Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think what the article is trying to say is that it is NOT AUTOMATIC that every kid will be better off if he goes to college. There are a lot of kids who shouldn't, possibly for some of the reasons enumerated.
Committing to a 6-figure debt at the age of 18 to lock yourself into a career field might not the best thing for a lot of students. It might turn out to be a career field you don't want, or don't have the heart for, of that simply disappears from the economy. If a student chooses a field in which a post graduate degree is necessary, and the kid peaks at the bachelor's level, then what?
I hate to use personal anecdotal evidence, but I flunked out after a couple of years, because I had never learned good study habits. Without stating it in those terms, I set out in life assuming that I could live by my wits alone, and it has worked, and here I am, comfortably retired. I have known a lot of other people who have done OK the same way.
On the other hand, I've seen plenty of people who used college to cement a lucrative career, earn a good salary all their life doing what they got burned out on, become accustomed to a dream lifestyle they could not quite afford, retired no better off than I am, and were miserable all their lives to boot.
Writing an article telling kids the best career path is like writing an article telling them the best places to go on vacation. Maybe they don't want to go where the author wanted to go, and accomplish the things the author wanted to accomplish, and can become self-fulfilled through different pathways and strategies.
It seems like our society is trying way too hard to convince everybody that there is a direct and unwavering correlation between he amount of money they earn and the amount of happiness they will harvest. It ain't so, but it is seditious to object.
Numbers refer to the bold:
1. The article did not say that. It did allude to a kid going to college later, in their 20s, and presumably paying for it themselves, OR "home-schooling" college, which is a foolish idea.
2. The article itself implied that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave
And so do some college graduates (like those with a degree in liberal arts). Simply having a college degree or not does not equate to success or failure to succeed. I wouldn't say graduating from a vocational school is "nothing at all".
The author did not mention vocational school. There is nothing wrong with a degree in the "liberal arts". Such degrees can get you a job where a college degree is required, but it doesn't matter what the degree is in. They are also a stepping stone to graduate and professional school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TouchOfWhimsy
The prevailing thought seems to be that everyone needs a McMansion, two high-priced cars, annual vacations to Europe, a flashy watch, and lots of debt in order to live a happy life. I think it's a sad commentary on the general values running our society. This is why so many middle-classers are trying to live the "upper class" lifestyle, and the reason that our economy is the way it is. I do not want my children to live an "upper class" lifestyle. I want them to know the joy and contentment that comes from living well within their means and having financial peace.
Of course, in going along with this, there is also a common thought that education is not worth anything if you did not pay a lot of money for it. Learning on your own as an adult is considered inferior by many to spending four years in college beginning at the age of 18, whether or not the person with the degree even has a job. I've heard things like, "well, he's unemployed right now... but he has his master's degree in biochemical engineering, so it's not as though he's going to take a job making $50,000 per year!" It's as if the degree itself is putting food on the table.
It's an odd, odd, odd, odd world.
Well, the article itself focuses on money, money, money, investments, traveling the world, etc. That's no crime, but it's not an article about going out and living "off the grid".
I think the author makes a few erroneus assumptios.
Regarding the first point, it is not necessary to take six years (or more) to get a degree. In fact, anything more than five years probably involves part-time, rather than full-time, study for at least part of those years. At private colleges, the 4 year graduation rate is generally higher than at state colleges/universities where the tuition is lower.
He assumes that college costs $50K per year, and as has been pointed out, that is high-end. Going to community college and living at home is a viable alternative for the first two years. If you live near a reputable state college/university, living at home the whole four years is another good alternative. Many of these "college cost" calculators add in things that one would be spending money on anyway, such as clothes, health care, entertainment, etc.
He also assumes that the parents will be paying all the money. At the more expensive colleges, many students receive scholarships of varying amounts of money. It often costs the same and sometimes even less, to attend a private college than to attend a state u as an in-state student. Students can work during the summers, and sometimes during the school year to contribute some.
The issue of student loans is a red herring. That is not money the parent is paying, unless the parent chooses to pay off the loans.
Well I am prepared for the attack that will be sure to follow, but I am happy to say that my teens are not given such a choice. they are going to college. Period..
Until their 18th birthday, on which day they can choose to follow the Grateful Dead if they want to, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it. Unless you have them so thoroughly brainwashed that even in adulthood, they will continue to march in obedient lockstep with whomever they perceive as being authoritarian figures. You haven't painted a very pretty picture.
I wouldn't ordinarily have responded in this way, but in your post, you went on line after line hammering away at the idea that your children WILL do what you have designed for their entire lives. When they discover that they have minds of their own, you have increased the probability that they will become Deadheads, if not serial killers, just out of pure spite. It's the same syndrome that makes the preacher's daughter the loosest girl in town.
there is also a common thought that education is not worth anything if you did not pay a lot of money for it. Learning on your own as an adult is considered inferior by many to spending four years in college
I thought that might be the case when I started out as a programmer, but I've never encountered that sentiment. In all of my programming positions, I've been the only one on the team w/o a degree. Being self taught has been a non-issue in my experience. I can't help but chuckle though when I realize that my training expenses were less than $500 and 6 months of my time, while my collegues spent thousands of dollars and 4 years of their lives to obtain what is essentially the same skill set that I have.
there is also a common thought that education is not worth anything if you did not pay a lot of money for it. Learning on your own as an adult is considered inferior by many to spending four years in college
I thought that might be the case when I started out as a programmer, but I've never encountered that sentiment. In all of my programming positions, I've been the only one on the team w/o a degree. Being self taught has been a non-issue in my experience. I can't help but chuckle though when I realize that my training expenses were less than $500 and 6 months of my time, while my collegues spent thousands of dollars and 4 years of their lives to obtain what is essentially the same skill set that I have.
DH works in IT, and he has a number of co-workers who do not have degrees. It was the same in engineering back in my father's day; he was one of the few engineers at his workplace to have a degree; one "engineer" he worked with had not even graduated from high school. (This was back in the 50s/60s.)
I really believe that colleges and universities should have all of these requirement courses dropped or taught for free to the students. I am referring to the courses that has nothing to do with the career choice but just thrown in there to say that so and so graduated from there.
Then the students can pay for those courses that are paramount for the career choice.
Yeah, I'm dreaming, but so are these faculties when the nation is facing hard times economically. If applications to these colleges and universities drop, then they have no one to blame but themselves.
I really believe that colleges and universities should have all of these requirement courses dropped or taught for free to the students. I am referring to the courses that has nothing to do with the career choice but just thrown in there to say that so and so graduated from there.
Then the students can pay for those courses that are paramount for the career choice.
Yeah, I'm dreaming, but so are these faculties when the nation is facing hard times economically. If applications to these colleges and universities drop, then they have no one to blame but themselves.
College is not just for higher level vocational training. Hokey as it sounds, a college education is also supposed to produce a well-rounded individual. My DH got a physics degree from Cal Tech. One of his favorite courses was a Shakespeare course. He developed a real love for Shakespeare that has continued to this day, 40 years after his graduation.
College is not just for higher level vocational training. Hokey as it sounds, a college education is also supposed to produce a well-rounded individual. My DH got a physics degree from Cal Tech. One of his favorite courses was a Shakespeare course. He developed a real love for Shakespeare that has continued to this day, 40 years after his graduation.
Excellent point. One could make the argument that every student, first two years, takes exactly the same mandatory courses, to become well-rounded in the Liberal Arts. History, philosophy, literature, foreign language, economics, anthropology, geography, etc. Then, after that, start intensive specialization in a career track.
If I had a kid going to college, and I heard about one of those, I'd sure recommend it.
I have a problem with extending childhood into people's 30's or so. Really, when they are 18, they go to college themselves and are NOT sent there. Besides it's not necessary to buy a BA in english literature for 50 k a semester. Even starting at a community college and then transferring is better than no college degree at all. Statistics are really clear on this, you will have more money with a degree on an average.
The real reason anyone would recommend that someone else not send their child to college is probably because their own child is having trouble finding a job and they want to eliminate the competition. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you need at least a Bachelor's degree to have a chance at any job that pays above minimum wage nowadays and that isn't going to change. It's become the bare minimum just like high school used to be for a lot of reasons and most students (if they have the financial means to do so) need to go to college. We are living longer in general and there is a whole new stage of life that is emerging between adolescence and adulthood where young adults need an opportunity to mature, figure things out and set themselves up with a good educational background to be able to support themselves. In case you haven't noticed, just being able to provide basic essentials for yourself is getting harder every day.
A couple of points: Those who think they are better than everyone else because they paid for their own college education without help from their parents are really sad. Parents should help their children pay for college if they have the financial means to do so, and most parents do. It's the ones who think that having new cars every year is more important and then limit the schools their child can apply to or freak out when they aren't given all the financial aid they expected that are the worst. They are selfishly hurting their own child's chance at success and try to justify not contributing by saying that "They need to pay for it themselves so they don't party it away." I'm sorry but as a parent you have 18 years to instill in your child the importance of education and a capable work ethic and if they get to college and fail out because of partying or not going to class then that is on you. They didn't come up with that behavior on their own and you have plenty of time to teach them to be responsible. It's parents who decide that buying things for themselves is more important and then don't understand why their kid who had to go to a cheap, low-quality school can't find a job. I'm not sure where their thought process is, but it seems they had children only to abandon them at 18.
You don't have to go to the most expensive school out there, but there is a price to quality ratio that matters outside of campus. Better schools cost more but they also offer more resources that cheaper schools can't give you, such as more qualified professors and employer connections that can mean the difference between being passed over for a job or getting the interview.
College gives young adults the critical opportunity to learn how to be independent, care for themselves on their own, manage their time and mature into productive members of society while earning a degree that will give them the opportunity to do so. If someone doesn't want that for their kid then I have to wonder why they even had one.
I think that it's wise to think twice before enrolling in college. It's the best option for some but not the best option for everyone. One should be mindful of the cost up front and choose schools based on what one can realistically afford. Spending $100K on a degree in Women's Studies is not going to pay off (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/yo...money.html?hpw). It would be great if trade schools and apprenticeship programs were offered as a viable alternative to all students, not just the under-performing or low income ones.
This thread made me think of an article that I really enjoyed. It's by the author of the book, "Shop Class as Soulcraft".
"The Case for Working With Your Hands": http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/ma...24labor-t.html
Quote:
High-school shop-class programs were widely dismantled in the 1990s as educators prepared students to become “knowledge workers.” The imperative of the last 20 years to round up every warm body and send it to college, then to the cubicle, was tied to a vision of the future in which we somehow take leave of material reality and glide about in a pure information economy. This has not come to pass. To begin with, such work often feels more enervating than gliding. More fundamentally, now as ever, somebody has to actually do things: fix our cars, unclog our toilets, build our houses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
