The majority of the U.S.' unemployed have attended college.

Relinquis:

I agree with this, but what are you going to do with the current unemployed masses? Giving them an avenue to pick up maths and sciences as well as other skills that are in demand could go a long way. A proper education shouldn't be a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Societies recycle paper and metals, why not their human capital?

I agree. But there also needs to be a will to change course as well.

I honestly don't think this generation is any more entitled than previous ones. It's that they've come up with a very harsh reality that all of us simply never expected - until it's happened and now we go "oh, of course! We should've known!"

The kids these days are not any better or worse than their parents (baby boomers). In fact they probably are even more level headed than the post WWII kids in the 60s and 70s who didn't need to do a whole lot or have a lot of direction to attain a middle class lifestyle.

My hunch is that eventually we will look at the post-war baby boom generation as an anomaly (rather than the norm) or a perfect storm.

Anyhow, I do think the current generation of college grads deserve a second shot - that is, again, if they are willing to give up on the notion that they can have it as easy as their American/European parents did in the 60s/70s and early 80s. The ease in which we were able to make ends meet by doing very little (at least in the West) in the last 50 years was an anomaly, and we're likely back to "normal" - which is that it's very hard for most people to just get by, and that opportunities are hard to come by.

In fact, I think all of us will have to reinvent ourselves and our careers a few times over. The half life of a career is diminishing fast (i.e. you will hit a plateau much faster, and then become obsolete or too expensive much faster, even in engineering/sciences because there's always a younger, cheaper person to replace you with the newest/freshest technical know how).

College should be just the beginning. Most if not all of us will be forced to change every 10-15 years or so.

Example: the finance folks who got laid off in the last 3-4 years? Especially those in the 2008-10 era -- most of those kinds of jobs aren't coming back for a while, and those laid off finance people (from analysts all the way to MDs) have no choice but to find something new outside the industry, and for some that may mean starting over (going back to school, starting a new biz, starting from a more junior level in a different field).

Of course, the big question is how do you convince these unemployed college grads to take on more tuition expenses for more education. Yes education shouldn't be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, but its effectively being priced that way by universities.

Relinquis:

MBAApply:

I am willing to bet that if they broke down the stats by college major, it would be a completely different story.

I always found it odd that if you were to really level with kids about what they hope to get out of going to college, "getting a job" would be top on their list (or at least a #2). And yet, so many of them end up doing majors that do not give them the skills or knowledge for the kinds of jobs that employers need to fill.

If kids are going to see college as a trade school, then they should approach their studies as if it were a trade school.

Yes, if you come from a wealthy background and have a lot of contacts to set you up for jobs, then you can major in whatever you want. English. Classical studies. Art history. Sociology.

The problem is, simply put, you have too many middle class kids who are majoring in the wrong fields.

Too many folks in liberal arts, and nowhere near enough in science, engineering and business. It just seems like there's a phobia of science and engineering in the west. That's where the jobs are. You are far less likely to find an unemployed electrical engineer or a bioengineering grad than you will a political science major. It's like the only people who aren't afraid of science and engineering are the Asians/Asian-Americans and Eastern Europeans.

The last thing we need is to tell people that college is useless, and having an even dumber country. What needs to happen is that more kids need to be forced to go into science and engineering. To bang it into their heads:

You want a job? Major in engineering or sciences. Hate math? Tough shit. Get used to it, because learning to be functional at math is what will pay your rent.

I agree with this, but what are you going to do with the current unemployed masses? Giving them an avenue to pick up maths and sciences as well as other skills that are in demand could go a long way. A proper education shouldn't be a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Societies recycle paper and metals, why not their human capital?

For math = The internet as online quant classes all the way to advanced calculus are free, cheap or affordable. Amazon.com for books and key message boards for subject help and maybe a tutor for some homework help. Done.

MBAApply:

Aldrich IV:

So its submit or die? Go STEM fields or you are screwed. Is this what college is coming to?

I had a roommate who was miserable, because his parents required him to take Engineering and was little good at it. But hey, if your parents are footing the bill, they have the right.

Guess all the arts are left up to the rich kids now.

Until the 20th century, universities were for the wealthy and privileged (at least in the West). You sent your kids to university so they can become cultured gentlemen (all men) -- you studied Latin, Greek, the Classics, literature, history, art, and politics. None of these disciplines were supposed to be practical because that was not the intent. This is what "an institute of higher learning" is all about. You learned knowledge for knowledge sake. If you were privileged, you didn't have an occupation. You were "men of leisure" who owned property, slaves/serfs, and collected/acquired stuff. Having an occupation was for commoners (who didn't go to universities: they learned a trade through on-the-job apprenticeships and trade schools). In a way, university was also a form of networking - rich boys getting to know other rich boys. The only disciplines that were more practical were medicine and law.

Note that it's not a coincidence that the Ivy League colleges (and top Euro universities like Oxford and Cambridge) and other old universities are known for their liberal arts/humanities disciplines and who also happen to be strong in medicine and law.

Now fast forward to the 20th century when the middle class swelled (i.e. when industrialization/mass production manufacturing and expansion in the Americas and Europe). Now, the middle class and the immigrants to the Americas had a different view. They saw education as a form of social/economic mobility. They were pragmatic and saw education as a means to an end (and introduced the concept of college = better jobs). It was more trade school than an 'institute of higher learning' but they wanted it both ways - pragmatic skills/knowledge with the prestige of a university.

It's not a coincidence that during this time you saw more science and engineering programs gain prominence in the "newer" universities. Stanford, MIT, and these new unis came of age during this time in the 20th century. Also, it was during this time when universities offered business/econ programs.

So what we've been stuck with up to now is a university culture that combines these two traditions, but where over time the STEM disciplines became more and more dominated by 1st and 2nd generation immigrants.

The thing is, studying the humanities/liberal arts on a formal basis was traditionally a "rick kid" discipline (i.e. the most talented musicians, artists, etc. never went to school - they taught the rich kids). But it's that a lot of middle class people have gotten away with being able to study something that wasn't supposed to be practical (lib arts) in the last 50 years and still manage to hold down jobs -- that is, until now.

My post was more just thoughtless, I understand the situation but thanks for laying it out. Its just different in this age when a college degree has almost become mandatory to secure a job (debt included). My anger comes from the notion we all have to go to college and spend 5 figures+ just to have a chance.

MBAApply:

Aldrich IV:

So its submit or die? Go STEM fields or you are screwed. Is this what college is coming to?

I had a roommate who was miserable, because his parents required him to take Engineering and was little good at it. But hey, if your parents are footing the bill, they have the right.

Guess all the arts are left up to the rich kids now.

Until the 20th century, universities were for the wealthy and privileged (at least in the West). You sent your kids to university so they can become cultured gentlemen (all men) -- you studied Latin, Greek, the Classics, literature, history, art, and politics. None of these disciplines were supposed to be practical because that was not the intent. This is what "an institute of higher learning" is all about. You learned knowledge for knowledge sake. If you were privileged, you didn't have an occupation. You were "men of leisure" who owned property, slaves/serfs, and collected/acquired stuff. Having an occupation was for commoners (who didn't go to universities: they learned a trade through on-the-job apprenticeships and trade schools). In a way, university was also a form of networking - rich boys getting to know other rich boys. The only disciplines that were more practical were medicine and law.

Note that it's not a coincidence that the Ivy League colleges (and top Euro universities like Oxford and Cambridge) and other old universities are known for their liberal arts/humanities disciplines and who also happen to be strong in medicine and law.

Now fast forward to the 20th century when the middle class swelled (i.e. when industrialization/mass production manufacturing and expansion in the Americas and Europe). Now, the middle class and the immigrants to the Americas had a different view. They saw education as a form of social/economic mobility. They were pragmatic and saw education as a means to an end (and introduced the concept of college = better jobs). It was more trade school than an 'institute of higher learning' but they wanted it both ways - pragmatic skills/knowledge with the prestige of a university.

It's not a coincidence that during this time you saw more science and engineering programs gain prominence in the "newer" universities. Stanford, MIT, and these new unis came of age during this time in the 20th century. Also, it was during this time when universities offered business/econ programs.

So what we've been stuck with up to now is a university culture that combines these two traditions, but where over time the STEM disciplines became more and more dominated by 1st and 2nd generation immigrants.

The thing is, studying the humanities/liberal arts on a formal basis was traditionally a "rick kid" discipline (i.e. the most talented musicians, artists, etc. never went to school - they taught the rich kids). But it's that a lot of middle class people have gotten away with being able to study something that wasn't supposed to be practical (lib arts) in the last 50 years and still manage to hold down jobs -- that is, until now.

Preach!!

A lot of folks had better learn about the Oxbridge Dons. Also, the middle class tried to copy cat the upper class via education and credentialism, except they did it with leverage. The copycats are the occupy crowd--they are pissed that copycatting with leverage did not work, hence the cry for student loan bailouts. Add to that the copycats only want to work for some tech start up or at a “nonprofit.” Between Student loan debt and a loss of demand for certain majors the jig is up.

Preach!!!! Thumps Key Board!!!!

P.S. Also historically applied disciplines were looked down on.

CoochieMane:

pacman007:

Everyone should major in what they want. We need the liberal arts majors just as much as we need the hard science majors.

Yes, we need the liberal arts majors to continue the Occupy Wall St. movement.

This is a joke, btw.

We need people to continue to do what they are passionate about. Keeps things in equilibrium.