Why Do We Keep Pushing Four Year Colleges for All Students?

[Anonymous]

because Obama told us we can expect to all go to college... and that it should be provided by taxpayers... I mean - free!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree, there is more than one way to skin a cat. But snobs are gonna be snobs.

Kids should go to four-year colleges because they want to learn things. The fact that employers use having a BA degree as a requirement for ordinary jobs is wrong.

But I think we're in the middle of a huge, expensive media campaign against four-year colleges, and especially in-person humanities classes, because organizations that like to manipulate us realize that the humanities give us a little protection against manipulation. Scaring us away from studying history or poli sci in college is a good way to speed up the process of plugging us into the Matrix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people are snobs. If one doesn't go to college, they are deemed as "uneducated" by those of the DCUM demographic, most parents don't want their kids to be viewed as uneducated so they push college, even if economically their child could be served just as well by pursuing vocation training.

But by definition, in comparison to people who are college-educated, you ARE "uneducated" if you did not get a higher education. ??? I don't understand how this can be a disputed fact.

I mean if it makes you feel insulted to have someone "think" that you are not educated, then maybe it is important for you to get an education. For some, that doesn't matter. So I think there is your answer. It sure makes a lot more sense to me than trying to force us all to pretend an uneducated population of people is educated just to spare their feelings.

Ok, but what parent wants their kid to be considered "uneducated"? That's why to answer the OP's question, we keep pushing four year colleges for all students. It's funny how everyone on DCUM agrees that more kids should be entering the trades, but how many would want that for their child?

[Anonymous]

There is a difference between being educated and having a degree. Both of my grandfathers didn’t have a degree, but they were both certainly among some of the most well read people I knew. One grandfather was a construct fireman the other first owned his own business designing and installing kitchens and later was a VP at an aerospace company.

[Anonymous]

Colleges are digging their own grave by gouging young people when teaching can be so easily revolutionized and inexpensive with technology.

[Anonymous]

Going to college to get educated and getting a job are two different things. I for one want my kids to have a trade first and get "educated" on their own dime in their own time. My goal is to make sure they can support themselves and their future families. There are way too many kids today with sh@tload of student debt and no jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges are digging their own grave by gouging young people when teaching can be so easily revolutionized and inexpensive with technology.

Technology has been available for a long time. Its called a book. A hundred years ago, people would get law degrees by just passing a test, after doing the study themselves from books. Once you have a book, all the rest of "technology" is just a small change.

You need to ask yourself: since the technology has always been there, why are four year colleges still so helpful in increasing income expectations? If colleges aren't really selling knowledge, what are they selling? Then ask if "technology" can replace that.

Frankly, I think what they are selling is mentoring from intelligent, experienced, older men and women that are not relatives. That and friends that they make in school. I don't think "tech" can either really provide any of these things to the human animal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a C student in HS from very low income disfunctional family in America I still have a right to go to college. This is not Japan or Germany. Guess what a C plus student college as family still dead broke. From there I still have a right to go Grad school by then I was working and things were good home. Now I live in a 6,000 square foot home on a block full of doctors and lawyers. That is what makes America the best County . In Japan or Germany I would be a janitor as I would not been allowed to go to college.

Does anyone else see the irony in this post??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a C student in HS from very low income disfunctional family in America I still have a right to go to college. This is not Japan or Germany. Guess what a C plus student college as family still dead broke. From there I still have a right to go Grad school by then I was working and things were good home. Now I live in a 6,000 square foot home on a block full of doctors and lawyers. That is what makes America the best County . In Japan or Germany I would be a janitor as I would not been allowed to go to college.

Does anyone else see the irony in this post??

Not sure of the irony, but definitely disagree with what appears to be a sense of entitlement. You don't have right to go college. You have a right to the opportunity to go to college. PP, it looks like you made the best of your circumstances and were able to take advantage of the opportunity that presented itself to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree there are alternatives. But if you have a kid who is gifted in math or some other subject, why would you waste his talents on iron working. It doesn't makes sense to me. I do think it makes sense for the kid who struggled through high school though.

Nobplease just STOP with the gifted kids here. DCUM is oblivious to what a truly gifted child is. Once in a blue moon. Perfecting a standardized test and getting straight A’s in these easy public schools who inflate grads does not equal gifted.

And news flash, even smart kids go to community college and transfer to top name schools st half the price.

[Anonymous]

"Not sure of the irony, but definitely disagree with what appears to be a sense of entitlement. You don't have right to go college. You have a right to the opportunity to go to college. PP, it looks like you made the best of your circumstances and were able to take advantage of the opportunity that presented itself to you."

There is NO sense of entitlement. The "right" being discussed here is that in some other countries it is NOT POSSIBLE for any amount of money to go to college if you don't get in the first time.

Many of the international students in the US are only here because they don't have the "right" to attend college in their home country if they don't meet the criteria the first time.

Here in the US we can go anytime no matter what happened in HS. All you do is repeat a few HS classes and you are good to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Not sure of the irony, but definitely disagree with what appears to be a sense of entitlement. You don't have right to go college. You have a right to the opportunity to go to college. PP, it looks like you made the best of your circumstances and were able to take advantage of the opportunity that presented itself to you."

There is NO sense of entitlement. The "right" being discussed here is that in some other countries it is NOT POSSIBLE for any amount of money to go to college if you don't get in the first time.

Many of the international students in the US are only here because they don't have the "right" to attend college in their home country if they don't meet the criteria the first time.

Here in the US we can go anytime no matter what happened in HS. All you do is repeat a few HS classes and you are good to go.

And that, IMHO, is what makes our university system more desirable than many in Europe, Asia or elsewhere. I think it is one reason the U.S. economy is so much more innovative than others. We are flexible and believe failure is necessary to success and not a source of shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges are digging their own grave by gouging young people when teaching can be so easily revolutionized and inexpensive with technology.

Technology has been available for a long time. Its called a book. A hundred years ago, people would get law degrees by just passing a test, after doing the study themselves from books. Once you have a book, all the rest of "technology" is just a small change.

You need to ask yourself: since the technology has always been there, why are four year colleges still so helpful in increasing income expectations? If colleges aren't really selling knowledge, what are they selling? Then ask if "technology" can replace that.

Frankly, I think what they are selling is mentoring from intelligent, experienced, older men and women that are not relatives. That and friends that they make in school. I don't think "tech" can either really provide any of these things to the human animal.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Jumping in without reading.

I think this is a highly UMC phenomenon, which I say without data. I know a lot of people who were NOT pushed to attend 4 year college by their non-DC non UMC families and will give some examples.

ExA: Not a bright kid, average high school GPA in the C- range at a normalish public school in the midwest. Encouraged to attend community college, from which he failed out. Path forward unclear.
ExB: Exceptionally bright kid, good GPA at a good high school which had a medical professionals track. Took a good, hard look at her career options and decided to attend 4 year nursing school instead of trying to be a doctor. Just graduated, no debt, job lined up.
ExC: Average high school student, encouraged to attend 2 year college, now radiation tech. 40 years old, recently promoted, but wishes she had gone to a 4 year school which would have opened up many more opportunities. Contemplating it now, but doesn't have sufficient cash to support the effort.
ExD: Above average high school student, went to normal 4 year LAC, flailed around for a bit, now in 2 year voctec school studying how to be an electrician. Doesn't consider 4 year school a waste.

So... for me, it's hard. Other than the first kid, I think all 3 of these could have completed 4 years of college. One didn't, but should have. One did, but a very vocational track. One did, but maybe didn't need to. But, having the BA in hand is almost never a bad thing... and needing to go back and get one later is a big obstacle to many people. So, for me with my kids, contemplating their college career will push me towards pushing 4 year college because more and more and in many sectors, it's basically mandatory for career success over the course of a person's lifetime.