This is an excellent point. If manual labor is so rewarding, why don’t the elites choose it more often?
Unfortunately, “college isn’t for everyone” usually works out to “college isn’t for poor people.” When people are sorted into trade schools when they are young, the reality is that it ends up being along class lines. Until the bright-but-lazy daughter of a successful businessman is just as likely to end up in the “plumber” track as the bright-but-lazy son of a WalMart clerk, it isn’t prudent to start writing off people’s ability to achieve academically when they are still in their teens.
This already happens more than you can imagine. I had a friend who was brilliant. He easily scored a five on his AP calculus exam. But he was a poor South American immigrant and was automatically tracked into remedial classes. Nobody ever bothered to tell him how to get into college, and he wasn’t in tune with American society enough to figure it out himself. So he graduated high school and got a job as a printer. A great mind was wasted because he didn’t look like college material.
Historically, university has been a way to separate out the people who were rich enough to delay earning money for four years. Nowadays, many people go to university. So we are seeing a kind of “degree bloat.” A Master’s is the new Bachelor’s. Basic office jobs are looking for advanced degrees. This has nothing to do with anything but keeping classes separate.
But still, I think we shouldn’t be so flip in writing off a good education. Yes, it’s not the “golden ticket.” But it does teach you how to think and write and it does give you a good solid background that allows you to have informed debates about a variety of subjects. Of course, you can do these things on your own, but most people don’t. Anyway, just because you can’t see an immediate monetary use for a piece of knowledge does not make it worthless. Trying to put a dollar sign on facts is missing the point entirely.
I graduated with a “worthless” degree that has brought more into my life than I could ever imagine. I have a lifelong love and in-depth understanding of a subject that will continue to give me joy until the day that I die. I have had the chance to share what I have learned with others and make the world a more knowledgeable place. I have acquired critical thinking and writing skills that have helped me in every job I’ve ever had. But then, I worked my butt of in college even though I didn’t have to (my school had no grades.) Learning is it’s own reward.
Personally, I believe universities should have open admissions. And in exchange for that, they should be damned hard. The people who can’t cut it will drop out. The people who do will have a degree that means something other than time served.
In many cases, because they feel trapped and obligated by peer and parental pressure.
18 year old Worthington T. Phipps is going to be mocked pretty roundly by his peers and family if he announces that he wants to be a stonemason. Buford D. Hillbilly may be the first person in his family to try college, but he’ll get way more moral support from teachers and peers than the rich kid.
The article the OP is not about tracking people or writing them off – it’s suggesting to people who have* not *been written off and who could go to college, that there are in fact good reasons to choose not to.
Literally you are right - I doubt anyone says those exact words. However my daughter’s ex-bf acted exactly as if that was what he was thinking. Actually he could handle it, but thought he couldn’t. So I know a bunch of people who think exactly this, some with justification and some without.
I guess some people can’t handle community college, but the most common cause of not finishing a class is either laziness or lack of interest. Around here parents with health insurance can keep kids on by sending them to community college, which saves a lot of money. There is clearly no expectation of really going.
I don’t know anyone who says that college should be the province of the very bright, by the way, unless you define “very brignt” way down.
I think that this thread is predicated on a bit of a misunderstanding. When people talk about the availability of college and its link to high income and so on and so forth, they’re saying that everyone, regardless of the financial status of their parents, should be able to go to college. Able to and should are separate things.
Another issue is that, for instance in the Netherlands I believe it is, there’s a gradation of university courses, not just one “university.” The idea is that some people need 0 years, some 2, some 4, others 6. It depends on the aptitude of the student and how much they can sponge up. So long as they can keep soaking up information, keep them there doing that. The US system of a set 4 years isn’t the only possible alternative, nor just trade schools.
What we noticed is that some kids whose parents didn’t go to college (or who went and thought it a waste) were at sea about college selection. We wound up giving a lot of advice. Those who cared took their kids on college tours, the rest either pushed the kids into the nearest state school who would take them or into a community college, so the big state tuition bills didn’t delay getting their next SUV.
Some of the teachers and advisors are just as bad. One told my kid’s class that there was no big difference between the local community college and Harvard. There was also a lot of discouraging kids from applying to good colleges, because they might not get in and it would break their little hearts.
This is the dream, but it never works out that way when real life gets involved. The rich have always been able to make sure their kids are where they need to remain in the top echelons of society. The poor have had to fight for decades to get even a foothold on opportunity. If people are discouraged from going to college, it is going to be the poor who get discouraged first.
However what has risen much faster than income levels is the cost of education(up 35% in the last five years and double digit growth for more than a decade). Obviously resulting in lower returns on investment.
Basically, the gist is that looking at median earnings for high school and college grads and taking into acount school loans, tuition and other costs, there is only about a 2-4% return on investment over 40 years.
Sigh. The point is not about discouraging anyone; just the opposite. It’s directed at kids and the parents of kids who can and likely will go to college, and who are facing social pressure to do so (and in middle-class America, there’s far more peer pressure to go to college than not), that they don’t have to, that a skilled trade is also a worthwhile option.
The problem with this kind of analysis is that it lumps together all majors. Comparing a clearly “financially worth it” degree like Engineering to a much more questionable one such as Liberal Studies is apples and oranges.
When most people are making the decision to go to college, they don’t do that detailed an analysis. Instead, they operate under the assumption that any degree leads to a secure lifestyle. So this sort of analysis has some value, but I agree that it would be more helpful to break it down by at least major, and maybe GPA as well.
And lots of health occupation courses, and fire academy, piloting, and more.
Having taught in both CSUs and CCs here in CA, I have to say that there is no difference in the students’ caliber (it’s all over the spectrum), the professors’ expertise (variable but mostly pretty good from what I’ve seen as a former student and current faculty member), and the curriculum. A major difference is cost–and sometimes size. And, of course, the fact that you can get a B.A. and M.A. at the universities.
I do have to remark, though, as a writing assessment specialist, that the number of students having to be placed into remedial courses is increasing dramatically. We’re scoring more assessment tests than ever before, but the test-takers’ writing skills (among others) are declining.
Money isn’t everything. These studies do not measure job satisfaction. Once we have basic standard of living, many of us would choose a challenging and rewarding job at slightly less pay than a somewhat better paid job that we found tedious and meaningless.
I am a teacher. I make next to nothing. But I wake up every day excited to go to my job. You can’t tell me I’d be better off if I hadn’t gone to college and instead got some nice well paid job in real estate that’d I’d hate. Or that I should have majored in engineering, when I’d suck at it and hate every moment.
So when deciding how “worthless” a major is, we need to look at how satisfied people are, not just how much money they are making. Likewise, we need to look at what kinds of jobs people without college degrees are doing. An poorly paid group of librarians, set designers, museum curators and writers is still probably better off life-wise than a well paid group of insurance reps, paper salesmen, refridgerator repairmen and factory foremen.
If a degree helps people get the job they want, not just the job you think they should want, it is valuable.
Degrees create possibilities. There are no jobs that you cannot get because you have a degree, but there are plenty of jobs that you cannot get if you don’t have a degree. And most career tracks have an upper limit to what you can achieve without a degree.
Without a degree, you have far fewer choices in life. This may not may not matter on a statistical scale, but it does matter a lot for the individuals involved.
Degrees are also a time and money sink, sometimes crippling those who’ve achieved them. One of my coworkers at my previous job, who’s the exact same age as I, but has a college degree (I don’t) will be paying off his student loans for the next 20 years using the majority of whatever money he has left after his monthly expenses (this is not hyperbole–he told me he has virtually no remaining money at the end of the month).
I, on the other hand, used the time I would have spent in college bettering myself in ways that interested me, giving me the skills to acquire a job making considerably more than he is, without owing a damn thing.
I’m not saying I’m for or against college–it depends on the person–but to paint it as all positives without any negatives simply isn’t true for most people, hence the crux of this entire thread.
Has anyone here read Charles’ Murray’s book Real Education? He has some rather provocative ideas about schooling, especially college. Boiled down, his points are as follows: “too many people are going to college”; some don’t have the intellectual capacity to handle it; others do, but it does not offer what they need; the B.A. is becoming meaningless because so many are expected to have it even when they truly do not need it to be successful in their occupation; too many students see themselves as customers who paid for a product and expect passing grades just for showing up and turning something in; professors are under pressure to inflate grades so that the students/customers will give them good marks on evaluations [this is especially important for part-time faculty, whose assignments or rehire rights may depend, to a degree, on said evaluations].
There is more, but you get the gist.
The main problem is this: when most people have an undergraduate degree, having a degree becomes a “necessary but not sufficient” condition for many types of jobs.
Thus, it becomes a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism: people have to go to university to obtain a credential that is in a sense both worthless (it will not get you a job, as so many people have it) and totally necessary (you cannot get certain types of jobs without it - it is simply assumed by many employers that all applicants will have a BA or better).
Well like you said, it’s a matter of weeding down 500 resumes into like 300 resumes. Generally it’s assumed that a college education is evidence that you can stick it through. It’s generally a fair assumption. It’s unfortunate though as it has raised the bar on jobs that really do not require a college education. Most low-level corporate jobs do not require any college.
A college degree represents a certain degree of training, experience, common sense and work ethic. When I see a resume with a degree in accounting, finance, computer science, marketing, economics, or engineering I assume that person has some minimum level of understanding of those fields. The fact that they completed their 4 year degree demonstrates a certain work ethic and ability to stick with something. It’s an added bonus if I see that person graduated with honors, was active in athletics or other activities, held some sort of office, or worked relevant summer internships. It shows that person is able to work hard and actually cares about something.
If a person just has a high school degree, I don’t know anything about them other than they can probably read and write.
For me, expensive degrees are totally worth it. I’ve done high school grad level jobs when I was in high school and college. They suck. They don’t pay very well, they tend to be dirty or dangerous, and they aren’t the most intellectually interesting. Plugging my personal actual salary information into the model they used in the article I linked to, I can expect a %1600 return (16x) on my investment. And as frustrating as work can be it sure beats working in that box factory. And you know what? I wasn’t a particularly good student. I don’t think I’m particularly successful for someone from my colleges.
So I believe that unless you are independently wealthy, you should probably only go to a very expensive school if it is highly regarded and you plan to study something that is reasonably lucrative. The world has enough BA undergrads who became attorneys because they don’t know what else to do with themselves.
