The College Scam

[LevelUP]

Charlie Kirk recently came out with a new book called The College Scam.

Charlie Kirk claims only 5% of the population should attend college, and 95% should not.





Did Charlie Kirk get the idea for the book's title from a John Stossel video called The College Scam and ideas from another similar book written called The Case Against Education? Hmm.

John Stossel: The College Scam

https://youtu.be/ULFSGNK4VSc

This brings us to a recent article noting how the number of people attending college is declining.

Why Americans are increasingly dubious about going to college

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ame...-rcna40935

So overall, I can understand some of the arguments against getting a bachelor's degree. However, the main arguments are usually the time and cost versus taking advantage of the hot job market, entrepreneurship, and other investing opportunities. After all, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are both college dropouts and made billions, so why not you?

Although when factoring in our Degree Forum community of hacking bachelor's degrees in 6-12 months, I would say 95% of people should be getting college degrees, considering it doesn't cost much time or money, and you can work at the same time, so you aren't missing opportunities.

To be clear, I'm against Charlie Kirk, John Stossel, and others that say you don't need a college degree.

Thoughts?

[bluebooger]

most people do not need a college degree
high school should prepare you for all non-professional jobs -- the problem is it doesn't
even things like paralegal could be done with 9 months of training after high school

[Alpha]

It's not a popular thing to point out but 50% of Americans are of below average intelligence.  The idea that everyone should go to college is foolish.  Many people would benefit from some post-secondary education or training.  Clearly the entire system is in need of an overhaul but just as clearly, it's not going to happen.  At least not in any sort of hurry. 
Most Americans skeptical of the value of a college degree (insidehighered.com)

[bjcheung77]

It also depends what the student wants to go into, for some schools (the for profit ones that prey on students that don't have a sense of direction and can get financial aid), going to their colleges would be a scam... If the student knows where they're heading, and wants to get more knowledge/schooling in that subject matter, college wouldn't be a scam, they know which degree/school they want to attend (hopefully a public/state institution first).

[Vle045]

It's not a popular thing to point out but 50% of Americans are of below average intelligence.  The idea that everyone should go to college is foolish.  Many people would benefit from some post-secondary education or training.  Clearly the entire system is in need of an overhaul but just as clearly, it's not going to happen.  At least not in any sort of hurry. 
Most Americans skeptical of the value of a college degree (insidehighered.com)

I am glad you said it!  Sometimes I think it’s even more than that.  And social media is proof of it.
I can add myself to the list of people with a degree that they aren’t even working in. That sociology degree checked the box for jobs that I have had where I really don’t feel my degree improved my ability to perform the job.

My son doesn’t seem too interested in college. But I hope I can at least get him to do a “check-the-box” degree using what I learned on this forum. He is a smart kid, but he has no ideas for his future yet.

[rachel83az]

Another good reason, IMO, why university should be free. I don't think it'll lead to "everyone" getting a degree, as some people claim. In countries where university is free, attendance of post-secondary institutions typically ranges between 20-30%, with some of that being trade schools, etc. I don't have any specific citations, but it seems to me that university attendance is largely self-sorting in those countries. For the most part, the intelligent students who should go to university won't face any economic barriers to doing so. On the other hand, the less mentally-talented simply won't be able to find a place at a university and will need to seek other avenues.

There are some problems I take issue with in some of these countries (like your academic future being largely decided when you've barely hit your teens), but at least students who "should" be going to university aren't constrained by the same economic issues as their American peers.

Of course, as long as "having a degree" is equated with "living wage" (not even high wage, but just enough to live on) in the US, people are going to continue to strive for degrees that maybe aren't right for them and their needs otherwise. The problem isn't (just) the high cost of a degree. The problem is not paying people what they're worth, degree or no degree.

Trades are a good option for some people, but just as not everyone should go to college, not everyone should go into trades.

[freeloader]

I think 5% is probably a bit low, but most people probably don’t need to attend college, at least not the way it typically happens in the US—graduate high school and immediate attend a college for a number of years, where studies are your main focus. BUT, we have a system that demands that.

The problem is that companies have discovered that they do not have to train people to do jobs. Why should a company hire someone with a high school diploma and train them as a bookkeeper when for the same wage or perhaps 50c to $1 more per hour they can hire someone with an associate’s degree in accounting? Training people internally takes time and money. Some people will also get trained by company X and then quickly leave for more money at company Y. It is easy to see why an employer wouldn’t want to take on the training burden.

For a while, the system probably worked. In the 1960s and 1970s a young person could work part time and afford to pay tuition to a state college or university and exit college with little or no debt. Essentially, the state shifted the burden of training from the employer’s expense to the state/taxpayers. Companies, happy to get rid of training costs, shut down training programs and improved their bottom line.

But then the country’s attitudes toward funding higher education shifted. We collectively decided that the cost of public education had become too great and started to shift more and more of the cost back to the consumers, the students. Companies had become accustomed to hiring workers with more than basic skills (the 3 R’s) and felt no particular need to restart training programs.

At the same time, beginning in the late 1960s, the nation started de-industrializing. It became much hard for a high school graduate (or drop out) to go work in a factory and earn a middle-class wage. What to do with those people? The rallying cry became getting them a college education. So, colleges expanded and turned out more and more workers. Sometimes these degrees, and the thousands of dollars worth of debt that often went along with them, met market demands but sometimes they did not.

So, we find ourselves with really too many college graduates with the wrong skill sets for the marketplace. But companies have come to view the college degree as the new ticket to entry.

So, what is a person to do? I will use myself as an example. I have had a number of jobs—archaeologist (shovel bum), museum tour guide/educator/manager, financial advisor, teacher, and now accountant. A bachelor’s degree is required for all of the jobs that I have had. In other countries, that isn’t always the case. In England, one can leave school and go to work as a field archaeologist or an entry-level bookkeeper (not sure about the other jobs) and learn on the job, complete courses and certifications, and progress in your career into a professional role. Degree completion, top-up programs, and direct entry into master’s degree programs for skilled workers all offer real, viable ways to “move up”.

But, for the vast majority of people and employers in the US, we are locked into a single way of viewing things. I grant that there are fields (such as IT/CS) where knowledge is as important or more important than a degree, but those fields are the exception rather than the rule.

Employers paying part/all of educational expenses for their workers is a fantastic development and I hope it becomes more commonplace. BUT, it really is a bandaid at best. It doesn’t solve the problem that the conventional college degree, a piece of paper, is more essential than relevant knowledge and skill.

So, while only a small percentage of workers actually need a college degree, the reality is that far more have to have one. Maybe that will change. Maybe companies that have been struggling to hire will realize that it is in their best interest to hire really smart people, regardless of their education, and actually train them to do the job. But, I will believe it when I see it.

[nomaduser]

I spent $100k for traditional university and didn't graduate.
Now, I'm finishing my degree via distance learning.

I'd like to point out that he's right. Only few degrees guarantee return of investments.
Other degrees cost too much time and money for small ROI
Studying something just for sake of getting a degree means nothing ...

If I could go back in time, I'll do the following:

1. Take maximum number of CLEP exam credits
2. Take maximum number of AP exam credits
3. Take 1 year worth of online community college credits
4. Transfer those credits to a traditional 4 year college, graduate within 1 year

Seriously, traditional colleges worth only 1 year max
Avoid the debt
If you can test things out by AP and CLEP, do that instead
You don't need to sit through 4 years and suffer from a great amount of debt

The story can be different only if you're from a very very rich family. If you're going to get lots of debt for college, think twice.

[Antrume]

I think 5% is probably a bit low, but most people probably don’t need to attend college, at least not the way it typically happens in the US—graduate high school and immediate attend a college for a number of years, where studies are your main focus. BUT, we have a system that demands that.

The problem is that companies have discovered that they do not have to train people to do jobs. Why should a company hire someone with a high school diploma and train them as a bookkeeper when for the same wage or perhaps 50c to $1 more per hour they can hire someone with an associate’s degree in accounting?  Training people internally takes time and money. Some people will also get trained by company X and then quickly leave for more money at company Y. It is easy to see why an employer wouldn’t want to take on the training burden.

For a while, the system probably worked. In the 1960s and 1970s a young person could work part time and afford to pay tuition to a state college or university and exit college with little or no debt. Essentially, the state shifted the burden of training from the employer’s expense to the state/taxpayers. Companies, happy to get rid of training costs, shut down training programs and improved their bottom line.

But then the country’s attitudes toward funding higher education shifted. We collectively decided that the cost of public education had become too great and started to shift more and more of the cost back to the consumers, the students. Companies had become accustomed to hiring workers with more than basic skills (the 3 R’s) and felt no particular need to restart training programs.

At the same time, beginning in the late 1960s, the nation started de-industrializing. It became much hard for a high school graduate (or drop out) to go work in a factory and earn a middle-class wage. What to do with those people?  The rallying cry became getting them a college education. So, colleges expanded and turned out more and more workers. Sometimes these degrees, and the thousands of dollars worth of debt that often went along with them, met market demands but sometimes they did not.

So, we find ourselves with really too many college graduates with the wrong skill sets for the marketplace. But companies have come to view the college degree as the new ticket to entry.  

So, what is a person to do?  I will use myself as an example. I have had a number of jobs—archaeologist (shovel bum), museum tour guide/educator/manager, financial advisor, teacher, and now accountant. A bachelor’s degree is required for all of the jobs that I have had. In other countries, that isn’t always the case. In England, one can leave school and go to work as a field archaeologist or an entry-level bookkeeper (not sure about the other jobs) and learn on the job, complete courses and certifications, and progress in your career into a professional role. Degree completion, top-up programs, and direct entry into master’s degree programs for skilled workers all offer real, viable ways to “move up”.

But, for the vast majority of people and employers in the US, we are locked into a single way of viewing things. I grant that there are fields (such as IT/CS) where knowledge is as important or more important than a degree, but those fields are the exception rather than the rule.

Employers paying part/all of educational expenses for their workers is a fantastic development and I hope it becomes more commonplace. BUT, it really is a bandaid at best. It doesn’t solve the problem that the conventional college degree, a piece of paper, is more essential than relevant knowledge and skill.

So, while only a small percentage of workers actually need a college degree, the reality is that far more have to have one. Maybe that will change. Maybe companies that have been struggling to hire will realize that it is in their best interest to hire really smart people, regardless of their education, and actually train them to do the job. But, I will believe it when I see it.

I completely agree with you and I also think that the problem with college is that you get a piece of paper without which you can't work, but even with it you have to get additional knowledge because even in one profession the tools and processes can be different. That's the beauty of the vast IT field that you get the same piece of paper but with real knowledge that gives you a job right away. Although I understand that not everything can be brought to this, but this method is the best for both companies and students. And about time costs systemic education is not ideal and cases that you work full-time parallel learning and still remain a lot of free time for self-development, I personally have not seen.

[Antrume]

I think 5% is probably a bit low, but most people probably don’t need to attend college, at least not the way it typically happens in the US—graduate high school and immediate attend a college for a number of years, where studies are your main focus. BUT, we have a system that demands that.

The problem is that companies have discovered that they do not have to train people to do jobs. Why should a company hire someone with a high school diploma and train them as a bookkeeper when for the same wage or perhaps 50c to $1 more per hour they can hire someone with an associate’s degree in accounting?  Training people internally takes time and money. Some people will also get trained by company X and then quickly leave for more money at company Y. It is easy to see why an employer wouldn’t want to take on the training burden.

For a while, the system probably worked. In the 1960s and 1970s a young person could work part time and afford to pay tuition to a state college or university and exit college with little or no debt. Essentially, the state shifted the burden of training from the employer’s expense to the state/taxpayers. Companies, happy to get rid of training costs, shut down training programs and improved their bottom line.

But then the country’s attitudes toward funding higher education shifted. We collectively decided that the cost of public education had become too great and started to shift more and more of the cost back to the consumers, the students. Companies had become accustomed to hiring workers with more than basic skills (the 3 R’s) and felt no particular need to restart training programs.

At the same time, beginning in the late 1960s, the nation started de-industrializing. It became much hard for a high school graduate (or drop out) to go work in a factory and earn a middle-class wage. What to do with those people?  The rallying cry became getting them a college education. So, colleges expanded and turned out more and more workers. Sometimes these degrees, and the thousands of dollars worth of debt that often went along with them, met market demands but sometimes they did not.

So, we find ourselves with really too many college graduates with the wrong skill sets for the marketplace. But companies have come to view the college degree as the new ticket to entry.  

So, what is a person to do?  I will use myself as an example. I have had a number of jobs—archaeologist (shovel bum), museum tour guide/educator/manager, financial advisor, teacher, and now accountant. A bachelor’s degree is required for all of the jobs that I have had. And often still write something like an essay on a topic, I did about army leadership by example from https://eduzaurus.com/free-essay-samples/foundations-of-army-leadership-and-values/ and that takes time too. In other countries, that isn’t always the case. In England, one can leave school and go to work as a field archaeologist or an entry-level bookkeeper (not sure about the other jobs) and learn on the job, complete courses and certifications, and progress in your career into a professional role. Degree completion, top-up programs, and direct entry into master’s degree programs for skilled workers all offer real, viable ways to “move up”.

But, for the vast majority of people and employers in the US, we are locked into a single way of viewing things. I grant that there are fields (such as IT/CS) where knowledge is as important or more important than a degree, but those fields are the exception rather than the rule.

Employers paying part/all of educational expenses for their workers is a fantastic development and I hope it becomes more commonplace. BUT, it really is a bandaid at best. It doesn’t solve the problem that the conventional college degree, a piece of paper, is more essential than relevant knowledge and skill.

So, while only a small percentage of workers actually need a college degree, the reality is that far more have to have one. Maybe that will change. Maybe companies that have been struggling to hire will realize that it is in their best interest to hire really smart people, regardless of their education, and actually train them to do the job. But, I will believe it when I see it.

I completely agree with you and I also think that the problem with college is that you get a piece of paper without which you can't work, but even with it you have to get additional knowledge because even in one profession the tools and processes can be different. That's the beauty of the vast IT field that you get the same piece of paper but with real knowledge that gives you a job right away. Although I understand that not everything can be brought to this, but this method is the best for both companies and students. And about time costs systemic education is not ideal and cases that you work full-time parallel learning and still remain a lot of free time for self-development, I personally have not seen.

But on the other hand, a number of specialties such as law, health and science require a huge immersion in the educational process, and it is not possible not to spend a lot of time studying. But they are complicated because the amount of information required for the profession is enormous, and you can't do it without a diploma.