Thread: Wasting money on Education!

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

There we go again. What exactly does "staying competitive in the global economy" mean? Were we not all doing good before we had to compete in the "global economy"? Why is using education to compete an inherently good thing? Why does the government have a role to train workers? What ever happened to the employer providing on-the-job training? Perhaps there is a problem if the jobs available are simply not paying enough to make the cost of training worthwhile. These are important questions one must address before one can make such claims.


Perhaps these demands are only increasing because the government is subsidising it. When jobs that previously did not require qualifications now do, we can see there is obviously something wrong.

In the world of USA pubic school educators and their unions, money falls from the sky and is free money with no limit to how much they can get.. As long as they keep making more free money nothing realy matters.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

There we go again. What exactly does "staying competitive in the global economy" mean? Were we not all doing good before we had to compete in the "global economy"? Why is using education to compete an inherently good thing? Why does the government have a role to train workers? What ever happened to the employer providing on-the-job training? Perhaps there is a problem if the jobs available are simply not paying enough to make the cost of training worthwhile. These are important questions one must address before one can make such claims.

Liabilities and insurances would be one issue. You would think we would need to assume that to ensure competiveness with the rest of the world would require the highest level of training for the highest qualitiy of outcome and in return demand for expertise. The government would have a role to ensure these mechanism are in place to maintain these levels. If China are innovating technologies at higher levels and others stagnate don't you think this would be an issue in terms of economics.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Perhaps these demands are only increasing because the government is subsidising it. When jobs that previously did not require qualifications now do, we can see there is obviously something wrong.

Yes, that the world is changing and that america are no longer the forerunners therefore now need to keep up with the pace of the changing global environment. Education has to be the forefront in my mind anyway!

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

Education provides students with a well rounded view of the world, there is no about that and is extremely important to ensuring that despite current climate the country is staying competitive in the global economy. The level of education can be disputed as to its benefits, but devaluing education is actually taking a step back in time. You just have to look at countries that don't have appropriate education systems and the reflection of their economies. Education is extremely important and will evolve, just as it has throughout history. Qualificational requirement demands will enhance through this process. Demographics, demands and industry changes will require a different focus, but at the end of the day - Education must remain a valued process of society.

Education doesn't have to happen in a school. What I believe we're talking about here is a university education. It's a huge expense, and really not a good pick for everyone. There are other much cheaper options for education that would do a good job of letting students learn more about the world. If you have a $50 kindle, you can download free books from perfectly legal sites and learn whatever you want. For about $20 I could get boxes of good books from a YMCA book fair. I could take a $50 course at a community college -- learn a language, learn a skill, whatever. If I wanted to try my hand at cooking, I wouldn't waste money on "Chef School" go to the library and check out a cookbook. Make a bunch of foods. Learn the skill that way.

Before we over formalized education, this was common. Lawyers in the age of Lincoln became lawyers by reading lots of lawbooks and taking on cases -- if you won, you were a good lawyer. We had founders in America who spoke 3 or more languages. Jefferson was reading the Illiad in Greek and commenting on the poetry and pronunciation of ancient Greek words.

Originally Posted by septimine

Education doesn't have to happen in a school. What I believe we're talking about here is a university education. It's a huge expense, and really not a good pick for everyone. There are other much cheaper options for education that would do a good job of letting students learn more about the world. If you have a $50 kindle, you can download free books from perfectly legal sites and learn whatever you want. For about $20 I could get boxes of good books from a YMCA book fair. I could take a $50 course at a community college -- learn a language, learn a skill, whatever. If I wanted to try my hand at cooking, I wouldn't waste money on "Chef School" go to the library and check out a cookbook. Make a bunch of foods. Learn the skill that way.

Before we over formalized education, this was common. Lawyers in the age of Lincoln became lawyers by reading lots of lawbooks and taking on cases -- if you won, you were a good lawyer. We had founders in America who spoke 3 or more languages. Jefferson was reading the Illiad in Greek and commenting on the poetry and pronunciation of ancient Greek words.

Do you think it is more to do with credibility and improved standards? I mean 30 years ago is even primitive to current standards due to advances in all areas. If seemingly less rigorous forms of education and training are recognised by employers including international, then good luck to the individual, but times have changed regarding demand. I'm with you, don't get me wrong, I wish it was as simple as that too.

For most subjects you study, it's not that different. Want to be a programmer, it's simple enough to learn. Download a free C++ compiler, get a few books on the programming language, and write programs. Figure out how to make a pointer, figure our how to multiply matrixes and so on. If you want to build and repair computer networks, spend a few hundred bucks on a few routers and switches, get the related books -- take 'em apart and put them back together. Perhaps it takes a bit longer when the subject is something more complex, but it's not like you need to rewire your brain to get there -- just practice until you get it.

If anything, doing it yourself is probably MORE rigorous. In most traditional classrooms, your time is spent listening to a teacher talk about last week's reading assignment and dutifully copying the information into a notebook. In many cases, you can fake your way to a decent grade (and get the credential) by reading the summary in the textbook, and spending a half hour doing multiple choice questions in "study guides" that come with the book. It's easy to fake understanding something when you're trying to get a grade at a uni, but if you're rebuilding a router, and your study hasn't given you enough understanding to figure out why your configuration isn't allowing computer A to connect to the internet, there's no place to hide. You don't get it. If you're program isn't working and you don't know why, then you don't get it. Even if you "pass" the course, at the end of the day, if you can't do the skill required, the degree is garbage. That's why the practical self study methods worked so well in the past. It was impossible to fool people. If you claimed a knowledge of law, you'd better win the cases. If you claimed to be an engineer, your buildings should remain standing. And it's impossible to fool yourself as well -- if you don't get it well enough to do the task, you don't get it. And nothing says "I don't get it" louder to a student than a big heaping serving of a problem in his field that he cannot solve.

First, education pays: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm However, people need to be smarter about what they choose to study and what they are willing to pay for it, especially in light of ever changing markets. High schools need better programs to help young people make better career decisions.

Second, yes, credentialism is a problem, but credentialism has been promoted by business. It was created by the market and often adopted by state governments to support the desires of the market - or the desires of human resources departments. Still, my experience with grad school, in particular, was that I was paying the university to read my papers and score my exams simply to provide me the opportunity to demonstrate that I can read, think, and write. Grad school was a rip-off. No doubt. But it was my only route to a credential and licensure. I would much rather be given a stack of books and then have the opportunity to pay maybe $200 to take one comprehensive exam to earn my license. I didn't really need a degree from a university.

Third, an "over-educated" society is a matter of perspective. The U.S. is not exactly over-educated, but we also rely on so-called illegals to fill the positions our under-educated are too lazy or too "proud" to tackle. There was a day when public schools purposely divided college-bound and laborers. This made sure we had sufficient laborers. It also turned out to be largely racist. College-bound were mostly white while other programs were mostly minority. Now we have NCLB, intended to close that achievement gap.

Lastly, we need good civic education. People are not being taught to think critically. Our democracy is at risk. Literacy is important. In a thinking society elections would not be determined by money. Citizens United would not be a threat. But it is. We need quality education, and arguing that education is a waste of money won't help.

double post

Originally Posted by lemur

First, education pays: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm However, people need to be smarter about what they choose to study and what they are willing to pay for it, especially in light of ever changing markets. High schools need better programs to help young people make better career decisions.

Second, yes, credentialism is a problem, but credentialism has been promoted by business. It was created by the market and often adopted by state governments to support the desires of the market - or the desires of human resources departments. Still, my experience with grad school, in particular, was that I was paying the university to read my papers and score my exams simply to provide me the opportunity to demonstrate that I can read, think, and write. Grad school was a rip-off. No doubt. But it was my only route to a credential and licensure. I would much rather be given a stack of books and then have the opportunity to pay maybe $200 to take one comprehensive exam to earn my license. I didn't really need a degree from a university.

Third, an "over-educated" society is a matter of perspective. The U.S. is not exactly over-educated, but we also rely on so-called illegals to fill the positions our under-educated are too lazy or too "proud" to tackle. There was a day when public schools purposely divided college-bound and laborers. This made sure we had sufficient laborers. It also turned out to be largely racist. College-bound were mostly white while other programs were mostly minority. Now we have NCLB, intended to close that achievement gap.

Lastly, we need good civic education. People are not being taught to think critically. Our democracy is at risk. Literacy is important. In a thinking society elections would not be determined by money. Citizens United would not be a threat. But it is. We need quality education, and arguing that education is a waste of money won't help.

Well, I see the point, when a credential is required for a job, absolutely get the credential. I have no trouble with that. If you need a liscence to practice in your field, sure. But so many of our degrees would honestly be unneeded if people would simply study for themselves. You don't need college to cook a dinner, or to program a computer, or things like that.

As far as over education, it's a question of what that education does to you. If you have no "college level" skills, then all you end up with a big head that makes you unwilling to do manual labor. I think it's more a question of over education -- everyone thinks their kids belong in college and no one who thinks their kids belong in college is going to be happy when their kid comes home wanting to do "dirty" manual labor. It's not education, it's ego.

I agree with the above.

Most people don't need a colege degree to make a 6 figure income. There are a lot of state government jobs that pay way more than a degree credential job. Fact is university marketing and sales is what drives people to go into debt to get a degree that they don't need or can't make any money off.

That is what happend to the irish PhD student who just went on a rampage. He realized, that no matter how much he kissed ass, and was privilaged, he could not compete with the other students from all over the world. He needed to make it to grad school to find out he was just a privilaged irish kid who had no real skills or expreience to get any type of work.

He is an example of the privilaged spoiled college jerk off who lacks the ability and skills to function as an adult in the real world of economic labor and capitialism. Same can be said for most of the employees of the USA public education system. THey have been coddled and spoiled all their lives with no real understanding of the real world and what it takes to make it in the labor force of the USA.

So no matter how much money the tax payers fork over to the USA publc education welfare system, those educators will continue to fail at epeic levels. The USA spends more on public education than the rest of the world, and has one of the worst educaton systems and records. The only thing the USA public education system has over the rest of the world is great working conditions for educators and great benifits for retirement. And that is what the US taxpayer pays for. Not for teaching kids, but for making incompetent aduts of the public schools welfare system weathy and happy for generations to come.

Originally Posted by Clint Torres

I agree with the above.

Most people don't need a colege degree to make a 6 figure income. There are a lot of state government jobs that pay way more than a degree credential job. Fact is university marketing and sales is what drives people to go into debt to get a degree that they don't need or can't make any money off.

That is what happend to the irish PhD student who just went on a rampage. He realized, that no matter how much he kissed ass, and was privilaged, he could not compete with the other students from all over the world. He needed to make it to grad school to find out he was just a privilaged irish kid who had no real skills or expreience to get any type of work.

He is an example of the privilaged spoiled college jerk off who lacks the ability and skills to function as an adult in the real world of economic labor and capitialism. Same can be said for most of the employees of the USA public education system. THey have been coddled and spoiled all their lives with no real understanding of the real world and what it takes to make it in the labor force of the USA.

So no matter how much money the tax payers fork over to the USA publc education welfare system, those educators will continue to fail at epeic levels. The USA spends more on public education than the rest of the world, and has one of the worst educaton systems and records. The only thing the USA public education system has over the rest of the world is great working conditions for educators and great benifits for retirement. And that is what the US taxpayer pays for. Not for teaching kids, but for making incompetent aduts of the public schools welfare system weathy and happy for generations to come.

It's a bit of an overstatement to say that teachers in the U.S. have "great working conditions" and that they are getting "wealthy." Benefits and retirement are getting worse, as well. In Colorado, for example, those who started teaching in the 20th century have pretty good retirement benefits, much like the types of benefits U.S. corporations used to offer folks at the beginning of the boomer bubble. Young teachers, however, can expect worse retirement with the need to teach later in life before being able to collect. Every year insurance goes up and teachers pay a higher percentage out of their paychecks, and the insurance keeps getting worse - larger co-pays - larger out of pocket percentages. If by wealthy you mean finally making $50K per year after more than 20 years in the profession (that was my experience), and topping out at $60K even with advanced degrees (on average teachers with masters or doctorates can expect to get paid less than any other masters or Ph.D. profession). And if you think the working conditions are great, try working in a typical public school. Where did you go to school?