College for all - right?
 

This is worth a read. It is definitely long, but worth it.

Sad, but true.

Good read CP. Kind of reminds me of that line from The Incredibles....."Everybody is special Dash"......Dash responds mumbling "another way of saying no one is"

Having faced this, having conquered it (though arguably, I was always meant for college... the train just got derailed...), I don't find it sad, but to be one of the most honest pieces I've read in ages.

At the same time I know I can be proud to have made it through all that, I can't help but thinnk about the Ms. Ls I met, the guys with overstuffed briefcases looking for better pay or a new line of work, the peoplel looking just to grow and learn something new for what seemed like no particular reason at all. And you know, not all of them were as bad as a "Ms. L" though arguably it is probably the most tried and true of college stereotypes. Bless them all.

I was not "groomed" to go to college. It was never expected of me, and in fact was continually "wet blanketed". There are a myriad of reasons why, and none of them matter now. Yet here I am, struggling to balance work/home life while going to school full time. Going to school because that piece of paper is what is needed to get a job, even in fields where it's "hands on" learning.

The article reminded me of my time at University of Phoenix. Classrooms filled with students who rushed to get there from work. Our main break was filled with a mix of dinner, work and phone calls home. Some students were Ms. L, yet they passed with an A (college for all, an A for all at UoP). Most of my classmates where there because their work insisted they go, or be let go. One of my classmates had been a manager at an aerospace company for 10 years before they decided he had to get a degree or be let go, and replaced with someone much younger, with a degree - but no experience.

College is not for all and high school is not preparing everyone for college. Bachelor degrees are going to become as common as high school diplomas. I suspect that we'll see a similar push for Masters degrees in about 15 years.

Yep, I suspect my grandchildren will look at me, with a mere bachelor degree in History, the way I looked at my Grandfather who only had an 8th Grade degree:eek:

Of course their grandchildren will wonder why they only have Phd's:D

I bought a PhD off the interwebs.

High school did not prepare me for college math.

Wow, there is definite truth in that article. Although I'd say the sole reason we allow them to put themselves through the exercise is for the people who can and do make it through.

What is a shame is that with so many people having bachelors degrees, the value of it is so diluted that jobs paying maybe a dollar or two above minimum often require/desire a degree. Ridiculous. So we have a populous who have acquired massive student debt in the hopes of a better paying career that fails to materialize because too many other people have taken the same path.

At least 30 years ago those people with high school diplomas didn't have student loans to pay.

I read this, rather slowly and in pieces, as time permitted me at work. I'm just not getting what the point of the article is. Maybe it's because I had to read it in bite-size chunks, or maybe it's because I just don't get it.

What I do get from it is that the author equates not passing English 101 to not being college material. I disagree.

I've found that we often become snobbish in the things we focus on...either in home or work life. It's seems snobbish to me to look down on someone (in the academic sense) for not having read To Kill a Mockingbird. That doesn't mean that they can't learn something even if they fail (I'm sure Ms L did learn something and will benefit from it). And it doesn't mean they can't benefit from or excel at other subjects offered up by the college.

Every time I take my car to the mechanic I get "scolded" for not changing the oil every 3,000 mile/3 months. I wonder if they think I'm not ready to own a car. My dental hygienist disapproves of my poor flossing habbits. I'm flabbergasted by people who don't apply regular security software updates to their computers. People who tell me they've never been to any Disney park in their life (adults...with kids even!) just get blank stares of bewilderment from me. And don't even get me started on people who buy DVDs that have been formatted to "full frame." *shudder*

So, yes. I too get snobbish about the things that I focus on. I might think that some people aren't ready for computer ownership, or need to high-tail it to the nearest Disney park, or need to plead to the movie gods for forgiveness. But in the grand scheme of things, I would be wrong.

I think the author's point wasn't so much that nobody had read To Kill A Mockingbird, but that he was lucky if they'd read anything at all.

Plus, the point of English 101 is to prepare you to be capable of writing the papers needed to pass your other classes. That is, to be able to read, process, and write AT a college level.

Funny: I just watched that last night and that line really stuck with me this viewing.

Well, it depends on what on eis sad about. I am sad for the lack of caring and understanding portrayed by Ms. L as this is a symbol of what many people in our society are. But at the same time, I am quite glad that Professor X chose to take what I believe is the right path. Social Advancement is a horrible concept.

THIS is sad.

WTF? It is a SHAME that so many people are educated? That makes no sense to me at all. In fact, I find it quite arrogant!

When a person with a Bachelor's (or higher) degree is only able to make a buck or two above minimum wage, I say that person is doing something wrong. Having the piece of paper is not some magical ticket where the world owes you something, it simply gave the person a better base of knowledge and understanding of how to learn and how to grow. One's education does not end on graduation day: there is a reason it is called a "Commencement": it is the beginning, not the end.

I think what the author was getting at was more exemplary than simple fact. Let's face it: some people aren't cut out for traditional college education. my take was that the author was just giving an example from his area of experience. The issue was the complete lack of critical thought by Ms. L. She was unable to grasp simple instructions and repeated (and polite) admonitions of "you're doing it wrong: here is the right was to do it."

Well, in this instance, this is truly a situation where that person should not be allowed to own a DVD player. But this is the exception.

Except that I don't think that so many people ARE educated. I think that the social promotion trend is so strong that a bachelor's degree now *is* relatively worth less than it was - not because so many have it, but because so many of those that have it don't deserve it.

The more it becomes a requirement, the more people want to obtain one, and the more schools are tempted to increase their business by making sure people get them. Maybe I am just a huge snob, but frankly I think many of the people receiving degrees don't deserve them. I don't think they are actually educated at the level a college degree SHOULD reflect. It doesn't mean that I think they're stupid, just that they don't have the particular knowledge set that a college degree should represent.

I and *do* think you that not being able to pass English 101 makes you not college material. As I said already - doesn't mean you're stupid, but a college degree is suppose to indicate a minimum competence in certain areas. I can't right this moment think of a degree field where effective communication is not an important skill.

I'm flat out to lazy to go find it - but 5-10 years ago UoP was going to lose it's accreditation because it was a degree mill. Pay your money, wait the amount of time it took and get your degree. Teachers were forging attendance records, letting students come late, leave early. Everyone gets an A.

Now, you have to come on time, stay till it's over and they aren't supposed to give everyone As, but they do. My group was the curve in the class. And we weren't anything spectacular, just average people doing average level work. It was very sad - people who couldn't speak well, write well or follow basic project instructions were still getting As.

No Kevy, that's not what I meant. Jobs that 30 years ago would only have required a high school education (and therefore no acquisition of student debt) now require a college degree. They are still low paying, but the person who gets the job has amassed thousands of dollars in debt just to get to that level, which they should have been able to get to without the degree and debt.

And that fact is part of what forces the Ms. L's of the world to get in over their heads, because that piece of paper is starting to become the "base" level of education. In other words - enough education to actually get by in life is no longer free for all.

I blame Hitler (seriously).

Well, my father, who fled Hitler as a boy, decided to show him a thing or two by not going to college on the G.I. Bill after his military service when he could have and should have.

I don't think our grandkids will look at our Bachelor's and be amazed, I think there will be a completely different system in place. I think we will start seeing a great deal more specialized, non-university training. People working in communications or human resources, for example, might not be required to have a full bachelor's degree, but might be required to have higher education in subjects pertinent to their field.

And one more thing, at the community college I attend, you have to test into English 101. I already functioned at a college level in this area, so I had no problem getting in. If I had scored lower, I would have been put in a lower level class and had to work up to 101. I thought all community colleges were like this.

Most are - it's the matriculation testing. Most universities are too. Not all though - some of the accelerated programs don't require it.

I wish I knew what school the article was written about.

Doesn't Europe do something like this? They focus more on the field then overall knowledge once the student hits university level. They also groom students for a specific type of further education early on based upon their compententcies and interests.

Yep, my best friend, a Cuban immigrant, didn't score high enough in English on his entry test so he started college taking English 99..........and he still graduated a year before me:D

I think we need to elevate vocational training to a higher status in our society. It helps prepare non-college bound people for solid careers and is undeservedly looked down upon. Not everyone is meant for college, and the pressure for the to go diminishes the value for those who are.

Frankly, I think any high school students who declare themselves not to be college bound ought to graduate school with a professional certification in SOMETHING.

The point of his article is that he woman he describes does not deserve to graduate from any college. She is made to feel that she can do it, that she has to do it in order to be successful, and that is just plain wrong on many levels. She is not meant for college.

Plus, I keep hearing news stories about alleged shortages in the trades. This morning the local radio news ran a segment on Harley repair people and how the local voc tech has one of 3 Harley-certified programs in the country. And these people allegedly earn a starting salary that far exceeds that at most boring, BA-requiring office jobs. Isn't it a disservice to funnel kids through a college path to which they aren't suited, all so they can acquire massive student loans and a low-wage job, when they could instead go through a technical program and graduate with less debt and a higher earning potential?

That's the feeling out there these days. You have to graduate college or you can't be successful. You have "colleges" like Devery and ITT Tech with advertising campaigns targeting the low end of the educational spectrum. Where vocational training in criminal justice once was fine to be a police or correctional officer, you now need a degree to do the same thing. The problem with DeVery and ITT Tech is that they are still just vocational schools where classes don't transfer and the degree really is nothing more than a vocational school certificate. But the person who graduates now has a "degree" in whatever it was that they studied.

On a basic level, I define success as making a living wage. In order to make a living wage you have to have a job that pays well. In order to get a job that pays well these days, you have to have a Bachelors degree, experience, or both. Yet, for the most part the degree is looked more favorably then experience.

I had to interview hiring managers for a recent class. Over half said that they put resumes with degrees in one pile, degrees with experience in a second pile and experience with no degree in the third pile. The remainder looked at degrees then experience. In all cases, guess which stack is at the bottom of the interview call list?

Sadly, for the most part, you have to graduate college to be successful. Experience and certifications/vocational training doesn't cut it any more.

The question becomes: how MUCH less worthy is the degree? I would like to think that the decrease is minimal, but I am not dealing with people fresh out of college. Yes, there will be people who manage to get out of college without an education/skill set that reflects the degree. But I truly do hope the number is negligible.

Further, I don't know how it is in the rest of the country, but here is California, the universities are being inundated with applications - there is no shortage of potential students. Most universities are turning away a very high quantity of applicants; the last time I checked, my alma mater (Cal Poly - San Luis Obispo) had four times as many applicants as openings. With that in mind, I question whether schools are lowering standards just to increase sales.

Again, speaking only for what I know (the printing industry), vocational schools are looked on as a valuable training ground - the students from those institutions are highly sought after in many of the craft positions (press operators, pre-press operators, etc.).

In what little hiring I have been involved in, I look at what the person has done to make themselves better and more valuable to an employer. Have they taken extended training classes? Attending industry seminars? If I were hiring someone out of school, I would pay particular attention to what their extra curricular activities were.

A friend used to work next to a Devry. They called the people who went there "Devridiots" (with apologies to anyone here who might have gone there).

That's just it. Vocational training is good. But we don't impress that upon high school students. We act as if they either go to college or they're worthless losers. I think we do them a disservice by not convincing them otherwise.

Well, it's like that line from that old Bing Crosby tune:
:D

That is a double-edged sword. If a high-school counselor told a student that they were not good enough for college, and that they should consider a vocational program, then they run the risk of a parent bringing down the wrath: "How dare you say that my child is too stupid for college."

Also, I don't know if voc. ed. ISN'T promoted in high school. I know that when I was in school (amusingly, the same high school as you - although I was a year or two before you ;) ), voc. ed. WAS a viable option. It wasn't discussed with me (and I suspect not you either), but it was a viable option. There was a least SOME literature and I had a couple of friends who did discuss it. Maybe things have changed (I am an old fogey after all) but I believe it is discussed.

But the down side of voc. ed. is that it is more limiting than a college degree. While one may be able to get a higher paying job fresh out of a voc. ed certification program than someone getting a BA or BS degree, their future options are much more limited: they've effectively been trained for one task. Whereas someone with a Bachelor's degree has many more options.

I am often surprised that almost 20 years after graduating, that my Cal Poly education is still a factor for some people.

True, but that kind of presumes that the parent is involved. A lot of people in this country don't have parents involved - and in many cases, those are the people who can't read, don't graduate, aren't encouraged to go to trade school and end up in financial crisis. They need the motivation for trade school as much as anyone does.

But then, this relates to the crisis in our public schools K-12. I just finished reading Freakonomics and was appalled to find out about teachers who fill in the bubbles on their students' standardized tests to come out looking like better teachers. No Child Left Behind is dreadful, and is not the way to help students truly learn. Pushing all students to pass the exact same test, pushing teachers to teach to the test, does nothing but limit the accelerated learners and steamroll the slower ones. Alternative education can do wonderful things for slower learners (and I don't mean "special ed" - I mean slower learners) as well as faster learners: not everyone has the same learning capabilities (or styles.)

I'm not sure this is true. Students have to take a bunch of classes within their major, but other than that the classes are academic, not practical. Unless talking about history or renaissance literature is a skill, A graduate with a BA is really only trained for one thing.

At my high school students had the option of going to a trade school for half the day. There were computer certification programs, beautician programs, fire fighter programs, etc. It was a really cool thing for kids that didn't want to go to college. There were even programs aimed at preparing students for certain majors. You could go half a day to an engineering program, score a low level job working with engineers (they had job placement) that would work around your school schedule.

My Ph.D. is the real thing. Until eight years ago, I was a college professor (yes, tenured and everything. I got so burned out I was crispy. Time to do something else.). I am from an academic family and I am married to a newly-retired professor and former chair.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions about the issues brought up in the article.

As this story is anecdotal, I'd like to see what stats there are on the subject - back when I got a degree there where studies that showed a correlation between level of education and earnings - I wonder how that's changes over time, i.e. how much have the value of a BA been devalued.

If I think to my own anecdotal experience, I work with plenty of people who have gotten their degrees later in life, and have been quite successful in that endeavor. If anything, it seems they have an advantage over their classmate who are there becasue that's what their friends were doing after high school, in that they are more focused and see more value in what they are doing.

I know a while back our system of continuing education was unique in the world where front loading education placed you into your place in life almost permanently. The fact that we can return and learn something completely different is something, I think we should appreciate even if some who want it can't archive it.

On the other hand, I almost think that the real problem here is that higher education has become too vocational - but I'm a philosophy major so I never really though my degree would ever land me that Philosopher King position that Plato lobbied for oh so many years ago. for my my education was a goal in itself, not a means to a higher paid job.

Depends on the job, I guess. But where I work, a BA/BS is generally a requirement. And they don't care which BA/BS, or from which school. All resumes are reviewed by computer. So, someone with amazing experience won't even be seen by human eyes, but someone with a UoP degree will. Even if they are complete idiots.

And yes, I really do need my staff to have some critical thinking skills. And a degree - a "real" degree - would have one indicator. So would relevant experience. But because the powers that be have decided that any BA/BS will do, it's basically a useless evaluator for me.

I've been flipflopping about posting this because I'm really irritated - but it's relevant to this discussion.

I have an AA, going after my BA. The pres of my company thinks education is everything and implemented a no degree no hire policy. I slid in just under, and because I was working on my degree. I'll have 2.5 years at my current job when I graduate. And you can guess what I won't be getting when I graduate.

The B.A. says you can prioritize, deal with a certain amount of stress, finish tasks in a timely manner, and write coherently - all good job skills.

Very few can afford an education purely for education's sake. I did have a colleague in Comparative Literature who taught "Cocktail Party Lit". The basic - and stated - goal of this survey course was to give students conversational gambits at the corporate parties they'd be attending after graduation. To my constant amazement, this course always filled.

A whole other topic (I believe that too many parents are not parenting, but that is another thread on another day). But there are some parents who will quickly be involved if they think that little Johnny is being shortchanged (and it is usually a very misguided reaction by said parent).

I disagree. Assuming that the Bachelor's, Master's, et.al education is a good one, one is educated in a broad spectrum of subjects beyond the requirements for the major. Whereas with a technical certificate, one is only educated in the targeted area.

I felt like the biggest thing that I gained out of my college education (besides being able to live in San Luis Obispo for three years) was an education on how to learn. It broadened my knowledge base in areas that while not directly in my area of what would become my career, I was also enlightened to other subjects that I previously had no interest in or knowledge of. Some (Geology) bored me to tears. I learned more in a 100 level Philosophy course than I did in many of my 300 and 400 level major courses (but that was because I happened to have a GREAT professor for that class that really inspired me). I gained a lot of valuable tools in extra-curricular activities that definitely helped me in my career. Finally, I made great contacts with visiting professionals and by going to trade shows and conferences.

While I agree that having a "real" degree is a plus in my eyes (from a potential employer standpoint), I would have a hard time being in a field where all resumes are reviewed by a computer.

I actually find this strangely encouraging...

Laid?

I'd love to take that course. It would be awesome to know how to hold this level of conversation without needing to worry about screwing up somehow.

To me, a real degree is one that teaches creative thinking - preferably a liberal arts degree.



I've done both - went to UCI for an Art History degree and went to UOP for a Business Management degree. I found both systems to have their own pluses and minuses. I didn't find the UOP education to be useless at all, but very practical and informative about other aspects of field I was already working in. It was also quite doable with my busy professional life. But, I still value my UCI education more, but it certainly didn't teach me how to be an effective Marketing Manager.

And therein lies the issue. The only reason they'd have that reaction is because society has managed to define college as "better than" trade school. That's the articles real point, imo. "Not cut out for college" should not be de-facto "stupid".

I need to re-read this entire thread when I am less tired and more sober. That said, what is sad to me has more to do with the sea change that many individuals face when they truly believe that that bachelor's degree is what they need to make the difference. I am fortunate to have many outside skills that an education can't afford (and don't make dirty jokes... ;) ) so I know I can go along with the ebbs and flows of an economy... but when most people are dependent upon a BA or BS... I realize now that it would be like me depending upong my high school degree a decade ago.

That's what's sad to me... this perception that you're doing something special when all you're doing is just keepin' up with the Joneses.... I'm glad I knew it while I was doing it. Better than feeling duped.

I haven't read the rest of the thread just yet but I want to address this. I believe there is a difference between "not meant for college" and "doesn't deserve to graduate." I think people like Ms L do deserve the opportunity to go to college. Not any college though. I think entrance requirements (in all varieties) are appropriate.

College is an opportunity for continuing education. If someone fails a class I don't think it's right to graduate them, but I also don't think it's right to say they aren't meant for college. If they've met the entrance requirements then they certainly deserve to stay and work through any problems they may be having. If they have the drive to do so.

Everyone deserves the opportunity, but not everyone should go. The issue is that people who would be better served by taking a different route are lead to believe that college is the "best" option and should do everything they can to attempt it. When the reality is, there are better options for some (a lot of) people and those options should get equal billing and they don't.

I also think there is an entitlement problem with college. People tend to think that a good (or even just) a degree entitle them to a good job. When I was hiring people, I thought a college education was a plus but their experience in the field they were applying for was even more important.

For what it's worth, since I graduated college and started pursuing a career in the entertainment industry, not a single prospective employer has ever expressed the slightest interest in my education. Experience and (especially) recommendations are all that they have been interested in.

That's something that definitely varies by industry. In the printing industry, my alma mater enjoys the luxury of being a singular standout in the field. Just having graduated from there is a big plus, even 20 years later.

Ahh but you do have a degree on your resume. Unfortunatley a lot of the time without that line on your resume it's tossed and no one bothers to look at your experience. And now with computer programs you can be deleted without a person ever actually even looking at it.

I don't have a degree. And it has been an issue. I'm not sure what sort of degree would prepare anyone to be an Assistant. Do they have classes in picking up cleaning, the fastest way to get to the airport in a hurry, how to calm down angry clients who's calls your boss can't be bothered to return? It's all stuff you learn on the fly. And you can't teach the patience of Job.

If you look at ads for entry level admins and receptionists a vast majority will have degree requirements.

To be honest I cheat a bit on my resume (something I learned from a former boss who also didn't have a degree). I did go to college for two years and I do have an AA from a Community College as well. I list the AA and then have "Attended" San Jose State with the major and the dates. I do not list a degree but a lot of people don't look that closely. And it is truthful I did go - I just kept changing my major. Then I had to get a job to pay for it all which left me with no time to finish it. Unfortunatley with online forms I can't get away with this as much. If I have to fill in actual degree information and graduation date then I have to leave it blank - which means I'm auto-tossed.

Maddy's future high school has just had a major cheating scandal. Grades were changed, tests were stolen. Mostly because of this huge pressure for EVERYONE to get into the RIGHT college. Not every kid can go to an ivy league school. But it's very much looked down upon to even attend Community College. At my high school a large group did go to college, a great portion of that to community college first because of costs. But there were other alternatives, mechanics, military, beauty school or just working your way up from courtsey clerk at the supermarket to an assistant manger.

In my limited experience, it seemed that the degree got me my first job, and experience every other job after that.

I thought college was one of the best experiences of my life. I couldn't tell you what I studied or if I learned a lot, but it was an important step for me. I learned independence, travelled a great deal and made a ton of new friends. I wished I was out to everyone in college, I would have gotten laid more but oh well.
I think everyone should attempt college, because I learned a lot about life while I was there.
:)

Oh, and people should go to college away from where they were brought up. See things from the other side of the fence.

One of my biggest regrets was not going away to college. I lived at home, worked for my Dad, and the University was a 12 minute drive away......:rolleyes:

Just call me Mr. Independent:(

Not everyone can afford that these days - out-of-state tuition was completely impossible for me (but I went to a very good school, two hours away from my home town. It had a very different 'feel,' though, so it may as well have been across the planet.)

Going to school in San Luis Obispo was life changing in many ways.

I regret not [being able to] go away to college and getting that experience.

Sounds like a Monty Python bit.

On a separate note, I have always been an advocate of getting GE (General Education) requirements out of the way (possibly getting an AA) at a community college and then transferring in to your four-year institution for your major stuff.

1. It is much less expensive
2. It (usually) makes it much easier to get into your preferred university (I know at Cal Poly, they put a higher priority on CC transfers)
3. Generally speaking, GE classes are the ones that always give people trouble at the University level.
4. You (often) transfer in as a Junior or close to it. This sometimes gives you a little priority in class selection, etc. (see #3).
5. You sometimes meet your wife (or husband)*

I am not sure what the downside would be - if someone has feedback on this, I am curious to know.





* Susan and I met at Fullerton College

I too regret you not going away.



Oh wait...

I hear ya. But my family couldn't even afford the plane ticket to send me away. But we made it work somehow. Scholarships, grants, loans and an award helped me go. I believe there's always a way if you want it bad enough.
:)
I was the first in my family to go to college.

Whether some of these are "down sides" remains subjective, but they are things to consider

1. Not getting away from home
2. Missing the social aspect of dorm living
3. Depending on your chosen major, delaying the start may put you at a disadvantage. e.g., for my major, had I come in as a Jr. with ONLY G.E. classes taken, it still would have taken nearly 4 years from that point because I still would have needed to complete the in-major courses in the order they were offered.
4. Occasional headaches when you find out stuff doesn't transfer.

Those would be my main concerns.

I totally agree with all your pros (except the husband/wife part, though I suppose anything could happen). The only con I've discovered with my major is that not very many Eng/writing classes are offered. Next year I'll have to do part time at the ASU so that I can start as a junior when I fully transfer.

Again, only speaking from personal experience, this was easily addressed with the department by being allowed to take classes concurrently that otherwise would have required to be sequential. I also had the unique experience of having industry experience coming into the department.
One thing I was VERY careful about was making sure that the classes I took at Fullerton College were transferable. I was even smart enough to get documented verification (from Cal Poly) on one questionable course.

And on the other two, I mostly agree, except I still lived in the dorm for a year when I went up there.

Like I said, depends on the major. My major had the highest unit requirement at my school. Some shuffling could have saved some time, but the reality was that there were just too many classes and not enough time. I got out of sequence in 1 quarter due to faulty advice from a counselor. The result was an extra full year to get my degree.

Hell, I came in as a sophomore thanks to AP credits, still took me 5 years because of the major's requirements.

Actually, since I work currently with people in higher education that is already the push. Many kids are being told to consider getting a Masters. The Bachelor degree is now the basic "minimum" for a good job. If you want to be a director, supervisor, manager, etc a Masters is becoming the norm.

That's another interesting question: how long did your "4-year degree" take to get? Mine was 4.75 years and that included Summer School three years.

I'm very glad you were able to. But there's a weird level of income where one is too wealthy to merit any financial aid, but one's public university tuition is a total drain on the parents' income. (I paid what I could, including the ONE loan I was eligible for, but it hardly made a dent on my University of Michigan tuition bill.)

But you know what? It had the best theater directing program in the country, so I was lucky it was in-state.

My experience was a little different. I started at Portland State University and soon learned that I could save money by taking some of the same courses I needed over at Mt. Hood College(a community college). My second year I found myself going to one school on M/W/F and the other on T/H.....it was kind of cool having access to the Universities library and research facilities for the community college coarses;)

Starting at a community college is good for some people, and not others. many community colleges are just "high school with ciggs". Same kids, same cliques, same drama. For some, going away helps. For others, they are able to go "look, no one gives a fvck you were prom queen last year". The queen bees start getting squished. But for some, it's easier to just go to another environment while that gets straightened out.

What's gonna happen when everyone has their Masters?

BA is becoming the new high school diploma.

Just wait until a BA is the new 8th Grade diploma:D

I took between 16 and 18 credit hours per semester, so reasonably I should have been able to complete in 4. But my two degrees were from two different colleges within my university, so I had to do an additional 25 credits more than if I got 2 degrees from 1 college. A hearty thanks to the auditing adviser who didn't realize this until the winter semester my senior year.

All in all, the two took 4 years plus one spring and one summer semester (during which I had to get permission to take more than the permitted amount of credit hours.)

Jr college can be a good thing, it just depends on the person I suppose. I have a friend who just graduated from CSUF in under 4 years. I have no idea how she did it! It took me 6!!

A lot of people did that at Cal Poly (using Cuesta College). Which made for an amusing situation where a community college was able to maintain something like 12,000 full time students a city (with no other adjoining cities) of only 37,000.

Going on 12 years. Bleh.

Add to the pot the fact that there's a new baby boom hitting colleges right now. I've seen multiple stories about many many kids not getting into colleges of their choice simply due to too many kids applying.

10 years

That has been going on for quite some time - it is not a new phenomenon.

You are working full time while doing it - hat's off to you!

You worked full time while doing (most of) it - now go get a high paying job so I can retire! :D

Actually, I don't. I don't include it on my resume.

9 years, if you count my "financial hiatus" during which I worked in the airline industry.

I was in this position as well. Mostly because my flipin Mother would not quit claiming me on her income taxes. Anyway I didn't qualify for anything so I had to work to pay for it all.

I don't know - I just went into an obscene amount of debt getting a degree in something that I knew wouldn't land me a job outside academia - I mean, what are they going to do reposes my education if I can't pay the loans?

3.5 thanks to AP credit and a couple UCI classes I took while in High School

This year, both Pomona and Stanford went automatically tuition-free if your parents make less than $100,000. (I think that was the figure.)

On the other hand, the very cool Antioch went out of business. It's touch economic times, even in higher ed.

Thinking of degree requirement and looking at the corporate monolith I work for it seems JDs are the thing to get if you ever hope to break into the executive ranks, I think over half of our execs have them. PhDs on the other hand, seem to fill very specialized niches, most of which are rather fickle in their funding, so that those positions vanish quickly in restructuring. Masters, usually come in the form of MBA, and if you have something else, usually and MBA is still what's desired. But most of the MBAs I know acquired their degree while working - sort of an adjunct corporate training program.

Project Management certification seems to be the rage at the moment, but I've witnessed several conflicts in which the certified project manager (whose certification is required) takes a project to task for not following the appropriate pre-project work. They usually get replaced by someone who "can get the job done" - often not a certified project manager.

In the field in which I work (a combination of banking/finance and IT) pretty much everybody has a degree but almost nobody has a degree that had anything (directly) to do with their job. The exception are the PhDs who are pigeonholed in very specific jobs and aren't likely to advance corporately (such as the ethnographer who runs our user experience design group)

But there are people who don't even have a degree. They just generally started lower in the company (or discipline) and had to work their way up.
Eventually, experience and demonstration of skill trumps degree.

My current job technically has a requirement for a BS, preferably in Computer Science. I don't have that. Fortunately, the HR department here is flexible enough that when I sent in my resume (cold) they saw my years of experience as adequate. Obviously, flexibility will vary a lot from company to company and even from HR screener to screener.

I think the ever widening call for a degree of some sort (any sort) is a byproduct of the death of company loyalty and growth in employer mobility. You can debate who killed it (and, personally, I'm glad its dead) but in an age when lifetime employment is more than norm than the exception it makes sense to bring people on in more of an apprenticeship model. But in a world where the first job is just that (a first job with many more to follow t different companies) companies ask themselves why they should put the effort into training and education just so that their competitor will get the benefit when that employee moves on to better money.

So, once you get into that mindset you start looking for proxies. Some evidence of a work ethic, ability, and determination. A college degree is not a perfect proxy by any degree but it is an easy one. And not entirely inappropriate either as a starting point.