About half of college grads underemployed => disaster?

[StatGuy2000]

I flat-out disagree with this. This is the type of wishy-washy nonsense that's resulted in all these kids with useless degrees. This may have been true in the past, but nowadays you can take free courses online in virtually any general education field. I know because I take online courses myself. I even tried a couple of the [insert demographic] studies, philosophy, social justice, sociology etc. courses just to see what they're about. Spoiler alert: they're politically-driven nonsense, and that's in the most low-profile of settings. I can only imagine the indoctrination hell contemporary college students are undergoing. The idea that by the time you're an adult you need to spend 4 years of your life and $100,000 of other peoples' money (if the subsidized loan movement gets to its ultimate goal) simply to be able to think is a dangerous policy, economically and socially. No one's going to pay you for your opinion in the real world, and the lie that people will do so is what's creating this mess that we all know will end in a government, i.e. taxpayer-funded bailout, not to mention probably a whole new government sector under the DoE.

To be clear, I'm not saying anything negative about people simply choosing to take these programs. Your money, your choice. My objection is with the call for taxpayer dollars to subsidize them. If you want to spend 4 years of your life analyzing Plato's Allegory of the Cave, your choice, but don't hold other people responsible when no one hires you to do it for a living. Make your decision and live with your decision.

I don't know what kinds of courses you took online, but I've taken several, and your characterization of courses above is, with all due respect, pure ********* (censored word equivalent in meaning to "equine excrement"). And I completely disagree with your characterization of the notion that somehow subsidizing other people's money for people to study humanities/social science. Not every form of learning has to have an immediate application to a job! To study involves a range of skills that you can put forward in a wide range of careers.

I studied pure math in university. I studied proving theorems and learning about abstract algebra (subspaces, homeomorphisms, groups, rings & fields), calculus, differential equations, geometry, etc. I'm sure in your mind, you would think that my education would be a waste -- after all, what good is proving theorems in the "real world"? But do you know what? Those logical, analytical skills I learned have proven to me to be valuable in my work as a statistician.
It's the same thing for humanities/social sciences.

 

[symbolipoint]

I don't know what kinds of courses you took online, but I've taken several, and your characterization of courses above is, with all due respect, pure ********* (censored word equivalent in meaning to "equine excrement"). And I completely disagree with your characterization of the notion that somehow subsidizing other people's money for people to study humanities/social science. Not every form of learning has to have an immediate application to a job! To study involves a range of skills that you can put forward in a wide range of careers.

I studied pure math in university. I studied proving theorems and learning about abstract algebra (subspaces, homeomorphisms, groups, rings & fields), calculus, differential equations, geometry, etc. I'm sure in your mind, you would think that my education would be a waste -- after all, what good is proving theorems in the "real world"? But do you know what? Those logical, analytical skills I learned have proven to me to be valuable in my work as a statistician.
It's the same thing for humanities/social sciences.

The "parroting back" stuff is when a course (like within Humanities) is not being taught right.

 

[jack action]

Just to get back to the subject at hand (redirecting once more!), let me throw in an hypothetical situation:

A young person gets a doctorate in philosophy and with it, a $100 000 debt. All he can get is a job at McDonald's at first, but he gets promotion after promotion until he buys his own restaurant and becomes a successful businessman making as much money as, say, an engineer. He can easily pay back his debt and lives a great life.

Questions:

• Was is Ph. D. a waste?
• Is it still a problem that he got a Ph. D. «that isn't useful for his work»?
• Should we all think «He should have studied in management or accounting»?

I'm asking, because until now, we seem to assume that a person that can only find a job at McDonald's after graduating will do this all of life, but is it really the case?

 

[XZ923]

Just to get back to the subject at hand (redirecting once more!), let me throw in an hypothetical situation:

A young person gets a doctorate in philosophy and with it, a $100 000 debt. All he can get is a job at McDonald's at first, but he gets promotion after promotion until he buys his own restaurant and becomes a successful businessman making as much money as, say, an engineer. He can easily pay back his debt and lives a great life.

Questions:

• Was is Ph. D. a waste?
• Is it still a problem that he got a Ph. D. «that isn't useful for his work»?
• Should we all think «He should have studied in management or accounting»?

I'm asking, because until now, we seem to assume that a person that can only find a job at McDonald's after graduating will do this all of life, but is it really the case?

The answer to all three of your questions is "in what way did his Ph.D in philosophy result in 'promotion after promotion until he buys his own restaurant and becomes a successful businessman making as much money as, say, an engineer.'" If it didn't, what was the purpose of it? Is his success in receiving all these promotions and eventually becoming a store owner a result of business savvy and good work ethic or reading Plato?

Now, this isn't because I don't believe reading Plato can be beneficial; of course it can. Of course it's beneficial to consider different thought patterns and alternatives. There's no dispute there. My point is if your education is going to consist of this exclusively you're likely to run into trouble in the labor market since you don't have a specific skillset that can be applied, unless the question from the previous paragraph has a direct answer. Your hypothetical McDonals employee/owner/"Symposium" expert would probably be much better off getting an MBA to take advantage of his inherent business savvy and perhaps minoring in philosophy if he so desires.

I don't know what kinds of courses you took online, but I've taken several, and your characterization of courses above is, with all due respect, pure ********* (censored word equivalent in meaning to "equine excrement").

I actually typed this before but deleted before posting since I didn't want to get tagged for an inappropriate comment, but since you opened the door to the saltier language my objection to these courses is not if you take them, it's if you try to make me pay for you to take them (i.e. subsidized loans, and even worse "student loan forgiveness" which is just ex post facto subsidized loans). That's grade-A BS, and I don't mean Bachelor of Science. If that's the decision people want to make, I may not believe it's the best path in the contemporary labor market but I respect everyone's right to live their own lives and choose their own path. But I'm not carrying you. You choose the path, you walk it.

For the record, I pay student loans as well on the 10th of every month and I've never requested it be forgiven. Why? Because it turns out my cost/benefit analysis of the labor market was correct and I've made far more money working in my field than the $22,000 in loans I took out to acquire the education to do so. That's my point. Education should be viewed as an investment. If you're going to put $100,000 into an education, you need a clear strategy on how to get it back out.

 

[jack action]

The answer to all three of your questions is "in what way did his Ph.D in philosophy result in 'promotion after promotion until he buys his own restaurant and becomes a successful businessman making as much money as, say, an engineer.'" If it didn't, what was the purpose of it? Is his success in receiving all these promotions and eventually becoming a store owner a result of business savvy and good work ethic or reading Plato?

Now, this isn't because I don't believe reading Plato can be beneficial; of course it can. Of course it's beneficial to consider different thought patterns and alternatives. There's no dispute there. My point is if your education is going to consist of this exclusively you're likely to run into trouble in the labor market since you don't have a specific skillset that can be applied, unless the question from the previous paragraph has a direct answer. Your hypothetical McDonals employee/owner/"Symposium" expert would probably be much better off getting an MBA to take advantage of his inherent business savvy and perhaps minoring in philosophy if he so desires.

I enlighten the parts of your comments that seems to state that only courses directly related to your job are important. It seems that if you can't find short term pay back (in cold hard cash) from a course, it's useless. In an earlier post, I was asking what is the purpose of learning a foreign language or taking guitar lessons? Is economics the only valid criterion? What if someone begins working at McDonald's as a teenager, works hard, becomes a successful business owner and then goes to university to get a Ph. D. in philosophy that he fully pays with his hard earn money? Is he crazy for doing this instead of getting a MBA? Are there absolutely no valid purposes for doing this?

I guess my question is if someone becomes successful in life, does it matter what courses he took while in university?

Another related question is: If someone can't have a successful life after a Ph. D. in philosophy, is a Ph. D. in electrical engineering a guarantee that he will have one? Is it possible his problem is entirely related to something else (some kind of social interaction disorder, for example)?

 

[XZ923]

I enlighten the parts of your comments that seems to state that only courses directly related to your job are important. It seems that if you can't find short term pay back (in cold hard cash) from a course, it's useless.

I did not say that. What I said was:

Now, this isn't because I don't believe reading Plato can be beneficial; of course it can. Of course it's beneficial to consider different thought patterns and alternatives. There's no dispute there. My point is if your education is going to consist of this exclusively you're likely to run into trouble in the labor market

In an earlier post, I was asking what is the purpose of learning a foreign language

In an increasingly interconnected world where we can speak to any other country (except perhaps Iran and North Korea) with the touch of a button you're asking what is the purpose of learning a foreign language? Is this even a serious question?

or taking guitar lessons?

Music can be very enriching and if you have the resources and predilection for it by all means do so. However if you're going to make it your career I would recommend making sure you're closer to the Jimi Hendrix end of the spectrum than me.

Is economics the only valid criterion?

No, but it's the most important. Since you're spending money to obtain the degree, you do need an economic plan to repay it.

What if someone begins working at McDonald's as a teenager, works hard, becomes a successful business owner and then goes to university to get a Ph. D. in philosophy that he fully pays with his hard earn money?

Apparently you didn't actually read my post that you quoted because this is now the second time I've had to say that I did not say this, what I said was:

I may not believe it's the best path in the contemporary labor market but I respect everyone's right to live their own lives and choose their own path. But I'm not carrying you. You choose the path, you walk it.

Is he crazy for doing this instead of getting a MBA?

I'm not qualified to answer that question, and with all due respect neither are you. His life, his path, his choice.

Are there absolutely no valid purposes for doing this?

Your establishment of an absolute is the type of thing third-rate lawyers do in cross-examination to try to set a trap with a follow-up hypothetical. Sorry, not taking the bait.

I guess my question is if someone becomes successful in life, does it matter what courses he took while in university?

My point in regard to employment is based on efficiency. Yes, you may get a degree in sociology and then become a successful McDonalds owner. My point is that unless you can give a causal link from one to the other, you can't claim it was a good investment.

Another related question is: If someone can't have a successful life after a Ph. D. in philosophy, is a Ph. D. in electrical engineering a guarantee that he will have one? Is it possible his problem is entirely related to something else (some kind of social interaction disorder, for example)?

I don't want to make this a political discussion, but I'll say the best statement in the last cycle from either side came from Senator Rubio, "We need more welders and fewer philosophers." In regard to your hypothetical, as someone who has a social interaction disorder I assure you it's much easier to analyze a circuit diagram than it is to teach philosophy (which is really the only career that will list "Ph. D in Philosophy" as a qualification). As far as direct application, we have a much higher demand in our society for electrical engineers than philosophers.

 

[jack action]

In an increasingly interconnected world where we can speak to any other country (except perhaps Iran and North Korea) with the touch of a button you're asking what is the purpose of learning a foreign language? Is this even a serious question?

So, you don't think someone learning languages such as Mandarin, Hindi, Spanish, German and so much more at university would be wasting his/her time? Your last question seems to say that you wish it would be mandatory.

I'm just saying this because @russ_watters said in an earlier post that he would replace some elective courses with STEM courses. Not to speak for him, but it seems to me that learning most of these languages would go out the window with this concept.

Music can be very enriching and if you have the resources and predilection for it by all means do so.

Don't you think everyone should be taught music if it's so enriching? Shouldn't it be part of any scholar curriculum? If so, how much should one spends on music lessons before you say it's too much?

Because according to some in this thread, it seems you can't get enough STEM courses, no matter what one will do in life. Because there are such useful skills. How about music?

Since you're spending money to obtain the degree, you do need an economic plan to repay it.

So if my economic plan is to open my own clothing store after getting a Ph. D. in English literature, that is not good enough? What about those kids who decide to take a break between high school and college to travel? Can they only do that if they plan to become travel agents?

My point is that unless you can give a causal link from one to the other, you can't claim it was a good investment.

to teach philosophy (which is really the only career that will list "Ph. D in Philosophy" as a qualification).

So, according to you, a Ph. D. in philosophy major is only a good investment if you teach philosophy? That seems kind of useless. Why do we need to teach philosophy in the first place then? Can you imagine if getting a Ph. D. in chemical engineering was only good for teaching chemical engineering? Why would anyone need to study chemical engineering at all?

I assure you it's much easier to analyze a circuit diagram than it is to teach philosophy

That may be true for you and a lot of people, but I'm sure I can find as many people who would disagree with that.

we have a much higher demand in our society for electrical engineers than philosophers.

His life, his path, his choice.

So you are allowed to choose whatever you please, as long as you choose from a selected set of choices, i.e. what is in demand?

What if the future of our society is philosophy? How would you know if you discourage everyone from going down that path?

The mere fact that electrical engineers are in higher demand than philosophers should already be a great source of motivation for students choosing this path. So, if - despite of this fact - students still choose philosophy, doesn't that say something about how our society is evolving? Maybe less consumption and more thinking? Who knows!

FWIW, I'm not necessarily trying to put down all of your arguments and I'm not necessarily in disagreement with all of your views. But I think the subject is more complex than what you seem to make of it.

Personally, I feel that what you hate is the fact that someone borrows money and don't repay it. I totally agree with you on that point. Should it be your right to refuse to lend (or even give) money to someone because you don't believe in their capacity to reimburse that loan or do something useful with that money? And this, whether you are right or wrong on the subject? I'm right with you with that. You seem to think, like @russ_watters , that it is an advantage to take more STEM courses for anyone, no matter what they will do in life. I'm totally on board with that.

But that is totally different than saying we, as a society, should discourage people from studying one field over another, or how far they can go in that field. We may be right about STEM, others may have a different opinion, and trying to shut them up is not an acceptable solution from my point of view. But I wish I had more control over my money such that I can encourage the field I prefer, that's for sure. And I would probably leave a small portion for humanities and arts as well. But nothing for sports (That is where I draw the line). But others are free to finance them.

 

[XZ923]

So, you don't think someone learning languages such as Mandarin, Hindi, Spanish, German and so much more at university would be wasting his/her time? Your last question seems to say that you wish it would be mandatory.

I never said it should be mandatory (why do you keep claiming I made statements that I didn't?) You seemed to be derisive toward the idea of a foreign language having a direct value. I was pointing out how absurd that is in today's world. I highly encourage learning a foreign language.

Don't you think everyone should be taught music if it's so enriching? Shouldn't it be part of any scholar curriculum? If so, how much should one spends on music lessons before you say it's too much?

It's too much when you've borrowed more than you will ever be able to repay.

So if my economic plan is to open my own clothing store after getting a Ph. D. in English literature, that is not good enough? What about those kids who decide to take a break between high school and college to travel? Can they only do that if they plan to become travel agents?

"Good enough" is a subjective statement relative to the person. My personal opinion on the matter is that a Ph. D in English Lit will probably not be much help to you in opening your clothing store, but it's up to you to make that decision. Just don't blame someone else when it doesn't work out.

So, according to you, a Ph. D. in philosophy major [sic] is only a good investment if you teach philosophy? That seems kind of useless.

I challenge you to show me a classified ad for a position that lists "Ph. D in Philosophy" as a requirement and is NOT a position teaching philosophy. If you can do so I will stipulate that I was wrong on this point.

So you are allowed to choose whatever you please, as long as you choose from a selected set of choices, i.e. what is in demand?

No, you can choose whatever you want. However, if you choose something that is not in demand and it turns out you can't make a living out of it (since it's not in demand), you can't pass the blame for that decision onto somebody else.

The mere fact that electrical engineers are in higher demand than philosophers should already be a great source of motivation for students choosing this path. So, if - despite of this fact - students still choose philosophy, doesn't that say something about how our society is evolving? Maybe less consumption and more thinking? Who knows!

That's the end goal of Marxism. Everybody sits around and thinks, goods and services just somehow magically happen by themselves. If you'd like to debate Marxism I'm all ears.

FWIW, I'm not necessarily trying to put down all of your arguments and I'm not necessarily in disagreement with all of your views. But I think the subject is more complex than what you seem to make of it.

Not at all. I recognize that the human experience is quite complex and many people have different aptitudes and predilections in different areas. I'm suggesting maximizing your contribution to society by keeping what you're trained to do (education) at least somewhat aligned with what you actually do (career/vocation).

Personally, I feel that what you hate is the fact that someone borrows money and don't repay it.

Nail on the head. I would change the wording slightly to include any undeserved sense of entitlement.

Should it be your right to refuse to lend (or even give) money to someone because you don't believe in their capacity to reimburse that loan or do something useful with that money? And this, whether you are right or wrong on the subject?

Absolutely. Your education, your choice. My money, my choice.

But that is totally different than saying we, as a society, should discourage people from studying one field over another, or how far they can go in that field. We may be right about STEM, others may have a different opinion, and trying to shut them up is not an acceptable solution from my point of view. But I wish I had more control over my money such that I can encourage the field I prefer, that's for sure. And I would probably leave a small portion for humanities and arts as well. But nothing for sports (That is where I draw the line). But others are free to finance them.

Let me be clear about this: I would never abridge somebody's right to speak their mind. A right to express one's opinions freely is codified in the Constitutions of all civilized nations (as far as I know, I'm not educated on international law).

 

[jack action]

I challenge you to show me a classified ad for a position that lists "Ph. D in Philosophy" as a requirement and is NOT a position teaching philosophy.

That is the root of what I would want you to see: Is the end of education getting a job?

Higher education has been around for a long time, and before the industrial age, nobody ever linked education = job. And when people begun to sell the idea that everyone should be educated, it was still not related to getting a better job. It was about getting a better life. Somehow, it became a tool for industries to avoid paying for training.

One of my (older) uncle raised 4 girls. His view on paying for their education was that they didn't need it because the role of a woman was to be a homemaker (that was in the late 60's, early 70's). He, of course, quit school at age 14, like most of the people of his time around here. Some of his daughters still ended up in the job market (time changed), and one who didn't was also doing the books for her husband's business and has been an elected member of the regional school board for at least the last 25 years. Any higher education would have been nice for those positions even though she still have a good life all around and does great work.

Assuming we think homemaker is an acceptable choice for living your life (I think it is), what kind of education should one get? In this case, is any education wasted? I like to think that someone well educated (no matter the domain) makes a better parent to educate their children and transfer good values.

Personally, I even prefer kids from different homes raised by parents from different backgrounds, than having kids raised in child care and schools by people with the exact same education (i.e. some degree in child care or teaching), like it is the norm around here (Canada).

 

[ModusPwnd]

Does underemployed only mean underpaid?

I'm happy with my pay. I feel like I'm underemployed because my job is easy and not challenging. I could do my job with no college education at all, but my pay is great

 

[XZ923]

Does underemployed only mean underpaid?

I'm happy with my pay. I feel like I'm underemployed because my job is easy and not challenging.

I think in the sense of the thread the point is "underpaid", however underemployed could certainly also mean being in a lower level position than you'd like.

However, I would just point out that in most fields you usually have to start at the bottom and work your way up. I have no idea what your background is, but just to make a hypothetical, if you have a Ph. D in chemistry that doesn't mean they're not going to make you clean the beakers every day. I would suggest evaluating your position within your employer's corporate structure and deciding whether you are being restricted to a job that does not take full advantage of yours skills or if they're simply trying to get you some experience before moving on to more challenging opportunities. IMO there's a fine but very important distinction there.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I don't have a PhD. Because of that I don't think I will ever be in a job that takes full advantage of my capabilities. I don't believe there are many jobs out there that require technical, quantitative problem solving. The employer wants that, but the job doesn't require it. I think most of my team and fellow graduates are underemployed in this sense.

But the pay is right and, most importantly to me, I like my boss and team.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation.

 

[fresh_42]

Moderator's note:

I was inclined to follow the suggestion to move the detour above, which I now removed, into a different new thread about a universal payment. Unfortunately we do not have a section for social sciences. But not only that we don't have it, it also became obvious to me, why we don't have it: the discussion was led by politics and very general statements, which were far from being on a scientific base, neither in political science nor in social science. So as we don't debate about politics for this reason, I wasn't able to gather those posts in a new thread. I saw that the participants in this little detour had interesting points and spent considerable effort on their arguments, so I apologize for the removals, but the posts did not comply with our rules.

Thread re-opened.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One of the few relevant parts to the removed detour (always an issue when splitting a thread - there's no good solution) was:

I'd go even further and say the majority of people were 'not clever' about their choices at that age.

I agree. That's why the government should make these choices for them. In fact, I don't think it should stop there. At that age, people are not clever about their choice of partner. Same solution - they should be assigned by the government.

 

[XZ923]

I agree. That's why the government should make these choices for them. In fact, I don't think it should stop there. At that age, people are not clever about their choice of partner. Same solution - they should be assigned by the government.

I seriously hope you're being sarcastic...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why do you say that? Once one has decided that the proper role of government is to prevent people from making bad decisions, isn't this the natural conclusion?

 

[WWGD]

Why do you say that? Once one has decided that the proper role of government is to prevent people from making bad decisions, isn't this the natural conclusion?

Who has said/implied that? I mean re the government's role.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It may have been part of the pruned branch. But the point is, I think relevant - if we want the government to step in and keep people from making unwise choices - such as taking out huge loans to get an education placing them in a difficult spot re: paying them back - where does it end?

 

[Fervent Freyja]

This is a petty thing to complain about when American's waste trillions each year on things that only benefit them for an instant. Even if restrictions were placed on energy and water consumption, that would give us at least an extra $500 billion to spend (the same the government spends on education). What do you think even “underemployed” American's would spend those monthly savings on? Not their college loans. Maybe: fast food ($100B), soda ($60B), wasted food ($165B), gambling ($145B), lottery tickets ($60B), alcohol ($50B), tobacco ($80B), porn ($10B), bottled water ($10B), nail polish ($1B), video games ($30B), to keep their lawn pretty ($40B), a romance novel ($10B), a traffic ticket ($6B), girl scout cookies ($1B), an STD treatment ($16B), a top 10 NCAA football team ($1.5B), or send it back home to Margarita ($30B).

As you can see, for most, the situation ain’t that dire. Some people prefer to spend their money on education and books, hobbies, experiences, and other things that are intrinsically profiting. There are also many reasons a person might be “underemployed” contrary to their qualifications. Society demands that people fill positions that don’t require a degree. Only occasionally are those positions more profitable than a degree, the number of degrees being “unused” reflects that people didn’t want to take the risk to wait for that position (having a high demand) and actually took a better risk. I think you are making a little too much of this. There are also creatures called children that require supervision and raising, so you are going to find that many with degrees are underemployed or unemployed for many years on account of it, that doesn’t mean it won’t be used later on.

Are you against the government funding college (less than $50B year, I think), so that they can ultimately partake in the general American wasteful lifestyle and only consider it a waste, well, when they cannot waste later on? What’s worse, a person in debt for a degree they didn’t use or a person in debt on account of one-use things? Oftentimes, we find people in debt for both reasons. The problem really isn’t with American’s making the wrong choice of degree and being in debt. A bigger problem is the overall acceptance of a wasteful lifestyle and behaviors- money burned in other places. How many employed college grads are in debt unrelated to education?

Whether or not education translates into considerable monetary profit, a large debt, or it’s funded, I'm all for it if it can: keep people out of our legal system and reduce crime, get people out of bad communities or social associations, increase their self-esteem and quality of life, give them more skills, capabilities, and general knowledge that only the lucky acquire from their childhoods and parents, allow them to earn at least a living wage and participate in basic citizenship, improve the quality of their health and relationships, create more mindful parents, and prevent childhood poverty, abuse, neglect, homelessness, or any of the other detrimental conditions that we know are correlated with poverty and lack of parental college education. Education is protective to society and enhances the quality of life for everyone. Education is protective to children. Its value surpasses the monetary.

Anybody that complains about the government having to pay for college education, in light of the sh*t above that they and the government both waste money on, when there are 15 million children living in poverty largely because of their prior generations lack of college education, should be ashamed. When you complain about funded education of adults, you might as well go up them and tell it to their face while they are still children. When you think that current minimum wage is not detrimental to the welfare of our nations children or contribute to a considerable amount of their suffering; in addition to complaining about having to help their parents or them with education later on so that they can take care of themselves, then I find you hypocritical and I question your decency. This would especially get under my skin if the person complaining is ultimately earning millions from military service, in addition to millions more from the private sectors. But, of course, they aren't going to be for anything that doesn't profit them, because that profit allows them to waste things, even if it costs many childhoods. We have a problem placing value in this country. Children are worth more than adults, plain and simple- that's the only real purpose we have as humans. Either have them or help keep them alive and thriving (the point of education). Opposition of children having decent resources for survival and transcendence, which includes their parents having a livable wage, is sabotage to the entire human race.

 

[Rika]

One of the few relevant parts to the removed detour (always an issue when splitting a thread - there's no good solution) was:
I agree. That's why the government should make these choices for them. In fact, I don't think it should stop there. At that age, people are not clever about their choice of partner. Same solution - they should be assigned by the government.

I think the solution is always the same - proper education. We educate young people in various ways but not the most important imo - how to make proper life choices and what kind of possibilities are out there. Young people should know their strengths, weaknesses, preferences - in job and life general BEFORE they go to college. Or at least they should know how to learn about themselves and how to be exposed to different stuff (trying new things, gaining new experiences is the only way to find about yourself). They should be aware of higher education's reality. You can't make good choice if you don't have necessary knowledge.

Instead we brainwash them into thinking: "go to college, get good grades and good jobs will be waiting for you" or that college education is good for everyone and any major is good for anyone.

 

[fresh_42]

I think all major arguments have been exchanged.

The thread remains closed.