Bar Stool Economics

[DanMa1156]

Otto, I think you're making some pretty broad, sweeping assumptions again. First of all less than 30% of Americans posess a college degree (as low as an Associate's).

It's also notable that Indian colleges provide a much lower level quality of education (I've studied this one) so I think it's hard to compare an Indian College to an American University. Additionally, India is a much more labor-based economy while we are much more fascinated with capital - thus making the demand for skilled workers much much higher than here. We are already a service - based economy with a shrinking industrial base. People will choose a major they are interested in because they can here.

Do you really think that the average student who get's a B.A. in "Women's Studies" was likely going to be successful at earning a B.S. in XYZ Engineering? I'd say not. But is he/she now at a higher level of education than previously? Yes. Can he/she contribute to something in a more meaningful way than previously? Again, I'd say yes.

I just think you're making some reaaaaaaaaally far reaching statements that are inaccurate.

Picture yourself 80-90 years ago and imagine yourself saying "There are too many kids in high school." You'd sound like a moron today. That is the absolute minimum standard nowadays. Back then? Hell my grandma did great on an 8th Grade Education. I bet 50-60 years from now, having a Bachelor's too will be a standard as well. Are we advancing the better interests of our nation by having as many college educated workers as possible? Of course! We're investing in human capital!

 

[BACONATOR]

Otto, I think you're making some pretty broad, sweeping assumptions again. First of all less than 30% of Americans posess a college degree (as low as an Associate's).

It's also notable that Indian colleges provide a much lower level quality of education (I've studied this one) so I think it's hard to compare an Indian College to an American University. Additionally, India is a much more labor-based economy while we are much more fascinated with capital - thus making the demand for skilled workers much much higher than here. We are already a service - based economy with a shrinking industrial base. People will choose a major they are interested in because they can here.

Do you really think that the average student who get's a B.A. in "Women's Studies" was likely going to be successful at earning a B.S. in XYZ Engineering? I'd say not. But are they now at a higher level of education than previously? Yes. Can he/she contribute to something in a more meaningful way that previously? Again, I'd say yes.

I just think you're making some reaaaaaaaaally far reaching statements that are inaccurate.

In all honesty, I'm 90% trolling in this thread. I just like seeing the guys with liberal arts majors get all worked up and bunch their hosiery.

If you asked me to do an engineering problem, I could probably do 1/10 if I was lucky and I got my degree a little over a year ago. My degree means NOTHING at this point. Am I smart? Maybe maybe not. Am I a good pilot? I'm decent. Probably pretty average (helos after all ).

There are plenty of poly sci and music major hornet pilots who kick my ass behind the stick, so in the scheme of things (meaning wrt all of OUR careers) degree means nothing.

 

[DanMa1156]

In all honesty, I'm 90% trolling in this thread. I just like seeing the guys with liberal arts majors get all worked up and bunch their hosiery.

If you asked me to do an engineering problem, I could probably do 1/10 if I was lucky and I got my degree a little over a year ago. My degree means NOTHING at this point. Am I smart? Maybe maybe not. Am I a good pilot? I'm decent. Probably pretty average (helos after all ).

There are plenty of poly sci and music major hornet pilots who kick my ass behind the stick, so in the scheme of things (meaning wrt all of OUR careers) degree means nothing.

To be quite honest, I get the feeling you like seeing people get their hosiery bunched. I really feel like you instigate agitation sometimes. I could care less - I'm getting a pretty well rounded degree, a B.S. in Economics from the Academy, so I feel pretty confident that's worth something; but unlike some people here, I'm not trying to sound high and mighty bragging about the apparent greater value of my college degree over someone else's. If there was no demand for those curricula, they wouldn't exist. They wouldn't exist if there was no job demand for them either.


And for the record... my brother is a photography major. His next assignment? Lingerie Photo shoot. Not kidding. We all went wrong by not choosing that, fellas.

 

[BACONATOR]

To be quite honest, I get the feeling you like seeing people get their hosiery bunched.

And for the record... my brother is a photography major. His next assignment? Lingerie Photo shoot. Not kidding. We all went wrong by not choosing that, fellas.

1. What the hell else is there to do in scratch ankle?

2. That's crazy! My brother does nude photography... usually for free, but still. He's building up his portfolio and he gets women to come over and get naked (hot ones), so good times. (He's a non-practicing engineer).

Economics is OK in my book.

 

[porw0004]

.. student who get's a B.A. in "Women's Studies" .. is he/she now at a higher level of education ..

Damn, how much ass is that guy getting? Or.. inversely, how many burning bras is he getting pelted with?

 

[Omni]

Damn, how much ass is that guy getting? Or.. inversely, how many burning bras is he getting pelted with?

I would bet on the latter. Most women in a women's studies major are fed up with men and too focused on being irritated and angry at the system (and in turn men) and their historical grief to have any interest in guy-X who is obviously in it for the tail. If he is in it for genuine reasons he is usually not interested in the women if you know what I mean.

(Obviously making sweeping generalizations and stereotyping. It is generally what you see in those kinds of classes. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, I'm just not discussing them.)

 

[mmx1]

Otto, I think you're making some pretty broad, sweeping assumptions again. First of all less than 30% of Americans posess a college degree (as low as an Associate's).

It's also notable that Indian colleges provide a much lower level quality of education (I've studied this one) so I think it's hard to compare an Indian College to an American University. Additionally, India is a much more labor-based economy while we are much more fascinated with capital - thus making the demand for skilled workers much much higher than here. We are already a service - based economy with a shrinking industrial base. People will choose a major they are interested in because they can here.

Do you really think that the average student who get's a B.A. in "Women's Studies" was likely going to be successful at earning a B.S. in XYZ Engineering? I'd say not. But is he/she now at a higher level of education than previously? Yes. Can he/she contribute to something in a more meaningful way than previously? Again, I'd say yes.

I just think you're making some reaaaaaaaaally far reaching statements that are inaccurate.

Picture yourself 80-90 years ago and imagine yourself saying "There are too many kids in high school." You'd sound like a moron today. That is the absolute minimum standard nowadays. Back then? Hell my grandma did great on an 8th Grade Education. I bet 50-60 years from now, having a Bachelor's too will be a standard as well. Are we advancing the better interests of our nation by having as many college educated workers as possible? Of course! We're investing in human capital!

But we have likely reached the limit of supply of college-ready individuals. At the bottom rungs, what's available bears little resemblance to the ideals of a liberal education. Take a look at this perspective from the bottom:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/college

What exactly are we seeking by having a "college-educated" workforce, and at the limits of the system (the associates programs, for example), are we really accomplishing it?

 

[CommodoreMid]

I am torn by this question. I believe that getting our work force more educated will, in the long run, benefit our economy and culture, but at the same time I wonder who we truly need to send to college. I went to a private high school where 100% of the students go to college. Not going really wasn't an option and I'm sure had someone decided not to do so, the administration would have crapped themselves knowing they could no longer say 100% of their students went on to college. There were a lot of people in my class though who would have been content and honestly didn't need to go, so I'm wondering what was the point?

Furthermore, I'm for the elimination of all government grants such as the Pell, etc., to subsidize higher education. Going to college is not a right and I don't think we should provide it for our country. I'm personally in favor of mandating any government funds for your education requiring some kind of government service, a la ROTC scholarships. You could even tailor curriculum and training for students to enter into other government jobs like the FBI, NSA, border patrol, whatever. If the American taxpayer is going to finance your education, I think you better give something tangible back.

 

[PropAddict]

It's also notable that Indian colleges provide a much lower level quality of education (I've studied this one) so I think it's hard to compare an Indian College to an American University.

I just have to throw the bullshit flag on this one. I'm sure there are some crappy Indian universities out there. There are also some top-tier ones. India Institute of Technology (IIT) comes to mind. Widely considered the best engineering school in the world. So why don't we hear about more IIT grads? You must be an Indian citizen to attend and it has it's own admission tests, passage of which is so prestigious the results are printed in the national newspapers. For some comparison, the then-CEO of Sun Microsystems wanted to get his son into IIT. Junior was rejected and had to go to his safety school. . .Cornell. . .on a full ride.

So, just because it's not American doesn't mean it's crap.

 

[Spekkio]

I think what Otto means by too many people getting degrees is that the job market for positions requiring degrees becomes saturated; thus, many people with degrees end up working a job they otherwise could have worked without one at a similar salary.

I would hate to point out the obvious, maybe it wasn't your degree.

I worded my post poorly in that it implies that I couldn't find employment, period. I held full time jobs post graduation, it's just that I could never find what I would define as a "good" job as I did in a previous post. The only one that was close was when I worked for a mortgage company, but it went bankrupt. Mind you, that job had nothing to do with biology, and it was only decent because it offered promotion opportunity into a halfway decent salary.

If I were to seek employment within my field without getting a graduate degree, I'd be looking at being a lab rat or working at some wildlife preserve making less than $30k/year.

I would also be curious where I might have found these hidden awesome jobs considering I've looked in the local papers, job fairs, craigs list, monster, etc. Unfortunately, not too many companies were interested in hiring someone with little experience and no degree in any sort of useful specialization (ie accounting, finance, engineering, etc).

Again, I'm not saying that these jobs don't exist; I'm sure they do. However, given the statistics of average starting salaries after college graduation and my own personal difficulty in finding a good job over a decent period of time, I'd say that it is the exception and not the norm to land something like a $50k/year job with promotion opportunity fresh out of college with a "liberal arts" degree.

There were a lot of people in my class though who would have been content and honestly didn't need to go, so I'm wondering what was the point?

The point is that employers often require a college degree for positions just because they can, even if the degree is irrelevant and unnecessary to the daily performance of said job.

 

[navy09]

You could even tailor curriculum and training for students to enter into other government jobs like the FBI, NSA, border patrol, whatever. If the American taxpayer is going to finance your education, I think you better give something tangible back.

I've always been in favor of this as well. The military is the only .gov organization that I can think of that does an 'education for work' type of 'scholarship.' I agree that Pell grants- and most other government handouts- should be done away with (Adam Smith is my hero). Can't afford school? Cool, the state will pay for it in exchange for you teaching in a K-12 school for 4 years after you graduate.

 

[Flash]

I've always been in favor of this as well. The military is the only .gov organization that I can think of that does an 'education for work' type of 'scholarship.'

There are other parts of the government that help pay for school with the promise of a job at graduation. You just have to look.

 

[picklesuit]

Furthermore, I'm for the elimination of all government grants such as the Pell, etc., to subsidize higher education. Going to college is not a right and I don't think we should provide it for our country.

If the American taxpayer is going to finance your education, I think you better give something tangible back.

I have to disagree with the sentiment of this post...I don't think intelligent, hard working American kids should be punished because their parents were irresponsible/stupid/just plain dirt poor. As a person who received the Pell grant, and subsidized Federal school loans, I can tell you that first: it was not that much, and second: it was income based. My parents made roughly $50,000/yr combined (in California circa 1997), so I got anywhere from $300-1000 per year in Pell grants...basically enough for books. I had to take out nearly $52,000 in loans to pay for school, on top of the three jobs I worked while taking 15-21 credits per semester.

My parents made poor fiscal choices...my (step)dad was paying alimony, my mom worked as a secretary making 18,000/yr because she was too fucking stupid to use birth control and had me her junior year of college, thus not finishing her degree. They couldn't get past living paycheck to paycheck, so the grand total they had saved for me to attend school was about $3000 dollars.

I busted my ass in high school...I wasn't/am not a "smart" guy...but I still managed to finish in the top 15% of my class in high school. I had the extracurriculars, I was active in my community, I did well on the entrance tests, I got into every school I applied to. So why the fuck should I get punished because my parents sucked at life?

The government is investing in the Pell grant because it will be paid back in multiples by the person receiving it. That person (after graduating with a college degree) will enter the work force. They will make 150% the salary of a high school grad. They will be taxed at a higher rate, be less likely to require federal support in the form of Medicaid, welfare, food stamps; and will be less likely to get arrested, beat their spouse, drive uninsured, or do a myriad of other things requiring the state/federal government to pay for them.

The money these graduates dump back into the government coffers via taxation will pay for their Pell grants plus the expenses incurred by all of the dumbasses who chose not to go to college.

As far as federal service to pay back loans/grants...I think there are many great volunteer programs with that option that pay much more than the Pell grant (ROTC/Academy/BDCP etc.)
The investment by the government into plans not requiring mando service is at a much lower level.

I am not opposed to a mandatory government service period after high school...not military, but somthing along the lines of Peace Corps, Red Cross, CCC...something that helps the infrastructure of our country and does not require someone to unvoluntarily get shot at. Plus put a little discipline in to the little turd-burglars coming out of high school...and it should be something that everyone has to do...you can't "go to college" to avoid it or have daddy pay your way out of it....

Pickle

 

[PropAddict]

So why the fuck should I get punished because my parents sucked at life?

I know, right?? I always had to be the kid without an inground swimming pool growing up and the ONE guy who's parents didn't buy him a car when he turned 16. Why shouldn't Uncle Sugar have helped me out with some subsidies for all the (other) stuff my parents couldn't buy?

 

[navy09]

There are two ways to look at everything. You don't think kids should be "punished" for having poor parents...I don't think kids should rewarded for having poor parents.

If you want the money for school, earn it. Do your time serving in some capacity.

And just to be clear, I don't look down on kids that take .gov grants. They're looking out for #1. I just don't think it should be an option.