Author Topic: Student life; student loans; costs of college; now and then; "kids these days"  (Read 29438 times)

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5962
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
it's ludicrous for you or anyone to say what is or isn't a worthwhile profession
Do you see how this appears to contradict with that?

uppy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Location: Belize
it's ludicrous for you or anyone to say what is or isn't a worthwhile profession
Do you see how this appears to contradict with that?

You're right, my wording was unclear. I simply meant that I think it's ludicrous to accuse other people in this instance of having useless professions or that their educations are/were not worthwhile. (Note I preceded my sentence with "I think" in the original, which you didn't quote.) That's my opinion. His is different. We're just discussing differences of opinion and he can say what he likes.

edit: added "in this instance"
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 06:52:51 AM by jrez »

SAHD

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Location: Washington State
both my wife and I paid our own way thru pharmacy school, that is a 5 year program.  Neither of us had student loans and neither of us qualified for finacial aid.  My parents did not pay for any of my school and hers paid $100 a month for food only, we worked multiple jobs in the summer and throughout the year, and we lived the MMM lifestyle.  I had many freinds that received student loans and when they got them they spent the money on frivolus things like stereos and big vacations.  The loans I feel are used much like some people use food stamps, they spend thier money at the local gambling joint.

jbmatth

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Oklahoma
The way my older brother and I paid for college was similar, he moved to another city to attend a community college on a full ride, worked up to 50hrs/wk waiting tables and bar-tending to save for the university, continued to work and paid his way through without any loans.  He and I both were given $5,000 from our grand parents for college money.  I stayed at home and went to a "local" community college, 45 minute drive each way.  I worked 20-30hrs/wk waiting tables during the school year, then on farms during the summer and waiting tables for 60-70hrs/wk.  I was also on full ride for community college, then transferred to engineering school with roughly 50% scholarship.  After my first year I worked paid internships during the summer and waited tables 20hr/wk during the school year.  I lived in a fraternity house paying $550/mo for 9 months that covered all living cost including food, utilities, cable, and internet.  I also graduated with a slightly positive net worth and $12k signing/moving bonus.  We also both graduated with 3.8-3.9 gpa's.
Our wives on the other hand took out student loans going directly to a 4 year school.  Each with about $40k in loans, my wife's loans are now paid off.  My sister-in-law being a teacher like my brother are making extra payments but it will still take a few more years to pay them off.  They did work during school, but not enough to pay the full costs and graduated with ~3.5 gpa's.  I wouldn't change anything about how I approached college.  However I am saving $200/mo for each of my girls in a 529 so they won't be in sticker shock when they graduate high school.

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
You're right, my wording was unclear. I simply meant that I think it's ludicrous to accuse other people in this instance of having useless professions or that their educations are/were not worthwhile. (Note I preceded my sentence with "I think" in the original, which you didn't quote.) That's my opinion. His is different. We're just discussing differences of opinion and he can say what he likes.

So, first of all, "she." Not offended, just setting the record straight.

Second, I'm not saying that those professions are/are not worthwhile. In fact, for those artists who produce work that gives others enjoyment, entertainment, stimulation, that's wonderful. The case for academic 'artists,' who work in analysis and evaluation, is, to me, less clear. As is the case for formal education of artists, writers, etc. All the ones I know have advanced most with practice and life experience above all, not formal instruction. And by far not all who have received instruction are doing well (producing work in high demand) post-instruction.

My initial wording was 'how many society can support." At one time, we could support no artists or scholars of any kind because everyone had to work on acquiring food and shelter. There was simply no man-hours left after hunting, gathering, and protecting children from sabertooth tigers. We've obviously evolved way past that; but still, we need a certain (rather large, really) number of employees to support even a most basic civilized standard of living. And then, I believe (and yes this is an opinion), that we need nearly unlimited scientists and engineers because our very survival, eventually, depends on it. Planet-changing cataclysms occur on this planet on a regular basis, and if we don't come up with ways to avert or outlive them, the human race could die out. While I respect grappling with problems of the human soul, beauty, philosophy, and so forth, please admit that our very survival does not depend on it. Our humanity does, which is why we need *some people* to do these things. I *never* denied that. But those who are having no or very limited success pursuing "their passions" may need to take a critical look at their talents and potential and decide that it might be worth learning Java and Python alongside Old English and Latin. Just in case the acting career doesn't pan out.

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
both my wife and I paid our own way thru pharmacy school, that is a 5 year program.  Neither of us had student loans and neither of us qualified for finacial aid.  My parents did not pay for any of my school and hers paid $100 a month for food only, we worked multiple jobs in the summer and throughout the year, and we lived the MMM lifestyle.  I had many freinds that received student loans and when they got them they spent the money on frivolus things like stereos and big vacations.  The loans I feel are used much like some people use food stamps, they spend thier money at the local gambling joint.

You've left out a crucial piece of data! When did this happen?

DunkCityFan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
" Why should I effectively pay someone (through taxes or tuition or whatever) to sit at their desk and read lots of books and decide what the authors were trying to say about humanity or how one influenced the other?"

Really? Is that what you think lit professors do? That is strawmanning to the extreme. That is what students of lit professors who have had exactly one class in lit think that they do. These people spend huge amounts of time and their life analyzing cultural artifacts to help us understand how people at different times understood the world. Why is that important? To point out how the past or the present understands itself offers us the possibility of understanding that the world can be though differently. They train people to do this.

Honestly, I think philosophy (whose graduates have a higher median income than many engineering professions as per the WSJ) is better training at this. But lit crit is far more difficult and nuanced.

P.S.: I am not a Literature Professor.

SAHD

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Location: Washington State
both my wife and I paid our own way thru pharmacy school, that is a 5 year program.  Neither of us had student loans and neither of us qualified for finacial aid.  My parents did not pay for any of my school and hers paid $100 a month for food only, we worked multiple jobs in the summer and throughout the year, and we lived the MMM lifestyle.  I had many freinds that received student loans and when they got them they spent the money on frivolus things like stereos and big vacations.  The loans I feel are used much like some people use food stamps, they spend thier money at the local gambling joint.

You've left out a crucial piece of data! When did this happen?

I graduated in 1996

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5962
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Honestly, I think philosophy (whose graduates have a higher median income than many engineering professions as per the WSJ) is better training at this.
Bullshit, $39,800.

uppy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Location: Belize
At one time, we could support no artists or scholars of any kind because everyone had to work on acquiring food and shelter. There was simply no man-hours left after hunting, gathering, and protecting children from sabertooth tigers.

Simply false. Unless you are a creationist, history and archaeology (both "hard" sciences) have shown without a doubt that art and philosophy have been valued, sometimes as a means of survival, since the dawn of humanity. (Google the Hall of Bulls cave paintings in France, specifically why scientists believe they were painted.)

While I respect grappling with problems of the human soul, beauty, philosophy, and so forth, please admit that our very survival does not depend on it. Our humanity does, which is why we need *some people* to do these things. I *never* denied that.

According to your logic, our survival is more important than our very humanity. This is a fundamental difference of opinion between you and I, and in fact I find a large percentage of people to be divided along these lines. Personally, I don't see any inherent value in science (or other "practical" professions) over art, or art over science. The point is moot: they are all complimentary and necessary facets of humanity. Without one, the other can't exist. Therefore, regardless of supply and demand, they are all equally legitimate ways of contributing positively to the world.

those who are having no or very limited success pursuing "their passions" may need to take a critical look at their talents and potential and decide that it might be worth learning Java and Python alongside Old English and Latin. Just in case the acting career doesn't pan out.

From a financial standpoint you may be right, and this is a personal finance forum after all. But again, not everyone shares your values. Some of our greatest works of art (and science, and philosophy, I might add -- in which category I would place those who study and talk about art) came out of people who valued their work much more than their paychecks -- or even their "survival." Perhaps that's one reason people are drawn to different professions in the first place: a difference in values.

DunkCityFan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Honestly, I think philosophy (whose graduates have a higher median income than many engineering professions as per the WSJ) is better training at this.
Bullshit, $39,800.

Bullshit back:
75th percentile earner for Philosophy: $127,000

75th percentile earner for Aerospace Engineering: $127,000

75th percentile earner for Mechanical: $120,000

I'm not going to get involved in a convo about less than the 75th percentile as all of us here are likely in that range.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html

DunkCityFan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Honestly, I think philosophy (whose graduates have a higher median income than many engineering professions as per the WSJ) is better training at this.
Bullshit, $39,800.

By the way. Who have you ever judged by their starting salary? The game is won by those who run the race.

DunkCityFan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
oh, btw. Philosophy's 90% earners make more than Aerospace, Mechanical, Computer, and tie with Electrical. Forget Civil at 148,000. So the best of the best really do okay in Philosophy! Read the data. The value is not in your degree. The value of the degree is in the type of person who chooses it.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5962
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
I don't think that's what the data says at all. The data says the median starting salary is less than $40,000 and all the engineers make dramatically more than that. But you're welcome to ignore that in favor of any numbers you can cherry-pick.

DunkCityFan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
I don't think that's what the data says at all. The data says the median starting salary is less than $40,000 and all the engineers make dramatically more than that. But you're welcome to ignore that in favor of any numbers you can cherry-pick.

Dude, look at average increase of salary at 103.5%. It is tied with math for the highest. This suggests that Philosophy and Math majors actually have the highest value as employees as rated by the rate of return they demand.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
All the ones I know have advanced most with practice and life experience above all, not formal instruction. And by far not all who have received instruction are doing well (producing work in high demand) post-instruction.

All the artists, writers, etc. I know who have advanced the fastest did so by getting formal instruction (a BFA or MFA, or going to a music conservatory or equivalent drama school). The only exception among those I know is one who pursued the old fashioned version of that, namely, apprenticing with an accomplished artist in Italy. Getting intensive training is to the arts what spending 2-3 years living and working or studying in a foreign country is to language learning. It's total immersion and it enables far more development than you're likely to get in the same time period any other way.

Just read one of the many recent obituaries of Peter O'Toole to see what a few years at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts did for him. It took a penniless teenager with only two or three years of formal schooling (of ANY kind, including elementary school), who came from "the criminal classes" as he put it (a poverty-stricken ghetto--his dad was a grifter and several of his childhood friends spent their adult lives in prison, some for murder), and turned him into one of the most polished, sophisticated, talented stage and film actors of his generation.

And I'm sure O'Toole had classmates whose careers didn't fare nearly as well, just like many people with BFAs, MFAs, conservatory degrees, etc. But I also know plenty of engineers whose careers are average at best. That's just the nature of life: in any field, some people will meet with spectacular success, some will fail, and most will do about average. At least an artist with formal training is qualified to become a teacher of their art--and is that not a perfectly respectable career?

My initial wording was 'how many society can support." At one time, we could support no artists or scholars of any kind because everyone had to work on acquiring food and shelter. There was simply no man-hours left after hunting, gathering, and protecting children from sabertooth tigers.

Jrez is correct on this. When exactly was this, do you think, that homo sapiens didn't have artists? There's a growing body of evidence that even Neanderthals made art, at least later in their history, and Cro Magnons (aka anatomically modern humans, who appeared in Europe about 43,000 years ago) have been using pigments and carving non-functional things (i.e., making art) for as long as we've existed.

"Extremely old, non-representational ornamentation has been found across Africa. The oldest firmly-dated example is a collection of 82,000 year old Nassarius snail shells found in Morocco that are pierced and covered with red ochre.... The oldest known representational imagery comes from the Aurignacian culture of the Upper Paleolithic period. Archeological discoveries across a broad swath of Europe (especially Southern France, Northern Spain, and Swabia, in Germany) include over two hundred caves with spectacular Aurignacian paintings, drawings and sculpture that are among the earliest undisputed examples of representational image-making. The oldest of these is a 2.4-inch tall female figure carved out of mammoth ivory that was found in six fragments in the Hohle Fels cave near Schelklingen in southern Germany. It dates to 35,000 B.C.E."
http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/origins.html

"Prehistoric dots and crimson hand stencils on Spanish cave walls are now the world's oldest known cave art, according to new dating results—perhaps the best evidence yet that Neanderthals were Earth's first cave painters.... At more than 40,800 years old, "this is currently Europe's oldest dated art by at least 4,000 years," said the study's lead author..."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120614-neanderthal-cave-paintings-spain-science-pike/

"Pendants made from these [eagle] claws have been found at numerous sites in France and Spain spanning nearly 60,000 years. Some of the latest Neanderthal sites turned up modified and sometimes pierced tooth and bone pendants and other art objects."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/opinion/global/Who-Are-You-Calling-a-Neanderthal.html

DunkCityFan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Also, did you think of the number of philosophy majors who become clergy? Over 40%. Suggests something to me.

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
I would expect students from lower income families are more likely to have gone to underperforming schools before college, and may need to play catch-up in college classes. I'm not saying this is true 100% of the time (e.g. grant aid would significantly change this), just that I would expect a bias in that direction....

Ok, first of all, there are limits on how many doctors&nurses, how many CEOs and how many farmers we need. There are only so many people getting sick, so many companies to run, and so much food we can healthily consume

It's true that there's a correlation between socio-economic status and grades in school.  As a rule, students from middle and upper classes tend to make better grades; however, it's not an absolute: 

I myself grew up in a welfare family, but all the kids in my family took honors classes in school -- and excelled.  On the other side of the coin, I teach some "born with a silver spoon in their mouths" kids who do nothing, even though they've been given every benefit.  I'd go out on a limb and estimate perhaps 80% of all students' grades and socio-economic status are unsurprising -- that is, they tend to do just about as well as you'd think.  But for the sake of the 20% who don't, we cannot make assumptions.  It's not particularly rare for students to do better -- or worse -- than one would expect from their socio-economic status.

As for how many workers we need in particular jobs, every year we have a speaker come talk to our high school seniors about "where the jobs are" -- in fact, she was here yesterday, so it's fresh in my mind -- and here's some information the speaker always shares:

- In 1950, 20% of all Americans worked in professional jobs that required a 4-year degree (or more).  Today that number is still pretty accurate. 
- In 1950, 15 % of all workers were "skilled tradesmen" -- that is, people who had either a 2-year degree OR on-the-job training in specialized skills.  Today 65% of all jobs require more than a high school diploma but less than a 4-year college degree. 
- In 1950, something like 65% of all workers worked in unskilled labor -- factories, etc.  Today that number is 15%, and it's pretty much limited to food service workers.   

So, yes, if you accept that our speaker is right, we only need so many people in professional, 4-year degree jobs.  We only need so many doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, accountants, psychologists, pharmacists, bankers, etc.  But we have great need for people in skilled labor, and many of those skilled labor jobs pay just as well as some 4-year degree jobs. 

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
I read this article in The Atlantic today titled Dead Poets Society Is a Terrible Defense of the Humanities.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/-em-dead-poets-society-em-is-a-terrible-defense-of-the-humanities/283853/

Thought some folks here might like it.  It's important to make a distinction between humanities that teach us how to think and other things which...are called humanities but should not be (at the risk of making a No True Scotsman argument. but at least I would recognize one, having taken enough liberal arts classes).

uppy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Location: Belize
I read this article in The Atlantic today titled Dead Poets Society Is a Terrible Defense of the Humanities.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/-em-dead-poets-society-em-is-a-terrible-defense-of-the-humanities/283853/

Thought some folks here might like it.  It's important to make a distinction between humanities that teach us how to think and other things which...are called humanities but should not be (at the risk of making a No True Scotsman argument. but at least I would recognize one, having taken enough liberal arts classes).

Some of the article makes sense -- it's a good argument for why the humanities matter. On the other side, though, I'd argue that the kids in Dead Poets Society were supposed to never have had a chance to "appreciate" (to use the author's word) poetry in the first place. It seems to me that's what the movie was about, not a how-to on teaching literary criticism. I can testify that in my school experience, I hated poetry and literature until I learned to love it. Only then was I able to study it.

The movie is hollywoody of course. It's unfortunate people take it so seriously and, as the author seems to suggest, so many people unschooled in the humanities use it as a yard stick for the real study of humanities (a la "that's what they teach them? Well, that won't get them a job..."

I'd go out on a limb and estimate perhaps 80% of all students' grades and socio-economic status are unsurprising -- that is, they tend to do just about as well as you'd think.  But for the sake of the 20% who don't, we cannot make assumptions.

Bravo. Because making assumptions like that is the basis for all unjust stereotypes.

...if you accept that our speaker is right, we only need so many people in professional, 4-year degree jobs.  We only need so many doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, accountants, psychologists, pharmacists, bankers, etc.  But we have great need for people in skilled labor, and many of those skilled labor jobs pay just as well as some 4-year degree jobs. 

I would theorize and add, again, that demand has little to do with how successful people will be in their professions, and shouldn't factor too heavily in people's decisions to pursue certain degrees over others in disregard of their interests. How many ERs does our society need? Probably zero. Yet here we all are.

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
I would expect students from lower income families are more likely to have gone to underperforming schools before college, and may need to play catch-up in college classes. I'm not saying this is true 100% of the time (e.g. grant aid would significantly change this), just that I would expect a bias in that direction....
It's true that there's a correlation between socio-economic status and grades in school.  As a rule, students from middle and upper classes tend to make better grades; however, it's not an absolute: 

I myself grew up in a welfare family, but all the kids in my family took honors classes in school -- and excelled.  On the other side of the coin, I teach some "born with a silver spoon in their mouths" kids who do nothing, even though they've been given every benefit.  I'd go out on a limb and estimate perhaps 80% of all students' grades and socio-economic status are unsurprising -- that is, they tend to do just about as well as you'd think.  But for the sake of the 20% who don't, we cannot make assumptions.  It's not particularly rare for students to do better -- or worse -- than one would expect from their socio-economic status.

You make good points (as always Mrs Pete :) ), but I just wanted to clarify: I wasn't exactly talking about grades (and definitely not K-12 grades). I'm talking about coming from a school that offers less in the way of college preparation  (or AP courses), and thus having more academic work to do upon entering college, and being less prepared for it. Obviously the correlation is not 100%, in fact I am my own counterargument: my dad was an academic, my college-educated mother stayed home and helped me--no, all 3 of us--with homework through high school. Our income was low but time with parents was high and they made sure to live around great schools. I've said above, I did work part-time through college, but I came in with 54 credit hours AP credit so I could take 15 hours/ semester while my peers did 17 hours with 2 or 3 labs (which for some reason are assumed to require less out-of-class work but actually require more). I was also well-prepared for the courses I took; I don't think I ever needed the recommended "2-3 hours/credit hour" of prep time each week (except lab reports). Again, I am the exception. Having worked in the tutoring center I saw how difficult calculus, physics, chemistry (the 'basics') were for many students coming in. I'm not trying to insult or stereotype any demographic. I just think it's wrong to fall back on "well they should work" when it's likely (not 100%, not guaranteed) those who most need to work are most hurt academically by long work hours.

DunkCityFan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36

[/quote]
I would theorize and add, again, that demand has little to do with how successful people will be in their professions, and shouldn't factor too heavily in people's decisions to pursue certain degrees over others in disregard of their interests. How many ERs does our society need? Probably zero. Yet here we all are.
[/quote]

So true. That is my point about starting salary. That is about demand. Once you are in the workplace, the supply of talented v. credentialed people is actually low. Once a good student in math or philosophy is in the market, they become in demand, because there is a low supply of such quality thinkers. No one hires thinkers at the entry level, they hire credentials or bodies.