<p>The problem is the misguided notion that a “college diploma” is an identical, fixed product not dependent on other factors. This is simply not true. I think that a college education can live up to the hype, but only if the student makes certain choices.</p>
<p>Primary and secondary education may also “live up” to the “hype” provided parents and children make the right decisions. Children may also be taught practical skills at this level similar to how they are already learning college-level material in high school (AP classes, anyone?).</p>
<p>^ I agree with that as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That presumes that you actually obtain the degree. What if you don’t? The fact is, less than half of all incoming college students will actually graduate. Granted, a small handful such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg leave voluntarily because they found something far more interesting to do. But the vast majority of them do so because they either flunk out or were otherwise unmotivated to finish. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with that logic is that social forces impel many students to attend college who would have benefitted from other life choices. Befitting the sentiment expressed here, our labor market is characterized by credential inflation, where employers can demand degrees for positions that, frankly, don’t really require them. {And since the employer isn’t paying the tuition, implementing such credential requirements is costless to them.} I once worked at a company where the bulk of the secretaries held master’s degrees, and it was nearly impossible to even land an interview if you did not hold at least a bachelor’s, even if your job simply entailed making coffee and answering phones all day long. </p>
<p>Hence, to say that everybody should simply find and follow the path that fits their desires is far too simplistic, as social forces dictate otherwise. To not hold a degree is increasingly being seen as a negative signal to the market, either because of pure productivity reasons, or because of the retardation of social capital. As an analogy, I know kids who played football in high school even though they didn’t really enjoy football and were untalented at it, but just because many of their classmates played football, and so if they did not, they would be socially isolated. Heck, I knew a guy who even took up (social) smoking in his 30’s because he worked at a company where lots of his colleagues smoked, and joining them for a smoking break was an excellent way to develop social rapport. Hence, the more that we elevate college as a standard career path, the more that people who are unsuited for college will attend anyway simply because that’s where all of their friends are, or that’s because it’s what society expects them to do. </p>
<p>As one case in point, I can think of one ingeniously sly lothario who attended college who candidly admitted that he didn’t really care about developing critical thinking skills or other academic growth, but simply as a way to meet girls. He once put it bluntly: “Where else are you going to find such a large contingent of young, single, intelligent, gorgeous girls?” If college is where the desirable, available women are, then that’s where he should be. Whatever you might think of his strategic objective, you cannot deny his success: I think he once went a whole month where he had a date with a different girl every single night. But it does beg the question of why taxpayers - as this was a public school - should be effectively subsidizing his love life. If all he wants to do is meet women, maybe he should pay for a Match.com account or a singles bar cover charge on his own dime.</p>
<p>sakky, but you yourself admit that many jobs want to see at least a Bachelor’s degree. It doesn’t matter if it is debatable if one really needed that education in order to do the job, because the employer demands it. If you don’t have a degree, those jobs are not open to you, simple as that. </p>
<p>As far as students who don’t finish college, then perhaps college was not the right path for them. For those who have particular goals and aspirations and the motivation to do what it takes to achieve them, a college degree is a great path. For those who are not into going to school per se, then counseling as to appropriate goals and paths to reach those goals is necessary. </p>
<p>Also, nothing wrong with changing course in life. One can try college and discover it is not for them and seek out something else. Whatever they gained in the time they spent at the college is still a growth and educational experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that’s precisely the point expressed in this thread. I agree that it does depend on your value system. Many people don’t really value education…but are pressured to attend college anyway due to the social forces involved. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then I suspect you’re a clear exception, or you have an expansive definition of what it means to work in ‘the field you studied’. </p>
<p>As a case in point, consider the jobs taken by the graduates of the Berkeley English major - the #1 rated English department in the country as reported by USNews. The vast majority do not seem to have taken jobs that are clearly rated to the major. On the other hand, I do see positions such as lumber pullers and forestry technicians (whatever those are). </p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/English.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/English.stm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s precisely from where the inefficiency stems. The more people who graduate from college, the more that employers can demand college degrees, which then means that the more pressure that other people feel to attend college, even if they’d rather not and do not benefit from the college environment. In other words, every college graduate indirectly imposes an external cost on those who don’t want to attend college. {In the same way that, if you’re a boy in a US high school and you want to be popular, you’re pressured to play sports even if you’re athletically untalented, simply because that’s what many of the other boys are doing.} </p>
<p>It all results in a major drag of social welfare. Many people who would rather not go to college and don’t benefit from the environment end up attending anyway, simply because they don’t want to send a negative signal to the market.</p>
<p>And of course, those increasing numbers of college graduates put pressure on themselves, forcing many of them to attend graduate schools, scoring more debt in the process, and perhaps finally landing a position with minimal increase in pay.</p>
<p>Except in limited cases (STEM careers), more education is not better than more experience.</p>
<p>How to post a new post in this forum? I am new here.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>^ [College</a> Confidential - FAQ: General Forum Usage](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_usage#faq_vb3_forums_threads_posts]College”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_usage#faq_vb3_forums_threads_posts)</p>
<p>Enginox…if your view on a college education is simply a way to earn greater pay, that is a limited view. Certain careers or fields are only open to those who have a degree. Sure there are jobs that earn more with no degree! But if you want a career in certain fields, a degree is required to reach that goal. I’m in a low paying field. But a college degree is required to be in my field. Sure, there are jobs where I could earn more that do not require a degree.</p>
<p>How to post a new post here? I am new in this forum.</p>
<p>The saddest part of the debate, to me, is that there are not enough jobs in this country that need a college education for all of these college graduates to use their degrees. Thus, the college educated cashier, barrista, nanny, and secretary. And, most of those underemployed folks are in some kind of trouble with the loans they took out to achieve their dreams. I’m all for having a smart and well read general public, but not if most of that group is in debt for the next 20 years. I’m encouraging my kids to think of the military or tech school, and then to work their way through college if they want. They also can bike to the local library and learn all sorts of things for free.</p>
<p>Testing! Testing!</p>
<p>^ Did you read the link I provided? Go back the the subforum you want to post in and hit the new thread button… not the post reply button in this thread.</p>
<p>trooper, some of it is a value decision. If my kids never work, I will have been happy to have gone into debt to pay for them to be well educated because I value education for its own sake (as do my kids) and didn’t send them to college merely to attain employment. What they learned and experienced in college cannot be replicated by biking to the library in town. Add in the people they met. </p>
<p>That said, my kids who are just 21 and 23 are working in the fields they studied in college and are supporting themselves. But that was not the only reason they went to college.</p>
<p>Now I realize some kids have to pay for their own education and that is far more difficult. I’m just relating my value system and my cultural upbringing which is to highly value education and that parents provide educational opportunities to their kids as a gift or responsibility. What the kids do after that is their own doing.</p>
<p>What do you not understand? Not everyone is rich enough to afford the debt required by college. With the current system (in which a degree is required to even get a low-level job) young people are going into vast amounts of debt for little reason.</p>
<p>pandem, why are you going to college (I see that you are a current college student)? </p>
<p>By the way, we are far from rich and our kids were on Financial Aid but we have chosen to pay the debt ourselves and have not saddled our kids with any of the debt, even if it is challenging for us to do so. I fully realize that some kids must foot the bill themselves and that is a difficult situation to be in.</p>
<p>I agree with both posts #10 and #19 by speedo on this thread. Quoting them both below:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting how these articles about college being overrated are always written by highly educated people. I believe Dave Thomas of Wendy’s was once asked what he felt about being such a success in life despite the fact that he never went to college. He said he often wonders how much more he would have accomplished had he gone to college. </p>
<p>People tend to value what they don’t have and devalue what they have.</p>
<p>@soozievt:</p>
<p>Your error is that you believe well educated means a college education. Society already invests large sums of money to formally educate people from at least age 5 to age 16. 11 years is more than enough to teach people about history, mathematics, language, logic, arts, etc.</p>
<p>11 years is more than enough to instill communication skills, quantitative skills, and reasoning skills into a person. These things should not be happening at the tertiary education level. If people can’t learn that in 11 years, the chances of them learning that in 4 years in a higher pressure environment are slim!</p>