I've often been bewildered by the whole "need a degree" stuff. I have a friend who had to get an associates degree to be a park ranger - basically plowing roads, participating in controlled fires, etc. Then there's my own spouse who flunked out of college twice but made the reason for his flunking (goofing around on the computers back in the early days) into a career. Pretty much EVERY job he's ever had required a degree, but his experience has trumped that. He wouldn't succeed in the same way today, I'm afraid. Us computing dinosaurs used to get a kick out of the CS majors coming into the industry. Book learning did NOT prepare them for the trench (fun) jobs.
agreed
life experience
on the job training/journeyman
peer instruction/training or self taught
competency versus credential-ism
fortunately your hubby's employers understood this
Sure, but the difference is you were after a degree/education. If we send the boy just because everyone should go to college, it's doomed to failure. If he finds himself wanting it, then cool.
I've often been bewildered by the whole "need a degree" stuff. I have a friend who had to get an associates degree to be a park ranger - basically plowing roads, participating in controlled fires, etc. Then there's my own spouse who flunked out of college twice but made the reason for his flunking (goofing around on the computers back in the early days) into a career. Pretty much EVERY job he's ever had required a degree, but his experience has trumped that. He wouldn't succeed in the same way today, I'm afraid. Us computing dinosaurs used to get a kick out of the CS majors coming into the industry. Book learning did NOT prepare them for the trench (fun) jobs.
Sure, but the difference is you were after a degree/education. If we send the boy just because everyone should go to college, it's doomed to failure. If he finds himself wanting it, then cool.
I know so many non-collegiate people who found their niche (some more than just one), threw their all into it, and absolutely thrived. That was MY plan at first. Then, four years after high school, I decided I wanted to teach the little ones and started a nine-year journey of part-time college with a full time job. Life and its curve balls.....
Being crap at book learning doesn't necessarily mean college is a bad thing. My brother and I both navigated it successfully using different strategies. He went to a large Uni and applied his genius to figuring out how to get by while using the minimal effort. (When he was in High School they had standardised exams but students with a good enough record through the year didn't have to take them. He decided it was much easier to read the text the night before the exam than to do all those assignments during the year).
I went to a small liberal arts school with small classes and lots of personal attention from the professors who managed to encourage/cajole/drag me through the program. Somehow they brought out the best in me.
Sure, but the difference is you were after a degree/education. If we send the boy just because everyone should go to college, it's doomed to failure. If he finds himself wanting it, then cool.
We're there. The girl will thrive in college (our biggest challenge will be steering her toward a useful major). The boy will not. He's sharp as a tack but has his dad's knack for book-learnin'. I certainly would have been better served to have a focused non-college plan. Well, after the 2-year AS that I got locally, anyway. We're assuming he's going to get that alternative plan.
Being crap at book learning doesn't necessarily mean college is a bad thing. My brother and I both navigated it successfully using different strategies. He went to a large Uni and applied his genius to figuring out how to get by while using the minimal effort. (When he was in High School they had standardised exams but students with a good enough record through the year didn't have to take them. He decided it was much easier to read the text the night before the exam than to do all those assignments during the year).
I went to a small liberal arts school with small classes and lots of personal attention from the professors who managed to encourage/cajole/drag me through the program. Somehow they brought out the best in me.
So far I don't think middle class parents are convinced.
We're there. The girl will thrive in college (our biggest challenge will be steering her toward a useful major). The boy will not. He's sharp as a tack but has his dad's knack for book-learnin'. I certainly would have been better served to have a focused non-college plan. Well, after the 2-year AS that I got locally, anyway. We're assuming he's going to get that alternative plan.
Well it's in the best interest of everyone who has a degree to make it stay that way. I know a guy who flunked out of college who's smarter than any of us, and worked his way up to fairly upper management in the oil industry... who considered transferring to a local business so he didn't have to travel. It would have been a huge step down in responsibility, pay, etc. but he put in for it anyway. Didn't even get a second look... because it's a small town, he heard back that the college was the problem... no one would hire him because if it didn't work out, their boss would have fired both of them.
Good point. Credentialism has been with us since the days of the guilds, right?
Letting go of old patterns and habits can definitely be difficult. There are various people sounding the alarm regarding credential inflation and pointing out that four year degrees/ advanced degrees aren't the bargain they used to be. So far I don't think middle class parents are convinced.
Maybe we need to convince people that we've reached a sort of singularity/tipping point with respect to our current version of capitalism. If trying all the old tricks that worked in the past fail to yield results now, if the middle class continues to shrink and wealth/wage gaps of various kinds continue to grow, maybe we can accept that some fundamental changes beyond the usual approach are in order.
How do we change the national dialog away from the current mantra of "four year degree or you'r going to fail as an adult"? If middle class parents start valuing vocational ed, the schools will probably reemerge to accept their dollars.
Well it's in the best interest of everyone who has a degree to make it stay that way. I know a guy who flunked out of college who's smarter than any of us, and worked his way up to fairly upper management in the oil industry... who considered transferring to a local business so he didn't have to travel. It would have been a huge step down in responsibility, pay, etc. but he put in for it anyway. Didn't even get a second look... because it's a small town, he heard back that the college was the problem... no one would hire him because if it didn't work out, their boss would have fired both of them.
I agree with Vo-Ed and Vo-Tech, but being employed in higher ed, and one of 9 legacy children to attend the same school, it's hard for me to encourage one of my sons to pursue a vocation, though I really think it might be his route.
Just because we can't envision ourselves in a particular life path or life style doesn't mean it might not be suited for anyone else, offspring included.
I heard the unemployment rate for college grads is around 7 percent. Maybe you mean half can't find a career in the field they studied in, and settle for a lower-wage job? That sounds more likely to me.
I did throw out a lot below, so we should probably stick to one issue at a time, and college is a good start, I suppose.
I mostly agree that college is not really appropriate for everyone, especially every graduating HS senior. I think bringing back Vo-Ed or Vo-tech training would be good as well. How do we change the national dialog away from the current mantra of "four year degree or you'r going to fail as an adult"? If middle class parents start valuing vocational ed, the schools will probably reemerge to accept their dollars.
I agree with Vo-Ed and Vo-Tech, but being employed in higher ed, and one of 9 legacy children to attend the same school, it's hard for me to encourage one of my sons to pursue a vocation, though I really think it might be his route.
I'll start with the free tuition thingy. I think its a bad idea out of the box, at least for 4 year institutions. The widely accepted stat for grads is that half cannot find a job upon graduation. Why compound that and make it worse ? We already have Pell Grants which can cover nearly all costs for a community college. Its how I did mine and got an Associates degree basically fully paid for.
I believe that a 2 year degree is more practical and leads to quicker and surer employment than a 4 year degree. Too much worth is placed on a 4 year and the return for the cost of tuition is dismal presently. Not everyone is college material. A renewed emphasis on Vo-Ed training might be a better approach, providing training for jobs that do exist and have openings.
I've long been an advocate for community colleges over a 4 year institution for several reasons. First the cost, much lower per hour, the fact that a two year transferable degree sure looks better on a job ap than 'some college' and lastly, if a 4 year is the ultimate goal, no one will hold an associates / bachelor combination against you. Its what I have. Its the name of the school on the 4 year that matters most, more than whether or not you did all 4 years there.
That's my opener ...
I heard the unemployment rate for college grads is around 7 percent. Maybe you mean half can't find a career in the field they studied in, and settle for a lower-wage job? That sounds more likely to me.
I did throw out a lot below, so we should probably stick to one issue at a time, and college is a good start, I suppose.
I mostly agree that college is not really appropriate for everyone, especially every graduating HS senior. I think bringing back Vo-Ed or Vo-tech training would be good as well. How do we change the national dialog away from the current mantra of "four year degree or you'r going to fail as an adult"? If middle class parents start valuing vocational ed, the schools will probably reemerge to accept their dollars.
This primer on economic principles brilliantly analyzes the seen and unseen consequences of political and economic actions. In the words of F.A. Hayek, there is "no other modern book from which the intelligent layman can learn so much about the basic truths of economics in so short a time."
This primer on economic principles brilliantly analyzes the seen and unseen consequences of political and economic actions. In the words of F.A. Hayek, there is "no other modern book from which the intelligent layman can learn so much about the basic truths of economics in so short a time."
Never in need of being made to feel better, but thanks for asking.
We could actually have a reasonable discussion about some of the issues you're trying to raise, like the wealth gap. There have definitely been reports pointing out that the recovery we've seen has benefited primarily people in upper income ranges; probably one of the reasons dissatisfaction with the status quo led to the gains Republicans made last fall. Many of the voters who pulled the R lever probably fall into the category of people whose economic welfare has stagnated, or worse in the aftermath of the great recession. Hard to blame them for being impatient; it's what US voters are famous for. And our safety net to help people weather tough times/slow recoveries is notoriously stingy (see here)
I think the issue of the shrinkage of the middle class, and whether it can be halted or even reversed in the long term (say, the next couple of decades) is a really interesting one for which nobody seems to have a clear answer. I am particularly interested because my kids are on the cusp of entry into the workforce. Our generation (yours and mine) is increasingly looking like it may be the last one for which the American Dream (homeownership, freedom from income and wealth volatility, nonworking retirement, college education for the kids) was an accessible goal, even for nonprofessionals/non-white collar workers. There are an awful lot of factors at play, including technological shrinkage, substantial loads of unforgivable education debt, credential inflation, etc.
What do you think of the economic situation of the middle class? Do you think it's something that has been sneakily foisted on us by the current occupant? is it something beyond the control of either party? Would providing free college education at four year state institutions (or community colleges or technical/skills schools offering associates degrees or training programs) help any?
What about Hanauer's proposal to unilaterally raise the overtime threshold, and/or cut overtime exemptions?
You put a lot on the table there, bud.
I'll start with the free tuition thingy. I think its a bad idea out of the box, at least for 4 year institutions. The widely accepted stat for grads is that half cannot find a job upon graduation. Why compound that and make it worse ? We already have Pell Grants which can cover nearly all costs for a community college. Its how I did mine and got an Associates degree basically fully paid for.
I believe that a 2 year degree is more practical and leads to quicker and surer employment than a 4 year degree. Too much worth is placed on a 4 year and the return for the cost of tuition is dismal presently. Not everyone is college material. A renewed emphasis on Vo-Ed training might be a better approach, providing training for jobs that do exist and have openings.
I've long been an advocate for community colleges over a 4 year institution for several reasons. First the cost, much lower per hour, the fact that a two year transferable degree sure looks better on a job ap than 'some college' and lastly, if a 4 year is the ultimate goal, no one will hold an associates / bachelor combination against you. Its what I have. Its the name of the school on the 4 year that matters most, more than whether or not you did all 4 years there.
Never in need of being made to feel better, but thanks for asking.
We could actually have a reasonable discussion about some of the issues you're trying to raise, like the wealth gap. There have definitely been reports pointing out that the recovery we've seen has benefited primarily people in upper income ranges; probably one of the reasons dissatisfaction with the status quo led to the gains Republicans made last fall. Many of the voters who pulled the R lever probably fall into the category of people whose economic welfare has stagnated, or worse in the aftermath of the great recession. Hard to blame them for being impatient; it's what US voters are famous for. And our safety net to help people weather tough times/slow recoveries is notoriously stingy (see here)
I think the issue of the shrinkage of the middle class, and whether it can be halted or even reversed in the long term (say, the next couple of decades) is a really interesting one for which nobody seems to have a clear answer. I am particularly interested because my kids are on the cusp of entry into the workforce. Our generation (yours and mine) is increasingly looking like it may be the last one for which the American Dream (homeownership, freedom from income and wealth volatility, nonworking retirement, college education for the kids) was an accessible goal, even for nonprofessionals/non-white collar workers. There are an awful lot of factors at play, including technological shrinkage, substantial loads of unforgivable education debt, credential inflation, etc.
What do you think of the economic situation of the middle class? Do you think it's something that has been sneakily foisted on us by the current occupant? is it something beyond the control of either party? Would providing free college education at four year state institutions (or community colleges or technical/skills schools offering associates degrees or training programs) help any?
What about Hanauer's proposal to unilaterally raise the overtime threshold, and/or cut overtime exemptions?
I don't feel in any way obligated to respond to the red herrings you threw up when I noted that your prediction that our economy would crumble (in your words) by 2012 was wrong. You can try and move the goalposts all you like, and split all the hairs/attempt to wiggle out of all the predictions you want, but you'd look a lot less absurd IMO if you'd just own up to being in the wrong when the facts are not on your side.
Why don't you pick apart my rebuttal to your claims. Did I get something wrong ?
I musta got something wrong.
I don't feel in any way obligated to respond to the red herrings you threw up when I noted that your prediction that our economy would crumble (in your words) by 2012 was wrong. You can try and move the goalposts all you like, and split all the hairs/attempt to wiggle out of all the predictions you want, but you'd look a lot less absurd IMO if you'd just own up to being in the wrong when the facts are not on your side.
