**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

In labor economics class today we discussed how to determine if a college education is more beneficial than not.

Glad your class is at least thinking critically. But unfortunately, this one is an easy answer. Yes it is more beneficial. Why? Because....

political and zeitgeist reasons.

Within that zeitgeist are employers who embrace the zeitgeist philosophy that a college educated person is more desirable than a non-college educated person. Hence, non-college educated people are at an extreme disadvantage in the labor market.

The unintended consequence of this is under-employment. College educated secretaries for example. Which is what I suspect your class was getting at when they explored the topic of college education being not-beneficial.

[wufwugy]

The unintended consequence of this is under-employment. College educated secretaries for example. Which is what I suspect your class was getting at when they explored the topic of college education being not-beneficial.

The main thing my professor covered on this is that a "not smart" (technical term) person can get a low enough boost in earnings from his college education relative to if he had not gone to college that he ends up making less lifetime.

[Poopadoop]

The main thing my professor covered on this is that a "not smart" (technical term) person can get a low enough boost in earnings from his college education relative to if he had not gone to college that he ends up making less lifetime.

Fortunately, life's value is not measured in the cumulative number of dollars earned alone.

[wufwugy]

Fortunately, life's value is not measured in the cumulative number of dollars earned alone.

Quite right. It is a mistake for government to incentivize education based on confusing economic statistics.

[Poopadoop]

Within that zeitgeist are employers who embrace the zeitgeist philosophy that a college educated person is more desirable than a non-college educated person. Hence, non-college educated people are at an extreme disadvantage in the labor market.

Do you know why employers favour a college-education person over a non-college-educated person, all other things being equal? Just curious...

The unintended consequence of this is under-employment. College educated secretaries for example.

A very state-oriented perspective is the idea that we should only educate people to the degree needed to do their job, balance their checkbook, and read a label on a soup can. Other learning is argued to be a waste of society's resources.

I disagree. I would not want a society where all anyone knows is what they need to do their job.

I would be happy putting my kid (or through my taxes, other people's kids) through college to get a degree, because the very experience of learning helps them become a more well-rounded person, to think for themselves, to form arguments and use logic.

[BananaStand]

Do you know why employers favour a college-education person over a non-college-educated person, all other things being equal? Just curious...

Mostly because of supply and demand. Gov't intervention has created more college graduates and not enough jobs to go around. If you are hiring for a position that doesn't necessarily NEED a degree, yet 9 out of 10 applicants have one anyway, the 1 guy without a degree is super-fucked.

I would be happy putting my kid (or through my taxes, other people's kids) through college to get a degree,

I totally agree. And that's what we do with K-12. If the government is taking our tax dollars and pumping out under-educated people, then we need to hold the gov't accountable and demand better K-12 education. What we should NOT do is throw more tax dollars toward a government that's proven it can't do the job, and ask them to do it for 4 more years.

because the very experience of learning helps them become a more well-rounded person, to think for themselves, to form arguments and use logic.

This is definitely NOT what's happening on college campuses.

[Poopadoop]

Mostly because of supply and demand. Gov't intervention has created more college graduates and not enough jobs to go around. If you are hiring for a position that doesn't necessarily NEED a degree, yet 9 out of 10 applicants have one anyway, the 1 guy without a degree is super-fucked.

That wasn't the question. The question was:

Why would an employer prefer someone with a college degree over someone without one, all other things being equal?

I totally agree. And that's what we do with K-12. If the government is taking our tax dollars and pumping out under-educated people, then we need to hold the gov't accountable and demand better K-12 education. What we should NOT do is throw more tax dollars toward a government that's proven it can't do the job, and ask them to do it for 4 more years.

I can't speak to America K-12 because I've had no involvement with it. But really, it sounds a bit extreme to say the gov't is solely responsible for whatever is wrong with it.

This is definitely NOT what's happening on college campuses.

Based on what do you say this?

[Poopadoop]

In the UK for example, all secondary education was free tuition until about 15 years ago, when the gov't decided it would rather spend the money on the armed forces. It would certainly have been hard to argue that free-tuition Oxford and Cambridge (mainly funded by taxpayers - with some charity and alumni funding thrown in) were doing a poor job.

[Poopadoop]

Since I've been involved in the UK system as it's become less and less publicly-funded (free tuition) and more and more dependent on its customers (£9k a year tuition for the top tier unis), I think I can speak a bit to how making it a business has affected the quality of the education.

There is some good and some bad imo. The good is that things that were done sloppily before have been cleaned up. Exceptionally shitty lecturers are encouraged to retire early or teach less. The student is now treated as a 'customer' in the sense that they should get their money's worth.

The bad is that we spend an inordinate amount of time on marketing and trying to inflate our uni's scores on measures such as student satisfaction. The latter may sound good except that the best way to increase their satisfaction is to propagandize them by telling them how great it is to go to our uni, list all the things we do for them, and tell them how happy they are to be there. The overall satisfaction scores have not really changed despite these efforts.

Another bad is that we must treat all of our students with kid gloves. You can no longer tell a kid straight up s/he wrote a shit essay because that would impact their satisfaction. You have to say things like 'good effort, but next time try using punctuation'. I suspect a lot of them are getting a rude awakening when they go into the job market and their boss holds them to account when they fuck up.

In overall terms, I think it has had little effect on the quality of education. The only significant difference is who is paying for it.

[BananaStand]

That wasn't the question. The question was:

Why would an employer prefer someone with a college degree over someone without one, all other things being equal?

I believe I answered it.....because they can.

I can't speak to America K-12 because I've had no involvement with it. But really, it sounds a bit extreme to say the gov't is solely responsible for whatever is wrong with it.

30% of community college curriculum are remedial. If you're in the "college should be free" crowd, then that means you expect the government to pay for something twice. I consider that a failing of government.

Based on what do you say this?

Don't worry about it. It was more of a tongue-in-cheek comment regarding the pervasiveness of one-sided liberal discussions on college campuses. I'm not sure 'well rounded' is the right way to describe a college graduate.

[Poopadoop]

I believe I answered it.....because they can.

That's very glib, but ignores the crux of my point, I assume because you don't know the answer or don't like it.

Employers prefer college education people because that education gives them an advantage in being able to learn new things and to think for themselves. If you're an employer, you'd rather have a guy you can train in two weeks and leave to get on with it than a guy you have to train for four weeks and is constantly asking you what to do next.

30% of community college curriculum are remedial. If you're in the "college should be free" crowd, then that means you expect the government to pay for something twice. I consider that a failing of government.

Like I said, placing all the responsibility for some people performing below-average in school on the gov't seems a bit extreme.

[BananaStand]

Employers prefer college education people because that education gives them an advantage in being able to learn new things and to think for themselves.

NO!! Not even close!

In theory you're right. College should be a proving ground for your ability to work independently, learn new things, and apply that knowledge during the course of completing a long term goal. Except, when you invite every single person, regardless of merit, to attend college you cheapen the meaning of college.

Now companies just hire college graduates cause....."why not"

[Jack Sawyer]

I believe I answered it.....because they can.

What does a college degree say about a prospective employee, banana stand?


You do know that at some point you will have to demonstrate to know how to do the job you are applying for, right?


Either through the “Here is my Management degree” or the “Here is the amount of places and references in which I have held a management position”. Of course people will still be taken w/o degree, and it also goes without saying that the degree helps you in preparing for the life ahead.

30% of community college curriculum are remedial. If you're in the "college should be free" crowd, then that means you expect the government to pay for something twice. I consider that a failing of government.

http://www.apmreports.org/story/2016...education-trap


It’s a failing of your particular education system. I had no idea those existed, and we do not have that in my country.


Around here, it’s like this: Finish Havo; go to HBO/HTS. Finish VWO; go to WO. That’s all there is to it. You can finish VWO and go to HBO/HTS if you want, but you will be considered smarter than others around you and generally given a faster trajectory.


HBO/HTS are more like college, more practical. WO is more like university, more theoretical.

There are also fully hands-on approaches which will land you in HBO/HTS as well (such as LTS/MTS), and from HBO you can go on to WO to earn an MSc or PhD.

Don't worry about it. It was more of a tongue-in-cheek comment regarding the pervasiveness of one-sided liberal discussions on college campuses. I'm not sure 'well rounded' is the right way to describe a college graduate.

It does color your judgement though.

[BananaStand]

http://www.apmreports.org/story/2016...education-trap
It’s a failing of your particular education system. I had no idea those existed, and we do not have that in my country.

I'll finish the article later, but it does seem to prove my point. And if you're calling it a failing....maybe you're starting to agree with me. If the government fails at high school.....why do you think it would be better at college?

HBO/HTS are more like college, more practical. WO is more like university, more theoretical..

A lot of acronyms in there mean nothing to me. I have no idea what you're talking about. However, I'm not sure you're correctly describing the distinction between college and university.

I actually enrolled in a college after high school. A year and a half in they changed their name to 'university'. Apparently it's a distinction based on the quantity of doctoral programs you offer....not based on practical/theoretical teaching styles.