> The thing is, not everybody
> should go to college.

I are one such! Upon graduating HS, some silly office in the Hoosier statehouse mailed me a weirdly bogus certificate stating that "Mr. Cridmo is the sort of handsome young cannibal likely to benefit from higher-level education." I still have it somewhere, along with the diploma itself, which hasn't been opened (or consulted) since its date of issuance. Basically, I think they were trying to drum up business for one of their large universities. It worked, too, to the benefit of no one but those entrenched pinhead academics who hate their undergraduates so much. The taxpayers got soaked, I got soaked; the instructors got new money to spend on leather patches for the elbows of their tweed sportcoats.

The truth is that professors don't "crack a whip over them"... They're only interested in similarly bookish, technocratic zombie-minds who might conceivably, someday, help them to get something worthwhile published, thus enhancing the assuredness of their own squalid tenure.

(Read that word again, and it's OK if you belch up a little into your mouth as you do: tenure.)

I fully understand that college is the way out of poverty, and that the millions (billions?) of well-challenged minds that we stretched through higher education have done much to make this planet livable.

But almost everything that's wrong with college, and there's a lot, betokens the same carcinoma that government programs bring to the rest of society.... Specifically, routine college admissions give people the idea that some State enterprise can carry the intimate burdens of forging young minds that are best borne by other parties, particularly family and community.

Otherwise college becomes, as Amy infers, a witless festival of cleavage and jello shots, delights which can be had without paying for a full faculty of Geography professors.

I have energy about this.

But I also had a single glass of Cab earlier tonight, enough to twist some of the sentence composition into something vile and confusing.

Questions? Anyone? There in the back?

No?

Ok, in chapter two...

Where do they come up with 32% when the COLA is flat, unemployment is +10%, house prices are in the crapper?

California Budget Gridlock - Part II is coming.

Hopefully before California is bankrupt they will learn to live within their means.

The thing is, college IS ridiculously expensive, to the point where it's basically inaccessible to students without a lot of parental assistance, massive loans, or significant scholarships. Back in the early 1980s, my mom put herself through college by working 3 jobs to pay for her $600/semester tuition. And that's how it SHOULD work, in my opinion-if you're willing to work hard, you should be able to pay for your own education without incurring 10 years worth of debt.

In contrast, the overall cost at my college (a big state university) is $18,000/year for instate students. In order to pay that off working a minimum wage job, you'd have to work around 50 hours a week-more than a full-time job. And that's pretty much the cheapest option available to residents of my state-go to an out-of-state or private school and costs skyrocket to $35,000-$50,000 per year.

I'm not sure what the solution is-probably not more taxing-but the price of an education HAS gotten out of control.

The solution is to not pay professors to sit in labs and do research. They want to work at the University, they teach for their money. Grants should pay research. I took classes with professors I literally didn't see once all semester, the TA did it all. Do away with tenure as well. You need results to keep your job like anyone else. And lose about 50% of the administration. That's just dead weight. I went to a state school and ended up $40k in debt. I wouldn't have gone to college, but dad said he'd pay the loans. Then didn't. But that's another issue. I'll still be paying off my school when my kids go to college.

I remember the fury last month about that middle-aged guy that joined the army for health insurance. People were aghast he might have to DO something for health insurance. I personally think it's great he had that option! I love the military, it's a great way to get an education and job skills. The Air Force paid for DH's degree. I wish I'd gone that route, every month when I write my loan check.

I attended a nontenure-track college (Belmont University, Nashville). There were no TAs. There was no publish or perish. The professors were judged by the success of their students, God forbid, and they worked hard and did a good job. All of them.

I guess the school I went to was old fashioned... professors didn't crack a whip. Their attitude was "Here's an education if you want it. If you don't want it, that's not our problem." I appreciated it; I hated high school and the last thing I wanted was more of the same. I put myself through on a combination of student loans (not much; I graduated owing $7500, long since paid off), internships, living cheaply, and occasional help from Dad.

I agree that not everyone needs to go to college. I think part of the problem is that there's still a social stigma attached to attending trade and community schools. And there need not be; these schools are in general light-years ahead of where they were 30 years ago, and in some ways they are ahead of the four-year universities.

Robin, it's a small world... I have a friend who just graduated from Belmont last spring. Unfortunately, her degree is in music publishing.

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, I have an expensive BA from a small liberal arts college, and having the credibility of a degree from a respected institution helped me to land my first "serious" professional job.

On the other hand, I don't use my degree in my work at all.

The education that I got was terrific, and about 5 years ago I actually wrote my dad a long and conciliatory thank-you letter that thanked him for paying for it, since I didn't fully appreciate the sacrifice and the benefits at the time. I spent most of my time studying or doing otherwise approved stuff, although there were a few shrooms and not nearly enough sex... still, passing a full courseload pretty much precluded an all-party, all-the-time lifestyle.

Now I do have some specialized professional skills, all of which I learned on the job through trial and error. I learned from watching, and even more by pestering.

Didn't universities start as a bunch of scholars sitting under a shady tree in Toledo, Spain? Or Oxford or someplace like that? Why can't we go back to that, at least for subjects that don't require lab equipment?

Back to the point of the post, the tuition hike at UC schools. It's shocking how much tuition costs now. It's too much infrastructure. Not all professors are useless tenure-craving parasites.

I've never been crazy about "online universities" because the human element seemed missing. But, some sort of more distributed arrangement for classes could work in a totally virtual university, assuming everyone was really motivated to work... right?

Hopefully before California is bankrupt they will learn to live within their means.

Why live within their [government] own means when they can live within ours [taxpayers].

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_california.html

I went to UC and graduated with enough for a down payment on a house. I had a union job at the grocery stores, so I worked part time during school and full time when school was out. I had 100% medical and dental benefits. The state was in good financial shape.

Today, you could just turn that all upside down. I feel bad for the standard of living we are leaving the children and young adults for the future.

A big part of the problem is that college is the new high school. The big push to get everyone to go to college has been sort of self-defeating. By getting more and more people to go to college, the college degree has been devalued to the point of being equivalent to a high school degree 30-40 years ago.

But at the same time as the degree has been devalued, the costs have sky-rocketed. It puts many young people (who are already at a disadvantage in the job market due to lack of expierience) at a starting point of $10,000s in debt.

It's no longer really acceptable to look for work with just a high school degree, even though many basic office jobs simply require a little on the job training to understand them.

There's also the constant screeching in the high schools themselves that college is the only way to go. From teachers, guidance counselors, parents and the like. High school has become a feeder to college and college only.

Great job Amy on telling students about the other options out there. There needs to be more people telling young people about the true cost/benefits of college and their options for the future. There are very few right now and most young people only figure it out after they are massively in debt.

Don't forget there are large swaths of our society that will argue that it is everyone's "right" to go to college, and everyone's "right" to have the cost of said college borne by someone else, and everyone's "right" to have good grades 'given' to them, and everyone's "right" to be given a high paying job after graduation.

Yeah, right.

Please tell your inner-city students that if they are low income, they can get aid for most of the fees. There are lots of scholarships out there. Especially, if you are academically focused and from an inner-city school. Community colleges have many programs for students who need remediation, which are probably the students you are speaking to.

Not fact checked, but I'm sure UCLA gets lots of transfers from Santa Monica College. If you are focused and work hard, a community college in California can get you where you need/want to go.

Momof4, you are confusing professors with adjuncts. Adjuncts, such as myself, are paid to teach. We teach. We are teachers. We are paid very badly and get no benefits.

Professors, real ones, have a diffreent job description. Research is a big part of their job. Its not a hobby, it is a job requirement. It is, in fact, the main part of their job. We WANT people doing long-term research projects. Private industry focuses on short-term projects. If we want to lead the world in the sciences, we need people researching the scientists.

FYI, professorial salaries are not what is causing tuition to raise. Americans expect a whole "experience" which includes games and regattas and fancy new student centers. Professorial salaries are not what they used to be.

Thanks Amy - very good post.

My two cents: People need to get out of the mindset that college is something that must be done in order to succeed, that any other path is somehow less worthy. After that, people need to get in the mindset of looking at college as an investment, in exactly the same way they would look at a home, or stocks, or any other significant purchase. Due diligence must be done.

If this falls to the parents, so be it, since in most cases they're going to be the ones paying for a lot of it. Parents need to start standing up to their kids, telling them "No, you DON'T have to go study Music Theory or Sub-Saharan African Studies or English for four-plus years at $20,000/year." People wouldn't throw tons of money away like this normally, why do we get so insane when it comes to education?

In the reports I have seen, the protesting students seem to mostly be studying sociology, philosophy, xxx studies, and other similar fields. These are areas filled by too many students who seemingly have nothing better to do with their lives. There is a marked absence of science, engineering and business students protesting - i.e., people who know what they want to do with their lives and are working towards a goal.

For you autodidacts:

MIT Open Courseware

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

You can thank our courts for making college degrees the new, non-biased aptitude tests for good paying professions that didn't formerly require one.

I got into the IT field courtesy of the Marine Corps, sans degree. When I got out, I was hired by bigcorp, without a degree because I had experience in the field. When megaconglomerate bought bigcorp, it became known that you couldn't get hired or promoted in IT without the paper, so I finished my BS.

Now, if the Marine Corps could take a reasonably intelligent person and train him to do a job without a degree, why can't corporate America do the same? The reason is, it isn't worth the hassle of proving that an aptitude test for computer programming isn't biased. It's easier for megaconglomerate to say, degree required, and let the colleges do the screening for them.

Too bad it will cost you $100K to get this job, kid.

Would love for school loans to be treated like buisness loans. They look over your buisness plans and qualifications and judge if you are likely to suceeed/ever pay them back. I can just picture a conversation between a loan officer and a student.

"Ah Mr Smith, you want a $100,000 loan for college"
"Yes, I've been accepted to UCLA."

"Yes they accepted you.. they are allowing you to give them money, thats difficult?"

"college improves my job prospects and earning potential."

" Eh not always, but lets see, whats your major, future proffession, and past gpa."

" My what? no Why do you want that?"

" Why whould I give mone to say a philosophy major? Their job prospects are horrible and aren't likely to pay me back."

" I'm studying Greek literature, I have no idea what job I'd get.... Why are you laughing??? So do I get the loan?"

Loan officer hands him a job application form for McDonalds, and throws him out.

College is expensive BECAUSE it is so subsidised.

WHat incentive do I have as a buisness for lowering price or controlling my costs, if government will pay or loan the ballance of fee no matter how much I charge.

Legit, accredited online schools are not the "correspondence courses" of long ago. They're structured differently, and most often are more difficult when compared to their face-to-face counterpart. Northern Illinois has an online nursing program (don't worry folks, the hands-on clinical portion is still done in person) that will only take the top students. Even some of the top students are intimidated by the program, it's so ball-breaking.

Joe... you are so right... college costs started rising through the roof once the government implemented the student loan program.

As for the value of the degree, there was a really interesting article in the WSJ last week about the next debt wave that is preparing to hit our shores. Students with no jobs, no prospects in this crappy economy and a large amount of student debt. Of course, mommy and daddy, who are already strapped by their house loan, will also be on the hook for Johnny's student loans b/c they co-signed for them. Happy times, huh?

We have been living good for so long in this country that no one has ever stopped to ask whether it is worth the money to go to Yale just to get a teaching degree. Why of course it is... plus I get to wear that really cool Yale sweatshirt and rub it in to all my friends and family how elite my kid is!!

Ughh, I live in Texas now and that is how all of these people are. A woman I know spent $12,000 a year on private school for eldest son, who still couldn't get into a first tier Texas school (UT or ATM) and is now sending him some lesser branch of UT so that he can study photography. At first, I thought she must be joking, but alas no its all true. He should go to community college learn the skill and get out and work...not sit on his ass for 4 years. But, around here, it would be too embarrassing to say that your kid is only going to a community college. Gotta keep up appearances!! Wouldn't want the neighbors to think less of us now would we?

@MarkD,

I'm a DBA (multi-platform) and a decent apps programmer in VBA. Most of it is sel-taught. Some college I picked in the USAF and on my own.

I have as yet to run into a decent programmer out of a 4 year college.

"...a witless festival of cleavage..."

That's a keeper!

-----

You know, there are a lot of super colleges that grant tenure. It looks to me more than anything else that you're mad that you don't get to say whether a professor keeps his job. That's the legal, chartered job of the college management.

If you get rid of tenure, people who major in the hard sciences and math will have very little incentive to work in schools. The pay compared to what they could make doing BS jobs on Wall Street is pathetic. The security of tenure is one reason some people go into research universities. Of course, love of the subject is a factor... but low pay AND low job security would override it for a lot of people.

The question we should ask ourselves is... do we WANT our top math and science people doing BS jobs pushing money around? Or do we want them researching math and science?

The law prevents employers from describing and officially testing for job-specific knowledge. If employers could describe and give their own tests, then prospective employees could qualify by acquiring knowledge in any way they wanted, including self-study.

This is why formal degrees and experience are so highly stressed. They are used to validate a person's knowledge without giving a specific test.

I hired programmers as part of managing a software group. The HR department told me that I could ask technical questions, but to never write them down in any "formal" way. They were worried that someone would claim I was giving a "test". Any test was illegal unless proven to be non-discriminatory in effect when applied to different races.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal: [edited]

Most professional jobs require basic intellectual aptitude. Since the 1970s the Court has developed a body of law that prevents employers from directly screening for aptitude.

In Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) a black coal miner claimed discrimination because his employer required a high-school diploma and an intelligence test as prerequisites for promotion. The court ruled 8-0 in the miner's favor. "Good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups," Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote.

This became known as the "disparate impact" test, and it applies only in employment law. Colleges and universities may use aptitude tests. Elite institutions lean heavily on exams such as the SAT in deciding whom to admit.

For a prospective employee, a college degree is a very expensive way of showing that he has, in effect, passed an IQ test.

College is an Expensive IQ Test

More on the value of college
. easyopinions.blogspot.com/search/label/College

"Ughh, I live in Texas now and that is how all of these people are"

Ooo, a hater! I could have a field day with your screen name and being a true aggie. You MUST belong here.

We care much less about school names than the coasters do. Much, much less.

Getting into UT and A&M is not hard. It says something if you can't manage it. 30000+ students a year do, after all. I got in both, which shames me now, that I considered aggieland, but I thought I wanted veterinary medicine at the time. I think that right after bonfire collapsed, when they still had their little rally yelling about killing longhorns, while UT cancelled their rally and held a prayer vigil, is when I started despising them.

I hate tenure because-much like the unions-it keeps crappy people teaching. Or, not teaching, actually.

I am with Crid and Andrew Garland on this.

The college degree that everyone thinks they need to have in order to get a decent job - it's only necessary because, as Amy points out, a high school diploma no longer means anything. If you had to demonstrate literacy and math skills to get a high school diploma, these H.R. departments would not require a college degree in the first place.

I went to college, too, and was disappointed. The first two years felt too much like high school, without the parents around. I was taking English courses and math, and I thought, I did this in high school. College was supposed to be a career-oriented education, and I can assure you my chosen career had nothing to do with algebra. If you know enough math to balance a checkbook and enough geometry to have an idea of what they're talking about when you're looking at an 800 square foot house, there's nothing to be gained by taking advance mathematics when it has nothing to do with your major.

We should cut off funding for public universities. What good are they?

Last March I applied for a job at a well-known (and well-paying) company in Southern California. There were over 700 applicants for two positions! Before even reviewing resumes, we were all sent to a testing center and given a test on computer programs, basic math, spelling, grammar, writing, reading comprehension, and logic. They were NOT testing advanced skills, just the basics in each category. They then reviewed the resumes of the candidates who had passed the tests, and the hiring process went on from there.

I found out later, about 80 people passed the test. That means over 600 people couldn't pass a basic computer/math/reading/etc. skills test. And these were not entry-level positions; they both required at least 10 years of experience. Do with that information what you will!

And a couple of weeks after that, I was offered my choice of either position!

>> We should cut off funding for public universities. What good are they?

My dad died of cancer when I was a kid. My Mom didn't have the skill set to pay for a college education. As I said, I worked my way through the UC system. 15 years later I paid enough in one year through taxes to have paid for that education should it have been private. (Ah, the early internet years!)

My degrees in economics and finance helped me build a profitable company and employ others. What good is a public university? It is society investing in the individual, plain and simple.

To be considered educated the following is my list of bare minimums:

(1) A grounding in general history sufficient to allow the person to provide a general overview of mankind's last 5,000 years. The person should be able to speak for about 15 minutes right then without notes or research, albeit in very general terms and broad generalizations. Identify where we started and how and where we developed from there. A sentences or two about each century and major civilization is about all you need to pass this. Not really that hard if you think about it.

As part of that, every continent can be identified and explained in terms of larger sweeps of man's history and the continent's general current political status.

(2) The person should know the reasons the following terms have important historical significance and be able to explain why (without need for research or reference materials) in no *fewer* than 300 words: Roman Empire, Egypt, Reformation, Renaissance, Athens, American Constitution, Buddhism, Industrial Revolution.

(3) Math at least up through Geometry, Trigonomety, Alegebra and pre-calc. If you do not know that "Pi" is, you are not educated. If the phrase "Quadratic Formula" means nothing to you, you are not educated.

(4) Statistics. At least two semesters. Without it, you are ignorant. It is a powerful tool.

(5) The ability to write a cogent 4 page researched, footnoted paper with some errors in spelling and grammar (inevitable; even Dickens needed an editor), but nothing too embarassing.

(6) An appreciation for how little a person really knows, no matter how much they try.

I would guess that maybe 5% of college graduates meet that standard. They are found mainly in the engineering, math and hard sciences like Chemistry or physics.

1. I'm fucked;

2. I'm deeply fucked;

3. Bibically hosed;

4. Moderately defended but with terrible vulnerabilities;

5. Sturdy here;

6. Golden.

Re: the last part, I think their are all kinds of engineering types who have no idea how their culture was formed.

> It is society investing in the
> individual, plain and simple.

Eric's right and I'm wrong, but I intend to be pissy about it until the day I die anyway.

Academe sux.

I have lots of thoughts and reactions to comments here:

Conan: interesting link above. Good insights on much of what ails California's government. Though I don't recall the writer mentioning either Prop 13 or the ballot initiative process when discussing California's government service malaise. These are non-trivial oversights.

__

UC tuition:

I'm saddened to know that UC is raising tuition this much. Few things probably contributed more to America's success in the second half of the 20th century than our public university system and the GI bill. While not guaranteeing anything, these things democratized higher learning to a degree the world had never seen before. America has ever since been the world leader in medical, technical, and basic science innovation. Because we opened higher learning up to everyone, not just the children of the wealthy and upper class.

Sure, a bunch of idiots end up going to college on Mom and Dad's nickel. That's their business. But I think it's pretty damn cool that my best friend in high school, whose mom didn't graduate high school, got to be the first person in his family to get a four-year degree, and didn't end up spectacularly in debt in the process. People like me, that tuition difference wouldn't matter - him, it would have. The UC system makes a first rate education available to an incredible range of people. As someone who has attended UCLA, and taught there, and benefited enormously from the experience, this tuition increase is a damned shame, and a tribute to the amazing mismanagement of our state. The grown-ups have failed.

__

About tenure, and universities in general:

Universities are first and foremost institutions of research. Those who like that the U.S. is the leader in most research-driven innovation should understand that a huge part of that is not driven by corporations (few invest in basic research these days, Bell Labs and most of its ilk is long gone - the only remaining place of such work that I know of is Xerox PARC). It is the result of universities giving really bright, antisocial, single-minded people the time and money to pursue their interests relentlessly. Tenure is part of this - but you don't get tenure unless you prove yourself in the incredible pressure cooker of assistant professorship, where you basically have a few years to make or break your career. But tenure allows people to pursue weird stuff, non-PC stuff, and a whole bunch of other things where failure is a very likely option. And we want people to do this, because a ton of knowledge gets generated that way.

Universities are not primarily places of great teaching. If you want great teaching, find a good liberal arts college, not a UCLA, or Cal, or Texas, or the like. The students who thrive at universities already know how to learn. What the universities offer undergraduates is the opportunity - if they choose to take it - of participating in really cutting edge work, to be part of the knowledge-creation process. Or, they can sit back, eke out a degree taking multiple choice exams, and still have a UCLA degree. But that's not what it's there for.

__

Finally, I totally agree that college is not for everyone. The trades are an entirely undervalued career path that is much more well suited to many. I spent a few years working as a tradesman before earning my Ph.D. Being a good carpenter, plumber or electrician is a path to an solid income and the chance to create your own business. Bright, hard working people who don't like the books would benefit very much if the elders in their life gave such careers some respect.

The Price Of A Ham Sandwich Has Also Gone Up Like everything else, education costs more, especially in California.

No actually the price of a ham sandwich hasn't gone up. The CPI has been flat, and sometimes been slightly negative throughout this recession; while the cost of education has continued to increase.

If you're referring to the past 24 years, then yes the cost of consumer goods has increased; by 100.14%. Meanwhile the cost of college education has increased by 412.62%. So while your leading may be technically correct, it is also extremely disingenuous. A more honest tag line would have been: The price of a Ham sandwich has gone up, but; the price of education has gone up a hell of a lot more.

Times are tough. Education is already ENORMOUSLY subsidized. If you tax Californians any more the state's going to break off and fall into the ocean.

This is true. But it ignores the fundamental question of whether the government should be subsidizing higher education. Making higher education affordable, or at least the degrees that actually make people more productive, like Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math; makes sense from a purely self interested point of view.

Who do you think produces more wealth. Someone who works at walmart, or; a electrical engineer? Encouraging investment in human capital means more wealth; more tax revenue; and a higher standard of living for everyone.

Now if you're referring to the more useless fields, then I agree degrees in those disciplines shouldn't be subsidized. I don't think taxpayers should have to front someone money to get a degree in: Woman's Studies, African American Studies, Philosophy, or Interior design. People don't see a return on their investment. I'd even go as far as to suggest that people who go to college, get a degree, and the become housewives or househusbands should pay back the money the government spent on their education.

Even if I took student aid (I didn't I enlisted in the military and paid for school with the gi bill), I can guarantee you that the government will get more money out of me after getting a degree then I would have ever gotten out of them.

Also am I the only one who's tired of hypocritical California baby boomers whining about the subsidies going into higher education? Aren't these the same baby boomers that enjoyed a 100% free higher education during the 60's and 70's thanks to the federal government and the state of California?

I guess it's only wrong to make people pay for your education if your not the one going to school.

The thing is, not everybody should go to college. I think far too many people do. Some people would be better off going to technical school. And some people can learn without a professor cracking a whip over them.

I agree. Tell that to the H.R. trolls in corporate America. All the kids want is a decent paying job. Pretty much all good paying jobs with decent upward mobility require you to get a college degree. So guess what people have to do... Get a college degree. DUH!

Maybe if you do, you'll value it, and really learn something, instead of spending four years doing jello shots off some girl's cleavage.

Doing one doesn't preclude doing the other. I took plenty of jello shots off of girl's cleavage in college, and I still graduated with a double major in Finance and Applied economics with a 3.5 gpa.

"All the kids want is a decent paying job."

There actually is a hidden minus here. Especially in large government and government contractors (like where I work), hiring somebody who "just wants a job" results in employing someone who actually has no interest in the technical aspects of the job itself - and then it's hell to get them to pay attention, and to move them out when they simply won't.

College feels like High School because it IS High School. A Bac is the equivalent of High School + a couple years of college.

We should be working to the International Bac standards. That should be what a High School diploma is.

There should be serious alternatives for those who wish to go into industrial or commercial jobs.

Some key points to remember.

Even with the latest tuition hikes, the UC system will be have lower tuition rates than most other states.

http://www.libraryspot.com/know/tuition.htm

Administrative costs continue to grow.

"Proportionally, the growth occurred more among administrators and support staff than among instructional staff -- consistent with recent studies, including several by the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability, suggesting that colleges have increased spending disproportionately on non-classroom programs."

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/19/nces

Over the past two decades, college tuition has grown faster than inflation every year. This is due to several causes including growing demand for degrees, much easier financial aid to fund getting the degrees, drops in state subsidies, and colleges funding improvements in new buildings and amenities in order to attract students. These cost increases have not improved the percentage of students graduating or the quality of the degrees but are simply being done to differentiate themselves from the competition.

I believe one of the worst outcomes of this nation's push for college degrees is the steady increase in student loans hanging over students heads following graduation. Such loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and must be repaid. Other posters here have stated how today's college degree is equivalent to the value of a high school diploma 30 years ago. Not true. The costs of that equivalent college degree are much higher. 30 years ago you could graduate and begin working in a job without carrying debt. Now you delay working for four years and begin working the same type of job with significant debt. We are worse off for it.

> All the kids want is a
> decent paying job.

I know you didn't mean it that way, but that's essentially the same thing as saying "I don't care what part I play in anything grander, I just want to get the assignment and collect the booty, without necessarily having my performance or attentiveness measured." Like a little girl saying she wants a new pony... To say "that's all" is in no way a diminutive. A decent paying job isn't a small thing to have.

If you chose to live in a civilization (and I think almost everyone should), the first assignment is to make yourself useful to other people. This will not happen by being an isolated (but sincere) little moppet who sits cutely on the sidewalk until Da Man stops by to tell you what your role will be. You'll have to pay close attention to what people want and give it to them, even if they don't know to ask. That's how capitalism makes life better for civilization: It demands that we all, individually, look at each other closely for opportunities.

We're very proud of our sexual sophistication in this culture, and take self-determination in romantic relationships very serious... The popular thinking about this in America especially is almost comically independent and snotty. A typical person would be appalled if they were told that some higher authority in the culture were preparing to assign them a mate, or even to select the gender of that mate.

But people who expect the larger culture to 'give them a job' are no less primitive.

You wanna be a big boy? Figure it out for yourself.

"I also think parents shouldn't have more kids than they can afford, and if college is part of setting a kid off right, shouldn't the ability to pay a kid's or a bunch of kids' college tuition be factored in before the diaphragm is tossed across the room like a frisbee?"

No. I don't owe my kids a free college ride. If they want it, there are ways to get it. Working towards goals builds character, and ensures they take college seriously as opposed to a bunch of partying. If they're smart, they can party AND work and take classes, anyway.

What person shy of the upper class can write one check for 80k+, not to mention more than one?

I have a lot of thoughts on this and some of them are mixed.

I do think the problem started with dumbing down of high schools.

I agree that college is not for everyone. Though I think that number is decreasing. My brother is in a Union where he is basicly an electrian with some extra qualfications to handle higher power stuff. Some of the math they learn is rather high math - though they learn at as just a formula and not why it makes sense. I think they would be served as to learning the why not just have some magic tool.

The school I went to as an undergrad was a teaching school - tenure meant that the prof. got a second chance to get their teaching ratings up.

The program I am in now is self-supporting...our tuition has to pay for the whole thing.

Oh yeah...the other thing I was going to say.

The unexpected huge rise in cost in the middle seems a bit unfair. The difference between having taken some courses and getting the degree is huge to many employers. These students are kind of stuck. If they just quit then a lot of the value of what they have already paided for...to go forward costs a lot more than they bargained for.

A lot the value when it comes to getting a job is that someone says you know the material. I believe it was MIT who determined that if that started doing online courses it would de-value all their courses. However, if the just published the material they taught it would have little affect on the value. See open course ware reference earlier.

I know you didn't mean it that way, but that's essentially the same thing as saying "I don't care what part I play in anything grander, I just want to get the assignment and collect the booty, without necessarily having my performance or attentiveness measured."

I don't care what part I play in anything grander. It's all about me. Why should that surprise you? If I don't look out for my interests who else will?

Fortunately for you and everyone else, in a capitalist system with functioning product and labor markets, a mechanism to prevent widespread fraud, and a reasonably low level of government interference, everyone's incentives are aligned. You want me to work hard and cater to your needs because you you are self interested. I want to work hard and cater to your needs I want your money and I am self interested.

people who expect the larger culture to 'give them a job' are no less primitive.

I didn't say that you people today expect society to "give them a job". They want to earn a decent living. If the easiest and safest way to do that is to go to college, and work for a megacorp, then attending college is the most rational course of action.

If it was easier and less risky to earn a living by starting their own business then people would be doing that instead.

Paid for school myself in the 1980's at Texas A&M with scholarship and long working hours; took me seven years to get a BBA including two years as a Co-op student employee at IBM in Dallas. My parents helped; kept me on their medical and car insurance, which was a huge help. I afforded myself plenty of time for nipple shots and bong hits.

After 20 years of a great career at IBM/working for Mark Cuban/Microsoft, I am now back at TAMU as an Administrator (not the wasteful type of admin, I run email, database, and web servers for this place, and in fact spent the entire day today updating the switches on our 48,000+ student user email system). I also dabble in collaboration software, and work on directory services, which puts me into contact with admin folks at universities worldwide. And it is this part of my current position where I continue to learn about the tuition costs, problems, budgeting, etc. No way in hell could I afford to attend this relatively inexpensive university on today's terms. Which brings me to my meandering point: the way the system works makes me sad.

However:

Kids with motivation to do something with their lives can attend this and many universities, but it can be extremely difficult, especially when the 'entitlement culture' prevails. I deal with student workers every day, and many are so desperately tight on a budget that they are racking up student loan debt that will keep them struggling for 10 years in a decent economy. Which brings up the topic discussed here in Amy's apartment a lot, that parents need to start driving this motivation home really early in their childrens lives. And saving or planning for it. Or not tossing the diaphragms out so willy-nilly.

And finally, as the job market blows, this university in central Texas not only has jobs for skills across the board, it has money to pay, and medical benefits to provide. We constantly fill positions with student workers, but are always, even in this economy, searching for qualified people at all skill levels, as are all the universities in the Big 12. http://tamujobs.tamu.edu . Even with large budget cuts, these jobs/careers exist, and even more so thru the TAMU University System, U of Texas and the UT System. (I'm not a recruiter, and really don't give a shit, but to me it's amazing the jobs that are out there at least in this area of the country, even during this shit economy.)

And Texas? Not in debt. Maybe the weather is not as wonderful as Socal or Florida, and you won't run into Crazy Mary on the boardwalk in Venice Beach, or Lindsey Lohan at the Mondrian. But that's no excuse for not pursuing an education, or a career, when those options are available. YMMV.

Though I don't recall the writer mentioning either Prop 13 or the ballot initiative process when discussing California's government service malaise. These are non-trivial oversights.

Prop 13 is not the problem with California's government.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/06/03/has-prop-13-really-robbed-cali

The out of control ballot initiative process, however, is. The fact that the people of California have both lost faith in their government's ability to govern AND found ways to circumvent the government has been a real problem. And the initiatives often don't make sense. In one of the last few elections, we actually had an initiative on the ballot that cancelled another initiative on the ballot.

> If I don't look out for my
> interests who else will?

But that's precisely the point. You're not looking out for your interests, you're asking other people to watch out for your interests, to tell you how you can add value to the lives of third parties. That's what it means to say 'I need someone to give me a job!' Someone else is expected to identify the opportunity –presumably at no fee– and pass it to you rather than exploiting it for themselves.

> I didn't say that you people
> today expect society to "give
> them a job". They want to earn a
> decent living.

So who's stopping them? It's a free country. But to say "I want to earn a decent living" says nothing at all. (I know a little girl who wants a pony. I personally want an '86 Testarossa. People got needs. So what?) Merely being needy doesn't create wealth... The only value it creates is for Al Gore and Hillary Clinton and Barry Obama, who will spend other people's money without fear of consequences when the shit hits the fan. (See the kausfiles.com post today about how General Motors is 'giving America its money back'.)

A society that tells people how their needs can be "decently" met is the stuff of the Soviet nightmare. Again, and I'm actually grateful for your confusion on this point, because I didn't hammer it hard enough earlier:

All individuals need to give their individual attention to market forces. We perceive those forces differently because we're supposed to. Aren't you glad that –as IBM and Xerox dozed– Gates & Jobs saw that people would like their own computers?

"But that's precisely the point. You're not looking out for your interests..."

Yes I am.

"That's what it means to say 'I need someone to give me a job!' Someone else is expected to identify the opportunity –presumably at no fee– and pass it to you rather than exploiting it for themselves."

When did I ever say this? I never said the the world owed anyone a living. Quite the opposite it's up the the individual to find a way to make a decent living. People are generally rational so they going to find the easiest and least risky way to do this.

"So who's stopping them?"

No one. That's the point, and that's why people go to college. It's the quickest and least risky way to achieve their goal of having higher earning power, and more upward mobility.

("I know a little girl who wants a pony. I personally want an '86 Testarossa. People got needs. So what?) Merely being needy doesn't create wealth..."

If you think that workers with in demand skill sets don't create wealth, and employers hire them and give them a salary out of the kindness of their hearts, then you're an idiot.

If you don't know the difference in between wanting something, and finding a way to earn it; or, wanting something and expecting it to be given to you, then your an idiot.

If you don't think that investments human capital or physical capital increase economic output, and create greater wealth; then, you need to check out the Solow Growth Model or the Endogenous growth theory.

> then your an idiot.

Spelling error, kitten...

> If you don't think that investments
> human capital or physical capital
> increase economic output

Did I ever say that? Suzy Creamcheese, what's got into ya? I think guys who say things like "All the people want are decent jobs!" are winding up to make a pitch for abject socialism. This must be harshly discouraged, as early as possible.....

Spelling error, kitten...

You caught me, good for you! Now do you want to actually debate any of the points I made instead of pretending to be 9th grade spelling teacher?

By the way what's up with the whole 'kitten' thing? you're not gay are you. I mean you are aware that I am a guy. Not that I have anything against that. What you choose to do in the privacy of your [see I got it right this time] own home is your business.

I think guys who say things like "All the people want are decent jobs!" are winding up to make a pitch for abject socialism. This must be harshly discouraged, as early as possible.....

Yea because apparently suggesting that people find jobs and earn things they want, instead of demanding that the government give it to them, is exactly what socialism is all about.

> By the way what's up with the whole
> 'kitten' thing?

I like to be gentle with delicate, undercooked spirits!

> apparently suggesting that people find
> jobs and earn things

I missed that part of your comment. Cool, then.