<p>Agree with Ben's #19....my kids care about challenge and rigor and part of picking their respective colleges and grad schools had to do with being challenged in their areas of passion. Again, both are not pursuing high paying fields. Neither did I. I chose grad school at Harvard as it fit what I wanted and it was challenging like I crave. I also pursued a field that was my childhood passion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Imagine a world where college doesn't lead to greater career opportunities, or at least, is not believed to lead to greater career opportunities. How many people would still go to college? Or, perhaps more poignantly, how many parents would teach their kids to value college and would still pay it? Be honest.
[/quote]
Ah, I see that soozievt and I have chosen the same passage to respond to. :)</p>
<p>I am the parent of an MIT student, for whom I am paying full price (and also another child who is a student at a school most CC'ers never heard of). The MIT student just switched into a major that represents his childhood dream but does not pass the usual "rigor" test around MIT. I have always expected my children to continue their education after high school, and honestly I can't recall thinking about their career opportunities after they graduate. I think of the challenges they are faced with in their undergraduate years, and how they learn to rise to meet them. (Academic, social, and personal.) I think of their opportunities to explore new activities, new areas of learning, to stretch their world boundaries. I think of them finding something that lights them from the inside, that moves them to put their energies and efforts into doing something meaningful for themselves and (I hope) the world.</p>
<p>I know full well, 30+ years after finishing college, that there is often no direct correlation between what one studied as an undergrad and what one does in one's long-term career. As an undergrad, I learned how to take a large problem apart into more manageable bits and plan a way to tackle and eventually solve them. I learned discipline, and how well I work under pressure, and how to fit play in around the things I'm required to do. I learned how important it is to stay healthy while putting extreme pressures on myself, and I learned how to deal with many new kinds of people, especially the ones I didn't care for. I learned what I was capable of, how to plumb my creativity and reserves, and how to find meaning in tough situations.</p>
<p>I hope for my children to learn some of the same things during their time as undergrads. I don't care what they come out the other end thinking they'll do: they'll figure out something. And as long as they've learned some of the important things about themselves and applying what they do know to new situations, I'll think they've been successful. I think my student at MIT is learning these things and more.</p>
<p>Short answer: yes, I'd pay for college regardless. And am doing that as we speak.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just read post #15. Huh? Who would pick a major just because it is easier to graduate (going by your assumption) than if in another major?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh indeed? Again the answer is simple - * because you will graduate*. Let's face it. You don't just go to college just for the sake of going to college. You go to college because you want to graduate and get a degree. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If the tech major is too hard at MIT for someone, then do a tech major at another school!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You say that as it that's so easy. Is it? If you go to MIT, try out a technical major, and do poorly, can you really go to another decent school? What decent school is going to take you as a transfer? Your academic record is trashed with bad grades. They won't admit you as a transfer. </p>
<p>Now, true, you can probably transfer to a low-ranked no-name school. But honestly, how many MIT students would really do that, if they could instead just stay and get a relatively easy degree at Sloan? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The way you write it sounds like "get a degree at MIT at all costs, even if it is not what you are interested in because then you will be sure to make money!" Wah? I can't relate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wah indeed? I think almost everybody can relate. Graduating with some degree, even in a major you don't really care about, is better than not even graduating at all. </p>
<p>Look at it this way. Be honest. Look at all of the colleges across the country. How many poli-sci majors actually become professional political scientists? How many history majors actually become professional historians? How many sociology majors actually become professional sociologists? </p>
<p>Furthermore, people change their careers all the time. I believe CNN once estimated that the average American changes careers (not just jobs or employers, but entire careers) more than 3 times in a typical lifetime. Hence, it is highly likely that, sometime in your life, you are going to end up in a job that is unrelated to what you studied in college.</p>
<p>Look, nobody is saying that you should major in something you hate. But I think most people are fairly 'promiscuous' in their intellectual tastes. For example, I majored in ChemE. But I had interests in a great many subjects. For example, I also had interests in business, in history, in economics, in political science, and so forth. And of course I could have majored in something similar to ChemE like Chemistry, Materials Science or Physics. I probably would have enjoyed any of these majors.</p>
<p>I seriously doubt that you really are going to find a lot of people, even at MIT, who like one - and only one - subject and hate everything else. Students at MIT are pretty well rounded and have a multitude of interests.</p>
<p>And that's precisely the point I'm making. Sure, if want to pursue a technical major at MIT and can do well in it, then by all means do so. But my question is - what if you don't do well? I am fairly certain that most such people would rather major in Sloan than transfer to some low-ranked school. After all, most MIT people don't hate Sloan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky -- your many paragraphs do not adduce any arguments. you just repeatedly assert that people at MIT and Caltech are motivated mainly by money, but you're wrong. no matter what their parents think, many of the best students at MIT and caltech genuinely care about becoming great thinkers, and would gladly give up a high-paying job for that
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I never said that they were motivated solely by money. I am saying that they are motivated by career concerns, of which money is one piece. </p>
<p>And besides, like I said, you have the causation confused. You say that MIT and Caltech students care about being great thinkers. But ask yourself - how did they even come to care about this in the first place? In almost all cases, it was because their parents taught them to care about education from a young age. But why did their parents do that? </p>
<p>I'll make the point even more salient. Ben, imagine if your parents never bothered to teach you the value of education, and in fact, taught you that all schooling is just a waste of time and money. What are the chances that you would nonetheless value being a great thinker? What are the chances that you would have gone to Caltech? I am going to go with 0%, and I don't think I will be far off. Your desires - like everybody else's here - are strongly shaped by your parents.</p>
<p>Sakky, I have well rounded kids who have a multitude of interests but they would major in what they wanted to major in whether it was the hardest major or not. They would not change majors to an easier track just to graduate. I agree that many adults have careers in something they did not major in! But that is not the point. My kids' aim was not simply to graduate. They also want to be immersed in their areas of interest. One of my kids who is a junior in college is in a specialized professional degree program that she had to be admitted directly into. It is very very very intense. She goes to school ALL day and has requirements every night and weekend. If she didn't love it, she wouldn't do it. She would not pick an easier major, however, just to graduate from that school. Yes, graduating is important. But if a major is too hard, then there are many alternatives. But I just know my kids and they would persist in the major no matter how difficult because that is their area of passion. </p>
<p>The reasoning you give of switching to Sloan because it is relatively easier is NOTHING that would remotely cross my kids' minds. They'd rise to the challenge in their area of interest. If they could not cut it at that college, I imagine going to another one would have been better, not changing fields. Changing fields makes sense if your heart is not in the current one. And to be perfectly honest, I cannot imagine my kids doing poorly in college. They are just too driven, and interested in what they are doing and they have high standards for themselves. So, I guess I can't relate to the situation you presented. There is no way they would switch to Sloan (or the equivalent at their schools) because it was "easier". My kids have NEVER chosen the easy way. To the contrary, they are the type of people who have chosen HARDER paths due to sheer desire in those areas. They surely could have picked way less demanding fields of study.</p>
<p>i don't know where this debate went off to. sakky was saying that caring about rigor in education is like caring about having the nicest pom-poms on the cheerleading team -- purely a social fad driven by peer pressure. i was saying that this is insane -- that many MIT students genuinely care more about getting a serious education than a high paying job. i think sakky has fundamental axioms that prevent him from entertaining this possibility.</p>
<p>btw, no serious labor economist disagrees that getting a ph.d. is a serious net loss in terms of lifetime income, even accounting for consulting income. nevertheless, here i am. i'm getting a ph.d. from a business school, so maybe you'll say i can still make a lot of money. how about my friends getting ph.d.s in completely abstruse math or in greek literature. are they motivated by career concerns too? your theory of the world fails to explain many phenomena.</p>
<p>sakky, your argument about parents valuing education....doesn't match with your conclusion. For example, mootmom values education. One of her kids goes to MIT and one goes to a school many have not heard of. I believe mootmom values the education at both colleges for both of her kids. Speaking for myself, I would have valued and paid the same for the education of my kids no matter which school they had picked....Podunk, Ivy, MIT, no name U. I highly value education. But it doesn't matter to me which school my kids attend. I only want them to be happy with their chosen schools and for that, I am ever so grateful that they picked the perfect schools for them. Their experiences have been invaluable and worth every penny of debt that I am now in to make this happen for them.</p>
<p>^^sakky, money may be the motivation of some MIT parents that are poor, but I think it is a really inaccurate generalization. I know it wasn't true in my family.</p>
<p>Ben, I agree....my kids cared about rigor/challenge in selecting their colleges and grad schools....it was one of their selection criteria. How much money they could earn if they attended X college as opposed to Y college was nothing that remotely crossed their (or my) minds!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hope for my children to learn some of the same things during their time as undergrads. I don't care what they come out the other end thinking they'll do: they'll figure out something. And as long as they've learned some of the important things about themselves and applying what they do know to new situations, I'll think they've been successful. I think my student at MIT is learning these things and more.</p>
<p>Short answer: yes, I'd pay for college regardless. And am doing that as we speak.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I think you invalidated your own answer. Consider your own quotes, which I reprint below:</p>
<p>*As an undergrad, I learned how to take a large problem apart into more manageable bits and plan a way to tackle and eventually solve them. I learned discipline, and how well I work under pressure, and how to fit play in around the things I'm required to do. I learned how important it is to stay healthy while putting extreme pressures on myself, and I learned how to deal with many new kinds of people, especially the ones I didn't care for. I learned what I was capable of, how to plumb my creativity and reserves, and how to find meaning in tough situations. *</p>
<p>*...as long as they've learned some of the important things about themselves and applying what they do know to new situations, I'll think they've been successful *</p>
<p>Think about what those quotes mean. They all have to do with increasing one's future career success, right? The ability to solve problems, the ability to work under pressure, the ability to apply what they know to new situations, etc. etc.: these are all skills that are directly applicable to career success. And that is my point: parents are willing to pay because they believe that college - by whatever mechanism - enhances their kid's future career success. </p>
<p>What I am talking about is a situation where colleges did NOT enhance those skills (or at least, where parents don't BELIEVE that those skills are enhanced). In other words, what if you thought that college did NOT improve one's ability to solve problems, to improve one's ability to work under pressure, to work in a disciplined fashion, to apply what you know to new situations. Would you still pay? I think the answer is clearly no.</p>
<p>^^Most people who value academic success like to think that it translates to the real world. However, I think this derives from a core value of respect for academic achievement rather than a calculation that academic success will translate to more money.</p>
<p>
[quote]
parents are willing to pay because they believe that college - by whatever mechanism - enhances their kid's future career success.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Two things....
1) I do believe that college itself enhances future career success as opposed to not going to college at all. What I don't believe is that going to X college is going to enhance greater economic success as compared to going to Y college. </p>
<p>2) I would pay for a college education even if my child NEVER worked a day in her life upon graduation. Why? Because I value education for its own sake. To be educated. And for the four year experience while there. Let's say my girls decide to become stay at home moms some day. Their educations will have been still worth it to me.</p>
<p>sakky - your recent post says that parents are only willing to pay because it improves SOMETHING about their kids. clearly that's true, but that SOMETHING doesn't have to be future money-making ability. there are many worthwhile somethings, as soozievt and others have eloquently said, and you see only one of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I have well rounded kids who have a multitude of interests but they would major in what they wanted to major in whether it was the hardest major or not. They would not change majors to an easier track just to graduate
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
If she didn't love it, she wouldn't do it. She would not pick an easier major, however, just to graduate from that school. Yes, graduating is important. But if a major is too hard, then there are many alternatives. But I just know my kids and they would persist in the major no matter how difficult because that is their area of passion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Soozievt, in those above 2 quotes, you just contradicted yourself, and in fact, have proven my point. You have just conceded that, "iif a major is too hard, then there are many alternatives". That's precisely my point. </p>
<p>Again, nobody is saying that you shouldn't pursue a major that you want if you can do it. But my question is, what if you can't do it? You just said it yourself - if your kids just can't do what they want because it's too hard, then they would consider an alternative. Exactly. Sloan is that alternative for those MIT students whose desired majors are too hard. QED. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The reasoning you give of switching to Sloan because it is relatively easier is NOTHING that would remotely cross my kids' minds. They'd rise to the challenge in their area of interest. If they could not cut it at that college, I imagine going to another one would have been better, not changing fields. Changing fields makes sense if your heart is not in the current one. And to be perfectly honest, I cannot imagine my kids doing poorly in college. They are just too driven, and interested in what they are doing and they have high standards for themselves. So, I guess I can't relate to the situation you presented. There is no way they would switch to Sloan (or the equivalent at their schools) because it was "easier". My kids have NEVER chosen the easy way. To the contrary, they are the type of people who have chosen HARDER paths due to sheer desire in those areas. They surely could have picked way less demanding fields of study.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, it's because they can do it. Good for them! But what about those people who can't do it? What happens to them? </p>
<p>I don't see why you find it so difficult to relate to what I am saying. Look, not everybody who goes to college, including MIT, will graduate. Some people will flunk out. I think that's fairly common knowledge. You say that your kids will rise to the occasion, and perhaps they would. But not everybody can or will. I don't know about you, but I think it's fairly clear that graduating from Sloan is better than just flunking out of MIT entirely. I don't think that's a close call.</p>
<p>sakky, in the last few lines you assert an uninteresting and obvious point. your original contention was much more thoroughgoing and ambitious (and, also, false) -- that career concerns are all that matter in determining people's educational pursuits. i think we've knocked you down pretty decisively on that score. thanks for discussion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
your recent post says that parents are only willing to pay because it improves SOMETHING about their kids. clearly that's true, but that SOMETHING doesn't have to be future money-making ability. there are many worthwhile somethings, as soozievt and others have eloquently said, and you see only one of them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The issue is not what I see, it's what mootman, or more importantly, what other parents see. </p>
<p>But, to your point, let me put it to you this way. When I was a kid, I used to love playing video games. I mean LOVED it. And I used to tell them that playing these games improves my hand-eye coordination, my reflexes, ability to think quickly, and so forth. And it's true - I did improve those skills greatly. You think my parents cared about that? Heck no! They did everything they could to restrict my game-playing and instead encourage me to study. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that those skills that parents encourage can't just be any skill, but have to be something that parents think are actually useful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, in the last few lines you assert an uninteresting and obvious point. your original contention was much more thoroughgoing and ambitious (and, also, false) -- that career concerns are all that matter in determining people's educational pursuits. i think we've knocked you down pretty decisively on that score. thanks for discussion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? And when did I specifically say that "career concerns are all that matter in determining people's educational pursuits"? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that. Can't do it, can you? Looks like you've been knocking a straw man this whole time.</p>
<p>What I have said is that career concerns are AN IMPORTANT concern. However, nowhere have I ever asserted that it was the ONLY concern that mattered.</p>
<p>sakky, #36 is once again an obvious point. but then you jump from "useful" to "likely to increase future income" and the latter just isn't a good model of how the world works. </p>
<p>look, i understand how someone who is focused on careers (perhaps as a professional occupation) would see things in your way, and an ivory tower academic would see it in my way, and the truth is somewhere in between. but it's very clear that maximizing {money earned}/{hour of work} isn't everybody's goal, and neither is maximizing {hardcoreness of class load}. the truth is complicated and somewhere in between.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1) I do believe that college itself enhances future career success as opposed to not going to college at all. What I don't believe is that going to X college is going to enhance greater economic success as compared to going to Y college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then you are clearly in the minority for I think it has been shown that most parents - whether rightly or wrongly - do believe that certain schools do provide better career opportunities than do other schools. I doubt that that is surprising: look at the mania of parents trying to get their kids into top-ranked colleges. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2) I would pay for a college education even if my child NEVER worked a day in her life upon graduation. Why? Because I value education for its own sake. To be educated. And for the four year experience while there. Let's say my girls decide to become stay at home moms some day. Their educations will have been still worth it to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And to that, I think you are also clearly in the minority, or perhaps, you have the wealth and luxury to afford such a choice. But be honest - do you think most Americans can afford to be this generous? Or even want to be? Let's face it. Most Americans aren't exactly rich. In fact, you can even click through the various threads in CC in which people discuss whether they should take a full ride at some lower-ranked school over going into personal debt for a higher-ranked school, presumably because their parents couldn't or didn't want to pay.</p>
<p>sakky, I believe that the students that MIT accepts, on a a whole are capable of graduating in their chosen fields of interest. Students may change fields if the field is not exciting them as that is very common in college. But if it is the field that they truly want, most students of the caliber that MIT accepts, can rise to the occasion and pass and graduate. If they feel MIT is too difficult, they can transfer. I know my kids would not change majors as an easier path toward graduating. They just would not. They are too interested in their fields. </p>
<p>By the way, as far as post #36, we definitely encouraged skills with our kids that were not "useful" or were not "academic" in nature. We were and continue to be very very very into their extracurricular pursuits which I have to say have been lifelong passions of theirs. They continued these in college as well. We encourage that and those areas may not have any bearing on an eventual career. One of my kids actually turned her EC pursuits which began as a preschooler through high school graduation into her college major and career path in fact. Of course we also encouraged her academic achievements in the classroom but these other interests have become her lifelong passion and now her career pursuit.</p>