It's a joke among engineers that you need to graduate from college so that you can start learning. My college experience (non-technical bachelors) was just a joke, period - high school 2.0. Still, I wouldn't have the good job I do now if I hadn't completed my degree.
We keep running into this problem where employers think college degrees are more valuable than they probably are. Part of that is impressed culturally, but more than anything we lack better methods of certification in most jobs. We need certification that matters, is widely accepted, and that employers actually trust. It has to be marketed well, and it has to actually produce graduates with up-to-date skills. It's not easy, especially in fields where curriculum must change yearly.
Underlying all of this is a larger, unavoidable change taking place: the disappearance of unskilled work. Computers and machines are slowly taking over every unskilled job, starting at the least skilled and moving upwards to things we used to think of as skilled labor. Taxi drivers and factory workers will hardly exist in 10 years. Construction workers will only supervise machines in our lifetimes. Unless you want to work in a low-paying retail job for the rest of your life, you need to get a degree so you can work your way up some corporate ladder - or so the thinking goes.
A major benefit of college is a baseline of domain knowledge that will serve you in your professional career, but indeed, that’s also a major benefit of a technical program. The real disconnect is that college is also (or at least is supposed to be, or has traditionally been) a schooling in the liberal arts. Four years spent learning to think critically about society and culture as well as one's area of specialization, and to express oneself in the marketplace of ideas.
Which is just something many people don’t really care to do. And that’s fine. The problem is trying to get everyone interested in it, denying the fact that many lack interest and aptitude, and then diluting the experience for everyone while saddling the next generation with decades’ worth of debt.
I've seen, heard stories of, and worked with the self taught programmers out there with out the degree.
This is base on my experience, but most of them are bad. They lack vocabularies and such that when they try to convey what they're doing or what they want other people to do or hell just to communicate with the team it takes a fucking long time and in the end might not even get anything done. They also want to get shit done without thinking about any other possible solutions or the consequences of their chosen solution.
I've worked under one. From my imperfect memory, he basically ask to make the API to be as good as their competitor.
When I ask more questions to clarify it. The said programmer got frustrated and threw a tantrum. Eventually, I found out the asshole, who lack soft skills, just wanted a async call methods in the api from client to the server.
edit:
added most, because I'm sure there are a few exceptions out there.
As a computer programmer, this really hasn't been my experience. I did not get a degree in a computer related field (have a BA in Philosophy), but have had no problems getting a job. I just showed the work I did for personal projects, and landed a job in weeks. I have since hired many developers, and I only look at education experience if there is nothing else that shows they can do the work. I have hired many people who never went to college at all.
I'm not sure why companies ever got away from the idea that they could avoid training employees? In Silicon Valley you see the same pool of startups competing for the same pool of Rails/Backbone.js developers all because they'd rather perceive to get a complete package up front.
> It's a joke among engineers that you need to graduate from college so that you can start learning. My college experience (non-technical bachelors) was just a joke, period - high school 2.0. Still, I wouldn't have the good job I do now if I hadn't completed my degree.
Yes and yes I wasted the first two years in college learning High School 2.0 and the last 2 learning technical concepts that people used 5-10 years ago. XHTML, CGI and using tables for layouts to name a few.
> My college experience (non-technical bachelors) was just a joke
I'm sorry for you. My college experience was very valuable to me (not for the diploma, nobody cares about my diploma, least of all me). I learned a great deal about how to solve problems, how to figure out what was important, how to separate truth from crap, how to learn, and the confidence that I can do it.
Caltech's honor system has also been very formative for me and I've applied it since then with considerable success.
The more I hear about other peoples' college experiences, the more I appreciate how lucky I was to wind up at Caltech.
I wonder if algorithmic hiring would improve this. That is companies using statistics to sort job applicants instead of just a human. Even on HN there has been discussion against this and people are scared of it but I think it would be an improvement over human biases.
The statistics would quickly show that people with minimal or no education do almost as good, and are willing to work for less, and so they just hire them instead. Or maybe see that people from "lesser" universities are just as good as those from more prestigious ones. Maybe certification agencies would compete on the basis of how well their certification actually correlates with employee performance. Schools or training agencies could compete on a similar basis.
For those who aren't aware, this is an op-ed (meaning the newspaper doesn't stand behind any of the facts claimed) from a right-wing Koch brothers organization.
Several commenters have already noted that the fundamental "fact" here, that certain vocations are experiencing major shortages (the "skills mismatch" claim) is completely false, which it is. The Great Recession stretches across all job fields and locations in the United States and beyond.
Nutshell: this op-ed is from someone who hates broad-based education and wants to bring in a sort of reverse work-training system: you pay them for the privilege of working at various companies, and we call it modern vocational education.
"...meaning the [normally liberal LA Times] doesn't stand behind any of the facts claimed."
"right-wing Koch brothers organization"
"from someone who hates broad-based education"
It doesn't seem to matter that these right-wing haters are praising an Obama program. It doesn't matter that these haters of broad-based education approve broadening education from the current one-size-fits-all college degree that leaves so many dropouts with a few semesters of useless film studies courses, no degree, no job skills, and enormous debt, to one that offers a much wider array of options for ending up with more value at less cost.
There are many skilled trades that offer much better career options than are available to most film studies dropouts, but there aren't many people getting the training needed to work in those trades, because they are all told that there is only one acceptable career preparation: a 4-year college degree in whatever studies.
Obama thinks this is a problem. The Manhattan Institute agrees and considers his program a step in the right direction.
Yet your main point seems to be a warning to us that, despite the usual reliability of the mainstream media, the source of this editorial is unexpectedly not one of the approved speakers of orthodox political doctrine, but is in fact a heretic, and we would be wise to cover our ears so as not to be deceived, and rely instead on your "nutshell" opinion.
There are skill shortages, just look to any job that pays over $100k. Data Scientists, Web Developers, Oil Rig Workers, Underwater welders, etc. The problem is that they arn't easy skills to learn or they arn't comfortable tasks to do.
are you ok with the vast amount of money and time currently wasted on higher education? do you think the four year degree is really the most appropriate form of training in most cases?
Perhaps, but what's definitely not working is the guaranteed loans from governments, which gives universities access to virtually unlimited funds. If the government wouldn't give loans for college, US tuitions would probably be 10x less, just like they are even in the most expensive universities in Europe or elsewhere.
I strongly disagree. In the Australian system everyone gets a higher education loan from the government(with interest locked to the inflation rate and repayment only required if and when taxable income passes a certain threshold), and yet our tuition rates are much lower than in the US.
For example, I just finished a Bachelors degree in a STEM field at a relatively middle of the road university and my total education debt comes out just short of $30k.
A discussion on an EconTalk podcast about trends in college education resonated with me. They discussed college as being an extended adolescence for many students: today many students treat it as an expensive way to find one's way in the world and learn about oneself whereas going back 20 or 30 years it was more about improving your employment prospects. They cited as evidence the doubling of psychology undergraduate degrees (nice for learning about oneself, but lacking a corresponding increase in jobs available) granted over a period where STEM degrees remained flat. A similar doubling in performing and visual arts degrees was another trend they contrasted to STEM degree popularity stagnation. The podcast is at http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/12/tabarrok_on_inn.htm...
What we have is not college for all, not even close. We have capitalistic college education; where it costs as much as the market will bear, and the ability of the market is distorted by massive student loans which kids are told they have to get as it is an investment into their future.
College for all would be if college was free to every high school graduate, and costs were kept down by universities being run like places of learning and not capitalistic enterprises focused on football tickets and massive stadiums.
I agree with you in principle, but please choose another target other than football tickets and massive stadiums. Most massive stadiums are filled with paying customers whose money is then used to fund all the other athletics programs that don't charge money because too few people would actually pay to watch them.
I think by "college for all" they mean a model where everyone needs a college degree to have a chance in the job market. I didn't read it as "everyone goes to college" but rather "everyone must go to college."
College costs out of control? Only because states are cutting subsidies for higher education and forcing students to pay more.
That said, towards the end there are some good points. It could be argued that there's a public interest in promoting higher education because its necessary for a functional democracy. But if the public abandons this goal and higher education is only for job preparation, then why should the state be involved at all? In that case, state tuition subsidies are really corporate welfare.
Although on-the-job training and apprenticeships are more effective for many jobs, that would mean employers have to shoulder the cost rather than the state.
Tuition couldn't skyrocket if students had no means to pay it. The enabler in this situation, is the disconnect between the availability of financing and the product being financed.
You can't get a $60,000 loan for a $20,000 car, but you can absolutely rack up that much (or more) in college debt, for an education indistinguishable from one at a third of the cost.
With that kind of distortion in the market, why would anyone be surprised at rising tuition?
We're not saving for our kids' college. The oldest is 16 years away, and we believe that college will either be totally unaffordable, or the bubble will have burst and won't exist in its current form.
We are focusing on our retirement instead, because we believe it's far better to take care of that and not become a burden on your kids just when they're trying to take care of their own families and retirements.
It's also far more valuable to teach your kids to save for their own college. A few years of odd jobs, paper delivery, whatever will make them appreciate that money isn't infinite. My parents didn't (and couldn't) afford to pay for my college, and thanks to that I knew that every year I stayed would be another ten grand in debt I would have to pay off. That led to me leaving university after a pointless year and going into the workforce. As I suspected, it was the best education-related decision I'd made.
That said, be careful. Student loans offices generally make the assumption that parents will contribute towards their kids' education; if the current status quo does remain at that point (and I hope it doesn't) they may find themselves unable to afford college because they'll be told that you'll be paying for half of it.
"Meanwhile, companies in a range of sectors — manufacturing, construction, healthcare and other STEM fields — report severe skilled labor shortages."
Construction and manufacturing have severe labor shortages? I'd love to see a source for that claim. In my neck of the woods, they still haven't recovered from the recession.
They have skilled labor shortages at the prices they're willing to pay. Every time you hear an employer claim they can't find someone for a position, inquire about the salary they're offering.
Master tradesmen are impossible to find. Skilled plumbers, electricians, HVAC people, welders, and some machinists make more than the average programmer and are always employed.
Also, the unemployment system is basically designed for them. If you work for someone and get laid off between projects, you still get paid. The other path is going out on your own.
Labor shortages have this habit of producing wage spikes for the in-demand employees. Absent such spikes, I'm not sure I would take self-reporting as anything more than gossip or political speech.
I would like to see asked, of these people who can't find employees, is how much they've had to increase their salary offers to fill positions.
Because my anecdotal experience is that the people who can't fill positions are essentially looking for the higher-quality, more-modest-salary 'deals' that were more common in 2008/2009. And they're simply not in any hurry to hire anyone at all, so the disappearance of such deals results in continually-open-positions, rather than increased offers or decreased requirements.
A lot of kids are attending college because it's a status symbol for their parents, and I think it's been that way since the 90s. I remember being in high school and hearing about my friends getting in big fights with their parents because they did not want to go to college, which of course was unacceptable in white upper middle class suburbia.
This has been a problem here in California for a while now. Schools push kids into a college track, even though they are not going to be successful. This has caused the state universities and community colleges to take in larger amounts of students which stretches budgets and also has caused the graduation rates to decline. Many of these students would be better served by a vocational school, but it seems that there has been a stigma placed on students who don't want to go to a university.
" More Americans attend college today than ever before: this year, 42% of young people 18 to 24 years old."
This is why education costs so much nowadays and the product is so poor. Everyone has the right to pursue learning. But, these folks aren't owed anything because they've sat through enough classes to earn a BA.
I don't understand how putting more students through college increases the cost per student, in normal industries more business generally means reduced costs.
It does seem like the drop out rate (and debt associated with non-degrees) is high enough that the current model isn't working. My concern is that replacing it with less education hurts more. The Vocational Education trend seems like it's on the right track. It would also be good to copy the German apprenticeship model.
The boomers made it a big deal, I do web development with my BA and wish every day I had all that money back. I even tried to major in CS but couldn't follow my classes because the school had brought in Russian grad students who couldn't understand questions that were asked in class.
College-for-all accomplishes two things: commoditization and (failed) attempts at one-size-fits-all education.
Simply put, not everybody is equipped to handle an academic education (in fact, a small minority truly are). At the same time, the vast majority of work being done today in the US in almost any field (including the majority of software development) really ought not be considered "academic" work--it's essentially vocational already. One doesn't need--and shouldn't be required to have--a college degree to be employable in a web app shop or for most development (or other) roles.
The following may be an unpopular sentiment, but I truly believe that the focus on "college-for-all" just frustrates people who are talented in ways that are not academically inclined and, frankly, consumes resources unfairly for those who are. All parties are worse off for it.
What we need is less focus on conflating "academic education" with "education", and the result of that is less focus on "college-for-all."
I see a lot of folks here talking about college education in economic terms. So, sure, the evidence is certainly mounting that we've mucked something up: tuition is stupidly high, graduation rates are low, people are dogging their way through college 'just because' et cetra. But nobody (around here, anyhow) seems to be speaking on higher education in terms of intrinsic value.
I'm talking about the way going to a university integrates you with a ton of strange, weird, different people. How there is a tremendous amount of information and culture that is absorbed, either by directly learning it or simply by osmosis. The 'by osmosis' thing might be a bit of an assertion, but I think that most people who've been to university can probably relate to the concept.
In my opinion that adds a lot of value to a society. I know these are not original ideas, and it wouldn't be nice to live in a highly educated society where absolutely nobody has work, but I wouldn't immediately discount the value that is added by sending the masses through university. As explained by numerous people here, this strategy is clearly broken as a method of certification and job training. Does that mean that we should do a 180 and reserve anything beyond vocational training for the Marxes, Shakespeares, and Feynmans? I think not. I'm not suggesting that people here are promoting that idea, just illustrating that moving in that direction might destroy a lot of value that's not as plainly seen as one's student loan balance (something I can certainly relate to...) or the national unemployment rate. Maybe I'm just being young and naive.
Slightly disappointed to not see the obvious arguments.
As a university drop out I may be biased but I do believe that 'education for all' is a horribly misguided premise which persists because of the practicality of cheap childcare it provides (!)
I believe that vocational education is pretty flawed too...
I fail to see the value in qualification X if everyone can get it. All qualifications seem to be an exercise in desire and discipline... and this is why it doesn't work. IMO.
It works fine for serious and competitive fields like medicine and dentistry, but for the vast majority of fields out there a degree isn't worth much at all.
I can, and maybe have, written your dissertation from your textbook with no lectures... and I will do just fine.
Smart guys will drop out and succeed because of the same reasons they drop out, not in spite of it... just a shame so many drop outs are probably dropping out because education is not for them - or possibly university or vocational education is not right for their entire field.
Grants for vocational programs are nice and all, but the damage has already been done. The huge expectation in the United States for every student to attend college - that has to be overcome for these things to be successful.
[+] [-] ignostic|12 years ago|reply
We keep running into this problem where employers think college degrees are more valuable than they probably are. Part of that is impressed culturally, but more than anything we lack better methods of certification in most jobs. We need certification that matters, is widely accepted, and that employers actually trust. It has to be marketed well, and it has to actually produce graduates with up-to-date skills. It's not easy, especially in fields where curriculum must change yearly.
Underlying all of this is a larger, unavoidable change taking place: the disappearance of unskilled work. Computers and machines are slowly taking over every unskilled job, starting at the least skilled and moving upwards to things we used to think of as skilled labor. Taxi drivers and factory workers will hardly exist in 10 years. Construction workers will only supervise machines in our lifetimes. Unless you want to work in a low-paying retail job for the rest of your life, you need to get a degree so you can work your way up some corporate ladder - or so the thinking goes.
[+] [-] mortenjorck|12 years ago|reply
Which is just something many people don’t really care to do. And that’s fine. The problem is trying to get everyone interested in it, denying the fact that many lack interest and aptitude, and then diluting the experience for everyone while saddling the next generation with decades’ worth of debt.
[+] [-] digitalzombie|12 years ago|reply
This is base on my experience, but most of them are bad. They lack vocabularies and such that when they try to convey what they're doing or what they want other people to do or hell just to communicate with the team it takes a fucking long time and in the end might not even get anything done. They also want to get shit done without thinking about any other possible solutions or the consequences of their chosen solution.
I've worked under one. From my imperfect memory, he basically ask to make the API to be as good as their competitor.
When I ask more questions to clarify it. The said programmer got frustrated and threw a tantrum. Eventually, I found out the asshole, who lack soft skills, just wanted a async call methods in the api from client to the server.
edit: added most, because I'm sure there are a few exceptions out there.
[+] [-] cortesoft|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aantix|12 years ago|reply
The apprenticeship model should be re-embraced.
[+] [-] wil421|12 years ago|reply
Yes and yes I wasted the first two years in college learning High School 2.0 and the last 2 learning technical concepts that people used 5-10 years ago. XHTML, CGI and using tables for layouts to name a few.
[+] [-] WalterBright|12 years ago|reply
I'm sorry for you. My college experience was very valuable to me (not for the diploma, nobody cares about my diploma, least of all me). I learned a great deal about how to solve problems, how to figure out what was important, how to separate truth from crap, how to learn, and the confidence that I can do it.
Caltech's honor system has also been very formative for me and I've applied it since then with considerable success.
The more I hear about other peoples' college experiences, the more I appreciate how lucky I was to wind up at Caltech.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Houshalter|12 years ago|reply
The statistics would quickly show that people with minimal or no education do almost as good, and are willing to work for less, and so they just hire them instead. Or maybe see that people from "lesser" universities are just as good as those from more prestigious ones. Maybe certification agencies would compete on the basis of how well their certification actually correlates with employee performance. Schools or training agencies could compete on a similar basis.
[+] [-] jellicle|12 years ago|reply
Several commenters have already noted that the fundamental "fact" here, that certain vocations are experiencing major shortages (the "skills mismatch" claim) is completely false, which it is. The Great Recession stretches across all job fields and locations in the United States and beyond.
Nutshell: this op-ed is from someone who hates broad-based education and wants to bring in a sort of reverse work-training system: you pay them for the privilege of working at various companies, and we call it modern vocational education.
[+] [-] SiVal|12 years ago|reply
"right-wing Koch brothers organization"
"from someone who hates broad-based education"
It doesn't seem to matter that these right-wing haters are praising an Obama program. It doesn't matter that these haters of broad-based education approve broadening education from the current one-size-fits-all college degree that leaves so many dropouts with a few semesters of useless film studies courses, no degree, no job skills, and enormous debt, to one that offers a much wider array of options for ending up with more value at less cost.
There are many skilled trades that offer much better career options than are available to most film studies dropouts, but there aren't many people getting the training needed to work in those trades, because they are all told that there is only one acceptable career preparation: a 4-year college degree in whatever studies.
Obama thinks this is a problem. The Manhattan Institute agrees and considers his program a step in the right direction.
Yet your main point seems to be a warning to us that, despite the usual reliability of the mainstream media, the source of this editorial is unexpectedly not one of the approved speakers of orthodox political doctrine, but is in fact a heretic, and we would be wise to cover our ears so as not to be deceived, and rely instead on your "nutshell" opinion.
[+] [-] nsxwolf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3pt14159|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clarkm|12 years ago|reply
That's like bringing up George Soros whenever you read an op-ed by someone who once worked for the Brookings Institute.
[+] [-] truthteller|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salient|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Trezoid|12 years ago|reply
For example, I just finished a Bachelors degree in a STEM field at a relatively middle of the road university and my total education debt comes out just short of $30k.
[+] [-] codegeek|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patja|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebbv|12 years ago|reply
What we have is not college for all, not even close. We have capitalistic college education; where it costs as much as the market will bear, and the ability of the market is distorted by massive student loans which kids are told they have to get as it is an investment into their future.
College for all would be if college was free to every high school graduate, and costs were kept down by universities being run like places of learning and not capitalistic enterprises focused on football tickets and massive stadiums.
[+] [-] bkmartin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsxwolf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enraged_camel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fleitz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mrxd|12 years ago|reply
College costs out of control? Only because states are cutting subsidies for higher education and forcing students to pay more.
That said, towards the end there are some good points. It could be argued that there's a public interest in promoting higher education because its necessary for a functional democracy. But if the public abandons this goal and higher education is only for job preparation, then why should the state be involved at all? In that case, state tuition subsidies are really corporate welfare.
Although on-the-job training and apprenticeships are more effective for many jobs, that would mean employers have to shoulder the cost rather than the state.
[+] [-] roc|12 years ago|reply
You can't get a $60,000 loan for a $20,000 car, but you can absolutely rack up that much (or more) in college debt, for an education indistinguishable from one at a third of the cost.
With that kind of distortion in the market, why would anyone be surprised at rising tuition?
[+] [-] Legion|12 years ago|reply
"Oh it's true, but because of this stupid reason" != "falsehood".
[+] [-] nsxwolf|12 years ago|reply
We are focusing on our retirement instead, because we believe it's far better to take care of that and not become a burden on your kids just when they're trying to take care of their own families and retirements.
[+] [-] danudey|12 years ago|reply
That said, be careful. Student loans offices generally make the assumption that parents will contribute towards their kids' education; if the current status quo does remain at that point (and I hope it doesn't) they may find themselves unable to afford college because they'll be told that you'll be paying for half of it.
[+] [-] pflats|12 years ago|reply
Construction and manufacturing have severe labor shortages? I'd love to see a source for that claim. In my neck of the woods, they still haven't recovered from the recession.
[+] [-] crygin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spooky23|12 years ago|reply
Also, the unemployment system is basically designed for them. If you work for someone and get laid off between projects, you still get paid. The other path is going out on your own.
[+] [-] roc|12 years ago|reply
I would like to see asked, of these people who can't find employees, is how much they've had to increase their salary offers to fill positions.
Because my anecdotal experience is that the people who can't fill positions are essentially looking for the higher-quality, more-modest-salary 'deals' that were more common in 2008/2009. And they're simply not in any hurry to hire anyone at all, so the disappearance of such deals results in continually-open-positions, rather than increased offers or decreased requirements.
[+] [-] smurph|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vondur|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buckbova|12 years ago|reply
This is why education costs so much nowadays and the product is so poor. Everyone has the right to pursue learning. But, these folks aren't owed anything because they've sat through enough classes to earn a BA.
[+] [-] fleitz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geosith|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jormundir|12 years ago|reply
What's not working is the college administrative model.
[+] [-] Iftheshoefits|12 years ago|reply
Simply put, not everybody is equipped to handle an academic education (in fact, a small minority truly are). At the same time, the vast majority of work being done today in the US in almost any field (including the majority of software development) really ought not be considered "academic" work--it's essentially vocational already. One doesn't need--and shouldn't be required to have--a college degree to be employable in a web app shop or for most development (or other) roles.
The following may be an unpopular sentiment, but I truly believe that the focus on "college-for-all" just frustrates people who are talented in ways that are not academically inclined and, frankly, consumes resources unfairly for those who are. All parties are worse off for it.
What we need is less focus on conflating "academic education" with "education", and the result of that is less focus on "college-for-all."
[+] [-] buckbova|12 years ago|reply
They should not be giving out these student loans so easily.
[+] [-] kyzyl|12 years ago|reply
I'm talking about the way going to a university integrates you with a ton of strange, weird, different people. How there is a tremendous amount of information and culture that is absorbed, either by directly learning it or simply by osmosis. The 'by osmosis' thing might be a bit of an assertion, but I think that most people who've been to university can probably relate to the concept.
In my opinion that adds a lot of value to a society. I know these are not original ideas, and it wouldn't be nice to live in a highly educated society where absolutely nobody has work, but I wouldn't immediately discount the value that is added by sending the masses through university. As explained by numerous people here, this strategy is clearly broken as a method of certification and job training. Does that mean that we should do a 180 and reserve anything beyond vocational training for the Marxes, Shakespeares, and Feynmans? I think not. I'm not suggesting that people here are promoting that idea, just illustrating that moving in that direction might destroy a lot of value that's not as plainly seen as one's student loan balance (something I can certainly relate to...) or the national unemployment rate. Maybe I'm just being young and naive.
[+] [-] jheriko|12 years ago|reply
As a university drop out I may be biased but I do believe that 'education for all' is a horribly misguided premise which persists because of the practicality of cheap childcare it provides (!)
I believe that vocational education is pretty flawed too...
I fail to see the value in qualification X if everyone can get it. All qualifications seem to be an exercise in desire and discipline... and this is why it doesn't work. IMO.
It works fine for serious and competitive fields like medicine and dentistry, but for the vast majority of fields out there a degree isn't worth much at all.
I can, and maybe have, written your dissertation from your textbook with no lectures... and I will do just fine.
Smart guys will drop out and succeed because of the same reasons they drop out, not in spite of it... just a shame so many drop outs are probably dropping out because education is not for them - or possibly university or vocational education is not right for their entire field.
[+] [-] austinl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctdonath|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] interstitial|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddd1600|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]