|
16932 Posts
To be fair, there is] a value in an education that has a strong focus on the liberal arts and the humanities; for example, a "classical" education provides experience with such topics as the nature of science (this could be taught as a philosophy course, for example), critical thinking (happens in ethics courses, classics courses, etc.), as well as courses which teach students how to think and approach learning (think foreign languages or literary critique). For the students who are passionate about learning those topics, such an education will do much more for them than anything else could - these students end up applying the skills they learned as, say, a religion major, by becoming effective lawyers, politicians, speakers, journalists, etc.
I know for a fact that many Chinese universities, which traditionally put immense emphasis on the natural sciences, physical sciences, and math, actually envy the American "liberal arts" model.
I'll agree with you in the sense that America is falling behind other countries in terms of research innovation in fields such as engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. However, there's no simple way to address that issue. America has an amazing public school system; I'd venture to say that all of its major state schools are among the best in the world, and provide tremendous opportunities to students. However, I don't think that most students should consider college simply the next step after high school. I wish that universities were more selective, and that only the best students could take advantage of the numerous opportunities that colleges offer. Quality over quantity, I guess.
While it'd be nice if our high schools actually prepared students for a good college experience, reform of that magnitude is probably never going to happen (especially today). With that being said, I'd rather see a restriction on who "gets" to go to college, with the rest of the students (who are either unwilling or unable to handle the hard work that goes with school) having to go directly into the work force, than a system that is more welcoming and churns our masses of useless communications majors.
|
On March 04 2011 07:51 Hellhammer wrote: All this stuff!
Better public schooling isn't going to help that much.
I went to a public magnet high school tailored to engineering - I took college level courses from the second half of my freshman year on and got credits for them. That first half-year was spent picking between Electrical and Computer engineering or Civil/Mechanical engineering studies. Junior and Senior year electives were either special topics courses taught by the -ridiculously- overqualified staff or afternoon classes at the community college our campus was adjacent to. Suffice to say, every single class in that school was a trial of the human soul. Kids who failed out - over 25% of our freshman class - went to normal high schools got straight A's and 4s or 5s on their AP exams. Electrical Engineering students got technicians' certificates on their way out because we were -required to-.
Out of the 28 students in my graduating class, all but 15 switched out of engineering after a year or two in college, some into extremely different things like Journalism, others into similarly difficult fields like Pharmacology or Physics. Out of those 15, I'd say only 5 really enjoy the engineering field they're still in - the other ten are being held ransom by their parents to finish their Bachelor's and get a job. I went from Engineering Science (an invite-only program at Penn State that requires a thesis and research participation, resulting in a 5-year bachelor's) to Industrial Engineering to Pre-law to Economics after two years just because each of those were enticing on their own and I've been beasting my way through the entire time.
My education was rock solid and I think it would have absolutely destroyed the average high school student. I have a hard time imagining a lesser degree of intensity when it comes to engineering studies - anything less than the meatgrinder that was my high school would be a forlorn tease for those interested in electronics or computer engineering, and it would -truly- set them up to fail in college unless engineering on the whole somehow gets massively easier. None of that stopped me, or many of my friends, from being curious, indecisive or eager to explore in college, and while I've embraced the education I received, that hasn't stopped around 40% of my extremely qualified class from going into 'useless' majors like communications.
I think what sets people up to fail isn't their high school's preparatory efforts but the common belief that university is the 'next step' after college. I've met many, many people who would be more suited to the work that being a trade school student lends toward, and a surprising amount of others who are pursuing staggeringly hard sciences degrees only to stop after attaining their bachelor's and teach high school chemistry or something else droll. Far above either of these numbers are the people who -shouldn't fucking be in college-. I'm 100% with Empyrean - many majors are there for you to show up to school on rare occasions, drink all week and live a luxurious manchild's life for four years - only, you have to pay a shitload for it, and nothing you've 'learned' will help you make that money back. Those who are truly interested in a subject will find a place to apply it, but the majority - those that chose it 'just because' - aren't going to see value.
Alas, college in our country, much like prison, is a business, so we'll never see useless routes of study expunged or the social dogma that 'university > community college & trade school' washed away.
@Empyrean - I've noticed that an astounding majority of liberal arts classes possess a curriculum reminiscent of an extremely focused history class. In two and a half years of college, I've only had two such classes wherein the professor actually sought to improve our writing or expressive ability as well as helping us identify the nuance in subject material. Same professor, actually. What are your thoughts on this?
|
Unless you have a valuable skill or talent already, college is a must. The money and jobs that a college grad will get are 2x better than a non-grad.
There are plenty of articles that cite a college degree is useless due to the debt burden and lack of employment prospects. I call BULLSHIT on all of those articles.
1. DO NOT MAJOR IN LIBERAL ARTS
You can major in liberal arts if your school is nationally recognized and ranked. Only major in liberal arts if you plan to pursue a graduate degree or lawschool/medschool. Double majoring is a great way to study your passion but combine it with something practical. No company visits the liberal art school to recruit, they aim for the business school or engineering school. If you want to rake up debt and rely on your Asian American Studies degree then don't hold your breath if companies don't seek you out during recruiting season.
2. DO NOT TAKE CLASSES ABROAD
Only go abroad if you have the available funds and do not have to take out a student loan. There are people who take out loans to go abroad and complain about their debt load and lack of job offers. Here is a quick tip! If you go abroad during the wrong time, you can not apply for internships and therefore hurt your future employment opportunities.
3. A COLLEGE GRAD WILL OUT EARN A NON-COLLEGE GRAD
Starting salary for a recent grad is usually $55,000 + $4500 signing bonus + $8000 cash bonus = $67,500. (mid-end example) Find me a job that does not require a college degree and offers a new employee that amount. Its impossible to find! This example does not include the fact that your career trajectory is unlimited.
Unless you are amazing at stock picking and join a firm as a trader, then you will never out earn a college grad.
|
The only reason to take inky's advice is if you are perfectly content living off of other's charity and kindness and expect that absolutely nothing will ever go wrong in your life. Education, whether it's from a technical/vocational school, 4 year degree, professional degrees (nursing, dental hygiene, etc), or even learning in the school of hard knocks (real estate, owning your own business, etc) are all far better options than what inky is proposing. If you don't want to go to college, that's fine, but get a mentor, enter an apprenticeship, learn sales and support yourself.
|
Can you live a meaningful life without a college degree? By all means yes! But seriously how easy do think it will be to attain a fulfilling life with a college degree. Money is going to be an issue whether you like it or not, so going without a degree is going to cause you some hassle no matter how much you try to beautify the abstract nonconformist-ish thought of not going to college solely because it is not a necessity.
Plus going to college just to come out with a nice job to earn good money is the wrong way to think about college in the first place.
|
On March 03 2011 18:08 Empyrean wrote:There was a thread on this a while back: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=181872University is by no means necessary. In fact, I think it would benefit society if fewer people were to attend university and more people would attend community colleges, trade schools, or simply enter the workforce. Exactly. The united states has become a "race to the top". With all of my intelligent friends going into biomedical engineering, I'm left to wonder who will do the "lowly" job of mechanic or plumber.
|
Empyrean says a lot here that I agree with. He notes that a lot of people are coming out of college with economically useless degrees (his example is communications, and we could add plenty more). These are economically useless not only because you likely won't make much money with such degrees, but also because the economy just can't absorb so many people with useless degrees. They end up as clerical workers or cashiers. It's a silly arrangement.
Empyrean also gets at a somewhat elitist idea that I agree with: the colleges should be way more selective. From my experience and an academic standpoint, most of my class mates had no business being in college. They were shallow and uninterested and unwilling to engage with the subject matter. A lot of those students, probably most of them, were in school for the piece of paper and the increased income it is supposed to bring. But the result is that education is ridiculously watered down for the people who actually might excel academically.
In other words, a lot less people should be in college. They will never gain useful skills to apply in the work world, and they don't really care about a classical education, which is indeed a worthwhile thing to pursue (and which can largely be had independent of an education institution).
But, for absurd reasons, pay is linked with educational achievement (a degree), not practical competence. The fact is this: most jobs really have nothing to do with college education (even if you are in a specialized technical field in college, you likely have to take a lot of classes that have nothing to do with your field just to get the degree). This is what Empyrean didn't say, but I will: We should do more to ensure reasonable and more equitable pay for all workers, and reduce the academic requirements for jobs that really have nothing to do with academic achievement, and then leave colleges for the training of the intellectual class.
|
16932 Posts
On March 04 2011 08:47 maahes wrote: @Empyrean - I've noticed that an astounding majority of liberal arts classes possess a curriculum reminiscent of an extremely focused history class. In two and a half years of college, I've only had two such classes wherein the professor actually sought to improve our writing or expressive ability as well as helping us identify the nuance in subject material. Same professor, actually. What are your thoughts on this?
You might've just been extremely unlucky. I've had history classes in which the professor would assign readings (usually a book or series of journal articles), and in the following week, invite the authors of the readings to class to defend his work. In virtually all of my humanities classes, we were simply expected to read and write a lot :/ ... there's not really hand holding in terms of "let's work on your writing," but the class was structured around discussion, and you generally had to defend yourself against other students or the professor.
On March 04 2011 10:17 itzme_petey wrote: 3. A COLLEGE GRAD WILL OUT EARN A NON-COLLEGE GRAD
Starting salary for a recent grad is usually $55,000 + $4500 signing bonus + $8000 cash bonus = $67,500. (mid-end example) Find me a job that does not require a college degree and offers a new employee that amount. Its impossible to find! This example does not include the fact that your career trajectory is unlimited.
Unless you are amazing at stock picking and join a firm as a trader, then you will never out earn a college grad.
I highly doubt the median starting salary for a recent college graduate is 55k. Maybe for engineers or computer scientists, but certainly not for all graduates.
I honestly don't think the ROI of a college degree is worth it except in cases such as majors in computer science, engineering, etc. Not only do you pay the actual cost of tuition, etc., but you also pay for opportunity cost of four years of your life when you could be 1) making actual money, 2) learning an applicable skill, and 3) working in the real world and expanding your network of contacts.
Unless you're an exceptional student at a major public university or a select handful of private schools, I honestly don't consider college worth it. Especially with a music degree or whatever.
|
On March 04 2011 15:17 Empyrean wrote:
Unless you're an exceptional student at a major public university or a select handful of private schools, I honestly don't consider college worth it. Especially with a music degree or whatever. Exactly. I'll go to a major university, get a computer science/engineering degree. And probably make a mean of 55k out of school. But bob, who goes to Fresno state university, and gets a degree in South East Asian culture probably would have been better working their way up the food chain in a "worse" job. All too often do I see at SAT prep places incredibly overqualified individuals teaching courses.
Stanford Masters graduates in art.
English Majors from Colombia.
Journalism Majors from Northwestern...
And sure, only major in engineering? So everyone should major in engineering?
The big thing I take issue with is that your'e saying that you CAN't outearn a college grad. Sure, it helps, but once you're in the workplace it's not terribly true. Sure, you need an engineering job to get into the field, but Bill Gates outearns you !!
|
On March 04 2011 15:17 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 08:47 maahes wrote: @Empyrean - I've noticed that an astounding majority of liberal arts classes possess a curriculum reminiscent of an extremely focused history class. In two and a half years of college, I've only had two such classes wherein the professor actually sought to improve our writing or expressive ability as well as helping us identify the nuance in subject material. Same professor, actually. What are your thoughts on this? You might've just been extremely unlucky. I've had history classes in which the professor would assign readings (usually a book or series of journal articles), and in the following week, invite the authors of the readings to class to defend his work. In virtually all of my humanities classes, we were simply expected to read and write a lot :/ ... there's not really hand holding in terms of "let's work on your writing," but the class was structured around discussion, and you generally had to defend yourself against other students or the professor. Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 10:17 itzme_petey wrote: 3. A COLLEGE GRAD WILL OUT EARN A NON-COLLEGE GRAD
Starting salary for a recent grad is usually $55,000 + $4500 signing bonus + $8000 cash bonus = $67,500. (mid-end example) Find me a job that does not require a college degree and offers a new employee that amount. Its impossible to find! This example does not include the fact that your career trajectory is unlimited.
Unless you are amazing at stock picking and join a firm as a trader, then you will never out earn a college grad. I highly doubt the median starting salary for a recent college graduate is 55k. Maybe for engineers or computer scientists, but certainly not for all graduates. I honestly don't think the ROI of a college degree is worth it except in cases such as majors in computer science, engineering, etc. Not only do you pay the actual cost of tuition, etc., but you also pay for opportunity cost of four years of your life when you could be 1) making actual money, 2) learning an applicable skill, and 3) working in the real world and expanding your network of contacts. Unless you're an exceptional student at a major public university or a select handful of private schools, I honestly don't consider college worth it. Especially with a music degree or whatever. You're points are fairly debatable. It really boils down to how much money you can expect to make directly out of high school, the potential for increases in pay salary from a job out of high school, the quality of the job that you work from there vs how much money you make out of college, how long / large to pay increases from a college job, and how much more you like your college job. Frankly, I don't think the pay you get directly out of highschool and the potential for increases in salary are high enough to make up for the extra 4 years of work you get, as opposed to always (pretty much) having an increased pay salary for the rest of your working life because of having a degree (assuming you major in something that is practical in the working world [finance, accounting, engineering, etc etc].
Of course, there are certain cases where going to college will not make sense. IE: if you are Bill Gates and you have the potential for a ridiculous salary, don't go. Also, if you plan on dying soon, it might not be worth going to college. Also, if you have a very high discount rate, working right away might be the best for you.
Often, (put simply) you won't get jobs because you didn't go to college - one of the justifications behind further education is that you signal to employers that you are a more productive, higher ability worker because you applied yourself in college.
EDIT: however, if this is for a degree that isn't as applicable in the job market (see: music, probably psychology etc etc), then your points hold true in most circumstances. EDIT 2: depending on what you major, starting salaries out of college tend to be far closer to the 40,000-45,000 range, unless you major in engineering / further your education beyond a bachelors degree. However, after an initial time period, pay salaries tend to go up quite a bit.
EDIT3: Not really targeting you in general Empyrean, I guess just stating my opinion on the value of a college degree.
|
16932 Posts
On March 04 2011 15:17 Empyrean wrote:
Unless you're an exceptional student at a major public university or a select handful of private schools, I honestly don't consider college worth it.
On March 04 2011 15:26 Froadac wrote:
The big thing I take issue with is that your'e saying that you CAN't outearn a college grad.
Come again?
EDIT: I'm not saying you can't outearn a college graduate, I'm saying in many cases you will, but in certain cases you won't. I'm merely suggesting that people actually consider whether or not their specific course of study will result in more earning potential in the future. People seem to think that college automatically guarantees higher lifetime income, when that's untrue in many cases.
|
Of course, there are certain cases where going to college will not make sense. IE: if you are Bill Gates and you have the potential for a ridiculous salary, don't go. Also, if you plan on dying soon, it might not be worth going to college. Also, if you have a very high discount rate, working right away might be the best for you. Bill gates or other entrepenuers are outliers and are not the average case. Using them in an argument against college is like saying "Don't need to save for retirement, going to win lottery". People win the lottery all the time, chances you will are slim. Plan for the 99% chance of not having a great idea or invention, rather than bet on the 1% chance of success.
A high discount rate makes sense when you are already making $100k annually and are deciding to go to law school (terrible choice btw). However, just out of highschool, you will never have a job that pays more than $55k annually. Therefore, there is not a high discount rate in almost all cases.
Often, (put simply) you won't get jobs because you didn't go to college - one of the justifications behind further education is that you signal to employers that you are a more productive, higher ability worker because you applied yourself in college.
I'm reading this as, you have to go to college to get most/all decent jobs. The double negative threw me off. Is that what you meant here?
I highly doubt the median starting salary for a recent college graduate is 55k. Maybe for engineers or computer scientists, but certainly not for all graduates.
You're right, not all undergrads will make that much. Business grads will. To my point, do not graduate with a liberal arts degree alone, double major if you want to learn something you are passionate about and study something practical...
Mccombs School of Business (University of Texas) BBA Class of 2009 $58,428 avg. salary: $52,502 avg. bonus: $5,926
http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/facts/#Average Salaries
|
As others have stated, most people make their decision about college during their senior year of highschool (at least in the US educational system). Problem is that 99% of these young adults (myself being one of them) make the decision to go to college because its the norm and all your friends are doing it. Luckily for me, I got accepted to a very good school and left pretty much everything behind. Looking back at some of my old buddy's facebooks, turns out a vast majority of them are attending some mid-tier college for a bullshit major. Its almost sad tbh.
|
On March 04 2011 10:17 itzme_petey wrote:
3. A COLLEGE GRAD WILL OUT EARN A NON-COLLEGE GRAD
Starting salary for a recent grad is usually $55,000 + $4500 signing bonus + $8000 cash bonus = $67,500. (mid-end example) Find me a job that does not require a college degree and offers a new employee that amount. Its impossible to find! This example does not include the fact that your career trajectory is unlimited.
Unless you are amazing at stock picking and join a firm as a trader, then you will never out earn a college grad.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/02/news/adna-sand2
I make $45 an hour. Take that degree and shove it.
|
Each day, about 170 sandhogs laboring around the clock begin their workday with a rumbling, four-minute elevator trip straight down a narrow mine shaft to a metal mesh platform overlooking the blasted cavity they call the "bell out" area.
The work is strenuous, and it can be dangerous -- 24 sandhogs have died working on Water Tunnel No. 3. Accidents are a risk, and despite ventilation improvements, many sandhogs suffer some degree of the dust-related lung disease silicosis.
Richard Fitzsimmons, 46, business manager for the tunnel workers union Local 147, says about 80% of his sandhogs are eligible for workers' compensation upon retirement -- mostly because of respiratory problems.
For some, it's the camaraderie and the paycheck -- they are among the highest paid construction workers in the nation, earning about $100,000 in salary and benefits.
NY pay (adjust for living costs and you get roughly about 75-80k or less in annual real pay)
I more envious of the risks involved such as death or worse long term respiratory problems.. Maybe I'm envious of the worker's comp that is paid to me for getting sick. 100k in salary AND benefits is pretty easy to achieve after a few years with a college degree. Many people just see the base salary and judge a position on that. Add all the benefits and you can hit the 6 figures. Plus I like my schedule to be normal so I do not work night shifts or early morning stuff.
However, if you enjoy the job, then you have achieved what many others (even myself) seek. A high paying job that people enjoy doing. Congrats.
|
The newspapers exaggerate everything. Using a respirator > silicosis. my shift is from 3pm to 11pm hardly around the clock. I sleep in till 1 some days :O
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On March 04 2011 08:14 Empyrean wrote: To be fair, there is] a value in an education that has a strong focus on the liberal arts and the humanities; for example, a "classical" education provides experience with such topics as the nature of science (this could be taught as a philosophy course, for example), critical thinking (happens in ethics courses, classics courses, etc.), as well as courses which teach students how to think and approach learning (think foreign languages or literary critique). For the students who are passionate about learning those topics, such an education will do much more for them than anything else could - these students end up applying the skills they learned as, say, a religion major, by becoming effective lawyers, politicians, speakers, journalists, etc. I agree, but is it worth the 200k + interest (which could easily balloon to half a million) in loans incurred?
Oh, and I disagree with your implicit assertion that the average university teaches critical thinking in its college curricula. But that's a discussion for another time and another thread.
The answer to the thread title is (drumroll) yes! The only people who should avoid college are the dumb, lazy, or poor. This is so wrong as to be self-parodic. To be honest, college is ~life without responsibility~ for a good amount of students. I have more respect for the person who pursues a vocation out of high school than someone who burns hundreds of thousands of their parent's money to go "find what they want to do" and do it poorly to boot.
I'm really quite astounded at the number of people here who don't even address the monetary cost of college in their arguments. Its an investment. A good investment in some cases, but that doesn't mean there's no risk involved at all.
America has an amazing public school system; I'd venture to say that all of its major state schools are among the best in the world, and provide tremendous opportunities to students. Oh dear, I do hope you're talking about higher education...
Alas, college in our country, much like prison, is a business, so we'll never see useless routes of study expunged or the social dogma that 'university > community college & trade school' washed away. What do you think pays for your research equipment
|
On March 03 2011 18:08 Empyrean wrote:There was a thread on this a while back: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=181872University is by no means necessary. In fact, I think it would benefit society if fewer people were to attend university and more people would attend community colleges, trade schools, or simply enter the workforce.
Community college leaves you just as unprepared for real jobs as a 4 year university. Trade schools and working actual jobs (without a degree) are another matter entirely and here I have to agree with you.
|
On March 06 2011 19:13 Sadistx wrote:Community college leaves you just as unprepared for real jobs as a 4 year university. Trade schools and working actual jobs (without a degree) are another matter entirely and here I have to agree with you. But it's far cheaper than a 4 year university, so assuming the student is paying and stuff it's not going to set the person back as much financially.
Haven't read through the entire thread but some majors like Music, Film have to do with networking as much as the study, which I think is a neglected point, but I guess all of them aren't necessarily going to pursue careers in their major and even less likelihood of actual success in their career.
|
|
|
|