The Education Scam - if you are pro-capitalism, READ THIS.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11181-0.html?forumID=6&threadID=179848&start=0

The reason our colleges and universities have lied to us is to make everyone want to go to college. It sounds great but I will explain the negative side of everyone going to college later. The main thing here is that they have lied to us for decades in order to increase the demand for a college education. If the demand for a college education is high enough, then they can increase tuitions which will generate additional revenues for colleges. Increased demand for a college education also meant an increased demand for college professors and administrative staff which drove up salaries for college professors and administrative staff. Basically, they lied to increase their income. It has worked because tuitions and salaries have increased over the last 30 or more years by hundreds of percentiles.

snip

The lie that everyone getting a college education will eliminate poverty is just too simple minded and out of touch with reality. From World War II until as far as we can reasonably forecast into the future, 2030, the percentage of jobs requiring a college education has not and will not change. It has and will remain that only 20% of the jobs on the market will require a college education. That means that 80% of the jobs don't require a college education. There are and will only be so many jobs for people with a college degree regardless of how many people get a college degree.

snip

What this over education of our society is doing, is that businesses now have the luxury of not hiring more experienced and more expensive labor and hiring less experienced and cheaper labor. This means that older people are increasingly finding it tougher to get jobs. These "older" people are getting younger. It started out being people in their 40's and 50's and is now happening to people in their 30's. Soon, it will get tougher on people of all ages.

I also heard that this has reached a point to where businesses are now even willing to risk law suits by firing more experienced employees to hire less experienced and cheaper labor. The courts are permitting the businesses to get away with this because they are claiming that the people are not being fired because of their age but because they are more expensive to employ. Therefore, goes their logic, it is because of cost and not age. Yeah, right!

snip

The Coming Epidemic

In the summer of 1999, I heard a statistic which made me shudder but the simple minded media think it is great. It seems that more than 65% of our high school graduates are enrolled in college. That means that anywhere from 35% to over 50% of our work force will have a college degree within the next five to six years. Ouch! That means that anywhere from at least 15% to over 35% of our work force will be unemployable and forced to accept unskilled labor jobs. Poverty will not disappear, it will become very well educated. This could crash our economy in the next five to ten years.

The colleges and universities better think about this. When college graduates are a dime a dozen, who will want a college education? The demand will reverse and colleges, professors, and administrative staff will go broke and get to join the rest of us in our unskilled labor jobs making less than $10 per hour.

Still happy to be pro-profit? I used to be. Not anymore. This sort of greed caused the destruction of entire civilizations, as said in the Bible. And now they are going to destroy US. Not just the USA, I mean US. You and I. In the name of capitalism; it's just business, it's not personal...

The article has MUCH MORE.

When a writer says "I also heard" and doesn't say where I take the entire article with a lot of salt, not just a grain. I've "heard" lots of things that aren't true or substantiated.

With that said I agree with the background premise of the article but not sure if I agree with the numbers. The latest figures I saw were that while the enrollement of high school graduates had risen of the past twenty years, the actual number of people finishing their degrees is far far lower, and actually is close to that 20% figure and not the 50% figure the author mentions. Many people go to College, but don't complete it. You can't count people who just 'applied' to college.

I see your points and agree with them, of course.

But it's only get worse and his premise is correct.

And I certainly don't see corporate execs, being paid 600+ times that of your average worker, deciding that their current wealth is more than enough anytime soon. (Boy, do I miss 1979 when CEO pay was about 40x that of the average worker...)

I educated myself right out of a job.

Sad, isn't it? How the Almighty Dollar has more than putting one's fellow Americans to better use, which in turn helps our infrastructure, which in turn makes us truly prosperous and as such then able to help others?

You can't build your neighbor's house using your own struts and not expect your own house to cave in.

And if people now kill to get their hands on $2.55/gal gasoline, I truly dread what's going to come up next.

I almost didn't get the job I have now because they were wondering why someone with my education would want to do it (it's still a decent job, just not very high level.) I basically told them to pretend they didn't even see the part about graduate school because I have decided not to pursue a job in that field.

Next time, I am going to eliminate it completely. The only reason I put it on my resume is because I was a full-time student for 3 years in the middle of a career change and without it, it appears that I didn't do anything for 3 years.

Seriously, I'd like to know... :(

Back in the day, we had money for social programs. So, I took a two year degree and expanded it into a four year degree. Now, it pretty much borders on the "sinful" to allocate any monies to social programs....so, no monies for admins. They hire those with two year degree's and call them Jr. Admins. They will no longer hire those with 4 year degrees. Those with 2 year degrees are now working for 7.00 an hour. But, I am in Ohio. Which should explain things a bit.

My sis-in-law kinda had something similar happen to her...

She had a master's degree in bio-chem, which meant she was too well qualified for the entry level positions, but didn't have the doctorate to manage her own studies. So she got a job at PPG in Pgh, and they worked her as a contract employee, a year at a time, promising some day they'd hire her full-time with bennies. She watched as people with BS degrees moved on to permanent positions... But never happened for her, after years of contract work. So she went back to school, got into a different field, which is now in danger of laying her off completely...

sigh

it was the business elite pushing this. If education is a means to an end and not an end unto itself, then education that doesnt serve the need of job preperation can be thrown out.

It is partially to create a larger educated labor pool that can be exploited and partially an attack on the academy by corporations.

As long as people continue to fall for it, fall for lies, they'll fall for it. I blame society as much as anything else for this problem. Not that we haven't been lead, lead with a will, into it.

To me, it's not just expecting everyone to need to go to college, it's also the fact that public school education, or even simply high school and grammar school, aren't even expected to provide enough education. There is no reason for that expectation, not for human beings of a certain age. Most people should not need so much more instruction by that age. They should have it, all their brains are capable of. Shouldn't they? And they're capable of a LOT. Years of their development are being wasted, if they HAVE to go to college, those of normal intelligence. Those not expecting to use calculas and physics every day at work.

They should already have the knowledge tools they need by 18, and if they don't, college isn't the place to fix it. Their brains are capable, they're in school, every day for years, so, why the need for years and years more of what amounts to little more than what high school used to be?

In promoting that unrealistic ideal of higher education for all (meaning, is it really higher education, if anyone and everyone is capable of learning it?), they put aside the very real fact that our kids ought to to have learned those academics by that age. To require so many more years only speaks badly of our educational system.

But I guess you have to be a little brainy to figure that out? Funny, it seems like a simple enough concept to me. Publically educated. With no degree.

The first is that frequently education's a good thing, job training notwithstanding. What UCLA administrators kept griping about was all the parents and students that wanted nothing more than vocational training.

The second is that I'm not sure it's entirely the fault of the universities. UCLA, in fact the whole UC system, in 1997-8 was dreading "Tidal Wave II" and trying to figure out how to plan for it: required to accept more students by the politicos, they didn't want to increase classroom space or tenure lines, because they knew that the money to maintain the space and faculty wouldn't be forthcoming indefinitely.

Part of the second point is also that if you look at the social status of a garbage man, versus that of an engineer, the engineer comes out ahead. White collar is seen as better than blue collar--my parents, blue collar both, pushed me to go college, and started pushing when I was in 6th grade, five years before the first college brochure showed up in the mailbox. This kind of social climbing and social judgment shows up in all sorts of things, not just college versus trade school, and has been well documented in language use since the '60s. But it's only in the '60s that they started looked for it, and there's evidence of social climbing for the last 500 years--since it was possible for a serf to not be obligatorily a serf for his entire life.

I have also been bothered by the promotional hype that universities use, since thus far it's resulted in massive student loans I've (so far) been unable to pay back. But, I believe that higher education is a valuable asset regardless of monetary rewards.

For instance, even though my M.A. has proven to be useless in terms of financial payback, it has enabled me to digest information that I would have been unable to otherwise.

Businesses are not quick to reward people for their academic achievements, but businesses are rewarded by their educated employees in the form of higher productivity, more advanced capabilities, and fewer dumb mistakes.

As technological automation grows, the world will have less need for uneducated labor.

But, not that it will result in higher pay or a better job. I am sending my daughter to college, but it is a Liberal Arts college. I think some colleges teach critical thinking.

in just one article in years!

At a time when knowledge is exploding, and frontiers expanding, the idea is to get LESS education??

India and China are going to mop the floor with Americans if people buy into this kind of crazy argument.

The articles point is that the increase in college educated people will not fundementally change the economic or social problems that cause thigns like poverty and unemployment. And at the end of the whole ordeal we will have lots of unemployed college educated people and then the college bubble will burst, so to speak, and the education structure will crumble as there is no longer a percieved economic incentive to go to college.

India and China are going to mop the floor with Americans if people buy into this kind of crazy argument.

And the US upper class will continue to wipe the floor with the US working class as long as Americans buy into the crazy idea that we are all some kind of team competing against other countries for our mutual benefit. And even that such competition is an economic neccessity and not a choice by our policymakers.

and 70% of all new jobs in just Ontario currently require post-secondary education.

And you wouldn't want the ones that don't.

If the US follows that argument, you've lost the 21st century for sure.

If the US follows that argument, you've lost the 21st century for sure.

What argument would that be exactly?

And what the hell does "lost the 21st century" mean? A century is a period of time, not a race.

The rest of the world is big on education and qualifications for the knowledge age. If the US chooses not to be, on the basis of an argument like this, then you will spend the 21st century in your own Dark Ages.

The article did not advocate less education. It predicted that the economy will itself lead to less education because there will cease to be a percieved economic benefit to higher education.

"The articles point is that the increase in college educated people will not fundementally change the economic or social problems that cause thigns like poverty and unemployment. And at the end of the whole ordeal we will have lots of unemployed college educated people and then the college bubble will burst, so to speak, and the education structure will crumble as there is no longer a percieved economic incentive to go to college."

There will continue to be an enormous benefit to higher education. In fact, you'll need even more of it in order to function in the century ahead.

Of course it will change the poverty and unemployment levels. It always has.

And no, the education structure isn't going to crumble.

This same argument could have been used years ago against high school education...if everybody is a high school graduate then nothing will change, and the education system will fall apart...etc

There will continue to be an enormous benefit to higher education. In fact, you'll need even more of it in order to function in the century ahead.

Well, if you want to generalize the whole population together you might have a point, but that isnt really what this article is talking about. Certainly there will always be an advantage in certain types of education. The issue here is whether our economy can provide the kinds of jobs people expect to recieve with a college education when the labor market is saturated with college degrees.

Of course it will change the poverty and unemployment levels. It always has.

Thats a pretty safe prediction.

And no, the education structure isn't going to crumble.

Im glad you are so confident. Im pretty sure the current structure is unsustainable myself, but I dont know what will happen to it.

This same argument could have been used years ago against high school education...if everybody is a high school graduate then nothing will change, and the education system will fall apart...etc

First off, nobody made an argument against college education. That is a mischarecterization of the article.

Secondly, the value of a high school diploma has changed. It was one of the factors that drove people to college, a high school diploma provides little to no financial security. If a degree saturated labor pool removes the competitive advantage of a college degree, why would we not see a similar devaluation?

"The issue here is whether our economy can provide the kinds of jobs people expect to recieve with a college education when the labor market is saturated with college degrees."

Ned Lud said something similar when the Industrial revolution started...where will the jobs come from. Yet that revolution created the biggest boom in jobs and prosperity the world had ever seen.

Your children will have jobs you've never heard of. Jobs that are just now coming into being, but that will boom.

The knowledge age requires, oddly enough, knowledge. This would mean education. More and more of it will be needed all the time.

No a college degree won't cut it anymore. You'll need more than that.

In Canada a bachelor's degree is considered entry level.