ChichiriMuyo said:
mrstickball said:
Not surprising. There are a glut of college students with degrees, but no jobs to put them at.
I'll throw my hat in concerning the issue of paying for college education via taxation:
The issue with this is that not all jobs need college education. Yes, many of the good ones do, but not all do. Therefore, if you provide everyone with a free college education, many of them will not use it due to lower-skilled jobs that are filled via trade school or no college education at all. In such instances, it would be unfair to both the tax payer subsidizing useless education, and the person that doesn't need the college education.
College is optional, not mandatory. The best way to deal with it is to promote scholarships and philanthropy that can ensure that those with the desire to go to college will have apt funding for it. Unfortunately, in America, every youth has the notion that college is a must to succeed, which is absolutely false. Yes, many good careers need it, but I've met and know tons of kids that went t college and don't work in their initial field of study because they either stopped caring or simply couldn't find a job where they wanted to work.
Going further, the entire structure of college education is a sham, IMO. We need to go back to on the job training, and apprenticeships more than what we do now. We throw kids into education with no promise of a job, or inclination that they'll stay in that field. Rather, companies should work to hire bottom-level interns, see if they have merit (good work ethic, smart, willing to work, ect), then pay their way through school. There are companies that do this, and I applaud them for it.
|
The problem with your argument is that colleges, even if they are teaching "useless" material, are actually proving the people that attend them with the tools necessary to "get" the on-the-job training that will be provided for them when they switch to a new vocation. A person can graduate with a history degree as an undergrad and excel at middle-level managment simply because the communication skills necessary to do the job were taught in college.
And you assume these skills are only available at college. They are not. You give an example of a person spending tens of thousands of dollars on a major he doesn't use. If he excels at middle level management, why not simply get the skills needed for management without pursuing a BA in history?
This is most important considering the fact that often businesses complain that college grads lack the communication skills necessary to do their jobs, let alone those who never go. For the businesses that make the most money it's about how you collect information (research), how you analyze information, and how you relate that information to others (paper writing). You know, the crap you do in college. The crap that's woefully under-represented in high school because most kids don't want to do it if the subject doesn't interest them.
And yet....You could easily learn those things outside of college. I know I did.
Yes, you can succeed without college. Yes, you can even fail with it. But the results speak for themselves - college grads are much more productive regardless of what they studied and in turn they earn far more money. We can have any old idiot do the jobs that don't require college degrees, and year after year we send more of those jobs away to third world or emerging economies. But to maximize the potential of our populace, as many people that can become educated should. Education, throughout several centuries - nay, several millenia - has only served to make the whole populace more wealthy.
There are a lot of jobs that don't require college that cannot be outsourced. Construction, police, real estate, pilots, air traffic controllers, HVAC/Eletrical/Plumbing, and so on. I also find it interesting you argue that we lose a lot of jobs overseas, yet we have more college grads than ever.
As an example, look to Spain 1000 years ago, when the land was divided between Mulsims and Christians. Which group favored education more? The Muslims. Which were more prosperous? The Muslims. By learning of Greek, Persian, and Indian traditions and incorporating the ideas of all the muslims were able to grow crops on a plot of land four times as often as the Christians did. Even long after Islamic rule began to fall apart, the Muslims did much better than the Christians. Yes, farmers were taught only what was necessary to fulfill their role the best they could rather than knowledge in general, but without the desire to gain knowledge (a key component of early Islamic society) they would never have had that moment at all. By gathering, analyzing, testing, and then spreading what they learned, they were able to spend centuries as the dominant power while their foes barely held on to what they had. And the worst part is that once the Muslims were defeated, the Christians subsequently ruined their land. Almeria, as an example, was once a rather fertile (though arid) region. When the Cristians retook it they gradually turned it into a desert. Lands that could produce food if used properly were destroyed by soil errosion from the massive deforestation that later occured. Something that happened out of ignorance, despite the knowledge of preserving those lands existing for centuries.
I have nothing against education. My problem is that the current system doesn't work properly. It takes ~4 years to learn things that may realilistically require half that.
|
