« Does illegal file sharing increase GDP? | Main | Pure nerd »

December 09, 2012

Comments

i think it would be really funny if undiscovered jew chose this blog post to be the only one he didn't spam with endless comments about removing gen ed college requirements.

Unemployment grew considerably during the time period which the survey covers. It's not surprising in the least that employers have gotten more demanding, as they get far more applicants. I would like to see a comparison of, say, 2009 to 2012. Even given the shorter time frame I'd expect to see a much lower increase in the percentage of employers demanding degrees.

But "College is a waste of time and money!", "Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, et al never went to college!" and "you don't need a college degree for xyz". Let's just ignore the fact the average person can't be an extreme outlier. Wherever you are careerwise, you've willfully manifested it into your life. All you have to do is choose a career and will it into your life.

[HS: 99.9% of young people not in college are doing something crappy like working in retail, if they are working at all. If you have an actual opportunity do run your own company, or play professional sports, of a real acting career and not an imaginary one, then by all means those people should skip college.]

HS,

Undergraduate college (outside of the Ivy League and Ivy likes and maybe engineering programs) has become the new high school and graduate school/professional school has become the new college. Getting a degree in sociology or communications is just a four year extension of high school.

If you look at regulations for dealing with hazardous materials or look at the credentials for health care providers, jobs that 30 years ago just required an undergraduate degree (such as pharmacist) now require a graduate degree.

That means that the middle class and upper middle class need to save enough no only for college but for graduate/professional schools.

Credential creep also means that the idea of funding more community college students will do nothing for employment.

Therefore there is a market for a cheap, "check the box" bachelor's degree!

Author of the article: Catherine Rampell, went to Princeton, who is the daughter of one of the first women to attend Princeton, whose father also went to Princeton (Harvard and Wharton as well) and is the CEO of a Palm Beach CPA firm. Basically, someone who does not need to give a crap about credential inflation and the competition for prole jobs.

"99.9% of young people not in college are doing something crappy like working in retail, if they are working at all."

Or they're in the military.

The big question is: are those jobs becoming more sophisticate and g-demanding that the noncollege applicant can't perform it any longer or have employers become more petulant and prole averse that college credentials are the best excuse available to keep them out of their companies?

Of course I side with the second explanation over the first one. Now the next question is: is there an available market mechanism to make those companies pay for the inneficiency of their hiring practices?

I think the root of the problem here is thinking that educating someone will make them exceptionally smart, where in reality it will not. This confusion likely came about due to assuming the wrong causal direction in the correlation of "smart people" and "college students".

So instead making lots of smart people by sending them to college, we got colleges populated mostly with average people. And wasting 3-5 years of their life, because now they need to have that degree to come off as average, whereas those who didn't attend college are seen as complete morons.

"a college degree is becoming more of a 'necessity' these days..."


Is this the 1995 retro thread? Hello!

To have a reasonable opportunity of securing a professional-track corporate position out of undergrad, one needs to have completed an internship (preferably two, and in large corporate settings) in addition to having participated in a bunch of meaningless extracurricular fluff (whilst holding 'leadership' positions, natch).

I've worked at the same federal government agency for 30 years and see lots of jobs that require college degrees that used to be done by non college grads. I have a report sent to me every day by a GS-12 college grad that used to be sent to me fifteen years ago by a GS-6 with no college degree. Why pay someone so much more to do the same thing? I wonder why we got away from the apprentice type of training. I also wonder why everyone feels like they have to work for a big company or government organization that requires degrees. A lot of guys I went to high school with started their own businesses and ended making more than I do.

Mark,

What kind of business can be started by a 20 y/o with no degree and no capital. Even something as easy as lawn maintenance requires some capital, some marketing, and the ability to purchase insurance.

How many 20 y/o do you think can egotiate with an insurance company?

Of course, there is nothing that a college graduate learns that deals with insurance, taxes, OSHA regulations, or how to raise capital.

"I've worked at the same federal government agency for 30 years"

God help you.

Catherine Rampell loves HBD guys and Greater Omegas...I just know it. All her blog posts that dovetail with our themes are total IOIs.

She actually looks like an Ecuadorean chick I know. Mitochondrial Haplogroup B exists in both east Asia and western South America.

"99.9% of young people not in college are doing something crappy, like working in retail..."
Bullshit. Some of them are actually learning or working a useful trade. We still have some of those, did you know?

Remember that test that got tossed because it made the NAMs look bad? Me neither...

Peter Thiel says the best way to conceptualize the modern college degree is as a form of insurance.

He and Charles Murray argue that too many people currently attending 4yr colleges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VTQ-dBYSlQ

I often wonder if there is some way to make use of people who slipped through the college cracks. Most of my friends have IQ's 140+ (adult, 15SD) but no 4 year degree. They have other failings, but I'm pretty sure their IQ could often be put to better use than it is now, especially if businesses could simply identify that potential. But it's illegal to test them outside of school.

"i think it would be really funny if undiscovered jew chose this blog post to be the only one he didn't spam with endless comments about removing gen ed college requirements".

TUJ is against the liberal arts, rightly so because they cost the student an unnecessary burden, something that could be learned for free. But you see, without a liberal education, most naive college students would either act more prolish or become proles.

"is there an available market mechanism to make those companies pay for the inneficiency of their hiring practices?"

I think these hiring practices are terribly efficient.

Half of people who enroll wash out of college because they aren't smart, aren't conscientious/hard working or both. And the really dull or conscientious people never got to college in the first place.

When you get a random college graduate, you are absolutely getting higher quality.

"So we see that a college degree is becoming more of a “necessity” these days for people who want any sort of decent middle-class income, because without that piece of paper proving that you attended classes for four years, one can get shut out of the job market."

And they can price gouge students because they hold almost 100% monopoly power over credentialing that can lead to middle and higher class jobs.

Like music companies overcharging for music content, the colleges are causing malinvestment of money into non-productive debt.

The student debt burden is now at $1 trillion with default rates of 11% and delinquency rates of 21%. These rates are worse than for any other form of consumer credit. In the past few days recently released economic surveys show the $1 trillion in debt and poor job prospects for the 53% of college graduates who are underemployed is leading to under 30s to delay engaging in normal adult economic activity such as buying cars, homes, and investing for retirement.

The colleges are engaging in one of the biggest value transference pyramid schemes in American history.

"TUJ is against the liberal arts, rightly so because they cost the student an unnecessary burden, something that could be learned for free. But you see, without a liberal education, most naive college students would either act more prolish or become proles."

As the article from the Pope Center and UVa student paper linked below shows, there are two reasons to support eliminating the general education for two reasons. First because removing those requirements, which are really just repeats of basic high school courses, would immediately cut total tuition bills by 40-50% because students would graduate 18 months to 2 years earlier without the 45-60 general education credits.

Another reason is that eliminating the gened because the liberal arts departments are mostly funded by the majority of students who are not liberal arts majors taking gened because there aren't enough liberal arts majors to make up for the loss students who would dump the reqs if given the opportunity.

Eliminating the 45-60 credit geneds would cut the total revenue colleges get from all forms of college loans, scholarships, and grants by 40-50%. In 2011, the federal government, which now awards 93% of all student loans, gave out $155 billion to colleges. This money is dolled out by credit hour which means that if bachelor degree seeking students get to take 40-50% fewer classes that the revenue colleges get from student loans will be cut by a similar amount.

That much loss of revenue would shutter the vast majority of liberal arts departments and result in mass layoffs of liberal arts professors.

The idea of eliminating the gened has a variety of proponents:

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2763

Restricting general education courses to a select few will be extremely unpopular with some faculty. There are large numbers of teaching jobs at stake: many departments that now teach popular general education courses could lose half or more of their students. If that were to occur, financial sanity dictates that faculty jobs in those programs be cut. (Of course, new jobs will be created at the same time for specialists in the essential subjects.)

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2012/12/a-more-liberal-education


I would propose, not only for our University but for all institutions of higher learning, a complete lack of general education requirements — with the one caveat that the writing requirement remains intact —

snip

Degree programs typically require between 30 and 45 credit hours, while students need a total of 120 to graduate. Rather than dictating that an additional 46 credits be accounted for by way of requirements, why not allow students to control their own academic discovery? Broadness for its own sake will accomplish little — if students are not engaged in what they are learning, their education was for naught. Additionally, with the credits and time we would gain from eliminating the degree requirements, we could more easily pursue a second major or specialize more fully in our chosen area of study. We could learn comprehensively, but with our own interests in mind.

General ed requirements can be eliminated by state level legislation. If one state decides to find a way to automatically give high school students credit for 45-60 credit hour gened requirements (maybe by counting ordinary high school classes as counting for similar college courses?) then this would inject substantial price competition into the college monopoly/cartel and many other private and public colleges would have to follow suit or lose students to lower cost bachelor degree awarding institutes.

Other ways to reduce college debt are price controls on college tuition (as advocated by FL governor Rick Scott), making federal student loan debt (which accounts for 93% of all student loan debt) dischargeable in bankruptcy so the economy isn't hurt by low buying power of college graduates, and legislating colleges to put more classes online.

"is there an available market mechanism to make those companies pay for the inneficiency of their hiring practices?"

The companies have no choice because they can't use any meaningful tests of intelligence without being sued and because they still would like young hires to have SOME minimal understanding of their field rather than just pluck people straight from high school.

The reason this is inefficient is because of the college monopoly, nor the businesses whose hands are tied by regulations.

The UJ couldn't stop himself, could he?

"Mark,

What kind of business can be started by a 20 y/o with no degree and no capital. Even something as easy as lawn maintenance requires some capital, some marketing, and the ability to purchase insurance."

I think the point is that a smart man who starts working in a productive trade at age 18-20 will learn what's important in that trade and be able to start his own company after having worked in that trade for several years - unlike the business major college grad who possesses lots of generalized academic knowledge about management but doesn't have any real knowledge about any particular field. The business major college grad is able (thanks to managerialism) to become a middle management cog in the machine at an already established company earning a middle class income. The equally smart tradesman, who knows from experience how his sector actually works, can start his own business and be the top dog who reaps all the profits rather than settling for a salary.

Am I too cynical if I think college is being used as a marker of class, as much as intelligence/drive? Those gened requirements and inflated tuition may be an integral part of what makes college meaningful to employers. Just as people spend money on things like art that confer little value other than status, the gen-ed requirements and expensive tuition might confer status to the degree.

[HS: Employers don't necessarily want high class employees for entry level positions. Maybe even the opposite.

Employers are clueless about how to hire the best people, and they just do what they do because it's the way things are done and it's what other companies are doing.]

"The UJ couldn't stop himself, could he?"

I'm saddened by such skepticism because defunding the Cathedral holds so much promise. It's much more useful to go after the feedback loop's financial power cord than to do what 99.9% of conservatives do to fight leftism which is to hope every four years that the GOP presidential nominee can get through the debates without throwing up and fainting on stage.

Without money for the Cathedral the Democrats in their modern incarnation would never win an election again. Pulling the plug on the Cathedral also beats figuring out a way to build multi-billion dollar social alternatives to it.

As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to defund than to fund.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/06/Michigan-Governor-Announces-Support-for-Right-to-Work-Legislation

National unions spent $23 million trying to pass Proposal 2, which would have added collective bargaining to the state constitution and overruled 170 laws already on the books. But Proposal 2 failed with 58 percent of Michigan voters deciding against it in last month's election.

Now Governor Rick Snyder and the state's Republican legislature have teamed up to push something that once would have been unthinkable in Michigan, right-to-work legislation. For the first two years of his term, Governor Snyder affirmed that he supported collective bargaining and denied any interest in right-to-work legislation. That changed with a video he release this morning. Governor Snyder makes two arguments in support of the legislation. First that it is fair to allow workers to choose whether or not to be part of a union and second that it will help Michigan compete with states like Indiana which recently passed similar legislation:

mike,

Say your 20 y/o white kids trys to get into the landscapping business because the barrier to entry are low. First, he was to compete with a large number of people who have also entered the field. He has to learn that many of the entrants do not know anything about pricing and thus price too low. Then he has to compete with people who live 10 to a house and have a large number of relatives who will work off the books.

Thus, the poor white kids try to succeed in low entry-barrier business will have a very low standard of living and is one lawsuit away from losing everything. Not that great a deal for most of them. How many 20 something know how to purchase workers comp insurance?

Business Insider JUST released an article talking about the "happiest" vs "unhappiest" jobs and it just so happens all the "good" ones are those which benefits the winners of the credentialist economy. I just wrote a post on this that expends on how this is affecting people and I think some of the readers here may be interested.

I want to be a college professor, and I'm well aware how high the odds are stacked against anyone who embarks on that career path. It would be 10 times better for 90% of the population if people were encouraged to seek average joe jobs like the ones that propped up the US in the Keynesian era and the economy were structured in a way that kept these jobs safe, as it was back then.

I think our mutual love of Keynesian US history is what could unite right leaning HBD'ers and SWPL'esque folks like myself.

Higher ed is in the same category as financial services and healthcare and all manner of "services".

Its bloat helps to disguise unemployment, that is official unemployment plus those whose work accomplishes nothing or destroys value or solves problems man has created for himself (like type II diabetes or overcomplicated taxes).

Type II diabetes is not entirely a problem that a person creates for himself. There is variable genetic predisposition, and not all type II diabetics are overweight thought most are.

"Business Insider JUST released an article talking about the "happiest" vs "unhappiest" jobs and it just so happens all the "good" ones are those which benefits the winners of the credentialist economy. I just wrote a post on this that expends on how this is affecting people and I think some of the readers here may be interested.

I want to be a college professor, and I'm well aware how high the odds are stacked against anyone who embarks on that career path. It would be 10 times better for 90% of the population if people were encouraged to seek average joe jobs like the ones that propped up the US in the Keynesian era and the economy were structured in a way that kept these jobs safe, as it was back then. "

I don't know if those jobs in the Keynesian era still exist, given globalization, immigration, and automation.

I suppose the happiest jobs are the ones with more autonomy.

The comments to this entry are closed.