25 years old and deep in debt

[MadImmortalMan]

People pushing worthless degrees is a class issue. Ide has no contradiction there. Debt is the biggest barrier to social mobility, and dumping it on the poor in order to sell them shitty degrees is one of the main things keeping them from becoming rich.

[crazy canuck]

Its a good thing the internet wasnt around for me to read stuff like that when I was deciding to go to university to get my "useless" degree.  It was hard enough convincing my father it was a good idea as it was.

[Jacob]

People pushing worthless degrees is a class issue. Ide has no contradiction there. Debt is the biggest barrier to social mobility, and dumping it on the poor in order to sell them shitty degrees is one of the main things keeping them from becoming rich.

I'm pretty sure that Ide's on record denigrating people with humanities degrees and blaming them for the results of their own, in his eyes stupid, choices.

... when what he should be doing is make common cause with them.

[Ideologue]

No.  I don't blame 18-22 year olds for making bad choices.  I blame the perverse destruction of the value of a college degree by misguided policy that has been overtaken by a rentier class of professors.  (The education itself was probably never terribly valuable except as a signaling method, though arguably ~1900 history and literature grads were better "trained" in their discipline.)

[crazy canuck]

(The education itself was probably never terribly valuable except as a signaling method, though arguably ~1900 history and literature grads were better "trained" in their discipline.)

What a bunch of BS. 

[grumbler]

People pushing worthless degrees is a class issue. Ide has no contradiction there. Debt is the biggest barrier to social mobility, and dumping it on the poor in order to sell them shitty degrees is one of the main things keeping them from becoming rich.

I'm pretty sure that Ide's on record denigrating people with humanities degrees and blaming them for the results of their own, in his eyes stupid, choices.

... when what he should be doing is make common cause with them.

I'm pretty sure Ide is posting tongue in cheek, and I know MIM is.

[Ideologue]

Better trained, at least, in the state of the art of their day.  I think that's probably trivially true.  How many baccalaureate degree-granting institutions were there in 1900, and how many people went to college to study history?  "The best and brightest" would be a rather nasty class statement, but I'd suspect the average history grad went to a far better institution, had far more personal contact with his professors, had more interest in the field, and was subject to stricter grading, than one in 2007, when I graduated.

I had the opportunity (rather unethically, but let's not dwell) to read an paper by the woman in my program who was also my college's valedictorian.  I'm not saying mine were publishable research, but they were getting there and in my work I used a great deal of primary sources when possible and vetted secondary sources when I couldn't.  Hers liberally cited Wikipedia and, as far as actual literary merit goes, it was absolutely atrocious trash, riddled with terrible grammar and typos on top of being unduly boring to read.

And just to brag a little bit and you'll damned well let me because I've had a rough week, there's a reason I got an academic award and she didn't...   I actually got the impression that my profs thought she was an idiot, simply diligent (to the extent our latterday relaxed academic standards require diligence, anyway), and not quite dumb enough to give grades less than A to.

[The Brain]

STEM degree is best degree.

[The Minsky Moment]

No.  I don't blame 18-22 year olds for making bad choices.  I blame the perverse destruction of the value of a college degree by misguided policy that has been overtaken by a rentier class of professors.  (The education itself was probably never terribly valuable except as a signaling method, though arguably ~1900 history and literature grads were better "trained" in their discipline.)

From the POV of an employer, college credentials still primarily serve a signalling function.  What has changed is the nature of signal.  When a significant proportion of the population goes to college - as is the case now - it dilutes the distinctiveness of the qualification and so the mere fact that one holds a degree does not lead as ineluctably to lucrative employment as it might have during an era where (say) only 10% went to college.  That is not to say college has no value - in fact the consequence of not going to college for job prospects may be even more severe than in the past.   The problem is not so much college itself, but rather the economics of going to and financing college, and the lack of viable non-college alternatives like German style apprenticeships.

The STEM/non-STEM distinction I think is a red herring for this and other reasons already discussed.  it is only relevant if one really wants to work an area that requires particular scientific qualifications that one didn't get.

Incidentally, the BLS publishes an estimate of those occupations expected to enjoy the most job growth over the next 10 years:  http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm
I found it rather interesting.

For one thing, it runs contrary to the common belief that jobs at the lower end of the skill/pay scale are being systematically elimated by automation.  Retail sales, food prep, personal/health care aides, construction, laborers, secreataries, receptionists, landscaping, truck driver, etc. are all on the list.  So are classic middle class occupations like bookkeepers, first line supervisors, office clerks, nurses, elementary schools teachers, carpenters. 

Second with the exception of RNs, software developers, and perhaps medical assistants, none of these professions requires STEM qualifications.

[The Minsky Moment]

More from the BLS: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm
Computer sciences, mathematical sciences and architecture are expected to grow faster than average.
Physical and life sciences exactly at average.
All other engineering occupations are expected to grow *slower* than average.
healthcare expected to grow well above average but mostly in nursing, various kinds of assistants to practioners, and therapists of all kinds.

[Valmy]

All other engineering occupations are expected to grow *slower* than average.

Fuck.

[Barrister]

Incidentally, the BLS publishes an estimate of those occupations expected to enjoy the most job growth over the next 10 years:  http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm
I found it rather interesting.

For one thing, it runs contrary to the common belief that jobs at the lower end of the skill/pay scale are being systematically elimated by automation.  Retail sales, food prep, personal/health care aides, construction, laborers, secreataries, receptionists, landscaping, truck driver, etc. are all on the list.  So are classic middle class occupations like bookkeepers, first line supervisors, office clerks, nurses, elementary schools teachers, carpenters. 

Second with the exception of RNs, software developers, and perhaps medical assistants, none of these professions requires STEM qualifications.

I wonder what they look at in coming to their projections.  I've seen a number of analysis saying several of those areas are expected to come under intense pressure from automation.  Food preparation, truck driver, retail sales - all are expected to be heavily effected by automation.

Perhaps it's just the timeline - automated vehicles look to very much be coming, but I don't know if we'll see their impact within the next 10 years.

[Ideologue]

No.  I don't blame 18-22 year olds for making bad choices.  I blame the perverse destruction of the value of a college degree by misguided policy that has been overtaken by a rentier class of professors.  (The education itself was probably never terribly valuable except as a signaling method, though arguably ~1900 history and literature grads were better "trained" in their discipline.)

From the POV of an employer, college credentials still primarily serve a signalling function.  What has changed is the nature of signal.  When a significant proportion of the population goes to college - as is the case now - it dilutes the distinctiveness of the qualification and so the mere fact that one holds a degree does not lead as ineluctably to lucrative employment as it might have during an era where (say) only 10% went to college.  That is not to say college has no value - in fact the consequence of not going to college for job prospects may be even more severe than in the past.   The problem is not so much college itself, but rather the economics of going to and financing college, and the lack of viable non-college alternatives like German style apprenticeships.

The STEM/non-STEM distinction I think is a red herring for this and other reasons already discussed.  it is only relevant if one really wants to work an area that requires particular scientific qualifications that one didn't get.

Incidentally, the BLS publishes an estimate of those occupations expected to enjoy the most job growth over the next 10 years:  http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm
I found it rather interesting.

For one thing, it runs contrary to the common belief that jobs at the lower end of the skill/pay scale are being systematically elimated by automation.  Retail sales, food prep, personal/health care aides, construction, laborers, secreataries, receptionists, landscaping, truck driver, etc. are all on the list.  So are classic middle class occupations like bookkeepers, first line supervisors, office clerks, nurses, elementary schools teachers, carpenters. 

Second with the exception of RNs, software developers, and perhaps medical assistants, none of these professions requires STEM qualifications.

Also accountants ("M").  So... basically all of the good ones.

I am well aware of the disproportionate growth of garbage jobs, which makes a degree even less valuable (or, perversely, indispensible--requiring a B.A. to sling fries).

I don't think we disagree--I'm simply using the term "value" in the context of college degrees a bit differently.  We are all of us quite aware of the human potential destruction society we've created thanks to requiring children to undertake tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt to signal to employers that they have the work ethic to mostly show up to class and take some exams.

[Ideologue]

Incidentally, the BLS publishes an estimate of those occupations expected to enjoy the most job growth over the next 10 years:  http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm
I found it rather interesting.

For one thing, it runs contrary to the common belief that jobs at the lower end of the skill/pay scale are being systematically elimated by automation.  Retail sales, food prep, personal/health care aides, construction, laborers, secreataries, receptionists, landscaping, truck driver, etc. are all on the list.  So are classic middle class occupations like bookkeepers, first line supervisors, office clerks, nurses, elementary schools teachers, carpenters. 

Second with the exception of RNs, software developers, and perhaps medical assistants, none of these professions requires STEM qualifications.

I wonder what they look at in coming to their projections.  I've seen a number of analysis saying several of those areas are expected to come under intense pressure from automation.  Food preparation, truck driver, retail sales - all are expected to be heavily effected by automation.

Perhaps it's just the timeline - automated vehicles look to very much be coming, but I don't know if we'll see their impact within the next 10 years.

I expect it's just that--it's beyond their time horizon.  But the low skill jobs will, eventually, be annihilated.  Eventually, jobs will be annihilated.

[Ideologue]

There's also the difference in signals you're talking about, Joan.  A STEM degree signals a bundle of skills--at the very least, reasoning skills.  A humanities degree signals a bundle of expectations--and maybe the ability to write a coherent email, but I wouldn't count on it, and neither do employers.  All things being equal, STEM degrees are thus at least a little bit more versatile.  Plus, as the joke goes, declining growth or not, there are still actually "engineering companies."  There's no such thing as a "history company" and very few "poetry companies" outside of academia itself, which is an exceptionally stupid dream to pursue.