Poll
Question:
Read the subject line, doofus.
Option 1: > 30
Option 2: > 40
Option 3: > 50
Option 4: > 60
Option 5: 70+
Option 6: It's never too old!
This topic has come up for me recently.
The arguments I've heard for "It's never too late!" include:
- If it's something you really want, then go for it, age bedamned!
- There should be no limit to learning.
- You don't know how long you have left to work, so you may as well beef up your resume just in case
The arguments I've heard for not going past a certain age include:
- Poor return on investment when you only have a set number of years left to work
- You would be taking the space of a younger person who would be able to better put it to use
- Waste of time and money that you could be spending traveling or with your family
- If you take time off from work for grad school, it will be harder for you to get a job if you're of a "certain age"
What does the Languish Collective think?
I presume a Masters right? Well in two years you are going to be two years older anyway might as well be two years older with a Masters. The waste of money thing really only applies if you are leaving some well paying career for it, but I got the impression you are an office drone like me.
Wait what degree was the thing with the horribly sexist programming professor from?
To my mind, if it is something you really want to do, do it. I doubt a good economic argument can be made for it, but that's not really the point.
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2014, 01:03:46 PM
To my mind, if it is something you really want to do, do it. I doubt a good economic argument can be made for it, but that's not really the point.
I don't know. If you are working a $30,000 a year job and a two year degree gets you into a 45,000 or 50,000 one that makes good sense.
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2014, 01:04:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2014, 01:03:46 PM
To my mind, if it is something you really want to do, do it. I doubt a good economic argument can be made for it, but that's not really the point.
I don't know. If you are working a $30,000 a year job and a two year degree gets you into a 45,000 or 50,000 one that makes good sense.
Depends on how old you are, how long you are likely to work, how much grad school costs, and how long it takes to get your degree, and the chances of increasing your earning power by that much.
Either way, though - even if it is a wash, even if you lose money on the deal - you have done something you want to do.
I'm with, Malt. I think there are certainly points where an economic argument will always defeat it - but I guess it depends on what you are expecting your degree to do for you / what you plan to make of the experience while earning it.
Eh it is just two years and they usually put you to work as a grad student that helps out a lot with the tuition. I am not saying it will definitely pay off just saying I think there might be a good economic reason for it, lots of people get Masters degrees in their 40s and 50s these days. I doubt that is because middle aged people are just that much more hungry for enlightenment than they were in the past.
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2014, 01:12:41 PM
Eh it is just two years and they usually put you to work as a grad student that helps out a lot with the tuition. I am not saying it will definitely pay off just saying I think there might be a good economic reason for it, lots of people get Masters degrees in their 40s and 50s these days. I doubt that is because middle aged people are just that much more hungry for enlightenment than they were in the past.
On the flipside - it could smack you down with a lot of debt. For instance, I don't currently see a lot of financial upside in me returning to my alma mater for an MBA - 1) as I don't expect to enjoy it and 2) it only looks like a financially sound decision if someone else pays for it. :D
I think it depends on how much post graduate education is required. I don't think a 45 year old should be allowed to start medical school given that it'd be 4 years of med school, and then 3-9 years of residency training following that. Half of all qualified 20-something year olds who apply to medical school do not get in. A 20-something would potentially have almost twice as long of a presence in the physician workforce.
Doctoral program: you're too old.
Non-doctoral program: don't bother.
I dont think age is the issue, except as age relates to the reason one wishes to do it. For example, my father in law did is Masters degree well after retirement as a matter of personal interest. So for him age wasnt an issue at all.
But if you are considering doing a masters degree because it will return some economic benefit to you then you need to take a serious look at whether the cost, both actual and opportunity, is worth it. When making that calculation you should also have an honest assessment of how long it will really take you to finish the work. There are quite a few grad students who take years to finish what could be completed in a lot less time.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2014, 01:12:41 PM
Eh it is just two years and they usually put you to work as a grad student that helps out a lot with the tuition. I am not saying it will definitely pay off just saying I think there might be a good economic reason for it, lots of people get Masters degrees in their 40s and 50s these days. I doubt that is because middle aged people are just that much more hungry for enlightenment than they were in the past.
On the flipside - it could smack you down with a lot of debt. For instance, I don't currently see a lot of financial upside in me returning to my alma mater for an MBA - 1) as I don't expect to enjoy it and 2) it only looks like a financially sound decision if someone else pays for it. :D
Well obviously the reality of Meri's situation needs to be considered. I was just challenging the idea that there could not be any economic reasons to do it at an advanced age in general.
If you want it, and it won't financially cripple you, go for it.
*nuclear strike from Ide incoming*
Quote from: merithyn on May 20, 2014, 12:59:10 PM
If you take time off from work for grad school, it will be harder for you to get a job if you're of a "certain age"
I very briefly considered going back to finish engineering school when I got laid off. I decided it was too big a risk, not only because I'd be close to 40 by then, but mostly because my line of work changes quite fast and a long absence could hurt me a lot in what is by far the most attractive point of my resume: extensive work experience.
Quote from: merithyn on May 20, 2014, 12:59:10 PM
- Poor return on investment when you only have a set number of years left to work
I don't buy this. Every labor metric out there shows an increase in yearly salary in every discipline when undergrad and grad educations are compared. Who gives a shit if you die quicker than some fuckhead graduating now; if you're only going to live 20 more years, you might as well make a higher average salary.
Quote- You would be taking the space of a younger person who would be able to better put it to use
Nonsense. They don't finish baking and taking their education seriously until they're in their 30s anyway. Undergrads moving straight to graduate work don't give a shit, as they're too busy still binge drinking and date raping. And they're all stupid anyway. Had a girl in a Political Science class last year who was moving on to the grad program last fall. Didn't know who Jim Crow was. I told her he played for the Packers in the '60s. I fucking shit you not. Fuck young people.
And anyway, "put it to better use" for what? What gives some Millennial shithead with Assburgers that can't make eye contact, compose a cogent sentence or come up with a single original thought in the corporate world priority over you?
QuoteWaste of time and money that you could be spending traveling or with your family
Meh.
Quote- If you take time off from work for grad school, it will be harder for you to get a job if you're of a "certain age"
Shit, it's hard enough now, so you might as well improve your chances.
The vast majority of the approximate 300 job descriptions I've applied to in the last 24 months that can be qualified as "professional" say "master/graduate degree preferred" which is roughly translated to "we're only looking at resumes with graduate degrees". An undergraduate degree is no longer adequate, it's merely another box to check to get through the ATS. HR faggits like Caliga want graduate degrees, or at least the personality to call people "cunts" in job interviews.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 20, 2014, 02:09:45 PM
I very briefly considered going back to finish engineering school when I got laid off. I decided it was too big a risk, not only because I'd be close to 40 by then, but mostly because my line of work changes quite fast and a long absence could hurt me a lot in what is by far the most attractive point of my resume: extensive work experience.
Same thing happened to me, simply by deign of being unemployed for so long. So guess what, a long absence is a long absence, and the time out of the industry is going to cost you a career anyway, so you might as well have something to show for it.
Quote from: merithyn on May 20, 2014, 12:59:10 PM
This topic has come up for me recently.
The arguments I've heard for "It's never too late!" include:
- If it's something you really want, then go for it, age bedamned!
- There should be no limit to learning.
- You don't know how long you have left to work, so you may as well beef up your resume just in case
By going back and getting your degree later in life you have professional and life experience that younger students do not. Based on my own experience you'll get more out of your classes and understand things better than the younger students.
Yeah I would have already failed out of the Engineering program and be laying around drinking and playing MMORPGs to kill the pain if I had done this at 18.
I think it depends on if you can afford it. If you can, you are never, ever too old for education.
As societies change and requirements for labour do too, getting a higher education once or twice or even thrice might become the norm.
If you want it, have it.
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2014, 01:03:21 PM
I presume a Masters right? Well in two years you are going to be two years older anyway might as well be two years older with a Masters. The waste of money thing really only applies if you are leaving some well paying career for it, but I got the impression you are an office drone like me.
Wait what degree was the thing with the horribly sexist programming professor from?
This isn't actually for me. It was just a discussion that came up.
Right.
Quote from: merithyn on May 20, 2014, 12:59:10 PM
- Poor return on investment when you only have a set number of years left to work
This.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2014, 02:14:50 PM
The vast majority of the approximate 300 job descriptions I've applied to in the last 24 months that can be qualified as "professional" say "master/graduate degree preferred" which is roughly translated to "we're only looking at resumes with graduate degrees". An undergraduate degree is no longer adequate, it's merely another box to check to get through the ATS. HR faggits like Caliga want graduate degrees, or at least the personality to call people "cunts" in job interviews.
I normally try to ignore Seedy's sniping, but just in case I've not pointed this out in the main forum: I'm not an HR person, have never been an HR person, don't want to be an HR person, and in truth hate HR people as much as the rest of you do.
On topic, and because despite my non-HR status I do in fact interview people all the time: I personally do not care about a candidate's education at all. I only care about their experience unless maybe I'm talking to someone right out of school where there's not much else to differentiate them from other folks who are at the same level.
Also, IIRC Mr. Cunt was not a college graduate. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2014, 04:17:13 PM
I normally try to ignore Seedy's sniping, but just in case I've not pointed this out in the main forum: I'm not an HR person, have never been an HR person, don't want to be an HR person, and in truth hate HR people as much as the rest of you do.
The lady doth protest too much.
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2014, 01:53:33 PM
*nuclear strike from Ide incoming*
There are some very narrow circumstances that don't make it outright insane.
Of course, from a public policy perspective, it will always be madness, but it's the madness we've decided works.
"They'll give our boys cash for an Ph.D. in art history, but they won't let them write fuck on the side of their planes because it's obscene."
Your growing anti-intellectualism is disturbing, Ide. Pretty soon, you and derfetus will be going to open tent revivals.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2014, 05:51:09 PM
Your growing anti-intellectualism is disturbing, Ide. Pretty soon, you and derfetus will be going to open tent revivals.
Ide has the same problem as Mono, in that he doesn't see learning as something with a value in its own right, but as a means to an end. And since in Ide's case, unlike Mono's, it hasn't led to the desired end, he's bitter about it.
"Anti-intellectual" is, ironically, a label applied without a great deal of critical thought. It's not "anti-intellectual" to demand that supply of humanities-degree holders (indeed,
all degree holders) be constrained to meet demand, so that the student debt crisis be ameliorated.
Your position may not be "anti-intellectual," but it's sure as fuck anti-human.
Quote from: dpsIde has the same problem as Mono, in that he doesn't see learning as something with a value in its own right
You know that's a mischaracterization of my arguments.
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2014, 04:17:13 PM
I normally try to ignore Seedy's sniping, but just in case I've not pointed this out in the main forum: I'm not an HR person, have never been an HR person, don't want to be an HR person, and in truth hate HR people as much as the rest of you do.
Yeah, and you don't eat out of gas stations all the time either. :rolleyes: :yeahright:
Another factor not mentioned is your probability of actually finishing your degree. It's not going to be 100% for everyone.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 06:13:43 PM
"Anti-intellectual" is, ironically, a label applied without a great deal of critical thought.
You still bitch too much about it. If you're not anti-intellectual, you're certainly pro-bitch.
I'm not taking any lessons from Professor Shareholder Value about what I might "bitch too much about."
Bitching about losing your job and forced to move back in with Mom > Bitching about higher education when you have a law degree.
Sorry, puddytat, but you've got no standing. LOLZ, Con Law.
Unless that Master's means a guaranteed higher-paying paper-pushing job I'd consider not bothering. Get a library card and/or take a community college class here or there.
Can you not do it part-time?
Quote from: DGuller on May 20, 2014, 06:15:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2014, 04:17:13 PM
I normally try to ignore Seedy's sniping, but just in case I've not pointed this out in the main forum: I'm not an HR person, have never been an HR person, don't want to be an HR person, and in truth hate HR people as much as the rest of you do.
Yeah, and you don't eat out of gas stations all the time either. :rolleyes: :yeahright:
I'm not sure how a headhunter gets to look down at HR folks anyway.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 06:13:43 PM
"Anti-intellectual" is, ironically, a label applied without a great deal of critical thought. It's not "anti-intellectual" to demand that supply of humanities-degree holders (indeed, all degree holders) be constrained to meet demand, so that the student debt crisis be ameliorated.
Your position may not be "anti-intellectual," but it's sure as fuck anti-human.
Quote from: dpsIde has the same problem as Mono, in that he doesn't see learning as something with a value in its own right
You know that's a mischaracterization of my arguments.
Is it? As far as I know there are affordable degrees out there - hell even ones you can complete while working.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 06:54:10 PM
Is it? As far as I know there are affordable degrees out there - hell even ones you can complete while working.
Certifications are the new hotness for a shitload of industries now; affordable, and designed for working adults, i.e., provided online.
Quote from: DGuller on May 20, 2014, 06:15:47 PM
Yeah, and you don't eat out of gas stations all the time either. :rolleyes: :yeahright:
Actually I don't think I've done that in a while now. :hmm:
I've been on kind of a health kick lately. Cutting back on carbs and going to the gym all the time... I just got back from the gym an hour or so ago.
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2014, 07:06:51 PM
Actually I don't think I've done that in a while now. :hmm:
Doesn't matter, Languish never forgets. Kinda like Katmai directing porno movies.
Or Teach doing...:hmm:
Mama-say mama-sah ma-ma-coosah.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 07:42:47 PM
Or Teach doing...:hmm:
That's exactly what I've been doing. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 06:13:43 PM
"Anti-intellectual" is, ironically, a label applied without a great deal of critical thought. It's not "anti-intellectual" to demand that supply of humanities-degree holders (indeed, all degree holders) be constrained to meet demand, so that the student debt crisis be ameliorated.
Your position may not be "anti-intellectual," but it's sure as fuck anti-human.
So your argument is that some people be deliberately left uneducated or under-educated for the economic benefit of others who will be allowed to get a higher education? And who, exactly, do you propose be "constrained" from getting degrees? Blacks? Jews? Women? Gays? All of the above? And then you have the nerve to call Seedy's take on the issue "anti-human"?
No option for "you're always too old for it" ? :p
I've never seen a job advert askinhr for a masters. I just did it as my bachelors was so monumentally crap and I wanted to actually learn something from university. Plus added adventure in life and all that.
Quote from: Tyr on May 20, 2014, 08:52:48 PM
I've never seen a job advert askinhr for a masters.
:mellow:
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 08:55:32 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 20, 2014, 08:52:48 PM
I've never seen a job advert askinhr for a masters.
:mellow:
Coal mining doesn't require it.
I have never seen it askinhred for either.
Though the last time I was looking in the classified ads was when I really needed a minimum wage job when I was 19.
Quote from: dps on May 20, 2014, 08:37:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 06:13:43 PM
"Anti-intellectual" is, ironically, a label applied without a great deal of critical thought. It's not "anti-intellectual" to demand that supply of humanities-degree holders (indeed, all degree holders) be constrained to meet demand, so that the student debt crisis be ameliorated.
Your position may not be "anti-intellectual," but it's sure as fuck anti-human.
So your argument is that some people be deliberately left uneducated or under-educated for the economic benefit of others who will be allowed to get a higher education? And who, exactly, do you propose be "constrained" from getting degrees? Blacks? Jews? Women? Gays? All of the above? And then you have the nerve to call Seedy's take on the issue "anti-human"?
Do you have a lot of money in SLABs or something? Your framing of the issue is ridiculously emotional and obscurantist. As long as the purpose of post-secondary education is to prepare students for careers, it is incumbent upon the government and the schools to not generate an oversupply of graduates in any field, destroying the value of the degrees that they're selling to people. There is a duty of good faith and fair dealing in any contractual arrangement; and colleges are service providers who take money in exchange for an education. (Whether they actually provide it or not is a related but distinct issue.)
Your implicit argument is that post-secondary education
should have a purpose of enriching the lives of students and generating good citizens. In that case, it becomes four more years of high school--universally considered a public good that the
public pays for. And I'd agree with you, if I lived in a magical fantasy land where the American public were willing to offer universal free college to everybody.
Since graduates are expected to pay for their own education, your conception of education as a public good must recede in favor of a conception of education as an investment. And good investments have good returns. Since people are taking on personal, nondischargeable debt in order to finance this investment, it is absolutely essential that they be given the best possible chance of paying it back and realizing a financial return--which is, we can all agree, largely synonymous with a shot at a good life.
If colleges are going to shit out graduates whose degrees qualify them for the same jobs as high school students--or worse, if there are so many people with degrees that high school diplomas are devalued--and obviously I describe the status quo--then you are looking at an utter disaster, an effective waste of literally trillions of dollars, and the destruction of a generation.
Cry me a river.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 09:22:32 PM
Cry me a river.
Fuck you, Stanford. You're a special case.
I've yet to see evidence that our generation has been destroyed. I have seen a lot of evidence of whiny individuals though.
How many whiny individuals does it take? ~30% enough for you?
Maybe we should define terms first. What do you think should count as "destroyed"?
I'll back off "destroyed." How about "severely damaged", which would include any of the following: unable to pay off their loans with relative facility; putting off life milestones like marriage and children; living with their parents; long stretches of unemployment or underemployment.
IBR rates would be a pretty good proxy for "severely damaged," since that's the number of graduates in soft default, and it's a pretty massive number.
Well I don't disagree with that as much, though perhaps the modified "severely"...and I'm not convinced that the 2nd bit is super important (on the marriage side).
However, I don't see why restricting the humanities (presumably only to those for whom college won't pose an undo financial burden) is the solution. In fact, I'd say some of my best courses (both in undergrad and those I've taken sense) fell in the realm of humanities.
Seems like the problem is more structural in that we require people to have a degree as signifier of suitability for many non-service sector career roles but then have a high price tag attached to many of our institutions. I'd think those would be two places to look at reforms.
Of course is college debt the worst debt? We've long had people crushing themselves with housing debt they can't afford - as well as credit card debt, etc.
You can't charge off the education debt in bankruptcy, so yes, it is a worse kind of debt.
So it is the worst debt because you can't get rid of it when you decide that your financial decision wasn't wise?
At any rate, perhaps I should have that last bit out as it is sort of a tangent.
Quote from: garbonSo it is the worst debt because you can't get rid of it when you decide that your financial decision wasn't wise?
That sounds reasonable, all things being equal, no?
Also, I did explicitly say that
all degree programs should be centrally managed to avoid oversupplies (and undersupplies, for that matter). This would include STEM subjects like vet training, pharmacy training, and nuse training... all of which I've heard are on the verge of having their bubbles pop.
It is not or should not be the duty of the Department of Education to simply ensure access to everybody to higher education: the idea that this was a good thing was a myth based on bad economics, and ultimately its greatest success was highly unintentional, by removing 18-24 year old males from the general population and artificially supporting them during their four or five most potentially violent and antisocial years.
It should be the duty of the Department of Education to shepherd the workforce of the future and match that workforce to the economy as it exists.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 10:10:52 PM
That sounds reasonable, all things being equal, no?
No. I mean you already had the education. Now you don't want to pay for it?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 10:10:52 PM
Also, I did explicitly say that all degree programs should be centrally managed to avoid oversupplies (and undersupplies, for that matter). This would include STEM subjects like vet training, pharmacy training, and nuse training... all of which I've heard are on the verge of having their bubbles pop.
It is not or should not be the duty of the Department of Education to simply ensure access to everybody to higher education: the idea that this was a good thing was a myth based on bad economics, and ultimately its greatest success was highly unintentional, by removing 18-24 year old males from the general population and artificially supporting them during their four or five most potentially violent and antisocial years.
It should be the duty of the Department of Education to shepherd the workforce of the future and match that workforce to the economy as it exists.
And we part ways. I don't think the Department of Education should do any of those things.
Why would it help the situation if we forced peopled into fields they were uninterested and possibly unsuited for?
How do you guys make these logical leaps? :unsure:
I didn't say students should be forced into anything--except only to the extent that their choices should be constrained.
(Incidentally: I would also accept, grudgingly, a purely free market solution. No loans but private loans, dischargeable in BK, and whatever schools and programs as that market can bear. I feel like this would be a bad step back in terms of income inequality and probably less efficient than responsible central planning, but it would still be more efficient and less harmful than our current combination of the worst of capitalism and communism.)
On the narrower BK issue: if it really bothers you, then the degree can be revoked. The closest analogy would be gambling debts--the gambler has already derived the psychic benefit from gambling, yet they are permitted to discharge their debts in BK.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 10:31:40 PM
How do you guys make these logical leaps? :unsure:
I didn't say students should be forced into anything--except only to the extent that their choices should be constrained.
Presumably there would be students for whom they couldn't go into any majors they were interested in because there was an "oversupply", no? Sounds like it wouldn't be far off to say they would then be forced to either major in something they didn't want to - or I guess not go to college and hope the quotas were revised in their favor the next year?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 10:31:40 PM
(Incidentally: I would also accept, grudgingly, a purely free market solution.
Like how employers artificially suppress wages for decades, prohibiting the majority of grads with debt to reasonably deal with their loans once they've acquired employment. There's your free market for you.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fissues%2F2012%2F04%2Fimg%2Floans_fig2.jpg&hash=0d56f8e664a3278dfd594cac4a0452a6bc8eb112)
U.S. companies are holding on to $1.64 trillion in cash reserves, they're not hiring, and wages have remained flat for decades. But you want to blame the universities and the loan system.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2014, 10:38:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 10:31:40 PM
(Incidentally: I would also accept, grudgingly, a purely free market solution.
Like how employers artificially suppress wages for decades, prohibiting the majority of grads with debt to reasonably deal with their loans once they've acquired employment. There's your free market for you.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fissues%2F2012%2F04%2Fimg%2Floans_fig2.jpg&hash=0d56f8e664a3278dfd594cac4a0452a6bc8eb112)
U.S. companies are holding on to $1.64 trillion in cash reserves, they're not hiring, and wages have remained flat for decades. But you want to blame the universities and the loan system.
garbon recently got a raise so your graph is useless.
Quote from: sbr on May 20, 2014, 10:49:10 PM
garbon recently got a raise so your graph is useless.
I did? :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2014, 10:38:55 PM
But you want to blame the universities and the loan system.
Sure. Why did tuition jump nearly 80% in 10 years? Suddenly that much more costly to educate a student?
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 10:51:29 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 20, 2014, 10:49:10 PM
garbon recently got a raise so your graph is useless.
I did? :huh:
I guess not. I have seen you make similar rebuttals to similar statements before though.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2014, 10:38:55 PM
But you want to blame the universities and the loan system.
Sure. Why did tuition jump nearly 80% in 10 years? Suddenly that much more costly to educate a student?
Because the system is broken?
I assume someone else who cares more than me and is more sober than me will expand but the government throws money out to students who "need" the education/degree and the Universities act like any market that gets too much money injected into it. Inflation, baby!
Quote from: sbr on May 20, 2014, 11:06:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2014, 10:38:55 PM
But you want to blame the universities and the loan system.
Sure. Why did tuition jump nearly 80% in 10 years? Suddenly that much more costly to educate a student?
Because the system is broken?
I assume someone else who cares more than me and is more sober than me will expand but the government throws money out to students who "need" the education/degree and the Universities act like any market that gets too much money injected into it. Inflation, baby!
Those questions were rhetorical. ;)
Quote from: sbr on May 20, 2014, 11:01:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 10:51:29 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 20, 2014, 10:49:10 PM
garbon recently got a raise so your graph is useless.
I did? :huh:
I guess not. I have seen you make similar rebuttals to similar statements before though.
Oh okay.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 11:12:41 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 20, 2014, 11:06:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2014, 10:38:55 PM
But you want to blame the universities and the loan system.
Sure. Why did tuition jump nearly 80% in 10 years? Suddenly that much more costly to educate a student?
Because the system is broken?
I assume someone else who cares more than me and is more sober than me will expand but the government throws money out to students who "need" the education/degree and the Universities act like any market that gets too much money injected into it. Inflation, baby!
Those questions were rhetorical. ;)
Oh okay.
Quote from: sbr on May 20, 2014, 11:15:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 11:12:41 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 20, 2014, 11:06:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2014, 10:38:55 PM
But you want to blame the universities and the loan system.
Sure. Why did tuition jump nearly 80% in 10 years? Suddenly that much more costly to educate a student?
Because the system is broken?
I assume someone else who cares more than me and is more sober than me will expand but the government throws money out to students who "need" the education/degree and the Universities act like any market that gets too much money injected into it. Inflation, baby!
Those questions were rhetorical. ;)
Oh okay.
Well they were. A counter punch to Seeds incredulity that Ide would complain about education.
A bit more grounded than your comments about my supposed raise at a company having layoffs.
There can be more than one evil in the world.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 10:10:52 PM
Also, I did explicitly say that all degree programs should be centrally managed to avoid oversupplies (and undersupplies, for that matter). This would include STEM subjects like vet training, pharmacy training, and nuse training... all of which I've heard are on the verge of having their bubbles pop.
Bureaucrats are horrible judges of how many degrees of each type are needed.
Ide's bitter schtick is getting a bit dull. Things can be worse. A lot worse.
It's not a "schtick," really. Though bitterness has compelled me to confront the issue, I have not once been met with an actual coherent argument as to why I'm wrong.
Responses usually fall into two categories:
1)The status quo is literally the only way to combat class inequality in modern America; or
2)Some degrees, despite their low ROI, are so valuable that those who are interested should still make major financial sacrifices to acquire them.
The first at least can be engaged with in a factual and theoretical debate; the second appears to be held with near-religious fervor in some quarters.
You're never too old. As long as it's free. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 21, 2014, 01:15:42 AM
You're never too old. As long as it's free. :)
You anti-intellectual scum.
Regardless of wrong or right, you dwell on the subject too much IMO.
I only bring it up myself as a joke.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 21, 2014, 01:07:39 AM
It's not a "schtick," really. Though bitterness has compelled me to confront the issue, I have not once been met with an actual coherent argument as to why I'm wrong.
Responses usually fall into two categories:
1)The status quo is literally the only way to combat class inequality in modern America; or
2)Some degrees, despite their low ROI, are so valuable that those who are interested should still make major financial sacrifices to acquire them.
The first at least can be engaged with in a factual and theoretical debate; the second appears to be held with near-religious fervor in some quarters.
There is a third response. It's getting boring.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 20, 2014, 06:36:21 PM
Can you not do it part-time?
yes. I've gotten a couple that way.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 09:19:46 PM
As long as the purpose of post-secondary education is to prepare students for careers
It isn't. :contract:
I did a three-month intensive post-graduate certificate professional qualification, which blows most of the time and money arguments out of the water. Age-wise most of the class members were recent graduates and I think only two of us were over 30. If you can put up with the whining along the lines of, "WTF? We're being expected to think for ourselves rather than being told everything we need to know?" it's easy to step up to the senior roles in team activities, which is handy on a career-changing CV.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 21, 2014, 01:07:39 AM
It's not a "schtick," really.
It's a seriously considered position on a vexing policy issue. One that I happen to subscribe to.
Quote from: merithyn on May 20, 2014, 12:59:10 PM
This topic has come up for me recently.
The arguments I've heard for "It's never too late!" include:
- If it's something you really want, then go for it, age bedamned!
- There should be no limit to learning.
- You don't know how long you have left to work, so you may as well beef up your resume just in case
The arguments I've heard for not going past a certain age include:
- Poor return on investment when you only have a set number of years left to work
- You would be taking the space of a younger person who would be able to better put it to use
- Waste of time and money that you could be spending traveling or with your family
- If you take time off from work for grad school, it will be harder for you to get a job if you're of a "certain age"
What does the Languish Collective think?
Just out of curiosity? How much debt will be incurred from the schooling and how long will it take you to pay it off at your present age?
Quote from: Brazen on May 21, 2014, 08:28:24 AM
I did a three-month intensive post-graduate certificate professional qualification, which blows most of the time and money arguments out of the water.
Most graduate programs are not so short or inexpensive. There are some intensive 12 or 18 month graduate programs offered here. I haven't heard of a three month graduate program but good on you for finding one and taking advantage of it. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2014, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 21, 2014, 01:07:39 AM
It's not a "schtick," really.
It's a seriously considered position on a vexing policy issue. One that I happen to subscribe to.
Oy
Quote from: Maladict on May 21, 2014, 07:04:54 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 09:19:46 PM
As long as the purpose of post-secondary education is to prepare students for careers
It isn't. :contract:
Well what is it for? Because if I just want an amazing lecture by an academic I can easily view those all over the internet for free.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Maladict on May 21, 2014, 07:04:54 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 09:19:46 PM
As long as the purpose of post-secondary education is to prepare students for careers
It isn't. :contract:
Well what is it for? Because if I just want an amazing lecture by an academic I can easily view those all over the internet for free.
I think getting a BA/BS in person is a bit different from watching lectures online for free.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 12:47:06 PM
I think getting a BA/BS in person is a bit different from watching lectures online for free.
Indeed. You get a certificate at the end and sink a ton of time and energy in demonstrating your skills. You show that there is a reasonably good chance you are a responsible adult, capable of making deadlines and providing work satisfactory to your instructor. But those strike me as things that are primarily there to prepare somebody for a professional environment. Society provides tax money to these institutions for research and scholarship but primarily to teach so their workforce will be better educated.
One of the big differences between reading on your own/watching online lectures and attending school is school assesses you, i.e. tells everyone how well you absorbed the information.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2014, 12:55:35 PM
One of the big differences between reading on your own/watching online lectures and attending school is school assesses you, i.e. tells everyone how well you absorbed the information.
The other big difference is that before attending the lecture the student will have done several hours of reading to prepare for the lecture. Or at least that is how it is supposed to work.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 21, 2014, 12:59:43 PM
The other big difference is that before attending the lecture the student will have done several hours of reading to prepare for the lecture.
:lol:
QuoteOr at least that is how it is supposed to work.
:yes: They are also supposed to stay awake and not post on reddit during lecture as well.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Maladict on May 21, 2014, 07:04:54 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 09:19:46 PM
As long as the purpose of post-secondary education is to prepare students for careers
It isn't. :contract:
Well what is it for? Because if I just want an amazing lecture by an academic I can easily view those all over the internet for free.
As is usual for these things it has several purposes. Most ideally, a university is a place where scholars from various disciplines interact together, in the hopes that some sort of exchange happens, and ideas and insights get generated: students are supposed to be part of that conversation - they have the opportunity to participate in the community of ideas, not just in the classroom, but in all of the activities that a university generates.
They also may get a pratical education, and they also may get a formal acknowledgement of achievement in the form of credentials like a degree and marks - all of these things are related, but not the same (as in, you can participate in ideas without getting a practical education, and you can get a practical education without credentials, and vice-versa - that is, you can go, get the credentials, but lack either education or participation in ideas).
From a career perspective, what matters most is getting the credentials that open doors, and second most getting a pratical education you can put to work once those doors are open. However, the reason why a university edication is privileged above simply reviewing some text-books and preparing for a standardized exam, or simply reading stuff off of an internet site, is that it is supposed to be an opportunity for students to participate in the world of ideas. Obviously not every student does, it is impossible to measure or enforce this, and maybe some universities are bad at providing this opportunity - but at least, that's the theory.
This, ultimately, is why the degree was supposed to be worth something. To the extent universities become factories for churning out purely "practical" education without any participation in ideas, it becomes worth less: as you note, these days anyone with enough motivation can, if they choose, learn what they need to know of purely practical information on their own.
Quote from: Malthus on May 21, 2014, 01:04:54 PM
it is supposed to be an opportunity for students to participate in the world of ideas
Yes, exactly. My biggest fear about living university is that I wouldn't have that anymore. To some extent I do, to some extent I don't.
If people want to goof off in university and "participate in the world of ideas" then that's fine, but not as long as my taxmoney is paying for it (which it is in Sweden). Humanities should be only for the idle rich.
Intellectual work is goofing off?
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 02:23:24 PM
Intellectual work is goofing off?
University-style reading French philosophers and chatting away with pseudo-intellectuals? Hells yeah.
Quote from: The Brain on May 21, 2014, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 02:23:24 PM
Intellectual work is goofing off?
University-style reading French philosophers and chatting away with pseudo-intellectuals? Hells yeah.
:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 02:29:49 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 21, 2014, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 02:23:24 PM
Intellectual work is goofing off?
University-style reading French philosophers and chatting away with pseudo-intellectuals? Hells yeah.
:hmm:
He's talking about Sweden. Maybe that's what it is like, there.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 21, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
Just out of curiosity? How much debt will be incurred from the schooling and how long will it take you to pay it off at your present age?
Dunno. It's theoretical.
With an Assistantship, it would be minimal debt incurred. Without, most advanced degrees are in the $45k+ range. At that range, about 10 years to pay it off, assuming immediate employment at $80-100k/year.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Maladict on May 21, 2014, 07:04:54 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 20, 2014, 09:19:46 PM
As long as the purpose of post-secondary education is to prepare students for careers
It isn't. :contract:
Well what is it for? Because if I just want an amazing lecture by an academic I can easily view those all over the internet for free.
A university education teaches you about the scientific method, how to conduct research and report your findings, loosely based around a subject (law, arts, medicine). You don't go there to learn a trade, or how to network and pimp your cv (though sadly, it is going in that direction).
A university degree tells an employer you are capable of a certain level of critical thinking, but not necessarily if you'd make a fine lawyer/artist/doctor.
Quote from: Maladict on May 21, 2014, 04:24:02 PM
A university education teaches you about the scientific method, how to conduct research and report your findings, loosely based around a subject (law, arts, medicine). You don't go there to learn a trade, or how to network and pimp your cv (though sadly, it is going in that direction).
A university degree tells an employer you are capable of a certain level of critical thinking, but not necessarily if you'd make a fine lawyer/artist/doctor.
Exactly.
If you're looking for a vocational education then you can get into accountancy or engineering say without a university degree. There's some exceptions like law and medicine but even there at least with law the professional and vocational qualifications/training is what makes you a lawyer - not the degree.
The degree's a useful signifier that you've got reasonable thinking skills and abilities. So you'll see adverts for a minimum grade or certain universities and sometimes certain experience. But unless you're going specifically into that sector (ie. academic or technical jobs) I don't think it hugely matters what you studied.
I know people who are earning well in, say, insurance who have a masters in Medieval history. Passing that level of education from a very good university helps.
Although I think there's a difference in attitude over the Atlantic. I've heard British academics try, very gently to let American students know that they're just not good enough to do a masters far less a doctorate.
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
With an Assistantship, it would be minimal debt incurred. Without, most advanced degrees are in the $45k+ range. At that range, about 10 years to pay it off, assuming immediate employment at $80-100k/year.
What would it be in?
If you get the assistantship (I'm not sure what that is though) I'd say go for it. If not don't unless, perhaps you can do it more cheaply part-time or long-distance.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:31:54 PM
If you're looking for a vocational education then you can get into accountancy or engineering say without a university degree.
:blink:
QuoteThe degree's a useful signifier that you've got reasonable thinking skills and abilities. So you'll see adverts for a minimum grade or certain universities and sometimes certain experience. But unless you're going specifically into that sector (ie. academic or technical jobs) I don't think it hugely matters what you studied.
I know people who are earning well in, say, insurance who have a masters in Medieval history. Passing that level of education from a very good university helps.
Um...yes that is what I am saying. Sure there are plenty of reasons to get a University education but the primary purpose is to get an educated workforce and be prepared to advance far in a career. That is why we pay the big bucks for it. Are there secondary purposes? Sure. But you do not need to go to University to gain enlightenment, but you sure need that degree (any degree really) for your career.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
With an Assistantship, it would be minimal debt incurred. Without, most advanced degrees are in the $45k+ range. At that range, about 10 years to pay it off, assuming immediate employment at $80-100k/year.
What would it be in?
If you get the assistantship (I'm not sure what that is though) I'd say go for it. If not don't unless, perhaps you can do it more cheaply part-time or long-distance.
Meri needs a bit to ask her friend.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
:blink:
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.
But my experience of looking for work is that there's still jobs either in vocational work and services for people without degrees, but also for lots of office roles especially with smaller companies. When I was trying to find something I didn't apply for them because I thought they'd think (rightly) that I'd probably be looking for something else the whole time.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:39:20 PM
In the case of accountancy a lot of the hires are from not necessarily related disciplines.
Sure...but you have to have a degree in something.
QuoteBut my experience of looking for work is that there's still jobs either in vocational work and services for people without degrees, but also for lots of office roles especially with smaller companies. When I was trying to find something I didn't apply for them because I thought they'd think (rightly) that I'd probably be looking for something else the whole time.
Sure but you will never be promoted to manager. Your job will be a dead-end.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:37:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
With an Assistantship, it would be minimal debt incurred. Without, most advanced degrees are in the $45k+ range. At that range, about 10 years to pay it off, assuming immediate employment at $80-100k/year.
What would it be in?
If you get the assistantship (I'm not sure what that is though) I'd say go for it. If not don't unless, perhaps you can do it more cheaply part-time or long-distance.
Meri needs a bit to ask her friend.
:P
It could be in anything. I've no idea what the chances of someone older than 30 or 40 getting an assistantship are. That's a question for the academics among us, but it could also help one decide if it's worth it at a certain age.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:42:52 PM
Sure but you will never be promoted to manager. Your job will be a dead-end.
I don't think I've known an office manager with a degree, similarly generally with PAs. I think those jobs are often ones you can really shape and mould and get a lot of responsibility. In my last job we moved premises and the decision was obviously taken by the Board. After the MD the day-to-day employee who had most input was sourcing new locations and visiting them was the office manager and she was the one who was telling very senior people that she didn't care how much they needed storage they couldn't have it and we're going paperless :lol:
This is partly why I always make sure I get on very well with the receptionists, office managers and assistants whereever I work :lol:
That may be a dead-end ultimately. But I think only if your goal is to climb very high. So you may reach a ceiling running the office and you'll be doing it (in different companies maybe) for years. But does that matter if you're earning a decent amount?
It reminds me of a few people I know who are working at very good law firms. They only want to do it for a few years because once they've got, say, 5 years at x firm they can then move to less well paid, but still well-salaried jobs which are less high-stress. They're taking a step down from reaching the top of their profession or whatever, but they're willing to do that and have evenings and weekends again.
QuoteSure...but you have to have a degree in something.
To be hired from university, yes. But not always. Here's the Deloitte scheme:
http://mycareer.deloitte.com/uk/en/schools/brightstart
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:39:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
:blink:
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.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 21, 2014, 04:52:31 PM
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.)
It's definitely the norm here too, but I think it's still possible to get your engineering qualifications without a degree if you've got vocational qualifications and experience. But it's rare and becoming rarer - like becoming a nurse or a teacher without a degree (which I think's almost impossible now) - because access to higher education's expanded so much.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 21, 2014, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:39:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
:blink:
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."
Quote from: Ideologue on May 21, 2014, 05:03:49 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on May 21, 2014, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:39:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
:blink:
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."
I find the poo-poohing of graduate degrees from many posters here wholly unpleasant and just a bit sad.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:39:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
:blink:
Dude you cannot get a job pushing paper without a University Degree.
Again maybe things are different.
Yeah, things are different. You're on the other side of the ocean.
Quote from: dps on May 21, 2014, 06:48:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 21, 2014, 05:03:49 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on May 21, 2014, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:39:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
:blink:
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."
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 21, 2014, 07:03:54 PM
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 :lol:
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.
Quote from: dps on May 21, 2014, 06:48:45 PM
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)."
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 21, 2014, 04:52:31 PM
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.
Holy shit. I hope they delay that little innovation a year.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 08:45:44 PM
Holy shit. I hope they delay that little innovation a year.
Welcome to the world of the Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone, pal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 21, 2014, 08:56:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 08:45:44 PM
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?
Go sell stuff.
I'm a salesperson now? :unsure:
For our purposes today, yes.
I thought you were trying to sell us teenage angst.
"Anger over the annihilation of one's means of support" = "teenage angst."
Quote from: Ideologue on May 21, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
"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.
Smells like Teen Spirit.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 09:18:40 PM
I'm a salesperson now? :unsure:
Everybody sells.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 10:04:02 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 21, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
"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.
You both can go fuck yourselves.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 21, 2014, 07:13:43 PM
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteI 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.
While the part about forcing you to become a Catholic priest was obviously hyperbole, exactly how do you propose that the government avoid shortages of degree holders in some fields (which, by the way, I'm somewhat sceptical that the government--or anyone--can foresee with much precision 4 years or so ahead of time, but let's ignore that part of the problem for now and assume that they can)?
I have no interest in avoiding shortages, only surfeits; except in some kind of fantasy scenario where a command economy already exists--wage caps for doctors, for example--the market will happily solve any shortages. The challenge there is a DoE responding to market demand. No one suggests that their response will always be perfect (and they may occasionally swing the other way and produce an accidental surplus). However, attempting to control the outputs of government investment inputs seems--almost trivially--superior to the status quo of not caring what happens to the output.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 21, 2014, 07:13:43 PMThere 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.
phew! thank god i got a 150 :Canuck:
Looks like you're not getting into Yale. :(
QuoteLSAT Score Percentiles For the Top 15 Schools:
Yale:
25th percentile of accepted students: 170
75th percentile of accepted students: 177
Harvard:
25th percentile: 171
75th percentile: 176
Stanford:
25th percentile: 167
75th percentile: 172
Columbia:
25th percentile: 170
75th percentile: 175
New York University:
25th percentile: 170
75th percentile: 174
UC Berkeley:
25th percentile: 164
75th percentile: 169
University of Chicago:
25th percentile: 169
75th percentile: 173
University of Pennsylvania:
25th percentile: 166
75th percentile: 171
University of Michigan – Ann Arbor:
25th percentile: 167
75th percentile: 170
Duke University:
25th percentile: 166
75th percentile: 170
Northwestern University:
25th percentile: 166
75th percentile: 171
University of Virginia:
25th percentile: 165
75th percentile: 171
Cornell:
25th percentile: 166
75th percentile: 170
Georgetown:
25th percentile: 168
75th percentile: 172
UCLA:
25th percentile: 164
75th percentile: 169
Quote from: LaCroix on May 21, 2014, 11:43:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 21, 2014, 07:13:43 PMThere 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.
phew! thank god i got a 150 :Canuck:
What was your undergrad GPA? A 7.0? :huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 22, 2014, 01:00:19 AMWhat was your undergrad GPA? A 7.0? :huh:
enough to place me in the best law school of all north dakota! :)
I somehow feel like you didn't prep or you came in hungover or something.
i did a little prep - some practice tests. but i usually get average standardized test results. thankfully, grades matter more once you actually get into school :D
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 21, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
Just out of curiosity? How much debt will be incurred from the schooling and how long will it take you to pay it off at your present age?
Dunno. It's theoretical.
With an Assistantship, it would be minimal debt incurred. Without, most advanced degrees are in the $45k+ range. At that range, about 10 years to pay it off, assuming immediate employment at $80-100k/year.
With this info, I'd say go part-time as long as you have the money to pay cash for tuition. Once you run out and require a loan to continue, stop and save up some more before continuing.
Remember, that loan represents a negative income once you're free. Don't take it. Plus, as part-time you can work too.
Quote from: LaCroix on May 22, 2014, 01:38:23 AM
i did a little prep - some practice tests. but i usually get average standardized test results. thankfully, grades matter more once you actually get into school :D
That's absolutely true, and I don't think the LSAT measures all the skills that law school demands. But depending on the environment you entered LS in, with practice and a retake, you could've negotiated tens of thousands off your tuition or gotten into a better school (or a combination of A and B). :(
If I'd gotten one more question right, I would have had a 175 instead of a 173. :(
Quote from: Savonarola on May 21, 2014, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:39:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
:blink:
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.
This is also the case here.
I've been working as an engineer for many years, but having no degree I can't put my signature to any project. Not that I care, since in my field that doesn't really matter.
Also the only reason why I was able to work without a degree was that I was personally recommended by my professors. Someone who takes the vocational route can find employment in the industry, and if he's good enough he'll make as much if not more - but I can't see him easily jumping into an engineer's position. Certainly not legally. It's too different a role, much more abstract.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 22, 2014, 03:22:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 21, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
Just out of curiosity? How much debt will be incurred from the schooling and how long will it take you to pay it off at your present age?
Dunno. It's theoretical.
With an Assistantship, it would be minimal debt incurred. Without, most advanced degrees are in the $45k+ range. At that range, about 10 years to pay it off, assuming immediate employment at $80-100k/year.
With this info, I'd say go part-time as long as you have the money to pay cash for tuition. Once you run out and require a loan to continue, stop and save up some more before continuing.
Remember, that loan represents a negative income once you're free. Don't take it. Plus, as part-time you can work too.
That works so long as you can find a program that will allow you to go part-time, and so long as you can finish the degree in the allotted time frame. (Most degrees must be completed within a certain time frame.)
But again, is it worth the cost in cash at 50, when you only have 10-15 more years of work ahead of you? Especially if it takes you 4-5 years to complete it?
Quote from: Maximus on May 21, 2014, 07:27:11 PM
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.
Here's an article from 2012:
LINK (http://enr.construction.com/business_management/workforce/2012/1022-engineering-community8217s-licensing-debate-becomes-a-lesson-in-degrees-of-separation.asp)
QuoteSix years after the nation's umbrella engineering licensing body embraced a so-called Model Rule that would extend by 30 the number of extra credit-hours BS-degreed engineers must have to gain a professional license, no state licensing board has made it a reality.
But as a targeted 2020 deadline draws closer, proponents are revving up their campaign for a required graduate degree. They do so against a rising tide of opposition across the industry, professional societies and academia.
Caught in between are students facing the dilemma of boosting the engineering's status, competence and pay against the added cost, time and necessity of gaining an expanded first professional degree.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has long advocated a broader "body of knowledge" for engineers due to falling credit-hours for most engineering BS degrees and more complex demands on their project leadership skills. ASCE has raised the effort's profile with a new promotional brand, Raise the Bar (http://www.raisethebarforengineering.org/)(RTB), which includes a dedicated website and a full-time staff manager.
"If we want to meet challenges and be prepared to protect the public, engineers need more depth of knowledge," says Blaine Leonard, a Utah transportation official, former ASCE president and key RTB spokesman. "You can't get it in programs under pressure." Proponents would like to see engineering attain the same professional status as medicine and accounting. The National Academy of Engineering and the National Society of Professional Engineers support the idea.
Licensing That Works
Opposition to all or parts of the initiative is being led by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), which has the second-largest group of licensees—estimated at 10% to nearly a third, compared to about 60% of civils. The group issued a new position paper this year and has a dedicated website, LicensingThatWorks.org.
ASME contends the changed requirements would scare off engineering prospects, be a cost burden to students and hard-pressed schools and employers, and should be addressed in the accrediting process or with continuing education.
"At a time when the world needs more engineers, it seems inappropriate to make an engineering education significantly less attractive to new entrants," says Marc Goldsmith, a Massachusetts consultant and ASME president. He says eight industry groups support its arguments, including ASHRAE and chemical engineers. Other engineering societies are largely ignoring the controversy since grads in their disciplines have licensing exemptions.
American Society of Engineering Educators is split. Some school deans endorsed the ASME position, others issued a separate opposition statement, and faculty are on both sides. "It may be worth considering whether a one-size-fits-all approach is the best system," says Joseph Helble, engineering dean at Dartmouth College.He also wonders how the added requirement will aid students' problem-solving skills and allow them to "make better connections" to other disciplines.
But says James K. Nelson Jr., dean of engineering and computer science at the University of Texas, Tyler, and a RTB supporter, "a lot of it comes down to confusion about what is really being talked about. ASCE is not saying that someone with just a BS can't practice; you can still be an engineer under the supervision of someone else with a license. This doesn't say the BS has no value."
Nelson notes that "the way the Model Law is written, it doesn't have to be a Master's degree. There are two or three different ways to satisfy the requirement."
The RTB initiative also has support from about 90% of civil-engineering department heads and faculty, says ASCE. Raimondo Betti, Columbia University department head, says many employers already limit hires to those with graduate degrees. "That's the entry level," he says. "Companies that want cheap labor do a disservice to the profession." European engineering degrees are generally obtained in five years and there is more "respect" for the profession, he says.
ASCE's Leonard and two other leading RTB advocates—Jeffrey Russell, a vice provost at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Stephen J. Ressler, civil-engineering department chair at the U.S. Military Academy—took their argument to a convention of 300 engineering educators last June in what was billed as the "first-ever open discussion."
Despite the educator group's stance, they say a post-presentation poll indicated support from two-thirds of respondents. "We find, in general, if we're allowed to explain the rationale, more people have a tendency to support this," says Leonard. RTB proponents take issue with the opposition's lack of data to back its arguments (see first related link). Blaine terms a "red herring" opponents' claim that the initiative could squeeze the pipeline of future engineers.
Competitive Asset
Supporters see RTB as critical to maintaining the U.S. industry's edge. "Engineering leadership of complex projects and large programs is one of the truly competitive assets" of American design firms and contractors, says Richard D. Fox, chairman and CEO of CDM Smith. "This requires the very commitment to advanced learning as a basis for licensure and, thus, leadership" that RTB advocates.
2020? Ok just enough time to finish and get my four years so I can be licensed. Whew.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 22, 2014, 09:15:26 AM
If I'd gotten one more question right, I would have had a 175 instead of a 173. :(
Yale or fail. YALE OR FAIL.
I just read an article about a manufacturing skills gap and I'm thinking about getting a three-semester machinists' cert. I could go work for Boeing and help kill foreigners. :o
Quote from: Ideologue on May 22, 2014, 10:08:22 AM
I just read an article about a manufacturing skills gap and I'm thinking about getting a three-semester machinists' cert. I could go work for Boeing and help kill foreigners. :o
Good. NATO needs your help to defend Latvia.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 22, 2014, 04:08:33 AMThat's absolutely true, and I don't think the LSAT measures all the skills that law school demands. But depending on the environment you entered LS in, with practice and a retake, you could've negotiated tens of thousands off your tuition or gotten into a better school (or a combination of A and B). :(
the LSAT is useful because there has to be another factor aside from grades to get into law school. undergrad is too easy because the average person can pick a soft major, work diligently, and obtain a high GPA. also, LSAT scores don't usually matter after getting into law school. if it stuck with you, then the system would be flawed
TLS advice isn't science, though it's generally very useful. my school doesn't really offer scholarships to incoming students since tuition is so cheap. plus, in retrospect i think i made the better decision. with my grades and background, i could transfer into T20. but given the growth of the legal market here, there's no need
See Ide? Just need to move to North Dakota.
FUUUCKKKtweh3erop etn2w3052RKierkeifddlsfdkldfeg
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2014, 10:09:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 22, 2014, 10:08:22 AM
I just read an article about a manufacturing skills gap and I'm thinking about getting a three-semester machinists' cert. I could go work for Boeing and help kill foreigners. :o
Good. NATO needs your help to defend Latvia.
They already have good engineers, I bought a piece of garden steelwork and the thing was well made and a neat design, Made in Latvia. :cool:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 22, 2014, 10:12:48 AM
FUUUCKKKtweh3erop etn2w3052RKierkeifddlsfdkldfeg
if it helps, i'm going to be in debt, too. 40-50k :( :P
What's that? My system crashed.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 22, 2014, 10:40:50 AM
FATAL ERROR
I am going to end up with about 9K in debt. Ah well at least it is absurdly low interest.
I edited because I thought the intent of my post wasn't clear. -_- $40k is absurdly low for LS debt.
Quote from: mongers on May 22, 2014, 10:15:24 AM
They already have good engineers, I bought a piece of garden steelwork and the thing was well made and a neat design, Made in Latvia. :cool:
I hope they are better than the Polish folks I'm supervising.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 22, 2014, 10:56:19 AM
I edited because I thought the intent of my post wasn't clear. -_- $40k is absurdly low for LS debt.
my situation is unique, but the fact remains that my school is 1/5th the cost of georgetown. and, there are students here who attend because they had no desire to move out of state, so there's enough competition to keep it interesting. while the doors to biglaw are essentially closed to me, it kind of doesn't matter.
the burnout rate for biglaw is something like 66% within 5 years. a lot of people use their time in biglaw to pay off their gargantuan amount of debt obtained from attending top schools which allowed them to get into biglaw in the first place. for them, they almost literally have to do well. because if they don't land biglaw, they're stuck with 200k in debt. even for the top 30%~ that do get biglaw, their starting salary is (avg) 160k with an annual increase of 20k, but the majority get out after a few years
biglaw is designed to churn and spit out most associate attorneys. until recently, i thought it was just the hours. but, i think it's also the type of the work - there's no fulfillment or reward, since large firms tend to have major clients and the partners aren't going to dare let someone with only 1-4 years of experience handle anything substantive. so, there are some attorneys who earn more (per year) than they might ever make within a few years of graduating law school, only to spend the rest of their career making less (though with a more job satisfaction). there are obviously many this doesn't apply to, but i think it happens more often than not
LaCroix is wise -_-
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 09:50:48 AM
Quote from: Maximus on May 21, 2014, 07:27:11 PM
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.
Here's an article from 2012:
LINK (http://enr.construction.com/business_management/workforce/2012/1022-engineering-community8217s-licensing-debate-becomes-a-lesson-in-degrees-of-separation.asp)
QuoteSix years after the nation's umbrella engineering licensing body embraced a so-called Model Rule that would extend by 30 the number of extra credit-hours BS-degreed engineers must have to gain a professional license, no state licensing board has made it a reality.
But as a targeted 2020 deadline draws closer, proponents are revving up their campaign for a required graduate degree. They do so against a rising tide of opposition across the industry, professional societies and academia.
Caught in between are students facing the dilemma of boosting the engineering's status, competence and pay against the added cost, time and necessity of gaining an expanded first professional degree.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has long advocated a broader "body of knowledge" for engineers due to falling credit-hours for most engineering BS degrees and more complex demands on their project leadership skills. ASCE has raised the effort's profile with a new promotional brand, Raise the Bar (http://www.raisethebarforengineering.org/)(RTB), which includes a dedicated website and a full-time staff manager.
"If we want to meet challenges and be prepared to protect the public, engineers need more depth of knowledge," says Blaine Leonard, a Utah transportation official, former ASCE president and key RTB spokesman. "You can't get it in programs under pressure." Proponents would like to see engineering attain the same professional status as medicine and accounting. The National Academy of Engineering and the National Society of Professional Engineers support the idea.
Licensing That Works
Opposition to all or parts of the initiative is being led by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), which has the second-largest group of licensees—estimated at 10% to nearly a third, compared to about 60% of civils. The group issued a new position paper this year and has a dedicated website, LicensingThatWorks.org.
ASME contends the changed requirements would scare off engineering prospects, be a cost burden to students and hard-pressed schools and employers, and should be addressed in the accrediting process or with continuing education.
"At a time when the world needs more engineers, it seems inappropriate to make an engineering education significantly less attractive to new entrants," says Marc Goldsmith, a Massachusetts consultant and ASME president. He says eight industry groups support its arguments, including ASHRAE and chemical engineers. Other engineering societies are largely ignoring the controversy since grads in their disciplines have licensing exemptions.
American Society of Engineering Educators is split. Some school deans endorsed the ASME position, others issued a separate opposition statement, and faculty are on both sides. "It may be worth considering whether a one-size-fits-all approach is the best system," says Joseph Helble, engineering dean at Dartmouth College.He also wonders how the added requirement will aid students' problem-solving skills and allow them to "make better connections" to other disciplines.
But says James K. Nelson Jr., dean of engineering and computer science at the University of Texas, Tyler, and a RTB supporter, "a lot of it comes down to confusion about what is really being talked about. ASCE is not saying that someone with just a BS can't practice; you can still be an engineer under the supervision of someone else with a license. This doesn't say the BS has no value."
Nelson notes that "the way the Model Law is written, it doesn't have to be a Master's degree. There are two or three different ways to satisfy the requirement."
The RTB initiative also has support from about 90% of civil-engineering department heads and faculty, says ASCE. Raimondo Betti, Columbia University department head, says many employers already limit hires to those with graduate degrees. "That's the entry level," he says. "Companies that want cheap labor do a disservice to the profession." European engineering degrees are generally obtained in five years and there is more "respect" for the profession, he says.
ASCE's Leonard and two other leading RTB advocates—Jeffrey Russell, a vice provost at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Stephen J. Ressler, civil-engineering department chair at the U.S. Military Academy—took their argument to a convention of 300 engineering educators last June in what was billed as the "first-ever open discussion."
Despite the educator group's stance, they say a post-presentation poll indicated support from two-thirds of respondents. "We find, in general, if we're allowed to explain the rationale, more people have a tendency to support this," says Leonard. RTB proponents take issue with the opposition's lack of data to back its arguments (see first related link). Blaine terms a "red herring" opponents' claim that the initiative could squeeze the pipeline of future engineers.
Competitive Asset
Supporters see RTB as critical to maintaining the U.S. industry's edge. "Engineering leadership of complex projects and large programs is one of the truly competitive assets" of American design firms and contractors, says Richard D. Fox, chairman and CEO of CDM Smith. "This requires the very commitment to advanced learning as a basis for licensure and, thus, leadership" that RTB advocates.
Well that's a bummer, I had no idea I had a lower status than Dorsey until today. :(
;)
Thanks, Meri, that's an interesting article.
The coursework for a bachelors degree in engineering is broad. It usually covers topics in general engineering, the scope of the student's specialty and a little bit of depth into an area in that specialty. This is a good thing since who knows where you'll actually end up working; my area of focus as an undergraduate wasn't radio or telecommunication.
A master's is considerably more focused. I've found what I learned in graduate school helps me when I need to research new technologies or work my way through standards. The latter is important (in my field) for professional engineers, so I can see some benefit to requiring an advanced degree; but I don't like encouraging to get a masters degree immediately upon completing a bachelors. I think that would lock an engineer down in a field where there might not be jobs.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2014, 10:11:55 AM
See Ide? Just need to move to North Dakota.
They might actually have a shortage of ambulance chasers.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 22, 2014, 01:01:37 PM
The coursework for a bachelors degree in engineering is broad. It usually covers topics in general engineering, the scope of the student's specialty and a little bit of depth into an area in that specialty. This is a good thing since who knows where you'll actually end up working; my area of focus as an undergraduate wasn't radio or telecommunication.
A master's is considerably more focused. I've found what I learned in graduate school helps me when I need to research new technologies or work my way through standards. The latter is important (in my field) for professional engineers, so I can see some benefit to requiring an advanced degree; but I don't like encouraging to get a masters degree immediately upon completing a bachelors. I think that would lock an engineer down in a field where there might not be jobs.
In Spain there used to be two different routes, Technical Engineering (3 years) and "Superior" Engineering (5). Both were licensed, which pissed off "Superiors" to no end. They lobbied for years for Tech Engineers not to be assimilated into the current 4-year degree when the conversion to Bolonia took place.
In my experience those 2 extra years are only interesting if you want to further your formal knowledge in a very specific field and, like an MBA, should only be undertaken once you've had a job for a while.
I'd say that very few benefit from further specialization in engineering. Of all my uni buddies not a single one does actual engineering. They work in marketing, sales, procurement, health & safety, management ... the only tools they use are Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook.
Ironically enough only the guy without a degree does actual engineering stuff (that'll be me) and I don't even work in the same field I specialized in (power generation & distribution). Also, I can't see how I would benefit from a Masters (assuming I had completed the Bachelors) more than two extra years of work experience. Maybe (and that's a big 'maybe') if it was at a first rate institution ... It's just so much better to gain practical experience on the job.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 22, 2014, 01:52:22 PM
In Spain there used to be two different routes, Technical Engineering (3 years) and "Superior" Engineering (5). Both were licensed, which pissed off "Superiors" to no end. They lobbied for years for Tech Engineers not to be assimilated into the current 4-year degree when the conversion to Bolonia took place.
In my experience those 2 extra years are only interesting if you want to further your formal knowledge in a very specific field and, like an MBA, should only be undertaken once you've had a job for a while.
I agree. It was obvious which of my classmates (and professors <_<) in graduate school had never worked in industry. There are many things that become obvious once you spend time in the field that aren't in the classroom or the lab.
(Heh, "Superior Engineer" I think I'll put that in my sig for the e-mails I send to Spain.)
QuoteI'd say that very few benefit from further specialization in engineering. Of all my uni buddies not a single one does actual engineering. They work in marketing, sales, procurement, health & safety, management ... the only tools they use are Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook.
Ironically enough only the guy without a degree does actual engineering stuff (that'll be me) and I don't even work in the same field I specialized in (power generation & distribution). Also, I can't see how I would benefit from a Masters (assuming I had completed the Bachelors) more than two extra years of work experience. Maybe (and that's a big 'maybe') if it was at a first rate institution ... It's just so much better to gain practical experience on the job.
I did my graduate degree while working. The financial benefit to an advanced engineering degree isn't that great; which is one of the reasons the vast majority of my classmates were from Asia. For them an MSEE was a chance to stay in the United States. For the Americans a degree in engineering management or an MBA was more valuable.
Yeah, here some of the more popular Masters are in 'Organización Industrial' (process management basically). Also one of the few I think have merit.
As for undertaking courses while you work, most unis here are very worker unfriendly and engineering schools more so, because you have classes both in the morning and evenings. The academic world is far too removed from the real world (most teachers don't have real engineering jobs either, the few who do really stand out).
Companies don't make it any easier either, as most engineers have extremely elastic work schedules and many travel a lot or for extended periods.
Here engineering and a few sciences are some of the few degrees where you apply to do a Masters rather than just undergrad (though you don't have to stick to it). It's the norm, from my friends' experience anyway, to do a year in industry during that and from what I can see they all seem to feel that was the most valuable bit, not least because lots of them now work for the firms they did their placement in.
Meri, you are too old. Now get back into the kitchen.
Quote from: LaCroix on May 22, 2014, 12:11:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 22, 2014, 10:56:19 AM
I edited because I thought the intent of my post wasn't clear. -_- $40k is absurdly low for LS debt.
my situation is unique, but the fact remains that my school is 1/5th the cost of georgetown. and, there are students here who attend because they had no desire to move out of state, so there's enough competition to keep it interesting. while the doors to biglaw are essentially closed to me, it kind of doesn't matter.
the burnout rate for biglaw is something like 66% within 5 years. a lot of people use their time in biglaw to pay off their gargantuan amount of debt obtained from attending top schools which allowed them to get into biglaw in the first place. for them, they almost literally have to do well. because if they don't land biglaw, they're stuck with 200k in debt. even for the top 30%~ that do get biglaw, their starting salary is (avg) 160k with an annual increase of 20k, but the majority get out after a few years
biglaw is designed to churn and spit out most associate attorneys. until recently, i thought it was just the hours. but, i think it's also the type of the work - there's no fulfillment or reward, since large firms tend to have major clients and the partners aren't going to dare let someone with only 1-4 years of experience handle anything substantive. so, there are some attorneys who earn more (per year) than they might ever make within a few years of graduating law school, only to spend the rest of their career making less (though with a more job satisfaction). there are obviously many this doesn't apply to, but i think it happens more often than not
Biglaw is way overrated, I agree. One thing you didn't mention is that those $120-160k annual salaries tend to be eaten up, bones and all, by the COL in NYC and other Biglaw hubs. It's the equivalent of like $70k in the real world. And for 60-80 hours a week? Factor in student loans, which they're paying on a legitimate repayment plan--along the lines of $1500-$2000 a month...
And what 26 year old has the maturity to live like a pauper when he or she doesn't have to?
I also think you're somewhat optimistic about what happens to HYS lawyers after Biglaw. Sometimes they land in remunerative careers with lower salaries, free and clear of debt and ready to be adults; but I have heard of many, many horror stories where they wind up severely underemployed, doing the NYC doc review circuit, or even not much of anything.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 22, 2014, 08:10:13 PMBiglaw is way overrated, I agree. One thing you didn't mention is that those $120-160k annual salaries tend to be eaten up, bones and all, by the COL in NYC and other Biglaw hubs. It's the equivalent of like $70k in the real world. And for 60-80 hours a week? Factor in student loans, which they're paying on a legitimate repayment plan--along the lines of $1500-$2000 a month...
And what 26 year old has the maturity to live like a pauper when he or she doesn't have to?
I also think you're somewhat optimistic about what happens to HYS lawyers after Biglaw. Sometimes they land in remunerative careers with lower salaries, free and clear of debt and ready to be adults; but I have heard of many, many horror stories where they wind up severely underemployed, doing the NYC doc review circuit, or even not much of anything.
according to this: http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/, $160k and living in manhattan is like 90k in fargo. that's enough to live comfortably while pay down gross amounts of debt, if you're responsible
as to the last point: http://www.law.harvard.edu/about/employmentsummary2013.pdf
54.5% of its 2013 graduates landed biglaw positions. another 17% got federal clerkships. only 2% were still looking for a job nine months out
I know Harvard's nine month totals are great--Harvard is, jokes about Yale aside, still a great law school, alongside about ten-twenty other institutions. (There's a whole mess of kind of objectively terrible law schools in the first tier, though, namely American and especially Georgetown.)
Without longitudinal studies, though, I don't know what to make of the anecdotal evidence I've seen that indicates that by the ten year mark, a lot of Harvardites (and Yalies, Stanfordites, and Columbians--especially Columbians for some reason) have hit major career impediments due to being let go from Biglaw and failing to find a place for themselves.
Now, I think all things being equal, HYS(CCetc) folks are probably doing way better a decade after law school--there are hundreds of metric tons of people, literally, who transitioned/quit/failed and got out of law by whatever means necessary--but I'm not entirely convinced that even HYS(CCetc) law degrees are the passports to Awesometown that people believe them to be. They may just be lottery tickets, like every other J.D., only with somewhat better rates of return.
HYS? Do you mean Harvard, Yale and Stanford? I'm sure they're all better than any Canadian school. :P
:P
CC is Columbia and Chicago.
Quote from: sbr on May 20, 2014, 11:06:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2014, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2014, 10:38:55 PM
But you want to blame the universities and the loan system.
Sure. Why did tuition jump nearly 80% in 10 years? Suddenly that much more costly to educate a student?
Because the system is broken?
I assume someone else who cares more than me and is more sober than me will expand but the government throws money out to students who "need" the education/degree and the Universities act like any market that gets too much money injected into it. Inflation, baby!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2FCPBB_Per_Student_Spending_Cuts.jpg&hash=f4efabcf3ad0e40093ada921d2bbf738fa540f8b)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2FCPBB_Tution_Inflation_Adjusted.jpg&hash=99d772eeda83f1c4701fafeea99ed0513d8eafe8)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2Fassets_c%2F2013%2F03%2FCPBB_Higher_Ed_Cuts_Tuition_Relationship-thumb-570x361-116385.jpg&hash=1705059ce59eb85ac8697d4c54084184e4dbdc91)
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/a-truly-devastating-graph-on-state-higher-education-spending/274199/
1) States cut subsidy funding for higher education
2) Higher education raises costs to offset funding cuts
3) Students share increased cost burdens
4) Ide blames higher education, lets politicians off the hook
Quote from: merithyn on May 20, 2014, 12:59:10 PM
This topic has come up for me recently.
The arguments I've heard for "It's never too late!" include:
- If it's something you really want, then go for it, age bedamned!
- There should be no limit to learning.
- You don't know how long you have left to work, so you may as well beef up your resume just in case
The arguments I've heard for not going past a certain age include:
- Poor return on investment when you only have a set number of years left to work
- You would be taking the space of a younger person who would be able to better put it to use
- Waste of time and money that you could be spending traveling or with your family
- If you take time off from work for grad school, it will be harder for you to get a job if you're of a "certain age"
What does the Languish Collective think?
It depends on the program and the return on investment you'll get. And it has to be in a field you already like. If you hate management and decide to do a MBA for the money it will get you, you really won't find a decent job with a decent paychek.
Also, there are different masters program. Some are designed for students who keep studying right after school instead of immediatly working. Some are for people having worked a couple of years. Some are for people already working full time and offering classes on the week-end. There's even 3rd age university now, where they adapt the programs to older people less technologically efficient than the young ones born with a tablet and a iPhone.
If you're trying to go full time schools with 22 year old kids, be prepared for a shock. There are only two kinds of students at this level: those who are out of their league and will leave after half a semester and those who constantly study, day&night, with no life.
I don't know how old you are, but these programs may be tough if you're not dedicating 100% of your time to it, and trying to study part time will be... hard. Trying full time if you can't commit full time because of other obligations wil be suicide.
As for the age, it's your learning capacity that is at stake here, and your capacity to stay focused. If you're top shape at 40, it doesn't matter. If everything that moves and every sound you hear a distraction at 30, don't even think about it.
Also, I would personally advise against studying for the fun of it. If you want to this, do it because you'll get better job opportunities, not because you'll be learning new stuff. If all you want is learn, buy the books.
Ide assumes his well-known statist, command economic political views speak for themselves and doesn't belabor the point about more (but smarter) funding for colleges. Ide blames politicians in D.C. for the worst excesses, because they're the ones who've driven the worst of the inflation (in terms of dollar figures and the devaluation of degrees alike).
Anyway, I'm a lot more interested in the relationship between those numbers, which is from those bar graphs opaque. Tuition has rarely, if ever, been entirely funded by state taxes. And even if it were, which it emphatically wasn't, a drop to 71% tax funding from Year Zero (in California, for example) still wouldn't justify 172% tuition hike from Year Zero.
Due to declining state support they need to make up $29 for every $100 they spend; therefore they need to charge $72 more on every $100 of tuition to make up the shortfall. Sure, makes sense to me.
Quote from: viper37 on May 23, 2014, 11:56:42 PM
If you're trying to go full time schools with 22 year old kids, be prepared for a shock. There are only two kinds of students at this level: those who are out of their league and will leave after half a semester and those who constantly study, day&night, with no life.
:unsure: I mostly sat around the house and watched TOS reruns.
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2014, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 23, 2014, 11:56:42 PM
If you're trying to go full time schools with 22 year old kids, be prepared for a shock. There are only two kinds of students at this level: those who are out of their league and will leave after half a semester and those who constantly study, day&night, with no life.
:unsure: I mostly sat around the house and watched TOS reruns.
I don't know what you studied, but 15hrs of finance class + homework + study, that was impossible for most of us.
Quote from: viper37 on May 24, 2014, 11:22:00 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2014, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 23, 2014, 11:56:42 PM
If you're trying to go full time schools with 22 year old kids, be prepared for a shock. There are only two kinds of students at this level: those who are out of their league and will leave after half a semester and those who constantly study, day&night, with no life.
:unsure: I mostly sat around the house and watched TOS reruns.
I don't know what you studied, but 15hrs of finance class + homework + study, that was impossible for most of us.
Even allowing for twice as much time being spent on study and coursework outside of the classroom as in the classroom, that's 45 hours a week. Figure 8 hours a night for sleep (which a lot of students won't get), that's still just 101 hours a week accounted for, leaving 67 hours a week for leisure and recreation.
Quote from: viper37 on May 24, 2014, 11:22:00 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2014, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 23, 2014, 11:56:42 PM
If you're trying to go full time schools with 22 year old kids, be prepared for a shock. There are only two kinds of students at this level: those who are out of their league and will leave after half a semester and those who constantly study, day&night, with no life.
:unsure: I mostly sat around the house and watched TOS reruns.
I don't know what you studied, but 15hrs of finance class + homework + study, that was impossible for most of us.
We only had 6-8h of class a day + study. Later years less. :)
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2014, 05:07:03 AM
:unsure: I mostly sat around the house and watched TOS reruns.
:yes: I could easily go for a week without doing anything study-related. Good times.