Posted on 12/28/2008 5:57:02 AM PST by reaganaut1
...
As president, Mr. Obama should use his bully pulpit to undermine the bachelor’s degree as a job qualification. Here’s a suggested battle cry, to be repeated in every speech on the subject: “It’s what you can do that should count when you apply for a job, not where you learned to do it.”
The residential college leading to a bachelor’s degree at the end of four years works fine for the children of parents who have plenty of money. It works fine for top students from all backgrounds who are drawn toward academics. But most 18-year-olds are not from families with plenty of money, not top students, and not drawn toward academics. They want to learn how to get a satisfying job that also pays well. That almost always means education beyond high school, but it need not mean four years on a campus, nor cost a small fortune. It need not mean getting a bachelor’s degree.
I am not discounting the merits of a liberal education. Students at every level should be encouraged to explore subjects that will not be part of their vocation. It would be even better if more colleges required a rigorous core curriculum for students who seek a traditional bachelor’s degree. My beef is not with liberal education, but with the use of the degree as a job qualification.
For most of the nation’s youths, making the bachelor’s degree a job qualification means demanding a credential that is beyond their reach. It is a truth that politicians and educators cannot bring themselves to say out loud: A large majority of young people do not have the intellectual ability to do genuine college-level work.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Thanks for your observation. I agree completely with the engineers in management concept.
Let me say that I have a Masters degree in business. But, we run our own business(s). A college degree right now is an almost solid guarantee that the graduate will become an employee, as they do not leave the institution with any comprehensive skills, math skills, social skills, or business skills to become self employed. We tried hiring some college grads who just simply couldnt cut any jobs above surfing the internet. The time, energy, and cost to supervise them and train them to do anything profitable wasnt worth the effort.
On the other hand, young folks from vocational training programs come in with some hands on training, and take very little guidance to get them moving. In addition, it is the Vo-Tech grads who end up owning businesses, and hiring college grads to run their errands.
I have one more goal before I get out of business, to hire a PHD as an errand boy. That will make my day.
And among those who do have the intellectual ABILITY, many do not have the drive and work ethic to accomplish it. They must be pushed, prodded, and provoked until they graduate.
That is not academic and it's not 'liberal' (in the sense of universal) education.
I'm going to have to disagree with this. There is plenty of knowledge that isn't public domain. However, there is NO REASON that knowledge CANNOT BE public domain. People who are qualified in a given subject could write the books as a labor of love and sell them at a low price or give them away. Creative Commons licenses combined with traditional copyrights would still give the authors some control regarding use and distribution.
Why couldn't knowledge be "open-sourced" in the same way that some software is? When knowledge (or software) is transmitted in this manner, it becomes a channel for free speech (in the "freedom" sense, not only in the monetary sense).
This might be the last and best way to give conservative principles an advantage: undercut the liberal professors, and then let the market do its job.
Course materials at MIT are freely available through their Open Courseware project http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm . I think MIT deserves credit for undertaking this.
With the old boy system, it is WOMEN AND MINORITIES who are hurt the most, at least, that is what the liberals promoting affirmative action tell us so it must be so.
Some people draft for the future. Let's take Aaron Rodgers of the Packers vs. Brett Farve of the Jets. The packer management made a decision to go with the inferior player now because he had more upside going forward. Perhaps they view the "bozos" as having more upside in the future than they see in you.
Furthermore, in japanese style management, before you get to manage, you must work at every job below you. I think that is true at US corp. McDonalds too.
You also might want to check out those spelling skills too. bozos= more than one bozo while bozo's = ownership.
It’s class envy to judge a moron who happened to go to college?
Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of people who go to college and are brilliant, but there are some who go and just get through. You know what they call a doctor who graduated bottom of their class, right? Doctor.
My boss was college educated and I was given the task of correcting numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Even if sometimes I do throw in an extra apostrophe on a quick note to a news forum or misspell a word or two of my own...
I’m not putting down people who went to college, I’m just saying that it is not for everyone and this idea that college educated makes you “smarter” is a myth IMO. Do you probably KNOW more than someone who didn’t go to college? Of course, but believe me, I worked with plenty of idiots who were college educated. And I’d bet most journalists that I think are idiots went to college too.
Liberal professors would be the only ones interested, because they have nothing to offer. Public domain knowledge is where you get what you pay for.
And this has been the case ever since books became common. Why go to a university when you can learn it from a book?
You can often spot the a good quality lecturer, because he didn’t write the books used in the course, and he doesn’t even lecture based on those books. Instead, they are to complement the lecture he is giving, that isn’t in a book.
Students shouldn’t be paying for information they could find elsewhere. Instead they are paying for that professor’s interpretations, as filtered through his knowledge and experience, and organized in novel ways.
Few professors can rise to this level, but they are the ones worth listening to.
When english majors have to take 4 years of calculus, then I'm onboard. Until then engineers are the smartest people in the room. If you have no scientific background, then you should be in the same room. Unless it's a bar room or a frat party.
Is it "intellectual ability" these students lack, or is it something else? Desire? Ambition? Perserverance? Motivation?
There are no doubt some majors that require a greater amount of "smarts" in which to complete a degree: engineering, chemistry, pre-med, computer science, to name a few. But I would suggest that with the right attitude, even some of those degrees could be obtained by average students.
In fact, I would suggest that beyond understanding some of the "core" principles within a field, the ability to complete undergraduate programs (BA, BS), is more about proving you have the tenacity to commit yourself to something for four years. It's about showing up, completing assignments without supervision, and performing some of the other (possibly) mundane tasks required for one to go from a first-semester freshman to a degree-holder.
Make no mistake, an undergraduate degree provides some of the basics in which to enter a field. It gives the student a vocabulary within their profession, and hopefully some basis with which to learn more about their field upon taking an entry-level position somewhere.
There is a temptation to say that those basics could be obtained through a certification program, but a such a minimal program may not be as successful in weeding out lesser job candidates. This is an important distinction for companies, because they do spend a significant amount of money trying to find the best candidates.
And without sounding elitist, I think we need to recognize that from an intellectual standpoint, not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. The world does need ditch-diggers, plumbers, longshoremen, and other professions for which a degree is not required. These professions can, and do pay living wages, and I think that is where the author should focus, not on dumbing down professions.
Nope, it's intellectual ability. I don't know if it is the side effect of synthetics in the food chain, cell phone radiation, theta wave synchronization with video games, or better weed than in my day, but today's under-30s are what we used to call *thick*. They possess virtually no ability to think abstractly or logically.
Although I admit there is "time-wasting dribble," as you put it under some instructors/professors, this is not true in all cases. On many occasions, the professor's life story is worth hearing about and discussing, particularly if that professor has worked in industry, or has done ground-breaking or even foundational research in a particular subject.
For these reasons, I think on-line classes are OK for some types of education, but not for everything. Some subjects are worthy of having face-to-face discourse, and are also worthy of spending a little extra time having your view of the world challenged.
Well, on second thought, I think you may have a point!
Having gone to college three times, twice before the military (and failing out), and once afterwards (and graduating with honors), I might re-think this argument. It's amazing how much better you can demonstrate logical and abstract thinking once you have the proper motivation behind you.
When and where "English Majors" are required to do calculus in order to perform their work (instead of cleaning up the poor grammar, garbled syntax, and incomplete sentences of the Engineers), then that's a good point.
I have worked in large, highly technical organizations (National Laboratories) that have literally hundreds of "English Majors" to clean up the poorly crafted crap that the technical staff typically produces for publication. Some of those "English Majors" are among the smartest people I've ever met. That's saying a lot for someone born and raised in Los Alamos, who is the son of an Engineer and a Scientist (who both had to take a full load of Classics, Latin, English, back in the Thirties, when college wasn't all about spring break and frat parties). As for "scientific background", there's a world of difference between engineering and science (actually more like a universe). I probably had more of that by age 10 than many Engineers ever will. I just chose to ruck up and carry a gun for a living.
But don't get me wrong. I love Engineers. If it wasn't for you guys, I'd would of never had any lunch money in High School (;{) .
BTW, not only could many of those lowly "English Majors" do calculus in their sleep, they were actually capable of communicating highly technical material to others without succumbing to the urge to make everyone else feel stupid.
However, my point was that a rounded education is a good thing for any collegiate disclipline, be it Nuclear Engineering or Classic English Literature. Just as writing skills are important for Engineers, higher mathematics are important for Writers, if for no other reason than the structure of thought it will impart.
Nowhere did I say Engineers have to take "four years of English" (unless of course, they are just too smart to pass such an unworthy class).
"...Until then engineers are the smartest people in the room...."
Oh boy..... now I've heard it all. From yet another Engineer.
I've been in a lot of rooms full of Engineers (with valid reason) and I've found that in general, Engineer or not, the smartest person in the room is usually the one who doesn't boast that it's him, and rather than try to convince everyone how "right" he always is, asks the right questions. Many Engineers are too enamored with the sound of their own voices to be bothered with hearing the input of others.
But if you really want to have fun, watch PhD Physicists and Engineers go at it. The Physicists look down their noses at the Engineers because they feel that "Engineering is just rote work for C-students who can't grasp the workings of the universe", and Engineers think Scientists only know grand-scale theories without applications.
Then ask them all when they last fixed their own cars. A Physicist can tell you why a car works, and an Engineer can tell how it works, but neither one can quite figure out how to actually make it work (unless it's some bizarre home-built contraption that runs on cat litter or goat's milk or something), and has to pay some "High School dropout" $75.00 an hour to change their wiper blades.
Which if you think about it, is kind of the point of the article.
. The high costs of a bachelors degree versus the low costs of an online bachelors degree will destroy a liberal bastion forever.
I am currently exploring online options for my son, 17. I am astounded at the high cost of some online programs. University of Phoenix, for example, charges $600 per unit, or $1800 for a 3 unit class.That is way more than our local college, who comes in at $174 per unit.
However, one is more likely to research the actual cost per unit of an online school comparatively, though, and that will lead to competition, which will help.
Why pay $174 per unit, for example, at our local college,for a class that you can find online, at an accredited school, for $80 per unit?
There are online bargains out there, for sure.
I'd like to think that, too, but so very much of the educational system is out of the free market economy. From pre-school through doctorate programs, government support is a fundamental part of the payer system. And if you think the UAW has America over a barrel, the education unions laugh at them. We will never cut the bloat in education as long as the Rats are running the ship, and we've more often than not failed to do it when Republicans are in charge, as well.
Your idea of corporate-run schools to educate people on what business really needs (as opposed to the basket-weaving courses taught by 'liberal' education) may come to pass, but it will be a parallel system, and will not supplant the hungry beast that has been created. How can it be otherwise if corporations refuse to hire people who don't have a four-year booty wipe degree in the first place?
I do think that the salad days of Enormous State University are rapidly drawing to a close, though. Education is often the largest part of State budgets, and totally dependent on States to fund. But these States are also often under balanced budget constraints.
And don’t look to the feds to bail it out, either. The days of federal largesse may likewise be over for a decade or more. Obama may be remembered and cursed worse than Hoover, for ending Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, simply because he has no choice.
And don’t look to the feds to bail it out, either. The days of federal largesse may likewise be over for a decade or more. Obama may be remembered and cursed worse than Hoover, for ending Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, simply because he has no choice.
I have the last few budget crises to learn from in this regard. Oh, there's been some minor belt tightening here and there in economic downturns, generally states have required tuition increases in excess of the usual rate of inflation, but then they turn around and give greater financial aid to those at the bottom. Who ends up paying for it? Yep, you guessed it, both the students whose parents make plenty of money, and those who planned ahead for college.
I do look for the Feds to bail it out. Back when I went to college in the mid-1970's, we had 3% student loans for the poorest, like myself. Now, they have Pell grants, Hope and Lifetime Learning credits, and Federally insured student loans even for the middle class.
Obama was the beneficiary of such programs, he's not like a real Kennedy where your daddy donated a wing to a building, and somebody fixed your grades (and erased your hijinks) for you. He's going to be hard pressed to say "no" to giving others the leg up that he had. Besides, the education lobby is by far the strongest union in this country, they have more than enough time to lobby in every possible way for their bailout. And they're not as stupid as to take three separate private jets to the Congressional hearings, either.
Obama will do for them what he's going to do for everyone else who he needs to get on board for his re-election, he's just going to print his way out of this one. With a total Rat-controlled Congress, there's absolutely nothing in his way. And with the economy going completely in the toilet from his policies, the hyperinflation isn't even going to show up until after he's out of office, or at least re-elected.
Don’t bet on it taking that long. I like to point out that elements of the current credit crunch are far more like the Panic of 1893, and the Panic of 1837 (good Wikis on both), than the Great Depression. Though 1837 was as bad as the GD.
FDR was able to get out of the GD with a policy of “perpetual inflation” created through debt. However, this was a system destined for failure because eventually the bill would come due. And left to their own devices, this chronic situation would have slowly degenerated for years, but Washington opened it up the idea of multi-leveraged credit to the business world.
And they wracked up debt in short order that was a factor greater than Washington’s. Just one market alone, derivatives, is out some $150T. And this becomes everybody’s problem, because this debt demand competes with the government.
Right now, in an utter panic, money is flowing to T-bills at a four to one ratio over their availability. This is “the last economic bubble” before collapse. The wise money, specifically the Japanese, see what is coming and are dumping T-bills as fast as possible. However, as fast as the money is pouring in, there is no possible way it can back even the current $8.5T promised by the USG.
That is equivalent to half the annual Gross Domestic Product of the United States.
Economists are already predicting the collapse of the T-bill bubble as being “spectacular”. On top of tax revenues down by double digits, this means that Obama may have less than $2T (this year’s is $2.7T) to spend for the entire US budget, with nobody able to buy more US debt.
His first inclination will be to “monetize the debt”, that is, to “print” virtual money, to declare that the USG just has more money to spend. But this translates directly into hyperinflation in a 1:1 ratio. And not after years, but from the moment he does it.
That is, if something costs a dollar, and he declares a dollar to exist to pay for it, it’s price instantly jumps to two dollars. And this is the start of the collapse of the leveraged economy in earnest.
From that point, Obama has no choice but to play defense. Much of the USG will have to be shut down, so its budget money can be diverted to the essential parts of government. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are done. And he will seriously axe Defense until the US is attacked, then have to put money back in. No more Mister nice guy on the battlefield, either. If the US military is attacked, it will not be taking prisoners.
But back to education. It is truly out in the cold, because there is nothing Obama can do for it. Yes, the teacher’s union is powerful, but so are the Social Security recipients, and the old people on Medicare.
“The wise money, specifically the Japanese, see what is coming and are dumping T-bills as fast as possible.”
Any ideas on where they are putting their money?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.