Did you attend a college or university?

[Nobert]

I rate HR types at about the same level as you rate, "the Boys." They usually have very little comprehension as to the day to day needs of a particular department, but they are entrusted to the role of corporate gatekeepers. They're the same type of squirrels who were employed as guidance counselors in college: give me a course catalogue and the requisites for a major and general degree requirements, and I'll select courses on my own, TYVM.

Don't get me started. This general subsection of business has dogged me my whole adult life. As Lizzie said, they foist the prerequisite of a degree on you for something like running a photocopier. And these days they have computer filters that will automatically throw out any resume that doesn't have certain key words. I remember having the revelation that since they don't know how to do anything except work in Human Resources, they're not really qualified to decide who's qualified to do anything, unless they're hiring someone to work in H.R. (pretty much what you said, worded differently). And someone told me a while ago that hiring is only a small part of what H.R. departments do, their main job is to keep the company from getting sued. There may be some perfectly lovely, decent people who work in the field, but when you have an institution of professional cowards set up like that, how can you possibly hire the best people for you company? Okay, I got started, I will curtail my rant.

 

[sheeplady]

Ah, now, here's a thing..... Not sure how it works in the US, but here in the UK it's very common for medical doctors to greet academics with PhDs in a manner along the lines of "It's nice to meet a real doctor". For a medical doctor in the UK, "Doctor" is an honorific (in the same way as "Mister" is a higher honorary title for sugeons), as medical doctors' academic qualifications are actually the equivalent of two bachelor degrees, not a PhD. PhDs are "real" doctors because the doctorate they carry is an earned qualification which they will take to the grave, and not merely a job title.

Yes, "Doctor" for a medical doctor is also considered "honorific" in the U.S., as they are not technically Doctorates but instead hold Professional Doctorates; which is a distinct category.

In the U.S. a Ph.D. is awarded for life and the title of Doctor is earned with all rights to practice at the time of a successful defense before "official" graduation. An M.D. is awarded at the time of graduation from a 4-year program but the rights to practice as a Medical Doctor require further internships, residencies, passing board examinations, and obtaining a license.

In many ways, an M.D. that is board eligible is similar to an ABD PhD. (An ABD Ph.D. has finished all coursework, their qualifying exams, and a success proposal defense; but has not passed their final defense.) The board eligible M.D. cannot practice as a doctor anymore than the ABD Ph.D. can say they have a Ph.D. One striking difference, however, is that the M.D. can use the title of "Doctor" even if they haven't taken their boards, fail their boards repeatedly, or have their license removed (they cannot legally practice medicine), as the title is an honorific. A Ph.D. cannot use the title of "Doctor" until a successful defense, because the title of Doctor is not purely an honorific. Likewise, if a Ph.D. is considered "voided" for some reason, then the title of "doctor" can no longer be used; unlike a medical doctor (who can use the title doctor as long as their degree is considered valid, even if their license is revoked for killing patients as an extreme example).

But that is not a point that is clearly understood in the U.S.

 

[Wally_Hood]

After stints at a Cal State, a junior colleg, and a semester on Chapman College's Semester at Sea (aka, World Campus Afloat), I graduated from UCLA with a BA in East Asian Studies. Absolutely a pathetic waste of my parents' money. My dad wanted me to get either a business degree or some sort of accounting degree: transferable to multiple settings. But, and here I get teary-eyed, he told me "If you want to be a garbage man, we want you to be the best garbage man you can."
None of my children have expressed an interest in college; there was a time I would have "encouraged" them heavily. If they were to go to college, I would, as my dad did, urge them to get a business related degree.

 

[Big J]

I'd say the cash is definitely part of it. Also, I can't rule out that while the casual and workwear tredns are big, a sizeable proportion of vintage interest lies in suits, evening wear, black tie, white tie.... the sorts of things that, as a general rule, perhaps graduates are more likely to find their work and social lives provide a place to wear. Gross generalisation, of course, but it would seem logical if that's the trend.

The other possibility is that it could be as simple as the fact that most of us on TFL who bothered to open the thread and vote in the poll were interested to do so because we went to university.



It's something that I think will change over time as a generation comes up who don't remember life before the internet (my current undergraduate class were mostly born in 1994), but it certainly seems likely that those of us who came to the web as adults and got the forum habit were more likely to have done so as students with perhaps a bit more free time on our hands than working people with homes and families to run. For those of us in Generation X, and older, it's certainly the case that the internet was much more available to us at university than elsewhere. I remember the days when people used to joke about doing a postgrad just to have another year of email. I certainly remember the likes of Wired back in the 90s doing comment pieces on trends showing a rise in web usage for the 18-21s, and then a sudden drop-off when they left university and didn't have internet at home yet.



It's happening here too now. AC Grayling opened his "New College of the Humanities" a couple of years ago. (I think this year might be their first graduating class?). Selling it off the back of small classes and bringing in celebrity names to do some of the lectures (if memory serves, the notorious Dickie Dawkins was one). In reality, though, all they're offering is a tutoring service: they're not recognised or registered as a university, and the degrees for which they are entering students are actually the University of London External programme. There were significant protests at it being allowed to go ahead, but they came to naught (I guess the UL saw the portion of the fees they'd get as the winning factor). It's gonig to be interesting to see what happens those kids on the job market. The UL degree is a strong brand, but I'm highly dubious they'll see much proportionate benefit from the extortionate fees they're paying for their tutors. Of course the university as business philosophy has also hit real universities, sadly, but there's hope it'll fade with time.



Ah, now, here's a thing..... Not sure how it works in the US, but here in the UK it's very common for medical doctors to greet academics with PhDs in a manner along the lines of "It's nice to meet a real doctor". For a medical doctor in the UK, "Doctor" is an honorific (in the same way as "Mister" is a higher honorary title for sugeons), as medical doctors' academic qualifications are actually the equivalent of two bachelor degrees, not a PhD. PhDs are "real" doctors because the doctorate they carry is an earned qualification which they will take to the grave, and not merely a job title.

Edward, my father is a kind of working class snob. Much like that Monty Python sketch where the son goes off to be a coal miner, and his father slams him with 'gala lunches'.
I got a doctorate in cultural anthropology, but I don't have a white coat and a stethoscope, so my father will never accept that I am any kind of 'real doctor'.
Incidentally, the richest friend I have never went to college, he learned to be a plumber. Now he's got his own company, and he's rolling in money.

 

[Edward]

Yes, "Doctor" for a medical doctor is also considered "honorific" in the U.S., as they are not technically Doctorates but instead hold Professional Doctorates; which is a distinct category.

In the U.S. a Ph.D. is awarded for life and the title of Doctor is earned with all rights to practice at the time of a successful defense before "official" graduation. An M.D. is awarded at the time of graduation from a 4-year program but the rights to practice as a Medical Doctor require further internships, residencies, passing board examinations, and obtaining a license.

In many ways, an M.D. that is board eligible is similar to an ABD PhD. (An ABD Ph.D. has finished all coursework, their qualifying exams, and a success proposal defense; but has not passed their final defense.) The board eligible M.D. cannot practice as a doctor anymore than the ABD Ph.D. can say they have a Ph.D. One striking difference, however, is that the M.D. can use the title of "Doctor" even if they haven't taken their boards, fail their boards repeatedly, or have their license removed (they cannot legally practice medicine), as the title is an honorific. A Ph.D. cannot use the title of "Doctor" until a successful defense, because the title of Doctor is not purely an honorific. Likewise, if a Ph.D. is considered "voided" for some reason, then the title of "doctor" can no longer be used; unlike a medical doctor (who can use the title doctor as long as their degree is considered valid, even if their license is revoked for killing patients as an extreme example).

But that is not a point that is clearly understood in the U.S.

Thanks. Sounds like it's a very similar process in the US. It's not commonly understood over here either, of course.

Edward, my father is a kind of working class snob. Much like that Monty Python sketch where the son goes off to be a coal miner, and his father slams him with 'gala lunches'.
I got a doctorate in cultural anthropology, but I don't have a white coat and a stethoscope, so my father will never accept that I am any kind of 'real doctor'.
Incidentally, the richest friend I have never went to college, he learned to be a plumber. Now he's got his own company, and he's rolling in money.

Plumbers tend to do well over here too. There was even a widely publicised story about an academic up north who, post-PhD, quit, trained as a plumber, and doubled his salary. Some of them do make what I do, or more. A tube driver starts on my salary too, for a 35 hour week. But then to make the real money both of them have to work the anti-social hours, whereas I (mostly) have my evenings and weekends..... swings and roundabouts, I guess. I tell my students if they want to make the real money, they should look at going into practice in a City firm. If I'd done that and stuck at it, I'd be earning just about five times what I do now.... but I'd be miserable, so what's the point?

What makes a little bit of my soul die every time I hear it is people claiming education is wasted because it didn't contribute to raising their salary or getting them a better job. I'm enough of a pragmatist to understand that, sadly, with the cost of getting an education ever-rising, there are a lot of folks who can't afford not to think that way, but I'm also unshakably of the belief thateducation is a good in and of itself, and I live in hope that as a culture we will oned day evolve beyond education policy being run by Wilde's cynics, who know "the price of everything and the value of nothing."

 

[Edward]

(Another thought as to the commonality of university education round here: most of us who sit in an office all day - more common in "graduate jobs" - have online access on tap, during lunch, teabreak, et al. How many folks who, say, labour all day or spend all day plumbing, and don't have access to the web or time for it anyhow, come home at the end of a hard day and want to spend time going online?)

 

[Big J]

You've got a good point there Edward. I got educated because I could, not because I looked at it strictly as a financial investment. I never went into it thinking it was going to make me well off, but rather thinking that if I worked part time, I could take myself all the way to a doctorate for the hell of it. It was hard sometimes, but also a lot of fun.
I'm sure my friend the plumber is also very happy with his life choices, and (like you maybe) I never indulge in this kind of rather pointless talk about whether my education paid off financially (or even if education should) because I didn't make my life choices thinking about my future bank balance, but rather based on my emotional needs.
I'm not 'rich', but I'm happy.

 

[Bamaboots]

Education or intelligence? I'll take the latter. I worked with and for too many people that thought they were the same thing. Clueless.

 

[Jwag]

I'm young(23)..I could go to collage if I really thought it would help me get a good career. But I found myself a job I couldn't pass up with a good training program that I hope will become a career for me (training to be a machinist). Besides, growing up, I hated school. Wouldn't want to get stuck in there again.

 

[dh66]

(Another thought as to the commonality of university education round here: most of us who sit in an office all day - more common in "graduate jobs" - have online access on tap, during lunch, teabreak, et al. How many folks who, say, labour all day or spend all day plumbing, and don't have access to the web or time for it anyhow, come home at the end of a hard day and want to spend time going online?)

I spend a lot of the day plumbing. Thank goodness for the smartphone in my pocket

 

[dh66]

I'm not 'rich', but I'm happy.

By far the more important of the two options.

 

[dh66]

Education or intelligence? I'll take the latter. I worked with and for too many people that thought they were the same thing. Clueless.

Sad, but true.

 

[ChiTownScion]

The board eligible M.D. cannot practice as a doctor anymore than the ABD Ph.D. can say they have a Ph.D.

Not entirely true. He/she cannot hold themselves out as possessing a specialty in a board certifiable specialty, but they can practice as physicians. And I know of at least one who does: washed out of his residency at Mass General decades ago, but still practices general medicine. Although, for my money, I'd never allow anyone near me who wasn't board certified.

 

[HudsonHawk]

By far the more important of the two options.

Money may not buy happiness, but poverty surely doesn't either. It doesn't have to be a choice. Not that I'm advocating money over happiness. I'm just saying they are not mutually exclusive. And not that I'm rich either. My wife and I both have good professional careers, and we do fine financially, but we are happy.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's a question of your priorities. If happiness, to you, involves owning a lot of fancy stuff, a big house, ritzy food, world travel, etc., then you're not going to accomplish any of that without a lot of money and everything that getting it involves. But if happiness to you is a few good friends, a role in your community, and work you enjoy, well, you don't really need a whole lot of money at all to accomplish that.

 

[HudsonHawk]

And having a good paying job doesn't mean you're a slave to fancy stuff, a big house, and food you can't pronounce. My job not only pays my bills, it allows me to contribute to my community, both financially and time-wise, as my employer not only allows, but encourages and facilitates those things. Plus I'm happy not having to worry about money as much as my parent did. And by worry, I don't mean which credit card has enough left on it for the next vacation, I mean how are we going to eat tomorrow. We were poor but we had love, but love don't quell the rumbling in your stomach at night.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And conversely, you don't *need* a good paying job if your needs are simple. My main job pays $34,000 a year, but it's integral to my community -- and though I might complain about some of the backsides I have to kiss, overall the sense of satisfaction I get out of this job, in this town, with these people, is far more than I could ever put down on an IRS form. You could offer me $60,000 tomorrow doing the same thing somewhere else, and I'd say "nertz."

 

[Thundercolt]

And conversely, you don't *need* a good paying job if your needs are simple. My main job pays $34,000 a year, but it's integral to my community -- and though I might complain about some of the backsides I have to kiss, overall the sense of satisfaction I get out of this job, in this town, with these people, is far more than I could ever put down on an IRS form. You could offer me $60,000 tomorrow doing the same thing somewhere else, and I'd say "nertz."

"And conversely, you don't *need* a good paying job if your needs are simple."
As we grow older and develop a better understanding of life, we eventually realize just how true that is.

 

[MikeKardec]

Education or intelligence? I'll take the latter. I worked with and for too many people that thought they were the same thing. Clueless.

I've met a LOT of people with stunning educations and advanced degrees who were pretty damn ignorant AND not too intelligent. I've even met a couple of Nobel Prize winners who, though having contributed significantly in their field of expertise, were none too impressive outside of it ... except for an amazing attitude of superiority and entitlement. I've taught occasionally at a few universities and colleges (guest lecturer, substitute etc, I probably couldn't get a teaching gig because of my lack of an advanced degree) and I came away from that experience stunned by the backwardness of the system. In the places I've taught and in liberal arts (where I've been involved) the education (because of the quality of the educators) is so far from being worth the money I can hardly express it properly.

I suspect most people would be vastly better off going to Junior College and using other lower cost alternatives then transferring for the least time possible in order to graduate from a "name" school. I'd certainly advise any parent considering hocking their future to help their kid through school to visit many of the classes before hand and to read some of the nonsense that passes for thesis papers before they consider any institution. No one should be taken in by academic gibberish, generally if it sounds impenetrable, more often than not, that sort of language is covering the unimpressive ideas being expressed.

I've got a BFA and I use it in practical, money making ways every day. But that was a complete accident. If I'd gone permanently into film (as I planned) rather than publishing (as I did) I probably would have barely used it. Film school is absolutely the most expensive way imaginable into a career that both demands and provides much specialist training outside the bounds of what you can get in college. I got a great education ... but boy oh boy the price was high and it's even higher today.

No ill thoughts on education at all, just the part where the price is out of touch with the benefits.

 

[Fading Fast]

I've met a LOT of people with stunning educations and advanced degrees who were pretty damn ignorant AND not too intelligent. I've even met a couple of Nobel Prize winners who, though having contributed significantly in their field of expertise, were none too impressive outside of it ... except for an amazing attitude of superiority and entitlement. I've taught occasionally at a few universities and colleges (guest lecturer, substitute etc, I probably couldn't get a teaching gig because of my lack of an advanced degree) and I came away from that experience stunned by the backwardness of the system. In the places I've taught and in liberal arts (where I've been involved) the education (because of the quality of the educators) is so far from being worth the money I can hardly express it properly.

I suspect most people would be vastly better off going to Junior College and using other lower cost alternatives then transferring for the least time possible in order to graduate from a "name" school. I'd certainly advise any parent considering hocking their future to help their kid through school to visit many of the classes before hand and to read some of the nonsense that passes for thesis papers before they consider any institution. No one should be taken in by academic gibberish, generally if it sounds impenetrable, more often than not, that sort of language is covering the unimpressive ideas being expressed.

I've got a BFA and I use it in practical, money making ways every day. But that was a complete accident. If I'd gone permanently into film (as I planned) rather than publishing (as I did) I probably would have barely used it. Film school is absolutely the most expensive way imaginable into a career that both demands and provides much specialist training outside the bounds of what you can get in college. I got a great education ... but boy oh boy the price was high and it's even higher today.

No ill thoughts on education at all, just the part where the price is out of touch with the benefits.

A variation on the theme we've been discussing here is having a sense of your kid (or, if you are the kid, having a sense of self) as some people benefit from college way beyond just the job / career it can lead to and others never even get the job / career benefit.

I went to a state school, was incredibly excited to go and learn (I remember looking at the course catalogue and couldn't believe all the options) and my liberal arts education did for me what - at its best - it is advertised to do: opened my mind up to ideas and disciplines I didn't even know were out there, made a more critical thinker out of me and sparked an interest in learning that has continued to this day nearly thirty years later. I got so much bang for my buck it is silly. But that was me.

There were some kids who I went to college with who had no real interest in learning - some where there to goof off, some to "get the degree" for the career or to say they had it and some, while trying, weren't design for that type of learning. I posted earlier that I think everyone - the financial institutions, the government, the colleges / universities and the students / parents have some responsibility for this crazy "take on debt for college blindly" philosophy - but even away from the money, parents and their kids should be trying to identify if college is right for them, if, as you noted, a community college would get them what they want / need or, as others have noted earlier, a trade or vocation is a better path.

I thought long and hard about being an electrician because, as I believe it was Lizzie posted early, those skills, with some reasonable business acumen, provide the most job security (away from a strong union job) that I know of. For me, despite wanting some security - as I saw what the depression did to both of my parents and their families - I was too excited about college not to go.

And Lizzie's and Hudson Hawk's posts above about their no-monetary-driven job and community satisfaction play a big roll - but can be hard to discern at 18.

It's a shame that we seem to have evolved into a "go to college" mentality, when the decisions should be broader and more individually based.