I wonder how much this had to do with the study showing that San Francisco leads the pack in income difference. It seems that in Dan Fran you are either fairly wealthy or poor, with little in between, at least compared to most place. A few other cities are close, but being number one is its own special thing.

 d-usa wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
With all that being said, I'd be willing to enter into some sort of indentured servitude if someone wanted to pay off my student loans

Any takers?

How old are you that you still have student loans? Unless you went to medical school that gak should be paid off within 5 years. It does explain your some of your negative views on college though.

Average time to pay of student loans is 10 years, so if you are a 100% traditional student you will probably graudate college when you are 23 and pay off your student loans when you are 33.

Unless you went to graduate school.

Or you went back to school later.

Or you didn't go to school right after high school and didn't get your loans until you were 33 to start with.

There are so many variables in student loans, how many breaks in repayment you had or how old you were when you first went to school or went back to school, that having loans really tells me nothing about how old someone is.

Or you couldn't get a deent job and are working (again) as a waiter. Beware the Higher Education Industrial Complex!

 Frazzled wrote:

Or you couldn't get a deent job and are working (again) as a waiter. Beware the Higher Education Industrial Complex!

Student loan don't care what you work as, or don't work as! When it's due, it's due!

You don't own student loan debt, in Capitalist America Student Loan Debt owns you!

 dogma wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

In addition to my doctoral research, I (1) teach 2 undergraduate classes. Not TA. TEACH. I design the syllabus, select the text book, lecture, assign homework, grade, and give exams.

That's what nearly all TAs do. The only things I didn't do as a TA were freely design the syllabus, and freely select the textbooks underpinning the syllabus. And I'm going to guess you didn't do those things either ; given that textbook selection is necessarily limited by that which is available to the institution, the department, and the professor.

And you would be wrong. I selected text books that I'd used at another institution for similar courses because they are better than the ones that the school was using, and the school ordered those text books for my classes. Syllabus is 100% my design, as is the text book selection.

There is no "professor" for this course - it's just me.

San Fran also appears to be where (evil?) Tony Stark has set up shop in the new Superior Iron Man.



It seems like San Francisco is having some image issues.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Or you couldn't get a deent job and are working (again) as a waiter. Beware the Higher Education Industrial Complex!

Student loan don't care what you work as, or don't work as! When it's due, it's due!

You don't own student loan debt, in Capitalist America Student Loan Debt owns you!

In America you gotta earn!

Seriously now, I don't know how kids do it these days. In ancient times I managed to work my way through college. I couldn't afford to get into the schools I was qualified for, but still made it through.

Now, the tuition, books etc. are ten times what it was then. I would not have been able to go.

 Frazzled wrote:

Seriously now, I don't know how kids do it these days. In ancient times I managed to work my way through college. I couldn't afford to get into the schools I was qualified for, but still made it through.

Now, the tuition, books etc. are ten times what it was then. I would not have been able to go.

Or even adults that need to go back to school for jobs.

My #1 recommendation for going to an online university is Western Governors University. Great online school, awesome cost even if you wouldn't be comparing them to overpriced online diploma mill, and great staff. You will keep yourself from being buried in student loans or having to sell kidneys if you take a look at them.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Anecdotally, the town I grew up in, if I rode the city bus to the library it took me 1 1/2-2 hours to get there one way. If I rode my bike it took me 30 minutes, tops. and by car it was 15-30 minutes depending on traffic (there were many bike accessible "short cuts" that a car couldn't use).

To piggy back on this, where I live now, there is a subdivision much like a suburb.

To get to the nearest library, it's 30 minutes by car in good traffic. There are no other options. None. You can't walk or bike it, unless you feel like riding illegally on a highway. There is no public transportation. No bus, no train, nothing. This is a reality for lots of people in rural areas, which comprise a startingly large number of poorer people in the US.

With how much everyday life and business depends on the internet, it would not be too off to call it a 'necessity'. Sure, you don't need it to live like food or water. But if you don't have it, you are at a SERIOUS disadvantage in modern society. From grade school to college to adult work life, you are already struggling.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Or you couldn't get a deent job and are working (again) as a waiter. Beware the Higher Education Industrial Complex!

Student loan don't care what you work as, or don't work as! When it's due, it's due!

You don't own student loan debt, in Capitalist America Student Loan Debt owns you!

In America you gotta earn!

Seriously now, I don't know how kids do it these days. In ancient times I managed to work my way through college. I couldn't afford to get into the schools I was qualified for, but still made it through.

Now, the tuition, books etc. are ten times what it was then. I would not have been able to go.

Problem is now is that jobs before that didn't need a degree almost require it as well, many jobs that didn't require certs now need it or else your left in the dust or you can't even look to the jobs without some sort of paid for training beforehand.

 Frazzled wrote:
Seriously now, I don't know how kids do it these days. In ancient times I managed to work my way through college. I couldn't afford to get into the schools I was qualified for, but still made it through.

Now, the tuition, books etc. are ten times what it was then. I would not have been able to go.

You have no idea how often I've seen the first sentiment posted without the latter sentiment added on, so kudos to you for not promulgating that outdated bs.

 Frazzled wrote:

In America you gotta earn!

Seriously now, I don't know how kids do it these days. In ancient times I managed to work my way through college. I couldn't afford to get into the schools I was qualified for, but still made it through.

Now, the tuition, books etc. are ten times what it was then. I would not have been able to go.

Holy... because of this post, I looked up tuition rates at George Mason, where I went for undergrad. Tuition has gone from $180 $99 per credit hour to $424 per credit hour. I graduated about 10 years ago.

That's not including the roughly $400-500 I spent on books every single frelling semseter, which I'm sure are still at least that expensive.

Edit: double checked the tuition cost from the year I went in. Almost half what I though it was!

Depends on how many classes you take, and how many books they need. You can expect to spend a minimum of $25 a credit hour (probably closer to $50) on books.

I'm in college right now, SUNYIT for CS specificaly, and I'm paying $9508.00 this semester. Keep in mind that this is a state-funded school. It's about as cheaply as it gets for quality education. I'm going to to major debt. We really need either public higher education, or some serious expanding of government backed student loans. Something, anything. I would vote for a president just on that at this point.

 Ahtman wrote:
Sallie Mae and several other sites that took ten seconds to google say the average student loan takes ten years to pay off, not five.

That's actually misleading too...

Most of those loans are paid off by private loans, whom offered better rates/considation opportunity. Payoff is closer to avg of 20 yrs.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm in college right now, SUNYIT for CS specificaly, and I'm paying $9508.00 this semester. Keep in mind that this is a state-funded school. It's about as cheaply as it gets for quality education. I'm going to to major debt. We really need either public higher education, or some serious expanding of government backed student loans. Something, anything. I would vote for a president just on that at this point.

Costs need to go down. There's no resaon for the year over year constant above inflation tuition increases.

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Sallie Mae and several other sites that took ten seconds to google say the average student loan takes ten years to pay off, not five.

That's actually misleading too...

Most of those loans are paid off by private loans, whom offered better rates/considation opportunity. Payoff is closer to avg of 20 yrs.

Yup. My loan rate was so low that refinancing wasn't worth it. I'm about halfway paid off and I've been paying for 10ish years. 20 should see me student loan free.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm in college right now, SUNYIT for CS specificaly, and I'm paying $9508.00 this semester. Keep in mind that this is a state-funded school. It's about as cheaply as it gets for quality education. I'm going to to major debt. We really need either public higher education, or some serious expanding of government backed student loans. Something, anything. I would vote for a president just on that at this point.

Costs need to go down. There's no resaon for the year over year constant above inflation tuition increases.

But Frazz... it's all free money from the gubmint!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Sallie Mae and several other sites that took ten seconds to google say the average student loan takes ten years to pay off, not five.

That's actually misleading too...

Most of those loans are paid off by private loans, whom offered better rates/considation opportunity. Payoff is closer to avg of 20 yrs.

Yup. My loan rate was so low that refinancing wasn't worth it. I'm about halfway paid off and I've been paying for 10ish years. 20 should see me student loan free.

Yeah... the kicker is that even though they're private loans... they're still "school loans" and thus, cannot be discharged via normal bankruptcy. Hence why private banks love that industry.

Thats what Gruber said!

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats what Gruber said!

I laughed out loud in my office... you almost owe me a new keyboard frazz!

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... the kicker is that even though they're private loans... they're still "school loans" and thus, cannot be discharged via normal bankruptcy. Hence why private banks love that industry.

Mine are all FAFSA loans, though I'm pretty sure I got sold to some private firm recently. That kind of torqued me off. The ridiculous changes to student loans not being discharged is just that: ridiculous. All it is is banks seeing an upcoming bubble and making sure that they can't lose a single cent when the bubble bursts. Frell them.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm in college right now, SUNYIT for CS specificaly, and I'm paying $9508.00 this semester. Keep in mind that this is a state-funded school. It's about as cheaply as it gets for quality education. I'm going to to major debt. We really need either public higher education, or some serious expanding of government backed student loans. Something, anything. I would vote for a president just on that at this point.

Our universities/government used to give grants for students and had no fees (though they were a lot harder to get into and you still had to pay for living costs, etc). Then they slowly brought in tuition fees (when I went they were £1,200 per year). Over the course of only a few years they were ramped up to a "maximum" of £9,000 a year "under exceptional circumstances". Of course, almost all universities now charge £9,000 a year for any course.

The problem came because unlike the USA, we haven't had time to adjust to this - no one has a "baby's university saving scheme", because these raises were done over only a couple of years. The stupid thing is that the government still provides the loan for the tuition fee, so there are no up front saving to the government in the cost of university education, and as most people never repay the student loan over the course of repayments, there is no extra money reclaimed at the end of the day either.

One of the two parties currently running the country campaigned on the promise of not increasing tuition fees - and one of their biggest voting blocks historically has been students. Needless to say that when they got in power and just bent over when it came to increasing student fees they lost almost their entire support base and have not recovered since, nor do they look like they will ever be in power again in my lifetime

 d-usa wrote:

My #1 recommendation for going to an online university is Western Governors University. Great online school, awesome cost even if you wouldn't be comparing them to overpriced online diploma mill, and great staff. You will keep yourself from being buried in student loans or having to sell kidneys if you take a look at them.

When I was doing online schooling while in the army, I went to American Military University (it's a part of American Public University or the "american public university system" as there's a few more schools in this small network as well). While I didn't personally pay a dime, I was very conscious of the costs due to the way Army TA worked.

For a full course, the classes were costed to exactly the army's "limit" of 750 per total course. The nice thing with AMU, and I found out it's the school thing, not just an "army TA" thing, that when you sign up for their classes, so long as you're "currently" paid up, they send you the books you need for the class. Purchasing the book is actually included in the cost of the course

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm in college right now, SUNYIT for CS specificaly, and I'm paying $9508.00 this semester. Keep in mind that this is a state-funded school. It's about as cheaply as it gets for quality education. I'm going to to major debt. We really need either public higher education, or some serious expanding of government backed student loans. Something, anything. I would vote for a president just on that at this point.

Costs need to go down. There's no resaon for the year over year constant above inflation tuition increases.

I agree, but these colleges love money. And we don't want the evil government to start messing with the free market do we .

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm in college right now, SUNYIT for CS specificaly, and I'm paying $9508.00 this semester. Keep in mind that this is a state-funded school. It's about as cheaply as it gets for quality education. I'm going to to major debt. We really need either public higher education, or some serious expanding of government backed student loans. Something, anything. I would vote for a president just on that at this point.

Costs need to go down. There's no resaon for the year over year constant above inflation tuition increases.

I agree, but these colleges love money. And we don't want the evil government to start messing with the free market do we .

The reason tuition keeps going up is because the govt is already messing up the market for higher education.

SUNY wants to charge X for tuition but there are very few applicants that can afford to pay it. The federal govt steps in and loans applicants however much money they need. SUNY gets paid, students get debt. SUNY spends that money on stuff so they need to increase costs again so now they charge Y for tuition. Even fewer students can afford to pay that amount without help so the federal govt loans the applicants however much they need to attend. SUNY gets paid again, students get even more debt.

If the federal govt was subsidizing the rising cost of tuition schools would have to find a way to lower costs (like spending their endowments to defray the cost of attendence) or shut down due to lack of students. Schools would have to find a way to educate students without saddling them with crippling debt, everybody wins.

If the problem is too much student loan debt it can't be solved by having the govt loan more money and thereby increase the amount of student loan debt.

One way to mitigate this is to force these universities to put a little "skin" in the game, with respect to their student getting a job.

Ie, if a student graduate and can't get a job within the industry, then the university ought to refund a portion back to the student.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The reason tuition keeps going up is because the govt is already messing up the market for higher education.

FAFSA has been around since 1965, and yet it wasn't until 1985 that tuition started outpacing inflation. It didn't REALLY take off until 2000-ish (around the .dot com boom I guess?). The real answer is that colleges are raising tuition rates because they can. Especially with the lack of well paying jobs, anything outside a trade can basically ask for a diploma and find someone with one. The push to send kids to college for a degree, any degree, is doing serious damage.

 streamdragon wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The reason tuition keeps going up is because the govt is already messing up the market for higher education.

FAFSA has been around since 1965, and yet it wasn't until 1985 that tuition started outpacing inflation. It didn't REALLY take off until 2000-ish (around the .dot com boom I guess?). The real answer is that colleges are raising tuition rates because they can. Especially with the lack of well paying jobs, anything outside a trade can basically ask for a diploma and find someone with one. The push to send kids to college for a degree, any degree, is doing serious damage.

Absolutely!

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm in college right now, SUNYIT for CS specificaly, and I'm paying $9508.00 this semester. Keep in mind that this is a state-funded school. It's about as cheaply as it gets for quality education. I'm going to to major debt. We really need either public higher education, or some serious expanding of government backed student loans. Something, anything. I would vote for a president just on that at this point.

Costs need to go down. There's no resaon for the year over year constant above inflation tuition increases.

I agree, but these colleges love money. And we don't want the evil government to start messing with the free market do we .

The reason tuition keeps going up is because the govt is already messing up the market for higher education.

SUNY wants to charge X for tuition but there are very few applicants that can afford to pay it. The federal govt steps in and loans applicants however much money they need. SUNY gets paid, students get debt. SUNY spends that money on stuff so they need to increase costs again so now they charge Y for tuition. Even fewer students can afford to pay that amount without help so the federal govt loans the applicants however much they need to attend. SUNY gets paid again, students get even more debt.

If the federal govt was subsidizing the rising cost of tuition schools would have to find a way to lower costs (like spending their endowments to defray the cost of attendence) or shut down due to lack of students. Schools would have to find a way to educate students without saddling them with crippling debt, everybody wins.

If the problem is too much student loan debt it can't be solved by having the govt loan more money and thereby increase the amount of student loan debt.

I'm talking about super-low to zero interest loans here, not the bs we have currently. If the government tried to make a gift, the colleges, or at least the private ones, would just raise prices to make more money.

Also, don't try to blame the government for this. It is entirely the private colleges fault here. I could be paying more thn double for the same education, sometimes worse education.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The reason tuition keeps going up is because the govt is already messing up the market for higher education.

FAFSA has been around since 1965, and yet it wasn't until 1985 that tuition started outpacing inflation. It didn't REALLY take off until 2000-ish (around the .dot com boom I guess?). The real answer is that colleges are raising tuition rates because they can. Especially with the lack of well paying jobs, anything outside a trade can basically ask for a diploma and find someone with one. The push to send kids to college for a degree, any degree, is doing serious damage.

Absolutely!

I agree. We have this neat little system around where I live where kids who know they aren't going to college can learn a craft, and get a job strait out of highschool. I thin it's a great system. Some things (CS, MD, ect.) need a college education. You don't need one to work in a factory.

Why can't I blame both the colleges AND the government?

How did the government create this problem then?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How did the government create this problem then?

By making loans readily available.

I mean... just look at this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-expensive-us-colleges/8/

How is any of that sustainable w/o Uncle Sam keeping the $$$ spigot open?

its odd, in a supply demand economy,

one would think that the cost of a degree would go down as more people paid tuition, and more people were crammed into each class room.

what we have seen is an increase in graduates, and increase in class sizes, an increase in tuition, and a decrease in the value of the degrees.

I would agree, the government is to blame, all forms of credit have had their regulation destroyed, and the rules changed to benifit a very small group of people....

the simple answer, is that the system is rediculously corrupt and self serving to a very small # of people.

Because colleges know that someone will pay that? Let's be real, people needing government student loans are probably not the ones going to $55,000+ colleges. FAFSA just doesn't cover that much.

They actually have a calculator to show how much money you can get. Just for fun, I estimated a fresh from high school kid, both parents totalling $150,000 a year. (Middle class). Loan amount was $5,500 a semester.

You want the culprit? Look to the banks (as usual) lending money to students they know will never be able to repay them. They were, after all, the ones that lobbied hardest to get student loans in the "chase you to your grave" category.

Yeah... the school I graduated from (University of Missouri - St. Louis)...

Is a state school that NOW costs an average of 10 grand per year. That's before books, fees and room/board.

Goodness, going back over that list I think what is most startling is the number of liberal arts colleges on that list. What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

 streamdragon wrote:
Goodness, going back over that list I think what is most startling is the number of liberal arts colleges on that list. What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

toilet paper?


I mean, in the end, no one *has* to bite into the poop sandwich that is our current post 2ndary system...

makes me gladder and gladder every year that I dropped out of university, despite good grades, and went to more practical, and cheaper, schools.

school of hard knocks is still the best, and still the cheapest!

 easysauce wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Goodness, going back over that list I think what is most startling is the number of liberal arts colleges on that list. What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

toilet paper?


I mean, in the end, no one *has* to bite into the poop sandwich that is our current post 2ndary system...

makes me gladder and gladder every year that I dropped out of university, despite good grades, and went to more practical, and cheaper, schools.

school of hard knocks is still the best, and still the cheapest!

In principle, I agree with you. In reality, there are so many people job hunting with degrees that not having a degree can easily be argued as a setback.

That said, I'm still with Mike Rowe that we should be pushing trade schools as hard as colleges. There's a reason it costs $150 just to have a plumber come to your house.

 whembly wrote:

Is a state school that NOW costs an average of 10 grand per year. That's before books, fees and room/board.

Yep, for instance, a bloke I just played rugby against last weekend was a "phenominal" scrum half out in Idaho. He went to all the U-19 tournaments and was heavily recruited, but needed a scholarship to attend school and play rugby. So, he finally gets an offer from one school up here in Washington. They offer to pay his tuition and books, but he has to cover dorms. It's not until he's a week into his first block of classes that they tell him it's 5k per TERM for student housing in the dorms. So he heads home. Another year goes by, and he gets seen again, this time by Life University, who offers him a FULL RIDE. So now, he's able to get an "education" (really, Life only pretty much has one program: chiropractor) and play rugby, without incurring debt.



Seriously, how is communal housing like college dorms, worth $5,000 in a middle of nowhere town? Especially when you figure most terms are 2-3 months long.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

And you would be wrong. I selected text books that I'd used at another institution for similar courses because they are better than the ones that the school was using, and the school ordered those text books for my classes. Syllabus is 100% my design, as is the text book selection.

And if the school were not willing or able to order them you would have had to make do. Meaning you were limited by availability, even if you didn't realize it. This happens all the time, even to people that openly call themselves professors.

Not that it matters, because anyone worth their salt doesn't buy books in college. After all the internet, libraries, and lectures exist.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

There is no "professor" for this course - it's just me.

Then you are the professor (you don't need a doctorate to be a professor) but, like other professors, your textbook selections are limited.

 streamdragon wrote:
Because colleges know that someone will pay that? Let's be real, people needing government student loans are probably not the ones going to $55,000+ colleges. FAFSA just doesn't cover that much.

Very few people pay full tuition at those institutions. The institution generally covers a large portion of the tuition on their own.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

I've always seen people refer to the person teaching a college level course at a college as professor. The definition when I looked it up just said "scholarly teacher" as well as "teacher", so not sure why you are getting your panties in a bunch over it, unless the class you are teaching is "Panty Bunching 101".

Also pretending you are the only person who has ever had a job teaching at a college is a bit silly. Getting angry about it is even sillier.

Feel free to interchange college and university freely.

"Professor" is the generic form of address for anyone teaching at my College. There is even a little section in the standards of student behavior(proper terms of address for your teacher)

 Ahtman wrote:
I've always seen people refer to the person teaching a college level course at a college as professor. The definition when I looked it up just said "scholarly teacher" as well as "teacher", so not sure why you are getting your panties in a bunch over it, unless the class you are teaching is "Panty Bunching 101".

Also pretending you are the only person who has ever had a job teaching at a college is a bit silly. Getting angry about it is even sillier.

Feel free to interchange college and university freely.

Is this antagonistic reply going to require a mod edit, or should we expect hypocrisy? Not really sure what the problem is - if someone is wrong, I expect him to say "I'm wrong." Calling someone on posting absurd replies isn't being impolite - it's merely a response to frustrating density.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
"Professor" is the generic form of address for anyone teaching at my College. There is even a little section in the standards of student behavior(proper terms of address for your teacher)

Here "professor" refers to a tenure track faculty member. We have plenty of instructors who are not faculty members.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Here "professor" refers to a tenure track faculty member. We have plenty of instructors who are not faculty members.

Research and visiting Professors are not on the tenure track, and in the latter case are not faculty. But they are still Professors.

"Professor" is an amorphous term even if we confine ourselves to the capitalized meaning, which I've only just now used.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
[ Calling someone on posting absurd replies isn't being impolite -

It is if you do it in a way that is impolite.

 dogma wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Here "professor" refers to a tenure track faculty member. We have plenty of instructors who are not faculty members.

Research and visiting Professors are not on the tenure track, and in the latter case are not faculty. But they are still Professors.

"Professor" is an amorphous term even if we confine ourselves to the capitalized meaning, which I've only just now used.

Clearly this is not universally the case, as Nuggz has pointed out.

I know from previous co-workers that, even if you have a doctorate, you won't be called "Doctor" in Mexico unless you are a "heal people" type of doctor (so an MD, or whatever additional letters you can get with the MD)

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How did the government create this problem then?

Are you gaking me?

By making student loans completely non-dischargable in 2003 and then becoming one of the largest lenders......

And then telling everyone they need to go to college?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How did the government create this problem then?

Are you gaking me?

By making student loans completely non-dischargable in 2003 and then becoming one of the largest lenders......

And then telling everyone they need to go to college?

There weren't any changes made to student loans in 2003 - it happened much earlier, 1976. The change I assume you are referring to is the protection granted to private loans, which previously were dischargeable, and that was in 2005.

I'm not sure "the government" told anyone they needed to go to college, let alone everyone.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Here "professor" refers to a tenure track faculty member. We have plenty of instructors who are not faculty members.

Research and visiting Professors are not on the tenure track, and in the latter case are not faculty. But they are still Professors.

"Professor" is an amorphous term even if we confine ourselves to the capitalized meaning, which I've only just now used.

Clearly this is not universally the case, as Nuggz has pointed out.

Except that the original statement wasn't about how it used in that one location, but a trenchant "this is never how it is used" sort of display, which is not accurate. Later it was changed to "well we never do it in this one particular institution". I also really doubt it is nearly as intractable as he is presenting even there, unless it is somewhere that is incredibly cloistered.

 streamdragon wrote:
Goodness, going back over that list I think what is most startling is the number of liberal arts colleges on that list. What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

You qualify for low-end jobs like being a manager at a fast food restaurant. The problem is that it has become the default for anyone from a family making over a certain amount of money to go to college if at all possible. It doesn't matter if you have any practical use for the degree, you're supposed to do it because that's just what you do. And people will assume that if you don't get a college degree of some kind it means you're the kind of hopeless idiot that couldn't even meet the bare minimum academic standards at a low-tier school. So unless you choose a practical science/engineering/law/etc major you pretty much just pick something you're interested in studying for a few years and hope for the best once you graduate.

The focus should really be "everybody should pursue career training" after high school and not "everybody should go to college". "Career training" would include college for many people, but it might help keep our society from continuing to marginalize the traditional trades.

Nobody should have a plan of "I will just work at McDs after high school", but "I'm going to get my certification and licensing in HVAC technology" shouldn't be any less of a goal than "I'm going to college".

 streamdragon wrote:
Goodness, going back over that list I think what is most startling is the number of liberal arts colleges on that list. What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

A degree from a liberal arts college is not the same thing as a liberal arts degree. Liberal arts colleges generally grant B.A.s and B.S.s in whatever your chosen major(s) happen to be. Occasionally that major is "liberal arts", but that doesn't happen often because, as you've recognized, they don't lead anywhere.

 d-usa wrote:
The focus should really be "everybody should pursue career training" after high school and not "everybody should go to college". "Career training" would include college for many people, but it might help keep our society from continuing to marginalize the traditional trades.

That is the focus. I went to college and chose my topics of study because I wanted to be a lawyer. I didn't end up as a lawyer, though I may yet, but my focus was always on my career and earning money. Same for almost everyone I knew in high school.

People ignore the trades because, lets be honest, they suck on a physical level. And spending your life plying a trade doesn't leave you many places to go when your back, knees, or shoulders start to give out.

 Ouze wrote:


There weren't any changes made to student loans in 2003 - it happened much earlier, 1976. The change I assume you are referring to is the protection granted to private loans, which previously were dischargeable, and that was in 2005.

I'm not sure "the government" told anyone they needed to go to college, let alone everyone.

You're right. It was 2005. I mistyped.

The legislation in 76' only got the ball rolling. The nail was effectively put in the coffin in 2005. You could still get loans discharged.

And I disagree on the 2nd part.

There is a heavy push in High School to get their kids to go to college. Schools are incentivized to produce college freshmen as it makes them look good and get more funding.

You always see signs in schools pushing for college. No signs saying Welders/Plumbers/Construction Workers/etc... make a bunch of money.

 d-usa wrote:

Nobody should have a plan of "I will just work at McDs after high school", but "I'm going to get my certification and licensing in HVAC technology" shouldn't be any less of a goal than "I'm going to college".

Exactly.

The problem is reaching those kids because lots of them (and their parents) either don't know anything about the trades or have a misunderstanding of the benefits in learning one.

 dogma wrote:

People ignore the trades because, lets be honest, they suck on a physical level. And spending your life plying a trade doesn't leave you many places to go when your back, knees, or shoulders start to give out.

Lots of people would take the physicality of a trade over sitting behind a desk all day, myself included. I've done both, and a good day in the latter sucks harder than my worse day in the former.

Not all trades are physically challenging exercises that degrade your body though, and even within those trades there are plenty of specialties that aren't physically demanding either (my trade is one of the better examples of this). But yeah, being a concrete worker or a rodbuster your entire life can ruin your body, but taking care of yourself (both at home and at work) can help offset most of the damage done.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Lots of people would take the physicality of a trade over sitting behind a desk all day, myself included. I've done both, and a good day in the latter sucks harder than my worse day in the former.

Sure, so would I, in fact that's a large part of why I spend so much time in the gym and play rugby. But I'm a fit 28 year old, and neither of those tasks are necessary for me to continue earning money. By comparison a person who spends their life plumbing will have significant issues when their body starts to go and their experience doesn't transfer to a more sedentary position.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Not all trades are physically challenging exercises that degrade your body though, and even within those trades there are plenty of specialties that aren't physically demanding either (my trade is one of the better examples of this).

What is your trade, and what do you consider to be physically demanding?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

But yeah, being a concrete worker or a rodbuster your entire life can ruin your body, but taking care of yourself (both at home and at work) can help offset most of the damage done.

Help offset, but not eliminate. Wear and tear occur regardless of attempts to mitigate them, and if you work in a field which requires you to be physically robust, then you're going to run into problems down the line.

Scooty's a pipefitter.

My dad was a roofer his whole life, and it's a physically demanding trade, fraught with injuries and no health insurance. Looking back at how he went, I definitely am glad I went into IT.

 dogma wrote:
What is your trade, and what do you consider to be physically demanding?

I'm a steamfitter.

Most construction jobs are physically demanding, but what I am trying to explain is this: trade work =/= excessive physicality

Within nearly all trades are varying levels of physically demanding work but people often don't realize that because of the stereotype that trade skills carry today: dimwitted macho guys that only know how to bang on things with hammers or turn wrenches. While those people certainly exist, modern trades require much more than that. A chiller mechanic in my local doesn't really need those skills as working on a 500 ton centrifugal chiller doesn't call for it, they do a lot of their work on a computer. Even your run of the mill residential HVAC mechanic spends most of their time not busting their ass since a vast majority of the work they perform is troubleshooting and electrical repair, neither of which are physically demanding. Changing out an air handler or a condenser can be tough, but with the prevalence of tools designed to make that job easier today, it's pretty easy. Electricians are the same, and so are plumbers, and sheet metal workers, and sprinklerfitters, and so on. Remember, gakky jobs in the trades still exist, but they are much more diverse than that.

Sure, so would I, in fact that's a large part of why I spend so much time in the gym and play rugby. But I'm a fit 28 year old, and neither of those tasks are necessary for me to continue earning money. By comparison a person who spends their life plumbing will have significant issues when their body starts to go and their experience doesn't transfer to a more sedentary position.

Help offset, but not eliminate. Wear and tear occur regardless of attempts to mitigate them, and if you work in a field which requires you to be physically robust, then you're going to run into problems down the line.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I know lots of old plumbers and steamfitters and plenty of them are in poor shape. However, it is important to remember that they didn't practice the same work habits that we are taught now. The times have very much changed.

For instance, after my grandfather left the Navy when WWII ended (he was a Seabee), he became a plumber for Local 5 in Washington, DC. In those days, tubs were cast iron and put in place by hand and your pipes were cut with a cold chisel and all joints were lead and oakum. It was hard job and his body paid the price (however, he did go run the largest plumbing company in the Metro area later in his life). When my dad and his brothers came up, it wasn't quite as punishing as it was for their father, but they didn't have the conveniences that I have enjoyed in my career; my father drilled holes in concrete by hand with a star bit, there were no band saws for cutting material, and rod for hangers was hand threaded out of rolling stock. Knee pads, safety glasses, and other now-common PPE was hardly seen. In other words, it sucked pretty hard.

We've learned lessons from the men and women that came before us when it comes to what we should and shouldn't do on the jobsite. Things are mechanized today like no other time before, and combined with the better work practices that are taught now, most people won't end up like the old school guys did.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you. I know lots of old plumbers and steamfitters and plenty of them are in poor shape. However, it is important to remember that they didn't practice the same work habits that we are taught now. The times have very much changed.

If you want to advance trade education, that is the message that should be sent. As it stands you get people like Mike Rowe patting people who do dirty jobs on the head, which doesn't motivate anyone to pursue any trade as it often reinforces the notion that trade work sucks.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Within nearly all trades are varying levels of physically demanding work but people often don't realize that because of the stereotype that trade skills carry today: dimwitted macho guys that only know how to bang on things with hammers or turn wrenches. While those people certainly exist, modern trades require much more than that.

I think it has more to do with a lack of knowledge of the trade, and a lack of knowledge regarding what a trade is.

 dogma wrote:

If you want to advance trade education, that is the message that should be sent. As it stands you get people like Mike Rowe patting people who do dirty jobs on the head, which doesn't motivate anyone to pursue any trade as it often reinforces the notion that trade work sucks.

Yes, and if you go back and read some of the input I've had on this thread, you'll see that I do/did exactly that. I'm part of a high school outreach in Loudoun County that puts on a "Trade Night" for high school kids and their parents to inform them on what the trades are really about and what you can accomplish by learning one. I've also visited other schools in other counties to get the message out that the modern tradesmen isn't the old stereotype people think it is. On top of being a general foreman for the largest contractor in the DC area, I was also a teacher at our apprentice school where I taught first year apprentices the basics of our trade. Unfortunately, I had to leave after five years of teaching because I took a job that conflicted with teaching.

I think it has more to do with a lack of knowledge of the trade, and a lack of knowledge regarding what a trade is.

That is part of it yes, but plenty of people still see tradesmen as the stereotype I described, especially in more affluent areas. It definitely doesn't help that they have no knowledge about trades either, so when you combine that with the stereotype, it's easy to see why people don't get excited about learning a trade skill.

When you say "plumber," people think of either a scruffy looking fat guy face-down in a toilet with his butt crack hanging out of his jeans or Mario. Hell, I've seen more than one person in the OT expressing the sentiment of "join a trade because you aren't smart enough for college."

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 dogma wrote:

If you want to advance trade education, that is the message that should be sent. As it stands you get people like Mike Rowe patting people who do dirty jobs on the head, which doesn't motivate anyone to pursue any trade as it often reinforces the notion that trade work sucks.

Yes, and if you go back and read some of the input I've had on this thread, you'll see that I do/did exactly that. I'm part of a high school outreach in Loudoun County that puts on a "Trade Night" for high school kids and their parents to inform them on what the trades are really about and what you can accomplish by learning one. I've also visited other schools in other counties to get the message out that the modern tradesmen isn't the old stereotype people think it is. On top of being a general foreman for the largest contractor in the DC area, I was also a teacher at our apprentice school where I taught first year apprentices the basics of our trade. Unfortunately, I had to leave after five years of teaching because I took a job that conflicted with teaching.

Just wanted to say... kudos for doing that "Trade Night" program for the local schools.

That's awesome and I wish it's more common-place where I live.

 streamdragon wrote:
What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

I'm assuming you mean a degree in a liberal arts subject, and not just specific "liberal arts" majors, but to answer your question, you can do whatever you want to do, for the most part. You just have to be able to market yourself correctly and network decently. If you limit yourself to wanting a job that specifically requires a degree in your specific field, your chances dwindle, but if you are willing to cast a wide net (and if you are the kind of person who wants to do a liberal arts degree, you should be able to do this), you can be successful in finding a job that can both pay decently and be fulfilling.

There are also some liberal arts degrees that can give you the skills to get some well-paying, very interesting jobs. I'm not saying it's for everybody, because it definitely isn't. And I'm not knocking STEM fields at all here, but the idea that the only good jobs go to people with STEM degrees is simply false.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

When you say "plumber," people think of either a scruffy looking fat guy face-down in a toilet with his butt crack hanging out of his jeans or Mario.

I've never thought that, I always thought "guy who fixes pipes". But then I grew up in an affluent area largely populated by contractors and union tradesmen, who often told their kids to find different work.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Hell, I've seen more than one person in the OT expressing the sentiment of "join a trade because you aren't smart enough for college."

I've heard that sentiment, but it isn't as pervasive as many like to believe.

This goes back to my initial comment about trades and physicality. Everyone knows trades are harder on the body than desk jobs, and the skills acquired are less transferable; no amount of branding can get around those two facts. And, as a result, trades are pursued at a lower rate.

 dogma wrote:

I've never thought that, I always thought "guy who fixes pipes". But then I grew up in an affluent area largely populated by contractors and union tradesmen, who often told their kids to find different work.

Because you have never thought (because of course you haven't) that doesn't mean it isn't a wide spread belief. Also, if you think of a plumber as a "guy who fixes pipes," you still don't understand how diverse the plumbing field is.

I just complimented plumbers... I think I threw up a little in my mouth.

I've heard that sentiment, but it isn't as pervasive as many like to believe.

No, it's very pervasive. Allow me to remind you, again, that I work with schools to get information to parents and kids about trades. I have first hand knowledge of this, based on my direct interaction with people.

This goes back to my initial comment about trades and physicality. Everyone knows trades are harder on the body than desk jobs

You still are clinging to to absolute truth that trades = physicality, despite the fact that I have informed you otherwise. I am a tradesman, I come from a large family of tradesman, and I know lots of tradesmen in lots of different trades and I can tell you that "trade skills are harder on your body than desk jobs" as a blanket statement is not an accurate statement, so just stop making it. Also, desk jobs carry their own health risks that many people ignore.

the skills acquired are less transferable; no amount of branding can get around those two facts.

That statement proves you know next to nothing about trade skills or apprenticeships/trade schools, so just stop acting like you do.

Remember, it's okay not to know everything.

And, as a result, trades are pursued at a lower rate.

No, it's because for last generation or so the focus has been to go to college, with kids being told it is how you will succeed after high school. Myself and others have said this numerous times already, ignoring it doesn't make it any less true.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Because you have never thought (because of course you haven't) that doesn't mean it isn't a wide spread belief.

I never said it wasn't. You're reading that sentiment into my comments.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No, it's very pervasive. Allow me to remind you, again, that I work with schools to get information to parents and kids about trades. I have first hand knowledge of this, based on my direct interaction with people.

I went to high school in the US, and interacted with trade advocates about as regularly as I interacted with military and college recruiters. I also know, and worked with many tradesmen. I have first hand knowledge too, and from my experience the attitude you describe isn't universal. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that trade advocates themselves contribute to the problem by making a poor case for their trade, and becoming frustrated when people respond indifferently.

I'm not saying this is true of you, but it is true of the trade advocates I interacted with in high school. At least barring the automotive technology guys, but that's an easy sell.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I am a tradesman, I come from a large family of tradesman, and I know lots of tradesmen in lots of different trades and I can tell you that "trade skills are harder on your body than desk jobs" as a blanket statement is not an accurate statement, so just stop making it.

Yes it is. In fact its only accurate as a blanket statement, as the terms "trade skills" and "desk jobs" are both blanket terms, and you're going to have very difficult time arguing that the latter is more physically demanding than the former.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Also, desk jobs carry their own health risks that many people ignore.

I don't think many people ignore the health risks of a sedentary lifestyle, they're quite well documented and primarily associated with reduced longevity. This makes them distinct from an inability to work.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

No, it's because for last generation or so the focus has been to go to college, with kids being told it is how you will succeed after high school. Myself and others have said this numerous times already, ignoring it doesn't make it any less true.

I'm not disputing that fact, I'm giving reasons as to why that has been the case.

I'm not going to debate this with you any more and drag this thread off-topic any more than it already is, so I'll leave you with this:

At the end of the day, you're a 28 year old who thinks they have the whole world figured out. It would behoove you to sometimes just admit that it isn't always the case and this thread makes that perfectly clear. You made some pretty broad and inaccurate statements and you were called out on them, and instead of just admitting you might not be as well-versed on this particular subject as you are trying to sound, you double down and defend what you said with even more inaccurate statements. You either really do think that everything you've claimed so far is the absolute truth or you just want to argue (probably a little bit of both, really). Whichever it is, just knock it off and come back down to Earth.

How about you counter dogma's points instead of just repeating variations of "you're wrong!"?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How about you counter dogma's points instead of just repeating variations of "you're wrong!"?

Obvisously you've never argued with Dogma.

I did counter every single point he tried to make, but it makes no difference. If you would like to know why it is an exercise in futility, go back a little and read where he quoted a statement I made and replied with the same thing I wrote trying to make the case that I claimed the opposite.

 Hordini wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

I'm assuming you mean a degree in a liberal arts subject, and not just specific "liberal arts" majors, but to answer your question, you can do whatever you want to do, for the most part. You just have to be able to market yourself correctly and network decently. If you limit yourself to wanting a job that specifically requires a degree in your specific field, your chances dwindle, but if you are willing to cast a wide net (and if you are the kind of person who wants to do a liberal arts degree, you should be able to do this), you can be successful in finding a job that can both pay decently and be fulfilling.

There are also some liberal arts degrees that can give you the skills to get some well-paying, very interesting jobs. I'm not saying it's for everybody, because it definitely isn't. And I'm not knocking STEM fields at all here, but the idea that the only good jobs go to people with STEM degrees is simply false.

I should be clear on my stance: I did not graduate college. When I previously posted that I left school, I meant that literally. My situation was a bit odd though: GMU told me I graduated, let me walk, made it through exit counseling. When the package arrived with what should have been my diploma, it was instead a "whoops, we screwed up and you need to take 3 more credit hours". I had already moved states, so I said frell it. My degree should have been in computer science; my current job is not in computer science because frell that. I learned as I made it through college that I did not enjoy it at all.

When I said "what do you do with a liberal arts degree", I did meant a degree in "liberal arts". I honestly have no idea of the direct application. I was mostly just surprised at the number of liberal arts schools, but I admit that I didn't think about the fact that these schools would also give normal BS/BA degrees in other majors. I've always heard "liberal arts school" and thought "liberal arts degree".

Liberal arts covers a whole lot of things, including your natural sciences (biology, science, physics, astronomy), social sciences, mathematics, and political sciences.

Liberal arts doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means.