Ehm, welcome to the rest of the world. There may be other places which follow the US system (I don’t claim to know every university system in the world), but in locations from Buenos Aires to Edinburgh, you have to choose your coursework (or what you guys call your “major”) during the admissions process.
Amazingly enough, millions of students survive the effort every year without massive strokes.
It sure wouldn’t hurt, would it? As Nava says, it works elsewhere.
But no, I wouldn’t want to prohibit major-changing. The point is not to have hard-and-fast rules, but to encourage kids to think wisely about the money and time they are spending and borrowing, and to help them do the legwork to decide if college really is the right choice for them.
You can’t look at any individual and say he or she won’t finish college; but that doesn’t mean we can’t make pretty accurate generalizations. If a student’s SAT is 775 and her HS GPA was 2.0, the odds are very good she’s not going to graduate college, and if she does the degree may not be one that’s financially useful.
She will, nonetheless, find plenty of schools who want her to enroll, a government happy help her get into debt, and – and this is the point of the thread – an educational culture that tells her that going to college is the sine qua non of a happy and successful life.
Her reward for doing what everyone told her she was supposed to? Thousands of dollars in debt, a wasted year or three, and the joy of beginning adulthood by failing at a major goal.
Just a side note:
Working in LAUSD about 10 years ago we had a local superintendent that believed in “every student will go to college” so much that he made a rule that even if a graduating high school student met all of the requirements for a diploma, they could not attend their graduation UNLESS they had already been accepted to a college. So this administrator was in fact forcing students to go to college.
[quote=“etv78, post:160, topic:554801”]
Re-read the post you quoted. I didn’t say that.
That is precisely what I am trying to tell you.
Mounds and mounds of debt, 4 or more years spent NOT WORKING, and a job which is statistically unlikely to be in your field of education.
That, to me, doesn’t warrant the cost of college. That, to me, is an unacceptable standard of living. The pressure to go to college, take the aforementioned financial risks, and then spend 10 years paying a debt, is not affording anyone an acceptable standard of living. Sure, they’re warm and well fed…but that’s not really something we’re struggling to achieve in our society anymore.
My point is quite clear: happiness and contentment, which is the end goal for most college students (even though they don’t necessarily think that way) is easier to achieve in our society through means which do not include an unnecessary college education. **If college is to be involved, there needs to be more planning, more time researching one’s own like and dislikes, interests and proclivities, yadda yadda. **
The whole point of this thread is that college is not for everyone in today’s society, because too many people are going to college for the wrong reasons. A liberal arts degree means diddly squat to someone who only went to college because they were made to believe that it opened a magical door to the good life regardless of the specifics of their situation. They get a job which requires said degree, and it doesn’t fulfill them…because they never should have gotten it. For the same reasons I shouldn’t get a degree in botany. It’s just not for me…regardless of how many people try to convince me that botany is the way to go, and how much money I can make being a botanist. That’s what’s being pushed into the heads of high school age kids. Go get a (whatever) degree because that’s where the money’s at.
HOGWASH! The whole lot of it.
[quote=“echo6160, post:164, topic:554801”]
I didn’t say you did. etv78 had some problems with his coding.
And I’ll bet you something else. All these people who are saying “college is not for everyone” who don’t go to college. There’s a decent chance that in 10-20 years, they will be all pissed off in their low level job because they don’t like some “idiot manager” with his “fancy book learning degrees”.
That would be excellent advice for anyone about to make an investment of up to $100,000 or more and four years of their time.
[quote=“furt, post:166, topic:554801”]
I realized that after I posted, but I couldn’t edit it. Seems my reply also had the same trickle down coding problems. My bad :smack:
Here is one thing which is an eternal puzzle to me.
Why do so many middle class kids end up five figures in debt for a liberal arts degree? And I’m talking about middle middle and upper middle class kids here, the one’s whose parents are driving late model SUVs and living in the 'burbs.
Most states have state schools that you can live at home and go to for around $10k a year.
Work full time at McDonalds or delivering pizza during the summer and part time during the year for spending money.
Mom and Dad need to come up with $10k a year. That’s a lot of cash, but it really isn’t that much if they bothered to start saving when Jr. was born. $200 a month or so. Buy the Jeep Cherokee instead of the Grand Cherokee, cut out premium cable channels, skip one of the family dinners out every month, play cheaper golf courses, and only take the family skiing for five days over Winter break instead of eight and you more than have college savings for your 1.8 offspring, and probably obedience training for the AKC Golden Retriever too.
Now, I completely get the “hand to mouth can’t afford to save” thing. But few of my neighbors appear to be living hand to mouth - not in their choices of cars, purses, vacations, or lawn service. But I’ve had many conversations about how SHOCKING the cost of a STATE SCHOOL is and how they have no choice but to get loans. And I smile and nod and try and keep my mouth shut.
Furt-You are COMPLETELY right we shouldn’t be steering kids who have no business in 4 year liberal arts colleges towards that. (i.e. the 775 boards and 2.0 GPA) Nava, just as you, as a non-American are unfamiliar with the U.S. system, as an American, I’m unfamilair with Europe’s system.
Check out this list of top 100 most expensive schools (tuition + room and board). Most of these schools don’t suck. But I suppose your point is why are they spending so much to go to top schools when they have no idea what they want to do with their lives.
The answer is that the parents want their kids to have the best opportunities possible. You have a lot more opportunity graduating from a top school that a mediocre state school.
And suppose we used these computers properly and most kids could have the equivalent of a college education by the time they graduated from high school?
We don’t hear much about Vero Beach High School 1987.
http://www.cris.com/~faben1/section1.shtml
So the BAD STUDENTS were put on computers because the teachers didn’t want to be bothered with them but then they did better on the GED than the average high school graduate.
Now that was 1987 before Intel introduced the 486 processor. So what could be done with computers from 4th to 12th grade all of the way through. I picked 4th grade because that was when I discovered science fiction and began discovering ideas that my teachers said nothing about. Some I didn’t encounter until college.
Schools are really designed to control how much kids know by largely wasting their time on junk.
That is the trouble with economics. Everybody can’t sell insurance. Some people have to do REAL WORK. But the system is designed so the real workers are suckers that get ripped off.
psik
You answered your own question there.
Indeed, even if they look at US News ratings, most of the data that goes into those ratings is basically a function of spending. The schools are happy to reinforce this, as it gives them a reason to keep raising tuition.
However you also have more opportunity graduating from a top state school than a mediocre (but expensive) private school. Some of the schools on that list make me scratch my head. University of San Diego? I’ve been there a lot, my dad lives there, and I’ve never heard of it. UCSD is a good school, maybe it hopes to get people confused?
You get a halo effect graduating from a top school - people assume you are smart, and become biased in your favor. You also get a ready made network when you graduate, if you choose to use it. My observation is that private schools are more flexible in allowing you to switch majors and take classes. In Berkeley if you don’t choose engineering or computer science as a major as a freshman (and are allowed to take it) you might as well forget about trying to do it later. That was 10 years ago, I bet it is worse now. And that’s a good school, of course.
It’s possible the list is a little misleading. I went to what is ostensibly an expensive private university. But I did not have to pay very much, because they offered me a lot of grant money. I did have to take out some loans, but I paid them all off long ago. In fact, if I do some figuring, my current salary is more than ten times the total amount of all my school loans put together. So I’d say they were more than worth it.
Same here, more or less. The expensive private university has a lot of discretion re: how to spend its endowment money. They gave me enough in grants that it cost me the same out-of-pocket as going to an in-state public school, but I got to go somewhere that was much better for what I wanted to study. (Yes, the U. of I. has some great programs, and many of my friends went there. But if you wanted to study foreign languages, would you rather be in Champaign-Urbana, or NYC?) I ended up with about $10k in loans, and would have paid them off ages ago if I hadn’t gone back to grad school.
And I’ve been steadily employed in professional jobs, all of which related to my major in various ways, or in a full-time educational program, for all but 2 weeks since I graduated in 1989. ::knocks wood ::
At the consulting firm where I used to work, one of my buddies, a managing director a bit more senior than me, took a team out to visit a client. The client was the VP of a trucking company who had been there 20+ years and had worked his way up from driver. When he returned, we asked how it went. My buddy replied “yeah, I show up with this team of 26 year old consultants and lawyers. What are we going to tell him about his business? He probably thought we were a bunch of idiot children.”
The problem is that we have used education to institute a class system that enables the highly educated and connected to make a lot of money working jobs of questionable utility to society. An economy only needs so many lawyers, consultants, investment bankers and executive associate vice presidents of synergy.
ms smith-I believe it’s a reflection of something I asked about other thread: White collar jobs seem to be held in higher regard in our society.
Yes. White collar jobs are held in higher regard. They tend to be less dangerous, less dirty and more intellectually challenging than blue collar jobs. That tends to put them in higher demand and drives up the salary. Plus they usually require a lot of education. It would be tough to attract good candidates unless the salary covers the cost of that education.
Actually, I’ve got an MSc from an American university and part of the work I did to pay for it included “professional orientation” of undergraduate students during tutoring sessions, plus we get the American system shoved down our throats through movies and TV series, plus for some reason the Spanish Socialist Party loves copying American methods. So I’m quite familiar with the American system.
Just keep in mind that the way you’re used to seeing things work is probably not the only way it is done, from now on. Please.