A very timely interview of John Zogby took place Sunday afternoon on Bob Brinker's nationally syndicated talk show. It was specifically about how John viewed the workplace, and those now voters - especially for the college graduates born in 1979 and after. Their numbers are only dwarfed by the Baby Boomers at 78 Million. Anyway, John shed light on how the college degree in many cases is somewhat meaningless, unless the applicant can demonstrate why he/she would make a better hire than the other pile of 100 applicants for the job, as well as why young people today are getting "gigs," not jobs. Typically (4) "gigs" of employment by the time they're 30, and (10) or more gigs during their work lifetime. Also, online degrees with their reasonable costs are not enduring the price rise of the sticks n bricks institutions. He cited that Harvard University for example, had an endowment large enough to re-build/renew the institution annually. -Quite an analogy! He pressed how community colleges are a great deal.....(as I wrote here earlier Sunday ;)) as well as how the trades are great ways to train to make a very good living.

Perhaps some of you may have heard the interview as well? It is podcast on Bob's website, as all authors and experts he interviews are podcasted too.

Yes, we pay the child to go to college. We do not cover the full cost (thank goodness). The child pays the remainder (thank goodness). If the child graduates in IT or engineering then $30K wont take long to pay down. A degree in black history or political science may take a couple of generations.

Concerning valuation of college -- what metric is more universally understood and accepted than money?

Money is all that matters, and if you cannot get a degree that pays more than a laborer, then all your education is wasted time and effort.... got it....:rolleyes:

Is a luxury if ut cannot pay for itself.

Okay, let's all agree that my pile was a steaming pile of 'roo poo.

What other system of valuation would you propose that is universally understood and accepted?

How else would you value education in a way that is universally understood?

Not all human endeavors can be financially justified.
If that is the only standard by which you measure worth, that's your prerogative.
Some of us see worth without dollar signs.

Define "worth". Take your time.

A musician who attends Julliard yet never makes first chair....
Was teaching that student a waste of time and resources?
Does the musician's music have to have broad popular appeal in order to be of value?
Maybe instead of playing music, that person should have been breaking rocks, ya know... something constructive.

I believe that there is great value in having our populace better educated
Less uneducated boobs who stare at the TV and believe whatever it tells them.
More critical thought, better comprehension of the world around them.
But....maybe it's too late, and we should just cut our losses and line our pockets while we still can.

Not until I receive assurances that this is a tuition free school....;)

Pretty sure you are familiar with the concept of intrinsic value.

Yet there is no guarantee that black history or political science will earn less or more than IT or engineering. I graduated with a degree in a field that is generally the punchline of many jokes (often told by those from the business school...who are also unemployed and "looking" ;)) but I've had steady employment since I was 19, not a couple "gigs". My best friend, a political science major, is now in the Middle East doing international business and consulting with the state dept. Then I have engineer peers who can't seem to find any steady work and guys who end up working on a company's IT helpdesk for years and years. Its all what you make of it, not what you get on the paper.

We would not have any teachers if students began deciding their degree path simply based on pay. There's something to be said about how teachers are paid (which is a different discussion) but our education would be crumbling pretty fast...

Perhaps you are right about that but if your idea of floating me money is so I can earn a better living, you bet it is about financial justification. At least that is what I seem to read out of the article. That it is to help people have a better job prospect.

As they say, the race is not always to the strongest of swiftest but that is the way to bet.

Teaching is a method of earning a living. You need to find a field you think you can work in. Regardless, they decided that teaching was a way they could earn a living and it does pay so educating them is empowering them to make a living and pay back the loan, get a better living than Mc Donnalds.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to here. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?