Obsession over grades is killing American Education

[induction]

Some people do think about what they are going to do after college, but many people don't and the question is often not built in to (or even acknowledged by) the college curriculum.

You can easily not go to college, and also not make plans for the future. Dead-end jobs don't have that question built in either.

But dead-end jobs don't usually offer the illusion that you are working toward a successful career. It's the illusion that causes the problem, because it can lead people to graduate with a lot of debt and no marketable skills. To be clear, I'm not saying college is bad, just that it would be a good idea to think a lot about what you are going to do once it's over, and learn how to do something that someone will pay you for, instead of just believing that your education qualifies you for ... stuff.

Edit:

I believe we measure effectiveness differently. I believe delaying college to be an effective way of postponing the difficult questions. You could work and easily make $25k a year, saving for when you know what you want to go to college. Rather than starting college right away and paying that tuition without getting full benefit as your college life is extended due to not deciding on a major right away. (Credits that don't transfer, not starting physics until Junior year because you did't know you wanted to go that route, and having 3 semesters of physics left for your major, just to have the course be spring only, etc)

This is essentially what I was trying to say, but maybe not very clearly.

[Puppyclaws]

Yes it's expensive to get that BA. It's also expensive not to get one.

Again, the point where these analyses fail is they don't take into they type of degree, not all BA's are equal. There are plenty of BA's that are expensive to get, but not expensive at all not to get one. They have a negative expected return.

Which is why the article from Atlantic is a good one; measuring return in dollars alone is not very effective. Most supposedly low-return degrees are either gateways to high-paying jobs that require you to major in something like social sciences or English for undergrad (e.g. psychology, or law; people who major in something "low-return" and go on to get advanced degrees are not counted in statistics about what people with BA's in those fields earn), or they are degrees you get to go into helping careers. A lot of people WANT to help people, and so they don't actually think "Hey, I'm going to become a millionaire by getting my BA in Early Childhood Education," they think, "I am going to get to work with and help children, that's awesome." We as a society benefit from that person's monetary sacrifice. People are generally aware of what they are getting into, and I know a number of people who have left lucrative careers to chase these 'negative expected return' degrees, ended up making a whole lot less money, and been very happy for it. Thinking about measuring return on money alone when talking about education just doesn't really work very well.

Also, the problem with the concept of 'negative expected return' is that it is based on averages on the whole rather than averages within a particular field of work. The person who doesn't go to school to get an ECE degree might instead have become a teacher's aide or a CNA, and made even less.

[Zamfir]

But dead-end jobs don't usually offer the illusion that you are working toward a successful career. It's the illusion that causes the problem, because it can lead people to graduate with a lot of debt and no marketable skills. To be clear, I'm not saying college is bad, just that it would be a good idea to think a lot about what you are going to do once it's over, nd learn how to do something that someone will pay you for, instead of just believing that your education qualifies

But how is it an illusion? If you doñ't know what to do anjd take a dead-end job, you also end up without marketable skills, but then without a degree. Which is not an enviable situation, even compared to college debt.

Really there's nothing about stupid jobs that helps you discover what you want to do and what you're good at. Of course, you could find an inspiring job that does help you with skills and with finding a path in life.

But if you knew where to find that inspiring (to you) job, you wouldn't be someone who doesn't knoe what to do.

[Dark567]

Most supposedly low-return degrees are either gateways to high-paying jobs ....

This is a contradiction.

A lot of people WANT to help people, and so they don't actually think "Hey, I'm going to become a millionaire by getting my BA in Early Childhood Education," they think, "I am going to get to work with and help children, that's awesome." We as a society benefit from that person's monetary sacrifice. People are generally aware of what they are getting into, and I know a number of people who have left lucrative careers to chase these 'negative expected return' degrees, ended up making a whole lot less money, and been very happy for it. Thinking about measuring return on money alone when talking about education just doesn't really work very well.

But the monetary return does a pretty good job of measuring the societal benefit of certain fields for society. Part of the reason why Early Childhood Education pays so little, is that society has more then enough people who get degrees in childhood education to fill the roles we have. That's not the case with Engineers. Childhood education also is one that has pretty direct benefits for society. Things like theater and journalism(particularly due to the internet) are simply have to many people for the vast majority of them to reap enough benefit for society to educate them.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... rsold.html

Also, the problem with the concept of 'negative expected return' is that it is based on averages on the whole rather than averages within a particular field of work.

No, its not. Its based on average within that particular field of work.

[morriswalters]

That's because the world is elitist.

Yes, I'm painfully aware. If you embrace that as a goal, good luck to you.

But how is it an illusion? If you doñ't know what to do anjd take a dead-end job, you also end up without marketable skills, but then without a degree. Which is not an enviable situation, even compared to college debt.

Just so I don't take what you wrote incorrectly, would you define a dead end job? Would that be flipping hamburgers at McDonald's, doing your dry cleaning, or your plumbing, or what?

And would somebody please tell me how much you have to earn to be classed as earning enough.

[Prefanity]

Good luck getting into some industries without even a BA as a minimum. I've read job posting for shitty manage ment positions requiring such a degree when they're paying 30k a year.

Hell, more profitable industries like healthcare requires at least 2-3 years of technical training for the 50k+ a year jobs. A HS degree by itself will blackball you from most high paying jobs unless you got connections or an entrepeneur's spirit.

I've seen a number of jobs for different advertising positions posted to local job sites that would be doable for anyone with a bit of knowledge in Photoshop, Illustrator, and In Design, but that all required specific four-year degrees. These jobs were not salaried positions and only paid ~$10 a hour.

[kiklion]

That's because the world is elitist.

Yes, I'm painfully aware. If you embrace that as a goal, good luck to you.

But how is it an illusion? If you doñ't know what to do anjd take a dead-end job, you also end up without marketable skills, but then without a degree. Which is not an enviable situation, even compared to college debt.

Just so I don't take what you wrote incorrectly, would you define a dead end job? Would that be flipping hamburgers at McDonald's, doing your dry cleaning, or your plumbing, or what?

And would somebody please tell me how much you have to earn to be classed as earning enough.

I would also advise people not in college not to take dead end jobs. With having more flexibility in hours and ability to dedicate to the job you are generally given more options. Leave the dead end jobs to those with constricting schedules (such as college kids) who need the 4 hours here/there for $7 an hour.

You could get a job as a cook at a restaurant/diner and make $9-$18 an hour. Experience cooking is definitely a marketable skill that can net a middle class lifestyle if you keep 'going up'. You could become a bar tender and make a grand a week at a good spot.

As to what is 'Enough' it depends on the person. For me, my goal was to retire and go back to school. I was on my way to retire by the age of 30 until I met an incredibly awful, soul destroying woman.

[Zamfir]

Just so I don't take what you wrote incorrectly, would you define a dead end job? Would that be flipping hamburgers at McDonald's, doing your dry cleaning, or your plumbing, or what?

A job you don't want to have, and which doesn't help you towards a job you would be happier wit. Details differ from person to person.

[induction]

But how is it an illusion? If you doñ't know what to do anjd take a dead-end job, you also end up without marketable skills, but then without a degree. Which is not an enviable situation, even compared to college debt.

Really there's nothing about stupid jobs that helps you discover what you want to do and what you're good at. Of course, you could find an inspiring job that does help you with skills and with finding a path in life.

But if you knew where to find that inspiring (to you) job, you wouldn't be someone who doesn't knoe what to do.

It's an illusion if you think that after you graduate with your BA in psychology that you will have a job waiting for you as Clarice Starling (I have known several of these), or that when you graduate with an interdisciplinary studies BA in communications and gender studies you will walk into a job helping men and women communicate (another true story without a happy ending). Most people don't go into a dead-end job with high hopes of achievement in their field.

But again, I'm not arguing against going to college. I'm saying that part of the reason many people do is because not only are they expected to (by parents, guidance counselors, etc.), but also because it's a very convenient way to avoid answering the hard questions for a few years. This can be bad news if, for example, you finally figure out that you want to be a physicist, and that your dual major in philosophy and music does not advance this goal, and in fact makes it harder because now you're in debt (okay, this one is me). It's simply a misunderstanding that the degree automatically qualifies you for a good job (that you like, pays well, and actually exists).

One solution is not to enter college until you have a specific career goal. Taking a non-career job for a few years does not prevent you from going to college later, and you'll get more out of college and inspired to work harder if you know why you're there both in terms of what you want (a specific career) and what you don't want (a soul-crushing minimum wage job with no prospects for advancement). The carrot and the stick working in harmony.

On the other hand, college can be a good way to find out what you want to do. So you could enroll with the goal of finding a career path to pursue. It's riskier for the reasons that kiklion mentioned, but even if you fail to find a career you're passionate about, at least you'll end up with a degree of some kind.

So again, I'm not saying going to college is a bad idea. I'm just saying that one will be much better off if one thinks a lot about what's going to happen when one graduates rather than just checking off 'go to college' on one's to-do list, and one's professors are not necessarily going to remind one about this or help one with it. (The only professors I had that addressed post-graduation life were my physics professors who wanted to help us get into grad school.) Many professors (especially in the humanities) and administrators actually discourage career-mindedness, saying that education is not supposed to be job training, but a means to becoming a well-rounded person, etc. If done well, I think it should be both. Career planning should be taught, not discouraged.

Rant mode: off

[morriswalters]

Just so I don't take what you wrote incorrectly, would you define a dead end job? Would that be flipping hamburgers at McDonald's, doing your dry cleaning, or your plumbing, or what?

A job you don't want to have, and which doesn't help you towards a job you would be happier wit. Details differ from person to person.

I agree with that definition with reservations. I don't know that being happy working, is meaningful. I enjoy what I do for a living but I play for pay. As for working towards a better job, that is an ideal. The reality is that only so many can advance. How many engineers do you know who stall, mid career, and never move, other than laterally? We'll, just had some thoughts. By the way I don't think you are an Elitist. You just struck a nerve.

[Puppyclaws]

Most supposedly low-return degrees are either gateways to high-paying jobs ....

This is a contradiction.

It would be if it didn't contain the word "supposedly." As I pointed out, metrics that examine "return" on a degree examine people who have it as their highest degree.

But the monetary return does a pretty good job of measuring the societal benefit of certain fields for society.

In short: no. The two have nothing to do with each other, or supply and demand. Otherwise, the salaries of lawyers should be plummeting (as we have WAY more trained lawyers than we need, and the job is not in general inherently to the benefit of society and oftenis to its detriment); they're not, because market forces don't work that way.

Also, the problem with the concept of 'negative expected return' is that it is based on averages on the whole rather than averages within a particular field of work.

No, its not. Its based on average within that particular field of work.[/quote]

All research I have seen that quantifies salary by major does not have a separate measure of relative salary by occupational field; they compare them to each other, and then to people who do not have degrees in general.

[Dark567]

But the monetary return does a pretty good job of measuring the societal benefit of certain fields for society.

In short: no. The two have nothing to do with each other, or supply and demand. Otherwise, the salaries of lawyers should be plummeting (as we have WAY more trained lawyers than we need, and the job is not in general inherently to the benefit of society and oftenis to its detriment); they're not, because market forces don't work that way.

Uhhh, Lawyers salaries have been plummeting talk to most recent law grads. Lawyers as much as people hate them, are often for the betterment of society. Would you prefer to live in a society without lawyers, because those tend to be societies without laws?

[Lucrece]

Good luck getting into some industries without even a BA as a minimum. I've read job posting for shitty manage ment positions requiring such a degree when they're paying 30k a year.

Hell, more profitable industries like healthcare requires at least 2-3 years of technical training for the 50k+ a year jobs. A HS degree by itself will blackball you from most high paying jobs unless you got connections or an entrepeneur's spirit.

I've seen a number of jobs for different advertising positions posted to local job sites that would be doable for anyone with a bit of knowledge in Photoshop, Illustrator, and In Design, but that all required specific four-year degrees. These jobs were not salaried positions and only paid ~$10 a hour.

That was my point, that a BA has become a bare minimum standard for even shitty, useless bum positions like store manager (30k a year is nothing, a joke in return for a BA that could end up costing your 20-30k and many hours of years out of your life). You don't have a BA, and watch those $10/hr plummet down to $7.50-$8/hr.

You either have to pick up high value degrees or technical training for a job in profitable industries, or you start your own business. Even beginning lawyers, in all the crapload amount of debt they need to be getting into in order to get a JD end up with salaries of 50-60k. That's just miserable for a degree that possibly took you 7 years to get.

Of course, universities are happy to continue robbing the naive students blind without feeling any ethical obligation to inform them of their livelihood come graduation. It's fine and dandy that they got you involved in being a "good samaritan", but everybody's got to eat and at the least many hope for an upper middle class lifestyle. 30-50k a year doesn't get you an upper middle class lifestyle, not by a long shot.

It should be a goal for institutions to also guide people into financially sound decisions that will improve their living arrangements. Education can't stay as a business that sucker-punches high school graduates into some kumbaya "Do what you need to do." at ridiculous tuition charges that often turn students into financial serfdom and wash their hands of any responsibility in how the students end up after the program.

[Dark567]

30-50k a year doesn't get you an upper middle class lifestyle, not by a long shot.

As a single guy 50k definitely gives you a pretty comfortable lifestyle.

Admittedly if you are trying to support a family you will need a dual income at that level however.

[Zamfir]

That was my point, that a BA has become a bare minimum standard for even shitty, useless bum positions like store manager (30k a year is nothing, a joke in return for a BA that could end up costing your 20-30k and many hours of years out of your life). You don't have a BA, and watch those $10/hr plummet down to $7.50-$8/hr.

[...]

Of course, universities are happy to continue robbing the naive students blind without feeling any ethical obligation to inform them of their livelihood come graduation. It's fine and dandy that they got you involved in being a "good samaritan", but everybody's got to eat and at the least many hope for an upper middle class lifestyle. 30-50k a year doesn't get you an upper middle class lifestyle, not by a long shot.

There seems to be a bit of a tension here. If a degree has become the bare minimum for many jobs, then how are universities sucker-punching naive students? From what you describe, a degree is a noticable improvement for many people, with respect to income and the careers that become open to them. But it's only a modest improvement, and the downsides of getting a degree cancel out a lot of it.

But isn;t that pretty much what a reasonable education system should look like? If the system is too small, it excludes people who could have benefitted from a degree. If it's too big, it takes in many people who clearly lose out on the deal. If it's roughly the right size, you'd expect that the edge cases should expect only a little gain, and if they are unlucky a loss.

If you have an education system where nearly everybody comes out with an highly attractive and profitable job, then something is rotten. It's a sign that the system acts as a bottleneck, keeping its graduates in high demand by restraining their number. I don't know about the US, but med school acts like that in many countries. Nice for the people who get in, and a hidden cost for the rest of the people.

[Dark567]

There seems to be a bit of a tension here. If a degree has become the bare minimum for many jobs, then how are universities sucker-punching naive students? From what you describe, a degree is a noticable improvement for many people, with respect to income and the careers that become open to them. But it's only a modest improvement, and the downsides of getting a degree cancel out a lot of it.

I think the point is this is only the case because we graduate so many people with degrees. That if we didn't we wouldn't see as many store manager positions require a degree. Kinda a "Supply creating demand" situation.

[Zamfir]

But in that case, universities are suckerpunching naive shopowners, not so much the students. The students get a few years of freewheeling and time to study stuff they like, and the cost gets mostly repaid (often more than repaid) by future employers who mistakingly think they are now more valuable employees.

There might well be some truth in there. but it suggests that the situation can improve by changing the relation between universities and employers, not the relation between universities and students. If employers keep valueing a degree while universities discourage more kids from getting a degree, it wouldn't help those kids who go without a degree. They will still find themselves in a world that unreasonably values degrees, just without a degree this time.

Also, it requires very careful consideration why exactly employers value that degree. It's presumably more than just misguidedness, even if that plays a role.

[Dark567]

But in that case, universities are suckerpunching naive shopowners, not so much the students. The students get a few years of freewheeling and time to study stuff they like, and the cost gets mostly repaid (often more than repaid) by future employers who mistakingly think they are now more valuable employees.

Sure, but its still a net drain of resources from society. Admittedly though if we're going to 'waste' resources, education seems like a pretty minor offense.

[HungryHobo]

Reading this topic I find myself thinking of this quote.

"Have I ever remarked on how completely ridiculous it is to ask high school students to decide what they want to do with the rest of their lives and give them nearly no support in doing so? Support like, say, spending a day apiece watching twenty different jobs and then another week at their top three choices, with salary charts and projections and probabilities of graduating that subject given their test scores? The more so considering this is a central allocation question for the entire economy? "-Eliezer Yudkowsky

we spend almost nothing giving kids a real idea what different jobs there are, what they're like etc and then wonder why so many teens reach the end of highschool without the foggiest idea what they want to do with their lives and as such what courses they should apply to.

if a little more effort and resources were put into the problem a lot less money would be wasted and a lot more people would be happier in jobs they would prefer.

[Griffin]

Remember, hats are an investment. Sure, the hatmakers may charge tens of thousands of dollars for a hat, but if your hat isn't big enough, or god forbid you don't have one, you won't get the job. Not that a hat is enough, no, but its needed. It's needed because the people running their businesses have hats, or because people always talk about how important hats are - and plus, it's a great filter. You can tell by the size of a persons hat just much effort they are willing to put into getting a job.

I also support the position of the Hobo above me, and that's not sarcastically. If there's one thing I would have changed in my high school, it's better help planning my future because god knows I didn't have the resources or knowledge on how to get them to make good decisions at that point in my life - I didn't get those until halfway through college, in part, and by then its kind of a bit late!

[Dark567]

if a little more effort and resources were put into the problem a lot less money would be wasted and a lot more people would be happier in jobs they would prefer.

We do that a little bit in college. I had an internship in electrical engineering, and it taught me how much I would hate being an electrical engineer and I ran away from that ever since. We could do it soon(in high school), but we have to find someone willing to pay and spend their employees time showing them the job. There is also a problem that people don't really know what a job is like until they do it. I mean, we took tours of fire stations and volunteered at a nursing home and shit I don't even remember when I was a kid, but I get the feeling neither of those is very likely to be anything like really doing the job.

Granted high school counseling offices offering more career planning(today they really just seem to focus on college prep and school issues) seems like it would be helpful. Then again, maybe they do and I just ignored it.....

[HungryHobo]

It would require a lot of change.

And it would take money. It would be an easy one to shy away from spending money on. few companies would want to so to manage it on a large scale you'd have to pay cash money. offer contracts for bringing students in to shadow people for the day with a lot of constraints to make sure that the student gets a decent idea about what the jobs actually involve.

But the payoff would be massive in comparison.
1000 spent today on making sure a teenager gets a chance to shadow a real electrical engineer on the real job for a few days could save tens of thousands later on him getting part way through the course.
But it's hard because it's money right now and hassel right now rather than money and hassel years down the line.

[Dark567]

1000 spent today on making sure a teenager gets a chance to shadow a real electrical engineer on the real job for a few days could save tens of thousands later on him getting part way through the course.

I mean, maybe. Honestly I am not sure we want students to shadow real electrical engineers. It might deter them away, because electrical engineering sucks.

[Zamfir]

Remember, hats are an investment. Sure, the hatmakers may charge tens of thousands of dollars for a hat, but if your hat isn't big enough, or god forbid you don't have one, you won't get the job. Not that a hat is enough, no, but its needed. It's needed because the people running their businesses have hats, or because people always talk about how important hats are - and plus, it's a great filter. You can tell by the size of a persons hat just much effort they are willing to put into getting a job.

But it's surely relevant that jobs don't do this, in general. You definitely get judged on your clothes during a job interview, both consciously and subconsciously. But at the entry level, this is usually a very passable hurdle. Five hundred bucks and some advice from a fancy shop will make you pass the clothing standards of the far, far majority of job interviews that require a degree. And if you can't pass, there is usually some other OK job that has lower clothing standards.

If employers can keep themselves in check when it comes to clothing, why are they tricked by education? If you can so see easily through the emptiness of education, why are all those people wasting their precious, precious budget on expensive graduates? Why are smart employers not hanging around high schools, trying to lure talented high school students away from college?

Even if academic education mostly serves as social marker, it's surely not a simple marker. For whatever reason, it's extremely hard to replace by something else. It's not as if the US is some quirky outlier. A caste of academically trained people appears to be a sine qua non for industrialized society, while expenisve hats are not.

[HungryHobo]

probably because it marks you out. Even if your degree is in philosophy and 19h century doily making it marks you as someone who's probably been away from their parents, probably managed to work hard on their own, managed to stick at something for a few years and probably able to communicate clearly enough to pass exams and probably from a socioeconomic group were going to college is common.

and there's enough grads that for many degrees the additional cost is very minimal.
So we see jobs which don't need any degree asking for one.

If there was a section of highschool which was totally volentary, cost a little money, generally involved you moving away from your parents for a couple of years and had some minimum standard to pass then it would serve much the same purpose as college often does in those kinds of context.

[Zamfir]

Well, yeah. If there were single-family trains that could ride away from rails, they would serve much the same function as cars. And if there was more alcohol in grape juice, we wouldn't need wine.

[Griffin]

Because some jobs require hard harts, or high quality waterproof hats, and don't want to but them for you themselves. So stats are not only a status symbol, but a needed status symbol. Sometimes a good hat is a good thing to have!

Of course, you can't put a hat, or a suit, on an application, and there are things colleges offer. And smart companies DO scoop up employees right out of high school - there were a number of talent scouts hovering around the voc building each year, after all, ready to scoop up the promising students.

There just weren't many of them, because most people are obsessed with hats. And it works as a decent filtering mechanism - when they get that expensive, by picking from the people with big hats, you're getting someone who is basically willing to put a ton of money/work towards what amounts to a promise of some vague future reward, someone who can handle paying that much for a hat, etc. and so on.

You just get a better group of people to choose from, even if your job isn't a hat job, you know?

(Not because the hats add any intrinsic value, obviously.)

This is how a great many jobs see education. :/

Five hundred bucks and some advice from a fancy shop will make you pass the clothing standards of the far, far majority of job interviews that require a degree.

Clothing certainly tries to do this, but hasn't really managed it with anything except weddings. Being seen as needed (especially for superficial purposes where the need is only created by the need) is like the dream position for any industry.

[nitePhyyre]

If there was a section of highschool which was totally volentary, cost a little money, generally involved you moving away from your parents for a couple of years and had some minimum standard to pass then it would serve much the same purpose as college often does in those kinds of context.

Well, yeah. If there were single-family trains that could ride away from rails, they would serve much the same function as cars. And if there was more alcohol in grape juice, we wouldn't need wine.

Cégep
They are almost exactly like what Hungry describes.

[Chen]

[quote="nitePhyyre"Cégep
They are almost exactly like what Hungry describes.[/quote]

Quebec's system is very good in this regard. Using CEGEP as a stepping stone between High School and University is a great way to let students try and figure out what they want to do, without having it cost them an arm and a leg were they to do it once they GOT to University instead.