The other traditional option for those that aren't really cut out for higher education is the military, but they are starting to tighten up again, as I understand from my friends that are still in.
The other traditional option for those that aren't really cut out for higher education is the military, but they are starting to tighten up again, as I understand from my friends that are still in.
Edit: typo
Honestly I'd be really tempted to get out of software and go into a trade. It'd be a lot less work.
As such, if you can obtain it, an engineering degree is has a little more insurance - these types of degrees are not useless, in fact, STEM degrees are becoming more and more valuable.
I have a low opinion of the military, or at least entering at a low-level. Maybe for those with discipline issues? But it's a gamble - you can literally die, without the kind of pay other dangerous jobs get. Plus, I feel you're putting your moral agency up for sale...
I wouldn't argue against an engineering degree, if you've got the chops and the discipline to finish it. Generic liberal arts fluff? More of a liability than an asset - particularly if you don't actually finish it. Hope you like bartending or waiting tables...
We may be coming from different places. I grew up in a very rural area, and especially in my parent's generation, but also mine to a large degree, the military was a way to get out of crushing poverty, learn skills, see something of the world, and maybe get a subsidized education.
I was just reading the History department's site, for no real reason, at the Uni where my kid goes (he's EE). Their "why study history" statement included being the foundation of a later graduate degree. Which I think is appropriate; it's great to have lawyers and MBAs with a diversity of backgrounds and interests, including history, art, engineering, etc.
It used to be that any undergraduate degree would serve you well enough. But today things are so specialized and hyper-competetive that some degrees (the "fluff") are indeed not economically worthwhile if you stop at undergrad. Not to say that some people shouldn't pursue them, but they should know up front what the limitations are, and that the degree itself won't pay itself off.
I also think STEM is a good background for any liberal arts subject - it give you analytical tools on which to hang the "meat" of the subject, and can curb some of the more "dubious" lit-crit style thinking that can exist in some of those subjects (unfalsifiable, subjective, tautological claims etc.).
Depends on the job. Infantry is universally a shitty deal, even during peacetime, but the POG[1] jobs tend to be both safer and better for civilian job opportunities.
I was an radio tech, and it opened up a huge amount of opportunities when I got out. I do electron microscopy at Intel now.
Regarding discipline issues - the military is the wrong place to deal with them. Gone are the days when wild young men could be "tamed" with a couple sessions of wall-to-wall counseling and other assorted "What's this dirt doing in my ditch, Luke" hazing sessions. The military doesn't like dealing with fucksticks, and they're happy to give them a couple of Article 15s and get them out the door as quickly as possible.
It used to be expected and even encouraged to raise hell as an enlisted man. It's now a career-ender, as the rise of social media and everyone having a smartphone turns uncontrollable dickheads into liabilities. Most senior staff don't like these changes, as they see good juniors with potential get burned for minor bad decisions that would have warranted an ass-chewing and a shitty work detail 20 years ago, but that's how the military is now. I'm just glad I'm out and don't have to go to this flagrantly asinine bullshit[2] anymore.
[1] "Personnel Other than Grunt," also known as "fobbits," "REMFs," or "TOCroaches," depending on the service.
You should be free to follow your passion/whims and study whatever they want, love it, hate it, fuck it up, drop out, and try something else. Even more so when you are young inexperienced and finding your way in the world.
> and the only result was them racking up tens of thousands in debt
That's the problem America needs to solve.
In my mind, college exists to prepare a pupil for a given field and if said pupil for any number of reasons cannot do that upon exiting that institution, why should they pay for it?
Because that was the agreement they made with the institution.
Either way someone is paying for it, it can be the person who got the (partial) education, or it can be someone\s that happens to live in the same state as the person who got the education.
Even if it doesn't make sense to you that people who fail their studies should pay their debts to their schools, it makes even less sense that you would transfer that debt from the pupil to someone who was neither partner to the decision to undertake studies nor a beneficiary of pupil's studies.
I get providing aid to colleges, especially for research and to ensure an adequate number of people go into engineering, science, math, etc. But I see no reason that we should subsidize someone getting a literature degree or just fucking around.
You cannot reasonably tell someone that only they can choose what or is not worthwhile, while dangling a huge carrot in front of them. That you feel it is necessary to dangle that carrot says that you've already decided for them.