Is college for job training or learning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Job training, unless you're rich enough to not need it for job training.

+1 OP doesn't have family money. I was the same. US colleges require you to take gened classes. You can study humanities and STEM in those classes.

Anyone would love to find that unicorn where you are passionate about something and make a good living from it, but for most of us, that's not reality.

You can also minor in something that you are more passionate about, but for most of us, college is a stepping stone to get a good paying job.

That doesn't mean you should major in something that you loathe, but for those of us without any family money (and who knows what it's like to be poor), college is about setting yourself up to get a good paying job.

Humanities majors are pretty much useless these days except for some front facing or service jobs. You can use AI to learn better (and more), with whichever political leaning or new age theory you want. No need to spend money to pay the salaries of professors in oversaturated fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The play is to go to a school where it can be both. At a school like say Williams, you can major in virtually anything quantitative and, with good grades, get a job in banking; or major in virtually anything and get a job in consulting with good grades and internships.

But if you're at say Marymount, you don't necessarily have that luxury. You want to do nursing or business there.

'Passion' is often code for nonprofit/academic work that pays cruddy. It should be treated with suspicion.

Yes for some. No for others.

As so many of the PPs have said, the purpose and opportunities of college depend a lot on the level of economic security a kid has going in to the experience.

For first-gen college students like OP's kid, yes, I agree - there's a big risk involved in pursuing a low-paying "passion" career, and it's smart to be suspicious (or at least to consider it with a critical eye.) The sad truth is that it's very difficult to build financial security from that starting point. Better to be practical and use college as a vehicle for finding a more secure and higher-paying career while pursuing "passion" interests on the side, if possible.

However . . .

The equation can and arguably should be different for kids who enter college with a high level of financial security.

For kids who are (a) truly interested in nonprofit or academic work; and (b) wealthy enough to support themselves by other means (family support / generational wealth), I'd argue that they absolutely should pursue their passion - both for their own sake and for the sake of society.

On the societal side, it benefits EVERYONE if wealthy people who are truly interested in nonprofit or academic work use their time and talent for that purpose. There's tremendous need in our society (nonprofit) and also tremendous opportunties for societal improvements via research and education (academics). Both invole slow and painstaking work, a well as intellectual challenges on multiple fronts. But the potential rewards are huge (personal satisfaction + societal impact).

IMHO, we should ENCOURAGE that, rather than continue to incentivize and steer our highly resourced (i.e. wealthy/privileged) kids towards finance, tech, and consulting jobs that primarily benefit the wealthiest in our society. (If we've learned anything at this point, it's that "trickle down economics" was a sham.)

There's a recent student opinion piece in the Duke newspaper on the topic: https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/why-arent-we-all-excited-to-do-service-20251001

As well as a new and thought-provoking book that pushes the discussion further: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Ambition-Wasting-Talent-Difference/dp/031658035X

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The play is to go to a school where it can be both. At a school like say Williams, you can major in virtually anything quantitative and, with good grades, get a job in banking; or major in virtually anything and get a job in consulting with good grades and internships.

But if you're at say Marymount, you don't necessarily have that luxury. You want to do nursing or business there.

'Passion' is often code for nonprofit/academic work that pays cruddy. It should be treated with suspicion.

Yes for some. No for others.

As so many of the PPs have said, the purpose and opportunities of college depend a lot on the level of economic security a kid has going in to the experience.

For first-gen college students like OP's kid, yes, I agree - there's a big risk involved in pursuing a low-paying "passion" career, and it's smart to be suspicious (or at least to consider it with a critical eye.) The sad truth is that it's very difficult to build financial security from that starting point. Better to be practical and use college as a vehicle for finding a more secure and higher-paying career while pursuing "passion" interests on the side, if possible.

However . . .

The equation can and arguably should be different for kids who enter college with a high level of financial security.

For kids who are (a) truly interested in nonprofit or academic work; and (b) wealthy enough to support themselves by other means (family support / generational wealth), I'd argue that they absolutely should pursue their passion - both for their own sake and for the sake of society.

On the societal side, it benefits EVERYONE if wealthy people who are truly interested in nonprofit or academic work use their time and talent for that purpose. There's tremendous need in our society (nonprofit) and also tremendous opportunties for societal improvements via research and education (academics). Both invole slow and painstaking work, a well as intellectual challenges on multiple fronts. But the potential rewards are huge (personal satisfaction + societal impact).

IMHO, we should ENCOURAGE that, rather than continue to incentivize and steer our highly resourced (i.e. wealthy/privileged) kids towards finance, tech, and consulting jobs that primarily benefit the wealthiest in our society. (If we've learned anything at this point, it's that "trickle down economics" was a sham.)

There's a recent student opinion piece in the Duke newspaper on the topic: https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/why-arent-we-all-excited-to-do-service-20251001

As well as a new and thought-provoking book that pushes the discussion further: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Ambition-Wasting-Talent-Difference/dp/031658035X

This is BS. What you're saying perpetuates the hegemony that exists in society. It leads to the white knighting of everything where the decision makers, who are wealthy and privileged and white, purport to know better than the people of color that are actually experiencing the hardships. It's condescension at its finest. It's why there are barriers to entry for the underclass who can't move up in life because those next positions are alrwasy occupied by wealthy people who don't need the small paycheck (for them), which is a relatively bigger amount for poor people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The play is to go to a school where it can be both. At a school like say Williams, you can major in virtually anything quantitative and, with good grades, get a job in banking; or major in virtually anything and get a job in consulting with good grades and internships.

But if you're at say Marymount, you don't necessarily have that luxury. You want to do nursing or business there.

'Passion' is often code for nonprofit/academic work that pays cruddy. It should be treated with suspicion.

Yes for some. No for others.

As so many of the PPs have said, the purpose and opportunities of college depend a lot on the level of economic security a kid has going in to the experience.

For first-gen college students like OP's kid, yes, I agree - there's a big risk involved in pursuing a low-paying "passion" career, and it's smart to be suspicious (or at least to consider it with a critical eye.) The sad truth is that it's very difficult to build financial security from that starting point. Better to be practical and use college as a vehicle for finding a more secure and higher-paying career while pursuing "passion" interests on the side, if possible.

However . . .

The equation can and arguably should be different for kids who enter college with a high level of financial security.

For kids who are (a) truly interested in nonprofit or academic work; and (b) wealthy enough to support themselves by other means (family support / generational wealth), I'd argue that they absolutely should pursue their passion - both for their own sake and for the sake of society.

On the societal side, it benefits EVERYONE if wealthy people who are truly interested in nonprofit or academic work use their time and talent for that purpose. There's tremendous need in our society (nonprofit) and also tremendous opportunties for societal improvements via research and education (academics). Both invole slow and painstaking work, a well as intellectual challenges on multiple fronts. But the potential rewards are huge (personal satisfaction + societal impact).

IMHO, we should ENCOURAGE that, rather than continue to incentivize and steer our highly resourced (i.e. wealthy/privileged) kids towards finance, tech, and consulting jobs that primarily benefit the wealthiest in our society. (If we've learned anything at this point, it's that "trickle down economics" was a sham.)

There's a recent student opinion piece in the Duke newspaper on the topic: https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/why-arent-we-all-excited-to-do-service-20251001

As well as a new and thought-provoking book that pushes the discussion further: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Ambition-Wasting-Talent-Difference/dp/031658035X

This is BS. What you're saying perpetuates the hegemony that exists in society. It leads to the white knighting of everything where the decision makers, who are wealthy and privileged and white, purport to know better than the people of color that are actually experiencing the hardships. It's condescension at its finest. It's why there are barriers to entry for the underclass who can't move up in life because those next positions are alrwasy occupied by wealthy people who don't need the small paycheck (for them), which is a relatively bigger amount for poor people.

Again, yes and no.

Yes. 100% agree with your point. DH and I talk about it often, and it disturbs us both. A LOT. In no way do we think that wealthy, privileged, or white people are better suited to make decisions for society. Not at all.

For me, this comes from a personal and practical place. My parents were both first-gen college students who worked full-time to get themselves through college, lifting themselves (and therefore me and my kids) out of generational poverty.

According to them, the key to breaking the cycle of poverty was prioritizing financial security until they felt their "financial oxygen mask" was securely afixed. (i.e. make sure you can breathe before helping others put on their own masks). This took them decades to achieve - by focusing on the practical challenges of paying off (and then avoiding) unwise debt, affording a home in a safe area with decent public schools, and saving for their own kids' college educations.

They were successful at this beyond their wildest dreams, but they were also very clear with us along the way about the tradeoffs involved. They viewed low-paying work as extremely risky and unwise until later in their lives, when they were financially secure. Though they did volunteer their time quite a bit along the way - everything from church service projects and committees to senior citizen centers to community reading initiatives etc.

All that said, I'm VERY open and eager to hear more about your POV on this. (Maybe it's worth starting a new thread rather than derailing this one?)

Maybe the idea of focusing first on your own financial security is not the right approach for everyone. But based on my parents' example and advice, if I were in their shoes, I'd have done it the same way. And if my kids were entering college in that position (without a secure economic foundation), I would give them the same counsel. ESPECIALLY in the current political climate, where our "leaders" are dismantling every proven support for students and families who are working towards financial security.

But again, maybe my perspective is overly skewed by my parents' path (and their stern advice about the same.) Thankfully, this was not my life path, nor is it my kids' path. So we've taken a much broader view of both education and career "success," including societal impact. I wish more families with financial security would do the same. And I'd love to hear advice on how under-resourced college students should think about this. Especially in a world where the tradeoffs are more stark (i.e. the Trump administration cutting funding for or politicizing public service programs like AmeriCorps and the Truman Fellowship: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/truman-scholarship-public-service-republicans-trump/)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH didn’t go to college and I only finished an associate’s when my kids were young. We are middle class ($80k HHI) with 2 kids. Husband wants kid to go to NOVA or GMU and do accounting to be prepared for a job. Oldest is looking at different college options and likes UVA, but is also interested in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, some LACs and T50s. They’re interested in humanities and social sciences.

Is my husband right that, especially in this economy, it’s better to just do accounting and engineering? Thanks.

All I know is that Taylor Swift didn't go to college, and look what a loser she turned out to be.

[Anonymous]

Obviously, it depends on your SES. OP, you know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH didn’t go to college and I only finished an associate’s when my kids were young. We are middle class ($80k HHI) with 2 kids. Husband wants kid to go to NOVA or GMU and do accounting to be prepared for a job. Oldest is looking at different college options and likes UVA, but is also interested in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, some LACs and T50s. They’re interested in humanities and social sciences.

Is my husband right that, especially in this economy, it’s better to just do accounting and engineering? Thanks.

All I know is that Taylor Swift didn't go to college, and look what a loser she turned out to be.

Taylor is brilliant on so many levels. And insanely driven. She'd be a massive success no matter what path she followed.

Us mere mortals (and our kids) need to think a little more carefully about our life path. (Though given the choice, I'd opt to switch lives with Taylor every time! LOL)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can be both. Some use it to get a "practical" degree that leads to direct employment, and others use it as an opportunity to 'learn how to learn' and be exposed to different disciplines where one can forge their own unique path.

+1

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH didn’t go to college and I only finished an associate’s when my kids were young. We are middle class ($80k HHI) with 2 kids. Husband wants kid to go to NOVA or GMU and do accounting to be prepared for a job. Oldest is looking at different college options and likes UVA, but is also interested in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, some LACs and T50s. They’re interested in humanities and social sciences.

Is my husband right that, especially in this economy, it’s better to just do accounting and engineering? Thanks.

All I know is that Taylor Swift didn't go to college, and look what a loser she turned out to be.

If your parents are rich and pushy, you can follow the same path! 🙄

[Anonymous]

Whichever path they take in college, don't let them become one of those kids whose only achievement is putting their heads down and getting good grades. They need to graduate with applied, practical skills. Too many kids these days don't know how to work, and get left in the dust.

Remind them that there will never be so many opportunities at their fingertips again. For example, even if someone is in sciences, they can take design classes, film, wood working, website building, etc. and diversify their skillset. The point of college is to try things and see what you're interested in. The kids who do this are the ones who never have a problem finding a job no matter what they study.

[Anonymous]

OP, there are many programs that support kids from families that make $80K, regardless of state. And first gen kids which. Yours would be! I suggest you look into them ASAP. Try Matriculate and ScholarMatch. And see if you have a local UpwardBound program. Just signing up for it could give your kid an application fee waiver. As many other have says, if your kid can get into an elite school, they can get a full ride.

[Anonymous]

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid has no generational wealth. Maybe even opposite generational wealth given your low HHI.

Obviously college is for job training. Even if your kid ends up going to Harvard.

80k is low?

in terms of whether to view college as job training or a comically overpriced four year self-discovery camp, yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good parents don’t try to program their children like computers.

Your children have unique talents, personalities, values and dreams.

Your job is to help them succeed in the path of their choosing. A kid who wants humanités would shrivel up and die as an accountant.

The choices aren’t limited to selling out or starving. Let them pursue their goals. A mature kid will take marketability into account. They often change their career focus in college. But your husband is wrong to try to change who they are.

Only if they are annoying or mentally ill or absolutely insane! Many writers have accounting/STEM day jobs. I think Yanyi (the poet who recently won the Yale Younger Prize) majored in CS in college and credits his day job in tech to financially fueling his writing career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The play is to go to a school where it can be both. At a school like say Williams, you can major in virtually anything quantitative and, with good grades, get a job in banking; or major in virtually anything and get a job in consulting with good grades and internships.

But if you're at say Marymount, you don't necessarily have that luxury. You want to do nursing or business there.

'Passion' is often code for nonprofit/academic work that pays cruddy. It should be treated with suspicion.

I think people who advocate for pushing all kids towards “anything quantitative “ so they can go into consulting should be treated with suspicion.

Spoken like a true trust funder!