Oso planning to go pro
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/11/study-income-gap-between-young-college-and-high-school-grads-widens"Among millennials ages 25 to 32, median annual earnings for full-time working college-degree holders are $17,500 greater than for those with high school diplomas only. That gap steadily widened for each successive generation in the latter half of the 20th century. As of 1986, the gap for late baby boomers ages 25 to 32 was just more than $14,200, and for early boomers in 1979, it was far smaller at $9,690. The gap for millennials is also more than twice as large as it was for the silent generation in 1965, when the gap for that cohort was just under $7,500 (all figures are in 2012 dollars)."Until this changes, people will continue to go to college. Does this mean you *have* to go to college? Nope. Does it mean it's a golden ticket? Nope. But it means a lot.
And if you net the extra pay against the expense of college, what is it the advantage? And if you remove STEM degrees (Science,Technology,Engineering,Medicine) what is it?Restated, if you're paying well in excess of $150k over four years for a non-STEM degree, what is the advantage?
The advantage is getting a job. Most jobs (outside of physical labor/industrial) won't hire without a degree.Should it be that way? Debatable. But in our world, it is that way.
That is why I think it is wise to send your kids to community college which prepare you for the "real world job" then go to the 4 year school to take all the "academic mumbo jumbo courses" to get the BA or BS at half the cost.
James Altucher response to this ...5) BOGUS INCOME STUDIESMany universities, to tout their benefits, have done the exact same study: People who got a degree, 20 years later, have made up to $500,000, give or take, more in their career then people who didn’t have a degree.This is a spurious study. It has no control group. It’s based on a demographic from the 1970s and 1980s when people from middle class families went to colleges and people from lower-class families, often didn’t.This could be the entire reasons for the income difference but the studies don’t mention that.Here’s a study: take everyone who got accepted to Harvard. Tell half of them you can’t go to college ever. Instead, get your four year head start on making money.Then see who has more money 20 years later.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
Here’s a study: take everyone who got accepted to Harvard. Tell half of them you can’t go to college ever. Instead, get your four year head start on making money.Then see who has more money 20 years later.
I'm not talking about income potential.I'm talking about getting an interview. Or the listed requirements for a job. Many (most?) require a bachelor's to even be considered for the position.
This is true too. Right or wrong, more and more jobs are requiring college degrees. Besides administrative assistants, every position in my department requires at least a Bachelor's degree. You literally won't get an interview if you don't have one. No exceptions. Most positions are also Masters' recommended. You can get an interview if you don't have one but you realistically won't get the job without one. We have around 40 people (not including administrative assistants) in my department and I can only think of one person who doesn't have a Master's, and she worked as police officer for 6 or 7 years.
So we are in agreement that after high school one must spend 4 years and more than six figures to get a job interview?To make my position clear, I agree with you that college is a valuable thing for someone between 18 and 22. But I agree with Thiel and Altucher that the way college is currently structured is all wrong. Altucher and Thiel make the case for how to change it.
The idea that faculty would do better at running higher education is laughable. Completely laughable. The operating environment that exists today is NOTHING like the environment that existed a generation or two ago.
Did I say the faculty would run it??? Pretty sure I said business people had no business running it/commenting on it. What I said was that the corporatization of education is the problem in education. I'll stand by that, I have mountains of data/experience to support my stance. I have yet to see an example where business people came in and fixed problems...they have only made problems worse.Individuals that spent their entire career in academics moving up the ranks of faculty-administration-leadership are the ones that know the industry best and should be the ones running the industry.
Textbook thinking of everything that is wrong in higher education. No need to respond because you are beyond reason on this.Only hope is you remain a looney fringe thinker in this area that no one takes seriously.
I would agree academia could stand to be run more like a business. But I also think that if left to their own devices, business minded types would ruin academia. As with most things, its probably somewhere in the middle.
The only way you think this is you have a misunderstanding of what "business minded types" means.Like everything else, their is a finite amount of resources. Whether Government, business or academia you cannot be everything to everyone. Choices must be made, and metrics must be made to make sure the choices desired are met.Academia has shown time and again that cannot make choices and cannot measure that they are meeting those objectives. The simplest way to see this, of many, is the spiraling cost of education. That is what a "business minded type" brings to the table. A way to control cost (aka, allocate resources) and meaure that those objectives are being met.It does not mean some political agenda is at play, which is what I think you're implying when you say if taken too far it will ruin it.