While most could benefit from some college education, the existing regime that deifies college education and encourages students to "get-a-degree-any-degree" is counterproductive.
Despite the audacity of her lawsuit, Trina Thompson is a victim. The Monroe College alumna is famously suing her alma mater because she remains unemployed three months after graduation – joining nearly 80% of this year's graduating class. The lawsuit claims the underperforming career development department at Monroe is responsible for her present unemployment. Now she wants her tuition back. Ms. Thompson is probably more a victim of the horrendous job market rather than deliberately bad career advice. But she might consider targeting her outrage at politicians who have recklessly promoted the expansion of post-secondary education with little regard to filling existing and future gaps in the job market.
While most could benefit from some college education, the existing regime that deifies college education and encourages students to "get-a-degree-any-degree" is counterproductive. By turning college into a prerequisite of success we risk producing a generation of Trina Thompsons – average students disillusioned that a bachelor's does not automatically translate into the types of jobs a four-year degree is supposed to merit. As Ms. Thompson put it: "It doesn't make any sense: They [college graduates] went to school for four years, and then they come out working at McDonald's and Payless. That's not what they planned."
President Obama wants the U.S. to the lead the world in college graduation rates by 2020. This effort will likely continue to produce more sociology majors when – despite high unemployment – the U.S. still suffers from a skilled labor shortage, according to a recent Conference Board survey of employers. To avoid this fate, the Obama Administration should fulfill his promise to increase community college enrollment and performance – institutions that teach practical and needed skills – rather than enlarging subsidies to four-year institutions that rarely teach either.
How did we get to this situation? Where someone like Ms. Thompson – with a 2.7 GPA from a mediocre institution – feels horror at thought of working at Payless during a near depression? Expanding college enrollment and the growing stigma against those who do not graduate from college help to explain this phenomenon. From 1997-2008, the Department of Education (DOE) reports the number of full-time students rose 34% and total enrollment (full- and part-time) increased 26%. During the same time period, however, the DOE said the traditional college age population (18 to 24 years-old) only increased 16%, reflecting college's increasing popularity.
Government tried to make college more affordable through increasing loan and grant programs. The total volume of federal student loans increased 76% from 1995-2005. Over virtually the same time period, DOE said the number of full-time undergraduates receiving federal aid rose 16% and the average award jumped over 40%.
But colleges and universities refuse to play the affordability game. Most institutions of higher learning simply add the subsidies to the cost of admission. Thus, the price for undergraduate tuition, room, and board at public universities soared 30% over the past decade. The higher rates outstripped the generous government support, leaving the average 2007 graduate almost $23,000 in debt, according to the College Board.
It appears that a burgeoning college-educated class is paying more for degrees that are worth comparatively less – particularly bachelor's degrees in social sciences. As education scholar Charles Murray writes: "Outside a handful of majors – engineering and some of the sciences – a bachelor's degree tells an employer nothing except that the applicant has a certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance. Even a degree in a vocational major like business administration can mean anything from a solid base of knowledge to four years of barely remembered gut courses." How will employers sift through this army of BAs? Often, by requiring graduate degrees – saddling students with even more debt.
Meanwhile, skilled trades – welders, pipefitters, and the like – still need workers, despite tough economic times. Even as the economy was beginning to implode, The Wall Street Journal reported these industries grappling with "overcoming the perception that blue-collar trades offer less status, money and chance for advancement than white-collar jobs, and that college is the best investment for everyone."
Any recent graduate of upper-middle class origins can attest to the existence and power of this stigma. For us, four-year college was never an option but mandatory; frankly, many of our parents spent unholy sums to avoid the shame of admitting, "Er . . . actually, Jimmy's not going to school" at dinner parties. Heaven help us if this ridiculous obsession begins to work its way down the socio-economic ladder.
Let us hope President Obama enacts policies that will produce people with real skills to compete in the marketplace – by focusing on improving community colleges and vocational institutions – rather than pushing more people into glorified diploma factories.
I think that this is a vain hope. Obama has no understanding of the marketplace and the need for skilled workers. Instead, he would like to populate the entire nation with Harvard Law school graduates. Then the whole nation could go to H___ because there would be no one doing anything productive. But Obama would stand there scratching his head and wondering why.
Even a degree in a worthless field can be of benefit as a mind-broadening exercise, if nothing else, and give a student marketable skills. The problem arises when you graduate with an undergrad degree in underwater archaeology and then expect to jump out of school and into a $90,000 dollar a year job in a multinational corporation or into a tenured professorship – it isn’t going to happen in any economy, let alone the one we are presently stuck with. I think some students have this unrealistic expectation that a degree entitles them to a job rather than a degree preparing them to compete in a very competitive job market. Having just completed a BS in business management, I’m aware of the rather bleak employment prospects and the tough competition in the field – I would hardly blame my school for failing to put me into an executive level position 2 weeks after graduation.
Why would you discourage the pursuit of higher education? Encouraging individuals to get a IMO the default education level you need to survive today a BA preferably a BS is a good thing to have accomplished. We have plenty of unemployed skilled works as you classify them from the Auto industry and other manufacturing industries. The old Blue collar jobs are going the way of the dinosaur in the USA, the “New Blue Collar Worker” is the technology maintenance (network, system and computer maintenance,Internet programming, graphic design and art, etc.)
We import and need to import higher educated individuals from foreign countries due to our neglect to Higher education and the unusually high high school drop out rate.
Education provides freedom, liberty and opportunity it is up to the individual to make a good choices when pursuing their education. People need to take responsibility for their choices and stop blaming others like the lady mentioned in this post.
I don’t believe the author is discouraging higher education, but rather unnecessary education. A bachelor’s degree in women’s studies, for instance, is of little value after graduation to a person who will go to work in any kind of traditional field. However, the holder of that degree will probably be less willing to take a low-paying entry-level position because they believe that holding a degree entitles them to a better position. An associate’s degree from a local community college or training at a trade school will probably give that same person more skills that will actually be applicable to their career and cost them a lot less money as well as leave them less disappointed and disillusioned. 50 million people entering the work force with a bachelor’s degree means nothing if 45 million of them did their undergrad work in a field that leaves them with no preparation for real-world employment.
How many things in life require you to pay $70,000??? Realistically, the only thing in life more expensive than a college degree is a house and$70,000 is more money than many Americans see in one a year’s worth of wages. I can understand why she’s pissed that she can’t find a job! I’m in the same boat, except I HAVE a job. After three years of applying to literally hundreds of jobs, I have emerged victorious, as I work a wonderful, exciting, minimum wage job. Furthermore, I’m incredibly tired of comments that judge a person’s decision on what degree they chose/choose. College, regardless of the field of study, is difficult. It uses hours that could toward earning money and seniority at a job, requires extra time for homework, and adds copious amounts of stress. There is NEVER an advisor at a college that will attempt to talk you out of pursuing a specific major. Instead, we’re told that the time that we dedicate is all that matters to employers. I think that Ms. Thompson has brought an excellent point of view to our attention.
I hung back from answering this thread because I wanted to see what discussion would develop. Based on my experience in both industry (utilities, management consulting, IT outsourcing, casinos, and hotel) and higher educaction (both community college and univeristy) I can agree that there are some truly useless majors. The reason they are useless is that they lack the key rigor that used to be found in Liberal Arts degrees where students had a broad based education but most important had been schooled in how to learn almost anything (and you heard this from a business major loaded up with English and Math in the undergraduate degree).
The question is who would you hire. Grade inflation is rampant particularly in the less demanding fields which leads to distrust of the college transcript by employers. Over the years my most successful hires were those that auditioned for jobs by coming in as a consultant with the option for hire. Least successful hires those directly out of college with gpa under 3.5, kind of proves that A students are A students whatever institution they come from. This leaves the womans studies, black studies, education, and other feel good majors out in the line looking for employment slicing tomatoes in the local fast food restaurant. The weaker majors could be braced with addition of more rigerous liberal arts requirements but that would significantly reduce the number of graduates since the weakest students gravitate to these fields as test scores and employment numbers will point out.
Is college good for everyone? Yes, something is necessary to bring the population up to 1950s high school graduate levels. Today that equivalent seems to be a college degree, however the 1950s high school graduates could read, write and compute. Welcome to our impaired education system which has decayed through the entire food chain!
As usual I can’t type. Univeristy is a great example of transposition of characters.
By the way, only one of my 4 daughters has gotten their degree for less than $70K and she attended a state university. Is it a good investment? Who knows.
Misspelled educaction instead of education, where is my spell checker when I need it.
College, regardless of the field of study, is difficult. It uses hours that could toward earning money and seniority at a job, requires extra time for homework, and adds copious amounts of stress.
Which is precisely why the author contends that you are better off not spending the $70,000 in addition to the opportunity costs (that means the income and seniority potential you missed out on) if you come out of college without any KSA’s that are applicable to a career outside of government or academia. No major is entirely useless, as I pointed out earlier, but some majors are not worth the time and money invested because they will not yield returns that justify their cost. You simply have to perform a cost-benefit analysis, like you would with anything else you were investing $70,000 into. And even at that, you still have to understand that a degree alone does not ENTITLE you to a well-paying job. It never has, and it especially doesn’t now. The only excellent point Ms. Thompson has brought to our attention is the extreme sense of entitlement possessed by people of our generation, which is why our parents and grandparents (the people who are going to be hiring us) see us as whiney and lazy.
Heatheramy:
Re: “There is NEVER an advisor at a college that will attempt to talk you out of pursuing a specific major.”
I had a bad experience with my freshman counselor who was a PhD professor. He asked me what field I wanted to go into, but even though I did well in high school, at 18 I still hadn’t a clue. He looked at my test scores and recommended liberal arts. After almost flunking out at the end of two semesters, next year I went back for more counseling and, the exact same counselor looked at my grades and said, “Who told you to go into liberal arts? You should be in math and science!” In a somewhat irritated tone, I told him, “You did.” I never went back to him or any other counselor.
Mickey G:
Re: “The question is who would you hire.”
It depends on what your company’s product/service is. Since we were in the technical field service industry and given the requirement to hire degreed engineers [see below], the best prospects were those who worked their way through a state polytechnic college and graduated with a C average. Advanced degreed people didn’t last because the work was not challenging enough.
Re: “…Liberal Arts degrees where students had a broad based education but most important had been schooled in how to learn almost anything…”
Not to start a fight, but try doing engineering with a liberal arts degree.
Consider UCLA’s School Of Engineering which requires all engineering majors to complete six courses in humanities, two of which must be UPPER DIVISION. Meanwhile over at UCLA’s School of the Arts and Architecture, there is only one LOWER DIVISION math course requirement and NO physics requirement. The one math requirement can be satisfied by what appears to be a high school level course, or “An SAT I mathematics score of 600 or better or an SAT II Subject Test in Mathematics score of 550 or better also meets this requirement.” There doesn’t seem to be a similar ENGLISH SAT score for Engineering/Science majors that meets their requirement(s).
Therefore, a better way to cut back on the useless majors is for the universities to start requiring six courses in calculus and physics, two of which must be upper division as part of every major’s general ed. No calculus, no degree; no physics, no degree. Period. That would eliminate most, if not all, of these bovine defecators hired to “profess” their bankrupt ideologies [your “feel good majors,” see “Communism 101” below].
All:
Re: “How did we get to this situation?”
If there has ever been a shortage of workers [except for the medical profession] in this country, I can’t think of when. Generally speaking, there has always been an oversupply. Since the move of the economy from largely manual labor to information-based, employers have used the requirement for a bachelor’s degree as a weeding out tool. [It used to be a high school diploma; now we’re upping the requirement from a bachelor’s to a masters.] I know this because that’s what was required of me as a supervisor interviewing potential employees. The problem with this process is that, as the author points out, employers need people who can do something useful, whereas four-year colleges look upon a useful education as “too vocational”, preferring instead to teach the liberal arts that teach ideas too abstract for most jobs [not to mention the “Communism 101” series to indoctrinate students into the academy’s current Leftist causes célèbre].
The best example I have found of this is the British code-breaking unit in WW-II. The British have a stuffy notion that studying something useful is preparing for a “trade”, whereas studying the arts is “getting an education”. British mathematician code-breakers encountered this. They were looked down upon by the rest of the “educated” aristocratic officer corps as “tradesmen”: “… Only three of the twenty-one professor types [those hired to be code-breakers] were mathematicians; the rest were historians of art, or professors of medieval German, or lecturers in ancient Greek, or other distinctly non-scientific professions… [Partly] it reflected the persistent British public school attitude that properly educated boys studied Latin and Greek. Science, and even mathematics, were tainted by their association with useful things and thus of ‘trade.’” – Stephen Budiansky, Battle of Wits, p. 112, emphasis added.
One sidebar:
Re: “…the price for undergraduate tuition, room, and board at public universities soared 30% over the past decade. The higher rates outstripped the generous government support, leaving the average 2007 graduate almost $23,000 in debt, according to the College Board.”
Why is it no one says “greedy professors” but rail against “greedy big oil”?