This is the same exact trap that people fall into who are successful without formal education. "All people should be expected to have an above average level of agency and intelligence!"
It is unreasonable to expect most people to be self-learners and/or entrepreneurs. It is also unreasonable to suggest that people, who have been brainwashed since elementary school that university is a turn-key solution, should spend so much money on tuition and still not be guaranteed with reasonable accuracy that they can be more than one paycheck away from poverty.
Everyone is supposed to know that there are 10-quick-tips that they need to apply in university to actually make use of learning what they have been told is highly specialized knowledge? Is this really reasonable?
I say this as a self learner with no formal education: it is incredibly unfair that people are trying to "do everything right" and are still in the shitter.
I don't think it's fair to fault people for being average. Higher education in the US is very predatory in many cases. If the economy is doing well and the average individual is still coming out of university in a pretty rough situation, you have a problem.
I STILL think it was worth it, but that was ten years ago and the cost has been rising steadily since then. University was conceived largely because an educated population is a great benefit to the culture and economy of the state, but it's being marketed like it was a four year luxury vacation. Something is terribly wrong. A humanities education shouldn't be a privilege and it shouldn't be an economic burden.
I think your mistake is in assuming that your experience is typical.
Not typical.
At college I: learned advanced mathematics (in direct violation of my advisor's advice), discovered that most people are in fact bad at what they do (still trying to unlearn this one), and realised that my professors consistently keyed 10-15% of the questions on exams incorrectly [1]. I went to professors' office hours and found that they had no interest in talking to students. When I asked questions (outside of class), I was either 1) informed that the answer is only covered "at the graduate level" and promptly dismissed, or 2) assumed to be a complete moron with no understanding of the class material and given a remedial description of some irrelevant subject and promptly dismissed. I took some humanities classes that covered less material than I learned in high school. I wrote incoherent essays in the hour before class, and yet still got As. My writing ability worsened over time as I realized that I could write worse and worse and still get a good grade. I found that the only other people studying the subjects I loved where only there because they heard there was good money, and had no interest in gaining a real understanding.
A waste.
I had an image of what college was supposed to be, and found that my experience was nothing like that vision. I envy your experience.
[1]: I once took an final exam in which I got "none of the above" (the classic cop-out for professors who screw up) on 40-50% of the questions. Since I found this disconcerting, I discussed the exam with the professor right afterwards. It turned out that he hadn't bothered to check his own answers and that the correct answers were not in fact provided. He gave everyone full credit for those questions, which amounted to over 10% of the total grade in the class. This professor was a well-respected researcher in his field.
Well, there's your problem.
The parent post isn't against college education. It is against spending those years studying 'non-professional' subjects and calls these a waste.
This is corroborated by the statement : "Going to college with no plan about money? The costs are assured. (absurd)"
We shouldn't be seeking to shovel everybody through this model because not everybody is compatible with it, and tons of people cannot afford it and the significant financial investment will be an albatross around their neck. If it weren't such a financial burden, it would make a ton more sense to expose more people to academic skills training more broadly, regardless of attach rate.
I was one of them. I got a degree in graphic design. I'm a horrifically bad designer and absolutely hate doing it, but that's just where my wandering, unknowing self ended up. I went back to school as an adult to get a CS degree.
My brother didn't go to college out of high school, instead started working at restaurants. After doing that for several years, he realized he loves cooking and went to culinary school. He's had a great career ever since.
Of course two stories are very anecdotal. But if I could do it over again, I'd probably do something to similar to my brother.
I didn't want to go straight to collage, but the when I said that to my parents they were very afraid, so I went. But actually I needed to take time to grow up a bit. 18 for me was too young. I don't know if it's wise giving people so young such access to loans.
This is the key.
If your debt was an order of magnitude larger, would the benefit still be worth it? And if you got a degree that led to a $45k / year job instead of $90k?
It's no longer easy to say "going to college" is always a worthwhile investment. It is highly contingent on future earning potential with the degree and how much it costs.
That's about the sticker price for 4 years at Harvard. But 70% of their students receive financial aid.
Average student loan debt is around $30k. Very few people have $200k student loan debts.
>And if you got a degree that led to a $45k
Considering that the vast majority of student loans are public loans, and public loans all qualify for income based repayment, I'd say yes.
>It's no longer easy to say "going to college" is always a worthwhile investment. It is highly contingent on future earning potential with the degree and how much it costs.
Again since public student loans all qualify for income based repayment, there is almost no scenario where it isn't worth it to go to a state school. Income based repayment plans are very generous:
10% of your discretionary income (income after 150% of the Federal poverty level), and cancellation after 20 years of payments.
You must realize these statements are fundamentally at odds. If the average is $30k, then very clearly most colleges will leave you with $20k+ in debt.
The University of Mississippi is an affordable public university that happens to be where I earned my degrees.
They estimate $23,606 for state residents. Per year.
Very few colleges will leave with student loan debt an order of magnitude greater than $20k.
Also highly suspicious re: your communication skills
Huh? Isn't anyone going to college almost always a "blue collar" worker due to the fact that they don't have an education suitable to a white collar environment yet?
It sounds like you were in a great position to make an informed decision about how to get the most out of your education. I don't think many young adults are able to do that as objectively as someone older with more real world experience.
That's part of the cycle of poverty. Poor people push themselves away from opportunities so they can stay in their preferred culture which they've convinced themselves is better.
They're leveled towards my field and profession all the time and I see some truth in a lot of it; and then you get shows like Silicon Valley to top it off!
It's good to be the king and all, but let's be honest about how it's really coming off. :)
No, most people who go to college are not workers, blue collar or otherwise.
More on the side of college's usefulness or lack of it, the major classes were generally not challenging and I didn't learn much overall that I hadn't already been familiar with from online sources. A lot of classes were skippable.
My first impression from the fist comment (which obviously wasn't meant to be as a sales pitch, but it's all I got going) was that you've done something, maybe very little, on some open source game projects. Which raise questions like why are these games open source? If they are open source how complex can the games even be? What languages were the games coded in? What did you actually do, did you just adjust something small or did you actually make something sizable?
Even then I come back to "why games?" Maybe it's just my own bias, but there's something about games programming that feels weird if you have no other projects especially if you have no final product to show for it.
I learned the hard way that, generally, games reflect poorly in many non-NYC/LA/SEA cities. For some reason I will never understand, people think they're easy or that you're a liar. Get in to some new projects and generalize what you did in to specific tasks that demonstrate competence. E.g. I worked on an "MMO-ish" game with about 500 users a month (30 - 40 concurrent). I ended up making no mention it was a game but rather referred to it as a networking system I built in college :) Once I got in to the room, I would de-emphasize that it was a game and focus on some of the cool stuff I did.
Many years of reviewing and having my resume reviewed by varying people (HR, managers in varying trades, etc) has made me come to the conclusion that unless your resume is "Good", it's bad. Also keep in mind tech people are often the last people to review your resume. You're selling yourself (your product) to HR first and tech people second. You need to find managers and HR folks and have them review your resume. Alternatively, some markets have very good recruiter firms that can help tailor your resume to the local market and attract lots of job options.
What people you've talked to are nicely telling you is that your resume is not good enough to get noticed. Your resume is good enough when you hear "Hey, this is good. In fact, I wish (we're hiring/most were this good/I knew you were looking)!"
It sounds like you already have the right attitude, but you need to stand out. Because you aren't living knee-deep in a big city and no appreciable experience, you're at a huge disadvantage. But all of that can be overcome with a pivot on your part, I think.
That's the problem. It's not a good system. Too many false positives.
... so I would say the problem is "we need to educated blue collar people better so they take advantage of the opportunities to advancement offered by the educational system". That is very true. But, in general, blue collar people get fucked over in multiple ways and this is just one way.
That is very different than "college is a waste" (jesus, what an idiotic thing to even say out loud...)
I skipped my bachelor's degree entirely - I simply don't have one. I am currently a graduate student in one of the best universities for cryptography. I have absolutely no debt and I earn about $300k per year. I've finished all coursework and I'm currently working on research for my thesis.
I have a good understanding of computer science and advanced mathematics. All those things you mentioned you learned in college - you don't need to be in college for them. You can take acting classes, network with influential professors and learn social skills without college. You can also do these things in college, but you don't need to pay for them.
Your job - or one approximately identical to it in salary, benefits and personal fulfillment - is absolutely possible without college, because all the things you did to actually earn that job can (and mostly do) happen outside the context of a college classroom. More importantly, you cannot realistically expect people to take full advantage of their college environments the way you did, because they lack the requisite maturity, sense of direction or dedication.
I'm not saying college isn't valuable, I'm saying that it is what you make of it, and a significant number of attendees no longer no how to make anything of it. To that point, I take issue with your tone, because it assumes that your experience is what should be expected, and that the onus of failure to meet these expectations can be on college-aged students. Especially here:
> So, ... what the fuck did you do at college that you are calling it a "waste"?
> Even though I was a returning student, I grew up in a very educated professional world, and that was not hard for me.
So you were comparatively lucky in your ability to maximize the college experience, but you ask the commenter why they felt their college experience was a waste. Your experience may be similar for all your friends, but let me share with you what the frightening reality has become for many millenials outside the bubble of tech exuberance, since you have elsewhere mentioned that of 100 friends, they all have a similar experience to yours.
My girlfriend's friends are all college graduates. Of them, one has been homeless after graduating college. She has no substance abuse issues or mental illness. Another currently works full time as a baby sitter. A few of them work jobs that allow them to make ends meet but which they are not proud of and they do not call "career jobs." Only one of her friends is actually in the field she majored in - that friend is, predictably, in STEM.
Of my own friends not in tech, all but one are college graduates. The friend who is not a college graduate has no debt, owns a condo and has a household income of close to $100k. None of the others are in as stable a position. One technically earns more money, but has well over $100k in student loans. Another graduated and is working as a sysadmin for a nonprofit for $40k because it was the best job he could get. And so on and so forth.
You and I have atypical college experiences. You shared your experience, and I'm genuinely happy to hear that it worked out for you. But I find it particularly distasteful to try and reply to someone else's argument about why they didn't find utility in something by talking about how excellent your own experience was, and in doing so dismissing their point to assign blame.
As a society, we have continually built up college as an ideal to strive towards, with little thought about personal maturity or a longer term view. Some kids - whether due to exceptional talent, work ethic, socioeconomic class or whatever else - excel in a college environment. Others do just okay, and make it through without any particular sense of direction. Many others completely flare out and end up worse for it. It is what you make of it, and your anecdotes of personal success do not contest that fact.
Not having an undergraduate degree is virtually always a nonstarter for graduate admission committees, which means you need to bypass them. The only way you can realistically do this is by proving your ability to an influential professor who has the clout to overrule them, or at least make them seriously consider it. That means you'll be trying this at a research university, and (ironically) it also means that more prestigious universities will consider it, though they'd never advertise it of course.
Before I accepted an offer, I was well into the admission process at both Oxford and CMU (the latter of which invited me to apply), and both explicitly clarified that my background wouldn't be held against me.
Specifically, I applied by 1) appealing to specific professors at the universities I was interested in whose research I respected; 2) explaining my unorthodox background with forthright honesty, while asserting the context that would clarify skipping undergraduate as a sensible decision; 3) getting very strong reference letters from reputable clients and past coworkers of mine; and 4) demonstrating through the interview process and personal letter that I had developed an exceptional skillset as an autodidact.
I'm very happy with the route I took. It enabled me to earn far more much earlier than I otherwise could have and without any debt; it also allowed me to accomplish a very specific goal: to study a specialization at the graduate level and contribute original research without needing to work through courses I was uninterested in. That said, I do recognize this isn't really possible for most people.
So you're saying you went to school not knowing these things? Where did you go to school again?
At college I: learned calculus, computer programming, advanced mathematics, urban planning, how to communicate like a grown up, and those are just the big topics. I also took acting classes and learned social skills and made lifelong friends. When I graduated, a professor arranged my first professional job which was an order of magnitude better than any blue collar gig I had ever had. Now I have an interesting job that I feel good about, make 90k a year with benefits and a pension, and go home at 5:30 every night; this job would not be possible without college. I took out 20,000 in loans to go for the last two years after transfering from community college (with no loan for that).
So, ... what the fuck did you do at college that you are calling it a "waste"? My life is completely different because I went to college, and the same is true for everyone I know.
Now, I think there is a problem when naive, often blue collar people, go to college and don't know how to make the most of that experience: they don't know how to talk to professors so they get their help and friendship, what courses to take, how to study, how to schedule their own time and not spend it getting wasted, or how to use their degree to get professional jobs afterward. Even though I was a returning student, I grew up in a very educated professional world, and that was not hard for me.
Probably doesn't matter, but I got a BA in math from a mediocre regional state school as returning student, graduating at the age of 30 or 31 (I don't remember).