Sure, there may have been artisans who supported and fought for the American Revolution. The leaders of the American Revolution were still in general rather rich, from old families that had been rich for generations, considerably more educated than was typical in those times, and either were in white-collar jobs or owned large plantations. The most typical career was as a lawyer, a judge, or a politician. Take a look at the list in this article:
You can click on each name to get a biography of that person.
I still don’t see your claim:
> Fact is, the wealthy blue collar artisans enabled our democracy to shake off the
> English aristocracy and allow the rule of the common man.
There was no significant difference between the American colonies and the U.K. at the time in respect to being governed largely by well-off people who had come from well-off families. Whatever else may have been the cause of the American Revolution, it wasn’t caused by artisans in the American colonies demanding their rights.
I went to a state school full time, lived at home for the first few years paying a nominal rent and worked part-time. Later I got a full-time job, moved out and continued to go to school part-time without missing a beat. I mostly paid my own way ( excepting that early cheap room and board ) and never incurred any college debt whatsoever.
Now did my college experience get me a job? Well…only in the most oblique fashion. My college biology background ( more the chemistry pre-reqs, really ) helped in the interview to land my full-time “light blue-collar” job, which requires some basic lab work. But considering my double-major was in systematic biology and history, I can’t say it is terribly related. However…
…the above has always been my conception of college. I never regarded it as a trade school, even as 17 year old freshman. I’ve had to struggle with a bias against people who were in school “just to get a job.” I remember clearly how those of us in organismic biology used to sneer with haughty disgust at the pre-meds and clinical science majors, who had only the slightest interests in their undergraduate disciplines and were cutthroat competitors. To me it seemed a bit of a perversion to study something of no intellectual interest just to score a paycheck.
I’ve gotten over that. Sorta ;). At the very least, considering my job is only of minimal interest to me, I can hardly point fingers.
But to reiterate others above, college is only a scam if you go in with the wrong expectations. For me it was a great experience and never a serious financial strain.
A bit of both. Some students are getting things out of college even without a clear career plan, either because they do have some idea, or because they are just generally smart and will find their way. Others are just there killing time and racking up bills, taking whatever looks fun and/or easy. Those are the ones I suggest the circus to; generally, they’ve already considered it, but need permission.
Bollocks. In my own experience, it’s usually middle- and upper-middle-class kids who are the ones that need to be told that college isn’t the only option. Poor kids who don’t really fit in college tend to already not be there.
I also recommend the disclaimer I put on my syllabus.
“You instructor will make numerous errors – of fact, theory, and pedagogy – during the course of the semester. Your job as a student is to spot those errors. Extra credit will be given to students who identify these errors and explain to the class the ways in which the instructor is wrong. Any student who requests it will have class time allotted so that they can present complete refutation of anything the instructor says on any subject.”
Discuss this in class.
Final exam question:
You were told that your job as a student was to spot instructor errors this semester. Please discuss the most important things your instructor was wrong about this semester.
The thing is, go to Junior College for the first couple of years, (cheap, no loans needed) then finish up at State (not cheap, but not ivy league prices either). Once you have your sheepskin, and your first job under your belt, nobody is going to give a darn where you graduated from, your work record assumes primacy. I had some great professors at JC and didn’t feel shortchanged at all.
I think it isn’t a matter of telling poor kids not to go to college, but to encourage them to study things that are marketable. Knowledge-for-the-sake-of-knowledge is cool, but it (IMHO) is a luxury.
From my experience, most poor students do know this. As the first in their families to go to college, they are pressured early on to go into medicine, law, engineering, or business. But occassionally there are kids who are pushed to go to college just to get a degree and end up pursuing their interests when they should be thinking about their long-term goals. They are usually the ones that come out thinking college is a scam.
Internships make all the difference, but poor students are at an disadvantage. An upper-middle class student can afford to forego employment during the summers, but poor students generally have to work. Furthermore, wealthier students have contacts and cultural capital, so what they study is secondary to who they know. So if I was advising a poor student, I would tell them to pursue an area that will help them get internships (with stipends, if possible). 17th century French philosophy might not be the field that fits this description.
So while I don’t think college is a scam or that it should be an automatic route to employment, I think it’s unwise to tell all students that they should study anything they want. They should balance their “wants” with their strengths and their career plan.