Doesn't help either I'm sure that unions, the organizations willing/capable of marketing-to, teaching/training people and giving them some sense of camaraderie, have been attacked for decades as being variously inefficient to straight evil.
Doesn't help either I'm sure that unions, the organizations willing/capable of marketing-to, teaching/training people and giving them some sense of camaraderie, have been attacked for decades as being variously inefficient to straight evil.
Then we were told to go into STEM. So lots of people went into STEM even though they didn't want to, there are not enough STEM jobs for all of them, and in some cases the reason there are always jobs available is because they chew everyone up and spit them out (looking at you, Amazon). I got lucky. A lot of folks did not.
Then we were told what we really need is nurses. So folks went to nursing school in droves. I'm not sure where we are with that, because it seems like hospitals still never have enough nurses but that those folks that went to nursing school also didn't manage to improve their situation much.
Now we're told the money and demand is in trades. And that might be true, and that might remain true, but we've been given the wrong advice for so long we just stopped listening.
Something strange is happening here that I can't quite understand. Jokes about English majors asking if you want fries with that are way older than me and I first started college in 1999. Yes, I heard a persistent low rumbling of "go to college," but the idea that "any degree would do" is alien to me.
Of course I knew that some majors were more lucrative than others. Of course everybody else around me knew the same. Of course people my age at the time actively engaged in conversations about "what will you do with this degree when you're done?" Of course people who majored in less practical subjects thought about this (when they weren't actively trying to put it out of their mind).
A character (played by pre-hairplugs Jeremy Piven) in the movie PCU (released in 1994) ridicules a student for majoring in Sanskrit, saying, "You're majoring in a 5000 year-old dead language?" Everybody in the audience is supposed to get why that's funny.
And yet I keep hearing people say they had no idea that any of this was true. It strains credulity.
Frankly, people have been repeating this line about how they couldn't possibly have known all this for so long that kids in college today weren't even born yet when it started. Eventually people are going to have to admit that they did know (or should have).
* You should go to college.
* You should do what you love.
* Sure some jobs pay more that others, but that doesn't matter if you are doing what you love.
What was completely left out of the discussion was that some degrees won't actually enable you to do what you love. They'll just load you with tons of debt, making it harder to even get by let alone do what you love as a side gig. I never once heard a guidance councilor or other adult tell that to me or my peers. The "it is rare to get that sort of job" speech was reserved for people who wanted to play sports or be rock-stars, not those thinking about an academic degree. Maybe it was because I was from an underprivileged community, and any students who showed a desire to go to college were encouraged, not stifled.
They always listed the jobs you could have with a degree instead of the jobs you would have with a degree.
My wife got a GIS degree. They told her about all the map making jobs. They didn't say 95% of these jobs were oil and gas.
Now granted they both worked crazy hard in school, but the idea that it's "obvious bullshit" isn't true at all. Archaeologists and historians are real jobs that exist. I say that with a straight face.
I'm not saying that it's easy to become either, and you're definitely not going to become rich doing either of them, but they're certainly attainable if you're truly driven and love that kind of work. They're not get-lucky fantasies like NBA star or celebrity influencer.
I have 1 friends who is tenure track (stem which is significantly easier) but 14-15 who got PhDs weren't able to find tenure track position. But two friend started an internationally acclaimed bands. And another who is an internationally published author.
So sure these jobs exist but archaeologist and historian are probably closer to rock star or NBA player than they are accountant or developer.
But if you've really got your heart set on archaeology/history, they're not fantasies. They're just extremely niche. You're right that the parallel isn't "developer", it's more like "database engine developer". Albeit much much lower pay, in most cases. ;)
One of the biggest differences though, is you figure out whether or not you're getting into the NBA at aged 20, after going to school on an athletic scholarship.
You figure out you're not going to get tenure at 32 after finishing up your 3rd post doc, with 250k in student loans.
I’m reminded of a friend who moved - with no prior experience living outside of the U.S. - to Tasmania because that’s the one place in the world where their partner could get a permanent job when they were on the market. That’s worked out well for their family but it’s nothing like the way a software developer can be flexible.
That seems to be a somewhat US-specific problem. In many other countries, university education is much more affordable, in some cases even entirely free. In my country (Australia), the government pays two-thirds of the tuition cost of most undergraduate degrees, and will lend you the remaining third - while that debt is still a burden for some, it is nowhere near as bad as the US. Other countries (such as France or Scotland), the government pays 100% of tuition
I certainly knew people in ~2000 who were going to college to study things like psychology, who felt the abstract skills of 'learning to learn', writing, reasoning with a bit of statistics and spreadsheet operation would help them get jobs like marketing, sales, analysts, strategic consulting, HR etc.
I suspect if you got your degree in psychology from Harvard, that might be true - but if your degree is from a mediocre university, probably not.
And you don't need to go to Harvard at all. Certainly the school you go to counts for something, but it's not like psych is an "indulgent" degree that needs a good college to "compensate" for. It's a very normal degree. The social sciences tend to translate very well to the business world, a good blend of quantitative research together with qualitative analysis that mirrors business initiatives well.
Sure but that never stopped anyone from pulling out BLS statistics showing life-time earning potential of an BA in english vs a highschool diploma.
But the point of bringing up "any degree" isn't that any student thought (or any guidance counselor said) that underwater basket weaving and electrical engineering had the same potential it's that we were told to go to college even if we had no idea what we wanted to do with our lives. A degree was the important thing even if it was in something that we didn't want, even if we didn't want a degree at all.
Of all the people from high school still working dead end service jobs, I don’t know any with a college degree.
Sure there are people who studied English who aren’t making tons of money, but they also aren’t stuck working at Walmart like some of the people who don’t have degrees are.
An English degree isn’t enough to get you a $100k a year job out of college, but it is enough for just about anyone to get their foot in the door to a career where they can make close to that eventually.
My anecdote is much closer to BLS statistics.
When you say they are all making double minimum wage at best, that’s less than the bottom decile for college graduates. Your not experience is not representative at all.
There's a fairly long history of people inventing what they think is taught at colleges as a straw man to then criticize them in some way and it doesn't contribute to anything for the usual reasons a fallacy doesn't.
Hell, I audited the main American art course. We spent multiple weeks on indigenous textiles and pottery (not quite baskets I guess), multiple weeks on modernist and feminist painters. We didn't even touch american sculpture and spent less than a week on 'serious' painters. Saint gaudens, Sargent and the Boston painters, not even mentioned.
How many jobs there are which require a knowledge of "American Sculpture"?
It's going to be less then the number which require a knowledge of the history of feminism and social justice.
Which is to say, by making the changes you are implying should be made...you'd probably be more unemployable at the end of it because their ain't that many museums.
I was told not to major in "underwater basketweaving" in 1983, or otherwise I'd be garbage man--as if that were not one of the most important jobs in a society! It's been the same class-warfare BS for coming up on half a century: demean low paying jobs at all costs for reasons I still don't understand.
A lot of the demeaning came from the low wage workers themselves. Both my grandparents were blue collar. One painted houses, one was an elevator mechanic. They essentially forbade their children from going into the trades. "Learn to make a living with your brain, not your back" was what my dad heard constantly from his father while growing up. And so my father went to college and became an engineer.
In 1983, finishing high school in NYC, we were told to consider being garbage men because the starting pay was higher than most college graduates got!
The change for the current generation is that for everyone graduating in underwater basketweaving in say 2000, many would find unrelated careers and, because they had a college degree, do fine. With rising college costs and more expectations that workers in high paying fields have specific degrees, that's no longer true.
Ha! By whom? We had a pretty good idea that it was a solid choice in the early 90s and before. We teased my older brother for going for a bachelor's in business while I went into CS, because we were pretty sure the CS degree would be worth a lot more. He's doing just fine, but mostly because he backfilled the equivalent of a CS education into his work experience.
The glut of graduates that have come off the pipeline due to the hot tech sector prior to the bust fell off after 2-4 yrs. This actually led to the huge lack of supply of CS graduates in the ensuing decade!
I think it is partially responsible for the high salaries that CS graduates get (of course, it's a small portion of the cause, the bigger factor being huge growth in the sector).
I went to school in 2001 and computer science was one of the hottest fields around by that time, significantly more so than a BA in English. The Georgia institute of technology (Gatech), my alma mater, had a highly competitive computer science career path.
In fact the general advice was that if you really wanted to major in English that it was better to pursue a degree in an adjacent field such as communications so you could more easily transition into journalism, etc.
STEM (doctors, scientists, engineers, etc.) has almost always been a safer career path than liberal arts, assuming you're cut out for it.
Now it's just too common for any old degree to matter. I think perhaps for Ivy League this strategy still works.
Sure, she would have never gotten those jobs with an English degree but stressing over whether to study the exactly "correct" degree for your career goals isn't necessarily worth the calories.
I have already had versions of this conversation with my own daughter, who is now 12. We've talked about college, when it makes sense, when it may not, and how to make that decision based on life goals. She's plenty smart enough to understand that she doesn't need a career goal at her age, and that even when she becomes an adult it might change, but what she won't be doing is blindly wandering into college with a random hope of success at the other side.
There are new houses being built on the coast in my country less than a meter above the high water point. At king tides, their sections are already getting lightly flooded.
When sea levels rise, those same people will complain to the council (which is still letting them build there) and seek compensation, even though sea level rise is well understood and anticipated.
People know the risks but carry on because the rest of the herd is doing it.
[regarding weird man examining dozens of eggs]
Customer: They call it "shell shock". It seems to only happen with guidance counselors. They use to make a big deal of it but they let just let it go now 'cuz they always pay for whatever they break and they never bother anybody.
Dante: Well, why guidance counselors?
Customer: Well, if your job was as meaningless as theirs, wouldn't you go crazy too?
Randal: Come to think of it, my guidance counselor was kinda worthless.
It is certainly true, and probably still true, if you go to a truly elite school that any degree will do (consulting will hire any young grad from a top school with good grades), but it has been a long time since you could get any degree from any school. People are badly misinformed if they think you can go to a third-tier state school, get poor grades in a random major, and have an easy time making a lot of money.
I started college in 2002 for frame of reference.
This makes it sound like a degree is worth less today than it was in the past, which is not true. The income and wealth gap between college degree holders and non-degree holders is higher than at any point in history, and it grows bigger very year.
Most degrees have an unemployment rate of about 5-6%. That's not bad, but it does mean that there are over 2 million college-educated Americans who got degrees and can't find jobs. This minority is much more visible today; they get lots of press coverage and talk about their struggles through social media. This makes it seem like things are getting worse, just like how people tend to think that crime is getting worse, but the reality is things are getting better and college becomes a better deal every year.
>Then we were told what we really need is nurses. So folks went to nursing school in droves.
And generally this paid off, since nurses are in demand and make well above the median salary.
>Then we were told to go into STEM.
Which is decent advice, with a caveat. Most people with STEM degrees could easily pivot into something highly profitable like software development. What people weren't told is that it's difficult to land a profitable role doing research/pure science, especially if you don't have a PhD.
>And then a bunch of people were told they shouldn't have gotten those degrees and they were worthless.
Which is mostly incorrect. Even folks majoring in stuff often touted as "worthless" like art history or gender studies still tend to do better than people without degrees. The catch is that you might end up working a business analyst or a project manager instead of an Egyptologist or whatever you actually majored in. The biggest offender here is Psychology: many new graduates are shocked to discover that no, you cannot actually become a psychologist with just a Bachelor's degree in Psychology, nor are there profitable research opportunities at that level. A psychology degree still looks great on a resume if you're applying to be an HR representative or something, though.
Honestly I'd modify this to say that unless your Ph. D is in physics, mathematics (and you're willing to go into finance) or data science... you're not going to be that much better off.
And the time you spend out of industry you'll never make back. Take a CS degree, go work for any of the big ones and get "senior" next to your name as soon as possible.
The earlier comment about competent plumbers making more than doctors in Slovenia; I can believe that.
It's the white collar compensation inversion.
That's completely foreign to me.
It was well understood that degrees in English, psychology, and the wider arts were useful for teaching, but they weren't going to pay well, unless you were the exceptional minority that had a clear idea of what you were planning on doing.
I really think millennials should have got more real world work experience and internships before committing to overpriced degrees in industries that they didn't really want to work in. With a broader view of the world, one can make better decisions for happiness.
FWIW, the St Louis Fed publishes stats on incomes of degree holders, and I recently read them and found out that the average 4-year college degree holder has 2x the income of non-degree holders. (3x for advanced degrees.) Twice is a really big number and it surprised me, it’s much larger than I had suspected. Obviously some degrees make people more money than others, engineering and sciences tend to yield higher incomes than the arts. But, with an average of double the income across all degrees across all people in the US, it’s easy to see why people recommend any ol’ degree at all, and statistically speaking, it’s a valid point and good advice.
BTW, you used the word “value” with gender studies but then acknowledged in your last sentence that education has value that is non-monetary; please be careful about using language that conflates income with value (only mentioning since you did it in another comment as well). Gender studies might have people earning relatively lower incomes compared to some other degrees, but that doesn’t mean it has low value; as sub-branch of history and anthropology, and at a time when society is fiercely debating gender, gender studies is particularly relevant and useful and socially valuable today.
As far as underwater basket weaving, if you don’t have any actual examples and have to make up a fake one, then it sounds like the point you’re trying to make probably has no basis in reality, and probably isn’t true. That’s what use of the term “underwater basket weaving” by anyone tells me, and it tends to get trotted out more often on Fox News to make a straw-man point than by reasonable people having a reasonable discussion.
As far as Wikipedia links (or any references), it’s true that not everything needs one, but sometimes they’re helpful to support & clarify a discussion. It wasn’t clear that you knew underwater basket weaving wasn’t a degree, but I also added it because the article contains some interesting and humorous history behind the term “underwater basket weaving”. You could maybe use one or two links here in this thread to back up your claims, for example, about what “people” lambast & talk about, and what “widespread cultural awareness” exists. As it stands, you’ve stated a lot of opinion and assumptions without demonstrating much relevance. Who cares if someone somewhere lambasted their biased idea of a useless degree? Why should that have any bearing on what anyone else does? Answering those questions thoughtfully might require a link or two…
The only addition being "learn to code/program", but now interest rates are starting to narrow the reliability of that avenue.
To be fair, we just had a pandemic, and we're still reeling from that. Lots of folks quit because of burn-out.
> we've been given the wrong advice for so long we just stopped listening.
Shouldn't we recognize that things change and life can be unpredictable? Rather than being jaded that every adult in our lives didn't have a magical crystal ball, maybe there are more productive things that can be done?Gen Z & younger Millennials constantly get shit for blaming everyone else for everything always, and taking no responsibility or being accountable for their own actions...but I would argue that comments like the above aren't going to dispel that.
Maybe it reads different than it's intended, but a huge part of being an adult is adapting to an ever changing world and finding a path forward towards your goals.
(Edited to remove what could be perceived as a bit harsh..)
What are you talking about?
The main responsibility of adults is to prepare the next generation. Realizing that failure is not being jaded, it's confronting reality about the failures of adults.
> And when those kids grow up to be adults and realize that the advice they were given was all bullshit
You think the advice of going to college is "all bullshit"? It's still great advice for many people, is it not? I think the point is that it's certainly not for everyone, and because colleges aren't holding up their end up the bargain there are plenty of other ways to earn a living. Some people aren't cut out for the trades, just like some people aren't cut out for many paths available from college.The harsh truth is just because you can get a degree in something doesn't mean you'll be any good at it, and ultimately if you're not any good at something why would you expect people to pay you money to do something poorly? So the real question is: at what point should young adults be responsible for recognizing their aptitude and interests enough to make their own career decisions without blaming others? 18? 21? 25? Never?
STEM is not a great term in general given how broad it is. The pure sciences as a career path for someone with just an undergrad degree have not been that great since I was in school which was a long time ago. Those degrees can be parlayed into other things that are connected to the degree--or not. Pre-med was the historical reason a lot of people majored in biology or chemistry.
Engineering broadly is not a bad degree to have even if you don't ultimately work in the area you majored in; I only did so for about three years.
Nursing was never near the level of doctors in terms of compensation. But it has been pretty much middle class pay at the cost of what, to me, would be difficult working conditions.
If someone's good with sitting in an office and developing some appropriate skills for that, I wouldn't necessarily recommend the trades. But, if someone doesn't like school, book learning, etc. it seems a pretty reasonable option.
And there are degrees of things. Trades also includes working for things like construction engineering firms. Have a friend who didn't go to college but has worked in various roles of this sort. (My one real mechanical engineering job wasn't all that different in many respects at the end of the day.)
So why aren't Gen Z taking this magical advice on trades? Because they know older generations don't have a crystal ball, they've seen what happens if they listen to that crystal ball advice, and they're not falling for it. And if you talk to Gen Z, they have very little hope for the future, given we are doing very little to stop climate change, runaway capitalism, and they're watching jobs get automated without any change to the "cost of living" agreement when people are watching jobs disappear.
Boomers don't have to worry about any of that anymore. And there's nothing more tone deaf than Boomers giving advice on a world that no longer exists for younger generations.
> The original premise was that trades are where all the money is
Nobody has ever said the "trades are where all the money is". This premise is flawed already. > My point is that we were previously told: the money is in college degrees, the money is in STEM, the money is in nursing. And people invested a lot of time and money in taking that advice and it went nowhere.
It still is. It sounds like too many people have deluded themselves into thinking college is a public jobs program and if they show up and get a piece of paper they will be the most in demand in those fields. However, that requires an illogical leap on their part to believe that any and every person in a field will be at the top of their field and thus command exorbitant salaries. It defies logic. Plenty of people still make good money in those fields, and still will years from now. But not everyone is entitled to make a ton of money in any fields their heart desires.Everyone learns the law of supply and demand before adulthood, or if they haven't then they shouldn't be going to college anyway. So if the supply of labor in a field increases beyond the demand, what would we expect to happen?
Also, if you're really good at something people will generally pay you more than they'll pay people who are mediocre. Maybe the problem is younger generations can't wrap their heads around the fact that a lot of people are mediocre. Not everyone is special or a superstar or whatever, so maybe this egalitarian mindset is the issue.
This isn't boomer shit, I'm far too young to be a boomer. It seems like common sense. Is this not common sense?
Yeah, the problem is that the "law of supply and demand" is a simple metaphor to help children gently begin learning economics, not how anything actually works. Almost no price any real person encounter anywhere in their daily life is actually determined in any meaningful way by "supply" or "demand" -- unless you stretch the definition of those two words so thin they're practically meaningless. They're potential factors, sure, but only small ones.
As one of a bajillion examples, see how every hospital is short staffed (low supply) and desperate for nurses (high demand), while we also see them constantly lay nurses off or reduce hours (and nursing has consistently-fixed low salaries, despite the shortages). Same for CNAs, nursing home staff, etc.
Case in point.
> how every hospital is short staffed and desperate for nurses (high demand), while we also constantly law nurses off or reduce hours (and nursing has consistently-fixed low salaries, despite the shortages)
How many paying patients are they turning away on account of this supposed shortage?
There isn't a national nurse shortage. Nurses are being overworked. And in some regions, there are shortages, though that's out of an inability to pay traveling nurse rates.
That's not how it works. Generally speaking, any publicly funded hospital in the US must take patients by law, they can not turn away patients except under very specific circumstances.
> There isn't a national nurse shortage
Literally everyone disagrees with you:
- The New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/us/hospital-nursing-short... - University of St Augustine - https://www.usa.edu/blog/nursing-shortage/ - University of California SF - https://scienceofcaring.ucsf.edu/patient-care/nursing-shorta... - Center for American Progress - https://www.americanprogress.org/about-us/ - McKinsey and Co - https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/policy-value-based-care/st... - Both the US Democratic Party and US Republican Party - https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/347826-bo...
> that's out of an inability to pay traveling nurse rates.
If you pay extra to import a nurse (traveling nurses) you remove them from the area they were previously. That's great, but it's not a fix for a shortage, that's just relocating the shortage somewhere else.
And, if they're short, why aren't they able to pay traveling nurse rates? Medical revenues are at an all time high, prices too. There's no reason a hospital couldn't pay higher nursing rates, they just choose not to, because again, that figure is not determined by supply or demand.
Not all nurses are employed at hospitals. I said paying patient, but I should have said deniable. Someone seeking out the sorts of care hospitals start denying when they face an actual emergency.
> everyone disagrees with you
Oh, I've seen the meme. I'm just casting it a bit more cynically. Nobody wants to pay nurses more. So we need more nurses, whether out of nursing school or through immigration.
> if they're short, why aren't they able to pay traveling nurse rates
They did [1]! When they needed them. Because there was demand for them. When there wasn't, they didn't.
> no reason a hospital couldn't pay higher nursing rates, they just choose not to, because again, that figure is not determined by supply or demand
This is how supply and demand work. They're not paying more because they don't have to.
[1] https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/nursing/the-complexity...
And wow, look, we're commenting on an article about how kids aren't rushing to go become plumbers so you're here saying what exactly?
Or did you just want to go on about kids-aint-shit and the die landed on joecot this time.
> imply kids probably shouldn't all rush to go be plumbers
Correct, every kid shouldn't go be a plumber. Kids who might enjoy being plumbers (or electricians, or HVAC etc) should know that they can earn a good living doing it, they don't need to rack up $60k in student loans to go to an out of state college to get a useless communications degree or whatever.Makes sense, right?
People learn it, but I don't think many Americans actually believe it. Exhibit A is housing. Exhibit B is this bandwagoning effect around career choices.
I was aware of it but I only remember seeing it taught in Econ 101.
Most majors don't require Econ 101 to my knowledge.
Except it's not. First, society is going to have too few skilled trades folks in the coming years due to people retiring and not being replaced. Second, a lot of college degrees can't get someone a good job. I remember someone telling me they had a business degree and couldn't get a job managing a store at the mall.
It was considered the fallback degree when I went to college 20 years ago, since anyone could graduate with it with minimal effort.
Communications can be good if your school is in the middle of a communications hub. Which, for US students, boils down to Los Angeles and New York City. But a lot of the worth of that degree comes from its ability to unlock internships and networking inside the two biggest media markets in the US, if not the entire world.
So not entirely worthless but only lucrative in specific cities and markets, and for mostly shibboleth reasons (many friends with communications degrees who also went to school in either city pull in mid-six figures working for big entertainment companies).
But hey, at least you don’t have to actually study anything while spending most of your week at unpaid internships and networking events!
Trust me, once the all-in comp/lifestyle of a welder becomes better than say a paralegal, you won't need to tell anybody anything, they'll find you.
Entire game dev industry is built in finding passionate young people, underpaying them and putting them through the grinder till they burn out. And there's no shortage of applicants.
So the Boomer parents saw this going on and encouraged their kids to go to college, which was the last generation where that advice mostly worked, and we, seeing our uncles and cousins and highschool friends struggle, doubled down with the thing that seemed to help us, but was already starting to look like a crapshoot when we went through the system.
It's all class warfare, with a heavy dose of horizontal aggression.
I never considered studying the things that actually interested me because I knew they were going to end up in dead end careers, and I didn't want to be broke my entire life. It's the same reason I didn't go to the top schools that accepted me. Hell, I didn't even go to the top schools that offered me scholarships because I was afraid of the cost. It's also why I ignore the pleas of people who came from substantially better backgrounds during the internet era and claim that they couldn't have known better and deserve debt forgiveness.
They SHOULD have known better. They had every resource to know better.
I also think there's a stigma associated with the trades which doesn't necessarily permeate mixed middle class neighborhoods. I grew up in a situation where the majority of adults in my hometown did not have college degrees. Thus, college degrees became things to aspire to instead of things we MUST have. Plenty of my classmates then, and plenty of kids graduating now, are not going to college. For some, they've been told by their folks that they can stay at home and save up their money for the 4 years after getting out of trade school to put a down payment towards a house. Granted, the culture I'm from doesn't negatively view 20-something men hanging out on a porch with beers after dark. Cheaper than the bars, after all.