Work school

Quote: rxwine

There was a report I was reading comparing men who were active in their 50s to men who weren't active in their 50s. Even when some of the active ones were evaluated to be relatively sedentary later in their late 60s, they seemed to still be benefitting from their early physical activitiy in overall health even though they were effectively just as out as shape as the ones who weren't active in their 50s.

My point being, the benefit of something may not be what you think it should be nor occur the way you expect.

If you take a position, for instance, learning how to read Egyptian Hieroglyphics at age 18 is not pertinent to what you want to do, and you will likely forget almost all of it later, you're assuming that it did nothing for you.

Do we know that for sure? I say, no. Certainly nothing I've read.

I'm not saying I know what way college may benefit people or society. Just to me, there appears to be a correlation.

That's what I'm saying. Nothing negative about trades or why that isn't a viable option as well.

That is a massive risk. You are asking people to make a huge investment in both time and money to learn something that may help them in an abstract way someday in the future. That does not help them get a job tomorrow. People should focus on a defined goal. If you want to be a teacher, go to college get a required degree and get a teaching certificate, if you want to be a nurse, go into a nursing program, if you want to be a biologist get a biology degree, etc.... But, people should not be encouraged to just pop into college "undeclared" and figure it out (which often leads to them selecting a very easy major to finish off). Do we really need more people in the job market with a B.A. in Psychology who have zero actual interest in psychology? (one of the most popular undergrad degrees, and also most unused degrees because unless you have a graduate degree its virtually worthless in almost every state for direct use.....)
Also, in America (for most students who are not supported by parents or an employer), you are asking people to take out massive debt, without fully understanding the implications, which adds to the risk, students who could not qualify for a small credit card can take out tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands for multiple degrees back to back) of dollars of debt with no guaranteed job at the end. This is one reason there is a student loan crisis.

It would be great if we could all study everything, but that is not possible. This is why people should not be against targeted education approaches (certifications). There needs to be a purpose with education, a defined objective.

You say there is a correlation, but with what data? What defines a successful country, and how does education correlate? Your earlier post confirms that certification count as tertiary education, so even by education metrics more certifications is good (which is more realistic to quickly achieve than more degrees for reasons which should not need to be stated).

Quote: Gandler

That is a massive risk. You are asking people to make a huge investment in both time and money to learn something that may help them in an abstract way someday in the future.

Not asking anyone to do anything actually.

Quote:

That does not help them get a job tomorrow. People should focus on a defined goal.

From a practical standard, one should get a job, and train for a job as necessary. But I do not put limits on what they should pursue for education purposes.

Quote:

If you want to be a teacher, go to college get a required degree and get a teaching certificate, if you want to be a nurse, go into a nursing program, if you want to be a biologist get a biology degree, etc.... But, people should not be encouraged to just pop into college "undeclared" and figure it out (which often leads to them selecting a very easy major to finish off). Do we really need more people in the job market with a B.A. in Psychology who have zero actual interest in psychology? (one of the most popular undergrad degrees, and also most unused degrees because unless you have a graduate degree its virtually worthless in almost every state for direct use.....)
Also, in America (for most students who are not supported by parents or an employer), you are asking people to take out massive debt, without fully understanding the implications, which adds to the risk, students who could not qualify for a small credit card can take out tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands for multiple degrees back to back) of dollars of debt with no guaranteed job at the end. This is one reason there is a student loan crisis.

It would be great if we could all study everything, but that is not possible. This is why people should not be against targeted education approaches (certifications). There needs to be a purpose with education, a defined objective.

One should certainly have a defined objective as an aim of purpose.. Same answer, as to whether they should only be allowed to pursue effective goals only. No.

Quote:

You say there is a correlation, but with what data? What defines a successful country, and how does education correlate? Your earlier post confirms that certification count as tertiary education, so even by education metrics more certifications is good (which is more realistic to quickly achieve than more degrees for reasons which should not need to be stated).

I'd rather define success as being able to meet more primary needs than definng by GDP. And more general mobility, even if you don't leave home. But you could. More people being fed, healthcare, homes over their heads. etc., More people able to educate and be educated. All the top countries have those things more in common than the bottom

As far as data linking education. I only show correlation. But assuming that you're right, why are the bottom 100 or so countries lacking in what I'm defining as success. I only have correlation, but what do you have? Some people who made bad choices in career selection and don't have good jobs? If that's your definition of a failed system, I'm not too worried.

Quote: rxwine

Until someone shows me some data that proves otherwise I'm going to keep referring to lists of the most educated countries in the world as a better correlation of overall success than anyone pointing out their personal experience of useless college degrees.

The greater the lack of tertiary education sure seems to be correlated with overall success of the country whether large or small.

You can check which countries you prefer, at the top or the bottom of the lists.

The problem is you are enamored with paper. Like the guy I used to know who thought Scott Walker was unqualified because he did not have his degree. Walker is a semester or so short. I said what on earth is the difference, after you are out 10 years it is your experience that matters.

In the USA we have lots of people with degrees working at jobs well below that degree. Meanwhile The auto shop is backed up because they cannot get enough auto techs. It takes days to get your hot water tank replaced for want of plumbers.

What is strange is the Democrat Party, traditionally the blue collar party, is the one who hates the Mike Rowe message and just keeps pushing more and more college for more and more people as a fix-all when evidence all around shows it is having the opposite effect. Little Johnny goes off to university and comes back with a poly-sci degree but he cannot even change a tire on his car.

Meanwhile, the GOP, supposed party of "the rich" is embracing getting people back to the trades.

AZ, your advice is good for some but certainly not all. My oldest son, the genius who was in the WoV triathlon, did not know what he wanted ‘to do’ in life when he went off to college. Because he was at a school (Carnegie Mellon) that had diverse offerings he was exposed to lots of choices. He became interested in entomology due to working at the Carnegie Museum, and he now has a full time job at University of Florida as a PhD in entomology. If you would have asked him in high school what he wanted ‘to do’ I doubt entomologist would have made the top 100.
My younger son went to Missouri, but unlike his brother, he ‘knew’ he wanted to be a sports journalist. Midway he realized the chance to do what he wanted in the field (be a talking head) was slim, so he changed to computer programming. Cost me a bit extra as he had to ‘catch up’ with some summer school classes.

I will agree with you that if you are going to need to take out $$$,$$$ in loans it is not a good idea to go to a $70k a year college. At least in NY, the state system has very inexpensive options. For many it is free if you agree to stay in NY for the 4 years after college. And their are boatloads of exceptions as well.

I asked a contractor where he learned his many skills.

He told me he wasn't doing well in High School at all, so he dropped out and joined Job Corps, where he first learned roofing, then carpentry, electrical and plumbing.

Today he has a successful contracting business.

For me the college "education" was pretty worthless. Having access to high end computers was priceless. I was able to get computer programming jobs at the university from the age of 18 until age 23 when I finished my degree. I worked in medical research and got to program MRI machines, CAT scanners and much more. That opportunity would not have existed if I didn't go to the university. I must admit that the social circumstances of being away from home and at a university were also priceless.

Quote: SOOPOO

AZ, your advice is good for some but certainly not all. My oldest son, the genius who was in the WoV triathlon, did not know what he wanted ‘to do’ in life when he went off to college. Because he was at a school (Carnegie Mellon) that had diverse offerings he was exposed to lots of choices. He became interested in entomology due to working at the Carnegie Museum, and he now has a full time job at University of Florida as a PhD in entomology. If you would have asked him in high school what he wanted ‘to do’ I doubt entomologist would have made the top 100.
My younger son went to Missouri, but unlike his brother, he ‘knew’ he wanted to be a sports journalist. Midway he realized the chance to do what he wanted in the field (be a talking head) was slim, so he changed to computer programming. Cost me a bit extra as he had to ‘catch up’ with some summer school classes.

I will agree with you that if you are going to need to take out $$$,$$$ in loans it is not a good idea to go to a $70k a year college. At least in NY, the state system has very inexpensive options. For many it is free if you agree to stay in NY for the 4 years after college. And their are boatloads of exceptions as well.

Hey, good for you being able to afford it and good for them taking advantage. You beat the odds. When I was in school so many people who had parents paying ended up skipping class, being drunks, and if female dropping out a single mother. One guy I knew skipped class one Friday because his friends were coming in. Never went back. Dropped a math class he was getting an A in because, I am not making this up, it was too far to walk to class. I hated the guy, he was a drunk and a pot fiend, they were his whole life. And the dude was actually very intelligent.

A high school buddy went to Pitt, blocks from your son at CMU. Second semester he was getting influenced by a guy who was a very bad influence. I stopped hanging with him much as this guy was so bad, I could see what is coming. He started hanging in the student union playing pool. Until he decided why fight traffic when he could play pool in the suburbs. Eventually he told his parents he "skipped a class and could not catch back up." We were told that in college you skip one class you may never catch back up. Reality is he tried to go back to class but they moved the class to where he did not know. He was out for a year I think and his parents had had enough. He may still not know I told them I was in college because it was school, real job, or move out. I told them call his bluff and let him move out. He eventually became a success in avionics. But so much wasted money.

There were many more stories like these. The theme was the same. They went to college because it was what you did.

Quote: AZDuffman

He started hanging in the student union playing pool. Until he decided why fight traffic when he could play pool in the suburbs.

I spent so much time in the student union playing pool. I am sure I blew off lots of classes for that. On a side note I became pretty good and finished third three years in a row at the University of Iowa pool tournament.

Quote: DRich

I spent so much time in the student union playing pool. I am sure I blew off lots of classes for that. On a side note I became pretty good and finished third three years in a row at the University of Iowa pool tournament.

Pool was a fad at the time. I think part of the issue was commuting to school was backbreaking add that to the bad influence guy and that was that. His brother went for free when their mother got a job at one of the hospitals the college owned. His brother did well at school but not so much socially. The brother died young.

Quote: Tanko

I asked a contractor where he learned his many skills.

He told me he wasn't doing well in High School at all, so he dropped out and joined Job Corps, where he first learned roofing, then carpentry, electrical and plumbing.

Today he has a successful contracting business.

I know have met some people who have done this program. It seems like a great program (you get free food, housing, and a living stipend) while you get your HS Diploma and a Certificate (and I think potentially an Assoicates Degree) and actual hands on experience (that is the big part, getting experience with employers).

The downside (for most people) is it does involve sending an underage kid away to live at a remote location, so I am sure most stable families would be against it. The few people who I met who did enter the program as a minor, were not growing up in functional homes, so to them it was probably a great escape. In many ways this is similar to the Vo-tech and HS approach (though even more profitable since you earn some money while there, and all expenses are covered), you just have to be willing (and have parents that will sign off) on going away. That may be a generalization on my part based on who I have met, I am sure people from some great families go to this program as well.

In any case it seems the program pays off (and if you are trying to escape a bad family it serves that purpose as well, I think you can stay until you are 22 or something like that if you want). Also, its a good alternative for teenagers considering joining the military just to learn a specific job, who really don't want to be in the military overall (and just view it as paid training with the being in the military parts as something to just survive). I am actually surprised this program does not get talked about more, I hear about it so infrequently, every time I hear a story about it, its like the first time, you would think such a great opportunity would be advertised more.

Quote: rxwine

Not asking anyone to do anything actually.



From a practical standard, one should get a job, and train for a job as necessary. But I do not put limits on what they should pursue for education purposes.




One should certainly have a defined objective as an aim of purpose.. Same answer, as to whether they should only be allowed to pursue effective goals only. No.



I'd rather define success as being able to meet more primary needs than definng by GDP. And more general mobility, even if you don't leave home. But you could. More people being fed, healthcare, homes over their heads. etc., More people able to educate and be educated. All the top countries have those things more in common than the bottom

As far as data linking education. I only show correlation. But assuming that you're right, why are the bottom 100 or so countries lacking in what I'm defining as success. I only have correlation, but what do you have? Some people who made bad choices in career selection and don't have good jobs? If that's your definition of a failed system, I'm not too worried.

(I agree with most of that, so I am replying to your last point).

But, that was my earlier point in my last post, some of those are self-fulling correlations. For example, defining as a positive metric as having higher education, and then well countries with the most education are at the top of this metric (of course).

For many of the countries "at the bottom", their immediate concern is clean drinking water, not being killed by the random militia of the day, and basic sanitation, they are probably not concerned with how many diplomas the government will subsidize. Literacy rates are a better metric than tertiary education for overall wellness, life expectancy, and general safety (if a country has below 30% there is no way you would even consider going there by choice). Much of the world is struggling with the basic problem of getting to the point that the majority (50% +) of their population being even basic level literate forget advanced level stuff. These countries are not worried about higher education (many of them are not even directly worried about literacy since they have more immediate threats)....

For example we can probably both agree that no sane American would want to live in Afghanistan by choice (outside of military assignments and government posts, etc....) [And, this may be a bad example, forget current events, making it even worse, lets say Afghanistan three years ago when it was still Democratic]. Would you not want to live in Afghanistan because the majority of the population does not have a High School Diploma or a B.A? Or would there be more tangible reasons?

I think that your correlation is fine. However, your conclusions are not looking at the whole picture, or taking societal evolutions into account. A wealthy, stable country, that is not undergoing a civil war, is going to have longer life, less STDs, higher literacy rates, more college graduates, etc.... This is because the country has entered a stage of stability, and the literacy (and then later higher education) will naturally follow.

For example in 1870 the literacy rate in America was lower than modern Afghanistan, if a wizard forced me to choose between living in 1870s America and modern Afghanistan, there would be no choice, 1870s America (especially as a white male, but even if that status was changed, I would still choose 1870s America over modern Afganistan). Because the literacy rate will soon climb, and this is because the country is restabilizing after a massive civil war, technological innovation, and political turmoil. Whereas in Afghanistan, literacy rates are about to plummet (especially now). Literacy and education are both fine metrics (I would argue literacy more so than education) for gauging the safety and stability of a country. But, you have to look at history and realize that increases in all standards don't happen in a vacuum, they happen because of increases in stability.

Once a country leave a point where if you are lucky enough to survive being birthed, lucky enough to survive childhood, luck enough to survive being a child soldier, lucky enough to not be killed randomly in a bombing, you are now maybe 30, and you will be happy to live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere. You are not worried about learning to read, forget higher education (and people younger than you certainly are too busy/scared/stressed to).

This is also a great example of female empowerment, if you judge literacy (as is the standard) by adults, then females make a solid majority (of adults) in virtually all countries, so if you live in a country that prohibits women from learning to read, on top of the men who just refuse or are unable to, by simple math you will never breach 50%.... So by barring the majority of the population from becoming literate, you are shooting yourself in the foot (especially because these countries already tend to have very low literacy rates even among those who are legally able to learn).

This is why literacy is far more accurate for predicting life expectancy, health, living standards, and GDP than higher education or even tertiary education.
A country has high literacy rates because it is a stable country, and country is not a stable country because it has high literacy rates.