U.S. employers complain that they can’t find enough skilled employees. Then how do we explain why almost 54 percent of recent college graduates are underemployed or unemployed, even in scientific and technical fields, according to a study conducted for the Associated Press by Northeastern University researchers?
The cause is more fundamental than the cycles of the economy: The country is turning out far more college graduates than jobs exist in the areas traditionally reserved for them: the managerial, technical and professional occupations.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that we now have 115,000 janitors, 83,000 bartenders, 323,000 restaurant servers, and 80,000 heavy-duty truck drivers with bachelor’s degrees — a number exceeding that of uniformed personnel in the U.S. Army.
Was college worth it? A huge part of the problem relates to federal financial-aid programs. Annual student loans, Pell Grants, tax credits and other federal assistance totaled some $169 billion a year in 2010-11 — more than 1 percent of national output. These programs are based on two erroneous premises: that almost everyone needs higher education for vocational success, and that they reduce student costs.
More than 25 years ago, Education Secretary William Bennett argued that federal aid programs benefited colleges more than students. Recent studies by Stephanie Riegg Cellini of George Washington University and Claudia Goldin of Harvard University, as well as by Andrew Gillen for the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, support that hypothesis. A new study by Nicholas Turner of the Office of Tax Analysis in the U.S. Treasury Department argues that when tax-based aid goes up, institutional scholarships go down, dollar for dollar.
Consequently, we have millions of underqualified college students borrowing or getting Pell Grants to finance college.
More than 40 percent of them don’t even graduate within six years, and many who do have marginal academic records. Because the average college student spends fewer than 30 hours a week on all academic activities, for about 30 weeks a year, never have so many dollars gone to teach so many students for so little vocational gain.
Besides leading to more underemployed college students of increasingly dubious academic quality, the dysfunctional federal student financial assistance programs have other pathologies:
First, universities, unlike the taxpayers, suffer no financial consequences when the underqualified students they have lured into their academic programs ultimately default on their loans.
Second, students who study six years but ultimately drop out receive more financial aid than the diligent “A” student graduating in three years: We reward mediocrity and punish excellence.
Third, there is no adjustment of student-loan interest-rate terms to meet market conditions or differing risk factors relating to individual repayment prospects. That means too much money is lent, especially to high-risk individuals with little prospect for academic success.
Fourth, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form, associated with these programs, aside from being unbearably complex, gives colleges private information about family finances that allows them to gouge students more.
Fifth, colleges’ tuition and fee policies drive the amount of loan volume, rather than the other way around, thus contributing to the college-cost explosion and the subsequent academic arms race.
Sixth, intended partly to promote greater opportunities for the poor, these federal-aid programs have been accompanied both by rising income inequality in the United States, and a decline in the proportion of recent college graduates from poor families.
Proponents of federal student-loan programs argue that private student-loan markets are underdeveloped, that banks are afraid to lend to students, largely because of their lack of credit history. This argument is vastly overblown. It is amazing how students have no trouble getting credit cards and racking up debt, or little difficulty borrowing to buy a car. Why would college be any different?
Yes, the goal of providing educational opportunity for all seems commendable. Any revamping of the federal student- assistance program would have to be phased in to avoid severe hardship and enrollment disruptions. But here are some better policies:
- The federal government should get out of the student loan business.
- It should provide educational vouchers (similar to Pell Grants) directly to students (not schools), and make those vouchers progressive (very low-income students receive the most, fairly low-income students a little, and middle- and upper- income children nothing).
- Add performance incentives, rewarding timely degree completion and good performance.
- Remove the tuition tax credit that largely assists relatively affluent students and their families; perhaps use savings from all of the above to reduce the budget deficit.
- Eliminate the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form and require that applicants give the Internal Revenue Service permission to provide family-income data.
My guess is that the total number of students attending four-year programs would fall modestly, a good thing given the disconnect between the labor market and college enrollment; that the proportion of students from lower-income families would probably increase (also good) both because the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form is a barrier for lower-income families, and the burden of aid reductions would fall mainly on the colleges and more affluent students.
Also, the total cost to the federal government would drop significantly.
More radical solutions might involve rolling many government-income security programs into compulsory tax- sheltered 401(k)-like lifetime individual security and investment accounts, allowing withdrawals for college costs. However it is done, the current system needs replacing.
Richard Vedder is director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity and teaches economics at Ohio University.
a reason why employers are complaining is they do not want to train you. They want you to come in as much as ready to go as possible. You have to remember, training is a cost that affects the bottom line. Gotta keep those profits up! I think loans should stay but only to reputable schools not these degree factories. I got caught up in the slick sales pitch ( yeah I know dumb me) now I owe through the nose with a degree that is worthless
Are you proposing employers take financial responsibility for education? Sounds to me like you may be looking for a handout. No one is forcing adults to get a college education. Those that do in order to get a job are taking a risk just like those who choose not to get college educated. Education is not a job guarantee, never was, and never should be. Our society was built on the free enterprise system that did wonders for us. Let’s not take away something good.
thanks for proving my point you sound like one of those employers who would rather put profits over investing in its people Investing in your people makes happier and long time employees
I believe people should learn to fend for themselves when and where they can and not demand someone else does that for them. Is that too much to ask for and expect? That said, if you’re employed be thankful to your employer. If you don’t like your employer, look for another one. After all, isn’t this America, the land of the free for both employer and employee? If this isn’t persuasive enough to change your mind, then I would suggest you take time to travel worldwide. I promise you will come back very much appreciative of what this country does for its inhabitants.
you just don’t get it do you? As the article points out investing in college is not leading to jobs colleges promise and employers are not training so you are stuck in dead end jobs struggling to get the training employers want. Now its basic math here If colleges can’t deliver the skilled workers employers want and employers won’t invest in training then we have no jobs. As for traveling I would love to but I am stuck in a dead end job with a worthless degree and can’t afford it. I would love to move to an area where there are better job opportunities but can’t afford it
If colleges can’t deliver the skilled workers employers want
And if they cannot do that, then what is the benefit to the taxpayer of sending folks to college?
Gotta keep those profits up!
I’m not in business to improve society as a whole. I’m in business to make a living. If candidate A comes in with a “worthless degree” as you call it and a “you-should-train-me” attitude, and candidate B comes in with good skills and a “look-what-I-can-do” attitude, which one do you think I will pick?
Making a profit is not a crime.
and c better employees need training which make better profits talk about attitude well employers whine about the lack of skilled workers and expect the state to train them it must be a partnership with the employer training too
http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/manufacturers-offer-partnership-strategy_2012-01-29.html
you only get what you put into your business you don’t train your business will stagnate
I see ads constantly on craigslist “will train the right people” get real dude. What training do you want to see employers provide? college isnt training. it is a foundation for training. I have never had a job where they have been like ok your hired no go do it. You shadow people, read handbooks, do interactive computer training. However, expecting an employer to pay for external education is ridiculous.
You shadow people, read handbooks, do interactive computer training.
an employer providing training!!!!! my point!
you probably just don’t have enough work experince to be an authority on this issue. any company that wants to succeed will teach their employees what they need to do to sustain and grow the business. That is business management 101. However… sometimes people don’t have the critical thinking skills to be trainable with or without college. For some people college provides the base of critical thinking and analytical skills needed to become hireable or that “right person” but to expect an employer to invest that much in an employee is preposterous.
I see “experienced applicants” only quite often. For example, driving the other day I saw “hiring experience servers” at a Friendly’s. Even a chain food restaurant won’t offer training. I think you’re being a bit generous.
sometimes they wont. When your already short staffed and you need people ASAP you cannot afford to tie up an already trained experienced server with training someone else. plus there a ton of ppl out there with experience already why waste time and money training when ppl who can do the job with little or no training are out there looking for work.
But that’s exactly the point people here are trying to make. The market is tough and new grads are competing with people who already have experience. Employers are offering less and less training — even at this low of a level (Friendly’s).
So to act like new graduates aren’t trying hard enough or they don’t want it enough is essentially lying. It’s not true.
With no capitalization and no punctuation I can’t understand you, except for the last few words.
I don’t think I’ll take business advice from somebody who is “stuck in a dead end job with a worthless degree” (as you yourself put it).
You are a —taker!
Expect the same from your —-employees!
If they find a better job tommorrow don’t expect the 2 week notice.
Don’t expect them to go to school at night to improve themselves and if they do don’t expect them to give any more than the job requirement.
Don’t expect honesty, loyalty, ect ect,ect, as they will cut and run at the first chance!
Even a bird dog knows when its time to escape!
I invest in employee education, if I feel it’s worth it.
But one of the things that makes it “worth it” to me, is the employee’s NOT FEELING ENTITLED TO IT!
Here’s my suggestion: Get a job, any job for now even though it may not be anything like what you had planned. Then start up a small business on the side or wait until a better job becomes available to you. If the business goes anywhere then your in luck. If not, then start a different one. Either way, business owner or not, eventually you will succeed and you won’t have to wait for someone to employ and train you. Whatever you do, I would further suggest that you don’t wait for a job to come to you because it hardly ever happens that way. In the meantime keep your chin up asking God to help you locate a job and/or give you the strength to go on struggling. Faith will give you the added strength to persist.
If this means anything to you, just know that I’ve been through the struggle myself in lesser times while having to cope with 2 disabilities that remain with me in my retirement years. I’m rooting for you. Just keep believing in yourself and in the All-Mighty to deliver.
I am not sure God is a requirement but single-mindedness and patience and a good idea are.
Then fend for —-your self!
Help Educate your employees or,—— do their jobs yourself!
If I owned a business, invested my own
resources, money and risk, you bet I would
be looking at profits. You want a job…fine..you don’t..
go somewhere else. As long as my product is competively
priced and I treat employees fairly, who care what anyone thinks.
Employers benefit from an educated work force as well as the Employees, Employers cry like babies about their Taxes and then cry about nobody is qualified !
Even when they do get qualified employees they think that the employees owe them loyalty while giving them none in return!
They play games with peoples lives take Tax breaks from towns to come, they depreciate assets until that ride is over and then sell off assets, freeze pensions, and cut and run!
As far as I am concerned these Phony Baloneys that think that they are special and should be entitled because they are job creators should pay an Education Tax into Towns Just for the Educated work force that they so aptly enjoy!
these Phony Baloneys
— I don’t know if you include me in that group or not.
that think that they are special and should be entitled because they are job creators
— I don’t know what you’re referring to – who is “entitled” to what?
should pay an Education Tax into Towns Just for the Educated work force that they so aptly enjoy!
Do you really think I don’t already pay an education tax?
I know you probably do, and thank you for being a responsible tax payer I was replying to wa-wa wa- Well!
The cry baby who thinks that with Being a “”Job Creator”” comes disasociation to society as they are some sort of special being!
You have to have basic skills. If you can’t read a blueprint how can you walk into a job that demands it? Not all jobs have an English Lit degree as a job requirement yet we continue to pump out this stuff.
Your attitude is the one common to many of the people that come apply for work at my business. You will not succeed with that attitude guaranteed. You are only hurting yourself. Get a marketable skill, baring that, McDonalds sometimes has job fairs.
McDonald’s doesn’t hire people who are over qualified.
How do you know until you’ve applied? :-)
They and many others don’t hire those who are over-qualified because the turn over is too quick. They know these people are just applying until something better comes along. It’s not worth the time to train those who are only going to be around for the very short term.
Keep your sarcastic emoticons to yourself. It’s a real issue when you’re screeching about capital gains taxes, precious Bush tax cuts or whatever, so realize that it’s a real issue too for these kids who can’t find viable work to pay off their loans. McDonald’s isn’t even enough for rent and health insurance and it surely isn’t enough to pay off student loans as well.
If you don’t like my sarcastic emoticons don’t respond to my posts.
Re: turn over at McDonalds. They hire kids for just a few months all the time. Of course you can’t live on what they make but your statement is otherwise untrue.
It’s not untrue, My husband, worked for McDonalds, for awhile after he retired. They don’t hire over-qualified, young people for the reason wolfndeer stated. The high school kids work the front, that is easier to learn. Team leaders, and shift managers, have to have outside training, and it not cheap, they won’t hire someone who’s noting to say.
I thought you said your husband was middle management for the state. Certainly that would make him overqualified for McDonalds. How did he get hired?
I worked for the fast food industry for a long time and I even reapplied to get a job, no response why? the economy People are staying put. Don’t dis a fast food worker so fast…give me a good fast food worker vs a skilled worker in a equal competition and I will bet on the fast food worker.
give me a good fast food worker vs a skilled worker in a equal competition and I will bet on the fast food worker.
What sort of competition are you talking about?
Don’t lie. You wouldn’t hire someone if you knew they were vastly over qualified (ie — college degree seeking a job at a fast food joint). Employers don’t hire those that are over qualified for the job. It’s not worth the turn over.
Try getting some real perspective instead of just assuming the worst of those you disagree with or those you have disdain for.
They hire people all the time for a few months . My comment stands.
Stands incorrect. I notice you didn’t say if you’d hire someone if they were vastly over qualified. I’d suspect not ;-)
I have a suggestion for all overly qualified job applicants: don’t reveal all your qualifications unless you are asked to do so. This way you’re not lying and might just end up getting a job if you show enough enthusiam and determination.
precious Bush tax cuts
Are you aware that if the President has his way, those tax cuts will expire and the burger flipper at McDonald’s will pay 50% more in tax next year than this year?
Me, I’ll pay about 12% more, but the lower-income will pay 50% more… and they call them “tax cuts for the rich”.
Obama wants the cuts extended for those making under a certain threshold. He believes the cuts to be otherwise unsustainable. So what you’ve said isn’t true.
My point, however, was that it’s easy to laugh and get sarcastic when it’s someone else who is struggling. For jobless graduates, their problems are real and severe. I offered the Bush tax cuts and low capital gains tax rate as example of a real issue for someone who is wealthy and not facing the problems young people currently face.
Well, then he’s changed his tune. He finally figured out that they weren’t “for the rich” after all. (Bet he won’t say that, though.)
I stand corrected.
I have no doubts that the problems are severe. They’re not made any better by dumping the burden on to the taxpayers.
The question is, whose responsibility is it going to be?
Does the taxpayer really have to pay for English Lit students?
He hasn’t changed his tune, extending the tax cuts for those in the lower brackets has always been his tune.
Bush tax cuts do largely benefit the rich and that’s very obvious. A 5% cut from a tax burden of $1,000 is $50, for a tax burden of $1,000,000 is $50,000. It gets costly and it’s not worth us going into debt over, especially if it’s not helping the economy.
a reason why employers are complaining is they do not want to train you.
The US Army will let you be all you can be.
The Marines are looking for a few good men.
The Navy – I forget their slogan, but they’re probably hiring.
They will all train you.
Keep proving my point…All at the taxpayer expense and who benefits after they get out? Employers
Now a question … How many potentially awesome employees have you not chosen because you did not want to invest in training?
Define potentially awesome employee and how do we know one when it applies for a job?
I don’t know. I choose the ones who are awesome already.
Maybe. But who benefits while they are IN? The whole country (theoretically, anyway).
And you don’t think the vets themselves benefit from the education?
I’m happy to pay benefits for vets, because they put their lives on the line to protect my sorry behind.
Peruvian Literature students?
Not so much.
she may owe 20,000 but in the long run she increased her chance of getting a high paying job to pay the loans back within a year or two without student loans most students couldn’t afford schools i’m disabled and in college without those loans i couldn’t afford it do your research and don’t push your caveman opinions on others
That was kind of the point, the gamble isn’t paying off. The government is making these loans and the education isn’t being used because the students aren’t getting teaching jobs, engineering jobs, etc, they have these degrees and are having to take jobs as laborers, equipment operators, and truck drivers. That being said, I think an educated nation is a better nation. People want to complain about those on assistance, yet the best hope to get people out of poverty is still education. Government student loans are an investment, normally a good one, but each individual investment doesn’t always pay off.
amen
Like practice making perfect, only perfect practice makes perfect.
Education must be relevant to be relevant. If one goes on to further education in a course of study that makes them feel good but has no direct relivance to life their education is nothing but entertainment.
Very true, on the other side of that coin there are many careers in which you constantly need to educate yourself to re-certify. Colleges may need to do better by their students, but that doesn’t mean the Gov’ts student loan program should be ended.
And most of those that need to “further their education” are government employees such as police, fire fighters, teachers, Medical personell and so forth that have employers that pay the costs of recertification or in businesses that can and do deduct recertification from their taxes.
The student loan programs need to be focused on things that are actually needed
.
So you are saying if there are two high school seniors, both with the same grades, and the same socio-economic back grounds, and one wants to be a teacher, and the other wants to be a substance abuse counselor, because we need substance abuse counselors, but have no shortage of teachers, then the one student gets the loans but the other one doesn’t?
If such a thing should occur, I suppose so. I am more reffering to liberal arts students vs. engineering students or political science students vs nursing students.
Whoa, dude – engineers aren’t having a problem with employment.
Prob very true, I was just tying to think of professions that needed degrees.
The problem is you have entitled brats graduating who EXPECT to have a 6 figure salary with their degree in underwater basket weaving. I’ve seen my fair share of these kids who expect the big bucks with zero hard work put into it.
I’ve worked my fair share of crappy jobs for 10 years to finally land a good paying job in my chosen field. They are right there are lots of people with degrees so you have to rise above the pack.
If you have a real point, say it, but don’t make up lies in order to prove a non-point. Kids aren’t out there turning down job offers and screaming for 6 figures. Most have no job options at all and would consider it a blessing to land something relevant to the degree they just spent tens of thousands of dollars on. Like I said, stop lying.
Who forced these people into debt. Must be the same people who forced people to buy houses they couldn’t afford. Any chance anyone out there will take ownership of their own mistakes? Is it ALWAYS someone else’s fault?
Was the global economic collapse anyone’s fault? I don’t seem anyone but the taxpayers paying for that, while the perpetrators got away scot-free with $billions.
Guess I can’t make the connection between a global economic collapse and people taking out loans they can’t afford. Is this the same collapse I’m supposed to ignore because my two IRA’s, pension and Social Security, which was supposed to be enough to fund my retirement at the time, but wasn’t and people climb all over me for not being prepared?
I’m sick of these “in my day” comments. There has never been a time like this, so referencing the past is of no help. College has never been this expensive and wages have never been this low. Many kids do work during school and it is nothing but a drop in the bucket in terms of costs. These kids aren’t lazy and they aren’t stupid — they’re being scapegoated. It’s a bit ironic that those who screech loudest about “personal responsibility” are the same ones who point at everyone else and assign blame.
Some of the kids are lazy. Some of the kids see college as a way to prolong the period of not having responsibility for one’s own progress. Some have been given higher grades than they deserve. Some have no idea what they want to do, but have been indoctrinated that they must attend a four-year college to be considered valuable in society (and maintaining social status with peers – hence the board at senior night of where kids are going to college).
The article rightly points out that college is not the place for some of the kids. It also points out that colleges do not have consequences for encouraging the kids who are not prepared, or have shown no aptitude or interest, for the education offered to go ahead and attend.
The system is clearly not working well, and in hard financial times, we may find that a different system may be appropriate. When knocking the current system, though, we need to find appropriate alternatives. Obviously there is no one best fit for all.
Every time, though, I see educational reform, it leads to more abstract and “higher level” studies for “lower level” students.
Reform should focus on encouraging “higher level” studies for “higher level” students and more practical study for those who are not interested in, or do not show aptitudes for, these studies.
Sum of all fears..
Silly me, I thought they were going to say eliminate loans and institute free colleges instead, like they have in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and other countries. Higher education is a very profitable industry that isn’t going anywhere, just like the health insurance companies. Them that has don’t give a dam if everyone else is in debt. The Federal government did the right thing by taking over student loans and it should stay that way until everyone can get a free college education.
Ok I will go along with making college part of the state run education system. IF all students are REQUIRED to take as there major a subject that is a needed field in there area. Also I would like to see a contract between the student and the school that if they do NOT use the education to make a living using what they learned in the school would have to REPAY all costs to the tax payers who footed the bill.
The issue at this point is not the cost of school as many professionals do just fine. It is those who take classes that have no value in the job market. You want to learn art great but if there is no market for someone who knows art then what was the point. College is a place to learn a skill that will make the education cost and time worth while for you life. We need people who can do a job not ones who can not.
1) The courses you would be forced to take because they have “value in the job market” while you’re a student could be a swift trip to nowhere by the time you graduate.
2) jobs do exist in fields such as art that you disapprove of.
3) holding students responsible for fluctuations in the job market (if the economy crashes again and you can’t find work, suddenly you have to pay back the entire tuition cost–while unemployed or working at McD’s out of desperation) is pretty vicious.
How much do the tickets cost to la-la progressive liberal land? I would like to live in this dream world where no one is responsible for anything they do!
“2) jobs do exist in fields such as art that you disapprove of.”
I believe he was saying; there are very few jobs in the field of art in comparison to say the field of engineering or medicine… A lot of the jobs revolving around the arts are in managerial and business management as well. There isnt a high demand for painters and sculptors. Out of all the art students I knew @ UNH only one has a somewhat succesful career path now and he was a photographer(works for a newspaper). The rest have resided themselves to art as a hobby and have taken other jobs.
I don’t believe he disapproves of art just doesnt approve giving loans to student after student for it that will statistically not use that degree in their life.
“The courses you would be forced to take because they have “value in the
job market” while you’re a student could be a swift trip to nowhere by
the time you graduate.”
explain this further? I know from engineering that technology changes quickly so therefor to stay current in the field engineers are required to read publications and journals but the basics remain the same. Same with things like business or medicine or law…
Even other courses of study in liberal arts like rhetoric… They still teach Aristotle lol.
if post secondary education is going to be free > government run they will ultimately remove choices on curriculum and you will be forced to take courses and very limited in your course of study which actually might serve as a limiting factor. I would not have gone to college if I could not have been able to decide what classes I wanted to take.
You seem willing to restrict students to studying only the subjects that have the highest number of job openings. Where would your cutoff be? Would students be permitted to take only courses in subjects that were #1 to #10 on the Most Job Openings list? Or could you stretch it to #11?
Suppose jobs in health care fields are hot when you apply to college, so you’re permitted to study health care. Then Republican politicians slash healthcare spending, lay off all public workers in healthcare fields, and kill health insurance reform, so that few Americans can afford health insurance (and thus healthcare). By the time you graduate, where will you work?
There is no evidence that free or inexpensive, government-subsidized post-secondary education routinely restricts your choices of major. True, that’s what Republicans would like to see happen, but it isn’t happening yet.
haha I would have government stay the hell outta education and healthcare all together. There is no evidence period.
I was merely stating the logic of free education which is never really free. Teacher and support staff have to be paid, books and supplies must be bought, buildings must be erected and maintained. There just needs to be some damn good results for what we invest via taxes in education. Right now our post secondary system is a world leader and outside of the financial-aid/subsidy system has little government interference. Where as our secondary system is riddled with government standardized tests and public teachers unions and other bureaucracy interference and we have a laughable education system compared to other advanced developed nations.
Stop blaming just republicans for the countries ill’s. There are fundamentally no differences between republicans and democrats on core economic issues. Both parties create these bubbles. You thought the wallstreet bank bubble recession sucked wait for the college bubble recession that is coming. Government is government under any party affiliation. people get so riled up over party lines and “their man”.
College tution and the claim EVERYONE has
to have a college degree is as phony as
shovel-ready jobs. Another fable fabricated
to have people think they will become wealthy
and walk right into a 100K/yr job. Maybe a few
choice professions may command such attention
but most job don’t. Our new society has people
thinking they are entitled to a very high wage and
the “perfect job” because they got taken for huge
loans and got a degree.
There aren’t even 25,000k a year jobs available for these kids. Most would take anything relevant to their field. Quit lying and saying that they’re demanding 6 figures. It’s not true.
They may not be 100k a year jobs… but kids are coming out of school where (I suspect) they are told they can command salaries of experienced people in their field. I know I interview them.
And they turn down your job offers because they don’t like the salary or pay? I doubt it.
No But expectations are too high. I turned them down.
So the lies are widdled down and the truth comes out. First it’s they’re demanding six figure salaries, then they’re supposedly turning down jobs because they think they can command higher salaries, then finally the truth is you turn them down because you think their expectations are too high.
First of all.
Are you capable of reading a post??? I said…
“They may not be 100k a year jobs… but kids are coming out of school where….”
I never said $100k.
You lied.
I never said they were turning down jobs.
That’s your second lie.
I said their expectations are too high… because they have been told to expect them. (I suspect.)
Yes. They are expecting more than the market will bear.
You told so many lies and misrepresented what i said in your last post you must be a Democratic politician.
I can read. Follow the progression of this comment thread, it’s all here. Funny how you resort to all these broad and baseless attacks when you’re called on your BS.
So you are an aficionado of the big lie.
We know who coined that phrase.
What I said is all there for all to see.
Funny how you can’t own up to your baseless lies.
“think they will become wealthyand walk right into a 100K/yr job” “thinking they are entitled to a very high wage andthe “perfect job” because they got taken for hugeloans and got a degree” “they are told they can command salaries of experienced people in their field” “No But expectations are too high”
You can keep squawking “you lie” all you want, but it doesn’t make it so. The comments here are riddled with lies pretending like these new graduates are demanding 6 figure salaries or anything close to that. That’s the lie. All you do is deflect and insult. Still can’t address the lie you support. Supposedly you’re hiring people that are vastly over qualified to work for you? Right?
These kids want a job in their field and that pays their bills — many of them settling for much less.
You are quoting someone else. Not me. Read my post.,… You are either mistaken about what I said or intentionally lying, In your “big lie” mode. Either that or you really cannot read. Suddenly I think the latter. Foolish person.
And if you notice, I initially replied to someone else. If you notice, I didn’t say you lied, I said these were lies general and you’re supporting it. Yet I’m the one who can’t read? Come on.
You should realize that just because someone disagrees with you or has a different experience than you, they’re not this awful person. Also, it is possible to have a discussion without screeching and getting offended over everything. It seems you have trouble with that and it’s likely why you like to make sweeping generalizations with little basis in reality.
So now it is acceptable to attribute to me something I did not say to discredit things I did say. Now we are back to a Goebbels mentality.
You are the one that regularly calls people liars and fools and NOW you have a problem with it? Get over yourself.
It’s funny how you keep telling me I need to learn to read. I didn’t attribute anything to you. I said “so the lies are widdled down” and I listed the several lies in general in this string of comments. I apologize that this has confused you so much.
I haven’t called people liars or fools either. I’ve said people have lied and have acted foolishly though. I’ve also explained why I believe that to be true as well, as opposed to you who just keeps saying the same untrue things and slinging mud. I find it silly that you think trying to belittle the people who disagree with somehow helps your argument. If I were to engage in the same behavior you do, making broad and sweeping generalizations, I wouldn’t have a great opinion of baby boomers. But I’m a bit more thoughtful and fair than that and I also know many good ones.
It is your tactics flowing back on you that you cant stand.
I notice you resort to personal attacks when you’re wrong and can’t address what I’ve said directly.
Just because you go to college does not make you more employable UNLESS you learn something relevant to the job market. When someone applies for a job and they say they have 4 years of college and you ask what was your major they say liberal arts! When you need a IT person or a accountant or other person with a set of SKILLS!!
Obviously Mr Vedder doesn’t know the difference between Skilled Trades and professionals. Maine doesn’t even have a viable Apprentice Program in place. Probably didn’t learn about the basic difference between man and monkeys…The ability to make and use tools.
The problem is that there is made a correlation between getting an education and getting a job. There is more to education than getting a job. The value is in creating a thinking individual. If a person is interested in some subject he should be able to study that subject to whatever level he considers his interest is satisfied. In most cases a person with this kind of interest will probably be interested in his subject for his entire life. Most benefits of education can’t be found in a paycheck.
I agree. Too many people are thinking of college or university as vocational-technical schools. The purpose of an advanced education is to increase your ability to think and reason and further hone your skills at learning. Yes, there are plenty of specifics, but intelligent college graduates from good schools have proved they can learn most anything they will need to learn in a profession.
If we only permit people to study subjects that have the most job openings (at least the year they’re applying to their 4-year program), how will jobs in other fields ever get filled? Do we forbid people to study archaeology or anthropology or how to preserve great works of art because jobs are not the most plentiful, and wind up with these fields fading away forever?
The flip side of that is: do we fund people studying Peruvian poetry and mating habits of ants and not being able to find work in that field?
I don’t think we can forbid it altogether. If somebody wants to study and somebody else wants to teach Peruvian poetry, then by all means go for it WITH YOUR OWN DIME.
The question is, what is the public responsibility? It should be to instill an ability to learn and find things out.
I recently saw an eighth-grade general exam from 1910 or 1920 or so. It was quite advanced, covering stuff that I wouldn’t have known coming out of 12th grade. College has basically taken on the functions of high school, since high schools are not teaching what they used to.
The question on the table though, is what do we do with student loans? In theory, they are loans and it shouldn’t matter, since they will be paid back. In practice…. not so much.
It’s easy enough to advocate for colleges and universities offering state-subsidized education only to people studying subjects that will lead them directly to well-paying jobs.
Getting down the the nitty-gritty, imagine the bureaucracy involved in deciding precisely what courses those are, in every post-secondary school across the country. Would you permit people to study “health-related” subjects, if jobs in healthcare are in the top 10 (for any given year)? If so, would you subdivide this a bit, or would you permit students to study acupuncture techniques, the use of obscure tinctures and home remedies, homeopathy, and/or the laying-on of hands? Some might vehemently advocate for–and against–any of these. Some might argue that only courses on mainstream medical techniques should be paid for.
If healthcare jobs evaporate by a person’s 4th year of study, does the student have to choose between either paying back the entire loan or switching majors to whatever the latest top 10 job-ready courses might be?
It’s easy enough to advocate for colleges and universities offering state-subsidized education only to people studying subjects that will lead them directly to well-paying jobs.
For the record, I am not advocating that. It should be up to the students to decide whether the job market in 4 years will offer the kind of job they can get with this particular course of study. We don’t need a dept. of educational prognostication, on top of everything else we have.
There is no good way to have the government judge who will and who won’t get the aid, based on subject matter.
Having just graduated with a degree in Economics and no debt from an Ivy League school, I’d take substantially less money than 100k, but it’s tough to find a meaningful job in any field right now. Not impossible, but tough. This article is spot-on, and too many people are blaming kids for being lazy, or whiners, or having expectations that are too high, etc.
I’ll be working 70+ hrs/wk in blueberry fields and processing in a few weeks while I look for a better job. Until then, stop criticizing my generation—you older folks created the mess we’ll be cleaning up for the next few decades.
Congratulations on your graduation, and double that for being debt-free. A good example for an Economics major.
And how will you start “cleaning up” the “mess” that I’ve created for you?
Not pushing housing loans on people who shouldn’t have them, not pushing student loans on people who shouldn’t have them, cutting back on the rate of growth of ALL entitlements (both corporate subsidies and welfare), and not spending $14 Trillion more than revenue are four useful starters.
What makes you think that *I* (as an older person) am responsible for that?
It’s the Barney Frank types who called Bush a racist for telling Congress that there were problems with the housing market and the way that Congress was forcing those loans.
*I* didn’t vote for the Ted Kennedys and the Nancy Pelosis who never met a spending bill they didn’t like.
Yes, Bush spent way too much, but come on…. John Freakin’ Kerry?
I’ve tried my best to avoid those things, but just like you, I only have one vote.
Pushing loans on people? I don’t think it works that way.
I have two kids who will both graduate from college debt-free (one is already out). My total cost will be $140,000 in after-tax dollars. I have no retirement savings left and drive a 12 year old car, but my kids will not start adult life in debt.
It comes down to personal choice – to sacrificing and paying for the things you decide to buy, including a college education. Not expecting other people to pay for it. Not creating the false assumption that college is “free” just because you can put your tuition bill on your credit card, in the form of a student loan.
Richard Vedder is 100% correct. Get rid of all student loans, but if a well-qualified applicant is truly disadvantaged, make some limited grant assistance available to help with college costs, if they are diligent and complete their degrees on time. And I see nothing wrong with targeting grants to particular fields, engineering, medicine, etc., if that seems to be where the future jobs or public needs will be.
Be careful not to bite the hands that will be feeding you your social security, medicare, and medicaid checks.
The article would make sense “if” we had the manufacturing base in this country like we did after WWII, sadly we don’t anymore. We have let companies leave and go to 3rd world countries and set up shop. Did we hit these companies with extra tariffs for their unpatriotic action? Uhhh no, we encouraged it, at least our politicians did. With them went some of the best and most skilled jobs, like designing, tool and die making, machining etc. It will probably take another war, unfortunately, to get back our manufacturing base. If ever….. Is this the MIC that DD Eisenhower tried to warn us about? Sure looks like it. Since the only thing made in America anymore seems to be weapons, weapon systems, and war machines.
Did we hit these companies with extra tariffs for their unpatriotic action?
Do you think they did it because they were unpatriotic?
Do you seriously ascribe NO fault to the unions who tear apart the workplace, and pad their wallets?
Do you seriously ascribe NO fault to the lawsuits that lead to government regulations that drive people away?
I’m as patriotic as the next guy, but I can be driven too far.
once again look at all the unemployed college students commenting on this editorial!