Is a college degree really necessary?

[Renegade7]

On 8/29/2018 at 1:21 PM, twa said:

Is 58 too late to go to college?

Can't really decide what field to go for.

No, I've met people in their 50s that switched to IT or nursing.  If your going to change careers, have to be efficient.  Continuing education in field your in also is perfectly fine

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, mcsluggo said:

 

i don't think it is predatory to admit a student.   But in 3 months (of a 4-5 year expected lending environment) you should NOT be able to rack of THAT much debt... under a NORMAL banking environment

 

 

Current tuition for that school for in state students for one semester is $3700 (or half that if they meet certain relatively modest academic benchmarks in HS).  Out of state is $12k.  All parties except the student did what they were supposed to do, the school enrolled the student and made the classes available, and provided all of the other things that a college provides.  The student simply chose not to do what he/she was supposed to do.  So I don't really understand the complaint. 

 

Also, there is no bank involved in this transaction.  The loans in almost all cases are advanced by the Dept. of Education.  Additionally, and this is a topic near and dear to my heart, student lending is different from all other types of lending because there is no collateral and the nature of the borrowers.  That makes it a risky proposition on both sides because the lender isn't protected and the borrower has no skin in the game (and is likely a dumb 18 year old).  

 

[mcsluggo]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Current tuition for that school for in state students for one semester is $3700 (or half that if they meet certain relatively modest academic benchmarks in HS).  Out of state is $12k.  All parties except the student did what they were supposed to do, the school enrolled the student and made the classes available, and provided all of the other things that a college provides.  The student simply chose not to do what he/she was supposed to do.  So I don't really understand the complaint. 

 

Also, there is no bank involved in this transaction.  The loans in almost all cases are advanced by the Dept. of Education.  Additionally, and this is a topic near and dear to my heart, student lending is different from all other types of lending because there is no collateral and the nature of the borrowers.  That makes it a risky proposition on both sides because the lender isn't protected and the borrower has no skin in the game (and is likely a dumb 18 year old).  

 

 

uhm.... one of us doesn't understand the student loan market, as it exists in the USA today.   It is my understanding (perhaps incorrect??) that the loans are USUALLY floated and serviced by the private sector (who gets almost all the profit) and guaranteed by the federal government (who takes all the risk).  The banks are the ones that have no skin in the game.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, mcsluggo said:

 

uhm.... one of us doesn't understand the student loan market, as it exists in the USA today.   It is my understanding (perhaps incorrect??) that the loans are USUALLY floated and serviced by the private sector (who gets almost all the profit) and guaranteed by the federal government (who takes all the risk).  The banks are the ones that have no skin in the game.

 

Extended by Dept of Education, serviced by the private sector (notably Navient (formerly Sallie Mae), FedLoan Servicing, Great Lakes and a few others).  The servicers do get most of the profits. 

[JSSkinz]

20 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Current tuition for that school for in state students for one semester is $3700 (or half that if they meet certain relatively modest academic benchmarks in HS).  Out of state is $12k.  All parties except the student did what they were supposed to do, the school enrolled the student and made the classes available, and provided all of the other things that a college provides.  The student simply chose not to do what he/she was supposed to do.  So I don't really understand the complaint. 

Just curious, are you saying if the student never shows up for class and is dropped they still owe the debt?

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, JSSkinz said:

Just curious, are you saying if the student never shows up for class and is dropped they still owe the debt?

 

I'm saying that my understanding is that if someone enrolls in college and does not drop out prior to the end of the applicable deadline (which is usually the end of the add/drop period), then they have to pay for that semester.  Whether it's loans or out of pocket doesn't really matter.  

[JSSkinz]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I'm saying that my understanding is that if someone enrolls in college and does not drop out prior to the end of the applicable deadline (which is usually the end of the add/drop period), then they have to pay for that semester.  Whether it's loans or out of pocket doesn't really matter.  

I'm only curious because a few years ago I tried to work with an accredited nursing school here in Tampa who needed some capital.  One of the major issues with the file was the chargebacks from the Fed.

 

The client said if the student didn't attend 60% (I think) of the classes the school had to refund the tuition, I can't remember if it was just a portion or all of the tuition but I know it was substantial because it was a big reason we couldn't help them.

 

I'm guessing the Fed seeks a judgment for the deficiency in that situation.

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I'm saying that my understanding is that if someone enrolls in college and does not drop out prior to the end of the applicable deadline (which is usually the end of the add/drop period), then they have to pay for that semester.  Whether it's loans or out of pocket doesn't really matter.  

 

There are ways around that, I know because I've gotten around it. But yes, that is the standing rule and you have to have some pretty extreme circumstances to get around it.

 

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

I'm only curious because a few years ago I tried to work with an accredited nursing school here in Tampa who needed some capital.  One of the major issues with the file was the chargebacks from the Fed.

 

The client said if the student didn't attend 60% (I think) of the classes the school had to refund the tuition, I can't remember if it was just a portion or all of the tuition but I know it was substantial because it was a big reason we couldn't help them.

 

I'm guessing the Fed seeks a judgment for the deficiency in that situation.

 

Yea, I dunno if things work differently at a nursing school.  I've been to a public undergrad school and a private grad school, the deal with both is if you are enrolled after the add/drop deadline, you are getting billed for being enrolled.  There was no requirement that anyone go to class.  I had at least two classes where i showed up the first day and for the exam and those credits counted on my bill (A's in both, BTW). 

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

There are ways around that, I know because I've gotten around it. But yes, that is the standing rule and you have to have some pretty extreme circumstances to get around it.

 

 

Cry until they relent and just asked you to leave the Registrar's office?  

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Cry until they relent and just asked you to leave the Registrar's office?  

 

You know... i forget the details.. it was a long time ago... but it wasn't far from that.

 

One time I also got to take my spring finals at the start of the following fall semester... but that involved doing those things you're not in college to do, glass, reconstructive surgery, 12 weeks of physical therapy, and a lot of percocet.

 

It was 2 years before I could throw a football. I used to play QB. I cannot throw it like I used to, but at least I can throw it again.

 

I do not know how I made it out of my 20's but I did.

 

I have so many good stories... so many good stories...

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, tshile said:

 

You know... i forget the details.. it was a long time ago... but it wasn't far from that.

 

One time I also got to take my spring finals at the start of the following fall semester... but that involved doing those things you're not in college to do, glass, reconstructive surgery, 12 weeks of physical therapy, and a lot of percocet.

 

I do not know how I made it out of my 20's but I did.

 

I have so many good stories... so many good stories...

 

 

I had a very bad concussion my spring semester 2L year in law school.  I do not remember (at all) 2 months of my life.  I got straight A's that semester because I knew I was ****ed, so I took extraordinarily good notes and it was the only semester I did not have a job or internship in addition to class. 

[Springfield]

So now that we all agree that college is a necessary hurdle for a wealthy existence...

 

Let’s speculate on when the bubble will burst and what the fallout will be.

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I had a very bad concussion my spring semester 2L year in law school.  I do not remember (at all) 2 months of my life.  I got straight A's that semester because I knew I was ****ed, so I took extraordinarily good notes and it was the only semester I did not have a job or internship in addition to class. 

That's actually impressive. None of my stories are impressive.

 

I once jumped out of a car moving at a pretty high rate of speed and didn't get hurt. He also then almost ran over me. That entire night was a bad decision.

 

A lot of my college friends actually think i'm dead. I ran into one at a redskins game (which is all sorts of random) and he grabbed me and yelled, in front of my future father in law which was great, "I THOUGHT YOU WERE ****ING DEAD!" It was not easy to explain

 

[Renegade7]

32 minutes ago, Springfield said:

So now that we all agree that college is a necessary hurdle for a wealthy existence...

 

Let’s speculate on when the bubble will burst and what the fallout will be.

Like an oversaturation of college degrees?  Don't we already see that in certain case, like too many lawyers and why we have so many personal injury lawyers?

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

22 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Like an oversaturation of college degrees?  Don't we already see that in certain case, like too many lawyers and why we have so many personal injury lawyers?

 

I blame it on the entire system.  Lets face it, outside of a few really hard professions (doctor, lawyer, etc.) all these 4 year degrees are actually 2 - 2.5 year degrees.  Colleges make you retake stuff that you don't need so you keep pumping money into them for 4 years.  Unless you are majoring in those fields, it is absolutely ridiculous to require every student take college level literature, history, economics, fine arts, phys ed, etc.  

 

They claim well rounded......**** that.  That **** was only good for trivia nights at the bar for me.  They need to be pushing/requiring internship/co-ops so they can real life work experience and have a shot landing a job in their field of study after they graduate.  If you're going to be an engineer or architect, etc., there is zero reason why world history or music appreciation, etc. should be required classes.  

 

 

[skinfan2k]

Before working with the military, i always frowned on it but there are alot of big benefits from joining the military 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

21 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I blame it on the entire system.  Lets face it, outside of a few really hard professions (doctor, lawyer, etc.) all these 4 year degrees are actually 2 - 2.5 year degrees.  Colleges make you retake stuff that you don't need so you keep pumping money into them for 4 years.  Unless you are majoring in those fields, it is absolutely ridiculous to require every student take college level literature, history, economics, fine arts, phys ed, etc.  

 

They claim well rounded......**** that.  That **** was only good for trivia nights at the bar for me.  They need to be pushing/requiring internship/co-ops so they can real life work experience and have a shot landing a job in their field of study after they graduate.  If you're going to be an engineer or architect, etc., there is zero reason why world history or music appreciation, etc. should be required classes.  

 

 

 

Here's where I understand it or at least think something needs to replace it. That first year of college seems to serve as an acclimation period or placeholder. You do re-take a lot of the same subjects and I'm sure colleges spin that 100 ways (well-rounded, foundational learning, etc.). 

 

But, there just aren't too many students who are mature and serious enough to dive right into what they want to do immediately after high school. I almost feel like they dress it up (and make money), but those first 2-3 semesters are there to let students take a familiar course load while they mature and figure out what they want to do. 

 

If I had decided at 18 what I was going to be when I grew up...I'd have majored in Education and History and (God willing) be a history teacher right now. By the time I was 20 I realized I wanted to go into Business. Would it have been a tragedy to be a teacher? Of course not, but it would have been tough to switch gears if I was mostly through my courses. 

 

So, unless the entire process changes and there's some period of time between high school and college, I think it's risky to have people jump into extremely specific courses. 

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I blame it on the entire system.  Lets face it, outside of a few really hard professions (doctor, lawyer, etc.) all these 4 year degrees are actually 2 - 2.5 year degrees.  Colleges make you retake stuff that you don't need so you keep pumping money into them for 4 years.  Unless you are majoring in those fields, it is absolutely ridiculous to require every student take college level literature, history, economics, fine arts, phys ed, etc.  

 

They claim well rounded......**** that.  That **** was only good for trivia nights at the bar for me.  They need to be pushing/requiring internship/co-ops so they can real life work experience and have a shot landing a job in their field of study after they graduate.  If you're going to be an engineer or architect, etc., there is zero reason why world history or music appreciation, etc. should be required classes.  

 

 

 

i think you have just nailed the difference between the basic definition of a bachelors of arts versus an associates degree, or an intensive technical  certification program.     College wasn;t intended to be trade-school, if thats what you want, you may be looking at the wrong place.

[Popeman38]

College is designed in part to teach a young adult social and time management skills while also furthering their education. As an adult with 15 years of life experience, anyone who complains about only going to school full time (no job, no spouse or kids) should STFU and graduate in 4 years with a degree and honors. But her's the rub: if I had gone to a 4 year university right out of high school, there is a 0.0% chance I would have graduated. Wasn't ready for it. I'd argue the vast majority of 17-18 years old kids aren't ready for it. If we allowed a kid to work for 2 years after high school and then go to school, I'd bet quite a few more would not only do better, they would appreciate the education. I learned way more as a working adult attending school than I would have as an 18-22 going to school full time.  Because I know now what I didn't know then.

[dcdiscokid]

Ill throw my 2cents in here, I had an associates degree and a vocational school in IT, plus 2 certifications at the time, while it was still a little hard to get a job, it was at a time in the 90's when IT was just taking off.  I have been with my company for almost 19 years, about 5 years ago things changed and that company wont even talk to a candidate without a 4 year degree.  I think its asinine, because most of the people we hire cant spell IT anyways, but it is what it is.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

3 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Here's where I understand it or at least think something needs to replace it. That first year of college seems to serve as an acclimation period or placeholder. You do re-take a lot of the same subjects and I'm sure colleges spin that 100 ways (well-rounded, foundational learning, etc.). 

 

But, there just aren't too many students who are mature and serious enough to dive right into what they want to do immediately after high school. I almost feel like they dress it up (and make money), but those first 2-3 semesters are there to let students take a familiar course load while they mature and figure out what they want to do. 

 

If I had decided at 18 what I was going to be when I grew up...I'd have majored in Education and History and (God willing) be a history teacher right now. By the time I was 20 I realized I wanted to go into Business. Would it have been a tragedy to be a teacher? Of course not, but it would have been tough to switch gears if I was mostly through my courses. 

 

So, unless the entire process changes and there's some period of time between high school and college, I think it's risky to have people jump into extremely specific courses. 

 

I understand where you are coming from, but there are plenty of high school graduates that are mature enough to know what path they want to take.  So lets brainstorm....how about offer it both ways.  They have two paths for each profession, one is the traditional money grab system in place and the other is one that consists of 2-2.5 years in classes with two years internship/co-op to get work experience.  

 

The way the co-op program worked at UNC-Charlotte for engineering was when you got into your Junior year, it alternated semesters between your internship/job and classes.  So there were companies that participated in the program and students would be placed or apply for the internship (can't remember, because my dumb ass didn't take that path - and I regret I didn't), they would go to classes in the fall semester, then work (and get paid) for the winter semester, then classes in the summer, then work in the fall, etc. etc.  

 

They gained 1-2 years of experience and often were offered full-time positions after graduation or had very little issues getting hired on as they graduated with experience.  The main issue with that program was it was on top of all the BS money grabbing classes required, so it extended total time to graduate by 2 years.  

 

If they offered both options, then it would benefit the student that wasn't mature enough and those that were and just want to get **** done and start their career.  

 

With all that said, me personally, I look at it like this, if it were only core classes and internship/co-op like I originally posted, they are going to find out really fast if it's something they want to do and can always switch majors, just like they do now.  They could also go to a community college and take classes to figure it out, or simply don't start until they know what they want to do.  

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

2 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

 

i think you have just nailed the difference between the basic definition of a bachelors of arts versus an associates degree, or an intensive technical  certification program.     College wasn;t intended to be trade-school, if thats what you want, you may be looking at the wrong place.

 

Please explain to me why I was required to take golf, weight lifting, canoeing to satisfy three hours of physical education requirements.  Music appreciation to satisfy the 1 hour of fine arts requirements.  English literature I and II to satisfy however many hours of English required, world history, economics, etc. when I was going to college to become a mechanical engineer?

 

Zero point zero of those two years of non-related classes that I was forced to take helped me be a better student, better in engineering classes, etc.  All were 100% a complete waste of my time and money.  If I wanted to be an English teacher or history teacher, or teacher in general then sure, completely understandable.  It's set up as a money grab, imo, and I have a problem with that.

 

Real life work experience in your field of study is a gazillion times more valuable than sitting through classes that are not related at all.  If you are taking classes for two years in your major and doing an internship/co-op, it wouldn't purely be a trade school.  They could even add on another year of electives in your field of study, so you have 3 years of core classes and 2 years work experience.

 

 

[zoony]

Not necessary but damn Im glad I have one

[Elessar78]

12 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Please explain to me why I was required to take golf, weight lifting, canoeing to satisfy three hours of physical education requirements.  Music appreciation to satisfy the 1 hour of fine arts requirements.  English literature I and II to satisfy however many hours of English required, world history, economics, etc. when I was going to college to become a mechanical engineer?

 

Zero point zero of those two years of non-related classes that I was forced to take helped me be a better student, better in engineering classes, etc.  All were 100% a complete waste of my time and money.  If I wanted to be an English teacher or history teacher, or teacher in general then sure, completely understandable.  It's set up as a money grab, imo, and I have a problem with that.

 

Real life work experience in your field of study is a gazillion times more valuable than sitting through classes that are not related at all.  If you are taking classes for two years in your major and doing an internship/co-op, it wouldn't purely be a trade school.  They could even add on another year of electives in your field of study, so you have 3 years of core classes and 2 years work experience.

 

 

The quality of one's writing is reflective of what one reads. Writing ability is very important for higher level positions, heck, even entry level. So I can see the value of English Lit. Work with a lot of engineers and a lot of them have trouble expressing ideas and communicating. 

 

WaPo reported in 2013 that only 27% of college grads worked in fields related to their major. So you're in the minority of working in your degree field. So all those bull**** classes were a pretty good hedge for the real world. 

 

Universities are not just training schools or technical schools—the idea is to develop the whole person (Latin universitas= whole). Learning all those other things informs your main course of study. Apple's founder, highest valued company in the history of man, strongly believed in the intersection of science and the humanities. The "not related" classes are only if you believe that people are just automatons that serve no other purpose than to be a cog in capitalism. The humanities allow you to develop an appreciation for the other 8 hours where you're not sleeping or working. Few girls and dinner parties are going to want to discuss how you calculated stresses in a screw system.

15 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

 

i think you have just nailed the difference between the basic definition of a bachelors of arts versus an associates degree, or an intensive technical  certification program.     College wasn;t intended to be trade-school, if thats what you want, you may be looking at the wrong place.

He doesn't understand why a subject like world history wouldn't be relevant for an architect or engineer. 

 

A lot of the higher up engineers I know are really into their classical music and their audiophile systems. As well as other cultural topics they hob nob with other higher ups in other fields. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

7 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

The quality of one's writing is reflective of what one reads. Writing ability is very important for higher level positions, heck, even entry level. So I can see the value of English Lit. Work with a lot of engineers and a lot of them have trouble expressing ideas and communicating. 

 

WaPo reported in 2013 that only 27% of college grads worked in fields related to their major. So you're in the minority of working in your degree field. So all those bull**** classes were a pretty good hedge for the real world. 

 

Universities are not just training schools or technical schools—the idea is to develop the whole person (Latin universitas= whole). Learning all those other things informs your main course of study. Apple's founder, highest valued company in the history of man, strongly believed in the intersection of science and the humanities. The "not related" classes are only if you believe that people are just automatons that serve no other purpose than to be a cog in capitalism. The humanities allow you to develop an appreciation for the other 8 hours where you're not sleeping or working. Few girls and dinner parties are going to want to discuss how you calculated stresses in a screw system.

He doesn't understand why a subject like world history wouldn't be relevant for an architect or engineer. 

 

A lot of the higher up engineers I know are really into their classical music and their audiophile systems. As well as other cultural topics they hob nob with other higher ups in other fields. 

 

Not in here, but in other threads where I've blasted the current system, I have pointed out that there are a few non-related classes that I believe all college students should be required to take:  Technical Writing, Speech.

 

But.......I'm going to stop my rant as I looked up the current required classes at my alma mater and they have greatly adjusted in favor of related core classes.  There are still 15 hours of classes that I feel should be left out, but that's only one semester worth.  

 

For the record, I earned a BSME degree and never worked in that field, so I am part of that 73%.........and none of those bull**** classes I took did squat for me in the real world.  Unless I was going to be a teacher (English, History, Phys Ed, etc.), those classes were of zero help in preparing me for the real world.  I did benefit from the speech class and technical writing class.  

 

Your standard world history class is not going to provide any more insight or knowledge for an engineering student.  I know, I took those classes and got that degree.  Architect, sure, as they design different looks from different eras.  But I'm sure that is taught to them in core classes given that's what they do.  I'm sorry bro, but in your world history class, your learning about history, not studying actual designs of buildings, etc.