In a story that rings a bit of The Emperor's New Clothes, a young girl from Missouri by the name of Kate Hodges is taking her 3.5 high school GPA and her college savings fund and heading off to Oklahoma … to go to welding school. Sounds like a career in manufacturing awaits young Ms Hodges – good for her; good for manufacturing.
Her family is none too thrilled. Apparently the President doesn't approve either. "President Barack Obama wants to restore the country's status as the world leader in the proportion of citizens with college degrees." The question that Ms. Hodges apparently asked and didn't get much of an answer to, and the question that should be asked of Mr. Obama and a lot of people is, "why?" How are we, as a nation, and a kid, as an individual, better off by pushing that kid into getting a degree in Classical Studies, for instance, than becoming a certified welder?
Just as the tailor in the Emperor's New Clothes was the only one to finally state the obvious – that the king was naked – it is good to ask the question how everyone is better off by having a degree – in anything – we just want everyone to get a degree from somewhere in something – and why?
An economics professor from Ohio U opens up a real can of worms when he points out that the number of jobs requiring a degree doesn't reach the number of kids who get degrees every year, which should come as no big surprise, and then commits heresy in many circles when he says, " If people want to go out and get a master's degree in history and then cut down trees for a living, that's fine, but I don't think the public should be subsidizing it." That takes quite a bit of integrity on his part since the need for economics professors like him would drop significantly if we only subsidized economics majors to the extent that we really need economists.
It seems to me that it would make a great deal of sense to cut down on the number of college grants doled out, focus them into needed professions, and make each grant worth more. Give out 50,000 grants for kids majoring in engineering, for instance, but only 1,000 for history majors. Make grants available for medical professionals, but not so much for philosophers. Most important, make education for kids who want to go into technical programs like Kate's welding school easy and cheap.
We collectively wring our hands at why we don't have enough people knowledgeable in the tough subjects – science and engineering, medicine and physics - then turn around and underwrite kids majoring in areas we don't need and in which they won't find work.
I doubt young Kate grappled with any of these big issues. More likely she just likes welding, and she is bright enough to figure out that her welding cert is very likely to land her a good job; while her high school classmates who go off to college for no reason other than to go to college are likely to be over-qualified sales staff in some lawn and garden center somewhere when they get out.
Regardless of the answer and the proper course for the country as a whole, and the proper use of tax dollars, I say, "Thanks Kate", for challenging the status quo and having the courage to ask the question the adults should have been asking all along – why should we spend our national treasure and strong arm our young people in a collective effort to be the "world leader in the proportion of citizens with college degrees"? Shouldn't we be the world leader in the proportion of people with education that aligns with both their economic and personal interests, and our economic and national needs?
Tom says
We live in an age where collecting badges and certificates seems to have a big focus for educational establishments. Schools where I live (England) direct most of their energy and resources to making sure people ‘pass that exam’ – to meet targets. A much better ethos would be to teach people how to learn and how to play an active role in the community.
Rob Worth says
Bill,
Is there a slight contradiction in your blog? You think it is good that Kate wants to be a welder but if she wanted to study art history that would be bad. I think if she is doing what she wants then that is good, whether that is vocational or academic. The problem is not what is economically good for the country, but what is good for the individual concerned.
I have a personal example. I did Maths, Physics and Chemistry for A-Level (I am in the UK by the way) and thought about the best use of those to get a job and decided on engineering. I then thought that electronic engineering would put me in the biggest growth area. So I started an Electronic Engineering degree. I hated it. Dull. Dull. Dull. So I switched to Mathematics which I love. I am so glad I switched even though I now never use anything I learned.
Education is an end in itself and the form of the education is irrelevant. What is important is that we all get the opportunity to educate ourselves in a way that suits us in subjects that engage us, be it forestry or classics. And society should support us in that for the general good.
Best,
Rob Worth
Bill Waddell says
Rob,
I don’t thnk there is a contradiction. I tend to agree with the professor from Ohio U when he said, “If people want to go out and get a master’s degree in history and then cut down trees for a living, that’s fine, but I don’t think the public should be subsidizing it.”
You said, “The problem is not what is economically good for the country, but what is good for the individual concerned.” It becomes the country’s problem when a kid gets a federal grant to pay for a large part of their education. It doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to me that, if the country is going to pay for it, then the country shold expect to see some benefit from it. If a kid wants to pay for his or her own, education, however, then you are right – what the country wants is of no concern.
david foster says
Her mother expressed concern that she will miss the “mind-opening” experience of college…but by willingness to consider a nontraditional path, Kate has already demonstrated more of an open mind than many.
One thing I do wonder, though: Five years from now, when she’s a successful welder and the opportunity for a management job opens up, will her lack of a degree be held against her? In many companies, the answer would be “yes.”
Dale Savage says
David has a good point. Too often companies place emphasis on those with a degree for management positions even though they may not have much practical experience. Then we wonder why they cannot effectively give direction to those whom they manage.
We expect young people to get a college education and then we bemoan the fact that they struggle with the college debt for years afterward. Some have to declare bankruptcy or face house foreclosure because they have such high college debt. Maybe young Kate has been reading about this situation and decided that it was not worth it. Could be she is planning on becoming established in her field and then plans on going back to get her management degree later. Sounds to me like she is thinking things through instead of just going with the status quo.
Bill Waddell says
My observation has been that, as is the case in so many areas, smaller and mid-sized companies – especially privately owned ones – don’t put nearly as much emphasis on a degree as the big, publicly traded ones. The likes of GE and P&G would look down their nose at her. In contrast, I am struck by how much ‘home grown’ talent there is in the smaller, leaner companies, where work ethic, practical experience, and the ability to learn seem to carry more weight than book learnin’
Dale Savage says
Those of us who only go to the 8th grade for education (we are similar to the Amish – if that means anything to you) understand the desire of Kate as well as why Bill’s comment “In contrast, I am struck by how much ‘home grown’ talent there is in the smaller, leaner companies, where work ethic, practical experience, and the ability to learn seem to carry more weight than book learnin'” is true. Without experience under one’s belt, it is difficult to apply the “book learnin'” to the actual situation. Once a person has a basic education and good, solid experience, he or she can teach themselves almost anything. Some people look down on the Amish and related groups as “stupid” but if you really look at the innovation and efficiencies that are in the workshops and farms, you would be surprised at what you would find.
Tony says
It’s time to realize that education business is about money, not learning — and that’s true for K->PHD.
Of course, the colleges are pushing for more college degrees — it’s more money. They’d hate your proposal; heck, I think a lot hate undergraduate education (after, fame comes from athletics, rich & powerful alumni, or research — not from providing an excellent undergraduate education).
And, back in the day when my parents went to college, it was possible to work your way through college. Now, it’s hard or impossible. I think a lot of time all government “aid” does is just jack prices up, benefiting the politicians (who get to dispense (other peoples’) money) and those on the receiving end, NOT the general public.
For example, the MID (mortgage interest deduction) — does it make houses more affordable, or just increase their price? Same goes for student loans; if students couldn’t go so deeply in debt, the colleges would find ways of reducing tuition or increasing their aid — or they’d lose too many students.
BTW, I thought about getting a Master’s, but decided against it; what I’m interested in isn’t taught at school.
Dan Marx says
@david foster:
Apparently, it used to be easier to get into management without a college degree-employers gave IQ tests. However, because blacks did not do as well (they score 1 standard deviation below whites-which means, fwiw, that 6 million blacks beat the average white score), the Supreme Court ruled this was discriminatory under disparate impact analysis (Griggs v. Duke Power), so now employers must use a college degree as a proxy for intelligence.
Bryan says
Great book to read on the subject: Shop Class as Soulcraft, by Matt Crawford.
david foster says
Dan…I’m familiar with the IQ test issue: but I wonder how often employers actually gave IQ tests to existing employees being considered for promotion to management. I doubt it was very common: if you’re hiring someone you don’t know anything about, the case for testing is a lot stronger than when you’re looking at promoting an existing employee who you’ve had an opportunity to get to know.
Paul T., P.E. says
A commenter asks whether she will be at a disadvantage for a management job without a college degree. Some of the most effective engineers who I know, started in the trades and later decided to be engineers. Also, though the subject student may not know this yet, many people do not find that management is the path for them.