"Why I Defaulted on My Student Loans" (article)

[Miss Mousie]

Humorous article. I agree with commenter 'Someone'.

 

Dude failed to address that his choice to choose life, and take out 10 years of student loans, comes with a cost. Like others of his generation, he doesnt want to pay, up front or after the fact. I doubt he is offering writing classes with room and board for free to the talented youth, but that is what he expected for himself, and what he expects others to pony up for in his call for the govt to guarantee a college education.

 

I believe the author is in his mid-50s.  Is that the generation you mean to lump in with him?

[FaithManor]

Oh boy, while no fan of the predatory practices of the student loan industry, in particular Sallie Mae, this guy has quite an ego if he thinks he's some slice of extra special plum pudding if he thinks the public should have sympathy for him. My husband worked many years for companies he could not stand in order to pay the bills and move forward. I had a couple of absolutely AWFUL employment experiences early on, but hey, this is life! Get over it and pay your bills, sir!

 

Good grief!

 

I am waiting for the bubble to burst though. Part and parcel of the hikes in tuition/room/board that have outpaced wages by 415% since the late 80's is the plethora of loan money available to students regardless of ability to pay. Many people are under the illusion that the only loans available to students are the Federal ones but that is not so. Sallie Mae will gladly loan six figures to students without blinking an eyelash and often at rates of 8-14% to boot.

 

IF the federal loans were all that were available and parents refused parent plus loans, I think many institutions would begin to think hard about the cost to attend and lower their prices or get busy offering more scholarship/grant money to a wider pool of students or face not being to make their yield.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Oh boy, while no fan of the predatory practices of the student loan industry, in particular Sallie Mae, this guy has quite an ego if he thinks he's some slice of extra special plum pudding if he thinks the public should have sympathy for him. My husband worked many years for companies he could not stand in order to pay the bills and move forward. I had a couple of absolutely AWFUL employment experiences early on, but hey, this is life! Get over it and pay your bills, sir!

 

Good grief!

 

I am waiting for the bubble to burst though. Part and parcel of the hikes in tuition/room/board that have outpaced wages by 415% since the late 80's is the plethora of loan money available to students regardless of ability to pay. Many people are under the illusion that the only loans available to students are the Federal ones but that is not so. Sallie Mae will gladly loan six figures to students without blinking an eyelash and often at rates of 8-14% to boot.

 

IF the federal loans were all that were available and parents refused parent plus loans, I think many institutions would begin to think hard about the cost to attend and lower their prices or get busy offering more scholarship/grant money to a wider pool of students or face not being to make their yield.

 

I'm now filing away the phrase, not some slice of extra special plum pudding to use in just the right occasion.

[Jane in NC]

Which leads me to wonder if the average loan amount is the same at all three institution types?  

And whether these stats are for just the federally subsidized loans to the student, or whether they include other educational loans like the private, bank-based loans which may be taken out in the parents' names?  (Not sure if I have the right language or description for those two categories?)

 

I don't think it is possible to track loans taken out in parents names as one would not know whether a home equity loan (for example) is going to tuition or is being used to replace the roof.

 

No link to back this up but I have read that it is not unusual for students enrolled at for-profits to rack up debt but fail to complete a degree.  The outrageous student loans that we often read about are for students in grad programs or at the for-profits--not the typical undergrad. 

 

Whether parents should borrow to pay for their dependents' college is another issue entirely.  Parents may disagree with college funding formulas that assume they have saved for college but that does not change the funding formula.

 

These discussions often depress me though.  I value the arts and believe that those who work in the arts should be able to earn a living from them.  For some reason, many people feel that intellectual property should be free.

[MarkT]

If this is true, your school would be the rare exception, rather than the rule.  Tuition is unconscionably high for the vast majority of schools in the country, and the increases have far outpaced inflation.

 

eta:  I used the inflation calculator for our local state university tuition.  When I went to school, tuition was $718 per year (30 ish yrs ago).  Today, with inflation, that amount would be about $1495.00.  However, the actual cost of tuition for that same institution today is $6976 per yr.  That's more than 4 times what it should be in terms of inflation, not to mention it is almost 10 times what it actually cost 30 ish yrs ago. And of course, this doesn't include room and board.  Back then, room and board was $3368.  According to the inflation calculator, it should cost $7014 today.  Instead, the same university currently charges its students $15,826 for room and board.

your school is still a relative bargain compared to most State U - of course they are ALL over-priced now versus 30 years ago!

[amsunshine]

your school is still a relative bargain compared to most State U - of course they are ALL over-priced now versus 30 years ago!

I feel so much better now!

[Bootsie]

Which leads me to wonder if the average loan amount is the same at all three institution types?  

And whether these stats are for just the federally subsidized loans to the student, or whether they include other educational loans like the private, bank-based loans which may be taken out in the parents' names?  (Not sure if I have the right language or description for those two categories?)

about 40% of public 4-year students graduate with no debt;  of those who had debt about 18% had more than $25,000

about 30% of private, non-profit 4-years students graduate with no debt; of those who had debt about 30% had more than $25,000

only about 4% of for-profit students graduate with no debt; of those who had debt about 67% had more than $25,000

 

https://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=13624

[elegantlion]

While I was looking at my loans, I noticed the "SULA eligible" comment on my subsidized loans. This was something I hadn't noticed previously. The link basically says that if you don't complete your program in 150% of time stated, you can lose subsidized portion of those loans and they convert to unsubsidized.  :crying:  The link doesn't have specific details, but that's something else to consider with loans. I have no clue what "complete" means or what happens if you stop before getting a degree. 

[creekland]

Good gravy. And the for-profits prey on the lowest socio-economic groups, further causing their "stuck-edness" in their socio-economic groups. It's a vicious cycle.

 

I was thinking the exact same thing knowing which classes at school these groups give their slick spiel in.

 

In my earlier years I mentioned my concern to guidance and was told the school has no legal right to keep them out.  Then I was reminded that these options are the "right" fit for many students.   :glare:  Kids who go into these are counted in our stats for "attending post high school education," so there's no incentive to discourage them.

 

I'm not against trades or the arts or anything like that, but our community college is a much better choice for many wanting these fields.

[Bootsie]

I was thinking the exact same thing knowing which classes at school these groups give their slick spiel in.

 

In my earlier years I mentioned my concern to guidance and was told the school has no legal right to keep them out.  Then I was reminded that these options are the "right" fit for many students.   :glare:  Kids who go into these are counted in our stats for "attending post high school education," so there's no incentive to discourage them.

 

I'm not against trades or the arts or anything like that, but our community college is a much better choice for many wanting these fields.

One of the biggest problem I see in our post-high school education system is the decline of public vo-tech colleges which teach a trade (coupled with the lack of vocational training in high schools).  At least where I have lived, the vo-tech schools have turned into community colleges--which see their role as a gateway to a four-year university.  This leaves non-university bound students who want a vocation paying large sums of money (often more than a four-year university) to learn a trade.    

[Jane in NC]

One of the biggest problem I see in our post-high school education system is the decline of public vo-tech colleges which teach a trade (coupled with the lack of vocational training in high schools).  At least where I have lived, the vo-tech schools have turned into community colleges--which see their role as a gateway to a four-year university.  This leaves non-university bound students who want a vocation paying large sums of money (often more than a four-year university) to learn a trade.    

 

You echo a sentiment that was shared with me by a retired CC administrator who was forced to shepherd  his school through the change from "tech" to "community college" a number of years back.  He did not think that the change benefited his community; in fact, he saw it as detrimental with the loss of skilled trades workers.

 

Ironically, one of the corporate transplants that is coming to a community near me is doing so because of the training capability of that town's community college system. Workers will not be earning degrees but training that leads to certification.

 

Fortunately there are a few vo-tech programs left but I wonder if kids receive counseling to consider them.  One of my son's very bright friends left a liberal arts college after a year in order to attend a boat building program.  He recognized that he needed to work with hands.  I don't want to say that kids are discouraged from considering the trades, but I fear that some are. 

 

 

[Bootsie]

For example, the Culinary Institute of America charges over $60,000 for two years of tuition to receive an associate's degree in baking and pastry studies.  If you look at their website to find information about tuition, you immediately find all kinds of information about financial aid, filing out FAFSA, etc.  Over 90% of their students receive financial aid.  Students borrowing money for these type of programs are considered part of the student debt figures.  These type of schools tend to have high borrowing, low completion rates, and high default rates. 

[Sebastian (a lady)]

For example, the Culinary Institute of America charges over $60,000 for two years of tuition to receive an associate's degree in baking and pastry studies.  If you look at their website to find information about tuition, you immediately find all kinds of information about financial aid, filing out FAFSA, etc.  Over 90% of their students receive financial aid.  Students borrowing money for these type of programs are considered part of the student debt figures.  These type of schools tend to have high borrowing, low completion rates, and high default rates. 

 

There are a lot of art institutes on the list of for profit schools too.  More than I think there are actual jobs for art institute grads.

 

On the other hand, it isn't completely new.  I remember in the mid 80s a family member who paid for computer training that was supposed to equip him for the new field of computers.  It wasn't very good training, and I don't think it was inexpensive.

 

On the culinary degree topic, a friend of mine went to CC a couple years ago to get her AA in culinary arts.  She learned amazing stuff from food service safety to baking and pastry and even things like making spun sugar flowers.  Her final for the baking course required her to make a cake, pie, dinner rolls, loaf of bread and cookies all in under 4 hours.  She isn't working full time in cooking, but she is working part time and is gaining a ton of experience.  And I'm pretty sure that she didn't spend $60k.  

 

[i've seen some pretty convincing discussions from professional chefs that cooking school isn't as valuable as work experience.  I think there is probably some sweet spot balance.  But I also don't think that $60k is a viable plan for most folks.]

 

ETA:  

I just checked one CC.  They have a 16 credit one semester Culinary Arts Assistant Certificate.  This is a one semester program, leading to a certificate, not an associates degree.  But it would cost around $2500 for in state and $6500 for out of state.  This isn't the 2 year degree my friend did, but it would be a far less expensive way of figuring out of this was the sort of career you wanted than going to CIA.

[at the beach]

For example, the Culinary Institute of America charges over $60,000 for two years of tuition to receive an associate's degree in baking and pastry studies.  If you look at their website to find information about tuition, you immediately find all kinds of information about financial aid, filing out FAFSA, etc.  Over 90% of their students receive financial aid.  Students borrowing money for these type of programs are considered part of the student debt figures.  These type of schools tend to have high borrowing, low completion rates, and high default rates. 

 

I thought I would mention this particular school is listed as a not-for-profit. They also offer a Bachelor's. According to their website, they have some merit scholarships and grant aid available. I haven't looked into what their graduation rate is, average indebtedness, or job placement after graduation. I have been on the Hyde Park campus--the school has restaurants and a bakery that are open to the public. Whether it's worth the cost of tuition, no idea. I don't know much about culinary arts education.

[Guest]

What shouldn't be required are degrees "just because" where the degree isn't needed. Why would a secretary need a degree - or a flight attendant? I know the argument is due to our public schools not producing graduates who can think or perform duties and HR prefers those with degrees, but still...

Having been a legal secretary before I had any degree, I can tell you why this is preferred. It is because completing a degree program tells the hiring professional some things about the applicant that cannot be assumed without a degree:

 

1) they are at least passably intelligent

2) they have experienced the requirements of working under authority and under time constraints

3) they have at least enough where-with-all to stay with a course of study until completion

 

In my case, I got lucky; I got a job through the friend-of-a-friend network and so someone vouched for me that I had these qualities though I had not yet attended college. But in the current economy, employers don't want to wade theough a pile of people who might be a diamond-in-the-rough. It is easier just to put a bachelor requirement in there and weed out people who couldn't or wouldn't ever go to college.

[creekland]

Having been a legal secretary before I had any degree, I can tell you why this is preferred. It is because completing a degree program tells the hiring professional some things about the applicant that cannot be assumed without a degree:

 

1) they are at least passably intelligent

2) they have experienced the requirements of working under authority and under time constraints

3) they have at least enough where-with-all to stay with a course of study until completion

 

In my case, I got lucky; I got a job through the friend-of-a-friend network and so someone vouched for me that I had these qualities though I had not yet attended college. But in the current economy, employers don't want to wade theough a pile of people who might be a diamond-in-the-rough. It is easier just to put a bachelor requirement in there and weed out people who couldn't or wouldn't ever go to college.

 

True and understandable, but I think a high school diploma used to do this job.  I don't think the high school diploma does it now. I think high school diplomas are pretty meaningless now due to the dumbing down of high school so all can make it through.

 

This leads to needing to spend thousands of dollars (for most). It's not a great system IMO, but I agree it's the situation we find ourselves in now.

 

[Guest]

True and understandable, but I think a high school diploma used to do this job. I don't think the high school diploma does it now. I think high school diplomas are pretty meaningless now due to the dumbing down of high school so all can make it through.

 

This leads to needing to spend thousands of dollars (for most). It's not a great system IMO, but I agree it's the situation we find ourselves in now.

 

True, a high school,dipolma did once do that job. I'm not sure if dumbing down is the reason, though. It might be, but it also seems to me that expectations for what a student should know upon completion of high school have risen, not fallen, since perhaps the 1950s or so. My parents did not learn much advanced math, for instance, and I don't think anyone was required to learn a foreign language.

 

Is dumbing down the reason (or one of the reasons)? I think part of it is that high school has come to be seen as completing the bare minimum because it is required. It is generally assumed that all but the most directionless of kids will complete high school. So completing a degree program is still going to show that a student is capable of going a bit beyond the minimum by going to college, no matter what college they attend or what degree they obtain.

 

On one hand, I do think it is good for kids to be open to skill advancement that is not a bachelor's degree, for example, becoming a tradesman. Dh is a Master Plumber and it was the right thing for him to pursue given his skill set. BUT, at the same time, I really do think that college expands a person in ways that are unlikely to come another way, and, even if one of my children wants to pursue a skilled trade, I still would prefer they obtain a bachelor's in college. All of my dH's brothers are tradesmen, but the one who also obtained a BS has gained more resources that translate to success. There are experiences and connections that come from attending college that one is unlikely to gain otherwise.

[madteaparty]

Schools are very expensive proxy sorting mechanisms.

[TechWife]

For example, the Culinary Institute of America charges over $60,000 for two years of tuition to receive an associate's degree in baking and pastry studies.  If you look at their website to find information about tuition, you immediately find all kinds of information about financial aid, filing out FAFSA, etc.  Over 90% of their students receive financial aid.  Students borrowing money for these type of programs are considered part of the student debt figures.  These type of schools tend to have high borrowing, low completion rates, and high default rates. 

The Culinary Institute of America is the top culinary school. It is hard to get into, hard to graduate from and it's graduates are highly sought after and qualify for a variety of jobs around the country. I understand the point you are trying to make, but honestly, you couldn't have picked a worst example.

[creekland]

 There are experiences and connections that come from attending college that one is unlikely to gain otherwise.

 

I'm in firm agreement that the experiences one gets from college is well worth the effort if the fit is correct.  We've definitely aimed our kids that direction with NO regrets and I don't care if they use their degree afterward.

 

However, I also work in our public high school and I realize there are kids who aren't able to complete college and others with absolutely no desire to head that direction.  There ought to be decent options for those kids too IMO.

 

One slot doesn't fit all molds of humans. 

[madteaparty]

Less expensive than a bad hire or the complications from using a suspected racist sort method.

 

The Regents Diploma here only asks for Algebra 1. That can be done in 2 years by anyone that wants that pace. On top of that the double period (remedial plus handholding for hw that has been turned into classwork) is available to all. At that pace, they will be ready for Alg. 2 after grad. Yesteryears students were remediated each day, so students could be done with Alg 2 if desired.

I'm talking about colleges and certain graduate programs. I've no idea what a regents diploma is.

[Guest]

I'm in firm agreement that the experiences one gets from college is well worth the effort if the fit is correct. We've definitely aimed our kids that direction with NO regrets and I don't care if they use their degree afterward.

 

However, I also work in our public high school and I realize there are kids who aren't able to complete college and others with absolutely no desire to head that direction. There ought to be decent options for those kids too IMO.

 

One slot doesn't fit all molds of humans.

But isn't there? Isn't that the idea behind Vo-Tech, or certification programs, like web design, dental hygienist, cyber security, nursing, personal training and so on? I actually thought that was the argument against high school career tracking, in which the student is moved into a track that points towards a career direction, one which may not be college-bound. The argument against tracking is that you have limited the access to students who are not obvious shining stars in ninth grade, which verifyably makes them less likely to be shining stars. They will be in a peer group of non-shining stars, taught by teachers who don't expect much of them because, after all, they are on the Tradesman track and don't need to learn Calculus.

 

It leads me to believe that this is not the answer...that it's not ideal to groom a kid for lower achievement because they aren't standout intellectuals in 9th grade. At the same time, i have long saif that I'm not going to make any child go to college. They must recognize it as the fantastic opportunity it is. They must want it for their own reasons.

[Reefgazer]

The bolded is the problem with the tradesman track.  The problem is not that there are tradesman tracks in high school, but that there is the perception that the people who enroll in these programs are "less-than".  I never bought into the "trades are less than" line of thought.  That idea needs to die on a global level so that the proper respect can be brought back into working with your hands.  I have 2 kids who are excellent students and if current performance is any indicator, they will have a fair shot at top-notch colleges.  But DD wants to be a farmer (which garnered sneers of disbelief from a few relatives), and I have spoken to DS about being a carpenter (because he loves that as a hobby and is good at it).  Both choices are honorable ones and should be treated as such; they are *not* non-shining stars.

But isn't there? Isn't that the idea behind Vo-Tech, or certification programs, like web design, dental hygienist, cyber security, nursing, personal training and so on? I actually thought that was the argument against high school career tracking, in which the student is moved into a track that points towards a career direction, one which may not be college-bound. The argument against tracking is that you have limited the access to students who are not obvious shining stars in ninth grade, which verifyably makes them less likely to be shining stars. They will be in a peer group of non-shining stars, taught by teachers who don't expect much of them because, after all, they are on the Tradesman track and don't need to learn Calculus.

It leads me to believe that this is not the answer...that it's not ideal to groom a kid for lower achievement because they aren't standout intellectuals in 9th grade. At the same time, i have long saif that I'm not going to make any child go to college. They must recognize it as the fantastic opportunity it is. They must want it for their own reasons.

 

[regentrude]

 I actually thought that was the argument against high school career tracking, in which the student is moved into a track that points towards a career direction, one which may not be college-bound. The argument against tracking is that you have limited the access to students who are not obvious shining stars in ninth grade, which verifyably makes them less likely to be shining stars. They will be in a peer group of non-shining stars, taught by teachers who don't expect much of them because, after all, they are on the Tradesman track and don't need to learn Calculus.

 

It leads me to believe that this is not the answer...that it's not ideal to groom a kid for lower achievement because they aren't standout intellectuals in 9th grade.

 

So instead we take the students who clearly show great intellectual potential and put them in the same class with students who don't show any signs of academic ability (and everybody in between) and have them all taught by teachers who don't expect much. And that's supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

 

ETA: In my home country, tracking begins in 5th grade (high school is too late). Students on the non college bound track graduate high school with a diploma after 10th grade and then proceed into vocational training or apprenticeship (mandatory education goes until age 18, so almost every student receives some kind of post-high school education). College bound track goes through 12th grade. Late bloomers or students who change their interest can graduate from the 10th grade track and take a 3 year program that gets them to the college bound high school diploma. So it's not as if at age 10 all doors are closed - they simply take one year longer.

It still is insufficient for truly gifted students, but at least it is much better than the one-size-fits all approach of US public schools.

[maize]

Vo-tech still seems to be popular in our current area, it is more accessible here than community college. I've seen a lot of homeschool students take advantage of the programs either during high school or after.

[elegantlion]

As someone who was married to a tradesman, I respect how hard they work and how smart they are, sometimes differently than book smart. Where we grew up construction is a well-respected profession attracting professional level people in general and sub-contractors for the most part. Where we used to live it was perceived as something those "less than" did and in many cases those that didn't pursue college picked up a hammer without the skills needed to use it. ex had a heck of a time finding quality sub-contractors and his business suffered as a result. Their actions only perpetuated the stereotype. Part of the issue was if you couldn't make a living with your brain, you needed to use your body regardless of whether it was the right profession for your other skills. 

 

I don't think everyone that foregoes college should be relegated to physical labor jobs, yet that tends to happen to many men. The technological age has helped in that respect. Without some college, I don't think ds would find a fitting career, he's not the physical labor type. The reality is many tradespeople need business skills to survive in today's market. That doesn't have to come with a degree, it could be through business classes or an apprenticeship. They may also have to shift careers later in life as the physical work takes it toll. Not everyone is in the position to move into management of an existing business. They really do need good business financial skills to make it through to that age. 

 

It would be interesting to see studies of the lifestyle (health and assets) at age 50-60 of those that chose trades over a bachelor's or higher. 

[Guest]

The bolded is the problem with the tradesman track. The problem is not that there are tradesman tracks in high school, but that there is the perception that the people who enroll in these programs are "less-than". I never bought into the "trades are less than" line of thought. That idea needs to die on a global level so that the proper respect can be brought back into working with your hands. I have 2 kids who are excellent students and if current performance is any indicator, they will have a fair shot at top-notch colleges. But DD wants to be a farmer (which garnered sneers of disbelief from a few relatives), and I have spoken to DS about being a carpenter (because he loves that as a hobby and is good at it). Both are choices are honorable ones and should be treated as such; they are *not* non-shining stars.

I don't think tradesmen are less-than; I'm married to one. However, it is frequently true that a person can be highly gifted in spatial awareness and kinestethics, but hampered (even LD) in language-based work. This student struggles in academia, but can excel in trades. This is DH to a T. He did originally attend college. In the meantime, he was working with his father in plumbing and construction. Eventually it dawned on him that he was very good at mechanical work and not so good at writing essays and sitting for final exams, so he pursued licensing for Plumbing. This turned out to be ideal for him, though he still says he wishes he would have just finished his Associates, so that he could have something to show for the college he did complete.

 

With that said, I readily admit to having higher goals for my kids than just getting licensed for a trade. Even for my least-academic child. As I said earlier, I would not make a kid go to college if he or she does not want it; I'm not brow-beating any kid to let me spend tens of thousands of dollars sending them somewhere they don't want to go. ;) Besides, I have watched that scenario play out before and it was a huge waste. So, no forcing, but if kid was on the fence, wondering if college is worth it since he wants to be a (insert job not requiring a degree here), I would still encourage him to at least try it out at CC.

[Guest]

So instead we take the students who clearly show great intellectual potential and put them in the same class with students who don't show any signs of academic ability (and everybody in between) and have them all taught by teachers who don't expect much. And that's supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

 

ETA: In my home country, tracking begins in 5th grade (high school is too late). Students on the non college bound track graduate high school with a diploma after 10th grade and then proceed into vocational training or apprenticeship (mandatory education goes until age 18, so almost every student receives some kind of post-high school education). College bound track goes through 12th grade. Late bloomers or students who change their interest can graduate from the 10th grade track and take a 3 year program that gets them to the college bound high school diploma. So it's not as if at age 10 all doors are closed - they simply take one year longer.

It still is insufficient for truly gifted students, but at least it is much better than the one-size-fits all approach of US public schools.

What I recall reading, though, was that (at least in the US), merely being slotted into the non-college track makes kids, who are at a crucial point for forming their identities, and influences them with the message, "You aren't college material...there's no rocket scientists coming outta this room..." The public school to which my kids are districted (they are at private) opperates on the track concept. Some parents love it. Some hate it. One Dad, who was taking college classes with me at 45yo, hated it with a passion because he felt like here he was working hard as an adult to try and move up in the world, yet his son was already being shunted into the non-college track. This dad was worried that his boy would aim low due to peer influence.

[Reefgazer]

I realized after I read your response that my post came off as accusing you of being anti-tradesman.  I'm sorry, I didn't intend that at all.  I was actually commenting on the popular perception of a trade in this country, as compared to the college track (that's what I meant when I said the poor perception of tradesmen has to die on a global level). 

 

Anyway, I had always assumed my kids would go to college and get at least a 4 year degree; it's really never even been questioned here.  Even DD, who wants to be a farmer (which is a trade that really doesn't require a college degree at all, TBH), is looking at a 4 year degree and interested in Cornell.  I am encouraging the degree anyway as long as DD wants that because I think an education is valuable even if it doesn't lead to/is not required for a job.  The carpentry thing with DS is recent.  He has always said he wants to be an engineer.  But at the same time, he has really been into carpentry as a hobby these days.  So I broached the idea of being a carpenter, but he shot that idea down.  OK, this kid wants college then.  But regardless, I think higher education is valuable if a kid has the ability and will.  At the same time, I think it is a disaster and waste of human talent to force someone who has more talents in the trade area into an academic field.

I don't think tradesmen are less-than; I'm married to one. However, it is frequently true that a person can be highly gifted in spatial awareness and kinestethics, but hampered (even LD) in language-based work. This student struggles in academia, but can excel in trades. This is DH to a T. He did originally attend college. In the meantime, he was working with his father in plumbing and construction. Eventually it dawned on him that he was very good at mechanical work and not so good at writing essays and sitting for final exams, so he pursued licensing for Plumbing. This turned out to be ideal for him, though he still says he wishes he would have just finished his Associates, so that he could have something to show for the college he did complete.

With that said, I readily admit to having higher goals for my kids than just getting licensed for a trade. Even for my least-academic child. As I said earlier, I would not make a kid go to college if he or she does not want it; I'm not brow-beating any kid to let me spend tens of thousands of dollars sending them somewhere they don't want to go. ;) Besides, I have watched that scenario play out before and it was a huge waste. So, no forcing, but if kid was on the fence, wondering if college is worth it since he wants to be a (insert job not requiring a degree here), I would still encourage him to at least try it out at CC.

 

[Hoggirl]

I think the trade v. college perception is a false dichotomy.

 

I have a friend who has a Masters in Anthropology from Texas A& M (he and I went to undergrad together) who is an incredible brick mason. This was due, primarily, to the fact that he coudn't get a job with a Masters in Anthropology, but I have homeschool friends who are truly pursuing both options. I don't think it has to be an either/or proposition.

[Reefgazer]

I know you aren't addressing me with this post, but I think this might be a function of trade education here in the US; I get the impression it isn't like that everywhere and that expectations are higher elsewhere.

 

I also think that a parent or student should have the right to opt out of the trade track if they so desire.  I look at tracking as the school's "recommendation" or "suggestion" for that student.  I do wonder, however, how many parents insist their child attends college despite the fact that the student is uninterested or uninclined to academics and would prefer something else for their life's work.

What I recall reading, though, was that (at least in the US), merely being slotted into the non-college track makes kids, who are at a crucial point for forming their identities, and influences them with the message, "You aren't college material...there's no rocket scientists coming outta this room..." The public school to which my kids are districted (they are at private) opperates on the track concept. Some parents love it. Some hate it. One Dad, who was taking college classes with me at 45yo, hated it with a passion because he felt like here he was working hard as an adult to try and move up in the world, yet his son was already being shunted into the non-college track. This dad was worried that his boy would aim low due to peer influence.

 

[elegantlion]

I think the trade v. college perception is a false dichotomy.

 

I have a friend who has a Masters in Anthropology from Texas A& M (he and I went to undergrad together) who is an incredible brick mason. This was due, primarily, to the fact, that he coudn't get a job with a Masters in Anthropology, but I have homeschool friends who are truly pursuing both options. I don't think it has to be an either/or proposition.

 

Part of the issue I've seen is that if you don't have a degree, your choices are limited. While if you have any type of degree there are at least other jobs to apply for. Ex had 30+ years experience with construction, but couldn't apply for some higher level jobs in the same industry because he lacked a degree. He did anyway in some cases with no interviews. 

 

I've seen it played out with other individuals as well. There is lots of job instability, lower wages, and smaller companies that don't always offer benefits. A lot of the work is weather dependent as well, leaving cycles of feast and famine for pay. It can be a good life if it's a choice among many, but if it's your only choice simply because you lack a degree it can feel limiting. 

[creekland]

What I recall reading, though, was that (at least in the US), merely being slotted into the non-college track makes kids, who are at a crucial point for forming their identities, and influences them with the message, "You aren't college material...there's no rocket scientists coming outta this room..." The public school to which my kids are districted (they are at private) opperates on the track concept. Some parents love it. Some hate it. One Dad, who was taking college classes with me at 45yo, hated it with a passion because he felt like here he was working hard as an adult to try and move up in the world, yet his son was already being shunted into the non-college track. This dad was worried that his boy would aim low due to peer influence.

 

Honestly, even when the kids are mainstreamed, those who aren't as academically talented realize it without a single person having to tell them.  They tend to give up all by themselves because the material doesn't come as easily to them.  It tends to kill their desire to do anything academically.  In your situation, Dad can perhaps force an override to insist his son is in a top level class, but that doesn't mean the son can keep up with his peers and it is likely to do more harm to his son's self-esteem.

 

Humans have different strengths and weaknesses.  It's great when people recognize that and allow each to follow their own path that fits them.  

 

When a student is unable to handle typical 8th grade material by their senior year of high school, it's pretty clear that college isn't their best option and it isn't a sudden realization their senior year.  They can be terrific at some trades though.  So why did they need to spend 3 years trying to pass Alg 1 instead of being able to work on engines (or hairdressing or woodworking or similar)?

 

That question is one the head of our math dept asked our Governor on a recent visit... our state now requires one to pass an Alg 1 state test in order to graduate.  Maybe they can after their third try - esp if we teach them to game the test (as we do at that point), but what's the point of wasting their time semester after semester trying rather than following their passions?

 

Part of the issue I've seen is that if you don't have a degree, your choices are limited. While if you have any type of degree there are at least other jobs to apply for. Ex had 30+ years experience with construction, but couldn't apply for some higher level jobs in the same industry because he lacked a degree. He did anyway in some cases with no interviews. 

 

I've seen it played out with other individuals as well. There is lots of job instability, lower wages, and smaller companies that don't always offer benefits. A lot of the work is weather dependent as well, leaving cycles of feast and famine for pay. It can be a good life if it's a choice among many, but if it's your only choice simply because you lack a degree it can feel limiting. 

 

:iagree:  Our society is demanding college degrees more and more.  When this is needed (engineer, doctor & more), it's fully understandable.  When it isn't, it locks some potentially good people out.

[Guest]

That question is one the head of our math dept asked our Governor on a recent visit... our state now requires one to pass an Alg 1 state test in order to graduate. Maybe they can after their third try - esp if we teach them to game the test (as we do at that point), but what's the point of wasting their time semester after semester trying rather than following their passions?

 

I do agree with you on this. I'm not a big believer in passing standardized tests to graduate. Like you said, the time could be better used.

 

In high school, the most useful classes I took turned out to be Typing I and II, because this is how I was qualified to do office work.

[Bluegoat]

Having been a legal secretary before I had any degree, I can tell you why this is preferred. It is because completing a degree program tells the hiring professional some things about the applicant that cannot be assumed without a degree:

 

1) they are at least passably intelligent

2) they have experienced the requirements of working under authority and under time constraints

3) they have at least enough where-with-all to stay with a course of study until completion

 

In my case, I got lucky; I got a job through the friend-of-a-friend network and so someone vouched for me that I had these qualities though I had not yet attended college. But in the current economy, employers don't want to wade theough a pile of people who might be a diamond-in-the-rough. It is easier just to put a bachelor requirement in there and weed out people who couldn't or wouldn't ever go to college.

 

But that is such a terrible system for vocational training, completely inefficient and dysfunctional on a large scale.  I am a big proponent of the role of the university in society, but vocational training is not about that.

 

You are essentially taking these people out of the workforce  for four years and spending huge sums of money - public or private or both - to show that they are not morons and have some ability to stick with things.  (And, TBH I don't know that it is actually very effective in showing these things - I know plenty of university graduates that are not passably intelligent and graduated more out of inertia than anything else.)

 

And then, you will be missing all the really good candidates who don't learn well in a school environment, don't enjoy it, or can't afford the time or money to go there.

 

Not to mention, if the actual work they are doing in school isn't really directed to the vocation or type of job they will be doing, employers are still going to have to give them more training once they are on the job.

 

It's pretty much the economy as a whole paying this group of people who should be at a highly productive point in their lives to sit with their thumbs up their butt.

 

[Bluegoat]

It's an interesting thing that in North America we seem to think that we have left behind the classism of the old country by creating a meritocracy where people don't have to do the same kind of work as their parents.  But we have now created one that is in a way more unrelenting - if you don't have the right disposition or desire to get a degree and work in a white collar job, you are seen as having less merit.  It really allows for despising people in the "wrong" kinds of jobs, and saying things like "well, if they want to be paid a living wage, they need to get motivated to go back to school."  It's so stupid too because even if everyone could and wanted to, we would still need people to do those jobs, and we would still depend on them.  People don't stop to think what it means when they despise work and occupations that they themselves depend on in their daily lives.

 

I think though that I can throw some light on the increasing requirement for university degrees.  One of the big reasons it happened was policy decisions by governments.  These were also related to the availability of free tuition and supports for people coming back from the war. IIRC, here in Canada they decided, rather arbitrarily it seems, that they would like at least 60% of the population to go to university - they seem to have thought it would be good for the economy.  In reality it didn't much change the nature of the economy, it just flooded the job market with degrees that in most cases weren't really required for the work they were doing.

 

I have a really hard time with the idea that university is the best/only way to become educated even in a more liberal way, and I wonder if maybe that isn't in part a result of so many people now going to university.  I think it used to be much more common for people to be really educated without university, and we don't know now what that looks like.  And university education itself has been so watered down that we often don't really understand what is really distinctive about it.

 

I have a lot of grandparents and great-grandparents who were well educated people who did not set foot in a university.  My paternal grandfather was in the navy and later became a prominent journalist of the hard-nosed political type.  He loved poetry, Kipling and Burns especially, and he wrote a lot of his own poetry.  My grandmother could quote Shakespeare extensively and was one of the most well-spoken people I have ever met.   My maternal grandfather was an aircraft technician and very mathematically talented, and his mother played many musical instruments.  My great great great grandfather was a member of our legislature and founded a bank.  A elderly lady I go to church with sailed the world on a merchant ship - she too writes poetry and is extremely literary. 

 

All of these people are or were far more educated than many university graduates.  They might have done well in a university, but I am not sure why that would be an improvement. I think a large part of their engagement with the world of ideas was strongly influenced by the fact that they had a different kind of education, and that is just as important a kind of education as that of the university.

 

[Guest]

But that is such a terrible system for vocational training, completely inefficient and dysfunctional on a large scale. I am a big proponent of the role of the university in society, but vocational training is not about that.

 

You are essentially taking these people out of the workforce for four years and spending huge sums of money - public or private or both - to show that they are not morons and have some ability to stick with things. (And, TBH I don't know that it is actually very effective in showing these things - I know plenty of university graduates that are not passably intelligent and graduated more out of inertia than anything else.)

 

And then, you will be missing all the really good candidates who don't learn well in a school environment, don't enjoy it, or can't afford the time or money to go there.

 

Not to mention, if the actual work they are doing in school isn't really directed to the vocation or type of job they will be doing, employers are still going to have to give them more training once they are on the job.

 

It's pretty much the economy as a whole paying this group of people who should be at a highly productive point in their lives to sit with their thumbs up their butt.

 

I wasn't arguing for university as vocational training. I was simply pointing out that this is a reason I have heard given as to why a hiring employer may put "bachelor's degree" as a requirement for a job that does not require a degree for a specific skill.

 

I am involved in the writing world. I remember one time an aspiring writer asked an editor in an on-line forum if editors look for college degrees when looking at the resumés of manuscript queriers. The Editor said that, while it's not a deal-breaker not to have a degree, it definitely helps get your manuscript looked at. He cited the qualities in my post. For a publisher to choose to back an unknown writer, he said, it is a bigger gamble if they have not completed a degree program.

[Reefgazer]

I agree with all of this.  I don't think we really know what a solid high school education looks like anymore.  After travelling the world a bit and getting an undergrad and graduate degree, I have bumped into very few people as educated and intelligent as my own father, who had to quit school in the 10th grade to support his family.  He is mainly self-taught and reads extensively, but I also think he had a really solid education during the years he did attend high school.

It's an interesting thing that in North America we seem to think that we have left behind the classism of the old country by creating a meritocracy where people don't have to do the same kind of work as their parents.  But we have now created one that is in a way more unrelenting - if you don't have the right disposition or desire to get a degree and work in a white collar job, you are seen as having less merit.  It really allows for despising people in the "wrong" kinds of jobs, and saying things like "well, if they want to be paid a living wage, they need to get motivated to go back to school."  It's so stupid too because even if everyone could and wanted to, we would still need people to do those jobs, and we would still depend on them.  People don't stop to think what it means when they despise work and occupations that they themselves depend on in their daily lives.

 

I think though that I can throw some light on the increasing requirement for university degrees.  One of the big reasons it happened was policy decisions by governments.  These were also related to the availability of free tuition and supports for people coming back from the war. IIRC, here in Canada they decided, rather arbitrarily it seems, that they would like at least 60% of the population to go to university - they seem to have thought it would be good for the economy.  In reality it didn't much change the nature of the economy, it just flooded the job market with degrees that in most cases weren't really required for the work they were doing.

 

I have a really hard time with the idea that university is the best/only way to become educated even in a more liberal way, and I wonder if maybe that isn't in part a result of so many people now going to university.  I think it used to be much more common for people to be really educated without university, and we don't know now what that looks like.  And university education itself has been so watered down that we often don't really understand what is really distinctive about it.

 

I have a lot of grandparents and great-grandparents who were well educated people who did not set foot in a university.  My paternal grandfather was in the navy and later became a prominent journalist of the hard-nosed political type.  He loved poetry, Kipling and Burns especially, and he wrote a lot of his own poetry.  My grandmother could quote Shakespeare extensively and was one of the most well-spoken people I have ever met.   My maternal grandfather was an aircraft technician and very mathematically talented, and his mother played many musical instruments.  My great great great grandfather was a member of our legislator and founded a bank.  A elderly lady I go to church with sailed the world on a merchant ship - she too writes poetry and is extremely literary. 

 

All of these people are or were far more educated than many university graduates.  They might have done well in a university, but I am not sure why that would be an improvement. I think a large part of their engagement with the world of ideas was strongly influenced by the fact that they had a different kind of education, and that is just as important a kind of education as that of the university.

 

[In The Great White North]

 

madteaparty, on 16 Jun 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

Schools are very expensive proxy sorting mechanisms.

Less expensive than a bad hire or the complications from using a suspected racist sort method.

 

 

Less expensive for the employer, more expensive for the employee.