Why some people cannot see that college is (much) more than work training?

Parents Forum
1

<p>I was reading some old threads and some editorials and blogs out there in the matter of “cutting down college costs”. Notwithstanding some level of out-of-control increase of cost of attendance, I’m still amazed to see how many people out there see attending college and getting a B.A. or B.Sc. as something which only purpose would be training kids with marketable job skills.</p>

<p>The corollary of above mentioned assumption is in line with foolish proposals like switching all education to Phoenix University-style online programs, abolishing tenure and hiring low-cost faculty that would teach, and teach only, cut programs to 3 years, abolish GenEd requirements, give credit for “practical” apprenticeship, shifting from a degree approach to a certification approach, and so on.</p>

<p>Some more exquisite claims (I’m writing about things I read certainly more than just one or twice on my non-conform, empirical and unscientific personal research) include forbidding companies to require BA/BSc degrees when intellectual demands for a given position doesn’t justify them, and claims to abolish subsidized loans so prices would go down.</p>

<p>What really upsets me is a very utilitarian approach some people get on college education. I’m on the skeptical side of rating the importance of roommate experience, social life experience and, specially, athletic and sport experience for a successful education (sport is the most overrated factor of attraction in college; therefore athletes are at greatest chance of stealing spots of better qualified candidates). I agree that 2nd and 3rd-thier colleges were drawn into an “arms race” to keep their facilities up to Ivy’s standards as they cannot keep academic standards – which costly results to parents and kids financial future. I agree that colleges should not be the place to take remedial courses.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, it is a reason for my very concern that many people out there are seeing colleges as the 21st century vocational and trade schools. Of course, bachelor degrees bring verifiable and consistent long-term financial advantage over those who hold only HS diplomas. Surely, students should shop wisely for appropriate majors. However, it is just unconceivable the vision of college as places where people learn to perform specific job tasks and nothing more. Long (and for good) are gone the days in which you learned how to operate a single machine and made a lifelong career and fed a family with that.</p>

<p>For those who take advantage of it, college experience can bring intangible intellectual development that will benefit graduates whatever career they choose. Paradox of graduates flipping burgers and HS dropouts becoming multimillionaires will remains exception. America has the finest higher education system in the World, producing far, far more scientific innovation and research than any other country and dominating 19 out of each 20 sub-specialized scientific fields, yet some people seem to appreciate the idea of inviting Ty from the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition show to do some demolition on Ivory Tower dominion :). </p>

<p>Usually, these people are the same who write that everyone should sign up for the Army (to “work your ass out and learn to be respectful”) or work full-time because “useful things one learn from watching senior workers doing it, not sitting your butt on brick-and-mortar obsolete buildings”. (OBS: I have nothing against ROTC, Military forces or whatsoever, but I found outrageous arguments that Military purpose would be to “fix” teenagers character rather than defend a country). </p>

<p>I take into account that average CC forummite is far more involved and interested in higher education than average parent or average student, so many of you will probably not agree with those bashers of Higher Ed. Even though, how much of these arguments have you listened in your social circles and HS?</p>

2

<p>“The college experience” is a joke. College is a huge waste of money if your intent is not to further your skills available for the current job market. People don’t go to college to learn about life and how to be responsible individuals because this is something that is easily learned without tuition, teachers, and classes. Intellectual development should not only pertain to a college setting and if you are attending for that sole purpose then you’re wasting your money.</p>

<p>I take classes at college simply because I want to further my knowledge in my field. I don’t need a degree, I just want to improve my job skills.</p>

3

<p>Why are getting “the college experience” and furthering your skills for the current job market mutually exclusive?</p>

4

<p>It seems that Mr Vehicle has indeed confirmed europegrad’s premise. I would suspect that the average college kid does indeed follow the limited goal of career development and has little interest in the less practical intellectual pursuits. I guess that is what happens when you open up educational opportunities to the masses rather than provide it only for a select few.</p>

5

<p>There are many ways to transition to adulthood. But the bottom line is that a bachelor’s degree is now required as an entry point in the job market, whether that is a bachelor’s degree in history or mechanical engineering. </p>

<p>I’ve told my children they must go to college and obtain a degree. I don’t care in what subject, just something they enjoy studying, but to otherwise learn how to be a responsible independent adult who can write, speak publicly, and carry themselves with class and dignity.</p>

6

<p>Ghostbuster, I’d say that today’s MS/MA degree is the 1960’s BS/BA degree… Fortunately, Ph.D programs have not loosen their standards, indeed a whole new pletora of master degrees, unkwon 30/40 years ago is now becoming the norm for those who want to truly distinguish themselves from the crowd.</p>

<p>The increased rates of college attendance should be viewed as a good thing: prior to WWII, a 12-year education was not considered obligatory, nor even needed, by many. There were too many dropouts who used to go to labor market straight from middle school (what a shame). Of course, and fortunately for all of us, physical strenght and manual abilities no longer determine your fitness for work (= adult) life, and intellectual skilss are far more stuble and intangible than ability to lift x pounds to y height.</p>

<p>It would be appaling if, in spite of all technological and social progress, 14 years old kids were required as norm to sought employment and a little paid labor-intesive career.</p>

7

<p>Your argument would also make sense if not every single job required a college degree(read: intelligence test) in order to get a job.</p>

8

<p>To my best knowledge, there are still a lot of jobs not requiring college degrees as prerequisites. Construction, catering, fooding and supermarkets still take large number of workers without any degree requirement, although those positions are usually minimum-wage paying. Then you have trade and vocational schools and training programs. So it follows Military recruitment (not talking about Mil. Academies of course, which are harder to get addmitted than many Ivies)…</p>

<p>The problem, IMHO, is less about employers requiring too much educations/degrees than it is about rapidly changing nature and structure of those same jobs. Jobs that don’t require any education and physical presence are for long being outsourced to China, India, Mexico and so on.</p>

9

<p>Also those areas tend to not pay well unless you are very special.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>Speak for yourself.</p>

<p>Training is for the job market. Education is for yourself, your future, and our species’ future.</p>

<p>“Here, boy! Take this class! Learn this skill! Now do it 40 hours a week! Good boy, here’s your paycheck!” That’s what training is for. And that’s fine if a paycheck is your primary goal, but it’s not the same as education.</p>

<p>Anyway, for the most part the trained work for the educated. Which would you rather be?</p>

11

<p>If you believe you cannot pursuit atypical intellectual and career goals outside the classroom then you’re a major tool.</p>

12

<p>Since my previous post is bound to invoke some ire, since it’s strongly worded in a polarizing way, allow me to add that we need trained people! Many if not most doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, engineers…the list goes on and on…are more trained than they are educated. Society couldn’t function without them. But leaders, visionaries, creators…these people are educated, and society couldn’t advance without them.</p>

13

<p>Tool? :smiley: School must be out for the day.</p>

14

<p>There is nothing inherently mutually exclusive about becoming educated and being prepared to play a useful role in modern society (aka being trained in modern fields).</p>

<p>I hang around with academics a lot. Some of the best educated, most creative, inventive AND useful people are those with engineering degrees at the undergraduate level. Many have gone on to obtain doctorates in other fields, including economics and finance. I know some physicians who have undergraduate and even graduate degrees in engineering; they are involved in creating new medical technology.</p>

<p>While it may be true that some people have a very, very narrow definition of education, certainly it is not correct to establish a dichotomy between educated and trained.</p>

15

<p>Many leaders would say they did not let education get in the way of becoming a real leader. Steve Jobs–one of the true visionaries around was a dropout. Many of the better writers and actors spent little time in college.</p>

16

<p>As I’m still a high school student, take this with a massive grain of salt.</p>

<p>I’ve spoken to many successful engineers in my area. Many of them were required to take high-level math classes as part of their degrees. And most of them do not use all of that math every day. However, the ability to reason mathematically has helped them tackle difficult problems as engineers. That’s the fundamental difference between education and training; training trains you to do one specific job, while education provides the skills necessary to do many different jobs well.</p>

17

<p>noimagination, well put. </p>

<p>Anyone know how many career changes the average adult makes? I wonder how many of them went to college to train for their current career?</p>

18

<p>There is also a progression involved. For people who are the first in their families to ever attend college there may be pressure, from either their families or from themselves, to focus on getting useful job skills over acquiring some sort of abstract education for its own sake. Growing up in hard circumstances will often do that to you. But over time this evolves. As John Adams put it when asked if people in revolutionary America appreciated art and literature (paraphrasing): “I must study war and diplomacy so that my sons can study commerce and government. And they must study commerce and government so that their sons can study art and literature.”</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>No grain of salt necessary, noimagination. You made your point well.</p>

<p>I would take that a step further, and suggest that the ability to reason helps one tackle all sorts of difficult problems. I have undergraduate degrees in both history and biochemistry, with a minor in chemistry. The chemistry and math classes I took were engineering-track. As much as I love the study of history, and credit that major with helping me learn to write, the second degree did a lot more to teach me how to reason and solve problems.</p>

<p>I think the OP is correct to recoil at the notion that all post-secondary schooling should be on the model of University of Phoenix. Unfortunately, though, much of what passes as liberal arts education is not well done and probably does constitute a waste of time and resources.</p>

<p>As with most things, one should strive for a happy medium.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I’m a John Adams fan, myself, courer, but if Adams were alive today, he would probably be studying agricultural economics or something similarly mundane. He happily went back to the farm after retiring from politics, and spent the rest of his life trying to figure out how to eke out a living from that cruddy Massachusetts soil.</p>

<p>And he really was no fan of Thomas Jefferson, whose ineptitude with money and obsession with things artsy frustrated the heck out of him even when they were getting along, in France.</p>