Brocktree

Maybe there's more to it than "how easy is it to get a job" and "how many dollars will I get". Maybe there are people out there who would prefer to work they're way up to the point where they can make a living doing what they love over taking an easy-to-secure job they'll hate. And you know what, that's perfectly okay. If that's a risk they want to take then all the power to 'em.

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?

Certain people seem to enjoy using words like "doubt" and "suspect" in this topic without backing themselves up. Facts and sources, people! Especially if you're going to go out of your way to pick a fight.

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.

A less presumptious name said:

Whoa, hold on a second here. Did you really say this? Do you have any idea what you're saying here? Do you understand the cost of higher education?

Oh for goodness sake. Go back and read my posts in their entirety.

Alorael:

Anyway, a good rundown is in this article, which will send you to lots of research showing that you get your money's worth.

Like Thuryl, you're conflating useful degrees with all degrees.

Ultimately it looks like you had a bad experience with your undergrad degree but managed to better with further study. I'm happy for you, but your anecdote does not make data.

So you're discarding real world experience and relying on a study which doesn't support your main contention. Are you a teacher?

i did, and then you started talking about financial stuff, so i attempted to rerail the discussion

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?

 

i don't know what to tell you; i'm basically repeating the explanation that was given to me by someone who actually works in HR in the US as to why he won't hire anyone without a degree -- they haven't proven that they're the "right kind of people" (i.e. people willing to drop everything for four years to pursue a personal goal)

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.

okay, so if all of this is true, then why do people with a bachelor's degree (and no further educational qualifications) earn on average about 25% more than those with only an associate degree, and nearly twice as much as those with no degree? i mean you're the one trying to explain away the facts here

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?

again, class isn't just about your financial situation,

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, for example, then you're less likely to be able to take the time off work to get a degree.

'If you have a family to care for' being the operative words here. Many people complete their degree before they have a family.

therefore, hiring only people with degrees means you'll get a higher fraction of employees who are able and willing to put career above 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.

which is a marker of class status in the US

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.

you're confusing class with income here. being able to afford to do something isn't literally just about being able to somehow acquire the money to do it

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.

there are a lot of office jobs where the minimum qualification is "literally any Bachelor's degree" -- they flat-out won't consider candidates who don't have one at all, so what degree you have can matter less than just having a degree.

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.

in theory the idea is that having a degree proves you have the skills needed to get a degree, in practice it's a method of class stratification -- having a degree proves you're the kind of person who can afford to get a degree. this happens in Australia to some extent but these days it's become near-universal among white-collar jobs in the US

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.

It's true that most undergraduate degrees give you no solid qualifications for any particular 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.

Trade school is a fine alternative if you know you are fine pursuing that trade and the market for it is good and going to remain so.

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.

But having an undergraduate degree vastly expands your lifetime earnings over not going to college in part this is because a B.A. has become a default qualification for lots of jobs that need some basic competence and have no other good filter, and in part because a good B.A. does teach those all-important but vague skills of close reading, clear writing, and critical thinking.

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.

Colleges don't do a good job of filtering students into reasonable education for careers. Some try, but it's not the purpose of schools;

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.

you'd be surprised. back in the mid-2000s philosophy majors made more money straight out of university than holders of literally any other undergrad degree

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.

the job market changes super fast nowadays.

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.

Humanities degrees are no more or less worthless than most science/math degrees. These days the only way to be guaranteed a job out of college is professional degrees....nursing, teaching, some computer science degrees (depending on your skill set), etc.

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?

And hey, you were/are smart enough not to do a humanities degree, so at the very least you've got that going for you!

 

somebody please give me a job

What on earth were you thinking?

I volunteered a lot in High School. I had a leadership internship at a political outreach organization for a year. I'm in a university pursuing a Biochemistry degree with a 3.0 GPA. I have no work experience. I can't find a job. I'm pretty much friendless. My parents have no connections. I can't find a job.

What do you guys recommend?

 

I'm asking on this forum because people usually have VERY long detailed posts. I assume everyone is well educated and can give a youngster some guidance on what to do with his life. Thank you. <3

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

I'm suddenly drowning in more attractive women than I know what to do with. It's amazing. Thanks, bud.

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

there's a difference between friendship and an intimate relationship, sure, but it's not that big of a difference. someone you'd find intolerable as a friend is going to be a bad choice as a partner too

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

maybe this says more about the company you keep than about the army reserves and/or all women everywhere

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.

don't play this game with me ghaldring, i've known you long enough to know what you mean when you say things

OK, so you are arguing against what you think you mean, rather that what I actually say. Gotcha.

nah

And that's where are core disagreement is.

shared hobbies and lifestyles are a pretty good way to meet compatible people, yeah.

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.

it's kind of funny that you see this as a controversial statement.

Not really, since it's flat out wrong.

way to be heteronormative with the whole "opposite sex" thing btw

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.

This, I'm afraid. I spent seven years in the army reserves in Canada. We had mean green uniforms with helmets and stuff, we had fancy highland uniforms with kilts and swords, we had snappy suit-like uniforms with green berets. For most of that time I had lieutenant's bars and an air of command. Some guys I knew were losers but most were buff, assertive guys with sharp minds. The incidence of successful babe magnetism among that group was distinctly lower than among a similar pool without the uniforms. I tell ya, I speak from experience. By all means join the reserves if you think you'd enjoy it, and can afford the time. Do not do it to attract women.

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.

actually right now we mostly seem to be talking about your interests which you're projecting onto all women

Really? I didn't bring up Kate Moss as an example of a desirable woman. However, it's quite telling that you did.

it's an acknowledgement that people whose lives revolve around money and fame are likely to look for the same in a partner,

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.

just like people whose lives resolve around hiking are gonna look for a partner who's into hiking or people whose lives revolve around literature are gonna look for a partner who's into literature.

Hahah, so people hook up with the opposite sex because they both like to hike or read? Hoo boy, who's projecting now?

calling any of those groups of people the "upper echelon" is a value judgement that not everyone's gonna share

True. But all that matter's here is the OP's value judgement, and those of the women he wants to attract.

if you're spending two hours a week with the army reserves to impress women then you're pretty much cosplaying

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.

That expression, "straw man". I don't think it means what you think it means.

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

desirable is in the eye of the beholder, that's kind of the point. i don't have much interest in dating supermodels

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.

. plus it's not like kate moss is going to go for someone just because they joined the army reserves anyway

Wait, why not? Is that a tacit admission that women in the upper echelon are attracted to money, power and fame?

forget about desirable, it's a fake idea. look for compatible instead.

Yes. You are aware that women also choose, right? And generally, women will decide in the first few minutes whether a man is 'compatible'.

but if despite all this someone reading this thread insists on doing some kind of high-flying lifestyle cosplay in a desperate attempt to impress people then they should buy a sports car, at least then they'll actually have something with a useful purpose

I'm glad I didn't recommend either of those options.

as far as we know enraged slith isn't any of those things (for one thing, he's definitely employed) so i'm not sure why you're even bringing that up. plus it seems pretty clear from this thread that "not enough women being attracted to him" isn't exactly at the top of his list of concerns right now

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.

spoiler alert again: most of the people giving hypothetical uniformed dude those glances will be thinking "what kind of overcompensating goofball goes for a random stroll in a military uniform"

Haha, think whatever you like.

I say again: I speak from experience. There's a finite amount of time in the day, and the reserves don't pay enough to be a career. If your pitch is that some part-time soldiering on top of a regular job is equivalent to being a corporate executive, then you're aiming at a pretty clueless audience. For them, you could just buy a costume.

 

In fact women aren't all the same. Perhaps you're thinking of cheeseburgers.

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.

How'stgat doging the bullet?

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.