Following Your Dreams vs. Real Life Being Real Life and not a Dream

We need to move away from the "everyone needs to go to college" ideal that is currently the education mantra. Most jobs shouldn't require university degrees, but are simply in need of more on-the-job training, or specialized vocational schools. The burden should not be on universities to provide these things.

bekkilyn wrote:

We need to move away from the "everyone needs to go to college" ideal that is currently the education mantra. Most jobs shouldn't require university degrees, but are simply in need of more on-the-job training, or specialized vocational schools. The burden should not be on universities to provide these things.

Events here in the last few weeks have had me thinking about the fetishisation of university education. I think a lot of it is led by the media. Every kid on every tv show goes off to college to prepare them for a job, and I don't think that's really the role of a university. Unfortunately it's a consequence of the pervasiveness of the American media that this starts to affect people's actual perceptions of reality.

I sure am glad I didn't follow my dreams a couple of years ago, and instead I did something practical like invest in a couple of Blockbuster locations.

edit:

nel e nel wrote:

The demographics of the audience in this video perfectly encapsulate a lot of my personal problems with the whole 'follow your dreams' sentiment. During the past 8 years or so during the whole economic downturn, I've read dozens of articles about someone losing their job, and then turning their life around by 'following their passion'. 9/10 times it was a white financier or lawyer or some other equally well paid job where they had at least 1 year's worth of living expenses saved up, and now they are an artisanal cupcake virtuoso in downtown Brooklyn.

I *knew* there was something that pissed me off about that third side, and this finally helped me figure it out:

and practical business sense.
and hone your skills.
but make sure you get paid a fair rate.
and developing social and diplomatic skills.

That's not for artists, that's for everybody! You mention lawyers, and all I hear are that (not all) lawyers can't even get a job, let alone get fired from one with a years worth of expenses saved.

The only thing that getting more people not to pursue their dreams will do is lower the salaries/job offers of the people who already are being 'practical'. In the end, the problem here isn't too many people creating art and not enough people creating other forms of wealth. The problem here is that if you pursue your dreams, you're going to lose when you try to compete with someone who has focused more on providing what those with wealth will pay for.

And in the long term, you're both probably screwed.

Bekkilyn wrote:

We need to move away from the "everyone needs to go to college" ideal that is currently the education mantra. Most jobs shouldn't require university degrees, but are simply in need of more on-the-job training, or specialized vocational schools. The burden should not be on universities to provide these things.

If you have the ability to learn skills, you can do a huge number of jobs successfully with little start-up time to become productive. You will start out with few skills, but they will accumulate as you progress.

If you have a specific set of skills, but no training in how to learn on demand, then you're going to have a much harder time changing jobs when the time comes. You'll start out at a decent salary, but typically remain in very similar positions (or move into line management) during your career.

The first is what you get from a classic "liberal arts education". The second is what you get from a technical academy. Both will get you jobs out of school. The liberal arts graduate will likely start out in a more menial position, but over time will pull ahead of the technically focused skills graduate. And if the economy changes, and the need for some skills go away? Welcome to the 70's Rust Belt...

Anyway, that's my perspective on it. The example is rough, but you can see my concern. I see today a lot of kids who in my generation would have been mathematicians, engineers, commercial artists and such selling retail or entering medical support positions (like phlebotomy and radiology), because all they could afford was a few years at a two-year school with a focus on job skills.

We are creating a huge lower-middle (at best) workforce for our future. And I don't see how that benefits us. Sure, it's really good to offer a solid middle-class living for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and tech schools are a great way to do that. If your family has just escaped the projects, being a car mechanic with a shot at running the shop or even owning the station is a huge step up.

But putting most of the remaining students into 2 years schools instead of 4 year just because prices have gone crazy and the government no longer offers sufficient low interest loans is deliberately hobbling the future. And what I see is the kids who would in my generation have gone to state 4 year schools now can't afford them. Their talents are wasted.

And they know it, which is the worst of all.

I wasn't suggesting that students be forced into vocational training if that's not what they want to do. I just don't agree with watering down the universities into becoming job training programs to cater to "everyone" because that's now some educational ideal that assumes every person has the same academic potential or interest. Most certainly, students who *want* to go to a university because they enjoy learning for the sake of learning should indeed be able to go regardless of financial capacity (and the fact that many can't without getting thousands of dollars into debt is unconscionable), but most jobs need not require a four year degree or even *any* degree, so people shouldn't be forced to go to a university and suffer for four years (because they hate school) simply so they can get a job that pays a living wage.

We need to move away from the "everyone needs to go to college" ideal that is currently the education mantra. Most jobs shouldn't require university degrees, but are simply in need of more on-the-job training, or specialized vocational schools. The burden should not be on universities to provide these things.

I think this is important because those jobs need to be filled and people need jobs. The only problem I have with telling kids "You don't need to go to college" is by having these service jobs they (with today's type of pay) are going to have money problems most of their life and will probably work until they die.

karmajay wrote:
We need to move away from the "everyone needs to go to college" ideal that is currently the education mantra. Most jobs shouldn't require university degrees, but are simply in need of more on-the-job training, or specialized vocational schools. The burden should not be on universities to provide these things.

I think this is important because those jobs need to be filled and people need jobs. The only problem I have with telling kids "You don't need to go to college" is by having these service jobs they (with today's type of pay) are going to have money problems most of their life and will probably work until they die.

We could take this further and just respect the dignity of work and provide a living wage. I think we have a lot of data from all kinds of different countries that shows that there will always be incentives to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" to get a better wage or a more enjoyable career, but that few are going to pull themselves out of "flipping burgers" simply because you give them punitively low wages.

karmajay wrote:
We need to move away from the "everyone needs to go to college" ideal that is currently the education mantra. Most jobs shouldn't require university degrees, but are simply in need of more on-the-job training, or specialized vocational schools. The burden should not be on universities to provide these things.

I think this is important because those jobs need to be filled and people need jobs. The only problem I have with telling kids "You don't need to go to college" is by having these service jobs they (with today's type of pay) are going to have money problems most of their life and will probably work until they die.

When was the last time folks in this thread have looked for work? The vast majority of entry level jobs require a bachelors degree AND 2-3 years experience. (Obviously not service industry jobs)

Entry level jobs are requiring years of experience.

What college grad - besides really pro-active ones that secured internships during their school years - has that many years experience? For office administration jobs?

I think - at least from my perspective - that the reason there's been a bit of a boom with the whole 'follow your dreams' talk is because of the economy tightening its belt and the rich consolidating more of its wealth. Add in increased automation and technical jobs, you got a large portion of society that have lost their jobs to either robots, cheaper labor overseas, or just not having the skillset in today's computer/tech based economy. This is also a big reason the job market is so competitive, there will literally literally be hundreds of applicants for 1 open position, so it's a buyers market, and that's why you're seeing entry level jobs require years of experience.

Ironically enough, for those that are able to afford it, masters degrees are increasingly becoming 'vocational/technical' certificates of a sort: many folks go back to get a degree in an area that will provide them the specialized knowledge and/or skillset to get access to better jobs that pay more in the field they currently are in, or a field they are looking to transition to.

I agree with Nel... I think middle class jobs require more education, not less, and that's going to increase as automation increases in many fields. That's part of my worry.

At the rate we're going, Ph.D's will be handed out like candy to students who aren't academically capable, but who need the piece of paper in order to get that prized call center phone rep job that an average high school graduate could easily do.

There's a big difference between companies *requiring* more education/experience and actually *needing* it.

I was shooting at a different point. I don't think the requirements for jobs are being inflated (except perhaps indirectly through over-qualification of candidates). What I believe is that many jobs today require more than a high school education simply because of the technology in use in those jobs, and the necessity for employees to understand it in order to bring value to their companies.

How many jobs do you see for typists today? The only ones I know of are real-time recording (stenographers, for example) and data entry jobs ( both of which are teetering on the edge of automation). And yet, everyone knows how to type and uses it in their jobs - car mechanics, supermarket employees, sales people, executives, soldiers, teachers, students... You can fill the page with people who need to type every day.

Up through the 70's into the early 80's, typing as a skill *alone* could get you a decent job, secretarial if nothing else. Today? No. It's a basic without which you can't get a job. This is a simple example of how an increase of knowledge required has accompanied technological change in the economy. There are many more. Programming is now considered a basic skill in most fields related to technology. This need did not exist 40 years ago - programming was a highly specialized field with huge bars to entry before the mid-80's. Now it's taught in some elementary schools and expected for areas of work were automation has become ubiquitous.

So my point is that there is today a legitimate need for *more* skills in the population, not less; for more flexibility in being able to learn things quickly and deeply, because entire job categories are disappearing and retraining is becoming commonplace. And we can either teach those skills as skills, or we can teach *some* skills, and *also* basics that allow people to learn how to learn. And that is, ultimately, the goal of the liberal arts education.

I'd actually be more worried for the people getting the four year degrees than training in a vocation or learning more job-specific skills elsewhere.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/dont-wast...

If I were graduating high school today, I'd get skilled in a trade first and then, with all the money I've made doing it, go to university for fun and intellectual stimulation rather than having to worry whether or not my four year piece of paper will land me a job somewhere.

I don't think degrees are worthless...I'll have three of them after this semester is done...but they aren't better at job training than actual job training.

I think to do that, you need a pretty high tolerance for stepping away from what you're currently doing. The upward mobility narrative doesn't have a lot of room for people to walk away from high-paying jobs, and those of use stuck making ends meet aren't likely able to afford to go back to school, even if the long term outcome would be better.

And I'm not entirely sure it would. I wouldn't give up my graduate experience or degree for much, but I can't unequivocally prove that it made me better off employment-wise either. I like to think it does, but it's really hard to tell if it translates to greater rewards or not.

Many people making tons of money in a skilled trade would just happily continue doing it given that they enjoy their work. Otherwise, those who are highly skilled in a trade would not necessarily need to quit doing it should they decide to get an academic degree, since they could basically choose their own hours for work vs. school. They are not just making ends meet. Many who are highly skilled in a trade are much better off financially than many others with four year or more degrees and therefore have more life options available for pursuing other dreams.

bekkilyn wrote:

Many people making tons of money in a skilled trade would just happily continue doing it given that they enjoy their work. Otherwise, those who are highly skilled in a trade would not necessarily need to quit doing it should they decide to get an academic degree, since they could basically choose their own hours for work vs. school. They are not just making ends meet. Many who are highly skilled in a trade are much better off financially than many others with four year or more degrees and therefore have more life options available for pursuing other dreams.

It's amazing how much we've lost this and how much people shrug this off with robots, self-driving cars, etc. as if anything but that kind of forward progress makes you a luddite.

Not saying that's what you're saying, Robear, but that seems to the be overarching narrative of the progress of our economy.

I have a story if you'll endure a longer story. I'm in Australia right now on two weeks vacation while my wife is here working. While here I decided to get new shoes and I found a shoe store in Sydney not too dissimilar from a shoe store back home that accommodates people with big feet, wide feet, etc. back home. The store back home slaps the most comfortable 15 wide shoes on me and calls it good. My feet haven't felt truly good in a long long time. I just go from something uncomfortable to something slightly less uncomfortable and since I have a number of aches and pains I just shrug and move on.

This store here, however, basically wouldn't let me do that. She spent a lot of time with me to determine that I need deep, wide shoes in size 13. Who even knew there was a sizing for shoe depth? She did because she's been doing this kind of work for 25. Started in the UK and came to Sydney and has been doing the same work. The shoes used to be hand-made. The lasts are still hand-made, she told me. The shoes are mostly hand-made, with some involvement from an assembly line, of course.

Anyway, long story short someone with over 2 decades in shoe fittings found me a far more comfortable shoe, hand-made by workers in America out of lasts created by shoemakers. Up and down the entire line there are people with actual trades that appear to be, from what she says, being paid ok. And the quality is really noticeable. The difference in service was really noticeable. One thing we've forgotten in all of our progress is how much we've lost in going to a throwaway consumer culture. I would assume that given rising ocean levels and climate change will eventually teach us the folly of having disgusting slave-wage factories pumping out disposable plastic goods constantly, but it's probably too late by now.

bekkilyn wrote:

At the rate we're going, Ph.D's will be handed out like candy to students who aren't academically capable, but who need the piece of paper in order to get that prized call center phone rep job that an average high school graduate could easily do.

There's a big difference between companies *requiring* more education/experience and actually *needing* it.

At our current rate, only about 20% (at best) of PhDs will get jobs in academia, but the bias against working in industry, government or any other non-academic area is still über-strong, to the point that PhDs have no f*cking clue what to do with themselves when they realize how f*cked they are when they don't get a tenure track position. Graduate programs aren't at all in touch with the demands of the job market, and they are just churning out PhDs as if there is an endless supply of professor positions available.

This is where the - seemingly progressive - movements of a more "vocational" slant of higher education is coming from. It's not so much about "watering down" the traditional collegiate experience, but complimenting it with career counseling and hands on experiences that better prepare our graduates for the demands of the changing job market. This is a topic that has been talked about for 20+ years in academia, but it's still a novel concept for the most part.

The plight of Ph.D's is yet another issue. There we have students in university for the "right" reasons, but then nothing available in academia unless they are extremely lucky. I've heard numerous stories of physics Ph.D's who end up in finance programming computers.

My argument stems more from people who are angry that their four year undergraduate degrees were not their golden ticket into a highly-paying job in their field or industry. Many would have been better off with the practical experience and some good job training and perhaps some certifications. Instead they are now thousands of dollars in debt after perhaps squeaking through their classes as mediocre students (hating practically every step of the way), who only wanted the piece of paper for all the jobs that were promised.

Again, I believe wholeheartedly that a qualified student who *wants* the intellectual stimulation and broad liberal arts focus of the university experience should be able to have it, regardless of financial situation, but I disagree with the idea of everyone just being pushed into a four year degree simply because "everyone must go" whether or not it's really in that student's best interest. Many times it's really not.

bekkilyn wrote:

The plight of Ph.D's is yet another issue. There we have students in university for the "right" reasons, but then nothing available in academia unless they are extremely lucky. I've heard numerous stories of physics Ph.D's who end up in finance programming computers.

My argument stems more from people who are angry that their four year undergraduate degrees were not their golden ticket into a highly-paying job in their field or industry. Many would have been better off with the practical experience and some good job training and perhaps some certifications. Instead they are now thousands of dollars in debt after perhaps squeaking through their classes as mediocre students (hating practically every step of the way), who only wanted the piece of paper for all the jobs that were promised.

Again, I believe wholeheartedly that a qualified student who *wants* the intellectual stimulation and broad liberal arts focus of the university experience should be able to have it, regardless of financial situation, but I disagree with the idea of everyone just being pushed into a four year degree simply because "everyone must go" whether or not it's really in that student's best interest. Many times it's really not.

The funny thing is, the whole 'worthless degree' argument is kind of a myth. Those studies that I referred to earlier in the thread where businesses and HR managers ranked a set of 10 skills in order of importance? A degree in the field that the job is in was ranked down around 6 or 7. What employers value from a liberal arts degree is more qualitative - communication skills, interpersonal skills, working with diverse teams, etc. So your undergraduate degree doesn't really matter - unless you're planning on going into certain technical fields. Hell, you can major in comparative literature and still go to medical school as long as you take the required science and math classes, or you can be a physics major and go on to law school.

I certainly agree that there should NOT be a diminishing of the importance of trade jobs that don't really need a liberal arts degree, and I certainly agree that just getting a degree isn't a silver bullet. There should be increased emphasis on apprenticeships and internships, but most people aren't really aware of the importance of those types of experiences, unless they come from a family who also went to college or had similar experiences.

I think the universal pressure to get a college degree narrative is highly varied depending on one's own demographics. Some people will have that pressure, but more likely than not, they come from a family that also went to college, or see it as the golden ticket out of poverty as we have already discussed. I've seen a lot of folks drop out of school because of family, religious or other pressures as well.

Ultimately, I think that the drive for profits is really a big factor behind a lot of this stuff. I mean, look at Detroit. There were lots of folks able to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle doing factory work, but when the industry automated and moved those jobs overseas, it was devastating. But did the higher ups think "Huh, maybe we should provide training programs to help our employees get new skills and transition to new fields"? Same thing with prison education programs.

I'm trying to argue that universities should not be treated as job skill factories, and that while there is a role for skills training institutes, that role is *different* from that of a university, and should remain so. I pointed out the differences - learning to learn and learning widely vs learning skills and specializing. I also pointed out some of the economic differences. I think both types of education are fine; what disturbs me is exemplified by the conservative idea that education without a specific, profitable end goal is useless (WND is an extremely conservative outlet; naturally that's their take).

What bothers me is the idea that liberal arts educations are useless and should be replaced by job training. (I'm also bothered by the inverse of that.) And I note that pricing people out of the traditional college experience creates a divide in job prospects, where the rich have tons of options and mobility, and middle-class and below had better hope that the skill set they pick does not become obsolete (as so many are in the process of dying off).

I feel we should make *both* styles of education affordable or even free, so that people can follow their own strengths and desires, rather than being forced into the cheaper option and tracked into areas where their greatest abilities may never be developed.

nel e nel wrote:

So your undergraduate degree doesn't really matter - unless you're planning on going into certain technical fields. Hell, you can major in comparative literature and still go to medical school as long as you take the required science and math classes, or you can be a physics major and go on to law school.

Yeah. A lot of undergraduates (and their parents) don't really get this, but the label on your degree doesn't have to define your future career as much as what you do with it. Lining up the next step before graduation is also important and under-emphasized: most colleges have career services that are supposed to help with this, but students tend to wait until the month before they graduate to do anything about it.

As a side note, graduate school isn't college 2.0; the rules change again. If you don't have someone in your family who can guide you through it, you can get caught off-guard. In many cases, you shouldn't be the one paying for your graduate degree. That's what research assistants and teaching assistant positions are for. (Law and medicine are another thing.) And you don't need a MA to get a PhD; you'll usually end up with one along the way but, depending on the field, you often want to start as a PhD student because you get more attention and funding. These aren't universals, but they are common. And counter-intuitive for undergraduates.

nel e nel wrote:

Ultimately, I think that the drive for profits is really a big factor behind a lot of this stuff. I mean, look at Detroit. There were lots of folks able to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle doing factory work, but when the industry automated and moved those jobs overseas, it was devastating. But did the higher ups think "Huh, maybe we should provide training programs to help our employees get new skills and transition to new fields"? Same thing with prison education programs.

Definitely part of it. The "working class" has kind of been lost as a concept. It's all middle class upward striving or poverty struggles. Stagnant wages don't help with that.

Plus, there's no corporate loyalty to their employees, which leads to employees having to switch companies to get raises, which leads to companies being unwilling to train new employees, which leads to every job ad wanting three years of experience.

Universities should stop training people to be professors and start training them to be university administrators. That's where the real job growth is.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Universities should stop training people to be professors and start training them to be university administrators. That's where the real job growth is.

Truth.

That's part of the problem: everyone wants different things out of a university.
Students are trying to get jobs (and, given what it takes to survive these days, who can blame them?)
Research professors are trying to get research done; producing graduate students is just a side-effect.
Adjunct professors are just hoping they'll be able to make ends meet this semester, and maybe still have a job next semester.
Administrators are trying to save money by having professors teach 4-4 loads so the school can afford to pay for the facilities and administration. And maybe get the alumni to donate.
Football coaches get all the money the administrators saved.
Alumni donate when the football team wins.

Another thing that would be beneficial - in my opinion at least - are required "What can you do with a degree in X subject?" classes. Not as a replacement to the traditional liberal arts program, but a supplement, so that students learn 'business speak' insofar as how to talk about the knowledge and skills they are acquiring to make it look good on a resume/job application.

And to tie it back to what bekkilyn has mentioned, in terms of trade schools for various vocations, there should also be more of a focus on counseling folks on how to determine long term goals first, then work backwards to figure out what sort of education or training or certification one would need. The whole 'get a degree get a job' leaves out all the important self reflection/skill inventory stuff that everyone should be doing.

What am I good at?
What do I enjoy doing?
What is important to me?

Not enough people take time to ask themselves these types of questions.

http://markmanson.net/passion

Look, here’s another slap in the face for you: every job sucks sometimes. There’s no such thing as some passionate activity that you will never get tired of, never get stressed over, never complain about. It doesn’t exist. I am living my dream job (which happened by accident, by the way. I never in a million years planned on this happening; like a kid on a playground I just went and tried it), and I still hate about 30% of it. Some days more.

Again, that’s just life.

There was a very intelligent math professor at my school that taught a class on practical math. We skipped logarithms and proofs in favor of equations used for thirty year mortgages and balancing multiple credit cards and bank accounts while making an itemized budget based on a fixed income. It was the most informative math class I've ever taken.

Grenn wrote:

There was a very intelligent math professor at my school that taught a class on practical math. We skipped logarithms and proofs in favor of equations used for thirty year mortgages and balancing multiple credit cards and bank accounts while making an itemized budget based on a fixed income. It was the most informative math class I've ever taken.

Exactly. We had a 'dirty little secret' discussion at the college I work at this past year, and revealed to our students - that are on paths to go into biomedical research - that, hey, you know all that math you've been taking? You won't really use much of anything past pre-calc in research.

I guess that when we get into changing our institutions, why not just change things like, say, having more of that tuition money go to hiring full professors so those Ph.D.s can get jobs?

In other words, it's one thing to explain how it is in the real world to an individual making what are basically selfish--but understandably so--decisions. It's another thing to say how one part of the real world should change in order to accommodate another part of the real world. At that point, maybe we should change the relationship between labor and management rather than putting all the burden on labor to accommodate itself to management.

Or at least admit we're not talking about the real world. We're talking about the world made by our decisions about what capitalism should look like, and how these are the consequences.

Not that I think this is an unfriendly audience for that kind of message, but, just wanted to highlight it.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I guess that when we get into changing our institutions, why not just change things like, say, having more of that tuition money go to hiring full professors so those Ph.D.s can get jobs?

In other words, it's one thing to explain how it is in the real world to an individual making what are basically selfish--but understandably so--decisions. It's another thing to say how one part of the real world should change in order to accommodate another part of the real world. At that point, maybe we should change the relationship between labor and management rather than putting all the burden on labor to accommodate itself to management.

Or at least admit we're not talking about the real world. We're talking about the world made by our decisions about what capitalism should look like, and how these are the consequences.

Not that I think this is an unfriendly audience for that kind of message, but, just wanted to highlight it.

It's less about changing the institutions, but changing the bias that those institutions have against preparing students for the demands of the real world in addition to the traditional liberal arts education that they get.

It's starting to change, but those wheels grind incredibly slow in academia.

And as I already mentioned, it's a buyers market in terms of jobs right now. So labor is kind of obligated to accommodate to management.

nel e nel wrote:

Ultimately, I think that the drive for profits is really a big factor behind a lot of this stuff. I mean, look at Detroit. There were lots of folks able to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle doing factory work, but when the industry automated and moved those jobs overseas, it was devastating. But did the higher ups think "Huh, maybe we should provide training programs to help our employees get new skills and transition to new fields"? Same thing with prison education programs.

Profit probably is the major driving force behind the "everyone must go to college" craze. Even if a student only goes for a semester or two and drops out, someone else somewhere is making money off of that student, and it really doesn't matter what's best for the student.

Robear wrote:

I'm trying to argue that universities should not be treated as job skill factories, and that while there is a role for skills training institutes, that role is *different* from that of a university, and should remain so. I pointed out the differences - learning to learn and learning widely vs learning skills and specializing. I also pointed out some of the economic differences. I think both types of education are fine; what disturbs me is exemplified by the conservative idea that education without a specific, profitable end goal is useless (WND is an extremely conservative outlet; naturally that's their take).

Robear, I think we're very much on the same page for most things here. My only argument really was against the "everyone must go to university" ideal because I don't see people as having the same universal needs, and it's primarily because I also don't think that universities should be treated as job factories. Some people really want and could get a lot of use out of a "job factory" though, so in those cases, they would be happier considering something other than a university degree while keeping the different role of a university education intact.

I absolutely do *not* agree with the idea that education without a specific and profitable goal is useless. While a degree may be useless for getting a particular type of *job*, the intellectual skills and critical thinking have a great deal of intrinsic value and can be applied in many different ways throughout life. I don't necessarily believe people should be pushed into it to the point where it seems compulsory though or the value will be lost.

Robear wrote:

What bothers me is the idea that liberal arts educations are useless and should be replaced by job training. (I'm also bothered by the inverse of that.) And I note that pricing people out of the traditional college experience creates a divide in job prospects, where the rich have tons of options and mobility, and middle-class and below had better hope that the skill set they pick does not become obsolete (as so many are in the process of dying off).

My first undergraduate degree was in English and I still to this day consider it to be my most valuable though I have studied a lot of STEM since then. People who believe that liberal arts educations are useless (outside of getting particular types of jobs) aren't thinking very deeply. Our culture has suffered greatly from this belief and we continue to become more shallow and stupid in our vicious pursuit of profit and greed.

Robear wrote:

I feel we should make *both* styles of education affordable or even free, so that people can follow their own strengths and desires, rather than being forced into the cheaper option and tracked into areas where their greatest abilities may never be developed.

Agreed.

I just want those cheaper options also to be viewed as equally valid choices for those who really would prefer to go those routes. Being forced into the expensive option (as it seems many are now) is no better than being forced into the cheaper option if that option doesn't match a person's strength and desire.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I guess that when we get into changing our institutions, why not just change things like, say, having more of that tuition money go to hiring full professors so those Ph.D.s can get jobs?

This is actually another beef that I have with the overall university system nowadays. More and more universities are cutting back on hiring full professors and using more and more part-time adjuncts. Basically the same as what businesses are doing hiring more and more temps in place of full time employees. We go on about how desperate we are for STEM graduates and yet physics and other STEM Ph.D.'s can't find positions where they can continue to do scientific research, but instead are being hired as computer programmers or live perpetually in a very low paying post-doc situation.

Yet we'll pay our athletes millions upon millions of dollars.

Our priorities as a society are super-screwed.