performers are still going to find a job without a problem, they are largely unaffected by the economy, assuming they went through the right processes/channels. The above average performers also generally are still getting jobs fine. It's the "slightly-above-average", mediocre, and underperformers (C's get degrees!) that are hit the hardest here. Of course, this is not a universally applicable statement and there are exceptions. In short, those that were at the margin of barely getting jobs before are those that aren't getting jobs (although the rest may be making on average marginally less for the same jobs that still exist).
|
On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys. THIS This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit). Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores. Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs. I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers. Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around. My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major. Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career......... it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt. I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before. It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time. It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business. Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building. I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. My only class that prepared me for my current job was Senior Design (in essence managing a project from start to finish yourself). the only classes were almost always too basic or a waste of time altogether.
IMO its a scam and tuition is going to keep rising regardless of how well students are educated.
|
On December 13 2012 10:20 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys. THIS This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit). Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores. Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs. I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers. Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around. My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major. Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career......... it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt. I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before. It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time. It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business. Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building. I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes. We are going to have to agree to disagree. My only class that prepared me for my current job was Senior Design (in essence managing a project from start to finish yourself). the only classes were almost always too basic or a waste of time altogether. IMO its a scam and tuition is going to keep rising regardless of how well students are educated.
Then you did not get a typical engineering job, I would assume. Of course, that's a major assumption, but I can't imagine learning the fundamentals of the purpose of engineering would not be at the very least relevant to your profession. I mean, is your job title "Mechanical Engineer"? I'm not saying it should have prepared you fully, anecdotally I've heard engineers (in the broadest sense of the term) tell me they've utilized around ~10-15% of what they learned.
|
On December 13 2012 10:23 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 10:20 Sadist wrote:On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys. THIS This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit). Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores. Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs. I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers. Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around. My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major. Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career......... it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt. I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before. It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time. It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business. Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building. I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes. We are going to have to agree to disagree. My only class that prepared me for my current job was Senior Design (in essence managing a project from start to finish yourself). the only classes were almost always too basic or a waste of time altogether. IMO its a scam and tuition is going to keep rising regardless of how well students are educated. Then you did not get a typical engineering job, I would assume. Of course, that's a major assumption, but I can't imagine learning the fundamentals of the purpose of engineering would not be at the very least relevant to your profession. I mean, is your job title "Mechanical Engineer"? I'm not saying it should have prepared you fully, anecdotally I've heard engineers (in the broadest sense of the term) tell me they've utilized around ~10-15% of what they learned.
I work in automotive and deal with plastics. Im effectively a manager of a component on a vehicle. I learned very little if anything about manufacturing, plastics, tooling etc.
Theres tons of things in my job that I deal with that an academic environment would be PERFECT to learn the training for. And it would be applicable to basically any type of manufacturing, not just automotive. But of course those classes werent offered.
My point I guess is, I feel like for what the cost is, you dont get very much aside from a piece of paper. I think that is wrong. With the competitive job market, you basically need a degree whether its applicable or not. This is driven by HR and costs being cut for training/mentorship programs when you are hired. Universities and students know this so costs are going up and the actual education is mediocre at best.
|
On December 13 2012 09:43 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student. My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter. -He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree. -He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years. -He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters. -He can't afford to pay back his loans -Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free. What happens when the house of cards falls down? A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along. I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+. I don't really pity him if that's his mindset. The wife should work as well. He should have saved up more money. He shouldn't have accrued 40k in loans for a teaching degree. And if your internship thing was true, if he planned on investing 40k into a degree, he should have took the damn time to see the prerequisites to get a job afterwards. You're telling me he only found out after he invested years of his time and substantial amounts of money what the market is like afterwards? That's pure stupidity, straight and simple. It's not like he pays virtually any taxes or anything if he's working full time at $15/hr as a sole earner and has a spouse that doesn't work with two children. In fact, he's probably receiving welfare at that level. Part of it is on him to plan his life better and not mindlessly go down a certain path with no clear objective. I really dislike the attitude and side of the argument you take with such highlights as "he should have saved more money", "he should have thought more about his degree", and "it's not like he's paying any taxes anyway". None of those deal with the problem that a dude with a college degree has no way to enter the field of his choice due to having to work to feed his family and not being able to participate in a very specific 'after-schooling' credentialing program that generally takes over a year to complete and provides a very modest raise afterward. You are busy attacking the character of a person who pursued a higher degree with the best of intentions and sure, maybe a bit of ignorance, when the whole point has nothing to do with him, but the system that is in place here. You think my brother is the ONLY student debt holder who has no intention or means to pay back his loan? You think what he's doing is not a common practice in this nation? Sorry to burst your bubble, but of all the people I know with significant student debt, only ONE of them is doing anything to deal with it in the intended fashion of paying it back. Everybody else is busy with paying the bills of life and looking for a way to extend the duration of their loan so that they never ever have to actually pay. Cry more about how irresponsible my brother is. In the mean time, the college loan bubble will burst.
Except it's extremely relevant. How is that any different than deciding you want to be a laywer, going and getting your undergrad in criminology, then being dumbfounded when you realize you have to go to law school after and pass the BAR? You should have realized that when you decided to get your undergrad.
The fact is your brother is a poor planner. If prerequisites exists for the job he wants, then he has to complete the prerequisites. He can't go and say "oh, I did 75% of the prerequisites, and you won't give me the job!? FUCK! Gimme my money back!!"
The family issue just compounds his issues of poor planning. Was he using student loans not only to support himself, but his family? Are you expecting student loans to provide for a family's wellbeing? That's more than irresponsible, it's nonsensical. Maybe before he went back and got his undergrad, his wife should have gotten a job to provide supplementary income in the meantime? Sometimes, I can understand the logic in that "the government should support/provide for you while you get an education." I cannot understand the logic "the government should pay not only for you, but a bunch of other people as well."
"Everyone else" using it to pay the bills sound like a bunch of idiotic mooches to me. For the most part, I don't agree with the people that are condescending towards those who need welfare to support themselves. But to have the attitude of "fuck it, I'm going to borrow money with zero intention to pay it back" is ridiculous.
So sorry everyone you seem to know is in such a predicament. I suggest you find a more intelligent posse to hang with. Pretty much everyone I know found jobs (some underemployed) and are paying back their loans. Some were retarded and took out way too much loans, but it was apparent they were doing so and now they are reaping the consequences. However, I don't know anyone in with such a "mooch of others" mentality you're describing, and it only makes my pity level drop.
The bubble might burst, sure. And the very possibility of things like that happening is why I have a savings account set up of money that I don't touch. It's the same reason I'm not buying a new car anytime soon until I develop an adequate safety net, even though my income would permit a serious upgrade. It's the reason I didn't buy a $600 TV on Black Friday. Because I save a good portion of my income and don't blow it like most of the idiots out there. Worked at 15 by riding a bus to another city to work (only place that would hire at 15), worked two jobs during college (although one wasn't very demanding), worked full time every summer, commuted to school for years I couldn't afford rent, and lived in places that would make my rent payments between $250-$375 when I first moved out. I'm good at saving money, and I'm good at financially planning. If you're (generally speaking) not, that's your fault and ignorance, not mine.
|
On December 13 2012 10:31 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 10:23 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 10:20 Sadist wrote:On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys. THIS This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit). Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores. Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs. I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers. Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around. My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major. Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career......... it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt. I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before. It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time. It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business. Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building. I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes. We are going to have to agree to disagree. My only class that prepared me for my current job was Senior Design (in essence managing a project from start to finish yourself). the only classes were almost always too basic or a waste of time altogether. IMO its a scam and tuition is going to keep rising regardless of how well students are educated. Then you did not get a typical engineering job, I would assume. Of course, that's a major assumption, but I can't imagine learning the fundamentals of the purpose of engineering would not be at the very least relevant to your profession. I mean, is your job title "Mechanical Engineer"? I'm not saying it should have prepared you fully, anecdotally I've heard engineers (in the broadest sense of the term) tell me they've utilized around ~10-15% of what they learned. I work in automotive and deal with plastics. Im effectively a manager of a component on a vehicle. I learned very little if anything about manufacturing, plastics, tooling etc. Theres tons of things in my job that I deal with that an academic environment would be PERFECT to learn the training for. And it would be applicable to basically any type of manufacturing, not just automotive. But of course those classes werent offered. My point I guess is, I feel like for what the cost is, you dont get very much aside from a piece of paper. I think that is wrong. With the competitive job market, you basically need a degree whether its applicable or not. This is driven by HR and costs being cut for training/mentorship programs when you are hired. Universities and students know this so costs are going up and the actual education is mediocre at best.
Except those would be too specific. The thing is, it would be a massive disservice if classes got overly specific like that, because if you can't find a job after you get a degree due to market saturation, you cannot effectively apply your skills anywhere else. If you're effectively a manager, maybe a management emphasis would have been great for you, which is indeed offered at most schools.
Something you can learn in the first 2 weeks at a job... like learning the management position relative to the automotive market you're in, isn't something that you'd need to learn in college. Learning management itself, such as an effective managerial skillset, the purpose of management, etc. would be much more useful, I presume.
Is there a reason your job in the first place targeted mechanical engineers for hire? If they didn't, that just means you got a job not related to your field. If they did, there's probably some underlying reason they wanted engineers specifically and not other majors.
I don't understand how this relates to costs going up for universities. Costs are going up for universities because of budget cuts. Universities, at least in California, lose money for each additional student they take upon. That's why admissions rates are being lowered. Without the subsidies from the government to the budget, the schools can't afford to admit as many students as they were previously. They simply don't have the money.
|
On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys. THIS This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit). Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores. Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs. I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers. Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around. My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major. Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career......... it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt. I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before. It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time. It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business. Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building. I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.And to top it off, Engineering majors are still getting hired in droves. Not all sectors of the economy are hurting. For example, if you wanted to go into Accounting or Engineering, you're pretty much going to get a job if you performed well, had internships, and applied when they were hiring. But if you sat on your ass, had a C+/B- average, and did nothing to distinguish yourself from your peers, you're less likely to get a job. Because it's not that there are no jobs out there. There's only relatively less jobs out there. The top performers are still going to find a job without a problem, they are largely unaffected by the economy, assuming they went through the right processes/channels. The above average performers also generally are still getting jobs fine. It's the "slightly-above-average", mediocre, and underperformers (C's get degrees!) that are hit the hardest here. Of course, this is not a universally applicable statement and there are exceptions. In short, those that were at the margin of barely getting jobs before are those that aren't getting jobs (although the rest may be making on average marginally less for the same jobs that still exist).
...So, if you are fortunate enough to find a job at all without a degree (let alone one that works with you going to school), a decent enough place to live at a cheap price, people to live with, and sacrifice good opportunities (there's a reason people try to go to higher-end schools; having a community college degree doesn't exactly make you competitive), then you can maybe get by without accruing debt.
And your last paragraph is ridiculous. This is such a huge issue because it isn't just the people at the margins not getting jobs; it's huge chunks of recent graduates who are doing well in school but still have to build up debt and then can't find jobs.
|
On December 13 2012 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys. THIS This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit). Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores. Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs. I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers. Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around. My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major. Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career......... it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt. I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before. It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time. It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business. Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building. I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.And to top it off, Engineering majors are still getting hired in droves. Not all sectors of the economy are hurting. For example, if you wanted to go into Accounting or Engineering, you're pretty much going to get a job if you performed well, had internships, and applied when they were hiring. But if you sat on your ass, had a C+/B- average, and did nothing to distinguish yourself from your peers, you're less likely to get a job. Because it's not that there are no jobs out there. There's only relatively less jobs out there. The top performers are still going to find a job without a problem, they are largely unaffected by the economy, assuming they went through the right processes/channels. The above average performers also generally are still getting jobs fine. It's the "slightly-above-average", mediocre, and underperformers (C's get degrees!) that are hit the hardest here. Of course, this is not a universally applicable statement and there are exceptions. In short, those that were at the margin of barely getting jobs before are those that aren't getting jobs (although the rest may be making on average marginally less for the same jobs that still exist). ...So, if you are fortunate enough to find a job at all (let alone one that works with you going to school), a decent enough place to live at a cheap price, people to live with, and sacrifice good opportunities (there's a reason people try to go to higher-end schools; having a community college degree doesn't exactly make you competitive), then you can maybe get by without accruing debt. And your last paragraph is ridiculous. This is such a huge issue because it isn't just the people at the margins not getting jobs; it's huge chunks of recent graduates who are doing well in school but still have to build up debt and then can't find jobs.
If you can't find a job at all you're doing something wrong. It's not hard to find a job. It *is* hard to find a job that's worth your degree. I'm not kidding in the slightest. If you can't find a job at all, you're most likely lazy. Unemployment for recent college grads has been around ~7% for ages, up from ~5% before the recession. So if you're one of those 2/100 people... you're at the margin. If you're in that 7%, that sucks, but I'm going to guess you got straight C's. Underemployment is the issue. Pretty much all the college grads are finding jobs that are paying $10/hr or maybe even less.
Margins can be interpreted widely. I didn't mean it as slim, I meant it more so those at the bottom are those that are being hurt the most. If you wanted you could interpret margin to mean 30% people more than before. All I'm saying is that if it's 30% more than before, that 30% is comprised mostly of those that were the worst performers that still managed to get jobs in the past.
If you're performing well in school and you take appropriate actions, you WILL get a job. That is no question. My school board itself has 2,500+ jobs listed at any moment in time. Monster has a ridiculous amount as well. I got plenty of interviews. My peers got plenty of interviews. The only reason is we took initiative and we had something to sell about ourselves. Like I said prior, I don't know a single person that had above average credentials, started looking for a job early, and applied to many places that didn't get a decent offer.
I was Scholarship Chair of my fraternity, I had access to plenty of people's GPAs, how they were performing in classes, etc. and all the other things they were doing. I knew what people were involved in on a fairly large scale. Every single damned person who was looking got a job. To continue, I was part of the Accounting Association. Every single damned person who graduated the year before me got a job. Every.... single... one. Because they were involved, went to the correct networking events, etc. I went on SO MANY job "workshops" (where they rent out a classroom and tell you about positions they're hiring)... do you know the average attendance of these? Around TWELVE PEOPLE. They were advertised profusely at career centers, etc. I tried to get people to go like crazy. The typical response for not going? "Oh, I have a midterm the next day" "Oh, I have work that day" or some other bullshit excuse. Make damned time for your career, not the present. These were the events that if they liked you, from simply asking maybe one or two questions, you were guaranteed an interview simply because you showed up.
I'll always remember going to the Experian workshop where they were advertising multiple positions in an excellent rotational program. Two years of training in multiple rotational positions, amazing amount of exposure, development of extremely useful skills, $50,000+ starting salary, full benefits, the works. HR went out on campus, set up booths in different areas, had signs, posted it on the career fair website, had flyers in the career fair, were approaching people to come. They had 8 people show up. They ordered 8 pizzas from Dominos because they expected a large turnout. I took home two pizzas and guaranteed an on campus interview 2 weeks later (which was also successful because I interviewed with the friggin' person I networked with after the workshop on a 1-on-1 basis since no one else was around to talk!!!).
|
On December 13 2012 09:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 09:16 Sadist wrote:On December 13 2012 09:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 08:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?
Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...) But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students. I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another. ...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part? Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.
You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.
Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.
As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you). Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate. In what sense? While elementary school educators work the least, there aren't any educators (K-12 or professors) that get "large breaks" throughout the day, "significantly more" days off than a typical job, or massive summer breaks (the retirement benefits and job security are very questionable as well). Even elementary school teachers work all day, and when they're not teaching their class, they have several other faculty-related things to do (faculty meetings, workshops, homework to grade, extra tutoring, administrative appointments beyond their class, etc. etc.). Once you're into middle school or high school teaching, the workload is already higher than your average worker; not only do you have class throughout the day, but you have significantly more homework to work through, workshops and meetings to attend, etc. etc. Furthermore, this stuff goes on through the summer, too. Summer isn't just some kind of break for teachers like it is for young students; there are things like job evaluations, summer workshops (lasting days in some cases), and additional meetings to re-evaluate school and teaching policies. Sure, summer isn't as hard for teachers as it is for other professions, but teachers have a much higher workload during the school year than most professions do.And don't even start with professors. They work far more than anyone else out there for far less pay. I don't necessarily buy this. While i have a ton of respect for teachers and I think it is an admirable profession, Summers off is a HUGE bonus. It eats at me every so often that my vacation consists of 2 weeks a year and a nonpaid vacation week during Christmas. If I knew I had to work hard throughout the year but had 2.5 months off to travel and live my life I would take it in a heart beat. ...But that doesn't happen. At least in Minnesota, teachers don't just get June-August off; while they get far more time off than usual, they still have to be around for administrative-related business throughout much of the summer. Yea, you can probably take a week vacation to travel here or there, but that's no different from other professions. Furthermore, teachers generally get paid far less during the summer or not at all.
Come to Luxembourg, as a secondary school teacher you'll make around 8k € / month + huge vacations.
|
On December 13 2012 09:37 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:04 forgottendreams wrote:On December 13 2012 05:17 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 12 2012 10:24 Sub40APM wrote:
Pretty logical progression really. Death of blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style ---> growing importance of college degree as a signal for employers 'look, iam more qualified' ---> growing demand for college ---> growing exploitation of people's hope for a better life by colleges to jack up tuition --> dilution of just a generic college degree --> increased competition for 'elite' degrees ---> higher costs all around.
I guess the real problem is a bit deeper. Why did all the blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style die? Why does USA no longer need many blue collar workers? IMHO the answer is threefold: 1. More automation (a lot of manufacturing is now done by robots, construction and farming involves much more machinery etc) 2. Loss of blue collar jobs to cheaper countries like China, India, Mexico etc. 3. Overall saturation and diminishing resources, i.e. very little unused land left in US, huge oil and industrial supplies imports (less easy to get resources left in US). I guess you can't really revert these three phenomena bar some huge ecological disaster or a world war. The only possible ways forward are increasing inequality and debt or complete revamp of educational system. What do you think? This is just an extremely good post and actually touches on a thread I made earlier back in the dizzle. This succinctly summarizes the long term economic problems of the U.S.; the "automaton creep" is not going to stop anytime soon. Sure it's taking over menial jobs, but it's presence is slowly being felt in medicine and law even. What's going to be left are managerial roles, servicing roles or programming that are going to increasingly demand higher and higher education as competition is squeezed. Frankly, I don't exactly see a solution here quite yet... Well, look at Japan. Automation is far beyond that in US, big population on a tiny peace of land, no resources, all manufacturing either done by robots or moved to China. Results? Great living standards and life longetivity, extremely low crime rate, very low unemployment, little inequality and small external debt. If not for 2011 tsunami, Japan would be even better. A lot of it has to do with proper education and good conditions for high tech businesses. Sure, students in Japan also have to take loans, and it's difficult for many to find a good job straight after graduation, but in general the situation looks better than in US. US needs a revamp of its educational system.
Well, generally Japan is the shining example, the summit of economics. Obviously it would be nice to be them, relatively homogenous, non adversarial, longer hours and so forth but I'm just not sure this is really possible for the hulking mass of multiculturalism and regional differences that is the U.S.
Any general thoughts on how to overhaul the US education system? I mean collegiate wise, the answers for overhauling the K-8 system are a little more apparent and would be controversial over here (a flexible, but rigorous nationally mandated curriculum, cutting back of books and longer hours would hit nerves of both liberals, conservatives and corps unfortunately).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
