<p>Churning - it's rare to find a store manager that is paid the same as a part-time high school clerk. I suggest you investigate the International Council of Shopping Centers. I can't tell if you are a disillusioned young person or a parent. Retail is a fine field and once you are on a management track the salaries are very comparable to other college graduates with a BA/BS. Advancement happens quickly for the twenty somethings and quite often they parlay the experience as district managers, regional managers, shopping center management and operations, retail development, operations managers, etc. into very lucrative positions that don't require as much travel and long hours in other sectors of business. There is a huge, huge difference between retail clerking and retail management. Check it out before making blanket pronostications.</p>
<p>I do think that we need to be cautious when selecting a four year college - especially when our income is tight. $80,000 - $120,000 worth of debt is not worth it when the same degree can be had for $20,000 or less (with state aid, like the hope scholarship in Georgia).</p>
<p>ITA- it does take a lot more work to find a similar level of education for D#2 that D#1 recieved at a top LAC for the same $$$ ( not as much need based aid- but ya know- we don't have two kid deduction anymore)- but worth it - you don't need to go to Harvard to have a great education ( or even Ann Arbor)</p>
<p>Here's the Atlantic Monthly article (June 2008 issue just came online):</p>
<br>
<p>Right- Bill Gates doesn't have a college degree, neither does Steve Jobs.</p>
<br>
<p>I don't work for either - Steve and Bill aren't the only guys in the club.</p>
<p>I'm going to stick to what I said before, some jobs do not need a college degree. So why force people to obtain a degree just for a company's pleasure? The author of the article mentioned above hit it. I'm going to say in most jobs it's not what you know, it's who you know. I am a parent of an underemployed college graduate, if you must know. He is at a job that has no relation to his college degree, although he keeps sending out resumes. And his degree/major was supposed to be an up and coming one when it was touted at the open house we went to over 5 years ago. I believe in higher education and am about to send another child into the world of college. I agree there is a difference between a lower level clerk in a store and a manager, but really not all that much that it needs a 4 year liberal arts degree. What it might be is maturity, experience and contacts that can get you ahead in one of these jobs. I'm going on what I see in the world, not by reports. People are graduating college without really being prepared for the "real" working world. Not all people, but some and I think colleges should give courses on how to market your degree for the work force.</p>
<p>Great article.</p>
<p>Some college education can be a help in almost any field. SOME.</p>
<p>For example, a plumber needs to be able to read the instruction manuals unless he wants to own his own business; then he needs business courses. I doubt being able to appreciate Shakespeare will help either situation.</p>
<p>On the one hand, I think reading fine literature is good for the soul and fosters an appreciation of our shared culture; on the other hand, not everyone can write a 10 page "college" research paper. For some people, being able to write coherent sentences with good grammar and spelling is enough, never mind orderly paragraphs leading to an original conclusion. </p>
<p>And for some jobs, basic math is way more important. And critical thinking is important (look at the people who swallow what a presidential candidate says, hook, line, & sinker), but writing about Jane Austen may not be the way to get there.</p>
<p>"One size fits all" English 101 is not such a good idea. Maybe we need more voc ed in high schools to catch people before they think they're stupid because they aren't great at English.</p>
<p>The Atlantic Monthly illustrates a fundamental point: in liberal arts schools, students pursue a medieval model of higher education, where the function of college was to prepare the upper classes for conversation at cocktail parties. In the real world, who cares if a worker is familiar with "literary techniques" or can tell you what 'foreshadowing" is?</p>
<p>The Atlantic Monthly only illustrates the difficulty of teaching English 101/102 to UNPREPARED students. The fault lies with their preparation, not with the class or the schools.</p>
<p>And there is nothing inherently difficult in the meaning of 'foreshadow.' It's actually a really easy concept to grasp. It's a fine thing to teach this -- and many, many far more complex concepts -- in high school and beyond. </p>
<p>I don't buy that dumbing down anything or anyone -- college or 'workers' -- is the way to conduct your society in the 21st century.</p>
<p>I agree with katliamom that dumbing down the working class is the opposite direction from which we should be going. Perhaps EMM1 can explain why it's desirable to try to maintain a split into two separate classes.</p>
<p>My goal would be to remove barriers to the economic advancement of the "working class" and lower income people generally by by eliminating extraneous qualifications that are more easily fulfilled by upper class people. The kind of "knowledge" that we are talking about here is simply the affectations of the chattering classes.</p>
<p>there are plenty of schools where there are no barriers to the advancement of the working class -- they're called state colleges, state universities, junior colleges. The United States has probably the most accessible, democratic and barrier-free university system on the planet. </p>
<p>And I have no clue what "knowledge" you're talking about that is "simply" the affectation of the chattering class. I doubt you do either.</p>
<p>EMM, decades ago you would've had a point. I believe I read somewhere that the SAT had questions about yachting back then? Now? I don't think trig, algebra, reading comprehension and basic writing skills are the affectations of the chattering classes, but that's just one man's opinion. Unless you're referring to something other than standardized tests, but I can't think of another requirement across the board for all college applicants.</p>
<p>Our state requires two years of the same language to apply to college- since this is not a high school graduation req, many students not already on the " college track" are unable to get classes.</p>
<p>We also only require two years of math and science to graduate, yet colleges require more credits, plus a minimum level to apply.</p>
<p>Note application is not the same as admittance.</p>
<p>"there are plenty of schools where there are no barriers to the advancement of the working class -- they're called state colleges, state universities, junior colleges."</p>
<p>This statement shows a complete lack of understanding about the financial situation faced by many poor and working class people. Even leaving sulctural issues aside, the question they must ask is not whether the typical CC question of "should I go to state U or go into debt to attend the Ivies" but rather "how can I find the several thousand dollars necessary to attend any school for four (or more years) years while supporting myself or my family." In many cases, the problem is difficult or downright insurmountable.</p>
<p>"I have no clue what "knowledge" you're talking about that is "simply" the affectation of the chattering class. I doubt you do either."</p>
<p>Leaving the postmodernist question of the true scope of my knowledge aside, I would simply refer to the Atlantic Monthly article. At a required English course nonselective school, students are not required simply to master the basics of expository writing; instead, they read "short stories, poetry and Hamlet" in order to under "literary techniques" such as foreshadowing. I defy anyone to explain the relevance of those subjects to job performance in the real world.</p>
<p>There is simply no point to continue this jejune discussion any longer.</p>
<p>After looking up "jejune" I have to agree. :) For some, college is a means to a job, for others a means to an education. There's no right or wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
jejune |jiˈjoōn|
adjective
1 naive, simplistic, and superficial : their entirely predictable and usually jejune opinions.
2 (of ideas or writings) dry and uninteresting : the poem seems to me rather jejune.
DERIVATIVES
jejunely |dʒəˈdʒunli| adverb
jejuneness |dʒəˈdʒun(n)əs| noun
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from Latin jejunus fasting, barren. The original sense was [without food,] hence [not intellectually nourishing.]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would disagree that the topic is naive.</p>
<p>Why can't an education help someone become employed AND educated?
Isn't that what we want for our populace?
And if not, why not?</p>
<p>If you don't think a college education is worth it, don't go or send your kid. If you do, then go. Free country. I always enjoy the folks who point out to the successes without college. What % of the nation are they? What % of the nation are who did not go are living on the streets, are in poverty, etc. Reminds me of learning to play a sport. You go to a baseball coach, who shows you how to bat a ball based on the best practices that have been derived for "the average" person. They people will watch their favorite professional player and say he does not do it that way. Again, average vs professional. What bet are you making here?</p>
<p>
Leaving the postmodernist question of the true scope of my knowledge aside, I would simply refer to the Atlantic Monthly article. At a required English course nonselective school, students are not required simply to master the basics of expository writing; instead, they read "short stories, poetry and Hamlet" in order to under "literary techniques" such as foreshadowing. I defy anyone to explain the relevance of those subjects to job performance in the real world.
</p>
<p>So if everything related to job performance in the "real world"? A plumber doesn't need math, so should a kid who thinks he's going to spend his life unclogging pipes get out of basic algebra requirements? This is ridiculous. The reason high schools try to give a large breadth of learning is to give students a base foundation to build off of. Those literary techniques could very well be useful to a future novelist, there's "job performance" for you.</p>
<p>Under your assumption, every child should decide what their career will be at the age of 10 and never take any unrelated course. There are direct benefits to having a well-rounded education. Like the ability to have a decent conversation, for example.</p>
<p>I didn't mean to suggest that learning skills and techniques of general applicability was unrelated to real world success. Thus, for example, learning to write clearly and make a coherent argument could be useful in many careers.</p>
<p>But I stand by my my two basic (if jejune) points</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Precisely because a college education is so readily available to more affluent Americans, lack of a college degree has become a significant barrier to social mobility for many low and moderate income people.</p></li>
<li><p>Part of the unfairness of this situation derives from the fact that much of what is taught and even required in undergraduate school (such as learning the artificial constructs that determine whether literature is deemed "good" or not) are unrelated to success in almost any career.</p></li>
</ol>