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 you're going to see an extremely dynamic work force in the years to come. What I mean is that the new norm will be to work at a company for a couple years and then move on to the next one. Unless you're with a great company that is going to offer you tons of career growth opportunities, there's absolutely no incentive to stay with a company any more than 2-3 years. The only way to better yourself is to jump from job to job. Perhaps this concept isn't as new as I think it is, but I see it as becoming a steady trend.
This already happened for the past 10 years at least.
The REAL new norm is that companies are more and more switching to "contract" employees that they don't have to give benefits and can dump at will without worrying about unemployment insurance.
I know several engineers and people in IT to whom this already happened -layed off and the ONLY jobs in their fields are contract, and salaries at half of previous industry norms.
Last I heard, this was also being done to business analyst positions.
Companies are trying to cut costs and maintain flexibility -that starts with employees.
Loyalty on both sides went out the door. Problem is that work sucks when you constantly have to look 2 steps ahead and over your shoulder for the knife too.
As a side note, I'm actually surprised this thread has got bumped up since I posted this so long ago.
Anyways, I couldn't agree with you more. Rep for you.
Here is my proposed solution:
It should be required by law for schools (public and private) to provide free financial advising to all students who wish to use it. I'm not talking about the current BS system they currently have in place. Now, you have a bunch of moronic "Financial Aid Officers" who do nothing but push loans down your throat. There's no advice given whatsoever. All they care about is $$$.
In addition, I think you're going to see an extremely dynamic work force in the years to come. What I mean is that the new norm will be to work at a company for a couple years and then move on to the next one. Unless you're with a great company that is going to offer you tons of career growth opportunities, there's absolutely no incentive to stay with a company any more than 2-3 years. The only way to better yourself is to jump from job to job. Perhaps this concept isn't as new as I think it is, but I see it as becoming a steady trend.
Mcb-- you are definitely young to the workplace. As another poster pointed out, the job hopping from company to company has been happening ever since I entered the work force in 1997.
The primary reason why I stay at my own company (and I fortunately like my job) is because of vesting for both my 401k and some of the variable comp performance plans that I receive (I have to stay in order to get the award vested for a certain period of time). The other reason is that in the span of time that I have been with my company I have been able to be promoted, achieve higher compensation, etc. I am not in a rush to leave now. (For what it is worth, I came to my company approx 4 years ago making less than 30k WITH several years of professional experience. My total comp last year was just shy of 70k--- so remember that 25k job may very well turn into something more worthwhile at certain companies.).
For most of my coworkers, they all wait for that vesting period to be complete-- then they begin to look for new jobs (although in this environment I do not know many who are actively seeking new employment).
If you take 12 hours in the fall and spring, also summer terms, you should be able to finish school in 3 years or less. If you're really a hustler, you can take 15 hours combined wtih 2 courses in the summer terms and be done in 2 years; that's what I did but with me it took 4 years because I took undergrad and grad courses simultaneously.
It should be required by law for schools (public and private) to provide free financial advising to all students who wish to use it. I'm not talking about the current BS system they currently have in place. Now, you have a bunch of moronic "Financial Aid Officers" who do nothing but push loans down your throat. There's no advice given whatsoever. All they care about is $$$.
.
As a former moronic financial aid officer, I had to respond. If Financial Aid Officers only cared about $, trust me, they would not be in Financial Aid!
Also, at the school I worked at, we gave individual debt management sessions to each student, and we were not allowed to give financial planning advice because we were not qualified or licensed to do so (although sometimes we gave options and suggested that when the time comes they see a financial planner).
I do agree that financial planning should be provided in general though.
Hope this is not too off topic.....
Last edited by Reneeme; 02-03-2010 at 08:36 PM..
Reason: another error!
As a former moronic financial aid officer, I had to respond. If Financial Aid Officers only cared about $, trust me, they would not be in Financial Aid!
I'm not talking about the money you make, silly. I'm talking about the money that is brought into the school. Anytime I've sat down with a FA Advisor, they did nothing but push loans...and they pushed them hard. Where I'm from (Michigan) the state cut out a lot of money for grants and such from the budget. Thus, I was limited to private and federal loans at approx. a 60%-40% distribution.
If you take 12 hours in the fall and spring, also summer terms, you should be able to finish school in 3 years or less. If you're really a hustler, you can take 15 hours combined wtih 2 courses in the summer terms and be done in 2 years; that's what I did but with me it took 4 years because I took undergrad and grad courses simultaneously.
Many colleges do not allow this- mine in particular. I am graduating in 3 and a half years (one of my semesters abroad didn't count) and that was the BARE minimum to graduate. Summers do not count. I took 5 to 6 classes a semester (recommended at my school is 4) and worked part time jobs and internships. 4 months out of graduation and I have *no* leads whatsoever.
I think I, like many people my age, was naive in thinking that hard work would pay off. Hard work has always gotten me what I want. It got me a scholarship to an all expenses paid summer scholars program in Miami in high school. It got me into my top tier, very competitive university with an almost full scholarship. It got me a double major, double minor at that university in 3 1/2 years with summers free to study abroad or do internships. This work ethic also got me a very high responsibility internship the previous semester.
At some point, hard work fails. My family doesn't have connections and while I believe I am pleasant, I am not one of those magically charismatic people. Unfortunately, I wasn't thinking about "hard skills" when I graduated from high school. My college has maybe one "practical" major (computer science)- no business, no MIS, no accounting, no vocational anything. I am cramming in GIS at the end of my college career just to have at least one skill on my resume.
I'm watching all of my friends flock straight to grad school, but I'm graduating with no debt and do not want to add that on to get a degree that is necessary for my field- though my field has limited job openings.
Graduating from college has always been a hard time. Now, however, I am burdened with no only not being able to return home unemployed but also really needing to find a way to help support my unemployed father and underemployed mother. So many of us are in this position now.
To the poster who said the government should stop giving loans, the problem is not the loans themselves, it's the conditions attached. If the government gives some kid a loan to go to med school and then requires him to go practice in some underrepresented part of the country or gives it to someone who wants to be a teacher and then agrees to teach in a poor neighborhood with few teachers, that's fine. But if all they do is give him a loan so he can get a degree in some useless major, then it's only making things worse.
The problem now is that the job market essentially requires you to have a college degree. Even med schools require it. In other countries, you can start med school straight out of high school. But not here. And why? Personally, I don't care if my doctor never learned about sociology or took a class in Shakespeare. And look at most white-collar jobs. They too expect some kind of a degree. Many even require advanced degrees. I bet if you were to ask one of these employers why the degree matters, they'd be at a loss to answer. Maybe in specialized areas like accounting, what you're learning is directly applicable to a job in accounting. But when it comes to most liberal arts degrees, the concentrations rarely make it obvious what their real-life applications are.
When I was a senior in high school, I was accepted into two top universities. But one was 3 times the cost of the other. Even though it was my first choice, I didn't see the point in spending that much money on a liberal arts degree. When I graduated, I had very little debt. Even though my first job didn't pay a lot, I made paying off my debt my top priority. In less than a year, I was debt-free. After that, I let the job market dictate things. In my field, experience counts more than education. I thought about getting an MBA, but I didn't really see the point. After only 7 years, my salary had gone up 50%. The MBA wasn't going to bump my salary a lot and it would take years to recoup that investment. That's why I roll my eyes when I see people running back to school. They pile on more debt, miss out on productive working years, and then discover the market thinks they're overqualified. But they get the degree(s) because they think they have to or just to hide out from a bad job market.
I remember in the 2004 presidential debates, Bush said the solution to people who've lost their jobs due to outsourcing was "more education." Try telling that to someone with a bachelor's, a master's, a mortgage, and two teenager in or close to starting college. Education may the answer for many who are out of work, but colleges need to do a better job preparing people for the market, not wasting their time in classes that have no real-life applications.
Education may the answer for many who are out of work, but colleges need to do a better job preparing people for the market, not wasting their time in classes that have no real-life applications.
That's why I seethe when I see people proclaim that going to college is about "expanding one's mind" or "becoming more well-rounded". All of that stuff is fine and dandy, but it doesn't pay the ****ing bills. 99% of people go to college to get a piece of paper which will enable them to get a good job that pays decent money so they can actually get somewhere in life. It is a financial investment for the vast majority of us. I do not enjoy writing essays and getting into groups to talk about **** I don't care about. I'm going to go back to college so I can get a damned job and not have to work at McDonald's.
Out in the real world nobody cares that I like Dostoyevsky or that I can recognize a Monet painting. Nobody cares if I can endlessly pontificate on Sartre. People only care if you can provide them with a good or a service which makes their life easier or funner. That's our economy in a nutshell folks.
That's why I seethe when I see people proclaim that going to college is about "expanding one's mind" or "becoming more well-rounded". All of that stuff is fine and dandy, but it doesn't pay the ****ing bills. 99% of people go to college to get a piece of paper which will enable them to get a good job that pays decent money so they can actually get somewhere in life. It is a financial investment for the vast majority of us. I do not enjoy writing essays and getting into groups to talk about **** I don't care about. I'm going to go back to college so I can get a damned job and not have to work at McDonald's.
Out in the real world nobody cares that I like Dostoyevsky or that I can recognize a Monet painting. Nobody cares if I can endlessly pontificate on Sartre. People only care if you can provide them with a good or a service which makes their life easier or funner. That's our economy in a nutshell folks.
Those assignments that you aren't so fond of aren't as useless as you're making them out to be, at least in my opinion.
For example, you mentioned not liking to get into groups to talk about **** you don't care about. If you didn't participate in these discussions, that's just less experience you have at presenting ideas on the spot, in front of a group of your peers. Essentially, you're forced to learn how to articulate your ideas in a public forum. Are you arguing that this type of skill is worthless in the workplace?
Writing those worthless papers often times requires that you do extensive research on a particular topic and then articulate your findings in an efficient, comprehensive format. Would you argue that this type of skill is worthless in the workplace?
I think you're right about one thing. Most people could care less about how you feel about a Monet painting (unless you're in the Art dealing business, of course). But you need to think outside the box. Your education should be more than just remembering sometimes useless (often times forgotten) facts. Think in terms of the skills you developed. If you want to argue that people don't develop these skills, have at it. I won't waste my time rebutting such an argument. I'm just basing my statements off of what I believe my education provided me.
On a side note, it's great if you can design a sweet Excel spreadsheet or PowerPoint presentation or have some other "hard" skills. Yet, if you can't also present that material in an articulate manner, I personally don't see much value in that.
I'm not talking about the money you make, silly. I'm talking about the money that is brought into the school. Anytime I've sat down with a FA Advisor, they did nothing but push loans...and they pushed them hard. Where I'm from (Michigan) the state cut out a lot of money for grants and such from the budget. Thus, I was limited to private and federal loans at approx. a 60%-40% distribution.
Hi, I realized that's what you meant after I posted . I was reacting to what you called Financial Aid Counselors.
I know there are probably schools that push loans, however, it is most likely just what the Financial Aid Counselors are up against at that school, as opposed to the personalities of the Counselors themselves. The school I worked at was not like that (it was a graduate/professional school).
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.
. I was reacting to what you called Financial Aid Counselors.
