Brocktree

That's naive claptrap. In the real world, if you don't have rich parents or a loaded spouse, you're going to need to make money. And you make money by doing what society demands, not what you personally want. That doesn't mean you can't pursue your other interests, it just means if you're going to drop 4 years of your life and $50,000 on a degree, you should at least consider the economics of it. And if it's not all about money, then why the hell do these degrees cost an arm and a leg? Hmm. I 'doubt' that you're older than 20, and 'suspect' you've never had to tough it out in the real world. This is based on my observation that you spout the same nonsense I did before I was hit upside the head by the working world. Oh for goodness sake. Go back and read my posts in their entirety. Like Thuryl, you're conflating useful degrees with all degrees. So you're discarding real world experience and relying on a study which doesn't support your main contention. Are you a teacher?

If you don't want to discuss the financial element, you shouldn't have stated that class structure is linked to what an individual can afford. If you meant to use 'afford' in a non-financial context, then you only have yourself to blame for being vague with your usage of the English language. Perhaps you should take a degree in English to brush up on your sloppy terminology? And I've talked to multiple employers and managers, both inside and outside of the U.S, who have told me otherwise. Indeed, employers love people with families, as they are the perfect wage slave, who live paycheck to paycheck in order to finance their family. You're conflating useful bachelor degrees with all bachelor degrees, so that's a logic fallacy right there. Oh, and using wikipedia as a reference? Is that what passes for a reliable source in academia these days?

I never raised the issue of class, you did. I may have never got a degree in Liberal Arts or Philosophy, but I know a strawman fallacy when I see one. 'If you have a family to care for' being the operative words here. Many people complete their degree before they have a family. Not true. Indeed, I'd argue that people who intend to have a family will be motivated to get a degree, as they are led to believe that this will increase their earning potential, thereby allowing them to better take care of their children financially. You're using 'class status' as some vague term that can be defined however you please when convenient. This may surprise you, but I'm not interested in listening to you pontificate about class stratification in the U.S.A, as you don't have any qualifications that make you an authority on the matter. As both an employee and a manager outside of academia, I have some idea as to how employers view worthless bachelor's degrees.

I'm confusing neither. I pointed out that virtually anyone can afford a degree in the U.S.A. Having a degree doesn't give an employer any indication whatsoever of your financial situation.

I've never seen this. But if that is true, that's an office job which would offer little in the way of stability or gainful employment, and is hardly anything to aspire to. And if a tertiary qualification is required, you'd still be way better off getting a degree which provides you with in-demand skills or knowledge. That's not true. In the U.S.A, you can take out oodles in student loans to study a degree, and pay back the loan once you find a job (note that this debt is NOT dischargable via bankruptcy). Having a degree is not evidence that you are financially well off, any more than having finance for a McMansion before the housing bubble was evidence that you were a millionaire. The U.S had the housing bubble, now it is having an education bubble.

By the way, as an outsider (Australian) looking at the U.S.A, I can honestly say that you are all brainwashed with some sort of education complex, where everyone (from your parents, teachers, professors and HR) tells you that any tertiary education is better than none, even if it doesn't give you any concrete skills, and sucks away literally tens of thousands of dollars and years of your life. When I was in my early 20's and had some time off (due to being unemployed because my Bachelor in Biomedical Science being as worthless as toilet paper), I was watching a crappy reality show. It was the child equivalent of Survivor. These kids, ranging from 5 years old to 12 years old, stayed at this cowboy ranch, and were separated into two different groups, and would have numerous competitions each week. At the end of each week, the best performing child would be awarded a literal gold star, which was worth $50,000 (I think). *Every* child awarded this star parroted the exact same thing: "I'm going to use this money to go to college." What the hell? What 6 year old is thinking about how to finance their tertiary education? They don't know diddly squat about the real world or what is profitable, and they are already parroting the party line. There is *no way* that would happen in Australia. If you asked a 6 year old here what they would spend their money on, they would probably say lollies or an X-Box. Even if tertiary study was as expensive here as it was in America, they still wouldn't go spouting that, any more than they would say that they would use the star to finance a downpayment on their mortgage. Come to think about it, didn't you have a housing bubble over there because everyone was brainwashed to buy expensive housing? Hmm, I'm starting to see a trend here. You guys just don't realize how ridiculous you look to us. From the age of 6 you are taught to chase these degrees which have have as much value as Enron stocks, which teach you some vague 'skills' that leave you in debt and short of 4-8 years of your life. It's like watching watching Ouroboros eating its own tail. Just like people were sunk into debt from buying their overpriced pile of bricks and wood, a whole generation of young adults is going into debt over overpriced pieces of paper. Like Nikki, I took an undergrad degree which wasn't that good for employment. However, unlike him, I've only got myself to blame. I wasn't brainwashed, I just didn't know what I was going to do at that point in my life, and didn't have exposure to the real world. That's not to say that the university didn't promote the course with absolutely laughable 'advantages', such as "If you do this degree, you can study post-graduate medicine afterwords!" Yeah, you don't say. Pretty much any degree qualified you for post-grad medicine if you took the right electives. And I can't blame employers for not taking the degree too seriously, because it was as easy as pie. I only learnt about what real study was when I took a post-graduate degree. Thankfully I've bounced back by studying in an unrelated field. Now, I can pick up the phone and cold call employers, and have a new job within the day. As much as my job can suck at times, you have no idea what a liberating experience this is when you used to trawl though the newspaper for weeks, applying for jobs that are way below your expertise, and still getting knocked back because you don't have any actual work experience. My advice to Nikki would be to go and get a qualification which will guarantee him gainful employment. Hell, you're better off picking a certification in a job you hate, because there is nothing more crushing to your self-esteem than sitting around the house all day realising that you have less value to the real world than people who have actual work experience in unskilled jobs.

Most don't give you any qualifications that you could not obtain from working an unskilled job. If I were to talk to someone pursuing a degree which has practical application, but where the vocation has high competition (eg. engineering, law), I'd recommend they do casual work in an unrelated field. That way they have a reference who will vouch that they don't slack off or show up to work stoned. You can't always validate that from a degree alone, since most degrees these days don't even require that students attend lectures. Hell, some degrees don't even have exams. You could spend most of your time in college partying and still wing it. The market for a trade will most certainly be better than that of a liberal arts degree. Even better, you can work for yourself, or start a business. Yeah, sure, being a tradie has its drawbacks (often dirty and hard on the body), but at least you will have gainful employment. Hahaha, this is just plain baloney spouted by professors who don't actually work in the real world. A B.A doesn't guarantee that the applicant is capable of close reading, clear writing, and critical thinking, and employers know this. Furthermore, a degree in more practical fields (such as medicine, law, engineering) actually *require* close reading, clear writing and critical thinking, while also providing you with clear avenues into gainful employment. They could at least equip them with skills and knowledge that would either make them more employable, or start their own business . I can read leftist tripe on the internet in my own time, thank you very much, I don't need to pay for it to be crammed down my throat for 4 years.

I find this hard to believe. I doubt there has ever been a real demand for philosophy majors, and suspect all the claims of increased earning potential come from university professors and advertisers rather than impartial scientific review. The amount of money you earn straight out of school isn't really reflective of the earning potential of the degree, since many other qualifications have a training year, or require further certifications (eg. medicine, pharmacy, accounting, law). I'd argue that most professors (and even secondary school teachers) have no idea about our supply and demand economy, nor what employers expect in the real world. The fact is that liberal arts has no real practical application. Hell, it doesn't even qualify you for certifications that have practical application. You'd be way better off learning a trade. Even panel beaters and mechanics are making better money than many of my friends, who chose worthless degrees. Hell, you'd be better of just working in an unskilled job, rather than wasting years of your life and resources.

That's true in some cases (such as IT), but have liberal arts degrees ever made you employable? When I went to university 10 years ago, it was well known that liberal arts degree had the value of toilet paper in regards to employability, so it's hardly a new phenomenom.

So it seems that its common knowledge as to what degrees may you employable. So why on earth do people take humanities/math/science degrees if they want a job at the end of it?

What on earth were you thinking?

What sort of jobs are available for people with a biochemistry degree?

Oh boy, this isn't going to end well.

Try procreating with one of your friends, and see if they think it's 'that' big of a difference. Sexual attraction is key.

I keep the company of women who aren't ashamed of their sexuality. When a six foot two police officer walks through the door, they are quite open about wanted to be cuffed by him. Is that a bad thing? Are you saying that it is shameful for women to be attracted to a man based on his physical appearance and authority? What makes their preferences for a mate any less valid than your own? Um, I'm sorry I don't associate with women who aren't up to your standards.

OK, so you are arguing against what you think you mean, rather that what I actually say. Gotcha. And that's where are core disagreement is. They aren't a good way to meet people you want to get intimate with. You want to go hiking? Go hiking with your buddies. Not really, since it's flat out wrong. We are talking about the OP here. However, the same rule holds fast for same-sex couples. Generally, homosexuals pair up according to superficialities, just like heterosexual couples.

From the company I keep, I can tell you that you are wrong. Either your didn't leverage your status, or didn't bathe enough.

Really? I didn't bring up Kate Moss as an example of a desirable woman. However, it's quite telling that you did. I'd agree that people who desire money and fame look for a partner with money and fame. Now here's the rub: Most women are attracted to money, power and fame. Hahah, so people hook up with the opposite sex because they both like to hike or read? Hoo boy, who's projecting now? True. But all that matter's here is the OP's value judgement, and those of the women he wants to attract. Did I recommend he join the army reserves? It was a tongue in cheek statement to demonstrate that women tend to be attracted to superficialities.

Please quote me where I said (or even implied) that women are all the same.

Whoa, wait. We're talking about the OP's interests, not you. And that's a misrepresentation. Not once did I say that he should date supermodels. In fact, I said that he had dodged a bullet by avoiding relationships. Personally, I feel that the effort expending on trying to attract the opposite sex if often not worth it. Wait, why not? Is that a tacit admission that women in the upper echelon are attracted to money, power and fame? Yes. You are aware that women also choose, right? And generally, women will decide in the first few minutes whether a man is 'compatible'. I'm glad I didn't recommend either of those options.

If money, power, fame, good looks and fame don't tend to attract quality women, then we should see as many desirable women with poor, unemployed, out of shape losers as we do with buff, famous, rich and/or powerful dudes. Haha, think whatever you like.

I'm not sure, but I think it's illegal to impersonate a soldier. Simply being in the reserves is enough to impress a lot of women, even if you only do it for a couple of hours per week. Strutting down the street in your uniform with definitely get a few glances from potential partners. As for women not being all same, you're erecting a strawman. If you don't like what I have to say, debate that, instead of your misrepresentation.

And the type of woman Enraged is attracted to is different from the 'general' woman in what way, exactly? What sort of desirable woman wants to hang around with an out of shape, unemployed, broke loser? My advice is solid. Enraged should work on improving himself. If he wants to attract desirable women, he should improve himself in a way that makes him more desirable to said women. He should avoid long term relationships until he has a strong sense of self worth, and definitely avoid relationships at work, unless he wants to end up fired and sued for sexual harassment. He should stop pedestalising women simply because they talk to him.

That's like saying that having a high flying job doesn't help you snag chicks, because all that time at work takes away from your social life. Furthermore, you do part time in the reserves here. There is no bigger aphrodisiac for a female civilian than a man in a uniform, except a 6 foot dude with a six pack, or a billionaire. All that time wasted 'talking' to women would be better spent increasing your standing in society. Women aren't looking for deep thinkers, they are looking for buff dudes, men with authority, rich magnates/professionals, or a combination of those three.

Personally, I think that having a long term relationship is a bad idea in general. However, in Enraged Slith's case, it's even worse. He appears to have emotional issues in regards to relationships. Hell, he gets infatuated with a girl simply because she is nice to him. An experienced woman will chew him up and spit him out. He should really play the field, and only get into a committed relationship once he feels confident in doing so. As for the 'communication' aspect, that's not too important. A woman will decide whether she is attracted to you within the first 2 minutes of meeting you. Get in shape and learn to look women in the eye, and you'll raise your chances of attracting women significantly. Joining the army reserves part time, and walking around in your military uniform, will raise your chances even further.