Has Our Country Gone Insane? Less Than 30% Of Americans Have A College Degree, But We Are Now Told You Will Never Get A Good Job Without One

I'm just saying this from the perspective of what job prospects open up as a result of having one.

That's all.

I'm not saying it makes any sense.

In my opinion, it makes no difference why it is important to have a degree.

The fact that those who are hiring expect one is all that matters.

I do think that the fact that someone can commit to a particular course of study for four years, is a good thing.

Granted, it won't specifically train you for a given occupation like trade school would, but there is something to be said for training someone to think critically.

This skill is noticeably lacking these days.

I would say that far fewer than 30% of the population are capable of critical thought.

A Bachelor's degree is the equivalent of a high school diploma in 1972.

How is that? Something like 80- 82% of students graduated high school in 1972.

Because no one today looks at you without one.

on a side note

if you check here you'll notice that HS graduation was about 75%. Close enough.

John, unfair or not, that's the way it is, at least if you want to work in the corporate world. And the way most jobs that do NOT require college are going to illegal immigrants or to those willing to work for less than minimum wage, a person might as well resign themselves to getting that degree OR working alongside illegals.

Sad, but true. However, as someone up above counseled, people shouldn't get sucked into going Ivy league, or paying private college costs, which are crushing. Community college followed by a good state school will suffice for 95% of jobs. If your kid complains, tell him he can go to private university if he pays for it all himself. That's all.

After one enters the workforce, experience dictates what jobs one can reasonably expect to be considered for. At this point it somewhat trumps a degree.

Employers claiming to be seeking prospects with a degree is merely a filtering tool. Those with college degrees usually have more than fast-food or janitorial experience on their resumes.

I can't fault hiring companies from trying to secure the best talent. It seems natural.

This may be true, but what difference does you admitting it make?

I do respect your opinion, but it's like me saying, "People claiming a religious affiliation does not make them virtuous."

O.K. Now what?

I think a lot of it has to do with how an employer perceives an applicant with a degree. Think about it; a person with a degree obviously knows how to communicate effectively since most colleges expect and demand a lot of writing. In addition, they are trainable (they have gone through four years of learning various subjects and carrying out the tasks demanded by the professor). It makes it easier on an employer during the hiring process to not have to test a person's writing skills extensively, or to test how easily they learn and retain information. That's all been done for them by the college.

It's all about making it easier on the employer.

There are relatively few jobs that depend on a college degree for the PERFORMANCE of the job.

Except for doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, vets - to name a few.

IMHO higher education is typically essential for many specialty occupations however there should be no charge for this. Universities are robbing people for their services.

The importance of a college education does not lie completely in the information being learned by the student, but also the life skills that make them a good employee. As for the cost of education, we are not robbing people for our services. We have to keep the lights on, the water running, food available for students to eat, the technology up to date, buildings maintained, grounds kept clean and groomed, and new accommodations for the growing college population. We must pay faculty and staff, from department heads to the janitors. Right now, States and the Feds are cutting funding to State universities. As a result, that cost is passed on to the student. In fact, many colleges and universities would run each year in the red, if it were not for the donations of alumni and community members. If you are willing to pay taxes for the rest of your life to have these costs covered for a free education, go for it.

As for the cost of education, we are not robbing people for our services.

And you are basing this off of what exactly? Can you provide any examples of universities that have gone under because they can't keep the lights on and/or doors open and correlate that to low tuition rates?

Universities are big business that are constantly competing with one another for enrollment and do so via charging higher and higher tuition to the student body. It is a juggernaut of an industry that at times seems to have less to do with education and more to do with prestige.

If you are willing to pay taxes for the rest of your life to have these costs covered for a free education, go for it.

I am and we should.

I am basing this off my job as a university professor and department chair. I deal with budgetary issues almost on a daily basis.

Can you provide any examples of universities that have gone under because they can't keep the lights on and/or doors open and correlate that to low tuition rates?

No. However, many small colleges have closed doors because of low enrollment that caused the inability to meet costs.

Universities are big business that are constantly competing with one another for enrollment and do so via charging higher and higher tuition to the student body.

Actually, you have this reversed. Many colleges recruit based on the fact that they are lower cost than a nearby college.

And that is a good point blue- I do see a lot of applicants who have degrees come with a boatload of fast food and call center experience. Yes, customer service is important, sorta (where do you get good customer service anymore?) However, I look at work experience first. Resumes even typically read that way- Work experience after the objective (and those are hilarious!) followed at the end, by education.

Bonos... Oh I would LOVE to share some of those college educated correspondences I receive with you. You show up, you pay, you usually pass the class.

It's not a fail safe way to make any decision, based off "education". I fired the college educated drunk I inherited when I came on and the new graduate that came along with the gig apparently missed "professional" day at school.

My most recent favorite- having an applicant TEXT my office land line, without any IDing information, telling me to "Text her the number" for our phone interview...

I am basing this off my job as a university professor and department chair. I deal with budgetary issues almost on a daily basis.

You deal with budgetary issues for one school? Of course you're not pretending to speak for the wide variety of Universities that are available throughout the US. It would be interesting to know for sure how many Universities across the States turn a profit annually.

No. However, many small colleges have closed doors because of low enrollment that caused the inability to meet costs.

Run out of business by the larger Universities perhaps?

Actually, you have this reversed. Many colleges recruit based on the fact that they are lower cost than a nearby college.

No I don't have it reversed - the colleges you speak of are the ones you just mentioned as an example of having to close its doors right? Successful Universities in the US continue to grow via ever rising tuition rates. They take that money (and of course money from alums) and invest part of it into their school to attract more students.

rarely agree with you russell... but, you make points that few have a clue of... not to mention few bring any stats or facts to their statements of opinion.

personal experience of late makes many of these 'comments' old, out of the loop, assumptions.

its a whole new ballgame.

Bonos... Oh I would LOVE to share some of those college educated correspondences I receive with you. You show up, you pay, you usually pass the class.

LOL, touche'. However, have you seen the correspondence from people who didn't make it into college? It can be worse. Not always, but it can be. Of course, the quality of the college has a lot to do with it, too. Point still taken, however.

How is that? Something like 80- 82% of students graduated high school in 1972.

Yes but in 1972 most HS graduates did not attempt college. Now I think most HS graduates at least aspire to go.

I have worked at more than one university in my career. This has been a constant that legitimate colleges are not profit machines. Places like Kaplan and Univ. of Phoenix are completely for profit places, but then, they are not equitable to public universities and other research one and tier one universities. Just because I work at one university does not make me unaware of other colleges and universities. To work in this field, you must understand what other institutions are doing, how they are working budgets, and how they are setting goals for better education. I read the Chronicle from cover to cover.

These small colleges that are closing are not being run out of business by larger universities at the hands of larger universities. Small colleges have their niche, and they are not in competition with land grant institutions.

Yes, these universities CAN grow because of the number of students paying to come to school. Yet, they are not raising tuition arbitrarily to grow when not needed. A dorm is not built because they hope students will fill the rooms. A dorm is built when the on campus residency requires more rooms or when the older dorms no longer meet the needs of the students and is more costly to maintain than rebuild. Yes, sports recruiting cost are high, but are met by the cost of tickets to events, bowl and championship opportunities, and athletic supporters. That money NEVER comes from tuition. Foreign student recruiting costs are absorbed by the higher cost of their education. Out of the money a person will spend for education for a four year degree, an estimate of approximately $100 to $400 will go toward recruiting. The average cost of a 4 year state college education for a student (without books, insurance, fees, and housing) costs around $80,000. So at the max, .5% of a college student's tuition will go toward recruiting.

Let me ask, what do you do for a living?

Sad thing, I don't want to make a point. I would prefer to see more out there for kids/people. Too late for a lot of people, but most of those people have kids. So, they can't afford to send their kid to school and the kid is pretty much set up to fail for life in a cycle. Scholarships are far and few between and center more around sports than any other area.

I think a lot more kids should get the opportunity to if they want. There are a lot of very smart people out there who just get defeated by the system. Like the jerk who wants to tax college kids for the right to vote- how much more of a bill can they afford, considering they've not even entered the workforce? It's not right to say that if they're that good, they'll make it. Just like saying that college drop outs can never be successful. They can, but they are the anomaly.

The importance of a college education does not lie completely in the information being learned by the student, but also the life skills that make them a good employee.

That was close to my reaction when I was reading this article, and the comments following it, Dr. Truth.

The main thing that I learned in college was how to learn. Subjects like tensor analysis, Maxwell's equations, and many (many!) subjects that I learned were never used in my work after I left University.

Indeed, I ended my career in a field that didn't really exist when I was in school.

But as I had acquired the skills needed to learn, it was a simple matter of applying those skills to any new situation.

High school education does not focus on this skill set. At the University-level, at least in my field, it was vital. And having that skill made a huge difference in the opportunities presented to me throughout my entire career.

This has been a constant that legitimate colleges are not profit machines.

Again, as I asked earlier, I would love to see some proof of this statement.

To work in this field, you must understand what other institutions are doing, how they are working budgets, and how they are setting goals for better education. I read the Chronicle from cover to cover.

Well I don't read the Chronicle - is there somewhere you can link w/in that periodical that discusses Universities P&Ls?

These small colleges that are closing are not being run out of business by larger universities at the hands of larger universities. Small colleges have their niche, and they are not in competition with land grant institutions.

Ok then what ran them out of business?

Yet, they are not raising tuition arbitrarily to grow when not needed.

So you say. Don't know of many companies who would ever claim that they are raising prices for no reason - there's always a reason right...

Let me ask, what do you do for a living?

Not that it matters to our discussion but not education.

I'm not trying to say that I have more insight than you on this subject - as a matter of fact you could be completely right. I'm just not convinced that many Universities not only turn a profit but are also overcharging their students at the same time.

Why, because the college graduates that run companies say so? The PERFORMANCE of most jobs, even technical ones, doesn't REQUIRE a college degree , it requires an understanding and implementation of a process, a process that in almost all cases could be learned without four or more years of college.

Yes that's why. Because the bosses say so. If I want someone that can learn a process I will teach a monkey. You don't seem to understand that if a company says a job requires a degree then it does. That alone eliminates most of the idiots that would apply. But out of the thousands of applications so will ignore the degree part like the application will go ignored.

lol Funny. I couldn't even make out that last sentence.

Also funny. People assuming that because someone paid (or their parents, or the government) to get a piece of paper, that it makes them "smarter". :) Or able to "see things through", therefor reliable.

For so many businesses having figured it out.. they still hire crooks or incompetent boobs.. and still have retention problems. No one has figured out the ONE forumula that works yet..

Again, as I asked earlier, I would love to see some proof of this statement.

All public colleges and universities are State controlled institutions. Anything they would make goes back to the State to refund the money funded for the academic year. The next year, the State uses those figures to determine how much to give the college. Therefore, it behooves the college or university to not make a profit. Private, non-profit schools must file non-profit tax statements. To find out if a college is for-profit, non-profit, or state, you must go to their particular website or contact their admissions office.

Just to let you in on what seems to be a big secret for most people; not everything is on the Internet or free for viewing. But to help you out I will give you a link to my resource:

wwwdotthetopfilecabinetdraweronthelefthandsideofmyofficewhenyoufirstwalkindotedu/ markedbudgetaryinformationforresourcesgrantsaidandexpenses

If you are unable to locate it or gain access to it there, I guess you might just have to put in a request to the DoE.

Well I don't read the Chronicle - is there somewhere you can link w/in that periodical that discusses Universities P&Ls?

If you want access to the Chronicle, I suggest you pony up the money like I had to do. I am not giving you my access information. I don't know you. If you want it free, go to your local college or university library. However, I would begin my search at the Almanac of Higher Education 2011. Pay for it, and it is ALL yours for the viewing and doing.

Ok then what ran them out of business?

Low student numbers, issues with accreditation, poor retention numbers, failure to maintain current technology or resources, poor educators, poor administration, not offering degrees that meet today's job demands, lack of donor monies, online education availability, and unemployment rates.

So you say. Don't know of many companies who would ever claim that they are raising prices for no reason - there's always a reason right...

Except for universities like Kaplan and Phoenix (which are the cesspool of education), colleges and universities are not what you would call typical businesses. They are not in it for the profit. They are educational institutions dedicated to promoting learning. They are not going to make a million, and that would explain why the R aren't interested in their maintenance.

Again, what do you do for a living? It does matter to this discussion.

If you want access to the Chronicle, I suggest you pony up the money like I had to do.

LOL...ok you could've just said no.

I am not giving you my access information. I don't know you. If you want it free, go to your local college or university library

Again I'm lol...I never asked for your user name and password nor did I want anything for free. Thought you might actually have some hard evidence you could like to that backs up your claims.

Low student numbers, issues with accreditation, poor retention numbers, failure to maintain current technology or resources, poor educators, poor administration, not offering degrees that meet today's job demands, lack of donor monies, online education availability, and unemployment rates.

So their business was ran poorly?

They are not in it for the profit. They are educational institutions dedicated to promoting learning. They are not going to make a million, and that would explain why the R aren't interested in their maintenance.

Ok I'll just believe you - is that better. All not-for-profit Universities are altruistic and never overcharge for any of their services. As a matter of fact they should be charging even more...

Again, what do you do for a living? It does matter to this discussion.

No it doesn't - unless you're going for the ad hominem angle or something ;).

Don't believe the hype.

I have a college degree---a BA in political science. In the 25 years, or thereabouts, the degree has never gotten me a job. I suspect that it's actually kept me from getting jobs---for being "over-qualified."

Now, I'm told I need a master's degree---but if I went 30 Gs into the hole for one, and still couldn't get a "decent" job, to say I'd be one pissed-off mo-fo doesn't even begin to cover it.

If you're going to college, get a degree that'll mean something to an employer. Sad to say, a liberal arts degree is probably not going to get you much besides a pantload of debt and a very expensive piece of toilet paper...

Math, technology and science. That's where the jobs are and that's where degrees matter.

IMO that the electric companies need trainees, over the road truck drivers, trainees in welding, health care, plumbing, cable, landline phone, etc numerous entry level jobs and training jobs will open up when people retire. :)

Math, technology and science. That's where the jobs are and that's where degrees matter.

Exactly.

Many "liberal arts" degrees are completely worthless. Bachelor's in languages, history, art and the like do the student no good. If they wish to teach they will need Phds.

On of the smartest things I ever did was to get liberal arts degrees. I never taught, but I worked for Sheraton hotels before starting my own businesses. The liberal arts education enabled me to change with circumstances, plan my way out of failures, move in certain social circles, etc. The liberal arts freed me from the box. I have worked in hospitality, ranching, tourism development, archaeology/art, etc. I have worked in the USA, Colombia, Rep. of Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. I retired at 45. I am now 66.

A liberal arts education may not be job training, but it is excellent life training.

Why is it that no one will look at you without a college degree? Why is this tolerated? A world of sheep. There is no way that the PERFORMANCE of most jobs requires a degree. I don't believe that for a second and have never seen that be the case.

The importance of a college education does not lie completely in the information being learned by the student, but also the life skills that make them a good employee.

Ding! We have a winner.

30 years ago when I left my employment at the largest and most profitable corporation in the world, I was told that I could not move any higher without a minimum of a bachelors degree.

The way it was explained to me, is that they felt that if you could not even figure out a way to get yourself through four years of college at a minimum, they were not interested in moving you up the ladder. It was an easy way to measure commitment and drive, for potential corporate climbers.

That policy forced me to go back to school. Best decision I have ever made.

That policy has also helped my former employer become the most profitable entity in world history. You can call them sheep, I refer to them as Exxon/Mobil.

Then it's a good thing by definition if the oil rig workers didn't go to college or else Exxon/Mobil wouldn't have any workers to do that job. Also the tanker drivers that deliver gasoline, the floor workers in the refineries, etc... There are people needed for those jobs too and the job doesn't require a college degree.

The construction workers that built the offices for Exxon/Mobile, the maintenance crew, the cleaning crew...oh there's sooo many people needed down on the 'bottom' to hold up the top :)

@mstanley2265

I agree to an extent. Construction workers built the office, but an architect designed it. My brother in law is a floor worker in a refinery. He is an electrical maintenance worker. Six years of secondary school. Why would I hire a HS graduate to do electrical work when I can hire an electrical engineer.

Same goes for drilling. You would be surprised by how many people on an oil rig have post HS education. An oil rig is not a low tech operation.

I was trying to address johnrussells question as to why someone with a college degree is a more attractive candidate than someone who is not, even if the degree is not field related. If given the choice I will always lean toward someone who has a strong education background because it speaks volumes about certain aspects of their character and work ethic.

Earning a four year degree in most subjects is not easy. Doing it with a 3.0 or higher is even harder. It takes hard work and commitment to accomplish that. I can teach any skill to anyone, provided they have the desire and work ethic required to learn it. I have worked in the petro-chemical industry my entire adult life. Most of that time has been in executive management. The hardest thing for a manager to gauge, and hire for, is character. I have been pretty successful using a 4 year college degree as a minimum measure of that.

@ msstanely

My best friend's husband got an AA degree in accounting. He works in the accouting deparment @ Exxon Mobile. Started @ $56k his first year there(@ age 22), and got a $3500 bonus come Christmas time. That $3500 paid off half of his student loan costs.

Bonos... Oh I would LOVE to share some of those college educated correspondences I receive with you. You show up, you pay, you usually pass the class.

I don't know what colleges you are talking about, but that is not the way it works at most colleges in the U.S. It certainly was not that way at my College where if you fell below a 2.0 for more than one semester you were removed for good, no second chances. You also had to graduate within 10 semesters, no exceptions, and teachers did not show any sympathy for those who begged for leniency because they would be kicked out for receiving just a C grade in that one class. That is how they maintained quality students to begin with.

Things have changed a LOT in the colleges.

When I went to college it was the same. Academic probation one semester. Two - OUT.

Now the students fill out evaluations. Bad reviews get professors in trouble. How to get good ones? GIVE out grades. Do NOT require actual excellence.

Haven't you heard "Everyone is ENTITLED to a college education"??? Unfortunately that has been transposed to "Everyone is ENTITLED to a college DEGREE".

You describe how it WAS. It is different now.

A recent student was upset because she had to write a letter to apply to graduate with honors. She did not know how (YES - a college senior). The reason for the letter? The faculty decided that to graduate with honors one should AT LEAST be able to write the simple "business letter" applying for it. When I was in college you could not pass Freshman English without being able to do that AND much more.

lol..

Look there are merits to school. I'm not saying that there aren't. But it's just not the end all, be all in life. Book smarts do not guarantee street smarts, common sense or professional soft skills. Some really, really intelligent people out there can't communicate or apply things to real situations. Some people can memorize a periodic chart and be a fantastic chemist, but put them in front of a client, they become a fool. Maybe that's fine. Or maybe it's not when you're dealing with a company who not only wants a mechanic, but a sales person and an accountant all wrapped in to one.

I work for a large company. I've worked for a few international companies, in hiring/recruiting/retention/employment law/payroll. Currently, with one of the largest employers in my area. :) And while I am very successful at what I do, I have still found there is not ONE formula that proves a person is capable, reliable, honest, etc, etc and etc that a college degree is supposed to prove.

Otherwise, I don't think there is much left for me to say on the subject.

Well Dr Know, I know that things have not changed at my old school, The College of William and Mary (yes, a deliberate reference to the Steely Dan song).

@samenslow,

I actually can agree that a liberal arts education is a mind expander.

There are smarter ways to get "life training" than going thousands and thousands of bucks into debt. Education is valuable...but college degrees also raise peoples' expectations. It's tough when the education not only DOESN'T translate into big paydays, it seems to actually be keeping you out of the game. Anyone who's "investing" six figures in a degree ought to know when (not IF) it's gonna pay off.

My political science degree is far from useless---especially in our current political climate. But even now, I couldn't recommend any liberal arts major to a young, college-bound person---like my 18-year-old son who wants to be a physical therapist. He's GOTTA go to school to reach he's goals and I totally encourage him.

But if he told me today he wanted to major in art history---or political science--- I'd tell him IMO he's wasting his time and his money with no hesitation. No one goes to college to drive a cab unless he finds he just LIKES driving a cab...but a liberal arts degree may actually make that driving-lover "overqualified" for it...

My political science degree is far from useless---especially in our current political climate. But even now, I couldn't recommend any liberal arts major to a young, college-bound person---like my 18-year-old son who wants to be a physical therapist. He's GOTTA go to school to reach he's goals and I totally encourage him.

But if he told me today he wanted to major in art history---or political science--- I'd tell him IMO he's wasting his time and his money with no hesitation. No one goes to college to drive a cab unless he finds he just LIKES driving a cab...but a liberal arts degree may actually make that driving-lover "overqualified" for it...

Well, of course, you don't go for a political science or art history degree if you want to be a physical therapist, unless you are interested in political science or art history and you want to study it. I have plenty of friends with art history degrees and they make great money, love their jobs and love their lives. It depends on what you want to do and whether or not you are willing to make the sacrifices and efforts to do exactly what it is you want to do. And, if you just want a job that pays a lot and make your career decision based on only what you think that job is, you better be ready to make a complete shift in case that job turns out to be obsolete or you simply find out that you aren't cut out for it either because you weren't capable or the job itself was too unbearable for you, making you miserable. I went to school to study,period. I was interested in the academics alone. The challenges of that environment were what I craved, every day having to go in there and prove yourself both orally and in writing. In that environment, I was able to turn my passions into a career. Liberal Arts colleges have much to offer a creative person who is not simply looking for a "cookie cutter" education. I don't have a single friend from my college who did not find exactly what it is they want to be doing in life, and I don't know a single person who regrets their decision to attend a liberal arts school.

My point on the liberal arts degree and your son's future-Let's say your son says he wants to get a degree in history because he loves the subject and wants to work in the field. "What work?" you will ask like any concerned parent.

Your son like most at that age will say, "I donno."

But if you have observed the interest is long standing and not a fad, you may offer alternative fields in which there is a demand for workers. History and archaeology are not money making fields; however, archaeological/fine art conservation is a very lucrative field where careers can be built. Some times the interest can lead not to a direct job in the field but to a side occupation that will enable the student to spend his life doing something he enjoys.

I love the sweeping generalities ("lots of friends with degrees in Art History making great money") Provide a count of those "lots".

Another point - this is the 21st Century. Degrees that "worked" in prior centuries do not work now.

George Washington had what is the equivalent of an elementary school education. Think that would "fly" now? The 1960's saw the advent of all the exotic degrees. I had (he died) a friend that got a degree in Witchcraft from UC Berkeley.

My grandfather did fairly well with an 8th grade education. My father did not graduate high school because of the Great Depression but did well. When he retired the company replaced him with 4 people.

Neither of them would do well now.

One example, appraisers $125-200 per hour, some more. Anyone with an art gallery.

A very narrow field then. How many art galleries are there across the United States? Have to be elitist and rich to use their services.

One example, appraisers $125-200 per hour, some more. Anyone with an art gallery.

That is a great paying job. What is the demand? how oftan does one get hired to do this profession? I bet is is one of the lowest jobs in demand.

I just gave gallery as an example. If a one has a fine arts degree, it is possible for little money to open a gallery as most merchandise is on consignment. To add to the gallery's income it is possible to also do appraisals (which can bring in more than the gallery). There are other areas that could be examined, museum curator, conservator, authenticator, etc. Not as narrow as it may seem at first.

You are showing why many have a problem finding a good job. They will not look out of the box or examine new ideas.

By the way, you want the elite and rich as customers. They are the ones with the money. However, there are galleries that cater to people of modest means, often selling crafts or folk art. You are limited by imagination, knowledge, and drive.

Yes it is just like most degrees that can be expanded it is just one of the more difficult career paths to choose.

Auto: Appraisers are in constant demand with various specialties. Most work is done for insurance companies and to process estates for probate. Usually appraisers work for themselves or their own business. You can be a fine arts, gem, furniture, rugs, etc. appraiser. You must be certified, but that takes about 9 months ,and have knowledge of a specific field. How much you make is based on your skills and reputation - like a lawyer.

You must be certified, but that takes about 9 months ,and have knowledge of a specific field. How much you make is based on your skills and reputation - like a lawyer.

What I'm saying is that it is a much more narrow field most people that appraise diamonds don't quit and appraise houses or art the next day. Lawyers are the the same way it is not as easy for them to go from crime to property law. it is not impossible just more difficult.

It is one thing to CHARGE $100 an hour. It is another to be EMPLOYED enough to make a steady income. Independent contractors depend on demand. Not a stellar example.

A good friend of mine made a very good living. She only appraised pre-Columbian art. She worked (billed) about 30 a week and that included travel time, etc.

The field is not a limited as you believe. For one reason, many fields have few participants. There are not many people who know the markets for different objects.

One thing my father never understood was how I could make a living by what I did or how I managed. He was a steam fitter and a believer that a job was 8 hours a day, you worked for a set wage and benefits, etc. That type of job is not necessary (fine if it is what you want). As far as being a difficult career path - it will not be that difficult if you are doing something you enjoy and with materials that interest you. Becoming a lawyer is a difficult career path also. I know of no job where money grows on trees - except for a tree surgeon, and they make excellent money.

I love the sweeping generalities ("lots of friends with degrees in Art History making great money") Provide a count of those "lots".

uhmmmm I love the lame attempt at discrediting what one person is saying from experience just because you lack that experience. It is especially idiotic to make such a statement after you yourself are making a sweeping generalization about colleges and degrees which YOU find useless while others use them every day to obtain good jobs. My girlfriend is a professional artist and we have dozens of friends who pursued Art History degrees which were required for them to have the precious jobs that they have. There are many job opportunities out there for people with Art History degrees, NOT just gallery jobs. Nice try, but you failed.

The field is not a limited as you believe. For one reason, many fields have few participants.

non sequitor

Who is more likely to be employed? An engineer or an Art History Major? As long as you eliminate body wastes you need Civil Engineers. Art is a complete luxury.

There are a lot of starving artists. The history of artists is that their work is only worth a lot after they are dead.

I seconded that Dr. Know, that's why I've never charged for my paintings or my poems...LOL

"The history of artists is that their work is only worth a lot after they are dead." add Poets, Musicians, Writers and probably several others. :)

Who is more likely to be employed? An engineer or an Art History Major? As long as you eliminate body wastes you need Civil Engineers. Art is a complete luxury.

There are a lot of starving artists. The history of artists is that their work is only worth a lot after they are dead.

So? If you are an artist you need to be willing to sacrifice the desire for riches to your passion for your creation. If someone is more concerned about becoming wealthy then they don't really have a passion for art to begin with, so it is no loss to anyone. I am a successful musician on several labels and my girlfriend is a successful artist who has been featured in multiple international arts magazines. Neither one of us got to where we were by being concerned about being wealthy and we learned to live modestly so that we could enjoy our careers. It takes time and hard work, and we both succeeded in creating solid careers because we didn't chase those opportunities which would have paid more but would have failed to further our art. By making the short term sacrifices and pursuing those things which we knew would advance our art, we are now able to live comfortably and enjoy our careers. Your method seems to be for those who do not believe in themselves. That might have worked for you, but it is something I never would settle for, and I would not advice others to settle for such unless they truly do not believe in themselves or their art.

Congratulations on your hard work. I, too, had to work hard. The students of today are more concerned with "party schools" and being "GIVEN" good grades. I was never GIVEN any good grade. I EARNED every one. Teachers do not GIVE grades. They acknowledge the level of success according to the requirements.

Fortunately, my son has figured out that a poli-sci degree won't do much for him, in his quest to become a PT.

He's already smarter than the crazy old man :)

Talk about sweeping generalities. There were students who were just as concerned with only going to a party school when I attended college. There are just as many students now as there were then who go to schools that do not tolerate anything less than one's best performance. These schools have not changed their expectations and that is why I always advice that one go to the best school available to them in whatever field it is that they are interested in.

@ abolish,

I'm with you on that!!! My passion is coaching track, and there is a serious glass ceiling for female coaches. I had to start coaching for free to get my foot in the door. That was hard, time consuming, and @ the time I spent more time with other people's kids than I did my own. I still dont make that much money, but i save parents money and students from graduating with debt buy helping them perform @ their best and get paid to go to school for it. NOW, parents come to me for private coaching sessions. I didnt start out with that in mind, but I love the path it has taken my on. I love that I can do what I love.

I think that's great, Neish. I love to hear that people followed their hearts and passion, choosing to rough it so that they could do what they love. I believe life turns out best for everyone when they do so.

http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp5_education

I can't find anything to support your premise that any where near 70% had college degrees. Do you have a link?

almost 70% of males had college degrees versus less than 30% now

Due to the draft, maybe 70% attended college (student deferment) for a period of time, but graduate? No.

What are they studying for?

I think this says it all. The boomer generation went to school for the self satisfaction of having an education. My father used to say "it's something no one can ever take away". Now the attitude is whay should I go if It won't buy me anything.

no way, I too want to see a 70% link. I think this is all time high at 27%

nothing personal but your comment comes out as pure technophobia.

A machine is a tool, used for purpose designed by the creator. Axes have been replaced heavy industrial saws for wood gathering for years, we no longer weave our shirts and other clothes by hand, hell sowing machines have been taking away jobs for years. We've been replacing older and slower ways of doing things with newer and faster ways for thousands of years whats the difference?

You seems to view computers as this omnipresent entity, that "feeds" from its creators and will one day create a world where we are all serving machines. While this is a popular opinion for those who don't work with computers all day, its also simply not the case.

Computers are an easy button for those who know how to use them as such, and yes that normally requires a college degree.

You see the removal of people who do work without the use of a machine ( computer) as 'progress'. That's disturbing

No, that's how corporations see it. If you were head of GM, for example, would you want to use humans to manufacture your cars or machines? How many cars do you think a person could build completely by hand in a day? How many cars do you think a machine could make? Which amount is better for sales revenue, at the end of the day? Same with a candy maker. You could have people making Reese's peanut butter cups by hand or have a machine do it. Reese's makes a hell of a lot more money using machines.

Now, you might think that's sad, but that's just the way it is. We live in a capitalist system, and the point of capitalism is to be successful and make money.

You see the removal of people who do work without the use of a machine ( computer) as 'progress'. That's disturbing

Ok I'd like to clear this up because it seems like people don't seems to get it, but I don't necessarily view it as progress as much as given human civilization it simply IS progress. We've been replacing manpower with others things since the beginning of human civilization. Where we have determined how to do project X that used to take 10 people and now takes 5 with the help of a computer, history says that's progress, not me. Example:Cotton Gin

Or the people could get some training instead of committing arson ... just a thought.

Well, when we have 20% unemployment and people are burning these companies to the ground I guess they will learn their lesson.

Ah, I didn't know you were an "eat the rich" type, J.R. j/k. But I guess that it really does come down to whether or not we feel corporations "owe" us jobs, or "owe" it to us to lower their standards.

H.H. is definitely right. I'm a software engineer myself, and I can tell you that I don't accept resumes without a college degree. In fact, if the overall GPA is under 3.0 I probably still trash the resume. A degree is an absolute must in the field.

As far as machines fixing other machines, there will always be a need for programmers. Unless a true artificial intelligence is created. In which case, I will have fled long before.

So what? Do you seriously believe the majority of people can be or should be steered toward computer programming? That's nuts.

No, John, they should get factory jobs making useless widgets. Is that what you want? I mean really, what are you talking about? Computers are the new cars. Do you think people prior to the industrial revolution chose to be "steered" into factory work? No, they didn't. They had no choice. You do what work is available.

No question you have to be extremely well trained to do advanced computer work. A college degree is REQUIRED? Ridiculous.

You can call it ridiculous, but I don't have time to teach algorithmic design and computer logic to someone who didn't even have the drive to get a degree.

So what? Do you seriously believe the majority of people can be or should be steered toward computer programming? That's nuts.

Absolutely not. But if they want to go into computer programming, they better get a degree. If they don't, they better find some way to make themselves irreplaceable.

Did people only manufacture cars? Did you need four more years of schooling to manufacture cars? What are you talking about? It's laughable that people say "that's just the way it is". Why is that? Where is it written in stone that if you don't have a college degree you will never have a decent job? Are we TRYING to create an f'd up world?

I was simply using cars as an example of manufacturing that was done largely by hand compared to today. Pick any other factory line work and the same analogy applies. I thought that was clear.

And, yes, that's just the way it is. More future jobs will require some level of post-secondary schooling than in the past. Get over it. I really am having a hard time seeing how this is a problem. You keep saying people need four year degrees which is BS. None of the reports that even come close to supporting your claim come close to supporting that specific claim. Post-secondary education can mean many things.

The biggest thing you're not getting is the world changes. We've gone from family farms, to working in factories, to computer engineering. Something else will follow. Successful people will, and always did, adapt.

If we are going to get technical about it, you might even make the argument that a high school degree isn't necessary for most jobs, either. Hell, there was a time when even doctors didn't have formal education. I wouldn't want to go back to those times, and I'm sure not many others would. Should we scrap the idea of education altogether, though, since many jobs don't really need even that h.s. diploma? That isn't wise in a world where other countries are NOT scrapping it. (Unless we want them to surpass us in all ways).

bonos-rama

you're on to their scheme now... shhhhhhhhhhh

Depends on what you call progress. One day machines will fix other machines and everyone will be out of work. That's progress for ya.

Not one day but that happens today. Gone are the days where we have mainframe techicians.

Where is it written in stone that if you don't have a college degree you will never have a decent job? Are we TRYING to create an f'd up world?

It all depends what you call decent. Your decent may be putting lug nuts on wheels. Or flippin burgers. But that would not be my idea of a decent job.

Your decent may be putting lug nuts on wheels.

My auto mechanic gets $60/hr. I call that extremely decent.

And I think, compared to corporate entities (like your chain auto speciality shops), he's underpd by their standards. I can't take apart my carb & clean it up & unstick those butterfly valves anymore. You know why? Cars don't come w/ those anymore. They come w/ computer chips & expensive machines that the mechanic hooks my car up to when an idiot light goes on. That throws a code & tells him what needs fixing. I'm now the idiot for whom those lights were created b/c everything I used to know about cars is pretty much useless at this pt.

Technology marches on. Back when the appleIIe was the standard I disliked computers, hated booting from floppys, hated the squidgy whiny noises they made when I did it, hated command prompts, always felt like I was one keystroke away from killing it. Now they're pretty much idiot-proof & b/c I kept up, I can go over to the idiot's house & remove the 11 Trojans he got surfing those porn sites he doesn't want to admit he surfed, & I'm far from a professional.

Or flippin burgers.

Not so decent. But there are ppl w/ degrees doing that in our current economy b/c certain fields are overcrowded or (like some states are doing to education & services) being deliberately cut.

As you said earlier, many ppl haven't figured out that they're not supposed to go to college & study what they enjoy, but attempt to predict the job market at projected graduation date. It's sad that has to be done. Someone who may have been the greatest elementary schl tchr in the world is being steered away from that atm & told to get an AS & become an x-ray tech b/c that's where the jobs are.

In order to have a stable society, of course people are 'owed' jobs

JR... i wasn't aware you were socialist!

I have heard this refrain many times. The fact is that life continues. In about 2 months people forget who left.

well Nick, in some jobs that may well be, but replacing an electric company lineman isn't like hiring the first person that applies or even 20.

I have personally talked to several soon to retire linemen, they said that the trainees just aren't here. It is hard work, long hours in bad weather and very dangerous. No college degree required.

One natural disaster takes out a lot of power poles. That's why Electric companies have reciprocal agreements for crew assistance to get back on the grid.

So when you see an Electric company lineman, give them a High Five.

I think they are exaggerating, JR. Think about it. If you owned a company and couldn't find anyone to work for you that had a degree, what would you do? Shut down? No; you'd lower your ridiculously high standards to a more realistic one. Then again, some major corporations might just outsource to another country, but that's getting into another topic. Your run of the mill company can't compete if their standards are so high no employees meet them.

That's been the standard line for decades. Why has this been the standard line?

I worked for a major technology company for years. No one was ever hired in sales without a degree. The leaders of the company came from sales. Technicians without degrees usually never made it to the middle management ranks in the technical side. Good or bad that's life.

It's a good thing then that there are more jobs for people that aren't in tech. I mean really how can you power a computer or server without Electricity? :)

There will be electricity. When a company loses a great employee there is always someone that can fill those shoes. People die unexpectedly everyday and you better be prepared.

"On the job training" still exists to some degree; however, it's now called "unpaid internship". Who the hell can afford to work for free for someone that might not even hire you when the internship is over?

We should ask ourselves how we can move toward a system where every one who wants to work, who will show up and do their job, can earn enough from a full time work week to pay for their needs and those of their children.

Well unfortunately pay is determined by job level not whether you can support a family or not. When I was in the military people got married and complained they weren't paid enough. The military said "if we wanted you to have a spouse we would have issued you one".

It is possible to advance in entry level jobs to better paying positions. Managers at McD's make good money, a receptionist can become front office manager, etc. But all advancements will require that new skills be acquired.

Complicating the problem is the word "affordable." When I was young, I started at Sheraton in NYC chasing people for money. Low pay, but I could find an apartment in Alphabet City for $100. a month. I could eat at a Flame Steak for $1.49. I could see a Met performance (family circle) for $5.50. The affordable has disappeared. Where to find an affordable apartment near work? How to get a car (that old bomber is no longer legal and insurance costs)? Nothing costs at entry level.

Managers at McD's make good money, a receptionist can become front office manager, etc. But all advancements will require that new skills be acquired.

I said it before. You view that as "good money" and I don't. It's all a matter of personal desire.

Depends on what you call good money. If you want it go get it. If it requires degrees, get the degrees.

In the first place, the purpose of automation is to eliminate labor costs, so only a fraction of those displaced could get the 'maintaining' jobs even if they were educated for them.

Indeed. I thought I made that clear.

What is supposed to happen to the rest?

Go to school or be forced to work in a more menial job for less pay.

No one in leadership in this country is adequately addressing the coming disaster of displaced workers, perpetual unemployment , and middle class displacement that is on the way to America.

Actually, that is one of Obama's main policy points: education in growing tech fields and bringing tech jobs back to America. Good luck getting any initiatives passed with congress the way it is now though. One thing you're overreacting to though is the middle class displacement. The middle class will be doing these tech jobs. That's the point. That IS the new burgeoning, young middle class. Those of us in our 30s that grew up with video games and computers and are tech savvy to begin with. It's just a changing of the guard.

More insanity. The fastest growing field is to be people pushing money around, thinking of ways to shave a percent here and there and hoodwink the other guy. What a world.

ONE of the fastest growing fields. Don't you feel you're being a bit hyperbolic? Also, you're not really addressing my point about the middle class.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you expect to happen. For one, you keep making this college degree claim. A claim being made by who? The source I provided states that by 2018 63-68% of jobs will require a post-secondary education. That doesn't mean a PhD you know. It could be vocational training or a certificate degree.

Here's the thing about most tech jobs as opposed to say, a factory line job. You can't be trained on the spot. You require a certain base knowledge of your field prior to joining the workforce. If you're talking programming or computer engineering you are going to need significant knowledge prior to getting a job. I don't see how you find that expectation unfounded.

You raise an important point Ian - that these jobs are not based on being able to follow a routine task. I think it would be better to emphasize that it isn't just knowledge in terms of information, but skills that are learned through practice.

Much of scientific, engineering, and technical training is geared toward a few major skills above and beyond a set of facts. Chief among these are problem solving, experimentation, and effective communication.

I've had to pick up on a number of software packages and programming languages, and over time it comes down to skills gained through practice, not just committing a set of facts to memory by rote. Coursework is more oriented to teaching efficient ways to practice and then making you do it, rather than trying to memorize a list of commands. It's like good chess players - they aren't sitting there thinking about every possible combination of moves or every scenario that, which would be impossible. They train their brains over time to recognize the broader patterns of the board. The only way to do this is with focused, effortful practice at playing many, many games (though not as many for those rare few who are truly gifted - they just pick up on the patterns more quickly). It is the same thing with adaptable skills like developing computer algorithms - over time you pick up on the general patterns of the logic and syntax that cross over between languages that appear on the surface to be very different.

There is no way that by 2018 sixty five percent of the population will have advanced education ( I don't think you will see that figure in 2038) unless you are simply talking about some in -house seminar or something like that. In 7 years you will still have many many millions of people in prime working age of their 40's or 50's that do not have this 'education' and will not have it. What do you expect these people to do?

I'm going to assume that most folks in their 40's and 50's will likely be in the jobs they currently have and these jobs won't require the education we're talking about. They may hit an advancement ceiling though and find that they may need to take night courses for an associates to advance. Who knows precisely? We're talking about new hires here, in newer, younger industries. It's not like suddenly all the 40+ people are suddenly going to get fired.

fuzzy mathematician

You raise an important point Ian - that these jobs are not based on being able to follow a routine task. I think it would be better to emphasize that it isn't just knowledge in terms of information, but skills that are learned through practice.

Precisely, fuzzy. Years of practice and problem solving prior to being even prepared to step into a computer engineering role in a company.

John,

I would say that in the long term if we enacted appropriate reforms to the educational system to ensure more people get started earlier in life learning the skills needed for the more technical jobs, and to connect schools more effectively with employers, then it would put a big dent in those underqualified.

The reality is that so-called "low skilled" labor hours are lessening over time, and there isn't much we can do to stop that trend. But those kinds of labor aren't going to go away entirely any time soon. If we get more people educated, then there will be less pressure on that end.

In the medium term, I think we should encourage a big expansion of "work sharing" programs that allow more people to keep their jobs by taking less hours supplemented with partial unemployment benefits. Tax credits under the ACA could be expanded to help businesses keep these people on the health insurance plans. It's better in the long run than people being laid off and atrophying in their skills while collecting full unemployment benefits as they waste time looking for non-existent jobs.

Then we should create a relief work corps, maybe not a full-scale job guarantee, but a pool of work to improve the commons of our nation. I know from personal experience that there is a lot of work out there in things like land conservation, fire prevention, and so on. And I am sure we could find things for people who are not as able bodied, as well. Give preference to people for whom it is less realistic to expect retraining in a new set of advanced skills, and to the unemployed prioritized by the time they have been without work.

Enact tax reforms that reverse perverse incentives that currently encourage outsourcing. I have been thinking that could be meshed in with the job relief programs - tax credits to encourage the hiring of displaced workers, and preferential tax rates on the portion of business profits produced by American workers.

I've been thinking alot about this, and these seem like no-brainers to me that it just sickens me that our politics is so twisted you hardly ever hear our "leaders" proposing these kinds of things - or if they do they are met by immovable obstruction.

My Dad hired a 25 year old with a college degree, he hadn't found a job yet. He never did learn how to operate the backhoe. :) One of my sons wasn't college material, but he's really good with all kinds of equipment. :)

A really good backhoe operator has to develop a 'feel' for the machine. It's not something that can be learned in a classroom. I've seen good operators dig a hole deeper than the machine then use the bucket to work their way out of the hole.

All great ideas, Fuzzy.

I think connecting secondary to school directly to tech oriented trades and vocations will be a must in the future. It's something we used to do more in many skilled trades and I see no reason this wouldn't work for many of the burgeoning fields of tomorrow.

America needs to have manufacturing jobs and other service jobs that are currently being outsourced brought home, period, and whatever it takes in Congress to do this should be done.

There's only a certain point where that's feasible, John. Doing that, in most cases, will raise the prices drastically on products you use everyday, which in turn cuts into your wages and squeezes the middle class anyway. It's, unfortunately, not that simple.

I think that in the very long term (I'm talking many decades here), trade liberalization is good for everybody in all countries. Not, however, the way we rushed into it faster than the workforce could adapt, and without adequate initiatives to assist in those adaptations. The problem is, now that the damage is done, we can't really reverse those policies without providing an excuse to jack up consumer prices or risk igniting trade wars.

We have given too much of our sovereignty in trade policy over to cabals of mega-capitalists like the WTO, while what remains in domestic control is colonized by lobbying forces. For the ability of the few to extract the lions share of advancements in productivity, people wanting nothing more than a little security in living wage jobs are ground between the wheels of the free-trade juggernaut. Free-trade isn't free, especially when we are competing with nations like China that really treat their workers and their environment as so much grist for the mill. Its cost is egregious demands on those who have jobs, desperation of those without, loss of diversity of skills in a nation's workforce.

Since it is nearly impossible to reverse some of these arrangements, we need to get even more innovative with how we educate the next generation and connect them with new opportunities. For those who are suffering right now, we need to enact some policies like those I mentioned above. With a political climate that looks like it would need the threat of extraterrestrial invasion to unify, it is going to take a very long time to recover.

Again, Fuzzy, I couldn't agree with you more, though we may diverge slightly on the point that there will ever be a time when trade liberalization will be equally good for all parties involved. The very basis of all trade is that labor and commodities are going to obtained from wherever it's cheapest and, unfortunately and invariably, I don't see how that can be anything but the country treats their workers and the environment the worst. The problem is, I don't see a better alternative that maintains any kind of free market. In fact, the rarity of the metals involved in most computer tech is currently driving dealings with countries in Africa that are desperately impoverished and corporations are simply preying on these countries. But again, what are we to do? After so many centuries of the same thing, including the history of our country, I'm coming to believe it's simply part of the short sightedness that is the human condition.

On a less philosophical note, I agree, it's too late for the US to make up the ground we've given. Our hope in turning back into an exporter lies in transforming our workforce through creative and directed education techniques. We also will never win the battle of making widgets with China. We have to turn to our strengths: innovation and ingenuity. Specifically fields of information tech and information infrastructure, computer engineering, biotech and medicine, automotive tech and, most importantly, alternative energy sources. Alternative energy sources are going to be the most singularly important technologies in the coming decades. Unfortunately our government is run by lobbyists that vested short term interests in that not happening.

Maybe we'd be better off with an extraterrestrial invasion.

Hey, wheel. I totally agree. I have talents in mathematical and scientific analysis and design, but I would be totally at a loss if asked to run heavy construction equipment. I have a hard enough time driving a car. And I would probably do much worse than a lot of people if given the same training.

There can still be a lot of jobs that don't require operating much equipment, though. I'd have to say, when I went out on a crew to clear brush and trim trees, it was pretty obvious who had been at it for a while compared to someone like me who only came in for a few days.

Ian - looking back at "trade liberalization is good for everybody in all countries", it looks a lot more positive than I thought when I typed it. I am probably a bit of an optimist about the long term, but the long term I'm thinking of is when most of the world is developed to where PPP has roughly equalized, and most countries have adopted stronger labor and environmental policies. In the mean time I would prefer much more of a true fair trade policy, where progress in those protections are added as conditions to any trade agreements.

No one in leadership in this country is adequately addressing the coming disaster of displaced workers, perpetual unemployment , and middle class displacement that is on the way to America.

Please share your solution. It's not easy. I believe it's a catch-22. In order to create new technology and advancement in science we need to use the new technology and that usually eliminates the large need for human intervention. In the computer boom thousands of technicians were hired. Now technology built into computers do that job. And computers have become so dense in electronic technology there isn't much a technician can do.

If we get more people educated, then there will be less pressure on that end.

Is that realistically going to occur in this political climate? I recently read that today's avg Pell grant, rather than paying all the tuition as it did in the 80s, will cover about 1/3 of the avg state university system tuition. Loop back to needing a decent job to cover the uncovered 2/3 tuition, in addition to the expense of textbooks, supplies, laptops, etc.

In the 70s & 80s you could work PT min wage (25-30 hrs/wk) around your academic schedule & still be able to own a car (not a new one, but a good beater), rent an apt, feed yourself, & pick up what the Pell grant didn't. That's b/c you could get an awesome used car for $500 (not happening today) & throw $5-10 into the gas tank @ .75/gal & have it last a wk or more; you could rent a reasonably-sized place in a reasonably decent 'hood for $125-150/mo & get utils incl w/ that; you could get a wk's worth of groceries for $20-25; you didn't need a personal computer then; & an intro to whatever text would run $10-25. Bringing home $85/wk was a liveable wage. It's a drop in the bucket now.

And this is where Congress is currently looking for *budget cuts*, higher education. The Welfare Reform Act put the emphasis on work & not education; degrees are just not allowed at that level of poverty, get a job & quit sucking off the govt tit already. On the FAFSA parental income counts, unless married, until a kid is 25. W/ student loans made not dischargeable in bankruptcy, it makes ppl leery about assuming them....but how else are they to get the education when Pell grants don't cover it or they're ineligible, parents can't afford the cost even tho at low incomes the govt insists there's enough wiggle rm for a hefty parental contribution, even a FT low wage job isn't going to pay for it? And it's tough to work FT & attend schl FT, even for a young single person able to live w/ family.

How is the level of post-secondary education supposed to get ppl decent jobs when the education itself is largely unattainable for the majority at its current costs? And when the projections were wrong & the degree turns out to be not so effective a move 4 yrs later, w/ a student loan monkey on one's back, that in turn starts screwing up the next generation whose parents can't afford to send them to schl. I mean, since industry crumbled in the early 80s, this country has basically been fumbling & foundering for jobs, so we're already a generation into this w/ no sustainable long-term resolution. Education is out of reach for many.

In the medium term, I think we should encourage a big expansion of "work sharing" programs that allow more people to keep their jobs by taking less hours supplemented with partial unemployment benefits. Tax credits under the ACA could be expanded to help businesses keep these people on the health insurance plans.

Then we should create a relief work corps, maybe not a full-scale job guarantee, but a pool of work to improve the commons of our nation. I know from personal experience that there is a lot of work out there in things like land conservation, fire prevention, and so on. And I am sure we could find things for people who are not as able bodied, as well. Give preference to people for whom it is less realistic to expect retraining in a new set of advanced skills, and to the unemployed prioritized by the time they have been without work.

2 of the best ideas I've ever heard. Also seemingly univiable in the current political climate, alas.

I think connecting secondary to school directly to tech oriented trades and vocations will be a must in the future.

It's been done & it's being done. The problem is that, like w/ a 4 yr degree, there's 2 yrs of pre-requisites for graduation b4 a HS student even veers into this track. It's an additional expense for uniforms, supplies, & equipment not covered by the local schl district, throwing it into the kid's lap & therefore his parents' wallet, which can be a real burden for a single-parent household where Mom wasn't allowed to get an education after Dad walked, but was made to get any old low-paying job due to *reform*. If the kid picks wrong & isn't suited for the training program, the chance is blown b/c they're all 2-yr tracks, no 1-yr ones, & no switching over to something else even as little as a cpl of wks into it; there's no staggered start/stops, graduation remains on the 4-yr track, so the kid ends up back at the HS wasting time in study halls & being shunted into make-work *electives* to fill up the schedule instead. He's now neither *college-bound* nor *vocational-bound* & those last 2 yrs of HS are a total loss preparing him for nothing.

How many 15-16 yo's are going to make the right choice & not want a *do-over*? Vo-tech should start earlier to allow for the lg margin of error it often has, & really, by the time a kid hits MS, you know if he's prime academic material or not. 7th-8th gr is a better time to get them thinking about the choices ahead, not the end of 10th gr, & the 1st 2 yrs of HS should incl *samplers* to lessen the chances of screwups by picking the wrong field for them. Ppl who go to college end up changing their majors, but there doesn't seem to be that kind if option in the vo-tech track.

Alternative energy sources are going to be the most singularly important technologies in the coming decades. Unfortunately our government is run by lobbyists that vested short term interests in that not happening.

Yup....another thing that can't get accomplished in the current political climate, w/ the obesience to Big Oil in exchange for perks in exchange for votes, the general disdain for the *greenies*, the tunnel vision about the future.

Even today, less than 5% of college graduates are unemployed.

And less than 15% are actually working in areas that are related to what they went to college for. On a recent documentary, I watched and listened to a young woman in despair who was saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in high interest loans where she was working as a legal aid. What bothered her most was that a woman working with her doing the same job only had a high school diploma.

No, you never WILL get the majority of people to graduate college. Some don't have the interest or inclination (or even the ability - which is fine; I'm not knocking them - it's just a fact). Others just plain don't have the time or money.

However, we do live in a capitalistic society. If we lived in a communist nation, we might well expect the government to step in and do something. But we can't have government step in and dictate to corporations the qualifications they have to accept. If they have all decided they want only college graduates, then there is nothing to be done for it until they learn the hard way that that's impossible. Meanwhile, they will lose revenue and the rest of us will keep losing jobs. It does seem pretty bleak, but hopefully they'll learn that's not the way to go.

Good topic, JR, by the way.

Bingo. College degrees are often "required" for work that does not require a college degree.

You just don't want to be the person who got that college degree and stuck with having to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars in college loans while you watch that person working next to you doing the same job with the same status for the same pay who didn't go to college and isn't stuck having to pay back all that money. You really unecesarily really dug a big hole for yourself in two ways: First, you were spending years in college while that other person was working earning money. And that other person isn't stuck having to pay back all that money you have to. That other person has a hundreds of thousands of dollars head start over you in the game of life.

And less than 15% are actually working in areas that are related to what they went to college for

So what? There's nothing new in that, in fact, that 15% obviously benefited from opportunities because they had a degree. Regarding the person who worked next to a person....again, so what? A degree doesn't guarantee personal success or satisfaction, it does make the career path more navigable for the vast majority of college graduates. Post-secondary education includes a variety of schools and trades and I can't fathom anyone not advocating for higher education in any form.

You need to constantly learn new things, and keep going to training, throughout your career. Unless you want to be relegated to a dead-end job.

Exactly, I've never met anyone who regretted getting a college degree either. On the other hand, I do know plenty of folks (my sisters inclueded) that do not have college degrees, found themselves with children and dead-end jobs, and are now going to school for associates degrees.

Unless you have a million dollar idea or some amazing talent, TAKE YOUR BUTT TO SCHOOL, GET THAT DEGREE, AND GET SOME EXPERIENCE!!!!

"I never met anyone with a college degree who regretted having it."

I am 64 years old and I don't regret my Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering which I earned in 1975. It served me well. But I do regret my one year I spent going back to college for advanced courses to freshen up my resume in more advanced areas of engineering I wanted to move into. Education without experience was rejected as there are already plenty of engineers out there already unemployed with both the training and experience. If people think they just have to go back to school and that schooling will find them jobs, they are not dealing with the real world. And another group that finds great difficulty: Those with both training and experience, but have been out of work for a year or more. Those that have any chance at all are those who are already working in the particular area an employer is looking for and even they face a tough time. But at least they have a job and would be wise not to quit believing that transitioning to another will be a simple matter because it won't.

We also have a problem with parents who worry that Johnny cannot have organized prayer in school but who do not care that Johnny doesn't read in school. They are proud that Johnny has a part time job so he can buy his own Play Station. School should be his job. Academic excellence should be valued. Homework should exist. It is the education and skills obtained that are important - not the diploma. But the diploma states that a student acquired the skills it represents.

Do not forget those liberal arts subjects and music, drama, PE, etc. I do not know how many times I have heard employers complain that they cannot find people who can carry on an intelligent conversation with their potential clients, be they in the US or international clients.

Education doesn't stop when you leave school. Stop learning; stop earning.

Those who cannot get a degree, can get certified in a profession or an AA degree that will provide entry into a specific job market. No advanced education, get used to saying, "Do you want fries with that?" or become a Bill Gates and start your own company.

John,

We are getting your point, the problem is we don't run the world. The fact is..people with degrees earn more in their lifetime than people who don't. That's the way it's been for decades. As a matter of fact, people with degrees are responsible for the very internet that allows this and other blogs to exist in the first place.

Everything's becoming more technologically advanced (has anyone actually looked under the hoods of their cars lately??), which will require specialized training. If you want to keep our unemployment levels from getting at 15 or 20%, keep the number of babies down to about two or three.

Get degreed, get certified, get a job. High school just doesn't cut it anymore.

People are told you need a college DEGREE to be considered for a job. Tens of millions of people will NEVER get a college degree. Should they kill themselves now?

Let me start off by saying that I didn't realize that the percentage of college-educated Americans was so low. That being said, if degree-holding people were a dime a dozen, it would just make it more difficult for people with degrees to find a decent job (which would in turn be most Americans). If nearly every citizen had a bachelor's, the standards for a decent job would just be kicked up a notch; you would need a master's in order to get a good job.

But, let's for a moment pretend that all jobs that require a bachelor's are opened up to those with only a h.s. diploma. This is great news for me because, as a result, I will automatically be moved up in the salary bracket. And, realistically speaking, the person with the bachelor's will probably get the job over the h.s. diploma anyways unless that person happens to have extensive experience. So, h.s. diploma guy is left in the same boat.

In today's career world, people have to do something to give themselves an edge. There are plenty of trades that don't require a degree but require training and/or licensing. My brother-in-law is an electrician and makes very good money. So, if people don't have the ambition and drive to better themselves they deserve a job flipping burgers at McDonald's.

John, This is why economic questions do not have simple solutions like "Reduce taxes," Balanced Budget," "Less Regulation"

The Beige Book was just released citing the lack of qualified engineers, IT, and other professionals.

Your concerns about social unrest are those expressed by those damn liberals for so long. The development of a large underclass has also been a liberal concern, the widening gap between the rich and the poor and the educated and under-educated.

One thing we have lost with the decline of trade unions are apprenticeship programs which allowed people to learn a trade from masters while earning money to do so. Pay increased with experience.

No one denying the problem, but education and acquiring new skills are the only ways many will ever get back into a job. The long term unemployed are not just lazy asses not looking for work.

The Beige Book was just released citing the lack of qualified engineers, IT, and other professionals.

Your key word is "qualified". People these days are looking for skilled people. If I need a network engineer I don't care how much other experience you have. I need you to have network experience to hit the ground running.

One thing we have lost with the decline of trade unions are apprenticeship programs which allowed people to learn a trade from masters while earning money to do so. Pay increased with experience.

That particular area of work is literally from back in the Middle Ages w/ the trade guilds playing the part of unions. It's an idea that has worked for 1,000 yrs. Has it, like factories, run its course at last?

It has until someone can out a new spin on the method.

The industrial age is over, it started dying in the 60s (when we began losing factory jobs) now we need to id this age of technology and fulfill its needs.

We just don't have as many educated people that are able to do change over.

There are a lot of good engineers , such as yourself , and I have worked with some . All I was trying to point out was not everyone that gets a degree is capable of using it.

All I was trying to point out was not everyone that gets a degree is capable of using it.

So true!

I believe that no one w/ a degree in education ought to be able to get hired fresh out of college w/ putting in a minimum of 2 yrs at substitute teaching 1st, as close to FT as possible.

That's b/c there's no practical application for classrm mgmt skills in college, not even in the student tchg practicum (b/c the *real* tchr is always in the rm w/ you to jump on discipline issues). You learn how to handle students by doing it & there's no better place to learn it than walking into a rm full of kids who think this is now a vacation day for them b/c the *real* tchr isn't in. And the more you walk into situations like that, the easier it gets & the better you get at it.

This was b/c I saw quite a few freshly-minted tchrs have major meltdowns within wks or mos of starting, at the elementary level where you wouldn't think there'd be a problem, who chose that level b/c it was all going to be cute little kindergarteners & coloring & singing songs. They thought tchg PK or K was going to be a cushy, EZ job & o so cute.

Completely forgetting that these kids had never been to schl b4, never spent that much time away from their parents b4, cried at the drop of a hat, threw tantrums, had zero socialization skills, couldn't tie their shoes, button their coats, blow their noses, had bathrm accidents, & couldn't follow directions even if you bribed them w/ candy (that was going to make them bounce off the walls). And would walk in there w/ fabulous, elaborate, intricate lesson plans but absolutely no clue how they were going to get these 20 short ppl to behave & do the lessons.

Ppl mgmt is an acquired skill & you can't acquire it when you don't even understand that you're supposed to have it. Some of them would cry worse than the kids & quit by Halloween, leaving the district scrambling for an experienced long-term sub while they repeated the mistake & interviewed more 21 yo kids w/o a clue to take over. Substitute tchg was where to hone those mgmt skills in a myriad of different situations & gain the confidence to be able to handle a classrm on a day-to-day basis.

called a diploma, is the one of the biggest scams going in this country.

I agree, but if it wasn't required, liberal academia would be out of a job. The educated elitists couldn't function in the real world.

We need farmers, ranchers, back hoe operators, concrete workers, auto makers, oil field workers, builders,

We have more of those than we need as is. Our lack of global competitiveness is coming from a lack of educated workers in the growing tech fields. We don't live in the 50s anymore.

Keep up the, "Bravos!" That will help keep people saying, "Do you want fries with that?"

It is not the diploma. It is the education that is important. Make all the jokes you want about college educations and those bookish types. But those poor people who cannot survive in the real world are doing better in most cases than those who are making fun of their educational accomplishments.

Many have shown routes to good jobs that don't involve 4 year degrees. You tend to ignore them.

Comments above, 21.3 and 21.4 are perfect examples of my point. Where are all these laborers? Mexico? China? India? Now we do have the major corporate entities like Monsanto and Koch Industries that have destroyed allot of the agriculture in the US. Young people coming out of High School are more tech savvy than ever. Ask a college graduate how many yards of cement it will take to cover a specified area, and they have to refer to their technological tools to cipher the answer. So China is looking to hire college grads only? They've made huge advancements that cannot be matched by the US? Sorry, most Americans do not want the pay scale, the working conditions, or their government structure. Why should US citizens try to compete with other countries by lowering the standards of US citizens? We should be the leaders in combining the technological advancements with the labor force needed to maintain the American way of life. Competing globally is over-rated. We have a society that is unmatched by any other country that needs to be preserved.

I am talking about the ever increasing reports that suggest college degrees are going to become a normal requirement to get a decent job.

Of course there are other areas of training that people use successfully.

Which reports? The one I posted included specific vocational training as post-secondary schooling as well as Associates.

If it is required to get a job then most people won't have jobs and I guess we will send them overseas or find more ways to eliminate them. Then what happens to those tens of millions of people? You want 20% unemployment? You think everyone without a college degree is going to be happy with a minimum wage job? You are begging for trouble.

So your answer to not sending jobs overseas is to not require education in fields that de facto require education? Or is it just to let the jobs that do require education go overseas and the US can make... I don't know... corn or something. I'm hearing a lot of griping that is not taking into account that if we want to be economically successful we have to be the tech capital of the world. That is the future. That requires a highly educated workforce.

I think you're selling the US short. If other countries can do it then so can we.

a diploma, is the one of the biggest scams going in this country.

That is singularly the most ill-informed comment I've read here.

No, this is:

This [diplomas] has resulted in obesity being widespread

On the job training at the corporation or small business is the best training anyone can get. Studying Shakespeare will not feed your family. Why don't we get rid of all the elitist professors in the country and pay corporations and small business to do our training. That's where the jobs are. Constitutional scholars don't know how to create jobs or run a business. They don't even know how to pass a constitutional health care bill.

Comments above, 21.3 and 21.4 are perfect examples of my point. Where are all these laborers? Mexico? China? India?

Where are all the farmers, construction workers, auto plant workers, and oil field workers? Seriously? In the US. We have NO shortages of these workers so why would need more of them?

Ask a college graduate how many yards of cement it will take to cover a specified area, and they have to refer to their technological tools to cipher the answer.

Give me a break. Yes, I'm sure an engineer that can do Lagrange resolvents in his/her head will have a real hard time with LxWxH.

So China is looking to hire college grads only? They've made huge advancements that cannot be matched by the US? Sorry, most Americans do not want the pay scale, the working conditions, or their government structure. Why should US citizens try to compete with other countries by lowering the standards of US citizens? We should be the leaders in combining the technological advancements with the labor force needed to maintain the American way of life. Competing globally is over-rated. We have a society that is unmatched by any other country that needs to be preserved.

Who said China? We're being outperformed by Europe, Japan and India too. Oh, and the old "American Way of Life" canard. What is the American way of life exactly? Is it the way now? Post WWII or pre? Industrial Revolution era or prior? Because trust me, most of Americas history of labor was nothing like you'd equate to a "Way of Life". It was dirty, dangerous, and folks didn't live all that long.

And how could you equate a better educated populace to "lowering the standards of US citizens"? That's raising them actually.

Lastly, competing globally is the only thing that matters. Say other countries technological advances allow then to produce better cars cheaper. Whose going to buy US cars then? You can apply that to any item. How is America's standard of living going to improve by having us continually fall behind the rest of the world in medicine? You think people are going to stop buying medicine? Nope. They just won't in the US. Again, apply this to any product. Our country doesn't have walls and neither does our economy. We're entwined with the world. That being the case we better have the smartest, tech ready populace we can to face the future that is coming.

Competing globally is over-rated.

Global business/competition exists to increase ever raising profit margins in the US. That's thanks in part to capitalism - which is the American way.

If the end result of technology is fewer people having jobs because they have been eliminated by the technology, obviously that is not going to be viable. A portion of decent paying jobs MUST not require advanced education, that is the answer. The answer is not to expect something to happen that is not going to happen (everyone learning computer technology as a career).

We can't control what's going to happen and where market demand will go. What do expect the US to do? Retain factory jobs that produce things nobody wants or produces things that are too expensive to sell? The US is in the same boat as every other country. Factory jobs are never going to disappear entirely though they will continue to shrink as will wages related to them. Economic growth is going to come from technological innovation and technologically educated people.

When I listen to you I really fear for what shape this country is going to be in 25 years from now.

I do too, but only because I fear there are too many people, and thus politicians, who don't realize the importance of education and will continue to fall behind.

Studying Shakespeare will not feed your family.

Tell that to best friend Ted who is a theatre professor and pulls down 150gs a year. He feeds his family just fine. What a maroon you are. Yes, let's corporations "teach" our children. Who needs history or the arts? I'm sure we'd be in great shape as a country then.

What a maroon you are.

A what?

Sure you can. People who want to sell product in the US will be required to manufacture a percentage of it here.

Sorry, that's too big government for this liberal. You want to give tax incentives to US companies to keep work here, that's fine, but forcing a foreign company to setup shop here is ridiculous. Too much of my work and play is dependent on high tech and precious little is made here.

People who want to sell product in the US will be required to manufacture a percentage of it here.

In fact Ian, this is already written into NAFTA, but W. refused to enforce it. In fact, when John Edwards, then senator from NC, tried to attach a rider to the (Un) Patriot act that would force the U.S. govt to enforce all parts of NAFTA, including specifically that clothing sold in the U.S. from Mexico had to be made of cloth made in the U.S. Bush practically called him a traitor.

In fact Ian, this is already written into NAFTA, but W. refused to enforce it. In fact, when John Edwards, then senator from NC, tried to attach a rider to the (Un) Patriot act that would force the U.S. govt to enforce all parts of NAFTA, including specifically that clothing sold in the U.S. from Mexico had to be made of cloth made in the U.S. Bush practically called him a traitor.In fact Ian, this is already written into NAFTA, but W. refused to enforce it. In fact, when John Edwards, then senator from NC, tried to attach a rider to the (Un) Patriot act that would force the U.S. govt to enforce all parts of NAFTA, including specifically that clothing sold in the U.S. from Mexico had to be made of cloth made in the U.S. Bush practically called him a traitor.

Honestly, I'm fairly familiar with NAFTA and remember nothing that stated that. The only thing NAFTA states is that all clothing said to originate in a NAFTA territory must have its major components originate in a NAFTA territory. It was called the "yarn forward" rule. Mexico couldn't take yarn form Argentina then make clothing from it and be free of tariffs. They could, on the other hand, take wool from Argentina, spin yarn and then make clothing from it and be within the transformation rules. Can you point me to the specifics? I've never heard of a trade agreement that makes the exporter have to have a portion of its export made in the importers country. That doesn't make sense and doesn't seem feasible. Thanks.

we do not need education. the republican governors are seeing to it that our citizens need only enough education to do the menial jobs that their plans will create. teachers are a burden on our budgets and their usefulness to society should only be measured in their willingness to to sacrifice principle in order to teach the crap that these ideologues mandate.

Yes we are insane. "In America you can be anything you want to be"... NO YOU CANNOT. I am 6'2" tall I CANNOT be an NBA center.

The false premise of that is the cause of much of the trouble. You cannot be a rocket scientist without certain abilities. You cannot be a successful stage actor without certain abilities.

Licenses are required for many professions. WHY? Because NOT EVERYONE can do that job safely.

Until we get rid of the "you can be whatever you want to be" mentality, we will have a great problem. People have to find out what they ARE good at and develop that. They CANNOT just decide to BE something.

@ Dr. Know

People have to find out what they ARE good at and develop that. They CANNOT just decide to BE something.

You got that right. I coach track and the first thing everyone wants to do is run the 100 talking bout they wanna be the next Usain Bolt. Then when I try to steer them toward an event they can actually be good in, and make it to nationals in they resist. Then the parents get pissed and want to take the kid out of the program. LOL!!

People have to find out what they ARE good at and develop that. They CANNOT just decide to BE something.

So true. I have great technicians that suddenly decide that they want to be in management. For most that's not going to happen. They don't have the interpersonal skills.