Forum Post: Do you perceive your education to be undervalued?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 1:08 a.m. EST by Indy4Change
(254)
from Columbia, SC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I know it is tough when you take out 60, 70, 80 thousand or more in loans to finance your education. I, myself, took out student loans to finance the portion of my education that was not covered under grants, scholarships, and my own personal finances (about 15k all told). I have been fortunate enough to not only have had employment with a company that helped offset my education, but also paid me well to help pay down my education. I have since gone out on my own to start my own company (that has operated in the black for all 5 years of its existence thus far). All of this complaining about student loans got me to wondering --
Any time anything is in abundance, its value is lessened right? I mean, that is a basic economic tenet around supply and demand. I can't help but wonder if the market was not flooded with all of these undergraduate and graduate level degrees from people who would not otherwise be able to go to college (without a "free education" from the taxpayer), people might find their degrees to be a bit more valuable in the market?
Is it possible that demanding higher education is actually devaluing everyone's education when you flood 300 academically qualified candidates for 10 jobs versus just 100 or so for those 10 jobs?
I'm not insinuating anything here, but I hear a lot of people talking about how people should be given free educations or have their loans forgiven - and frankly, I'm not sure that's a productive discussion without first examing the effects on the market place?
If someone has a graduate degree (whether they paid for it or not), they most certainly would demand more than custodial work or McDonald's cashier jobs -- and as sad as this may sound, not everyone should have advanced degrees. Many people go to college and waste tax payer money on "free education" by not pursuing careers in their designated fields, or by never qualifying for jobs in ways other than academically.
What's everyone's take on this? Open and respectful dialogue please. That's what we're all here for.
I think degrees shouldn't be about getting a specific, higher-earning job, and should not be approached that way. If you want a good job, a degree is very rarely the way to get it (unless you want to be a doctor or lawyer). Experience counts for a lot more after 2 or 3 years in the workforce.
So I think it's a little mixture of both being undervalued through dilution and over-valued by people who see them as nothing more than a means to an end.
There are so many people who have all these completely useless liberal arts degrees.
Usually degrees in majors that end in "....... Studies" are completely useless (Insert almost anything Transgender Studies, Black Studies, Woman's Studies, etc.). Good for nothing except if you want a job in a college teaching these useless curriculums.
These idiots actually think they deserve a job and big money when they graduate. All for something that is not marketable in the real world.
My mother teaches US history at a California college I won't name. Its the same material I learned as a sophomore in high school.
Yes, a health percentage of the degrees out there are meaningless to anyone but the school who took your money.
It takes two to screw us! Politicians to hold us down, so then the Corporations can do the screwing!!! Politicians need better rules to follow to prevent lobbying! We tax payers should fund important elections, so the best person wins and not the one with the most money!!! The movement needs at least these demands!!!!!!!!!!! Pass The Word!!! Lets Get It Together!!!
I think viewing education as being for nothing more that getting a job is a waste of an education and undervalues the concept itself.
Speaking of supply and demand, it seems there was a sort of student loan "bubble" that was happening in the last 5 years, where students took out "sub prime" loans on their educations, paying way more than their education was worth. I guess this terminology is a bit of a stretch, I'm just saying that the lenders for this education were taking risky loans, and the borrowers hardly had any idea what a "loan" was, and perhaps the lenders are risking defaults.
there is no reason why everyone shouldn't graduate from high school with the equivalent of 3 phds. You are making this a market question instead of a human question, every human being should have the right and privilege to advance themselves intellectually without regard to the market dynamics or etc.
You have missed the point about jobs being outseourced and once again blamed the victims. you ask for open and respectful dialogue but your whoel shpliiel is just a well concealed personal attack against education and intellectual life.
You ARE insinuating something there, and frankly, the question of what effect it has on the market place is exactly the problem- you have turned human beings into mere commodity cattle- fuck the market place.
your position is unethical, its a spin cycle, and its a veiled attack.
of course the system undervalues education its a patently anti intellectual system.
http://www.oligarchyusa.com/
http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5390832/some-fascinating-stats-about-our-corporate-oligarchy
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/category/21st-century-challenges/ethicsandeconomics/
According to a 2008 article by David Rothkopf, the world’s 1,100 richest people have almost twice the assets of the poorest 2.5 billion (Rothkopf, 2008). Aside from the obvious problem – that this global elite has their hands in everything from politics to financial institutions – …
http://theprogressiveplaybook.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet-an-american-tahrir/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ght22PnCXy0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/wisconsin-is-ground-zero_b_825321.html
http://last-lost-empire.com/blog/?tag=global-corporate-oligarchy
To the extent that we, the people, are removed from control over our lands, marketplaces, central banks, and media we are no longer empowered. In practice, those few who do control the land, central bank, media and "free market" are the real rulers of our corrupt and declining "democracy."
Due to propaganda from a corporate-owned and edited media we are kept from knowing, much less debating, the nature of our system. Due to a central bank owned by bankers, media owned by a few global concerns, and trade regime controlled by global corporations (i.e., one designed to remove the people from control over their markets and environments) the vast majority have become little more than latter-day serfs and neo-slaves upon a corporate latifundia.
To restore a semblance of effective democracy and true freedom Americans, and people around the world, need to re-educate themselves as to the true nature of their political and economic systems. Toward this end, OligarchyUSA.com is dedicated to providing old and new information, books, links, reform ideas and debates not easily found or accessed today in establishment media.
OligarchyUSA.com is but one more site and sign of the times as ground-up counter-revolutions arise around the world... all in response to a forced and freedomless globalization courtesy of a ruling global elite perfecting their top-down plutocracy and revolutions of the rich against the poor. In short, democracy is no longer effective today. For this reason, it is toward a restoration of truly effective and representative democracies, and natural freedom, that this site is dedicated.
I haven't turned human beings into commodity cattle. Entitlement programs have. I'm certainly not suggesting that nobody should graduate high school with a strong education - everyone should be thrust into the market with a certain degree of competency. The fact is, even with the best institutions and opportunities, that just isn't happening, and the onus belongs on the student. There are plenty of underprivileged people out there who attend poorly performing schools (by the standards) and still manage to climb their way out and make something of themselves. Conversely, there are plenty of privileged kids out there who waste their opportunities too. When the entitlement mindset convinces someone that they won't survive without a college degree and then gives them that free education, what do you think will happen when they are given yet another opportunity but circumstances around them don't let them succeed -- OWS and find someone to blame.
As far as people having a right to pursue academic advances without a consideration of market forces, that's simply preposterous. I own a company and hire 42 individuals around the United States (ZERO outsourced). If market forces encourage me to hire a 43rd, I will - which means there is another available position for someone with the education I seek. If market forces don't encourage such growth, then it doesn't matter how many people are in the market with that education - I still can't and won't hire them. Perhaps you refuse to see the market effects, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
My position is not an unethical position. Which is more unethical? Encouraging a child to go to college and get a degree with the expectation of earning 100K per year in an entry level graduate position or encouraging a child to go to college with the understanding that it is their own hard work AFTER the fact that will allow them to plow through economic down turns (even if it means having to shlep hash at a bar-b-que restaurant for a year or two until the market adjusts and provides for working opportunities)?
again, you tie everything to market forces and thus treat everyone like market commodities. Of course it makes things complicated to hire them and of course thats something else to consider, but the main consideration for education should not be to please people like you or be hired etc by people like you. The main consideration should be knowledge, for its own sake, thats exactly the problem with oligarchs. They want everyone stupid and ignorant unless there is a market reason for them to have knowledge.
Thats stupid, its evil, its putting the cart before the horse, its wrong in every single way.
your position IS an unethical position, aside from that your false dillemma is also pointless, its clear that we should encourage kids to go to college and clear that they need to understand doing so is not a guarantee for work.
"its clear that we should encourage kids to go to college and clear that they need to understand doing so is not a guarantee for work."
Maybe you need to head out on the street and remind some of these kids that took out student loans and are pissed off because they can't get a job (or a decent paying job in their field) and are struggling to repay student loans - their obligations, and yet they want them forgiven.
I don't want stupid people. If I can't afford to hire someone or if my current workload doesn't support it, then it isn't going to happen - market forces. Market forces ARE my biggest determining factor to hiring. It's just the way it is. I don't choose to tie my practices to that, but that's the nature of business. It doesn't mean I think they shouldn't pursue furthering their education. In any respect, your argument suggests that the only way people can advance their knowledge is through formal education -- and that's simply not true. Everyone has that grandfather or great grandfather who didn't finish 8th grade because he was working on the farm -- yet he is the smartest and wisest man we know.
Knowledge is not dependent on education. "Formal" education is one of the last things I personally look for because if someone has the street smarts and knows their shit as it pertains to my work - they're a leg up on the fresh graduate who can spew book facts and knows nothing about the job or work...
its true that there is a lot of perspective the movement needs from me, it will have to filter from the net because i'm not going to go hang out in the streets.
you have a fine point that people can self educate. However. Many people lack the focus and self discipline to do that without a class to give them structure.
explain to me how that kid is then supposed to support himself afterwards in your ideal world? if he has no marketable skills, he wont get a job, which means he cant feed himself, which means he will starve/become homeless/ die in the gutter unless wellfare picks him up for the rest of his life. Learning for learning is great, no one is arguing against intellectual pursuits. The topic of discussion here is whether or not a liberal education will enable you to take care of yourself after you graduate.
are you addressing me? scrap the whole system and there are more than enough real work /jobs out there for everyone. unemployment is merely in essence a form of caste terrorism.
That's why I hit reply to what you wrote. I'd love to scrap the whole system but is that really realistic? And tell me what person would willingly work at McDonalds after they just spent 4 years of their life at a university. Even if they studied the humanities or arts they would still be looking for something that piad 30k+ a year wouldnt they?
scrapping the whole system includes getting rid of mcdonalds. This isa parasitic corporatoin which feeds the population garbage food, it gives nothing of real value to the society .Is that realistic? let me tell you whats not realistic. exponential growth. Corporate oligarchy. A caste system with the poverty caste doing menial useless work which actually harms society as a whole. Entropy continuing on in this civilization. In short, we MUST make those kinds of changes or civilization falls. MCds is one problem, which gets solved by ceasing to exist. Now. As soon as i get my lunch break i will go get me some jalepeno chicken sandwhiches and large drink. I need my corporate crack like everyone else. :p