ETA: This post is US-centric, and I should have made that clear. How much or little it applies to other countries, I can’t say.
As soon as employers made college a necessity for jobs of any significant income (and even some of shockingly low income, such as “receptionist”) back in the 80s or 90s, college started increasing tuition costs into the stratosphere. The cost for a four year degree at even a modest state school is now, in technical economic terms, fucking ridiculous.
How can I say that, knowing how much college increases (on average) a graduate’s lifelong earnings and so on? Because not every degree has that effect. Many degrees lead to an empty or low-paying job market. What can someone with a degree in history, English, or archeology do besides teach history, English or archeology? (And please don’t say “write books” – authors make well below minimum wage, unless they are among the very, very small minority who make it big.) There are a precious few degrees that actually pay for themselves in earnings: engineering, for one. Even degrees for doctors and lawyers – which can pay for themselves eventually – are getting tougher and tougher to justify, because the initial expense is horrendous, and the period of working for little or no money after school is harsher than it was for previous generations because the cost of living is increasing every year (forcing young graduates into even more debt than the degree did).
For kids whose parents couldn’t afford a college fund, who are completely on their own to pay their way through school, it just doesn’t make economic sense to become a doctor when you could become a nurse with far less expense. It may not even make sense at all to go to college, when you could become an administrative assistant or a carpenter and earn a modest but decent living without tens of thousands (or more) in debt from which you have to recover, and still have hope of promotion to something better. And don’t bring up scholarships – they’re increasingly hard to come by, the competition gets worse every year, and in some fields they’re not available at all.
Now, employer degree lust is not the only reason college costs have risen to the point where smart, poor kids are being left behind, but it is one that could be addressed very quickly without costing anyone a dime. Employers need to get over the idea that a college degree is necessary in every profession. It is not. Just a few decades ago, employers realized that people could pick up, for example, how to do an engineer’s job without having an engineering degree, and they recognized that a certain number of years of job experience were equivalent to a degree.
Employers need to stop thinking “degree=qualification” and instead establish qualifications that can be met in more than one way. For example, a poor smart kid can learn every skill needed to be an editor in a publishing house. Books and textbooks are readily available, and there’s information all over the internet, which can be accessed for free at most libraries, so self-education is very possible. Instead of requiring an English degree, a publishing house could instead require applicants to describe in an essay what they’ve done to train themselves for editing (whether that’s college or self-education). After weeding out the ones who don’t impress, the publishing house would interview applicants and give them an editing assignment to complete on the spot under supervision (to avoid the possibility of cheating). The publishing house would still get quality employees and poor smart people would have a fighting chance for good jobs.
For another example, certain types of engineering are far more complex – even if someone has a remarkable flair for constructing engines from crap they found at the junkyard, there are solid reasons why an employer might want them to learn the math skills and concepts involved in engineering. But is there any reason these skills can’t be learned on the job, if the person passes a math test which indicates the capacity to learn it?
The problem is that employers are too lazy to take on the work of apprenticeship. That duty has been passed onto colleges. And yet, the people who actually work with 23 year olds know apprenticeship still goes on. It has to – no college can anticipate precisely what your company wants its employees to do. Companies imagine they’re avoiding apprenticeship, when they’re not. And I suspect – based on personal observations – what most kids learn in 4 years of college could be compressed into 6 months of apprenticeship.
There are only two fair solutions: the Federal and state governments must find a way to make college degrees available to everyone at every income level, or we must create alternatives to college degrees that allow people to better themselves and have that reflected in their income. Not only does the second one not cost tax payers or anyone else a dime, it makes more sense.
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
The stratification in our society viz a viz the education ladder is one aspect of classism which our society refuses to acknowledge – never mind confront. Classism is the elephant in the room that everyone pretends doesn’t exist. After all, this is America, and we have a classless society, a meritocracy. Bullshit.
We have a job market rife with age/sex/disability/ and appearance/weight discrimination as well as employers who unabashedly engage in poverty-profiling of job applicants via background and credit report checks obtained through the mandatory disclosure of your social security numger on job applications which are linked to, and used in, the obtaining of your credit report.
We don’t have a “free market” society. We have a rigged market that has failed to include job seekrs over age 40, women, poor minorities and poor whites as well. When Don Imus referred to some university women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos”, he faced repercussions (and justly so!). But had Don Imus instead made a remark about “trailer trash” or “rednecks” or “poor white trash” women, nary a peep would have been uttered.
The almighty college education is one of many “gates” that the poor get shut out with, thus restricting their chances for good jobs in order to climb out of poverty.
The fact that the ratio of job applicants to number of available jobs is 100 to 1 according to recent reports from the US Labor Department, and the fact that the poor (who are mostly women) can’t even get minimum wage cashier jobs in our image-obsessed society if they have visibly decayed or missing teeth due to lack of access to dental care because of poverty (NOT because of being too stupid/uneducated to brush and floss properly!) – these are factors that the talking heads and self-proclaimed “experts” ignore.
I am one of those impoverished Gen-Xers who went into debt for a bachelors degree in math/comp sci w/ a minor in physics, graduating at the age of 34 in May of 2001 – only to find that no one would give me a chance for a job due to the gap in my work history from a disability, and due to the fact that I was no longer a 20-something yr old thin and pretty “Barbie doll.”
So now what are those in my situation who are entering their 40′s and who are jobless, poor, and on food stamps supposed to do? The government can find money to bail out wealthy corporate fat cats on Wall Street, but what about a bailout for poor middle-aged women who have student loan debt that we can’t repay – especially of we’re unemployable due to age/sex and appearance discrimination?
The “experts” ignore all of these factors because acknowledgement means they would have to admit that they might not deserve all the self-congratulatory pats on the back for their successes; that they may have benefited unfairly by unearned social class privilege. They want to think they got where they’re at totally on their own with no help or advantages as they tool around with trendy bumperstickers that read, “He who dies with the most toys wins.”
Guess they didn’t get the memo: He who dies with the most toys is still nonetheless dead.
Jacqueline Homan(Quote) (Reply)
Just one codicil: Don Imus didn’t face much in the way of consequences. He was showily fired, then re-hired within, I believe, a month.
I wondered if anyone would bring up the possibility that degrees are MEANT to screen out certain classes – people who don’t share Our Background and therefore Wouldn’t Be Comfortable Here. It boils down to “batten down the hatches, the poor are at the gate” but the real motives have been so carefully disguised that we all think (until you really start to question how it works) a degree is really helpful to employers. (And I’m not saying it NEVER is, but when people require a degree for a job like “receptionist”, you must call bullshit.)
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I was unaware that Don Imus was rehired. That really takes the cake…someone bereft of any cerebral activity whatosever like Imus is “worthy” and “deserving” while so many of us are somehow not. Definitely proof that we don’t have a meritocracy.
The college degree requirement for even the most basic of office jobs is a deliberate, systemic, classist barrier designed to keep certain groups unemployable and keep the poor down while justifying unfair social and economic exclusion with the excuse “they’re undeserving because they failed to get educations because they were too lazy/stupid/made poor choices, etc”.
However, as evidenced by my own experience as a non-traditional aged student and college grad, even some of us marginal people who DID jump through all the hoops are still kept down and poor. In order to circumvent the civil rights laws that are supposed to protect disadvantaged people (the middle-aged, women, disabled people, etc) while still keeping the poor excluded, employers fall back on the “At Will” laws which allow them to get away with denying you a job (or firing you) for any reason at all without having to explain why. But that’s another form of social class privilege: getting to make up the rules of the game and then later change them in order to violate civil rights and Constitutional law.
Jacqueline Homan(Quote) (Reply)
I re-checked myself about Imus just to make sure I wasn’t mistaken and found this little gem:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/16/don-imus-might-make-30-million-for-getting-fired-and-rehired/
On my other website, The Hathor Legacy, I’ve talked about leaving the film industry because they said I had to make white, straight men the center of every story, and I found that appalling. But there’s another reason I left: the long period of unpaid or below-living-wage work you have to do that’s called “your dues.” Film is so competitive that they can get people who are willing to work for nothing. Unfortunately, these are mostly upper-middle and higher class kids whose exposure to people other than white men begins and ends with mom and the hispanic housekeeper in their Bel Air home. No wonder Hollywood is bigoted – its very hiring practices discourage diversity somethin’ fierce. (And ignore anyone who says this is bullshit because you just have to make sacrifices – they’re assuming you have the resources to get yourself fed WHILE literally working full-time for no money at all, which is a very privileged assumption coming from people who take for granted their own resources and don’t realize what having “nothing” actually means.)
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
What you’ve said about Hollywood and the corporate media moguls in this country hiring young people from privileged backgrounds who have their own economic resources (and thus, can afford to work for free in order to “pay their dues”) does not come as a surprise.
When I see that the fraudulent standard of beauty (thin, young, flawless female bodies) – which has disenfranchised all women unable to conform to it – I see white male upper-middle/upper class privilege. I also see a shallow selfishness rife with entitlement attitudes that makes me want to hurl.
Weight/appearance and age discrimination hurts women far more than it does men, and it disproportionately hurts poor women the most (left out of the dating/mating game and denied employment for being “too fat”, “too ugly”, etc). It was spoiled, coddled, over-privileged white males in positions of power who created this hell for us.
A recent survey in Minnesota revealed that 70% of all girls aged 9 – 12 had been on strict diets at least once. For every young girl who diets to the point of unhealthiness in fear of becoming fat (hence “unworthy”), I hold these superficial, shallow, rich white males responsible. For every new mom who suffers pregnancy and birth related PTSD out of extreme emotional angst over her changing body, I hold these superficial, shallow, rich white males responsible. For every middle-aged and/or overweight woman truggling in poverty because of being denied a job due to our culture of “body fascism”, I hold superficial shallow rich white males responsible.
The privileged take no responsibility for the social injustices left in their wake. Women who find themselves unemployable due to age and appearance discrimination are told that they must “do something about it” – that is to say, they must somehow find the money for abdominoplasty and liposuction and breast augmentation, personal fitness trainers, and buy over-priced “Frankenstein” diet foods loaded with more chemicals than DuPont.
Not having to risk death from anorexia or bulimia in an endeavor to conform to what is “attractive” and “desirable” as a wife, or as a middle class professional deserving of a job, and to maintain that status of what it means to be “worthy” and “deserving” in our society; is a social class privilege enjoyed by rich white males and to a lesser extent, thin, young, and pretty white females (“Barbies”).
The issue of “paying your dues” is one more systemic barrier of classism to keep the poor and lower-middle classes out, preserving opportunity for the “haves” and “have-mores”. The film and literary industry are not the only ones where this is customary.
After graduating from college in 2001 at the age of 34, I was hired as a stockbroker/financial planner by a brokerage firm in Philadelphia, PA. It was customary in that field for the broker (who is a commissions-only paid sales worker) to pay the up front costs connected with the NASD and state insurance licensing exams and all continuing ed requirements. I was also expected to not only feed and house myself while working for next to nothing in that racket, I was also expected to be able to afford the “right image” and country club memberships as part of the “cost of getting on the team”. I couldn’t afford that. I also couldn’t afford to work for nothing, either.
I was a poor (albeit well-educated) woman without resources. If I could have afforded to be able to work for free, I certainly would not have done so in a job where I had to kiss spoiled rich people’s asses to get their accounts in order to MAYBE earn a paltry 1% commission.
The insurance companies that hire agents as ‘in-house” employees and pay for their office rental, their office equipment, utilities, high-speed Internet, their C.E. requirements, and a base salary ALL require job candidates to take the LIMRA test. The LIMRA test is supposedly a personality test that determines whether or not you’re psychologically suited for work in the insurance and financial sales and services industry. Bullshit.
I took the LIMRA profile test. Every question asked had to do with what amount of liquid net resources I had: cash in savings, investment portfolios, IRA’s, and home equity versus the total debt I had (student loans, mortgage, etc). My guess is that the companies want workers who don’t need jobs because they need to be paid in order to be able to live – they want people who can afford to work for free, or even PAY TO WORK. Poor and lower-middle class people can’t afford to pay in order to work, or work for free.
The LIMRA test had everything to do with ferreting out the socio-economically disadvantaged job applicants and nothing to do with actual, bona fide job qualifications.
As an author making between $30 and $100 a month in royalties from book sales (supplemented by food stamps), I’ve seen the same thing in the literary fields. In order to get hired as a staff writer with a liveable salary at some mainstream news rag, I would have to be a thin, 20-something year old “Barbie doll” – not the chubby 41 year old that I am.
In order to gain recognition and credit (and renumeration) for my work writing for online newspapers, and eventually profit from being an author, I have to work for free as an unembedded journalist – risking threats to my health and life – until I get a big enough scoop to get recognition and get funded with grant money by organizatins such as DemocracyNOW.org or The Nation in order to continue writing about events that the mainstream news media will not.
I never had the opportunity to travel abroad like so many upper-middle class/rich people have. But I have been to, and witnessed first hand, the hellholes of the maquiladoras in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico (created by NAFTA, GATT and CAFTA – all which benefit rich white males at the helm of corporations).
I am going to Logan and Mingo Counties in West Virginia this week. I will see firsthand (and document) the devastation caused by strip mining and mountain top removal, and the poverty in which many locals must endure in a region ruled by “King Coal”, a petulant and sadistic monarchy that made its pile off of the debt peonage system they’ve forced on the poor and working classes there – people that the middle and upper-middle classes castigate for being “white trash”, “hillbillies”, and “uneducated rednecks”.
Companies that have cornered the fuel and energy market, companies that make everything from clothing to machinery; all want workers to work for nothing while sacrificing the global and domestic environment in the process.
Jacqueline Homan(Quote) (Reply)
Hey, I’m from Fayette County, WV, with miners on both sides of the family, so I already know most of what you’re going to learn in Logan County. It’s an appalling example of what human beings can do before sleeping comfortably every night.
Re: the LIMRA test – that’s mind-boggling. I’ll have to look into that a bit further… and yet I shouldn’t be surprised: the old IQ tests put “lower class” and non-whites at a disadvantage by asking questions that required middle class cultural knowledge.* I’ve even seen one really dismal example of a question that showed two roughly sketched faces and asked which was pretty. Both were female, of course. Both were pretty, in my opinion, so far as rough sketches can render. But one was clearly Caucasian and the other African-American. It’s really hard to fathom how that could have been a case of ignorant racism – it really had to have been a deliberate conditioning tactic. *I don’t know for sure that new IQ tests have improved, I just wanted to be specific about what I was talking about, which are old tests no longer (to my knowledge) administered.
Re: the beauty “standard” for women. Playing devil’s advocate, I’ve tried for years to see a “business” reason for encouraging women to look like Barbies. Sure, it might sell cosmetics and diet products and plastic surgeries… but a lot of women accomplish the look (or die trying) with cheap cosmetics and starvation, which profits no one. I really believe part of the motive – perhaps most of it – is to literally diminish women. After all, if we’re spending hours a week on our appearance that men aren’t spending on theirs, it reduces the “threat” of our talent in the job market overtaking theirs. (And no, I don’t remotely mean to imply that all men, or even all particularly privileged men, feel a need to oppress women – I’m saying it only takes a few crafty haters to set up a system and then create a rationalization for it, which perfectly nice people in their ignorance can find themselves perpetuating without any intent to do so.)
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
The LIMRA test isn’t the only “personality profile” many employers demand job applicants to take in the application process. But it has been the standard one used in the insurance and financial services industry.
Other variants of the LIMRA exist and are used, but they all have the common denominator of fleshing out a job applicant’s socio-economic status. These tests all ask about your net worth quite extensively. Needless to say, job candidates who are smart and ambitious but who happen to be from the bottom socio-economic rung are deliberately left out; labeled as “not a good fit.” (Barbara Ehrenreich also addressed that issue in her books)
As to your observation about the beauty standard we women are unfairly held to in order to be “worthy” and “deserving”, you’re absolutely right – it IS about diminishing women.
It’s a form of silencing us, of censorship. We’re to be trotted out only when we’re desired by men to be their mommies, nursemaids, and playthings; and expected to silently go away, unseen and unheard, when we do not fill that need. And I hold the media responsible for a significant part of this issue and how it has harmed women across the socio-economic strata.
A recent situation highlighting this was brought to my attention from a member of the local La Leche League. Breastfeeding moms have been illegaly harassed and ejected from places where women and babies normally have every right to be on the grounds that nursing in public is “indecent”, despite being very discreet and covering up with a nursing blanket. It was just the knowledge that the women were breastfeeding that resulted in violation of these mothers’ civil liberties.
I was dumbfounded because NO ONE ever complains about seeing half naked hot chicks (College Girls Gone Wild) frollicking on Daytona Beach during spring break week.
No one yells “Cover yourself up!” or “You’re going to have to leave!” at all the thin young “Barbies” sporting boob jobs and string bikinis that leave nothing to the imagination on any given beach or at any water park. They’re not the women who are routinely publicly humiliated and forcibly ejected unlawfully from various places.
Yet, nursing mothers are the ones targeted for this sort of harassment, even though they usually show less boob than what is seen on any given day at the beaches, swimming pools, restaurants (Hooters for example); or at the mall exhibited by the young “hotties” shopping at Abercombie & Fitch and Victoria Secret.
Apparently if women’s bodies are not fulfilling the role of entertaining men, we don’t deserve to be seen in public, on beaches, or in the workplace. And of course, we have no right to be “argumentative” and “complain” about it. I wonder who stands to benefit the most from that scenario.
Jacqueline Homan(Quote) (Reply)
So much I want to say… so much incoherancy – so I will sum up thus:
1) I am a high school student at a prestigious prep school after 11 years at a supposed prep school. College is on everyone’s mind.
2) The school I left was full of rich, privileged students, some of whom recognized what their money gave them, a few of whom recognized this and then still went beyond their money (<3!), and many of whom did not recognize this and did not want to.
3) I totally say yes about the college degrees. My mom has a fricking doctorate. It made her almost unemployable when she had to quit her job last year because of an awful administration. She had over 20 years’ experience, a top level degree, etc. etc., and no one wanted to pay the $200,000 (or whatever) expected if you follow the chart (she wasn’t, by the way. She just wanted to be able to feed us).
On the other hand, I have yet to meet a degreed secretary who can actually handle a copy machine with the ease and expertise I can. May I say again – high school student?
dunvi(Quote) (Reply)
I’m currently attending a computer college in Japan in the hopes of entering the video game industry when I finish. One thing that struck me about your post is the difference between the way that the American job market views incoming workers versus the Japanese one.
In Japan, as in America, qualifications are very important and a degree certainly looks good on your CV. However it’s not nearly as important as the exam that the company gives you if you apply for a job there. The exams are tailored to the job you’re applying for (a computer programmer, for instance, has to display their programming skills, while someone looking for a game planner job has to create a game proposal in the alloted time).
On top of that, there’s your portfolio and what certification exams you’ve earned. Typically in the IT industry that at least means the Fundamental Information Technology exam, plus whatever other ones are relevant (there’s Software, CG, MIDI, etc). While going to a technical school like the one I attend certainly helps to prepare you for said tests, it’s entirely possible to study for them on your own and pass.
As much as I complain about having to take so many tests (I hate tests), it certainly seems like a better measure of one’s actual aptitude than whether or not one has a university degree.
tekanji(Quote) (Reply)
In Australia – at least before they introduced the two-tiered HECS/full-fee paying system – the government basically subsides your degree by 2/3 and lets you pay the remaining third as what amounts to an interest-free loan that you only have to start paying back when your income hits a certain amount. And you get an additional 20% off if you pay the remaining third upfront instead of take it as a loan. And the debt dies with you, so say you’ve managed to accumulate a lot of stuff without ever having a high enough income, the government can’t claim it. The degrees are tiered based on prestige/earning capacity (at least, that’s the way I see it) so my media degree cost me $10K but my brother’s engineering/CS double-degee cost him $42 (prices went up a bit between us; in my time, his degree would have beeen $35K) and the most expensive, medicine, would be about $50K.
Despite this, my dad continually goes on about what a rip-off tuition fees are. He has all these figures – from where he got them, I have no idea – but the gist is, the government is ripping us off. No amount of explaining will convince him that $10K for a world-class degree is something of a bargain.
Scarlett(Quote) (Reply)
Just for information: your option number 1 does not work either. As an example take Austria. Everyone in the country can go to University and obtain a masters degree provided they meet the high school requirements. Yet statistically the number of children of non-academic (i.e. non college educated) parents is only a fraction of those whose parents did obtain a degree.
In other words, opening college to everyone is simply a feel good placebo without any real effect on class structures. I do think that your option 2 on the other hand has a good chance to actually make a difference. The reason is simple. It has a much tighter feedback loop. When you learn on the job, positive feedback will come your way right away. Which then motivates to continue self improvement.
Great article!
Phi Delta(Quote) (Reply)
Phi Delta, I made it clear my post was addressing the issue in the US. I realize it’s quite different from one country to the next, and my solutions are only proposed to work in the US.
In any case, your example assumes everyone who can’t afford college comes from a non-college educated family, and that’s both untrue and classist.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
The system for student-loans is disaster as well (which economically makes no sense- the number of people who are forced to default because their loans are too steep and the losses they generate must outweigh the losses of lessened rates). Universities, when they’re telling visitors about the aid they provide include loans in the money they’ll get for the students- leaving the students in debt they weren’t even aware of. Even leaving aside tuition students are obliged to buy hideously expensive textbooks for every class.
However, the problem starts earlier. I tutor middle-schoolers in Harlem and I see intelligent kids who lack basic skills. The awful schools many lower-income students go to leaves them in large part unprepared for college, unqualified for scholarships and often harboring a hatred of schools
There are several problems. I will only mention the single largest.
Schools are paid for by local governments and funded by property taxes. Thus higher income neighborhoods are able to afford better and more teachers. Better-off parents move to areas with good schools forcing up property taxes, which serve effectively as tuition. Poorer neighborhoods conversely get worse schools, continuing the poverty cycle.
The obvious answer to this is an income-based federal tax split evenly but that smacks of -horror!-
giving the poor our moneyentitlement, which all true meritocratic Americans have battled since at least the days of Lyndon Johnson. (It would also probably lessen the quality of education in certain middle-class neighborhoods until the system adjusted, which would bother many voters if they stopped to consider what they could do to fix the problem).The secondary problem with this system is that it was designed with the expectation that a family would live in the same house for most of a lifetime. Thus the property tax for 40 or so years is intended to pay for 12 years of education for just the children of that family. With families moving into areas with better schools only for their children’s education, then leaving, to be replaced by another family with children, a debt is left over and absorbed by the school district. Over time this will have to be corrected anyway.
For the sake of brevity, I won’t mention broken homes, community expectations, nearby violence or any of a host of other contributing problems. (Any of which I could wax lyrical about.)
The entire American education system is a disaster that could hardly discriminate more against the poor. Its college-fixation and ridiculous tuitions are only one example of a systemic problem.
lyssipe(Quote) (Reply)
I entered the job market by force when I was 18 because I didn’t qualify for any grants/scholarships, nor did I have a desire to go $50K into debit for the degree I wanted. Result: I’m successful at the jobs I acquire because I spend the time to study the material presented to me. For example, I interned at a radio station and totally immersed myself in the job. After 6 months I was offered a full time position. I was able to fulfill my duties without a hitch. When that job ended I studied for a CCNA, passed and managed a network for a few years.
Trouble is, with regard to the article, I’ve always had to lie about my education. If I put “high school graduate” on my resume I get the shaft. Every time I try and tell the truth I’m punished for it. No job offer. I’ve even conducted a experiment with my identical resume, changed phone number and altered name. After submitting both guess which one got the call?
Unless employers change (unlikely) how they handle alternative education and on the job training our future in this global economy is shaky. Unless your family is wealthy, of course.
Jane Q. Public(Quote) (Reply)
This is a bit late, but also worth noting–about the only benefit that you might get out of a college education is the chance to build your network with internships. But even then, since most internships are unpaid, they can only really go to college students who can afford to work for free for 3 or 4 months–that is, people whose parents have money.
alex(Quote) (Reply)
What we need is a college equivalent to the GED program, so that self learners can learn on their own. Simply pass an exit exam to prove proficiency in whatever it is, and you get a degree. A degree should test knowledge, not ability to pay $50,000 to sit in a classroom and take notes.
Chris Jones(Quote) (Reply)
The reason why you need to go to school to be an engineer is because it is a professional practice. No company is going to let someone with no engineering schooling background sign off on a design. Degrees in engineering cannot be learned in 6 weeks of apprenticeship.
Mystery(Quote) (Reply)
“just a few decades ago, employers realized that people could pick up, for example, how to do an engineer’s job without having an engineering degree, and they recognized that a certain number of years of job experience were equivalent to a degree.”
I want to make something clear from the engineering student’s point of view. When people lack the high levels of training (both in class and in the work force) it tends to lead to VERY bad results. Mistakes made in the field can lead to death. Quebec bridge is a good example of poor engineering and quality control. One can learn things on the job but those are construction workers and supervisors. Engineering is an international profession and not easy to get through. One simply does not learn 5 calculus courses on there own or do they understand the ethics of the field.
Easy solution, move to Canada. Its not perfect but it seems to be working alright. Also no standardized tests for entrance (exceptions to very few programs like architecture due to demand).
sam(Quote) (Reply)
100% agree. Example: I have an Associates in Graphic Design and BFA in fine art. Went to a private college with boyfriend/now husband who went to school for Computer Science.
Long story short, we both go into the same amount of debt. However, I graduated, he did not. He has a programming job making 70k a year and no diploma. I have the diploma, same years of work experience, yet make 20k a year as a graphic designer. Should I go and teach art I’d be making 15-18k a year (Texas). Yet, the tuition costs are the same for both degrees. 60k for a piece of paper is not worth it.
jetgirl(Quote) (Reply)
To those commenters writing in and asking for “proof” that employers ever recognized that someone could “pick up” a discipline like engineering through on-the-job learning/experience as well as through a degree:
The term is “degree equivalency.” It’s rare to see now, which is why I haven’t found a good link for you on the internet. Not so many decades ago, many employers recognized that some things were as good as a degree. For example, years of experience in a field; certification in a specialty; a nearly-finished degree – just to name a few. They would search for a candidate that had either the degree they wanted OR whatever the employer felt constituted an equivalent. Sometimes they spelled out the equivalency; sometimes they let applicants turn in resumes, and judged from those whether someone potentially possessed equivalent learning.
This is something I’ve heard about from Baby Boomers. Most Baby Boomers who ran companies or were involved in hiring or just had a lengthy career before retirement are quite familiar with the concept, so feel free to confirm it by describing the concept to a few Boomers and seeing what they say.
One commenter alleged that bridges fall if you let people without college degrees engineer them. Er, that may be, but I was assuming y’all had the sophistication to realize there are many different types of engineers. Some require a lot MORE than a degree for proficiency (I don’t want some 23 year old grad building a bridge I’m driving over). Some really don’t require classroom learning, if an alternative is available, though classroom learning might be a nice bonus. Years ago, we had apprenticeships instead of degrees. There are myriad ways to learn. We didn’t even have such a thing as college degrees back when they built the pyramids, and how many modern and thoroughly-degreed engineers and architects have wracked their brains trying to figure out how those got built?
The reason most of these comments didn’t get through was that they were rude and/or derisive to other commenters. If you can’t bother to follow the comment policy, don’t give a shit when your comments get moderated. A couple of comments were polite enough, but since they were just asking questions and not really contributing any thoughts to the discussion, I thought it was better to address them all en masse with this comment.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Why are you limiting the discussion to civil engineers? There are plenty of people with the job title “engineer” who did not have 5 calculus courses. There are many types of engineering degrees, and civil engineering was actually not what I had in mind. More like “project engineer”, which is definitely something a smart person could pick up in other ways, given the chance. See my standalone comment for a longer response.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
*nods* Graphic design is a prime example of the problem: everyone in my generation was told it was the hot new degree! You’d never be jobless with a degree in graphic design! Off everyone went to get that degree. Then PCs became commonplace, and everyone with a few bucks could afford Photoshop or similar, and suddenly what graphic designers could do *seemed* like something any yahoo could do herself at home. It’s not, I know, but that was the perception. Suddenly there were no jobs in the industry, and those jobs that existed paid pitifully, and that’s why you’re stuck with low wages despite your investment of a lot of time and money in a degree.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Mystery, your assessment could not be more false.
I am an engineer at a top-1% software shop. I have conducted professional seminars, lectured at the collegiate level, consulted for nearly half of the Fortune 100 (including every software company in the top 20), written two highly-regarded books on my field, the list goes on. Suffice it to say, and I say this without a trace of self-consciousness, I am among the very best in the world at what I do.
And I have no degree.
The reason I chose to without my identity from this post should be fairly obvious—part of my professional reputation rests upon the fact that the people that pay my consultation rates, which are squarely in the “premium vendor” range, all carry an unspoken assumption that I hold a degree at least as prestigious and respected as their own.
I flat-out lied to get my foot in the door decades ago, and hold no regret about it whatsoever. I educated myself with libraries, and later the internet, learned enough technical jargon to appear competent, and took an entry-level engineering position at a small shop. I learned what I needed to know to get started in less than a year-and-a-half and it cost me about $10 in late fees. The guy sitting next to my carried a nearly six-figure debt, a meaningless piece of paper from a school in Massachutsetts and was far less competent than I was.
With time, I built my reputation, learned more skills, grew my client list, wrote a couple books, and eventually turned myself into a typical director-level tech, except for the complete lack of “higher education”. Today, a fair number of people know of my deception (though not my clients), but it matters not; the weight of my career eclipses that fact now.
Today I am directly responsible for who my company hires, and I specifically implemented a policy than college degrees are a non-requirement. While part of me must admit that my motivation for this decision was my own history, the truth is, it’s just a matter of practicality. I have interviewed more recent graduated than I care to remember in the last several years and I have come to the conclusion that college-educated engineers are much less prepared for the kind of work I do than individuals with more real-world experience and self-education.
So, who do I hire? The one who gets the job done. Period. I don’t care what you look like, where you live, what your net worth is, or how thick your accent is. I’ll choose the brilliant 32-year-old dropout living in his parents’ basement, writing brilliant code for the open-source community over the 24-year-old with a shiny new computer science degree and not even the slightest idea how the software world actually works. Every. Single. Time. I may not be changing the world, but I like to think of my little corner of it as a real, genuine meritocracy.
Professional Liar(Quote) (Reply)
Sorry, but this is naive and silly. College is not about taking a lot of notes, and reading a bunch of stuff on the Internet is not the equivalent of a college education.
College — for those who take advantage of it — teaches critical thinking, problem solving, working with others, taking initiative, exploring and listening to other ideas and points of view, and so much more.
I agree college has gotten too expensive and beyond the reach of too many. But your simplistic view is way off base.
bigyaz(Quote) (Reply)
There are a couple of engineers at my company who were promoted from lead technician to full engineer after a combination of years of electronic experience, years of working closely with other engineers on the systems and product development, studying on their own and don’t have any college education. There is a senior technician who has been a HAM longer than many of the graduate engineers have been alive and the smart ones take his advice. The ones who don’t usually regret it. He was offered an “engineer” position several times, but turned it down because he makes more money per hour as a senior technician than a salaried engineer who usually put in lots of overtime, late nights, and weekends too. He has no college education.
I’ve been part of the hiring process at our company in round robbin interviews, reading resumes, and giving hands-on or knowledge tests to applicants. We tend to hire people with practical knowledge and experience, such as from the military, previous jobs, personal hobbies, etc. College experience is a nice “bonus”, but people with only college experience tend to need a lot of training and work at a lower level than other applicants, because most of their college education was too general or not relevant to our work. I’m speaking specifically of EE graduates and this is not just my opinion, but that of other people I talk to at my company, including the senior engineers.
I come from a poor family, single mother with 5 kids, dropped out of school when I was 15, got my GED, joined the military at 18, and learned electronics, discipline, and other things. On a whim I took the SAT at 23, without studying, and got a 720/800 on the English side (my math was not nearly so good), which is probably more indicative of the American school system that I was rated so highly, than anything else. When I got out after 6 years I started my first semester of college, then reluctantly quit when I was offered jobs by several semiconductor companies that matched or exceeded what I “thought” I would make after I graduated. I now make twice that.
When I first started work I was terrified by the things I didn’t know and thought I would be fired or “found as a fraud”, even though I was very honest during the application and interview process (I told them I had forgotten and not used much of the “theory” taught in electronics school). That fear motivated me to buy several books and study in my free time. I also paid close attention to the technician who was assigned to train me and when I made mistakes and he got angry, I didn’t take it personally, but resolved to learn and do better.
Now I’m senior and am the one who does the training and I am still afraid of the things I don’t know, which is an ocean compared to the drops of water which I do know. However, I recognize my strength is and will continue to be, hands on, practical experience, logical problem solving, and methodical attention to detail. Engineers who can dance circles around me with their knowledge of electronic and microwave theory, come to me for the simplest jobs and ask my advice on practical stuff and those things which I do know.
I have been taking college courses over the years, even when I was in the military, slowly working towards some kind of degree. I am close to finishing my AA right now and I still don’t know what kind of degree I want to get or if it will help my career in any way, except to open other doors (such as if I want to pursue a management track), act as a small “bonus” if I ever apply at another company, or do something crazy like teach English in a foreign country. The biggest reason I want to complete my degree is to remove that social stigma that comes with not having a degree whenever it is brought up in conversation. Most of my friends have degrees (some even doctorates) and they don’t treat me differently, but I always feel like I have to prove I’m not stupid to other people.
This is the first time I’ve written anything on the internet in a long time, but I was inspired by some of the posts above me and the topic, in general. You can become an engineer without college education and you can have a high paying career without a degree, as well. My recommendation is to specialize in a portable skill, not overlook the value of self study or staying an extra hour after work to help someone out and learn from them in the process. Volunteer outside of work to build your social network and demonstrate your work ethic in the process. Lastly, personal character is still one of the largest factors in getting hired, not only in the interview process, but also through referrals. This is true not only for the positions I’m part of the hiring process for at my company, but also at the companies of my friends. We don’t discriminate against females and some of the most important decision making positions in my company are held by females (many of them former military, incidentally, including our lead technician). However, we get very few female applicants over the years.
I’m not saying my story is easy to reproduce, but my story is not so rare or unique that I cannot look around my company or city and find other examples of exceptions to the norm. I cannot write a game plan that will guarantee success for anyone else, even the kids I hope to have someday, because people’s situations will be different as well as the opportunities that they will encounter. I can say with confidence that the foundations of any success I have had in life, no matter how you measure it, started with my mother, who took the time to teach me to read and shared the love of books with me, which continues to this day.
RadioFrequency(Quote) (Reply)
All top-ranking universities in the United states offer complete need-based financial aid. If your family makes under 60k you can attend the top 10 schools entirely free. (HYP, MIT etc.) The military academies are also free, though require 5 years service.
This creates inherent opportunities for those students who are truly competitive, and maintains the promise of an open society. Lesser institutions tend to have less money to offer for aid, but there is an aspiring middle band of schools like Grinnell who also offer full need-based aid.
In the job market outside middle & top schools, job applications don’t weight degrees nearly as heavily. This somewhat mitigates the problems you mention, but your point is dead-on that for most people the cost of a 4year degree has far outpaced the benefits.
Kirk(Quote) (Reply)
And you are apparently too fucking stupid to realize people learn critical thinking *outside* college all the time. In fact, as college is getting watered down the same as public schools so that Mumsy and Dadsy’s little vapid darling can somehow pass and get a degree, people might be more likely to learn critical thinking on the internet than in college. You obviously have limited critical thinking skills, so, buh-bye!
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
That’s absurd bullshit. Immediately provide proof or shut the fuck up. I cannot believe someone is seriously claiming that any family that makes under $60k – which is the median household income in Los Fucking Angeles, and an upper middle class income in probably half the US regions – can send their kids to a top school for free. That is just so not even slightly true. I thought your comment was “college loan” spam at first. I’m just flabbergasted at the bullshit level.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Here are two recent articles by Harvard and Yale on their financial aid offerings:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2008/jan/15/yale-follows-harvard-in-sweeping-financial-aid/
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/3/31/harvard-will-be-free-for-families/
Stanford offers free tuition under $100k, and free room & board under $60k:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/20/MNABV5LHM.DTL&tsp=1
Many of these schools also provide on-campus jobs at $11.50/hr or more. This helps with living expenses and does lower the day-to-day living gap between moneyed and students.
Kirk(Quote) (Reply)
All engineers (including management) have to take a minimum number of course. Some don’t go into as much detail as others (its hidden in other course like quantum mechanics).
I am a Geological Engineering student. You can learn parts of the field on your own (co-op exist for that reason) but there is a lot that you need higher education to understand. Fluid Mechanics/ \hydrogeology both are good examples of course i have to take that i could not fully understand on the job.
The term Engineering in both Canada and the US is legally restricted to professional engineers only. It is a serious offense to call yourself an engineer with out your license. Certain countries have different rules but in Canada and the US this is the case. Read the code of ethics and limitations on the term for the two countries. Canadian engineering graduates (or at least made it to there last term) have an iron ring on there pinky finger as its a sign of there oath they take and originally a memory of the Quebec bridge accidents which claimed many lives. I use this case for in was one of the ones which forced the field to self regular.
The greatest thing a university or college can do to make sure the students can make money and get real experience is a co-op program. Worked here at UW (university of Waterloo). I’m here on a student line of credit (over 25000 in debt but paid over 15000 due to co-op) and work terms. This is expensive for Canada but the set up makes it possible and OSAP is not SO much of a pain.
sam(Quote) (Reply)
You’re completely missing the point. Yes, those requirements exist now (not that it’s illegal to do the work of an engineer so long as you don’t claim that title). But that was my point: in decades not so long ago, you had “equivalencies”, as I explained in my other comment. Companies gave “engineer” positions to people who had enough non-college training/experience/whatever to do the work competently. In the 80s this began to change to a reliance on college degrees, only. And that put poor smart kids at a disadvantage. We didn’t used to rely solely on college degrees, and we don’t have to now (in fact, one commenter explains that some firms still do equivalencies, particularly with ex-military personnel). There is no reason to rely solely on degrees. Degrees are wonderful, but so are a number of other ways of learning and gaining competence.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Wow, check out YOUR privilege. You’ve misread this somethin’ fierce.
That’s where you got the idea this was “entirely free”, yes? You’re so very wrong.
Here’s the problem. It says “parental contributions.” I’m guessing you never handled student loans of your own, and don’t realize there’s also a “student contribution.”
These kids on this deal will be working 7 hours a week just to meet what’s required of them on this setup you imagine to be completely free. That’s not free. It is a big drop, yes, commendable, but not “entirely free” as you claimed. But it’s not even as great as it sounds, because that 7 hours of work won’t begin to cover living expenses – that’s just what they owe the school. They’ll probably need to work at least 20 additional hours a week (cost of living varies by region: 20 hours a week at $11.50 is not enough to live in Los Angeles, but some of these schools may be accessible from cheaper regions). So while the rich kids get to focus entirely on their studies, the poor kids have a 27+ hour/wk job to focus on, plus their studies. Or, if loans still work like they did when I went to school, the kids MIGHT be able to get student loans to cover living expenses, and then go into big debt like we’ve been talking about. And of course, any earnings they report will reduce the amount of loans they can get the next term – something else you probably don’t know, because I sure didn’t know it until I found out the hard way. So, you know, it might indeed be a better deal than the local state school, and that’s great. But it’s not “entirely free” as you described it, and it certainly won’t work for everyone. Not only the kids who can’t qualify for those schools but are still pretty damn smart, but the kids seeking degrees those schools don’t offer (or aren’t the preferred school for).
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
There are certainly benefits in standardized degrees – heck, as a German, I am pretty much obligated to propose standards here –, but you are making a mistake in your logic:
Just because a degree tries to ensure good work (and you can argue how successful that is) does not mean that good work is impossible without one. And that *is* a problem with standards.
Just look ad the medical profession; yes, standards mean that doctors have extensive training, but it also meant many, especially female, medical workers who were doing perfectly fine were pushed out of work. And we still have bad doctors.
T. O. Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
For me, and remember German universities are nowhere near as expensive as US universities, I had the choice between working 30 hrs and taking twice as long, or getting a student loan that barely covered my studies (it stopped paying out two months and one tuition fee before the end) and managing it as fast as possible. And I still had to scramble and had problems paying everything, in addition to being in debt to the tune of 30,000 Euros now.
If I didn’t know I was going into a very well-paid and secure job – contrary to the US, German teachers have it fairly good, financially –, I don’t know if I’d risked that. Now at least I know I will be able to pay it back, some day.
T. O. Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
if only collage actually did teach you all that. granted there are some good teachers, and some nice programs, but what I’m learning most about ‘collage’ is how to tell when someone is BSing at their administrative job (giving you wrong info just to get you to go away) and to double check everything lest they yank your (what little you got) financial aid 2 days before class starts.
la(Quote) (Reply)
I”m going to guess theres’ no sliding scale for degrees because some of the low paying jobs are still ‘popular’ degrees.
in all honestly, art students shouldn’t pay so much in tuition when, especially in america, theres a low value placed on artistic talent (or expected to be givin for free because you’re doing what ‘you love to do’)
la(Quote) (Reply)
oh yes, cause those 10 schools can afford and have the space to provide for all under 60k household incoming students.
never mind that, no they dont have the space/money, that the school also need space for foreign students, that they dont provide all the degrees(or that all of them is of high quality), or that it doesnt cover living cost (especially those having to relocate), ect…
la(Quote) (Reply)
That’s actually a really good point. Why pay the same for a degree with lots of job opportunities as you pay for one where you’re competing with interns for unpaid jobs?
One of the reasons the film and TV industry is so mired in an upper class white perspective is that you have to work for free or below livable wages for so many *years* before you can expect decent pay that mostly only people who don’t need a job to make ends meet can afford to stay the course. There are exceptions, of course. Also, I should mention that writers in film are expected NEVER to earn enough to support themselves. That’s why virtually all of them have second jobs – day jobs, professorships, teaching extension courses, whatever.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
{ 2 trackbacks }