Anecdotal videos, that’s the equivalent of statistical evidence isn’t it?

The evidence in the job market indicates that people with higher education have a higher participation rate, much lower unemployment, and are paid much better than individuals with a high-school education (or worse).Overall this translates into the labour market of college and university graduates being far healthier than the labour market in general, and it could be argued that the skilled labour market in western nations is entirely healthy.

Does this mean that every degree ensures jobs? No, in fact many schools graduate far too many students in (fairly) worthless (from a career perspective) degrees because they can get the same tuition and support from the government in these fields in spite of them being fields with very low cost educations.

Now, I don’t know the specifics of your education but it has been my experience that individuals with certain management degrees are always in high demand (typically people with degrees related to accounting) while other degrees are only worthwhile to get individuals entry level office positions. I don’t know what school you went to but most well respected schools tend not to offer "Masters in Information Systems" degrees, especially to individuals with no relevant undergrad; and some schools that offer these degrees (Devry) are so poorly respected that the degree is just a very expensive piece of paper.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

...

Oh, were you being serious?

Yeah... everything but the UN was a good idea.  I mean one only needs to look at the IPCC board to see how far away that gets from being independent from political means.

Well, the idea would imply a far more developed and mature global political system, and thus a reformed UN.

Mind you, people often complain about the dominance of the US in the UN.... but if other nations were willing to commit as much to it as the US, they would have similar levels of influence.

If you watched all the videos, you see the case for what I mentioned.  And if you watched this video, you will see the entire system is producing too many degreed individuals who don't need degrees to do the jobs:

As far as my background went, my Masters did get me a job with IBM and others have been hired out of Marist also.  The school is accredited.  But, the reality is that IT has gone the way of India and the entire field should be structured more the way plumbers and electricians and other technical people do things, NOT the college route at all. 

There is need for more education to specialize in a craft, but schools saddling students with $100K plus debt coming out, don't cut it.  As far as the schools that are in demand, say an Ivy League school, the debt load vs what you make, just isn't worth it.

Being that the unemployment rate for Computer and mathematical occupations was 5.1% in June 2010 I think the loss of those jobs to India is heavily overstated.

(http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea30.pdf)

I don’t doubt that currently far too many students are graduating from post-secondary institutions and working in fields completely unrelated to their education; but if you actually looked at the data you would realize that these are mostly individuals graduating from fields where there is no clear career path in the first place. Unemployment among Computer Science, Engineering, and Management graduates (and some graduates from the natural sciences) are actually very low; but degrees in the Social Sciences, Humanities and many of the Fine Arts end up leading people to work as baristas at Starbucks.

The beauty of some degree fields (Computer Science is one I know this applies to) is that even graduating more individuals than the field requires is not necessarily a bad thing, because some people who have obtained a worthwhile education in these fields will create the jobs for the rest of the graduates. As an example of what I mean, if you take software developers who have several years of experience and take away their jobs a significant portion of them will start their own projects/companies, and of those companies a significant portion will be successful enough to sustain the individual who started them, and of those self-sustaining projects/companies a significant portion will be exceptionally successful.

The reality of the computer field is this: The earnings differential between a BS and a Masters degree is the LEAST of any fields.  In addition to this, it changes so rapidly, that employers will tend towards people who worked with the most recent version.  The field is also increasingly going the contractor route, and if you don't have the right skill mix, you get serious put behind the eight ball.  Here are the words from multiple recruiters in the IT industry: If you have been out of work over 6 months, they can't place you (your career is over).  And if you end up with a company like IBM, you get internal technology you work with that has little value.  Another IT recruiter said this about the industry: it is either feast or famine. 

I would also say the belief that somehow excess labor will create jobs, is pushing it.  It is like R&D spending.  In it, you hope something comes through.

I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but it is not representative of what I have seen as a software developer. I work with an individual who was hired after a 2 year sabbatical, most companies seem to be reluctant to adopt technologies which are not well established (read: several years old), and (as silly as it sounds) knowing obsolete technologies seems to be a great way to find work; there are always postings for individuals who know COBOL or can maintain/extend a java servlets/JSP application, but very few companies are looking for people who have experience with modern/new APIs.

Even on the support side, you’re far more likely to walk into a company that is running Windows XP on their desktop then Windows Vista or Windows 7; and more often than not the software these companies are running will be several iterations behind the latest version because of the costs/risks associated with upgrading across an entire company

Yeah, I can back you up on that.  I've heard the same things from people I kneww who coded.  COBOL is real popular among hospitals and the government of all things.

Me... i'd never even heard of it till he mentioned it.

I should be clear that it is not (necessarily) a good idea for a new grad to seek out training in languages like COBOL, even though there is still plenty of work with systems build using COBOL. These jobs exist because of how technology is managed in most companies.

A company like a bank, oil company or a large telephone company can often spend tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars building a system over a 5 year (or longer) period to match their business needs, and since it began development using modern software and procedures by the time it is completed the technology behind it is somewhat outdated. With how large the initial investment was, and with how long it would take to re-do that initial work, most of these companies add on to these existing systems for decades as their business needs change and grow.

Eventually, these systems are migrated away from but this tends to create an immediate increase in the need for qualified people who understand the technologies the systems were based on to reverse-engineer the systems; because many of these companies do not understand their own business practices.