well, what is the point? He begins with a biased sample (people who don't have jobs that are "desirable") and shows us the ones that went to college. How about he goes and interviews doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc.? Is the point that college is not right for some people? Or it doesn't work out? The stats are still quite clear about the increase in average lifetime earning with and without a college education.
I think the point is not whether all college graduates should have high paying jobs in their field or not. The point is, not everyone should get encouraged to attend college because there's a very good chance you will end up filling the pockets of other people with a huge debt without any job prospects.
Attending university with the hope of making a good living is the stupidest bet one can make. Most of the time it doesn't happen. There's waaaaay too many degrees for so few 'real' paying jobs. I don't know why that is so hard to understand for most people.
As for gaining education and learning things, I think universities and colleges are a huge waste of money when compared to this unlimited source of knowledge called "internet". Why pay $100K-$200K for mostly useless information that can be dug up online at will?
Attending university with the hope of making a good living is the stupidest bet one can make. Most of the time it doesn't happen. There's waaaaay too many degrees for so few 'real' paying jobs. I don't know why that is so hard to understand for most people.
As for gaining education and learning things, I think universities and colleges are a huge waste of money when compared to this unlimited source of knowledge called "internet". Why pay $100K-$200K for mostly useless information that can be dug up online at will?
Basically what BT has said. That people are encouraged into a college degree, which is even more easily facilitated by the State, when that may not be in their best interests. It not only makes those college degrees worthless in terms of how they can gain desirable employment; it has contributed to the rising costs in getting the degree itself. What you get is a huge subset of people - and the taxpayer - saddled with enormous debt for degrees that they'll never use. It's not a little amount; they could effectively buy a house and pay a huge chunk of the mortgage off with that kind of money.
I also agree with BT about the costs. University/College/etc fees are ridiculous. It's scandalous. You can learn basically everything you need to know about any degree from the net and with cheap older books. The degree itself is only a symbolic assurance that the person knows the minimum to garner that degree. And in many fields you learn more on the job than you do in the university. It would be fantastic if universities would allow those not enrolled in their colleges to still sit the exams, and if they pass to allow them to have the degree. If an individual is willing to spend their own time reading, researching, etc, then they deserve acknowledgement for that effort. I'd be willing to bet that said individual would be even more successful than the average student who does attend uni. But without a piece of paper that individual may never get in the door to even have an interview.
I think there are a few initiatives online which are moving towards such a thing, a far cheaper alternative. If everything was accessible from the internet for free (lectures, materials, etc) then you'd only need a place to conduct exams. It would allow someone from Africa to get a degree of the same repute as someone in Boston. I think it'll happen eventually.
I also agree with BT about the costs. University/College/etc fees are ridiculous. It's scandalous. You can learn basically everything you need to know about any degree from the net and with cheap older books. The degree itself is only a symbolic assurance that the person knows the minimum to garner that degree. And in many fields you learn more on the job than you do in the university. It would be fantastic if universities would allow those not enrolled in their colleges to still sit the exams, and if they pass to allow them to have the degree. If an individual is willing to spend their own time reading, researching, etc, then they deserve acknowledgement for that effort. I'd be willing to bet that said individual would be even more successful than the average student who does attend uni. But without a piece of paper that individual may never get in the door to even have an interview.
I think there are a few initiatives online which are moving towards such a thing, a far cheaper alternative. If everything was accessible from the internet for free (lectures, materials, etc) then you'd only need a place to conduct exams. It would allow someone from Africa to get a degree of the same repute as someone in Boston. I think it'll happen eventually.
Last edited:
In the UK, the previous Labour government of Tony Bliar created the same mess. His aim was to get more than 50% of the youth to University, which is quite a stupid thing to even say, nevermind that he attempted it and was proud of it. We ended up with degrees that were frankly useless. People enjoyed doing them and they enjoyed their time at Uni, but at what expense? Harsh reality hit like a cricket bat once they left Uni to get a job.
People have now realised that these courses aren't going to provide them with anything in the future so what we have is many Unis left with courses that no one wants to do so they are having to scrap them and lay people off!
Aside from that, people are realising that skills like plumbing and electrician jobs are at a premium that pay very well, but there are so few people across the country with those skills. So guess what's happening next?
People have now realised that these courses aren't going to provide them with anything in the future so what we have is many Unis left with courses that no one wants to do so they are having to scrap them and lay people off!
Aside from that, people are realising that skills like plumbing and electrician jobs are at a premium that pay very well, but there are so few people across the country with those skills. So guess what's happening next?
In Australia tradies (plumbers, electricians, tilers, plasterers, etc) get paid as much or more than lawyers and doctors. That's the effect of pushing so much higher education. John Howard had to make a plea himself for people to get into panel beating jobs. Another effect is that the governments start hiring foreigners - there are a lot of people coming here to get into great paying jobs in mining companies. If you know anything that relates to mining you make 6 figures in your first year out. As a Lawyer I'll be making 45-50k and will have to work my way to 6 figures. And the best is when I actually have my own firm which is a while away. I too had the misguided view that being a lawyer I was guaranteed a job. It's not going to be that way because there are far too many people with law degrees - the majority of which that will never practice law. So I am being a bit more of an entrepreneur about it but I feel sorry for those that will eventually get hit with the reality that they will have to chase work.
The post secondary education system almost everywhere in the world is a big scam. Usually it's the government that pockets the money, but in cases like the US, it's private corporations presenting themselves as reputable universities. A university is nothing but a masked corporation thriving for profit. They might as well start issuing public stocks these days.
Prior to internet becoming widely used, attending college was the ONLY option one had in order to communicate and learn with the brightest of the society. There was no other way to bring all these people with common interests together.
These days? PFFFF! Forget about going to university. Give me Google and I'll teach myself all I need to learn about what I need to do. If enough managers with this mindset make it to top levels in corporations, very soon university degrees will lose their holy status AS THEY SHOULD.
Prior to internet becoming widely used, attending college was the ONLY option one had in order to communicate and learn with the brightest of the society. There was no other way to bring all these people with common interests together.
These days? PFFFF! Forget about going to university. Give me Google and I'll teach myself all I need to learn about what I need to do. If enough managers with this mindset make it to top levels in corporations, very soon university degrees will lose their holy status AS THEY SHOULD.
Mahdi, we are agreeing that the benefits of higher education is not universal. Ask people who spent lots of money getting the piece of paper and then had to work in something totally unrelated to pay it off. I know many.
I tell you something else. Another consequence of this is that standards have dropped beyond belief. As someone who works at a higher education organisation, I have been practically instructed not to fail anyone unless it's absolutely necessary. In fact we have a quota!!! We are repeatedly asked to reconsider lower grades and see whether there is any room for leniency!!! It's not good for business to piss off paying customers!
I tell you something else. Another consequence of this is that standards have dropped beyond belief. As someone who works at a higher education organisation, I have been practically instructed not to fail anyone unless it's absolutely necessary. In fact we have a quota!!! We are repeatedly asked to reconsider lower grades and see whether there is any room for leniency!!! It's not good for business to piss off paying customers!
I really think those are different issues not related to each other or while related in the fact that it's about demand, not otherwise related..
I don't know too many since where I live Universities are free
but as an example, I know a person who studied American literature and now works in a supermarket. Obviously, what he studied might have been useless, but it was an intellectual challenge for him to get through it and he wrote a very good thesis. If he was more interested in the academic aspect of it(or if he regarded it as worthwhile), he could pursuit a PhD but he doesn't...which is his own problem. However, I personally believe that if you are passionate about whatever you studied, it's not worthless and you will excel in your own field...case in point a friend of mine who studied art history and when you go to a museum with them, it's a whole different experience. She can do whatever she likes to do in arts and is in high demand. She might not make multimillions but she will definitely work in her field and be happy. Unfortunately, too many people study because they don't know what else to do. But the intellectual challenge that is involved in getting a degree (not always...we will come to it in the latter), is something no one can take away from you and you won't get otherwise.
I know about that...that's a UK issue. I have a guy who studied business administration at University of Bradestan at my office (no diss to Abz who also studied in Bradistan). Seriously...it's a joke. Same as Regents graduates etc. but you can usually easily determine most of them. But again, to me university was about myself and the values of higher education, the tools I learned, are there.
Obviously, many people are pushed to study by their parents and have no business there in the first place. But in general, if you know why you go to University, you should be fine.
I don't know too many since where I live Universities are free
but as an example, I know a person who studied American literature and now works in a supermarket. Obviously, what he studied might have been useless, but it was an intellectual challenge for him to get through it and he wrote a very good thesis. If he was more interested in the academic aspect of it(or if he regarded it as worthwhile), he could pursuit a PhD but he doesn't...which is his own problem. However, I personally believe that if you are passionate about whatever you studied, it's not worthless and you will excel in your own field...case in point a friend of mine who studied art history and when you go to a museum with them, it's a whole different experience. She can do whatever she likes to do in arts and is in high demand. She might not make multimillions but she will definitely work in her field and be happy. Unfortunately, too many people study because they don't know what else to do. But the intellectual challenge that is involved in getting a degree (not always...we will come to it in the latter), is something no one can take away from you and you won't get otherwise.I know about that...that's a UK issue. I have a guy who studied business administration at University of Bradestan at my office (no diss to Abz who also studied in Bradistan). Seriously...it's a joke. Same as Regents graduates etc. but you can usually easily determine most of them. But again, to me university was about myself and the values of higher education, the tools I learned, are there.
Obviously, many people are pushed to study by their parents and have no business there in the first place. But in general, if you know why you go to University, you should be fine.
the fact is that a lot of people go to college just to get a degree and graduate with C average. They didn't k now why they are studying and had no goal.
If you go to Art school, you should be a little artistic for example. Anyone can get a degree nowadays (Even a PhD) but the important thing is that when you come out of school,
you should be specialized in something and be able to lead a project.
Having lived in North America for 16 years, I have rarely seen anyone who has studied well and have a hard time to find a job. I really believe that
high education creates innovation and makes countries like USA, UK, ... always successful specially in fields of medical, aerospace and so on.
Also I believe that going to University is not for everyone. Some people can go and get a 1 or 2 year degree program and be very successful.
The most important thing is to know yourself and what you are capable of and follow your career according to your potential.
If you go to Art school, you should be a little artistic for example. Anyone can get a degree nowadays (Even a PhD) but the important thing is that when you come out of school,
you should be specialized in something and be able to lead a project.
Having lived in North America for 16 years, I have rarely seen anyone who has studied well and have a hard time to find a job. I really believe that
high education creates innovation and makes countries like USA, UK, ... always successful specially in fields of medical, aerospace and so on.
Also I believe that going to University is not for everyone. Some people can go and get a 1 or 2 year degree program and be very successful.
The most important thing is to know yourself and what you are capable of and follow your career according to your potential.
Last edited:
I haven't lived in Australia but I think Australia is a country with low population and a lot of natural resources and the government has a lot of money. As a result, the society doesn't need to work very hard. In contrast, Japan and Korea are countries with a lot of population and no natural resources and the country has to produce to survive.
So please tell me Kaz, do people work very hard in Australia ? I have heard people are extremely relax ... your input is appreciated
So please tell me Kaz, do people work very hard in Australia ? I have heard people are extremely relax ... your input is appreciated
Well I-E-I jan it depends on the person or industry, like any country. Australia is a pretty wealthy place where even the average person can live a relatively good life - decent money, decent home, decent car and time for holidays. Having said that it is also a place where it is hard to get ahead (very wealthy) unless you work in certain industries or are an uniquely able individual. My experience in business and working all is from Australia and nowhere else so I cannot really compare. I will say that when I visit Iran I notice that the youth there are more entrepreneurial. That with the amount of resources we have they'd flourish. Having said that, the problem with societies that encourage welfarism is that they make people less imaginative and more reliant on government.
If I were to make a generalisation, an educated guess, I'd say the Australians (I mean, of the anglo-saxon variety) are probably more relaxed and content with their 9-5 and beach/beer weekend; whereas the immigrant population (i.e. Persians, Chinese, Arabs, Greeks, Italians, even English/S.African etc) are a bit more competitive. Perth (where I live) is a great place to be considering the world economy because there are lots of opportunities and hence there are a lot of people coming. Now I walk in the city and I can hear someone speaking with an American accent, speaking French, German, Persian, Portuguese, etc, and they're all immigrants coming here. It wasn't like this a few years ago.
If I were to make a generalisation, an educated guess, I'd say the Australians (I mean, of the anglo-saxon variety) are probably more relaxed and content with their 9-5 and beach/beer weekend; whereas the immigrant population (i.e. Persians, Chinese, Arabs, Greeks, Italians, even English/S.African etc) are a bit more competitive. Perth (where I live) is a great place to be considering the world economy because there are lots of opportunities and hence there are a lot of people coming. Now I walk in the city and I can hear someone speaking with an American accent, speaking French, German, Persian, Portuguese, etc, and they're all immigrants coming here. It wasn't like this a few years ago.
Last edited:
The trends in higher education are changing. In Canada, trades programs at colleges (which are usually 2-year programs) are becoming very popular and are usually very useful in finding good jobs. I know a couple of people who dropped out of university despite their decent marks and switched to 2-year college programs to enter the job market quicker. Those who graduate from 2-year college programs,if they want to continue their education they can register in university bridge programs and complete their bachelor degrees in two years.
The classic university programs are changing too, and two leading institutions (MIT and Stanford) are leading the change. Their vision seem to be that in future universities will no longer be the place for lectures; those you will find online or through self-study. Instead, universities will focus on two areas: Examinations, and Research (for higher levels). It is like this: Typical curriculum will be broken into a number of modules that are designed around specific abilities or skills. the material will be provided free of charge (as MIT has started doing so) or you can study at your own pace. Whenever you are ready, you come to the university and pay for a credit to take an exam. The exam will evaluate your ability in a specific area, not necessarily a particular book or course. and it may be a traditional exam, a project, or an industry certificate. In order to receive a degree, you must have completed a specific number of modules. But you can do so at your pace. If you need a few particular modules for your job, but not the entire degree, you can take only those and receive the certificate for those courses.
This model will be first implemented in technology and business fields. It is extremely flexible and brings the universities back to what they were in 19th century; centers of research and evaluation, as opposed to the late 20th century model where they essentially became rigid degree generating machines.
The classic university programs are changing too, and two leading institutions (MIT and Stanford) are leading the change. Their vision seem to be that in future universities will no longer be the place for lectures; those you will find online or through self-study. Instead, universities will focus on two areas: Examinations, and Research (for higher levels). It is like this: Typical curriculum will be broken into a number of modules that are designed around specific abilities or skills. the material will be provided free of charge (as MIT has started doing so) or you can study at your own pace. Whenever you are ready, you come to the university and pay for a credit to take an exam. The exam will evaluate your ability in a specific area, not necessarily a particular book or course. and it may be a traditional exam, a project, or an industry certificate. In order to receive a degree, you must have completed a specific number of modules. But you can do so at your pace. If you need a few particular modules for your job, but not the entire degree, you can take only those and receive the certificate for those courses.
This model will be first implemented in technology and business fields. It is extremely flexible and brings the universities back to what they were in 19th century; centers of research and evaluation, as opposed to the late 20th century model where they essentially became rigid degree generating machines.
I agree with you that some 2 year college degree programs are very good but I have to say this to you that this is not always the case and the trend changes all the time ...
For instance, it was really great to become a dentist assisstant and / or a hygenist in Canada, it is 2.5 year program with a salary of around 60-80K / year depending on your experience.
So everyone went and studied that to a point that the market is saturdated with hygenist and now very hard to find a job.
I really think if there is potential in people to pursue higher education, do it. The time you spend is well worth it. If you go look at the average people with masters in US, they get around 15K more than bachelor.
(we are talking about average).
As far as MIT and Stanford argument, I think the Universities used to be a place for higher education, research and innovation. Now they have changed to money making business specially for private schools in USA.
As a result, why not create certificate and programs to make a money. I was looking at this certificate in stanford for 6 courses and it is 18K. Most are undergrad courses. That is utterly ridiculous !!
I dont' think this model creates more innovation rather more money for private schools.
The problem with lack of innovation in schools are very obvious. In 1980's, when you got a PhD from a University, you could have got a position in University as a professor. Nowadays, a PhD's in engineering for i nstance have 15% chance of becoming a prof !! why ?
Rather than making the programs harder, they allowed everyone from everywhere to go to these programs. The level of education went down, and the number of PhD's went up. Now there is a sick trend that you have to work 5-6 years of post PhD to possibly get a position in University. In order to make even more money, the scientific society decided to create journals in all different levels. Today, by paying 2000 dollars, you can publish your idea in some Journal and often it counts how much publication you have rather than how good it is .
The education system is really flawed and people should be very careful not spending a lot of time to learn something that soceity doesnt' want and go in tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
For instance, it was really great to become a dentist assisstant and / or a hygenist in Canada, it is 2.5 year program with a salary of around 60-80K / year depending on your experience.
So everyone went and studied that to a point that the market is saturdated with hygenist and now very hard to find a job.
I really think if there is potential in people to pursue higher education, do it. The time you spend is well worth it. If you go look at the average people with masters in US, they get around 15K more than bachelor.
(we are talking about average).
As far as MIT and Stanford argument, I think the Universities used to be a place for higher education, research and innovation. Now they have changed to money making business specially for private schools in USA.
As a result, why not create certificate and programs to make a money. I was looking at this certificate in stanford for 6 courses and it is 18K. Most are undergrad courses. That is utterly ridiculous !!
I dont' think this model creates more innovation rather more money for private schools.
The problem with lack of innovation in schools are very obvious. In 1980's, when you got a PhD from a University, you could have got a position in University as a professor. Nowadays, a PhD's in engineering for i nstance have 15% chance of becoming a prof !! why ?
Rather than making the programs harder, they allowed everyone from everywhere to go to these programs. The level of education went down, and the number of PhD's went up. Now there is a sick trend that you have to work 5-6 years of post PhD to possibly get a position in University. In order to make even more money, the scientific society decided to create journals in all different levels. Today, by paying 2000 dollars, you can publish your idea in some Journal and often it counts how much publication you have rather than how good it is .
The education system is really flawed and people should be very careful not spending a lot of time to learn something that soceity doesnt' want and go in tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
Last edited: