HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Study: Nearly half are ov...

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:18 PM

Study: Nearly half are overqualified for their jobs

Source: USA Today

9:12a.m. EST January 28, 2013

Nearly half of working Americans with college degrees are in jobs for which they're overqualified, a new study out Monday suggests.

The study, released by the non-profit Center for College Affordability and Productivity, says the trend is likely to continue for newly minted college graduates over the next decade.

"It is almost the new normal," says lead author Richard Vedder, an Ohio University economist and founder of the center, based in Washington.

The number of Americans whose highest academic degree was a bachelor's grew 25% to 41 million from 2002 to 2012, statistics released last week from the U.S. Census Bureau show.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/27/study-nearly-half-are-overqualified-for-jobs/1868817/

55 replies, 5598 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Study: Nearly half are overqualified for their jobs (Original post)
OhioChick Jan 2013 OP
ChromeFoundry Jan 2013 #1
hollysmom Jan 2013 #6
bubbayugga Jan 2013 #18
valerief Jan 2013 #20
sweetapogee Jan 2013 #54
lib2DaBone Jan 2013 #2
aristocles Jan 2013 #3
humblebum Jan 2013 #4
The2ndWheel Jan 2013 #16
humblebum Jan 2013 #19
The2ndWheel Jan 2013 #32
humblebum Jan 2013 #50
arikara Jan 2013 #5
Myrina Jan 2013 #7
aristocles Jan 2013 #8
Myrina Jan 2013 #11
aristocles Jan 2013 #12
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #25
Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #51
humblebum Jan 2013 #15
arikara Jan 2013 #52
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #23
aristocles Jan 2013 #27
happyslug Jan 2013 #36
JoeBlowToo Jan 2013 #29
antigop Jan 2013 #31
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #42
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #26
Posteritatis Jan 2013 #47
bucolic_frolic Jan 2013 #9
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #28
Posteritatis Jan 2013 #48
jeff47 Jan 2013 #41
Posteritatis Jan 2013 #46
bubbayugga Jan 2013 #10
aristocles Jan 2013 #13
Fearless Jan 2013 #14
antigop Jan 2013 #17
antigop Jan 2013 #21
aristocles Jan 2013 #24
benld74 Jan 2013 #22
NickB79 Jan 2013 #30
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #33
NickB79 Jan 2013 #45
WestCoastLib Jan 2013 #38
NickB79 Jan 2013 #44
WestCoastLib Jan 2013 #49
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #39
djean111 Jan 2013 #34
aristocles Jan 2013 #37
WestCoastLib Jan 2013 #40
Evasporque Jan 2013 #35
hedgehog Jan 2013 #55
kentauros Jan 2013 #43
radhika Jan 2013 #53

Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:29 PM

1. And a bipartisan committee plans to increase the annual H-1b cap?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014380591

Sounds like Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, Dell and the rest, with their bullshit claims of a lack of talent... are just seeking cheap labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChromeFoundry (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:27 PM

6. Those of us in management know this is true.

Actually, I am retired, but when I wasn't it was a major talking point behind closed doors. Along with outsourcing will save money, which it did not since you have lost the immediate quality control of seeing when things are starting to go off the track, not just when you get a defective product back.

But the thinking is so ingrained, that any arguments are dismissed as if you are not up on the latest information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChromeFoundry (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:57 PM

18. as long as they all vote straight ticket Democrat, it will be fine.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChromeFoundry (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:00 PM

20. Yes, because AMERICANS don't need work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChromeFoundry (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:57 PM

54. You are so right on of course

but a quote from the article is of interest "Right now you can look around the world and you can see a lot of high-tech, high-value high-productivity jobs that we are not doing in this country, in part because our country does not have the requisite skills," says Joe Minarik, of the Washington-based Committee for Economic Development. "

Also the article suggests that of those who have degrees and have jobs (even those who have a BS degree in dumbass) are making almost 60K/year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:35 PM

2. K/R Worker productivity is up 80% since 1980...

 

..but workers have yet to see a pay increase. i.e. we are doing almost twice the work we used to do.. for less money.

Welcome to Republican-World-Trickle-Down hell. That's where they pee on your shoes and tell you it's raining.



Worse yet.. if you are over 50.. no company will even talk to you because they are afraid you will run up their health care costs.

At the same time... the Republican pshchopaths in Congress want to RAISE the retirement age to 75.

The standard of living in China is up by the exact same amount that the standard of living is down in the USA... and it's getting worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lib2DaBone (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:05 PM

3. Productivity is not up because workers are doing almost twice the work they used to do...

 

Productivity is up across all sectors of the economy because technology allows companies to produce more with fewer workers.

One can find this effect in manufacturing, the service sector, IT, everywhere.

After companies downsized from 2007-2009, they found they could produce the same amount or more with fewer workers.

This phenomenon is accelerating. Expect the unemployment rate to remain where it is now, or go up, for many decades to come. And it will not matter who is in office, D or R. Technology is it's own imperative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aristocles (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:10 PM

4. We can either control our own future or the future will control us. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:50 PM

16. Not either/or

It's a simultaneous situation. That's why it's so frustrating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The2ndWheel (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:58 PM

19. It's frustrating I agree, but the actions of masses of frustrated people will determine

 

how the future plays out. If nothing is done, nothing will change for the common worker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:43 PM

32. But everyone is trying to control their own future

And the actions of masses of frustrated people is by no means clear. One, actions have consequences, both positive and negative. Two, masses of people have masses of differing opinions. Three, frustrated people act in sometimes weird ways.

We're living in a future that was acted for by masses of frustrated people. There are some positives, and there are some negatives. Some things have changed for the common worker, some things have not.

Diversity is a messy thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The2ndWheel (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 07:48 PM

50. "We're living in a future that was acted for by masses of frustrated people." - Yes we are, and

 

that future, which has come to pass because of the actions of those masses is very much in danger and slipping away. The age we live in now bears a striking resemblance in many ways to the labor situation at the turn of the 19th into the 20th century i.e., that described in 'The Jungle' or the Gilded Age or the Age of the Robber Barons. And it is going to take a massive effort to turn things around. But if it was done once and it can be done again. However a clear direction and leadership will definitely be needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aristocles (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:16 PM

5. I don't believe that

as I know many people whose workplaces have downsized and they are all expected to do more work because it still needs to get done. Including my own place of work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arikara (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:28 PM

7. Not only expected to do MORE work, but ...

.... to do that work within the 40-hour constraint, or put in 'free overtime'.

IMO we would be a hella happier place if we followed some European models of a 35 hour work week, lower production, more life-time. The gerbil-wheel we're on now: work more to buy more to work more to buy more, is simply not sustainable or healthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:30 PM

8. One always has the option of NOT buying more. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aristocles (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:35 PM

11. Not when it comes to necessities ...

... if one is stuck at $7-10/hr and has a couple kids to raise, one must keep feeding "the machine" (food, clothes, housing supplies etc).

In the event of 'unnecessary stuff', I agree totally, but that's a discussion for the Marketing Industry, isn't it? The road I take to work every morning is lined with used car dealerships. Hundreds - if not thousands - of used cars waiting to be sold. And still we're bombarded with new car ads and gimmicks every time we turn on the tv or open a magazine. And that's just one industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:40 PM

12. I agree with you. To me "buying more" means...

 

...buying a second or third television, buying a new car when the current vehicle works perfectly, buying a stainless steel refrigerator when the 20 year old beige one still purrs along well.

I don't consider buying necessities "buying more".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aristocles (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:11 PM

25. I have young friends with college degrees and who had decent grades who work

as waiters and waitresses. They barely pay their rent with their pay and tips.

They don't "buy more" ever. And some of them live with their parents.

A third television?

A new car?

Are you kidding? That's not the America we live in. That is the America the people on TV live in. And that's why I don't watch TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 08:36 PM

51. So entirely true

The young ones don't buy much. They can't afford it. They live rather austerely in many cases, compared to those in their position in the 90s.

Even the ones with good jobs often have high student loans they have to pay off. I know a young guy who has been working in the financial (trading) profession for a couple of years after graduating with his master's. He's done well - he is very able. He makes over 100K. But he has over 100K in student loans, and these jobs are in the cities, so he doesn't even have a car. Actually he and his girlfriend share one. She has a job and makes over 40K, but she lives at home with her family and buys her clothes at thrift shops, when she buys them. She's got to pay off her student loans too.

They're going to get married, but they are planning to spend the next three years paying off their loans and saving money so they can afford a wedding.

These are the successful ones. Their one car is over 10 years old. Companies are crying wondering why young people don't spend the way they "should", but this is the reason.

Now take someone who hasn't had the luck in finding the job, and has to cover those student loans working as a waiter or barista. It's ugly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:49 PM

15. The "free overtime" thing is more common than most realize and so

 

are mandatory 12-16 hour days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 10:28 PM

52. I totally agree with that

there aren't enough jobs to go around here, so the work week should be shortened so that more can have jobs. I think Germany starts with 6 weeks vacation too. People actually have some quality of life there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aristocles (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:08 PM

23. So, how can the increased profit from all that technology be allocated

so that we have a healthy, safe society?

Do we give it all to the rich, to those who invested in it or innovated it, or do we spread the benefits of technology across society?

That is the major political and social issue of our time.

The fact that so many talented, well educated people in the U.S. (and across the world) are doing work that does not challenge their abilities suggests we may face a pretty dismal future.

The rich view themselves as the "makers." They think, that they are therefore entitled to keep the benefits of what they think they made and not share those benefits.

What they don't understand is that there are millions of people with just as much ability as they who are working just as hard as they ever worked, but who don't have the opportunities they have.

I watched a Netflix video of a 1995 interview with Steve Jobs. He spoke about the experiences he had as a teenager and young man. He was born at the right time, and happened to live in the right places and meet people who were doing innovative things in the field of computers.

When you see the video, you realize that he had a lot of talent and he worked hard, but that the secret of his success was the mixture of his talent, his personality AND ALL THE HELP HE GOT ALONG THE WAY BECAUSE HE JUST HAPPENED TO BE IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME.

Had Steve Jobs lived in Podunk, Mo., he would never, ever have become the computer innovator he was and never, ever have been able to do what he did at Apple.

It's just a fact.

And that is why I believe that the benefits of technology, the profit from these innovations, should be shared. They do not simply belong to those lucky few who happen to wander into Hewlitt-Packard laboratories when they are teenagers.

I have read similar facts about Bill Gates. During his early teen years, he attended a private school and had a computer to play with. At that time, most kids in America did not have computers to experiment with. Who knows whether Bill Gates would have become so wealthy had some other equally bright or even brighter kids in America had the opportunities he had at that early period in his life. Why should he get to keep all the benefits of something he got to a great extent by chance?

So, the big challenge is for those who think of themselves as gifted "makers" to understand that while they were gifted and lucky, a lot of other people are just as gifted and work just as hard as they do but make a lot less money. Those who are not rich are not always poorer because they aren't "makers." It is often because they did not have the opportunity to become "makers."

There is only so much demand for people at the top of the heap. Most of us end up at the bottom no matter how brilliant or talented we are. The benefits of technology should be shared by all. And every individual needs challenge in work and life.

We cannot expect people to continue to work so hard at menial jobs for little pay. Either people who are not challenged in their work will not encourage their children to become well educated or they will quit working so much and who knows what will happen? It's not a pretty ending.

Everyone has to learn to share their toys and talents. It's the only way a big family can live in anything approaching harmony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:18 PM

27. Maybe a negative feedback loop will occur.

 

Over the coming decades, because of economic reality, people will delay having families, or have smaller families, or no children at all.

Boomers will pass away.

Population centers will shrink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aristocles (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 03:08 PM

36. That is happening, if it was NOT for immigration, the US would have a DROP in population.

And since 2007, even within the immigration groups, birth rates have dropped below the replacement level:

Decline in recent birth rates:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/11/Birth_Rate_Final.pdf

The total fertility rate in the United States after World War II peaked at about 3.8 children per woman in the late 1950s and by 1999 was at 2 children. This means that an imaginary woman (defined in the introduction) who fast-forwarded through her life in the late 1950s would have been expected to have about four children, whereas an imaginary woman who fast-forwarded through her life in 1999 would have been expected to have only about two children in her lifetime. The fertility rate of the total U.S. population is at around the replacement level of about 2.1 children per woman. However, the fertility of the population of the United States is below replacement among those native born, and above replacement among immigrant families, most of whom come to the U.S. from countries with higher fertility than that of the U.S. However, the fertility rates of immigrants to the U.S. have been found to decrease sharply in the second generation, correlating with improved education and income.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:26 PM

29. Bill Gates was lucky, lucky, lucky...

 

Beyond the Seattle area, Gates was appointed to the board of directors of the national United Way in 1980, becoming the first woman to lead it in 1983. Her tenure on the national board's executive committee is believed to have helped Microsoft, based in Seattle, at a crucial time. In 1980, she discussed with John Opel, a fellow committee member who was the chairman of the International Business Machines Corporation, her son's company. Mr. Opel, by some accounts, mentioned Mrs. Gates to other I.B.M. executives.

A few weeks later, I.B.M. took a chance by hiring Microsoft, then a small software firm, to develop an operating system for its first personal computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeBlowToo (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:35 PM

31. WARREN BUFFETT on being at the right place right time and luck with wealth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeBlowToo (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:08 PM

42. not to mention mary maxwell's father & grandfather were bankers with ties to what became

 

citibank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aristocles (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:17 PM

26. Where will the money to buy goods and services come from when virtually no one

has a job, and the only jobs (except for CEO and Boards of Directors) pay poverty wages??

Ask your unfettered free market capitalist friends THAT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aristocles (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:06 PM

47. And those remaining workers are being required to do more on top of that anyway.

All that fun stuff like IT workers being expected to hang in another twenty, thirty, fifty hours of work a week, especially since allowing employers to require that sort of thing increasingly has the force of law behind it. Why hire two people, when you can hire one person, tell him to do two peoples' jobs, and skip out on paying for the excess time?

I left my previous job over something like that - they switched me from hourly to salary and immediately demanded I start putting in 60-80 hours a week at my base rate. I had enough saved up that I could afford to do that and spend some months in the doldrums until finding something better a few months ago, but I also know a lot of people in similar situations, maybe most, aren't nearly so lucky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:32 PM

9. Where are the growth prospects for college graduates?

The rapid expansion of colleges during the Vietnam War has come home to roost.

Some institutions produce worthless degrees that are not remotely linked to
any business experience.

And with this much surplus education rampant in America it doesn't sound like
a good bet that educating more young people more and more at greater
expense is going to bear fruit for them or for society.

Degrees are worthwhile when they build skills and experience (accounting, math,
entrepreneurship, even journalism if interned)

or when they are closely linked with the local job market (community colleges).

The rest of this education is just not worth the effort or cost.

And the education industry has costs that are inflated by all the easy federally-
backed borrowing to pay tuition.

If you want to inflate the cost of something, throw money at it. Insurance, college
loans come to mind.

Americans need to become better consumers of education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:19 PM

28. A liberal arts education is always worth a great deal to the person who has it.

It enables us to read, think and write well. It is just a wonderful gift.

Technical education serves us only if we are able to put it to its specific use (get a great engineering or technical job that is challenging) or use the basic skills it gave us to do something else we want or need to do.

I found that my liberal arts background enabled me to learn just about anything I wanted to learn. I think that more people should study liberal arts in college in the future. They should then take technical training.

It would be great if we had a system similar to that of some European countries in which stronger academic training -- liberal arts training -- was available to high school students who wanted it. Those students could then finish both a strong liberal arts education and some technical training by the time they were in their early 20s.

I know someone with a degree in a math-related field from one of the top schools in the country. She found when she went into the labor market that she really needed a PhD to be employable above the level of an administrative assistant. Even a degree from a great, big-name school, honors and glowing recommendations do not always mean a challenging job in our economy. I know another person who has a PhD in a math-related field (partly math partly something else) who has had great difficulty finding a job. This has been going on for years and years. It is getting worse.

In the thirties, people with engineering degrees could not get jobs. Liberal arts makes a person more flexible. I strongly recommend a liberal arts background.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:11 PM

48. I'm doing DBA work at a museum with my history degrees right now. Squee! Best of both worlds! (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 03:48 PM

41. Yeah, not so much.

There's lots of people graduating with computer science, network administration and other IT degrees. They can't find work due to competition from more experienced people who are "slumming it" in jobs they are overqualified for. Due to things like outsourcing and H1Bs and the insane demand that no company ever conduct on-the-job training.

These aren't fluffy, useless degrees. They're the ones held up as examples of "real" degrees that give "real" training for "real" work. And they're utterly failing so that the CEOs can buy a 5th house.

It's not the problem of "these kids today". It's the problem of "these executives today".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:51 PM

46. Oh boy, a "let's talk about universities like they're trade schools" subthread. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:34 PM

10. would you like fries with your bachelor's degree?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:41 PM

13. No, but I'll take an extra shot of espresso with my PhD.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:43 PM

14. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:54 PM

17. but we're all supposed to work hard and get that STEM degree, aren't we? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:02 PM

21. 1 in 4 retail workers, 1 in 7 taxi drivers, 1 in 5 telemarketers are college grads

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:08 PM

24. I'd like to see a breakdown by undergraduate subject majors and the underemployed

 

And some other categories....

What's the situation of those with associate degrees?

What about graduates of trade schools? Those with apprenticeship?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:06 PM

22. Except for Congressmen - who are nearly ALL underqualified

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:31 PM

30. I have a BS in biochem. My coworker used to drive a forklift

For 10 years before transferring to another department in the company. We both do the same thing in the QA lab on different shifts. In fact, his 15 years of seniority beat my college degree.

How fucked up is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:53 PM

33. How Fucked Up

is you assuming because you have some piece of paper that you are better and more derserving of more money than some other individual. Is that other person competent and doing what is required of him or her, then they derserve to be there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4Q2u2 (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:26 PM

45. My "piece of paper"

Shows that I completed relevant coursework that gives me the knowledge to work in a lab setting, using analytical skills and sterile techniques while documenting any and all results related to my work.

Look at this another way. Would you be comfortable seeing a dentist who doesn't have his or her "piece of paper" showing they completed dental school? A pediatrician for your kids who never finished medical schoool? How about hiring someone without accreditation to build you a brand new home?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 03:26 PM

38. Not very fucked up

Not fucked up at all. Think of the reverse. How fucked up is the idea that 4 years in a classroom would beat 15 years actually doing work in the industry?

That's definitely a big problem in our country, but it's one of inflated education costs and unrealistic promises and expectations.

Most employers would rather hire someone with working experience than someone with a degree. And who can blame them?

It does seem to make a degree worth a lot less than the cost of getting one these days. I have been working in IT and technical fields for almost 15 years now, out of college. I was stunned by how many people (computer programmers, IT techs- highly skilled positions) don't have degrees. At first I was incredulous that they would have better positions and salaries than me. But as I've spent those years working, I've found that there's zero difference and when doing hiring myself I don't even check what the education level is on a resume.

I want to see demonstrated skills and the ability to practically apply those skills. A programmer, for example, could easily do and learn more applicable programming in 3 months on the job than in 4 years in most university Computer Science programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WestCoastLib (Reply #38)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:20 PM

44. His prior work was driving forklifts

Don't get me wrong, he's a nice enough guy and I like his personality, but this is a QA lab in which food is tested to ensure that people don't fall ill. He is the only one without a degree, and he struggles more than all the other lab techs to complete his work. Frequently he leaves work for the next shift, but this is ignored due to his seniority he acquired while working in the production wing.

Every other QA position I've inquired at has a hard requirement for a college education to work as a lab tech. My place of employment is the only one that I have found that does not.

Does it comfort you to think that someone with no formal education in quality control or basic lab techniques is testing the food you or your family eat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #44)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:18 PM

49. "no formal education"

My experience leads me to believe that on the job training one receives is most times superior education than scholastic education.

To honestly answer your question, though I have many concerns about what goes into the food I eat, your statement neither raises or lowers them.

I don't doubt your personal situation isn't ideal. But it's also not likely the norm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 03:31 PM

39. How many years seniority do you have?

Is the ink dry on that diploma?

Seniority is worth something. Years of relevant experience are worth even more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:53 PM

34. What I am afraid of is that this sort of information will be used to talk kids out of going to

college, or as an excuse to not do something about high tuition and hideous student debt.
And then, of course, Americans will not be educated enough, so we will have to import people from countries that actually help with education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 03:24 PM

37. I paraphrase Lucy Van Pelt

 

"Look, Charlie, let's face it. We all know that College is a big commercial racket. It's run by a big eastern syndicate, you know."

I have three children, all graduates with Finance, Accounting, and Marketing degrees from major universities.

All with full time jobs. All with horrendous debt burdens. They live in Chicago and Cleveland....not cheap.

If they were in high school today, I would recommend they first get an associates degree from a community college (less expensive) and some real world work experience. Then go back after a few years and get a bachelor's.

Better yet, go to a trade school, complete an apprenticeship. Work for oneself or as a contractor. Buy a piece of land away from metropolitan areas --- 100 acres would do. Move out of urban areas, to a place like Circleville, OH. Stock up on food and water. Know one's neighbors well. Learn how to protect oneself. But I digress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 03:35 PM

40. Don't fear it- They should

Not everyone should go to a 4 year college out of high school. If I could do it over, I wouldn't. I don't need a 4 year degree and my working experience surpassed my college learned knowledge in a few months of work.

Unless we get a complete overhaul of the university system, financially, it's not worth it and it's putting many people into debt that isn't worth the degrees they are getting.

There are other ways to have an educated populace. Push kids to Community Colleges and Trade Schools, at least right out of high school. Let them finish at a 4 year school if a Bachelor's, or more, is needed in an industry of their choice. Make online degrees and certificates more affordable and more valuable. Let's shore up our primary education so our high school graduates are capable of sound thinking.

But pushing kids into exorbitantly expensive 4 year schools isn't a net plus on our society.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:59 PM

35. And corporations won't hire unless you have micro-specific experience...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evasporque (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:23 PM

55. So true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:20 PM

43. I have a BA in Graphic Design.

Yet, I use the knowledge and expertise I learned from my 2-year vocational drafting degree a few years before. And I'm happy with that.

I'm glad I was able to get a four-year degree, but it's just not for everybody. Two years of college for a well-rounded background and a vocational degree is all most people truly need. And some don't even need that.

I dismiss the concept of "over-qualified" as a term invented by corporations to have yet another excuse to not hire someone. If they cared more about employee loyalty, and encouraged that, versus laying people off every time there was a minuscule economic downturn (i.e., their stock prices dropped three cents) then we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:44 AM

53. I'm a former teacher: I think it this trend is even lowering HS graduation rates

A lot of energy goes towards keeping kids in school, at least to get their HS Diploma. It isn't working - nationwide. Here in LA, completion rates hover around 50%.

IMHO, I don't really blame the kids. They see their older siblings, cousins and families in the neighborhood. Those students who went to college, paid those tuition bills, took out those loans are frankly working in boring substandard positions that do not justify the cost of the degree. Assuming they even got a job. Employers who pretend a BS/BA is required to adequately perform the tasks of a routine service job are just trying to narrow the field of applicants. It is not a job-performance factor. Maybe this means a degree helps you get that routine service job, but you are paying a lot for little.

Until America starts creating decent jobs again, at family-sustaining wages, young people will be cynical of the value of higher ed. Trade schools, skill-specific training classes are still important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread