L
losh14
Guest
Oooh, giggity, a talk on sociology!
I think there will be a number of classes, as there are now, but maybe we can divide these into those by skill and those by networking. You’ll have the well-connected, high-demand skill and well-connected, low-demand skill, both of which went to the same well-heeled college but studied different courses such that one is intrinsically more competitive than another but neither will be without a job for very long. Then you have the locally-connected, high-demand skill who went to a university no one 50 miles away heard of but whose training is sufficient to excel at an entry-level job and grow in the field - these are the ones who enter the ranks of large companies and move up, possibly into management training programs or through analytical expertise. Then there are locally-connected, low-demand skill whose success is entirely dependent on the state of the economy upon graduation. In the early 1990s, degrees in Speech Communciation were being hired and trained-on-the-job for network administration thanks to the dot-com boom. Then there’s my cousin, with his degree in marketing, who has worked the same three jobs he had in high school for 11 years in a row before finally finding something full-time in his field.
But that’s just the initial status. Except at the very top echelons of society, income and mobility drive future class differences - and the key determinant is what one does with the income. If you have mobility (access to training programs, a company that will take risks on you, room to move up, opportunities to make network connections) income determines how much you can take advantage of it. Income, managed wisely, also helps you survive downturns. If you pay down debt and save wisely, you can survive unemployment much longer - and a cash crisis becomes catastrophic when you lose a home or can’t afford medical care. In the long run, then, income and mobility determine who stays in the connected network and who drops out of view, or who is able to keep skills sharp rather than watch them atrophy into irrelevance.
Some of this is necessary. Engineers in the 1930s didn’t always need college if it was a hands-on apprenticeship, but no one would think of hiring a nuclear engineer without a degree. Same with computers - it may not be something you can learn sufficiently in high school.
Some of it is totally unnecessary. I’m astonished by the number of liberal arts grads - not that I have anythign against learning critical thinking skills but without fail there’s a mismatch between degrees created and degrees demanded, and the degrees with the highest unemployment and lowest starting pay are sadly predictable.
The irony is that the degrees least in demand by students are often the most affordable - scholarships are freely given, and even if up-front costs aren’t taken care of, the ease of finding paid internships and certainty of higher-paying jobs post-graduation should help make this an easy decision. Its one reason I went back to school after my journalism degree and pursued advanced study in economics and statistics - and my company is having a helluva time finding statisticians.
I think there will be a number of classes, as there are now, but maybe we can divide these into those by skill and those by networking. You’ll have the well-connected, high-demand skill and well-connected, low-demand skill, both of which went to the same well-heeled college but studied different courses such that one is intrinsically more competitive than another but neither will be without a job for very long. Then you have the locally-connected, high-demand skill who went to a university no one 50 miles away heard of but whose training is sufficient to excel at an entry-level job and grow in the field - these are the ones who enter the ranks of large companies and move up, possibly into management training programs or through analytical expertise. Then there are locally-connected, low-demand skill whose success is entirely dependent on the state of the economy upon graduation. In the early 1990s, degrees in Speech Communciation were being hired and trained-on-the-job for network administration thanks to the dot-com boom. Then there’s my cousin, with his degree in marketing, who has worked the same three jobs he had in high school for 11 years in a row before finally finding something full-time in his field.
But that’s just the initial status. Except at the very top echelons of society, income and mobility drive future class differences - and the key determinant is what one does with the income. If you have mobility (access to training programs, a company that will take risks on you, room to move up, opportunities to make network connections) income determines how much you can take advantage of it. Income, managed wisely, also helps you survive downturns. If you pay down debt and save wisely, you can survive unemployment much longer - and a cash crisis becomes catastrophic when you lose a home or can’t afford medical care. In the long run, then, income and mobility determine who stays in the connected network and who drops out of view, or who is able to keep skills sharp rather than watch them atrophy into irrelevance.
There is evidence for this, one good piece being put forward by Dick Vedder in “Going Broke by Degree”. There’s also tremendous inflation brought by the demand for college degrees over the past thirty or so years - not just by high school graduates but also by employers. In other words, if the government has made college more affordable from a financing perspective, it’s business who has made it required from a hiring perspective, such that a newly-minted MBA in the 1970s could land a cushy spot on Wall Street while an MBA is almost entry-level today. I’ve honestly seen job postings that say “We’re looking for a top 10 in class graduate of a Top 5 MBA program, who also has an advanced degree in engineering, systems analysis or mathematics. PhD in Economics preferred. Starting salary mid-80s.” Dude, if I’m $250k in debt from 8 to 11 years post-graduate study, you better be talking 150’s.
Some of this is necessary. Engineers in the 1930s didn’t always need college if it was a hands-on apprenticeship, but no one would think of hiring a nuclear engineer without a degree. Same with computers - it may not be something you can learn sufficiently in high school.
Some of it is totally unnecessary. I’m astonished by the number of liberal arts grads - not that I have anythign against learning critical thinking skills but without fail there’s a mismatch between degrees created and degrees demanded, and the degrees with the highest unemployment and lowest starting pay are sadly predictable.
Skilled labor, certainly (machinists especially) but there’s also a tremendous shortage of degree-holders in the sciences. Texas can’t find enough petroleum engineers, and the average age of nuclear power plant workers is approaching retirement age because too few kids are going into nuclear engineering. My cousin at Purdue (a mechanical engineer) told me that ComEd, Duke and Dominion Energy were all recruiting, offering new grads 70k to start.
The irony is that the degrees least in demand by students are often the most affordable - scholarships are freely given, and even if up-front costs aren’t taken care of, the ease of finding paid internships and certainty of higher-paying jobs post-graduation should help make this an easy decision. Its one reason I went back to school after my journalism degree and pursued advanced study in economics and statistics - and my company is having a helluva time finding statisticians.
Are you a St. Louisan by chance, aux arc?
I gave away my PhD so as to become more religious. From a religious perspective, all PhDs are worthless.