Do You Use Your College/University Degree?

[Galakanokis]

School definitely got me to where I am today but as far as actually using anything learned in school that would be a no. I am in a related field I guess but the technology changes so fast that schooling 10, 15, 20 years ago is pretty irrelevant. You can take away the usuals like planning, logic processing, troubleshooting etc but nothing specific and now everything is learned as you go.

Computers, electronics has changed dramatically since I was in school but it did give me an excellent foundation from which to build upon.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Could you be a lawyer without a law degree ?

Could you be a lawyer without an English degree?

You English degree would get you a job at Starbucks.

Just need to jump in to defend an English degree a bit.

My wife and I both have one and have done well professionally with them. I moved on from the corporate world and have a business now, but before this I worked in corporate communications. My wife still does. They're not useless like you might think. I mean, writing is everywhere and most organizations recognize the value of good writing. Most graduates with an English degree can write well.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Just need to jump in to defend an English degree a bit.

My wife and I both have one and have done well professionally with them. I moved on from the corporate world and have a business now, but before this I worked in corporate communications. My wife still does. They're not useless like you might think. I mean, writing is everywhere and most organizations recognize the value of good writing. Most graduates with an English degree can write well.

I think that is one of the telltale signs that someone went to university. I know when I first graduated and entered the workforce there were people with no post-secondary and their written work was atrocious. I think that regardless of your degree, you can't really get away with that in university. Maybe fine arts (because a picture is worth a thousand words! I'll show myself out...)

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that is one of the telltale signs that someone went to university. I know when I first graduated and entered the workforce there were people with no post-secondary and their written work was atrocious. I think that regardless of your degree, you can't really get away with that in university. Maybe fine arts (because a picture is worth a thousand words! I'll show myself out...)

Yeah, so true. No matter what, you're coming out of university a better writer than you went in, regardless of your degree.

[Table 5]

I wish more of the people in my industry (Design/Creative) had better writing skills. Not to hack on millennials too much, but their writing and reading skills are atrocious, and it really affects their abilities to communicate with clients (many times I just can't let them). I guess that's what happens when you are raised on Autocorrect.

As for the original question, I did 6 years of post-secondary, and luckily enough it still applies to my daily work. I feel like my Master degree was more of an expensive invite to an inner circle, but I think it's paid for itself a couple times over now.

[Dentoman]

Everyday!!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah, so true. No matter what, you're coming out of university a better writer than you went in, regardless of your degree.

* irregardless of your degree.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that is one of the telltale signs that someone went to university. I know when I first graduated and entered the workforce there were people with no post-secondary and their written work was atrocious. I think that regardless of your degree, you can't really get away with that in university. Maybe fine arts (because a picture is worth a thousand words! I'll show myself out...)

Writing, at a competent level (I'm not talking about award winning literature), is largely an issue of practice. Yes, you do get some practice in University, but it's hardly an efficient use of time, if better writing is your goal. You get much better practice on the job. Once again, more of a trades-like approach would be more efficient.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by blankall

Writing, at a competent level (I'm not talking about award winning literature), is largely an issue of practice. Yes, you do get some practice in University, but it's hardly an efficient use of time, if better writing is your goal. You get much better practice on the job. Once again, more of a trades-like approach would be more efficient.

Nope.

If you practice all the time but your habits are awful, you're simply reinforcing bad writing skills. You need someone to tell you what you're doing wrong, and that usually requires a formal education environment. Employers are certainly not going to have a training course within the company. Professional communication skills are pre-requisites for any career.

I teach at a liberal arts university and our mantra is to have them do a LOT of writing assignments (along with formal presentation assignments) to prepare them properly for life after college. This is embedded in the core curricula so they cannot avoid learning these skills. Even with large amounts of practice and regular feedback and development of writing skills in these core classes, some students still struggle to write well when they leave school because the bulk of their written interactions are not formal papers.

We're fighting a massive uphill battle these days because of the informal nature of most written communication in the culture. Don't even get me started on spelling and grammar. I often see students come to college with basic writing mechanics that are worse than junior high level. Of course, this is a uniquely American problem because of the wildly inconsistent levels of education from county to county, never mind state to state.

I can only imagine how bad the basic communication skills for these young people would be if they didn't attend college. High school is just not doing the job of preparing young people for a career, mostly due to lowered expectations and simply "putting them through" the system. This is why university is a necessity for a viable career, rather than a luxury or a good suggestion.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by blankall

Writing, at a competent level (I'm not talking about award winning literature), is largely an issue of practice. Yes, you do get some practice in University, but it's hardly an efficient use of time, if better writing is your goal. You get much better practice on the job. Once again, more of a trades-like approach would be more efficient.

I can't imagine how you could possibly think anything you just wrote is true.

[troutman]

My most influential professor was DeLloyd Guth at UBC (now Manitoba I think, maybe retired now). He taught our Legal History course, but he also spent a great deal of time teaching us how to write more concisely and precisely. Using active voice. I don't think I ever mastered his lessons, but I never had another professor that spent so much time teaching about writing.

[you&me]

As usual, people are talking their book and there are exceptions to every rule.

For every English major that has leveraged their degree into a viable career path, there are a dozen serving PSLs.

For every competent writer that learned everything they know through post-secondary education, because the public system failed them, there's someone that became a competent-enough writer through high school to function perfectly well in a professional environment.

For everyone to whom university is a "necessity for a viable career", there's someone that's sputtered out in a directionless career. Or someone that's wildly more successful precisely because they didn't "waste" the time, money and opportunity costs that come with dedicating 4-7+ years of their early life to something with a less-than-guaranteed outcome.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by you&me

As usual, people are talking their book and there are exceptions to every rule.

For every English major that has leveraged their degree into a viable career path, there are a dozen serving PSLs.

For every competent writer that learned everything they know through post-secondary education, because the public system failed them, there's someone that became a competent-enough writer through high school to function perfectly well in a professional environment.

For everyone to whom university is a "necessity for a viable career", there's someone that's sputtered out in a directionless career. Or someone that's wildly more successful precisely because they didn't "waste" the time, money and opportunity costs that come with dedicating 4-7+ years of their early life to something with a less-than-guaranteed outcome.

Well I'm a data driven person, and I can tell you that we have a lot of assessment mechanisms to evaluate incoming students. The numbers don't lie. Writing is generally mediocre or poor coming in, and much improved when they leave. It doesn't mean they're expert writers, but it is much better than when they start.

I also attend conferences where information on post-secondary education effectiveness is presented, and while there is a problem with deliverables on the career-readiness aspect, and yes some young people still struggle to achieve much even with a degree, the alternative is usually much worse.

Now, obviously I'm a little biased because I believe in the value of higher education, otherwise I wouldn't do what I'm doing. However, the numbers support my argument by and large.

The larger issue, as always, is how do we pay for education and is the debt load too burdensome. Those are fair questions to ask, and there should be better answers. But the value of an education cannot be understated.

To your point: Are there outliers who don't fit the model? Of course, obviously. However, proper analysis requires us to ignore the outliers and focus on the bulk of the data. To which, higher education consistently provides more opportunities for jobs with higher starting salaries. Those are facts.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Once again, do I really need 4 years and $20k worth of courses to learn how to write well?

I don't think anyone is arguing the benefit of schooling for writing. You don't need an English degree to string a coherent message together though.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Once again, do I really need 4 years and $20k worth of courses to learn how to write well?



I don't think anyone is arguing the benefit of schooling for writing. You don't need an English degree to string a coherent message together though.

Our school doesn’t offer an English degree, or any language degree, or philosophy, or history. Yet, we still teach all those things as part of the core curriculum. Liberal arts schools are reforming themselves to meet modern demands.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Well I'm a data driven person, and I can tell you that we have a lot of assessment mechanisms to evaluate incoming students. The numbers don't lie. Writing is generally mediocre or poor coming in, and much improved when they leave. It doesn't mean they're expert writers, but it is much better than when they start.

I also attend conferences where information on post-secondary education effectiveness is presented, and while there is a problem with deliverables on the career-readiness aspect, and yes some young people still struggle to achieve much even with a degree, the alternative is usually much worse.

Now, obviously I'm a little biased because I believe in the value of higher education, otherwise I wouldn't do what I'm doing. However, the numbers support my argument by and large.

The larger issue, as always, is how do we pay for education and is the debt load too burdensome. Those are fair questions to ask, and there should be better answers. But the value of an education cannot be understated.

To your point: Are there outliers who don't fit the model? Of course, obviously. However, proper analysis requires us to ignore the outliers and focus on the bulk of the data. To which, higher education consistently provides more opportunities for jobs with higher starting salaries. Those are facts.

I don't doubt the data supports greater outcomes for those that attend post-secondary. However, I have a hunch that those achieving greater outcomes would likely do so regardless (/irregardless) of post-secondary education... Clearly, it's a theory that would be nearly impossible to prove or see play out, but I feel, at the most basic level: The cream will rise to the top... The world needs ditch diggers... And all that...

I want to clarify that obviously there are many cases where a post-secondary education is a necessity to excel in a field... I like my neurosurgeons and bridge engineers to be highly educated in the technicalities of their profession, thank you very much. However, I would imagine that someone with the intellect and work ethic to make to the point of specialization such as a neurologist would likely find a way to succeed if another path was taken.

On the flip side, there sure are a lot of people with a lot of letters behind their names that seem to indicate nothing more than convenient memorization and the ability to pay for extended post-secondary.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Great statistics.

Now we just need to work in some money management courses into all those university years so people stop buying new cars and pay down their debt instead.

So $29/hour salary is ~$58,000. I'm assuming that's gross so say $50,000 net (generous). In my 'cheap' days, I was paying about ~$2500/month for groceries, gas, rent, etc etc (and I never ate out, and considered myself extremely frugal if not cheap). So with that salary I would be saving about $20k / year.

Really doesn't seem so bad with those stats. Thanks for the links. I listen to friends who still haven't paid off debt and read sites like Reddit and I think you hear about the people who are bad with money but not the ones who are good with it.

$58k per year is average for full time workers. It doesn't reflect entry level wages or lack of full time employment for entry level.

Net would also be less than $50k. You'd be paining just over $11k in taxes plus other payments like CPP and EI.

The reality of the situation is that it's very hard for new graduates to get full time work. $58k is something they have to work up to, and often incur more debt doing so.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Nope.

If you practice all the time but your habits are awful, you're simply reinforcing bad writing skills. You need someone to tell you what you're doing wrong, and that usually requires a formal education environment. Employers are certainly not going to have a training course within the company. Professional communication skills are pre-requisites for any career.

I teach at a liberal arts university and our mantra is to have them do a LOT of writing assignments (along with formal presentation assignments) to prepare them properly for life after college. This is embedded in the core curricula so they cannot avoid learning these skills. Even with large amounts of practice and regular feedback and development of writing skills in these core classes, some students still struggle to write well when they leave school because the bulk of their written interactions are not formal papers.

We're fighting a massive uphill battle these days because of the informal nature of most written communication in the culture. Don't even get me started on spelling and grammar. I often see students come to college with basic writing mechanics that are worse than junior high level. Of course, this is a uniquely American problem because of the wildly inconsistent levels of education from county to county, never mind state to state.

I can only imagine how bad the basic communication skills for these young people would be if they didn't attend college. High school is just not doing the job of preparing young people for a career, mostly due to lowered expectations and simply "putting them through" the system. This is why university is a necessity for a viable career, rather than a luxury or a good suggestion.

Your philosophy of as many writing assignments as possible is in stark contrast to what happens in most university level courses. I took several English classes which consisted of only a few essays with little valuable feedback. Your model of more one on one tutelage is far more consistent with the trade school type model I was suggesting. The profs don't have time to mark many assignments, and many assignments get marked by assistants, who are typically themselves students.

Also, the best writing feedback I received was on the job. Writing skills are also very industry specific. Believe it or not, I get praised all the time for my legal writing skills (I focus on important writing more than I do message board writing on my phone). However, there's no way I could, for example, write a novel.

I don't disagree with the notion that many entry level workers need to work on their wiring skills or that University does provide some practice and skills. However, University degrees are far from an efficient way of learning writing skills. You're much better off learning them on the job or through intensive industry focused courses.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by blankall

Your philosophy of as many writing assignments as possible is in stark contrast to what happens in most university level courses. I took several English classes which consisted of only a few essays with little valuable feedback. Your model of more one on one tutelage is far more consistent with the trade school type model I was suggesting. The profs don't have time to mark many assignments, and many assignments get marked by assistants, who are typically themselves students.

Also, the best writing feedback I received was on the job. Writing skills are also very industry specific. Believe it or not, I get praised all the time for my legal writing skills (I focus on important writing more than I do message board writing on my phone). However, there's no way I could, for example, write a novel.

I don't disagree with the notion that many entry level workers need to work on their wiring skills or that University does provide some practice and skills. However, University degrees are far from an efficient way of learning writing skills. You're much better off learning them on the job or through intensive industry focused courses.

Yes, our school is definitely different in the approach. It's a school focused on teaching, and honestly, there's a lot more grading for professors in each course, but we cap the courses at a relatively low number to make up for that. Unfortunately, that means tuition is a little higher than some other schools because we have to employ more professors, which creates the other problem I mentioned of high cost.

There's no perfect situation here. Real education takes dollars, and somebody has to pay for it. Whether you get the federal or state governments to properly invest in K-12 education, or you individually invest in a good university education, or employers pay for and invest in their employees with training programs, somebody has to pay. The question is what is most efficient and has the largest benefit for society? My argument would be in having really high quality K-12 education, which is mandatory for all kids, creating a strong base of knowledge and skills to widely support the economy. Then let individuals choose what specific higher education they want after that, if any.

Again, until high schools are graduating young people capable of entering a professional environment and being successful (they're not), university education is the next best option. Industry cannot afford to educate so many of their employees on fundamentals like communication. It's inefficient and costly, and in some fields that have relatively high turnover, there is little long-term payback on their investment in individual training. That model doesn't make much sense to me.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Yes, our school is definitely different in the approach. It's a school focused on teaching, and honestly, there's a lot more grading for professors in each course, but we cap the courses at a relatively low number to make up for that. Unfortunately, that means tuition is a little higher than some other schools because we have to employ more professors, which creates the other problem I mentioned of high cost.

There's no perfect situation here. Real education takes dollars, and somebody has to pay for it. Whether you get the federal or state governments to properly invest in K-12 education, or you individually invest in a good university education, or employers pay for and invest in their employees with training programs, somebody has to pay. The question is what is most efficient and has the largest benefit for society? My argument would be in having really high quality K-12 education, which is mandatory for all kids, creating a strong base of knowledge and skills to widely support the economy. Then let individuals choose what specific higher education they want after that, if any.

Again, until high schools are graduating young people capable of entering a professional environment and being successful (they're not), university education is the next best option. Industry cannot afford to educate so many of their employees on fundamentals like communication. It's inefficient and costly, and in some fields that have relatively high turnover, there is little long-term payback on their investment in individual training. That model doesn't make much sense to me.

It would make more sense to have people simply put more emphasis on technical writing courses and care less about degrees. Technical writing courses that would be applicable to every field already exist. A four year program, where these same skills are learned tangentially, is a total waste of resources.