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.
Free college is not the answer, it pulls the rug out from underneath students and kills incentive. Obviously if the money comes out of your own pocket then you are motivated. If it is free, and you get a degree without showing effort, then what is the point?
Can the same not be said for K-12? Florida has a government scholarship program for anyone who has been diagnosed as having some kind of learning disability and who has failed at least one year in public school. My experience locally tells me that the overwhelming majority of private school students in Florida get this scholarship, but since Florida law does not regulate the curriculum, student testing or teacher qualifications of private schools, most private schools are just baby-sitting services.
But the situation was not any better back before this scholarship was available. Back then, when parents had to pay for private school themselves, most parents were still looking for a baby-sitting service for their brats who could not or would not do the work required in public school. The only difference there was without the scholarship was that parents assumed that they were paying for good grades.
You are mistaken. While perhaps the majority would not say that, a substantial number would and do. Read Tada's posts, for example, and you will see that some of today's students believe that college is a waste of time.
I suppose it might be seen as quibbling were I to point out to you that the percentage of people in the United States (age 25 and over) with a Bachelor's degree was ~27 as of 200, with generally successive rises leading me to believe that we are probably between 28 and 29% in 2008.
But the point I would be making is not that your number was wrong, but that the increase is steady. (Of course, the caveat on that is that the percentage of women getting degrees is increasing while the percentage of men getting degrees seems not to be and is lagging behind that of women, and not just a little.)
Are you suggesting that only those who have done well enough should be lent to?
And, generally, yes, if there were fewer degreed people, then the degreed people would be a more scarce resource and therefore they and their degrees would be more highly valued.
I don't see how that changes what anybody else has said, though.
Again..it is in the eye of the beholder......most people would say my degree of Sociology is "worthless", however I have a strong IT background, technical writing skills and was able to secure employment soon after college. There certainly are misconceptions in the world of academia, as of course if I was to obtain only a B.S degree in Biology or Psychology, and didn't have my hoped income of 50-60k I would also have thought college was a waist of time.
Am I saying that only "high achievers" should be lent to, no. We are already on our way to changing how we lend to students. So many are in default of their loans that the amount of federal aid has dwindled, and the dept. of Edu has considered making loans credit based.......which IS biased and unfair to younger people. As far as your suggestive figures on educational attainment, see the Department of Education's website, or census.gov for updated figures.
Again..it is in the eye of the beholder......most people would say my degree of Sociology is "worthless", however I have a strong IT background, technical writing skills and was able to secure employment soon after college. There certainly are misconceptions in the world of academia, as of course if I was to obtain only a B.S degree in Biology or Psychology, and didn't have my hoped income of 50-60k I would also have thought college was a waist of time.
As far as your suggestive figures on educational attainment, see the Department of Education's website, or census.gov for updated figures.
I would not have said that your degree was a waste of time, unless it felt that way to you, though if you persist in referring to it as a waist, I may be compelled to change my mind!
As far as my suggestive figures on educational attainment go, I looked at 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, though I see that my numeral in my prior post got chopped off. It was 27% in 2006.
I predicted a figure between 28 and 29% for 2008. 2007 is the most recent year for which data is complete, obviously, so here it is:
I don't feel my education was a "waist" per say, although many who have not attended college see certain fields as a "waist of time". My point is that a large majority of the people who say college is a waist of time either have never attended, or chose a field of study that they thought would simply earn income, and failed to look at what was required to succeed in the field. I do, however think that the numbers for degree attainment will drop off in the near future.
I agree that stand alone liberal arts degrees are not very marketable for particular careers, however they are often used as a foundation for people seeking higher education (such as law school), I do not know many people (if any) who have received an undergrad degree in liberal arts / university studies / or even English or history, and have not gone on to receive their masters or at least a teaching cert.
For people that are seeking more technically focused degrees without the added years of getting a masters degree, there are plenty of associates degrees offered, in just about every field. Some of them will get a person a job that is fairly equal to someone who has received a higher degree (though often there is some difference in pay to begin with). I think that as our primary schools stand now, the need for college is important, it's teaching how to truly learn, it's teaching from a much broader and unbiased base (granted I also think more college level type classes should be offered to high school students, if nothing else that it exposes them to more of the world), and it's teaching them to be responsible and take their education into their own hands.
With all that said, I sure would like to see more alternative certification methods out there. I agree with the poster who said you can learn more in 3 months on the job than you can in school. Someone mentioned also how technically focused degrees like for medicine teach all those things to their students. Not so. Technically they are exposed to it all at least in their textbooks, but for pharmacy students at least (I know a couple of them quite well) they go into their year of clinicals not knowing everything. I imagine that's why they require these internships and clinicals for medical related students, people know that's it's impossible to absorb and retain all their education simply through classwork.
I think that our secondary schools are moving in the right direction though. Both with offering more (and more reputable) 6 mo, 1 yr, and 2 yr degrees and certs, and also with the practice of accepting more amounts and types of life experience in lieu of college credits.
I don't feel my education was a "waist" per say, although many who have not attended college see certain fields as a "waist of time". My point is that a large majority of the people who say college is a waist of time either have never attended, or chose a field of study that they thought would simply earn income, and failed to look at what was required to succeed in the field. I do, however think that the numbers for degree attainment will drop off in the near future.
When you say "a large majority," is this your impression or has there been some research that you could share? I ask because your statement is at variance with what my experience has been, but I am very conscious that the plural of anecdote is not data.
And would you mind sharing the reason for your suspicion concerning the degree attainment numbers? Your assertion that that they had already done so seems to have been erroneous, so I am curious as to what prompts that thought.
If you look at the data provided here by the census and the 2006 community survey, we can see that the age groups 18-24 have one of the lowest attainments of higher education while groups above 30 have higher percentages. But remember, all other data you find through research is used from here, the ACS or American Community Survey which DOES not reach everybody and is erroneous as it points out in its methodology. My assertion that educational attainment will drop due to this theory (and again its MY theory) The difference between younger adults getting higher education and older adults being ABLE to will boil down to obviously affording it. As financial aid shrinks, and the few remaining banks pull completely out of risky student lending, the only option will be private loans which younger students will not qualify for. This trend of stratification in this particular demographic has only just become more apparent, and is a direct result of lending restrictions.
I base my opinion of a "large majority" through my own experience in graduate school conducting surveys, and the wealth of sociologists who have written on the subject of youth and society. Some of the best examples of this research can be found on JSTOR.com
If you look at the data provided here by the census and the 2006 community survey, we can see that the age groups 18-24 have one of the lowest attainments of higher education while groups above 30 have higher percentages. But remember, all other data you find through research is used from here, the ACS or American Community Survey which DOES not reach everybody and is erroneous as it points out in its methodology. My assertion that educational attainment will drop due to this theory (and again its MY theory)
Yes, of course the 18 - 24's have among the lowest attainment rates of higher education, Sociologist.
The standard expected graduation age from college is 22!
If you look at that data, you will see that 8.6% of that cadre have already completed a BA/BS or higher. If you think of them as representing the 22-24 year old population, then an expectation of a higher number would follow. But as that 22 years old figure is only the putative expected graduation age, and the real average length of time from entrance to graduation is closer to 6 years than 5 (let alone 4), all of a sudden, that 8.6% is not looking so bad.
Even if the "standard" was 22, the trend still shows the majority of degrees going to older populations.......but then again, those 8.6% most likely had their educations paid in some fashion. Its debatable either way...but fascinating to me to see the change of educational attainment over the last two decades in this country.
Even if the "standard" was 22, the trend still shows the majority of degrees going to older populations.......but then again, those 8.6% most likely had their educations paid in some fashion. Its debatable either way...but fascinating to me to see the change of educational attainment over the last two decades in this country.
You are misinterpreting the data, Sociologist.
The majority of higher degrees, beyond the Bachelor's level, go to older students, and some BA/BS degrees go to them, as well. However, the bulk of the BA/BS college/university degrees are going to those in the 22-25 range.
In the 2007 data, 29.62% of the 25-29 year old cohort had a BA or higher. Looking 5 years earlier, the 25-29 year old cohort showed only 28.65% with a BA or higher. The more recent group has a higher percentage.
In the aggregate degrees, the only modern group behind its age cohort is the 20-24 group - and they are 0.3% behind, and that is mainly because students are taking longer to go through college than they did.
If you compare each age cohort with the same age group 5 years earlier, at each degree level, besides the 20-24 group, there are only two age/degree levels at which the prior group did better: the BA degree for 30-34 and the Doctorate/Professional degrees for 50-59 year olds. The other 19 categories show the newer group has a higher percentage of its members with those degrees.
But what if we compare a group with itself? What if I look at the 2002 25-29 vs. the 2007 30-34 cohorts, and the 2002 30-34 vs. the 2007 35-39 cohorts?
Well, as one would expect, a higher percentage of them have degrees when they are 5 years older. Almost 4% more of the 2002 25-29's got a degree in the intervening time, and over 3% of the 2002 30-34's got one.
However, more than 80% of those additional degrees were Masters, Doctorates, or Professional degrees.
The majority of degrees goes to the younger people, overwhelmingly. The majority of degrees belong to the older people, but with the exception of the WWII GI bill students, they got them when they were young.
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.
