'“It would be fine if we had an alternative system [for students who don’t get college degrees], but we’re virtually unique among industrialized countries in terms of not having another system and relying so heavily on higher education,” says Robert Schwartz, who heads the Pathways to Prosperity project at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.'
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/ … ard-study?
In Canada it's even worse than the USA. We have come up with a useless Bachelor degree type program for almost every profession. I'm amazed how quickly the colleges move in creating Mickey Mouse programs, even more amazed how people let them get away with it. Just yesterday I read a paper where my community college is now offering, get a load of this *drum rolls*: a data entry degree!
Just when I think it can't get any worse, it does. A week ago I met someone who has a Master's degree in, *drum rolls*, tourism!
I matriculated (high school) in South Africa in 1969. My courses were Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics), Maths (Trig, Algebra, Geometry). Languages (English, Afrikaans, Latin, wiith French and German on the side), History (world history from Eolithic times through to modern times), Geography (climate, location, for the entire planet), Domestic Science (everything about how to run a home, cook, whatever), Bookkeeping (how to do the books in any business), etc. In addition, I managed to read something like 10,000 books during my 12 years at school, as I was reading between 2 and 4 books a day. Actually, I read everything from Greek, Norse, and Egyptian mythyology through Dickens, Dumas, Verne, Haggard, Christie, and more authors than I remember. Oh, yes, and in addition, I took classes in ballet, drama, speech, piano, etc. When I left school at 18, I was educated, I think.
I came to America in my early 50s. For the first time, I went to College. It was a joke. There wasn't t single thing that I learnt that either had value or that I hadn't learnt in school half a century earlier.
I then understood what the British meant when they said that four year American degree was equivalent to their A levels (Briths High School).
Degrees used to be incredibly difficult to get and only the most intelligent, gifted, and talented people could get them. However, they also weren't needed because apprentices of various sorts more than qualified one for work. A nurse served an apprenticeship. She didn't need a degree. A junior school teacher went to teachers college. She didn't need a degree. A hotelier went to hotel school. A degree was not needed. These people were well taught and earned a lot of money.
I firmly believe that there are several driving forces for this emphasis on degrees in the US.
In America, I have met people with Ph.Ds that are semiliterate. I went to collrege where 95% of people couldn't string a grammatical sentence together. In the school system I grew up in, if one couldn't write grammatically, one repeated the year until one could. And most certainly, one would not be permitted to attend a university.
What's the big deal?
The driivng force is to make everybody equal. The error behind this is thinking one can change basic human DNA, chemistry, biology. One cannot. So in order to make everybody equal one has to dumb down the degrees. Apprentices (work and study) has been changed to be a degree.
Worse, very few know how to stick to a point in a conversation. People seem to think just so long as the topic is vaguely similar to the one being spoken about, that this is a valid contribution....
Empty barrels make the most noise...
It's funny, but true. Some Ph.D's are brilliant, but some of them are the most incredibly unintelligent people you could ever hope to meet.
I can't see the problem, it doesn't buy the a ticket to a life of wealth and respect, I know somebody with a Ph.D who works in a call centre, managed by a school drop out with no qualifications. Some people don't believe that education should have a direct correlation with intelligience or wealth, rather that it should be a right. There are said to be 9 measures of intelligience, only the uneducated (uneducation in a broad sense, not institutionally educated) or the unashamed elitist believe that academic attainment can constitute one. Some of the best conversations that I have ever had have been with cab drivers.
I agree, but it surprises me that some people can obtain Doctorates while being obviously unintelligent.
Only. possible in some countries. Depends on the countries. Not possible in Germany.
It could be that the person to whom you refer is genuinely very intelligient, yet is hindered by communication difficulties? Often we percieve those with a lack of confidence or a nervous disposition to lack intelligience or knowledge, when what they actually lack is an ability to effectively present their ideas and knowledge?
I deal with academics somewhat frequently. As I said, some are brilliant and a joy to be around. Others are not.
some people are highly intelligent but are not skilled at expressing themselves/communicating ideas well ie lack social skills & get written off
I wish they were just guilty of expensive and useless education, but I'm afraid it's got much worse in just the past six or so years. Not only are they guilty of creating a generation of indebted servants with useless degrees, they're also guilty of supplying endless propaganda and brain washing. I laugh at anyone who believes the modern day university is a proving ground for critical thinking. Try disagreeing with the status-quo of a university, and they'll kick you out quickly. University encourages "group think" in the name of civil unity, acceptance, and equality. Independent thought need not apply.
@DonDWest. Absolutely. Another thing I found disconcerting is the number of people who cannot follow a train of thought in a conversation. I used to think it was that they didn't understand the gist of what was being said. Then I realized that they had been brainwashed to think that any contribution to a conversation was welcome...
Qualifications are no guarantee of success in the workplace. I have a degree & diploma & don't even work in those fields. I feel like I was sold a bit of a lie about getting a 'career'. Only good thing about going to university was it made me leave home.
@Baileybear. So do I. I have so many 'qualifications'. And not a single one of them taught me how to make money.
I'm just reading the latest in the series of the 'Rich Man Poor Man books and it's about the conspiracy in our education system to keep us all stupid. It says what I've said for years - that one goes to school to learn how to do a job for others. It doesn't teach one how to work for oneself, or to become financially self sufficient.
Percentage wise, there are a few who do use their universities qualifications and they rise to the upper middle class. Historically, these were the only people that used to go to university. However, now everyone goes, and there aren't any jobs for them. The jobs that are needed are the trades, entrepreneurialship, etc.
My husband and I are pretty useless with money. I don't know how to make it or manage it. My hubby is better at remembering to pay the bills. We have two brother-in-laws that did trades. They have their own houses etc. I doubt we ever will.
Education is another bubble. Bubbles are things that are sold to the public at a price that is far more than it is worth. It used to be called being sold a pig in a poke. Nothing new about it.
As soon as everyone is telling one that one has to buy or do something, then it's time not to buy or do it. That's because the things that have real value are kept a very much guarded secret by those who have the power and the money. It doesn't work when everybody knows about it.
While I can't bear it when people can't spell or communicate in a way that makes what is said or written understandable, that is a personal preference. It is not necessary in order to be able to spell or communicate in order to learn things like engineering.
There are schools in India where old women in the fields are taught the principles of engineering and they do just fine!
Essentially, the class system has never left us. It just changed names. So now we don't have princes and kings anymore. We just have CEOs and Media Moguls...
It's also interesting to note that while there are the exceptions, most of the people who are rich came from rich parents. Statistically, anyway!
So, we're all screwed! Educated we might be - but broke we are also.
yep, I'm educated and broke. I still haven't paid off a debt from doing a teaching diploma over a decade ago. If I had 'known myself' better, I wouldn't have bothered even doing it.
The wealthiest people in my family are the tradespeople. They're all have their own house (guess it helps they are all builders). The rest of us will probably pay rent till we die. My hubby turns 40 this year, and he feels it's very unjust that he's worked hard all his life and has had nothing to show for it. Meanwhile, his sister married someone that made a lot of money, and lives a very spoilt existence.
Of course, we only feel like losers that we haven't bought a house, because buying a house was the thing to do in NZ/Australia, and until the last decade or so, houses were more affordable. Their perceived value has way exceeded any real value.
The human brain is programmed to learn from experience, and part of experience is believing things when they are repeaated over and over again. There is a vested interested in getting people to get an education because it makes a lot of money for a lot of people who are teaching - the ones at the top.
It works for all things. Tell people that homes are an asset and they will get rich through them, and they'll buy them. Tell them that they're second class citizens if they don't buy a home, and they'll buy them.
Few people have the aility to withstand constant conditioning.
Right now, I'm reading a book that is making me angry.
There are things I've been saying for years and every time I say them, the status quo gets angry with me because, if it's true, they're in deep waters. Yet, it is true, and so much of that has started happening over the past few years. And it'ts going to get worse.
So, too late to fix up the past. Have to prepare for what is coming. Not nice.
"While not endorsing the particulars of the Harvard report, Secretary Duncan noted the importance of transforming career and technical programs, in which more than 15 million high school and postsecondary students are enrolled.
The United States can learn from other countries, particularly in northern Europe, Professor Schwartz says. In Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland, for instance, between 40 and 70 percent of high-schoolers opt for programs that combine classroom and workplace learning, many of them involving apprenticeships. These pathways result in a “qualification” that has real currency in the labor market.
But higher education doesn’t have to mean a traditional college degree, the report notes and the Obama administration acknowledges. Many of the growing career fields actually require credentials other than a bachelor’s or associate’s degree."
The reality is unless one pursues an entrepreneurial avenue, they still need a formal education. Whether in a specific field of work: Ie. vocational/tech school, or college degree. It's not going to change anytime soon.
You fail to point out that education in two of those countries is entirely free, all the way up to PHD level, so rather than simply having a system which embraces vocational style courses it also avoids a culture in which people can effectively buy themselves an education and subsequently a career. Those two countries are Denmark and Norway, education is also free in Sweden. Those countries also open up the doors to holders of any EU passport, effectively creating a highly competitive environment in which dozens of applications are submitted for each university place. The result of opening up external competition (I even know Brits who have moved to Scandinavia to study for free) is an environment whereas only the most capable and intelligient students obtain a degree rather than less capable individuals being allowed in to make up the numbers or boost the bottom line. The UK and US model still very much depends on the quality of the education that your mother and father could afford you as a child, at least that is very much the case with the top universities (asides from token scholarships). These countries have the perfect ideology in that it sees education as beneficial to society and a right which is earnt, rather than as just another profitable industry or a form of discrete elitism.
I'm on such a program in Germany. It involves 9 months of workplace learning, and 3 months of college each year for three years. Everything is paid for by my employer (including accomodation while I'm away at college), and I am paid quite well, considering I'm a trainee.
When I left school in the late 1970s this kind of scheme was commonplace here in the UK. Many of my friends and relations benefitted from the old-fashioned apprenticeship schemes. They were a great way to learn, both on the job, together with relevant day release of part-time college courses thrown in. We're beginning to see a revival of this type of thing, but we need much more.
In Britain we've been headed down the self-same road for some while now. There are degrees for just about everything. Children are actively pursued throughout their education with the sole aim of getting them into a University place after they finish secondary education. Three or four years later they graduate, usually with a massive student debt round their necks, only to find that the only jobs available to them are the ones they could very easily have done if they had left school at 16.
I would argue that the problem with over-subscription is an environment in which you need a degree to get a job which a bright 16 year old could quite fill, and that is largely at the expense of those who do not stay in education. In order to get a job which ten years ago would have been a "graduate job" is now a job which requires a masters, so in my opinion the complete opposite problem. It is near-impossible for a 16 year old to get a job, and we have 1 million unemployed 16-24 year olds, holding a degree is effectively worthless now. Our previous government sought to send 50%, an astonishing amount of people, to university - in the full knowledge that there were never going to be enough skilled jobs to cater for even a fraction of them.
Ryan, I have two school aged children. I never went to University (to my knowledge, only three out of my large, Comprehensive school year group actually did) Because of this, I always intended my kids to have the education I missed out on. Now, however, I'd sooner they got straight out into the work-place than end up in debt with some worthless, token qualification. The previous government swept into power with education as their biggest priority. Their continual timkering with the status quo has resulted in a target and profit driven education system whose much vaunted successes are little more than smoke and mirrors.
Which was my point really, that 'education' has become a strategy rather than a right, driven by targets and statistics.
I actually believe that university can be a highly valuable experience which can better the student, if they want to learn. The harsh reality is that many of my peers on the degree that I completed in 2009 were at university because they just didn't want to work.
Others were there because they believed it was a key which would unlock the door to greater earnings potential. I was there for neither of those reasons, I wanted to learn about my area of chosen study, I was never under any illusions and was fully aware prior to starting my course that some of my friends would earn more money by becoming electricians or plumbers.
I am not overly critical of the former government, because their intentions were to open up the right to an education for all, I wouldn't have been able to afford to go to university if I were 15 or 16 now, seeing as the pendulum has swung full circle and returned to a system of elitism. There is no middle ground, it seems.
As much as I bemoan the 'debt', I don't actually consider £15,000 at rock bottom interest rates, with no ability to impact on my credit rating, and which is wiped out after 30 years if it hasn't been repaid, to be a 'debt' in its true form. It is proven that the average graduate will earn more over the course of their lifetime, and student debt under the current model actually falls in real terms without any payments being made. In hindsight I see little wrong with that system.
It is the new system which I am uncomfortable with, as it effectively limits access to an education to the wealthy. It would be easy for me to think along purely selfish lines and welcome a change in a system which will see less graduates, and thus ensure that my qualification is more valuable in the long run.
Want to know what I really believe? I see education as a right, something which should be entirely free, and it is more the fault of the graduate for approaching education as a financial investment. I did not attend university to make money, society benefits from genuine education - not by a "cash for certificates" system. The Scandinavians have pursued this model for years, and it is no coincidence that they sit amongst the wealthiest countries in the world when looking at GDP per capita. I would be happy for EVERY person to attend university, anybody who has bought into the idea that there degree will make them money has seen education as an industry rather than as a concept which sits alongside 'culture' or even 'health' or 'love'.
School and college are not needed for a person to become a bright individual.
My school was a big time melting pot, over 50% black(I'm white). I know to know and befreind mostly everyone. Every race was there, and to me that was the best thing that could have happened to me. The education I received was mediocre. Mainly it was my fault for lack of caring.
Your 'brightness' shows in one's writing and ability to range that power over a multitude of subjects - Well... And how you rise above hardship and those who tell you that you won't achieve!
I failed completely at school as I found girls, parties and comp surfing to be far more enjoyable.
People respond to learning differently and the only person that I found that I could learn best was me... at the coal face.. in the hardest mines.. Self Education, Confidence and the ability to Never Listen to Negative People has allowed me to achieve everything I have wanted to achieve in my life.
I enjoyed our high school reunion... I was the only past student (and the staff) with a Porsche
I learn the best when I learn something all on my own. All the hardest things I have learned, like web skills, how to make websites and so on, I did completely on my own.
To me, sitting in a classroom for years is a colossal waste of life. Heck I'd rather be shipped to an island with a computer.
I see so many parents spending tens of thousands of dollars on their kids to go to school and when they are done they will still know nothing. What a waste.
1.With degree people learn how to approach research, market and method of doing things in specific domain.
2. If any person is without degree and have no way to access current tools of research then 99% chances are there that they'll reinvent the same stuff in respective domain. Taking college/uni degrees avoid this 're-inventing' and 'band-aid' approach to research or in short getting things done.
I can tell you for sure people who have no clue what's really going on in engg stream can top in exams. Educational system today is completely commercialized and everyone is after grades/jobs associated with the degree. So hacked up version of educational system doesn't mean system is useless. There are some streams of education which you can approach without degree but 'research' field in engg domain always requires degree/formal education or else mythology professors can babble about biology research and people do exist in this world to buy it.
With respect, I could hardly understand what you were saying here as you have run on sentences, appear to have words left out, and I have no idea what 'engg' is.
huh, what did you just write?
Oh, the "I have an engineering degree" line! Ok, now I understand. It's a cold dark secret that most experienced engineers when assembled together would probably have an IQ of under 80. They have become so specialized in their one little scientific area that they're completely incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone communicating. I know many engineers who would be incapable of even showing up to work semi-presentable if not for their wives, or their mothers. . .
Which part of my post you find less clear for your short rant ?
Nowhere my intention was to boast my degree. You got the wrong vibe because you're searching for it in this thread. Your type of trolls are not new on this forum.
Cold dark secret ? Ooh, you need to post your rants on wikileaks.
That applies to almost every professional(specialized) degree. Those who put more efforts to learn about their chosen field are likely to miss out on many other parts. I don't think this is in any way wrong. If you feel so then that is your problem and not mine. Is that your objection, genius ?
Skyfire, you might you an engineering degree, but your way of expressing yourself is extremely difficult to read.
You leave out entire words and you jump from one thing to another without any indication that there is a change in direction.
For instance, your sentence, "Nowhere my intention was to boast my degree."
It should read, "Nowhere was it my intention to boast about my degree." It's extremely difficult to read as you have written it. I had to read your post three timesbefore I even got the gist of it.
I think college degree is a good start but not necessarily a good end.
I found that people with degree (I meant good degree not mickey mouse one) could solve job and personal problem more systematically compared to one that not.
Not all degree holder are successful, but the fact that they are a little bit 'more knowledgeable' than average makes them a level higher above others.
You must be joking. Either that, or you haven't come into contact with people like Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and all the other people who haven't got degrees.
Yes, and the only peerople who suffer from it are those with degrees... I suppose one has to have something to prove that one is better than others.
Please don't assume that everybody with a degree believes that it makes them better than others, I am sure that my own comments on this thread demonstrate that quite clearly. Snobbery exists in all walks of life, whether it relates to the brand of car that people own or their BMI, it isn't the reserve of graduates.
That is true. However to try and find a job without one is a nightmare. The presumption amongst all those in Human Resources are that if one doesn't have a degree, then one cannot be up to the job.
I explained my situation to a San Diego TV Station Manager, He said that editors didn't give a damn about writing or jouranalism degrees. They wanted to see the writing (which is the system I grew up in). He said that it was HR who insisted.
Essentially, those of us without four year degrees are screwed in the market place because it is assumed we have neither an education nor a brain.
I do take your point, though. I meet people from all walks of life, some with degrees, some without. It's the character that is important.
You know what is the different between Bill Gates and Richard Branson and degree holders?
Bill and Richard create job but others looking for job. They create a job for themselves first then hire others including degree holders.
So if you admire Bill and Richards then you better create a job for yourself..
trying to find a job with qualifications can be a nightmare too - I get told I'm overqualified. I don't want to tell them all the details of my health issues etc.
Yes Pcunix, with all respect many non-degree holders suffer chronic inferiority complex too.
Oh, come on, I said about on average or in general.
You take 10 college graduate and compare it to 10 no degree holder then you would know what I meant about the average.
So you say Bill Gates, Richard Branson etc? They are exception i.e. one in many thousands if not hundred thousands.
I did not say people with no degree are useless but in my 'experience' people with degree are a little 'better' in several ways but not all ways. That was my experience, maybe your experience is different.
And my point was -
"I think college degree is a good start but not necessarily a good end. "
Bill Gates and Richard Branson are certainly not exceptions to the rule, it is a well known fact that non-graduates are much more likely to to become self-made millionaires as a result of graduates increased adversity to risk. The vast majority of self-made millionaires in the UK did not go down the uni route, amongst other successful people include:
In fact, just look at this list of the top 100 most successful self-made Bristish entreprenuers, where you will see that almost all left school at 16 or 18. The level of your academic achievement has absolutely no correlation at all to projected wealth, and if anything those who study at a uni are geared towards jobs, jobs, jobs. They are always talking about jobs. At school too, it was all jobs, jobs, jobs. At no stage do they encourage out of the box thinking, they want to turn you into the perfect robot for a specific role.
Sorry but you are wrong with that one.
How can I wrong? I did not say anything about entrepreneur. I said my experience, also I did not said my 'cannot be argued opinion'.
I just want to share my experience, I am certainly not 'wrong' if my experience is not similar with yours.
Sorry but you are wrong with that one.
they come up with their own way of doing things - not clones churned out
@albc, the research shows repeatedly that successful entrepreneurs do not have degrees. And it takes far more problem solving ability to create and run a business than it does to get a degree. For the record, average I.Q. is 100 (although in America it's 98). One can obtain any doctorate with 119. The average I.Q. of most people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson, according to some research I read about 15 years ago is 140. World wide, there are a lot more successful business people than there are college graduates.
Is that so?
And my point (in my first comment) was -
"I think college degree is a good start but not necessarily a good end. "
Did I hurt you in anyway?
I think that I don't understand why you made that point. In the way we learnt to present information in the education system I grew up in, we didn't deviate from the main point. We didn't go off point.
As the discussion was about the excessive number of degrees (and not the necessary ones), if one wanted to put your sentence into the context of what was being spoken about, then one had to assume you were saying that all college degrees were a good start.
I don't think so.
I disagree with this statement entirely, and that is coming from somebody with a top level undergraduate degree from a UK university.
I would sooner jump off of a bridge than subscribe to a notion that I am somehow a "level higher above others", purely because these others chose not to pursue a university education.
Personally I see education as nothing other than a means of self-improvement, it should be about your own personal development and the personal development of others should not come into that in any form.
A cab driver, to use the same example, will often have far greater verbal communication skills than a typical graduate as a result of constant social interaction.
As an example, I am happy with the positive changes in my own way of thinking during my time at university, I also benefitted from a growth in my personal confidence. That doesn't make me a better thinker than a non-graduate, neither does that make me more confident than a non-graduate, it simply makes me a better thinker than my pre-degree self and a more confident individual than my pre-degree self.
This is where the entire system fails, an arrogant belief that holding a degree makes you somewhat superior to others; to me this is the way that the money men at the top of education want you to think, that you are buying yourself superiority. I didn't buy that, I never have, thank goodness; instead I took my own positives out of the situation.
Moreover, self education for the sake of pure knowledge often leads to far deeper understanding than that which was suffered through only for the sake of obtaining that piece of paper.
I was introduced to the concept of deep learning, surface learning and strategic learning in my second year of study. I was encouraged to develop my learning techniques accordingly, and upon reflection realised that I was very much a 'strategic learner'. In other words, I attempted merely to fulfill all requirements of assignments or examinations in order to achieve as high a grade as possible. For my final year and a half of study I adopted a deeper approach, one in which I would study to achieve personal learning objectives rather than merely grades. I must have attended an instition with integrity, because I am sure that many care about nothing other than the grades.
Do you know what happened? I was on course for an upper second in the middle of my second year at uni, and that was with so called 'strategic learning'. After adopting a deeper approach, in which I sought to truly develop my knowledge, I finished my degree with the highest grade out of anybody on the degree. I walked away with a First class degree (it goes first, upper second, lower second, third, fail). So I didn't lose faith entirely in the system, not at my university, we were certainly encouraged to reject the grade culture in favour of personal learning objectives and the few who generally made this switch were ultimately rewarded and enriched.
That said, it was far too easy for people to achieve upper second class honours without any attempt to reject surface or strategic learning, and that does devalue my achievement somewhat.
Sorry - I just have to point this out:
You are replying with an argument against someone with a degree being "a level higher above others" and yet you consider your college/university educated self "better" than your pre-educated self.
Please explain the difference....
It seems to me that what albc is saying is Some people with degrees are better equipped to solving problems.
I would add: and some people without degrees are capable of being productive members of society.
I for one definitely consider my uni-educated self to be better than my pre-uni self. Why? Because before I went to uni, I thought I knew everything. I was top or near top of my class in every subject (except sport ). But when I went from my all-girls' grammar school to the mostly male environment of Imperial College, I had the shock of my over-sheltered life. I found that there were people who were (a) a lot brighter than me and (b) a lot harder working. It wasn't pleasant, but it did me a lot of good, looking back.
However, there are certainly people who spend three years at uni and graduate with a massively inflated sense of their own importance - they think they're too good to do any of the grunt jobs that anyone starting at the bottom of the career ladder is expected to do.
Like a lot of the people here, I scratch my head in bafflement over the government's policy of encouraging 50% of school leavers to go to uni. Perhaps it's a way of massaging the unemployment statistics, or of sucking as many people as possible into a debt culture. Or perhaps it's just misguided egalitarianism (which in reality, is anything but egalitarian. But that's political correctness for you).
You are more than welcome to cut and paste and twist if that pleases you, there is a clear difference between my statement and his; my relates to my own personal development, his relates to an opinion that degree holders are superior to non-degree holders. His latest post, which I am about to reply to, is also a complete load of bulls poop.
I was merely looking for an explanation because it appears to me you are saying essentially the same thing. The only difference (to me) is you are speaking for yourself while albc is speaking for the whole. (or a majority of the whole)
Obviously, I could be wrong. But if you came out of college as a "better" person why couldn't the same apply to others? If others come out of college "a step above the rest" doesn't that apply to you as well?
I'm not meaning to argue, I only wanted an explanation to a perceived contradiction, but I also disagree with your claim that albc holds the opinion of degree holders being superior to non-degree holders. I don't believe that's what albc meant.
You appear to have answered your own question, you identify quite correctly that we both have different perceptions of the meanings of his post. That should be all that you need to know to explain the "percieved contradiction". There is your answer, you percieve the contradiction not me.
Moving swiftly on from an argument which is only ever going to go around in circles, I am happy to explain why I object to any form of elitism when it comes to academic achievement, this should also be 'percieved' as a response to critics who have mentioned IQ in this thread. Howard Gardner has a widely accepted theory that there are seven measures of intelligience, these are Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Spatial, Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal. Only three of those measures relate to IQ in any way. Unfortunately on Hubpages we most often encounter people that believe that they are somehow superior as a result of their strong Linguistic skills, many of whom could quite possibility be inferior to subsequent 'victims' in all other six measures of intelligience.
Ultimately, my point is that whilst I possess strong Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical and Spatial skills, the three measures of intelligience linked to IQ and the ones which I relied on most heavily throughout my studies, I seriously lack in other areas. I certainly don't have great Interpersonal skills, whilst somebody with a relatively low IQ could still be considered a genius if they are particularly gifted in that area or any other one of the seven areas. Those with especially strong Interpersonal skills become the best leaders, great managers of people, and potentially top sales people. Obtaining a degree does not buy you a natural ability, it only develops areas in which you already possess ability.
Whilst my Interpersonal skills improved at university, that would explain why some of the best talkers that I have ever met have been cab drivers or hairdressers; we all have varied degrees of intelligience, life is about finding a way to fit you skills into the giant jigsaw which is the world, not obtaining certificates to be used as status symbols. In my humble opinion, which I am entitled to.
(I agree with your final humble opinion, which you are entitled to )
I wonder why you refuse to explain the difference between what you say and albc says, which is what I asked to begin with. Or do you feel no explanation is needed because you don't see the problem?
"I did not say people with no degree are useless but in my 'experience' people with degree are a little 'better' in several ways but not all ways."
I simply do not agree with any notion that anybody is "better" than anybody else, unless applied to a specific skill, in which case that skill may not be directly related to a degree - as emphasised in my example of meeting cab drivers with sublime interpersonal skills.
"Not all degree holder are successful, but the fact that they are a little bit 'more knowledgeable' than average makes them a level higher above others."
Are degree holders neccessarily more knowledgeable than non-degree holders? In what? General knowledge? Most graduates float through university having parties and doing the occassional all-nighter to meet a deadline with a substandard rehashed piece of work. They may gain some knowledge in a specific area, but often this knowledge is no greater than that which could be gained through hands on experience of the working environment in a non-graduate position.
Many graduates go into positions knowing how to talk the talk but never having walked the walk, often it is a rude awakening. In fact, I know employers who don't touch fresh graduates, as often they walk into an interview at 21 years old having no work experience with an arrogant know it all attitude; effectively thinking that they are the dogs bollocks.
I never gained that ignorant attitude as a result of working full time in a relevant environment before studying, there were plenty of non-graduates working alongside me who knew more about my subject area before my degree than I did by the time I had finished it.
I think I have made a very natural statement there yet Ryankett said I am wrong LOL!
@Ryankett. I think that is what education is. Broadening the mind in order to have clearer and better perspectives of the world around one. I suppose, I just differ between qualifications (for work) and education for self growith. I also believe in life long learning.
my husband does not have formal qualifications and has worked as a storeperson and truck driver. I've had a few people that didn't know him find it surprising I was married to someone 'without qualifications'.
He has better social skills than me, more stamina, is more practical and more employable. He's usually been paid more than me too.
My experience with most degree holders has been the opposite. Most people with degrees have not a single creative bone in their bodies and are stuck in linear thinking patterns. I would hardly constitute this as a higher intellectual level. I would call this average at best.
Granted, there are a lot of people without college who are plain dumb. The levels of intelligence between people without college is usually either extreme. The reason for that is college is the place to go for mediocrity. If you're below average, you can't get into college. If you're well above average, you'll find it impossible to fit into college (but you'll probably be a college drop out because you feel compelled to try).
It strikes me as counter productive to go into dept for an education that might or might not lead to a well paying job. For thsoe headed to high paid professions it might be a good investment. for us liberal arts types it would merely mean starting out a career deep in debt.
the worst part is that todays education might not be a real education at all but an indoctrination.
Perhaps the only 'indoctrination' is the belief that a degree will buy you a sounder financial future? This is the problem I feel, that education has become too directly linked to desire for financial gain and not for the love or joys of a topic or area of interest.
Had I gone to University, I would probably have studied either fine art or art history. Neither would have guaranteed me a career path other than possibly teaching. To undertake an arts degree is possibly more self-indulgent than sensible, sadly.
It doesn't have to be self-indulgent or financially rewarding, it can purely be a means of greater knowledge in an area of interest. In the area of arts though, unless you want to become a critic or historian, you can't buy yourself talent - you are either artistic or you are not, I am certainly not
That is why an 8 year old is making millions of pounds a few miles away from me, you can't be an 8 year old lawyer. Isn't he amazing though? Can't remember his name but I'm sure you know who I am talking about.
The definition of genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration! To an extent I agree with you (super-talented 8 year olds aside!), Ryan, but art is still a 'learnt' skill that can be acquired through practice. You have to actually want to do it though, and not everybody does....
I would argue that it is a 'developed' skill rather than a learnt one, I don't think that I could ever learn enough about art to become even semi-competant In other words, there probably isn't enough artistic flair in my mind, body or soul to develop. I doubt I am even past the stick-man stage.
That said, I can do technical drawing, drawing board stuff, that was a skill that I had no choice but to develop in my first job after school (I worked for two years pre-uni).
You know yourself best, but I would also argue that some of the most successful artists are more talented at self-promotion than skilled in craft. That's a whole other debate though!!!
That is very true, some of the stuff that I saw at MOMA in New York was certainly something that a typical 3 year old could produce. I haven't been to the Tate modern but I suspect there is stuff like that there too. Anybody can get a paint brush and splash paint over a piece of white canvas, put it that way
I can't agree.
I have serious difficulties with spatial relationships. It probably comes from severe astigmatism that was not noticed until I was well into my first years of school. I don't recognize faces as easily as most people, I can't judge what will fit in a box as accurately and so on. That part of my brain simply never got what it needed when it was forming.
I can't appreciate art very much for the same reason. I can't "do" it, either.
I never want to stop learning, but I no longer want formal education - assignments, someone else telling me what I need to learn etc. I like being self-directed - learning about what I want to learn about. Of course, my love of learning does not necessarily translate to career success
I agree.The trouble is that getting a job is what is propagandized to young people who don't know anything about finances but encouraged by the government andothers to risk huge debt on what is a gamble for many.Additionally they can't even go bankrupt.It should be approached like a business decision and calculate the realistic chances of improving ones income in relation to the debt acquired.
The American system is definitely different from the European system of education. I know the Irish system (we lived in Ireland for a year)fairly well. Tertiary level education is free in Ireland, but applicants must have a certain test score on the Leaving Certificate (the equivalent of a high school diploma). Individuals who didn't score well on the Leaving Cert could not attend, but were allowed to obtain vocational certification in a trade.
In the equivalent of the American 10th grade, 15 year old kids were allowed to take a "leaving year" and apprentice to various places of employment. This option was open to those on the university path as well as those on a vocational path. Our in vitro diagnostic company had a few apprentices, and it was an excellent system. The kids were able to work alongside their mentors in the workplace, and were able to learn whether that career path was truly what they desired. In addition, the leaving year made their education more relevant to the real world.
The United States is trying to turn nearly everything into a four year degree: nursing (RN) is currently a 3 year program, but there is a push to require a bachelor's degree for nursing. Will this improve the quality of the nursing program? It is highly doubtful - it will, however, move nursing programs to the universities from the community colleges, and require a substantial amount of debt for those desiring to obtain a nursing degree.
Degrees are certainly needed for some careers - I wouldn't want my otolaryngologist to practice without advanced training. My hairdresser, on the other hand, certainly doesn't need one!
The article doesn't say that a college degree is not needed; it says, maybe not necessary for everyone. Some do very well without one if they have the smarts and the connections to make something happen.
The US is a huge country which is being compared to much smaller countries.
The two year degree can make all the difference for someone pursuing a decent career. With unemployment as high as it is, those with degrees are often hired before someone without one.
Even with degrees, people are having a rough time, but I don't think that can qualify as the degree being of no value, or unnecessary.
You are quite right. However, countries like Germany only have 10% of their students go to University;. The others go to trade schools, hotel schools, serve apprenticeships (i.e. learn while they work for which they are paid), etc.
Nobody is talking about not learning a trade or a method of earning a living. It is that the value of many degrees, don't give one a marketable skill.
85% of students never use their degrees after they leave college. They do something else.
many people with trades have earnt way more money than people with degrees
@Baileybear. I think that is true. The point is that many leave university with an 'education' but no skills. That is the prime reason that 85% of university students don't go into the fields that they studied for. That, and the fact that the market place doesn't need a million liberal art degrees, etc.
On the other hand, plumbers and electricians are always needed. Also, many of these jobs can be taught during the school years - as they used to be.
I think the powers that be decided in the 60s that more people needed an 'education' in order to make them nice, civilized human beings...
My degree set me up to become an analytical chemist. Only thing was NZ didn't have many labs in industry requiring chemists, just lab technicians. So I was a lab rat. On the plus side, I did gain better organisational & practical skills. So I did a degree where there was no real jobs. So, that's where I feel I've been sold a lie.
I'm working with multiple foreign languages on/off the web and this unclarity in my posting is because i'm non-native english member of hubpages. My first reply was to point out that there are professional streams where you do need degrees. That's all, i don't want you to read more into that reply.
Feel free to ask moderators to remove my all replies if it's bothering you. I'm done with your thread. I'll keep this in mind so that my brainwashed reply will not appear in future threads of yours.
The OP of the post was never that some American degrees didn't have value. That is understood. The point is that most of them can be done by a 16 year old with no education. And that the majority of these degrees are not necessary in order to do the job and that they don't educate people.
leave skyfire alone, glasses houses and kettles and all that
I think you are saying that many american degree programs don't directly prepare the student for a specific career. I do not think you would find much agreement that any school "dont educate people."
Education and Training are not synonymous.
@Sunforged. Don't follow you.
What has glass houses got to do wth anything. I'm not in a glass house throwing stones. And I have no idea what you mean by kettles.
Respectfully, your sentences aren't grammatical so I find it difficult to understand what you mean.
A part of education is being able to clearly express oneself so that others can understand what is being said.
Sorry, Sunforged. Not being malicious or anything, but I really don't understand what you are saying.
I understood it perfectly fine. Kettle, by the way, referred to the phrase "pot calling the kettle black".
Yes, I understiood you wee saying that. But I don't understand why you're saying that.
I don't see any connection betweeen my position that people the level of job training and education at most universities is dismal and that many other countries have superb job training without going to university.
Now ain't that calling the Kettle black?!
A part of education is being able to not only express yourself but also to understand others who have an equal right to express themselves.
Throughout your posts I get the impression that you feel you are superior to others in regard to education.
I had originally thought this would be an interesting conversation, one I had an expressed interest in, however, I wont be back for more insults to non-native English speakers and insults to people who clearly are capable of expressing themselves in a more polite manner than I've witnessed from you.
@ Rafini, I'm not a native English speaker either. Neither of my parents were English. One was German and one was Afrikaans.
When someone points out that my English is garbled, I go back and fix it up, and then I apologize.
I don't feel insulted and belittled.
Everybody makes typos at times especially when one is typing at speed.
I merely asked him to write what he had to say in a clear way so that I understood what he had to say and could respond appropriately.
I'm sorry if you, and others, understood otherwise.
As I have said above, if someone tells me my English is garbled and my meaning is not clear, then I apologize, rewrite it, and go from there.
I wan to correct something here.
I use my 12 years of schooling as an example. It was the same as everyone else's.
The point is that what is taught at college today used to be taught in the first 12 years of school. Much of what is taught at college level today was taught for the first 75 years of the 20th century during the first 12 years of school.
I don't understand why it now takes 21 or 22 years to teach people what used to be taught in the first 12 years of school. It was also taught a lot better.
That is the point of what I am saying.
Ask any babyboomer and they will tell you that the system has been dumbed down incredibly. What they mean by that is that they learnt a lot more a lot earlier than is done today.
It's actually more than possible to start training for a career at 14 or 15 and be ready for work when one leaves school. For many people this is preferable than spending years at university to learn the exact same thing and go into debt.
In my youth, one could go to nursing school at 16 and be finished by 19.
I think that in the first two years in college they just repeat the basic of what you have learned all along. All college students need to finish the first two years before specialization. This is what I call lengthening of years to stay in college (for profit purposes). Education became an institution of capitalistic endeavor.
The type of economy and technology are driving the deeper specialization of disciplines, just like for example before we don't have courses such as Electronic Communications Engineering or Computer Engineering, now we have those, Marine engineering etc. to cater to the more specialized and highly technical scientific disciplines.
Also with social sciences they are branching out in lieu of the changing paradigms and world view. They are also widening and increasing disciplines. Department in different universities continue to expand.
Specialization in labor produced all sorts of different courses.
Sometimes a foreman is more knowledgeable against the civil engineer but of course we need licensed one to certify the building etc.
I think also within family, success is measured by gaining a higher education and it is believed that society places a high value for people who have the degrees. And for you to become rich, (as in this economy), it is believed that you need to be on the top level positions (specially in corporate offices, manufacturing, indistries, education sector) which require college degree, masteral or even Ph.Ds
Living, interaction with others, social occasions, time with family, leisure downtime, hobbies, discovering through formal and informal education, and employment and/or entrepreneurism = awesome education (I may have left out some aspects of life, yet not by intention)
still the highest paying jobs are : doctors and all related specialization - internists - pediatrician, OB-GYNE, general medicine, surgeons,dentists, oral surgeons, computer management, information analysts etc, marketing managers, chemists, pharmacists, lawyers, CEOs are all careers and need further education. They are also considered above middle class. They have higher social status as well and their jobs are more stable - meaning recession or no recession they are least affected,
Skilled workers and businessmen/enterpreneur need no further education. Per hour wages are higher comparing to others but they are considered lowly jobs by our society who ascribed higher status to people with degrees. Sad but true.
Well, for writers if you knock it off you will become rich and you don't need higher education to become good at it.
I'm afraid education snobery has plagued the world of writing as well. Trust me, any kid graduating from Ivy league is entitled to at least one book getting published, whether they have the skills or not. I've experienced this first hand as well.
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
InstancesSince the 1970s, it has been said that the regular bacculaurate degree has become equivalent to a regular high school diploma. In the late 1970s, many college graduates, especially those with...
by Riece14 months ago
The common wisdom is that you should go to college, get a good education, and find a job afterwards and you will be financially successful. Isn't that an outdated concept? The average college grad is unemployed for two...
by Danielle Lopez Newcomb3 years ago
With the rising cost of tuition, increased debt amongst young adults, and the low job rate, is college even necessary anymore? Too many college graduates are unable to find jobs and have a large chunk of school debt...
by globaltechsource13 months ago
Average tuition at four-year public colleges in the U.S. climbed 6.5 percent, or $429, to $7,020 this fall as schools apologetically passed on much of their own financial problems, according to an annual report from the...
by Grace Marguerite Williams11 months ago
There should be more stringent standards in high school for college and/or university admission. Too many students attending colleges and/or universities in the United States are clearly unqualified to attend such...
by matherese5 years ago
What do you prefer would you send your child to university or college?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.