Job Skills About half of college grads underemployed => disaster?

[jack action]

I think we need more STEM in high school and less humanities. This includes Algebra 2. Indeed, if I could make it happen, I'd say that Calculus 1 and Statistics are both essential for minimally functional adults to know.

Not that I don't agree with the statement, but how are we suppose to do that? Trigonometry is already taught in high school - and I think it can be very useful in everyday life - but nobody uses it because, well, nobody knows what they can do with it. That is the biggest problem to solve first. Your parents don't use trigonometry - nobody around you does -, your teacher can't tell you what it can be useful for, so why would anyone want to learn it? As stupid as it sounds, people have to recognize the value of the things taught in school (other than the mere fact that you need a diploma to get a job) before sending their children to school.

I personally despise how most teachers present school as a chore that will be rewarded by some playtime, like phys ed & sports or arts & crafts. The only thing they teach is that school is boring and nobody «normal» should like it. I hated phys ed and liked learning new things in class, so you can imagine my confusion when I was «rewarded» by being stopped from doing what I liked to do something I hated.

Big surprise, people of my generation (X), which have been served phys ed as a reward all their youth, are now treating physical activities as an important part of their life. To a point where someone who can run a marathon makes a bigger accomplishment than someone who can solve complex mathematical equations. (Funny how people will raise funds for cancer research by training for and participating in a race, but no one will raise money by saying they will take a biology or chemistry course - which would be more related to the subject, i.e. research)

This isn't generic advice that should be given to everyone: if a person doesn't have an aptitude for physics, don't tell them they should follow that dream.

I have a problem with that. To me, this is an elitist statement that make it sounds like some people cannot do physics (often related to «not smart enough»). Maybe someone do not have an interest in it and doesn't want to do the effort. I don't have the patience to learn how to play a musical instrument, but it doesn't mean I can't, even though I certainly will never become a Mozart. But then again, I don't dream about becoming a musician either.

If you are a human being, then you can learn physics. Just like you can learn to hunt, to cook, to speak, to read and write. Some might be better than others in some domains, but you can still do it. There was a time when people thought that not everybody could read & write, yet everybody does today. That myth was the result of elitism; People protecting the power given by their skills, by preventing anyone else having them.

And it's a good thing to learn stuff you may not use as a livelihood too, because you need to know and understand what you buy as well, including making decisions (like voting).

 

[Dr Transport]

_The_ unions? Or _some_ unions? I just have trouble accepting that people would, by default, act in self-destructive ways. Why would union members knowingly kill off the source of their paychecks?

Look at the teachers union and the state govt employees union in Illinois, they have extracted large pay raises and huge retirement benefits from the state. Now the state is one step away from bankruptcy and has a junk bond status and is raising taxes to cover the shortfalls. Just a case where the union members killed off their paychecks...

 

[gleem]

This thread is about an unacceptable employment rate following a college degree. While substandard preparation can be a contributor I think that attitude may be more important. As I previously said too high of expectations was identified for millennials whom we a presumably talking about since they are the majority of college grads today. Colleges over the past decade have become overindulgent to the whims of the students who have developed an intolerance to ideas they do not support. Colleges have created "safe zone" for student to sequester when they are "assaulted" by ideas they find "offensive". They have also, contrary to what colleges have traditionally tried to instill in its graduates, analyze and debate the issues, verbally assault those who they disagree .

This leads to a big problem in the real world where one does not have a "safe space" and in which irrational behaviors in response to an unacceptable work environment is not tolerated. It is a lot different than their previous experiences have revealed.

Their work ethic leaves something to be desired too. Anecdotally my two sons, one who worked in a light manufacturing company (an now owns his own business) and the other who works in construction both noted lack of unreliability of younger workers. Interestingly the one who works in construction is a millennial but with a solid work ethic. One final note the construction working son moved to a different state and a larger company had to prove he was not a typical millennial to the new crew. I seems that the work force might be testing these new grads making it just a little harder for them to deal with.

 

[russ_watters]

Not that I don't agree with the statement, but how are we suppose to do that? Trigonometry is already taught in high school - and I think it can be very useful in everyday life - but nobody uses it because, well, nobody knows what they can do with it. That is the biggest problem to solve first. Your parents don't use trigonometry - nobody around you does -, your teacher can't tell you what it can be useful for, so why would anyone want to learn it? As stupid as it sounds, people have to recognize the value of the things taught in school (other than the mere fact that you need a diploma to get a job) before sending their children to school.

I think there are two approaches to the problem and this narrow focus one (how, exactly, will we use it), while common, isn't the correct approach. For starters, I think it is mathematically flawed (irony intended). You might learn literally a million things in your schooling, most of which you rarely use. But since there is no way to know when or if the date of the Magna Carta might come in handy, you learn it. Going to elementary/secondary school is collecting a big basket of skills/knowledge, with potential usefulness, and it doesn't need to be proven that you used one for having learned it to be a good idea. Only the aggregate value for the population as a whole matters.

So part of the wrong approach to the thread comes from the fact that we are discussing high school knowledge being taught to college kids who won't become scientists/engineers. It's a flase dilema: it's high school knowledge, so you teach it to high school kids because you don't know yet which ones are going to become scientists/engineers.

Second, this approach discounts the fact that there is value in having learned the subject even if you don't use it at all. Learning is exercise and that weight at the gym isn't the rock in my back yard, but will help me lift that rock in my back yard. Learning things you won't use doesn't just make you know more, it makes you smarter.

 

[russ_watters]

Look at the teachers union and the state govt employees union in Illinois, they have extracted large pay raises and huge retirement benefits from the state. Now the state is one step away from bankruptcy and has a junk bond status and is raising taxes to cover the shortfalls. Just a case where the union members killed off their paychecks...

I'm going to try again and say it more softly than I put it before: business is inherrently risky and *any* deal anyone ever makes has the potential to work-out badly. Even if only "some" unions purposely harm companies, all unions must be aware that what they are doing has the potential to harm companies. They are inherrently biting the hand that feeds them by making labor cost more.

 

[WWGD]

Look at the teachers union and the state govt employees union in Illinois, they have extracted large pay raises and huge retirement benefits from the state. Now the state is one step away from bankruptcy and has a junk bond status and is raising taxes to cover the shortfalls. Just a case where the union members killed off their paychecks...

Still, until further evidence, it falls under _some_ unions. I am not saying it does not happen, and I agree that greed and stupidity sometime override common sense and decency, but I am not sure this is the norm. I think if one considers sources both right- and left- one gets a more nuanced view of unions' behavior. EDIT: The Left and MSNBC will portray them as victims, Fox as responsible for all ills, and here the cliche holds, that the truth is in-between.

 

[jack action]

Going to elementary/secondary school is collecting a big basket of skills/knowledge, with potential usefulness, and it doesn't need to be proven that you used one for having learned it to be a good idea.

so you teach it to high school kids because you don't know yet which ones are going to become scientists/engineers.

Learning things you won't use doesn't just make you know more, it makes you smarter.

How do you merge these statements with this one:

I think we need more STEM in high school and less humanities.

Are you saying humanities courses have no potential usefulness?

What about the high school kids who will become librarians, artists or politicians? Shouldn't we teach the subjects needed for these fields (i.e. humanities) to every kids just because we don't know which ones will embrace those careers?

Are you saying learning humanities doesn't make you smarter? At least not as much as STEM courses?

 

[russ_watters]

How do you merge these statements with this one:

I'm not sure what discrepancy you see, so I'll just list them together to show they are not all or nothing or one and not the other...

Schools need to teach:
1. Useful skills.
2. How to think.

Are you saying humanities courses have no potential usefulness?

No, I'm saying they have less potential usefulness. That's a broad brush though and not all are the same.

Big caveat here that I don't think is an issue because of your chosen examples, but want to make sure: I said "humanities", but humanities are generally lumped together with the arts and the arts are by far the less useful. As V50 pointed out, there are some parts of humanities (philosophy, in particular), that are very valuable for learning how to think...not that they are necessarily taught that way though.

What about the high school kids who will become librarians, artists *snip*? Shouldn't we teach the subjects needed for these fields (i.e. humanities) to every kids just because we don't know which ones will embrace those careers?

I did mean it when I said with fully unintentional irony that this should be approached more mathematically. The number of jobs available for librarians and artists are vanishingly small, so the need to provide prep for them is as well...though I think library science is already included, so I don't think that's a good example. Art is a good example though. It's more of a non-academic talent-based hobby like sports or music and should not be required.

politics

Politics is a tough example because it doesn't have any formal requirements, but informally it typically involves a law degree, which is post-bachelor and therefore none of this discussion is really applicable. If that's too much of a cop-out, though; history: no, political science: yes.

Are you saying learning humanities doesn't make you smarter? At least not as much as STEM courses?

Yes. In particular I favor processing over memory and, for example, history class is almost all memory. English class is unfortunately taught as memory, but that can/should be fixed.

This is going to sound like a bit of a cop-out, but most of what I want to increase about one and decrease about the other can be done just by replacing electives with mandatory courses. For some people (like me), it wouldn't change much, but for others who take electives like art classes, it would make a big difference.

 

[olivermsun]

I did mean it when I said with fully unintentional irony that this should be approached more mathematically. The number of jobs available for librarians and artists are vanishingly small, so the need to provide prep for them is as well...though I think library science is already included, so I don't think that's a good example. Art is a good example though. It's more of a non-academic talent-based hobby like sports or music and should not be required.

Art takes a ton of rigorous understanding and practice, just like sports, music, or math. Similarly with the humanities. They may not fit into a narrow view of what "academic" work entails, but that's just an arbitrary definition.

Similarly in reply to an earlier post in this thread, about math being the workout room for the brain. Expository writing, historical analysis, oral argumentation, musical structure and interpretation, artistic perception and presentation ... all of these heavily exercise the brain.

 

[russ_watters]

Art takes a ton of rigorous understanding and practice, just like sports, music, or math.

Sports are not taught as an academic endeavor, so including it undermines your point. But for all three, I agree that they require practice, but disagree that they require "rigorous understanding" (and nobody earns a degree in football...er, well...except yeah). I don't know if anyone's ever studied the issue, but I rather doubt that success as an artist or musician correlates well with education in it. Contrast that with physics or math or engineering, where roughly 100% of people who have succeeded in those fields received education in those fields.

Or looking at it from the opposite direction: are artists today better than the Renaissance masters? Did the Renaissance masters go to art school? I'll put a finer point on it: the reason you have to learn math/science in an academic setting is that it builds. Newton invented calculus, but Einstein learned calculus in school and then invented Relativity. That's progression. It's "standing on the shoulders of giants". Art today is not vastly more advanced than during the Renaissance, requiring academic learning of all of that progress, because art doesn't progress much, if at all. It just is.

Similarly with the humanities. They may not fit into a narrow view of what "academic" work entails, but that's just an arbitrary definition.

Please make sure you have read my criteria (I didn't say humanities aren't academic) and if you disagree, provide an alternative. Just saying my definition is arbitrary without providing a definition of your own doesn't seem very convincing to me.

Similarly in reply to an earlier post in this thread, about math being the workout room for the brain. Expository writing, historical analysis, oral argumentation, musical structure and interpretation, artistic perception and presentation ... all of these heavily exercise the brain.

There is a reason math is being picked-on in this thread: it is hard. There is a reason many people pick humanities, art, etc. to study instead of STEM: they are easier. Nobody ever picks STEM over art/humanities because it is easier.

 

[olivermsun]

Sports are not taught as an academic endeavor, so including it undermines your point.

It doesn't undermine my point at all. Sports take training, effort, and mental development, even if it isn't the same mental development that you expect in a math class.

But for all three, I agree that they require practice, but disagree that they require "rigorous understanding" (and nobody earns a degree in football...er, well...except yeah).

The training system for football is different than for a mathematician, obviously. But sorry you are wrong if you think that a sport can be played at a high level without rigorous understanding.

I don't know if anyone's ever studied the issue, but I rather doubt that success as an artist or musician correlates well with education in it. Contrast that with physics or math or engineering, where roughly 100% of people who have succeeded in those fields received education in those fields.

To take one example, the amount of education and training in music it takes to be a professional classical musician would probably shock you.

Or looking at it from the opposite direction: are artists today better than the Renaissance masters? Did the Renaissance masters go to art school?

As far as the education system for artists went, Michelangelo certainly went through the program. For his area, so did Mozart.

Please make sure you have read my criteria and if you disagree, provide an alternative. Just saying it is arbitrary without providing a definition doesn't seem very convincing to me.

And talking about the requirements to learn humanities, art, music, sports, seemingly without much relation to reality is not convincing to me either. The key point is that everything is hard to do well, so saying that it's easy for people do half-assed art or music or sports or humanities is not an argument. By the standard of professional artists or musicians or athletes, the vast majority of people, even in STEM fields, do math at a "hobby" level.

There is a reason math is being picked-on in this thread: it is hard. There is a reason many people pick humanities, art, etc. to study instead of STEM: they are easier. Nobody ever picks STEM over art/humanities because it is easier.

I did.

 

[russ_watters]

It doesn't undermine my point at all. Sports take training, effort, and mental development, even if it isn't the same mental development that you expect in a math class.

Then what is the reason sports aren't taught in school? And do you think they should be?

The training system for football is different than for a mathematician, obviously. But sorry you are wrong if you think that a sport can be played at a high level without rigorous understanding.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. *Some* athletes succeed despite lack of athletic gifts because they are "students of the game" - Peyton Manning and Tom Brady come to mind. Some succeed purely on athletic talent. Allen Iverson, for example. A great many athletes make the major leagues before becoming "students of the game" because they never had to bother with it until then. Sometimes they flame out because of it, sometimes they learn later and sometimes they never learn. Pitchers in baseball are notorious for this; young pitchers are often just flamethrowers. Older pitchers, who can't throw as hard, learn new pitches and tactics. But in any case, none of these guys have formal education in sports. It isn't done because it isn't necessary or valuable for them or for society at large.

To take one example, the amount of education and training in music to be a professional classical musician might shock you.

I was a pretty decent musician in high school and as a result have a whole bunch of professional musician friends, some of which were music majors in college and some not. The amount of formal education required to be a professional musician (er: except to be a teacher of it)? Zero. Many do it because why not, but none actually need to.

As far as the education system for artists went, yes, they did.

Can you provide an example? I just looked up Michelangelo and Da Vinci and see both were paid apprentices at 14.

Talking about the requirements to learn humanities, art, music, sports, seemingly without much experience in it yourself is not convincing to me at all.

You don't know my experience(or knowledge beyond experience), but if there is a particular aspect you are unclear on or think is thin based on my descriptions, please just ask. Otherwise this is just an "is not/is too" argument, which is pretty pointless...or worse, instead of arguing against logic with logic, you are trying ad hominem based on assumptions about me that you don't really know. In any case, since you mis-stated my argument, I think you should reread it.

I did.

You chose STEM in part because it was easier than non-STEM? May I ask what, specifically? You're the first person who I ever heard say that. [edit] And the path of the schooling illustrates the discrepancy in difficulty/depth. For example, anyone with any bacherlors degree can get an MBA if they feel like it, but you can't get a masters in engineering or physics after getting a BA in business. Even for a law degree; anyone can get one because the liberal arts prerequisite knowledge is so low that even someone who didn't major in liberal arts has plenty.

 

[olivermsun]

Then what is the reason sports aren't taught in school? And do you think they should be?

Huh? They do teach sports in PE class. However, the breadth of coverage necessarily precludes any really "deep" training in a given sport.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. *Some* athletes succeed despite lack of athletic gifts because they are "students of the game" - Peyton Manning and Tom Brady come to mind. Some succeed purely on athletic talent. Allen Iverson, for example. A great many athletes make the major leagues before becoming "students of the game" because they never had to bother with it until then. Sometimes they flame out because of it, sometimes they learn later and sometimes they never learn. Pitchers in baseball are notorious for this; young pitchers are often just flamethrowers. Older pitchers, who can't throw as hard, learn new pitches and tactics. But in any case, none of these guys have formal education in sports. It isn't done because it isn't necessary or valuable for them or for society at large.

You don't think pitchers know exactly how the physics of a thrown ball work? I'm not talking about writing down equations, but actually how you need to throw a ball to get the job done.

I was a pretty decent musician in high school and as a result have a whole bunch of professional musician friends, some of which were music majors in college and some not. The amount of formal education required to be a professional musician (er: except to be a teacher of it)? Zero. Many do it because why not, but none actually need to.

Mastering the technical aspects beginning with scales, chords, specific patterns, the broad base of knowledge to understand various musical idioms and genres, performance familiarity with the literature (e.g, a "repertoire"): all that takes a ton of formal education, along with a ton of personal effort. I'm not sure I see the essential difference between that and the usual mathematics/physics program.

=Can you provide an example? I just looked up Michelangelo and Da Vinci and see both were paid apprentices at 14.

"As far as the education system for artists went, Michelangelo certainly went through the program."

When you get a Ph.D. in math or physics, at a certain level you stop taking classes and end up "apprenticing" yourself in some fashion.

You don't know my experience(or knowledge beyond experience), but if there is a particular aspect you are unclear on or think is thin based on my descriptions, please just ask. Otherwise this is just an "is not/is too" argument, which is pretty pointless...or worse, instead of arguing against logic with logic, you are trying ad hominem based on assumptions about me that you don't really know. In any case, since you mis-stated my argument, I think you should reread it.

If you said things about how mathematics "works" that didn't jibe with my experience, I would call it out equally. I am not basing what I say on ad hominem or assumptions about what your experience is; I am only responding directly to what you have said. I apologize if it comes across as ad hominem, because that isn't deserved in any way. I am just calling it the way I see it. I don't have the "right" answer.

You chose STEM in part because it was easier than non-STEM? May I ask what, specifically? You're the first person who I ever heard say that.

Music performance major and mathematics major.

 

[russ_watters]

Huh?

Sure. I don't think I'm being unclear, but these short answers of yours don't reflect that you're understanding or putting much effort into this. I'm not sure I can continue discussing it with you.

You don't think pitchers know exactly how the physics of a thrown ball work? I'm not talking about writing down equations, but actually how you need to throw a ball to get the job done.

Some do, some don't, none of them learn it in school. Most telling is that is extremely common for pitchers to learn new pitches after entering the major leagues because they never had to bother learning them at the lower levels.

Mastering the technical aspects beginning with scales, chords, specific patterns, the broad base of knowledge to understand various musical idioms and genres, performance familiarity with the literature (e.g, a "repertoire"): all that takes a ton of formal education, along with a ton of personal effort.

Certainly. And none of that is necessary to be a professional musician.

"As far as the education system for artists went, Michelangelo certainly went through the program."

It's like getting a Ph.D. in math or physics, at a certain level you end up "apprenticing" yourself in some fashion.

Being an apprentice at 14 is like being drafted into minor league professional baseball at 14 and entering the majors shortly thereafter. It skips all formal education. If you are instead arguing that Michelangelo went through all they had because that's all there was, that's pretty much my point: they don't have an equivalent amount to STEM because it wasn't necessary then and hasn't become necessary today.

Music performance major vs. mathematics major.

I'm not quite following: are you saying you were a music performance major at one time and switched to math because it was easier? You're not confusing effort/difficulty with talent, are you? No amount of effort will overcome a lack of talent in music, but that isn't the same as music or the liberal arts being "difficult". Learning scales is not difficult, but improvising requires talent, which needs practice but can't be learned. That was my weakness as a musician; I had good technical skills, but no musical talent. Or in the basketball context: you can't teach tall.

 

[olivermsun]

Sure. I don't think I'm being unclear, but these short answers of yours don't reflect that you're understanding or putting much effort into this. I'm not sure I can continue discussing it with you.

I don't know what to tell you. I've put a lot of effort into this line of thought over my lifetime. My understanding is admittedly limited to my experiences, but it is what it is. On what basis are you questioning my level of understanding or effort, and why does that preclude further discussion with me?

I'm not quite following: are you saying you were a music performance major at one time and switched to math because it was easier? You're not confusing effort/difficulty with talent, are you? No amount of effort will overcome a lack of talent in music, but that isn't the same as music or the liberal arts being "difficult".

Again, I don't know what to tell you. I was a music performance major at the top school in my field. I was also a STEM major in the top school in my field. There was a lot to be learned in both areas. Both are difficult and require tremendous education to pursue at the highest levels.

Sure, I may have been more "talented," whatever that means, in one area than the other. I am just telling you what I have concluded from actual experience. There does seem to be a kind of circularity in your argument, if you are defining "talent" to encapsulate everything that is difficult for some people, but not others, to master.

 

[XZ923]

Here's the issue with STEM vs. performing arts, humanities, liberal arts, etc. The basic reason you get an education is to acquire a skill set, preferably a skill set people will pay for, even more preferably a skill set that is in as low a supply as possible. Unlike most people on here, I'm not a physicist, engineer, or have any fancy Master's degree or anything of that sort. I'm just a humble motorcycle mechanic who reads physics textbooks for fun and because it's valuable for me to know as much of it as I can cram into my ill-equipped brain.

Now, small engine mechanics are not exactly in terribly short supply, but if necessary I can still look up the classifieds and usually find job listings. Even if people aren't hiring for my profession directly, being able to tune an engine or wire a circuit can be translated into other semi-skilled positions. So the $22,000 I paid has in turn given me some level of skill that other people will pay me to apply. In many of the "social sciences", "humanities", whatever label you'd like to apply to [insert demographic] studies, philosophy, social justice, sociology etc. degrees, the only real skill that's being taught is the ability to parrot back your professor's opinions. That may get you an A in your course, but no one's going to pay you to do it in the real world. The only thing you can do with a philosophy degree is teach philosophy, so if you have one professor teach 1000 students before retiring and needing a replacement you'll end up with 999 worthless degrees.

So you graduate summa cum laude with a degree in sitting around and thinking, and it turns out no one cares. So you inevitably end up working for minimum wage complaining you can't repay your six-figure student debt. Our elected officials take up your battle cry and call for your student loan debt to be forgiven. Of course, that's not how economics actually work; you've already spent federal money so really what's being asked is for people like me to subsidize degrees in opinion forming. I don't need to pay anyone to give me their opinion on social issues; I'm quite capable of doing that myself. I need to pay a doctor to care for me when I'm ill, a lawyer to represent me on legal issues, etc. The problem in these fields is students are being taught that when they graduate someone WILL pay them six figures to sit around and tweet their opinions, and that lie is creating the massive student debt problem we keep hearing about.

Before you get a degree, ask "what is the practical application of the education I'm purchasing?" If you can't answer that question, don't do it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Here's the issue with STEM vs. performing arts, humanities, liberal arts, etc. The basic reason you get an education is to acquire a skill set, preferably a skill set people will pay for, even more preferably a skill set that is in as low a supply as possible. Unlike most people on here, I'm not a physicist, engineer, or have any fancy Master's degree or anything of that sort. I'm just a humble motorcycle mechanic who reads physics textbooks for fun and because it's valuable for me to know as much of it as I can cram into my ill-equipped brain.

Now, small engine mechanics are not exactly in terribly short supply, but if necessary I can still look up the classifieds and usually find job listings. Even if people aren't hiring for my profession directly, being able to tune an engine or wire a circuit can be translated into other semi-skilled positions. So the $22,000 I paid has in turn given me some level of skill that other people will pay me to apply. In many of the "social sciences", "humanities", whatever label you'd like to apply to [insert demographic] studies, philosophy, social justice, sociology etc. degrees, the only real skill that's being taught is the ability to parrot back your professor's opinions. That may get you an A in your course, but no one's going to pay you to do it in the real world. The only thing you can do with a philosophy degree is teach philosophy, so if you have one professor teach 1000 students before retiring and needing a replacement you'll end up with 999 worthless degrees.

So you graduate summa cum laude with a degree in sitting around and thinking, and it turns out no one cares. So you inevitably end up working for minimum wage complaining you can't repay your six-figure student debt. Our elected officials take up your battle cry and call for your student loan debt to be forgiven. Of course, that's not how economics actually work; you've already spent federal money so really what's being asked is for people like me to subsidize degrees in opinion forming. I don't need to pay anyone to give me their opinion on social issues; I'm quite capable of doing that myself. I need to pay a doctor to care for me when I'm ill, a lawyer to represent me on legal issues, etc. The problem in these fields is students are being taught that when they graduate someone WILL pay them six figures to sit around and tweet their opinions, and that lie is creating the massive student debt problem we keep hearing about.

Before you get a degree, ask "what is the practical application of the education I'm purchasing?" If you can't answer that question, don't do it.

@XZ923, the problem with your argument above is that for the humanities, social sciences, and even certain STEM fields, the skills that students gain is not just parroting back the professor's opinions -- there are indirect skills that such students gain (the ability to analyze complex information, ability to communicate effectively complex ideas, etc.). Those indirect skills can (and often are) just as much in demand in the working world as the more specific "technical" skills that you, as a motorcycle mechanic, would possess.

The key here is that students need to make the case that they possesses these skills, and need to augment their core curriculum with other sets of skills/knowledge that will be useful. So your advice of "only pursue an education if there is a practical application" is bad advice. Because the reason for an education is not just to acquire a skill set, but to acquire a broad range of knowledge/skill sets.

 

[jack action]

@russ_watters :

I must say that I can't follow you on this concept that science is somehow a different way of using your mind, that it requires a different learning curve or that even no one can have «talent» for it.

This kind of thinking is related to elitism that promotes the idea that some domains require special people.

The «natural» way of learning is by copying what you see in your surroundings. That is how we learn how to speak and walk. We speak the language of the people surrounding us with no formal training. If there are 2 or 3 different languages in our environment as kids, we learn all of them without any difficulty. That is true for any human being, no special talents required.

But, if you try to learn a new language that is not used around you, it becomes a lot harder, even with formal training. Although, some are better than others, some even seem to have a «talent» for it.

The reality is that it all comes down to motivation. The less motivated you are about something, the harder it is to learn it.

This article explains how children can easily learn to read by themselves. Heck, the article even mentioned that some children learn to write before they read! (On a side note, you might find interesting how writing is linked to arts, since letters are essentially drawings.)

I believe that sciences are seen by most people as «difficult» because nobody do science stuff in society. I hear music everywhere, it's easy to find an uncle that will play something on his guitar at a family reunion and it is socially praised to know how to play an instrument. You never see people resolving a set of equations in a social gathering. That is why music seems to be «easier» to a lot of people: They're surrounded by it and that's a huge source of motivation to learn it, even by yourself.

I agree with you that people are missing on something without knowing more about sciences. I have great difficulties finding people I can talk with about science. (Why do you think I'm on PF?) My greatest obstacle is the fact that people think it's «hard». And when I hear people like you saying that somehow these subjects are different than others, you are not helping our cause. It is the kind of thinking that leads to math phobia for many of us. (As I'm proof reading this, I just saw @XZ923 's post where he mentions «I'm just a humble motorcycle mechanic who reads physics textbooks for fun and because it's valuable for me to know as much of it as I can cram into my ill-equipped brain.» The perfect example of someone putting himself down for no good reasons.)

I strongly believe that if we encourage people to use science in everyday life, science would come a lot easier to most people. The fact that we give already chewed up equations to «ordinary» people (if not the answer directly) because we fear they won't understand them is wrong in my opinion. I also despise how we never use proper terminology with chemical products (like bleach, borax or lime), which makes it very difficult to learn chemistry the proper way. We prefer assuming that people won't understand or, if they would be fluent in chemistry, they will necessarily do bad things with this knowledge, like explosives or drugs. But I think we are also missing out on so much by voluntarily keeping people «chemically illiterates».

 

[XZ923]

@XZ923, the problem with your argument above is that for the humanities, social sciences, and even certain STEM fields, the skills that students gain is not just parroting back the professor's opinions -- there are indirect skills that such students gain (the ability to analyze complex information, ability to communicate effectively complex ideas, etc.). Those indirect skills can (and often are) just as much in demand in the working world as the more specific "technical" skills that you, as a motorcycle mechanic, would possess.

The key here is that students need to make the case that they possesses these skills, and need to augment their core curriculum with other sets of skills/knowledge that will be useful. So your advice of "only pursue an education if there is a practical application" is bad advice. Because the reason for an education is not just to acquire a skill set, but to acquire a broad range of knowledge/skill sets.

First of all, we'll have to agree to disagree on parroting. My personal opinion is that in these types of courses, that is exactly what's being asked of students. Obviously this is an extremely broad statement and thus is not technically correct for every case, but as a general rule that appears to be the direction our higher-education institutions are going and I think the fact that this thread exists at all is proof of that.

As to this point:

So your advice of "only pursue an education if there is a practical application" is bad advice.Because the reason for an education is not just to acquire a skill set, but to acquire a broad range of knowledge/skill sets.

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.

 

[XZ923]

As I'm proof reading this, I just saw @XZ923 's post where he mentions «I'm just a humble motorcycle mechanic who reads physics textbooks for fun and because it's valuable for me to know as much of it as I can cram into my ill-equipped brain.» The perfect example of someone putting himself down for no good reasons.)

I'm not "putting myself down for no good reason". I'm simply being honest about much of advanced physics being far beyond my current knowledge level, hence why I read more basic-level physics books instead of quantum mechanics. I've found that a little humility goes a long way in life.

EDIT:

Just wanted to add, if the college students in question had a little more humility and a little less narcissism, they might realize they have no right to force other people to pay for their tweets and tumblr likes.

 

[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