America: Land of the Uneducated?

"For the first time in decades, and probably ever, workers retiring from the US labour force will be better-educated on average (according to one measure anyway) than their much younger counterparts. Some 12 per cent of 60-64 year olds have a master�??s degree or better; less than 10 per cent of 30-34 year olds do. More generally, the decades-long rise in the educational quality of the labour force is coming to an end. This is important, because that rise has been one of the principal forces driving American economic growth.

These findings are from a new study by Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics: �??The Accelerating Decline in America�??s High-Skilled Workforce: Implications for Immigration Policy�??. If you are interested in the prospects for American competitiveness and continued economic leadership, Jacob�??s study is mandatory reading."

Soaring budget deficits, ten trillion in debt, 52 trillion in unfunded liabilities (educated guess)…and people who don’t want to think. Congress let’s in illiterates and prevents educated immigrants from entering. We’re doomed.

And this is a surprise? Congress is full of imbeciles. The best way to hide the fact is to make everyone the same and promote entitlements to assuage innovation.

One question:
Did any of those 60-64 year olds get their masters after they were 34?

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
One question:
Did any of those 60-64 year olds get their masters after they were 34?[/quote]

2%

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
One question:
Did any of those 60-64 year olds get their masters after they were 34?[/quote]

I didn’t see it in the breakdown, though I’m reading between classes. Click on the link, go to the pdf and hunt. If you find such a breakdown, post it (and thanks!!)

What this tells me is that younger people have less inclination to acquire an education than did all of us old pharts. Why is that?

We spend tons of cash on education, though teachers see little of that — most of that goes for administrators and the endless pile of forms that public school teachers have to fill out. Perhaps fire 90% of administrators and divy up the cash and actually pay teachers what a lawyer (or doctor) or some other crook makes?

I don’t know how long it will stay this way, IMO it seems like you pretty much have to have a Bachelor’s degree where a H.S. diploma was enough in previous generations. Along with that, it seems like a Master’s is needed to stand out, when it used to be that a Bachelor’s was a huge thing to have. Colleges are a fucking joke. Pretty soon a Doctorate will be needed to work at a gas station since degrees have become so watered down. And who the fuck is raking it in on the “certification crusade?” The colleges and student loan organizations.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What this tells me is that younger people have less inclination to acquire an education than did all of us old pharts. Why is that?

We spend tons of cash on education, though teachers see little of that — most of that goes for administrators and the endless pile of forms that public school teachers have to fill out. Perhaps fire 90% of administrators and divy up the cash and actually pay teachers what a lawyer (or doctor) or some other crook makes?[/quote]

Why would a teacher deserve to make that much money? A doctor actually has skills. Teachers babysit and read textbooks to the class. Homeschooled kids often do better than those subjected to teachers.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What this tells me is that younger people have less inclination to acquire an education than did all of us old pharts. Why is that?
[/quote]

There could be a number of factors for this.

  1. The price of a college education beyond a bachelors degree is way more expensive than three decades ago – even when compared against inflation.

  2. Typically professional degrees are sought when the economy slows down. Many people feel that a professional degree will protect them in their current market or they feel it will help them enter a new market more easily.

  3. In the tech industry (which is where the largest growth has happened in the last 3 decades) many professional degrees require the applicant to have been active in the industry for at least 4 years before applying so this may act as a deterrent.

  4. Maybe, many undergrad programs address the needs of the economy better than in the past so many don’t feel the extra expense and effort are worth the marginal returns.

Have the relative number of undergraduate degree holders gone up?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why would a teacher deserve to make that much money? A doctor actually has skills. Teachers babysit and read textbooks to the class. Homeschooled kids often do better than those subjected to teachers.[/quote]

I used to wrestle with this question myself but then I asked: why does anyone deserve the pay they make? In a free market, with active competition employers will pay what the market bears. If education were treated this way I think not only would we see better results from students but also many of the washed-up teachers would be gone as well.

Since I have come to a better understanding of natural rights I have changed my mind about education. Education isn’t a right anymore than a paycheck is a right. If one must work to earn their pay then one must also work to obtain an education. Education doesn’t just happen because one shows up to class on time. It is the result of many hours of study.

Quite frankly, there are many teenagers sitting in classrooms that should not be but rather should be employed or in an apprenticeship. Not everyone is suited to the classroom.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why would a teacher deserve to make that much money? A doctor actually has skills. Teachers babysit and read textbooks to the class. Homeschooled kids often do better than those subjected to teachers.

I used to wrestle with this question myself but then I asked: why does anyone deserve the pay they make? In a free market, with active competition employers will pay what the market bears. If education were treated this way I think not only would we see better results from students but also many of the washed-up teachers would be gone as well.

[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]

Since I have come to a better understanding of natural rights I have changed my mind about education. Education isn’t a right anymore than a paycheck is a right. If one must work to earn their pay then one must also work to obtain an education. Education doesn’t just happen because one shows up to class on time. It is the result of many hours of study.

Quite frankly, there are many teenagers sitting in classrooms that should not be but rather should be employed or in an apprenticeship. Not everyone is suited to the classroom.[/quote]

I believe in a wealthy society such as ours it is of benefit to provide as much opportunity for education as is reasonable.

As society is footing the bill for it I think everyone has the same right to have the opportunity.

Eliminate the layers upon layers of bureaucratic administration and force schools to compete for funds.

Up here, the schools are administrated at the city/county level. There is no “federal department of education”.

That and we don’t assign students to a school based on where they live. The schools must compete for students in a free market. A student can go to any public school they choose. Concept!

The schools essentially operate as independent businesses with students as customers.

If the school sucks, less students will go there and the ones that do will have poor academic achievement, two factors which determine how much funding the school gets. If the school fails to perform for too long, it gets shut down.

If a school runs itself in an efficient manner, the students will do better and more students will enroll, bringing more funding to that school for amenities and expansion.

Public services don’t have to suck, you just have to set 'em up right.

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Eliminate the layers upon layers of bureaucratic administration and force schools to compete for funds.

Up here, the schools are administrated at the city/county level. There is no “federal department of education”.

That and we don’t assign students to a school based on where they live. The schools must compete for students in a free market. A student can go to any public school they choose. Concept!

The schools essentially operate as independent businesses with students as customers.

If the school sucks, less students will go there and the ones that do will have poor academic achievement, two factors which determine how much funding the school gets. If the school fails to perform for too long, it gets shut down.

If a school runs itself in an efficient manner, the students will do better and more students will enroll, bringing more funding to that school for amenities and expansion.

Public services don’t have to suck, you just have to set 'em up right.[/quote]

That doesn’t help kids who grew up in poverty or close to it. You won’t find too many kids who live in the projects being sent way across the city to school. They will be sent to whatever school is the closest (in most cases, in walking distance). In the end, it would mean those kids with innately more resources will have access to more resources.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
As society is footing the bill for it I think everyone has the same right to have the opportunity.[/quote]

This is my main argument for abolishing public support of education.

In a wealthy nation education could be provided to the poor by non-profit which would work to make sure only those who are benefited by it are getting it. I also think alternative education would be available to those that are not benefited by traditional classroom learning – whether that be on the job training or apprenticeships. We also need to rewrite child labor laws to allow teens the opportunity to work.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That doesn’t help kids who grew up in poverty or close to it. You won’t find too many kids who live in the projects being sent way across the city to school. They will be sent to whatever school is the closest (in most cases, in walking distance). In the end, it would mean those kids with innately more resources will have access to more resources.[/quote]

#1. Public transit?

#2. Competitive schools would improve the quality of education offered in the projects, and force those schools to offer programs that would attract students.

Say, welding and auto-mechanic options rather than history, chemistry, and physics.

My high school was in the core of the refugee/welfare neighbourhood, as close as you can get to a ghetto around these parts. It was successful because it offered apprenticeship programs and the option of taking trade-school standard core subjects, rather than unrealistically forcing everyone to take the university-standard ones.

It did offer a standard academic program for university-entry, but for every one of those classes, there were three or more being taught at the trade-school level.

If the school arrogantly demanded that all students take the “standard” university-entry curriculum, I could see more than half those kids dropping out after the tenth grade.

ElbowStrike

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We also need to rewrite child labor laws to allow teens the opportunity to work.[/quote]

You don’t ALLOW your teens to work!?!?

Twelve used to be old enough to fight “Zee Germans”.

ElbowStrike

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We also need to rewrite child labor laws to allow teens the opportunity to work.

You don’t ALLOW your teens to work!?!?

Twelve used to be old enough to fight “Zee Germans”.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

I should have stated that better. We need to remove regulations that make it more difficult for teens to work – like minimum wage and curfew laws.

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We also need to rewrite child labor laws to allow teens the opportunity to work.

You don’t ALLOW your teens to work!?!?

Twelve used to be old enough to fight “Zee Germans”.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

We hire illegals. Don’t have to pay them as much.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We also need to rewrite child labor laws to allow teens the opportunity to work.

You don’t ALLOW your teens to work!?!?

Twelve used to be old enough to fight “Zee Germans”.

ElbowStrike

I should have stated that better. We need to remove regulations that make it more difficult for teens to work – like minimum wage and curfew laws.[/quote]

And laws that limit their hours.

It would be a true paradise if we had poor kids working 60 hours a week for $ 2 an hour instead of learning how to read and write.

I doubt this will continue. I’m sorry, but I’m part of a generation that thinks we’ll ALL be rich. Competition to get into college is at a record high, and getting into grad school is even harder.

Grad school is becoming a given, like college has become in the past few decades, for a successful life.