For Most People, College is a Waste of Time

Parents Forum
1

<p>From the WSJ Opinion page:
"Outside a handful of majors -- engineering and some of the sciences -- a bachelor's degree tells an employer nothing except that the applicant has a certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance. Even a degree in a vocational major like business administration can mean anything from a solid base of knowledge to four years of barely remembered gut courses.</p>

<p>The solution is not better degrees, but no degrees. Young people entering the job market should have a known, trusted measure of their qualifications they can carry into job interviews. That measure should express what they know, not where they learned it or how long it took them. They need a certification, not a degree."</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

2

<p>That's just silly.</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
nothing except that the applicant has a certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, to begin with, that's not nothing. </p>

<p>I agree with Bethie--this is silly.</p>

4

<p>I believe this was the standard approach during the Middle Ages. Then, the "colleges" were called "Guilds" and the students were called apprentices. Goals were certainly similar though -- ensuring that "Young people entering the job market should have a known, trusted measure of their qualifications they can carry into job interviews."</p>

<p>The</a> Medieval Child - Apprenticeship in the Middle Ages</p>

5

<br>


<br>

<p>And what's wrong with that? A certain amount of intellectual ability and perserverance are often exactly what an employer is looking for. For most entry level jobs the applicant is not expected to have a ton of specific detailed knowledge. Jobs are different enough that the employer will need to train new employees, so certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance are just the ticket.</p>

<p>Sounds like the author favors a 19th century apprenticeship and trade school system.</p>

6

<p>I have a relative who very much agrees with the WSJ opinion page. In fact she could have written it. She feels that higher education is a means to keep a large chunk of society out of the workforce because of the lack of good jobs. She says that many students stay in school until nearly 30 and some are forced into retirement before 65. She thinks that we should move back to the era of apprenticeships for many professions.</p>

7

<p>I think apprenticeships are a great idea for many professions, but that doesn't mean a college education is a waste of time.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
I think apprenticeships are a great idea for many professions, but that doesn't mean a college education is a waste of time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I totally agree.</p>

9

<p>I think that view is only valid if you consider a college/university to be equivalent to a vocational training school. Which it is not. </p>

<p>I think this view has become more common as the cost of a college education has risen higher than the rate of inflation. As it becomes harder to make that education pay for itself within a few years, people begin to question its validity.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
I think that view is only valid if you consider a college/university to be equivalent to a vocational training school. Which it is not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with you, but too many people DO think of college as a glorified trade school - it's just a ticket to a "good" job, not a place of learning. Arrgghh!</p>

11

<p>Maybe those years between ages 18-22 are a waste of time. Some kids do not want to go to vocational school, have no interest in any specific activity. If they don't go to college, what will they do with their time? I have such kids, and I can tell you there are worst things than going to college those years. Better they do their nasties away from the house as well. The separation and learning curve are difficult for many kids. College may not be for every kid, but it is not the worst place to spend those crazy years. They just might learn some academics too.</p>

12

<p>I agree that much of what one "learns" in college is not directly applicable to what one does on a job later in life, and I have a few relatives who started working at age 16, ended up with great jobs making six figures, and have little or no college. Luckily, some are at a company started by a self-made non-college graduate so they have not been denied promotions due to a lack of a degree. However, at many big companies in this country, promotions to VP level jobs would require that the employee possess a degree. (Any one will do) And for those who find themselves in the job market, there are many (not too great) job listings that ask for a four year degree. This I know as I have been looking for a job lately. College isn't for everyone and some would be better suited learning a trade. However, there are valuable things to be learned during four years of college, not all of which occur in the classroom, that assist one on the job later in life.</p>

13

<p>Ironically, I am seeing kids going to community/local college after getting a BA in order to gain specific job skills for well paying jobs That can be a great investment.</p>

14

<p>After reading the article, I'm thinking that we could go back 100+ years to the past and make similar statements about the value of a high school diploma. The paper itself isn't important, why are kids staying in a school an additional 2-4 years past 8th grade when they already know enough reading and writing and math to be able to go out and start working, etc etc etc. </p>

<p>I'm also wondering if the author has a financial interest in the ETS :) Certification tests would be a total cash cow for them. </p>

<p>On the other hand, there was a discussion a few months ago about this Atlantic Monthly article (In</a> the Basement of the Ivory Tower) where a professor argued that many people don't need or want college, that they're enrolled because the only way to move ahead at work is to have a BA degree. The discussion got lively ;) but at heart both articles are addressing a similar issue: can we find some more cost-effective way to give people the credentials and education they need to do their job than getting a four-year degree? </p>

<p>Another quote from the WSJ article:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Under a certification system, four years is not required, residence is not required, expensive tuitions are not required, and a degree is not required. Equal educational opportunity means, among other things, creating a society in which it's what you know that makes the difference. Substituting certifications for degrees would be a big step in that direction.</p>

<p>The incentives are right. Certification tests would provide all employers with valuable, trustworthy information about job applicants. They would benefit young people who cannot or do not want to attend a traditional four-year college. They would be welcomed by the growing post-secondary online educational industry, which cannot offer the halo effect of a BA from a traditional college, but can realistically promise their students good training for a certification test -- as good as they are likely to get at a traditional college, for a lot less money and in a lot less time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since a high school degree isn't seen as the credential it used to be, employers see no other way to certify than to ask for a BA, even if it's not really needed for the job at hand. It would be great to figure out a lower-cost way to provide that kind of stamp of approval, though I'd sooner see it through the existing community college system than a new set of tests. </p>

<p>Also wondering why the author seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about undergrad. He writes</p>

<p>
[quote]
Certification tests would disadvantage just one set of people: Students who have gotten into well-known traditional schools, but who are coasting through their years in college and would score poorly on a certification test. Disadvantaging them is an outcome devoutly to be wished.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure those students exist, but they're a minority. Most students come out of undergrad with all of the different types of benefits that we all know about and want for our kids. In no way could a certification exam have possibly tested for the attributes that were needed for my immediate post-undergrad work or grad school!</p>

15

<p>My friend's daughter graduated from a well known college as an English major. Could not get a living wage for some years. She took a year at a community college and got a certificate in medical transcription and terminology. She found a decent paying job at a hospital in handling insurance claims and patients bills, then hit the jack pot working for a well known insurance company in a pretty high position. The certification alone would not have gotten her that job, nor would the English degree alone without working her way up through the ranks, but the combination rocked.</p>

16

<p>I would disagree with comments suggesting that some degrees are worthless... there are a lot of life skills learned during any degree in addition to, hopefully, a lifelong passion for learning. However, equally I think it's safe to say that one should always consider what they plan on doing with the 'rest of their life' even during the college years because yes there are certainly a lot of degrees that will leave you more or less quite unattractive to employers after college. That's not to say you shouldn't major in those subjects, but you do need to do things to make yourself marketable to the 'real world.'</p>

17

<p>^ And I'll bet that English degree gave her an intellectual depth that she'll carry with her the rest of her life.</p>

<p>I'll also bet the author of this anti-intellectual drivel in the WSJ isn't encouraging his or her sons and daughters to skip college. Probably just wants to keep down the competition by urging the unwashed masses to stay away.</p>

18

<p>Contrarian view: There's some truth to what the author says based on my own experience, though I wouldn't draw the same conclusions. I frittered away my years at college, at least in comparison to what I could have done if I had had a clue. At least, it's fair to say I was too young and stupid to understand how great were the opportunities and people around me. I definitely wish I could go back and do it over again. Certainly, I benefited from my undergraduate experience, but in relation to what I could have done (or others in my class did) one could argue that it was a "waste of time."</p>

19

<p>I'm so glad someone started a thread on this article. I read it this morning and sort of agreed with the premise that we indeed need certification testing upon graduating from college. In a sense, our kids already go through this with AP and SAT II subject tests.</p>

<p>But I also think four years pursuing the bachelor's is just totally necessary for becoming a truly educated member of society.</p>

20

<p>Can't remember the title, but there is a book out there with alternatives to college. The author's son was a bright young man who just did not want to go to college. He did not want to do any more academics. After he flunked out of college, she was forced to face the situation. She looked into a number of for such kids. Good reading, I think. Not all kids are college material, and many who are would do better going later rather than sooner. But then it is difficult for them to figure out what to do as the herd mentality if they are in a college prep program is strongly pro college. Hard to buck that trend.</p>