<p>Interesting editorial in the NYTimes today.</p>
<p>Some interesting points. The question then becomes: Do we send our newly minted high school grads off to safety schools (heaven forbid!) at the full sticker price given today's economy? Perhaps it would be better to take some quality gap time (and by that I mean get a job!) and reapply in a year, or even two?</p>
<p>Appreciate everyone's thoughts!</p>
<p>^^Where are all of these jobs for high school graduates that you speak of??</p>
<p>First, I think it might be tough for the kid to get a job during this gap year. Second, I think it may not help. I mean, who said the job market in 5 or 6 years is going to be better than in 4 years. It may be better or it may be worse.</p>
<p>What our family is doing, is kind of trying to prepare for the worst and manage kid’s expectations. For a year now I’ve been repeating over and over: "The job market is bad, we are not taking loans for your college… The job market is bad, you have to select an employable major… ". Now as she is unsuccessfully trying to find a summer job, I think it all is starting to sink in.</p>
<p>Ok, here are the numbers simplified:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>8.5% unemployment means 91.5% are employed. This means 91+ out of every 100 looking find jobs vs 8+ of every 100 who do not. When times were good, 5+ out of every 100 did not. The difference has occurred to 3 people out of 100.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For high school graduates, 21 out of 100 looking do not find jobs…</p>
<p>For underemployment (includes the previous 8+) an additional 11 have “issues.” Interestingly enough, they don’t compare high school grads, but since the 21 of the 100 are already included… it can’t be equal or lower.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And these numbers show that of the working crowd, an additional 10 out of 100 have jobs where they aren’t using their degree. Prior to downfall, this was 30 out of 100. Now it’s 40. It means 60 out of 100 have a job that requires their degree.</p>
<p>I can’t see where the current numbers, while worse than before, mean we should start shooing academically qualified students away from college. Instead, to me, it shows there’s more of a need than before (that 21% is rather high). Then remind them that real life (unlike elementary life) is competitive and they should actively try to make themselves a desireable applicant. Jobs are far less likely for the 2.0, “hey, I made it” graduate compared to the 3.5+ with great recommendations grad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a third option: suggest to your newly minted high school graduate that he or she take advantage of one of the many much-more-affordable opportunities that abound in today’s college landscape; study hard, develop critical thinking skills, and, if your talents and interests coincide with a vocationally oriented major, a solid background in that major; graduate with no or minimal debt; and then take whatever job is available and use those critical thinking skills (and vocational skills, if applicable) to work your way up.</p>
<p>I live near steel mills and oil processing plants. One trend that I have seen is that kids that are coming home with unexceptional college records (though with degrees) are getting bumped up the line for electrician and specialized apprentiship programs in the area. So while they will be in a blue collar job, those hiring in the area like to see college as an achievement. So even the vocational trades are starting to consider a degree over a high school diploma. I asked about this at a career fair with an employer at BP and he stated that those with a degree have proven they can learn and adapt. </p>
<p>So while the programs only require high school diploma, that is not who is getting hired.</p>
<p>People around here have long been over-qualified for their jobs. I know many women who are clerks and/or secretaries and/or technicians who have college degrees. I know an attorney who was a secretary in a law firm for many, many years. Many of the others working in the firm didn’t even know she was a licensed attorney. There are two young college grads who do odd jobs for my non-profit that I pay $10/hour. They do data entry, xeroxing, filing, and whatever else I can have them do instead of me. They’ve also been hired by a temp agency to help a non-profit move, serve as office manager temporarily, and other jobs. The only jobs they have been offered full-time are selling insurance, which neither is interested in. They have been unemployed for over a year now (tho both had full-time jobs in the UK before quitting & moving to HI).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not exactly. Most of the employed people stay in the same job that they already have, and most employers prefer to keep an acceptable incumbent employee that they know rather than replace such employee with someone else who may be better, but may instead be worse.</p>
<p>^^^ ? I don’t get what you are saying. All percents add up to 100. Of those looking for jobs, if 8.5% are unemployed, then 91.5% are employed. They may not be in their dream job (and still looking for it), but they have one. Unemployment is only counted when people are not currently employed and are looking for a job. </p>
<p>Underemployment is addressed further down in the article as are those not in jobs using their degree.</p>
<p>If 91.5% are employed and 8.5% are unemployed, that does not mean that 915 out of every 1000 job seekers will find a job.</p>
<p>Suppose, for example, there are 1000 in the labor force and 915 jobs. Suppose 500 of the jobs are filled by employees who have no desire to change and whose employers want to keep, while the other 415 jobs are those which will turn over either because the employee wants to go elsewhere or the employer no longer wants the employee. That means that 500 people will be looking for 415 jobs, so if all 415 jobs are filled, 83% of the 500 job seekers will find a job.</p>
<p>In other words, the set of job seekers is not the same as the set that is the labor force.</p>
<p>I think this is the most important part of the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Today’s college graduates face a challenging job market. For them, a college diploma alone does not guarantee a good job. They need to have other things to offer as well.</p>
<p>Those other things may be (1) a marketable major, (2) an excellent academic record, (3) work experience, (4) leadership experience, (5) internships, (6) good resume writing and interview skills, (7) graduating from a well-known college, (8) a willingness to apply for lots of jobs, to consider a variety of types of jobs and geographic locations, and to settle for a less-than-ideal job if necessary, (8) the good sense to take advantage of on-campus recruiting, or, preferably (9) a combination of several of the factors listed above.</p>
<p>Most of the recent graduates I know had at least three or four of the factors on this list working in their favor. And they now have jobs. Good jobs. Jobs that pay enough to live on and are in some way related to their long-term career interests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think unemployment now predicts the future (job turnover or otherwise). It’s looking at best guess statistics now based upon the stats they have. Right now, of recent college grads under 25 only 8.5% are not employed and are actively looking for a job. They may, or may not, find a job. Those not looking for jobs and those underemployed, but working somewhere, are not in those stats. 91.5% are working somewhere (not looking for a job, but working).</p>
<p>So, purely on odds today, if I have a recent college grad who wanted a job (not grad school, not couch potato who gave up looking), he has a much better chance of having one than a recent high school grad.</p>
<p>Since I tend to prefer to go with the best odds, having a college degree still looks worth it to me UNLESS I know the student involved is unable to get one academically, prefers a trade or path that truly doesn’t need one, or is lacking some of the other people skills to get a job even with a degree. I doubt there’s a whole lot of hope for the latter group, but they’d be better off without paying for the piece of paper (in cash or debt). Even when times were good, 5.4% of recent college grads didn’t have jobs. There’s not a whole lot of difference in those two numbers. The types of jobs may have changed, but as others have reported, having a college degree still gives one an extra kudo toward hiring.</p>
<p>A police force I know recently hired two new people out of several applicants. One was my cousin. The common denominator with the two? They both had 4 year college degrees. The other applicants did not. A 4 year degree was not a requirement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>another way to look at this is it is a 60% increase (from 5% to 8%)</p>
<p>News Flash: We’re in the worst economic downturn in 75 years. Every segment of the economy is affected.</p>
<p>Film at 10.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s still just 3 people out of 100, but yes, one can spin stats to make them appear more impressive. Of course, one ought to do the same for high school grads. They’re at 21% from ???</p>
<p>Another way to look at it is by changing categories there’s a 150% increase (8.5% - 21%). 
(or an additional 12.5 per 100 out of work looking for jobs)</p>
<p>I think I was trying to point out the cost of a college education vs. the payback. At a $200,000 investment if one isn’t lucky enough to get scholarships or aid - does the ROI make sense? Quoting the column,
“From 2007 to 2011, the wages of young college graduates, adjusted for inflation, have declined by 4.6 percent, about $2,000 each per year.”
Not sure it makes a lot of sense to pay that much for a college degree and then have to take a job at $10/hour…</p>
<p>Even jobs which do not require college education, they are hiring college graduates to fill those positions. So where do you want your child to be? Ones getting jobs or ones getting overlooked? The article said college students are having a hard time finding jobs, but then it said,
Duh! It doesn’t show by not going to college is a better solution. A pointless article.</p>
<p>
I’d be very interested in knowing the unemployment rate for people who actually paid that much money for a college degree. It could be very different from the overall rate–which includes many people with degrees from much cheaper schools. Heck, I’d be curious to know what the employment rate is for graduates of schools that cost that much vs. cheaper schools–whether the kids paid that much or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one needs to make a $200,000 investment to get a good education IMO. Even without scholarships and/or aid of any sort, there are options that cost quite a bit less for those who aren’t the scholarship (or need-based) types.</p>
<p>Or are you equating cost with quality? If so, that’s a fallacy. Many who can afford higher cost still choose lower cost options.</p>