How old is "too old" to go to grad school?

[DGuller]

Dude you cannot get a job pushing paper without a University Degree.

Again maybe things are different. But in both of those cases what matters is vocational qualifications and employers hire lots of people from school to do those qualifications. They also hire lots from universities obviously but that path's there. In the case of accountancy a lot of the hires are from not necessarily related disciplines.

In order to become a Professional Engineer in the United States one needs a degree from an ABET accredited university.  There are companies that will hire engineers without an engineering degree, but that's unusual (and in my experience becoming more rare.)

Each individual field of engineering is an academic discipline with a large body of research.  Undergraduate engineering education teaches the basics of that discipline rather than the day to day job of an engineer.  For this reason an engineering degree isn't vocational qualification, but a university degree.

"Made in Britain" is a synonym for "explosion hazard."

Probably.  British engineers designed the HMS Hood, after all.

Anyway, my position is that everyone should have the opportunity to be educated to the limits of their abilities and interests.  College isn't for everyone, but everyone should have the opportunity if they are capable of handling the coursework.

And as far as constraining the supply of degrees in certain areas, you have a degree in what is already one of the most constrained areas of study.  Law schools don't take just everyone.  If a few years ago when you wanted to go to law school, you'd been turned down, not because you weren't qualified, but because the was already an oversupply of lawyers, you'd be whining about the injustice of that now.  And while we could certainly artificially limit the supply of degrees in areas of study where there is an oversupply, I don't see how we could avoid shortages in some areas without forcing people to enter fields of study against their will.

I can see that one now:  "I'm sorry, Hunter, but while your grades and LSAT score are plenty good enough to get into law school, but there's an oversupply of lawyers, so we aren't admitting anyone this year.  However, there is a severe shortage of Catholic priests, so we're going to send you to a seminary.  Oh, you don't want to be a priest?  And you're not Catholic?  Too bad.  If you won't go along willingly, there are a couple of muscular, well-armed gentlemen waiting outside the door to escort you to your assigned seminary school.  We'll let them know that they need to stop off to have you converted first."

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, things are different.  You're on the other side of the ocean.

True.

But point remains. Not everyone needs to go to university. If you don't want to, don't. It's not about learning facts from lectures but how to think, regardless of the degree. If you need to, explain that to employers.

If you go in with a career in mind that might work in some narrow sectors, more likely you'll end up a bitter shell shrieking 'STEM!' If you're planning to take on a lot of money and debt for a career that you don't yet have to mitigate not having the qualifications in the past, maybe look for other, cheaper alternatives like short courses that could get your foot in the door.

On the other hand if you're doing it for love with no expectations and it won't financially explode you then go wild.

Having said that I've not taken my own advice and so far, so good. Though I hope Ide is keeping a seat warm for me

And I agree with dps - as an aside I think not guaranteeing fucktons of eternal student debt would probably help.

Edit: Oh also anyone who dreams of becoming an academic is an idiot who clearly hasn't read enough academic journals and should probably be failed.

[Ideologue]

Anyway, my position is that everyone should have the opportunity to be educated to the limits of their abilities and interests.  College isn't for everyone, but everyone should have the opportunity if they are capable of handling the coursework.

No one few find the coursework to be its own reward.  I'd modify this so that "Everyone should have the opportunity if they are capable of handling the coursework at a level that will (all but) guarantee that they will find gainful employment in their field of study, with a salary sufficient to pay back their loans at a level that would satisfy most financial planners (1-2 years' income)."

And as far as constraining the supply of degrees in certain areas, you have a degree in what is already one of the most constrained areas of study.  Law schools don't take just everyone.

Sorry, but this just is not true.  Law schools, taken as a whole, have had for years something close to an open admissions policy.  (It's even worse now that the bubble is popping and schools still need student loan conduits to function.)  Harvard doesn't take just everyone.  I assure you that Florida Coastal takes all but the most truly wretched.

There are some schools with LSAT medians in the 140s (I think there are some schools where the highest-scoring matriculant didn't even reach 150).  You've never taken the LSAT, but a sub-150 score is, with only slight hyperbole, synonymous with "mentally retarded."  In all seriousness, it indicates extremely poor reading comprehension and a lack of serious reasoning skills.

If a few years ago when you wanted to go to law school, you'd been turned down, not because you weren't qualified, but because the was already an oversupply of lawyers, you'd be whining about the injustice of that now.

With my crybaby tendencies, I have no doubt you're right.  But I'd have gotten over it, realized (sooner or later) that I needed to get the elitist chip off my shoulder and double-down on my restaurant career--I'd already been given some management training--and I strongly suspect I'd have been happier.

And while we could certainly artificially limit the supply of degrees in areas of study where there is an oversupply, I don't see how we could avoid shortages in some areas without forcing people to enter fields of study against their will.

We constrain people's "will" all the time.  It's called society.  If we didn't constrain people's will, there would be even less need for law school.

To the extent a private market for "full" majors may develop, I would suggest simply that it get by without government support.  There is absolutely no reason, especially for a conservative like yourself, to support government subsidization of people's choices, good and bad alike.

I can see that one now:  "I'm sorry, Hunter, but while your grades and LSAT score are plenty good enough to get into law school, but there's an oversupply of lawyers, so we aren't admitting anyone this year.  However, there is a severe shortage of Catholic priests, so we're going to send you to a seminary.  Oh, you don't want to be a priest?  And you're not Catholic?  Too bad.  If you won't go along willingly, there are a couple of muscular, well-armed gentlemen waiting outside the door to escort you to your assigned seminary school.  We'll let them know that they need to stop off to have you converted first."

...I think this is not an accurate reflection of what I would consider an ideal educational system.

[Maximus]

In order to become a Professional Engineer in the United States one needs a degree from an ABET accredited university.  There are companies that will hire engineers without an engineering degree, but that's unusual (and in my experience becoming more rare.)

Each individual field of engineering is an academic discipline with a large body of research.  Undergraduate engineering education teaches the basics of that discipline rather than the day to day job of an engineer.  For this reason an engineering degree isn't vocational qualification, but a university degree.

I was hearing the other day that (some of) the professional associations are pushing for a master's requirement for engineering. I'll see if I can find the article.

[Valmy]

Holy shit.  I hope they delay that little innovation a year.

[CountDeMoney]

Holy shit.  I hope they delay that little innovation a year.

Welcome to the world of the Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone, pal.

[garbon]

Holy shit.  I hope they delay that little innovation a year.

Welcome to the world of the Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone, pal.

Grallon doesn't post often so you thought you'd pick up the slack?

[CountDeMoney]

Go sell stuff.

[garbon]

I'm a salesperson now?

[CountDeMoney]

For our purposes today, yes.

[garbon]

I thought you were trying to sell us teenage angst.

[Ideologue]

"Anger over the annihilation of one's means of support" = "teenage angst."

[garbon]

"Anger over the annihilation of one's means of support" = "teenage angst."

When you cast your situation on everyone & everything; pulling out the canard non-stop? Sure.

[Ed Anger]

Smells like Teen Spirit.

[Monoriu]

I'm a salesperson now?

Everybody sells.