Antipathy Toward College Educated (associate degree, doctors, grade, bachelor)

[pathrunner]

Another thing haters need to understand is that a LIBERAL ARTS degree did not mean left-leaning. It meant lots of different classes in different subjects.

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by kj1065

This might interest you. My family has an acquaintance who is a Realtor making in the high six-figure annual income. She has a Bachelor's in Economics and a Master's in Marketing. I don't think she regrets her education.

Good for her. I also know happy, productive people who went to college. I just know many happy productive people who didn't. One isn't automatically better than the other, IMHO.

I also spent 10 years working in social services during a time when people could stay on welfare without working as long as they were enrolled in college, so I have seen a LOT of useless time waster degrees. Unfortunately, I am sure many of them were also saddled with huge loans when they got done, and they were nearly thirty with no job skills.

Lots of paths for good or ill in this world! - Not just one.

[M3 Mitch]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

I'm seeing another twist in this issue of degrees. My employer of 2,200 has actually eliminated the degree requirement for some of the lower level jobs ($50k-75k range) to make our employment "more inclusive." Since that move I have hired 3 people, two of them did have degrees anyway, the 3rd did not, but had 4 years of good experience. Unfortunately, she will be hitting a dead end in the promotional ladder when a future step does require it.

Or you could proactively point this out and encourage her to start in on or finish her degree. Most better employers will at least help an employee finish their college education.

[M3 Mitch]

Originally Posted by sheena12

+ 1. For some reason the US is an anti-intellectual country. I find it sad.

Indeed. Richard Hofstadter wrote "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" back in 1963. I have it, and having read about half of it I bogged down, which is apparently not a rare outcome. I need to get back at it and finish though.

One of the things I found very refreshing about Russian culture is there is no strain of anti-intellectualism there, people all around, not just at the institutes, were very positive towards me learning to speak their relatively difficult language, my curiosity at and appreciation of their culture. They thought it was cool that I had read Master and Margarita in the original, along with many of Victor Pelevin's books.

[kj1065]

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

Indeed. Richard Hofstadter wrote "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" back in 1963. I have it, and having read about half of it I bogged down, which is apparently not a rare outcome. I need to get back at it and finish though.

One of the things I found very refreshing about Russian culture is there is no strain of anti-intellectualism there, people all around, not just at the institutes, were very positive towards me learning to speak their relatively difficult language, my curiosity at and appreciation of their culture. They thought it was cool that I had read Master and Margarita in the original, along with many of Victor Pelevin's books.

I have that book in my to-read pile right now.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by RamenAddict

I don’t know. A lot of people don’t ever go to school with the intent of using their degree. ...

We have to recall, that from the very beginning of what we call the university, around 1200 AD, up through around 1850 or even 1900, the university "trained" students for one of only five things:

1. The clergy.
2. The law.
3. The royal bureaucracy.
4. Medicine.
5. Just being a clever gentleman.

The liberal arts were for (5), or as preparation for the other four. Students learned the 7 liberal arts, with lots of Latin and Greek, mostly so that they could be witty at garden-parties, at Court, or at the fox-hunt.

Let's be blunt: prior to the past 120 or 150 years or so, college was only for the sons of the aristocracy. That's it! And if you were an aristocrat, by definition you had no reason to work, save for entertainment or prestige... and hence no reason to seek a degree that teaches "skills".

The problem that we have now, and that we've had for 100+ years, is that too many non-aristocrats are going to college!

Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook

I think there is a real, growing realization that college is all too often not a place where people learn good life skills...

The sort of college that teaches life-skills or career-skills, is a more glorified trade school. The whole point of college historically was to cultivate abstract learning, for learning’s sake. It wasn’t about getting a better job, or earning more money, or starting one’s own business.

Originally Posted by kj1065

When people wax on about the earning potential of the trades, welding in particular, I have to laugh because it appears that many people do not understand that high-earning welders have degrees, ...

Nor do they realize that the higher-earning tradesmen are mostly successful business-owners. They made their money not because they’re awesome with a MIG and a TIG, but because they have savvy for how to attract and retain customers, who to manage cash-flow, how to hire and mentor employees, how to delegate to said employees, and so on. They got into the craft by way of trade-education and apprenticeship, but they rose by essentially becoming the street-smart alternative to an MBA.

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

Indeed. Richard Hofstadter wrote "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" back in 1963. ...

One of the things I found very refreshing about Russian culture is there is no strain of anti-intellectualism there...

It's more broadly a distinction between Anglo-America and Continental Europe. On the continent, going to college, followed by a career in something like the civil-service, is venerated as being upstanding and prestigious. In America, and its often-disregarded cultural motherland, England, what's venerated is a plucky venturing into business for oneself, with formal education as a sideshow. What you note about Russia is quite true, but it's just as true in France, for example, or lands of the former Habsburg empire.

[sheena12]

Originally Posted by pathrunner

Another thing haters need to understand is that a LIBERAL ARTS degree did not mean left-leaning. It meant lots of different classes in different subjects.

Really? People actually think that this references politically liberal? It mean "broad, generous, inclusive. covering many subjects." The opposite of "narrow".

Wow that sounds scary.

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

The problem that we have now, and that we've had for 100+ years, is that too many non-aristocrats are going to college!

The sort of college that teaches life-skills or career-skills, is a more glorified trade school. The whole point of college historically was to cultivate abstract learning, for learning’s sake. It wasn’t about getting a better job, or earning more money, or starting one’s own business.

Well, then we can stop subsidizing it. If it's just about thinking deep thoughts and navel-gazing, give it back to the aristocrats. You're certainly not making the case for its value to general society.

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by sheena12

Really? People actually think that this references politically liberal? It mean "broad, generous, inclusive. covering many subjects." The opposite of "narrow".

Wow that sounds scary.

I'm not sure anyone *here* is confused about that. It may be a straw man.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by pathrunner

Another thing haters need to understand is that a LIBERAL ARTS degree did not mean left-leaning. It meant lots of different classes in different subjects.

Why is it so many like to toss out the term "haters" whenever someone holds a differing opinion. Over the years I've been pretty much called that by both sides of the argument. Yet I see, and argue for, the value of the trades and Vo-Tech training in school. As well as see, and argue for, the value of college education.

Originally Posted by sheena12

Really? People actually think that this references politically liberal? It mean "broad, generous, inclusive. covering many subjects." The opposite of "narrow".

Wow that sounds scary.

While there are those who do think that, more often than not, I think that statement gets tossed into the discussion as a way of shutting down dissenting opinions. IE, "if you disagree with A, then you must be X and are therefore <insert appropriate derogatory term here.>"

Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook

Well, then we can stop subsidizing it. If it's just about thinking deep thoughts and navel-gazing, give it back to the aristocrats. You're certainly not making the case for its value to general society.

It seems to me the difficult thing about explaining the value in a college education is that those who understand the value don't need it explained. And no amount of explanation is sufficient to those who don't. Reminds me of a discussion about the value of GPS in the Gulf War years ago. Supposedly someone said "We don't need to be wasting money on all those GPS satellites. All I need is this?" As he held up the GPS receiver that depended on those satellites to provide the information he saw.