Post by: roo_ster on January 17, 2007, 11:14:57 AM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535
Quote
What's Wrong With Vocational School?
Too many Americans are going to college.
BY CHARLES MURRAY
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:01 a.m.
The topic yesterday was education and children in the lower half of the intelligence distribution. Today I turn to the upper half, people with IQs of 100 or higher. Today's simple truth is that far too many of them are going to four-year colleges.
Begin with those barely into the top half, those with average intelligence. To have an IQ of 100 means that a tough high-school course pushes you about as far as your academic talents will take you. If you are average in math ability, you may struggle with algebra and probably fail a calculus course. If you are average in verbal skills, you often misinterpret complex text and make errors in logic.
These are not devastating shortcomings. You are smart enough to engage in any of hundreds of occupations. You can acquire more knowledge if it is presented in a format commensurate with your intellectual skills. But a genuine college education in the arts and sciences begins where your skills leave off.
In engineering and most of the natural sciences, the demarcation between high-school material and college-level material is brutally obvious. If you cannot handle the math, you cannot pass the courses*. In the humanities and social sciences, the demarcation is fuzzier. It is possible for someone with an IQ of 100 to sit in the lectures of Economics 1, read the textbook, and write answers in an examination book. But students who cannot follow complex arguments accurately are not really learning economics. They are taking away a mishmash of half-understood information and outright misunderstandings that probably leave them under the illusion that they know something they do not. (A depressing research literature documents one's inability to recognize one's own incompetence.) Traditionally and properly understood, a four-year college education teaches advanced analytic skills and information at a level that exceeds the intellectual capacity of most people.
There is no magic point at which a genuine college-level education becomes an option, but anything below an IQ of 110 is problematic. If you want to do well, you should have an IQ of 115 or higher. Put another way, it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education. And yet more than 45% of recent high school graduates enroll in four-year colleges. Adjust that percentage to account for high-school dropouts, and more than 40% of all persons in their late teens are trying to go to a four-year college--enough people to absorb everyone down through an IQ of 104.
No data that I have been able to find tell us what proportion of those students really want four years of college-level courses, but it is safe to say that few people who are intellectually unqualified yearn for the experience, any more than someone who is athletically unqualified for a college varsity wants to have his shortcomings exposed at practice every day. They are in college to improve their chances of making a good living. What they really need is vocational training. But nobody will say so, because "vocational training" is second class. "College" is first class.
Large numbers of those who are intellectually qualified for college also do not yearn for four years of college-level courses. They go to college because their parents are paying for it and college is what children of their social class are supposed to do after they finish high school. They may have the ability to understand the material in Economics 1 but they do not want to. They, too, need to learn to make a living--and would do better in vocational training.
Combine those who are unqualified with those who are qualified but not interested, and some large proportion of students on today's college campuses--probably a majority of them--are looking for something that the four-year college was not designed to provide. Once there, they create a demand for practical courses, taught at an intellectual level that can be handled by someone with a mildly above-average IQ and/or mild motivation. The nation's colleges try to accommodate these new demands. But most of the practical specialties do not really require four years of training, and the best way to teach those specialties is not through a residential institution with the staff and infrastructure of a college**. It amounts to a system that tries to turn out televisions on an assembly line that also makes pottery. It can be done, but it's ridiculously inefficient.
Government policy contributes to the problem by making college scholarships and loans too easy to get, but its role is ancillary. The demand for college is market-driven, because a college degree does, in fact, open up access to jobs that are closed to people without one. The fault lies in the false premium that our culture has put on a college degree.
For a few occupations, a college degree still certifies a qualification. For example, employers appropriately treat a bachelor's degree in engineering as a requirement for hiring engineers***. But a bachelor's degree in a field such as sociology, psychology, economics, history or literature certifies nothing. It is a screening device for employers. The college you got into says a lot about your ability, and that you stuck it out for four years says something about your perseverance. But the degree itself does not qualify the graduate for anything. There are better, faster and more efficient ways for young people to acquire credentials to provide to employers.
The good news is that market-driven systems eventually adapt to reality, and signs of change are visible. One glimpse of the future is offered by the nation's two-year colleges.**** They are more honest than the four-year institutions about what their students want and provide courses that meet their needs more explicitly. Their time frame gives them a big advantage--two years is about right for learning many technical specialties, while four years is unnecessarily long.
Advances in technology are making the brick-and-mortar facility increasingly irrelevant. Research resources on the Internet will soon make the college library unnecessary. Lecture courses taught by first-rate professors are already available on CDs and DVDs for many subjects, and online methods to make courses interactive between professors and students are evolving. Advances in computer simulation are expanding the technical skills that can be taught without having to gather students together in a laboratory or shop. These and other developments are all still near the bottom of steep growth curves. The cost of effective training will fall for everyone who is willing to give up the trappings of a campus. As the cost of college continues to rise, the choice to give up those trappings will become easier.
A reality about the job market must eventually begin to affect the valuation of a college education: The spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen. Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason--the list goes on and on--is difficult, and it is a seller's market. Journeymen craftsmen routinely make incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master craftsmen can make six figures. They have work even in a soft economy. Their jobs cannot be outsourced to India. And the craftsman's job provides wonderful intrinsic rewards that come from mastery of a challenging skill that produces tangible results. How many white-collar jobs provide nearly as much satisfaction?
Even if forgoing college becomes economically attractive, the social cachet of a college degree remains. That will erode only when large numbers of high-status, high-income people do not have a college degree and don't care. The information technology industry is in the process of creating that class, with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as exemplars. It will expand for the most natural of reasons: A college education need be no more important for many high-tech occupations than it is for NBA basketball players or cabinetmakers. Walk into Microsoft or Google with evidence that you are a brilliant hacker, and the job interviewer is not going to fret if you lack a college transcript. The ability to present an employer with evidence that you are good at something, without benefit of a college degree, will continue to increase, and so will the number of skills to which that evidence can be attached. Every time that happens, the false premium attached to the college degree will diminish.
Most students find college life to be lots of fun (apart from the boring classroom stuff), and that alone will keep the four-year institution overstocked for a long time. But, rightly understood, college is appropriate for a small minority of young adults--perhaps even a minority of the people who have IQs high enough that they could do college-level work if they wished. People who go to college are not better or worse people than anyone else; they are merely different in certain interests and abilities. That is the way college should be seen. There is reason to hope that eventually it will be.
Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This is the second in a three-part series, concluding tomorrow.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Too many Americans are going to college.
BY CHARLES MURRAY
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:01 a.m.
The topic yesterday was education and children in the lower half of the intelligence distribution. Today I turn to the upper half, people with IQs of 100 or higher. Today's simple truth is that far too many of them are going to four-year colleges.
Begin with those barely into the top half, those with average intelligence. To have an IQ of 100 means that a tough high-school course pushes you about as far as your academic talents will take you. If you are average in math ability, you may struggle with algebra and probably fail a calculus course. If you are average in verbal skills, you often misinterpret complex text and make errors in logic.
These are not devastating shortcomings. You are smart enough to engage in any of hundreds of occupations. You can acquire more knowledge if it is presented in a format commensurate with your intellectual skills. But a genuine college education in the arts and sciences begins where your skills leave off.
In engineering and most of the natural sciences, the demarcation between high-school material and college-level material is brutally obvious. If you cannot handle the math, you cannot pass the courses*. In the humanities and social sciences, the demarcation is fuzzier. It is possible for someone with an IQ of 100 to sit in the lectures of Economics 1, read the textbook, and write answers in an examination book. But students who cannot follow complex arguments accurately are not really learning economics. They are taking away a mishmash of half-understood information and outright misunderstandings that probably leave them under the illusion that they know something they do not. (A depressing research literature documents one's inability to recognize one's own incompetence.) Traditionally and properly understood, a four-year college education teaches advanced analytic skills and information at a level that exceeds the intellectual capacity of most people.
There is no magic point at which a genuine college-level education becomes an option, but anything below an IQ of 110 is problematic. If you want to do well, you should have an IQ of 115 or higher. Put another way, it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education. And yet more than 45% of recent high school graduates enroll in four-year colleges. Adjust that percentage to account for high-school dropouts, and more than 40% of all persons in their late teens are trying to go to a four-year college--enough people to absorb everyone down through an IQ of 104.
No data that I have been able to find tell us what proportion of those students really want four years of college-level courses, but it is safe to say that few people who are intellectually unqualified yearn for the experience, any more than someone who is athletically unqualified for a college varsity wants to have his shortcomings exposed at practice every day. They are in college to improve their chances of making a good living. What they really need is vocational training. But nobody will say so, because "vocational training" is second class. "College" is first class.
Large numbers of those who are intellectually qualified for college also do not yearn for four years of college-level courses. They go to college because their parents are paying for it and college is what children of their social class are supposed to do after they finish high school. They may have the ability to understand the material in Economics 1 but they do not want to. They, too, need to learn to make a living--and would do better in vocational training.
Combine those who are unqualified with those who are qualified but not interested, and some large proportion of students on today's college campuses--probably a majority of them--are looking for something that the four-year college was not designed to provide. Once there, they create a demand for practical courses, taught at an intellectual level that can be handled by someone with a mildly above-average IQ and/or mild motivation. The nation's colleges try to accommodate these new demands. But most of the practical specialties do not really require four years of training, and the best way to teach those specialties is not through a residential institution with the staff and infrastructure of a college**. It amounts to a system that tries to turn out televisions on an assembly line that also makes pottery. It can be done, but it's ridiculously inefficient.
Government policy contributes to the problem by making college scholarships and loans too easy to get, but its role is ancillary. The demand for college is market-driven, because a college degree does, in fact, open up access to jobs that are closed to people without one. The fault lies in the false premium that our culture has put on a college degree.
For a few occupations, a college degree still certifies a qualification. For example, employers appropriately treat a bachelor's degree in engineering as a requirement for hiring engineers***. But a bachelor's degree in a field such as sociology, psychology, economics, history or literature certifies nothing. It is a screening device for employers. The college you got into says a lot about your ability, and that you stuck it out for four years says something about your perseverance. But the degree itself does not qualify the graduate for anything. There are better, faster and more efficient ways for young people to acquire credentials to provide to employers.
The good news is that market-driven systems eventually adapt to reality, and signs of change are visible. One glimpse of the future is offered by the nation's two-year colleges.**** They are more honest than the four-year institutions about what their students want and provide courses that meet their needs more explicitly. Their time frame gives them a big advantage--two years is about right for learning many technical specialties, while four years is unnecessarily long.
Advances in technology are making the brick-and-mortar facility increasingly irrelevant. Research resources on the Internet will soon make the college library unnecessary. Lecture courses taught by first-rate professors are already available on CDs and DVDs for many subjects, and online methods to make courses interactive between professors and students are evolving. Advances in computer simulation are expanding the technical skills that can be taught without having to gather students together in a laboratory or shop. These and other developments are all still near the bottom of steep growth curves. The cost of effective training will fall for everyone who is willing to give up the trappings of a campus. As the cost of college continues to rise, the choice to give up those trappings will become easier.
A reality about the job market must eventually begin to affect the valuation of a college education: The spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen. Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason--the list goes on and on--is difficult, and it is a seller's market. Journeymen craftsmen routinely make incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master craftsmen can make six figures. They have work even in a soft economy. Their jobs cannot be outsourced to India. And the craftsman's job provides wonderful intrinsic rewards that come from mastery of a challenging skill that produces tangible results. How many white-collar jobs provide nearly as much satisfaction?
Even if forgoing college becomes economically attractive, the social cachet of a college degree remains. That will erode only when large numbers of high-status, high-income people do not have a college degree and don't care. The information technology industry is in the process of creating that class, with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as exemplars. It will expand for the most natural of reasons: A college education need be no more important for many high-tech occupations than it is for NBA basketball players or cabinetmakers. Walk into Microsoft or Google with evidence that you are a brilliant hacker, and the job interviewer is not going to fret if you lack a college transcript. The ability to present an employer with evidence that you are good at something, without benefit of a college degree, will continue to increase, and so will the number of skills to which that evidence can be attached. Every time that happens, the false premium attached to the college degree will diminish.
Most students find college life to be lots of fun (apart from the boring classroom stuff), and that alone will keep the four-year institution overstocked for a long time. But, rightly understood, college is appropriate for a small minority of young adults--perhaps even a minority of the people who have IQs high enough that they could do college-level work if they wished. People who go to college are not better or worse people than anyone else; they are merely different in certain interests and abilities. That is the way college should be seen. There is reason to hope that eventually it will be.
Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This is the second in a three-part series, concluding tomorrow.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
* No freakin' joke. My graduating class of fellow Physics bacculaurates consisted of me...and me. There were quite a few others who had declared physics majors a couple years prior. The vast majority either dropped out of school or switched to something less rigorous. The running joke was that the Junior & Senior declared physics majors were not allowed to travel in the same conveyance, as a single car wreck or hand grenade could kill us all.
** We refer to the IT guys who went to college & got their 4 year degree or MS/Oracle/Cisco/whatever certification as "paper tigers." Such paper is no substitute for gettin' your hands dirty with the hardware & software.
*** Some make exceptions for the poor, benighted souls who majored in physics but have lotsa hands-on with their & their competitors' hardware, by way of Uncle Sam.
**** Yep, my wife, in looking for an occupation more family-friendly than corporate finance, has latched on to a RN (Registered Nurse) training/cert program at the local community college. The ROI (in time & especially $$$) for the students of the program is astounding. I can think of no other course of training & study that has such a high ROI. My step-mom did something similar, way back in the day. She is a RN "diploma nurse" who got her RN cert & a diploma, but not a degree.
Post by: zahc on January 17, 2007, 11:22:11 AM
Post by: roo_ster on January 17, 2007, 11:29:45 AM
*as someone currently taking quantum mechanics, I encounter this truth every day.
Have you reached the point where you ask yourself, "Maybe I ought to have majored in math before majoring in physics?" Physics is hard. Learning physics while simultaneously teaching yourself the math required for the physics is harder.
Post by: cosine on January 17, 2007, 11:35:12 AM
Post by: zahc on January 17, 2007, 11:43:16 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 17, 2007, 12:01:29 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on January 17, 2007, 12:08:22 PM
Brad
Post by: charby on January 17, 2007, 12:18:47 PM
Jobs that used to require a HS diploma now require a AA degree, AA degree jobs now require a BA/BA
-Charby
Post by: drewtam on January 17, 2007, 01:13:07 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with education inflation. A lot of jobs now require a BA or BS just to even be considered and these jobs really don't require a 4 year degree to work the position.
Jobs that used to require a HS diploma now require a AA degree, AA degree jobs now require a BA/BA
-Charby
Jobs that used to require a HS diploma now require a AA degree, AA degree jobs now require a BA/BA
-Charby
I think thats a major and real driving factor. Its not just students/young people who give vocational schools a stigma. But the manager who is doing the hiring that has an MBA, usually gives vocational schools a stigma.
Also add
1. college grads are statistically "smarter", wealthier, and honored in society
+ 2. correlation=causation
=
3. College education is a 'right' to every potential student, because everyone has a right to be smart and rich and honored
Drew
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 17, 2007, 01:20:37 PM
A typical private college education runs something like $100,000 in total. Skilfully invested for 4 years those hundred G's becomes 150 or 200 G's, at which point the interest earned upon that principle will roughly equal the increase in income your college degree would have afforded you. While you're waiting for that principle to grow, do something productive with your time: take an apprenticeship, backpack around in Europe, join the Peace Corps, join the Marine Corps. Don't waste that time in a mind-numbing "Institute of Higher Learning", get out into the world and actually learn something. You'll come out the backside with more money, more income, and far greater capacity for exploiting your life.
I've spent the better part of the past 7 years muddling my way through a college degree. Had I known back when I started how much it would cost in terms of money, effort, and time, I really doubt I would have proceeded this way.
Post by: Balog on January 17, 2007, 01:23:52 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 17, 2007, 01:27:19 PM
I think thats a major and real driving factor. Its not just students/young people who give vocational schools a stigma. But the manager who is doing the hiring that has an MBA, usually gives vocational schools a stigma.
Also add
1. college grads are statistically "smarter", wealthier, and honored in society
+ 2. correlation=causation
=
3. College education is a 'right' to every potential student, because everyone has a right to be smart and rich and honored
Drew
I agree and would add the following:
Before WW2 college was not common. Most people left school and went and got jobs. Of course, the skill level of the average high school grad was a lot higher than today: they could read, write reasonably well, and do math.
After WW2 the gov't came up with the GI Bill to keep people out of the workforce. Colleges expanded to accomodate all the GIs coming back. That expansion fueled demand for students because you can't just fire tenured professors. So gov't created a huge bunch of subsidies for middle class people as Pell Grants, loans, etc. Lower the price, you sell more. College became relatively cheap so more people went. You have more college grads now so employers can tighten their hiring requirements by insisting on degrees.
Kind of a vicious circle.
Post by: natedog on January 17, 2007, 01:57:22 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 17, 2007, 04:22:03 PM
Not enough chicks. Or beer.
natedog,
The girls in college don't want the "college boy" types, as a non-collegiate they are your natural prey.
Mommy's little angel doesn't want the middle class boys she grew up with, she's away from home and wants danger and excitement. They want the guys like athletes (who aren't really supposed to be in college) and the local firemen / construction worker / military / biker / cowboy / indian chief types.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on January 17, 2007, 04:27:28 PM
The youngest Incubus wants to go to one of the local jr. colleges (now community colleges- makes the kids feel better...you're going to a 'real college') and attend the automotive technology program. Used to be, they called it auto shop, but they gots them 'pooters in cars now. They tell him he can make a hunnert grand a year fixin' Toyoters an' Chevys. Trouble is, unless he gets in the program where he's sponsored by a major regional dealership, he'll have to do prerequisites such as mathematics, English, reading and such, as that's the curricula for the Associates program rather than the certificate program.
The Incubus isn't dumb, per se, just lazy and can't/doesn't read. He likes that spontaneous gratification fast-track.
He enrolled to his 'groundwork' classes last semester. Dropped 15 hours, and at the end he was still enrolled in 3 hours; a humanities class. Lives at home, doesn't work, all is provided for him. (Sounds familiar to me) I haven't seen a final grade from last semester.
Older Incubus bumped around in State college, commuinty college; decided he didn't like it. I suggested he check into EMT/firefighter programs, since he seems to be wired that way as far as his personality. To my surprise, he did. Attended and graduated from a local fire academy at the top of his class, worked for an ambulance transport service while working on his paramedic cert, then contracted through an agency to provide EMT services at the county jail. Last month he got hired on in one of the suburbs as an EMT/PM/firefighter.
I wish we had more of the European/German style of trade school available here. Apply to the school, test with them for aptitude, study while getting hands-on and become an apprentice. We've got friends who have 2 sons in Houston going through one of the (expensive) diesel technician schools. Both seem to be doing well and are committed to their studies. They should be out in the real world soon and have prospects of a good livelihood ahead of them that won't be subject to market fluctuations or economic vagarities.
Me? I have about 17 years of college. I only marginally work in any area in which I studied, but I use every one of the things I learned every day...except maybe that whole kayaking thing.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 17, 2007, 04:34:09 PM
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on January 17, 2007, 04:43:34 PM
They do like the bad boys who get their hands dirty.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: brimic on January 17, 2007, 05:03:34 PM
Quote
Put another way, it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education. And yet more than 45% of recent high school graduates enroll in four-year colleges.
I'm betting that about 2/3 of those who enter college never graduate- at least that was about the graduation rate at the university I attended.
Quote
For a few occupations, a college degree still certifies a qualification. For example, employers appropriately treat a bachelor's degree in engineering as a requirement for hiring engineers***. But a bachelor's degree in a field such as sociology, psychology, economics, history or literature certifies nothing.
Yeppers. In the places that I've worked, if you don't have a BS or MS in Chemistry or Biochemistry, your resume goes directly into the shredder. No offense to others here who may have a humanities or liberal arts degree, but people in my field have little respect for degrees that are not in physical sciences. A lot of the chemistry programs usually weed out the 'wannabes' in the first semester- they make the freshman chemistry courses so rediculously hard that you: A. have to be very intelligent or B. need to have perseverence or mental health issues to want to continue the major- I fall mostly into category B. At the end of your chemistry career at the University they throw a monster of a course at you called Physical Chemistry, some of of my colleagues still have nightmares about the class- I've turned to alcohol to drown those demons.
Post by: Antibubba on January 17, 2007, 10:24:34 PM
Quote
I think a lot of it has to do with education inflation. A lot of jobs now require a BA or BS just to even be considered and these jobs really don't require a 4 year degree to work the position.
Whereas in a trade, if you can't put it together there is no faking it. I have a BA in Philosophy, so trust me on this.
Post by: Bogie on January 17, 2007, 10:58:50 PM
Quote
Yeppers. In the places that I've worked, if you don't have a BS or MS in Chemistry or Biochemistry, your resume goes directly into the shredder.
Heh... Where I used to work, a lot of the researchers thought that I'd migrated into the communications end via a BA in one of the sciences.
It was in public relations. I just try to learn.
Post by: JonnyB on January 18, 2007, 05:36:49 AM
I'm employed as a telecomm guy - in house tech (the only one in the place) with about 2000 lines, 4 switches, VoIP, etc., and making around $60k with really decent bennies. In the mid-90's, at a former employer, I made about $70k, after starting in the mid-$20's in '87.
A niece has her PhD in chemistry, is 31 years old, working for a research facility in Southern California. She did her 'walk' for the degree about a year ago - about 12 years to get the degree! Her income? I thought you'd never ask. About $35k. She can't afford to live where she works. Luckily, she has a husband also working, so between the two, they can eke out a living. When she's 50, though, she may be making well North of $100k; we'll see.
jb
Post by: HankB on January 18, 2007, 05:55:58 AM
Quote from: jfruser
Learning physics while simultaneously teaching yourself the math required for the physics is harder.
This problem is exacerbated when the parallel math courses are taught by mathmatics professors.
Post by: Fudgieghost on January 18, 2007, 06:04:41 AM
I work with union teamsters and carpenters in NYC and the surrounding area. Most of those guys are in their forties---I don't see many young people coming into the field. But these guys make good money as they work alot of OT. But no young person wants to go into a trade today as it is looked down upon. All the soccer moms and dad want to brag about their children going to this or that Ivy league school.
One result of all this is that many middle and upper middle class people, especially younger people, never have much real interaction with working types. This creates a chasm between classes that, IMO, is not healthy for a community or nation. Also, I find many people, especially younger ones have no clue as to how the world works. One on level, that means they don't realize what it takes to do hard physical labor. This is no small thing. I think if a person has worked on a job, for a good amount of time, that is really HARD WORK, they get a better appreciation of people, work, and the world in general. Many young people today enjoy a cushy life while in school, go on to some white collar job . . . (don't get me wrong, they may work hard at their jobs, have pressure, etc., ) and never come to realize what it takes, say to install the carpeting in their offices, or install drywall, etc.
I don't know -----I just feel many people, (again, especially younger middle class types, esp. in the 'burbs) are in some basic ways removed from realities that would help them better appreciate the world in general--and give them a REAL understanding of diversity. "Diversity" doesn't mean people who look different from you but think the same.
My oldest son is very high functioning---he's gradutating from Cooper Union this spring with a mech. enginerrng degree, and hopes to go on to get his graduate degree from Columbia. His younger brother will be lucky if he gets into college. My wife and I both feel that, in a perfect world, he would skip college and go to a tech school, or apprentice to a trade, but the reality of life right now is that he may NEED to have, at least, a BA to get hired, even at a job where he probably won't use anything he studied. He plans on living in the area, which because of the cost of housing, you need to make a GOOD salary to afford to live, especially if you plan on having a family, and want your wife to look after the kids . . .That's another subject I could write a few pages about. . . Like I said, it's a club they force you to join.
Post by: roo_ster on January 18, 2007, 06:34:41 AM
I think a lot of it has to do with education inflation. A lot of jobs now require a BA or BS just to even be considered and these jobs really don't require a 4 year degree to work the position.
Jobs that used to require a HS diploma now require a AA degree, AA degree jobs now require a BA/BA
-Charby
Jobs that used to require a HS diploma now require a AA degree, AA degree jobs now require a BA/BA
-Charby
Here's a question that I would like to know the answer to:
Do companies who list a degree in anything (unspecified and employer really doesn't care what the major was) as a requirement have that requirement because
A. A degree in, say, Early Childhood Mass Pottery Health Science Communications, provides invaluable skills for whatever job position they are trying to fill
OR
B. They are forbidden from giving an intelligence test and weeding out the dullards. A 4 year degree being used as a proxy* for the intelligence test, giving the employer a way to weed out those who are functionally illiterate and lack the drive to accomplish long term goals.
* An expensive, inefficient, and blunt proxy, at that.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 18, 2007, 06:38:03 AM
Everyone wants their kid to have the best education they can provide, that's fundamental to human nature. Over the past few decades, the amount of money freely or cheaply available to spend on college has increased dramatically. Thus the ability to send all our little chilluns off to school, which used to be limited by cost, is now limited only by the our ability to convince an admissions office to accept 'em.
It used to be that people knew they had a limited amount to spend on educating their children, and therefore they'd evaluate which alternatives would provide the greatest value. But now that cost isn't a factor, everyone wants to go to the best cost-no-object school around. The same thing is happening in health care. Back when people had to pay for their own care directly, they wanted the best value they could get for their money. Now that most people pay for health care with insurance (i.e. someone else's money, or so it appears to th shortsighted), everyone wants the best care that that other person's money can buy.
Demand for seats in the best schools rises in proportion to the amount of college money available to families. Of course, with everyone bidding against each other for one of those seats, the schools know they can crank the tuition rates up sky high. Which in turn necessitates more financing, which causes demand to grow, which causes prices to rise more, which necessitates more financing...
The real culprits in all this are the do-gooders (ahemCongrssionalDemocratsAhem) who say that everyone should be given the best education money can buy, even if (especially if) they don't have the money to buy it. When they make that money available, all they do is increase the cost of education, thus making people dependent upon the providers to continue providing. It is very much like welfare.
The real winners in this game are the colleges. They know they can build up their campuses to accept as many new students as possible, dumb down the education to the point of meaninglessness, and all the while increase their tuition exponentially. As long as those do-gooders are out there, they know there will always be demand for seats in their schools. They're laughing all the way to the bank.
Post by: brimic on January 18, 2007, 06:38:12 AM
Quote
I work with union teamsters and carpenters in NYC and the surrounding area. Most of those guys are in their forties---I don't see many young people coming into the field. But these guys make good money as they work alot of OT. But no young person wants to go into a trade today as it is looked down upon. All the soccer moms and dad want to brag about their children going to this or that Ivy league school.
The Milwaukee Journal sentinel was reporting a few months ago the same thing. There are a lot of employers looking for Skilled labor in Milwaukee who can't fill their positions- especially welders. They have turned to recruiting at high schools- a welder can start out at around 35-40K per year and make 60+ k with a few years experience. The contractors who come in to do welding in places that I've worked, mostly welding and fabricating stainless tubing and header systems get $50+/hr. I wish someone would have told me about these jobs when I was a kid.
FWIW, when I was in highschool, I wanted to be a deisel mechanic, the guidance counselor strongly discouraged me from that career prospect- I should have never listened to him, my neighbor is a deisel/heavy equipment mechanic who makes big $$bucks, has some really fun tools, and drives a really nice semi-work rig.
Quote
One result of all this is that many middle and upper middle class people, especially younger people, never have much real interaction with working types. This creates a chasm between classes that, IMO, is not healthy for a community or nation. Also, I find many people, especially younger ones have no clue as to how the world works. One on level, that means they don't realize what it takes to do hard physical labor. This is no small thing. I think if a person has worked on a job, for a good amount of time, that is really HARD WORK, they get a better appreciation of people, work, and the world in general. Many young people today enjoy a cushy life while in school, go on to some white collar job . . . (don't get me wrong, they may work hard at their jobs, have pressure, etc., ) and never come to realize what it takes, say to install the carpeting in their offices, or install drywall, etc.
I don't know -----I just feel many people, (again, especially younger middle class types, esp. in the 'burbs) are in some basic ways removed from realities that would help them better appreciate the world in general--and give them a REAL understanding of diversity. "Diversity" doesn't mean people who look different from you but think the same.
I don't know -----I just feel many people, (again, especially younger middle class types, esp. in the 'burbs) are in some basic ways removed from realities that would help them better appreciate the world in general--and give them a REAL understanding of diversity. "Diversity" doesn't mean people who look different from you but think the same.
Probably, though in my area its a little different. I live in a exurb of Milwaukee, most of the people who live in my neighborhhood are either from rural areas that want nothing to do with Milwaukee and all of its crime and other problems but like the money thats available in the area, or are retired people. There really isn't any social differentiation between carpenters, scientists, house painters, bankers, salesmen, mechanics, truck drivers, or accountants.
Post by: El Tejon on January 18, 2007, 06:45:27 AM
Post by: roo_ster on January 18, 2007, 06:46:53 AM
My dad tried to push me & my sister into degrees that had a body of knowledge useful to employers, rather than a degree useful only as proof I went to college. He saw engineers and other hard-science/math types with management potential elevated further & faster than Business majors & the trend accelerated throughout his career, though he eventually found his niche from where he could amass some security and train employees that would be "his" people. When my dad retired he recommended and the company installed as his replacement a guy my dad had trained...a guy who had never been to college.
Quote from: Fudgieghost
I don't know -----I just feel many people, (again, especially younger middle class types, esp. in the 'burbs) are in some basic ways removed from realities that would help them better appreciate the world in general
Amen, brother! I sought out manual labor during breaks when I was in high school & college. I had to let my noodle cool down and work my back, instead. The Discovery Show "Dirty Jobs" has brings back memories of some jobs I did.Post by: MillCreek on January 18, 2007, 08:58:38 AM
Quote
At the end of your chemistry career at the University they throw a monster of a course at you called Physical Chemistry, some of of my colleagues still have nightmares about the class- I've turned to alcohol to drown those demons.
Mr. MillCreek is the proud possessor of a BS/MS in analytical chemistry from about 25 years ago. I still remember P Chem. Unfortunately, my chemistry knowledge is of very little use in my current profession of healthcare administration, but the MBA came in handy for that.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 18, 2007, 09:20:58 AM
Quote
At the end of your chemistry career at the University they throw a monster of a course at you called Physical Chemistry, some of of my colleagues still have nightmares about the class- I've turned to alcohol to drown those demons.
Mr. MillCreek is the proud possessor of a BS/MS in analytical chemistry from about 25 years ago. I still remember P Chem. Unfortunately, my chemistry knowledge is of very little use in my current profession of healthcare administration, but the MBA came in handy for that.
You're aware we've discovered all sorts of new chemicals and such since then? Your primitive alchemy no longer applies.
Post by: zahc on January 18, 2007, 11:50:45 AM
Quote
This problem is exacerbated when the parallel math courses are taught by mathmatics professors.
Ha. Story of my life.
Post by: Firethorn on January 18, 2007, 03:07:52 PM
Post by: MillCreek on January 18, 2007, 05:19:45 PM
Quote
You're aware we've discovered all sorts of new chemicals and such since then? Your primitive alchemy no longer applies.
Snort! I would be completely useless in a contemporary lab. I wrote my masters' thesis on the quantitative analysis of barbiturates in urine via GC/MS. And the best part is that I wrote the programs and controlled the lab instruments on an Apple IIc, the absolute height of computer instrument control at the time. And then there was the time that I spilled 250cc of urine right into the guts of the Apple. I quickly unplugged everything, rinsed it off with distilled water and put it into the vacuum drying chamber. It worked like a charm afterwards.
Post by: roo_ster on January 18, 2007, 05:43:55 PM
And then there was the time that I spilled 250cc of urine right into the guts of the Apple. I quickly unplugged everything, rinsed it off with distilled water and put it into the vacuum drying chamber. It worked like a charm afterwards.
That is so stinkin' cool. I have found that cheap Wal-mart food dehydrators can do a similar job for cell phones tossed in the drink.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on January 18, 2007, 06:12:51 PM
I have to agree with this assesment. Everwhere I turn I hear about shortages of skilled jobs that are normally taught by vocational schools. Electricians, Plumbers, welders, sheet metal workers, etc. Even auto mechanics.
Here in Texas we have plenty of unlicensed, uncertified illegal immigrants who drive the wage level down in the electrical, plumbing, roofing, plumbing and sheetrock trades. Can't hardly sling a chalupa without hitting one.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 18, 2007, 06:16:30 PM
In another, if the unlicensed are making code and passing inspections and their employers are still getting work (satisfied customers), it kind of makes you wonder why we have to pay for everyone on the job to be certified by some agency or another.
Post by: Firethorn on January 18, 2007, 07:25:01 PM
In one sense that's upsetting and unjust for the guys who are certified.
In another, if the unlicensed are making code and passing inspections and their employers are still getting work (satisfied customers), it kind of makes you wonder why we have to pay for everyone on the job to be certified by some agency or another.
In another, if the unlicensed are making code and passing inspections and their employers are still getting work (satisfied customers), it kind of makes you wonder why we have to pay for everyone on the job to be certified by some agency or another.
Because my brother, who's working as an electrician, has had to go into many homes that these unlicensed workers have installed stuff into and essentially rip everything out and start fresh.
Stuff like using too small wire, putting 1 circuit in when code/specifications/common sense call for two. I mean, they found a 20 amp kitchen circuit wired with 14 gauge, and the dryer hooked up with 12... The two circuit thing is for the kitchen, and it was a kitchen for a Latino family, which happen to love having family over and cooking using many crock pots, extra hot plates, etc...
They couldn't even reuse the wire because so much of it was scorched.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 18, 2007, 07:28:20 PM
bad on him.
Post by: Bogie on January 18, 2007, 10:41:38 PM
Then I took a few tests. ASVAB, college boards, etc...
Then when it became obvious that I hadn't cheated on 'em, and that the curve for the school just got horridly skewed, I was suddenly her star college prospect, so she couldn't get enough meeting time...
Post by: Firethorn on January 19, 2007, 01:51:35 AM
So the inspector missed it all?
bad on him.
bad on him.
Yep, there are suspicions that certain inspectors tend to have eye problems with the color green in his area.
Post by: Bogie on January 19, 2007, 03:51:10 AM
Never treated 'em as adversaries, and by the time we got through with one rehab, knew one guy pretty well. He shows up to sign off on some plumbing stuff, sees one problem. Rather than schedule another visit, basically just told us why it wouldn't work, etc., etc., and told us to fix it before we put up the rock... and he signed off on it.
Of course, we were already draining so we could cut it...
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 19, 2007, 10:05:27 AM
"Get it fixed" but here's your signed off inspection.
There's a couple others who show up late without calling and will nickle and dime you on stuff that's easier to fix right there than take the time to write up. They like those call-out fees I guess.
Post by: brimic on January 19, 2007, 11:08:38 AM
Quote
Stuff like using too small wire, putting 1 circuit in when code/specifications/common sense call for two. I mean, they found a 20 amp kitchen circuit wired with 14 gauge, and the dryer hooked up with 12...
I had a good one....
Washing machine died about 6 months back. I took the timer out and determined that it was the problem and installed a new one. Plugged washing machine back in, it ran for about 2 minutes, then stopped. I unplugged it, opened the panel to make sure the timer wasn't cooked, everything looked fine, plugged it back in and it ran again for about a minute then stopped again. Iwas also smelling burning plastic at this time. I shut the breaker off, took the receptacle plate off and found that a wire was off its terminal and barely touching it, and it had burned the body of the outlet. I removed the receptacle and instantly recognized it as a 15 amp receptacle, I double checked the circuit- yep a 20 AMP circuit.
I spent the rest of the afternoon inspecting each circuit in the house. I would have maybe let this one slide as an oversight by the inspector, but there have been a few other very serious and obvious issues that the inspector had missed before he signed off on the occupation permit. I had even called him on one issue a year after we moved in- we had an infestation of insects one fal, so I checked the foundation and found that there was no sill plate, but there was a rim joist that sat unevenly on the foundation that I could see 1/4" gaps of sunlight shining through. He told me that was acceptable when the house was built a year before but they had just changed the standards (what good are standards when you can ramrod through inspections of a 250 house subdivision at a few thou a piece?) and there is nothing I could do about it.
I should mention that I'm finishing my basement right now and had calculated how much it would have cost me to pull permits for everything- it would have been in excess of $600. They charge something like $0.50/receptacle as well- for that amount of money I would expect the inspector to have looked over the wiring very carefully before signing off on it. They even require a $30 permit to install a water softener! Of course I'm not going to invite this money grubbing government retard into my house to inspect anything.
Post by: DrAmazon on January 20, 2007, 11:16:15 AM
1. I agree that not every student who is accepted at college belongs there. I worry about the lack of options for students who at one time would have gone into the skilled trades and the lack of qualified workforce for many of the skilled trades.
2. There are things that college courses can teach (and that college students can learn) that are somewhat intangible and will not necessarially be used on a daily basis on a job. While I have a BS in biochemistry, I find myself using things I learned in linguistics, comparative arts, english and history as I go through my life. Many of these are the skills that I work to reinforce in my classes. Learning to read critically, apply problem solving strategies, write and speak clearly and correctly, work independently, work in groups, meet deadlines, use internet resources efficiently and critically, interpret directions and prepare work according to directions are all skills that are gained by SUCCESSFUL students as they make their way through college. My former students may never again be able to tell me the electron configuration of gold, but when they read the latest junk science article on Yahoo and think to take notice of who funded the study, I've done my job.
3. Many of the skills that we take for granted because we either learned them during the high school years (or we think we learned them then) are not getting in during high school. Many of our middle and upper-middle class teens lead highly programmed lives. Their parents have managed their time and schedules since birth. When they arrive on campus, they have truly no idea how to prioritize tasks or manage time. Many of these kids would be an absolute disaster in the workforce. College serves as a time to live life on their own-but with a net. There's also other adult skills that some of them learn, including managing their finances, dealing with people of very different backgrounds and opinions (roommate wars anyone?) and for many, taking responsibility for their actions for the first time.
Just a few thoughts...
Post by: doczinn on January 20, 2007, 03:22:08 PM
Unlearning literature
By Elizabeth Kantor | November 30, 2006
IT'S OFFICIAL: You spend tens of thousands of dollars to send your children to college. In return, the colleges turn out graduates who are more ignorant than when they enrolled.
According to a recent survey by the University of Connecticut and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute of more than 14,000 randomly selected college freshman and seniors at 50 colleges across the country, seniors actually know less about American history and government than entering freshmen.
But students don't just learn (or unlearn, as the case may be) facts in college. They also learn attitudes and principles. In other words, they form their characters, which, Aristotle pointed out more than 2,000 years ago, means learning to love and delight in certain things and spurn others. For example, American students used to learn more from the Gettysburg Address than just the facts of Civil War military history. They also learned to love self-government -- and its necessary condition, the courage and sacrifice of the patriotic soldier.
But too many of today's politically correct college professors aren't interested in persuading young Americans to adopt any such traditional attitudes as patriotism, civic responsibility, or traditional morality. In fact, many American colleges seem to be teaching students to spurn the very things that students used to learn to love and delight in.
Universities are full of trendy English professors who don't read Shakespeare for the beauty of the poetry or its peerless insights into human nature. The point is to uncover the oppression that's supposed to define Western culture: the racism, "patriarchy," and imperialism that must lurk beneath the surface of everything written by those "dead white males." (The latest book from University of Pennsylvania professor emerita Phyllis Rackin, for example, investigates how "Macbeth" contributed to the "domestication of women.") With their low opinion of Western civilization, it's no wonder that so many English professors teach material that isn't English literature at all: Marx and Derrida -- and even comic books, politically correct bestsellers from the '80s, foreign films, and pornography -- rather than Shakespeare and Jane Austen.
To a lot of professors, Western culture is something students need to be liberated from. It is not something to pass on and preserve.
What a pity. Especially now, when we're under attack from enemies who want to replace our civilization with a very different kind of culture.
Western culture isn't in our genes. It's learned. And despite what the typical 21st-century college professor may believe, Western civilization has conferred enormous benefits on the human race: extraordinary freedom and respect for women, workable self-government, freedom of speech and the press.
If students actually studied the classics of English and American literature under the guidance of sympathetic teachers, they'd learn many other politically incorrect truths as well. From "Beowulf," students could learn that military virtue is both necessary and noble. In Chaucer, they might come to understand chivalry, and see how it changed the position of women. In Shakespeare, students could glimpse the existence of universal underlying patterns that shape and define human character (as well as all our institutions, from marriage to government). From Milton, they could learn about the origins -- in Christian theology, not in anti religious Enlightenment thought -- of our intellectual freedoms. From Jane Austen, they might pick up insights into the real perennial problems between men and women, which have very little to do with an excess of "patriarchy." From Dickens, they could learn about the risks of unintended consequences and the costs of revolutionary expedience.
Some of these lessons are characteristically Western. Others -- respect for military virtue, for example -- are typical of almost any healthy culture. But English professors are detached not just from the heritage of the West but in a sense from culture at all, or even from objective reality. "Essentialist" is the term of abuse that feminists and "queer theorists" apply to anyone who suggests that the stubborn facts of nature -- the differences between men and women, for example -- limit or define human beings in any way.
These are the folks we've entrusted with the formation of young people's minds and the preservation of our culture. Isn't it time we reconsidered whether we can trust them with the job?
Elizabeth Kantor is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature."
Post by: Stand_watie on January 20, 2007, 09:02:35 PM
Quote
In one sense that's upsetting and unjust for the guys who are certified...In another, if the unlicensed are making code and passing inspections and their employers are still getting work (satisfied customers), it kind of makes you wonder why we have to pay for everyone on the job to be certified by some agency or another.
Quote
...Stuff like using too small wire, putting 1 circuit in when code/specifications/common sense call for two. I mean, they found a 20 amp kitchen circuit wired with 14 gauge, and the dryer hooked up with 12... The two circuit thing is for the kitchen, and it was a kitchen for a Latino family, which happen to love having family over and cooking using many crock pots, extra hot plates, etc...
In my opinion an awful lot of the problem with illegal immigrants is in their illegality itself. In the examples above, without a black market illegal immigrant economy, that would be a lot less prevalant, and legal mexican immigrants would be making better wages working as apprentice electricians being supervised by a (hypothetically) qualified electrician.
This came up in a work conversation today.
We had a contractor die of a heart attack at our plant some years ago.
In the case of this guy, he probably died because his crew was too frightened to call 911. It was some time after he keeled over and stopped breathing before the people from the conctract work crew's home office called us, and asked for help, to send someone out to do CPR until the medical rescue unit got there, probably 10 or so minutes at least. I'm not an MD, but I suspect an immediate 911 call would have vastly improved his odds. We have a fire station with paramedics within 2 minutes drive of the plant.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 21, 2007, 12:47:19 PM
Quote
They tell him he can make a hunnert grand a year fixin' Toyoters an' Chevys.
Holy cow! Where? My Daddy's been fixin' GM's his whole borned life, and never made that kind of cash. He's already certified and experienced. Where should I send him for such lucrative employment?
Post by: Stand_watie on January 21, 2007, 07:56:50 PM
Quote from: MechAg94
...I am plant engineer and can at least look around and see project that I did or was a part of. Sometimes you hear an operator or maintenance guy say something positive about something you helped install or improve. It makes your whole day.
The comment is that it seems to me that the engineering professional school is the nexus of vocational and professional education. We have, if I recall correctly, three engineers for our plant, which only has about 35 full time/benefits employees. They all seem to have plenty of work to keep on top of. I for one, would gladly give up a dollar an hour of my pay, to have a "dial an engineer" service (not just any engineer, it would have to be a service that had engineers of every different stripe available, sorted by technical specialty, at least a dozen or twenty different specialties for my job in particular) that I could call at any time and ask a question like "if I increase the gravity of my liquor, with the temp at xyz and the humidity at abc, will it increase or decrease my fines production and what will that do to my bulk density?" or "is circuit abc hot when switch xyz is open?", or "will opening steam valve xyz affect steam valve abc's pressure?"
My question for you is, in your plant, what is your ratio of engineers to "maintenance" (an unfair term in today's manufacturing world as the term "maintenance" has been watered down to describe "cleaning" or "housekeeping" personell as "maintenence" and to "operators" (the guys that are actually producing the product)?
At my plant it is 3 engineers to 7 maintenence (understaffed by about 3 in my opinion) to 22 operators. Just curious.
Quote from: zahc
link=topic=5673.msg86238#msg86238 date=1169068931]
*as someone currently taking quantum mechanics, I encounter this truth every day.
*as someone currently taking quantum mechanics, I encounter this truth every day.
I've heard lots of times of quantum physics. I even know what it is. It is that math thing, that is 3 steps beyond what my mind is capable of grasping. I know that basic algebra is very hard. I know that advanced algebra is (what was I saying now?...lost it in the fog...) too hard for me. Geometry isn't too bad, because it puts figures into words which are much easier to understand. Trig and calculus are harder, physics is harder than that, and quantum physics is up there in the Einstein levels of hardness (all but basic algebra and geometry are beyond my ability).
Mechanics now, I have a basic understanding of (IE, I can pull and re-install a pre-1978 engine/transmission). Quantum mechanics I don't know, but it sounds interesting. If it's possible to give a two or three paragraph overview of what quantum mechanics is, that I can understand, I'd love to hear it. Based upon my description of my math ability (above) if quantum mechanics is beyond my comprehension (in your opinion) say so, and I'll save my brain cells for that which I'm likelier to understand.