Don Carlos, I am mainly directing this to you, because I know you have a great deal of experience with the college environment.  However, I am curious to hear other views as well.

I think the system is very unfair for several reasons.  Let me start with the financial aspect.  Why do employers judge potential employees based on what college they graduated from?  Does that have anything to do with the person's intelligence or ability to perform the job?  Is someone who graduated from Harvard automatically more qualified than someone who graduated from UC Berkeley?  Or does it just mean they had more money?

Another reason I think it's unfair, is that someone who has no natural talent for a particular career can flash a piece of paper in front of an employer and get a job.  While someone who does have a great deal of talent won't qualify because they don't have a degree.

An example would be teaching kindergarten.  Most adults know kindergarten material.  Do you think that a good kindergarten teacher would be anyone who is certified and has gone through college to become a teacher?  Or someone who genuinely cares for children, has a real interest in impacting their lives, has a natural talent for teaching, and puts EVERYTHING they have into their work because it is so rewarding to them...but they aren't certified?  (Maybe because they couldn't afford college, or maybe because they don't understand algebra, etc)  Couldn't the schools let people try?  They could sit in with another teacher for a few months.. then try teaching with an experienced teacher watching and evaluating.

There are probably a great deal of low income people who have true abilities.  Or can easily be taught on-the-job. 

Trade schools are awesome.  They are affordable, it focuses on the trade you are working toward, not on algebra, world history and literature.

College, it seems, is an expensive alternative...and is really a trade school plus general ed. (The general ed part, I feel, is usually never even needed in the real world) and is more of a "high class/low class" thing than a good measure of how qualified a person really is for a career.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right if the only point in life is to make money and support people.

I think there is a difference between knowing the material taught in kindergarten and know how to teach it to young children effectively. There are also discipline methods to learn. I guess I am saying that yes, a college education is needed to teach children of any age in an accredited institution.

As for the fairness of higher education, I do not think it is fair as far as access is concerned. To many people who ought to be going to good colleges and university can't get there without falling into mountains of debt along the way.

I don't think it's unfair for employers to seek individuals with a college education, because college is more than just being trained in your particular field, it means that you have had a well-rounded education, that you are trainable, that your communication skills have been honed, and a plethora of other considerations.

You're right if the only point in life is to make money and support people.


No, that isn't the only point in life... but most other aspects of life don't care if you have a college degree or not.  It is employers (making money) that look at a piece of paper more judgingly than they look at the actual person.

I think there is a difference between knowing the material taught in kindergarten and know how to teach it to young children effectively. There are also discipline methods to learn. I guess I am saying that yes, a college education is needed to teach children of any age in an accredited institution.



I realize there is more to teaching than just knowing the material taught in kindergarten..and I'm not saying that just anybody should be able to walk into a school and start teaching.  I'm just saying that I'm sure there are people who can teach children effectively just because they have a talent for it.  I guess what I'm saying is, I think people should have the opportunity to prove themselves.

I know this is kind of apples and oranges, but I can type 90WPM.  Suppose I apply for a job that requires me to show a certificate of completion of a typing class.  And I say, well, I can't afford that class, but let me show you how well I can type.

I think this principle would apply in many areas of the workforce.

<-- Obviously not Don Carlos :D

Let me start with the financial aspect.  Why do employers judge potential employees based on what college they graduated from?  Does that have anything to do with the person's intelligence or ability to perform the job?   Is someone who graduated from Harvard automatically more qualified than someone who graduated from UC Berkeley?  Or does it just mean they had more money?

This is a complex question.  I went to Berkeley and I thought the people from Harvard whom I encountered while in graduate school were pompous asses :P  However, I do know of many people who were qualified and deserved to go to a prestigious university like Harvard, and who obviously worked hard to earn that privilege.  The discipline the person graduated from also matters when being interviewed for a position.  For example, two people from Harvard and Cal who both graduated with degrees in mechanical engineering would be on much more equal footing than two people from the same colleges who both graduated with degrees in history or philosophy.  But no, short answer is, a person from Harvard is not necessarily smarter or more qualified than a person from Cal.  That much I can tell you from personal experience.  It is because of the gross reputation of the institution that the Harvard or Princeton or Yale graduate is able to get their foot in the door faster than a graduate from, say, Brown.  (Hey, Otto, didn't you go to Brown?  --Yeah, they almost gave me tenure! :D )   Ultimately the job candidate must prove that his qualifications are more than just a piece of sheepskin, but it is difficult to deny that the prestige attached to the sheepskin won't cause an implicit bias from the interviewer.

As for the money issue, obviously a person from a rich family could better afford to go to Harvard, but there are multiple scholarship opportunities available to students that are not taken advantage of, particularly for minority students.  As an Asian, I was not an "under-represented minority" (even though Asian-Americans number less than Hispanics or blacks :P ) yet was awarded merit-based scholarships that allowed me to go to Cal at a significant discount and go to graduate school for free, with stipend.  Ironically, my family, being middle-class, could not qualify me for a need-based scholarship because they weren't poor enough :D

Another reason I think it's unfair, is that someone who has no natural talent for a particular career can flash a piece of paper in front of an employer and get a job.  While someone who does have a great deal of talent won't qualify because they don't have a degree.

You are actually right here.  That is what is happening in multiple professions today, most notably the information technologies sector.  This is not so much the fault of the college graduates as it is the employers (but really, if you were an employer, would you do differently?  Check it out --> ).  Employers generally use their employees until they are deemed useless, and then replace them with a fresh graduate for half the salary.  What is funny, though, is that now the displaced employee is willing to work for that salary, and with their 20 years of experience, will return and displace that graduate, even without a degree.  Now, it gets hairy, because an employee with 15 years of experience AND a degree will most likely displace an employee with 20 years of experience and NO degree while both compete for that fresh graduate's half-price job.  Weird, but a fact of life.  

But at the same time, college graduates need to gain experience in order to compete, so your statement is unfair in regards to the person with "no natural talent".  They have the book knowledge, and need real-world experience to apply that knowledge.  As I have stated above, however, they will gain a minimum amount of experience and then be thrown into the revolving pool of candidates that employers go through like Pez.  Their only means of competition in this arena with people of varying experiences for finite numbers of jobs IS their degree.  And this is why even the most experienced employees who have been displaced are returning to night school to get their associate's or bachelor's degrees.  

Your example of teaching is flawed, I think, because while it is true that most teachers do care for their students and children and have a desire to impact their lives (they sure as hell don't do it for the money), they also require training to be able to handle these children.  It is true that most people have the fundamental book knowledge needed to teach kindergarten, but have you ever tried to handle a group of 30+ six-year-old kids?  That is where the training comes into play, especially when dealing with high school students who have authority issues.  In addition to having natural teaching ability, the teacher must also understand classroom structure and disciplinary techniques.  Without a system in which to concentrate and hone the teaching talent, talent is useless.

Trade schools are great if you want to be a construction worker or a plumber, but in order to be, say, a registered nurse, a college degree is required, and I hope the reasons are obvious.  A lot of jobs used to have apprenticeship-style training programs, and probably still do, but in fields like nursing, medicine and science, the apprenticeship is far more complex and considering that they are dealing with people's lives, would you not agree that a greater level of training is required?

College as an "alternative" does not necessarily have to be expensive.  As I stated above, there are grants and scholarships available for need and merit, even for teacher school.  You can go to a junior college to take care of the general education courses that you alluded to for a lower price before transferring to a four-year college to complete the bachelor's degree.  The general education curriculum in each department, moreover, is different in order to fit the needs of that particular department, and generalizing general education as "useless in the real world" is unfair.  Just because it does not apply to you does not mean that I did not derive use from it, in addition to my specialized education.  And you have no idea how many courses you have to take to get into my "trade" ;)  

Out of curiosity, have you graduated from college?  I feel as though you did not get a lot out of your college education if you did go, which explains this posting.  I, on the other hand, felt that it was well worth it :)

Out of curiosity, have you graduated from college?  I feel as though you did not get a lot out of your college education if you did go, which explains this posting.  I, on the other hand, felt that it was well worth it :)


To be honest, I didn't even graduate from high school.  (I wasn't a delinquent troublemaker teen or anything... to make a long story short, I was suddenly left to fend for myself at the age of 17, so I had to leave H.S. to work full time)

I really have no regrets.  I have been an office manager for most of my adult life, and have made a decent life for myself.  I just recently became a realtor, and am doing pretty well.  I don't drive a Mercedes or live in a mansion or anything, but I don't think I would even if I had the money.

I've been pretty lucky to have found companies that value abilities, professionalism, dedication, hard work and creativity over what type of diploma/degree one has.  And I don't think that anyone I ever worked for would say they regretted hiring me.

^ Good stuff :)

College is not for everyone. 

^ Good stuff :)

College is not for everyone. 


Don't get me wrong... I'm not knocking college as an option for someone who wants to be more well rounded, has the desire to learn and the ability to withstand it.  It just seems like.. well.. employers seem to forget that a piece of paper doesn't really represent a person.  I think basing employment a little less on paper and a little more on abilities would make it a bit more fair for everyone.

No.  It's not fair.  Not fair at all.

We live in a country where 80% of the workforce is surfeit labor.  America used to make it's own stuff.  It doesn't anymore.  American business is now starting to offshore as much of the service sector is it can.

My classmates in the '80s did not take out usurious loans just to study liberal arts.  They did so because the drumbeat for the past several generations was "if you go to college, you can rise into the professional class."  A bachelor's degree is nearly worthless.  Sometimes it is negative in value when you have graduated neck-deep in debt.  Now you are advised to go to grad school.  Grad school is what an undergrad education was twenty-five years ago.  Far fewer people can afford grad school.  You have to start the application process all over again and take even more exams just to get in.   A lot of people don't want to stay students until they're twenty-five or thirty, anyway.
Now even people with advanced degrees in business and engineering struggle to find work.

From an anthropological standpoint, it is insane to keep young people in this sub-adult status of "student" for years on end.  Men and women are biologically equipped to start families and earn their own keep by their late teens.  Denying them the ability to do so because of a greed-driven economic scheme is fundamentally sick.  

I don't want to go back to the days when young people were forced to quite school in order to be exploited at some mill for a pittance.  This is what we had before the class struggle of 20th century.  In the 1950s and 1960s we saw our greatest economic expansion.  Back then, you could earn a living without even graduating from high school.  The problem is the union movement did not go far enough.  We left the control over production in the hands of capital, not labor.  The capitalists demand exploitable labor.  When they could not get it in America, they moved operations to poorer countries.  They are still doing it today.  

Soon your precious "college" will be just a pause between childhood and poverty.

Our economic prospects will grow ever dimmer, and our country will grow ever poorer, without a concerted class struggle.  The workers must control the means of production.

Furthermore, the greatest educational mission our schools need to undertake is a campaign against the psychology of greed and selfishness.
Look at the difference between the Black Panthers and the Gangsta Rappers.  The Black Panthers fought for communitarian values and self-sufficiency for the African American population.  They were shot to death in their beds by the FBI.  The gangsta rappers advocate greed, selfishness, crime, and thuggery.  They are rewarded with multi-million dollar record contracts.
This shows you truly the intentions of the establishment for African American youth...and indeed for all  economically deprived people.  There is nothing they fear more than organized collective power from the grassroots!

BTW, let's not confuse "higher learning" with "college."  Higher learning does not cost 50K  a year.  College does.

No.  It's not fair.  Not fair at all.

We live in a country where 80% of the workforce is surfeit labor.  America used to make it's own stuff.  It doesn't anymore.  American business is now starting to offshore as much of the service sector is it can.

My classmates in the '80s did not take out usurious loans just to study liberal arts.  They did so because the drumbeat for the past several generations was "if you go to college, you can rise into the professional class."  A bachelor's degree is nearly worthless.  Sometimes it is negative in value when you have graduated neck-deep in debt.  Now you are advised to go to grad school.  Grad school is what an undergrad education was twenty-five years ago.  Far fewer people can afford grad school.  You have to start the application process all over again and take even more exams just to get in.   A lot of people don't want to stay students until they're twenty-five or thirty, anyway.
Now even people with advanced degrees in business and engineering struggle to find work.

From an anthropological standpoint, it is insane to keep young people in this sub-adult status of "student" for years on end.  Men and women are biologically equipped to start families and earn their own keep by their late teens.  Denying them the ability to do so because of a greed-driven economic scheme is fundamentally sick.  

I don't want to go back to the days when young people were forced to quite school in order to be exploited at some mill for a pittance.  This is what we had before the class struggle of 20th century.  In the 1950s and 1960s we saw our greatest economic expansion.  Back then, you could earn a living without even graduating from high school.  The problem is the union movement did not go far enough.  We left the control over production in the hands of capital, not labor.  The capitalists demand exploitable labor.  When they could not get it in America, they moved operations to poorer countries.  They are still doing it today.  

Soon your precious "college" will be just a pause between childhood and poverty.

Our economic prospects will grow ever dimmer, and our country will grow ever poorer, without a concerted class struggle.  The workers must control the means of production.

Furthermore, the greatest educational mission our schools need to undertake is a campaign against the psychology of greed and selfishness.
Look at the difference between the Black Panthers and the Gangsta Rappers.  The Black Panthers fought for communitarian values and self-sufficiency for the African American population.  They were shot to death in their beds by the FBI.  The gangsta rappers advocate greed, selfishness, crime, and thuggery.  They are rewarded with multi-million dollar record contracts.
This shows you truly the intentions of the establishment for African American youth...and indeed for all  economically deprived people.  There is nothing they fear more than organized collective power from the grassroots!

BTW, let's not confuse "higher learning" with "college."  Higher learning does not cost 50K  a year.  College does.


Two points.  ;)

Two points.  ;)

Only two?  Cheapskate!
;)

Only two?  Cheapskate!
;)


Sorry, I'm in college remember... I'm broke!

BTW, let's not confuse "higher learning" with "college."  Higher learning does not cost 50K  a year.  College does.


LOL I know.  I used the term "higher learning" because I was also referring to on-the-job training and trade/vocational schools.  I think trade schools are very fair.  They are affordable, focused, and anyone who wants to can sign up.

LOL I know.  I used the term "higher learning" because I was also referring to on-the-job training and trade/vocational schools.  I think trade schools are very fair.  They are affordable, focused, and anyone who wants to can sign up.

I am a big supporter of trade schools.  I'm a bigger supporter of an economy in which one can earn a living by plying trades.  Right now, the goal of the bosses is to outsource as many trade jobs as possible, and suppress wages and benefits for the ones that remain here.

LOL I know.  I used the term "higher learning" because I was also referring to on-the-job training and trade/vocational schools.  I think trade schools are very fair.  They are affordable, focused, and anyone who wants to can sign up.


That's the point. College isn't for everyone.

I graduated from both college and graduate school and to be honest with you, I wouldn't want to knowingly sit next to someone who basically showed up and began studies. I worked hard to get to both places. I studied all through high school, passed the required tests, received the scholarships, and earned the privilege to go to college and beyond.

I don't think everyone understands that college is a privilege, not a right. You are not obligated to go and you are not always given the opportunity to go. You have to deal with the realities of not going to college or going to college.

That's the point. College isn't for everyone.

I graduated from both college and graduate school and to be honest with you, I wouldn't want to knowingly sit next to someone who basically showed up and began studies. I worked hard to get to both places. I studied all through high school, passed the required tests, received the scholarships, and earned the privilege to go to college and beyond.

I don't think everyone understands that college is a privilege, not a right. You are not obligated to go and you are not always given the opportunity to go. You have to deal with the realities of not going to college or going to college.


And those realities are....?
???

And those realities are....?
???


here are some of the realities: career vs. simply having a job, more financial opportunities, and personal connections (it doesn't hurt to have a sorority sister or fraternity brother interviewing you)....

I'm not saying it makes one better, though it makes opportunities stronger. I guess I was responding to a thread that had a bitter taste to it.

I am a big supporter of trade schools.  I'm a bigger supporter of an economy in which one can earn a living by plying trades.  Right now, the goal of the bosses is to outsource as many trade jobs as possible, and suppress wages and benefits for the ones that remain here.


I think many people associate "trade school" with physical labor trades such as auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc.  There are actually quite a few decent trades which can be acquired through trade/vocational school.  LVN's (Licensed Vocational Nurses), Realtors, Pilots, Police Officers, Firefighters, Travel Agents, Bankers, and Paramedics are some examples of these careers.  And they make decent money too, without having to get certain grades in high school, spend a fortune on college, and learn such things as world history and algebra.

I think many people associate "trade school" with physical labor trades such as auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc.   There are actually quite a few decent trades which can be acquired through trade/vocational school.

And of course, there's nothing wrong with trade jobs such as auto mechanics, plumbers and electricians. Those are highly respectable and rewarding careers, and are just as decent as any other job.

And of course, there's nothing wrong with trade jobs such as auto mechanics, plumbers and electricians. Those are highly respectable and rewarding careers, and are just as decent as any other job.


Hear, hear!  They're often better than a lot of jobs.  I think you're always better off in a career when you can set up your own business, be your own boss and control your own destiny than you are in a career that makes you dependent on someone else providing a job for you.

I highly believe in education-but the system definitely is NOT fair. I think that everyone should have an opportunity to go to college if you want. But unfortunately, the world does not work that way. It is a matter if you can pay for it or not. And there are some kids in college who really shouldn't be there-they are there because Mommy and Daddy sent them there and they are majoring in Drinking 101 or Partying 101. I have known some college students were where dumber then rocks but there they are in college when there are many very bright and smart people are not because they can't afford it.

I also don't think that having a degree from Harvard makes you any better than having a degree from any other 4 year college. I got my undergraduate degree from a small state college. I don't think that I am any less educated then someone with the same degree from Harvard or Yale. In some ways I think I did have a better education because the classes were small and the professors could be me more individual attention if I needed it. I was not a number like I would have been at an Ivy League school.

I think trade schools are great, too. Even if someone has their undergraduate or graduate degrees, trade schools could benefit them depending on career they decided to go into to.


BTW Odyssey, great subject.



Cat

And of course, there's nothing wrong with trade jobs such as auto mechanics, plumbers and electricians. Those are highly respectable and rewarding careers, and are just as decent as any other job.


You're right.  After reading my post, it didn't come out the way I meant it.  I should have said decent non-phyiscal labor jobs.  There are many physical labor intensive jobs that are rewarding, such as the ones we both mentioned.  But trade school isn't just for labor-intensive work.  That's all I was trying to say.

Don Carlos, I am mainly directing this to you, because I know you have a great deal of experience with the college environment.  However, I am curious to hear other views as well.

I think the system is very unfair for several reasons.  Let me start with the financial aspect.  Why do employers judge potential employees based on what college they graduated from?  Does that have anything to do with the person's intelligence or ability to perform the job?  Is someone who graduated from Harvard automatically more qualified than someone who graduated from UC Berkeley?  Or does it just mean they had more money?

Another reason I think it's unfair, is that someone who has no natural talent for a particular career can flash a piece of paper in front of an employer and get a job.  While someone who does have a great deal of talent won't qualify because they don't have a degree.

An example would be teaching kindergarten.  Most adults know kindergarten material.  Do you think that a good kindergarten teacher would be anyone who is certified and has gone through college to become a teacher?  Or someone who genuinely cares for children, has a real interest in impacting their lives, has a natural talent for teaching, and puts EVERYTHING they have into their work because it is so rewarding to them...but they aren't certified?  (Maybe because they couldn't afford college, or maybe because they don't understand algebra, etc)  Couldn't the schools let people try?  They could sit in with another teacher for a few months.. then try teaching with an experienced teacher watching and evaluating.

There are probably a great deal of low income people who have true abilities.  Or can easily be taught on-the-job. 

Trade schools are awesome.  They are affordable, it focuses on the trade you are working toward, not on algebra, world history and literature.

College, it seems, is an expensive alternative...and is really a trade school plus general ed. (The general ed part, I feel, is usually never even needed in the real world) and is more of a "high class/low class" thing than a good measure of how qualified a person really is for a career.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Sorry it took me so long to respond, Odyssey, but I had already logged off when you posted this.  Nor have I read the responses that followed your initial post.  I will do so in a bit.

To begin, I agree that there are a number of problems in higher education. 

Lets start, though, with a basic distinction.  There are two, not one, sectors, the public and the private.  Nation wide, the public sector, which includes universities like Berkley, Ohio State, UCLA, Rutgers (my alma mater) which are all fine reearch universities, down to community colleges like Community College of Vermont are suppose to be publically funded and therefore be low cost schools available to any qualified student.  When I attended Rutgers as an undergraduate tuition was $400 PER YEAR and there were state scholarships available to cover that tuition - I got one.  Since then, because of policies at both the fed and state levels, support for that mission has erroded, unconsionably to my mind. Today, the State of Vermont provides about 10-20% of the funding for the Vermont State Colleges even though the legislation creating them stipulates total or substantial funding.  Admittedly, Vermont is close to the bottom in public funding.  My belief is that public colleges and universities should be tuition free for every student attending one in his/her own state, and that states should develop reciprocity agreements for their students who, for whatever reason, wish to go out of state.

The private sector is quite different.  Harvard, Princeton, Yale etc (all of which also recieve public funds) should have greater leeway to set their own policies as they spend their own, non-public funds.

As to preferance given to graduates of some schools over others, that's really not a higher education issue.  Universities can't control the perceptions of would be employers.  But certainly there are "old boy" networks throughout the private sector that disadvantage mostly graduates of working or middle class backgrounds.  Knowing the quality of a Rutgers education, if I were an employer I might look more kindly on a Rutgers alum than someone from Podunck State, or Bob Jones University, and certainly membership in groups like the Skull and Bones gives one a major leg up.  But there again, all of this is beyond the scope of colleges and universities themselves.

If you are saying that we are overly impressed with credentials I would have to agree.  I could legitimately claim to be Don Carlos, BA, MA, ABD, Ph. D.  All that means is that I am educated, I've read lots of books, written (and published) lots of papers etc.  In fact, I only use my credentials when I am dealing with issues within my areas of expertise, not to suggest arrogance or superiority.  I have never used them here because mostly they are irrelevant.  On the other hand, education IS important.  Lets take your example of a kindergarten teacher.  You are right to suggest that the average high school graduate knows all the material that will be taught at that level, but there is more to it.  I must say that I am not enamored of much of education theory, and agree that in most cases a caring teacher is the most important factor in the classroom.  But what about the exceptional kids, on either end of the spectrum.  I certainly have no idea how to teach a dislexic to read, or an autistic child to not disrupt a class.  On some levels your suggestion of gaining certification through apprenticeship is appealing, and if properly supervised it could work for some people, and at some levels of elementry ed.  but my biggest grip is that lots of middle and high school teacers just don't know their subjects very well.  They teach to some out dated, bland, nondescript text approved by the Texas Board oif Education, and the result is college students, from whatever background who know almost nothing.

Trade schools are great, for people who either don't have the intelligance or the inclination to persue education (and please be clear, I am not depricating those people - Albert Eistien was terrible at math.  But it does disturb me that you see world history and  literature as unimportant.  No area of human knowledge is unimportant, and just as I wouldn't hire a historian to fix my pipes, I wouldn't hire a plumber to be secreatary of state (Condi Rice, as I understand it, is a Stanford Ph.D. with a specialty in Russian/Soviet studies, maybe passe now but one hopes she can broaden her horizons).  The goal of and education, as opposed to the equally worthy and important goals of "job training" is to build skills of critical thinking and analysis.  That happens when students confront many ideas, from many perspectives, and many disciplines, and hopefully form their own perspectives. 

I'm sorry this is so long, but you asked me a serious question, and I hope I have given you a clear answer.  I will read through the rest of this thread on Monday (we are away for the weekend) and will respond more to what I read.  I especially will look at any response you want to make to this, since you aimed the thread at me.  And it does fit here because education policy is decidedly political.

Well said, Don Carlos (as if I'd expect anything less from you).

One thing I have run across many times is that companies require a college degree for tax purposes.

One thing a lot of people do not realize is that companies can get a tax benefit to hiring people with a college degree.  What the degree is does not matter either.  As long as the applicant hired recieved their degree in the last 1-4 years (depends on the program applied for), they get the tax decrease.

In my field, that is a constant headache.  I am a computer technician/network engineer with 10+ years experience.  One large reason I have never gone to college is that the computer programs are not geared to somebody like me.  Also, they are normally way behind the technology curve.

Almost all Computer Sciences degrees are geared towards programming.  And that is fine, if you want to be a programmer.  But I do not want to take 4 years of learning how to program, just to get a job as a network administrator.  I have seen many jobs that I am more then qualified for, but they required a College Degree.  That is just plain nuts.

And to add to that, I have run to many times into "College Snobery".  I once went on a date with a gal, and she asked me what my degree was in.  When I told her I did not have one, she actually said "I am sorry, I think I should go home.  I do not date people who are not as intelligent as I am."  I about fell out of my chair when she said that, and only my being a gentleman prevented me from telling her what I thought of that belief.

If you go into the Yahoo Personals site, you will see a lot of that.  Women, who only want to date men with college degrees.  I puzzles me that many people still relate college to intelligence.

Added to that, I have talked to far to many people who told me the secret was simply doing what the professors wanted.  One friend went to UCLA as a Political Science major.  He was Conservative, and frequently had papers graded far below what they deserved.  It was so bad that his scholarship was in jeopardy.  He told me he simply changed his political slant in the papers, and his grades improved drastically.

I do hope to go to college in the next few years.  And more then likely my major will be either History or Political Science.  But God help anybody who confuses my political beliefs as a sign of the level of my intelligence.

Trade schools are great, for people who either don't have the intelligance or the inclination to persue education (and please be clear, I am not depricating those people - Albert Eistien was terrible at math.  But it does disturb me that you see world history and  literature as unimportant.  No area of human knowledge is unimportant, and just as I wouldn't hire a historian to fix my pipes, I wouldn't hire a plumber to be secreatary of state . 



I am certainly not saying that literature and world history are unimportant.  I am just saying that they are irrelevant for, say, a kindergarten teacher or nurse to be trained in, in order to be an outstanding teacher or nurse.  I would hope that people would pursue things such as history, literature, foreign languages, astronomy, etc because the student is interested in it, but I don't see what an employer truly gains by judging based on these things.

Back to the kindergarten teacher example for a moment.  If I had a 5 year old, I would prefer my child to be taught by someone who had maybe started out working in a day care center for a few years, then became an assistant teacher, and worked in a classroom environment for a few years.. and had taken 9 months of training which focused on teaching young children...half of which time was hands on, in an actual school dealing with actual students... over someone who had spent 2 years at a bigshot college, half of which was bookwork relating to child psychology and teaching, half of which was algebra, world history, literature, etc.  That was the point I was trying to make. 

I think all sorts of knowledge should be important to an individual, just not necessarily to an employer.

I am certainly not saying that literature and world history are unimportant.  I am just saying that they are irrelevant for, say, a kindergarten teacher or nurse to be trained in, in order to be an outstanding teacher or nurse.  I would hope that people would pursue things such as history, literature, foreign languages, astronomy, etc because the student is interested in it, but I don't see what an employer truly gains by judging based on these things.

Back to the kindergarten teacher example for a moment.  If I had a 5 year old, I would prefer my child to be taught by someone who had maybe started out working in a day care center for a few years, then became an assistant teacher, and worked in a classroom environment for a few years.. and had taken 9 months of training which focused on teaching young children...half of which time was hands on, in an actual school dealing with actual students... over someone who had spent 2 years at a bigshot college, half of which was bookwork relating to child psychology and teaching, half of which was algebra, world history, literature, etc.  That was the point I was trying to make. 

I think all sorts of knowledge should be important to an individual, just not necessarily to an employer.


Actually, all teachers are required to have a background in literature and world history because you are not always guaranteed a spot in the grade you are seeking. Literature-rich classrooms are the norm starting in Kindergarten. Kindergarten has drastically changed. Besides, Kindergarten (now) and Preschool are different. They can not be equated. It's not what it was years ago. Furthermore, teaching students spend more than half of their time during actual fieldwork than book work. So, yes, hands-on work is a major part of the degree itself. A teacher has to be well-rounded in content areas before setting foot in the classroom or else they are not qualified to teach.

One thing I have run across many times is that companies require a college degree for tax purposes.

I did not know that.  That's one of the perks of owning a business, I guess.  I believe that the company will look at the candidate's other qualifications to make sure that they didn't hire a flaky mass-comm major or something.  Not that mass-comm is a bad major mind you.

And to add to that, I have run to many times into "College Snobery".  I once went on a date with a gal, and she asked me what my degree was in.  When I told her I did not have one, she actually said "I am sorry, I think I should go home.  I do not date people who are not as intelligent as I am."  I about fell out of my chair when she said that, and only my being a gentleman prevented me from telling her what I thought of that belief.

You should have told her what you thought, got $10 says that she couldn't have refuted it :D  I equate this situation to the scene in "Good Will Hunting" where Will reduces that guy with the funky hair from Harvard to intellectual shreds :) 

Added to that, I have talked to far to many people who told me the secret was simply doing what the professors wanted.  One friend went to UCLA as a Political Science major.  He was Conservative, and frequently had papers graded far below what they deserved.  It was so bad that his scholarship was in jeopardy.  He told me he simply changed his political slant in the papers, and his grades improved drastically.

This happens quite a bit in the departments where you have to analyze topics subjectively, and even in departments that require a great deal of objectivism.  I believe university by-laws would have allowed your friend to challenge this professor's grading scheme and demand an impartial reader or grader, but I don't know how long ago this was (grading rubrics and student rights have changed significantly).  In science, a chemical reaction will happen if X Y and Z happen, and a cell will only divide a certain way under normal conditions, but in philosophy, there are so many slants to each topic that it is difficult to gauge what the professor thinks is right vs. wrong :(

I do hope to go to college in the next few years.  And more then likely my major will be either History or Political Science.  But God help anybody who confuses my political beliefs as a sign of the level of my intelligence.


Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinterestly, the way the media and pollsters make it out, most of the college and university towns (i.e., the East and West Coasts) are decidedly more liberal, and most of the rural areas where people are stereotyped as stupid and misinformed (i.e., Kansas) are more conservative.  That little tidbit of information amuses me for some reason.

Extrapolating on Don Carlos' post, one of the greatest advantages of going to and graduating from a college is networking.  In the University of California, the alumni network is so extensive and influential that any graduate who chooses to tap that network is more likely to find a good job than someone who did not graduate from Cal.  The tuition and resources invested into the college experience is not simply for the education, but for the ties and relationships that last a lifetime.

It can be argued that you can find such a network without going to college, but would this network be anywhere near the caliber of Berkeley alumni who have built large businesses and in turn, know other people who also have businesses or ties to other people with businesses etc. etc. etc.?

Sorry, I'm too disgusted to keep commenting on this topic!
:P

I might add also, that while employers are so actively seeking the most educated people, based on what type of degree they have, basic education is sadly becoming irrelevant.  Who cares if you can spell?  You will surely be sitting at a computer complete with spellchecker.  Who cares if you can add or subtract?  Every computer nowadays have programs that do the math for you.

Reading is still important... but it won't be long before you can simply scan a paper into the computer, and there will be a program to read it to you. ::)

I might add also, that while employers are so actively seeking the most educated people, based on what type of degree they have, basic education is sadly becoming irrelevant.  Who cares if you can spell?  You will surely be sitting at a computer complete with spellchecker.   Who cares if you can add or subtract?  Every computer nowadays have programs that do the math for you.

Reading is still important... but it won't be long before you can simply scan a paper into the computer, and there will be a program to read it to you. ::)

;D

Spelling?  These dang kids today learn how to talk from gangsta rappers and learn to write by text-messaging.  I can't make no sense outa none of it!
:D

;D

Spelling?  These dang kids today learn how to talk from gangsta rappers and learn to write by text-messaging.  I can't make no sense outa none of it!
:D


Yep!! And they will probably get the good jobs.... as long as they have their degree! ::)

I might add also, that while employers are so actively seeking the most educated people, based on what type of degree they have, basic education is sadly becoming irrelevant.  Who cares if you can spell?  You will surely be sitting at a computer complete with spellchecker.   Who cares if you can add or subtract?  Every computer nowadays have programs that do the math for you.

Reading is still important... but it won't be long before you can simply scan a paper into the computer, and there will be a program to read it to you. ::)


That's what books-on-tape do.  You don't even have to read it and absorb it with your eyes anymore, you can play video games while your stereo reads the book to you :D

I agree that basic education is being watered down, and this is because of the method by which kids are being taught in school, as you implied.  I made the example of simple math problems in a previous post, where kids will believe that 2+2=7 even though we all know that 2+2=4, because their calculator said so.  They do not understand that their answer made no sense because this sense was never taught. 

When I was a kid growing up in Hong Kong, it was still a British colony and we were taught to read and write in both English and Chinese.  I was instilled with proper spelling from a young age and it is of personal pride to me to spell right and convey myself in an intelligible and literate manner.  I do not believe that kids are influenced to take pride in these nuances because the modern educational system seems more geared towards positive thinking and good self-esteem and appeasement rather than getting the fundamentals of spelling and grammar and basic math right.  I find this more to be the fault of the public school system than the universities; by the time you get to university, you are expected to know all the fundamentals, but sadly this is not the case.  It disgusted me, as a high school teacher, to see how badly basic education had deteriorated, and I was barely 8 years removed from that very system.  My fellow teachers made excuses for the kids, saying that they could not possibly assimilate all the information and that they were not even expected to know the fundamentals, to which I said "BS."  They do not know the fundamentals because they were not emphasized in school, were not reinforced by the parents, and the kids were not influenced as I was to take pride in doing things the right way.  That, to me, is the saddest thing.

It's great to have calculators and spell-checkers, but you still have to know enough about the subjects to use these tools right.  Most computer spell- and grammar-check programs are still too stupid to distinguish between "their," "there," and "they're". 

In response to your statement, though, I care that I can spell, and that I can still add and subtract and multiply and divide large numbers in my head.  I hope that these skills will be transferred to my child and that he will take pride in his own abilities as I did, because the public school system sure as hell won't.  And you can bet that these skills will benefit him greatly in college and in his life beyond college.

Yep!! And they will probably get the good jobs.... as long as they have their degree! ::)


I have a question: do you have something seriously against those who graduated from college?

I have a question: do you have something seriously against those who graduated from college?


Of course not!!  Like I said, I think it's great to go to college if you want to expand your knowledge and have the resources needed to go to college.  My only problem, is, like you said previously, college is not for everyone.  Not everyone is able to go to college, whether for reasons due to grades, finances, children, etc. 

My only problem is that employers tend to evaluate applicants more heavily on their college education (what type of degree, what college it is from, etc) than on their actual qualifications/experience/ability to perform the job.  I think that is unfair to those who cannot go to college for whatever reason, but are perfectly capable of doing a job effectively.

Like I said earlier, I have had good luck... I didn't even graduate from high school, but I have done well in the workforce, because I was evaluated on my professionalism and my job-related skills.  I would just hope that either a) college would be made more attainable for everyone or b) employers would be willing to accept someone who has been trained in the area they will be working in, such as vocational training, which IS available to everyone.

I am a computer technician/network engineer with 10+ years experience.  One large reason I have never gone to college is that the computer programs are not geared to somebody like me.  Also, they are normally way behind the technology curve.

Almost all Computer Sciences degrees are geared towards programming.  And that is fine, if you want to be a programmer.  But I do not want to take 4 years of learning how to program, just to get a job as a network administrator.

I think what you might be more interested in studying is computer engineering. That focuses more on the hardware related side of computers. Computer science is more for people interested in software and programming, while computer engineering is probably more for people interested in hardware and networking.

When I was studying computer science in university, I knew a few people who were more interested in computer hardware that became disappointed when they found out that most of what they would learn was how to program and write code. They decided to switch to computer engineering instead.

Of course not!!  Like I said, I think it's great to go to college if you want to expand your knowledge and have the resources needed to go to college.  My only problem, is, like you said previously, college is not for everyone.  Not everyone is able to go to college, whether for reasons due to grades, finances, children, etc. 

My only problem is that employers tend to evaluate applicants more heavily on their college education (what type of degree, what college it is from, etc) than on their actual qualifications/experience/ability to perform the job.  I think that is unfair to those who cannot go to college for whatever reason, but are perfectly capable of doing a job effectively.

Like I said earlier, I have had good luck... I didn't even graduate from high school, but I have done well in the workforce, because I was evaluated on my professionalism and my job-related skills.   I would just hope that either a) college would be made more attainable for everyone or b) employers would be willing to accept someone who has been trained in the area they will be working in, such as vocational training, which IS available to everyone.


I see your point. But, you can't get mad at employers if the job requires a college degree. That's just how it is. There are jobs where certain qualifications is a must(e.g. a college degree, a high school diploma). If you don't meet these bare minimum requirements, find something that does. If you have vocational training, there are plenty of jobs that are available. As I understand what you are saying, I still hold that college is attainable for those who work for it. It's not just a given. Those that do slip in without working for it, either don't finish or have it blow up in their faces later on. There are scholarships, grants, etc. So finances can't be used as an excuse anymore. I come from a middle-class home and received financial aid (e.g. scholarships, grants) because of my scholastic ability. I also held down jobs as I attended school. There are ways to get there, but it's not going to be handed to you because it's there.

In an ideal world, many things would be attainable, but it isn't.

I see your point. But, you can't get mad at employers if the job requires a college degree. That's just how it is. There are jobs where certain qualifications is a must(e.g. a college degree, a high school diploma). If you don't meet these bare minimum requirements, find something that does. If you have vocational training, there are plenty of jobs that are available. As I understand what you are saying, I still hold that college is attainable for those who work for it. It's not just a given. Those that do slip in without working for it, either don't finish or have it blow up in their faces later on. There are scholarships, grants, etc. So finances can't be used as an excuse anymore. I come from a middle-class home and received financial aid (e.g. scholarships, grants) because of my scholastic ability. I also held down jobs as I attended school. There are ways to get there, but it's not going to be handed to you because it's there.

In an ideal world, many things would be attainable, but it isn't.

I wouldn't be so sure.  Lack of finances keep plenty of people out of college, especially since college costs are rising astronomically.  In fact, it is much harder financially speaking to make it through college today than it was 25 years ago.
It was the Reagan Administration that decided higher education wasn't a worthy investment, no, not like MX missiles, so they did away with government grants and made it all finances for loans, which was another favor to the banks. 

I see your point. But, you can't get mad at employers if the job requires a college degree. That's just how it is. There are jobs where certain qualifications is a must(e.g. a college degree, a high school diploma). If you don't meet these bare minimum requirements, find something that does.

I agree.  But the key word there is IF the job requires a college degree.  Meaning IF the job requires you to know college level math, have knowledge of history, literature, etc.

I agree.  But the key word there is IF the job requires a college degree.  Meaning IF the job requires you to know college level math, have knowledge of history, literature, etc.


Well, unfortunately, times are seriously changing. No longer will having a GED or high diploma alone satisfy things. In all honesty, an associate's degree doesn't mean much anymore. I had a colleague describe it as an extension to a high school diploma.

Well, unfortunately, times are seriously changing. No longer will having a GED or high diploma alone satisfy things. In all honesty, an associate's degree doesn't mean much anymore. I had a colleague describe it as an extension to a high school diploma.










that's what is so annoying about it all....I mean, it seems like a regular degree isn't even enough now to get a decent job....it seems like they always want you to go further with your education and get the masters degree, if not higher.  On the other hand though, there are lots of employers who won't hire you if you are over-qualified....it's like...what is the happy medium if one is not enough and the other is too much?


Erin :)

Well, unfortunately, times are seriously changing. No longer will having a GED or high diploma alone satisfy things. In all honesty, an associate's degree doesn't mean much anymore. I had a colleague describe it as an extension to a high school diploma.




Ok, here is a prime example of what I am talking about.

Look at football players.  This is what I see as being required to be a good football player.

Physically fit
Determination
Fast runner
Hand/eye co-ordination
Ability to follow instructions
Quick reactions and able to make quick decisions
Height/Weight requirements
Basic reading skills
Basic counting skills, to count how many yards needed for first down, etc.
Knowledge of football rules, plays, etc.

Is it possible to acquire these skills without a college degree?  Most definitely!!
How many pro-football players do you see that are not college educated? ???

^ That's a pretty bad example, considering that most football players who got a scholarship to go to college didn't actually go to class :P  And how many people do you know can actually play so well that they make professional football a viable career?

You also forgot:

-- ability to catch a 70-mph laser pass in triple coverage while absorbing massive impacts
-- ability to throw the above mentioned pass
-- ability to intercept this pass and run 80 yards for a defensive touchdown despite weighing 350 pounds, with the aid of oxygen after the fact

I'm just messing with you, but if you think about it, everything in life is like a football draft.  In a football draft, the best people are picked first based on the teams' needs, and the less proficient players are left to lower rounds or to play in the CFL or Arena Football.  It is the same thing with job interviews and college admissions.  Of course, every now and then a team screws up and picks Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan, but generally, teams pick the best candidates for the job--and so do employers. 

Now, if you were in charge of drafting personnel, would you draft the guy who played excellent defense, or the guy who played excellent defense AND had a mid-range jumper?  Similarly...if you had two candidates of equal ability, would you choose the one with the education to back it up or the one who didn't?  Harsh but true.

^ That's a pretty bad example, considering that most football players who got a scholarship to go to college didn't actually go to class :P  And how many people do you know can actually play so well that they make professional football a viable career?



You're right, it probably wasn't the greatest example being that it wouldn't apply to the average person.  However, it is a prime example of a field where talent and training are far more important than a degree.

On the flip side, take a look at acting, writing and painting.  You don't need a college degree to be an author, painter or actor.  Heck, you could be 8 years old... and if your work is good enough, you've got yourself a job.

I also don't think that having a degree from Harvard makes you any better than having a degree from any other 4 year college. I got my undergraduate degree from a small state college. I don't think that I am any less educated then someone with the same degree from Harvard or Yale. In some ways I think I did have a better education because the classes were small and the professors could be me more individual attention if I needed it. I was not a number like I would have been at an Ivy League school.




Cat


Yes, she did get very special attention from at least one of her professors, although that was AFTER she took my course. ;)

One thing I have run across many times is that companies require a college degree for tax purposes.

One thing a lot of people do not realize is that companies can get a tax benefit to hiring people with a college degree.  What the degree is does not matter either.  As long as the applicant hired recieved their degree in the last 1-4 years (depends on the program applied for), they get the tax decrease.

In my field, that is a constant headache.  I am a computer technician/network engineer with 10+ years experience.  One large reason I have never gone to college is that the computer programs are not geared to somebody like me.  Also, they are normally way behind the technology curve.


And to add to that, I have run to many times into "College Snobery".  I once went on a date with a gal, and she asked me what my degree was in.  When I told her I did not have one, she actually said "I am sorry, I think I should go home.  I do not date people who are not as intelligent as I am."  I about fell out of my chair when she said that, and only my being a gentleman prevented me from telling her what I thought of that belief.

Added to that, I have talked to far to many people who told me the secret was simply doing what the professors wanted.  One friend went to UCLA as a Political Science major.  He was Conservative, and frequently had papers graded far below what they deserved.  It was so bad that his scholarship was in jeopardy.  He told me he simply changed his political slant in the papers, and his grades improved drastically.

I do hope to go to college in the next few years.  And more then likely my major will be either History or Political Science.  But God help anybody who confuses my political beliefs as a sign of the level of my intelligence.


Frankly, I didn't know there were tax advantages to hiring college graduates.

Especially the computer field, but also in other sciences, the technology changes so fast that it is almost impossible for most colleges to stay on the cutting edge.

"College snobbery" works in both directions, and is equally absurd either way.  I once tried to date a girl who refused to go out with me because I was an "egg head", and at the time I had LOTS of hair.

Your friend's experiance is not (unfortunately) uncommon.  There certainly are professors (both left and right) who grade students on their point of view.  Personally, I find that reprehensible, for many reasons, least of which is my desireto protect my own academic freedom, but how can I do that if I don't protect the academic freedom of my students?

I hope you can get to college, if that is what you want, and I assure you that if you were my student, I might disagree with what you have to say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it (I think that was Voltaire), and give you an "a" if you said it well.

Ok, here is a prime example of what I am talking about.

Look at football players.  This is what I see as being required to be a good football player.

Physically fit
Determination
Fast runner
Hand/eye co-ordination
Ability to follow instructions
Quick reactions and able to make quick decisions
Height/Weight requirements
Basic reading skills
Basic counting skills, to count how many yards needed for first down, etc.
Knowledge of football rules, plays, etc.

Is it possible to acquire these skills without a college degree?  Most definitely!!
How many pro-football players do you see that are not college educated? ???


Yes, yes, these are the basics for a football player, and certainly you don't need a college education to get them.  How many pros are not recruited from college teams I can't say because I don't follow football, but how many 18 year old high school standouts could compete with the pros?  At 22 +/- and 4 years playing college ball...  What bugs me is that some of the finest schools recruit kids just on their ability to play, and there have been scandles re prostitutes , booze, and drugs.  That's NOT what college should be about, and not what athletics should be about.

Yes, yes, these are the basics for a football player, and certainly you don't need a college education to get them.  How many pros are not recruited from college teams I can't say because I don't follow football, but how many 18 year old high school standouts could compete with the pros?  At 22 +/- and 4 years playing college ball...  What bugs me is that some of the finest schools recruit kids just on their ability to play, and there have been scandles re prostitutes , booze, and drugs.  That's NOT what college should be about, and not what athletics should be about.


You notice that when there is an challenge to affirmative action athletes and rich/legacy kids are never
brought into the equation.

^ Funny you should mention legacy.  A lot of colleges, including public universities, take some consideration to applicants who have had family members graduate previously from that institution.  My brother could have gotten into Cal on his own merits, but he was definitely helped by the fact that I had graduated from there two years prior to his matriculation.

On the flip side, take a look at acting, writing and painting.  You don't need a college degree to be an author, painter or actor.  Heck, you could be 8 years old... and if your work is good enough, you've got yourself a job.

These professions are dependent more on opportunity than on necessity.  I don't NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to read a book, or watch a movie, or go to a museum, but it definitely gives me pleasure to do so.  The opportunity parameters in these professions are also incredibly subjective.  For example, you could probably argue that Ashley Judd is a better actress than Lindsey Lohan, but because of the dynamics of pop culture, Judd is no longer considered for the most coveted roles in mainstream movies while Lohan's mug is plastered all over the place.  That certainly isn't fair, considering that Judd has more critical acclaim, but it happens. 

Extrapolating on my points about opportunity--college does open up a lot of opportunities not so much because of the piece of paper you get at the end, but because of all the experiences and contacts you acquire along the way.  I can attest to both extremes, as I have two degrees and so far have nothing to show for it.  But because I made a positive impression in my academic career upon many professors, they are more than willing to allow me into their networks and support me in job hunts and other endeavors.  The only reason I am even a viable candidate for graduate school is because of those professors faith in my abilities.  This would definitely not be possible without college, at least for me.

I would also dare say that most employers can tell the difference between someone who has made the most of their college experience, and someone who just got a piece of paper.

Yes, she did get very special attention from at least one of her professors, although that was AFTER she took my course. ;)



Hmmm, I have no idea who you are referring to-Dr. P.? Dr. J.?  ;) Certainly not B.S. (even though her initials says it all.  :D )





Cat

^ Funny you should mention legacy.  A lot of colleges, including public universities, take some consideration to applicants who have had family members graduate previously from that institution.  My brother could have gotten into Cal on his own merits, but he was definitely helped by the fact that I had graduated from there two years prior to his matriculation.

These professions are dependent more on opportunity than on necessity.  I don't NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to read a book, or watch a movie, or go to a museum, but it definitely gives me pleasure to do so.  The opportunity parameters in these professions are also incredibly subjective.  For example, you could probably argue that Ashley Judd is a better actress than Lindsey Lohan, but because of the dynamics of pop culture, Judd is no longer considered for the most coveted roles in mainstream movies while Lohan's mug is plastered all over the place.  That certainly isn't fair, considering that Judd has more critical acclaim, but it happens. 

Extrapolating on my points about opportunity--college does open up a lot of opportunities not so much because of the piece of paper you get at the end, but because of all the experiences and contacts you acquire along the way.  I can attest to both extremes, as I have two degrees and so far have nothing to show for it.  But because I made a positive impression in my academic career upon many professors, they are more than willing to allow me into their networks and support me in job hunts and other endeavors.  The only reason I am even a viable candidate for graduate school is because of those professors faith in my abilities.  This would definitely not be possible without college, at least for me.

I would also dare say that most employers can tell the difference between someone who has made the most of their college experience, and someone who just got a piece of paper.


I agree with you. Many writers and journalists get hooked up with their first job or publisher ecause they met someone in college who could help them. Bret Easton Ellis gave his first manuscript for Less than Zero to a professor of his at Bennington College in Vermont, and the professor was the one who passed it on to the publiser and it went on to be very highly acclaimed, and Ellis has had a great career ever since. This is just an isolated example I know of.

I agree with most of you on this topic. I am currently enrolled at a 2 year college. I work full time, I still am in debt (not a whole lot, but enough to make me worry at night). I am almost 24 years old. I feel like the only way I can ever just get out of this slump is to graduate with an Associates degree with a specialty in mind and then land a fairly decent job by climbing up the ladder. Or if I get real lucky someday, I can sell my artwork, but to be practical, that probably will never occur unless I have a lot of time to work on it.

It's daunting to think that having a bachelors' degree means almost nothing, and the fact that we can't all afford grad school, then where does this put us? All we'll be are a bunch of High class people living in mansions or the low class will be living in rows and rows of urban sprawl, while we commute everyday to work.

I agree with most of you on this topic. I am currently enrolled at a 2 year college. I work full time, I still am in debt (not a whole lot, but enough to make me worry at night). I am almost 24 years old. I feel like the only way I can ever just get out of this slump is to graduate with an Associates degree with a specialty in mind and then land a fairly decent job by climbing up the ladder. Or if I get real lucky someday, I can sell my artwork, but to be practical, that probably will never occur unless I have a lot of time to work on it.

It's daunting to think that having a bachelors' degree means almost nothing, and the fact that we can't all afford grad school, then where does this put us? All we'll be are a bunch of High class people living in mansions or the low class will be living in rows and rows of urban sprawl, while we commute everyday to work.


Unlike undergraduate ed, very few people actually pay for grad school.  Most get assistantships, grants, scholarships etc.  My MA, ABD and Ph.D. cost me next to nothing.  I even got free books, but I understand that publishers are less generous these days.

I wouldn't say that a BA is almost meaningless, but it is the coin of the rehlm for most "professional" jobs.

Good luck at school.

Unlike undergraduate ed, very few people actually pay for grad school.  Most get assistantships, grants, scholarships etc.  My MA, ABD and Ph.D. cost me next to nothing.  I even got free books, but I understand that publishers are less generous these days.

I wouldn't say that a BA is almost meaningless, but it is the coin of the rehlm for most "professional" jobs.

Good luck at school.


I paid for my graduate school years for about 60% of it. The rest was from loans.

I paid for my graduate school years for about 60% of it. The rest was from loans.


What was your degree, and what was it in?  That often determines whether you have to pay or not.

What was your degree, and what was it in?  That often determines whether you have to pay or not.


Masters in Arts, Elementary Education

Trust me, I paid!!!

Masters in Arts, Elementary Education

Trust me, I paid!!!


That sounds like a teaching degree, which explains why you unfortunately had to pay out the nose.  Kind of ironic how teachers get paid next to nothing and yet have to give up a chunk of their soul to become teachers, eh?  :(

My situation was different.  As a biology student, I had the benefit of fellowships and grants to pay for my education, plus a stipend to compensate my living expenses.  My undergraduate education was partially paid off by two merit-based scholarships.

That sounds like a teaching degree, which explains why you unfortunately had to pay out the nose.  Kind of ironic how teachers get paid next to nothing and yet have to give up a chunk of their soul to become teachers, eh?  :(

My situation was different.  As a biology student, I had the benefit of fellowships and grants to pay for my education, plus a stipend to compensate my living expenses.  My undergraduate education was partially paid off by two merit-based scholarships.


oh you science kids drive me crazy with your available funding!!!!!! LOL

I receive two merit scholarships, some grants (a couple from the UNCF) and some loans. I made it through thankfully.

oh you science kids drive me crazy with your available funding!!!!!! LOL

I receive two merit scholarships, some grants (a couple from the UNCF) and some loans. I made it through thankfully.


Apparently our available funding might drop because the Prez decided to cut science grants or something (according to some of my friends who remain in the field), so when I do go back, I may have to apply for additional scholarships, fellowships, etc.  Private funding in biotech companies are darn near unlimited though.

Apparently our available funding might drop because the Prez decided to cut science grants or something (according to some of my friends who remain in the field), so when I do go back, I may have to apply for additional scholarships, fellowships, etc.  Private funding in biotech companies are darn near unlimited though.


Hell no! He is such an ass! Probably still pissed about that F he got in Bio lab in his freshman year.

^ That is a prime example of somebody who probably shouldn't have gotten into Yale or Harvard ;)  But then again, maybe (BIG MAYBE) he's smarter than he appears :P

^ That is a prime example of somebody who probably shouldn't have gotten into Yale or Harvard ;)  But then again, maybe (BIG MAYBE) he's smarter than he appears :P


I honestly don't see anything smart about acting dumb when you aren't.

I honestly don't see anything smart about acting dumb when you aren't.


My point of view is that he is a terrible public speaker and doesn't choose his words well, which would lead people to think he is stupid.  But then again, Reagan was thought of as a senile old man, so we'll just have to see :)

Well, I think President Bush is stupid anyway.

My point of view is that he is a terrible public speaker and doesn't choose his words well, which would lead people to think he is stupid.  But then again, Reagan was thought of as a senile old man, so we'll just have to see :)

Well, I think President Bush is stupid anyway.


I agree.

I agree.


Cool :)

Back to the topic, Tanya, did you feel that your education was indispensable towards your proficiency as a teacher?

Cool :)

Back to the topic, Tanya, did you feel that your education was indispensable towards your proficiency as a teacher?


Yes, I do believe my education was crucial b/c what can I actually teach if I don't know anything about the world and everything that stems from it (e.g. the arts, sciences, philosophy, language). If anything, it makes my proficiency stronger. Chalk and a lesson planner aren't the only tools necessary to teach.