Everyone has a degree. Good or bad?

[lionking]

Here in the US (and most of Canada I believe) we kind of have the same thing. Technical associates & bachelors degrees seem very much like "Trade" degrees really, since they're generally designed for students who intend to enter the work force upon graduation in that particular field of study (nursing, paralegal, allied health, engineering tech, etc. are examples of this)

It's not really useful to compare US with Australian degrees as with very few exceptions all undergraduates here complete fully specialized degrees - they don't complete a generalized qualification before specializing. Nursing, for example, is a full degree qualification, with the same standing as law, arts or science.

As I said earlier, there's a fair bit of confusion and overlap, probably inevitably.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

It's not really useful to compare US with Australian degrees as with very few exceptions all undergraduates here complete fully specialized degrees - they don't complete a generalized qualification before specializing. Nursing, for example, is a full degree qualification, with the same standing as law, arts or science.

As I said earlier, there's a fair bit of confusion and overlap, probably inevitably.

Well, from what I've read, associates/bachelors of applied arts/science are very similar to what you just described. No real generalized qualification before specializing (unless you count k-12), where the traditional bachelors degrees are generalized degrees in which specialization can happen upon graduate school.

 

[jayh]

The current degree obsession is really a kind of 'cargo cult' thinking. Historically, for several reasons, people with degrees did earn more, so the mantra developed toward trying to push most everyone toward a degree as a way of raising incomes and living standards.

However, whereas previously, degreed people were a self selected group, that selection process became rapidly diluted. Even worse, the whole emphasis on a degree has actually hurt many economically disadvantaged people by closing many jobs to people without degrees, and a good number of those simply could not go to college for a variety of valid personal reasons.

At the same time, many people who are really not suited for such a program, get pressured into school. I know someone who used to have a job coaching and tutoring such students, students who couldn't even write a coherent sentence were being railroaded into community college. It was a waste of time for all concerned.

Degrees are expensive, whether the student pays for them or the tax payers do, universal degrees are still a very expensive drain on society. Essentially keeping young people out of the workforce for 4 additional years (while they still need to be supported) has a dragging effect on the national productivity, which basically keeps cost of living higher for everyone.

We should very seriously be looking away from the degree industry. Back to job specific training (the craftsman's apprentice served this function in previous times).

 

[Garrison0fMars]

We should very seriously be looking away from the degree industry. Back to job specific training (the craftsman's apprentice served this function in previous times).

While I understand where you're coming from there, from what I've heard most employers simply can't afford the time and expenses to train new employees in much of the professions nowadays because of the increasing technical and technological aspects of jobs in the 21st century. It's a bit of a false dichotomy too, community colleges offer a lot in the ways of job training, both through degrees and certification.

However I'll agree there's no reason anybody should really be pressured into going to a university. It should really be for people who want and can succeed in it, not a necessity for a livelihood.

 

[jayh]

While I understand where you're coming from there, from what I've heard most employers simply can't afford the time and expenses to train new employees in much of the professions nowadays because of the increasing technical and technological aspects of jobs in the 21st century. It's a bit of a false dichotomy too, community colleges offer a lot in the ways of job training, both through degrees and certification.

However I'll agree there's no reason anybody should really be pressured into going to a university. It should really be for people who want and can succeed in it, not a necessity for a livelihood.

Actually I was not necessarily speaking of employer paid education, but education for a specific type of job (we do have it for some highly skilled jobs like electrician or certified mechanic).

I disagree with many however, that most jobs somehow are somehow more technical than previously. We use technology in the jobs but when pressed people seem to point to computers. But computers are background knowlege now, much as knowing how to drive, easily 80-90% of such jobs don't require college to know how to use the computers. In fact college is a BAD place to learn general computer skills because those skills will be obsolete by the time, or soon after graduation.

Sales (most industries), customer service manufacturing, etc. normally do not really require college education. When pressed people will bring out the 'learn to stick with a project', or 'have cultural background knowledge' or 'learned how to study' as the reason that typical jobs will accept most any field of degree. Four years of expensive schooling is a really inefficient way of acquiring those skills.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Actually I was not necessarily speaking of employer paid education, but education for a specific type of job (we do have it for some highly skilled jobs like electrician or certified mechanic).

Well, community colleges and trade schools pretty much fill that need, at least where I'm from.

Four years of expensive schooling is a really inefficient way of acquiring those skills.

Depends on the job I'd imagine. Of course higher ed isn't just "four years of expensive schooling", it can be 11 months, two years, or 12 years. All dependent on the particular degree, and field of employment. But I agree with you to the point that the general societal pressure to go to a 4 year university is misguided. There are other avenues out there that people should be allowed to investigate before they chart their future.

But while important, I don't believe an education system's only purpose is to develop courses and institutions solely for the purpose of providing job training. I'll leave it at that.

 

[I Ratant]

Are you suggesting anything with this, though?
Would they have been less likely to be "layabouts" without the extra schooling?

.
I doubt it, but they made the effort.
One of them was totally pleased when, in the school jump suit, he wouldn't be followed around in stores as if he were going snatch-and-run, but in essence ignored. He was definitely not used to that. (He's black.)
But as a convicted felon, why would the school let him continue in a path that would lead to no job because of that?
The other is also a convicted felon, but has no ambition at all it seems.
Both of them are moderately capable mechanics, and have worked at that.

 

[fuelair]

There's a huge difference between "education" and "school". You want to learn European History or read Russian literature in translation? Go to Borders and buy a book or ten. You don't need to waste four years of your life, $50,000 of your fellow citizens' tax money and another $XXX of your own to kiss some parasite's
toes.
If school is not an employment program for dues-paying members of public-sector unions, a source of padded construction, supply, and consulting contracts for politically-connected insiders, and a venue for State-worshipful indoctrination, why cannot any student satisfy course requirements credit-by-exam?

If it is fraud for a mechanic to charge for the repair of a functional motor and if it is fraud for a physician to charge for the treatment of a healthy patient, then it is fraud for an instructor, school, or government to charge for the instruction of a student who does not need help.

I recommend Ivar Berg's Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery.

Malcolm - I am curious if you are a communist (not as a perjoprative, simply in definition). Primarily I am curious because much of your phrasing sounds like it was taken in whole or major part from a typical communist speech/manifesto of the 1920's or 30's. Not an insult, purely observation (from an area where all my education is self education - mostly from reading).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm - I am curious if you are a communist (not as a perjoprative, simply in definition). Primarily I am curious because much of your phrasing sounds like it was taken in whole or major part from a typical communist speech/manifesto of the 1920's or 30's. Not an insult, purely observation (from an area where all my education is self education - mostly from reading).

I suppose I sound this way because, like the communist agitators of earlier days, I'm attempting to use communication to move people toward a goal. Blend Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Garrett Hardin, Bertrand Russell, Quine, Thomas Sowell, and Milton Friedman, and you get my outlook, pretty much. I'm not claiming to be that smart, just that I like what they write.

(Jayh): "I disagree with many however, that most jobs somehow are somehow more technical than previously. We use technology in the jobs but when pressed people seem to point to computers. But computers are background knowlege now, much as knowing how to drive, easily 80-90% of such jobs don't require college to know how to use the computers. In fact college is a BAD place to learn general computer skills because those skills will be obsolete by the time, or soon after graduation.

Sales (most industries), customer service manufacturing, etc. normally do not really require college education. When pressed people will bring out the 'learn to stick with a project', or 'have cultural background knowledge' or 'learned how to study' as the reason that typical jobs will accept most any field of degree. Four years of expensive schooling is a really inefficient way of acquiring those skills."

100% agreement.

Teaching hospitals used to train nurses straight from high school. Surgeons and lawyers used to learn through apprenticeship and on-the-job training. There is no magic in school. I recommend Ivar Berg's Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery .

Ben Franklin attended school for two years, then apprenticed. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. Richard Arkwright was homeschooled. Neither Thomas Highs nor James Hargreaves attended secondary school, let alone college. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. The Wright brothers did not complete high school. Sam Colt went to sea at 16 and designed the revolver on the voyage to Bombay. David Farragut joined the Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15. Robert FitzRoy attended the Admiralty school for twenty months, between age 12 and 14, then went to sea.

 

[brenn]

The lack of comprehension of basic economics on this thread (and the forum) is stunning.

 

[lionking]

The lack of comprehension of basic economics on this thread (and the forum) is stunning.

Enlightenment please.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

The lack of comprehension of basic economics on this thread (and the forum) is stunning.

A bit arrogant, don't you think?

 

[dafydd]

I know a woman who shall remain nameless,it takes her until 12 am to remember that there was a yesterday.I was stunned to hear that she now has an art degree.When I knew her she could barely read and write.If she can get a degree in Britain,so can my cat.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Surgeons and lawyers used to learn through apprenticeship and on-the-job training.

What time period did Surgeons and Lawyers commit to "apprenticeships" and "on the job" training?

Ben Franklin attended school for two years, then apprenticed. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. Richard Arkwright was homeschooled. Neither Thomas Highs nor James Hargreaves attended secondary school, let alone college. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. The Wright brothers did not complete high school. Sam Colt went to sea at 16 and designed the revolver on the voyage to Bombay. David Farragut joined the Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15. Robert FitzRoy attended the Admiralty school for twenty months, between age 12 and 14, then went to sea.

A lot of those examples range from 200 to 300 years ago. I'm not saying they're wrong or irrelevant, but it's creeping pretty close to the argument of antiquity. Also..most people never went to any form of higher education in their respective time periods and did far worse than the individuals you listed. They seem more the exception, rather than the rule of their time periods.

 

[drkitten]

A lot of those examples range from 200 to 300 years ago. I'm not saying they're wrong or irrelevant, but it's creeping pretty close to the argument of antiquity.

I'd go as far as to say it's wrong and irrelevant; the field has changed so much since surgeons studied via apprenticeship as to make apprenticeship no longer appropriate, in medicine at least. In the late 19th century, drug therapy was practically nonexistent; most of what passed for medical skill was simply palliative care and a good bedside manner, because there wasn't really much else that doctors could do.


Changes in other fields are less pronounced but still significant; ask any mechanic about how much harder it is to work on modern engines than even the engines of the 1970s.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

I'd go as far as to say it's wrong and irrelevant; the field has changed so much since surgeons studied via apprenticeship as to make apprenticeship no longer appropriate, in medicine at least.

I figured as such. I doubt it's only medicine as well. It seems a general trend that much of employment is growing increasing complex, which requires more complex ways to administer such training.

 

[drkitten]

I figured as such. I doubt it's only medicine as well. It seems a general trend that much of employment is growing increasing complex, which requires more complex ways to administer such training.

Well, you're looking at two entirely different trends.

When Farragut started in the Navy, the amount of technology you needed to master in the Navy was surprisingly small. Even literacy wasn't universal (although officers were required to be literate, and even they didn't need to know any math beyond trigonometry.) The rise of complex employment corresponds with the rise of the university in general in the late 19th/early 20th century and the rise of industrialization in particular.

But there's a secondary trend of credential inflation that really only dates back to the 1950s and 1960s (in the USA at least) and the GI bill, which made university education much more affordable and commonplace.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Australia has a medium term target of 40% of the population holding a bachelor's degree. This seems about right to me for a technologically advanced nation.

40%

I used to take considerable pride in the fact that I was in the 'Top 4%' in the UK when I got my degree. Now every bugger's got one and yet they've had to close the school of Chemistry at the Uni I went to because of lack of interest - apparently because Chemistry is too hard and they all want to do philosophy, theology or media studies so they've expanded those departments.

I'm afraid I'm rather fascistic when it comes to higher education and have little time for some of the, shall we say, less practical courses that seem to be becoming more popular. Then again, the state doesn't pay* for most of it now so if someone wants to incur £30k of debt on some nancy degree or other then who am I to stop them.

I don't see people evidencing the fact that they are more intelligent or better educated though. In fact, quite the reverse. The standard of English of the younger members of my organisation is pretty poor and I know from my own kids' schoolwork that error filled work can still easily gain an A or A*.

* It used to irritate me that eg a mate of mine got full grant to study Norse Mythology when I thought that was something you did for fun and the state should be funding more scientists and engineers. Told you I was an educational fascist!

 

[Garrison0fMars]

But there's a secondary trend of credential inflation that really only dates back to the 1950s and 1960s (in the USA at least) and the GI bill, which made university education much more affordable and commonplace.

True enough, I forgot to include that as a factor. The GI Bill after all, was one of the largest cases of expanding university education to individuals otherwise probably unable to obtain it. (not that I think it was a bad thing mind you)

 

[drkitten]

True enough, I forgot to include that as a factor. The GI Bill after all, was one of the largest cases of expanding university education to individuals otherwise probably unable to obtain it. (not that I think it was a bad thing mind you)

Well, that's the question, isn't it?

"Expanding university education" doesn't mean much if you don't benefit from the education. There's a fairly direct economic benefit from having a degree, but that primarily derives from scarcity-value and is therefore self-limiting (and we're seeing the limits now, at least in the US). There's also an indirect quality of life benefit from the "education" itself, but this assumes that you actually get (and value) the "education."

If all you're doing is passing out pieces of high-quality bond paper with pretentious printing on it, then there's not much point in expanding the number of people with pieces of paper.

That's not to say that I agree with our self-proclaimed "educational fascist"; I like the idea that everyone in society should be educated to the point they can think critically, understand foreign cultures, and recognize the benefits of deferred gratification, all of which are supposed to be part of a "college education." If you can get those benefits from a degree in philosophy or literature, great. Not everyone needs to be a chemist (and if everyone was a chemist, no one could afford to work that job).

But I'm not sure that everyone in the educational industry actually gets the benefits that I associate with a "real degree," either.