Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're taking that word way out of context. "Overeducated" here means getting an academic credential where it isn't necessary. There's nothing wrong with learning a lot, but that doesn't mean you need to pay $200K for a college degree.
That sounds like an argument for reforming how college is paid for. Like, say, having colleges that people can go to at no cost, without burdensome debts. There are countries on this planet that have managed to do such things...
Overeducated and underemployed
61–70 of 70 posts
Re: Overeducated and underemployed
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're taking that word way out of context. "Overeducated" here means getting an academic credential where it isn't necessary. There's nothing wrong with learning a lot, but that doesn't mean you need to pay $200K for a college degree.
Average student debt is $25K, hasn't been increasing that much, except in for-profit schools like Univ of Phoenix: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/student-...
Re: Overeducated and underemployed
#63"Overeducated" implies that there is some upper-bound on the appropriate education a person should receive if they have a particular career. It is the sort of elitist, aristocracy-favoring view of the world that we should be trying to discourage. Of course, when going to college means taking on mountains of inescapable debt, not getting a high-paying job afterwards is problematic. That's why we need to change the way…
You're taking that word way out of context. "Overeducated" here means getting an academic credential where it isn't necessary. There's nothing wrong with learning a lot, but that doesn't mean you need to pay $200K for a college degree.
I would say it was said to set a worthiness factor on a profession; to imply that taxi drivers are not valuable to our society.
The software industry most certainly does not require a degree either, and we have countless success stories of people in the industry without degrees or relevant degrees, but we wouldn't say someone with a degree is overeducated to do the job because we regard programmers in high standing. Imagine if this article was about all the overeducated CS grads working as programmers. We'd be all up in arms about it, even though there is no theoretical difference. You still need complex skills and education to be a good taxi driver. It is not something just anyone can hop into the car and do.
Re: Overeducated and underemployed
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're taking that word way out of context. "Overeducated" here means getting an academic credential where it isn't necessary. There's nothing wrong with learning a lot, but that doesn't mean you need to pay $200K for a college degree.
' "Overeducated" here means getting an academic credential where it isn't necessary. ' I would say it was said to set a worthiness factor on a profession; to imply that taxi drivers are not valuable to our society. The software industry most certainly does not require a degree either, and we have countless success stories of people in the industry without degrees or relevant degrees, but we wouldn't say someone with…
Re: Overeducated and underemployed
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
' "Overeducated" here means getting an academic credential where it isn't necessary. ' I would say it was said to set a worthiness factor on a profession; to imply that taxi drivers are not valuable to our society. The software industry most certainly does not require a degree either, and we have countless success stories of people in the industry without degrees or relevant degrees, but we wouldn't say someone with…
Not true. Many, if not most, programming jobs require a college degree to even apply, at least in the US.
If you are writing software for a company that makes, say, shoes, maybe things are different. You might even need to have a degree to get a job as a driver in the shoe company, as a result of their overall business culture.
I'd love to look over the numbers if you still have them handy.
Re: Overeducated and underemployed
#66This has the usual journalist bias of putting all graduates in the same bucket. I would like to see the same statistic, but with Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, EE, Mechanical Eng., etc all in their own buckets. There seems to be some kind of outrage that you can go to a good school and get a 4 year degree and end up working with people who just graduated high-school. New grads were probably led up the garden path a…
I feel like this attitude that English is an easy major smacks of the guy who goes to a meditation retreat for his competitiveness, never gets the point of what he's there for, sits there bored and learns nothing, then walks away saying, "That was easy, and I was the best meditator there." It's easier to bullshit, but that's largely because of lenient grading. You can actually fail a math course if you don't understa…
From my experience, these mental blocks can be overcome. One trick that worked for me was to tell my students that I would take full responsibility for their learning during a tutoring session. That helped them relax and learn much more effectively. Alas, I was never able to get past the deeper beliefs-I suspect a therapist would have better luck with that.
Re: Overeducated and underemployed
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like an argument for reforming how college is paid for. Like, say, having colleges that people can go to at no cost, without burdensome debts. There are countries on this planet that have managed to do such things...
... like socialist countries? In this case it's definitely not "no cost"; people pay for these with high tax rates.
This is not terribly different from the government paying for scientific research (disclosure: I am a grad student who is paid out of a grant from DARPA). Government-funded is a key component in scientific progress; while industry-funded research can make strides, there are certain lines of work that do not have a clear enough market potential for any business to justify funding, but which have expanded human knowledge and in some cases opened new markets (and thus paved the way for further research by the private sector). The public as a whole benefits from government-funded research in the long-term, even if it means higher taxes.
So while I will admit that you are correct in a technical sense -- education does cost someone, somewhere -- the bigger issue here is not whether education will be paid for, but who will benefit from it once it is paid for. Our current system of student loans has the effect of ensuring that people from a certain minimum economic background are more likely to benefit from education than others, and the wealthier a person's family is the more able they are to benefit from a good education. The effects are not hard to see: poor people are more likely to make bad decisions about their health, more likely to fall victim to scams (including but not limited to the lottery), more likely to commit crimes, and are less able to improve their lives or organize themselves for change. It would help to improve high school education, but that can only go so far.
The real issue here is the attitude Americans (and to be fair, plenty of other country's citizens) have about education. People tend to assume that college is high-end vocational training, where people go in order to get a "good job," which is typically defined as a job that pays a lot of money. The result of the popularity of that view is what we see today: a system of student debt, which has undermined the quality of college education and somewhat ironically undermined the confidence employers have in job candidates who present a college degree. With students who only care about the amount of money they will make after they graduate, who often try to rush through school so they can accumulate less debt and can begin paying it back faster, colleges have relaxed their requirements, slashed the budgets of departments that lack a clear vocational mission, and pressured professors to not make courses too rigorous. You see this sort of thing in computer science, where many departments only offer one or two theoretical courses per year, and where students can graduate having little to no understanding of fundamental CS questions (like the P vs. NP question) or who cannot state the answer to the Entscheidungsproblem or explain its significance.
Were we to adopt a different view -- the view that a well-educated populace is necessary for a healthy democracy and that society needs a critical mass of people who are capable of thinking for themselves as a protection against the formation of an aristocracy -- we would never have wound up in this situation. There would be no question that education should be paid for as a public good, certainly not in a country whose constitution forbids titles of nobility and guarantees that all citizens have certain rights regardless of their place in society. In theory, that is why we have a public education system at all; in practice, our public education system has been systematically undermined, and the voting public has long forgotten why we have public schools at all. At the rate we are going, there will be no public education at all when my hypothetical grandchildren are born, there will only be vocational academies and private schools, and poor people will only receive the minimum training needed to work in service and maintenance jobs.
Re: Overeducated and underemployed
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment (and article) are silly without comparing college graduates with "unemployable" degrees to people who only have a high school diploma. If you look at minimum wage data (which would presumably filter out "high earning degrees"), you find that 7.3% of minimum wage employees have bachelor degrees or higher. This is certainly not zero, but it's evidence that unemployable degrees have some value. Unfortunatel…
" it's evidence that unemployable degrees have some value. " I see a different picture. Of those old enough to have obtained a degree, approximately 14% earn a minimum wage income, which is only a few points off the adult population at large. That indicates to me that minimum wage earners are fairly evenly distributed through the population, regardless of educational attainment.
I assume you were looking at the number 13.5%, which is the percentage of minimum wage hours worked by those with bachelor degrees alone.
Another way of looking at this: 30.9% of Americans over the age of 25 have a bachelor's degree. There are 122 million Americans 25 or older. That means about 38 million of them have a bachelor's degree or higher. There are 279,000 Americans with bachelor degrees or higher that make minimum wage. That means a maximum of .73% of Americans with bachelor degrees make minimum wage. Adding younger people with degrees dilutes the number further.
56.7% of Americans over 25 are somewhere between a high school degree and a bachelor's. If we do the same math above, we get that there are 69 million Americans with a high school diploma but not a bachelor's. And 2.5 million of them make minimum wage. That's 3.6%, which is a difference of about a factor of 5.
Dealing with people between 18-25 probably skews the data towards a lower percentage of minimum wage workers more in favor of those without a bachelor's, but I think the point still stands. Unfortunately the BLS doesn't subdivide the data by both age and educational attainment.
Population by age: http://www.census.gov/population/age/ Educational attainment: http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/
Re: Overeducated and underemployed
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
" it's evidence that unemployable degrees have some value. " I see a different picture. Of those old enough to have obtained a degree, approximately 14% earn a minimum wage income, which is only a few points off the adult population at large. That indicates to me that minimum wage earners are fairly evenly distributed through the population, regardless of educational attainment.
You're reading the data wrong. 7.3% of minimum wage workers have a bachelor's degree or higher. I assume you were looking at the number 13.5%, which is the percentage of minimum wage hours worked by those with bachelor degrees alone. Another way of looking at this: 30.9% of Americans over the age of 25 have a bachelor's degree. There are 122 million Americans 25 or older. That means about 38 million of them have a ba…
I think you may have read my post wrong. According to the link, 1,933,000 people old enough to have a degree work a minimum wage job. Of them, 279,000 have a degree. That is 14.4%.
Re: Overeducated and underemployed
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're reading the data wrong. 7.3% of minimum wage workers have a bachelor's degree or higher. I assume you were looking at the number 13.5%, which is the percentage of minimum wage hours worked by those with bachelor degrees alone. Another way of looking at this: 30.9% of Americans over the age of 25 have a bachelor's degree. There are 122 million Americans 25 or older. That means about 38 million of them have a ba…
" You're reading the data wrong. " I think you may have read my post wrong. According to the link, 1,933,000 people old enough to have a degree work a minimum wage job. Of them, 279,000 have a degree. That is 14.4%.