The End of the University as We Know it

[SoonerMatt]

Originally Posted by Ziltoid

Undergraduate degrees are already close to worthless in any non-professional programs. Imo.

The only person in my department without a masters degree has 20 years industry experience. And I work in market research

[Ziltoid]

Originally Posted by SoonerMatt

The only person in my department without a masters degree has 20 years industry experience. And I work in market research

Exactly!

(By professional degrees I meant engineers, lawyers, nurse and the such.)

[Simo98]

It's about time!

I don't think that online education will "kill" university education, but I want to see it destroy what modern university has become. Spending 4 years of your life to earn a piece of documentation which, for the most part, does nothing but show you have the ability to spend 4 years of your life earning a piece of documentation (given, this is a valid quality that employers look for, but I don't believe it should be desired the way that it is) is a somewhat backwards way of doing things in my opinion. Makes a lot of money though.

Teaching people to do something, and then hope they can find a job doing something relevant to that same thing and use at least a small part of their learned skill-set doesn't seem like the way to go about it in my opinion. Why not get the job first, then learn the specific skills and expertise relevant to that particular job? You learn on the job, through applied learning, in a much more practical and direct way, and you actually learn what is directly relevant to your job rather than learning about all sorts of stuff you're never going to use anyway.

I think there is a careful balance between the two, university education definitely has its merits (many of them pointed out in this thread thus far) but also has some huge drawbacks. There is a better way of doing it which combines the two methods, and I believe that this would vary a lot between different jobs and levels of education required.

I'd like to see short term university degrees done, say a year or so, or even have them intergrated into highschool. Teach people to learn, teach them the core skills you get from university education, then go and get a job, continue your education on the job (supplemented with online education and information available, and in some cases more on-campus education) and learn what you actually need to know rather than what you might need to maybe someday know if you actually get a job doing what your degree taught you to do.

More apprenticeships, traineeships, cadetships.

As pointed out in this thread, it's getting to the point in the US where even having a BA. is insufficient. You need a masters or a PhD if you want to get a job, especially in a few particular fields. Fortunately most of Australia is not like this yet, however big companies start to get this way, and the government is well past it. You can apply for a government job, and somebody first year out of uni with a BA in arts will get selected for the job over somebody with 25 years industry experience. It's not about your ability to do the job, it's about your credentials, and that's flat out wrong in my opinion.

Granted, if you want to be a doctor you're going to need to study, but even in the case of doctors there are a lot of problems in Australia at the moment with people who simply study for years and years and do as little practical work as possible so that they can become a "specialist" and earn big money, only for people to find they come out of university with no ability to actually be a doctor, hell, they've hardly ever even dealt with a sick person in their life, they have no bedside manner, no compassion, and no experience.

For the most part, I believe that experience trumps education. They both have their place, but I believe that a combination of the two is vastly superior. If it came down to it though, I'd put my life in the hands of somebody with 25 years experience in something well before I'd put the same trust in somebody with a Masters degree and none.

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by DwaynieAD

20 percent of US households have No internet access. look at your break room at work, look at 5 people. one of them has no internet.

This is one of my pet hates. I look at everybody in my workplace (10 people), all of them have internet access, none of them are obese, none of them have cancer and none of them are unemployed.

It simply doesn't work like that, it's used as a tool to illustrate the point, but it just doesn't make any sense. The people with bad internet access are located in areas that have bad internet facitilies, the people with no jobs are located in places where there is a shortage of jobs, the people who are obese don't work in extreme sports.

20% of the worlds population is Chinese. I have 10 people in my workplace, none of them are Chinese. So where are all the Chinese people? Presumably a vast majority of them are in China, not my workplace.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by Simo98

This is one of my pet hates. I look at everybody in my workplace (10 people), all of them have internet access, none of them are obese, none of them have cancer and none of them are unemployed.

It simply doesn't work like that, it's used as a tool to illustrate the point, but it just doesn't make any sense. The people with bad internet access are located in areas that have bad internet facitilies, the people with no jobs are located in places where there is a shortage of jobs, the people who are obese don't work in extreme sports.

20% of the worlds population is Chinese. I have 10 people in my workplace, none of them are Chinese. So where are all the Chinese people? Presumably a vast majority of them are in China, not my workplace.

Then the people you work with are a). part of a different population b). do not constitute a large enough sample to have statistical power* c). are outliers.

*More important if we're talking about inferential statistics rather than descriptive stats (i.e., percentages), but the point is that the sample is not large enough to be sensitive.

For the most part, I believe that experience trumps education. They both have their place, but I believe that a combination of the two is vastly superior. If it came down to it though, I'd put my life in the hands of somebody with 25 years experience in something well before I'd put the same trust in somebody with a Masters degree and none.

Complete false dichotomy. If you're in a position where you're trusting your life to someone and they're not a paramedic, then they at least have a Master's degree (i.e., Physician's Assistant).

Edit: I'm assuming you're talking about health care with that statement.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

There's no doubt that online education is here to stay and is going to play a larger role in the overall scene of higher education. But these apocalyptic scenarios that say that it will mean the death of traditional campus education actually are exactly like the scenarios that used to say in the future there will be no more classical or jazz or blues music because everyone will be listening to these amazing new synthesizer thingies.

Agreed. Online education will be a big part of both the resident campus experience and it will fuel distance education, which will become a critical part of funding higher education.

In the future, there will be a lot more people aiming to get credits cheaper or for free online. It will never be as free as all that; advertising, at least, will be needed to bring in revenue. Right now MOOCs are an exciting experiment for Harvard professors to offer; ten years from now, when they're all over the place, the experimental excitement will have died and they'll be passed off onto underpaid grad students to run. The glamor of "taking a Harvard course for free online" will fade as people realize that they're not really getting the Harvard experience and your lecture podcast keeps getting interrupted by pop-up ads for cheese doodles.

Also agreed. MOOCs will find a place, and there also will be an increasing number of certificates and badges which attest to areas of competence. It's likely that a degree will become a more exclusive commodity for those who can afford it, and others will work from a base of competency certification. This relates to the shorter average time that each worker holds a job, and the constant need to re-certify with new skills.

Meanwhile, traditional campus education will deliver something that no online course can; socialization in a high-level intellectual community. The whole thing that makes Yale YALE is that you are in dorms and discussion groups with people who are selected to be there for their achievements and potential. <snip> You may do the readings, take the tests, and get the credits, but you aren't emerging as an educated person the way that people with the campus experience do.

You have something important here. Young people go to a resident campus for socialization as well as for education. The campus experience is getting more expensive, and I believe it will increasingly be a high-dollar experience limited to those who can afford it (and those attending on scholarship), while the more affordable path is distance/online education. But families and parents with the financial means will definitely continue to support the resident campus experience.

Employers will notice the difference. When students go out into the job market, employers will look at who got their degree from home for free and who invested four years and thousands of dollars in educating themselves, and now have letters of recommendation from eminent professors who know them personally and mentored them. And guess which will get the preference in hiring?

I disagree. Employers increasingly care about skills and capability, and they don't know who attended a resident campus and who earned a degree online. Most students don't leave a resident campus with letters from "eminent professors". I run classroom technologies for a Land-Grant university and you can't tell today whether our students earned their degree on campus or via distance education.

A degree is a degree, and other credentials will emerge. I think that the difference in perception between a degree earned on campus and a distance degree is diminishing in importance, not increasing.

[swspiers]

Huh...

I'm taking a study break right now from my 100% on-line courses at American Military University. I'm in my Junior year, majoring in Psychology.

Since we are painting in broad-strokes, I've lost count of how many Master's-level counselors I've worked with over the years who had literally no knowledge about the history and practice of counseling. Let alone Substance Abuse, which is what I'm Certified to practice.

Doesn't mean I won't be pursuing a Graduate degree...

[hrodbert696]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I disagree. Employers increasingly care about skills and capability, and they don't know who attended a resident campus and who earned a degree online. Most students don't leave a resident campus with letters from "eminent professors". I run classroom technologies for a Land-Grant university and you can't tell today whether our students earned their degree on campus or via distance education.

A degree is a degree, and other credentials will emerge. I think that the difference in perception between a degree earned on campus and a distance degree is diminishing in importance, not increasing.

(With thanks for all the agreements): I think employers do already - and probably often unfairly - engage in a certain amount of informal "ranking" of graduates based on where they got their degrees. A job applicant with the Harvard degree is viewed differently than the one with the UMass degree (though I can testify that I've taught students in the UMasses of the world who could go toe-to-toe with any Harvard kid). I don't think it's at all unlikely that, as online education gets more common and hiring firms need to sort out their strong and weak students, they'll start wanting to know what kind of degree the applicant got. If the schools insist on making the transcripts identical so that you can't tell, they'll ask in an interview, or ask for references.

In the long term, what's going on is degree inflation. In 1970, 40% of high school grads went on to higher education (at least for an associate's degree): now that number is over 70%. Online education is going to raise that number still higher. While I'll in favor of more people being educated, what that means on the job market is that just having a degree doesn't mark you out enough; it has to be a degree from the best school, or more than just a bachelor's degree. A hundred years ago, a college man was a college man, it didn't matter if he went to Harvard or the University of Oklahoma: college itself was an "elite" experience, no matter at which school. The wide availability of online degrees will only deepen this stratification.

I agree that most college students aren't leaving campus with letters of recommendation from their professors - but they should, and the smartest ones do. Even apart from that specific boon, a lot of people have been saying it's not what you know, but who you know, which is true. A huge career advantage of the brick and mortar campus is that it is tailor-made to launch a person's networking, both via mentoring relationships with faculty and peer relationships with classmates.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Simo98

It's about time!

I don't think that online education will "kill" university education, but I want to see it destroy what modern university has become. Spending 4 years of your life to earn a piece of documentation which, for the most part, does nothing but show you have the ability to spend 4 years of your life earning a piece of documentation (given, this is a valid quality that employers look for, but I don't believe it should be desired the way that it is) is a somewhat backwards way of doing things in my opinion. Makes a lot of money though.

I'll preface this with the note that most of my experience with University grads comes from those with STEM or professional degrees.

It teaches you how to learn and changes your approach to problem solving. IME it's quite obvious who has had further education, not just in terms of knowledge, but in terms of how the approach things.

Originally Posted by Simo98

Teaching people to do something, and then hope they can find a job doing something relevant to that same thing and use at least a small part of their learned skill-set doesn't seem like the way to go about it in my opinion. Why not get the job first, then learn the specific skills and expertise relevant to that particular job? You learn on the job, through applied learning, in a much more practical and direct way, and you actually learn what is directly relevant to your job rather than learning about all sorts of stuff you're never going to use anyway.

I think there is a careful balance between the two, university education definitely has its merits (many of them pointed out in this thread thus far) but also has some huge drawbacks. There is a better way of doing it which combines the two methods, and I believe that this would vary a lot between different jobs and levels of education required.

I can see what you are saying, but on the flip side you run the risk of the person becoming overly specialised in a job. A degree should provide a broader view of a field. Also, when it comes to finding jobs I think it helps if potential students look at the hire rates from certain institutes. Where I study there is a huge amount of industrial collaboration.

Originally Posted by Simo98

I'd like to see short term university degrees done, say a year or so, or even have them intergrated into highschool. Teach people to learn, teach them the core skills you get from university education, then go and get a job, continue your education on the job (supplemented with online education and information available, and in some cases more on-campus education) and learn what you actually need to know rather than what you might need to maybe someday know if you actually get a job doing what your degree taught you to do.

More apprenticeships, traineeships, cadetships.

Can't comment on those outside of the UK, but here we have a range of qualifications which equate to almost every year of study. The on-the-job learning aspect is certainly true for professional degrees, they spent a lot of time on placement after their first year.

Originally Posted by Simo98

As pointed out in this thread, it's getting to the point in the US where even having a BA. is insufficient. You need a masters or a PhD if you want to get a job, especially in a few particular fields. Fortunately most of Australia is not like this yet, however big companies start to get this way, and the government is well past it. You can apply for a government job, and somebody first year out of uni with a BA in arts will get selected for the job over somebody with 25 years industry experience. It's not about your ability to do the job, it's about your credentials, and that's flat out wrong in my opinion.

Thankfully it isn't quite like that here yet either (though the recession had the knock on effect of making the job market harder and thus more people are going for jobs which they are "overqualified" for. Certainly not at the stage where a degree will outdo a lot of experience. Heck, it's a big issue with trying to get onto the career ladder, the majority of employers want a minimum of 2 years experience. Though more and more employers seem to be running graduate schemes. I do find it odd that someone with that much experience would even be looking at jobs which are applicable for new grads.

Originally Posted by Simo98

Granted, if you want to be a doctor you're going to need to study, but even in the case of doctors there are a lot of problems in Australia at the moment with people who simply study for years and years and do as little practical work as possible so that they can become a "specialist" and earn big money, only for people to find they come out of university with no ability to actually be a doctor, hell, they've hardly ever even dealt with a sick person in their life, they have no bedside manner, no compassion, and no experience.

That's also surprising. My gf's sister is a recently qualified medic and has spent significantly more time working on hospital wards than anywhere else for the latter 3-4 years of her degree.

Originally Posted by Simo98

For the most part, I believe that experience trumps education. They both have their place, but I believe that a combination of the two is vastly superior. If it came down to it though, I'd put my life in the hands of somebody with 25 years experience in something well before I'd put the same trust in somebody with a Masters degree and none.

Of course, but they are very different things.

[bassybill]

Technology enables sharing of information. Sharing of information is just a VERY small part of good teaching. I'm sure that as technology changes, education will change too. But anyone who pretends that they know how that will all shake out in 50 years is talking pure moonshine. We can't predict what will happen in 5 years, let alone 50.

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

Then the people you work with are a). part of a different population b). do not constitute a large enough sample to have statistical power* c). are outliers.

Exactly. If 1 in 5 people in the world have back hair (I made that up) that doesn't mean that 1 in 5 people I know is going to have black hair. It doesn't mean the statistics are not accurate on a global scale, but when people (particularly propaganda) use statements like "Look at your family, at least one of them is going to have black hair/develop lung cancer/commit suicide" it really doesn't make any sense. Statistically speaking those are the odds, but as a general rule of thumb it isn't going to work that way on a case by case basis. The people with black hair have parents with black hair, the people with lung cancer smoke, the people who commit suicide live in a particular condition or environment that influences their behavior in that way.

It's a way of visualising it, sure, but it doesn't make any sense to claim that globally accurate statistics are going to also hold true on a much smaller scale.

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

Complete false dichotomy. If you're in a position where you're trusting your life to someone and they're not a paramedic, then they at least have a Master's degree (i.e., Physician's Assistant).

Edit: I'm assuming you're talking about health care with that statement.

Not necessarily talking about health care, but it's certainly a possible scenario. It's a bit of a false dichotomy, but it's a hypothetical scenario used to illustrate a point, though when I say "masters degree" I'm more-so referring to education on a whole.

Would you drive with a guy who's been driving 25 years, or drive with a guy who's been studying for months, just passed his test and has 25 hours on the road? It's a scenario of extremes I'm talking about here, but I'm certain that you can see the point I am trying to make.

Personally, I'd go with the guy who's done half as much driving and has half as much experience. The key is balance in my opinion, as is the case with many aspects in life. I believe that the way tertiary education works currently, this balance is wrong. Too much emphasis on credentials and education, not enough on experience.

Either extreme is not a good thing (as is often the case), however in the hypothetical case that I had to choose between one extreme or the other, I know which one I'd be leaning towards.

[DrayMiles]

I second this observation...

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

It teaches you how to learn and changes your approach to problem solving. IME it's quite obvious who has had further education, not just in terms of knowledge, but in terms of how the approach things.

I think this is certainly a major plus side to university education, although I don't consider it a rule of thumb, and in my limited experience I have had the opposite experience in many cases.

Granted, I'm not in the medical field or involved in academia in any way.

I think it definitely gives you a lot of skills related to learning, gathering information (and validating it), referencing, independent working, communicating ideas, that sort of thing, at least in a way that is acceptable within the academic field or your chosen career path.

But I've also seen the opposite, where people come through university with a very sheltered and narrow view as to how things work. With little ability to think outside their little box, or how to apply things in the real world. People who can't see what's right in front of them for a myriad of reasons.

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

I can see what you are saying, but on the flip side you run the risk of the person becoming overly specialised in a job. A degree should provide a broader view of a field. Also, when it comes to finding jobs I think it helps if potential students look at the hire rates from certain institutes. Where I study there is a huge amount of industrial collaboration.

I don't think you can be overly specialised in one job to be honest, although I can see how doing so would lack in diversity to an extent by doing so. When you go and get a new job in a similar but different situation where you need new skills, you can learn what you need to know for that one too. Whenever you change career paths, jobs, or even workplaces, you need education. If employers are in a situation where they are used to training new applicants (and employing them at a reduced rate during this training period) and do it with nearly all employees, they would be much more equipped to deal with doing so.

It would also cause employers to invest more in their employees, and I believe would help even large scale employers to value their employees to a much higher degree, something sorely lacking in the corporate world today (imo)

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Can't comment on those outside of the UK, but here we have a range of qualifications which equate to almost every year of study. The on-the-job learning aspect is certainly true for professional degrees, they spent a lot of time on placement after their first year.

We have the same thing here, as well as a separate education system (TAFE) for more practical jobs, but the education culture is pushing people to move away from this and more towards university education, which I personally believe is the wrong direction to take.

TAFE education isn't encouraged. We're told at school you need to finish year 12 and get good results to go to university and make lots of money. People aren't encouraged to leave school a year or two earlier and earn a trade, it's stigmatised, only naughty kids do that, good students obey the rules and stay in school and go to university only to realise that they're 21 years old with still no degree and university education isn't really what they wanted to do anyway.

Start drafting people into these pathways much earlier on. Sure, a kid in grade 10 (15, 16 year old) doesn't know what they want to do with their life, but I think to a large extent that's because they haven't been made to think about it, you've got the opportunity to bum around for at least another 2 or 3 years yet before you even need to make any sort of decisions, and teens/young adults will, in general, seize that opportunity wherever possible.

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Thankfully it isn't quite like that here yet either (though the recession had the knock on effect of making the job market harder and thus more people are going for jobs which they are "overqualified" for. Certainly not at the stage where a degree will outdo a lot of experience. Heck, it's a big issue with trying to get onto the career ladder, the majority of employers want a minimum of 2 years experience. Though more and more employers seem to be running graduate schemes. I do find it odd that someone with that much experience would even be looking at jobs which are applicable for new grads.

In most cases I'm talking about jobs that really don't even need a degree, of any sort. Government jobs in Australia are a prime example, where applicants without a degree are not even considered, they don't even care what the degree is in, you just need one. Now I understand that they may be looking for qualities commonly exhibited by those who have finished a university degree, regardless of what it is in, however you'd have thought somebody with relevant experience would be preferable, at least to some extent?

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

That's also surprising. My gf's sister is a recently qualified medic and has spent significantly more time working on hospital wards than anywhere else for the latter 3-4 years of her degree.

That's the way it should be done in my opinion. Some fields here in Australia do that well, and others not so much. I believe we need more of it though, not less.

[Factor88]

Originally Posted by two fingers

I am surrounded by people who are simply making a living off of financial aid. They have no intention of getting a degree. They are too lazy to do the work. They are simply occupying space and collecting checks. [SNIP] That describes about 40% of the population of my school. And in my view, that describes about half the US population.

Romney was only off by 7%!

[viper4000]

Originally Posted by two fingers

That describes about 40% of the population of my school. And in my view, that describes about half the US population.

Really, 40% huh? I'm sure you used a legitimate scientific study to some to that number

Originally Posted by Simo98

Why not get the job first, then learn the specific skills and expertise relevant to that particular job?

How will the employer know you are worthy of the training? That you are even capable of learning new skills. Resume? Ha, so many people inflate their work skills on a resume or to recruiters.

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

It teaches you how to learn and changes your approach to problem solving. IME it's quite obvious who has had further education, not just in terms of knowledge, but in terms of how the approach things.

Here is the REAL explanation, from a legitimate economic stand point. Ask any economist (hold stupid comments, as most economists are very intelligent and realistic) and they will tell you, outside of professional degrees, an education only serves to show your employer that you are able to be trained. This is all. Nothing more to it. The hiring manager may have a scripted "policy", but that policy was written from this perspective. I guarantee it. I basically minored in Labor Economics, and this is the prevailing theme across all discussions related to education and training.

I work in MIS, which is an extension of IT. I have a B.S. in Economics. Does that degree help me write SQL code? Or help me understand the technical issues related to RFID versus barcode scanning? No. What it did tell my employer is that if I can get a 3.8 in Economics, then I might be trainable.

[Jonyak]

Originally Posted by Factor88

Wow. If you are in HR or the hiring/selecting official for a business (I am) and you really base your decisions on this principle, then....well, just.... wow.

So you hire people who are over qualified?

How long do they stick around?

IMO if you aren't taking into consideration how long a person is going to keep a job....

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by Simo98

Exactly. If 1 in 5 people in the world have back hair (I made that up) that doesn't mean that 1 in 5 people I know is going to have black hair. It doesn't mean the statistics are not accurate on a global scale, but when people (particularly propaganda) use statements like "Look at your family, at least one of them is going to have black hair/develop lung cancer/commit suicide" it really doesn't make any sense. Statistically speaking those are the odds, but as a general rule of thumb it isn't going to work that way on a case by case basis. The people with black hair have parents with black hair, the people with lung cancer smoke, the people who commit suicide live in a particular condition or environment that influences their behavior in that way.

It's a way of visualising it, sure, but it doesn't make any sense to claim that globally accurate statistics are going to also hold true on a much smaller scale.

Ahh, then we're definitely in agreement. Always be extra critical when considering information published by a think tank.

But I've also seen the opposite, where people come through university with a very sheltered and narrow view as to how things work. With little ability to think outside their little box, or how to apply things in the real world. People who can't see what's right in front of them for a myriad of reasons.

We are speaking anecdotally here, but in my experience, I haven't found that to be the case. Now, I've been educated at state universities. I haven't found the "Ivory Tower Syndrome" to be particularly prevalent. Maybe it seems to be ubiquitous at the elite schools. In my experience, both students and faculty are pretty well-grounded in the "real world," so to speak. That doesn't negate that many of them can sit and have a cogent discussion about colonialism's relationship with patriachal gender norms as informed by postmodernism or whatever. But they understand what's going on around them. Many of them are pretty adept at thinking well in the box and well out of the box. Or maybe I've just been blessed to be surrounded by a lot of good profs.

The higher education = not having a foot in reality argument does get tossed around a lot. IME, it's symptomatic of the anti-intellectualism we have here in a America. And the truth is that it comes primarily from a certain political viewpoint. I'm not saying that was your agenda, Simo, but it is something I see a lot in the public sphere. There's a lamentation that as we've become more educated, we've somehow became less practical. That is, we have people who are whizs at chemical engineering or financial investment, but they have to take their cars to the garage to have them repaired. That argument always makes me a chuckle a little bit, because Durkheim already said over a hundred years ago that as society becomes more complex and more industrialized, a greater division of labor is going to take place. Of course certain people are going to gain highly technical skills at the cost of more "practical" skills.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by viper4000

Here is the REAL explanation, from a legitimate economic stand point. Ask any economist (hold stupid comments, as most economists are very intelligent and realistic) and they will tell you, outside of professional degrees, an education only serves to show your employer that you are able to be trained. This is all. Nothing more to it. The hiring manager may have a scripted "policy", but that policy was written from this perspective. I guarantee it. I basically minored in Labor Economics, and this is the prevailing theme across all discussions related to education and training.

I wonder how economists define "training" in this context. Is there anywhere that I can read about this online? Most employers provide some training when you start a job -- at the very least an orientation about company policies. Most workers learn new skills as they acclimate themselves to their jobs.

Your point may be valid, but in my view, the ability to be trained -- including training yourself -- is absolutely huge. In fact, it may be the main point of higher education. It's all wrapped up in the notion of "learning how to learn."

Despite what people say about college being worthless, there are areas where you're un-trainable unless you already have a college level background in subjects such as math and science. You may be un-trainable in some areas such as management in the modern world if you haven't experienced meaningful two-way interaction with other people who don't share your culture and beliefs, or if you can't articulate relatively sophisticated arguments and criticism.

The local news interviewed the owner of a machine shop. She said that she couldn't train somebody to work in her shop unless someone else had already trained them in math. From her viewpoint, the people applying for jobs at her shop were un-trainable.

I've been fairly successful in my career, and I owe my success in a large part to skills that either did not exist or were not widely taught when I went through college. But those skills were much easier to learn thanks to proficiency that I gained in my college subjects.

[UncleFluffy]

Originally Posted by fdeck

I've been fairly successful in my career, and I owe my success in a large part to skills that either did not exist or were not widely taught when I went through college. But those skills were much easier to learn thanks to proficiency that I gained in my college subjects.

+1 to all of this

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by viper4000

How will the employer know you are worthy of the training? That you are even capable of learning new skills. Resume? Ha, so many people inflate their work skills on a resume or to recruiters.

How does having a university degree somehow instantly show you are worthy and capable of training?

You take an employee on for a trial period, you see what their capabilities are and discern whether or not they are fit for the job. At least that's the way I've always done it, as you said, a resume is generally a load of crap(hence why I hate them, I don't even have one anymore, I go in and talk to the boss if I want a job. Could whip up some ******** if it was required though ) the only way you can really tell if an employee is going to be worth their salt is to bring them in and start working. Hell, you can pay people to write you a good resume on the internet these days.

I've employed people in their 3rd or 4th year of uni in something as simple as retail, and they're seriously useless. I've employed 16 year old high-school students who are more capable of learning on the job and picking things up as they go along. This isn't across the board I'm talking, but I find that the ratio of uselessness to extremely useful seems to remain the same in most demographics, education non-withstanding.

These are personality traits, not something you learn. If you're a sharp learner you're a sharp learner, if you have initiative you have initiative. Some employees will finish a job and just sit there waiting for you to give them something to do, and others will take charge and find something, or come ask you what you need done if you're not busy.

Now again, this isn't in an academic or professional business requiring a degree, it's in small business (retail) for the most part where a variety of skills are required, from administration, to data entry, to basic accounting, and even shelf stacking. Some people make good employees, others don't, but they're the same skills and abilities that mot employers will look for.

The problem seems to be, to me, that university education is overly encouraged by the education system today, and that jobs that really shouldn't require degrees do, so you have people who really don't need degrees wasting time and resources studying them and you have employers employing relatively useless employees because of it. Education for the masses who really don't need it, nor put it to good use, seems like a waste of time and effort in my opinion.

If you want to be a doctor, you're going to need some level of higher education, balanced with practical application in the field. Finding this balance is key, and currently we have it wrong in my opinion (at least here in Australia).

If you want to work in multimedia, you don't need a university degree, download a copy of photoshop and look up some youtube videos in your bedroom at 15. Yes, university can teach you about some important aspects of aesthetic design, however you don't need to spend 3 or 4 years doing so, watch some lectures in your lunch break, read and absorb other peoples work, get a job actually in the field and get some experience.

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

We are speaking anecdotally here, but in my experience, I haven't found that to be the case. Now, I've been educated at state universities. I haven't found the "Ivory Tower Syndrome" to be particularly prevalent. Maybe it seems to be ubiquitous at the elite schools. In my experience, both students and faculty are pretty well-grounded in the "real world," so to speak. That doesn't negate that many of them can sit and have a cogent discussion about colonialism's relationship with patriachal gender norms as informed by postmodernism or whatever. But they understand what's going on around them. Many of them are pretty adept at thinking well in the box and well out of the box. Or maybe I've just been blessed to be surrounded by a lot of good profs.

Some are, some not so much. Again, I think this is something that is much more heavily influenced by a persons personality traits than it is by their level of education, but education certainly has an influence to some extent.

I think a lot of it comes practical application of learning, or lack thereof. I've had marketing consultants etc. who have all these great ideas, but when you sit down with them you find out that realistically there is no way said ideas are going to be in any way applicable in the real world. They look great on paper, but the ideas person doesn't have enough experience at the practical end to actually put them into practice.

Some people think outside the box, or can see the practical side of things with ease, and others will need to learn these traits through experience, and some just never really have that ability.

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

The higher education = not having a foot in reality argument does get tossed around a lot. IME, it's symptomatic of the anti-intellectualism we have here in a America. And the truth is that it comes primarily from a certain political viewpoint. I'm not saying that was your agenda, Simo, but it is something I see a lot in the public sphere. There's a lamentation that as we've become more educated, we've somehow became less practical. That is, we have people who are whizs at chemical engineering or financial investment, but they have to take their cars to the garage to have them repaired. That argument always makes me a chuckle a little bit, because Durkheim already said over a hundred years ago that as society becomes more complex and more industrialized, a greater division of labor is going to take place. Of course certain people are going to gain highly technical skills at the cost of more "practical" skills.

I agree almost completely here. Although no matter what you do, I think it's a good idea to try and broaden your knowledge and skill set as much as possible. Obviously this can only be done to a certain degree, but having a little mechanical knowledge can go a long way when it comes to a pinch (or when a mechanic tries to rip you off), and some basic medical knowledge could save your life.

I live in a fairly affluent area and work in high-end retail, and I deal with professionals every day of the week. Doctors, lawyers, aviation engineers, stockbrokers, many many highly educated individuals. Some of them are really switched on and grounded in the real world, and others not so much, sometimes to the point of me saying to myself "He's a doctor?!?! HOW?!". I do think that in some ways being in a professional career allows you to get away with it more so that working behind the checkout in the supermarket, as you don't have to deal with the "real world" end of things so often, but realistically I think a lot of it simply comes down to the individual.