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.
1) process a large amount of complex information in any given subject, evaluate it/critically analyze it, put in in context, make it useful or valuable somehow (add value) [STEM, arts, and humanities classes]
2) be able to "read between the lines" of said information or communication they receive - related to the critical analysis piece.* [Arts & humanities classes]
3) independently complete complicated, multi-faceted projects or accomplish tasks without constant direction [STEM, arts, & humanities classes]
4) work with a diverse group of people successfully & be able to recognize & adapt to cultural differences [Arts & humanities classes]
5) communicate intelligently in writing and speaking in your native language & at least mediocre competency in another language [Arts, humanities classes]
6) demonstrate quantitative literacy; be able to solve quantitative problems [STEM classes]
It's funny how many people today only want to focus on #6... as if they will never have to deal with another human in their life, or interpret what another human communicates to them. *This is why subjects like literature are important. Often what people communicate on the surface is not what they actually mean. An educated person should be able to figure that out, and one way you practice that skill is by analyzing literature.
See how a liberal, well-rounded education is supposed to work? An educated person should be able to learn how to do almost anything & work with almost anyone. They should be able to do it given enough time and on their own through self-study. College is supposed to train & teach you to do these things. Odds are if you have a college degree on your resume, it's more likely you can do those things than with just high school alone.
If a university does not do those things it should shut down. And we have people here that don't think humanities education should exist.
This society may have to go through a painful period of figuring that out again. For the last 10 years, my company has been deliberately getting rid of those liberal arts business analysts who know how to communicate, figuring that all they really need are super-intelligent-but-totally-noncommunicative coders. My wife is one of the few remaining communications pros who can also talk tech, and she's retiring in another year or so (I'm also one, but I'm just out now).
I taught American Literature to a 17 year old in high school. He had a second grade reading level. His mother asked why he was failing and blamed me for his poor performance. She stated he would be going to a local college. I suggested he look into enrolling in Regional Occupational Program Courses (the trades). She and the principal told me I was "unprofessional". I retired because the contemporary attitude is that everybody in high school was going to get a college degree. Is going to college that easy today? A college degree used to mean something.
Sooner or later the government needs to come up with public policy that is good for most people.
Having the best and brightest people in our country go to college is absolutely what's good for most people. It's the top 20% that are going to come up with the top medical & technological advancements that are going to drastically improve the lives of the bottom 80%.
There is a widely held misconception that all of California is made up of crazy wealthy tech entrepreneurs, but there’s quite a bit of economic diversity across the state. LA, SD, and SF do not the state make.
CA also probably has 5-10 times the population of the other states above it on that list. The top 20 percent of Californians is almost double the size of the entire population of Colorado.
In order to really get an idea it would be better to see the spread of those median earnings per state and see what each quintile is. I would be fairly sure somewhere like Delaware is going to have a much narrower range than CA.
Since the early 1980s, only about 6% of the labor force maxes out their Social Security contribution. $130k. Nobody is entitled to a 6 figure salary. You need the work ethic. You need the capability for critical thought. You need the job skills and knowledge. You need the high performance track record. 6% of Millenials will be successful like that just like 6% of Boomers were. What I see is a massive sense of entertainment. Most people don’t get that kind of compensation. They’re not smart enough to have the capability for critical thought that pays so well. Even if they have that ability, they may not have the work ethic to get the job skills and track record to justify that kind of compensation. I see lots of very average people with mostly useless college degrees and big student debt who won’t ever see that kind of compensation but feel entitled to it.
Having the best and brightest people in our country go to college is absolutely what's good for most people. It's the top 20% that are going to come up with the top medical & technological advancements that are going to drastically improve the lives of the bottom 80%.
Pareto Principle.
Sure, there is no problem with having the best and brightest go to college. Making sure the best and brightest can get to college would be part of a good public policy.
Part of the problem of current public policy is urging everyone to go to college, and pressing people into college who are not by any means prepared. Not only does that create unnecessary debt (which is a drag on the economy), but it also waters down high school college prep curriculum and pulls away resources in colleges that could be put to better use.
S I see lots of very average people with mostly useless college degrees and big student debt who won’t ever see that kind of compensation but feel entitled to it.
It has been inculcated into their brains all their lives by all their adult counselors that all they need is that piece of paper--any degree, any way they can get it, for any price--and they are supposed to get it.
Kodak is always presented as the poster child, but Kodak's situation wasn't so simple. Kodak was a specialized brick-and-mortar manufacturing company that was unique in several ways, such as having a division of blind people adept at working in the dark with light-sensitive material.
In order to shift fully to digital production, Kodak would have had to build out an entirely different manufacturing company that would have been "Kodak" only in name and executive management--similar to what happened to Polaroid.
So what ultimately happened to Kodak is what would have happened anyway for all the ordinary working people involved. There was no way to avoid screwing them.
Kodak had one of this country's best R & D team at one time. They were largely free to design away. They were always creating cutting edge technology.
If you read up on the history of Kodak it explains their foolishness in not embracing digital technology. There were two schools of thought...film and photographic chemicals and the digital industry. The CEO that was chosen decided to go back to Kodaks roots and maintain their loyalty to film and photographic chemicals. The rest is history. The R & D team was virtually reduced to nothing.
Again if you have time to read about their history you can see so many miss-steps.
It seems we have gotten way off the path on this topic.
From inferior business models that failed to embrace technology and innovation, we have gravitated to High School Guidance Counselors not preparing their students for the future.
These young adults aren't going to be manipulated into what Madison Avenue believes they should be purchasing. This millennial market is like a wild bucking bull as far as tastes and spending habits. We Baby Boomers were pretty chill...……..
Since the early 1980s, only about 6% of the labor force maxes out their Social Security contribution. $130k. Nobody is entitled to a 6 figure salary. You need the work ethic. You need the capability for critical thought. You need the job skills and knowledge. You need the high performance track record. 6% of Millenials will be successful like that just like 6% of Boomers were. What I see is a massive sense of entertainment. Most people don’t get that kind of compensation. They’re not smart enough to have the capability for critical thought that pays so well. Even if they have that ability, they may not have the work ethic to get the job skills and track record to justify that kind of compensation. I see lots of very average people with mostly useless college degrees and big student debt who won’t ever see that kind of compensation but feel entitled to it.
There are a lot of them in certain industries, finance, tech/telecom, defense, and healthcare. All of them are heavily subsidized by the government and the resulting worker shortage creates a low standard for acceptance into the fields.
Get a high level security clearance. It is essentially a lifetime job guarantee. A lot of the jobs pay 150 to 300K, especially after Congress mandated those jobs be outsourced. People making 75K in the government saw their salaries instantly double in the early 2000's. They were paying a cook in a cafeteria at a nearby office building nearly 200K.
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.
