NY Times article on degree- and certificate -use problems

Formal education … conceivably the most overrated industry in America!

 

That was in the 90s before the internet was so powerful. Why to hire people from India to come to the US when you can have them working from India at a cheaper price?

The H1B phenomenon was in my opinion just a excuse to bring "IT slaves". IT workers under H1B tend to ask for less and be willing to work more as they want green cards sponsorships. Employers like to have people in H1B as they can control them more. It is not a secret that people working at Microsoft under H1B were putting 100+ hours a week just to keep the employer happy and renew H1B or possible green card sponsorships. I don't see American nationals be willing to put the 100+ hours a week so the H1Bs make an attractive for companies like Microsoft. Of course you need to preach that we don't have enough computer graduates in order to justify the visas. There are quite a few Americans with computer related degrees unable to find work.

 

This is one of your better posts and I agree with the gist of it.

I do not agree, however, with your assessment that schools are going to "benefit", because they are supplying students with their a fix of credentials. Nor would I conclude that these schools are recession proof, by any strech of the imagination. I think a lot of schools are going to fold over the course of the next five years and that the grant money that is being thrown at students will level out. We are heading into a period of high inflation and this will have an equally dramatic effect on the economy.

In addition, I think many of these students choose programs where there is little likelihood of finding employment. For example, the hotel and restauarant sector is facing ongoing difficulty; yet, students are enrolling in programs leading to degrees in in hotel management and the culinary arts. Thus, they have only themselves to blame for not finding jobs.

 

You've been a member for three months. I've posted more than 8,000 times. I can't imagine you've seen enough of them to draw that conclusion.

These are opinions not supported by asserted facts. You might very well be right, but offer no support to allow others to come to the same conclusions.

Ummmm, I think that's what I said, that employees are responsible for their own development. I would disagree with your last sentence, though. The entire system is at fault; students are merely one set of stakeholders.

 

Don't assume that just because I registered several months ago that I haven't followed this board or read your posts.

So let me get this right, my opinions are not supported by facts, but yours are, in otherwords, your following statement (which I disagreed with) is premised on facts:

Looks to me like it's nothing more than your opinion; yet, you have somehow managed to convinvce yourself that only your opinions are factual, which is a flawed argument, to say the least.

 

Really? I cited one author (Hapgood). If you'd like to learn more about governed markets, may I refer you to Wade. Human development theory can be learned from Swanson. Human capital theory? Sources are everywhere. Plus I discussed specific concepts (like qualifications frameworks and human capital markets) that are readily available. No, not opinions. Just more knowledge about these things than you might be able to handle. When you want to discuss them instead of me, post it right here.

 

So what, you cited Hapgood followed by injecting your opinion. Or are you now claiming that Hapgood said: "Any wonder school costs are rising at much higher rates compared to inflation? Even in tough economic times? Do it right and your school is positively recession-proof." Looks to me like it's nothing more than your opinion.

Moreover, my stating that "the hotel and restauarant sector is facing ongoing difficulty" is a factual premise and not just "my" opinion Once again, you have somehow managed to convince yourself that your opinions are facts, which is a flawed argument.

 

Once again, we move quickly from "it" (whatever topic is being discussed" to "you" (ad hominem). Please accept the last word with my compliments.

 

My pointing out your flawed argument is not an ad hominem. It is based on on your not being able to differentiate between "your opinion" and fact. If you go back to my initial post, I stated that it was one of your better posts (a compliment), but that I disagreed with your closing statement. If you feel the need to cry ad hominem, because I happen to disagree with your opinion, then it is by your own choosing.

 

I'm under the impression (derived from those much more educated and intelligent than I) that a lot of the price inflation in tuition is due largely to increased access to government sponsored loans allowing for an inflated amount of money ergo overpricing. If I am correct the solution is to limit access to government loans allowing lowered demand to drive the cost down (it will be painful, but the laws of supply and demand will ultimately kick in). This will also force people to look for alternatives driving people and money towards alternative means of education further forcing B&M schools to compete and again lowering the price. This will result in lower prices and less "dimplomaism" as it has been called previously. If the cost is lowered the job requirements for a good rate of return on your investment (a degree) will not be nearly as high.

Does that sound right to anybody else? As usual, I blame the government so I must acknowledge my potential to oversimplify the issue based on my larger agenda.

 

It sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe two big branches of the government, The Depts of Labor and Education, could work on it together. Labor tracks employment trends. It seems sensible, at least in votech training, to direct funding to useful places.

 

It's hard to convince a politician that throwing money at something does more harm than good. I'll tell you one thing though, if the government gave people low interest loans that didn't start for years after the initial loan acquisition to get their cars fixed the price of repairs would go up. It makes perfect sense. If I could charge more with little repercussion to fix computers I would!

It rubs me the wrong way to essentially suggest a spending cut to education of all things, but if I'm right the money is hurting not helping (long term), and heaven knows we need the money elsewhere.

 

This article fails to lay the blame on two parties that are also to blame for this situation: employers and the students themselves. Who pays $40,000 to learn how to become a line cook? That's ridiculous. A quick scan through the local want ads would tell any student that the math doesn't ad up on that one. If the program costs $40,000 and the jobs listed in the local paper only pay $20,000 per year, then that school is overpriced. Restaurants look for cooks with experience, not college degrees. Take a low-paying job and work your way up. That's how it used to be done, and it still works.

Employers are also to blame because they are now requiring a BS just to answer a phone in an office. Years ago, workers needed a high school diploma to qualify for employment. Now, more and more employers are requiring a college degree as a minimum qualification for applying for a job...whether the job actually warrants that type of education or not.

I am a proud graduate of a trade school, and it resulted in a 20-year career in the broadcasting industry. I have interviewed presidential candidates, Nobel prize winners and famous celebrities...all with no degree. There is still a place in this world for vo-tech schools, community colleges and on-the-job training.

 

I agree. Votechs are very relevant these days. People need education and job training, so if your liberal arts degree isn't paying the bills, you can can get some hands on training in something that pays. I think it's sensible for even the highly educated to sometimes retrain for whatever is needed in the workplace. People are mistaken to believe that higher education and job training are always the same thing. You can study what you love (history, literature or whatever) and accept the reality that you might have to learn a trade too. If you're not in a professional undergraduate program the reality is that you might graduate without a skill that anyone needs. That's not a bad thing, if you're grounded, because now that you're educated you can train to do whatever is actually paying. Go to the local state votech school and get a diploma in something useful. Education + Training = well-rounded.

 

I agree, I got some IT certifications (essentially vocational training) and I'm getting an associates now. I'm hoping it will make me look fairly well rounded.