Totally agree with you. I think 2 years of college should be free for everyone. The higher education system does need to be reformed however. I think there's a real need for job training that is perhaps not best handled through the university system.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2074024,00.html The Next Great Resource Shortage: U.S. Scientists The skills you listed are expected from any good productive employee. The US workforce is already considered the most productive in the world. The unemployment rate of individuals with a BA at minimum is only 4.5%. The problem is that many service and labor intensive positions are starting to leave the US, as employees in the rest of the world are becoming more competitive in productivity. The US is a highly technologically advanced economy, they need people to fill positions in these industries and are finding that too many people have finance and arts degrees. There is a real shortfall, no amount of skills you listed will help alleviate this need.
Well, I agree with you! (and FB, of course), although giving everyone who wants it a chance at a "free" associates degree would be difficult, and damned near impossible in today's politically toxic atmosphere. What jumped out at me, really, was the comment about "a real need for job training that is perhaps not best handled through the university system," which others have mentioned as well, in one fashion or another. My S.O.'s nephew gave college a brief shot, and then decided to enter a union training program for electricians at a Houston company, one a friend had told him about. It took time and hard work, but he now has an excellent job and is looking forward to getting married. So yes, not everyone is cut out for college, but if the right venue is available (and there are few union programs available today in a state like Texas, where far too many "blind" people see unions as a pariah), folks like her nephew can become a skilled professional in his or her field, with jobs there for the taking. This is an area where much could be done to get people into skilled professions, were the political will there to act.
The link I posted was the Census data for the entire US. That data had 7.571 million enrolled in 4 year institutions back in 1980. Of that 5.129 million were in public institutions and 2.442 million were in private institutions...or 32.2% of students were at 4 year private institutions. In 2009, 12.906 students were enrolled at 4 year institutions. 7.709 million in public and 5.197 million in private...meaning 40.3% of students are at 4 year private institutions. From 1980-2009 US population is up by 36%. Enrollment at 4 year institutions is up by 70%. Enrollment at 4 year public institutions is up by 50%. Enrollment at 4 year private institutions is up by 113%. Also during this time private institution enrollment outpaced public enrollment by about 175k. And from my friends experiences they did not get extra grants if they went to a private institutions. I know of a few who had to turn down places like MIT because they couldn't get the grants. Anyhow, maybe states should move back to subsidizing tuition for lower income students since those are the ones most damaged by rising costs. And maybe I am being totally obtuse, but I still just don't see the data that jumps out and screams at me and says loans have exploded solely because of states cutting subsidies to state schools. Finally, I agree with your point about everyone being told they need to go to college to succeed and I think it's great if people can. However, it just seems like people are going just to go now with no real purpose other than to obtain a degree in any random subject. Anecdotally, I think the number of graduates with degrees that make them immediately desirable to an employer has dropped off significantly over the past 30 years. Lol I'm not one to throw stones since I started in petroleum engineering and ended up in history with a minor in govt. But hey I'm almost 10 years removed from college so I can bs and act like I actually had a clue what I was going to do after I burned out from engineering .
when i hire programmers - i look for foreign language skills as that translate well into a programming language skill. for strategists or consultants - strong humanity skills are required for abstract insightful thinking - particularly in marketing where brands are in essence cultural phenomenon. Philosophy majors make great lawyers and leaders as well. you are very narrow-minded and ignorant.
It's really not much of a debate. What I claimed was that an Arts degree is not worth getting since it holds such little value and that employers don't care about an education in humanities. This is provable: http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/110196/20-worst-paying-college-degrees-in-2010?mod=edu-continuing_education http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/06/the-worst-paying-college_n_566518.html#s88543&title=Social_Work http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/pf/1008/gallery.low_paying_college_degrees/index.html http://moneywatch.bnet.com/spending/blog/college-solution/20-worst-paying-college-degrees-in-2010/2618/ Employers and therefore customers see no value in an Arts degree. Or you can just Google the highest paying degrees and see that employers value math and science (another incredibly obvious claim I made that was some how getting rebutted). But maybe Pig is right and I should start throwing in personal attacks with my arguments: Spoiler <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/J-ZfahRzz_w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
lol, I've recently been to tons of banking events (for undergrads like me) and while obviously they love to have people with Econ or Maths degrees, they've also got people who studied History, French, Anthropology, etc. As long as you can impress at the interview and show that you can make them a ton of money, it doesn't really matter what your degree is. Because quite frankly, what you learn in your university degree is almost useless in your actual line of work, the degree is to show that you can work hard without supervision.
You are somewhat agreeing with what I am saying. An Arts degree may get you hired only because you have proven that you can get through college. But in that case you are not getting paid for your knowledge of philosophy or other humanities. This clearly gels with my claim that employers don't give two ****s about an education in the humanities. The employer not caring about your knowledge gets reflected in the pay as shown above. You can prove that you are responsible,capable, intelligent employee by working a job out of high school and getting good references from said job. No need to pay out the ass for an education nobody cares about to prove such a thing. This does not mesh with the huge discrepancy in pay. Obviously it does matter to employers what you study. In some cases it matters by 300-400%. This will be my last post on the matter since clearly we are off topic. Spoiler
$600 per semester is for two classes, a full load is more like $1500 plus books (~$100 per class) is around $2k per semester.
You've got mutiple posts from academics and people in hiring positions refuting your premise you ignore and one anecdotal post from a new job seeker that somewhat agrees with with you and you post like that is some kind of confirmation of your preconception? And one other small edification: I know life looks pretty scary right now, a lot more scary than when I was 20, but getting paid isn't everything, hell it's not even the most important thing. Just working at a position to get paid can be as much a living hell as being broke.
I know for a fact that the elite firms/hedge funds or foreign firms---the Wall Street or Bay Street firms (RBC, BMO, Goldman, UBS) automatically reject people with weak mathematical backgrounds. One of my friends is a B.A in economics and finance, and was straight out told that he would be the first one cut---since anyone with a Bachelor of Commerce or Bachelor of Science would be taken over him. If by banking events, you mean local banks looking for financial salesmen, so be it, but the degree, and what you learn (especially the amount of math) is essential for top-notch jobs in the elite firms. I just do not like the concept that runs through some people that what you learn is useless---that the intelligence you demonstrate is the most important thing. That is true to some degree, but not nearly to the point where your degree is just a signaling conduit.
I know that someone I was involved with was hired for a hedge fund and had an art degree, and a masters in theatre acting. But her experience got her the job and she did well there.
What was her position? If it was an admin. job (office admin) and she had connections, I think it could be possible, but otherwise--- most hedge funds hire from investment banks, and those who are proficient in the analysis and trade of securities or people who have a niche talent that can raise tons of money. That is impossible without mathematical knowledge, or highly specialized knowledge---like a JD that knows where the wind will blow in anti-trust cases. She's not a quant, risk analyst, trader, or software developer, that much I am assuming, unless you're missing about half of her life story that you're not telling me.
I think it was not an analyst thought they did offer to train her as one after she started. She didn't have connections, but did interview well, and had gone to prestigious universities such as Smith. So that was a huge advantage. I'm not saying it was normal just that it's possible.
