Millenials in the news AGAIN......

Tantalum said:
you'll graduate with a meaningless college diploma and $160K in debt.. just to get a $50K/yr job
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. The education system is marketing worthless degree programs, and people are investing ridiculous amounts of money into a worthless piece of paper. That being said, students (aka young adults) are making that choice, without looking at the consequences. I saw it when I was in school, kids getting excessive student loans to cover tuition, books, rent, car note, drinking money, etc., but majoring in some Liberal Arts program that they are barely even passing. So when they graduate from a school with $160k in debt with a C average in that worthless degree, they are no better prepared for the workforce than the kid that dropped out of high school.
 
tspear said:
Some fun data points:
https://www.simplethriftyliving.com/college-tuition-costs-united-states-state-compare/

College costs from 1986 compared to CPI (quote): The CPI has grown by 119.0%, while public and private four-year college tuition costs have grown 612.7% and 419.9%, respectively.

Basically, college costs are way outstripping almost anything else.

Tim
Click to expand...
I maintain that a huge part of that was due to the introduction of easy student loans that allow the student to borrow money for living expenses, like booze, drugs, veterinary bills, luxury apartments, gourmet meals etc. The government made those loans easy and colleges realized they could staff a student loan department to push those loans and boost enrollment. Kids thought of it as "free money".

I know that isn't the only factor and it isn't the case for every kid, but I have seen that so many times that I know there is truth to it.
 
First, my students are all STEM majors, and those that go to get jobs have little trouble finding good ones. Second, my niece did a BA degree in something you all would find useless, she has a good job making more than her brother who got an degree in mechanical engineering. My niece did make her opportunities, though.

I suspect that students who do the bare minimum to get by and then go to trying find gainful employment are going to be disappointed. In that things have changed from yesteryear.

As for why Universities have become so expensive, lets start with the state support for the public ones. It has been going down of the last 30 years, roughly the period covered by @tspear's analysis. Add in lots of unfunded mandates by Uncle Sam. Title IX, IACUC, diversity, bias and environmental regulations all come to mind, and I have no doubt there are more. Stuff the University has to do that comes out of the bottom line. All requiring highly trained people who require salary, benefits and everything that goes with it.

Universities have been asked to do more with less, and it gets worse every year. The only additional dollars that come in are from tuition, so that's what gets hit.
 
If you do get a degree that isn't STEM, okay realistically TEM without a graduate degree, you need to have a plan. It CAN be done successfully if you have a plan and know what you're doing... otherwise you'll be in over your head.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Therein lies the problem. The education system is marketing worthless degree programs, and people are investing ridiculous amounts of money into a worthless piece of paper. That being said, students (aka young adults) are making that choice, without looking at the consequences. I saw it when I was in school, kids getting excessive student loans to cover tuition, books, rent, car note, drinking money, etc., but majoring in some Liberal Arts program that they are barely even passing. So when they graduate from a school with $160k in debt with a C average in that worthless degree, they are no better prepared for the workforce than the kid that dropped out of high school.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that many kids, on the whole, don't appear to be taught, or given the opportunity to exercise, any independent thought. They're just taught to follow the "rules," one of which is "everyone goes to college." Neither their parents nor their teachers are fostering any sort of free-thinking that might result in them picking a different path (trade school, for example) or pursuing a degree that they aren't necessarily "academically qualified" for (had I simply accepted what I was qualified for on paper based on my high school GPA, I certainly wouldn't be where I am today). So their parents and teachers and guidance counselors tell them to go to college, or else. So they do.
 
bradg33 said:
Part of the problem is that many kids, on the whole, don't appear to be taught, or given the opportunity to exercise, any independent thought. They're just taught to follow the "rules," one of which is "everyone goes to college." Neither their parents nor their teachers are fostering any sort of free-thinking that might result in them picking a different path (trade school, for example) or pursuing a degree that they aren't necessarily "academically qualified" for (had I simply accepted what I was qualified for on paper based on my high school GPA, I certainly wouldn't be where I am today). So their parents and teachers and guidance counselors tell them to go to college, or else. So they do.
Click to expand...

Don't even get me started on the ultimate failure of the education system...and its not the education system. Its families that do little at home to promote education and push children to succeed. Schools can only teach at the level of the lowest common denominator, and that is becoming increasingly low.
 
JOhnH said:
I maintain that a huge part of that was due to the introduction of easy student loans that allow the student to borrow money for living expenses, like booze, drugs, veterinary bills, luxury apartments, gourmet meals etc. The government made those loans easy and colleges realized they could staff a student loan department to push those loans and boost enrollment. Kids thought of it as "free money".

I know that isn't the only factor and it isn't the case for every kid, but I have seen that so many times that I know there is truth to it.
Click to expand...

Way back when I was in college; I recall tuition being roughly 10% of the school budget. My son went to the same school a few years ago. Tuition makes up 60% of the budget. The state, and the county have basically abandoned paying any money for higher education.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Way back when I was in college; I recall tuition being roughly 10% of the school budget. My son went to the same school a few years ago. Tuition makes up 60% of the budget. The state, and the county have basically abandoned paying any money for higher education.

Tim
Click to expand...
BUT, have you seen many of the state-funded universities lately? The facilities are lined with marble and granite, fine artwork, etc. High-tech classrooms with electronically-controlled window shades, multiple projectors, etc. There has been quite a lot of money spent on the university "experience" which certainly has its effect on the budget. I have seen the University of Oklahoma go through an absolute renaissance since the won a football NC in 2000. A lot of it is financed by donors and gifts to the university, but after the capital is spent, there's always the upkeep. Just about every building on campus has had an extensive restoration performed. Other schools have had similar renovation to student activity centers, dorms, and labs. I highly doubt the facilities of today match what was common in the 60's/70's.

As always, the amount that a state should fund a public institution of higher education is up for debate.
 
@SoonerAviator

Could be. But I know STEM is much more expensive than liberal arts.
The other thing to consider, that marble/granite might have a larger up front capital costs, but often have much lower operating costs. The result, when spending donor money, you want to minimize the ongoing operational costs, which often lead to much more expensive capital costs.
Last point, in the budgets I have seen infrastructure OpEx is much less of a cost center than staff. (CapEx is usually a "different color of money" and not included in regular budgets).

Tim
 
tspear said:
@SoonerAviator

Could be. But I know STEM is much more expensive than liberal arts.
The other thing to consider, that marble/granite might have a larger up front capital costs, but often have much lower operating costs. The result, when spending donor money, you want to minimize the ongoing operational costs, which often lead to much more expensive capital costs.
Last point, in the budgets I have seen infrastructure OpEx is much less of a cost center than staff. (CapEx is usually a "different color of money" and not included in regular budgets).

Tim
Click to expand...

Understood. But I doubt laminate countertops and ceramic tile cost more in maintenance than granite. It's one thing to put more energy efficient windows and light fixtures in, it's another to line the walls with mahogany under the guise that it's cheaper to maintain. Don't get me wrong, it was a beautiful campus and I verfy much enjoyed my business school (which was fully renovated by my junior year) which had stadium seating in most every classroom with all of the luxuries I mentioned. However, I doubt that it was really necessary to spend most of it, capital dollars or not. CapEx is absolutely a "different color of money", since for most buildings/furniture/non-machinery it doesn't have much impact on the income statement other than for depreciation expense.
 
Just to throw another log on the fire, the only buildings that were air conditioned when I went to engineering school were the university admin complex and the student union. Now the whole campus (including, I swear, the sidewalks) except the athletic fields, operate at 70, year around.

I graduated no debt, no money and no car. My Co-Op job and part time work paid the school bills and I lived at home.

Life has changed.

cheers
 
Last edited:
I could spend probably ten thousand words and at least a few hours addressing all of the points in this thread, but I think is one of those subjects that, once you've formed an opinion or had your own experiences, precious little will change your views, so it would probably be an exercise in futility... an exercise I increasingly dislike year after year after year.

A few tidbits..

The reasons for, definitions of, and realities of a college education are far, FAR different from what they used to be. College used to be viewed as a next-level education experience gaining you specialized knowledge in a field of study in which you held keen interest and, hopefully, helped you attained the additional skills you needed to be employable, productive, and desired by the workforce in whatever field you were pursuing. It was also a great place to fall in love and meet the person you would marry. Dorms were sparse, amenities, food plans, cafeterias, etc., were all bare-bones, at least in my experiences. Dorm rooms weren't much nicer than jail cells, cafeteria food was abysmal, and entertainment provided by the school consisted of movies for a quarter in the student union projected on a wall. We worked hard, and played hard. I never attended an ivy-league school, and am not familiar with what high end universities were like back in the 70s and 80s when I attended NY state colleges. I had the GPA and scholastic creds to get into pretty much any school I wanted to... but went to SUNY schools for financial and other pragmatic reasons.

Fast forward to the present day. Now, there are no cafeterias... there are dining halls and campus restaurants, catering to virtually every ethnic and dietary wants and desires of every individual, with food being cooked to order at serving stations. Student health clubs, workout facilities in every dorm. Valet parking. At SU where I was adjunct for a couple years, the sheer amount of wealth exhibited by the students is astounding. Kids are driving Maseratis, Gelundwagens, Porsches... in the Central NY winter. There are blocks and BLOCKS of newly built "luxury student apartments," complete with shops, boutiques, cafes, spas, in every building. It's nuts. These college students are living better than my wife and I ever live when we're on one of our bi-annual one week vacations. Some are, indeed, following a career path, but a huge amount of them are just there for the "experience," and taking "degree" programs that are completely worthless in terms of garnering productive employment upon graduation. Complaining about the high cost of going to college while expecting this kind of luxury while you attend is tantamount to insisting that your first plane be a Conquest, then complaining about the cost of the loan necessary to finance it.

Finding someone to marry has, of course, fallen out of popularity as our culture increasingly condemn any people of faith as "stupid," and condones living together as not only a moral option, but a better option. The negative influence THAT trend has had on our society, the family unit, and kids who are constantly shuffled between parents unwilling to commit to each other for life, is huge. That's a WHOLE other discussion.. and one that won't fly here.

In 1981, I graduated with $5k of student loans, and my wife (girlfriend at the time, but we got married one month after she graduated in 1982) had $10K in student loans. We worked, paid them off in a few years, and have had a wonderful life.. and three sons. The oldest went to a state university, incurred about $10K of loans over three semesters, didn't do much there, transferred between a few different degree programs, and eventually dropped out. Found his way in life eventually, and is doing quite well without a college degree. The middle son went to VERY respected out-of-state school and paid out of state tuition. His dorm room was nicer than any apartment my wife and I ever rented before we bought our first house. Come to think of it... it was nicer than our first house. He worked his BUTT off, got every merit scholarship available, but no financial aid (he's a straight white male.. there are targeted scholarships for virtually EVERY other demographic) for the first two years. We helped him out as much as we could. Finally, by his junior year, after meeting with his financial aid office, they were able to find some additional money to help out. He graduated with about $60K in debt... and, like his mother and I had done 28 years earlier, got a good job, lived thriftily, and paid it off within seven years. He's doing great. The youngest son followed the path I had chosen for myself.. he, too, was exceptionally capable, but had no interest in incurring a huge debt when he could accomplish all he wanted byh attending a state school.... so he did. He went on to earn a master's degree via a graduate assistantship while deferring payments on his undergraduate loan, and is currently on the full time faculty of a university. The other college graduate son got his master's degree part time will working full time, and most of that was paid for by his employer. All three sons are married, doing wonderfully, and we're very proud of them. They are all millennials, and have some characteristics that push some of my buttons, but that's to be expected... there's things about me they probably would love to change, too, and that they won't understand until they, too, are 60 years old.

The two main take-aways...

1. You do NOT have to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt attaining a degree. If you do, you did so by choice, and you have no right to complain about it or expect others to pay off your debt.

2. College is not the necessity it once was. If I had young children now, I would think long and hard before advising them to go to college. College has drifted far from being the hotbed of intellectual exploration and targeted skill-gathering it once was, and is now, almost universally (no pun intended... well... maybe a little... ;) ) a place for political indoctrination, narrow thought, intolerance, coddling, and serving student's desires rather than their best interests.
 
bradg33 said:
Part of the problem is that many kids, on the whole, don't appear to be taught, or given the opportunity to exercise, any independent thought.
Click to expand...

I went to catholic school for 13 years back in the 60s and 70s. Trust me, it was a problem even then, at least in catholic school it was. Independent thought? Har! Go to the principal's office!
 
timwinters said:
I went to catholic school for 13 years back in the 60s and 70s. Trust me, it was a problem even then, at least in catholic school it was. Independent thought? Har! Go to the principal's office!
Click to expand...

Things are becoming clearer, Tim...
 
Bill Jennings said:
Things are becoming clearer, Tim...
Click to expand...
Yeah, and being the youngest of ten kids, my older brothers...and their suggestions...had me in the principal's office quite often!

One of my favorites is that my brothers had me primed for the third grade (I think) teacher when she told us "I after E except after C"

Tim's retort?

"That's weird!"

off to the principals office...like I said...l spent a lot of time there!
 
midwestpa24 said:
Schools can only teach at the level of the lowest common denominator, and that is becoming increasingly low.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if you mean that schools are not permitted to, or that they are incapable. It certainly is possible to do so, but the public schools have made it a choice not to.
 
PPC1052 said:
I can't tell if you mean that schools are not permitted to, or that they are incapable. It certainly is possible to do so, but the public schools have made it a choice not to.
Click to expand...
And I can't tell what YOU are trying to say, either. If you are implying that public schools have made a choice not to provide quality education, you couldn't be more incorrect.

You are given a huge pile of car parts at the beginning of each year. Each year, you have to build a vehicle using every one of those parts, and you will be judged on the quality of your vehicle. Each year, even though you are given a different set of parts, you are required to build a vehicle of higher quality than the previous year, even if you get a higher percentage of inferior parts. Some of those parts are absolutely top shelf components of the highest quality, yet other parts are so broken and dysfunctional that finding a place for them in your vehicle invariably causes excess wear and strain on other parts. Tha majority of the parts are very serviceable, somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. At the end of each day, you send home the assemblies you've completed. Some of those assemblies are cared for overnight, maintained, given fresh oil and break-in procedures are followed. Some of those assemblies receive no care at all. Some of them are tossed in vats of salt water, contaminated with dirt and grime, and even bashed with hammers. You have absolutely no control over what happens to those assemblies until you get them back the next day or on Monday morning, where you do the best you can to continue your work towards making the best vehicle you can with the raw materials you have in front of you.

As in all professions, there are a few bad, lazy, incompetent public school teachers. 99% of my colleagues were, and still are I'm sure, incredibly dedicated people who gave/give their all, going well past any possible interpretation of the minimum acceptable requirements for the job day after day, to help kids achieve the most they possibly can. Insinuating anything less is an insult based upon ignorance.

I am a conservative, and have my own bones to pick with the teachers' unions and political and social views of the vast majority of my colleagues, but that has nothing to do with the fact that almost all of them are wonderful people doing incredible work with students,some of whom are living under heart-breaking conditions or who've setup some almost impermeable personal barriers to learning and success. We never give up, and battle every single one of those barriers every day. To suggest that public schools CHOOSE not to provide a quality education is one of the more ignorant statements I'ver ever read on the internet, and that's really saying something. I'm hoping I misundertstood the post...it was kind of tough to parse.
 
MuseChaser said:
If you are implying that public schools have made a choice not to provide quality education, you couldn't be more incorrect.
Click to expand...

I am saying that the public schools have chosen not to provide differentiated instruction. It is possible to NOT teach to the lowest common denominator.
 
PPC1052 said:
I am saying that the public schools have chosen not to provide differentiated instruction. It is possible to NOT teach to the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification. While it is true that "tracking" and "homogeneous grouping" have both fallen out of favor, and heterogeneous grouping and peer learning are now the preferred strategies, that doesn't mean that differentiated instruction is avoided. In truth, a great deal of focus IS placed upon individual needs, with admittedly greater focus placex upon "at risk" students. The sheer amount of IEPs written for single students (Individualized Education Program) is enough to refute the idea that individualized instruction is not provided, but there is more... a lot more. At the elementary level, there are enrichment and exploration opportunities for motivated, higher achieving students. By the time they are in HS, there are honors, AP, and SUPA courses available, some of which even earn college credits.

Yes, we no longer put all of the "good" students in one class, and all of the "bad" students in another. That approach, frequently, made it difficult for a student who was "bad" to ever become a "good" student..,and many CAN do that. This newer approach has its challenges, too, and no system is perfect. I will grant you that heterogeneous grouping can be less attractive to brighter, more motivated students, and that it is a more difficult way to teach. However, it helps a greater percentage of students achieve a greater level of success. It can also help the "good students" become better, more caring human beings. "Good students" are never prevented from going past classroom minimum requirements...the cure for "boredom" is self-motivation and being encouraged to do more than the minimum if the minimum comes easily. I don't know a single teacher who doesn't view their students as individuals and encourage each one to go as far as they can go.
 
Tantalum said:
And the reality of this is finally evident to most people.. my nephews and nieces are in the phase now where they're applying to college, and I appreciate the rigor with which they're looking at majors, schools, career opportunities, etc.

But there was a group (my group largely) that were raised by prosperous parents who had a notion that ANY college degree was valuable, and that eventually you'd get "rich" almost by fiat just because you had a degree. Luckily that notion is getting dispelled.. as a new reality set in

People learn and adapt, but it tends to take a generation or two
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I'm in my senior year at a local private Christian university, so I've seen more than my share of colleagues who are majoring in useless fields. Granted, I do believe that most degrees open the door for a lot more opportunities than those without a degree, but I feel sorry for those who are largely underwater in debt studying a major that will barely break 35k-45k a year... EVER!

I've been lucky to work a flexible job throughout college and parents and family members that have greatly assisted with tuition to the point that I will be completely debt free when I graduate.
 
@MuseChaser

Nice summary. However, the issue I saw in public grammar/high schools for the past twenty years is the huge emphasis on the top and bottom students. As a result, the super majority of the students in the middle are semi forgotten.
While in most private schools they fail the top and bottom of the spectrum and as a result actually do much better with "average" students.
So my slightly jaded perspective is if your child is "just average"; they likely will learn more and do more in a private school than in a public one.

Tim
 
SoonerAviator said:
BUT, have you seen many of the state-funded universities lately? The facilities are lined with marble and granite, fine artwork, etc. High-tech classrooms with electronically-controlled window shades, multiple projectors, etc. There has been quite a lot of money spent on the university "experience" which certainly has its effect on the budget. I have seen the University of Oklahoma go through an absolute renaissance since the won a football NC in 2000. A lot of it is financed by donors and gifts to the university, but after the capital is spent, there's always the upkeep. Just about every building on campus has had an extensive restoration performed. Other schools have had similar renovation to student activity centers, dorms, and labs. I highly doubt the facilities of today match what was common in the 60's/70's.

As always, the amount that a state should fund a public institution of higher education is up for debate.
Click to expand...

Must be nice. I type this from a windowless office in a building built by a prison architect in the 1970s. The one thing your rant doesn't account for is Universities are like any other set of buildings. They need periodic refurbishment and maintenance. A lot of this is going on at my Campus. It isn't anyone being profligate, it's just upkeep.

All that said, some the older buildings are truly grand. Then again they were all constructed in 1902.
 
tspear said:
@MuseChaser

While in most private schools they fail the top and bottom of the spectrum and as a result actually do much better with "average" students.

Tim
Click to expand...

That's a pretty interesting observation. I'm not sure I have heard anyone state that before.

My experience having attended public school up through 8th grade, and private school in high school is that there was just a night and day difference all across the board, with the exception of the bottom tier kids, who weren't at the private school. Of course, my observations are anecdotal, with all of the caveats that go with that.
 
steingar said:
Must be nice. I type this from a windowless office in a building built by a prison architect in the 1970s. The one thing your rant doesn't account for is Universities are like any other set of buildings. They need periodic refurbishment and maintenance. A lot of this is going on at my Campus. It isn't anyone being profligate, it's just upkeep.

All that said, some the older buildings are truly grand. Then again they were all constructed in 1902.
Click to expand...

Lol, well there are exceptions. The building which housed the education majors (elementary/secondary teachers) was, at the time, un-updated since the 70's and still had the high school-style desks with green chalkboards. We used to joke that it was just getting those future-teachers adapted to the classrooms they would eventually inhabit, so no use in wasting luxuries on them! However, that building has since been completely renovated as well, with SmartBoards, current tech, and collaborative seating/desks. There are only one or two buildings on campus which would be nearly impossible to modernize externally, since they are similar to your prison-architect (bottom few floors don't even have windows, lol). It's where the mathematics majors reside, so they're probably prepping for being locked in basements doing quantum calculations. :)

The Gothic architecture is beautiful at OU, so most of the external renovations have been converting conventional facades/windows to match the Gothic theme from the original buildings/library. I doubt any of it was funded with state/tuition funding, but it's still millions upon millions in CapEx donations spent on what is predominantly visual appeal/marketing.
 
PPC1052 said:
That's a pretty interesting observation. I'm not sure I have heard anyone state that before.

My experience having attended public school up through 8th grade, and private school in high school is that there was just a night and day difference all across the board, with the exception of the bottom tier kids, who weren't at the private school. Of course, my observations are anecdotal, with all of the caveats that go with that.
Click to expand...

Well, keep in mind that the student populations probably weren't identical. Typically, those families who can afford to send their children to private schools are more educated and affluent, in general. You bottom tier at a private school isn't usually anywhere near the bottom of a typical public school. There are exceptions to that, but the likelihood of success in school is as much related to the parent's education/emphasis on education as the actual school the student attends. Those households which place little value on education don't actively push their children to be successful academically. It's a large problem with public schools in many inner cities/poorer towns.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Well, keep in mind that the student populations probably weren't identical. Typically, those families who can afford to send their children to private schools are more educated and affluent, in general. You bottom tier at a private school isn't usually anywhere near the bottom of a typical public school. There are exceptions to that, but the likelihood of success in school is as much related to the parent's education/emphasis on education as the actual school the student attends. Those households which place little value on education don't actively push their children to be successful academically. It's a large problem with public schools in many inner cities/poorer towns.
Click to expand...


All of which may or may not be true, but I think you may be conflating terms if you are making a point about the context of my post. I took tspear's use of the term "spectrum" as referring to student ability or possibly IQ, not wealth.
 
PPC1052 said:
All of which may or may not be true, but I think you may be conflating terms if you are making a point about the context of my post. I took tspear's use of the term "spectrum" as referring to student ability or possibly IQ, not wealth.
Click to expand...
I wasn't specifically referring to wealth, either. I was in agreement with your premise, just adding that the "night and day" difference was less about educational quality than sheer demographics. The spectrum of student ability or at least the bell curve for the private school population versus public school population would likely be different. The average student in private school is likely to have higher intelligence than the average public school student, mostly because of their socioeconomic background. Those of lesser means often have lower education levels themselves, and are statistically less-likely to emphasize education and push children to do well in school. They usually cannot afford private school tuition, either, so there is a lower chance that they would drag the bell curve down at private schools. So "night and day" differences would result simply because of the type of families that would be able to afford private school in the first place.

The handful of studies I've seen in the past seem to agree that there isn't much difference in the aptitude for learning for students from different economic backgrounds. It's just that the private school kids are generally exposed to much more by the time they reach secondary school and are pushed harder by parents at home.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I'm usually not into grouping people (as tempting as it is) - I have seen people who (I think) are azzwholes, of every age, color, size, shape, political leaning, etc, etc.

However, back to the original post and its intent, I have observed there is a growing subset of people who are intently focused on 'going past' science & long-proven facts; they want to somehow do better than past generations (which is understandable and admirable) - but too commonly they go off the deep end with absolutely ridiculous notions.
And I now have enough age (ugh) that I have been able to watch them go through this learning process.....where they rediscover the facts we knew all along.
Click to expand...

As it is oft said in science circles, Disney's Law ("Wishing will make it so") does not apply in the real world. But it hasn't stopped various state legislatures from passing laws that contravene or mandate ignoring physics or well-established science. The mind boggles.

Some of my undergrads have had difficulty with the concept that the laws of nature were not necessarily designed for their easy comprehension, or couldn't be altered to make it so...
 
midwestpa24 said:
Therein lies the problem. The education system is marketing worthless degree programs, and people are investing ridiculous amounts of money into a worthless piece of paper. That being said, students (aka young adults) are making that choice, without looking at the consequences. I saw it when I was in school, kids getting excessive student loans to cover tuition, books, rent, car note, drinking money, etc., but majoring in some Liberal Arts program that they are barely even passing. So when they graduate from a school with $160k in debt with a C average in that worthless degree, they are no better prepared for the workforce than the kid that dropped out of high school.
Click to expand...

You get out of a college education what you put into it. I always tell my students that if they are planning on graduating in the bottom third of their class, they are paying too much for their higher education. Any degree program that requires you to write and speak well, read and critically analyze information, will prepare you well for the job market. Especially if you identify with and work with challenging mentors, But taking the path of least resistance and not growing intellectually in these areas will leave you with few prospects beyond parental support. Seen it often in 35+ years in the academy.
 
steingar said:
Then again they were all constructed in 1902.
Click to expand...

Not a State U., but Yale University built a major portion of its campus in the 1930s. Simultaneously acquiring needed infrastructure at low cost because of the then-recent depression, and providing many well paid (for the time) jobs to the construction trades. Win-win. -Skip
 
Speaking of millennials in news again...

8c9e86e0c73668927c855f5d397b2737.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top