Do You Use Your College/University Degree?

[speedog]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Back in 1980, I took a career counselling course. First thing we covered was that our group memebers could expect to change our careers an average of seven times in our working life.

The fact I only use half of my degree right now fits fine with that prediction.

1981, graduated from SAIT's telecommunications engineering electronics course. Worked in that field for 26.6 years. Quit, owned/operated an independant pet supplies store. Got rid of that and am now a cabinet installer, genuinely the most satisfying job I've had. Somewhat physical job, pays very well and I determine my own work schedule but none of my SAIT course material from 1979-1981 is used in this current job at all.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Coach

Can I ask why? Why does someone who is a built in manager at your company due to their work ethic, experience and likely good report with the staff need any extra education? What are they going to learn in a management degree that they haven't picked up working in a real business environment under (presumably) competent management?

Minimum qualifications. Like it or not, these are there for a reason. And yes, there is a significant jump from the middle or even senior manager role to the C suite. Much different managing even a large team compared to a division.

I get that the minimums are just part of it, but somewhere someone put that in. It can be taken out, no?

Exceptions establish a slippery slope. Not many organizations are willing to establish that slippery slope which can then turn into a lawsuit for unfair hiring practices. There is a reason why governance programs are put into place and why companies follow policies in the manner they do. Some private sector companies may have the flexibility, but those with rigid compliance requirements are less likely to mess around. Everyone has a boss, and making decisions that go against the established governance program is a sure way to see your career cut short, even in the C suite.

Originally Posted by peter12

I have never heard of a graduate degree requirement in any sector outside of government or higher education. Definitely never in the private sector.

Really? So you don't know of any jobs that require a graduate or professional degree to qualify for a position? How about a lawyer? Seem to be plenty of them in this thread and on this board. How about a psychologist? How about social workers? How about any number of jobs in the medical field? How about librarians? How about research scientists? There are lots of jobs that require you to have graduate degree, even if you refuse to acknowledge them.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by peter12

I have never heard of a graduate degree requirement in any sector outside of government or higher education. Definitely never in the private sector.

MBA often pops up on LinkedIn for private sector jobs

[FireGilbert]

I’m an electrical engineer so obviously needed my degree for my job and professional status however don’t really use anything I learned in school. For example the instrumentation course I took at UofC was focused on medical instruments and has little to no relevance with my job in fuel distribution. University taught me some fundamentals and soft skills like team work, meeting deadlines, and working under pressure but everything technical is from work experience. In fact I always felt that my undergrad degree was more focused on preparing for grad school than for a career.

I am interested in everyone’s thoughts on the value of an MBA. I’ve thought about it as a way to help me climb the corporate ladder but don’t want to go back to school. Are there tangible benefits that could not be picked up from work experience or is the real benefit more from padding the resume and gaining connections?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I am interested in everyone’s thoughts on the value of an MBA. I’ve thought about it as a way to help me climb the corporate ladder but don’t want to go back to school. Are there tangible benefits that could not be picked up from work experience or is the real benefit more from padding the resume and gaining connections?

An MBA is pretty general degree but it does provide a fundamental basis to understanding the many challenges of running a large organization. The most important thing is it tells employers that you have the training and the understanding of all facets of operations that management may face. Personally speaking, I'm a firm believer in experience over book learning. I think that most people gain greater insight and understanding in doing more so than learning the theory behind something. It has been pointed out to me (by HR) the fault in this thinking is that experience is many times specific only to one organization and may not be transferable to another, so a fundamental understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of a field is needed, and proven through education and certification. The MBA provides this and gives you a foot up on the competition.

Think about what a hiring process looks like and the number of resumes that are received for each position posted. I can't speak to the Canadian market, but even in a hot market in the US, where there is a shortage of talent for many open positions, we still receive hundreds of applications for most positions. HR must do the initial filter and determine who is qualified for the position. Any advanced degree or high level certification will give you a leg up and help you float to the top of the pile. Education and certifications help differentiate candidates. You may be able to progress further if you're willing to stay in one company, where experience is directly related and transferable job-to-job, but if you're moving around an industry or changing industries it is never bad to have that degree in your back pocket to open the door.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by New Era

An MBA is pretty general degree but it does provide a fundamental basis to understanding the many challenges of running a large organization. The most important thing is it tells employers that you have the training and the understanding of all facets of operations that management may face. Personally speaking, I'm a firm believer in experience over book learning. I think that most people gain greater insight and understanding in doing more so than learning the theory behind something. It has been pointed out to me (by HR) the fault in this thinking is that experience is many times specific only to one organization and may not be transferable to another, so a fundamental understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of a field is needed, and proven through education and certification. The MBA provides this and gives you a foot up on the competition.

Think about what a hiring process looks like and the number of resumes that are received for each position posted. I can't speak to the Canadian market, but even in a hot market in the US, where there is a shortage of talent for many open positions, we still receive hundreds of applications for most positions. HR must do the initial filter and determine who is qualified for the position. Any advanced degree or high level certification will give you a leg up and help you float to the top of the pile. Education and certifications help differentiate candidates. You may be able to progress further if you're willing to stay in one company, where experience is directly related and transferable job-to-job, but if you're moving around an industry or changing industries it is never bad to have that degree in your back pocket to open the door.

I understand what you're saying and it's particularly true now while we have dozens, if not hundreds of people applying for the same job and all are qualified to some degree.

But you are paying $20,000 in tuition, ~$4000 for textbooks, 5120 hours you could be working sept through april(40 hours per week x min wage = $77000), and living costs over four years for a 'leg up'.

The system is broken. It serves as a business for Universities at best, and a way to keep the current class system in place at worst (the rich pay for uni and get the good jobs, the poor take the minimum wage jobs they can get).

[GGG]

Historically higher education has been a way to bust out of the class system.

Provide loans to make it accessible for everyone and then students from poor families have a credential that outweighs inherent bias. Without a degree system getting that first internship / apprenticeship would be the key to moving up in social classes. Without an objective differentiator these would be given based on who you know.

So while University is a big business and needs significant reform to make it more universal and lower cost in the age of tech it still has a significant role in improving class mobility.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by GGG

Historically higher education has been a way to bust out of the class system.

Provide loans to make it accessible for everyone and then students from poor families have a credential that outweighs inherent bias. Without a degree system getting that first internship / apprenticeship would be the key to moving up in social classes. Without an objective differentiator these would be given based on who you know.

So while University is a big business and needs significant reform to make it more universal and lower cost in the age of tech it still has a significant role in improving class mobility.

Loans don't put food on your table.

I will give you the point that loans can reduce the 'tuition' component of costs. But the problem becomes these students having to still work during school to afford costs of daily living which affects their school performance. And that's assuming that they can even get into University given their already disadvantaged place during K-12.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2014), individuals within the top family income quartile are 8 times more likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree by age 24 as compared to individuals from the lowest family income quartile.

https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources...ions/education

Maybe they present the possibility of helping people move up the class system, my guess is that the majority of these people aren't that lowest quartile.

Plus, even as middle class, I went through 6.5 years of school in order to learn 5% of my field. And my degree is EXACTLY what my field is. I could have gotten that 5%, plus the 'soft skills' that are being discussed in this thread (learning how to read/critique research, social skills, etc) in a few courses.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

I understand what you're saying and it's particularly true now while we have dozens, if not hundreds of people applying for the same job and all are qualified to some degree.

But you are paying $20,000 in tuition, ~$4000 for textbooks, 5120 hours you could be working sept through april(40 hours per week x min wage = $77000), and living costs over four years for a 'leg up'.

Let's be clear in what you're tossing around here. You're claiming that you are better off taking a minimum wage job and forgoing education to save the minimal student debt load you're speaking of? How do you think you're going to get access to jobs you think you would have access to with a university degree with experience you would garner in a minimum wage job? Where are you getting the training to access the six figure jobs that the majority of the board claim to have? There's a disconnect here?

The system is broken. It serves as a business for Universities at best, and a way to keep the current class system in place at worst (the rich pay for uni and get the good jobs, the poor take the minimum wage jobs they can get).

I don't disagree at all. Education is expensive, and it should be free. Educating our citizenry makes the country stronger and makes our democracy that much better. Education has got to the point where post-secondary schooling is mandatory to get a good paying job. That doesn't mean university for everyone, but some level of education or training that help people become skilled and qualified to work in an industry. There should be more access to vocational training and allow people to pursue their dreams without putting them behind the eight ball coming out of school.

https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources...ions/education

Maybe they present the possibility of helping people move up the class system, my guess is that the majority of these people aren't that lowest quartile.

Plus, even as middle class, I went through 6.5 years of school in order to learn 5% of my field. And my degree is EXACTLY what my field is. I could have gotten that 5%, plus the 'soft skills' that are being discussed in this thread (learning how to read/critique research, social skills, etc) in a few courses.

6.5 years? So you do have a graduate degree to go with an undergrad? Does that not give you significant leg up on the competition? Have you not realized the benefit, or have you not found an employer will to pay for what your education is worth?

Brookings did a study on education and social mobility, shining a light on the ugliness of the system but the benefits it provides. In short, they echo some of what you say. Education is expensive, but not for the most disadvantaged. Those who need the most help are tending to get it. It is the middle that is feeling the pinch and this is where relief needs to come quickly.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

I understand what you're saying and it's particularly true now while we have dozens, if not hundreds of people applying for the same job and all are qualified to some degree.

But you are paying $20,000 in tuition, ~$4000 for textbooks, 5120 hours you could be working sept through april(40 hours per week x min wage = $77000), and living costs over four years for a 'leg up'.

The system is broken. It serves as a business for Universities at best, and a way to keep the current class system in place at worst (the rich pay for uni and get the good jobs, the poor take the minimum wage jobs they can get).

$25000 over 4 years doesn't sound too bad. Men with a bachelor's degree make on average about 40% more than someone with just a high school diploma. For women it's even better. It shouldn't take a discipline person that long to pay off the debt.

I would recommend people to work a year before entering university to lessen the debt load and to give them more time to think about what they want to do with their lives. The worse thing they can do is not finishing university or getting a useless degree. All the debt and no benefit.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

I use my law degree in order to be a lawyer. I use what I learned from my English degree far more as a lawyer. Lots of people in my profession have terrible writing skills.

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.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Fire

$25000 over 4 years doesn't sound too bad. Men with a bachelor's degree make on average about 40% more than someone with just a high school diploma. For women it's even better. It shouldn't take a discipline person that long to pay off the debt.

I would recommend people to work a year before entering university to lessen the debt load and to give them more time to think about what they want to do with their lives. The worse thing they can do is not finishing university or getting a useless degree. All the debt and no benefit.

It's an investment. And just like an investment, you need some kind of money up front in order to reap the benefits. It's not available for everyone. Under the current system it's unrealistic for a portion of the population.

You latter comment is a great suggestion.

Originally Posted by New Era

Let's be clear in what you're tossing around here. You're claiming that you are better off taking a minimum wage job and forgoing education to save the minimal student debt load you're speaking of?

No.

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't disagree at all. Education is expensive, and it should be free. Educating our citizenry makes the country stronger and makes our democracy that much better. Education has got to the point where post-secondary schooling is mandatory to get a good paying job. That doesn't mean university for everyone, but some level of education or training that help people become skilled and qualified to work in an industry. There should be more access to vocational training and allow people to pursue their dreams without putting them behind the eight ball coming out of school.

It's more that it essentially bars a portion of the population from going. University is needlessly long and tedious. I'm not saying make it easier, but if you know what field you will be working in then give people an option to do things only relevant for that. Even if you determine that may involve some 'options' for courses, there is a lot of fat to trim. At least then you'll capture a larger % of the lowest quartile of SES.

Originally Posted by New Era

6.5 years? So you do have a graduate degree to go with an undergrad? Does that not give you significant leg up on the competition? Have you not realized the benefit, or have you not found an employer will to pay for what your education is worth?

There is no leg up because that's what my industry (needlessly) requires. And requiring more education did NOT filter out the bad ones or the ones who don't care, because there is a lot of laziness and stupidity in my industry. I went on to do post graduate education for said 'leg up' - also expensive and lengthy but not nearly as bad as university.

I could do a year of focused courses and trim 5.5 years off that and know just as much. Sure, you miss the social aspect, the maturation, etc, but to me that is not worth 5.5 years and an exorbitant amount of money.

Originally Posted by New Era

Brookings did a study on education and social mobility, shining a light on the ugliness of the system but the benefits it provides. In short, they echo some of what you say. Education is expensive, but not for the most disadvantaged. Those who need the most help are tending to get it. It is the middle that is feeling the pinch and this is where relief needs to come quickly.

Great link. Although I'd have to think it's harder for the lowest quartile to get things like scholarships as they're already at a disadvantage from k-12.

[skudr248]

My undergrad is what propelled me into the career I am in now (albeit, the O&G/mining industry and it's up & downs feels like it has aged me 20 years in the last 6). I wouldn't have found the direction I wanted to pursue without uni, but the only classes that I think have really helped me was 1. Public Speaking (being able to present, feel comfortable at the negotiating table), 2. Business Communication (email communication and understanding how to write to get what you want/build rapport with customers, contractors and colleagues).

My peers, mentors and on the job training have taught me far more than any class ever did. I did work my ####ing ass off though (spent my university summers flying into oil sands camps working 2 & 1's in the 30-40 degree heat in full PPE to pay for uni before I even stepped into a corporate office)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

It's an investment. And just like an investment, you need some kind of money up front in order to reap the benefits. It's not available for everyone. Under the current system it's unrealistic for a portion of the population.

You latter comment is a great suggestion.



No.



It's more that it essentially bars a portion of the population from going. University is needlessly long and tedious. I'm not saying make it easier, but if you know what field you will be working in then give people an option to do things only relevant for that. Even if you determine that may involve some 'options' for courses, there is a lot of fat to trim. At least then you'll capture a larger % of the lowest quartile of SES.

There is no leg up because that's what my industry (needlessly) requires. And requiring more education did NOT filter out the bad ones or the ones who don't care, because there is a lot of laziness and stupidity in my industry. I went on to do post graduate education for said 'leg up' - also expensive and lengthy but not nearly as bad as university.

I could do a year of focused courses and trim 5.5 years off that and know just as much. Sure, you miss the social aspect, the maturation, etc, but to me that is not worth 5.5 years and an exorbitant amount of money.

Great link. Although I'd have to think it's harder for the lowest quartile to get things like scholarships as they're already at a disadvantage from k-12.

The Canadian Student Loan System provides enough money to live frugally including books, tuition and living expenses. There are some limiting requirements of when they will loan money depending on school choice and parental income but the program to borrow your way through school is there. So in Canada I fundamentally disagree that university bars access.

I do agree that the length of programs could use reform. They also need to decrease entrance requirements and increase the failure rate so people are weeded out at the university level rather than the high school level.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

They also need to decrease entrance requirements and increase the failure rate so people are weeded out at the university level rather than the high school level.

They need to start doing this in middle school and start developing more vocational programs that help the less academically inclined to get on a career path and find something they enjoy and are good at.

One of the problems I see in education is the fear of failing a student for poor performance. Everyone has to pass the class or the instructor is viewed as doing something wrong. This needs to change and students need to should the responsibility for their poor performance. Change this and the education system will see itself solve many of the problems facing it today, including greater value to the degrees awarded.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

They need to start doing this in middle school and start developing more vocational programs that help the less academically inclined to get on a career path and find something they enjoy and are good at.

One of the problems I see in education is the fear of failing a student for poor performance. Everyone has to pass the class or the instructor is viewed as doing something wrong. This needs to change and students need to should the responsibility for their poor performance. Change this and the education system will see itself solve many of the problems facing it today, including greater value to the degrees awarded.

My only issue with this is that maturity level affects performance so much that if you place people in a stream at 12-14 do you lose people who at 20 are now mature enough to learn.

So I definitely agree that the options of earlier vocational training should be there Id be concerned if it becomes limiting people’s options at an age where their parents are primarily responsible for their outcome.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

I do agree that the length of programs could use reform. They also need to decrease entrance requirements and increase the failure rate so people are weeded out at the university level rather than the high school level.

The problem with this is that university isn't free. It's already heavily subsidized and the plethora of students in degree programs that are unlikely to contribute to society is a massive drain on the system.

Students pay a small fraction of the actual cost of university. Allowing many more in is pretty much the opposite of what we should be doing. If you look at the Nordic model, they have a centrally controlled education system that allocates educational spots based on what employee demands actually exist.

This is a much better way of doing things, as not only is it more cost effective, but students have much better job prospects upon graduation.

Their system also funnels less academically orientated students into trade type programs in high school. Once you get into that system you can work your way out. However, it requires actually showing that you are academically inclined.

Our current system is a disaster for a number of reasons. We're not only graduating students with excessive amounts of debt they will have no hope of paying off, but you can't actually tell the aptitude of graduating students, as basically everyone passes and individual profs have no idea who their students are. The current model, with lecture halls filled with students, forces profs to come up with generic lesson plans that don't challenge anyone, other than to see if they've memorized a bunch of useless facts.

Canada has basically combined elements of the American private system, which is profit orientated, with the European nationally funded system, which is centrally controlled. In Canada we are neither centrally controlled nor for profit, so it's an all around fail.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by GGG

The Canadian Student Loan System provides enough money to live frugally including books, tuition and living expenses. There are some limiting requirements of when they will loan money depending on school choice and parental income but the program to borrow your way through school is there. So in Canada I fundamentally disagree that university bars access.

I do agree that the length of programs could use reform. They also need to decrease entrance requirements and increase the failure rate so people are weeded out at the university level rather than the high school level.

What are the limiting requirements? It seems pointless if it's based on parental income. Isn't it only capturing that small group between 'parents can pay for tuition' and 'I need to work to put food on the table'?

There's also the fact that thousands of Canadians then have crippling student loans to pay off. And despite their increased earning potential it still takes an absurd amount of time for some.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

What are the limiting requirements? It seems pointless if it's based on parental income. Isn't it only capturing that small group between 'parents can pay for tuition' and 'I need to work to put food on the table'?

Means testing is pretty common. If you or your parents have the means to pay for your education you don't qualify for loans. Personally speaking, that is why I never went to university right after high school. It would have put undue pressure on my parent's finances and I did not want that to happen. So I waited until later in life to go to school and amass a very substantial amount of student debt to make that happen. And I did it while working and putting food on the table at the same time. I thought of it as part of the challenge of earning a degree and being a responsible adult.

There's also the fact that thousands of Canadians then have crippling student loans to pay off. And despite their increased earning potential it still takes an absurd amount of time for some.

Crippling student loans? Perspective is everything. The average debt for a Canadian student is just over $22,000. Compare that to the US where the average student holds $37,000 in loan debt. Canadians who have a full time job have an average hourly wage of $28.94, compared to $22.62 for their American counterparts. So in comparison, not quite as bad as you make it out to be.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by New Era

Means testing is pretty common. If you or your parents have the means to pay for your education you don't qualify for loans. Personally speaking, that is why I never went to university right after high school. It would have put undue pressure on my parent's finances and I did not want that to happen. So I waited until later in life to go to school and amass a very substantial amount of student debt to make that happen. And I did it while working and putting food on the table at the same time. I thought of it as part of the challenge of earning a degree and being a responsible adult.



Crippling student loans? Perspective is everything. The average debt for a Canadian student is just over $22,000. Compare that to the US where the average student holds $37,000 in loan debt. Canadians who have a full time job have an average hourly wage of $28.94, compared to $22.62 for their American counterparts. So in comparison, not quite as bad as you make it out to be.

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.