President Obama Is Looking To Extend The School Year

Not to mention juggling classes

Your school offered classes in juggling? ;)

Although I didn't complete my degree, I did attend four years of college. I think Gonch has a lot of valid points. But I have to hand it to Jeff for pointing out that college is a place to grow and make mistakes. The real world comes soon enough. High-school isn't enough preparation for most decent jobs.

That being said, many of the jobs I apply for allow for either a degree or appropriate job experience (10 = 4-year degree). But that's an exception to the rule.

appropriate job experience

Yep, that's one of the mechanisms to help identify talent through other channels. A ten minute phone call with one of that person's references can tell you most of what you need to know. But, it's one thing to put that in your posting. It's another to really mean it.

Brian Noble said:
But, the *odds* of being financially rewarded go way up with a degree, because most jobs that pay well simply require the degree to even consider you. That's not because the degree conveys any acutal skills needed for the job. Rather, the degree is used as a filtering function to (probabilistically) weed out people who won't measure up to the other candidates in the pool when you get down to interviewing. And interviewing takes time and costs money, so if you can find good candidates by interviewing fewer people, you win.

So what happens when (as we're discussing here) it becomes pretty much necessary to have a degree to make a living?

And does that degree mean anything once everyone has one?

There will always be mechanisms within companies and industries to identify talent that came up through "the streets"---because talent is hard to come by, and expensive to attract and retain. But, it's not the high-odds path.

Agree with everything you said - in the traditional sense - when college was for the few, the exceptional, those who were gifted and talented and wanted/needed to take those skills to the next level.

Not everyone is a beautiful flower, but we've created a situation where everyone needs to be (or at least needs the piece of paper that says they are) in order to achieve even remote bits of what we traditionally consider success.

I'm not sure how continuing to push that line of thought somehow magically becomes a good thing. Not everybody can be the winner.

And barely related...

Brian Noble said:
I don't dispute that. But, the rules are not going to change in a way that suits Gonch's view. If anything, the rules are going to change in a way directly opposite to Gonch's view as we move forward, because the spread between how people are compensated at the top and bottom of the scale is only growing. That won't change without a fundamental, cultural shift in this country away from our free-market-dominates model, and I put the odds of that happening at just about zero.

Again, you're right and I'm stuck living life as the tortured psuedo-intellectual. :)

But Gonch's view, in essence, is little more than a throwback to the 'good ol' days'

I think Brian's comments pretty much cover everything I would've said. What I really liked though was delan's post, because it really encapsulates what the experience was for me (save for the "wild wanton fornication," which I probably should have engaged more in). In my first career, I would not have lasted long were it not for the experiences (and failures) I had in college. It sure as hell wasn't easy to get that degree either. You aren't buying your way into anything. You've gotta work for it, and that's why there's a respect for people who complete an undergrad degree.

RatherGoodBear said:
To say that anyone without a 4-year degree is "inefficient" is flat out wrong if not ignorant.

How is my experience with people ignorant? If anything, it strikes me as incredibly well informed. My experience isn't imagined. There are folks in the family I recently married into, in their mid-20's, who are ill-equipped to operate in the real world from both an experience and maturity standpoint. Can I prove it's because they didn't go to college? Probably not, but it sure seems too familiar compared with the kids I've supervised to be a coincidence. Heck, my younger, drop-out boss at my last job had no clue how to run his business or supervise people either. There are clueless idiots with degrees too, but I think it's a safe generalization that college does a solid job of preparing you for the rest of your life.

There is value in college, and employers of skilled white collar jobs will continue to see that. I don't think it's because of arbitrary "rules" as Gonch puts it. College isn't vocational training. There's something bigger going on there, as others have pointed out.

By the way, I thought that it was interesting that in my Great Grandfather's time, one could become an engineer with just a high-school diploma and on-the-job experience. And my Grandfather was an engineer a generation later with only a couple of years of college. But of course, it ain't like that anymore.

So what happens when (as we're discussing here) it becomes pretty much necessary to have a degree to make a living? And does that degree mean anything once everyone has one?

Well, for starters, that's not ever going to happen, just as "full employment" will never happen.

But, you are still thinking of the US as a zero-sum game. If the overall level of developed talent in the country goes up, we are better able to compete with the rest of the world, and our share of the "world pie" gets bigger.

And, it's even better than that, because the world isn't a zero-sum game either. As the global level of developed talent goes up, we can more efficiently and effectively make use of the various resources available to us.

Jeff said:
There is value in college, and employers of skilled white collar jobs will continue to see that. I don't think it's because of arbitrary "rules" as Gonch puts it. College isn't vocational training. There's something bigger going on there, as others have pointed out.

Is there value in a degree?

I ask because the college experience can be vastly different between individuals earning a degree. There might be value in college, but it's the degree that has the value once you're done with college.

What if those family folks in their mid 20's went out got got a degree by attending evening/weekend courses in their spare time. Suddenly, nothing has changed other than that piece of paper. But that's not really any special college experience is it?

Or what about someone spending a few years in college but never getting their degree for whatever reason - is their experience suddenly less valuable?

I guess my point is that you guys keep talking about how important the college experience is, but the college experience (it seems to me) is vastly different for everyone - certainly not a standard thing - and in the end it's not the college experience that employers are looking for, it's the piece of paper that says you put your time in.

Brian Noble said:
But, you are still thinking of the US as a zero-sum game. If the overall level of developed talent in the country goes up, we are better able to compete with the rest of the world, and our share of the "world pie" gets bigger.

I get that and understand it. I still arguing on the lower level of the system and the rules.

Basically, I'm just finding different ways of expressing my feelings on the whole way we do things - the idea that college is some magical life training that is somehow better than the real thing and that by completing it (in one of the countless approaches one can use to obtain a degree) that you get a piece of paper that has been generally agreed on by the employers of the world that says you completed your life training and are somehow better equipped as a potential employee because of that taining than someone who has been doing it outside of the magical simulator.

(yeah, I'm being a little snotty there)

For some things, sure. But in the sense of a basic two year or four year degree in a field completely unrelated to what you end up doing in life - the system makes zero sense to me.

Instead of using four more years to teach these people to be productive adults, why not let them just go out and be productive adults?

I suppose the answer is that they're not ready at that point and I either:

1. Disagree

or

2. Question why not

And follow that with wondering why if that kind of college education is so necessary in today's world, why it hasn't become as mandatory as basic education.

Aren't you really splitting hairs here? I mean, the degree is what says you worked through college.

And I agree that the people in my family doing night classes would not have the same experience. I think they'd get some of it, the academic part, obviously, but I totally agree that it wouldn't be the same. It would be (pulling numbers out of my ass) only half to two-thirds what you'd get as a full-time undergrad. The part missing, in my estimation is the social opportunities that help shape how you interact with the world.

As for the college drop out, yeah, their experience is less valuable. I use my former boss as a perfect example of that. He doesn't know how to follow through on or finish anything. Maybe that's too specific an example. But I have to say that finishing school made most any other professional task seem easy by comparison.

The college experience is definitely different for everyone. However, I doubt you'll meet many people who think it wasn't completely worth it, save for the folks who went in thinking that college == profit (with the missing step 2).

Lord Gonchar said:
Basically, I'm just finding different ways of expressing my feelings on the whole way we do things - the idea that college is some magical life training that is somehow better than the real thing and that by completing it (in one of the countless approaches one can use to obtain a degree) that you get a piece of paper that has been generally agreed on by the employers of the world that says you completed your life training and are somehow better equipped as a potential employee because of that taining than someone who has been doing it outside of the magical simulator.

(yeah, I'm being a little snotty there)

For some things, sure. But in the sense of a basic two year or four year degree in a field completely unrelated to what you end up doing in life - the system makes zero sense to me.

Instead of using four more years to teach these people to be productive adults, why not let them just go out and be productive adults?

That sure was snotty. :) I don't know if I can separate what you're saying from what you're feeling about it. I don't think anyone asserts that the magic takes place or anything is automatic (think about how many of us have said college isn't a walk in the park).

I think you're getting a little too hung up on the idea that college is vocational training. It's not, unless you're talking about life as a vocation. I studied radio/TV and journalism, double majoring. Now as it turns out, the writing part, and the practice that goes with it, has been valuable in every job. In fact, so much of what you do in college, regardless of your field of study, revolves around writing and problem solving. Half or more of what you study is general curriculum. Some of it has practical implications (business 101), some has critical thinking benefit (general science) and others challenge you spiritually and mentally (philosophy, religion).

And again, as delan pointed out, the learning outside of the classroom is just as important. There is no other environment that is both intense and relatively safe as college for experimentation and learning how to function in the world. Roommates, clubs, sex, alcohol, time management and drama... it never ends. The only thing more intense I've experienced since was divorce.

Perhaps I'm not able to verbalize the value I see in it all as concisely as others, but I can't imagine my life without it.

Well since im the one who has the College Logo in his avatar I feel compelled to chime in.

Im not sure you can separate the term college "experience" with "time in". Nor do I think you can encompass all employers just look for a piece of paper. As Jeff stated, you get a whole lot of real world in a short amount of time and if you hack it, you come out with a degree as well as a lot of high paced real world experience.. Time management being the most. What employer wouldn't want to take to take advantage of someone who was in an known environment where you are "forced" to appropriately manage your time in spite of lots of external influences .

I will go on record that my time wasn't easy. Lots of distractions here and there but had to focus to make it through and im proud of earning what some call "just pieces of paper". I am still often amused when people try to trivialize that experience.

I guess I see a problem with wondering why having both real world and college experience cant be very effective. As well as I dont see just having one or the other cant be effective either. I think mileage varies based on the career path you choose. You cant blanket your experience on everyone elses, nor apply it to all employer justification.

But like Jeff.. I cant put clearly into words, I just know my path wouldnt be as fun without it.

I understand how the system works. That wasn't my point. I was just asking whether it makes any sense and is there a better way. And can we afford it. And I understand it won't change in the short term but I think eventually it will out of necessity. If tuition costs continue to rise at rates much higher than inflation/wage growth, no one will be able to afford college. And the more you subsidize it (with grants, subsidized loans, mom/dad's money, ect.), the more distance you put between the cost and benefit determination that every potential student should use in terms of whether to go to college at all and if so, to which college. If healtcare costs are a problem that must be dealt with now (and I don't necessarily disagree with that view), then college tuition costs are our problem for tomorrow.

But looking at all of the stories about how college prepares you for life, gives you practice at living when mistakes don't count, teaches you about meeting deadlines, following up on goals, etc., what has changed over the past 1 1/2 to 2 generations to make all of that necessary beyond the age of 18? Neither of my dad's parents ever attended high school for one day much less earned a high school diploma. Yet they somehow managed to raise 7 kids to be responsible adults, owned a house, were productive members of their community, etc. Why two generations later do we need 4-6 years of practice life to get those things?

Again.. You are blanketing your family experience with what should be everyone's when you make that last statement. I wouldn't ever dare to assume one person's life experience should be the litmus of everyone else.

4 to 6 may not work for you or your family.. Good for you.. Did for others though.

However I think this is one topic that will go in an endless loop because everyone has come out of life with different practical applications, and probably will never understand the relevance from one person to the next.

Now a topic that has some merit for debate.. Cost.. Yes.. Cost for college is going nuts.. Even for state schools. I agree. Its making it difficult for those who could benefit from the college life. I was fortunate to come out with -0- college debt, but I have friends who are still paying. It sucks. But thats a different beast in itself. But the act of going or needing to go should never be trivialized because of that.

I certainly dont have the magic crystal ball of how to fix the school system nor the health care, but I can agree with you on the fact that both are definitely becoming harder and harder for some people to afford.

To me, the idea that each person in our culture (especially at 18 years of age) could be responsible for their own growth in critical thinking and problem solving skills without a structured plan is laughable. Some may be able to do it. Across the masses, however, it's just not plausible.

Higher education (which encompasses trade and vocational schools as well as four-year institutions) provides the mechanism for folks to develop cognitively beyond the high school level. It's really that simple. And without that structure, I don't believe the average person would do it.

Furthermore, today the average person is likely to change careers several times during their adult life and likely to change jobs even more frequently. Each time they do, they have to be evaluated on some scale to determine their fit for the position. Education continues to be the best metric for that evaluation, at least for most industries.

And regarding cost, it is most definitely true that there are problems that have to be solved. But that doesn't mean throwing out the whole system. And it's important to fully understand how we got here. Subsidies come in two forms for most institutions: direct subsidies where the state provides money directly to the institutions to assist with their expense and indirect subsidies where tuition is charged to students and is paid either out of pocket or from another form of government assistance (which is what I mean by indirect.)

That direct subsidy has been on a steady decline for many years. As it declines, the reliance on tuition goes up and then so does the cost.

But make no mistake about it, accountability and accessibility are the two biggest buzz words in higher education today. It's a difficult balance to continue to advance the program offerings with state of the art technology and research while keeping costs at the lowest affordable "price" for the masses. There's no silver bullet, but steps are being taken to address the issue.

I like Carrie.. She translates my thoughts ;) Why I wasnt a liberal arts major.. ::grin::

So take the references out of it if you think they are problematic (though they were pretty typical for the period). The reality is that it was very rare for anyone born in the late 1800s/early 1900s to go to college (and many of them never graduated high school). And not that many more folks born in the 1930s/40s went to college either. And from the accounts I have seen, most people seemed to cope fine with life (the Great Depression notwithstanding).

From what I have seen the this thread, the consensus seems to be that college isn't to prepare you with any specific skils for any job (its not vocational school) but more generally to prepare you to cope/deal with life. Now the view is that college is very important. Given that fact and the consensus on the purpose of college, I just asked the question what changed over that period (basically a generation and a half or two) to make that college experience necessary? Certainly everyone is different but it seems to me that you can look at generalities without being too concerned that everyone isn't the exact same.

I referenced 4-6 years of practice life because from everything that I have seen, most college grads take about 4-6 years to graduate. No reference at all to whether that works or doesn't work for my family.

And I think the cost issue is much bigger than just "becoming harder and harder for some people to afford." I think that if we are not there already, it will very soon be unaffordable for most people without significant subsidies.

ridemcoaster said:
I like Carrie.. She translates my thoughts ;) Why I wasnt a liberal arts major.. ::grin::

You laced the track and I locked the flow... ;)

I want to say the greatest surge in enrollments in higher education occurred in the post-war era when veterans returned and needed to be reintroduced to civilian life. The GI Bill was introduced making it free for them to enroll and gain a degree.

From that point forward, really, it's just a matter of supply and demand. The more people with a college education, the higher the bar gets raised for employment credentials. Specific to a vocation or not, the level of education (and all it implies about a person) provides a metric most use for employment searches.

GoBucks89 said:
...what has changed over the past 1 1/2 to 2 generations to make all of that necessary beyond the age of 18? Neither of my dad's parents ever attended high school for one day much less earned a high school diploma.

I can't believe you would even ask this question. It's akin to asking why we don't simply knit our own clothes or grow our own food. Did your grandparents have the Internet? Did cars measure out fuel injection with computers? Were consumer goods assembled with robots?

I'll use my grandfather as an example. He worked for a machine shop most of his life, drafting on paper various single-purpose devices. Today his job no longer exists. Now there's a guy (who won't get hired without a degree) who uses a computer to prototype the device, run simulations to gauge its limitations and physical characteristics and otherwise has the responsibility to figure out how to make it work before a hunk of metal is ever touched. We call these people mechanical engineers.

I'll use Carrie's comment as another jumping off point. To suggest that we can just go about our business at age 18 and continue our intellectual growth without some kind of guidance (or the right environment even) strikes me as absurd. Left to my own devices, at that age I just wanted to get laid and make enough for beer money.

I think you're falling into the same trap that Gonch has, thinking that college is some kind of catch-all vocational school. That it ain't. For me, and I suspect a great many other people, college was where I learned responsibility, accountability to myself and the ability to really think critically at a level I wouldn't achieve otherwise.

So where did that get me? I'm not even sure where to begin. In my first career, I was able to market myself, understand the dynamics of the market I was working in, oddly enough know more about the psychology behind some really crappy bosses (more from counseling than PSYC101), etc. I even had the knowledge and skills to identify when to get out. Getting into my second career, the same skills applied, but four years of study also gave me the practice I needed to learn something completely new, and that's why there are 10,000 lines of code that spread your last post all over the Internets. Most of the skills I've used in my professional life I can trace back to college. Where would I have acquired those skills otherwise?

And consider that unless I climb the ranks of my new employer for reasons not related to computer science or research (because I'm not sure I'm qualified for that), I probably top out in a mid $100k range management kind of job. Imagine if I would have pursued a graduate degree in any of the sciences or medicine. I think what Brian has eluded to several times is that in order for us to lead as a nation, we need smart people doing things that fundamentally change the world, and lead it. Perhaps not everyone wants or has to be a rocket science, but it would seem to me that having as many as possible sure would be good for our economy in the long run.

People didn't need much of any education before the Industrial Revolution. After that, today at least, you can't even work the simplest assembly line without high school (just ask my brother, who eventually got his GED). Today, technology continues to evolve and require a higher level of thinking. Coupled with the social skills developed there, college helps get you there.

GoBucks89 said:

No reference at all to whether that works or doesn't work for my family.

Really?

GoBucks89 said:

Neither of my dad's parents ever attended high school for one day much less earned a high school diploma. Yet they somehow managed to raise 7 kids to be responsible adults, owned a house, were productive members of their community, etc. Why two generations later do we need 4-6 years of practice life to get those things?

Perhaps I misread above, but to me you are pointing out that they were successful w/o obtaining higher degrees, which I totally applaud. A reference, if you will. Which is fine and led to my dont use that as a benchmark to asking why "if it worked for them" question as its not a fair question to ask for others.

GoBucks89 said:

Fromwhat I have seen the this thread, the consensus seems to be thatcollege isn't to prepare you with any specific skilsfor any job

Well I certainly never said that it was just that. Your final 2 or 3 years are typically spent on your core courses that you chose (assuming you stay the path you chose). This is where some people end up realizing they didnt want to do this and either change paths, drop out, or stay in the studies but do something else as a career. Again, person dependent and not a good measure of viability of college. All the while in that 5 year program as most end up taking nowadays, you also learn life lessons and such.

Coasterbuzz sampling is far from an accurate statistic of worth of something as we have learned over hundreds of threads. But looking at this empirically, for college worth vs success, it must be fairly high because people are still doing it, even at unfortunate financial pains in some cases.

What changed to make it necessary? Employers and their view of the experience and time management ethics that college teaches well. But I dont think its to the point of a requirement that all of a sudden eliminates those who are unable. One thing I always remember on our job portal at my company is you see the choice of BS degree in said subject or XX amount of years of experience. Your two main choices are there still.

So it goes back to a couple of points I made.

Is it for everyone? No..
Is it useless for those who do it? No..
Is it hopeless for those who dont? No..

I just saw a point that looked like a blanket trivialization and wanted to make sure the blanket only covered that person.