The Fraud Known As "Higher Education"

[naturalmwa]

That's at the low end.

Most state schools are right around $44,000/year out of state for room/board/tuition. $34k for in state. College tuitions have skyrocketed out of control worse than health care and become unaffordable to middle class families , but Dems have ignored the problem because their liberal policies are obviously at fault and they care more about their own image and electability than they do about Middle class Americans.

And ciggy and natural sure enjoy changing their opinions to suit the thread. I distinctly remember previous threads bemoaning the poor, poor young people inundated with student loans that should be forgiven while "rich" people face yet another tax hike to cover them , Not comments about how obviously a Philisophy mAjor obviously knows it's not a prelude to a job and it's all about learning to learn, costs be damned. You guys are hilarious.

I've lurked through enough of these threads, you can't bullshit a bullshitter.

I think you may be failing to recall correctly as I don't think I've spoken up about college loans. But if I had it sure wouldn't be a contradiction to think college should both be about a broad general liberal arts education and be affordable. That you think that's a contradiction might just my point.

 

[ANYCHawk]

How much does Bronx Science cost?

0 dollars. But it has a 37 million budget.

 

[naturalmwa]

0 dollars. But it has a 37 million budget.

How do I evaluate that? What is the budget for the average NY high school? What does that break down to per student?

 

[ANYCHawk]

How do I evaluate that? What is the budget for the average NY high school? What does that break down to per student?

Google is not that hard natural.

 

[ANYCHawk]

How do I evaluate that? What is the budget for the average NY high school? What does that break down to per student?

If you just take average NYC budget of 23.8 billion divided by 1800 schools its about 13 million a school. But you and I know that a false claims.

 

[naturalmwa]

If you just take average NYC budget of 23.8 billion divided by 1800 schools its about 13 million a school. But you and I know that a false claims.

True, I'd expect a HS to cost multiple times what an elementary costs. And as you've seen, google is fairly hard on this topic.

Google does tell me there are ~21,000 public high schools in the U.S. If we spent $37 million on each we could get Bronx science funding for $777 billion. The U.S. Currently spends ~$550 billion on all pre-12 education, so we can see it's a substantial increase, but we could concievablely come up with the quarter to half a trillion it would take if we wanted to reorder our priorities some without scrapping SS, Medicare or defense entirely. The money is in the system

 

[ANYCHawk]

True, I'd expect a HS to cost multiple times what an elementary costs. And as you've seen, google is fairly hard on this topic.

Google does tell me there are ~21,000 public high schools in the U.S. If we spent $37 million on each we could get Bronx science funding for $777 billion. The U.S. Currently spends ~$550 billion on all pre-12 education, so we can see it's a substantial increase, but we could concievablely come up with the quarter to half a trillion it would take if we wanted to reorder our priorities some without scrapping SS, Medicare or defense entirely. The money is in the system

God damn it natural I hate arguing with you cause I like you.

The money is not in the system beside a pie in the sky type idea (hence my post earlier). You can't cut medicaid, social security et al, It just doesn't work. (not to mention the fact no matter how much you pay teachers how many want to live in dennison iowa).

 

[naturalmwa]

God damn it natural I hate arguing with you cause I like you.

The money is not in the system beside a pie in the sky type idea (hence my post earlier). You can't cut medicaid, social security et al, It just doesn't work. (not to mention the fact no matter how much you pay teachers how many want to live in dennison iowa).

You don't think you could find a half trillion dollars in the budgets from all levels of government? I don't think that is true. I know all the Rs think I'm right that you could find a half trillion. I know all the people calling for us to fight ISIS or Iran think there is many trillions on hand. It's a lot, but it's totally doable if we wanted to go that way.

I'm not really saying this is the plan we should adopt. I'm just pointing out we have options. Personally I'm in favor of using online teaching to bring the very best teachers to every classroom in every small town. I think that could probably improve the quality and save money.

 

[slieb85]

Is the point of education employment? Why don't we fire all the history teachers and replace them with shop, IT and elocution classes? Of course college isn't for everyone, no one ever claimed it was. But college isn't a job training program either.

This. The thread should end here.

It's not a job training program. It's about furthering the education of one's mind.

There are two problems to me. You have to address one or the other, or both. You either have to make it less of an obvious step, or you have to make more jobs accessible with a high school degree.

You can accomplish both with better high school education. Fully funding programs to do what they are designed to do, and provide people with serious options post high school is the first step. And I'm not talking about raising teacher salaries. Give kids the chance to do a more technical/practical route in high school, with 2 years of community college free (or close to it) and let those who really want to be educated pursue the 4-year degree.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

God damn it natural I hate arguing with you cause I like you.

The money is not in the system beside a pie in the sky type idea (hence my post earlier). You can't cut medicaid, social security et al, It just doesn't work. (not to mention the fact no matter how much you pay teachers how many want to live in dennison iowa).

Me too...he is a very delightful young man...and he was taught to respect his elders as well.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

This. The thread should end here.

It's not a job training program. It's about furthering the education of one's mind.

There are two problems to me. You have to address one or the other, or both. You either have to make it less of an obvious step, or you have to make more jobs accessible with a high school degree.

You can accomplish both with better high school education. Fully funding programs to do what they are designed to do, and provide people with serious options post high school is the first step. And I'm not talking about raising teacher salaries. Give kids the chance to do a more technical/practical route in high school, with 2 years of community college free (or close to it) and let those who really want to be educated pursue the 4-year degree.

A noble idea...but once again it doesn't pay off 100k of debt...now it should end on that.

 

[slieb85]

Natural, not sure if you have kids but most state schools are going to cost you probably 22-25 all in. That's what my sons 1st year at KU cost me. So yes, pretty close to 100 grand.

Should have told your kid to go to Iowa. Or to pay for it themselves. Why someone from Iowa would go to KU (a few of my cousins did this, and in my case, I went to ASU) is beyond me. Kansas residents shouldn't subsidize your son's higher learning. Isn't that what most of you preach?

 

[slieb85]

A noble idea...but once again it doesn't pay off 100k of debt...now it should end on that.

Iowa cost like 8k a year in state.

There are a lot of problems with the education system. "Liberal Arts" isn't one of them. It's a bull shit reason for people who work in other industries to talk poorly of colleges. Spend more money on training programs and you'll see attendance at out of state universities for "Philosophy" dwindle.

Also, I have a History B.A., and I'm doing fine. It's about knowing your limitations and knowing your next step. I had some good advantages and some good advice. Most don't. I don't think eliminating the History B.A. solves this problem, I think providing better alternatives does. Sorry you feel otherwise.

 

[slieb85]

This thread is incomplete:

": See the sad thing about a guy like you, is in about 50 years you’re gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One, don't do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a &$#%%’ education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library."

And that hundred fifty grand opened doors that your library education couldn't. I think most would agree college is a privilege, not a right. It wasn't meant to be for the masses. Problem is the world has changed and a HS diploma isn't getting you $40k and a pension. We need to spend like crazy on our technical schools (and infrastructure supporting those jobs) and go back to a system where the douchebags like that character go to Harvard and Will Hunting can actually make a living breaking bricks, if he wants to, and he's not forced to conform to the higher education model to get the jobs he's clearly qualified for.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

Iowa cost like 8k a year in state.

There are a lot of problems with the education system. "Liberal Arts" isn't one of them. It's a bull shit reason for people who work in other industries to talk poorly of colleges. Spend more money on training programs and you'll see attendance at out of state universities for "Philosophy" dwindle.

Also, I have a History B.A., and I'm doing fine. It's about knowing your limitations and knowing your next step. I had some good advantages and some good advice. Most don't. I don't think eliminating the History B.A. solves this problem, I think providing better alternatives does. Sorry you feel otherwise.

The History BA is fine if, as you said, a person explores options and knows what they are getting in to. I know lawyers who majored in history and then went to law school...just don't think it has a great deal of options for most. I have a former student who studied meteorology...loved it...wanted to make a career of it...he now works in customer service for a pharmaceutical company in Meridian, MS. He does ok but he will be the first to tell you it wasn't what he studied 5 years to do. I had a major in history/geography with a physical education minor...but I knew I was going to teach one of those subjects so it worked out for me as I had a plan...just like you.

 

[slieb85]

The History BA is fine if, as you said, a person explores options and knows what they are getting in to. I know lawyers who majored in history and then went to law school...just don't think it has a great deal of options for most. I have a former student who studied meteorology...loved it...wanted to make a career of it...he now works in customer service for a pharmaceutical company in Meridian, MS. He does ok but he will be the first to tell you it wasn't what he studied 5 years to do. I had a major in history/geography with a physical education minor...but I knew I was going to teach one of those subjects so it worked out for me as I had a plan...just like you.

I worked sales sans a degree for 7 years and it worked out well. I made OK money and was happy. But, eventually I wanted a degree and became unhappy with being in sales for a multitude of reasons. One of those reasons is that I wanted to be educated. Another is that I knew I wanted to do law (or teaching, chose law about a month in). Now, I'm 7.5 weeks (plus 3L and the bar) from one of the "best" jobs people in my position can get. I was lucky as hell though.

But, I think both of these things: You don't have to do what I did to get "value" from a history degree. And that a whole bunch of people go to Universities and get liberal arts degrees who shouldn't.

I just don't think attacking the Universities and the degrees they provide is the solution. We need to figure out a way to provide the jobs that don't require those degrees and the education that would properly train the workforce for those jobs.

I only really have a problem with this idea of higher education being a fraud. It's exactly what it purports to be. We've just stopped paying attention to what schools are saying and instead inserted our beliefs that college is a job-training center, which is not what it is.

 

[DanL53]

Well, another foot goes in my mouth. Having looked at several sources of info...media coverage of the under-employment of college graduates is indeed greatly exaggerated. I bought into it...I'm now buying out.

Four years after graduation in 2008, 85% of those graduates held full time jobs earning an average of $52,200. This is from a U.S. Dept. of Education study. Considering that was during the heart of the Great Recession? Not bad.

Near as I can tell, there is a big discrepancy between studies looking at graduates one year out of school and those studies that look a few years down the road. Makes sense that a person who has just graduated may take that shift manager's job at the fast food chain WHILE they continue to seek better employment.

(The following are just personal opinions) I still don't buy into the "College is much more than a job training program" point. It sounds like it comes from folks who don't know what it's like to decide between seeing a Doctor or buying groceries. The "poors", as I've seen expressed, would I'm sure never consider the rich quality of a life filled with the edification of knowing that while hungry, they are also enlightened. Were I, and thankfully I'm not, discussing education options with a child of mine I would push hard for a major with a clear career path. After all, there is no reason education has to stop with one degree. Get trained, get comfortable financially, go back and study anthropology if that is what you're into. And heck, by then if one wants to seek a career down that path...it could still happen.

 

[longliveCS40]

I certainly don't buy into the myth that a degree won't get you a job. Quite the contrary.

The issue is that only a degree will get you a job. Degrees, often in fields unrelated to a job an applicant is applying for, count for more than years of experience in the given field.

I work in IT so perhaps that skews my opinion because most of the things I learned when I got my degree years ago are no longer applicable as technology has advanced.

So those classes I took where I learned about ancient technologies count for more than the experience of an applicant on the current technologies. It makes no sense.

 

[naturalmwa]

The History BA is fine if, as you said, a person explores options and knows what they are getting in to. I know lawyers who majored in history and then went to law school...just don't think it has a great deal of options for most. I have a former student who studied meteorology...loved it...wanted to make a career of it...he now works in customer service for a pharmaceutical company in Meridian, MS. He does ok but he will be the first to tell you it wasn't what he studied 5 years to do. I had a major in history/geography with a physical education minor...but I knew I was going to teach one of those subjects so it worked out for me as I had a plan...just like you.

There's a problem with your naritive. Meteriorology isn't a liberal arts field. Meteriorology is a career specific technical field the sort you have been advocating. What sort of transferable skills do you think a meteorologist learns in school? Data analysis is about all I can think. I'd bet he would have been better off with a philosophy degree. He would have been a better reader, writer, better able to explain and make arguments. He would be killing it at that customer service job.

 

[lawsonhawk]

T

Most jobs require that a person be able to speak clearly and be understood. If you want to turn HS into a jobs training program, don't be afraid to cover your bases. Poor kids often sound like they have a cock in their mouth.

I'll have to take your word for that one.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

There's a problem with your naritive. Meteriorology isn't a liberal arts field. Meteriorology is a career specific technical field the sort you have been advocating. What sort of transferable skills do you think a meteorologist learns in school? Data analysis is about all I can think. I'd bet he would have been better off with a philosophy degree. He would have been a better reader, writer, better able to explain and make arguments. He would be killing it at that customer service job.

I was simply using it as an example of someone who could not find a job in their field of study...

 

[littlez]

Slieb, I live in Overland Park, which is why my kid goes to KU. Room, board, etc plus tuition is right around 22-25 all in. If you can get by in Iowa City for 8 a semester good for you. Also, I haven't seen anybody on here talk about 529 plans or anything to actually help pay for their kids college. Have most of your kids borrowed the whole tuition? No planning from anybody?

 

[littlez]

Tennessee, in your perfect world, because you knew what you wanted to do at 18 doesn't mean every other kid does. Unless you are an engineer, accountant, doctor, a lot of kids go to in to college not really knowing what the world is about. They are 18! I have a liberal arts degree and ended up in sales and in a field I didn't even know existed 30 years ago.

 

[slieb85]

Good article that popped up on my Facebook today, written by our own Hunter Rawlings. He does a great job capturing a lot of my feelings on college.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...eating-it-like-one/?postshare=861433854429364

 

[longliveCS40]

Good article that popped up on my Facebook today, written by our own Hunter Rawlings. He does a great job capturing a lot of my feelings on college.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...eating-it-like-one/?postshare=861433854429364

It's very difficult to take an article on the merits of college seriously when written by someone that holds a position with a university. Clearly there will be a biased view.

Having said that, he makes a couple good points.

I do agree that college can be what a student MAKES of it. Certainly, they can strive to learn and achieve and put their everything into it. But, that isn't what 90% of students are there for. Most are there to socialize and get the piece of paper that will get them a job.

So really, the issue is probably weeding out the individuals that aren't there strictly to learn and expand their mind. The solution is to limit admissions to those that are there strictly for learning and make the curriculum harder. Colleges will never do this, though, because it's all about the $$$. They don't care what kind of education students actually receive despite what Hunter says.

The thing about college is that I do not agree that it expand your mind and teaches you how to learn. By the time you get there, you've either learned this or not.

When I think about all of the people I grew up with, the ones that were intelligent and knew how to learn in elementary and middle school are still the ones, as adults, that are intelligent and successful. Many kids abt to college that were not very smart then and they are not very smart now. College didn't cure that...

 

[naturalmwa]

It's very difficult to take an article on the merits of college seriously when written by someone that holds a position with a university. Clearly there will be a biased view.

Having said that, he makes a couple good points.

I do agree that college can be what a student MAKES of it. Certainly, they can strive to learn and achieve and put their everything into it. But, that isn't what 90% of students are there for. Most are there to socialize and get the piece of paper that will get them a job.

So really, the issue is probably weeding out the individuals that aren't there strictly to learn and expand their mind. The solution is to limit admissions to those that are there strictly for learning and make the curriculum harder. Colleges will never do this, though, because it's all about the $$$. They don't care what kind of education students actually receive despite what Hunter says.

The thing about college is that I do not agree that it expand your mind and teaches you how to learn. By the time you get there, you've either learned this or not.

When I think about all of the people I grew up with, the ones that were intelligent and knew how to learn in elementary and middle school are still the ones, as adults, that are intelligent and successful. Many kids abt to college that were not very smart then and they are not very smart now. College didn't cure that...

I'm not sure your prescription would work as you intend. One ove the biggest reasons to pay extra for a Harvard education is so that you can socialize with future rich people and get that bit of paper. If you turn Iowa into an Ivy school, that bit of paper would be worth more. Now if you went in the opposite direction and eliminated grades or got employers to accept khan academy degrees or accepted some battery of tests in place of a degree, that might weed out the learners from the players.

 

[slieb85]

It's very difficult to take an article on the merits of college seriously when written by someone that holds a position with a university. Clearly there will be a biased view.

Having said that, he makes a couple good points.

I do agree that college can be what a student MAKES of it. Certainly, they can strive to learn and achieve and put their everything into it. But, that isn't what 90% of students are there for. Most are there to socialize and get the piece of paper that will get them a job.

So really, the issue is probably weeding out the individuals that aren't there strictly to learn and expand their mind. The solution is to limit admissions to those that are there strictly for learning and make the curriculum harder. Colleges will never do this, though, because it's all about the $$$. They don't care what kind of education students actually receive despite what Hunter says.

The thing about college is that I do not agree that it expand your mind and teaches you how to learn. By the time you get there, you've either learned this or not.

When I think about all of the people I grew up with, the ones that were intelligent and knew how to learn in elementary and middle school are still the ones, as adults, that are intelligent and successful. Many kids abt to college that were not very smart then and they are not very smart now. College didn't cure that...

You're focusing too much on the latter part of the article than the former. We have to figure out a way to make college not be the entry ticket to the workforce.

Also I couldn't disagree with you more on your last two paragraphs. But you were an IT major and I, a history major. Maybe that's the difference? Plenty of people took the "give me the piece of paper" route in the college of liberal arts, but far more realized that paper isn't what you're paying for. In IT, I'm sure it's much more what you're paying for.

 

[slieb85]

I forgot to add that I think Rawlings best contribution is the part about it is a mistake to try to calculate the value of a college degree like a commodity.

I hate that thinking and find it to be dangerous to society. It's one of my biggest problems with Paul Ryan as a candidate.

 

[longliveCS40]

I forgot to add that I think Rawlings best contribution is the part about it is a mistake to try to calculate the value of a college degree like a commodity.

I hate that thinking and find it to be dangerous to society. It's one of my biggest problems with Paul Ryan as a candidate.

The current climate of universities dictate that they be looked at as commodities.

If Rawlings and others want that to change, they need to overhaul the entire process of obtaining a degree.

As an IT major, I should not be taking Art of Film to satisfy educational requirements just as you should not be taking trigonometry to satisfy your liberal arts degree.

It's wasted time and money. But the universities are making big money on those credit hours so why would they change?

Don't get me wrong, inn not saying either of those classes are useless, they are viable if:

1. They apply to your given career and help you in the workplace.

Or

2. You are personally interested in the topic and just want to expand your mind and knowledge in that area.

My problem is the amount of course work required that has no application after you receive your grade in the class.

 

[naturalmwa]

The current climate of universities dictate that they be looked at as commodities.

If Rawlings and others want that to change, they need to overhaul the entire process of obtaining a degree.

As an IT major, I should not be taking Art of Film to satisfy educational requirements just as you should not be taking trigonometry to satisfy your liberal arts degree.

It's wasted time and money. But the universities are making big money on those credit hours so why would they change?

Don't get me wrong, inn not saying either of those classes are useless, they are viable if:

1. They apply to your given career and help you in the workplace.

Or

2. You are personally interested in the topic and just want to expand your mind and knowledge in that area.

My problem is the amount of course work required that has no application after you receive your grade in the class.

If your goal is move away from degrees as commodities, your solution seems to be the exact wrong thing to do. You are advocating going to college for a narrowly tailored job training program by cutting out the broad general education components. This is more like getting Microsoft certified which is a commodity program.

 

[Madman_1]

I think it's a big reason so many poors can't get a job.

I thought he meant "electrocution"... you know, training for death penalty providers.

.

 

[longliveCS40]

I was simply saying Rawlings goal, or his wish, is to have degrees not looked at as commodities but I do believe that is exactly what they are and ultimately should be. A more focused curriculum that directly applies to the career an individual wishes to obtain once they are finished.

Things like reading, writing and communication are things that apply to any career. I personally believe these things are learned by the time an individual graduates high school, or rather should be learned by then.

To incorporate them at the college level seems overkill to me. That is not to say I believe most college students have a good grasp on the English language and write well. I have seen papers turned in by college students and the spelling and grammar is unbelievably bad. That, however, is more of an indictment on the K-12 system. They should have much better skills when they graduate from high school.

So, I guess my plan would involve overhauling the K-12 educational system to better educate students and have them prepared when they graduate. This would require a lot of money and I don't even know if it's feasible. You would need to raise teacher salaries substantially. With the current salaries being offered, only those that are passionate about education are going to go into that field. You are not going to get highly intelligent people that could make a better living doing something else to go into teaching and those are the people you need there.

Once you overhaul K-12 and have individuals graduating with reading, writing, communication and learning skills, you change higher learning to a more career minded focused curriculum. More like trade schools.

Structural engineers go to a program focused on that. Business/Management students go to a program focused on that, etc, etc.

 

[naturalmwa]

I thought he meant "electrocution"... you know, training for death penalty providers.

.

Elocution classes would have likely helped you avoid that error.

 

[Madman_1]

Elocution classes would have likely helped you avoid that error.

Well, I meant I thought you made a typo.

 

[SoDakHawk]

I was simply saying Rawlings goal, or his wish, is to have degrees not looked at as commodities but I do believe that is exactly what they are and ultimately should be. A more focused curriculum that directly applies to the career an individual wishes to obtain once they are finished.

Things like reading, writing and communication are things that apply to any career. I personally believe these things are learned by the time an individual graduates high school, or rather should be learned by then.

To incorporate them at the college level seems overkill to me. That is not to say I believe most college students have a good grasp on the English language and write well. I have seen papers turned in by college students and the spelling and grammar is unbelievably bad. That, however, is more of an indictment on the K-12 system. They should have much better skills when they graduate from high school.

So, I guess my plan would involve overhauling the K-12 educational system to better educate students and have them prepared when they graduate. This would require a lot of money and I don't even know if it's feasible. You would need to raise teacher salaries substantially. With the current salaries being offered, only those that are passionate about education are going to go into that field. You are not going to get highly intelligent people that could make a better living doing something else to go into teaching and those are the people you need there.

Once you overhaul K-12 and have individuals graduating with reading, writing, communication and learning skills, you change higher learning to a more career minded focused curriculum. More like trade schools.

Structural engineers go to a program focused on that. Business/Management students go to a program focused on that, etc, etc.

One, say you do narrow the focus on the cirriculum towards a desired career field. What happens that career field is saturated or that student gets out into the real world and wants to make a career change? That student is screwed. Earnign a liberal arts degree is like becoming a Marine, you learn to improvise, adapt, and overcome, mainly you learn how to think and solve problems.

Second, you can dump all the money you want into education but that won't change the students desire to learn that course work or the parents at home that should be providing structure.

 

[beanerhawk]

I don't know. Just from reading his posts, I firmly agree that right wing and echo chamber apply. But there is a point to his complaint:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanad...-are-working-jobs-that-dont-require-a-degree/

I feel as though TennesseeWaltz1 has an accurate view that college is NOT for everyone. There simply aren't enough good jobs for about half the graduates. If I'm a high school graduate, or a parent of one, I have to ask if I am willing to take on massive debt and what will be my reward? A degree in sociology?

Maybe being a hairdresser or welder might be a better idea? Less investment and then I'll own the biggest trailer in the park and maybe, just maybe my own shop someday. Meanwhile the guy with the sociology degree will be shift manager at the fast food place.

Now of course the idea of a law against a certain degree? That's complete nonsense. There should never be a law against being stupid, it is one of the few freedoms we have left!

You have no idea what a welder makes if you think they live in trailer parks. Otherwise I agree. Carry on.

 

[KitingHigh]

I certainly don't buy into the myth that a degree won't get you a job. Quite the contrary.

The issue is that only a degree will get you a job. Degrees, often in fields unrelated to a job an applicant is applying for, count for more than years of experience in the given field.

I work in IT so perhaps that skews my opinion because most of the things I learned when I got my degree years ago are no longer applicable as technology has advanced.

So those classes I took where I learned about ancient technologies count for more than the experience of an applicant on the current technologies. It makes no sense.

What do you do in IT? I was in IT and BPM for 15 years and my experience was the exact opposite. A degree meant nothing next to real experience. The only time a company would hire a degree with no resume over a resume with no degree is if they wanted a body to train at a third or fourth of the cost.

 

[longliveCS40]

One, say you do narrow the focus on the cirriculum towards a desired career field. What happens that career field is saturated or that student gets out into the real world and wants to make a career change? That student is screwed. Earnign a liberal arts degree is like becoming a Marine, you learn to improvise, adapt, and overcome, mainly you learn how to think and solve problems.

Second, you can dump all the money you want into education but that won't change the students desire to learn that course work or the parents at home that should be providing structure.

I disagree that a liberal arts degree helps you improvise, adapt and overcome or think and solve problems. That is intelligence and is a combination of natural ability and learning through life experiences.

I shouldn't say a liberal arts degree doesn't help at all, I think it CAN help hone those skills. I do not think it plays a very large rule in the development is what I should say.

If someone decides to change careers? They go get a degree in the field in 1 year or however long the program is.

I agree it is an uphill battle at the K-12 level but I do think throwing money at it would improve the situation. Money rules the world and if you want to attract great educators and highly intelligent people, that's the way to do it.

That won't fix bad parenting but the majority of kids that struggle in K-12 due to uninterested or downright detrimental parents aren't going to college anyway.

It would elevate the education of those in the middle to upper ranks of their classes that are destined for college. It may also help the lower end students as well.

 

[longliveCS40]

What do you do in IT? I was in IT and BPM for 15 years and my experience was the exact opposite. A degree meant nothing next to real experience. The only time a company would hire a degree with no resume over a resume with no degree is if they wanted a body to train at a third or fourth of the cost.

I've held several different IT positions in the last 15 years with a large corporation. Currently a software engineer.

This is what I've witnessed in the time I've been with the company. My old manager had an art degree. He was sharp and good at his job but it had nothing to do with his degree. A co-worker has a music degree.

Point being that it was the fact they had a degree that got them in the door. It wasn't experience.

 

[DanL53]

You have no idea what a welder makes if you think they live in trailer parks. Otherwise I agree. Carry on.

Last I saw they start around $18.00 an hour at Caterpillar in Peoria. That was around four years ago. I suppose with overtime they could afford a house. That is if they don't splurge and put some away for the infrequent layoffs.

Just as a side note. A Machine Operator, Grade Four, makes about the same.

Now, one has to realize the contract has two levels. One for the old timers who make more, and one for the newbies who make less so the old timers could keep making more. AND, then there are the jobs leaving, not just for other countries but for other parts of the U.S. such as a recent move to Texas where starting pay is about $12.00 an hour.