Free Public College

I put a quote from a renown person from my place, to put some facts into perspective:

"When you graduate with a science degree, what can you do? Wash test tubes." [read: Bachelors degree]

edit: Polantaris; I know the US perspective, because I've been following up fairly closely on jobs for my field around the world etc. (even though I don't need to because I'm a lucky guy). It is very much what you said in your previous post that makes me upset: because it's true, and amazingly not uncommon at all.

To go a step further, we need to ask what's the relevance of education (or its purpose) should be given the context of the above quote. It's not 100% true, but in STEM fields I'm afraid it is.

Hadriel

It's pretty similar regardless of the field. You just need to replace the "Wash test tubes," with "Generic irrelevant task that anyone that just came out of High School could do [for your field]."

It's pretty depressing when you consider how much money is wasted to...gain (almost) nothing.

Unfortunately, all I see this doing is decreasing the overall value of a degree even more. I don't like it, and I think this is in theory a good idea, but I'm just not enough of an optimist to believe that this will end well even if it goes through, because nothing nice ever happens.

ITT thinking education is free and therefore taking it for granted and not being serious about studying (and thus graduate with rubbish grades/stuff) is sad.

My education in Cambridge is "free" (a.k.a. sponsored by a government scholarship) but I am motivated both by gratitude, responsibility and a desire to do well. I see much of both sides of the world here. It's really quite sad. That said, I don't think I need a "get a First Class or I'll take the money away from you" gun pointing at my head all day in university.

Hadriel

are you doing a graduate program? i think they give lots of scholarships for those. the people in this thread are probs complaining about the college/bachelors degrees

as for college education - bachelors and stuff, many countries have them for free and are doing just fine.

the fees you pay are mainly wasted on administration and stuff you don't actually use - sporting teams etc. so the idea that paying for something somehow makes it better is stupid

the idea that making it free will make people be lazy in their studies - is nonsense. would anyone who didn't want to study go about spending hours in a classroom for no reason.

with high fees, the college system becomes a system more to maintain the existing class structure and less one to educate. a college degree becomes like NX cash in the game

well i spent enough time on this debate.

Then again. If the problem is that:

Making collegue free will get everyone a collegue degree and because of that it is going to be worthless. The best solution here is to make those "national free collegue" incredible hard to enter/finish. Because if you are someone without economic resources to study and really wants to. Well, here is your opportunity, take it and make the most out of it.

Now the other thing that actually goes kind off-topic is the problem with many universities/collegues giving degrees just because you are paying. Thing that it is actually happening in souh america and for what i am reading already happened in america.
For what i read from an articule, the problem is that in the past, people used to have the concept that you should reach collegue at pretty much any cost so you could be "someone" in the future. Of course that it means a lot of efford and money.
But now what it is happening is that you have this new poor collegues pretty much offering you the degrees that you are looking for with just paying and "studying"(you can't compare the difficulty of some collegues with others) getting to the now common problem of: "I have a degree, I finished my studies but I don't have a job and I am useless in my field.

the idea that making it free will make people be lazy in their studies - is nonsense. would anyone who didn't want to study go about spending hours in a classroom for no reason.

It's not nonsense. It already happens. I know at least a handful of people whose reason for going to get an undergraduate degree was solely to put off getting a real job.

Discounting the fact there will always be people who refuse to apply themselves and people who abuse the system, the real question is whether or not this would be an improvement over the current system that already experiences the same problems, but costs more for less people to have access.

I believe in "affordable" education, not in "free" education. People take it for granted way too easily when things come free. And, passing the debt to the government is not solving or removing the debt.

I don't think this is the right way to improve the current (US) system.

Hadriel

ITT, people whine that "free" degrees will deprive them of the ability to pay their way to a job that likely will not be there anyway.

The purpose of education, and educational opportunities, should be to provide people with the skill set to earn a career.
Those warped perspectives flying around just serve as evidence of how badly the system needs a rework.
If you rely on a piece of paper to win you a job, you already have proven you were not the best candidate.

If you rely on a piece of paper to win you a job, you already have proven you were not the best candidate.

None of the ones I saw were saying that; They were saying jobs won't even consider you as a valid applicant without at least a bachelor, which is entirely true.
I would not even be given an interview for my own job that I've been doing for 15 years today if I applied now, simply because I don't have a degree saying I took the requisite courses to be "knowledgeable" about it. I'd have to lie and say I have one so that my work experience, which is actually far more relevant than anything the colleges teach, would even be evaluated.

None of the ones I saw were saying that; They were saying jobs won't even consider you as a valid applicant without at least a bachelor, which is entirely true.

It absolutely is not, at least not universally, and I know this from personal experience.

It absolutely is not, at least not universally, and I know this from personal experience.

Most of the jobs that people "want" (ie., not being, as my mom calls it, a burger-flipper) require at least a bachelor's. Now I suppose if you want to work as a clerk at the DMV or a cashier, don't get a diploma because you don't need one. Otherwise in the US you need a Bachelor's (and usually some sort of experience) to be even considered.

It absolutely is not, at least not universally, and I know this from personal experience.

I didn't say universally, but it's absolutely true in many cases. Many large employers will not even consider you for entire classes of jobs unless you meet their little checklist.

I agree that [B]public[B] colleges should be tuition free, and having the attending student pay other fees (student government fees, health services fees, etc). It would definitely help keep those that are hard working and unable to pay for it in school, as well as give more people the chance to get a better education.

Employers need to rethink the worth of a degree. If being a cashier requires a degree, it had better be a job worth getting a degree for. Don't put a requirement for a degree just because it looks better. Don't assume that people coming out from college/uni will be better (in whatever irrelevant ways) than those with a diploma, or none of those. Why the hell does a waiter, a chef, a cashier, or some of the "lower-tier" professions need a degree?

A degree does NOT make one more skilled at... say... punching keys on a keyboard. It does not necessarily make one better at teamwork or communication, or make one more trustworthy. A degree equips one with knowledge in that area, and maybe some project work experience.

[Also, I've been through undergraduate on a scholarship. I'm also sponsored for Ph.D. That tells a great deal about where I'm from, for those who are curious, and just how lucky I am.]

Hadriel

If you rely on a piece of paper to win you a job, you already have proven you were not the best candidate.

You have to look good on paper. In the US, when you apply for a job, so do 500 other people. They only have one or two positions, and they are not going to do 500 interviews. The first thing the hiring manager does is sift through the hundreds of resumes they got. Probably 90%, if not more, of those do not get interviews. That means you have to beat at least 90% of people, on paper. Unless you were specifically recommended, or someone high up saw you at work and told you to send it in or contact them, they have absolutely nothing else to judge you based off of.

I'm not saying that a degree should be required, and I'm not saying it should be the deciding factor, but both of these things are true. Why? Simply because they make you look 100x better than the guy on the next sheet that doesn't have one. That's why a degree is so important in the US, and why a degree will get you a job while not having one most likely will not. Your resume will get thrown out when your Education section is missing or lacking. Why? Because assumptions and questions. Why didn't you finish/go to school? Are you stupid? Are you a bad worker? All of these things are questions they don't want to be bothered to answer.

Here's my problem, and maybe I didn't outline it well enough earlier, but I'll try to do it well here: If everyone has a degree, then there's going to be something else to sift through that list of resumes. What makes you look even better than when you have a Bachelor's Degree? A Master's. A Doctorate. A degree means so much, so a better one will mean that much more. That's why free college is bad. Affordable college on the other hand...with stricter guidelines and harder and more direct coursework (Why am I taking English 210[random number, might not exist] when my major is Science/Math related? Why am I learning Physics when I want to be a news reporter?) is a far better idea. The petition is basically asking for handouts from the government. "Make it easier for me!" It should be harder, because then two things happen: 1) The degree is worth more (more for your money, for sure. I'm in debt out the a$$hole and I have almost nothing to show for it!). 2) Less people have it, making Experience on your resume worth more, because every single candidate won't have a degree you won't immediately get tossed because you don't have a degree like you do now.

I think some companies have already realized that a degree isn't everything, but it's far from enough. My brother got a job with a game development company without finishing school. I know some people who have obtained a job or two without one as well. But those companies are few and far between, and it involves a LOT of luck (Think: In the right place at the right time). Every story I've heard of this happening is also in a tech field, so if you're not in one you're screwed.

Those of us who are not lucky...we have to play the game. We don't get to leave early, so to speak. That means going to school, getting a magical piece of paper, and making a flashy resume to catch eyes. Regardless of how useful school actually is for us.

Employers need to rethink the worth of a degree. If being a cashier requires a degree, it had better be a job worth getting a degree for. Don't put a requirement for a degree just because it looks better. Don't assume that people coming out from college/uni will be better (in whatever irrelevant ways) than those with a diploma, or none of those. Why the hell does a waiter, a chef, a cashier, or some of the "lower-tier" professions need a degree?

A degree does NOT make one more skilled at... say... punching keys on a keyboard. It does not necessarily make one better at teamwork or communication, or make one more trustworthy. A degree equips one with knowledge in that area, and maybe some project work experience.

[Also, I've been through undergraduate on a scholarship. I'm also sponsored for Ph.D. That tells a great deal about where I'm from, for those who are curious, and just how lucky I am.]

Hadriel

To be fair, you don't need a degree for Cashier jobs and stuff like that, but you also don't get a livable wage from them. You will get minimum wage at part-time. It's impossible to live off of a "lower-tier" profession, as you call it. Everyone I've met that has one also has at least two jobs, usually three, and is spending almost all hours of the day working. You get no benefits either, because they intentionally do whatever it takes to ensure that no one meets the qualifications for benefits (There's actually some petitions on change.org about this problem. Ironically, Obama-Care made these things worse, not better).

This is where the "You have to get an education!" mentality came from. Those from my parents' generation that did not go to college are stuck at these jobs, working their asses off night and day, to support their families. They didn't want their children to have the same life they did. Now a degree is required for anything that would be higher than a "lower-tier" job, because they're so common.


I think it's interesting to point out that you sometimes don't even need a degree relevant to the job. My company hires ANYONE with "Engineer" in the name, or can be considered "Engineer". For a while we had a guy who went to school to be a Physicist, until he moved on because he was way too smart for my company. Why do they want anyone with Engineer in their degree? Because they can gloat about it to look good. They don't care how intelligent or useful you are, just that you have that fancy name. That's all that matters. It doesn't have anything to do with education, skill, or anything else. It has to do with the name. That's how stupidly bad things are around here.

Well the first thing I noticed about that article is that it implies that all the money being given in financial aid is for tuition and school related fees. This is not true at all. A lot of that money goes toward living and housing expenses. One of the things I have never understood about financial aid is why families are deemed "unable" to provide for that when they have done so for the last 18+ years. In any case, I'd like to see numbers that include living expenses in the mix.

As for free education... I think it could work and has a lot of benefits. But it would require more rigorous entrance requirements. If the government is footing the bill, then there should be precautions to ensure that the people enrolling on tax payers funds are prepared for college and capable of graduating. I know a great number of people that are not the brightest or hard working people, but they sigh up to go to college because it's what "everyone" does now.

One of the fundamental problems we need to address in the US is the idea that everyone should and need go to college. We have an upcoming shortage in many trade skill jobs precisely because many people are heading to college who would ordinarily become mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. Additionally, we have yet to come to a consensus about whether or not unskilled labor jobs should actually pay a livable wage. Most of the reason no one wants to become or stay a "burger flipper" is because of the poor benefits, low wages, and low hours. The idea that these necessary jobs are "beneath" us and college is "required" is a social problem that needs addressed no matter what payment method we have for college.

[MENTION=6823]Polantaris[/MENTION], the barrier to everyone having a degree shouldn't be money. It should be ability.
Just because it's free doesn't necessarily mean everyone will have one. You'll have to qualify.
The government will have to get rid of those "schools" that are no more than sheepskin shops. Make a degree mean something.

(and btw, even today, while having any degree is better than none, the second round of sifting through resumes differentiates between a degree from a good school and a degree from an unknown school).

(and btw, even today, while having any degree is better than none, the second round of sifting through resumes differentiates between a degree from a good school and a degree from an unknown school).

Sadly, no, not always.
In my experiences the 2nd round of sifting doesn't look at the degree at all, it comes down to how well they interview.

I got stuck with absolutely worthless team members more than once because they interviewed well with the boss but had no practical skills (or in one case because the boss wanted a statistician because it sounded cool despite having no idea what to do with one or wanting anything more complicated from them than any intermediate statistics course provided).
It wasn't until they my team do it's own counter-interview of people that our management realized they're not qualified to determine who is or isn't a technical match for the work we do, because they don't do it or know it, they just manage the people and projects and timelines, and you can't judge technical skill off people oriented interviews, because, shock here, nerds and geeks don't often interview well or have good people skills, but can be incredibly competent regardless.

It was even worse when HR was doing it, because they literally only looked at what was on paper and had even less understanding about the actual jobs they were trying to fill.

Sadly, no, not always.
In my experiences the 2nd round of sifting doesn't look at the degree at all, it comes down to how well they interview.

I got stuck with absolutely worthless team members more than once because they interviewed well with the boss but had no practical skills (or in one case because the boss wanted a statistician because it sounded cool despite having no idea what to do with one or wanting anything more complicated from them than any intermediate statistics course provided).
It wasn't until they my team do it's own counter-interview of people that our management realized they're not qualified to determine who is or isn't a technical match for the work we do, because they don't do it or know it, they just manage the people and projects and timelines, and you can't judge technical skill off people oriented interviews, because, shock here, nerds and geeks don't often interview well or have good people skills, but can be incredibly competent regardless.

It was even worse when HR was doing it, because they literally only looked at what was on paper and had even less understanding about the actual jobs they were trying to fill.

ITT Sapta's referring to the second round of sifting through resumes and CVs, not the "second sift" in general. From my experience, if you can make it past the paper sift, the rest of the stuff on paper no longer matters unless you are in a field like mine that does value experience.

Hadriel

ITT Sapta's referring to the second round of sifting through resumes and CVs, not the "second sift" in general. From my experience, if you can make it past the paper sift, the rest of the stuff on paper no longer matters unless you are in a field like mine that does value experience.

Regardless, my point is in my company there is only one round of resume sifting. It's strictly have vs have not.