09:28 – According to this article, outstanding college student loans are on track to exceed $1 trillion this year. People are finally starting to question just how much benefit these students are getting in return for shackling themselves with huge amounts of debt.
The final paragraph of the article begins, “[b]eyond dispute is the value of a higher education diploma, notwithstanding the risks associated with borrowing heavily to obtain it”, which is a fine example of the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not imply causation. Yes, it is beyond dispute that college graduates, on average, earn more than those without a college degree. But what is not beyond dispute is whether the college degree itself actually has anything to do with those higher lifetime earnings.
Consider this: about 27% of US adults hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, with another 27% having attended college or received an associates degree. So, roughly half the adult population of the US has at least some college. Few would dispute that, on average, those people are smarter and work harder than those in the other half. If colleges did not exist, one would expect that that smarter, harder-working cohort would be more successful and earn more than the dumber and lazier cohort.
The question becomes whether a smart, hard-working person is better off spending four years or more and tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend college, or hit the ground running and get a four-year head start without incurring a crushing debt burden. Intuitively, it seems obvious that if one has what it takes to become a professional, it makes sense to take that front-end hit in the interest of earning more down the road. But it’s by no means obvious that less stellar performers should make that decision. In short, if you have what it takes to become a physician or other professional, you’re well advised to spend the time and money to get a degree. If, on the other hand, you plan to major in history or literature or sociology, you’re wasting four years and a lot of money that you’ll never get back, particularly when you consider the time value of money.
Barbara and I spent some time yesterday getting my kit assembly work area cleared out and organized. Until now, component inventory storage has been haphazard, with cases of components stored wherever there happened to be a free space. When I was assembling a batch of, say, half a dozen kits, I’d have to go here and there to get the components for them as I was packing them, which made everything take a lot longer than it should.
We moved all the stuff that had been stored on the shelves behind my work area to shelves elsewhere in the basement, so now when I need, say, two dozen 250 mL beakers, I can simply turn around and pull two boxes of a dozen beakers off the shelf behind me. We also cleared a lot of workspace that had had components stacked on it. Rather than build batches of half a dozen, now that I have more workspace I can easily do batches of two dozen, which makes things a lot faster. It should now take me only half again as long to assemble two dozen kits as it was taking for each run of half a dozen. It also makes it a lot easier to keep visual track of inventory levels.
Both my mom and dad got Master’s degrees going to school nights while they were working fulltime, when my brother and I were little. My grandmothers, who lived only a few houses away on either side of us, put us to bed on the nights they attended classes. Then, while I was in high school, my mom got her library degree and my dad got his J.D. Both parents also worked part-time during their undergraduate studies–as did I and my brother.
Over the years, my dad talked quite a lot of people into getting degrees while working. I am baffled that young people today more or less refuse to do that. A friend who teaches at the college level tells me that nearly all of his working students are near 40. I told my kids that they get my help for 4 calendar years. Both messed around and exceeded that, and both have financed their own after the 4 years were up.
I am quite clear from my own contact with the world of higher education, that schools are not using people with specific industry experience to teach, but rather, they now revere ivory tower types who have never worked anywhere but in education and hire them instead–insisting that those who have worked in an industry are somehow infected with things that should never be passed on to the rising workforce. A close friend who retired from advertising and marketing to teach, was recently let go after some very successful years where he actually was responsible for placing students in jobs at places like CNN and CNBC. That was not good enough for the university where he taught; he lacked education in things like self-esteem training and women’s studies, so he was shown the door (I am not kidding about that).
These events alone makes me wary that the whole higher education system accomplishes anything useful. In the US, the most useful training is on the job, and I agree that the smarter ones who decide to go on to higher education, would do just fine learning on the job, at practically no cost. Except for certain very specific areas in computer science, I do not think a college degree means more money at entry level in today’s job market.
You should read _Soft_Apocalypse_ by Will McIntosh.
http://www.amazon.com/Soft-Apocalypse-Will-McIntosh/dp/159780276X/
It is a dystopian tale of the USA crumbling starting in 2013. The protagonist has a degree in Sociology and is one of the first to become a “nomad”.
Got this from my uncle (82?) this morning, thought you guys might get a laugh out of it.
Jim, my dad, (your grandfather), used to note that there is a platoon of soldiers always on guard at FDR’s grave.
When asked why? he would gleefully reply, ” To make sure the son of a bitch doesn’t get out!”
Got this from my uncle (81?) this morning, thought you guys might get a laugh out of it.
Jim, my dad, (your grandfather), used to note that there is a platoon of soldiers always on guard at FDR’s grave.
When asked why? he would gleefully reply, ” To make sure the son of a bitch doesn’t get out!”
Just as I entered the military, a rule changed that you had to have a 4+ year degree to be an officer. Up to around ’79, officers were getting by just fine with 2 year or no degree for the older folks. A 4 year degree didn’t teach me to be a leader. It didn’t teach me to fly helicopters. It didn’t teach me how to crush, kill, maim and eat dead babies. The Army did.
I also have to thank the Army for paying for my MS in Maths/ORSA.
Few would dispute that, on average, those people are smarter and work harder than those in the other half.
Lets ignore the idea of basing things in what “few would dispute”. I have no problem with “on average those people are smarter”. I am aware of no basis for including “and work harder”. Such a statement does not correlate with my experience, which is that education and working harder are independent variables. Can you provide something with a scientific basis to support it?
Well, I don’t have any hard numbers at hand, but would you not agree that over a large population industriousness, however measured, would likely have a normal distribution? And would you not further agree that two of the most important, if not the most important, factors in success in being admitted to college are intelligence and hard work? I’ve certainly known many people who had only modest intellectual gifts but who made it into and through college based on sheer hard work.
he lacked education in things like self-esteem training and women’s studies, so he was shown the door
Does not surprise me at all. I work for Tau Beta Pi, an engineering honor society, and our offices are located on the University of Tennessee campus. Supposedly they take only the brightest. Yeh, they may be able to design a bridge but they don’t enough common sense to realize you have to connect the bridge to a road to make the bridge worthwhile.
I’ll tell you what making students taking worthless courses does, it employs instructors and makes money for the university. This old crap about diversity and making the students more rounded is bullshit. It only makes the pockets of the university more rounded. Where else can you employ a greek mythology teacher? At a university. And who would take such a class? No one. So you force the students to take such classes otherwise the rooms would be empty.
There is no reason that for many disciplines the student could learn what they need to know in 2 years. But that would require the university eliminating “junk” classes from the curriculum. And that would mean less money and no one attending the “junk” classes.
When my son was ready to graduate from MTSU he was told he did not have certain classes. He said he did and showed the student office his paper signed by his advisor showing the classes required and that he had completed the classes. MTSU said it did not matter as that advisor no longer worked there so his signature really didn’t count. It was determined that his major had been coded into the computer system incorrectly. It was MTSU’s mistake but they refused to correct it. Someone had coded it incorrectly. If they changed the coding now it would force him to use the new curriculum which include some really junk classes. I was pissed and so was my wife.
The school would not budge and said it would take another two years to complete his courses because some of the courses he needed were given to freshman first and the classes were full. Freshmen had priority on the mandatory classes required to graduate. How stupid is that?
My wife figured out a way where he could finish the course in one year rather than two. But the admissions people still said no. So we worked our way up the food chain until we got to the university president. We threatened him with exposing their little scheme of failing to correct their mistake to the media and filing a lawsuit. The president greased the wheels and got things changed in the class schedule. He would not fix the problem with the coding as he said it was the students responsibility to make sure they were coded properly in the system.
The net result is that he spent another year in school at a cost of $12,000.00 when he in fact had all the courses he needed. The university was just after money. I seriously doubt his new, required, classes in philosophy and Greek mythology are really doing him any good in his career path.
Another time we get a bill in the mail saying tuition is due by 5:00P CST the day we got the bill. I called the university to complain and they said the mail house they used to mail statements had problems so statements went out late. I asked for 7 days to get them a check. The university said no. If the bill was not paid by 5:00P all my sons classes would be dropped. The university I could pay online and I said fine, how do I do that. The university said to logon to the website and use my student ID. I said I had no student ID was their another way. They say no, that was the only way. I asked if they would take a credit card over the phone. They said yes, but they would need my student ID. Again they refused to budge even though it was their error. From my experience this is fairly common.
So in my experience a lot of universities exist in many of cases to employ the unemployable. Office staff that are idiots and professors in junk classes that are not qualified to get a job at Burger King.
“The question becomes whether a smart, hard-working person is better off spending four years or more and tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend college, or hit the ground running and get a four-year head start without incurring a crushing debt burden.”
An acquaintance took that path in the Nineties, he was fairly smart but didn’t go to uni to get a computer science degree, instead he undertook a MCSE and was soon had an entry level position with Evil Doers in Suits.
I enjoyed uni, and hardly knew anything about computer science and the employment opportunities in the field when I started. It had been my intention to get a BSc and DipEd and become a high school science and maths teacher, but I was seduced by computer science, when I graduated I got an interesting job making about 60% more than history, sociology (and organic chemistry) grads were making.
I enjoyed uni and would recommend it to almost anyone who is smart and motivated enough. (And our tuition charges aren’t at the insano levels you find in the US.
By the way, what’s Jasmine up to?
Greg
BSc (Adel), BA (ANU)
“Do schools still teach cursive handwriting nowadays? If so, why?”
I was taught cursive in primary school (mid to late Sixties) but continued to write in block letters 99% of the time. In Year 11 (1974) one of my teachers upbraided me for writing in block letters. I think cursive looks much nicer but I’ve more or less forgotten how to write cursive at speed.
I just e-mailed my sister about this, she’s a current primary school teacher, I’ll see if she has anything to add.
I enjoyed uni and would recommend it to almost anyone who is smart and motivated enough. (And our tuition charges aren’t at the insano levels you find in the US.
By the way, what’s Jasmine up to?
Greg
BSc (Adel), BA (ANU)
State schools aren’t outrageously expensive, at least relative to private schools. I think Wake Forest University (right down the road from us, and where Paul Jones teaches) is up around $40,000 per year now, but UNC-Charlotte, where Jas is going, is about a quarter that for in-state students and half that for out-of-state students.
Jas is majoring in business administration, at least for now. She said she may change, but a lot of freshmen don’t know what they really want to major in.
Bob
Diploma from a Really Good High School
Yeah, I’ve read that there are ways around the crazy tuition fees, like going to community college for a couple of years then a good state university to finish off for around the same cost as a public university here. I’d prefer to go to MIT if I was smart enough but UNC-C looks pretty good too and has the advantage of not being in Boston.
I hope she does well, but also hope she switches to science/maths pretty soon.
Greg
(Matriculation Certificate from a very good state high school in the most beautiful city in the world…)
I hope she does well, but also hope she switches to science/maths pretty soon.
Greg
(Matriculation Certificate from a very good state high school in the most beautiful city in the world…)
Well, she just finished up summer session and then had a week at home before she left Saturday to start the autumn semester. Mary (Jas’s grandmother) tells me that she took a calculus class in summer session and got an A, so there’s hope yet.
Tuition in 1964 for my first year studying electrical engineering was $312, which adjusted for CPI inflation is about $2200 in 2011. (It increased to about $350 in my senior year as I recall.) The on-line tuition calculator shows first year undergrad engineering program at the same institution is $9000 in 2011. Senior year tuition is $10,500.
My now quaint $600/year scholarship paid for all tuition and books and I had spending money leftover.
Jack
In the field I make most of my income in, programming and related consulting, I’ve seen no correlation between having a computer science degree and being any good at programming. The problem is credentialing, the use of diplomas and certificates as proxies for ability. When I was a team lead in a consulting company, I had to constantly fight the recruiting department to give me all of the resumes they got and to not filter on what they thought would make a good candidate, which generally started with degrees and certifications. (I’m sure that at least part of that fight was because the recruiters were protecting their own jobs; if I could pick well-suited candidates as well as they, then … it would be the end of life as we know it or something.)
Now, in the field I was trained it, engineering, I’m not sure OJT would do the trick. There’s an awful lot of theory behind an airplane or a transistor, and without the theory you’re a technician, not an engineer. On the other hand, an awful lot of engineering professors are ivory tower types who wouldn’t make it in the world of actually designing a printed circuit board which can be sold at a profit. Some combination of schooling and OJT is no doubt the way to go, but I don’t see universities letting go their grasp of that precious tuition money. (Even though you can still find occasional claims that universities lose money on every undergrad.)
As for the merit of liberal arts and humanities requirements in specialized fields such as engineering, I understand and agree with the intent: to broaden students’ horizons and to teach them to question and to think. The practice falls far short. Most liberal arts and humanities courses were indoctrination sessions when I was an undergrad, 25 years ago, and it’s only gotten worse. If anything, the drilled-in unquestioning acceptance of authority deadens the desire to question and to think and the way in which literature and world cultures are “taught” kills any desire the student may have had to read it. Engineering students would be better off with four years of part-time studies in math and science while interning in a working shop. If they’re interested in literature or women’s studies they can take that up in their spare time.
As an amusing side note, in the field I’m moving into, writing, I’ve been amused by the “professional writing programs” offered at various colleges. Some time ago I thought it would be a good idea to look at the business of writing. I found that the full professor teaching “Writing to get Paid” (actual course name was more high-falutin’) at Union College had made less money in a decade of “professional, part-time” writing than I had made in two magazine articles. OK, thanks for your time, lady.
Someone who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to post the following for him or her.
Hi Bob,
Interesting discussion on your board today. I was going to give my two cents but then realized I don’t really want a searchable record of my comments. So, if you want to post these anonymously (I don’t really think there will be much doubt who it is, but want plausible deniability), feel free. I’ve actually thought of trying to write a long essay/mini-book on this topic. But I’m probably a little early in my academic career for such a thing.
I think your commenters make a number of good points. I’d sum it up this way:
1. For an intellectually talented person, higher education can be very valuable both professionally and for the pure benefit and pleasure of stretching the mind.
2. As valuable as it can be, it is usually not worth a quarter of a million dollars, with interest. Or, rather, it can almost always be had cheaper.
3. University and college administrators are, first and foremost, fund-raisers. Teachers get pretty ticked off when they hear stories of bureaucrats acting like minor league shake down artists and often express their displeasure.
4. Professors, who have not turned into administrators, have very little power on the financial end of universities.
5. A liberal arts education, in theory, is a great way to broaden the mind, expand the horizons and create better human beings.
6. A liberal arts education, in practice, often simply reinforces existing prejudices and dogma and usually bores students who have already read and studied broadly.
7. Degrees, in most fields, are about credentialism. Universities are part of a system that forces people to pass through their gates before passing through other gates – hoop jumping at its finest. (Of course, howling at the wind is also rarely useful. For almost everyone who wants to pass through the later gates, passing through the first one is necessary. Since it can be fun, educational and enlightening, why not? Just don’t pay a fortune to do so. If anyone reading this hires people, consider hiring talented people without degrees. Or with lower GPAs. If the later gates stop using the first gate, much of our higher education problems disappear. (As might my job, I suppose.))
My advice to high school students is this: go to the best school you can afford comfortably not using loans, (unless you have to, in which case, keep it to a minimum). There are lots of really good state schools that are relatively cheap. If you can score a full-ride to one, do so. If you can get significant financial aid that are not loans (grants, scholarships, parental/family help, etc.), that covers most of an elite private school cost, and you can get in, these schools offer more opportunities, on average, than a state school. But, here is the kicker (and I expect your readership knows this well): to benefit, you have to take advantage of the opportunities presented. Paying the money and sitting in class won’t do it. If that is all you plan to do, go to Europe while it’s still there. A student who goes to a good, affordable, state school, works hard and takes advantage of the opportunities provided will do much, much better, ultimately, than a similar student who goes to Elite U. and coasts.
I would say to try to gauge future earnings to judge how much to spend on education but, really, there is no sure way to do so. Also, paying a lot for a M.S. to create future earnings seems risky to me – everyone is doing it. I suppose one might have to to keep up, but it won’t set you apart.
As you know, I’m a lifetime ivory tower resident but, I hope, I know that about myself and, unlike many of my colleagues, I don’t think I have nothing to learn from folks in the “real-world”. (Although, as an aside, the real-world doesn’t seem real logical and rational to me, either. I used to be a die-hard believer that business people would behave in a rational manner. Years of watching from the outside have convinced me otherwise. We in the ivory tower may do a lot of navel gazing but, at least, we’re taking other people’s money to do. The business world seems to enjoy spending loads of its own money to do the same type things. I know stories of petty rivalries and appallingly ignorant programs in industry that would curl your toes.)
Finally, if you’re heading off to school, or sending a child off to school, never delude yourself into thinking that there is some “pure, educational mission” the university has. A student will find a handful of great professors who try to fulfill this mission – the student should get everything they can from those professors. But, the university exists to create a comfortable life for administrators and academics. Never forget that and act accordingly.
I was watching reruns of The Big Bang Theory (recently discovered, and now trawling for reruns), and the Dean of the school asked the main protagonists what they thought Caltech was about. They conferred amongst themselves and announced “Science?”, to which they were told “MONEY”!
Yeah, I know it’s a TV show, but it sure rang true.
Well, the students are there mostly for the science, but the school is there mostly for the money.
We tried to watch Big Bang Theory, but had to stop after literally five minutes. I simply cannot tolerate intrusive laugh tracks. I was hoping the DVD had an option for audio without the laugh track, but it didn’t.
Some thoughts…
1. There is something noteworthy in taking and passing courses outside of your comfort zone and interests. In fact, part of the achievement of earning a bachelor’s degree is completing courses in subjects that you’re not interested in or that are foreign to you. If all that was required were courses directly related to your major, then sending a teenage geek to university and watching him ace all of his CompSci courses is hardly surprising nor much of an accomplishment. It also does little to indicate how capable that graduate is going to be at working on projects he doesn’t want to work on or working on (as most job descriptions state these days) “other duties as assigned.”
2. Considering how much employers currently bitch about the poor written and oral communication skills in their new hires, I shudder to think how much worse it would be if English composition and public speaking weren’t required courses at many universities.
3. There is something to be learned. Arguably, skills learned in the critical analysis of literature, the abstract thinking behind a lot of art, the cause and effect of people and events throughout history, and so on can be used across many career fields and disciplines.
4. There is a lot to be gained simply from the experience of moving out of your parents house and away from everything you know for 4 years. Though, to get the full affect the student would need to go out of state to school and preferrably somewhere much different than where they were raised (e.g. a student from NYC going to a university in Kansas, or a student in Texas going to a university in New England). They could achieve similar results other ways, but university throws them together in close proximity with a lot of students their age who are much more likely to help them break out of their shell; it solves the issue of having a place to stay, food to eat, and something to do; and provides a multitude of clubs, organizations, and other social activities.
Normally, I would also make some argument about being exposed to different ideas and thoughts, but that would require universities to be diverse when it comes to politics and whatnot and they’re all mostly far left. So, the exchange of ideas and differing points or view is gone and it’s now mostly a 4 year exercise in liberal brainwashing. Though, there is probably some benefit to people who grew up in conservative families in right-wing communities to be exposed to something liberal for a change.
A lot of this gets into the purpose of a university education. What’s the primary purpose of a bachelor degree? Is it to fill a square so you can get a job or is it about higher education. Lately, higher education seems to be more about job placement than any real education. It’s an assembly line for creating necktie zombies that sit in cubicles and pop anti-depressants to get through each day.
I remember talking to a professor once and he was pissed about some staff meeting that he attended that morning and he remarked, “This school needs to figure out if it’s an institute of higher learning or a business.” Non-profit schools like to brag about how all the money is reinvested in the institution, but the president/chancellor is usually driving around in a car that cost close to six figures, so someone is profiting.
I could also go on for hours about the over emphasis and over funding of the atheltic departments at most schools…
Chad says, “Lately, higher education seems to be more about job placement than any real education.”
That is exactly it. In order to “justify” extreme rises in tuition, universities have touted the professional benefits of a degree, rather than the other, less tangible, benefits you listed above. But the main reason college grads do so much better in job placement is that many jobs require a degree, even if that degree doesn’t really do a lot of direct training for the specific job. There is also the problem that by emphasizing the job benefits of college, one implies a profit. But going $150K in debt by the time you’re 22 for a job that will pay $40K makes little sense. I fear colleges and universities, by marketing themselves as the path toward a good job, have cut their own throats. Eventually, people will figure out that they can get job training far cheaper, and less painfully, than going to uni. Once enough people have figured it out, the demand will fall and we’ll all be sitting around in empty classrooms.
Oh, I suspect the professors of non-rigorous subjects like literature and sociology–not to mention those of imaginary subjects like women’s studies–would have empty classrooms now if the universities didn’t require attendance and if we taxpayers stopped subsidizing 4-year vacations for kids who don’t want to or are incapable of studying a real subject.
Pournelle thinks only 10% of high school graduates actually belong in college. I think his estimate is high. A kid doesn’t belong in college unless he’s majoring in a hard science, engineering, or one of the professions. And even the professions don’t really need a 4-year degree before specializing. Pre-law is ridiculous. Take law students right out of high school, and if necessary add one year on the front end to cover the college-level stuff they really need. Same thing for medicine, accounting, and so on.
As I’ve said many times, I know a whole lot of scientists and engineers, and I don’t know a single one who isn’t widely read on things completely unrelated to their professional qualifications, including history and literature. Conversely, I don’t know a single literature, sociology, or business major who has even a nodding acquaintance with serious science and math. If universities are to force students to take courses outside their areas of interest, they don’t need to be forcing the scientists and engineers, who’ll do it on their own. They need to force kids in non-rigorous majors to take (and pass), say, general and organic chemistry, calculus, and a serious statistics course. Of course, 90% plus of those kids probably couldn’t pass any of those courses to save their lives, which is a strong indication that they shouldn’t be in college.
Not only is pre-law a joke, law school is mostly useless, too. The fact that L-school grads have to spend most of a year in intensive study to pass the state bar exam is a big indicator right there. I’m convinced they’d do better with a few years of OJT under working lawyers, probably interning six months or a year each in corporate law, criminal law, and so on. Interestingly, OJT studying under a working lawyer used to be the main way new lawyers entered the field. That’s been shifting not only in numbers but in difficulty of meeting state requirements. I know of several people who were required by their state boards to take “a few” courses in accredited law schools before being allowed to take the bar.
My creds on this topic (or disclaimer of possible bias): I went to law school part-time for a couple years about ten years ago. I picked up what would be useful to a small businessman, plus a bunch of stuff that was interesting but not useful to someone not interested in taking the bar. (Nor would I have been qualified to do so; I wasn’t going full-time, so New York wouldn’t let me take the bar even if I’d gotten the JD.)
Oh, and while I’m ranting: To all you lawyers who claim to be the equivalent of PhDs in other fields: Get over yourselves. I’m familiar with JD programs as well as MA, MS, and (engineering) PhD programs. A JD is more like a MA in literature than anything else. Huge amounts of reading, a lot of writing, essentially no quantitative grading, and no hard knowledge of anything.
And one final poke. My law school classmates were convinced they were the best and brightest around. Apparently because they made it into law school. Some of them were sooooo impressed when we were introduced to syllogistic reasoning. “Wow! This is really powerful! I can see how we can use this in regular life and not just school!” Well, I hate to tell you kiddies that the syllogism was codified 2500 years ago. And the symbolic logic I learned as a junior in electrical engineering school leaves it in the dust. In other words, “I knew the best and brightest. The best and brightest were friends of mine. L-school kiddies, you’re no best and brightest.”
Well, to practice law you have to be part of the state Bar and to be part of the Bar you have to take the Bar Exam and to take the Bar Exam you have to attend an ABA accredited Law School. That’s on top of all of the LSAT and admittance bullshit that Law Schools put you through. So, when it comes to the ridiculous absurdity of it all you can thank the existing and past lawyers for it. It’s pure elitism.
In reality, you’d get better lawyers if they simply had to have x number of hours interning under another lawyer or judge and then just pass a comprehensive exam. It would also help if lawyers could specialize and avoid learning things they don’t have to. There’s no point in memorizing criminal code and criminal trial procedure if you’re going to be a corporate tax lawyer. We could split attorney and lawyer back into separate legal career paths where attorney’s work in the court system and lawyers do not (sort of like barristers vs. solicitors).
Over the last few years the WSJ has run a few articles on the legal careerfield. Law Schools are over-enrolled and creating more JDs than there are jobs for, lawyers don’t make enough money their first few years out of law school to even pay their student loan payments, enrollment is down because word is spreading that graduates aren’t finding jobs, etc. etc. If you’re not in the top third or even top tenth of your Law School class then your prospects are bleak. Many large firms have job fairs and will very explicitly state that if you’re not ranked in the top 10% then don’t bother showing up at the job fair.
My wife got her JD i n 2007. She works in the compliance department for a regional bank.
An interesting bit of trivia… There is no requirement that US Supreme Court Justices be lawyers. The President could nominate some 18 year old from McDonald’s to be a Justice. He’d never get confirmed by Congress, but , Constitutionally, there’s no requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer, a member of the Bar, a prior judge, or have attended law school. I think that bit of trivia sort of underscores what legal career fields have morphed into over the last couple hundred years.
Another f’ed up career field is private investigation. The career field is oversaturated with retired police officers. They have lobbied to have the state licensing criteria changed to the point that only a retired police officer would ever qualify for a license. So, the career field has become a good ole boys club for retired cops.
Oh, it hasn’t been a couple hundred years. When I first moved to North Carolina back about 30 years ago, there was no requirement that a judge be an attorney, nor was there any requirement that an attorney had to have attended a law school. Anyone could take the bar exam, and if he or she passed that exam he or she was licensed to practice law. I actually thought about taking the bar exam just for the hell of it. I have read a bit of law, and I’m very, very good at taking standardized tests. I suspect I could have spent 30 days or so studying and done as well on the bar exam as anyone. There was and is a requirement for CLE, but that consists mainly of going to conferences and drinking a lot, which disqualified me on both counts.
My husband and I both have Master’s Degrees in Literature. My husband works in computers, and I have worked at a science and technology library at a large university for nearly 14 years. I would say that our interests go well beyond the liberal arts despite our chosen fields of study…
I worked with a programmer that had a BA in English Lit and was working on his MA and was busy writing a thesis on 18th Century British Lit. He was an excellent programmer (though a bit of a pot head).
That said. If I were a betting man, I’d still put my money on the fact that more science majors explore the arts than art majors explore the sciences. That comes from personal experience and the people I’ve met. No hard stats to back it up, but that’s been my personal experience. I’d feel safe making that bet.
Sure, it’s common for people with undergrad/grad degrees in non-rigorous subjects like literature or history to end up making a living at something completely unrelated to their college major. There are, after all, only so many jobs for literature or history majors, and nearly all of them require a Ph.D. and involve working in academia. But the fact that those people working in different fields have those degrees has nothing to do with them getting jobs in those other fields, nor did their degrees prepare them for those fields. They just happen to be bright enough and hard-working enough to be able to learn things on-the-job.
In fact, one of the brightest people I’ve ever known has Ph.D.’s in two non-rigorous subjects, sociology and psychology. His name is Jerry Pournelle, and he’s scary smart. But he also was the exception. While his fellow students were all taking statistics 101 for sociologists, taught by sociologists, Jerry was over in the math department taking real courses in statistics. But then Jerry never was really a sociology major. He was a scientist and engineer who happened to decide to get terminal degrees in sociology and psychology.
My experience in law school, followed by 35 years telecommunications law practice differs in part.
It’s entirely possible things are different in the Ivy League law schools, but about 20% of the first year class failed and didn’t return. In fact, at least for first year classes, there was a mandatory percentage of D grades (10-15% as I recall) and a recommended 5% E grades.
That’s not too much different, I suspect, from those who started undergrad wanting to be an engineer and then running into the buzzsaw of calculus and deciding a different major was better suited to their talents.
The bar exam is akin to the professional engineering exam in the following sense. The bar exam purports to cover the waterfront of legal issues from trusts, wills, estates, business organization, constitutional law, tort law, criminal law and criminal procedure, etc. Likewise, the PE exam expects knowledge of everything from strength of materials, chemical engineering, electrical, etc.
It’s not possible to cover all these matters in a reasonable undergrad or law school program – and it probably does not make sense to try it.
So, some form of study before the bar exam (or PE exam) is useful to pick up those subjects that you were not exposed to in your education.
A few states have the “diploma privilege” that exempts graduates of an in-state law school from taking the bar exam.
As far as a form of apprenticeship and reading law while working perhaps with an abbreviated law school program, it would be worth a try.
The real problem is misallocation of resources – we graduate far too many lawyers and MBAs and too few engineers and scientists. That misallocation is a rational response (at least it has been historically) to salary, prestige and long term employment prospects in the relative professions.
Engineering employment for decades has been unstable, with layoffs and low hiring endemic. Salaries have usually been decent, but subject to a ceiling above which it has been difficult to rise.
Now that law school and the MBA are no longer the automatic ticket to employment, it will be interesting to see where the prospective lawyers and MBAs wind up.
As to Bob’s suggestion that 10% of fewer should be attending a 4 year college program, I suspect he’s close to right. Historically, that would put us around the 1960-70 time frame.
Table below (format is messed up) shows US census data for bachelor or higher from 1940-2000 both sexes combined.
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
4.6 6.2 7.7 10.7 16.2 20.3 24.4
http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/census/half-century/tables.html
Jack
I’ve certainly known many people who had only modest intellectual gifts but who made it into and through college based on sheer hard work.
A reasonable point. Will you concede that many of them do so to avoid the kind of hard work that breaks your back? I just don’t see the correlation you see. Generally I think people gravitate toward the kind of work that they prefer. There are plenty who despise intellectual pursuits but work their buts off at other things.
One of my biggest gripes is that for a lot of these careers you only ever get once chance to pursue them.
If you decide in your late 30s to switch careers and be a lawyer, how many ABA-accredited Law Schools are offering evening and online courses (not just a few courses either, but the ability to complete your entire degree online or in the evenings? What about medical schools and engineering schools? Can I defend my thesis at 7PM on a Tuesday night? Can I go to Moot Court on Sundays? Can I dissect a cadaver Thursday evening? What are my professors’ office hours in the evenings and on weekends?
So, essentially, if you don’t make the decision by your early 20s that you want to be a doctor, lawyer, or engineer then you’re screwed. Either that, or you need a huge savings account or spouse that can and will support you through law school, medical school, or engineering school, and the years of internships and low paying entry level work that follows. So, for working adults going to school (for their first degree or for another degree) they can choose a business or computer major and that’s about it. Pretty much everything else is only offered via tradional programs during the day. I suppose the one exception is nursing (another career field that’s currently understaffed but will eventually be overstaffed as nurses are pouring out of nursing schools at an incredible rate).
If you decide in your late 30s to switch careers and be a lawyer, how many ABA-accredited Law Schools are offering evening and online courses (not just a few courses either, but the ability to complete your entire degree online or in the evenings? What about medical schools and engineering schools? Can I defend my thesis at 7PM on a Tuesday night? Can I go to Moot Court on Sundays? Can I dissect a cadaver Thursday evening? What are my professors’ office hours in the evenings and on weekends?
The urban university that I attended for both EE and law school had extensive evening programs in both the engineering and law schools.
Day (full time) law school was 3 years and evening law school was 4 years to JD degree. EE was 4 years day (but with 5 years in terms of credit hours compared with liberal arts hours required to graduate) and 5 to 6 years evening.
You have to look for a university in an urban area that caters to the non-traditional student market.
Jack
Perhaps that’s the problem. I’ve mostly lived in cities with populations around 300,000 to 500,000. Not small by any means, but not large enough to, for example, support an evening law degree program. So, I guess what I, and people like me, really need is online (distance learning) programs for these degrees AND the option to attend part-time.
A reasonable point. Will you concede that many of them do so to avoid the kind of hard work that breaks your back? I just don’t see the correlation you see. Generally I think people gravitate toward the kind of work that they prefer. There are plenty who despise intellectual pursuits but work their buts off at other things
Why, yes, I’ll concede that. I wasn’t clear because it never occurred to me that we were discussing anything other than mental laziness. When I talk about working hard, I’m talking about studying and thinking, not toting bales. I have nothing against physical laziness. In fact, I revel in it. I hate to sweat. I hate to do physical labor of any sort.
“In fact, one of the brightest people I’ve ever known has Ph.D.’s in two non-rigorous subjects, sociology and psychology. His name is Jerry Pournelle…”
I was sure Jerry had PhDs in politics and a hard subject, like physics (the queen of the sciences) or engineering. I guess I’ll have to look at his bio again.
M.S. in both Experimental Statistics and Systems Engineering, and Ph.Ds in both Psychology and Political Science. As Bob says, scary smart. He has some strange politics, but he is certainly scary smart. I suspect that his readings over the years qualifies him for a couple dozen more degrees.
Two masters degrees and two PhDs? Where did he get the time? I’d be happy with one of either.
“I was watching reruns of The Big Bang Theory (recently discovered, and now trawling for reruns), and the Dean of the school asked the main protagonists what they thought Caltech was about. They conferred amongst themselves and announced “Science?”, to which they were told “MONEY”!”
I remember reading that MIT was playing (I think) Harvard in some sort of sport and the Harvard people were taunting the MIT people about their nerdiness and lack of culture. The MIT people just replied “MONEY!” which shut the Harvard people up. A degree from Harvard in French Litt would be nice but I’d rather have an electrical engineering degree from MIT.
““Do schools still teach cursive handwriting nowadays? If so, why?”
I was taught cursive in primary school (mid to late Sixties) but continued to write in block letters 99% of the time. In Year 11 (1974) one of my teachers upbraided me for writing in block letters. I think cursive looks much nicer but I’ve more or less forgotten how to write cursive at speed.
I just e-mailed my sister about this, she’s a current primary school teacher, I’ll see if she has anything to add.”
Well, my sister replied as follows:
“Yes they do. Its called “Modern Cursive” & meant to be quick, readable, neat etc.
Almost EVERYBODY who goes to Uni or higher Ed seems to revert to a print-scrawl for speed & convenience. I do.”
I think cursive looks really nice but I cant usually be bothered writing that way, so I print 99.9% of the time.
Li-ion batteries have improved a lot over the last few years, but they are still sensitive to high temperatures and state of charge. While it is true that storing them fully charged will shorten their life, that can be countered by storing them at low temperatures. Here is a somewhat dated, but still excellent reference:
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries
I have some very old Li-ion cells that have been stored at full charge for years in an old refrigerator (no food is stored in that box,) and their capacity is still nearly as good as when they were new. I don’t have any control samples, but these would have lost almost half of their capacity after just two years at room temperature, and by now would be useless.
I know your preference for NiMH AA cells, and these are a good choice, but the industry has converted to Li-ion systems in devices like cell phones and cameras. You already know the cost tradeoff, and almost certainly know the capacity tradeoff, but another area where Li-ion shines is in charge retention. It is even better than the so-called “pre-charged” NiMH cells. As these become more popular, I hope their prices will come down.