<p>I would say firmly that I enjoy academics for the work involved in pursuing understanding and/or knowledge. I love learning.</p>
<p>I think that the purpose of college is changing. It has become for those about to enter a kind of validation of their efforts. And once accepted they are nervous as they are unsure of the global economy. Once there, students look much more at what happens afterward than they ever have before. This alters the way they choose courses, join clubs, and seek opportunities for growth.
I just wrote about this elsewhere today.</p>
<p>I’m going for the education and the personal growth. I love having new doors opened to me through learning, I enjoy meeting different kinds fo people, and I love discussing ideas. Getting a job where I’m happy would just be a lovely bonus.</p>
<p>As a high-schooler, I agree with Miami and David.</p>
<p>Personally, even though getting a degree and opening doors is a very important reason, I would like to go to college because of the journey, not so much as for the end.</p>
<p>It’s ALWAYS about the journey. It’s just that individuals see their life’s journey differently. In my family it’s tradition to finish what you start. So everyone who starts college ends up with a degree. But the degree isn’t the destination … and “large number of quiet corners in the library” isn’t a criteria for choosing where to spend the ensuing four years.</p>
<p>Having unique reasons for choosing a particular college is one of the wonderful aspect of America. No one should feel obligated to follow another individual’s choices.</p>
<p>A lot of posts here assume that college is for 18-22 year-olds. However, from what I have read, the majority of college students are not in this traditional age group.</p>
<p>So for the majority, the factors of socializing and maturing don’t really apply.</p>
<p>To some degree, no pun intended, it has always been about the credential. Even decades ago, you didn’t find many people dropping out in their senior year because they thought they had learned enough.</p>
<p>What has changed is that a degree alone is no longer a ticket to good employment. Historically, a liberal arts degree from a reasonably good school was enough to get one in the door at many companies. Today, by itself that’s not enough. Hence, the details of the credential become more important: the brand name of the school, the specific major, etc.</p>
<p>Along with this career-oriented emphasis, it seems like there’s less concern about some of the other benefits of a good college education: exploring diverse intellectual pursuits, developing social interaction skills, etc.</p>
<p>^^that…</p>
<p>I’m going to agree with this one. It’s a Ticket To Work.</p>
<p>I don’t see it as that different than it was 30 or 50 years ago. Most of my friends went to college to get a specific job, as did my father on the GI bill after WW II. Perhaps it is because I went to an engineering school. We were not there to explore diverse intellectual pursuits! Most of my friends went into business fields. I did have one friend who went to Kenyon to study English, then Northwestern for grad school in journalism, then to another U for a dance masters degree. She ended up managing a retail store. I know her parents were exasperated with her diverse pursuits.</p>
<p>As well as the validation of their efforts, college-inbound students will also learn the benefits of career oriented socialization. Networking. From the gained alumni network to the more personal 1-to-1 knowledge from those higher up in the corporate ladder, the students at colleges gain a higher advantage than those with a self-studied education just because they went to college and applied themselves socially. </p>
<p>Although the networking ideas are most likely secondary in the minds of college students and the forefront is either party hard or work hard or both, you cannot underestimate the powers of networking.</p>
<p>I’ll tell you what a friend with quite a bit of education told me. He said that years ago companies didn’t care about college degrees as much as they did about getting sharp employees, so they gave prospective hires intelligence tests. As times changed and perceived bias and discrimination became negatives, the mandatory college diploma replaced the intelligence tests. I don’t have any idea if this is true, does anybody know?</p>
<p>I think college is largely seen now as a means to an end.</p>
<p>Sure, students still pursue higher education for intellectual growth/developing social skills/meeting new people, etc, but it’s all taken a backseat to employment strategy. In many ways, the rising cost of tuition is to blame, in addition to the sort of environment employers have cultivated (especially now, with the economy and all).</p>
<p>Many employers won’t even touch you with a ten-foot pole unless you’ve got a degree, and unless that degree is specialized in the particular task that they need, the chances of being hired are slim. And even if you’ve got the degree, the prestige of the school is used as a proxy for applicant quality. </p>
<p>It creates this environment where students feel compelled to go to the best college they can to pursue a field with many employment prospects, since it seems like to do anything less is a disservice to their future. With rising costs, students seek degrees in fields that not only offers employment, but will cover the loan repayments. That’s also why we see so many students going into finance with the intention of working in the banking industry, where compensation is high.</p>
<p>The general assumption is that the expected future profit from going to a good school with a marketable major, even with loans, is preferable to going to a lesser/cheaper school to pursue an enjoyable but potentially unmarketable major. There’s also social pressures that accompany all this.</p>
<p>However, too many students overestimate their job prospects and take out more loans than they can realistically handle. With the influx of government aid that people are willing to accept, this doesn’t give colleges as much incentive to control their rising costs. </p>
<p>All in all, I see this as very similar to the housing bubble – something fueled by a mix of economic deathcycles and cultural pressures. Eventually, something’s got to give.</p>
<p>In total agreement that it seems a cycle like the housing roller coaster, for those who can afford it college is an assortment of experiences that enrich your life and help you get a job. But the flip side is that it is too expensive now for many to consider which is a sad thing. Hopefully something will “give” in order for all who want to go to college to be able to fulfill that wish.</p>
<p>This is my first post, but I’ve been lurking on CC for a year now, so I figured it was time to pony up.</p>
<p>This question is definitely a pertinent one, since there’s a huge tug-of-war going on between parents who know their children can’t get jobs without a degree, and students who don’t really know what they want, or have drunk the kool-aid and want to have “the college experience”, whatever that is.</p>
<p>I went to college (Macalester) because I was enrolled at a prep school. 100% matriculation, no if, ands or buts. My husband was the same (U of Richmond). We told our children “you have to do well in school and you’re going to the best college you can get into–and that’s your job.”</p>
<p>That was 30 years ago. Now it’s a different world. What if our D (rising junior) or S just wants to join the Peace Corps or start a business instead? Who’s to say which path makes them more successful? I really don’t want to steer them wrong or lie to them, but they do have options.</p>
<p>I’m also having a really hard time with the insanely high cost of college and sure debt that my D will rack up. Wondering if it’s worth it. There’s the voice in my head saying, “but if she doesn’t go to college, what will happen in 10 years when they can’t get a job?”</p>
<p>Is anyone else out there with me? So confused.</p>
<p>I was listening to NPR yesterday and a recent study on college graduates and jobs was being discussed, as usual the name of the speaker escaped me. This study extended over the years of this recession and compared jobless rates of recent college graduates to jobless rates of those who are in the same age group but didn’t attend college. The researcher talking about the study said that he was actually surprised by the numbers because of all the news reports of recent college graduates languishing on their parents’ couches. He said they found that recent college graduates had a 6 (point something) % unemployment rate, compared to a 24 (point something) % unemployment rate for young people who skipped college.</p>
<p>I want my S to get all the great things college can offer a young person, including better job prospects!</p>
<p>Honestly? I’d say the majority go for the degree because it’ll net a larger salary.</p>
<p>Agree. The cost has much to do with it. It’s become a long-term investment, and it needs to pay off.</p>
<p>I also note that “higher education” has lost its meaning. “Higher Education” at one time referred to a Philosophical Ladder in which Dogma was at the bottom, Truth was at the top, and knowledge was the rungs in between. Now, “higher education” means the next grade up rather than the pursuit of universal truths. That’s why it was called a “Ph.D.”, a doctorate in philosophy. A “sophist” was what the New Testament calls a “wise man”.</p>
<p>In other words, college students have evolved from truth-seeking sophists into trade school attendees.</p>
<p>I know. Or at least I say I do.</p>
<p>It wasn’t that long ago that there were no Information Technology degrees. Heck, it wasn’t even called “I/T”. It was called “Data Processing”, then “Management Information Systems”. There were no package programs. A team of programmers were needed to make the computer perform the tasks needed. Over time, it was learned that you hired mathematical people to do the analytical part, and artsy people to do the conceptual part. Once the first mainframe was built (at Penn, if I recall), it spurred a growth industry in electronic components. As the components got better, the computers got faster and smaller, which led to minicomputers, PCs, packaged software, and now little handheld computers. Once there is a demand, jobs follow. If the demand for workers exceeds the supply, employers “screen in”; if not, they “screen out”. </p>
<p>IQ tests such as the Wonderlic (still used) started with the Army. The premise wasn’t so much to measure one’s intelligence but to properly deploy the supply of soldiers, especially draftees. People with high scores were smart, but they’d question authority. The Army put those people in the back or sent them to officer training school to beat them up a little. People with low scores would be put in the front; they would do what they were told to do and what they were trained to do. The vast majority, of course, were in the middle.</p>
<p>The NFL still uses the Wonderlic for draftees. A high Wonderlic is perceived to be a “coach-killer” or a “softie” on the field. A low Wonderlic (such as a McNabb or Vince Young) means that they might have “football smarts” and ability, but they would need to either be brought along slowly with a complex offense, or the offense to be simplified to take advantage of their athleticism. The NFL loves low Wonderlics for the defensive line or DB or WR, but higher scores for offensive linemen or signal callers. They are scared to death of really high Wonderlics. High Wonderlics usually are backup QBs, kickers, or agents.</p>
<p>Let’s put it all together. During the Clinton years, there was a lot of “screening in”. The demand for “talent” was high, but the supply low. At the same time, management systems were getting better, but the cost of hiring mistakes was escalating. So, companies started putting together “algorithms” or “profiles” in an attempt to quantify intangibles. So, if a the top company’s top producing pharma sales reps all had a major in marketing with a GPA of 3.2 to 3.6, drove a Fiat and wore yellow shoes, that’s what they hired. And developed. And created special projects for them. The rest got the leftovers. That’s how Enron did it.</p>
<p>The problem is when hiring people think it’s a puzzle instead of a mystery. “If I have just a little more info, and a little more testing, I can put this thing together,” they think rather than, “let’s properly analyze info we already have, such as the situational behavior, communication style, management philosophy, and past performance of this candidate” and realize that there will always be risk. Instead, they compel people like me to perform skills assessments, communication style assessments, ethical assessments until all of us are bludgeoned.</p>
<p>Anyway, the shortage now is in plumbers. Can’t outsource it. The guys doing it have their own trucks, customer lists, bad backs, and an unbuilt lot near Myrtle Beach. They would love to have someone to groom to take over their business, and live on the passive residuals. No degree required. Just show up on time, ready to work every day. No tests (well, maybe a drug test). They are screening in.</p>
<p>I guess you can tell that I am a long time frustrated recruiter.</p>
<p>Spaceman, thanks for the education:)</p>