Underlines added by me – The problem I see right there is, THAT is exactly what a “Liberal Education” (and not even college: even just a good High School) was supposed to prepare you for!
By allowing Higher Ed be cast as job training on steroids with the target of placement in a specific “profession” (engineer, accountant, lawyer, professor of that same subject at some other college, etc) at the far end of the program, we have allowed the phenomenon that **msmith537 **describes to develop and take root. And yet I keep hearing and reading Higher Ed being described as job prep (listen to just about any candidate).
(oh, and “not smart, but just skeptical, open-minded, and willing to do the hard work of critical thinking and research” … ISWYDT, Yog)
I question the premise. I disagree that only a minority of people possess the aptitude to get a college degree (or do one of the jobs society considers as requiring high intelligence, like judge or doctor), given the right upbringing. I question that elites regularly look down on the stupid (IME it’s the most ignorant in society who resort to ad hominems…and I’m aware of the irony of that statement :)) or that it’s become a worse time to have a low IQ.
It’s true that globalization means that unskilled labor in the developed world is relatively poorly-paid, but the need for increased training going forward is nothing like the same thing as a need for us all to be brainiac.
I think it needs to do both. I studied engineering undergrad, but my program also had a significant number of electives in areas such as the arts, English, political science and so on. The reality, most professions like engineering, accounting, IT or medicine do require significant coursework.
The problem with that is training in being an electrician or plumber doesn’t really prepare you to do much else besides be an electrician or plumber.
Truly smart people don’t have to worry about being given a structured plan for success. They are able to visualize their goals and figure out their own path.
I cannot for the life of me imagine why I would hire someone with such a vague, pointless skill set. I don’t want an assistant who won’t believe me, I want someone who knows how to use Word and gets shit done on time without me having to hold their hand all day.
[QUOTE=msmith537]
The problem with that is training in being an electrician or plumber doesn’t really prepare you to do much else besides be an electrician or plumber.
[/QUOTE]
It does, however, make you an electrician or a plumber, which in turn puts you on jobsites, which in turn opens up other training opportunities and exposure to the industry, which allows you - if you want - to move up the ranks.
People who start their own companies and get wealthy quite often start as the grunts. MBA grads don’t start up home construction outfits of small fab shops, or if they do they fail quickly; those companies are started by tradespeople who save up their dough and start their own outfit.
A friend of mine has been looking for a CNC machinist for a couple of years - Las Vegas area. No real talent pool there, Nellis contractors can pay more than he can. He does a mix of self taught or contracting the code to other machinists out of the area. We’re not talking private island salary, but he can’t get anybody @ ~ $50K/yr.
The push by Bernie and now Hillary to send everybody to college for “free” sounds admirable, but if we just end up with a workforce of liberal arts major burger flippers, then what? Might make for more satisfying after work discussion, but will it really benefit society or the economy?
So Freedman believes that the products we buy and depend on to be reliable and safe, instead of being designed with automated design systems and precision manufactured by robotics, should be designed and built by stupid people? I’m glad to see this getting the scorn it deserves.
I’d say that we need more in the way of early & often future counseling- not just college placement help for the college-bound high school seniors, and some cursory career counseling for the rest.
Rather, a sort of comprehensive system to try and identify strengths and weaknesses among students and suggestions about fields of study and possible careers, future paths, etc…
I keep thinking of my upbringing where my parents were adamant that I was going to go to college and graduate, and my entire young educational career was bent to that goal. I always found it astounding that so many people didn’t even have that goal in mind- so many seemed to be merely concentrating on graduating high school, without any real consideration for what came after.
Meanwhile, I had a plan for going to college, and a back up plan in the GI Bill if some sort of calamity befell my family or myself and I couldn’t afford going in some other way.
Where I struggled is in knowing what careers are out there, what they pay, how many people are employed in that career, what educational attainment they require, etc… And I imagine that information could be even more vital to a kid in high school and trying to decide college track vs. non-college track, if someone sits him down and points out that if he wants to make six figures, the majority of positions with a lot of jobs are ones requiring at least a 4 year degree. Or that having a kid at 17 kind of fucks up your planning for this kind of thing.
I think the problem here is that the way the career trajectory starts out is at a young age, and smart students typically either realize it themselves or their (smart) parents do, while the less intelligent never really realize it in time, and then wonder why things are sucky farther down the line in life.
Agreed. Career planning and job skills were an afterthought at my High School. I can’t comprehend why they don’t teach actual job skills in High School. There really was no skill path other than getting into college.
I think this is an oversimplication. Plenty of smart people fuck around in high school or college and end up not having a success career. And plenty of not-so-smart people do well in school and land good jobs due to a combination of personality traits (tenacity, socialibility) and good luck (social network).
In my experience, intelligence doesn’t distinguish the “loser” from the “winner”. It’s the touchy-feely stuff that can’t be easily quantified. And employers are increasingly recognizing this. Why hire a geek who is a master of one thing, when a jack of all trades can do what the geek does with the help of some canned scripts or a GUI…in addition to five other jobs, including managing budgets and schmoozing clients? A jack of all trades doesn’t need to have a high IQ. They just need to know how to work well with others and manage people and time.
It may be that being able to juggle multiple balls in the air is something that smart people are disproportionately good at doing. But there are plenty of smart people who just can’t do it. I think as automation continues to expand, we’ll start to see both smart and not-so-smart folks struggling to find and keep jobs. The one thing they’ll have in common is that they don’t possess the right combination of soft skills.
Honestly? I do think better-educated burger flippers is a benefit to society :). A more educated society is just generally a better one as far as I’m concerned.
The problem is I can’t in good faith argue that it is worth the financial cost or that it benefits the economy. Especially not these days with tuitions being so insane. In a perfect world I think everyone should get the Liberal Arts/Humanities* degree of their choice and be a more-rounded human being. But I have to admit it is getter harder and harder to justify that stance in terms of real world economics.
I might be one of the few American teenagers who was pushed by their father to study philosophy as an undergraduate :D. He was kinda the opposite of the “STEM-or-nothing” crowd, despite having a doctorate in physics himself.
Educated people generally tend to make better and more informed decisions. The economy isn’t static. A smarter and more educated workforce means more people thinking of ideas for new businesses and actually having the skills to make them successful.
Sure, but if I was a betting man I’d put my money on the kids, smart OR dumb, who have a plan for the future. You’re right that there are plenty of smart kids who sort of aimlessly bumble around, and end up less successful than they’d otherwise could have been. Most of the really smart ones don’t end up unsuccessful in an absolute sense, but they definitely end up unsuccessful relative to their peers who had a plan.
Maybe it’s the definition of success that’s tripping me up; I tend to think of it as success relative to your cohort. Something that’s considered a solid achievement for one group can easily be considered very loser-ish for another.
That’s what I meant by more satisfying after work conversation, but they wouldn’t pay more taxes than a non-educated burger flipper. Their contribution to the economy vs what it cost society might not balance out.
I didn’t mean to trivialize the benefits of an educated population, it’s just that if everybody is a college grad, the less glamorous jobs of society will still need to be filled. The philosophy major ditch digger, the 17th century French lit parking attendant - sure, their minds will be broadened. They’ll want to do something more enriching and run smack into a workforce where they don’t stand out at all.
It’s an untenable position, arguing against “free college for all!” makes one sound like an oppressor of inquiring minds and all, I’m just not sure it’ll pan out.
Who cares? People who fail deserve to be punished. Achievement is the only way a person’s life has value. If I got fired from my job and had to flip burgers, I would shoot myself in the head, because I don’t deserve to have a job at all.
Fuck that shit. I might lose my job this year and I’ve spent the last three hours trying to decide whether I should kill myself. And the thought that I keep circling back to is that people who fail deserve to be punished. I can’t comprehend how losers go on without killing themselves.