The Student Debt Bubble

[Adar]

I can see you point, but as I burned out and had no family member to help me understand the academic system, I would separate the spoiled part from the academic background part. My wife manuvered throught and to her PhD in a very hard science mostly because half of her family had done the same and could tell her what she needed to do. Working class effort can get you a BA/BS but it can flounder w/o a mentor at the next level.

Well my parents stopped helping me with homework when I was 14 and I didn't realize that I had good chances of going to university until I was 15.

Likewise it looks like both you and your brother in law have managed to carve out paths to good careers. My contempt is for people who "get a degree" rather than "get a degree in [subject that is chosen because of interest and potential].

Since when was history a Mickey Mouse degree?

Depends entirely on where and how you get the degree. A proper history degree is not a Mickey Mouse degree but I know several (Swedish) universities where students essentially read history 2 hours every day rather than learning how to study and understand it.

[ivan_the_terrible]

There certainly are Mickey Mouse degrees, and unfortunately they have been grouped with legitimate Arts subjects.

A glance at several university websites shows that a subject like 'Cinema Studies' (whatever the hell that is...) is typically considered an Arts subject, along with traditional ones like Classics.

I think many employers and society at large are happy to follow the universities in grouping all of these together as 'Arts' or 'Humanities', or whatever, despite the fact that these designations include subjects of such vast difference in quality. In my mind there is indeed a core of traditional humanities discipline (like Classics, Literature/English, and History, and maybe Anthropology and Art History) that still provide skills in analysis and communication that are quite distinct from the 'hard' sciences and are useful for employers.

By way of example, I do some part-time work for my university's Engineering department, assessing how well students write (a requirement instituted by the university based on employer feedback...). I can honestly say most Engineering students do not write very well. It is no surprise, given that they spend most of their time learning things pertaining to Engineering. But, on average, they cannot express themselves as eloquently as a first-year History student (I know from having tutored them). The humanities degrees are, at least in theory, supposed to give students skills in reading large volumes of information, identifying relevant parts for the task at hand, performing qualitative analysis, and, most of all, constructing an argument and then presenting it eloquently and convincingly. This is a skill set that is quite distinct from the 'hard sciences', though, as you'd expect, there is some overlap.

The trouble is the expansion of humanities beyond the traditional core group of subjects. Fields like sociology, and almost anything ending with the word 'studies' may be necessary from the point of view of academic progress in the humanities - they've evolved naturally from the broadening of approaches in traditional fields. But, unfortunately, they are often not as rigorous in developing the above-mentioned skills as the core subjects; at least at undergraduate level they tend to focus on subject matter that is comparatively frivolous and 'soft'. Yet, they are readily offered as undergraduate degrees in 'Arts' alongside History, English, and Classics. So students of these core subjects, in order to get their legitimacy recognised, increasingly have to turn to postgraduate study.

And this added time and money can be a huge strain. I have been fortunate enough to get a scholarship to do my MA History at decent university. Without that money, I would probably not have carried on studying because my chosen subject does not naturally lead to a job in the same way a Computer Science or Engineering qualification does. Yet it has certainly given me a set of skills (I'm almost finished now) that I could not have got from non-humanities disciplines, and these skills are fairly universal: the ability to read insightfully, analyse qualitatively, and write articulately is welcome in any number of workplaces.

I have to echo some of the others in the thread and say that it mostly depends on how you use your degree. But I would also qualify that with a partial agreement with Adar: there are certainly 'Mickey Mouse' subjects. Where I would disagree with Adar is that I think these subjects have, by association on the part of universities, sullied the reputation of traditional humanities subjects -- subjects that still impart broadly useful skills via respectable subject matter and rigorous standards. Their 'devaluing' is in large part perceptional.

[Nikitn]

Well, most people with a college degree in the US earn allot more than those without, so the vast majority who take a useful degree and get OK grades should be able to pay it off without problems. Those that do not have a decent degree on the other hand, will just have to work at McDonalds to pay off their debts I guess. As far as I see it the situation isn't like the housing bubble where you had banks handing out huge mortage debts (debts which were much bigger per person than mere student loans) to people who didn't have a chance at all to pay it off.

Oh and I do agree that the US needs a bit more socialism (free education for useful degrees and so on), while many Euro countries need to completely cut off funding for garbage-degrees that society does not need.

[conon394]

Adar

Likewise it looks like both you and your brother in law have managed to carve out paths to good careers. My contempt is for people who "get a degree" rather than "get a degree in [subject that is chosen because of interest and potential].

Well I think part of the problem is at least in the US all too many kids who go to college are coming from secondary schools that are consumed with teach to tests and due to funding cuts have attenuated their offerings to such a degree young people don't often have a chance to figure out what they are good at.

So Americans here how many of you had a public High school with a newspaper, an art program, more than just marching band, film club, tie ins to classes at a local university, shop or anything similar, real history or economics or statistics courses, debate team etc. High school is really where you should get the free chance for 4 years to figure out what you like and also fail w/o real cost.

I mean there is nothing wrong with a degree in Art or Journalism if you want to do those things and know you have an aptitude for them. What's sad is all to many Americans are starting College with student loans and have little or no ideal about what their goal is in University. Personally I also think all to many people are enthralled by the name of the University - as in 'I went to Harvard' etc. But you know what your Calculus 1 class is no more better at Harvard than at the local community college - in fact its likely worse. If you really know what you want you can do your homework and get your basic studies requirements on the cheap and still have 3 years at your institution of choice - and know what it should be. Obscure university can be that best at some things and neither Harvard nor Oxford are best at everything. Both Arizona State and the University of Chicago have excellent archeology programs - but one is tied into legacy Egyptology contacts and the other into Mesoamerica and you really should know which one like before going in.

If Universities were honest they would admit that no matter how fancy pansy they are there is no reason that anyone should pay $18,000 for a three credit hour basic class that costs only $300-500 at community collage and is likely smaller and taught by a real PhD.

[Sphere]

In the US, tradesmen and machinists are also in very short supply.

I know masons and concrete workers who are making six figures right now because they can basically name their price.

[stoogeofstooges]

I have to say I was probably an odd case. When I say that all my Christmas and birthday money went towards college funding, I mean EVERY PENNY. Nobody in my family classifies as wealthy or rich, but my grandparents and parents have always been pretty wise with money. Most of my paychecks since I first started working have also gone into the college account. I still consider myself very fortunate that I didn't end up with loans or debt, but it wasn't like I had people handing me college money every year. Most of the money was money that my friends and even some family members though I should take charge of myself.

[Hekko]

http://gselevator.wordpress.com/2013...r-philosopher/

GSElevator further strengthens Spheres point.

Personally I don't really have to go into debt since in Finland I don't have to pay any tuition and fees are minimal. Furthermore I actually get paid approximately 500 euro a month for attending university. Then again the cost of living in Helsinki is through the roof, rent alone will set people back 400-1000 euros and throw in learning materials and food on top of that and it's suddenly quite expensive to be studying in Helsinki.

I have been financially fortunate in the sense that I have inherited some money, and I live in an apartment owned by my grandparents so the rent that I pay is fairly modest.

Ultimately though, I think it would be worth it for me to go through uni even if I had to go into debt, since I am getting a masters degree in financial economics from arguably the best business school in terms of probability of getting employed. I would rather have studied history but I made the conscious choice of going for business school (not the MBA kind, Finnish system is a bit different) rather than history.

As far as I know none of my friends have run up any student debt either this far (well, one friend, but he is in fact using it as cheap leverage for his investments so I don't really consider that being debt per se).

[Thorn777]

@Sphere

Not "workers". Business owners who are established and connected.

Anyway. Im weary of this "fake degree" contraband going on here. There is a clear tendency going for quite some time(in the EU as well with the Bologna agreement), to increasingly have uni's become breeding grounds for economic demand, which might sound nice, but also destroys classical universal education. This is only one development along these lines that makes me weary, and all together they make me more than weary.

Im saying this as a former concrete-worker btw shunning todays educational system. No 6 figures though. Not by a long shot.

[The spartan]

In the US, tradesmen and machinists are also in very short supply.

I know masons and concrete workers who are making six figures right now because they can basically name their price.

As thorn said, it isn't the construction worker that is making 6 figures, manual labor is cheap. It is the construction owner, engineers, and architects making the mad money, and the people making machinery for the jobs. Mechanics, I have heard are in short supply, but we aren't talking car mechanics here, and that is skilled job that requires training.

[chamaeleo]

If I had $30k student loan: forget school. Use it as a down payment to buy a duplex, rent one half out and live in the other. Enroll in community college for as long as possible before switching to primary degree interests.

That's sort of what we did 8 yrs ago. We now rent both units, which pays out $700/mo above the mortgage. I can write off tools, building materials and who knows what else as business expenses. Essentially earning free equity. Listing/interviewing applicants, small repairs, turning on swamp cooler/heater twice a year...that is the extent of my labor. Being a landlord friggin' rules!

[Col. Tartleton]

I feel like we need a longer and better primary and secondary education.

Tertiary education really ought to be limited to the upper performers with more intellectual or professional goals. That's not meant as elitism, but most people shouldn't need that sort of education. A high school diploma and job training should be what a bachelors degree is now.

[Elfdude]

1. Education should be for the rich and elite

I’m not entirely sure what century this comes from but it sounds like classical monarchist idealogy. Fortunately the United States are founded upon egalitarian principles that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights. This is to say, that men have a right to an equality of opportunity to succeed in the world. However that is not to say that the end result should necessarily be equalized. What this is to say, is that for example a rich child is more apt to go to school, simply because of their access to resources, this does not necessarily have anything to do with talent although it’s proven that talent is more likely to result in an environment of plenty.

This means two things, first that by maintaining education in the hands of the rich and powerful a large resource of potential human capital is lost entirely. In market terms, this is like marketing your product to a small but powerful niche group. Potential is the important factor here, and all things equal, there is no advantage in talent from the child of the rich and the powerful compared to the child of the average. In fact often middle class families do the best at raising talented individuals. They possess a natural balance of difficulty and stability. It’s extremely concerning to see this middle class disappear.

A middle class, as I would define it, is a class which has no or few barriers to transitioning to a richer class. I.E. Someone is a middle class person if they can afford to go to higher education if they so choose, or can maintain their status quo if they so choose and live relatively stably. As college costs become more and more exorbitant, the climate that allowed former generations to construct our country is eroded. Suddenly people who were formerly middle class become practically speaking another poor class. This means we suffer a huge loss in potential, a brain drain if you will, with that potential loss comes far reaching consequences. For example, when your plant gets water every day, if you forget one day odds are it’ll survive. On the other hand a plant already nearing death from lack of water cannot survive the blow to it.

The growth of our country and economy are similarly dependent on the ability of individuals to elevate themselves. One issue comes with this however, the march of progress continually raises the bar. This is to say, if you want progress, the bar MUST be raised. Doing anything else will only maintain the status quo, and worse it may even reverse it. In previous times, highschool was often enough to accomplish this. This combined with networking and a bit of cleverness gave you a high probability of success even without college. This is as recently as the 1990’s. Today however networking is far less prevalent, in an atmosphere where certification determines your skillset as opposed to close employer employee relations and direct understanding of individuals the college is often the only way to ever become considered for jobs which will continue to open new markets and allow the progression of the country.

Now society is a complex composition of standards and rules, economic exchange and cultural development. Notice that any one of these things can stranglehold a country. Poor laws can often tear down even the greatest economic value or utterly paralyze it, poor cultural appreciation can lead to a lack of motivation for betterment. If you can’t dream it you can’t build it so to speak and cultural innovation leads to both new ways to think and new ways that laws should be held, furthermore it preserves a history of things that went wrong. Lastly the economic growth of a society can paralyze further cultural development and etc. These are all important don’t get me wrong. However education builds all of the former areas. To eliminate education to the majority is to eliminate most of your country’s potential.

2. There is such a thing as a ‘mickey mouse’ degree.

The hilarious claim here is that there exists such things as mickey mouse degrees as in something which is pointless education. This is false. Where it comes to real degrees as in appropriately accredited degrees this couldn’t be further from the truth. Every educated individual out there contributes immeasurably to the betterment of society.

Sociology is a commonly cited one, the study of society. This is funny because sociology jobs are predicted to grow 18% in the next ten years which is about average for all jobs out there. In fact sociology jobs are growing in all areas very fast. To be a sociologist as in a PH.D in sociology is only one facet of the broad area that sociology covers and trains individuals to be better at. Sociology majors with bachelors commonly find work in social services, counseling, psychology, clerical/administrative support, management, teachers, PR, entertainment and research. This is based off of widely available information on the bureau of labor and statistics website. Their studies specifically revolve around group dynamics and how that plays out. I would point out that these jobs represent a huge portion of our and everyone’s economy.

What about anthropology? This job area is predicted to grow even faster with 21% increase in the next ten years. Anthropology covers things from archaeology, to teaching, to museum curation, entertainment, healthcare, counseling, public policy and etc. Their studies involve specifically studying humans and how they live(d). I should point out that these jobs are highly important to everyone’s economy.

What about a history degree? Certainly that’s useless to society right? Historians aren’t in as high as demand as anthropologists but they’re still predicted to grow about average over the next ten years. Historians are found in a variety of settings from education, to public policy, to museums, to entertainment, advertising, analysts, archivists, broadcasters, journalists, researchers, communications, information management and more. Again these jobs are also highly important to everyone’s economy.

These three examples are just the tip of the iceberg. If any of these degrees stopped existing and the people with the skillsets they learned stopped being able to do their jobs because they had never been trained for such a degree our country would be massively handicapped.

3. Because of the cost of education we shouldn’t even bother.

This is a ridiculous assertion as well. The difference between an individual who goes to school and doesn’t on average is about a million to two million dollars in earning potential. That’s with the understanding that in most instances said individuals are making those individuals above them more money as well which in turn is resulting in a growing economy. To return to our plant metaphor, if the uneducated worker is the soil in which a plant takes root, the educated workforce is the advanced hydroponics that can yield thousands of cucumbers from a single plant. The metaphor is apt because every one of these individuals creates value and contributes that value to the value of our country. In fact in the modern era there’s only three real options we have to improve our economy: Artificial manipulations via policy and fiscal tools, A more advanced workforce, or Educating third world countries to open up larger markets.

Since artificial manipulations and policy changes don’t really create new markets but simply allow it to work better (as in more efficient) there comes a time where such manipulations are powerless to improve the economy and further manipulations will result in a worse functioning economy. The maximal potential of a single nation however to provide a market for goods and services however is ultimately limited by the numbers of its citizens which can access said goods or services. This would be an idealized capitalistic system which would in many ways resemble a communist economy but would achieve such a state through the processes of competition rather than mandate. In essence competition should result in everyone elevating in essence. I digress though, back to the idea that it’s not personally worthwhile this is simply false as well.

Your return on your money will never be as vast or as good as it will be on college. There’s simply no way to take a $50,000 or $100,000 or even $200,000 investment and turn it into $2,000,000 so reliably.

So what about the exception to the rule? What about the PHD janitor that cleaned your highschool or etc? Well these are largely exceptions to the rule, even the best student must contend with the statistic reality that there is not a perfect distribution of demand for employment, supply of employment and knowledge of said demand. In fact one of the largest issues facing graduates is attempting to find jobs in their areas of expertise because they don’t understand just how large those areas truly are. This is the ideal of an accredited degree, and if in fact a school was not able to demonstrate a reasonable demand, impact and etc of a degree there would be no program for it.

So like world hunger the issue is not a lack of food or a lack of demand for historians or anthropologists, but rather a lack of historians or anthropologists that know how to interface with that demand. As such I would highly recommend that anyone who is having any difficulty finding jobs with their degrees looks closer at what type of jobs they’re looking for, where they’re looking for them and just how powerful any accredited college degree is. Frankly right now you could not find a four year degree offered by an accredited university that was not widely marketable.

4. Lastly Accreditation

This is the last thing people don’t seem to understand. There’s a reason why ITT tech will leave you with a useless degree and that has nothing to do with the fact that college degrees are sometimes useless. The issue is ITT tech is not a real college. Accreditation for higher education in the United States comes in three forms, programmatic, national, and regional accreditation.

This might seem like offtopic discussion but it’s very important to the discussion of colleges in the US. It may seem to many that a nationally accredited school is the best, however this simply isn’t true, the reason for this is that the united states department of education set up six regions for accreditation throughout the country. These regions were held to base minimums and this is why a degree from Portland state University will transfer to Harvard or Idaho State or etc. These base minimums are recognized by employers as the gold standard.

After regional accreditation national accrediting bodies began to appear, these were bodies which gave their stamps of approval to any school which was ‘non traditional’ or otherwise needed evaluation under a different metric than just the regional system. This is not to say all national accreditation is worthless, however it’s very easy for national accreditation to be worthless because essentially they’re welcome to set any standard for their accreditation they wish with certain exceptions.

Now ITT tech is nationally accredited. This to any employer is a red light because honestly they don’t know what you learned. A university might be nicer to you if you transfer to them with ITT credit and give you 10-15 credits in relevant fields for a ITT degree because they usually do a more exhaustive examination of what you learned to figure out how one school compares to another but the vast majority won’t even bother looking. It’s not economically feasible for universities to examine every school’s standards and classes to understand whether or not their credit is relevant in their traditional system which means they probably won’t.

This means a degree accredited any other way besides regionally is almost entirely useless for anything but a select few specialty fields. National accreditation is more for certification courses and classes than a real extensive education and businesses routinely abuse this loophole to steal funds from prospective students. This isn’t to say that Portland state isn’t nationally accredited too, they’re both nationally accredited in several ways and regionally accredited and have specific accreditations attesting to the quality of certain programs. For example MIT has a variety of programmatic accreditations that attest to the higher than usual standard of its academics. But again, if you ended up with a degree form art institute or itt or everest university or etc you’ve not ended up with a degree but a worthless piece of paper.

As for your attending a vocational highschool, I’m not entirely sure what this is and yes attending non traditional schools is an issue if they’re unaccredited. Again accreditation is what tells everyone else of the standards in your school, they are to say, ‘at minimum to pass I learned this much.’ If you went to a vocational school that was unaccredited it makes perfect sense that you were barred from going to most universities. In fact in many cases you’ll be barred from FA and a variety of other things. If you went to an accredited highschool then there’s no way you would be barred entry into a state school especially if you were at the top of your class. That’s not how state schools work. If your highschool was accredited, then whether you went to a tiny school or a giant one your degree will be viewed the same. The only difference is a slightly larger opportunity for extra circulars at a bigger school.

My story is probably pretty typical.

I firmly believe that education is a huge promoter of social mobility. I think some less savory elements of society realize this to and are constantly trying to monopolize it. They failed in the 20th century, but I fear they will again make it the province of the wealthy.

My father never went to college. My mother did (though both her and my grandmother living in a different era with different influences could have very easily gotten PHDs in mathematics)

My parents always wanted all their kids to go to college. My father did not want to see us doing the type of work he did, killing ourselves on our feet all day for 12 hours.

I went to an alternative high school (vocational)

What do you mean by Vocational? This is a very loose term. Was your school accredited? What was the name of the highschool?

despite being near the top of my class, it limited my college options. I couldn't go to the big state University in my state (U Mass) instead I had to go to a smaller state school.

This makes no sense. Why was your selection of colleges limited?

The classes were small. It was cheap. I tried my hardest. I took out loans, my parents helped some. I graduated ON TIME. In four years with a degree in history and geography.

Which school if you will?

I initially went to school to be a teacher. I don't think most people can pick their career at 18, so I backed out of the major half way in.

You can easily transition into a teaching career with your degree, it will require additional certification however.

I applied for jobs. Everywhere and anywhere. No one accepted me except retail stores. I stayed in them for two years and hated every day.

Be more specific because I highly doubt this is the truth. When people say things like this they mean, I believe I applied everywhere and anywhere with any chance of relevance. However not only are humans horrible at assessing statistics in general, these beliefs are usually ungrounded in reality.

There was no intellectual stimulation to working with the customers, co-workers, or the work. But things were easy. I made my minimum wage, and paid my loans because I got to live with my parents in my old high school room. It was a pretty lonely time as I watched people who either went to better schools or didn't go to school travel to europe on their parents dime. I never had that option.

Envy is not a good state of mind to have. It seems to me you’ve constructed a cage for yourself after minor failures.

My father was then diagnosed with cancer, and I had to quit one of my jobs to take care of him. Part time I was still able to pay my loans with a tiny bit leftover.

Now I am in my final semester of grad school at Rutgers University. Library and Information Science. #6 ranked in the world for my program. I got scholarships. I work. I pay out of state tuition, my state doesn't have a public school with what I wanted to take.

I’m confused at what your career goals are, you started with history and geography likely of arts and decided to go for a library and information management masters degree? I wonder how different Rutgers is with the program compared to the next 50 schools on the list, I’d be willing to bet it’s the academic equivilant of a ten thousandth of a second in a foot race.

I will graduate with a total accumulated debt of $60,000 (a bit more)

That’s 4 years of college + 2 years of grad school? That’s a typical number.

My payments will be near $1000 a month.

What? Why? What type of loans did you take out? That would put you on the path to repay the loans in 5 years which is not typically what they aim for. In fact the minimum payments should be closer to 200-300$ for federal student loans.

The interest rate doubled for my graduate loans.

What type of loans are you talking about? Why aren’t you utilizing rutger’s student worker tuition forgiveness?

My options are very limited. My savings will last about 3 months of payments after graduation. After that I am homeless. If I worked fulltime at minimum wage again I will likely not even make my minimum payment. That does not include rent or food.

Question, what do you intend to use your degree for? Do you know what it can be used for? Have you begun applying to jobs in your relevant fields? Have you interned and achieved any student work experience? What is your strategy here because, and I don’t mean to insult you I’m just highly experienced in this area, you should have plenty of prospects.

All I hear are platitudes from people who have no idea what this is like.

"I worked in college, stop whining and get a job". So did I

Did you work for your university?

"State school". Did it.

Good.

"Entitled, lavish lifestyle, study abroad, spring breaks, whiny" I have never gone abroad. I have never gone on a spring break. I haven't been on vacation for 9 years. My lavish lifestyle includes a $400 laptop, a PS3, an E-Reader, and a 19 inch TV.

Yeah, this is typical.

"Major in something useful, not something useless"

Easy to say when you have had such bad math teachers growing up that literally told me I wasn't worth teaching because I was going to be a garbage man (hey, he was probably right). That sorta turned me off from any of the lucrative fields. (That with a time machine I would major in)

So wait, you’re in this situation because as you’ve said you didn’t take additional mathematics studies? You know this is a cop out right? Accreditation requirements for 100 level math classes are highschool math at best. There’s no reason you couldn’t have relearned in a new environment what you failed to the first time. In fact students are usually better at math when they do it this way than students who get it on their first time.

You can find a job in my field, if you wait like a vulture for a retirement. Or know someone. You can generally work part time for high-school level wages in the meantime.

This is not true. www.bls.gov Use it, when you’ve applied to the millions of jobs that your degree qualifies you for I’d believe your story more. If you’re solely trying to become a librarian (why, might I ask?) then yes, you’re going to have difficulty. The goal of your degree when designed at Rutgers was to give you a wide basis from data entry, to archivist, to sociology, to education, to information management, PR, and etc. I could go on. Again I think this is another case of the supply and the demand not meeting up.

Most of the jobs I really would like want me to get a second masters degree. I will never, ever ever ever be able to afford to do this. I should feel lucky. I initially was going to go to law school at $50,000 a year. At least then I'd potentially make more than $40,000 a year.

Not really true, most lawschool graduates have it far worse than you do.

I will also likely never be able to afford to travel, buy a home, or have kids. People turn off dating when it turns to education and this topic. They are repelled from my credit-unworthiness. I cry thinking about what I've done to myself. I should have just stayed working in kitchens with the Mexicans and Guatemalans. At least they were fun to work with.

This last racist remark is extraordinarily abhorrent. Furthermore you have decscribed a situation that you’ve placed yourself in due to lack of knowledge. There’s no reason even with such a degree, even lacking math that your job opportunities are limited besides yourself.

I think we may want to look at why so many kids go to university in the first place.University is traditionally where the smartest kids go, and use it as a springboard for a successful professional career. However, given the advent of Mickey Mouse degrees (Adar knows what I'm taking about) it's now easy enough for just about anyone with half a brain to go to university and get a degree.

There’s no such thing as mickey mouse degrees. Be specific because your vagueries are .

Unfortunately this has devalued the university degree, which is why so many graduates find it difficult to find even an unskilled job.My secondary school (high school for my American friends) was a very traditional old fashioned grammar school. Everyone was expected to go to university. When I was finishing up there we were told three things that really opened my eyes to what an utter sham the university system is:

Utter falsity

i) It doesn't matter what grades you get, there is a university out there that will accept you.

Not true. Care to put some citation on this? I’m willing to bet you don’t know what accreditation is and consider any university that calls themselves such a university.

ii) Most degrees aren't worth the paper they are written on.

More falsities. Citation?

iii) Employers look at where you got your degree, not what it is in.

A myth debunked on the first page of this thread, care to cite your ?

They know most universities throw degrees out like confetti.

Where does this even come from?

What we have today is a system where it's too easy for people to go to university, and too many kids who see it as an opportunity for three years of partying. That's where the problem is.You don't need to go to university to find a decent career or a well paid job.

Utterly false. Citation? Source? Don’t have one? That’s what I thought.

Im sorry not everyone is entitled to a damn college education, if you did bad in high school and you didnt make the grades then thats your fault.

Uhm, that has little to do with the discussion.

I was able to drum up over 11,500 dollars in aid this year.

How? This sounds like federal aid including student loan money. Do you even know how you obtained this money? Furthermore the average cost of a university for one year is $20,000 you’ve only managed to pay for half of your school and that’s not usually including living costs.

]acourse

Considering the word is of course, not acourse, I’m wondering if you’re really in a university.

my dads paying for the rest but after this year(Hes not rich either and I know I am blessed for having a father that will pick up my tab) my college will be essentially all paid for by the Army as I go into the SMP program. It is still using tax payer money but its not like I wont be working for it either.

Hahahaha, you’re using tax payer money for your federal aid in the first place including loans, not only that but your father is paying for the rest of your tab and then you believe that going into the army to pay for it is a good stategy. What’s your justification that everyone doesn’t deserve an education? Furthermore keep in mind no one is recommending allowing incompetent students to go to school as in lowering standards. The standards however have become more about money and less about skillset.

There certainly are Mickey Mouse degrees, and unfortunately they have been grouped with legitimate Arts subjects.

Uh no.

A glance at several university websites shows that a subject like 'Cinema Studies' (whatever the hell that is...) is typically considered an Arts subject, along with traditional ones like Classics.

The technical name is usually Film Studies and Production but yes Cinema studies is a valid degree which teaches you valid skills which are marketable and validly useful. I would highly suggest you peruse both the course requirements at an accredited university and the BLS data on the subject. Entertainment is one of the largest continually growing segments of the economy. Cinema studies is useful for: Journalism, Cinema Production, Television Production, Theatre, PR, Image Management, Advertisment, Marketing, and literally anything that involves the arts, and specifically cinematography. While there’s no guarantee that you’ll become the next jim harper from news room or the next steven segal style movie creator the area that the degree is useful in is simply astonishing.

The issue with this is a large proportion of fake universities (improerply or unaccredited ones) also offer film studies degrees which offer absolutely nothing.

I think many employers and society at large are happy to follow the universities in grouping all of these together as 'Arts' or 'Humanities', or whatever, despite the fact that these designations include subjects of such vast difference in quality.

You do not seem to have the slightest grasp of how a university creates a program or how the accreditation process works.

In my mind there is indeed a core of traditional humanities discipline (like Classics, Literature/English, and History, and maybe Anthropology and Art History) that still provide skills in analysis and communication that are quite distinct from the 'hard' sciences and are useful for employers.

You’ve left out so much of the arts I don’t even know where to begin. You’re making baseless claims about something you clearly do not understand.

By way of example, I do some part-time work for my university's Engineering department, assessing how well students write (a requirement instituted by the university based on employer feedback...). I can honestly say most Engineering students do not write very well. It is no surprise, given that they spend most of their time learning things pertaining to Engineering. But, on average, they cannot express themselves as eloquently as a first-year History student (I know from having tutored them). The humanities degrees are, at least in theory, supposed to give students skills in reading large volumes of information, identifying relevant parts for the task at hand, performing qualitative analysis, and, most of all, constructing an argument and then presenting it eloquently and convincingly. This is a skill set that is quite distinct from the 'hard sciences', though, as you'd expect, there is some overlap.

You say this after eliminating a large body of the exact skillsets you’re talking about, I’m sorry but the author of a book will have no idea how to create a movie. They may understand the concept of a story but do they understand the camera? Framing? Aesthetics? Presentation? Image? Impact? All of these have components of hard sciences, all of these things are also arts. An art is loosely defined as ANYTHING that requires skill to do, create, imagine or define. In today’s world that is a huge number of things one can be proficient in. For example you can go to a waiter’s school to become one of the world class waiters and waitresses at expensive restaurants. However such a school would not offer you a degree in a literal sense, such a skillset would be too one sided to qualify for an arts degree.

The trouble is the expansion of humanities beyond the traditional core group of subjects. Fields like sociology, and almost anything ending with the word 'studies' may be necessary from the point of view of academic progress in the humanities - they've evolved naturally from the broadening of approaches in traditional fields. But, unfortunately, they are often not as rigorous in developing the above-mentioned skills as the core subjects; at least at undergraduate level they tend to focus on subject matter that is comparatively frivolous and 'soft'.

You confuse the abstract and qualia with soft. In fact the definition of hard vs soft sciences is not an appropriate term to use at all as science does not define things in this way. Rigor between the fields is not as distinct as you seem to think. In fact in many ways the liberal arts are both more rigorous and less rigorous than the sciences.

Yet, they are readily offered as undergraduate degrees in 'Arts' alongside History, English, and Classics. So students of these core subjects, in order to get their legitimacy recognised, increasingly have to turn to postgraduate study.

Not true either. Citation?

And this added time and money can be a huge strain. I have been fortunate enough to get a scholarship to do my MA History at decent university. Without that money, I would probably not have carried on studying because my chosen subject does not naturally lead to a job in the same way a Computer Science or Engineering qualification does. Yet it has certainly given me a set of skills (I'm almost finished now) that I could not have got from non-humanities disciplines, and these skills are fairly universal: the ability to read insightfully, analyse qualitatively, and write articulately is welcome in any number of workplaces.

I think you’ve confused fake degrees with real degrees and are calling them mickey mouse degrees. I highly doubt you can find me a frivolous arts program at an accredited university. I’m more than willing to eat my words if you can though.

I have to echo some of the others in the thread and say that it mostly depends on how you use your degree. But I would also qualify that with a partial agreement with Adar: there are certainly 'Mickey Mouse' subjects. Where I would disagree with Adar is that I think these subjects have, by association on the part of universities, sullied the reputation of traditional humanities subjects -- subjects that still impart broadly useful skills via respectable subject matter and rigorous standards. Their 'devaluing' is in large part perceptional.

I do think that some liberal arts degrees have been watered down by fake degrees in overly specialized fields that would never find accreditation in a thousand years. If you’ve ever been called by these universities late night you know what I’m talking about. It’s unfortunate that is the case. However I think you’re very wrong in thinking employers can’t tell the difference. Business majors, communications majors, and just about everyone that qualifies for an HR position studies accreditation law for a reason. You cannot possibly keep track of every university in the country individually.

[ivan_the_terrible]

No, no, students in Fine Arts learn how to create film along with how to paint, sculpt, draw, etc. in my university. Cinema Studies is another subject. It is simply about watching movies and 'analysing' them. They don't learn how to make movies, they just watch them and talk about them for an hour or two, maybe write a couple of essays - I'm not sure how exactly their assessment is structured.

And this subject is grouped in the College of Arts, along with real subjects like History and Classics. There are quite a few of these useless subjects at my university, like 'Cultural Studies' (when Sociology and Anthropology already exist) and 'Media and Communication' (when Journalism and Political Science already exist). Psychology is, for some reason, available as an arts subject, with less rigorous requirements than if one were to do it as a science (requiring no statistics).

If someone wants to 'study' these, great, fine. But lets not pretend that this subject matter is as valid as that of History, Classics, Anthropology, and the other traditional disciplines with substantial subject matter. Watching a movie once a week and giving your thoughts on it is never going to teach the student the same skills as reading primary sources, reading secondary scholarship and understanding the historiography, and then putting forward your own interpretation within this context.

[Adar]

1
2. There is such a thing as a ‘mickey mouse’ degree.

The hilarious claim here is that there exists such things as mickey mouse degrees as in something which is pointless education. This is false. Where it comes to real degrees as in appropriately accredited degrees this couldn’t be further from the truth. Every educated individual out there contributes immeasurably to the betterment of society.

Sociology is a commonly cited one, the study of society. This is funny because sociology jobs are predicted to grow 18% in the next ten years which is about average for all jobs out there. In fact sociology jobs are growing in all areas very fast. To be a sociologist as in a PH.D in sociology is only one facet of the broad area that sociology covers and trains individuals to be better at. Sociology majors with bachelors commonly find work in social services, counseling, psychology, clerical/administrative support, management, teachers, PR, entertainment and research. This is based off of widely available information on the bureau of labor and statistics website. Their studies specifically revolve around group dynamics and how that plays out. I would point out that these jobs represent a huge portion of our and everyone’s economy.

What about anthropology? This job area is predicted to grow even faster with 21% increase in the next ten years. Anthropology covers things from archaeology, to teaching, to museum curation, entertainment, healthcare, counseling, public policy and etc. Their studies involve specifically studying humans and how they live(d). I should point out that these jobs are highly important to everyone’s economy.

What about a history degree? Certainly that’s useless to society right? Historians aren’t in as high as demand as anthropologists but they’re still predicted to grow about average over the next ten years. Historians are found in a variety of settings from education, to public policy, to museums, to entertainment, advertising, analysts, archivists, broadcasters, journalists, researchers, communications, information management and more. Again these jobs are also highly important to everyone’s economy.

These three examples are just the tip of the iceberg. If any of these degrees stopped existing and the people with the skillsets they learned stopped being able to do their jobs because they had never been trained for such a degree our country would be massively handicapped.

I am a bit surprised by your usage of statistics and lack of citation. Because the 20 % growth estimate doesn't really tell us anything unless it is either sourced or put into perspective of how many of the students who are currently apply to get qualified jobs.

Based on personal experience I would also claim that you overestimate how much people actually learn at university. I've recently been observing a major election for the student union at my alma mater and a majority of the students actually seem completely unable to adopt scientific methods and logic reasoning in their debates. They got some basic source criticism (of others...) but are unable to turn their thought into a comprehensive chain of thought which is the most basic thing I would expect of a student.

I also have some statistics from Sweden regarding employment and degrees. The numbers are for people who have a an employment 6-12 months after getting their degree. When reading the statistics you should also be aware that "natural science" in Sweden excludes a lot of people who studies natural science but with a specific degree in mind. Most people who wish to work in biology are for example getting their degrees in medicine (doctors/pharmaceutical degrees), other subjects (veterinary medicine) or technology (engineers in biotechnology or environmental assessment).

Examined at basic level (3 year degree)
Humanist subjects and theology: 61 %
Law and social science: 70 %
Arts: 68 %
Medicine and odontology: 86 %
Natural science: 56 %
Technology: 74 %
Healthcare: 88 %
Other subjects: 75 %
Total: 72 %


Examined at basic level (5 year degree)
Humanist subjects and theology: 82 %
Law and social science: 90 %
Arts: 92 %
Medicine and odontology: 93 %
Natural science: 86 %
Technology: 95 %
Healthcare: 98 %
Other subjects: 94 %
Total: 91 %

The average unemployment rate for young people is roughly 10 % so a basic degree (3 year) actually makes it less likely for students to get a job in Sweden.

There is also statistics on how many students who get what they consider to be a qualified job after their degree:
Humanist subjects and theology: 43 %
Law and social science: 51 %
Arts: 52 %
Medicine and odontology: 78 %
Natural science: 48 %
Technology: 62 %
Healthcare: 80 %
Other subjects: 55 %
Total: 58 %

The lack of qualified jobs in technology are quite interesting because a huge part of that issue is that the Swedish government abolished the title "gymnasieingenjör" which was a high school level degree where you took an extra year to learn applied skills for the industry. These people then proceeded to work in pharmaceutical companies, gas companies and chemical industry with very good but fairly repetitive jobs. Nowadays the career path of an engineer is often to start out with one of those jobs and then either get stuck in their career or progress to something more qualified.

[YukonTrooper]

Since when was history a Mickey Mouse degree?

I think some degrees have garnered "Mickey Mouse" status because they aren't good at putting food on the table, so to speak. History degrees are one of those.

[Elfdude]

No, no, students in Fine Arts learn how to create film along with how to paint, sculpt, draw, etc. in my university. Cinema Studies is another subject. It is simply about watching movies and 'analysing' them.

This is not a cinema studies curriculum I'm aware of. Which university is this so I can pull up the program requirements?

They don't learn how to make movies, they just watch them and talk about them for an hour or two, maybe write a couple of essays - I'm not sure how exactly their assessment is structured.

So you're saying you don't know what they do, you assume some things which very well may be entirely incorrect. Good job. Pull up your universities curriculum for the degree.

And this subject is grouped in the College of Arts, along with real subjects like History and Classics.

The fact that you arbitrarily declare real subjects to be things like history or classics doesn't mean cinema studies is not a valid art either. Again, your opinion is very suspect given accreditation requirements in the United States. If you're from a foreign country, then I don't know how your standards are set.

There are quite a few of these useless subjects at my university, like 'Cultural Studies' (when Sociology and Anthropology already exist) and 'Media and Communication' (when Journalism and Political Science already exist). Psychology is, for some reason, available as an arts subject, with less rigorous requirements than if one were to do it as a science (requiring no statistics).

The science or arts designation on a degree is dependent on the requisite classes you take not the type of degree. I.E. you can have a bachelor of science in english or a bachelor of arts in biology. These degrees are not however useless. Your college (if you're in the US) is required to provide employment statistics as well as review the status of the success of their students. If this ratio falls below a certain threshold the university could lose it's accreditation entirely. I.E. Universities cannot afford to teach classes that have no real opportunity because to do so threatens their accreditation which threatens their very status as a university. This is why it's important to understand the background of what you're talking about because many of the things you state are simply false and I can only guess they're the result of faulty perceptions.

If someone wants to 'study' these, great, fine. But lets not pretend that this subject matter is as valid as that of History, Classics, Anthropology, and the other traditional disciplines with substantial subject matter.

Substantial subject matter? In any quarter credit system school in the united states it takes 180 credits to graduate. These credits are held to the same standards. This typically includes 70-80 credits in your desired subject and a majority of classes designed to provide you with skillsets that allow you to adapt to a variety of potential jobs. If you're in a semester system school the number is 120 but they are worth exactly 1.5 quarter credits each. You cannot physically achieve a bachelor of anything in this country without substantial subject matter. You cannot graduate with only lower division classes. I would love to see you take a cinema studies 400 class and tell me it's not substantial. Your statements are nothing more than myth wrapped in ignorance.

Watching a movie once a week and giving your thoughts on it is never going to teach the student the same skills as reading primary sources, reading secondary scholarship and understanding the historiography, and then putting forward your own interpretation within this context.

No it will not teach teh same skillset but you're not claiming that it provides the same skillset, you're claiming it doesn't provide a comprable skillset. This is false.

I am extremely surprised by your usage of statistics and lack of citation because I am very curious about where the 20 % growth estimate comes from and if a 20 % increase is sufficient to make it a viable career choice.

Bureau of Labor and Statistics website is www.bls.gov it contains every employment relevant statistic compiled by the US government. Including education, opportunity etc. It even provides regional maps showing relative growth or loss in certain areas. These are viable career choices. In the United States. I have no clue how it works in sweeden and I don't find it the least bit relevant to the issue in the US. The US school system already provides excellent safeguards against a useless education. The biggest issue people have is A. not being stupid and going to a fake school B. connecting their skillset to the demand for that skillset.

I would highly doubt there's not demand for every type of job out there in the US right now somewhere.

In my experience I would also claim that you overestimate how much people actually learn at university.

I really can't agree with this. In one term at university you can review everything you learned in secondary school. Now perhaps sweedish secondary education is better at preparing workers than American is. I don't have a clue. I can agree with you that it's quite easy to learn nothing at a university more than the words in a textbook, ultimately the grading system isn't a great indicator at skill of performing in a subject as much as memory of specific pieces of knowledge but I would assert that doing this is exceedingly hard. I'm very aware of the standards and practices of the united states education system and I doubt that such a situation occurs enough to warrant this attention. Can it occur? Perhaps rarely, the statistics do allow for the potentiality but far more often then not this is not the case.

I've recently been observing a major election for the student union at my alma mater and a majority of the students actually seem completely unable to adopt scientific methods and logic reasoning in their debates.

I would challenge you to compare a first year freshman to a fourth year senior. Personally as a liason for my student unions I can see what you mean, there's a variety of levels of talent from a variety of different student unions and groups and etc. however it would be unreasonable of me to expect that for example, the vegan student group would perform in an election the same way that the president of student leadership does. In fact Portland State University students created a system for paying for education in response to the debt crisis that is receiving national attention. Almost every person who runs for election the first time is nervous and horrible. The second time they're slightly more confident, and by the third and fourth times they're generally into the flow. I would say nervousness is a greater foe than lack of knowledge for these students in my experience. Again don't know how to works in sweeden.

They got some basic source criticism (of others...) but are unable to turn their thought into a comprehensive chain of thought which is at least the most basic thing I would expect of a student.

I don't follow this thought or what you mean by it.

I also have some statistics from Sweden regarding employment and degrees. The numbers are for people who have a an employment 6-12 months after getting their degree. When reading the statistics you should also be aware that "natural science" in Sweden excludes a lot of people who studies natural science but with a specific degree in mind. Most people who wish to work in biology are for example getting their degrees in medicine (doctors/pharmaceutical degrees), other subjects (veterinary medicine) or technology (engineers in biotechnology or environmental assessment).

Examined at basic level (3 year degree)

What is a three year degree. You do not seem to have an apples to apples comparison rendering your opinion on American education essentially worthless. I do not read sweedish so your statistics are kind of useless for me as well. Your statistics have no context rendering their meaning ambiguous at best anyways.

Humanist subjects and theology: 61 %

What do you even call humanist subjects and theology? In the US this degree would mark one as capable for a huge variety of jobs. Typically in Government/Administration, Health/Welfare, Education and Religious Studies. This degree if provided by an accredited US university would be a four year degree. These job titles are common for people with theology degrees: Diplomat, Missionary, Archaeologist, Religious Education/Instruction, Administration, Archivist, Religious Research, Bioethicist, Ethicist, Minister, Healthcare, Journalism, Law, Writing, Social Work, Counselor, Mediator. To describe the tip of the iceberg. Thse fields include hundreds of thousands of potential jobs.

Law and social science: 70 %
Arts: 68 %
Medicine and odontology: 86 %
Natural science: 56 %
Technology: 74 %
Healthcare: 88 %
Other subjects: 75 %
Total: 72 %

Examined at basic level (5 year degree)
Humanist subjects and theology: 82 %
Law and social science: 90 %
Arts: 92 %
Medicine and odontology: 93 %
Natural science: 86 %
Technology: 95 %
Healthcare: 98 %
Other subjects: 94 %
Total: 91 %

The average unemployment rate for young people is roughly 10 % so a basic degree (3 year) actually makes it less likely for students to get a job in Sweden.

There is also statistics on how many students who get what they consider to be a qualified job after their degree:
Humanist subjects and theology: 43 %
Law and social science: 51 %
Arts: 52 %
Medicine and odontology: 78 %
Natural science: 48 %
Technology: 62 %
Healthcare: 80 %
Other subjects: 55 %
Total: 58 %

The lack of qualified jobs in technology are quite interesting because a huge part of that issue is that the Swedish government abolished the title "gymnasieingenjör" which was a high school level degree where you took an extra year to learn applied skills for the industry. These people then proceeded to work in pharmaceutical companies, gas companies and chemical industry with very good but fairly repetitive jobs. Nowadays the career path of an engineer is often to start out with one of those jobs and then either get stuck in their career or progress to something more qualified.

I can't bother with the rest of these statistics, they don't tell you anything that you're trying to prove. First off, you don't have any earning potential calculations, secondly you don't have employment trends or define what type of employment you're talking about, thirdly you don't seem to define what the meaning of anything is barring any apples to apples comparison we might want to make. Furthermore I know that your last statement here is false, employment with any degree increases in sweeden, what I'm assuming your statistics are about is only in relevant fields which is a very ambiguous term not total employment. Many people obtain a degree and do not use it for that specific field.

As for sweeden, many of your numbers seem suspect and aren't comparable. Your conclusion that because the unemployment rate is 10% and 70% or etc students find work in their fields that you're less likely to find a job with a degree than without one is ludicrous and in fact sweeden's own information rebukes that.

http://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2012%20-%...%20Sweden5.pdf

After doing some more research your 5 year degree is equivalent to our four year degree.

I would encourage you to read this which rather defiantly puts to rest your claim:

http://www.unric.org/en/youth-unempl...h-unemployment

In fact the issue that sweeden is having with it's schools seems to be the exact issue that accreditation in the US solves. Meaning your conclusions are likely entirely irrelevant because for example, a degree as a hair dresser is not a degree in the US but a technical certification. There are many more people who go for these bogus certifications than a legitimate education because they believe it's easier and they'll find work. However unlike students who limit themselves because of ignorance things like cosmetology are inherently limiting because they can be used in no other way. This is much different than a degree.

Also I'd point out that considering the youth unemployment rate in sweeden many of your numbers may actually be overall employment but given it's restricted to 6-12 months the numbers are not as terrible as you painted them.

[Adar]

Bureau of Labor and Statistics website is www.bls.gov it contains every employment relevant statistic compiled by the US government. Including education, opportunity etc. It even provides regional maps showing relative growth or loss in certain areas. These are viable career choices. In the United States. I have no clue how it works in sweeden and I don't find it the least bit relevant to the issue in the US. The US school system already provides excellent safeguards against a useless education. The biggest issue people have is A. not being stupid and going to a fake school B. connecting their skillset to the demand for that skillset.

Then source them properly, you still haven't said anything that show something more interesting than that the job market for anthropologists is expect to increase from 1X to 1,2X

I would highly doubt there's not demand for every type of job out there in the US right now somewhere.

But the relevant part is whatever there is a balance between the demand and availability.

I really can't agree with this. In one term at university you can review everything you learned in secondary school. Now perhaps sweedish secondary education is better at preparing workers than American is. I don't have a clue. I can agree with you that it's quite easy to learn nothing at a university more than the words in a textbook, ultimately the grading system isn't a great indicator at skill of performing in a subject as much as memory of specific pieces of knowledge but I would assert that doing this is exceedingly hard. I'm very aware of the standards and practices of the united states education system and I doubt that such a situation occurs enough to warrant this attention. Can it occur? Perhaps rarely, the statistics do allow for the potentiality but far more often then not this is not the case.

I would challenge you to compare a first year freshman to a fourth year senior. Personally as a liason for my student unions I can see what you mean, there's a variety of levels of talent from a variety of different student unions and groups and etc. however it would be unreasonable of me to expect that for example, the vegan student group would perform in an election the same way that the president of student leadership does. In fact Portland State University students created a system for paying for education in response to the debt crisis that is receiving national attention. Almost every person who runs for election the first time is nervous and horrible. The second time they're slightly more confident, and by the third and fourth times they're generally into the flow. I would say nervousness is a greater foe than lack of knowledge for these students in my experience. Again don't know how to works in sweeden.

I don't follow this thought or what you mean by it.

What I mean is quite simply that a lot of people attend university without learning from it.

What is a three year degree. You do not seem to have an apples to apples comparison rendering your opinion on American education essentially worthless. I do not read sweedish so your statistics are kind of useless for me as well. Your statistics have no context rendering their meaning ambiguous at best anyways.

This is an international website and I am not sure on if you have noticed but in the debate regarding degrees you are debating with members who are: American, British, Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian and German as well as anonymous when it comes to their location.

And considering that I actually did give their context and they are are relative numbers so I think it should I think even an liberal arts teacher should be able to notice that certain degrees in Sweden got employment rates lower than the national average for people 15-29. Based on commentary by other people it also sound like other people from across the world are agreeing that certain degrees are very bad for future employment opportunities.

I am now patiently waiting for you to show provide the evidence to convince me that your part of USA is unique and different from the rest of the world in the sense that anthropology students are just as much in demand as health care professionals and engineers.

What do you even call humanist subjects and theology? In the US this degree would mark one as capable for a huge variety of jobs. Typically in Government/Administration, Health/Welfare, Education and Religious Studies. This degree if provided by an accredited US university would be a four year degree. These job titles are common for people with theology degrees: Diplomat, Missionary, Archaeologist, Religious Education/Instruction, Administration, Archivist, Religious Research, Bioethicist, Ethicist, Minister, Healthcare, Journalism, Law, Writing, Social Work, Counselor, Mediator. To describe the tip of the iceberg. Thse fields include hundreds of thousands of potential jobs.

The data is clustering degrees based on a set of subject areas and it clearly show that the choice of subject area have a drastic affect on the likelihood of a graduate getting a job compared to a non-graduate as well as the likelihood of the degree being a qualification for the job they found.

As you already mention there are several potential professions available in each subject area. This mean that students targeting some professions have a higher likelihood than the average of the subject area to get a job while others got a lower likelihood.

Therefore it should be painfully obvious that many people who study subjects in Humanist subjects or Natural science are getting the Mickey Mouse degrees that you claim doesn't exist in America despite most people disagreeing with you regardless of if they are American or not.

I can't bother with the rest of these statistics, they don't tell you anything that you're trying to prove. First off, you don't have any earning potential calculations, secondly you don't have employment trends or define what type of employment you're talking about, thirdly you don't seem to define what the meaning of anything is barring any apples to apples comparison we might want to make. Furthermore I know that your last statement here is false, employment with any degree increases in sweeden, what I'm assuming your statistics are about is only in relevant fields which is a very ambiguous term not total employment. Many people obtain a degree and do not use it for that specific field.

I evaluated the likelihood on getting a job depending on the degree and proved that there are significant differences between subject areas in Sweden. Which fit very well with the anecdotal advice presented by other nationalities (including Americans) in this thread. Your claim is that all degrees are valuable which doesn't really fit with that data.

You could of course try to complicate the topic by demanding things like earning curves for each individual subject, but I do not have that data available for Swedish students. But instead we can take our highly educated minds and ask ourselves "Are wages likely to be higher in sectors where there is more competition for the employment opportunities?". Then it really doesn't feel like we need earning potential curves to prove that people with certain disagrees are at a disadvantage on the job market. Life isn't fair and I think you would need some very interesting data to prove that degrees for high unemployment professions compensate by providing more attractive earning curves.

As for sweeden, many of your numbers seem suspect and aren't comparable. Your conclusion that because the unemployment rate is 10% and 70% or etc students find work in their fields that you're less likely to find a job with a degree than without one is ludicrous and in fact sweeden's own information rebukes that.

http://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2012%20-%...%20Sweden5.pdf

Actually second bullet point of your quote:
Some 10% of 15 -29 year olds in Sweden are neither in education nor employed one of the smallest percentage of NEETs among all OECD countries (Chart C5.1).


Which is exactly what I stated. Then you can compare it to the average employment rates of people who have finished their degrees which is 91 % for people with a masters degree (=5 years) and 72 % for people with a bachelors (=3 years).

After doing some more research your 5 year degree is equivalent to our four year degree.

It of course depends on how you define equivalent but I would say that it is the one that is the most similar.

I would encourage you to read this which rather defiantly puts to rest your claim:

http://www.unric.org/en/youth-unempl...h-unemployment

No, but it is actually a very good example of statistics "lacking context". Because the 24 % unemployment rate includes everyone who apply for things like summer jobs or part time jobs.

So sticking with OECD compliant statistics is much easier and essentially put people into three different groups:
People who have an employment (including own companies)
People who are studying
People who are unemployed.

So if you rely on the OECD compliant numbers for the age group 15-29 year old people, then all the numbers are completely correct.

In fact the issue that sweeden is having with it's schools seems to be the exact issue that accreditation in the US solves. Meaning your conclusions are likely entirely irrelevant because for example, a degree as a hair dresser is not a degree in the US but a technical certification. There are many more people who go for these bogus certifications than a legitimate education because they believe it's easier and they'll find work. However unlike students who limit themselves because of ignorance things like cosmetology are inherently limiting because they can be used in no other way. This is much different than a degree.

We have accreditations for things like hair dressers in Sweden as well and they do not attend universities.

[Col. Tartleton]

My cousin is working towards his doctorate in Medieval English literature or something. But while that sounds ridiculous to me, it's such a niche I'm sure he'll have work for him.

I don't think that's a mickey mouse degree. I think that's the sort of intellectual stuff you need a college education for. Whereas a lot of jobs should be within reach of a reformed lower educational system and some job specific training.

[conon394]

I think some degrees have garnered "Mickey Mouse" status because they aren't good at putting food on the table, so to speak. History degrees are one of those.

You know it all depends on what you do with the the skills...

History worked out well for Hammond and Casson and made them valuable in WW2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._G._L._Hammond
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/ny...sson.html?_r=0

It all depends on how you work the degree - I had a help desk guy under me who had a communications degree. Not the best IT guy but he was brilliant at well communications, be it the boss(s), the other high and mighty,on the the phones with people to get warranty work or part replacement. He had a real skill and his Degree work had refined it.

[Shaun]

If someone wants to 'study' these, great, fine. But lets not pretend that this subject matter is as valid as that of History, Classics, Anthropology, and the other traditional disciplines with substantial subject matter. Watching a movie once a week and giving your thoughts on it is never going to teach the student the same skills as reading primary sources, reading secondary scholarship and understanding the historiography, and then putting forward your own interpretation within this context.

Why is film studies any less valid than English literature? What makes the analysis of a fictional book more "valid" than a fictional film?