Is It Worth It To Go To College?
73
What Does a College Education Mean Today?
A college education is worth far less than it was a couple of generations ago for Baby Boomers. Many of the upper level business/ management positions are held by the older generation, who have a degree and 20+ years experience. Recent college grads can't compete with education and experience.
In fact, during a recession, it is the skilled trades that are coming out ahead. Business positions, mostly held by college degree holders, are at an all-time low with a downward spiral of hiring and a dramatic increase in lay-offs. Who is still thriving? The mechanic who fixes your car and the medical assistant who takes your temperature. Yes, these two professions require some schooling, but of a different nature; Technical or vocational schooling, which is typically a two year program and a lot easier on the pocket book than a four year Bachelor's Degree.
Suzie Orman
What's the Word on College?
Influential financial guru, Suzie Orman, states 'college is only worth it if you plan on being a doctor or lawyer. Technical or vocational programs give you a better return on investment.' Additional statements made by other professionals suggest that if you are in the bottom 40% of your high shcool graduating class, then forget about college, you probably won't graduate or you won't do well anyway.
There's a theory that people who are going to do well in life, are going to do it whether they attend college or not.
Some are saying college is a joke and in today's market, it is little more than having a certificate in woodworking- worthless. College graduates are feeling betrayed. Didn't we all hear the constant mantra of 'Go to college' from teachers, parents, and employers? And now our president- elect, Obama, who has made the well-known statement about making college possible for everyone. That doesn't seem like it will improve the value of college if everyone can get a degree. What about htose of us with student loan debt- we paid big bucks for nothing. We're already seeing the backlash of too many grads. Ok, so we went to college, now what?
A recent tv program had some college graduate guests on to say that their degree only got them an impossible amount of debt. One graduate, with a Master's Degree was working at a call center making $10 an hour. With today's economy people are better off staying in college, hiding there away from the ugly real world of lay-offs and debt.
College and education statistics argue that those who attend and graduate college will make more money (up to 1 million dollars) in their lifetime than those who do not have degrees. However, the statistics are scewed by million/billion dollar college grads like Donald Trump and Bill Gates. And then we're back to the arguement that the super successful people would have made it anyway, degree or not.
What do Different Types of Colleges Offer?
Technical and vocational schools are gaining popularity. These schools educate for less money than a typical university, and students end up making much more money than university grads upon entering the job market- a great return on investment. The caveat is these positions usually require some manual labor, which can be hard on the body after years of this profession.
In my opinion, I thought a Bachelor (or higher) degree would help people get out of the labor industry. I got my degree because I didn't want to be a waitress, it was getting hard on my body, even during my twenties. But I was shocked to learn that upon graduating from college, I was only eligible for full-time jobs that paid far less than my part-time waitress gig. That's when it hit me that my degree was worthless. You can take it from my husband also, who has a college education, and is eomplyed by a man who never attended a day of college, but owns his own very successful business.
Ivy league colleges are great for the rich, who will attend college regardless of it's worth. Those colleges offer excellent networking with future employers and other wealthy influejtial indivuduals.
If you are going to attend the traditional university:
Make the most of your schooling itself, don't concentrate on the ultimate goal of claiming your piece of paper on graduation day- the degree doesn't mean anything to anybody anymore. Take it from an unemployed 4.0 college grad starting my own business. It's the skills you acquire from college that are worth something to future employers. Having a degree may get you in the door, but sell your skills beyond that point.
Some excellent skills you can pick up at universities are:
Public speaking, writing, researching, team dynamics and projects, time management, and working independently to reach personal goals and assignment deadlines.
Take advantage of internships, this is how I quickly landed a job upon graduating.
Instead of taking extra courses to achieve a minor, get certified in something else that offers some hands-on training. Many universities have certification programs.
Visit a career counselor regularly to stay on track and make sure the field you are seeking is something you want very badly, enough to be in debt over.
Is College Worth It?
See results without votingPrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Didn't Norman also say we should support the bank bailout? Personally, I wouldn't give her too much credence. She's in business and will therefore support their agendas.
Writer Rider~ I agree with you somewhat about Suzie Orman's advice, however, she is very influential and you can't ignore the fact that she's on Oprah, who is another influential person. You don't have to agreee with what she says, but many Americans watch Oprah and all the other shows that Orman appears on and these Americans may be listening to her. SHe may support business but she is 100% in the public eye with many people taking her advice.
Thisgirls opinion~ My college was funded mostly be finanical aid and therefore taxpayers, etc paid for my tuition so don't you think I'd like to contribute what I learned back to the community? Learning for the sake of learning is fine for ME, but I'm a self-learner and didn't need a degree if all I wanted was to learn more. What was the benefit of the taxpayer and government paying for me to go to college?
izetti-That's beyond the point. The point what are her intentions. Just because Oprah has her on her show doesn't mean that her intentions are pure.
Suzie's intentions are very self serving, but in this case she is correct from a financial perspective only. From a self improvement/self actualization perspective which are in fact valid human needs, there is a need to attempt and or complete college.
From a financial perspective, it is a bad deal if you fall into the categories quoted from Suzie. The cost of the education will hinder any and all attempts at financial independence later in life.
TMG
The Money guy~ Agree with you 100% on financial perspective vs. self-improvement. I think there is nothing better than reaching a goal if college is that goal, but the part that irks me is people being misinformed about college being the way (only way) to get a good job or make money. College usually isn't advertised as a form of self improvement, but rather a means to an end.Only way to tell is to poll people on why they are going to college, my bet it is for financial or career gain.
Writer rider~ you may have misunderstood me about Orman as far as a valid and reliable source of information. My point about her is that she could be wrong about everything, but since she is so publicized many people might interpret that as validity and I bet a ton of them are actually taking her advice. Not everyone, like yourself, is wise enough to not take her at face value and follow the crowd. Most Americans don't have a financial advisor so they listen up when somebody like her starts talking (a lot). The average American is desperately seeking financial advice right now and may not be as discriminating as to who is giving it to them.
If you watch her on an Oprah show she plays a rather convincing part as someone who wants to help Americans.
College is one of those things that depends on the person and what they want to do in life. As you said, today the "blue collar" jobs are coming out slightly ahead, but that can change.
Great piece!
RGraf- I think you bring up a good point about blue collar jobs coming out ahead right now "but that can change". The generations following the baby boomers swarmed the colleges and now that we/they are entering and establishing themsleves in the workforce, a degree has become commonplace. We may see a time soon in the future where people will not seek a college degree with such gusto as these last two or three younger generations and then maybe our $50,000+ education will hold some value- I hope to see that soon.
I believe that the primary reason to go to college is to get a better paying job or career. This is especially in today's world of very expensive college costs. Many of the student loans are never repaid because they are so large and the jobs these students landed after college didn't pay that well.
I don't believe that college graduates are smarter than their non college peers. At best they are more educated but that is a definition and not a comparison of intelligence.
I have over 250 college units and an advanced degree, so I am not saying these things because I didn't complete college. I always felt that academia was not responsive to the needs of industry. College needed be four years or even three years in duration, if high school requirements were upgraded. Much of the first year college courses are at the high school level but you pay college prices.
If we dispense with the side dishes and focus on the courses related to the students major, there would be less need to stretch the college education to 4 years. Yes, this is the way that technical schools operate. The problem is that they don't get the recognition from industry that is competitive with the traditional Greek and Roman education started many centuries ago.
My point is that education should be set in the K through 12 and that would give everyone with a high school diploma an opportunity to get jobs only offered to college graduates. Those students that go beyond high would be going to immerse themselves in a major that is geared to what industry needs from their educated applicants.
Each year a high school education falls further behind in technology, while industry leaps forward advancing that technology. The purpose of education is not to make you a well rounded person, it is to educate you for a better paying and more rewarding career. The problem with that is when you leave high school, you have no idea what you want to do work wise. Some high schools are progressive and try to close the gap or that uncertainty but these are the exceptions and not the norm.
There are many more issues on your topic but my comments address only a few of them.
issuesveritas- I love your comment! I agree on everything you said about high school especially. First year of college is more like charm school and high school combined. I had a friend who went through the first two years of college just to be "well-rounded" enough to be able to intelligently talk to and eventually marry a rich guy. I laughed at her silly scheme. On the other hand, I went through 5 years of college to get a better paying job. Guess whose laughing now? She married her wealthy guy so college actually paid off for her.
Thanks, I neglected that aspect of college and its use for success.
Perhaps that might be a curriculum addition to many colleges, or was that what they do in finishing school?
Our university system is different, we don't do a major, we study one thing for 3 years. I did 3 subjects from 16 to 18 for A levels (English lit, history, and geography) and a half subject (AS level) in physics. Then at university, I did law, and that was all I studied. The only time you do more than one is if you do a degree such as modern languages, or, as my uncle usefully did, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic.
London Girl,
Interesting, that would be three years of general education, that didn't pertain to a major. Law school here would be after an under graduate degree had been attained. Then there would be up to three years at law school for a JD (Juris Doctorate) degree.
I suspect that if you were going for an engineering degree, you A levels would be different.
Over here, you have under graduate (Bachelor of Science or Arts), masters and doctoral degrees.
For example, for an engineering curriculum, an under graduate BS Engineering, the an MS Engineering and finally a PHD Engineering. So the average worker in the engineering field would have a BS, while an engineering designer would have an MS degree. The PHD would most likely be in the pure research and development end of the field.
BTW, is there a national test at the university level?
Cheers,
That would be interesting to have a national university level test.
The first two years of college here are a complete waste of time, yet that's what seperates them from trade/vocational schools. I don't know anybody who has a generalist type job. most people specialize in one area or field so why, again, do we have the first two years of college because it's all "general" knowledge- waste of time and money.
I agree,
Instead the first two years would be better spent, if you could get college credit for working as an intern in the industry you would like to as your career. It would be a win win for student and industry as well as modernizing academia.
The general education was existent centuries before the technology explosion. The traditional education is apparently resists the explosion.
K to 12 that a lot of general knowledge.
Unfortunately, industry is using the archaic academia to select its workforced based on degrees.
I agree,
Instead the first two years would be better spent, if you could get college credit for working as an intern in the industry you would like to as your career. It would be a win win for student and industry as well as modernizing academica.
The general education was existent centuries before the technology explosion. The traditional education is apparently resists the explosion.
K to 12 that a lot of general knowledge.
Unfortunately, industry is using the archaic acadamia to select its workforced based on degrees.
"Interesting, that would be three years of general education, that didn't pertain to a major. Law school here would be after an under graduate degree had been attained. Then there would be up to three years at law school for a JD (Juris Doctorate) degree.I suspect that if you were going for an engineering degree, you A levels would be different."
Once you go to uni, you have picked a single course, really.
So in my first year at uni I did English Legal Systems, Contract & Tort I, Property I, and Public Law. In my second year, Contract & Tort II, Property II, Criminal Law, and European Law. And all of those first and second year subjects were set - no choice at all. In my third year, I did Jurisprudence, Law of Evidence, History of English Law, and Media Law. Only the first of those was compulsary.
Yes, had I wanted to do, say, medicine, I might well have done the A levels my flatmate did, biology, chemistry, maths, and further maths.
Here, we can specialise quite early on. From the ages of 14 to 16 (which is the minimum school leaving age) you study 7 - 10 subjects for GCSE, and study all for the whole period, with exams (nationally set and marked) at the end. I did the compulsary, at my school, Eng. Lit, Eng. Lang and Maths, chose German and Latin for languages, and also did history, music, classical civilisation, geography, and physics. Both my sisters did biology and chemistry, and fewer humanities.
"BTW, is there a national test at the university level?"
A national test in what? To get in, or graduate?
A levels are marked centrally, not by the school at all.
London Girl,
Thanks for the feedback.
A national test for getting out. We don't have one in the states but I wonder how the different colleges and universities can be judged when offering the same degrees. For example, BS in Electrical Engineering, any school offering this degree cannot have their graduates compared between schools, The higher ranked schools get more prestige with the same degree over say a state university.
Your comment on A levels marked centrally, is that national or regional.
Your law studies are similar to here with the exception of your local law and European Law. There are more electives and some additional basic law. There are courses in Equity, Constitutional Law, Conflicts of Law (which state's law apply in a multi-state case, trusts, wills, community property (Divorce Law), patent law and more. There are also studies in Procedural Law, Trial Law, Income Tax Law, Legal Research as well. And thanks to Watergate and Richard Nixon's lawyers that claimed they didn't know what they were doing was not legal, it is required at least in California to take Ethics.
I am aware that only Barristers go to trial in England, so for Solicitors, all they would need is an understanding of Trial Law and not the practice of it. All and all not a bad way to divide the legal system.
With fifty states in the US and each one having their own laws and procedures the bulk of studies are for the general law and then how the law is applied in the state. Each state has its own Law Test to become a lawyer in that state. Federal Law is uniform naturally across the nation.
I suspect that it would be closer to International Law in its scope.
Cheers,
issues veritas- I love your thoughts on all this. A national test to get out would be interesting because we may see that some of the higher priced colleges aren't producing smarter grads.
I got my Bachelors in psychology, but even my last two years were "general" courses within various fields of psychology. I would have focused on research psychology, but they only offered two such courses pertaining to that so the rest of my last two years were filled up with physiology, abnormal psych, organizational psych, clinical counseling, and other courses that were general in nature.
If I were to reorganize that 4 year degree I would have the first two years consisting of the courses I took the last two years. Then a specialized area of psychology the last two years. But we psychology majors know that if you want to work in the psychology field you must have at least a Masters, but usually a Doctorate degree.
My internship was what landed me a job out of college and not many students took advantageof internships- I think they should be mandatory and part of the regular curriculum.
I believe some areas of study, like psychology and law, are built that way within academia on purpose. You "must" get an advanced degree to work in the field. In America we think that those with an advanced degree are more competant because they have put in more years of study, but if we started with specialized studies as soon as we entered college- or before- we'd have the same level of competance and not necessarily the need for an advanced degree.
Londongirl- When I went to high school there was no mention about what we would do for a career, everbody just said "go to college". I believe that's why our first two years of college are general subjects because most students still don't know what they want to do. It's somewhere around the second year that we might pick a major area of study. If this career uncertainty was addressed in high school then we wouldn't need the first two years of college to decide what we want to be when we grow up.
I like a lot of things about your system much better than ours.
izetti and Londongirl,
I think, as they say the three of us are on the same page. One wonders where the rest of the world views the question oonsidered by the hub. But from your comments it appears to be one that is more than a national issue.
I appreciated the information presented by both of you in your comments. I hope that this hub gets more attention, especially from those students still in high school or those that have just entered college. To get feedback from those people that need some perspective about the worth of college. It is most likely a universal theme for parents ot want their children to go to college, as Londongirl was urged to do.
Thanks and cheers
A college degree is still important. Many companies won't look at you without a college degree--it's not just important for doctors and lawyers. It just doesn't give you the same edge that it used to. Having a graduate degree, or two, is what does that now. As far as experience goes, any college/graduate student can gain that through internships (as mentioned). I do agree that returns on that particular investment takes decades though.
lelahkimball- true a college degree gets you in the door- sometimes and depends on profession too. I had always heard from parents, school advisors, etc. that what you spent on your degree is what you should expect to make your first year- ie. if your higher education was $40-50k than your first year income should be in that range. That was a big lie or a bad rumor.
Equity, trusts and land law are all included in Property I and Property II. Wills, divorce, etc are options in the third year, not compulsary elements.
The practical side is covered in the year at Bar School (barristers) and Law School (solicitors). At Bar School the course covered advocacy, opinion writing, drafting, ethics, civil procedure, criminal procedure, etc. There were also a couple of optional subjects, and I did employment law and advanced criminal law in my final term.
For my LLM (masters degree) I could choose any law options I wanted over the year, and did International Human Rights, West European Legal History, Administrative Law, and Public International.
So we do four years of law, 3 at uni, and one year vocational. Then a year in pupillage, for barristers, and two years of a Training Contract, for solicitors, and then, finally, we are qualified. So a total of 5 years to be a barrister, minimum, and 6 to be a solicitor.
Four-year degrees are more common, so they can be less useful than they once were. In my opinion, if someone is going for the four-year degree they would be wise to go on past that, in order to get the most of it. Even if four-year-degrees aren't quite what they once were (job-market-wise), if someone goes for the education (and doesn't party and cheat their way to the degree), education is always worth it. If someone is "on the ball" it is possible to build financial success without a degree, but in this day and age it can be far more difficult. If someone isn't "on the ball" then a degree doesn't help him much in terms of financial success.
Suze Ormon is a "money lady", so (rightfully) all she tends to look at are numbers and dollar signs. In her PBS talk on women and money she essentially tells women not to follow their urges/wishes to help family with money because they'll end up with none later on. Numbers-wise she's probably right, but life isn't always about just how many dollars you leave to your family when you die (and sometimes - how "female" of me - it isn't even about whether you spend on something that doesn't pay for itself in time.
If you do what you should while in school, then the education is always worth it. On the other hand, if you're sharp and always learning well beyond what you "have to" learn to get a degree, you can probably figure out a way to be financially successful without a degree. If you think a degree alone will magically get you the best job, make you financially successful, and/or raise your IQ by 20 points; then you won't find the degree "worth it".
LisaHW- agreed on several points. Suzie Orman is extreme about viewing money logically, but I agree that many women don't think logically about many areas of their life and we always put others first so I think she is strongly urging women- or anyone- to cover their ass financially. If you don't have money then you can't help family sooner or later anyway.
THe first time I saw Orman was on a segment where a wife let her husband do all the family finances and he ended up committing suicide and left her with nothing- after previously living an extravagent life the woman had no idea the money ran out. THat is a great case and represents several wives who take a backseat position with family finances. Orman is just trying to get women to be smart and realistic about finances. Many women shop when stressed too so if Orman can convince women to be more logical about money, then that's an ok mission. The way the economy is now, we should be more concerned about the return-on-investment of purchases.
4 year colleges used to be a way to "weed out" the dummies or the ones who couldn't hack it, but now, like every institution, people cheat it and exploit it's main purpose. An employer may see your degree, but how do they know if you were the cheating partier or honestly intelligent.
Londongirl,
Thanks for the legal breakdown.
I can see some differences between the US and England in the law schools paths.
The civil and criminal procedure courses are part of the normal curriculum as are the equity, wills and trusts. Outside of some trial practice courses there is no separate path for trial attorneys.
Changing the subject of this hub a little to address the law school worth. Does law school prepare their students to be competent attorneys? I would have to say no. I don't particularly think that the Socratic method that was made famous in teaching law is that worthwhile in understanding how to be a competent lawyer.
As you know, to be competent as an attorney you have to specialize in an area of law. Law, like engineering just has too much information to be a competent Jack of all of them. It is the internship in law and medicine where the real learning is offered. Putting the question another way, could you practice law competently if you were just trained on the job. That is starting with a high school education and working your way up in a law office.
To compare the one the job only with the law school only, what would the caliber of students from both ways of learning the law be at the end of the time it took to graduate law schools? Say a minimum of three years.
This is just my opinion but I think that the on the job student would be far superior to the law school graduate. The on the job learning would be best at a large law firm that has several specialties of law practice.
I think the on the job approach would work for all careers that are non academic in nature. So for teachers, English and History majors etc. the formal education is more of a requirement because it is academia based.
This is part of my broader opinion that college is for learning how to make a living and finding a career. Going to college should be as much fun as going to work. If you can have fun at college and also learn then that is great. But between the two the learning is why you are paying a King's ransom to be there.
Vocational schools are setup for what I consider learning for a career. The problem that others have commented in this hub, is that employers still favor the traditional 4 year degree approach. My comment is that the employer doesn't really know how to select its workers. Human resources in most technical based products still rely on the college credentials even when a candidate has a substantial work experience in field. The work experience should be the deciding factor in their candidate selection. Again, my personal opinion.
If companies could get past the knee jerk of college credentials, then colleges can adapt their degrees to produce a more qualified work candidate.
Thanks again for your feedback.
Cheers
izetti.
your comment ---
4 year colleges used to be a way to "weed out" the dummies or the ones who couldn't hack it, but now, like every institution, people cheat it and exploit it's main purpose. An employer may see your degree, but how do they know if you were the cheating partier or honestly intelligent.
good one. :)
This interesting hub has spawned a great discussion as well, all credit to you!
The on-the-job part of the training is important, as well. That's what the year-long pupillage is about. You spend the first sixth observing your pupil master or pupil mistress in court, and the second sixth doing small hearing under supervision.
If you don't mind my saying so, there is more detail on this in my "training to be a barrister" hub.
Londongirl,
I just skimmed through your hub and it is on my reading list.
First glance, it looks interesting and informative.
I like the pupilage concept.
Thanks - glad you don't mind my mentioning it, but it is relevant.
I need to dig out a photo of me plus wig plus gown, to add, I reckon!
issues veritas~ EXACTLY! You speak of law for your example, but pertaining to most any field I can think of- on the job training is far superior to the graduate student. We think of on the job training only for vocational fields/schools- that's too bad.
I worked in Human resources for a few years and most of my interest being in research psychology, where everything subjective is accounted for or eliminated, it was hard understanding the hiring process- there is no intelligible "process". It is so ridiculous and it's all very subjective, almost like a popularity contest. I participated on hiring committees and it's a joke. Most employers hire somebody they like or looks good on paper.
Employers nowadays almost expect a degree- a 4 year degree is the new high school diploma of 30+ years ago.
London girl- I will check out your hub. Sounds interesting.
Our system is odd that if we don't partake in an internship, which only last a few months anyway, we have to wait until we move onto graduate school to get actual experience- that would be our 5th or 6th year of higher education (above high school).
izetti,
Wow, it is like you read my mind.
A college degree should be worth something but once someone has experience in a job, that should be the trump card.
In the last thirty years technology has exploded making the traditional subjects in high school lag far behind the real world. What would you think about making the senior year in high school a transition year. for those that would not go to college, offer a technical vocational taster platter. This would expose them to various technical careers. For those going to college, make it a platter of available college studies but focused on the jobs that result from going down that path. For those that don't know what they want to do after high school, the senior year is filling out applications, making resumes, job interviewing etc.
This isn't the dame world of thirty years ago. The transition year would be just that, information to help deciding what you want to do after high school.
How many people have dropped out of college in the first year, how many have changed majors before they graduate and how many of the graduates don't like the job they went to college to get?
At the current college and university tuition you can't afford to gamble on your education.
It is the employers that need to force academia to provide job candidates by providing internships and guidelines for the kinds of educational requirement that will benefit their company. But as you said, the employers don't really have a clue about the hiring process.
It is sort of like when they asked a Supreme Court Justice to define pornography. His answers was something like, I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
Perhaps, employers and educators need a new paradigm to provide a symbiotic relationship between themselves and the students.
I think they a good grade school core has to include the 3 Rs, Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. These subjects give you the basic tools to learn the rest of anything else that you need to learn.
Again, these are just my opinions.
Yes, you need to learn the basics early - and how to learn as well.
issues veritas- Senior year should be a transition year. I remember myself and many other students had class periods when we weren't at school- they were called "early dismissal and late arrival". Total for my senior year, I only needed 3 classes to graduate- this was the case for many other students too. THat leaves 3 hours of "extra time", which would have been better spent on everything you mention above.
I told the school counselor I was undecided about college so they pretty much "forgot" about me and focused more on kids who already knew what they wanted to do. Maybe it's a lack of time or school employees who can help kids decide or become proactive about their future. Probably a lack of what they can do for the undecided. They have no plan for the unplanned I suppose.
I think many things in the school system start going wrong especially at the high school level.
izetti,
This is so true and aren't the unplanned or confused students the ones that really need the help. Thanks for the moment of sanity.
Maybe if I wish hard enough, the system might change for the better.
Thanks,
I will also try to wish hard enough for the school systems to begin looking at the bigger picture.
I went to college right after high school and dropped out because I had no career direction. If i had a nickel every time I heard this scenario. What happened to me happens to so many students with potential.
Once I found what interested me, with no help from the school system, I went back to college and graduated with honors. These kids without direction should be the ones getting attention from advisors and enrolling in specific programs created for them. At the very least specific programs would get these students to be proactive about what paths and choices lie ahead of them. Why do the school systems focus on kids who are already doing well or have direction? ie. Head start and other advanced programs. It's too bad undecided is equivalent to unworthy.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts issues veritas & londongirl
Thank you also izetti
When I was a kid, only rich people went to college. Then, when I was in fourth grade, John F Kennedy started this initiative to make college more widely available to anyone who wanted it. Even with that I had to work hard to get through, but I'd do it all again in a heartbeat.
It's different now--so expensive, and student aid is so limited. Loans are very predatory, so kids have to make these tough calls.
I think it's worth it but not if you look at it as job training. Most people will not appreciate a liberal arts education, and we've made it so expensive most can't get one anyway. But if we placed more value on literature, critical thinking, speech, writing, math, and science, and less value on just making a buck, we arguably wouldn't be experiencing the current financial meltdown.
Very thoughtful hub. I do disagree with Ms. Orman, but only insofar as it should never be ONLY about money. If it's only about money, then of course she's dead on. :)
My sister and I both got college degrees, our two younger brothers did not go to college. The brothers make more money (one as a sales rep for a large tool rental company, the other as a supervisor at a manufacturing facility) by at least 20K. I love my job, and so does my sister, we both work Monday through Friday, 9-5. The brothers work weekends and into the evening. Guess it's a tossup.
Twin XL~ thanks for comment. you triggered another thought in my mind. You say your sister and you both enjoy your jobs and I say you're lucky because I did not enjoy the professions I went to school for (got my degree in). I thought I would like them, in theory, because most of college is the study of theories in your chosen major. My internship was the last term of college and it wasn't until then that I got hands on experience in the field I'd studied. I realized I didn't like my major, but Oops too late, because most internships aren't offered until the last term in college.
I don't think college is worth it if you can't get hands-on training sooner than the end of your college career. Many students base the their decision of a college major on career tests given to them in h.s.
I propose career bootcamp. Offer students a day or week in the life of their top career choices (following a mentor, etc) , and that might give them a glance at reality, and help them make an informed choice for a major. My thoughts pre-college were I wanted to help people so I went into psychology and human resources. I've dabbled in both career fields and hate them both in practice, but love them in theory. Little good that does me now.
ThisGirlsOpinion says:
11 months ago
Would not trade my college degree for a milliion dollars! Riches of the mind far outweigh material wealth in my opinion. However, I do agree with you that successful people will be successful no matter what. However, as an introvert attracted to intellect I appreciate being able to dissect a great novel more than making lots of money. I am a simple person with few material needs, so for me this works.