Do you think college is worth it?

[Tri-ring]

I believe the biggest problem is explained within the vid where colleges are required to hike up the tuition based on the amount of student loans they accept.
It becomes a vicious cycle since the more they accept students the more they are susceptible needing to hike up tuition placing more student needing to apply for loans to go to college.
By the way are there any training schools in the US?
Here in Japan there are various professional training schools that teaches everything from computer programing to hair trimming since most profession requires a license. The courses are basically two years and provides on hand training.
You could say it's something in between apprenticeship and college since it is not as vigorous as apprenticeship but provides more on hand training and less academic than college. Off course you'll probably need to go through a real apprenticeship once you graduate but you'll have more knowledge about the trade and basic techniques which had been provided at school. The school also have relationship with various companies so they introduce students to employers at point of graduation.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Sucks also if you end out in the minority with bad grades. Is a 2.2 or pass degree worth anything?

I myself was on course for a 2.1, but had a bad final year and may now end out with a pass degree. I didn't hold my education in high esteem much in the first place, but I do feel robbed. Didn't cost me any money, but it did cost me 4 years of my life. Irish Universities where the Final year counts for 70%-100% isn't right. Noone will ever see the 3 years of decent work I put in before that.

Even if you get a 2.1, it's still a waste of 3 to 4 years of your life because when it's something that everyone has, and in a world where experience is more valued (because the things you will do at work is very specific where the things you study in uni are very vague), anyone is better off just going off to work right after high school.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

I believe the biggest problem is explained within the vid where colleges are required to hike up the tuition based on the amount of student loans they accept.
It becomes a vicious cycle since the more they accept students the more they are susceptible needing to hike up tuition placing more student needing to apply for loans to go to college.

The worst of it is that colleges are loving this situation because it means more money for them. The basic reason why they're pushing the tuition prices up is due to the forces of supply and demand. The more students demand for college tuition, the more this shoots the prices up due to supply restrictions. This is all thanks to the belief that college education practically guarantees a better job (not to mention the false figures college boards provide the mass media). All this invariably lead to students taking out more loans. The government saw a chance and decided to invest in college loans, and that leads to the vicious cycle the vid refers to.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

By the way are there any training schools in the US?
Here in Japan there are various professional training schools that teaches everything from computer programing to hair trimming since most profession requires a license. The courses are basically two years and provides on hand training.
You could say it's something in between apprenticeship and college since it is not as vigorous as apprenticeship but provides more on hand training and less academic than college. Off course you'll probably need to go through a real apprenticeship once you graduate but you'll have more knowledge about the trade and basic techniques which had been provided at school. The school also have relationship with various companies so they introduce students to employers at point of graduation.

You refer to the technical schools? Not sure about the US but here in the UK, at least, we have professional qualifications in a number of areas, but they're not actual schools like the ones you mention since you can get them from anywhere.

[DonQuigleone]

There are professional schools, but they're held in low esteem by the populace. Vocational schools are only for those who can't go to college. I think this is wrongheaded thinking.

But even vocational schools are inferior to Apprenticeships. Real one on one learning between a neophyte and someone experienced. It's natural and organic, it's how people naturally learn. Sitting in a lecture theatre is quite inferior.

The problem is that much of the professions and guilds for which apprenticseships existed, the trades, have now been rendered obsolete. A good example would be printing. The few that are left, like building, were ravaged after the bubble. And even then, many trades are still on the decline, being replaced by more and more machinery. We need to create new trades and new "guilds" to keep up. For instance programming would be quite viable, and I'd say new programmers would gain a lot from one on one feedback from someone experienced. And the "master" would also gain from it by having the new programmer do his tedious tasks for him, which he can learn from.

I think Vocational schools, which would train for more then just hairdressing are a good stop gap, but it can't replace the one on one contact that apprenticeships used to provide.

[Malkuth]

Well, there are two parts to this, what skills you really need to work, and the other what paperwork you need to work.

For the first, I can not disagree, education (in all levels) is organized as a system that sustains itself, with it's original purpose served in name only.

A result of this is that employers require bachelor degrees, vocational studies, unless you have some other exceptional proof of skill. In some countries the various university interest groups have so much influence that they even regulate the wages based on the papers they provide.

In between, since I looking currently for a job in London, the situation is not as bad as say in Germany and Greece. But this is based on a very narrow field of work I am interested in.

[hoshikuzu]

there is a difference between college and university here. I believe that university is worth it.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by hoshikuzu

there is a difference between college and university here. I believe that university is worth it.

They're the same thing??

Though in some places Secondary schools are called a "college"

[KuroSaru]

Ive just finished my final year of University and I'm hoping to get a job or start a PhD, but all dependent on my results (3weeks go to, come-on 1st), additionally unlike a lot of people I was in university with, I worked for 3 years in a factory, then went to college for 2 year, and then went to university for 3 years. so hopefully I'm able to give and opinion on this question that can be considered at least reasonable from both sides of the argument.


To question of if i think its worth going to college(assumed American terminology)/University is a question of, are you going to college because you don't know what else to do or are you going because, you have a passion or love for the subject you will major in.

Sadly I've meet and known many students who had been on my course, and I can easily say no college was not worth it for them, they have no interest in their chosen major, only time they even think about it is before an exam or a course work. unfortunately these same people i know are now struggling to look for jobs to apply for, their expected grade is far below that which companies are generally looking for, and additionally those who do have the grade were never interested in the subject just wanted a degree so finding it hard to get interviews amongst other things.

Additionally like myself some others who are few and far between, college was best thing we could have done and it was worth it, We got given the opportunity to be able to apply for jobs and positions that would otherwise be impossible, no amount of experience in the world would allow you to apply for them, and yes these jobs etc. do exist. as a graduate my potential starting wage is £26.5k ($43.6k) a year, which for people who came from a back ground of £8k a year as a factory worker, this more than justifies going to college and learning more about what I love.

So I hope You've been able to clearly understand my thoughts on if going to college is worth it or not.

[Malkuth]

No degree, freelance IT jobs range is £20-50k, depending on the company's sector, urgency of the post, difficulty of the position, references from past employers, etc.

Permanent positions in large corporations for bachelor/master/PhD holders range is £20-30k.

Or let me put it in another way, working on open-source projects, surviving on ad revenue, and taking small jobs in the sector occasionally to get references, apart from the invaluable work experience that you will never get in education of any form, adds to your CV what employers look for but rarely find in university graduates.

That said, very few want to deal with the stress it also generates. Less skill, permanent jobs, and pension plans is what education provides as part of the system.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

They're the same thing??

Though in some places Secondary schools are called a "college"

In the French system, "college" is middle school.

And the diploma at the end of High-school: Baccalauréat, is the historical equivalent of a Bachelor.

[Kafriel]

They're the same thing??

In Greece, by "college" people refer to private institutions, which are not as trusted, although the government wants to give them the same credit and status as public institutions. All the public ones are called universities, but technological ones are supposedly less prestigious, because the degree they offer is not a "diploma", per word. However, their grads are sought out because of their practical skills, so it's easier to find a job.

[sadisticlust]

College is only worth your time if your willing to put 100% of your effort into it. You need to study a lot at times you may need to ditch your friends or refrain from doing something because you need to do something related to school. At the end of the day though I truly believe that college is worth your time and effort. In high school I wasted my time getting terrible grades and skipping school but in college I changed my ways and I ended up becoming the President of the honor society and an e-board member of SGA. Through my experiences I have learned a lot and I would recommend college to anyone seeking to better themselves. Also I suggest getting involved with student life as this can get you involved in school affairs that can take you places.

Also if your grades are good enough and if you are involved with student life you can qualify to have all your expenses paid for and even have some left over money for your pocket. Trust me put your time into it and it will be worth it. You can even travel the world and not worry about finding a job with the right degree you can become an asset to any society.

Good luck

[TinyRedLeaf]

An interesting commentary by David Brooks of The New York Times:

Life after college is about 'losing yourself'

By David Brooks
May 30, 2011

OVER the past few weeks, America’s colleges have sent another class of graduates off into the world. These graduates possess something of inestimable value: Nearly every sensible middle-aged person would give away all their money to be able to go back to age 22 and begin adulthood anew.

But, especially this year, one is conscious of the many ways in which this year's graduating class has been ill served by their elders. They enter a bad job market, the hangover from decades of excessive borrowing. They inherit a ruinous federal debt.

More important, their lives have been perversely structured. This year's graduates are members of the most supervised generation in American history. Through their childhoods and teenage years, they have been monitored, tutored, coached and honed to an unprecedented degree.

Yet upon graduation they will enter a world that is unprecedentedly wide open and unstructured. Most of them will not quickly get married, buy a home and have kids, as previous generations did. Instead, they will confront amazingly diverse job markets, social landscapes and lifestyle niches. Most will spend a decade wandering from job to job and clique to clique, searching for a role.

No one would design a system of extreme supervision to prepare people for a decade of extreme openness. But this is exactly what has emerged in modern America. They are sent off into this world with the whole baby-boomer theology ringing in their ears: Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself.

This is the litany of expressive individualism, which is still the dominant note in American culture. But, of course, this mantra misleads on nearly every front.

Today's graduates are also told to find their passion and then pursue their dreams. The implication is that they should find themselves first and then go off and live their quest. But, of course, very few people at age 22 or 24 can take an inward journey and come out having discovered a developed self.

Most successful young people don't look inside and then plan a life. They look outside and find a problem, which summons their life.

Most people don't form a self and then lead a life. They are called by a problem, and the self is constructed gradually by their calling.

Graduates are also told to pursue happiness and joy. But, of course, when you read a biography of someone you admire, it's rarely the things that made them happy that compel your admiration. It's the things they did to court unhappiness — the things they did that were arduous and miserable, which sometimes cost them friends and aroused hatred. It's excellence, not happiness, that we admire most.

Today's grads enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the centre of a life. But, of course, as they age, they'll discover that the tasks of a life are at the centre. Fulfilment is a by-product of how people engage their tasks, and can't be pursued directly.

Most of us are egotistical and most are self-concerned most of the time, but it’s nonetheless true that life comes to a point only in those moments when the self dissolves into some task.

The purpose in life is not to find yourself. It's to lose yourself.

NYT

I was especially struck by the similarity of Mr Brook's insight, about being "summoned" to a task that becomes a life calling, with the traditional East Asian (and, some would say, the Anglo-American Protestant) work ethic, portrayed in shows such as Hataraki Man.

The New Age fad about "finding yourself" has always struck me as a silly exercise in self-indulgence. As I enter my late 30s, I find myself agreeing with Mr Brook: We are defined by our jobs, by the extent to which we dedicate ourselves to a task, no matter how unpleasant.

In real life, it's very rarely the reverse, that romantic notion that we will magically discover the perfect job by "knowing" ourselves first.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I was especially struck by the similarity of Mr Brook's insight, about being "summoned" to a task that becomes a life calling, with the traditional East Asian (and, some would say, the Anglo-American Protestant) work ethic, portrayed in shows such as Hataraki Man.

The New Age fad about "finding yourself" has always struck me as a silly exercise in self-indulgence. As I enter my late 30s, I find myself agreeing with Mr Brook: We are defined by our jobs, by the extent to which we dedicate ourselves to a task, no matter how unpleasant.

In real life, it's very rarely the reverse, that romantic notion that we will magically discover the perfect job by "knowing" ourselves first.

The fact of the matter as that we, as human beings, are shaped by our experiences. Those can come from your job as much as any other source of "inspiration" or what have you. That's why what you do for a living is important. We can't discover ourselves without first trying to do something and seeing if it's possible for us to do it. You can't know what you can and can't do without trying first, at least.

[Khu]

College/University are the most sure way of getting yourself some security in life. Besides, it lets you fool around for a few more years

As long as you get awesome stuff done during University/College, and get an awesome degree as well as getting experience, you'll be fine.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Khu

As long as you get awesome stuff done during University/College, and get an awesome degree as well as getting experience, you'll be fine.

Ah, but what if you don't?

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Khu

College/University are the most sure way of getting yourself some security in life. Besides, it lets you fool around for a few more years

As long as you get awesome stuff done during University/College, and get an awesome degree as well as getting experience, you'll be fine.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Ah, but what if you don't?

Well, even if you do, and this depends on what defines an awesome degree (great grades or a field of study that highly desired by employers?), there's never a guarantee you'll end up with your dream job, which I'm assuming would be the type of job you've studied for. Sure, you can get really good grades, but let me reitarate the question of how applicable are the skills you're taught in uni to the real world? One could say that it depends on what you're doing in uni, but the problem is especially when there are hundreds of people with more experience than you looking for the same job you are.

[Claies]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

An interesting commentary by David Brooks of The New York Times:

Life after college is about 'losing yourself'


I was especially struck by the similarity of Mr Brook's insight, about being "summoned" to a task that becomes a life calling, with the traditional East Asian (and, some would say, the Anglo-American Protestant) work ethic, portrayed in shows such as Hataraki Man.

The New Age fad about "finding yourself" has always struck me as a silly exercise in self-indulgence. As I enter my late 30s, I find myself agreeing with Mr Brook: We are defined by our jobs, by the extent to which we dedicate ourselves to a task, no matter how unpleasant.

In real life, it's very rarely the reverse, that romantic notion that we will magically discover the perfect job by "knowing" ourselves first.

I don't think it's something quantifiable, and is something far more subtle, such as knowing what major you will study or what part of your major you're going to specialize in because you are most interested in it. Even something as simple as asserting your answer to the childhood question, "what you're going to do when you grow up" can be "finding yourself".

This is why I get a little worried when I see people studying generic majors in university, which is a sign that they're mostly there to party. Almost as silly are those who have multiple, diverse majors, which is a sign that they're still firmly concentrated in schooling and haven't thought about life beyond. They have no concrete idea of a single thing that they want to do, and so they're probably not going to like whatever job they get, if they get one.

The problem lies in whether your job fits your first love, and if it's not, then you enter the situation noted in the article, and you hope it shapes into a second love.

[mindovermatter]

Originally Posted by Claies

This is why I get a little worried when I see people studying generic majors in university, which is a sign that they're mostly there to party. Almost as silly are those who have multiple, diverse majors, which is a sign that they're still firmly concentrated in schooling and haven't thought about life beyond. They have no concrete idea of a single thing that they want to do, and so they're probably not going to like whatever job they get, if they get one.

I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. English, and General Studies majors are typically looked down on as being not the 'real deal' but they are useful in their own way, and some people are genuinely interested in the subjects they are learning. True, an English major is probably working way less hard than say a science major who's talking labs and writing weekly lab reports (I'm a Bio major, and taking a lot of Chem classes with a dream of medschool) but I know some science majors who wouldn't survive very long as an English or Art major. Everyone has their strengths.
Granted, those major might not get you a great job, but having a degree say in just Biology without getting a Masters or PhD or going into the health field won't get you a great paying job either..so what's really the difference.
And for people who have the money, if they are interested in a wide range of subjects, and like being in school..I don't begrudge them having more degrees.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Claies

I don't think it's something quantifiable, and is something far more subtle, such as knowing what major you will study or what part of your major you're going to specialize in because you are most interested in it. Even something as simple as asserting your answer to the childhood question, "what you're going to do when you grow up" can be "finding yourself".

This is why I get a little worried when I see people studying generic majors in university, which is a sign that they're mostly there to party. Almost as silly are those who have multiple, diverse majors, which is a sign that they're still firmly concentrated in schooling and haven't thought about life beyond. They have no concrete idea of a single thing that they want to do, and so they're probably not going to like whatever job they get, if they get one.

The problem lies in whether your job fits your first love, and if it's not, then you enter the situation noted in the article, and you hope it shapes into a second love.

University Education isn't really supposed to be usefull practically. It's supposed to be worth it for it's own sake. From a professional stand point I think it should be that 4 years working should be better then 4 years of schooling, but from a personal development standpoint it should be the opposite. In this sense I think General Education isn't too bad. I hated having to spend so much time on just Mechanical Engineering. I would have preferred to do a bit of everything. Frankly, I think I probably would have gotten a better education that way, and learned more all around.

Originally Posted by mindovermatter

I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. English, and General Studies majors are typically looked down on as being not the 'real deal' but they are useful in their own way, and some people are genuinely interested in the subjects they are learning. True, an English major is probably working way less hard than say a science major who's talking labs and writing weekly lab reports (I'm a Bio major, and taking a lot of Chem classes with a dream of medschool) but I know some science majors who wouldn't survive very long as an English or Art major. Everyone has their strengths.
Granted, those major might not get you a great job, but having a degree say in just Biology without getting a Masters or PhD or going into the health field won't get you a great paying job either..so what's really the difference.
And for people who have the money, if they are interested in a wide range of subjects, and like being in school..I don't begrudge them having more degrees.

I know I couldn't have hacked English. I'm terrible at writing essays, and my hand writing is awful. I would enjoy learning about some of it though...

College should be about learning for it's own sake. It shouldn't be a commodity to guarantee higher earnings. That's not the attitude that the creators of Universities had. The value of University is more like the value of a good book... We don't expect to make X amount more money, or impress X employers with the fact we read a certain book, do we? We read it for it's own sake.

[mindovermatter]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I know I couldn't have hacked English. I'm terrible at writing essays, and my hand writing is awful. I would enjoy learning about some of it though...

College should be about learning for it's own sake. It shouldn't be a commodity to guarantee higher earnings. That's not the attitude that the creators of Universities had. The value of University is more like the value of a good book... We don't expect to make X amount more money, or impress X employers with the fact we read a certain book, do we? We read it for it's own sake.

Although you have a point, there is an inherent value to a good education (it's what makes us 1st world after all) but if that were the only reason people went to College, they could accomplish pretty much the same for much cheaper here
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/
For some reason, people (myself included) chase after that piece of paper. Either for the hope of a good job, or to have tangible proof of their education and knowledge, or because for some careers (like my goal, MD (though I would settle for DO, PA, RN..or even paramedic)) require higher education. Personally, my reasons for attending College are a mix of all three.
(edit: reading back on this post, from here on I pretty much go off on a tangent.) If I had no goal that I wanted to reach, I might or might not have gone after a full 4 year degree, considering that I already hold a "degree" as a clergyman of my faith, and a valid EMT license (ie job possibility).
Actually, if I wasn't so set on my dream, I would probably work as an EMT for a while, and as my family and financial needs (due to family, or my burning but very expensive desire to travel) grew I would continue my education to Paramedic and then RN, since there are pretty good bridge programs.