Role of College?
by
Steve Watters
on Jan 2, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Not too long ago, Thomas Sowell opined that Too Many Go to College. That column was an echo of what Charles Murray said around this time last year (that Motte blogged about here). On Monday of this week, Phyllis Schlafly wrote that College is no Prerequisite for Many New Careers.
What's up with all this? Are conservative columnists in cahoots to suppress higher education? Or are we starting to see a trend of thoughtful people rethinking the role of higher ed? Consider some of the points Schlafly makes:
Ten years ago we were told we really didn't need manufacturing because it can be done more cheaply elsewhere, that auto workers and others should move to information age jobs. But now the information jobs are moving offshore, too, as well as marketing research and even many varieties of innovation. ...
Society has been telling high school students that college is the ticket to get a life, and politicians are pandering to parents' desire for their children to be better educated and so have a higher standard of living. Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., wants the taxpayers to guarantee every kid a college education, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says more education is the means for Americans to compete in a global economy.
But it doesn't make sense for parents to mortgage their homes, or for students to saddle themselves with long-term debt, in order to pay overpriced college tuition to prepare for jobs that no longer exist. Tuition at public universities has risen an unprecedented 51 percent over the past five years.
It's my impression that even if this chorus of conservative commentary on the questionable ROI of a college education was repeated throughout mainstream journalism, you would still see hordes of incoming freshmen hitting campuses looking for college to play a role beyond preparing them for the workplace -- they would be looking to find themselves, to experience a certain rites of passage, to get their first strong taste of independence and lots of other side effects of the college experience. But maybe there's a new generation of young adults who will rethink the price-tag of those existential pursuits and pave an entrepreneurial pathway that looks quite different from the status quo higher ed we've come to know.
What role do you see college playing...for better or worse?
1. Tim H. had the following to say on Jan 2 at 3:14 PM:
I just finished taking an educational philosophy class at my christian university. The brilliant professor argues that if vocational training is the main point of school, we're wasting our time-that could be much better done elsewhere. He suggests that schooling should fulfill the historical role of a "liberal" education, that is to liberate the man. Schooling should develop humanity as being made in God's image.
In hindsight (I am a senior in college), the classes I've had that have been the most valuable are those who did exactly that.
2. Shawn had the following to say on Jan 2 at 3:30 PM:
I went to college for 1 1/2 years, with a year spent in Iraq in the middle of it. All I got out of it was a bunch of debt, that I'm now trying to pay off, and the knowledge that my HS teachers prepped us so well that I was able to skip virtually every class I signed up for and still pass by showing up for the final. I agree, unless you've got a teacher giving you more than what is said in the book, college is overrated.
3. Simon had the following to say on Jan 2 at 3:55 PM:
I agree with Tim H.'s prof about the role of higher education. I think it would be a lot cheaper in many fields, in terms of time and money, for the employer to simply train an employee. In my own field, engineering, a simple IQ test can easily pick out the most suitable candidates.
However, that begs the question-- why don't employers just screen high school graduates using test scores, a written test, etc?
The answer is that the government's civil rights rulings have forbidden such screening processes. As a result, students and parents have to shell out tons of money to the educational establishment just to get a basic career in place. Remember that the next time you hear a politician call for more government funding of college tuition.
Read more here:
http://nalert.blogspot.com/2007/05/understanding-college-racket.html
4. Adam had the following to say on Jan 2 at 4:01 PM:
Steve,
I don't think that was the point of Phyllis Schlafly's article. I don't think she was saying that we need to rethink the role of higher education. It seems to me like she is blaming the U.S. Government for taking jobs away from experts that graduate from colleges here in the United States, and giving them to forign people who are willing to work for less. Then, in order to compensate, they, themselves, are benifiting by forcing people with education to work for the government. Notice what she says:
Ten years ago we were told we really didn't need manufacturing because it can be done more cheaply elsewhere, that auto workers and others should move to information age jobs. But now the information jobs are moving offshore, too, as well as marketing research and even many varieties of innovation.
The flight overseas includes professional as well as low-wage jobs, with engineering jobs offshored to India and China. Thousands of bright Asian engineers are willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages, which is why Boeing just signed a 10-year, $1-billion-a-year deal with a government-run company in India.
The point she is trying to make is that our jobs are being taken from us. People work hard for years and years to get degrees in enginering, only to eventually have to work for the government. She states exactly what she is trying to say in her conclusion:
But Republican Party candidates haven't yet gotten the message that jobs are just as big a gut issue as immigration. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey conducted Dec. 14-17 reports that, by 58 percent to 28 percent, Americans believe globalization is bad because it subjects U.S. companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor.
Where are the limited-government fiscal-conservatives when we need them to refute the notion that the best an engineering graduate can hope for is a job with the government? Are fiscal-conservatives too busy chanting the failed mantra of "free trade" even though it has resulted in millions of good U.S. jobs being shipped overseas?
When are we going to call a halt to the way globalism is destroying U.S. jobs by foreign currency manipulation, theft of our intellectual property, shipping us poisonous seafood and toys, and unfair trade agreements that allow foreign subsidies (through the so-called Value Added Tax) to massively discriminate against U.S. producers and workers?
In other words, Schlafly is not arguing that we should change our view of the role of higher education. What she is asking us to do is to put pressure on the United States to limit its foreign labor policy so that we do not rob people who work hard in college from being able to use what they have learned.
Therefore, it seems that Mrs. Schlafly has a very high view of higher education. She has such a high view of higher education that she believes that people who have it need to be treated better than having the U.S. government go overseas and highering forign labor for a cheaper price. Indeed, she, herself, is a graduate of Harvard.
Higher education is something that I believe plays a major role in society. Although it is not for everyone, if you enjoy scholarly discussion, research, academic disputations, and the educating of young people, there is no better place to be. I am currently working on my M.A. and am going to go on to my Phd, and I am very happy with a carrier in the academy.
God Bless,
Adam
5. Lauren T. had the following to say on Jan 2 at 6:17 PM:
I knew an old wise man who said, "College ground has become the dumping ground for unemployed youth". He's one of the biggest reasons I never went. I was used to thinking outside the box by the time I got to college age; and as I considered the option of going I came to the conclusion there is nothing I want to do that needs a college education. I can get any training I need better other ways.
I think a lot of people are like me, but current employers have a knee-jerk degree requirement - ANY degree! - and you have to work an awful lot harder to prove yourself even if you're just as capable of doing the job as the guy with the degree in English Lit.
Some of the most brilliant and successful people I know deliberately stayed out of college and sought training in other places. In fact, only one very successful person I know has gotten a college degree that he's used. I also know several who've gotten degrees and it hasn't ended up doing them any good when it comes to making a living.
Some types of college training are necessary - such as for people who want to get into the medical profession - but I think a lot of times we just go to college because it's the thing to do; and it ends up doing little in the long run but waste time and money.
It really comes down to the personality and drive of a person: someone with the right outlook can be successful whether they use college as a tool to get there or not. Someone who doesn't won't do well even with a degree. I think the current attitude toward college needs to be updated to reflect this truth; and it would definitely benefit a lot of employers to seek out trainable youngsters instead of measuring everything by college degrees.
6. Chris had the following to say on Jan 2 at 6:47 PM:
Adam writes:
She has such a high view of higher education that she believes that people who have it need to be treated better than having the U.S. government go overseas and highering forign labor for a cheaper price.
It isn't the government that hires foreigners. In fact, in many government jobs, you have to be a US citizen or permanent resident.
It's corporations that shift work overseas, and it's simply a business activity. It's capital chasing after cheap labor. The comments at the end of the article were just protectionism by another name. (I'm not saying that that's good or bad, but conservatives love to blame liberals for protectionism when simply doing the same thing through other means themselves.)
That said, I hardly think engineering is hurting. Salaries are at record levels, and recent graduating classes have seen strong hiring trends from companies. If things were truly bad, we'd see declining salaries over time.
Of course, economies go through cycles. When I graduated with a BS in chemical engineering, almost 50% of my class went to graduate school because the job market was so bad. Out of about 40 seniors, only 4 had jobs (from internships) by early spring. A few years later, however, and everyone had multiple offers with employers fighting to hire them. I'm sure things will cycle again.
Simon writes:
In my own field, engineering, a simple IQ test can easily pick out the most suitable candidates.
However, that begs the question-- why don't employers just screen high school graduates using test scores, a written test, etc?
The answer is that the government's civil rights rulings have forbidden such screening processes.
I disagree. Many companies screen employees with tests. If anything, it's a much more defensible position. People can claim bias in an interview. It's hard to claim bias in a written math test for a machinist position that uses CNC machines.
In regards to your point about IQ tests, I don't think you'll find these to be good tests. IQ does not test for ability to work well with others, work ethic, and the like.
Tim H. makes a good point about liberal education. We seem to have forgotten that that's what college should be about. It should be about teaching people to think critically and exposing them to a wide variety of subjects and viewpoints, but unfortunately, we've come to view it as advanced vocational education.
I've come to the conclusion that college should be for people who are 25 or older, not 18-22 year olds. Here's why:
1) How many people actually know what they want to do at 18? In many engineering schools, you have to declare your major at the end of freshman year. That's making someone who's 19 devote 3 to 4 (or even more) years in a field that, at best, they've had one summer internship in.
2) Most 18 year olds are unlucky enough (or lucky enough, depending on your POV) to have no appreciable world experience. I find as an older adult that I respond more meaningfully to what I read and discuss than when I was 18. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but I often wonder how much more I could have gotten out of my classes if I had been older. Read Jude the Obscure before you have children and then after you have children. See if the scene with "done because we are too many" doesn't affect you differently.
3) Some world experience brings clarity and dedication to one's professional goals. As an adult who's done graduate work (mainly part time) twice, I've found the experience more rewarding (and the fellow students more dedicated). I've also been able to better select what interests me and to better appreciate that which doesn't necessarily have much to do with my chosen field.
Unfortunately, as responsibilities pile up, returning to school becomes more difficult. That's why I also think college should be a part time endeavor. In an ideal world, we'd invert the current scheme by working in the fall and spring (and attending class part time) and attending class full time in the summer.
Yes, it's a lofty ideal, but I think it would serve everyone better. Those who want to work could get on with working without suffering the "you must go to college" mantra. And those who did want to go to college would find the experience more fulfilling and rewarding.
7. Gene had the following to say on Jan 2 at 7:12 PM:
Lauren
Several times in your post you used the words "success" or "successful". Please define these.
Is it just making a good living? Having a nice house and car? Being satisfied with what you do? Believing you're contributing to God's kingdom?
So much of your post depends on crucial distinctions such as these, and what you deem "success" might seem to me a crashing bore, and vice versa.
8. Chris B. had the following to say on Jan 2 at 8:41 PM:
Education is not overrated, there's a reason why it's so desirable; you become a well-rounded, well-equipped person with a college education. There are things in college that you'll never learn elsewhere, especially in the "streets" (if that's the alternative). You could never tell me that pursuing a college degree is a "waste of time", that simply isn't true (look at the facts). However, while I believe a higher education is invaluable, I also believe that one should always do what works best for them, and that may not be college. Fact is, a college degree means you’re trainable and that you have the discipline, especially if you’ve worked and went to school at the same time. Most folks end up in careers that have NOTHING to do with their area of study while in college, which goes hand in hand with what I said above. You can't put a price on education; a degree opens doors, especially in this day and age of "global competition", just take a look at the number of students applying to/in grad school.
As far as jobs are concerned; Like it was said above earlier, a business will always look out in its own interest, even if that means completely abandoning a domestic workforce in pursuit of trimming costs for a cheaper workforce over-seas. At the same time, there are plenty of jobs available to students with degrees in all areas of interest, just sometimes it takes the individual to become the innovator and innovate. Regardless I wouldn’t expect the media to share any good news about jobs in America, it’s easier to lament over the ones that left.
9. BDB had the following to say on Jan 2 at 9:44 PM:
Steve,
What's happening is that these conservative commentators have bought into the secular falsehood that the purpose of college is for a career. That's the purpose of professional schools, like law, business, dentistry, etc, that definitely aren't worth it for someone not pursuing that career.
The purpose of an undergraduate education is to get an education: to learn how to research things in the library, write well, develop an appreciation for how ideas shape our world, etc.
Professionally, anyone without a master's degree is handicapped in today's economy. But even someone who has the privledge of being a stay-at-home mom will benefit from an undergraduate education. It prepares people to deal with all the professionals who will be telling them what to do with their kids. Whether it's educators, medical providers-these days even many people in law enforcement are expected to hold an undergraduate degree. Someone who goes through the process and finishes the degree will be prepared to research their child's medical condition, figure out the paperwork when buying a house, etc. Many of the people who claim they were "duped" into getting a bad mortgage merely demonstrate that they didn't even bother to check the Internet, where lots of warnings about zero-down mortgages were prevalent all during the housing bubble.
It is flat-out wrong to tell people that the only purpose of college is to get a job. We need to stop encouraging "learned helplessness."
10. Kellie had the following to say on Jan 2 at 11:44 PM:
There are professions where an undergraduate is preparing for a profession, such as teaching or nursing. Some of us actually have a good career with a BA or BS. College (or at least some sort of formal training) is also necessary for such professions.
11. JB had the following to say on Jan 3 at 12:12 AM:
A college education is (or ought to be) about more than vocational training, or practical skills, or social experiences. It's supposed to enrich the life of the mind, allow one to participate more fully in life, and be a engaged citizen. To reduce the value of an education to how well it prepares one to get a job misses this greater value entirely. Many people probably find the current educational system unsuitable for a variety of reasons, but I can't see how postsecondary education wouldn't be attractive for just about everyone.
12. DannieA had the following to say on Jan 3 at 12:14 AM:
I have to agree with Chris B. There is a difference between college graduates and non-college graduates.
I can see the problem if one will be a professional student, but if one has a path in mind...you need higher education.
I have a masters in speech/language pathology. If I had a kid with language problems or is autistic and needs speech and language intervention...sorry...I'm not trusting them to someone without higher education.
13. Rachael had the following to say on Jan 3 at 1:15 AM:
The Chris's made some interesting points -
"I've come to the conclusion that college should be for people who are 25 or older, not 18-22 year olds"
--> Interesting. I bet older people often benefit from and appreciate the education more, especially if they worked hard and sacrificed to get that education and if they were studying something they loved. I guess if a young high school graduate was unsure of what to do, though, I would recommend that they go to college. I agree with the other Chris in that it opens doors. There really are cheap ways to go. In at least WA state high schoolers can even attend college classes. I went to community college for a couple of years after high school, and it was good for me financially. And I ended up transferring to an in state 4-year university, worked for a few years, then got a Master's. It all worked out okay. Wasn't crazy about a lot of the courses I took, but, sometimes the degree is part of the ticket that gets you the job.
Though a college education has its advantages, it's definitely not the only way to go. My guess is that most/many people are better equipped with practical experience and on-the-job training than what they learn in classes.
In my case, the education I appreciate the most is actually that which relates to practical experience and advice. Practicums. Learning from other teachers. Practice, experience, tips, handouts other people have already made, textbooks..:) And I think I'll continue to learn for as long as I teach. I'll never be all educated up in that regard. There's no end...
14. Melissa had the following to say on Jan 3 at 2:06 AM:
Honestly, I think part of the problem our society has with college is how we think of it more as a coming of age "experience" rather than a tool. Not that the experience isn't important, but putting too much emphasis on that and not enough on the education/benefit to career part has negative effects, in my opinion.
I mean, college is a huge expense, and many people end up having to go back later or end up living back with mom and dad because they didn't take it very seriously in the first place. Or, like Chris pointed out, they didn't even know what they wanted to do with their life yet.
There are practical ways to go to college, if you don't shoot for the experience part. I went to a community college first, then transfered to a highly rated university, and I lived at home, all of which saved me huge amounts of money. It might not be the most glamorous way, but I made friends, I still had a good experience, I got a good education, and I'm not in debt.
And to be honest, if money wasn't an issue, I'd have definitely gone to a Christian school for the experience, but all the Christian schools I looked at were way more expensive than the public ones. I know there's probably nothing they can do about it, it's expensive to run a college, but that is really a shame, because I bet it keeps a lot of students out.
15. Patricia had the following to say on Jan 3 at 6:44 AM:
I think college is helpful not in training people for a vocation but to train people how to think. This is the crux of the college experience IMHO. When I took Cal. 2 the professor admitted that although nearly all of us would never need to find an integral or the sum of a sequence or series because computers today can do this. Still, it's important to stretch your brain and try to solve difficult problems because the next time you try it will be easier. It's the same as training for a marathon-you need to challenge your mind to improve its performance.
And while I acknowledge there are other ways to do this-people can educate themselves-99.9% of the population lacks the self discipline needed to force themselves to read difficult material and solve complex problems. Also, what I love about academia is the community dimension. You always receive feedback from other students, and professors who are at the cutting edge of knowledge in their field. You can't do this as easily alone.
I do think some students go to college without the maturity or desire needed. I am a PhD student and have seen students waste thousands of dollars in tuition and, more importantly, the privilege to learn and expand their mind, and use college as a time to party or pursue other things. Unfortunately, this often causes professors to dumb down courses to unmotivated and unprepared students. But ideally, I am a big believer in college and a liberal arts education because the ability to contest, create, critique, and transform knowledge is the most valuable skill career wise and is a lifelong skill that no one can ever take from you.
16. Loris had the following to say on Jan 3 at 7:21 AM:
I graduated last year with a BA in English and I had a terrible time getting a job because I had little work experience due to my youth. I did get a job tangentally related to my field-technical writing-but wouldn't you know it, it's with a government contractor.
I would have to agree that college should probably follow a year or two of work for young people. I saw too many kids floundering at college, unprepared for the coursework, too interested in socializing. The ones that did best were the students who already knew what they wanted, which tended to be the theology, pre-nursing, and education majors.
17. P&P had the following to say on Jan 3 at 10:34 AM:
Higher education at its best teaches students how to think critically, whether it's a political, economic or scientific issue. I agree that the costs are astronomical and a number (most?, many?) 18 year olds are not ready for the rigors of an academic program, however the cost is a result of the free market economy spinning out of control and teens being allowed to remain "children" far longer than necessary.
Although there are some exceptions to the rule, I've worked with both college grads as well as those who did not have the degree and I can assure you that people who do not have the degree lack the problem solving skills, communication abilities and general poise that comes with higher education.
I once had a teacher in high school who said that he didn't care what profession you ended up in (blue collar, white collar), but striving to become educated and articulate was far more important.
That being said, I also think a year of community or military service before attending college whether it's community college or a large university would be a big help for both students and professors.
18. Justice had the following to say on Jan 3 at 11:36 AM:
I think it's a really good article, but I think the author was only pointing out the obvious, that you will always have people who are not motivated wherever you are at. This last quarter at school I was a project leader over 4 grad students and one undergrad students and the grad students gave me the most problems and made our project suffer, which was terrible because we were doing a project with a 'local' business with $1 billion in revenue.
While you certainly can make money w/o going to college, the open doors that it can open 30 years from now is priceless, such as getting a job in a foreign country that opens the door to be a 'missionary.'
19. P&P had the following to say on Jan 3 at 1:59 PM:
You know, it just occurred to me that the authors of the aforementioned articles all have college degrees.
Then again Phyllis Schlafly used to "work" at touring the country encouraging women to stay home. This woman has made a career out of ironic behavior.
20. Lauren T. had the following to say on Jan 3 at 4:28 PM:
"Lauren
Several times in your post you used the words "success" or "successful". Please define these.
Is it just making a good living? Having a nice house and car? Being satisfied with what you do? Believing you're contributing to God's kingdom?
So much of your post depends on crucial distinctions such as these, and what you deem "success" might seem to me a crashing bore, and vice versa."
Successful:
1.) Able to provide more than well for their families. Far above the "nice house and car" standard. Able to do so in a variety of creative ways that don't necessarily involve finding an employer and staying for 35 years.
2.) Able to think wisely.
4.) Able to grow in their faith in God and encourage others by their example.
5.) Able to raise children to be equally entrepreneurial and Godly.
A sample of the jobs involved with the above "successful" people I know:
Lean Manufacturing consultant worldwide to major automobile companies. (My father).
One of only a few dozen in his field of highly specialized Microsoft programmers. (He isn't employed by Microsoft but is a qualified Microsoft programmer due to his training and experience).
Builder of high-quality wooden furniture (tables, dressers, desks, etc.).
Manager, owner, and builder of commercial properties.
Top assistant to a company specializing in large real estate investments.
Writer (soon to be published).
I suppose I define successful both in the monetary sense and the spiritual sense. "Success" is being able to advise others in difficult times, raise a Godly family, maintain a sincere and fruitful faith in God, and support oneself and one's family at least comfortably.
Please note that I did say there are professions where a college degree is necessary. ;) My point is simply that too many just go to college instead of really making the decision that it's the right tool for their future life.
21. skp had the following to say on Jan 3 at 4:44 PM:
I've read some interesting stats- "average" high school graduates- 20 ACT- 3.0 High School GPA- graduate college at a rate of 20%. Think about this before you take on mega loans.
22. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Jan 4 at 9:33 PM:
I'm inclined to agree with BDB's comment:
"The purpose of an undergraduate education is to get an education: to learn how to research things in the library, write well, develop an appreciation for how ideas shape our world, etc."
First of all, I would propose there are four main types of jobs in this country: Low-skilled, vocational, highly specialized professional, and moderately specialized professional. There are also entrepenuers but they can encompass any of the above.
Low-skilled: Mainly those jobs which you can just walk into and learn most of the ins and outs within a week. They include working as retail cashiers, janitors, and food servers.
Vocational: These are jobs which usually do not require a college degree but has some form of progressional based on skill level. This skill level is usually of the "apprentice" to "journeyman" to higher levels. Such professions include car repair, plumbing, and other related areas such as banking (starting as a teller and working your way up).
Highly specialized professional: These are your doctors, lawyers, and related fields that usually require a lot of specialized schooling and often a certification of some sort to practice. College is of course required.
Moderately specialized professional: This is the most nebulous group, but we all know what they look like. It's often the office and cubicle environment. It can also be mixed with "highly specialized"; for example a teacher (but becoming a teacher isn't always predicated by years of studying teaching). This category includes just about every major out there and would encompass the Associate, Bachelor, and Master's level (PhD's often stay in academia or just that it usually doesn't help you "that much more" in industry than a Masters).
The reason why many employers WANT a college graduate in the last category is not only because of the basic skillset one would learn in college (obviously for applying for a computer programming job one would expect you knew a thing or two about basic algorithms and one or two programming languages) but also they want to see one big evidence of maturity: Seeing something to completion. Completing a degree shows that you can start a job and finish it. College also is used an indicator, whether rightly so or not, of how one interacts socially. Employers will tell you they often would rather hire someone who is only moderately proficient but is a good "people person" than someone is who is very proficient but a total "jerk". And whether fair or not, most have prejudices against 18 year olds and their maturity/social interaction level.
One also develops a lot of other indirect skills in college: Writing well, time management, independence, all these skills important to the workplace especially in the moderate-highly skilled professional.
Because of this, and because of the "graduating from high school, marrying your high school sweetheart, and working in the local factory to earn a decent living" are pretty much gone with the dinosaurs I support as many as possible to go to college or other avenue to learn a trade (vocation or military which also offers a great training program and looks good on a resume).
Finally regarding finances, I agree that college is a huge investment but definitely one worth taking. A good college education willl pay for itself 10 times over IF the student is willing to apply him/herself. That's why I'm an advocate of not letting Mom/Dad pay for school but let the child use his own money (To clarify I support Mom/Dad giving loans interest-free but they should be that, loans not a gift). The child can apply for grants/scholarships, or may have to settle for a state-run university rather than an Ivy League school. It really changes a person's attitude when someone is using THEIR OWN money rather than using SOMEONE ELSE'S.
23. BDB had the following to say on Jan 5 at 2:06 AM:
Lauren T wrote:
>>Builder of high-quality wooden furniture (tables, dressers, desks, etc.).
Manager, owner, and builder of commercial properties.
Top assistant to a company specializing in large real estate investments.<<
Interesting examples. I'm now working for a finished carpentry company. I must say, the carpenters are pretty shell-shocked by the rapid decline in residential construction. They've never seen anything like it. They don't know what to do.
What I'm doing is rooting through all the economic analysis trying to figure out which portions of the economy will be uneffected by the subprime meltdown and the high price of oil, which is really driven by the falling dollar. That's the conversation our bankers want to have - where are your sales going to come from now?
24. Andrew (tlw) had the following to say on Jan 9 at 10:07 PM:
BDB,
If you’re trying to determine the fallout from the subprime issue, you need to understand what initially caused it. The CDOs were just another Wall Street device to earn commissions. But the so-called sub-prime crisis is really a confidence crisis amongst the lenders; some banks are insolvent, but which ones? Try financialsense.com for more insight.
Mike,
Going to college has become the standard expected of entry level employees regardless of profession of industry. The college degree has become the default screening device for a vast morass of jobs that don’t need it. Gary North puts it like this:
“Which of these [skills] is not learned in high school?
• showing up on time
• paying close attention to assignments
• completing assignments on time
• doing more than the minimum required
• struggling with difficult tasks
• organizing tasks by priorities”
Sure, some jobs needs specialist training … but not as many as we are led to believe, and not within the stifling leftist atmosphere of tenured professors. College is an expensive and time-consuming means of learning skills. The college student grant system is subsidised by the USG, and the colleges themselves have a vested interest in getting bodies on seats. Many students drop out, losing years and costing their parent tens of thousands of dollars in the process for little result.
And yes, went to college. I have a Masters degree, earned part-time whilst working. Mom and dad not pay my own college costs ... and neither would I expect them to. If you do go, you should pay for it yourself. It certainly helps you stay focussed. Now, if only I was an entrepreneur, or had more practical skills, I could have done an apprenticeship, and/or started my own business, and could have avoided college all-together. If only.