25 years old and deep in debt

[CountDeMoney]

Many students do not learn critical-thinking skills in college, and they're suffering in the job market, a new study finds.

The Economic Price of Colleges' Failures
Kevin Carey, Sept 1 2014
NYTimes

Four years ago, the sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa dropped a bomb on American higher education. Their groundbreaking book, "Academically Adrift," found that many students experience "limited or no learning" in college. Today, they released a follow-up study, tracking the same students for two years after graduation, into the workplace, adult relationships and civic life. The results suggest that recent college graduates who are struggling to start careers are being hamstrung by their lack of learning.

"Academically Adrift" studied a sample of students who enrolled at four-year colleges and universities in 2005. As freshmen, they took a test of critical thinking, analytic reasoning and communications skills called the Collegiate Learning Assessment (C.L.A.). Colleges promise to teach these broad intellectual skills to all students, regardless of major. The students took the C.L.A. again at the end of their senior year. On average, they improved less than half of one standard deviation. For many, the results were much worse. One-third improved by less than a single point on a 100-point scale during four years of college.

This wasn't because some colleges simply enrolled smarter students. The nature of the collegiate academic experience mattered, too. Students who spent more time studying alone learned more, even after controlling for their sociodemographic background, high school grades and entrance exam scores. So did students whose teachers enforced high academic expectations. People who studied the traditional liberal arts and sciences learned more than business, education and communications majors.

Yet despite working little and learning less — a third of students reported studying less than five hours a week and half were assigned no long papers to write — most continued to receive good grades. Students did what colleges asked of them, and for many, that wasn't very much.

"Academically Adrift" called into question what college students were actually getting for their increasingly expensive educations. But some critics questioned whether collegiate learning could really be measured by a single test. Critical thinking skills are, moreover, only a means to an end. The end itself is making a successful transition to adulthood: getting a good job, finding a partner, engaging with society. The follow-up study, "Aspiring Adults Adrift," found that, in fact, the skills measured by the C.L.A. make a significant difference when it comes to finding and keeping that crucial first job.

The students in the study graduated in the teeth of the post-Great Recession labor market, in mid-2009. Two years later, 7 percent were unemployed, consistent with national studies finding that recession-era college graduates were more likely to be unemployed than recent college grads in better economic times, but much less likely to be jobless than young adults with no college degree. An additional 16 percent were underemployed, working less than 20 hours a week or in an unskilled job such as grocery store cashier.

Even after statistically controlling for students' sociodemographic characteristics, college majors and college selectivity, those who finished school with high C.L.A. scores were significantly less likely to be unemployed than those who had low C.L.A. scores. The difference was even larger when it came to success in the workplace. Low-C.L.A. graduates were twice as likely as high-C.L.A. graduates to lose their jobs between 2010 and 2011, suggesting that employers can tell who got a good college education and who didn't. Low-C.L.A. graduates were also 50 percent more likely to end up in an unskilled occupation, and were less likely to be satisfied with their jobs.

Remarkably, the students had almost no awareness of this dynamic. When asked during their senior year in 2009, three-quarters reported gaining high levels of critical thinking skills in college, despite strong C.L.A. evidence to the contrary. When asked again two years later, nearly half reported even higher levels of learning in college. This was true across the spectrum of students, including those who had struggled to find and keep good jobs.

Through diplomas, increasingly inflated grades and the drumbeat of college self-promotion, these students had been told they had received a great education. The fact that the typical student spent three times as much time socializing and recreating in college as studying and going to class didn't change that belief. Nor did unsteady employment outcomes and, for the large majority of those surveyed, continued financial dependence on their parents.

Students who were interviewed in depth by Mr. Arum and Ms. Roksa put great stock in collegiate social experiences that often came at the expense of academic work, emphasizing the value of the personal relationships they built. But only 20 percent found their most recent job through personal contacts, and of those, less than half came from college friends. And while the recent graduates were gloomy about the state of the nation, they professed strong belief in their own future success. The vast majority thought their lives would be better than that of their parents. "They learned from the experts that they can do well with little effort," Mr. Arum told me, "so they're optimistic."

On average, college graduates continue to fare much better in the job market than people without degrees. But Mr. Arum and Ms. Roksa's latest research suggests that within the large population of college graduates, those who were poorly taught are paying an economic price. Because they didn't acquire vital critical thinking skills, they're less likely to get a job and more likely to lose the jobs they get than students who received a good education.

Yet those same students continue to believe they got a great education, even after two years of struggle. This suggests a fundamental failure in the higher education market — while employers can tell the difference between those who learned in college and those who were left academically adrift, the students themselves cannot.

[Ideologue]

I'm not as thin as I'd like to be.  Anyway, we all know damned well that but for the tip-top one-percenters in the sexual market, men can't sell their bodies to women.  That's why unalloyed feminism that doesn't recognize female privilege is a fucking joke, as well as why nine out of every ten male children should either be aborted or turned gay with a synthetic hormone bath in the womb.

Don't go down this path, Ide.

See, that's not a discussion.

Edit: nevermind.

[Martinus]

I'm not as thin as I'd like to be.  Anyway, we all know damned well that but for the tip-top one-percenters in the sexual market, men can't sell their bodies to women.  That's why unalloyed feminism that doesn't recognize female privilege is a fucking joke, as well as why nine out of every ten male children should either be aborted or turned gay with a synthetic hormone bath in the womb.

Don't go down this path, Ide.

See, that's not a discussion.  But you're right, and I'll agree to whatever you say.  I no longer have the stomach for any argument, because everything I perceive to be true, from the necessity for a command economy to interpersonal problems being hugely tied to biology, is held in contempt by everybody I fucking know.  I don't have the spirit to be morally right by my own lights any more, so I'd just as soon substitute society's judgment for mine.

I'm barely even making fun, being ironic, or anything like that.  I'd very much prefer to give up my own conscience.

Did it occur to you that you may just be wrong on most issues?

Perhaps it's your genes. But then your views on biological determinism would be right.

The Ideologue paradox? 

[Jacob]

In all seriousness--because I was being a little schtickish, as I always hope is obvious when I am, but rarely seems to be--I think there is a serious problem with some modern expressions of feminism, that I haven't been able to articulate yet without reference to MRA-sounding hogwash.  It boils down to the fact that I think there is such a thing as female privilege, that has only been very lightly addressed in gender political circles.  One aspect of that privilege is that a fair number of women can still choose to live by their looks alone, without reference to strength, intelligence, or financial or social capital.  Women are also not feared (even if I understand why men are, and this is why I believe a pervasive surveillance state is a necessary aspect of a perfect society).  Most women are also afforded--I think--a far greater degree of validation for just existing than men are, but this may be a serious personal problem I alone experience.  Finally, feminist rhetoric can very easily descend into misandry, and either no one cares, or no one can speak against it without being called a misogynist; irreproachable control over a conversation is the definition of privilege.

I think there is also insufficient criticism or analysis of standard female sexual desires, whereas there is a wealth of criticism of men's (I'm supposedly pro-anorexia, for example).  Partly this is a failure of the overall culture to teach women to understand themselves and self-criticize or at least pursue their aims in an enlightened way, but from an outside viewpoint it's no wonder that one woman's endless pursuit of big, strong, violent men results in black eyes and rapes; nor is it any wonder another woman's pursuit of rich men results in spiritual desolation.  Feminism decries this, but because men are the patent villains in these stories, any drives that send a woman toward ruin in the first place are essentially denied, and cast into the fire as "victim blaming."

But like I said, it's best that I pretend--or somehow legitimately convince myself--that these are delusions, because no one wants to hear it, not even me.

For the record, I think male privilege exists too and is absolutely a bigger problem overall.  (Compared to race and class privilege, of course, gender politics is close to solved in the First World--the viciousness of our Eliot Rodgers aside--though compared to race and class privilege, squaring the fucking circle is close to solved, too.)

You have a hard time articulating it without it sounding like MRA hogwash because that's basically what it is.

Yes, some women can do well for themselves by conforming to the behaviour patterns imposed on them by the patriarchy, especially if they happen to be able to look desirable as well (see the ladies of Fox opining on cat-calling: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-outnumbered-catcalling-flattering for example). That's not privilege.

Sure, there's a certain kind of power that can be harnessed from having a snatch that many men want, and from doling it out judiciously, but it ain't privilege. Because you know what? You could have sucked cock and doled your ass out to rich gay dudes when you were young and pretty (which might still be the case, I dunno) and if you'd combined it with some luck and some timing and some hard work you could have parlayed it into some sort of semi-permanent success just like the women you apparently envy. Being a whore is not limited by gender, even though more women than men are forced into that position against their will and even though more women than men find it's their best option given their circumstances.

And yeah, thinking that women are powerful and privileged because they won't fuck you but you'd fuck (some of) them is right in the heartland of MRA territory... like, pretty much the seat of government.

[CountDeMoney]

Oh, but when it's a guy, it's entrepreneurial.  When it's a woman, she's a whore.

[Martinus]

Because you know what? You could have sucked cock and doled your ass out to rich gay dudes when you were young and pretty (which might still be the case, I dunno) and if you'd combined it with some luck and some timing and some hard work you could have parlayed it into some sort of semi-permanent success just like the women you apparently envy.

Nah.

[Ideologue]

I don't think you understood exactly what I was getting at, and it shows when you ignore my "some women are attracted to brutes" angle.  And I'm not talking about film noir gold diggers or actual prostitutes, which I wasn't talking about at all, I'm talking about (some) women who semi-consciously pursue money, status, and power, the same way (some) men pursue youth and beauty, neither of which are entirely healthy modes of sexuality.

This is in a different universe than me sucking cock for $50 or whatever the gay rate was in 2002.  I did have a gay experience once, you may or may not know, and it was profoundly boring to me though I was happy that I helped a good friend with his increasingly-crappy relationship (they're still together, so I think I did a good deed ).  In any event, I don't think a heterosexual woman fucking a heterosexual man is perfectly analogous, especially when I am discussing desires that are real, not faked.  For example, I have no doubt that a woman who seeks out a PTSD-afflicted ex-Marine's desires are not false.

But obviously I'm mainly talking about my ex-girlfriend, whom I should not use as a representative example of her gender; and I'm also talking about my personal feelings of inadequacy.  So sure, you're probably right.  I'd sooner stop.  People are people and they're all different et cetera.  That's my new paradigm.

[Ideologue]

Because you know what? You could have sucked cock and doled your ass out to rich gay dudes when you were young and pretty (which might still be the case, I dunno) and if you'd combined it with some luck and some timing and some hard work you could have parlayed it into some sort of semi-permanent success just like the women you apparently envy.

Nah.

How's Wiktor?

[Martinus]

Because you know what? You could have sucked cock and doled your ass out to rich gay dudes when you were young and pretty (which might still be the case, I dunno) and if you'd combined it with some luck and some timing and some hard work you could have parlayed it into some sort of semi-permanent success just like the women you apparently envy.

Nah.

How's Wiktor?

He seemed ok last time we met for a coffee (about 8 months ago or so). Why?

[Ideologue]

Well, if that didn't work, how about the ol' standby: fuck you, you fat old hag.

[Martinus]

Well, if that didn't work, how about the ol' standby: fuck you, you fat old hag.

[Grallon]

Oh, but when it's a guy, it's entrepreneurial.  When it's a woman, she's a whore.

You're new avatar is turning me on Money.




G.

[Ideologue]

Hey, Jake, I didn't mean to be offensive in any way about it, or dismissive, or a jerk.  I should've stuck to my guns--inarticulate ideas shouldn't be articulated until you've got them.  At least for most of my crazy notions, I have solid ideological underpinnings based on general morality and not what (might be) my own psychic scars.  You're also not wrong that without being very careful, such ideas wind up aligned with people that approach a genuinely nihilistic worldview when it comes to their views on women and, indeed, humans in general.

Your diagnosis of "envy" is not incorrect.  It's not so much that I think that the world, as currently ordered, is better for women, necessarily; only that as it is currently ordered, with my personality, I'd have found it easier as a woman.  Of course, that's unknowable without some very powerful models and an exceptionally good computer, so it need not be something I dwell upon.

[Jacob]

I don't think you understood exactly what I was getting at, and it shows when you ignore my "some women are attracted to brutes" angle.  And I'm not talking about film noir gold diggers or actual prostitutes, which I wasn't talking about at all, I'm talking about (some) women who semi-consciously pursue money, status, and power, the same way (some) men pursue youth and beauty, neither of which are entirely healthy modes of sexuality.

That's fair enough, and there are definitely women who make poor and or very mercenary decisions (whether deliberately or through layers of self-deception). That's just human, though, and even if some of those decisions seem to be gender specific than doesn't make their existence "privilege".

This is in a different universe than me sucking cock for $50 or whatever the gay rate was in 2002.  I did have a gay experience once, you may or may not know, and it was profoundly boring to me though I was happy that I helped a good friend with his increasingly-crappy relationship (they're still together, so I think I did a good deed ).  In any event, I don't think a heterosexual woman fucking a heterosexual man is perfectly analogous, especially when I am discussing desires that are real, not faked.  For example, I have no doubt that a woman who seeks out a PTSD-afflicted ex-Marine's desires are not false.

Not quite sure where you're going with this, beyond some lingering disappointment at your most recent breakup - which is fair enough, though I don't think break-up misery is a solid basis to make general philosophical conclusions about gender relations.

My point was that having your body viewed primarily as a vehicle for sexual satisfaction for men, and the attendant ability to cash in on that formally or informally, is not privilege.

But obviously I'm mainly talking about my ex-girlfriend, whom I should not use as a representative example of her gender; and I'm also talking about my personal feelings of inadequacy.  So sure, you're probably right.  I'd sooner stop.  People are people and they're all different et cetera.  That's my new paradigm.

Hey, Jake, I didn't mean to be offensive in any way about it, or dismissive, or a jerk.  I should've stuck to my guns--inarticulate ideas shouldn't be articulated until you've got them.  At least for most of my crazy notions, I have solid ideological underpinnings based on general morality and not what (might be) my own psychic scars.  You're also not wrong that without being very careful, such ideas wind up aligned with people that approach a genuinely nihilistic worldview when it comes to their views on women and, indeed, humans in general.

Yeah, and you're good guy. Would be a pity to lose you to the brain-eater.

Your diagnosis of "envy" is not incorrect.  It's not so much that I think that the world, as currently ordered, is better for women, necessarily; only that as it is currently ordered, with my personality, I'd have found it easier as a woman.  Of course, that's unknowable without some very powerful models and an exceptionally good computer, so it need not be something I dwell upon.

I don't think I diagnosed "envy"? 

My diagnosis, should you want it, is an unhealthy combination of frustration, over-thinking, and inertia. While envy does rear its head occasionally, I think it's a result of the former three. Should you get the over-thinking in check, take some actions to improve your situation, and have it work out (key part, there), then I think any envy stuff, such as it is, will recede.

[The Minsky Moment]

People are people and they're all different et cetera.  That's my new paradigm.

A poor starting point for your new totalitarian state.  People may think they are different but they are all the same to the all-seeing eye of the Panopticon.