financial aid and rants and raves

I have a post covering my first trip to the Middle East, but it needs work, and I'm not quite in full story-telling mode. I could could ruminate on the freak Halloween snowstorm, but that will come later as well. No, right now what's germinating in my brain was planted by another article on the so-called "student loan bubble." There's no such thing, of course. The out-sized growth is real, but a pin won't pop this blister. It's more like a student loan tumor, needing a scarring and painful removal.

With the college loan debt reaching historic heights, and the inability of recent grads to find employment commensurate with said debt, there's a new train of thought: don't go to college. I've covered this before, and there's a little merit to the notion, but I don't subscribe. This is where this article comes in. Aside from warning kids to avoid college debt (duh!) and possibly avoid college entirely (um, no...), the thrust of the article states that the way the colleges prepare students is based on the 50's, 60's, and 70's expectation of middle management. The paradigm changed around 1983, and those jobs are no longer needed. I've never heard the quandary framed in quite this way, but it makes sense. When America was ramping up production after WWII, more managers were needed to direct and encourage growth. America's corporate structure is now mature, with much smaller staffing needs. Moreover, much of the low level work can be done with computers, or is outsourced. Managing plants and factories isn't a viable career path either, since America really doesn't produce or build things to the extent the businesses can absorb new college graduates every year.

Ergo, the problem with college isn't so much the price, but that schools are still trying to prepare students for jobs that no longer exist because they slavishly adhere to a model no longer serving the market or their students. The answer, according to the article, is to prepare students to open their own businesses, and college isn't required for this to happen. Discounting that this ignores those looking for a specific credential (nursing, architect, engineer, etc), is it true?

Let me respond by saying that all other things being equal, completing a college degree is better than not completing a college degree. Attending some college is better than never attending college. College educated people are less likely to be unemployed, will make more money, are more likely to get married, etc. In a vacuum, college is almost always a benefit.

First, the most of the articles I read on the topic have too narrow a focus. There's no differentiation when it comes to fields of study. Are those with marketing degrees more likely to find work after graduation then those with a degree in Art? I would assume yes, but I don't have proof. Actually, the question is poorly written. Perhaps the better question would be as follows: is the job in one's field with a salary high enough the pay the bills? The art student might be working at a SoHo coffee house, but the marketing student could be fetching coffee on Madison Ave. Some will read the above example and protest that I'm limiting students to specific majors. If there is a limitation, it is placed by the job market, not hack bloggers.

When I speak at high schools, I always mention that your financial aid situation will affect your field of study. If you're borrowing 50,000 or more for a degree in Behavioral Sciences and get a job working at a half-way house earning 22,000, don't fucking complain! This was the path you chose, and you should be happy you're working in your field! Here's something else to cheer you up: your parents' basement can be made quite comfortable with the stylish but affordable furniture from Target! I personally love the footrest that doubles as storage; it's very efficient and looks good too.

Now, does this mean you can't study psychology, art, history, or any other useless liberal arts discipline? (Asks the man with a BA in Psych...), Of course not, but adjust your post-college expectations accordingly. You'll also need to carefully choose your college, limit your debt, and prepare to commute to school rather than staying in the dorms. This is good advice for anyone and any major, but if you're really passionate about a field of study with less than stellar job and salary prospects, prepare to struggle.

With that caveat out of the way, let's examine the core group referenced in the article. This cohort contains all those looking to work in business of some sort, and not in something specifically creative such as art, acting, writing fiction, etc. Ironically, I'm included, since I wanted to work in HR, not mental health. To review, as I've buried the lede like I'm trying to hide the bodies, I don't agree with the central hypothesis. Most people aren't meant to be small business owners. Moreover, some pedagogical training in hiring, labor law, business law, accounting, etc. is desirable. You're likely to end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit or tax audit otherwise. I understand the desire to get young people out of the class room and away from their computers, cell phones, and Ipads, but throwing them into the fire isn't any better.

Still, the article did get something correct. Jobs and careers are found and built primarily through networking, irrespective of the discipline. This is certainly true for myself. When I was a student here, I was active in student government; I was the student senator for 2 clubs, and the president for 2 clubs. When I interviewed here, the faculty advisor of the student senate (back in '92) was the first person I spoke to. He was a Dean by that point, and part of the search and screen committee. The best part was that I didn't sign up for the senate for any other reason except that I thought it would be fun. The free lunches were just a bonus. 8 years later, it helped me land me the best job a financial aid counselor could want. Without belaboring the point, know that the larger one's professional circle, the more likely you are to find work when needed.

Reading this nugget in the article made me realize that there may be another Freakonomics-type reason college is seen by some as less valuable today then it was 20 years ago: networking. College is all about expanding your mind and social circle. You're supposed to master new skills, meet new (i.e. different) people, be exposed to new ideas, etc. Until technology usurped our lives, colleges were experts at taking someone out of his or her comfort zone, introducing new ideas, cultures, etc. You left your high school friends, old haunts, and perhaps your home town. The transition wrecked some people, true, but those who survived gained new friends, and a new outlook. In other words, it wasn't the classes that exclusively made college so important; it was also forcing students to meet and get to know one another and have access to ideas, networks, and organizations they couldn't without college.

Although I'm implying this occured organically and automatically, it did not. For this to take place, the students must have some break from his or her life prior to college to force them to seek new friends, etc., and that has become increasingly difficult.

Part of me blames technology. Facebook, cell phones, etc. have made it very easy to maintain ties with very little effort. As such, there is less impetus to reach out and be challenged by life when you're always surrounded (virtually) with those you already know and are comfortable with. It's like living in a small town online, with no push to expand one's horizons.

Another facet of this problem is cultural. Those of us in higher education have a term: helicopter parents. If you detect a note of derision, congratulations; you've been paying attention. These parents hover around their children, jumping into the fray whenever their precious little progeny has some much as a minor disagreement with an RA over the cleanliness of their dorm room. Naturally, we hate parents like this. I deal with this occasionally, argueing about everything from loan limits to taking to many classes to academic issues preventing their darling little babies from getting financial aid. On that note, here's a tip: don't excuse your son's atrocious grades on some phantom learning disability. If there's a quantifiable problem, the college is required to accommodate you. This does not mean you don't have to pass your classes.

I could rail further about these parents, and snidely comment how you are actually hurting your kids by babying them. I could further twist the knife by saying that the real world will not do the same. Employers, lovers, the courts, and all others in the adult world will not give a fuck about your little sweetheart's ADHD and how it makes it impossible to complete work assignments, or hold a serious conversation over dinner, or how it meant that you really wanted to to call a cab after drinking yourself blind, but the new Angry Birds level came out and you got distracted and got a DWI driving home. Instead I'll just smile, secure in knowing that life is going to kick the living shit out of these brats, and I shall laugh. I'll also avoid downtown bar areas like the Fukishima power plant. It's better to laugh at home. Actually, I shouldn't crow that much. While typing this, I'm jumping between 4 webpages, checking email, and using Youtube to listen to the Xanadu soundtrack (Don't. Fucking. Ask.). By the way, Olivia Newton John was much hotter than I remember; of course, I was pre-puberty. Where was I? Oh yes, ADHD.

Colleges will reply that they families are purchasing an education, not a stay in a resort. While I agree, the price of college does cause certain expectations from parents and students alike. The overdoes of parental involvement isn't helpful to the students, and annoying to the colleges. I do understand why parents would want to intervene on the child's behalf. The colleges are ultimately correct, however. Parents don't realize (or have forgotten) that the payoff for all this money is paid over the course of one's life after college, not during. While in school, kids are getting a dose of adult life and responsibility in a controlled setting, so back off a bit and let them stand on their own. They will also learn to resolve interpersonal issues themselves, like adult are forced to do. This is even more vital for the army of only children America has spawned. They (and everyone else) will be better for it.

If I am correct, and the unspoken benefit of college - networking - has been compromised due to a number of factors; what should one do about it?

The answer will have to come in new post. I've rambled long enough for now.