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.
And part of the problem lies with the grads themselves, who mostly are not taking any initiative to show off their skills. If a Computer Science grad can't find a job, he/she should start writing some software on his own - maybe write some cool programs, participate in an open source project, or even freelance for a while. This will allow the person to accumulate some experience that he can show to employers. I wasn't able to get my first job until I freelanced for about a year.
If the written requirement is "two years work experience" and he has to run the HR gauntlet before his resume reaches a work manager, even that won't help. An HR department normally doesn't equate any of those efforts to "two years work experience."
Why hire a fresh grad who wants a decent salary and a life when you can import a h1-b who doesn't demand as high a salary and is practically an indentured servant who will work as hard and as long as you tell them to?
We foolishly allow the gov to raise the cost of living and doing business. So wages are high and we punish businesses who make things and might be able to afford the high wages. So we have fast food, warehouse jobs and other low economic value add jobs left which won't pay a wage college grads can live on and pay back their loans for that generic degree.
Canada, Australia and Germany cited by one as having stronger economies do so by making things not flipping burgers or warehousing things made elsewhere.
We need to elect a gov who gets that making things is what we need and set policies to do just that. We seem afraid of the activities to make things. We need to change and expect and elect a gov to help us lower cost of living and employing
The degree from a state university isn't going to look any different, if the student transferred from community college.
While you are correct that it will not look any different, there is a sound reason for the difference in prestige. The average state university graduation rate in six years (for a 120 credit bachelors degree) is about 45%. The average graduation rate for community colleges (for a 60 credit degree) within three years is about 14%. As a side note, the average graduation rate at private colleges is significantly higher than state schools, and the average rate at the best college is 85+ percent.
Parents and society view community college as inferior because historically students with more drive, focus, and academic acumen have started at better colleges and had a better rate of success. Also recruiting for the best post-college career track positions start with internships that companies recruit for at the end of sophomore year, so community college transfer start at a disadvantage. Very few companies recruit from community college campuses.
While you are correct that it will not look any different, there is a sound reason for the difference in prestige. The average state university graduation rate in six years (for a 120 credit bachelors degree) is about 45%. The average graduation rate for community colleges (for a 60 credit degree) within three years is about 14%. As a side note, the average graduation rate at private colleges is significantly higher than state schools, and the average rate at the best college is 85+ percent.
Parents and society view community college as inferior because historically students with more drive, focus, and academic acumen have started at better colleges and had a better rate of success. Also recruiting for the best post-college career track positions start with internships that companies recruit for at the end of sophomore year, so community college transfer start at a disadvantage. Very few companies recruit from community college campuses.
It's becoming increasingly common for even good students to take their first two years at a community college, for the simple reason that tuition is becoming so ridiculously expensive. Lots of smart kids can get full academic scholarships to state schools, but those scholarships are typically very difficult to keep. The point you make about getting an internship after your sophomore year at a four year state school is just about the only reason I can think of to take freshman and sophomore year at a four year university, but even that is a fairly weak reason - employers increasingly hire interns at community colleges, and there's nothing wrong with getting an internship after junior year.
I even know a hiring manager who sees anyone who didn't take their first two years at a community college (unless they had a full scholarship and managed to keep it) as someone who is financially irresponsible. In this increasingly competitive global economy, it's important to have employees that have an understanding of financial realities and are not throwing away money on ridiculous tuitions when they don't have to.
Kids these days should keep living with mom and dad as long as they can, and take their first two years at a community college, so they aren't wasting money on dorms (those are also insanely expensive, you'd think students would get to stay in a luxury hotel room every night for the price some of these dorms are) and massively inflated tuition. Far too many students these days do one of the following:
1) Go to a typical four years school straight out of college. They don't have the self discipline to succeed, so end up failing classes or dropping out, then are left with massive tuition they still have to pay, and even worse, drop out of school entirely because they are now broke.
2) Go to a typical four year school and actually graduate, then can't find a job at all, so are stuck with massive student loans and no job
3) Go to a typical four year school, actually graduate and actually find a job, but spend the next 10-15 years paying off the massive student loans they have accumulated
Times have changed. The traditional paradigm of a four year school to get a Bachelor's is becoming obsolete.
Yet company after company hires for cultural fit rather than competence, then they complain the person they hired isn't prepared for the job and has no work ethic. Yep, that's today's job world.
There's are many hard working and intelligent college grads out there as there are lazy college grads that barely made it through school and learned nothing. Sadly, most of the unemployed people I know are the hard working, honest, intelligent ones, whereas the lazy ones are the ones that get the job because of their ability to be a drinking buddy...
These days, you have to do research into which fields are actually hiring and paying well. There are still some, for sure. You can't just go to college and hope for the best. Most people in my generation did just that and that's why they're failing (well, besides being lazy and entitled lol).
You mean those liar no doc loans? People applied for them and without them their is nothing to bundle up. Sure it's all wall streets fault
Considering that Wall Street rated that junk "AAA" and stuffed it in people's retirement funds and then took a huge Bailout at the taxpayer's expense (that's still going on today to the tune of $85 billion a month), I'd say they are quite guilty. While the home buyers should not have lied on their loans, Wall Street should not have been offering liar loans, packaging the worthless paper and rating it AAA, nor receiving Bailouts when their scheme failed. The banking crooks cost this nation FAR more money than a bunch of lying mortgage applicants.
"How do they do that? Government only creates public sector jobs. Private sector jobs are entirely different."
Not exactly. Remember if it wasn't for contract laws the private sector would be totally different. It 30 or so ago that President Reagan made an executive order that anything the military produces can be sublicensed out for civilians. This happened after KAL 0700 was shot down. What's the big deal about that? Well GPS was shared and now it's common.
In the 1990's the government sold off cell phone spectrum and cell phones boomed. If they didn't sell it off they wouldn't have been authorized and thus it wouldn't exist.
Reguarding politics of the left and right consider this. Congress levies taxes and spending, NOT the president. Some people think as if the President can do anything. That is far from true. The issue right now is gridlock more than anything else. During the 1990's gridlock was good because it blocked spending and lowering taxes resulting in a surplus. Now we can't exactly afford that.
Can it be argued it does better under Democratic presidents? Depends on your metric. With Reagan unemployment dropped a bit but inflation dropped the most and energy really dropped. At the same point the deficit skyrocketed (largely thanks to Tip O'Neal). In the 1990's people can praise Clinton but it was largely Newt Gingrich that largely controlled the spending and the taxation. Meanwhile they sold off the cell phone spectrum and wall street went while pre Sarbanes Oxley. Most of the 1990's was a bubble. It was well beyond the dot coms. Back then companeis could fudge numbers more than a Hershey's factory. Now we tell the truth. Enron was a great performing company under Clinton. So was Worldcom, Adelphia etc. Stock market downturn of 2002 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Remember the Nasdaq peaked and dropped like a rock in 2000 and continued to do so while Bush was in office. The decline didn't start as Bush got in.
At the same point if we used the stock market as a barometer of the economy then we didn't *really* get out of the great depression after the crash of 1929 for another 25 years. It wasn't until 1954 that the stock market got back to where it was in 1929. So much for the new deal eh?
I think that there is way too much to be said about the national economy rather than on the state and local. It is much harder to try to get a national economy to improve. Look face the facts here the economies are totally different to attempt to judge them equally. Seasonality, labor trends, cost of living is totally different. It takes too long to make a real federal change. Work on state and local. It is much easier and frankly if everyone does it then it pretty much nullifies the reason to use federal to begin with. You'll find that much of the time on lower levels it is not political but issue based. Conservatives in Mass supported Cape Wind windfarms, liberals didn't. Meanwhile everyone pretty much support same sex marriage to the point where it's a non issue. State and local have to be fiscally responsible because they don't have the luxury of printing up currency.
Why hire a fresh grad who wants a decent salary and a life when you can import a h1-b who doesn't demand as high a salary and is practically an indentured servant who will work as hard and as long as you tell them to?
You've never hired an H-1B have you? Each year only 85k people are granted H-1B visas, and they all need employer sponsorship. To sponsor an H-1B visa, the employer has to prove that the salary paid to that person is at least the industry average and that the employer was not able to find American candidates for the position.
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.
