College admission in the US -- is it really this insane now?

[Ferrum Aeternum]

14 hours ago, Ice Queen said:

All the stress and aggravation just isn't worth it. They'll get in somewhere, and if they don't there's always community college. 

Not everyone is cut out for college and we need to stop making our kids think if they don't get into Harvard they're worthless and their lives are over.

Your last sentence can't be quoted often enough, and I'll go ahead and quote the one before it as well for good measure. We as a society (Americans) need to eliminate the stigma of two-year degree and trade programs. I'm not sure exactly when the perception arose that these education choices are "undesirable," but it needs to stop. One reason I feel this way is because in talking to my clients, mostly medium-sized US corporations, the jobs they have the hardest time filling at present are the skilled labor positions. Meanwhile they have more overeager white-collar office job applicants than they know what to do with, most of which will undoubtedly end up disappointed with whatever position they eventually manage to snag.

It's been 25+ years since I went through this process myself, and since I don't have kids of my own I can only relate stories I've heard through others since then. All I can say from reading through all these responses is that the environment today is an even bigger nightmare than I thought. The simple fact is that the market is oversaturated with degree holders who have always believed that earning that piece of paper is the golden ticket to a better life. Instead, many of them find themselves overwhelmed with debt and forced into whatever low-paying starter job they can manage. As others have pointed out, the ones with built-in financial advantages start out the race several laps ahead. In addition to the points already raised, they're also the ones who can afford to take the unpaid internships which have become the surest path to the most desirable entry level jobs in the market.

I was 2nd in my (small, public) high school class and had excellent test scores, but otherwise my high school "career" was rather unremarkable. My parents were blue collar and sure as hell weren't about to pay extra to anyone for my education. They always wanted me to go to college, but made it clear that I would be mostly responsible for getting myself there. Pretty much the only way to do that nowadays is to bury yourself in debt and hope for the best. What a dismal fucking racket. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I didn't go to elite schools. In fact me getting in college in the first place was pretty much a fluke, as I wasn't that good of a high school student, my only talent being I was pretty good at running down and tackling people.

We vastly overemphasize kids performance in high school. All I cared about at the time were girls, athletics and where the next party was at. If I liked a class, I got an A. If I didn’t, I passed it with a B or C. But when I got to college and figured out what I wanted to do. I was a straight A student and graduated with top honors. Frankly the kids I went to high school with that were super focused on college were miserable, and a lot of them flamed out once they made it to the elite school of their choice.

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We vastly overemphasize kids performance in high school. All I cared about at the time were girls, athletics and where the next party was at. If I liked a class, I got an A. If I didn’t, I passed it with a B or C. But when I got to college and figured out what I wanted to do. I was a straight A student and graduated with top honors. Frankly the kids I went to high school with that were super focused on college were miserable, and a lot of them flamed out once they made it to the elite school of their choice.

Even in my first two years of college my major was pretty much beer and John Madden Football. But by my third year, I started to "grow up", so to speak.

[Ormond]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We vastly overemphasize kids performance in high school. All I cared about at the time were girls, athletics and where the next party was at. If I liked a class, I got an A. If I didn’t, I passed it with a B or C. But when I got to college and figured out what I wanted to do. I was a straight A student and graduated with top honors. Frankly the kids I went to high school with that were super focused on college were miserable, and a lot of them flamed out once they made it to the elite school of their choice.

Well, this is the average way things go in American culture. In Japan it's been just the opposite -- high school is when anyone who is at all college bound buckles down and spends all their time studying. Then once you get into a good university grades suddenly aren't important any more and most spend a lot of time partying. I'm not sure why encouraging high school age people to be the "party" phase of life is better than moving that to the undergraduate college phase of life. I'd rather encourage people to have a more balanced lifestyle including an equal focus on purposeful achievement and fun recreation at all ages.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Even in my first two years of college my major was pretty much beer and John Madden Football. But by my third year, I started to "grow up", so to speak.

I would have destroyed you at Madden back in the day.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I would have destroyed you at Madden back in the day.

Not while drinking beer at the same time. LOL.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Well, this is the average way things go in American culture. In Japan it's been just the opposite -- high school is when anyone who is at all college bound buckles down and spends all their time studying. Then once you get into a good university grades suddenly aren't important any more and most spend a lot of time partying. I'm not sure why encouraging high school age people to be the "party" phase of life is better than moving that to the undergraduate college phase of life. I'd rather encourage people to have a more balanced lifestyle including an equal focus on purposeful achievement and fun recreation at all ages.

You’re a psychologist, so you should know better than most that long term thinking is one of the last things to develop. I just think putting so much emphasis on what kids do when they’re going through puberty is the wrong way to go.

As far as the partying goes, really neither high school or college age kids should be partying the way they do, but nothing will ever change that so I wouldn’t think too much about it.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Not while drinking beer at the same time. LOL.

I’d be drinking you under the table while crushing you with the worst team while letting you use the Patriots.

#facts

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’d be drinking you under the table

Keep in mind I went at about 280-290 lbs back in the day.

[Ice Queen]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I agree with this. Whenever I talk to somebody or read somebody's opinion in the papers, the only thing I really care about, ultimately, is does the person have clue to what they are talking about and not what school they went to.

I didn't go to elite schools. In fact me getting in college in the first place was pretty much a fluke, as I wasn't that good of a high school student, my only talent being I was pretty good at running down and tackling people. I didn't take my education seriously until about my third year as an undergraduate. I had to do a lot of catch up.  I got into a fairly decent master's program, eventually, but again, I think it wouldn't be considered "top tier."

And yet despite having basically gone to little ol'  "cow college", I know enough to know when certain professors at elite universities have screwed the pooch. Something I have ranted about before. I've also corrected people that went to elite schools. It's not enough for them to say, "but I went to an Ivy League School!, so I'm correct". LOL, no. It doesn't work that way.

I've never looked at my degrees as the end of my education, but only a begging. I'm pretty much committed to life long learning, but a lot of that need not take place in a formal classroom environment, in my opinion.

Which now gets me into your comment that not everyone is cut out for college. In a nutshell, I agree. Right now, there is a lot of talk about providing everyone with a free college education. And while, I do in fact believe that being committed to life long learning and expanding one's skill sets is important, particularly if they want a fairly lucrative career, or a route out of poverty, I do wonder in fact if talk about free college for everyone is framing the problem correctly. Perhaps, we ought to de-emphasize the traditional college degree as an indicator of being "sufficiently intelligent" to do a job. I'm a pretty big fan of CLEP test, as it seems to me that is a much cheaper way for a student to demonstrate their basic competency with particular subject matter, rather than paying $1000 per credit hour or whatever. I guess what I'm getting at is that I would like to see an expanded system of test that allow people to demonstrate their competency in particular areas, rather than necessarily having to compete a traditional 4 year degree or whatever. I have no problem, obviously, with the state spending more money to help people continue their education. But the problem is that the supply of reputable colleges is limited. It's not a secret that the real price of a college education has significantly increased since the 1970s. In short, if you are going to give people more money to get an education beyond their high school years, you need to figure out a way to increase the supply of education. It seems to me that a way out of this is to de-emphasize the traditional four year degree and to put more emphasis on skills based testing, community colleges, and apprenticeship programs and so forth.

 

I completely agree, and I'll add one thing. College has become four years of on the job training--it wasn't always that way. College was for refinement and a traditional liberal arts education. When did that change?

The price of college REALLY skyrocketed in the 90s. I graduated in 1991 with about $3K in loans that I took out for books that I paid off in less than a year. When I went back in 1998, I could not believe how much it was. $13K per semester. I was married by then, so I qualified for NO aid whatsoever. I went almost $40K into debt for that, and I'm still not done paying it off. As an adult. And I have one still in college! 

We need to put more emphasis on the trades and their apprenticeships. When did auto shop stop being a thing? Being an electrician might not be glamorous, but it pays the bills and you make enough to be comfortable--without being saddled with the debt that comes with a 4 year university education. 

I will never forget when my daughter and I were discussing her college options and I mentioned a trade school. She looked at me with nothing but scorn and said something along the lines of, "That's for dumb people!" I was so angry that I raised holy hell at her for being so snobbish and out of touch with reality. That's what happens when you go to school with kids who have parents named Mario Lemieux and Lynn Swann and it is the real downside of being in an upper middle class school district. PTA meetings were absolute torture.

As far as free education goes, I've always had an idea. Extend high school for 2 years. Kids can get trade school education for free, or earn a 2 year college degree at no extra cost. The taxpayers of those districts are already paying for public schools, and I can't imagine it would cost all that much more per student, but of course those studies would need to be done. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Keep in mind I went at about 280-290 lbs back in the day.

And I’m an Irish, Russian, German Jew who started the night by “hitting a grand slam.”

Take a rip of the water pipe.

Hold it.

Take a shot.

Down a glass of wine.

Shotgun/chug a beer.

Breath out.

You stand no chance, big boy. 

[Ormond]

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You’re a psychologist, so you should know better than most that long term thinking is one of the last things to develop. I just think putting so much emphasis on what kids do when they’re going through puberty is the wrong way to go.

As far as the partying goes, really neither high school or college age kids should be partying the way they do, but nothing will ever change that so I wouldn’t think too much about it.  

I am a psychologist but one of the courses I teach is cross-cultural psychology. The idea that "nothing will ever change" looks more like a self-fulfilling prophecy than a reflection of true underlying reality. Just because teenage brains are always going to be more impulsive and less prone to long term thinking doesn't mean that characteristic has to manifest in "partying". There are plenty of other cultures where that doesn't happen, and even other historical periods in our own culture where that hasn't been the case. There is no reason the culture can't change again in the future. 

[Ice Queen]

2 hours ago, Ferrum Aeternum said:

Your last sentence can't be quoted often enough, and I'll go ahead and quote the one before it as well for good measure. We as a society (Americans) need to eliminate the stigma of two-year degree and trade programs. I'm not sure exactly when the perception arose that these education choices are "undesirable," but it needs to stop. One reason I feel this way is because in talking to my clients, mostly medium-sized US corporations, the jobs they have the hardest time filling at present are the skilled labor positions. Meanwhile they have more overeager white-collar office job applicants than they know what to do with, most of which will undoubtedly end up disappointed with whatever position they eventually manage to snag.

It's been 25+ years since I went through this process myself, and since I don't have kids of my own I can only relate stories I've heard through others since then. All I can say from reading through all these responses is that the environment today is an even bigger nightmare than I thought. The simple fact is that the market is oversaturated with degree holders who have always believed that earning that piece of paper is the golden ticket to a better life. Instead, many of them find themselves overwhelmed with debt and forced into whatever low-paying starter job they can manage. As others have pointed out, the ones with built-in financial advantages start out the race several laps ahead. In addition to the points already raised, they're also the ones who can afford to take the unpaid internships which have become the surest path to the most desirable entry level jobs in the market.

I was 2nd in my (small, public) high school class and had excellent test scores, but otherwise my high school "career" was rather unremarkable. My parents were blue collar and sure as hell weren't about to pay extra to anyone for my education. They always wanted me to go to college, but made it clear that I would be mostly responsible for getting myself there. Pretty much the only way to do that nowadays is to bury yourself in debt and hope for the best. What a dismal fucking racket. 

It is a racket, absolutely. Just a little background, but one of the schools I got accepted to was Carnegie Mellon. However, my dad refused to help in any way, and I didn't want to go into debt to pay for it. Considering what happened a few years later, I should have just gone there. 

We are fortunate in that we were able to provide the kids with that little extra leg up, though not nearly as much as some of their classmates. Even helping them navigate through that process is more than our parents ever did for us. My son went to a 2 year program and paid for it himself. He was completely debt free. My daughter is a little more pie in the sky, but she did complete every application by herself, and paid the application fees on her own. I contributed nothing to that process--all I did was guide her through the FAFSA.  I almost had her talked into community college because there was one school she hadn't heard back from yet. She said if she didn't hear from them by x date, she was going to community college. Great! Well, on the last day, she got her acceptance letter (from the Penn State campus 14 minutes from our house). So that's where she went and is still there. She'll graduate in December. She spent one semester in the dorms, and the rest at home which saved about $10K per year. 

[Alarich II]

18 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

As far as free education goes, I've always had an idea. Extend high school for 2 years. Kids can get trade school education for free, or earn a 2 year college degree at no extra cost. The taxpayers of those districts are already paying for public schools, and I can't imagine it would cost all that much more per student, but of course those studies would need to be done.  

There are already dual education systems, notably in the German-speaking countries of Europe. This wikipedia article gives an interesting overview.

[Ice Queen]

2 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

There are already dual education systems, notably in the German-speaking countries of Europe. This wikipedia article gives an interesting overview.

Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for the link! 

[Ice Queen]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

We vastly overemphasize kids performance in high school. All I cared about at the time were girls, athletics and where the next party was at. If I liked a class, I got an A. If I didn’t, I passed it with a B or C. But when I got to college and figured out what I wanted to do. I was a straight A student and graduated with top honors. Frankly the kids I went to high school with that were super focused on college were miserable, and a lot of them flamed out once they made it to the elite school of their choice.

One of my daughter's friends was an engineering major--not by his choice, but by his parents', who were both engineers. The parents were livid that he wanted to change his major and only relented when he tried to commit suicide. She also dated a boy who wanted to transfer to a school in Florida, and his parents told him that if he transferred they would no longer pay his tuition. He was miserable, too, and was barely coasting by because he didn't want to be there. 

While we're on this topic, I am all in favor of gap years. Very few people know what they want to do at 18 and it's really unrealistic of us to expect them to. Let them take a year off to work or travel or whatever and let them figure it out before committing four years and tens of thousands of what's most likely going to be YOUR money. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I am a psychologist but one of the courses I teach is cross-cultural psychology. The idea that "nothing will ever change" looks more like a self-fulfilling prophecy than a reflection of true underlying reality. Just because teenage brains are always going to be more impulsive and less prone to long term thinking doesn't mean that characteristic has to manifest in "partying". There are plenty of other cultures where that doesn't happen, and even other historical periods in our own culture where that hasn't been the case. There is no reason the culture can't change again in the future. 

Interesting. My school only had cultural psych, and it was almost entirely about the U.S. (though it did have a heavy emphasis on what it is like for immigrants to live here).

That said, I wouldn’t say that it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s just a fact of life given our culture. Young people in the U.S. have been prone to partying for ages, and I have a hard time seeing that changing without a giant change in society, and that would probably only happen with a cataclysmic event.

[S John]

I agree with others that there should be less focus on driving everyone to college and more trade-school type options for those who don't want to go to college.  There was a program like this at my high school, and it was stigmatized as for non-college bound losers.  The school did not do enough to combat that narrative.

Anyway, I think there's one other thing going on here that I haven't seen brought up (and apologies if I missed it) is that even though you CAN absolutely make an excellent living in the trades or by having some manufacturing specialization, etc, part of the reason that so many kids want to try the white-collar college route is because of benefits and security.  A lot of blue collar jobs don't have insurance, a 401k, are more susceptible to layoffs (sometimes seasonally), and if you are laid off you could be in serious trouble.  I think you are more prone to losing your job to automation, though that is extending to white collar jobs too now.  I imagine a situation like if you are a specialist on the assembly line at some GM plant and that plant is where half your town works and that plant closes?  You're probably fucked.  I think it is a lot easier to find yourself screwed by a situation beyond your control if you're a blue collar worker vs. a white collar one. 

I really think one way to help to correct this problem is universal healthcare.  It would be so much easier to weather hard times if you did not have to worry about paying for healthcare.  On top of that, I don't think people in the US feel free to pursue what they are interested in because it is so important to have insurance.  Of course, some people would just sit around with their thumb in their butt, but our country has always been industrious, creative, innovative - it'd be cool to see what would be unleashed if people were free from fear of bankruptcy should they or a loved one become ill.  I'm sure there are untold numbers of skilled artists and artisans with a business degree sitting behind a desk right now at a job that probably isn't really important anyway, for the sole reason that they and their family need health insurance.  I think there are a lot of white collar workers who would be more open to blue collar work if they didn't feel the need to pay for stability with a degree.

[Ice Queen]

4 minutes ago, S John said:

I agree with others that there should be less focus on driving everyone to college and more trade-school type options for those who don't want to go to college.  There was a program like this at my high school, and it was stigmatized as for non-college bound losers.  The school did not do enough to combat that narrative.

Anyway, I think there's one other thing going on here that I haven't seen brought up (and apologies if I missed it) is that even though you CAN absolutely make an excellent living in the trades or by having some manufacturing specialization, etc, part of the reason that so many kids want to try the white-collar college route is because of benefits and security.  A lot of blue collar jobs don't have insurance, a 401k, are more susceptible to layoffs (sometimes seasonally), and if you are laid off you could be in serious trouble.  I think you are more prone to losing your job to automation, though that is extending to white collar jobs too now.  I imagine a situation like if you are a specialist on the assembly line at some GM plant and that plant is where half your town works and that plant closes?  You're probably fucked.  I think it is a lot easier to find yourself screwed by a situation beyond your control if you're a blue collar worker vs. a white collar one. 

I really think one way to help to correct this problem is universal healthcare.  It would be so much easier to weather hard times if you did not have to worry about paying for healthcare.  On top of that, I don't think people in the US feel free to pursue what they are interested in because it is so important to have insurance.  Of course, some people would just sit around with their thumb in their butt, but our country has always been industrious, creative, innovative - it'd be cool to see what would be unleashed if people were free from fear of bankruptcy should they or a loved one become ill.  I'm sure there are untold numbers of skilled artists and artisans with a business degree sitting behind a desk right now at a job that probably isn't really important anyway, for the sole reason that they and their family need health insurance.  I think there are a lot of white collar workers who would be more open to blue collar work if they didn't feel the need to pay for stability with a degree.

Employer based health care is a relic of WW II and has outlived its usefulness. I completely agree with you! It's long past time we had universal health care or some version of it. It would free up a lot of worry for the work force and would be much cheaper in the long run. 

With automation, you might lose your job to it, yes. However, you can avoid becoming a victim of it because we will always need people to design, build and maintain those machines! We need to get people into the trades so that they are the ones with those marketable skills. Instead of coal mines and fracking, people could be employed by the renewable industry. But they need those technical skills...and American kids don't have them. This is where we're missing the boat. Our kids aren't competing with the kid in the next desk for a job in a mill. They're competing with kids from all over the world, and we need to downsize their ambitions of making billions on Wall Street and draw them into fields that are going to be sustainable in the long run and actually give us a solid manufacturing base. 

[lokisnow]

Re: associates degrees, my dad has one, first male in his family to go to college, and he hates it. Because he sells high end packages of office equipment to large commercial and educational entities and it’s no joke. putting together a bid is a fairly involved process that does require secondary education. But he has an associate degree and thirty years of experience, so naturally, for the past fifteen years every fresh out of college kid with a four year degree is paid more then him base pay—because it’s universal company policy at every multinational making and selling office equipment to value employees with associates degrees as probably less valuable than employees with bachelors degrees. He still out earns them most of the time because of commissions, but it’s a constant rankle that he is capped at how much leverage they have in negotiations over his pay because he has a two year associates degree instead of a four year degree.