Log in

View Full Version : Higher Education equals Higher Unemployment !!!



Pages : 1 [2]

All Good Things
05-24-2012, 11:24 AM
^ I agree. When I graduated, I noticed that many of my college friends quite seriously thought they were to become National Security Council staffers overnight.

They all made it eventually, though. :)

Two observations, FWIW:

The origin of the expectation "college degree = career" is never explained. Or even "college degree = higher earnings." A college education was not designed to produce either of those. The whole point of graduate professional schools such as law, medicine and business, was to do what college was not designed to do: Give you a career.

I recognize that the absurdly high cost of most colleges changed that calculus, but I think it's still useful to keep it in mind as a reality check. It may also make sense to change the mission of colleges and universities, and there are now efforts to do exactly that by combining more traditional disciplines like history with practical courses like how to start and run a business.

Second point: It's also true that the top 30 universities in the US are insanely expensive, but they do produce graduates with disproportionately higher lifetime earnings and a greater societal influence compared to the rest of the college-educated cohort. It's often said that this is the modern equivalent of the privileged classes, e.g. "family connections" or "blue blood," but neither of these is true anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time -- consider not only the recent example of Mark Zuckerberg but the far older examples of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs -- all from modest middle-class backgrounds; or even Bill Clinton, whose background and educational ascent from poverty is so similar to mine as to be a bit scary.

It's these "shared experiences" where elite colleges scoop you up and then spit you out into the world -- and yes, as Sophia notes, they spit you out onto the ground floor, where everybody starts -- that can actually be quite egalitarian in effect.

Nobody gets into a CEO position right out of any college unless it's in a company you just created.

MyButter
05-24-2012, 11:44 AM
Ah I see... but wouldn't you be discredited if you held a super specified degree and applied for a job that was unrelated to your focused area of study? ...especially in the case that you were competing with people who's degrees were non-specific and therefore, (I'd imagine), more flexible? I mean, I understand that you would still have a basic understanding of the general degree, but in the event that your degree was super concentrated wouldn't you have to forgo some of the general knowledge you would have otherwise learned had you not obtained a concentrated degree? ...it just doesn't seem like it would translate well? I'm just confused as to why degrees have become so specific, lol.

luke
05-24-2012, 11:55 AM
from http://www.zerohedge.com/news/benefits-college-education


(snip)"As the following graphic from IBD demonstrates, for the first time in history, a majority of jobless workers over 25 have attended some college, and now outnumber those without a job who simply have a high school diploma or less. But at least those in the former category have tens of thousands of non-dischargeable [ student loan - sic ] debt to show for it.


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/05/education%20vs%20unemployment_0.jpg


From IBD:

Out of 9 million unemployed in April, 4.7 million had gone to college or graduated and 4.3 million had not, seasonally adjusted Labor Department data show.

That's a swing of more than 2 million since the start of 1992, early in another jobless recovery, when 4.1 million who hadn't gone to college were jobless vs. 2.3 million jobless who had gone.

Mostly, this dramatic shift reflects broad demographic forces. A greater share of the population has attended college, at least for a time. Meanwhile, older Americans who were less likely to pursue higher education are exiting the work force.

In 2011, 57% of those 25 and up had attended some college vs. 43% in 1992. Those without a high school diploma fell from 21% to 12% over that span.

But along with the increasing prevalence of college attendance has come a growing number of dropouts, who have left school burdened by student loan debt but without much to kick-start their careers.

For those in the labor force — either with a job or in active pursuit of one — 57% of high-school grads with no college (2.9 million of 5.1 million) have found a full-time job.

For labor force members who have attended — and left — college or earned an associate degree, a depressing 64% (2.2 million of 3.5 million) have gained full-time employment.

Among everyone up to age 24 who has left college or earned a two-year degree — including those not actively searching — the full-time employment-to-population ratio has plummeted from 69% in 2000 to 62% in 2003 to 54% [ in 2012 - sic ].

The good news? That part-time worker you are hiring at minimum wage likely has two Masters Degrees... and a Ph.D. (in economics)."(snip)

I have to agree with Eagle2. This is a very misleading way to present the data. Telling us that the majority of the unemployed have attended college, by itself, doesn't tell us much about the value of a college degree. Attending college is not the same as earning a degree. Moreover, what the graph is most likely telling us is that an increasing share of the population has attended college. As the proportion of the population that has attended college increases this group will represent an increasing share of all subsets of the population including the unemployed.

To conclude from this chart that a college degree is not worthwhile is akin to saying "A majority of the unemployed know how to read and write. Therefore it is not worth it to learn how to read and write."

Melonie
05-24-2012, 12:30 PM
what the graph is most likely telling us is that an increasing share of the population has attended college. As the proportion of the population that has attended college increases this group will represent an increasing share of all subsets of the population including the unemployed

Basically, that was the 'foundation' of the original author's point ... to which I am in complete agreement. As Eric Stoner mentioned in a previous post, today's number of College Graduates and Attendees exceeds the available job openings for highly skilled and professional jobs in a manner that increasingly tracks today's number of unskilled / high school educated workers exceeds the available job openings for unskilled jobs. And with a 'surplus' of college educated workforce available, today's prospective employers of skilled workers and professionals are free to be highly selective, are free to attempt to 'compress' pay rates etc. in the same way that prospective employers of unskilled workers have been in the past.

One difference though is that obtaining a college degree involves 'sacrificing' income that otherwise could be earned from working full time versus attending college, involves 'paying' thousands of dollars worth of tuition ( now or later ), etc. Thus the new college graduate will always be starting out 'behind'. Another difference is that, after obtaining a degree, unemployed college graduates are typically both reluctant to accept lesser skill level jobs, as well as less likely to be selected to fill lesses skill level jobs by prospective employers ( who fear the college educated new employee will 'jump ship' at the first available opportunity ). And this circles back to the original point of this thread, which was that obtaining a college degree under present / near future US economic conditions may in fact be a formula for a HIGHER chance of unemployment instead of a lower chance. And for better or worse, while the outsourcing / exporting of low skill level US jobs has already become widespread, the outsourcing / exporting of high slill level / professional US jobs is just now starting to take place in earnest.

Sophia_Starina
05-24-2012, 01:16 PM
Second point: It's also true that the top 30 universities in the US are insanely expensive, but they do produce graduates with disproportionately higher lifetime earnings and a greater societal influence compared to the rest of the college-educated cohort.


So true!

For example:


If you compare average starting salaries based on the university attended you'd be shocked. Keep in mind the position is the same! In my state, State School Diploma kids would get about $66,000. The Ivy League kids got up to $189,000. Granted, I'm talking about Law students... but still.... that is a huge gap.

I attended state school... so that statistic stuck with me. :(

Over all, Ivy kids make 34% more than State kids in the first 10 years of their careers... according to this: http://www.newser.com/story/33918/ivy-leaguers-start-ahead-stay-ahead.html

And this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121746658635199271.html

Sophia_Starina
05-24-2012, 01:29 PM
Ah I see... but wouldn't you be discredited if you held a super specified degree and applied for a job that was unrelated to your focused area of study? ...especially in the case that you were competing with people who's degrees were non-specific and therefore, (I'd imagine), more flexible? I mean, I understand that you would still have a basic understanding of the general degree, but in the event that your degree was super concentrated wouldn't you have to forgo some of the general knowledge you would have otherwise learned had you not obtained a concentrated degree? ...it just doesn't seem like it would translate well? I'm just confused as to why degrees have become so specific, lol.

Discredited?

No.


A super specific major may limit job options.... However an overly general major may make a student look like a diletante... superficial... or wishy-washy. Having a specialization doesn't preclude you from the general jobs. It does make a statement about your leanings/interests. Can this work against you... possibly. But from my experience, that is unlikely.

There are far too many variables.... an employers perspective, the major itself, school, how capable the applicant is, etc...

I would advise anyone considering any form of education to realize that a diploma is not a job guarantee. It's just the cost of admission into a career field. Once you, I, or anyone else get the dang degree.... it comes down to resourcefulness, luck, and driven dedication/determination to find a job in this heck-hole of an economy.

Kellydancer
05-24-2012, 04:17 PM
Regarding the Ivy league stats one needs to keep in mind that generally speaking we are talking the children of the very wealthy meeting other very wealthy people and of course many of these very wealthy own companies. That's one reason why these grads tend to make more than most grads. Those who weren't wealthy, but had the grades to attend are afforded the best networking they possibly can to meet these people. Those who attend state schools tend to be from the middle class (or lower)and there just aren't many business owners sending their kids there, except maybe small business owners.

Mentioning the general studies classes reminds me of many of the classes I had to take in college and many I resented while others just bored me. I probably did learn some things from the general education classes but for others they were just classes I took to graduate. My college had this class where you had to take it last semester as a capstone for graduating. You'd think it would help with things like a resume or interviewing but we spent one class on it. Instead the rest of the semester we were REQUIRED to share our feelings with the class. I actually made up things just to get an A. Honestly, what purpose is it to take a class where you share your feelings with people you see 3 hours a week for 16 weeks and likely will never see again? Oh and I was called a rightwing fascist because of some of their activities they wanted to engage in (and keep in mind I was far more liberal then than I am now).

All Good Things
05-24-2012, 04:54 PM
Regarding the Ivy league stats one needs to keep in mind that generally speaking we are talking the children of the very wealthy meeting other very wealthy people and of course many of these very wealthy own companies. That's one reason why these grads tend to make more than most grads. Those who weren't wealthy, but had the grades to attend are afforded the best networking they possibly can to meet these people. Those who attend state schools tend to be from the middle class (or lower)and there just aren't many business owners sending their kids there, except maybe small business owners.

This is no longer true. It really hasn't been true for the last two or three decades.

This year, for example, Harvard is extending financial aid to over 60% of the entering class on a financial-needs basis. So by definition, these families are not "very wealthy" by a very long shot. And that's a four-year financial commitment.

Every school in the Ivy League and the remaining top 30 schools are competing fiercely for the smartest, most capable students, irrespective of financial means.

Getting into the Ivy League is not about money -- it's about test scores (insanely high) and grades (insanely great) and a whole lot of luck. Harvard accepted a little over 2,000 students from an applicant pool of 34,302. Within that pool:

14,000 scored 700 or above on the SAT reading
17,000 scored 700 or above on the SAT math
15,000 scored 700 or above on the SAT writing

and 3,800 were ranked first in their high school class.

These are "Holy Fuck!" test scores and grades. So not only did about half of the first-in-their-class not get in, on average 87% of those who scored above 700 on the SAT didn't get in.

While it's not a perfect meritocracy, it is close, and at some point you have to accept that people deserve some of the success that they've obviously worked their asses off to achieve.

bem401
05-24-2012, 05:39 PM
^^^ I graduated from an Ivy League school. Admissions are based on a number of factors. Class rank, SAT's, college essay, alumni interview all count, as does whether you are recruited for sports, whether you are a legacy, any artistic ability, whether you contribute to ethnic diversity, and whether your parents might be capable of donating money. Cases to look at: Bush, Gore, and Obama. If you think they got in strictly on academic merit, think again. I fit a good chunk of your description but that being said, I was recruited for 2 sports or I probably wouldn't have gotten in. It is possible to rank first in a HS class and ace the SAT's and still get rejected. The fact is the toughest thing about any of these schools is getting in.

All Good Things
05-24-2012, 06:21 PM
I am quite aware of what the criteria are. I thought there was no point in using my own experience in place of the statistics, which are startling, and more objective.

Did they pick Obama because his single mother or his alcoholic father could contribute a lot of money? Unlikely. My guess is that Obama got in on academic merit, as did Gore. But all three cases pre-date my time frame of two to three decades ago, when money became less of an issue.

And yes, I know it's possible to "rank first in HS class and ace the SAT's and still get rejected." So they accepted you, even though you use possessive apostrophes for plurals? Good God, what happened to standards? :)

bem401
05-24-2012, 06:33 PM
I have always wondered the best way to pluralize an acronym. I'm used to seeing it apostrophized so I was well aware of what I was writing.

You can't be serious about Gore...His father had more stature when he applied to Harvard than Bush's father had when W applied to Yale.

And I'm sure race was a much bigger factor than academic merit in Obama's transferring to Columbia. Transfers are very rare, especially from other colleges no one ever heard of. The fact that his father was a big-time Kenyan would have played into it as well. He is also suspected of playing his Kenyan background in applying there. It may or may not have been the case but oddly enough, he won't release any records whatsoever related to his time there.

My golf/hockey coach graduated from Harvard and said the toughest thing about Harvard was getting up in time to watch the Hollywood Squares.

luke
05-24-2012, 06:42 PM
Basically, that was the 'foundation' of the original author's point ... to which I am in complete agreement. As Eric Stoner mentioned in a previous post, today's number of College Graduates and Attendees exceeds the available job openings for highly skilled and professional jobs in a manner that increasingly tracks today's number of unskilled / high school educated workers exceeds the available job openings for unskilled jobs. And with a 'surplus' of college educated workforce available, today's prospective employers of skilled workers and professionals are free to be highly selective, are free to attempt to 'compress' pay rates etc. in the same way that prospective employers of unskilled workers have been in the past.

One difference though is that obtaining a college degree involves 'sacrificing' income that otherwise could be earned from working full time versus attending college, involves 'paying' thousands of dollars worth of tuition ( now or later ), etc. Thus the new college graduate will always be starting out 'behind'. Another difference is that, after obtaining a degree, unemployed college graduates are typically both reluctant to accept lesser skill level jobs, as well as less likely to be selected to fill lesses skill level jobs by prospective employers ( who fear the college educated new employee will 'jump ship' at the first available opportunity ). And this circles back to the original point of this thread, which was that obtaining a college degree under present / near future US economic conditions may in fact be a formula for a HIGHER chance of unemployment instead of a lower chance. And for better or worse, while the outsourcing / exporting of low skill level US jobs has already become widespread, the outsourcing / exporting of high slill level / professional US jobs is just now starting to take place in earnest.

Melonie:

I agree that obtaining a college degree is no guarantee of earning a higher income and one must factor in the opportunity cost of attending college. I would counter with two points:
1. You don't provide any evidence that obtaining a college degree leads to a HIGHER chance of unemployment. As Eagle2 pointed out the unemployment rate is substantially higher among those without college degrees, especially 4-year degrees.
2. Earning higher pay or getting a job is one advantage of higher education. But it is not the only one nor necessarily the most important. Higher education is supposed to help produce a more well rounded and knowledgeable citizenry. No doubt higher education often falls short on this account, but in general having a college degree correlates with a number of positive outcomes including better health, greater civic participation (i.e. voting), and lower rates of criminal activity. We can't prove that going to college causes these outcomes. It could be that the type of people who go to college are less likely to engage in criminal activity. Still I think it is safe to say that college is not only for increasing earnings and obtaining a college education imparts other benefits on students and society.

eagle2
05-24-2012, 09:00 PM
Basically, that was the 'foundation' of the original author's point ... to which I am in complete agreement. As Eric Stoner mentioned in a previous post, today's number of College Graduates and Attendees exceeds the available job openings for highly skilled and professional jobs in a manner that increasingly tracks today's number of unskilled / high school educated workers exceeds the available job openings for unskilled jobs. And with a 'surplus' of college educated workforce available, today's prospective employers of skilled workers and professionals are free to be highly selective, are free to attempt to 'compress' pay rates etc. in the same way that prospective employers of unskilled workers have been in the past.

Then why is the unemployment rate for college graduates so much lower than for non-college graduates?



One difference though is that obtaining a college degree involves 'sacrificing' income that otherwise could be earned from working full time versus attending college, involves 'paying' thousands of dollars worth of tuition ( now or later ), etc. Thus the new college graduate will always be starting out 'behind'.


When you're 18 or 19 years old, in most cases, your expenses are much lower than when you're 40 - 45 years old. It's not uncommon for 18 or 19 year olds to be living with their parents, so their expenses are very low. When you're 40 or 45 years old, it's not uncommon to have mortgage payments and children to support. By choosing to take a low wage job instead of going to college, you're significantly reducing your income many years down the road, when you will be needing the extra money a lot more. As the graph in one of my earlier post (http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.gif) shows, the difference in median income between a college graduate and a high school graduate is about $400 a week, which comes out to around $20,000 a year. Unless you have children when you're a teenager, not having a full-time income when you're 18 or 19 isn't that big of deal, but having an extra $20,000 a year in income when you're 40-45 years old makes a very big difference. By looking at the short-term only, and choosing work instead of furthering your education, you may be lowering your living standard for the rest of your life.

Also, if you really do want the income of a full-time job right out of high-school, you can also go to college part-time and earn your degree over 7 - 8 years, instead of four. Some companies will even pay some, or all of your tuition. If you were to do this, you would not lose any income from not working full-time, and you would not have any debt to pay off after you finish school.



Another difference is that, after obtaining a degree, unemployed college graduates are typically both reluctant to accept lesser skill level jobs, as well as less likely to be selected to fill lesses skill level jobs by prospective employers ( who fear the college educated new employee will 'jump ship' at the first available opportunity ). And this circles back to the original point of this thread, which was that obtaining a college degree under present / near future US economic conditions may in fact be a formula for a HIGHER chance of unemployment instead of a lower chance.

The unemployment figures contradict this. The unemployment rate for college graduates is much lower than the unemployment rate for non-college graduates.



And for better or worse, while the outsourcing / exporting of low skill level US jobs has already become widespread, the outsourcing / exporting of high slill level / professional US jobs is just now starting to take place in earnest.

Outsourcing of high skill level jobs has been going on for over a decade and is currently on the decline.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/112678/20110215/outsourcing-india-china.htm

Kellydancer
05-24-2012, 10:48 PM
This is no longer true. It really hasn't been true for the last two or three decades.

This year, for example, Harvard is extending financial aid to over 60% of the entering class on a financial-needs basis. So by definition, these families are not "very wealthy" by a very long shot. And that's a four-year financial commitment.

Every school in the Ivy League and the remaining top 30 schools are competing fiercely for the smartest, most capable students, irrespective of financial means.

Getting into the Ivy League is not about money -- it's about test scores (insanely high) and grades (insanely great) and a whole lot of luck. Harvard accepted a little over 2,000 students from an applicant pool of 34,302. Within that pool:

14,000 scored 700 or above on the SAT reading
17,000 scored 700 or above on the SAT math
15,000 scored 700 or above on the SAT writing

and 3,800 were ranked first in their high school class.

These are "Holy Fuck!" test scores and grades. So not only did about half of the first-in-their-class not get in, on average 87% of those who scored above 700 on the SAT didn't get in.

While it's not a perfect meritocracy, it is close, and at some point you have to accept that people deserve some of the success that they've obviously worked their asses off to achieve.

I do feel the smart kids deserve to get into the best schools, but I still wonder how many truly smart kids get into the Ivy League versus other students like the kids of alumni. I think though if the higher class colleges start taking the smartest kids I see a lot of other interesting aspects. I certainly have respect for those students who got excellent grades in high school and to be honest feel colleges for the most part should only be open to bright students. Sadly though this isn't the case always.

bem401
05-25-2012, 06:05 AM
I do feel the smart kids deserve to get into the best schools, but I still wonder how many truly smart kids get into the Ivy League versus other students like the kids of alumni. I think though if the higher class colleges start taking the smartest kids I see a lot of other interesting aspects. I certainly have respect for those students who got excellent grades in high school and to be honest feel colleges for the most part should only be open to bright students. Sadly though this isn't the case always.

The overwhelming majority of those accepted are smart. Look at their median SAT scores , though some of the schools say they no longer consider them. Its just not enough to be strictly a top-notch student. You also get evaluated for the things I mentioned above. Its easier to get in if your parents are alumni or famous, if you are recruited for sports, if you have a special skill, or if you contribute to the ethnic diversity of the student body. All of those I just mentioned get special consideration, sometimes at the expense of other top notch students. I presently do some teaching in a school for Chinese kids. They are incredibly gifted but have the toughest road to admission to elite schools because they are competing against other like them for a "set" number of slots targeted for Asians.

Aurora_Sunset
05-25-2012, 09:52 AM
From my experiences, I've noticed several things on this subject:

1) The few people I know who didn't go to college at all have either started out at high-paying jobs that didn't require a degree but now freaking HATE their job, or have struggled through low-paying job after low-paying job... either way, both feel stuck. My friend with the high-paying job loved it for about 3 years. She recently quit because she couldn't stand it anymore... I guess similar to burn-out in the stripping world. No matter how much money you may be making, you never know when your mind is just gonna go "fuck this, I can't take it anymore." So now she's unemployed and has absolutely no fallback because she just thought she would never need it. She's only 23 years old and she's already struggling with the fact that she has to start school NOW instead of 5 years ago, feeling like she's "too old." I can't imagine how hopeless she'd feel if she had toughed out the job until she was in her late 20s or 30s.

And yes, I know several people who currently have more money than me because they were simply working while I was accruing debt, but they were working at Walmart... or Applebees... or living with their boyfriend's mom while they hopped from Blockbuster to Target to whatever-other-minimum-wage-job they could find. Now, if they were actually smart and dedicated workers who wanted to work their way up to a cushy management position that actually pays pretty well, I wouldn't fault them... but none of them seem motivated to do any of that. They're just "stuck" there because they decided to say "fuck college" and can't do anything else and don't want to start now.

2) The majority of people I know who went to college had little problem finding a job. The ones who don't have a job related to earning their degree are people who went to college just to go but didn't even really have the motivation in the first place or a plan for afterwards. I include myself in this category. I do not have a "real" job that's in anyway related to my degree. But I really don't do anything about it. I didn't even give a crap about school in the last year and a half I was there. Of course I don't have a job related to my degree if I don't go out and look for one or network or even put any positive energy toward it.

And I really think this is the phenomenon lately. It's not that people go to school with tons of motivation, looking to get a degree because they have grand ambitions of getting a specific job with it and then land in the gutter because they can't land a job with all their achievements - people go to school because it's "the thing to do." They don't even open their expensive textbooks, they show up to tests drunk, they make up bullshit and slap it down for a 20 page essay the day before it's due, they sleep through networking events, litter their public facebook pages with pictures of them doing kegstands, they make statements day in and day out about how "school is so stupid and pointless".... and then they're flabbergasted when the second they're handed the degree they barely scraped by with C's to earn, they don't instantly get offered a job that pays 80k a year... Well... no shit... I personally am not at all shocked that my degree (the diploma of which has been sitting in an unopened envelope on my kitchen counter for the past year) has not gotten me the job of my dreams... a job I can't even imagine yet... BUT I can tell you that any job I can even slightly imagine getting into and enjoying would require that degree to move onto more advanced and specialized schooling. My current obsession is applying to be an English teacher in a foreign country... you don't even have to know the native language but you do need a bachelor's degree of some sort to even do that... If I had to start school now just to do something like that, I'd immediately dismiss it. But I sure as heck don't want to work at a restaurant/retail store the rest of my life. Yeah, dancing is great money, and I completely applaud anyone who makes it into a career. But I know that more than a few years in that isn't for me either. So where would that leave me if I didn't have the degree already and could leverage it into something in the future?

I believe the people who are out there tossing out good resumes and not getting a bite - some areas are definitely worse off than others. And I think this very phenomenon could make the case that it's pointless to go to school until you have the desire/purpose to be there in the first place. And that perhaps our society needs to do a better job of sending the message that 22 is not the be-all-end-all of your time to decide what to do with your life and going back to school at a later age is perfectly acceptable. I am all for delaying schooling if you are not feeling it all and not doing well as a result of this. On the other hand, I am personally glad that I pushed through it because now I don't need to start at the beginning when I do decide what to do.

But, my bottom line is, pretty much everyone I know who came to school with the intention to work hard and do something with it has moved on to bigger and better things. But a lot of people I know... didn't give 2 shits about their schooling. I don't find it strange at all that they can't land a decent job with a degree they never cared about in the first place, but which they think owes them some superior job so they refuse to take anything less.

Melonie
05-25-2012, 11:00 AM
Then why is the unemployment rate for college graduates so much lower than for non-college graduates?

... for the same reason that, on the basis of overall average, real estate buyers have 'made money'. More specifically, that 'cherry picked' unemployment statistic includes all college graduates that are still of 'working age' ... meaning people who obtained their degrees in the 70's, 80's and 90's - who have accumulated 20-30-40 years worth of experience - who are highly valued and well paid. If you confine the comparison to recent college graduates ( those who entered college in 2007 and later ), just like recent real estate buyers ( 2007 and later ), the 'narrow' statistic is far more pessimistic than the long term average. Unfortunately, there's very little basis to assume that the favorable pre 2007 conditions are likely to return any time soon.



Outsourcing of high skill level jobs has been going on for over a decade and is currently on the decline.

Another 'cherry picked' statistic which admittedly only includes major technology companies. It notably fails to include medical device companies ( who are outsourcing in earnest in hopes of beating the new dedicated ObamaCare tax on medical devices ). It notably fails to include legal services, medical services, engineering services, architectural services, and a host of other 'non-technology' professional / high skill level jobs.

I would also point out that, as most recently exemplified by HP, some technology companies are now downscaling on a worldwide basis. This reduces outsourcing levels at the same time it reduces domestic professional / high skill level employment levels. And of course, some of the reduction in technology company outsourcing is also the result of de-facto gov't subsidy i.e. US content mandates for gov't funded projects / gov't subsidized green energy companies ( many of which are now going bankrupt thus losing ALL US high skill level / professional jobs ).

Kellydancer
05-25-2012, 11:41 AM
The overwhelming majority of those accepted are smart. Look at their median SAT scores , though some of the schools say they no longer consider them. Its just not enough to be strictly a top-notch student. You also get evaluated for the things I mentioned above. Its easier to get in if your parents are alumni or famous, if you are recruited for sports, if you have a special skill, or if you contribute to the ethnic diversity of the student body. All of those I just mentioned get special consideration, sometimes at the expense of other top notch students. I presently do some teaching in a school for Chinese kids. They are incredibly gifted but have the toughest road to admission to elite schools because they are competing against other like them for a "set" number of slots targeted for Asians.

That's one reason why I am opposed to affirmative action in colleges because certain races that tend to have higher scoring kids often get left behind while other minorities get in. I just feel those who are the smartest should be going to schools while those at the bottom shouldn't. The school I graduated from years ago changed many of the scholarships from grade/test based to income and there were a lot of unqualified students going to college at the expense of the smart kids. Ironically today the paper ran an article about the school and how they are planning to tighten their admissions because so many are coming in unable to do college level work and are dropping out.

Melonie
05-25-2012, 11:53 AM
^^^ indeed prospective employers have not failed to take note of the decline in 'real world job skills' that many recent college graduates have been 'foisting' on their employers. And yes this is far more likely to be the case for state colleges, where acceptance and/or total financial aid are often less than equal across the board. It is least likely to be the case for upper echelon private colleges.

Mr Hyde
05-27-2012, 09:28 AM
Does anyone here other than Melonie really believe that earning a college degree is not worth the money?

I will qualify that question with the following....that questions assumes...

1-The college chosen is a public institution
2-The degree earned is marketable and in-demand and has earning potential
3-The person earning it did what they could to keep their college costs low (for example, I ate very cheaply in college, and at one point, shared a 2 bedroom dump of an apartment with three other guys....paying $90/month in rent (this was the late 80s, so....)).

Sure, there are going to be stories of people coming out of college not being able to find a job. Have you heard of this thing called "the recession?" It wiped out a butt-load of jobs 4 years ago, and we're still working on getting them back. Coming out of college isn't what it was 3 years ago, no doubt. But to say it's not worth the money is crazy.

There is no way to quantify it right now, but I'd be willing to bet that in 40 years, the cohort of people graduating with college degrees in 2012 versus those without will have earned a LOT more money and been more successful in life than those without.

OTOH, we could encourage our best and brightest to skip college. I'm sure the Chinese would love to see Americans do that.

Kellydancer
05-27-2012, 10:06 AM
Mr Hyde, the problem though is that many jobs that never required a degree now do and that many people are doing jobs that don't require it. This means though that you need a degree to get even many menial jobs.

Sophia_Starina
05-27-2012, 10:49 AM
many jobs that never required a degree now do and that many people are doing jobs that don't require it. This means though that you need a degree to get even many menial jobs.

Very, very true.

alpha centauri
05-27-2012, 12:47 PM
it's an attitude issue, more or less. most everyone i've met with college degrees feels "entitled" to a higher salary than what the general, uneducated population earns. the job market isn't like how it was in the 50's. i know lots of people who work "low" wage jobs but live comfortably. it's not about the size of your paycheck, it's about how you spend/save your money.


that's just my experience, though. parents urge their kids to go to college so they "don't end up flipping burgers", but guess what your dad was doing when he was your age?

eagle2
05-27-2012, 12:53 PM
... for the same reason that, on the basis of overall average, real estate buyers have 'made money'. More specifically, that 'cherry picked' unemployment statistic includes all college graduates that are still of 'working age' ... meaning people who obtained their degrees in the 70's, 80's and 90's - who have accumulated 20-30-40 years worth of experience - who are highly valued and well paid. If you confine the comparison to recent college graduates ( those who entered college in 2007 and later ), just like recent real estate buyers ( 2007 and later ), the 'narrow' statistic is far more pessimistic than the long term average. Unfortunately, there's very little basis to assume that the favorable pre 2007 conditions are likely to return any time soon.


There is very little basis to assume that the favorable pre 2007 conditions will not return. There have been recessions in the past, and every time the economy came back. There is still going to be a need for college-educated engineers, computer programmers, nurses, accountants, and numerous other jobs that required a college degree, and on-average, the pay-level for those jobs will be much higher than that for unskilled labor jobs.

GlamourRouge
05-27-2012, 02:22 PM
I do feel the smart kids deserve to get into the best schools, but I still wonder how many truly smart kids get into the Ivy League versus other students like the kids of alumni. I think though if the higher class colleges start taking the smartest kids I see a lot of other interesting aspects. I certainly have respect for those students who got excellent grades in high school and to be honest feel colleges for the most part should only be open to bright students. Sadly though this isn't the case always.

As someone who knows several people who went to ivys, I'd have to say that its not because those kids are truly smarter. Maybe some of them, but not really. Its because a.) their parents can afford it and instill in them the idea "oh you have nothing to worry about! we'll take care of everything! just study study study!" and they do, and b.) its because their parents will not settle for anything less than them going to an ivy.

In the end, its all about effort & motivation.

Think!
05-27-2012, 02:34 PM
That's one reason why I am opposed to affirmative action in colleges because certain races that tend to have higher scoring kids often get left behind while other minorities get in.

First, the reason there is affirmative action is to remedy past racial discrimination people of color have experienced throughout history as a way to equalize educational opportunities such as access to higher education for all racial/ethnic groups. Second, most standardized multiple choice tests such as the SAT are culturally insensitive and biased; that is, they are neither objective nor scientific. Many colleges are relying less on SAT scores as the only measure to determine whether to accept or deny applicants.

bem401
05-27-2012, 03:43 PM
Colleges are not what they once were, largely due to the increased involvement of the federal government since the 70's. It's big business now. Students are going to college now who really have no business being there. I have actually tutored a couple college students in the last year on their multiplication tables. I wouldn't have getten out of 3rd grade without knowing them. These kids are now in college.

Think!
05-27-2012, 03:58 PM
Colleges are not what they once were, largely due to the increased involvement of the federal government since the 70's. It's big business now. Students are going to college now who really have no business being there. I have actually tutored a couple college students in the last year on their multiplication tables. I wouldn't have getten out of 3rd grade without knowing them. These kids are now in college.


Really? Who is to say who should or should not attend college? If anything, the reason why students struggle in college is because of lack of advising, counseling, and college preparatory programs at the high school level. These students enter college having to take remedial courses over and over again; remedial courses that are not transferable to a four-year college. As for your comment about the growing involvement of the federal government in colleges: I don't see it especially now that the burden of paying for college is falling more and more on the shoulders of students themselves.

bem401
05-27-2012, 04:07 PM
Subsidized student loans and affirmative action have contributed to the explosion in college students over the last few decades. I'm not necessarily blaming the students that are there but a lot of them are not likely to successfully graduate from a four-year college. The statistics bear this out and the ones who do graduate are not as prepared for the real world as they should be. The point is a lot of college have quite often become all about the money and watered down their curriculum to attract students, many of whom wouldn't have graduated from high school a couple decades ago. Students from the HS I teach at often get into a special program at the state university, flunk out of there, enroll in the state junior college, and subsequently flunk out of there. I've had 2000 students the last 20 years and know of maybe 2 dozen of them who have graduated from a college, and a lot of them took 8 or 10 years to do it.

Kellydancer
05-27-2012, 04:26 PM
First, the reason there is affirmative action is to remedy past racial discrimination people of color have experienced throughout history as a way to equalize educational opportunities such as access to higher education for all racial/ethnic groups. Second, most standardized multiple choice tests such as the SAT are culturally insensitive and biased; that is, they are neither objective nor scientific. Many colleges are relying less on SAT scores as the only measure to determine whether to accept or deny applicants.

While yes in the past minorities, especially poor minorities were denied access to college, many minorities now have a standard of living comparable to white students. So no these students shouldn't get into college ahead of a higher scoring lower income white student. I do not think the SAT is biased because these are things kids should know before college, like how to do research papers and algebra.

Think!
05-27-2012, 04:26 PM
Subsidized student loans and affirmative action have contributed to the explosion in college students over the last few decades. I'm not necessarily blaming the students that are there but they are not likely to successfully graduate from a four-year college. The statistics bear this out and the ones who do graduate are not as prepared for the real world as they should be. The point is a lot of college have quite often become all about the money and watered down their curriculum to attract students, many of whom wouldn't have graduated from high school a couple decades ago. Students from the HS I teach at often get into a special program at the state university, flunk out of there, enroll in the state junior college, and subsequently flunk out of there. I've had 2000 students the last 20 years and know of maybe 2 dozen of them who have graduated from a college, and a lot of them took 8 or 10 years to do it.


I presume most of the students you are speaking about are from low income and working-class backgrounds who must hold two or more jobs and are married with children while attending college. I am not certain that affirmative action has caused an 'explosion' in the number of college students who attend college. Also, I am not sure if you are referring to two-year community colleges, four-year colleges or both. One of the many reasons students don't do well when they enter community colleges is because they do not have the resources to integrate students in the community college environment (i.e., Dormitories and social clubs, etc.). As for grade inflation: that has been well documented, but mostly it occurs in private colleges and Ivy-league universities.

Kellydancer
05-27-2012, 04:29 PM
Subsidized student loans and affirmative action have contributed to the explosion in college students over the last few decades. I'm not necessarily blaming the students that are there but a lot of them are not likely to successfully graduate from a four-year college. The statistics bear this out and the ones who do graduate are not as prepared for the real world as they should be. The point is a lot of college have quite often become all about the money and watered down their curriculum to attract students, many of whom wouldn't have graduated from high school a couple decades ago. Students from the HS I teach at often get into a special program at the state university, flunk out of there, enroll in the state junior college, and subsequently flunk out of there. I've had 2000 students the last 20 years and know of maybe 2 dozen of them who have graduated from a college, and a lot of them took 8 or 10 years to do it.

They've been watering down college for many years and to me it's not fair to the students who should be there. Where I attended college didn't have honors classes so everyone was put together except for math and English. I have seen the remedial math and English classes and they were learning subjects I knew in grade school. Because a teacher doesn't want to appear to be unfair they will often have stricter standards on the smarter students and many times the smarter students actually earn a lower grade than the other students. Other time the smarter students were done with the class by midterm.

minnow
05-27-2012, 04:31 PM
[QUOTE=Mr Hyde;2355196]Does anyone here other than Melonie really believe that earning a college degree is not worth the money?


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^

Perhaps Kobe Bryant ? Now, I have nothing to suggest that KB may be a member of this site, but it is germane to note that Mr. Bryant went strtaight from high school to the NBA draft. Go ahead and google his salary from the likes of espngo.com, and "USA Today NBA Salaries". One can easily see that he makes more in 1 year than a lot of doctors and lawyers make in a decade. Yet, would it be wise to suggest that every high school basketball player try to emulate Kobe Bryants' career path ? No more so than pursuing a college degree (any degree) "just because".

As one regular Dollar Den poster pointed out, those going the college route need to choose their degree major carefully, taking into account reasonable "ROI" on their efforts. Naturally, Mel is biased against college, because, after all, she made more dancing/stripping (which doesn't require any degree) than she did in a field that required some formal schooling/training. But, as not every high school jock out there can realistically be another Kobe Bryant, not every "core" SW member is cut out to be a perennial 6-figure earner. Which calls for a "Plan B".

One can spin the stats all they want, but the facts are that college graduates earn more than non - college graduates. The well compensated individuals earning their degrees in the 70's - 90's weren't always well compensated. They went through some "dues paying years", gaining the requisite experience for moving into the more advanced jobs. Many SW members are of the dues paying age, so some doubt exists, exacerbated by the recent poor economic conditions. Yet, myself, and many of my peers last 4 years earnings are a five fold (or greater ) increase over our first 4 years earnings out of college(adjusted for inflation).

bem401
05-27-2012, 04:56 PM
Think!, where are you presuming this from? I teach in an inner-city school and the students I'm referring to are not married with children and holding down a couple jobs at all. A lot of them are on public assistance and attending college for next to nothing. I am not faulting them mind you for the situation they find themselves in but they really would be better off learning a trade or something. I tell them to consider that while they are in my school because i am well aware of the lack of success alumni have had when it comes to graduating from college. Most of it has to do with the shitty foundation they have been given as students.

Think!
05-27-2012, 05:54 PM
I am not faulting them mind you for the situation they find themselves in but they really would be better off learning a trade or something. I tell them to consider that while they are in my school because i am well aware of the lack of success alumni have had when it comes to graduating from college. Most of it has to do with the shitty foundation they have been given as students.

So why should we not then focus on developing more rigorous high school curriculum by raising teacher expectations, and provide more resources and qualified teachers to prepare them to succeed in college?

Think!
05-27-2012, 05:57 PM
While yes in the past minorities, especially poor minorities were denied access to college, many minorities now have a standard of living comparable to white students. So no these students shouldn't get into college ahead of a higher scoring lower income white student. I do not think the SAT is biased because these are things kids should know before college, like how to do research papers and algebra.

Certainly the number of students of color has increased when compared to a few decades ago, but when you state 'many,' what percentage are we talking about? And, as for the SAT, given that students come from diverse social and economic backgrounds, what are the 'things' students should know before they enter college?

bem401
05-27-2012, 06:37 PM
So why should we not then focus on developing more rigorous high school curriculum by raising teacher expectations, and providing more resources and qualified teachers to prepare them to succeed in college?

Because the teachers are least to blame in the situation. It has a lot more to do with the parents, politicians, administrators and popular culture. Schools today are all about promoting self-esteem. Public schools, particularly those in the inner city, ought to require uniforms, institute discipline, have student accountability, and have tracking, so that the runners are with the runners, the walkers with the walkers, and the crawlers with the crawlers. Instead, its all a dog-and-pony show for nice press releases. The kids don't find out they're screwed till they are no longer the school department's concern. The students advance to state schools and go t5hrough what I described in a previous post.

Think!
05-27-2012, 06:55 PM
Because the teachers are least to blame in the situation. It has a lot more to do with the parents, politicians, administrators and popular culture. Schools today are all about promoting self-esteem. Public schools, particularly those in the inner city, ought to require uniforms, institute discipline, have student accountability, and have tracking, so that the runners are with the runners, the walkers with the walkers, and the crawlers with the crawlers. Instead, its all a dog-and-pony show for nice press releases. The kids don't find out they're screwed till they are no longer the school department's concern. The students advance to state schools and go t5hrough what I described in a previous post.

Yes. Let's do tracking. That will solve the problem. Label some of the kids as 'slow learners' and 'feeble-minded,' while others 'smart' and 'bright.' Yes. We need more accountability measures and discipline in schools. That too should solve the problem. Meanwhile, we won't hold corporations accountable and won't discipline the free market, but we surely will discipline those undisciplined and unruly kids. We will continue with the corporate bailouts amounting to $700 Billion like we have in the past. We will increase defense spending to $621 billion ( if I am correct) up from $470 billion from back in 2003. Cut back on social services and the welfare state. And we will continue to pretend that none of these social and economic policies are remotely linked to the quality of public education. :P

Kellydancer
05-27-2012, 08:47 PM
Certainly the number of students of color has increased when compared to a few decades ago, but when you state 'many,' what percentage are we talking about? And, as for the SAT, given that students come from diverse social and economic backgrounds, what are the 'things' students should know before they enter college?

I explained it above but kids need to know algebra at least before college, research papers and how to do them, American history, science, etc. ALL kids should know this before college and should be taught. If I learned all of these in grade school there's no excuse not to know these by senior year of high school.

Kellydancer
05-27-2012, 08:51 PM
Yes. Let's do tracking. That will solve the problem. Label some of the kids as 'slow learners' and 'feeble-minded,' while others 'smart' and 'bright.' Yes. We need more accountability measures and discipline in schools. That too should solve the problem. Meanwhile, we won't hold corporations accountable and won't discipline the free market, but we surely will discipline those undisciplined and unruly kids. We will continue with the corporate bailouts amounting to $700 Billion like we have in the past. We will increase defense spending to $621 billion ( if I am correct) up from $470 billion from back in 2003. Cut back on social services and the welfare state. And we will continue to pretend that none of these social and economic policies are remotely linked to the quality of public education. :P

I have a better idea why not promote the idea that those who can't afford kids shouldn't have them? What a novel concept. What the free market has to do with education in your mind doesn't make sense but while I have issues with it, that's another topic.

However when I was in school those kids at the bottom of the rankings were encouraged to go to trade school. That's where these kids need to be instead of in college when they barely graduated high school.

shift_6x
05-27-2012, 11:51 PM
So what?

Doesn't it make sense that beginners start at the beginning?

I would like to think that someone with an associates' would make more than someone with only a high school diploma. The point of why I finished school in the first place was so I could earn more than a high school graduate..otherwise whats the point of getting any degree? I shouldnt have to start at the beginning where hs graduates r..I should have some kind of reward for competing a college degree...but that doesnt appear to be the case was my point.

Melonie
05-28-2012, 01:49 AM
I would like to think that someone with an associates' would make more than someone with only a high school diploma. The point of why I finished school in the first place was so I could earn more than a high school graduate..otherwise whats the point of getting any degree? I shouldnt have to start at the beginning where hs graduates r..


Putting the previous posts discussing declining academic standards, enrollment based on diversity etc, aside, ultimately it is employers who decide whether to give hiring preference / pay a higher salary to a holder of an associates degree versus a HS graduate. And for better or worse, for the past decade, far too many ( from the employer's viewpoint ) new community college graduates have exhibited actual job performance which has been unsatisfactory in terms of necessary job skills involving math, accounting, logic, etc, not to mention common sense and/or work ethic. In many cases this has forced employers to institute lengthy training programs for new employees. And if an employer specific lengthy training program is involved in either case, there is no longer any business reason for an employer to hire a 2 year college graduate over a HS graduate !!!

Djoser
05-28-2012, 03:50 AM
Alright, thread cleaned. Please do not accuse members of being trolls--it's against the forum rules. If you think someone is a troll, use the report button--that's what it's there for.


Having taught at a community college several times, I can tell you from my own experience that I found grade inflation to be very real, and actually rather absurd. But maybe it's different in other community colleges. I'm inclined to be skeptical about that, but it doesn't mean I am correct.

I will never forget having to spend more than a half hour explaining how to use a ruler to a student of mine, who incidentally was trying to draw a plan of a laundry room with the washer and dryer mounted on the walls. She really didn't get it either--but I really couldn't flunk her as she deserved.

And while I don't think that SAT scores are the sole realistic means of judging gradations of mental ability; tossing them out entirely because poor little Timmy has been raised on MTV rap videos and televised basketball--so just can't deal with algebra, logic, or basic reading comprehension because they are outside of his cultural background--is not the answer either.

That being said, the possession of a degree from an Ivy League university will NOT guarantee that the recipient will get a high paying job. Often it can work against an applicant, and sometimes especially if they are perceived as being more intelligent than the person doing the hiring. It doesn't mean that they are more likely to make more money on their own either. From what I have seen, being shrewd will make you far more money than merely being intelligent or well-educated in the traditional sense.

bem401
05-28-2012, 06:19 AM
Yes. Let's do tracking. That will solve the problem. Label some of the kids as 'slow learners' and 'feeble-minded,' while others 'smart' and 'bright.' Yes. We need more accountability measures and discipline in schools. That too should solve the problem. Meanwhile, we won't hold corporations accountable and won't discipline the free market, but we surely will discipline those undisciplined and unruly kids. We will continue with the corporate bailouts amounting to $700 Billion like we have in the past. We will increase defense spending to $621 billion ( if I am correct) up from $470 billion from back in 2003. Cut back on social services and the welfare state. And we will continue to pretend that none of these social and economic policies are remotely linked to the quality of public education. :P

Your post is pointless. What have corporate bailouts got to do with properly educating kids? By your strategy, you just want to continue misleading the students and their parents. If they are below average, they ought to made aware of it ASAP so maybe they can do something about it. You sound like you need to go occupy something.

Think!
05-28-2012, 09:43 AM
I have a better idea why not promote the idea that those who can't afford kids shouldn't have them? What a novel concept. What the free market has to do with education in your mind doesn't make sense but while I have issues with it, that's another topic.

However when I was in school those kids at the bottom of the rankings were encouraged to go to trade school. That's where these kids need to be instead of in college when they barely graduated high school.


Could you imagine what it would be like if strip clubs began enforcing a policy to allow only customers who would be able to 'afford' to buy at least five lap dances entry into their clubs? It would force many club owners to shut down their business. I have a 'better-er' idea. Why not spend more money to educate children and equip them with the social and academic skills they need to make better decisions in their lives. By the way, they did promote a similar idea during the Third Reich in Germany for people with learning and physical disabilities. It was called the sterilization program. Now you are not advocating such an approach for those who can't afford children, are you? /:O

Think!
05-28-2012, 09:52 AM
Your post is pointless. What have corporate bailouts got to do with properly educating kids? By your strategy, you just want to continue misleading the students and their parents. If they are below average, they ought to made aware of it ASAP so maybe they can do something about it. You sound like you need to go occupy something.

Not really. If funding for corporate bailouts and military spending comes from the same pool of money that funding for education does then my post is quite point-full. It's just a matter of connecting the dots. Would you like to borrow a pencil? :)

Kellydancer
05-28-2012, 10:14 AM
Could you imagine what it would be like if strip clubs began enforcing a policy to allow only customers who would be able to 'afford' to buy at least five lap dances entry into their clubs? It would force many club owners to shut down their business. I have a 'better-er' idea. Why not spend more money to educate children and equip them with the social and academic skills they need to make better decisions in their lives. By the way, they did promote a similar idea during the Third Reich in Germany for people with learning and physical disabilities. It was called the sterilization program. Now you are not advocating such an approach for those who can't afford children, are you? /:O

Comparing my opinion to Nazis is highly offensive considering my family were killed by them. So using that as an excuse is stupid. The schools should be teaching math, English, history and other subjects instead of the diversity crap many schools advocate. However there is no reason for a student to be reading at a third grade level when they graduate. The parents need to be involved by reading to them. My parents taught me to read and write before kindergartner and my brother and sister in law are doing the same to my niece.

I'm all for cheap customers staying out of the clubs and so would any dancer.

Think!
05-28-2012, 10:59 AM
Comparing my opinion to Nazis is highly offensive considering my family were killed by them. So using that as an excuse is stupid. The schools should be teaching math, English, history and other subjects instead of the diversity crap many schools advocate. However there is no reason for a student to be reading at a third grade level when they graduate. The parents need to be involved by reading to them. My parents taught me to read and write before kindergartner and my brother and sister in law are doing the same to my niece.

I'm all for cheap customers staying out of the clubs and so would any dancer.

In this debate, questioning your opinions about social and political issues has little or nothing to do with your past family tragedies at the hands of the Nazis. This is simply a diversion tactic on your part to score points. You begin your sentence by choosing the word 'considering,' as if the topic of this thread had anything to do with your family or if anyone including myself had any knowledge about your past family history beforehand. I suggest that you stay on course. There is nothing wrong with you being as opinionated as you are, as long as you are willing to hear opposing viewpoints without resorting to slander or personal attacks. I too can flash my credentials about my knowledge of and experiences with Nazis and concentration camps, but I won’t since it is not part of the discussion. There are personal matters that need to be left out of this discussion, especially on a stripper board unless there is a discussion thread dedicated to the topic, and if members are willing to share such painful memories and experiences. What I find more offensive is your opinion that people should not have children because they are poor or uneducated, or because they don’t have the same opportunities as others. You may have not explicitly expressed that, but it is implied. Frankly, I am not going to debate with you anymore. You are more interested in partaking in personal attacks by using irrelevant examples than you are in engaging in a meaningful dialogue. Have a good day.

Djoser
05-28-2012, 11:08 AM
Thread temporarily closed. Too many personal attacks, etc. I will try to clean it up and reopen it later...