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'm not sure how we went from automated cars to the purpose and value of college education, but I'll throw in my brief analysis of the issue: it's pretty clear that, where employers are concerned and with the exception of specific advanced skill sets, college has become little more than a credentials factory and a third-party gatekeeper for employers who would very likely run afoul of discrimination laws if they engaged in said gatekeeping themselves.
you sure have that right: Our granddaughter who btw is very bright and did go to college on almost a full ride, ended up graduating and taking a job as a receptionist first (job market) then she got a much better job, but still feels what she was doing could be done by anyone with any offiec skills. Now, she has decided to go back and become a dental hygenist. I think part of the reason, she wants a job that requires real skills and not something anyone who can answer the phone and use a computer can do.
Oh, that isn't the only reason she wants to be a hygenist, but I do know she thinks her 4 year college education was wasted and does think too many people are in college that don't belong there.
Thinking about it, I got an MBA but went to a six month computer course to get a better job. There should, in an ideal world, be a difference between having an education to better yourself as a person and having job training. Years back people went to college to be well rounded. I graduated with various business majors, but would have dearly loved and appreciated furthering my knowledge in history, science, and the arts.
Alas, our world is driven by business and only the wealthy anymore can fully explore their humanity. Colleges, I regret, are turning into glorified vocational schools. The humanities departments are dwindling from lack of students because most kids are not willing to go into such debt with no hope of getting a job later.
I do agree that a lot of people in college have no business being there, but that is in MY ideal of college. Many are just not scholastically inclined. Schools in the US are a business and bend with the times.
I actually agree with Wilson on this. I went to a very well regarded university and when I think about what I do and see the people around me that I work with, the collective thought is that our educations are somewhat wasted, especially those of us who went to top tier schools. Not that the endeavor wasn't entirely worthwhile in terms of personal growth, but in terms of job skills it is.
I work in the transportation field and see every day the immense need for skilled mechanics, especially in the diesel world. Still though, no one, especially the education system, outright encourages their kids to go to technical schools even if they have an aptitude and desire to do it. College is seen as the "proper and better" course even if the legions of liberal arts majors we produce at our universities are lucky to get a job making $30k a year when they graduate. The guy wearing the grease covered shop uniform that people see as "uneducated" is probably making 2-3 times what the average college grad is making, yet that's not a "good career choice".
I look at how the system works in Europe and they equally encourage skilled trades as well as college. In the US, we put forward only one path that is deemed "succesful" and that is college. I would actually say we have too many going to college these days and it's encouraged because college is first and foremost a business. The entire "college education" in order to land a job has also been propagated by the HR folks at companies, they are generally the ones who earned their philosophy degree and then realized it didn't relate to anything practical in the corporate world. The irony is that so many companies now requiring BA's just for entry-level workers often have executives and owners that never stepped foot in a college.
Look at books like the "Millionaire Next Door" and it becomes painfully obvious that the path to true "success" in America is often tied to skill trades and otherwise blue collar industries. There are more millionaire plumbers, roofers, mechanics and janitors then there are millionaire investment bankers.
I just think we are doing our kids a disservice by only offering them one means in order for them to be succesful. The basic fact is that the most growth oriented and succesful industries over the next 20 years are going to be in skilled trades and healthcare.
I agree with most of what you've said here, except for the highlighted information. Is that what the book said? To what is that attributed? I would think the best way to increase your wealth is in investments of some sort, and it takes knowledge and experience to do that. People who are tradesmen may make a pretty buck (though in today's economy that is changing) but I am not sure about how smart they are in growing it.
I agree with most of what you've said here, except for the highlighted information. Is that what the book said? To what is that attributed? I would think the best way to increase your wealth is in investments of some sort, and it takes knowledge and experience to do that. People who are tradesmen may make a pretty buck (though in today's economy that is changing) but I am not sure about how smart they are in growing it.
I just saw this post since the thread was bumped up. Yes, that was indeed a fact highlighted in the book. In general people in those skilled professions are also small business owners and that is how they become the "Millionaires Next Door". The guy who owns a roofing company, a plumbing company, a janitorial services company, etc. are the ones that actually achieve the "American Dream" so to speak. They often start out at the very lowest positions, learn their trade and then strike out on their own. The general point of the book was that there are more millionaires (by number) in "blue collar" fields then there are in "white collar" fields.
The book goes on to explain an interesting phenomenon among those people is how they raise their kids. Most of the "millionaires" went to average to poor schools and earned their way into their positions with hardwork and sacrifice. The vast majority never went to college. However, their children are often sent to the best private schools they can find. They attend the best universities and then graduate into some form of "white collar" field like banking or pursue a general interest on mom and dad's money. The irony being that the children of these millionaires will most likely never achieve the level of success (if we are to measure success in terms of wealth) that their parents did.
The moral of the story is that you have a better chance of becoming wealthy by learning a trade and opening a roofing, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc. business then you do by going to an Ivy League school and entering the corporate business world. A good chunk of the book is basically devoted to this counter-intuitive, yet statistically based fact and the irony that the self made millionaires often seek a much different path for their own children.
I just saw this post since the thread was bumped up. Yes, that was indeed a fact highlighted in the book. In general people in those skilled professions are also small business owners and that is how they become the "Millionaires Next Door". The guy who owns a roofing company, a plumbing company, a janitorial services company, etc. are the ones that actually achieve the "American Dream" so to speak. They often start out at the very lowest positions, learn their trade and then strike out on their own. The general point of the book was that there are more millionaires (by number) in "blue collar" fields then there are in "white collar" fields.
The book goes on to explain an interesting phenomenon among those people is how they raise their kids. Most of the "millionaires" went to average to poor schools and earned their way into their positions with hardwork and sacrifice. The vast majority never went to college. However, their children are often sent to the best private schools they can find. They attend the best universities and then graduate into some form of "white collar" field like banking or pursue a general interest on mom and dad's money. The irony being that the children of these millionaires will most likely never achieve the level of success (if we are to measure success in terms of wealth) that their parents did.
The moral of the story is that you have a better chance of becoming wealthy by learning a trade and opening a roofing, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc. business then you do by going to an Ivy League school and entering the corporate business world. A good chunk of the book is basically devoted to this counter-intuitive, yet statistically based fact and the irony that the self made millionaires often seek a much different path for their own children.
Thank you.
I guess this is one reasons why there are not as many female millionaires, since most of those positions are not ones in which a woman would typically be qualified. I am considering whether a lot of women in a predicament where they cannot attend college might be fortune hunters? That was just speculation.
My experience is that when people get a solid college education their salaries are greater and so are their expectations of lifestyle. These people probably have a greater opportunity of being millionaires, by investing, but most opt for immediate satisfaction rather than saving and investing.
It is amazing, how many people with good salaries know so little about budgeting and investing. You rarely get rich by parking your money in banks.
Even those hard working and smart blue collar types whom you refer to, I doubt if they just make it and bank it. Maybe they investing in housing when the market was good. Maybe they had a talent for developing business and branched out.
The 'self made' was not only working hard on their part, I'm sure.
DROVER,
Thanks for that video. It was interesting to watch. I am now thinking of city driving, with cars and bicycles darting in and out, and you having to signal to move three one way lanes over in heavy traffic in time to make a left hand turn onto a side street.
Last edited by goldengrain; 03-31-2012 at 09:19 AM..
DROVER,
Thanks for that video. It was interesting to watch. I am now thinking of city driving, with cars and bicycles darting in and out, and you having to signal to move three one way lanes over in heavy traffic in time to make a left hand turn onto a side street.
Systems like this are obviously most useful for highway driving. Even so, you can override the system any time you want/need to.
Systems like this are obviously most useful for highway driving. Even so, you can override the system any time you want/need to.
Oh, so I cannot yet get rid of my car and driver? Darn!
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.
