Magazine article: Better Off Without College

[MarkT]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/whats-college-good-for/546590/

[Guest]

I haven’t read the article yet, and I will in a minute, but here’s my knee-jerk reaction from past experience: IME, this is ALWAYS said by someone who themselves HAS at least one college degree. Because I spent the better part of my adulthood with no college degree, and even now have only an Associate’s, I think I am qualified to say college is better than no college.

 

Now, hopefully, my knee-jerk reply will not cause my feet to end up in my mouth...

[Catwoman]

I haven’t read the article yet, and I will in a minute, but here’s my knee-jerk reaction from past experience: IME, this is ALWAYS said by someone who themselves HAS at least one college degree. Because I spent the better part of my adulthood with no college degree, and even now have only an Associate’s, I think I am qualified to say college is better than no college.

 

Now, hopefully, my knee-jerk reply will not cause my feet to end up in my mouth...

Because you were wondering... apparently the author has a doctorate from Princeton. :D

 

Your knee-jerk reaction may not be very far off... ;)

Edited December 10, 2017 by Catwoman

[Mimm]

MY kneejerk reaction to the headline alone :

The World Might Be Better Off Without College for Everyone

 

Yeah, I agree. EVERYONE doesn't need to go to college.

 

[Zebra]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/whats-college-good-for/546590/

 

 

Really interesting article.   It made some very good points.

[gardenmom5]

It depends upon the degree, it depends upon the trade.

there are a LOT of worthless degrees that won't get you a job that pays squat - there are also degrees that will get you a job you can love, and you're making six figures out the door.  (I have a nephew who did that straight out of college with a bs.)

 

I've done a lot research for "good paying jobs that don't require college."  and a lot of those "don't require college jobs" - are jobs that DO require certified technical training, and a minimum of an AA/AS - (which is a college degree.)   it's the very very rare one of those, that will make you over six figures, even with experience.

[regentrude]

A grumpy old man complaining about today's young people. Yeah. The article did not make a great impression on me. 

 

I’m cynical about students. The vast majority are philistines. I’m cynical about teachers. The vast majority are uninspiring. I’m cynical about “decidersâ€â€”the school officials who control what students study. The vast majority think they’ve done their job as long as students comply.

Those who search their memory will find noble exceptions to these sad rules. I have known plenty of eager students and passionate educators, and a few wise deciders. Still, my 40 years in the education industry leave no doubt that they are hopelessly outnumbered. 

 

Not my experience.I would say the majority of my students wants to study, and most of my fellow college instructors are passionate about teaching.

 

 Fifty years ago, college was a full-time job. The typical student spent 40 hours a week in class or studying. Effort has since collapsed across the board. “Full time†college students now average 27 hours of academic work a week—including just 14 hours spent studying.

 

These students would not survive the first semester at the public STEM university where I teach.

 

The problem is that he is lumping together all colleges and all majors. 

 

Would I advise an academically well-prepared 18-year-old to skip college because she won’t learn much of value? Absolutely not. Studying irrelevancies for the next four years will impress future employers and raise her income potential.

 

I just hope he appreciates the computer he uses, the software that's on the computer, the cars he drives, the bridges and buildings, his cell phone, his medical care... because all of these have been developed by people who "studied irrelevancies" in college. 

Edited December 10, 2017 by regentrude

[Meriwether]

I agree 100% with his last two paragraphs.

[KungFuPanda]

My reaction to the headline was “That doesn’t exist.†Then I read it. Ugh. Why use two paragraphs when twenty will do. I’m thinking the guy was going for blog hits or something. He had a few interesting thoughts, was a bit too much “kids these days,†and was mostly annoying.

[Guest]

Ok, so now I have read the article and, at least at the start, he says just exactly what I assumed he would when I put up my first post. I stand by my statement that EVERY time I hear this said, it is said by someone who got their degree (at least a bachelor’s) directly out of high school, and often from some bougie school up north. The person saying it is always coming from the comfortable position of never having lived as one of the plebes, with no degree, presumed to be a knucklehead and not worth much for pay. The person saying it is never someone who scratched out an existence from a working class family.

 

Also, college is not merely job training and pay is not the only important outcome. IME, college graduates are much more likely to pay attention to worthwhile things, read and access brain-growing information, be more involved socially and in community, and be better able to help others. In the article, he asks what a student would need history for -umm, really? Today’s events are tomorrow’s history. Reading literature and learning languages, music, art -these things create new neural connections. They grow one’s brain. They create better capacity for learning more and knowling more. It evolves society.

 

I am also a cynical idealist. But if I’m cynical about people, how would NOT putting learning opportunities before them possibly help?

 

The one place I find some agreement is when he says college for all is not a good goal, and I agree that it dilutes credentials. This is one reason why I am dubious about the benefit of tuition-free community college for all. I worry that that just becomes Grades 13 and 14.

 

However, trades are not automatically a great fit for every kid who has a rough time of academics. And I have said this before and will say it again, a lot of people do not understand how physically demanding and strenuous trade work often is. My husband is a tradesman and so are some of my BILs. It is hard work that trashes your knees, hips, back, skin, hearing and possibly other things, like lungs and eyes. It sort of infuriates me that people think turning to trades is an automatic answer anytime a student struggles with academics. There are other aspects of trade work, too, that I think is not optimal for society as a whole.

 

If touting college-for-all is not a good goal for society, neither is dissuading students from college or telling parents kids probably don’t need it. In reality, I pretty much think all kids who are able to attend college should, in one way or another; i.e., it could be CC, it could be part time, it could even be mostly or fully online, but it should be something most every kid who *can* go to college tries, IMO. And I say all that with a hih school senior who does not have a clear-cut path and I am not sure where his paths will lead. But I’m not going to start him off by saying, “Oh, yeah, might as well skip college.†Nope. I know what it is like to have no degree.

[PrincessMommy]

I haven’t read the article yet, and I will in a minute, but here’s my knee-jerk reaction from past experience: IME, this is ALWAYS said by someone who themselves HAS at least one college degree. Because I spent the better part of my adulthood with no college degree, and even now have only an Associate’s, I think I am qualified to say college is better than no college.

 

Now, hopefully, my knee-jerk reply will not cause my feet to end up in my mouth...

 

 

I have a similar situation, except I'm still working on my AA.  I agree with Quill.

 

But, I do think that there are many instances where college is wasted on the young, but OTOH - I don't want my adult kids living with (or off) me forever.  

[Liz CA]

I haven’t read the article yet, and I will in a minute, but here’s my knee-jerk reaction from past experience: IME, this is ALWAYS said by someone who themselves HAS at least one college degree. Because I spent the better part of my adulthood with no college degree, and even now have only an Associate’s, I think I am qualified to say college is better than no college.

 

Now, hopefully, my knee-jerk reply will not cause my feet to end up in my mouth...

 

 

Well spotted....see Cat's post. I too would say a degree may be better than none unless it is in underwater basket weaving...and no - not everyone needs one to be successful as many people have proven.

 

 

Because you were wondering... apparently the author has a doctorate from Princeton. :D

 

Your knee-jerk reaction may not be very far off... ;)

 

 

....where he evidently spent years learning irrelevancies. :)

[kroe1]

Love reading this stuff when I am in the middle of paying $30,000 a year for my last one to go through college.

 

But, DD17 knows quite a few gamers in the 6 figure range without degrees. She averages around $50 an hour playing games. It definitely crossed our minds to let her keep making money instead of college. But, there is an intangible benefit to college. Now, when I call her, she engages in scholarly discussions of world events, something she never even wanted to think about as a high school student.

[MarkT]

I think he makes some good points - certainly didn't across to me as a grumpy old man - I'm the grumpy old man these days with all that is happening in Washington and elsewhere

I certainly believe that the article is "biased" towards four year college students not in "trade" type programs.

I agree with Quill that not everyone belongs in the trades either.

 

But there ARE a lot of folks getting into a large student debt without a long term plan.

 

The author

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan

 

[G5052]

Always interesting to read student reviews of professors who write opinion pieces: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=27455.

 

I'll note that my own ratemyprofessor reviews are all over the map too, but there are some interesting comments on his.

[Zebra]

You guys are right, he's coming from a funny position saying you don't need college.

 

But, I feel like I read a completely different article from many of you.

 

What I got out of the article is there is a monetary benefit from earning a college degree, but it's the "signal" employers get from you having a college degree that creates the benefit.  IE you finished college therefore you will be a good worker.   Not, you gained the skills necessary for this job in college.

 

Not all cases, but far too many college graduates have no real world skills.  They have a piece of paper and a pile of debt.   

 

Which is why I think we need to move away from the "go away and live at a college for 4 years and have a bunch of debt at the end" model and towards a mix of things.   Apprenticeships, on the job training, classes while you work in your field.  Companies and industries need to create their own colleges.  

 

 

I agree with Quill that everyone going into trades isn't something to romanticize either.  Now the pendulum will just swing too far the other way.   

 

The 4 year model isn't always the wrong path, but making it free still doesn't make it right for everyone.    

[gardenmom5]

  I stand by my statement that EVERY time I hear this said, it is said by someone who got their degree (at least a bachelor’s) directly out of high school, and often from some bougie school up north. The person saying it is always coming from the comfortable position of never having lived as one of the plebes, with no degree, presumed to be a knucklehead and not worth much for pay. The person saying it is never someone who scratched out an existence from a working class family.

 

Also, college is not merely job training and pay is not the only important outcome. IME, college graduates are much more likely to pay attention to worthwhile things, read and access brain-growing information, be more involved socially and in community, and be better able to help others. In the article, he asks what a student would need history for -umm, really? Today’s events are tomorrow’s history. Reading literature and learning languages, music, art -these things create new neural connections. They grow one’s brain. They create better capacity for learning more and knowling more. It evolves society.

 

I am also a cynical idealist. But if I’m cynical about people, how would NOT putting learning opportunities before them possibly help?

 

The one place I find some agreement is when he says college for all is not a good goal, and I agree that it dilutes credentials. This is one reason why I am dubious about the benefit of tuition-free community college for all. I worry that that just becomes Grades 13 and 14.

 

 

 

:iagree:

this is also why it always bothered me when mothers would say things like "I did four years of college for this?". . . .  And why I''m a snob.  I want my grandchildren to have an educated mother.  I think it makes for a mother who can more readily give their children the brain stimulation they need to go and be successful.  I told my daughters - even if they never worked a day, college for them was worth it.  (and they don't have kids . . . . maybe one day.)

 

I also agree with the free CC - it will almost immediately become grades 13 & 14.

[goldberry]

^{I am opposed to taking on tremendous debt without reality supporting that the debt can be repaid.  I am opposed to pushing all kids into college regardless of what they desire in life or what they are ready for, although I am in favor of helping all kids to understand they need a realistic plan to support themselves, which could be a trade or other route.  I absolutely agree 100% with Quill that college does have other benefits besides pay and job security in how it shapes brains by encouraging growth and learning.  I don't call that irrelevant at all.}  

 

 

 

[Guest]

You guys are right, he's coming from a funny position saying you don't need college.

 

But, I feel like I read a completely different article from many of you.

 

What I got out of the article is there is a monetary benefit from earning a college degree, but it's the "signal" employers get from you having a college degree that creates the benefit. IE you finished college therefore you will be a good worker. Not, you gained the skills necessary for this job in college.

 

Not all cases, but far too many college graduates have no real world skills. They have a piece of paper and a pile of debt.

 

Which is why I think we need to move away from the "go away and live at a college for 4 years and have a bunch of debt at the end" model and towards a mix of things. Apprenticeships, on the job training, classes while you work in your field. Companies and industries need to create their own colleges.

 

 

I agree with Quill that everyone going into trades isn't something to romanticize either. Now the pendulum will just swing too far the other way.

 

The 4 year model isn't always the wrong path, but making it free still doesn't make it right for everyone.

Yes, but that signal is not a worthless measure for an employer, either. You know what is difficult about being a contractor? Trying to hire competent employees in a field where people do not need any kind of college. Sorry for how sterotypical this will sound, but a lot of the population that would never go to college and therefore tries to get work as a plumber’s helper are not desirable employees. We have hired many people with substance abuse problems. One ended up in prison. A few have been functionally illiterate. Many came from severely troubled backgrounds. In only a couple cases were they “diamonds in the rough†who really just needed a dang break to rise from their past.

 

So, yeah, if an employer can say, “we need a bachelor’s for any job here,†even if it’s working as a file clerk, there is a reason for that. An employer can make a basic assumption that a college degree means you at least have your act together enough to complete a program of instruction for four years. We don’t have the luxury of being able to require that because no college graduate wants to dig sewer and water trenches for $10/hour. So we have to look for employees among people with no college, which means we take our chances with people who may not have gone to college because they could not have met the basic requirements there anyway.

 

Sorry this sounds classist. I am from poor background myself and I am grateful someone took a chance on me with no degree. But that isn’t what I have typically seen in plumbing and construction.

[Crimson Wife]

 

Also, college is not merely job training and pay is not the only important outcome. IME, college graduates are much more likely to pay attention to worthwhile things, read and access brain-growing information, be more involved socially and in community, and be better able to help others. In the article, he asks what a student would need history for -umm, really? Today’s events are tomorrow’s history. Reading literature and learning languages, music, art -these things create new neural connections. They grow one’s brain. They create better capacity for learning more and knowling more. It evolves society.

 

I think you've got the causality backwards. I would argue that people who pay attention to worthwhile things, read, are civically active, etc. are more likely to desire to attend college in young adulthood and put in the effort required to graduate. I bet just by measuring these traits at 15 one could predict with a fair degree of accuracy which teens would earn a college degree by 25. Obviously not perfectly since there are plenty of smart people who don't have a degree for various reasons.

 

The famous "marshmallow" test in young childhood actually did a fairly good job at predicting adult educational outcomes.

 

[creekland]

I think I'm going to skip the article and figure it's the same old, same old based upon what I've read in this thread.  It could be a good time to repost this though:

 

 

https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

 

I'll let it speak for itself.

 

My kids were all academically capable of college and knew that was our minimum goal for their education - not 12th grade.  I don't care if they use their degrees or not.  They will have them (as of this May when my youngest graduates) and no one can take it away from them.  They've also loved their time and shared some terrific experiences with us.

 

No regrets.

 

I respect that college isn't for everyone and never try to convince every student at school to head that direction, but for those who can and do a decent job, odds are it will pay off.

 

I NEVER advocate for high debt.  That's a completely different issue IMO.  Some debt - average debt - usually works out just fine for the typical student.

[Ausmumof3]

I think it's important to place a distinction between which social model works best as a whole and what works best for individuals in our society as it is.

 

I do see some drawbacks to the extended study and delayed work model of adulthood we have now. Plenty of kids that started working young in our social circle saved, bought a house and got a financial start that helps with having kids etc. I feel that the current model doesn't reflect biological reality (best child bearing years are in the 20s so having a secure home base by then is optimal though not necessary).

 

However within the reality of society as it is a degree probably is better.

 

I also think my view is influenced by the fact that in our circles growing up there was a somewhat negative view toward university. The result is there are a lot of pretty intelligent people who didn't go but still spend a lot of time reading and self educating. And I've also met college graduates that probably never picked up a book from the day they finished.

[Scarlett]

^{I am opposed to taking on tremendous debt without reality supporting that the debt can be repaid. I am opposed to pushing all kids into college regardless of what they desire in life or what they are ready for, although I am in favor of helping all kids to understand they need a realistic plan to support themselves, which could be a trade or other route. I absolutely agree 100% with Quill that college does have other benefits besides pay and job security in how it shapes brains by encouraging growth and learning. I don't call that irrelevant at all.}

This. The whole movement of educational debt being good debt needs to be reevaluated. I mean, I am not hard nosed about it...maybe a person needs to borrow a bit to finish up a degree that looks like it will offer a decent job....but be realistic.

[TravelingChris]

First of all, I know for certain that people are hiring because of signalling.  I also know for certain that getting an X degree can mean a lot or nothing at all.  Haven't we all met people with PhDs who are hardly able to function in society in general? Also, am I the only one who has met doctorate degree recipients who are innummerate and/or barely literate?  There are institutions and institutions.  There are athletes getting degrees (at many schools) and others getting degrees (I personally witnessed fellow graduate assistates basically  doing coursework for basketball students-- it was a great thing that I was assigned as a helper to a prof rather than as the basketball tutor because I would have refused to do their work no matter what the outcome-- oh and the school got probation some time later for other recruiting infractions).  

 

I can't really speak to lessening of curriculum because I went to a high school that had a fairly rigorous curriculum and last I checked still seemed to have that.  I am not for shoving everyone into college.  I like what other countries tend to do which is have differing ways to educate their young and sometimes not so young.  Things like having school choice and actual choices of high school- some are technical, some are academic, some are some specialty trade- baking or chef or horticulturist, etc. Didn't really know what happened with people who just wanted to be sales people but they finished some type of school too- the salespeople and office staff.  

 

As to what Quill says, lots of companies that need workers of various types have giant problems with people failing drug tests, let alone other issues.  My daughter used to work for a medical practice that did a lot of drug screens too.  Some auto repair place would send in 50 applicants and everyone failed.  Failures were much more common that passes.  Not only does anyplace not want drunk or high workers but for safety reasons and insurance, people not passing drug tests is just not acceptable.  You don't want druggies driving forklifts, driving the school bus, etc, etc,

 

You know one thing that I really love about this board is the variety of people we have here.  Most people I know and hang around with or have hung around with are college grads and higher.  If they aren't actually college grads, it is hard to tell usually because they have similar interests and thoughts as the college grads.  I don;t personally have much of a chance to meet the druggies, I tend not to see alcoholics who are so unable to control themselves that there life has totally collapsed. I have met controlled alcoholics and also reformed ones.  

 

The problem that caused the importance of a BA/BS degree was the regulation that IQ type tests were not allowed before hiring.  So instead of measuring intelligence, employers use proxies.  GPA, which college was attended, which degree, etc.   My son in law is about a semester short of a degree.  He had a trial getting a new job straight away.  Only when dd got hired and he came up here and applied at temp agencies, did he get a job.  The people who gave him a job (it is temp to hire within 3 months) were very impressed with his technical knowledge and inquisitive nature.  But he got this job through an interview (two companies were actually battling to get him to come) because he impressed the temp agenciy and passed the drug test.  My dd got her job through a job fair and talking to the person who hired her a month later.  Yes, she has a degree but what he was most impressed by was that she was a secretary at her HOA and took contempareus notes.  Of course, even earlier that that, she was active in homeschool debate and that made both note taking and writing quickly very necessary. 

 

As to this guy stating physics is not needed--well yes, there is a limited need for theoretical physicists but practical physicists are in demand, especially if you can pass clearance. As I am living in a part of town with many older people and my congregation has a number of them too, I have been reading obituaries.  So many people started in one field and moved on to another.  I meet people at the botanical garden and find many on second or third passions- like the physicist I met who is now a specialist on trilliums in his retirement. 

 

I think what one poster said above is true- college doesn't necessarily make most people interested (some who needed more maturing probably yes).  I think there has been much research that showed that people who scored well on tests tended to do well no matter where they went to college or even if they finished. 

[DawnM]

Well spotted....see Cat's post. I too would say a degree may be better than none unless it is in underwater basket weaving...and no - not everyone needs one to be successful as many people have proven.

 

 

 

 

....where he evidently spent years learning irrelevancies. :)

 

However, an underwater welding degree may be awesome.  My BIL actually looked into it.  It pays very well and they go out and work on oil rigs way out there in the ocean.  I guess if you get bored out there you could weave some baskets too.

[Garga]

Always interesting to read student reviews of professors who write opinion pieces: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=27455.

 

I'll note that my own ratemyprofessor reviews are all over the map too, but there are some interesting comments on his.

That was interesting to read (the rate my professor.). The earlier posts from before 2008/9ish were mostly Goods. After that, they went down to Average or Bad. I wonder what happened in 2008?

Edited December 11, 2017 by Garga

[DawnM]

I think you've got the causality backwards. I would argue that people who pay attention to worthwhile things, read, are civically active, etc. are more likely to desire to attend college in young adulthood and put in the effort required to graduate. I bet just by measuring these traits at 15 one could predict with a fair degree of accuracy which teens would earn a college degree by 25. Obviously not perfectly since there are plenty of smart people who don't have a degree for various reasons.

 

The famous "marshmallow" test in young childhood actually did a fairly good job at predicting adult educational outcomes.

 

 

 

I would argue that part of the marshmallow test was based on prior experience and how they were brought up at home. 

 

This article substantiates that:

 

 

https://jamesclear.com/delayed-gratification   What Determines Your Ability to Delay Gratification?

Researchers at the University of Rochester decided to replicate the marshmallow experiment, but with an important twist. (You can read the study here.)

Before offering the child the marshmallow, the researchers split the children into two groups.

The first group was exposed to a series of unreliable experiences.For example, the researcher gave the child a small box of crayons and promised to bring a bigger one, but never did. Then the researcher gave the child a small sticker and promised to bring a better selection of stickers, but never did.

Meanwhile, the second group had very reliable experiences. They were promised better crayons and got them. They were told about the better stickers and then they received them.

You can imagine the impact these experiences had on the marshmallow test. The children in the unreliable group had no reason to trust that the researchers would bring a second marshmallow and thus they didn’t wait very long to eat the first one.

[SKL]

College isn't a waste of time overall, but some of what happens there is a waste of time and money.  I have said this before, but I predict a trend toward seriously reducing the investment needed to get a meaningful post-high school credential for career purposes.  Of course there will always be people who choose to spend 12 years studying sociology, but the rest need not be bogged down with dozens of credits they neither want nor need.

[Guest]

College isn't a waste of time overall, but some of what happens there is a waste of time and money. I have said this before, but I predict a trend toward seriously reducing the investment needed to get a meaningful post-high school credential for career purposes. Of course there will always be people who choose to spend 12 years studying sociology, but the rest need not be bogged down with dozens of credits they neither want nor need.

In some respects, this is already happening as we see five-year Masters programs and other means of degree accelleration. I think that will only improve.

[Guest]

I would argue that part of the marshmallow test was based on prior experience and how they were brought up at home.

 

This article substantiates that:

 

https://jamesclear.com/delayed-gratification What Determines Your Ability to Delay Gratification?

Researchers at the University of Rochester decided to replicate the marshmallow experiment, but with an important twist. (You can read the study here.)

Before offering the child the marshmallow, the researchers split the children into two groups.

The first group was exposed to a series of unreliable experiences.For example, the researcher gave the child a small box of crayons and promised to bring a bigger one, but never did. Then the researcher gave the child a small sticker and promised to bring a better selection of stickers, but never did.

Meanwhile, the second group had very reliable experiences. They were promised better crayons and got them. They were told about the better stickers and then they received them.

You can imagine the impact these experiences had on the marshmallow test. The children in the unreliable group had no reason to trust that the researchers would bring a second marshmallow and thus they didn’t wait very long to eat the first one.

Fascinating!

[elegantlion]

Ok, so now I have read the article and, at least at the start, he says just exactly what I assumed he would when I put up my first post. I stand by my statement that EVERY time I hear this said, it is said by someone who got their degree (at least a bachelor’s) directly out of high school, and often from some bougie school up north. The person saying it is always coming from the comfortable position of never having lived as one of the plebes, with no degree, presumed to be a knucklehead and not worth much for pay. The person saying it is never someone who scratched out an existence from a working class family.

Also, college is not merely job training and pay is not the only important outcome. IME, college graduates are much more likely to pay attention to worthwhile things, read and access brain-growing information, be more involved socially and in community, and be better able to help others. In the article, he asks what a student would need history for -umm, really? Today’s events are tomorrow’s history. Reading literature and learning languages, music, art -these things create new neural connections. They grow one’s brain. They create better capacity for learning more and knowling more. It evolves society.

I am also a cynical idealist. But if I’m cynical about people, how would NOT putting learning opportunities before them possibly help?

The one place I find some agreement is when he says college for all is not a good goal, and I agree that it dilutes credentials. This is one reason why I am dubious about the benefit of tuition-free community college for all. I worry that that just becomes Grades 13 and 14.

However, trades are not automatically a great fit for every kid who has a rough time of academics. And I have said this before and will say it again, a lot of people do not understand how physically demanding and strenuous trade work often is. My husband is a tradesman and so are some of my BILs. It is hard work that trashes your knees, hips, back, skin, hearing and possibly other things, like lungs and eyes. It sort of infuriates me that people think turning to trades is an automatic answer anytime a student struggles with academics. There are other aspects of trade work, too, that I think is not optimal for society as a whole.

If touting college-for-all is not a good goal for society, neither is dissuading students from college or telling parents kids probably don’t need it. In reality, I pretty much think all kids who are able to attend college should, in one way or another; i.e., it could be CC, it could be part time, it could even be mostly or fully online, but it should be something most every kid who *can* go to college tries, IMO. And I say all that with a hih school senior who does not have a clear-cut path and I am not sure where his paths will lead. But I’m not going to start him off by saying, “Oh, yeah, might as well skip college.†Nope. I know what it is like to have no degree.

I'll just agree with Quill, as someone who will finish a BA next semester at age 50,started at 46. Also, ex was a contractor, same experience. He is now on disability because he can no longer do physical labor. One of my professors with health problems and is near the same age would have tanked a career in trades.

 

Living without college can be fine, but for many, it keeps doors open when you need to shift careers.

[Frances]

I would argue that part of the marshmallow test was based on prior experience and how they were brought up at home.

 

This article substantiates that:

 

https://jamesclear.com/delayed-gratification What Determines Your Ability to Delay Gratification?

Researchers at the University of Rochester decided to replicate the marshmallow experiment, but with an important twist. (You can read the study here.)

Before offering the child the marshmallow, the researchers split the children into two groups.

The first group was exposed to a series of unreliable experiences.For example, the researcher gave the child a small box of crayons and promised to bring a bigger one, but never did. Then the researcher gave the child a small sticker and promised to bring a better selection of stickers, but never did.

Meanwhile, the second group had very reliable experiences. They were promised better crayons and got them. They were told about the better stickers and then they received them.

You can imagine the impact these experiences had on the marshmallow test. The children in the unreliable group had no reason to trust that the researchers would bring a second marshmallow and thus they didn’t wait very long to eat the first one.

I remember when we were vacationing with two other families and the dads did a variation of the marshmallow test on all of the kids. The results were exactly as all of the parents predicted based on knowing each other's children so well, and siblings did not at all perform the same.

[JennyD]

I remember this guy's book about voting from a few years ago.

 

DH and I are both academics and have heard versions of this argument for years.  I will just note that IME when college professors say that college isn't for "everyone," they do NOT mean their own children.  College might not be right for other people's children.  But their children are absolutely going to college, somewhere, somehow, whatever it takes.

 

 

 Companies and industries need to create their own colleges.  

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree that college costs are out of control and am very concerned about educational debt, but I also have serious reservations about shifting higher education/job training to the private sector.  My main worry is that companies have a powerful economic incentive to train employees in a way that will qualify them for a specific job at that company but nowhere else.  After all, an employee with transferable skills  can negotiate for a higher salary, go work at another company, or start her own business.  I am all in favor of building alternative paths to the workforce, but the focus has to be on helping young people acquire skills that they can use in a range of workplaces.  

 

 

[MarkT]

That was interesting to read (the rate my professor.). The earlier posts from before 2008/9ish were mostly Goods. After that, they went down to Average or Bad. I wonder what happened in 2008?

Tenure??

[Ausmumof3]

I remember when we were vacationing with two other families and the dads did a variation of the marshmallow test on all of the kids. The results were exactly as all of the parents predicted based on knowing each other's children so well, and siblings did not at all perform the same.

Siblings doesn't always mean early childhood experiences are the same though. I feel like i was pretty reliable at carrying through with whatever I said we'd do with the first child. With dd though, there was a whole lot of times things just didn't work out due to crazy life circumstances. Interestingly eldest is a great saver whereas second child is a spend it all child at this stage. Whether that's related to inborn personality or experience I don't know.

[Ausmumof3]

I would argue that part of the marshmallow test was based on prior experience and how they were brought up at home.

 

This article substantiates that:

 

https://jamesclear.com/delayed-gratification What Determines Your Ability to Delay Gratification?

Researchers at the University of Rochester decided to replicate the marshmallow experiment, but with an important twist. (You can read the study here.)

Before offering the child the marshmallow, the researchers split the children into two groups.

The first group was exposed to a series of unreliable experiences.For example, the researcher gave the child a small box of crayons and promised to bring a bigger one, but never did. Then the researcher gave the child a small sticker and promised to bring a better selection of stickers, but never did.

Meanwhile, the second group had very reliable experiences. They were promised better crayons and got them. They were told about the better stickers and then they received them.

You can imagine the impact these experiences had on the marshmallow test. The children in the unreliable group had no reason to trust that the researchers would bring a second marshmallow and thus they didn’t wait very long to eat the first one.

Another study showed that children from poor backgrounds who "failed" something similar to the marshmallow test actually had better health outcomes.

[kroe1]

Sorry if this is too OT. Please pm me, if that would be more appropriate than discussing on this thread. How did your dd find a gaming job that pays on average $50/hour? Also, how are the other gamers making six figures? Some YouTubers come to mind. Is it something like that?

No big secret. These are YouTubers, broadcasters, and professional gamers. DD was picked up by a gaming company as a broadcaster. Anyone can get into it and start seeking sponsors, etc. The downside is that there are millions of people doing it who never make any money. For example, Twitch has over a million broadcasters now, I believe. I think the odds of making money in the business are probably less than becoming an actor. DD was smart in that she found a niche not already being served, and then she was lucky enough to get noticed.

[Carrie12345]

I hate, hate, hate blanket statements and how they get conveyed to young people. Just sayin'.

 

I do have very mixed feelings on the amount of gen ed requirements for many degrees, particularly with the way tuition has increased.  If I ever do go back to school, I hope to CLEP as many gen eds as I'd be allowed, because I can't justify the cost, otherwise.  While I consider myself a tad bit rusty for my own standards, I know I don't need thousands of dollars in undergrad English or History training.

 

My anecdote is aging rapidly, but I get the impression that it still applies:  Dh has a degree in a field he never entered.  His starting pay in the field that's more of a trade was higher than his non-college coworkers, and he was promoted more frequently.  The owners of his current company do wish he had a business degree, but they choose to look the other way. I can't say they would do that without ANY degree, or that he would be in the position for them to do so if he hadn't started at the bottom without one.

 

That said, I'm personally okay with my kids pursuing things that don't require a traditional degree.  I have one going to college for one anyway.  I have another who will likely inadvertently get a 2yr degree, and another who is looking toward a certificate program.  You can't just become a paramedic with grit. Ya gotta learn stuff!

 

Society will never be better off without doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, therapists (!!!!), etc., so it makes me cringe to hear push back against college to the degree (har har) I feel like I'm seeing these days.  I don't want every kid being told "You don't need college."  I want them to know ALL of their options, and that it doesn't have to be college if they're looking for a different kind of career.

[DawnM]

I remember when we were vacationing with two other families and the dads did a variation of the marshmallow test on all of the kids. The results were exactly as all of the parents predicted based on knowing each other's children so well, and siblings did not at all perform the same.

 

And was it a true predictor of how they faired later in life?  College education?  Careers?

Edited December 11, 2017 by DawnM

[DawnM]

Another study showed that children from poor backgrounds who "failed" something similar to the marshmallow test actually had better health outcomes.

 

I would be interested to read that.  Link?

[DawnM]

I'll just agree with Quill, as someone who will finish a BA next semester at age 50,started at 46. Also, ex was a contractor, same experience. He is now on disability because he can no longer do physical labor. One of my professors with health problems and is near the same age would have tanked a career in trades.

 

Living without college can be fine, but for many, it keeps doors open when you need to shift careers.

 

I have a friend facing this right now.  He has been doing manual labor, 50 years old, just can't do it anymore.  He finally went back and got a degree, but it has been hard.

 

We strongly encourage college.  We weren't sure our oldest could do it, with his LDs and Asperger's (if he doesn't' see the point in a subject, he won't do it..... :crying: )  But he has gone to CC for almost 2 years and is transferring to a 4 year in January.....with scholarships for merit! I know this isn't "we are out of the woods" yet for him, but we are so thrilled for him.

[DawnM]

I don't know, I still think there is value in being well rounded.  Do I wish I hadn't had to have taken math and science in college?  YUP!  I know some don't think anything but STEM is of any importance at all, but some of us are doing just fine without our degrees being STEM related.  

[Guest]

I remember this guy's book about voting from a few years ago.

 

DH and I are both academics and have heard versions of this argument for years. I will just note that IME when college professors say that college isn't for "everyone," they do NOT mean their own children. College might not be right for other people's children. But their children are absolutely going to college, somewhere, somehow, whatever it takes.

 

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree that college costs are out of control and am very concerned about educational debt, but I also have serious reservations about shifting higher education/job training to the private sector. My main worry is that companies have a powerful economic incentive to train employees in a way that will qualify them for a specific job at that company but nowhere else. After all, an employee with transferable skills can negotiate for a higher salary, go work at another company, or start her own business. I am all in favor of building alternative paths to the workforce, but the focus has to be on helping young people acquire skills that they can use in a range of workplaces.

I think that is quite an astute observation.

[Bluegoat]

 

 

These students would not survive the first semester at the public STEM university where I teach.

 

The problem is that he is lumping together all colleges and all majors. 

 

 

 

Maybe, but it's relevant, I think.

 

I was talking to the professor who was giving a book group series I went to recently, and one of the things he mentioned was that it is really difficult to get the students to read now.  Which is kind of the bread and butter of humanities students.  He's found that in the past, not only was it taken for granted that the students would read the text for class, they'd also read the supporting materials - you could suggest a book - an academic book -  one week, and the students would largely go and look for it and read it, often before the next class, and be able to bring all kinds of ideas with them to enlarge the topic.

 

Now he finds to get the students through the texts that the class is studying, he has to go through it slowly over the course of the semester with a lot of support.  Their reading skills are just not there. 

 

 I don't know if this is about having less time because of working, or not getting reading kills in high school, or a cultural shift away from print, but it seems pretty significant and I would think depressing for an academic in the humanities.  

[regentrude]

That was interesting to read (the rate my professor.). The earlier posts from before 2008/9ish were mostly Goods. After that, they went down to Average or Bad. I wonder what happened in 2008?

 

He could have changed institution, or has switched to teaching different classes.

He could have taught courses for majors first and then required courses for nonmajors; ratings are very sensitive to that.

His class sizes could have changed, his instructional method could have changed. Lots of reasons... or he could simply have become grumpy and contrary ;)

 

 

ETA: Somebody upthread suggested tenure, but I am not so sure. It has not been my experience that tenure turns good teachers into bad teachers. Good teachers tend to stay good teachers. Tenure may turn barely acceptable teachers into bad teachers.

Edited December 11, 2017 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

I think the model of university as a basic qualification for most jobs is pretty bankrupt, and worse, it's ruined universities to the point that i wonder if they will survive.  Education for it's own sake is wonderful, but also increasingly rare in institutions dedicated to it.  THat's related to using it as a job qualification and to signal fitness for work that doesn't require that kind of background.

 

Signalling for jobs without content is, IMO, bad bad bad.  It creates a lot of debt, it creates a predatory kind of education industry, it's wasteful of people's time and lives.  

 

I tend to think that career and job training should be removed from universities almost entirely - things like nursing or teaching degrees are better off taught in other models.

 

I tend to agree with him that we should be very careful about thinking how many people we need educated in certain areas.  The rate of unemployment among academics (and the conditions even of many who are employed) should be concerning.  More education is not always the answer to making people more fit for the work that is available.

 

I'm from a family that is very mixed in terms of what I see as far as employment and education, so I don't see them as all that clearly related to either being genteel or being employed.  I don't think statistical samples are very revealing about this - they are not that useful for individuals, and more than that, they are reflecting a system of education and employment that is broken.

[creekland]

Maybe, but it's relevant, I think.

 

I was talking to the professor who was giving a book group series I went to recently, and one of the things he mentioned was that it is really difficult to get the students to read now.    

 

This can depend upon the college.  Middle son sat in on a class at another school and was afraid that he would be left out since he hadn't been able to prepare or do the reading etc.  Instead he found out he knew plenty and was well equipped to join in the discussion because the other students hadn't prepared and often knew less than he did.   :glare:

 

He came out of the class and shared with us how different that experience was than at his own school.

 

The levels of each college were different.  It's one of the reasons I know College A is not the same as College B.  A student who is used to preparing ahead of time and jumping into a discussion from essentially everyone being prepared is going to be disillusioned at a school where the norm is to teach the material as one goes along. They will still do well and Profs will likely love them, but their experience is not the same.  A student who doesn't like to read/prepare is going to be left behind at a school where most put effort in.

 

At our high school very few put effort in ahead of time.  Those who do are those who head to the better schools and come back eager to join their ranks.  They find several other students like them instead of just a few (if that many)!  They like being part of the majority.

[Crimson Wife]

I think that is quite an astute observation.

If 4 year college is supposed to be for the top 1/3 of academic ability (this was specifically designated by the designers of the Cal State system), are we really surprised that the majority of college professors’ kids fall into that group?

 

IQ is around 80% heritable as twin and adoption studies prove

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bluegoat]

Are you seeing this trend in Canada as well as the U.S.?

 

In my region, reading declined after nclb...the public school funding choices made to close the library, not offer anything beyond basic instruction, and not offer DEAR time in the elementary had consequences.

 

 I don't see reading coming back until its politically okay to group by instructional need and books are accessible to all.  I don't know about your area, but I'm rural.  Students and working parents are home by 6 pm, public library closed at 7 pm, so not really much time to get in and grab reading material there during the week if both parents work (similar for Saturday, not open on Sunday). The middle school principal made reading a class, and has a formal system to get students to the public library so they can get a book afterschool and still have transportation home. The funding is not there to keep the school library accessible.

 

I'm not sure if we are or not.  

 

From what I've seen, and discussed with university profs (humanities mostly, not so much sciences) I'm not sure how much is about access to books or reading instruction - it absolutely could be, but I don't know.  I am in a city, and access to the library is fairly easy, and the schools do seem to go out of their way to get kids access to lots of books.

 

But I will say, that the am not impressed by the level of reading I see at my daughter's middle school.  They don't expect much in terms of amount, or content.  The books my dd12, who is very bright, brings home are pretty much teen novels that were written in the last 5 years and do nothing to improve her reading ability.  They don't read books or even textbooks for other classes, they seem to watch movies and read articles.

 

I am not a person who things everyone needs to be a big reader, but for kids that have the ability to become good readers, they are totally left to themselves to get there.  I can easily imagine that they come to university with little experience reading large amounts of difficult text, with difficult ideas.  Or even just reading quite a lot in a short time, or that they might actually want to do that.

[regentrude]

If 4 year college is supposed to be for the top 1/3 of academic ability (this was specifically designated by the designers of the Cal State system), are we really surprised that the majority of college professors’ kids fall into that group?

 

IQ is around 80% heritable as twin and adoption studies prove

 

And the influence of growing up in an education minded home has also been established.