• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cost of High School Dropouts Draining US Taxpayer

Education pays; there really is no way of denying it!

ep_chart_001.JPG


The U.S. will require an even greater emphasis on education if we wish to remain competitive in the globalized information based economy of the present and future.

Yes because employers use degrees as simplistic gate keepers.
Having lots of money pays too.
 
Yes because employers use degrees as simplistic gate keepers.
Having lots of money pays too.

Regardless of your valuation of tertiary education, the facts speak for themselves.
 
Is it an addiction to low skilled labor? Or an addiction to low paid labor? Because those are two mutually exclusive things.

Not really. Referring to productivity and efficiency wages demonstrates that human capital (skills) and wages have a linear relationship.
 
Regardless of your valuation of tertiary education, the facts speak for themselves.

Yes but that doesn't say that it is efficient in delivering education.
Besides the fact that the graph presents schooling as means of greater earning and not necessarily education.

The graph should read, "Schooling Pays."

I love education, I spend a great deal of my time educating myself, however, it has not brought greater pay because I don't get a piece of paper that says, "Bachelor of Arts/Science in X."
The lack of that paper, does not mean that one is not educated, less educated, unqualified, etc.
 
Some of those technical skills don't even require an education.
Hell it took me 15 minutes to learn to mig weld, time on the job perfected it.

The problem is that many employers are using degrees and certifications as gate keepers, instead of more dynamic ways of testing competency.

Well, there's a difference between knowing how to weld and being a professional welder.

My dad runs a farm and he knows how to weld, and he's usually done it himself. But lately the kind of welding he needs done is beyond his skill. That's because he hasn't gotten any training for it - he learned the basics and then worked on that by doing it.

So nowadays he has to hire a welder who runs his own mobile welding business and hires 3 other welders. He does those tougher, more complicated welding jobs. He has some certifications and he also has a portfolio of his work.

But the difference between my dad's capacity to weld and this professional's capacity weld is that, well, he's a professional. By that I mean he understands things like how different metals interact together and how to watch out for things like water traps that will cause the metal to rust and basic engineering things like stuff that will likely fall apart. My dad wouldn't know any of that stuff regarding welding because he's an amateur and he saves money by doing what he can. But the professional welder knowing intricate and detailed things about that craft is why he gets to charge $80 an hour for his services.

So on one hand you're right in that certifications and degrees are being used as gatekeepers and yardsticks for competency. But what my point is is that more technical skills require that kind of certification more than academic degrees.

And the reason why is because those technical skills are more science based than academics are. So technical skills require more education to develop those skills but also demand more pay for those skills.

I guess xkcd puts it best:

xkcd: Impostor
 
Well, there's a difference between knowing how to weld and being a professional welder.

My dad runs a farm and he knows how to weld, and he's usually done it himself. But lately the kind of welding he needs done is beyond his skill. That's because he hasn't gotten any training for it - he learned the basics and then worked on that by doing it.

So nowadays he has to hire a welder who runs his own mobile welding business and hires 3 other welders. He does those tougher, more complicated welding jobs. He has some certifications and he also has a portfolio of his work.

But the difference between my dad's capacity to weld and this professional's capacity weld is that, well, he's a professional. By that I mean he understands things like how different metals interact together and how to watch out for things like water traps that will cause the metal to rust and basic engineering things like stuff that will likely fall apart. My dad wouldn't know any of that stuff regarding welding because he's an amateur and he saves money by doing what he can. But the professional welder knowing intricate and detailed things about that craft is why he gets to charge $80 an hour for his services.

So on one hand you're right in that certifications and degrees are being used as gatekeepers and yardsticks for competency. But what my point is is that more technical skills require that kind of certification more than academic degrees.

And the reason why is because those technical skills are more science based than academics are. So technical skills require more education to develop those skills but also demand more pay for those skills.

I guess xkcd puts it best:

xkcd: Impostor

That's a fair example.
I am, by no means, a professional welder in that sort.
I just do it on the odd occasion that the guy who welds, needs to step away.

The problem I see with this whole "more education" argument, is that it isn't necessarily advocating getting people educated, but rather people need to be schooled, when one can earn an education in a variety of ways.
 
The problem is that many employers are using degrees and certifications as gate keepers, instead of more dynamic ways of testing competency.

Licensing and professional examinations play a large role in highly skilled fields. Whether is it computer science, quantitative research, engineering, health care services, you name it; having a degree in a respective field provides you with the credentials necessary to industry specific examinations.
 
Licensing and professional examinations play a large role in highly skilled fields. Whether is it computer science, quantitative research, engineering, health care services, you name it; having a degree in a respective field provides you with the credentials necessary to industry specific examinations.

That really depends though, because in a lot of those fields you need additional instruction to learn the material to pass the certification tests.
Merely getting a BS in Computer Programming isn't enough.

Instead of filling the students time with bull**** like history, college success classes, etc.
They should be learning more career related material.
 
That's a fair example.
I am, by no means, a professional welder in that sort.
I just do it on the odd occasion that the guy who welds, needs to step away.

The problem I see with this whole "more education" argument, is that it isn't necessarily advocating getting people educated, but rather people need to be schooled, when one can earn an education in a variety of ways.

With that, I absolutely agree as well.

I don't have a degree or any kind of certification. But that because I rely on on-the-job training. But there's an odd reason for this.

All my life I've worked for the family businesses. So, in my case, I've just worked for basically one employer and then developed the skills needed to help it as needed.

But it seems that most big corporations work in a different way. That is they realize they need some skills and hire someone with those skills while they need it and then fire them when they don't.

I think this is a waste of manpower and human talent, and it's one reason why I advocate corporations having more of a direct influence on the education of their employees. That is I wish corporations would be more willing to pay for the training of their employees. This helps both the employees acquire a variety of skills their employer needs and it also keeps employers a loyal base of employees to they can recruit from.
 
The U.S. will require an even greater emphasis on education if we wish to remain competitive in the globalized information based economy of the present and future.

They should require it. I agree, no good way to deny that on any level.

And that's a great wedge/philosophical issue to post to "libertarians". Yes freedom to attend or not attend school is great, and so is the freedom to not pay for others education, etc. But it is inescapable that we are in a global environment that makes all those lovely individual rights at great risk, if we do not maintain significant economic power. How they personally answer that dillemma I am keen to read.

Neocons split from anti-welfare state types on issues exactly like this. Without being a power, the U.S. can't enforce it's lofty rights, it's an acceptance of the reality of power and the necessity to defend what you want. We can't really give people to "not defend our rights", if we value those rights, just the way it is.

But then I would guess most liberals pursue the same "desire for state education" for less reasonable reasons...althought the outcome may be desireable just the same.
 
That really depends though, because in a lot of those fields you need additional instruction to learn the material to pass the certification tests.
Merely getting a BS in Computer Programming isn't enough.

Instead of filling the students time with bull**** like history, college success classes, etc.
They should be learning more career related material.

I think all college students starting from freshmen should be required to get internships, and that businesses should be required to provide them.

And not these bull**** "free worker" internships either but more patient on-the-job training internships.
 
With that, I absolutely agree as well.

I don't have a degree or any kind of certification. But that because I rely on on-the-job training. But there's an odd reason for this.

All my life I've worked for the family businesses. So, in my case, I've just worked for basically one employer and then developed the skills needed to help it as needed.

But it seems that most big corporations work in a different way. That is they realize they need some skills and hire someone with those skills while they need it and then fire them when they don't.

I think this is a waste of manpower and human talent, and it's one reason why I advocate corporations having more of a direct influence on the education of their employees. That is I wish corporations would be more willing to pay for the training of their employees. This helps both the employees acquire a variety of skills their employer needs and it also keeps employers a loyal base of employees to they can recruit from.

Agree completely.

I've worked for several employers and have a litany of skills, that aren't transferable because I'm not certified/degree'd.
I've worked as a dental lab technician, I can do the job, which requires considerable skill, but can't get past the gate keepers because I don't have a piece of paper saying I can do this.
 
Yes but that doesn't say that it is efficient in delivering education.

Nor does it say that it is inefficient either! It that truly was the case, i believe firms would have gotten the memo decades ago.

Besides the fact that the graph presents schooling as means of greater earning and not necessarily education.

People with graduate and professional degrees are highly educated; it would be silly to argue otherwise.

The lack of that paper, does not mean that one is not educated, less educated, unqualified, etc.

It does mean that your competency in that particular field of study was tested. I mean, not anyone can take the professional engineering licensing examination (you have to have an accredited degree).
 
Nor does it say that it is inefficient either! It that truly was the case, i believe firms would have gotten the memo decades ago.

But it is inefficient.
Requiring all students to take classes in subjects where they are already past the level of competency is redundant and wasteful.
An example, Intro to Micro Computers.

People with graduate and professional degrees are highly educated; it would be silly to argue otherwise.

I didn't say that, I said that assuming the only way one can get an education, is through schooling.
Not all people without graduate or professional degrees are uneducated.

It does mean that your competency in that particular field of study was tested. I mean, not anyone can take the professional engineering licensing examination (you have to have an accredited degree).

What if one can pass the test, without having the degree?
Didn't you start a successful business and then later earn your degrees?
 
That really depends though, because in a lot of those fields you need additional instruction to learn the material to pass the certification tests.
Merely getting a BS in Computer Programming isn't enough.

Agreed. But you will not be allowed to get licensed without the degree.

Instead of filling the students time with bull**** like history, college success classes, etc.
They should be learning more career related material.

If you want to critique tertiary education, you will have to present more than your specific beliefs.
 
Agreed. But you will not be allowed to get licensed without the degree.

Which is retarded, because a great many people have learned to program without the need of school.
If schools offer alternatives for those who pursued self education, I wouldn't be so resistant, but they are trying to preserve their current, quasi rent seeking behavior.

They could, test for competency, if the person passes, credit is given and the student doesn't have to waste time in a class where they already know the material.

If you want to critique tertiary education, you will have to present more than your specific beliefs.

You know they load a schedule of necessary classes down with crap, that a lot of people are already well learned in.
Not everything has to be demonstrated with empirical evidence.
 
But it is inefficient.
Requiring all students to take classes in subjects where they are already past the level of competency is redundant and wasteful.
An example, Intro to Micro Computers.

IIRC, you can always "test out" of intro courses if you possess the required skill set. Minimum proficiency examinations are surely the norm.

What if one can pass the test, without having the degree?

There will always be outliers.

Didn't you start a successful business and then later earn your degrees?

No. I started my business as a part time endeavor to pay for school.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, you can always "test out" of intro courses if you possess the required skill set. Minimum proficiency examinations are surely the norm.

Not always, depends on the school or family of schools.

There will always be outliers.

Those outliers shouldn't be ignored or scoffed away.
The fact that someone has a high degree of technical knowledge, without any serious post secondary education, should alert someone to a huge potential for talent.

No. I started my business as a part time endeavor to pay for school.

So was your success primarily because of your schooling or was it because you already had the talent to succeed?
 
Well, there's a difference between knowing how to weld and being a professional welder.

My dad runs a farm and he knows how to weld, and he's usually done it himself. But lately the kind of welding he needs done is beyond his skill. That's because he hasn't gotten any training for it - he learned the basics and then worked on that by doing it.

So nowadays he has to hire a welder who runs his own mobile welding business and hires 3 other welders. He does those tougher, more complicated welding jobs. He has some certifications and he also has a portfolio of his work.

But the difference between my dad's capacity to weld and this professional's capacity weld is that, well, he's a professional. By that I mean he understands things like how different metals interact together and how to watch out for things like water traps that will cause the metal to rust and basic engineering things like stuff that will likely fall apart. My dad wouldn't know any of that stuff regarding welding because he's an amateur and he saves money by doing what he can. But the professional welder knowing intricate and detailed things about that craft is why he gets to charge $80 an hour for his services.

So on one hand you're right in that certifications and degrees are being used as gatekeepers and yardsticks for competency. But what my point is is that more technical skills require that kind of certification more than academic degrees.

And the reason why is because those technical skills are more science based than academics are. So technical skills require more education to develop those skills but also demand more pay for those skills.

I guess xkcd puts it best:

xkcd: Impostor

$80 an hour all while getting a degree/certificate without having to take art or French.
 
I still find it astounding that 30 percent of today's youth drop out of school.

I don't find it astonishing at all. My son was well on his way to dropping out. He is very intillegent but just lost his way in the public school system. High school is really good for kids with memorization skills and who like projects and busy work. You know, the good student model that teachers love and that fit into the system. Many teachers just cannot deal with difficult and challenging students. And probably they shouldn't have to in some cases. You try to get help but the bureaucracy is hard to navigate through and justify your kid needs help. I had to eventually remove him and get him in a private school that deals with unmotivated and troubled kids. I had to cash in some IRA's to pay for it. He has now been accepted to two major universities and expects acceptance at a few more. He is a good kid with a great intellect. He made some of his own problems to be sure but he also was bullied and taken advantage of by friends and acqaintences. My son just couldn't deal with the typical immature stuff that kids do to each other.
 
I don't find it astonishing at all. My son was well on his way to dropping out. He is very intillegent but just lost his way in the public school system. High school is really good for kids with memorization skills and who like projects and busy work. You know, the good student model that teachers love and that fit into the system. Many teachers just cannot deal with difficult and challenging students. And probably they shouldn't have to in some cases. You try to get help but the bureaucracy is hard to navigate through and justify your kid needs help. I had to eventually remove him and get him in a private school that deals with unmotivated and troubled kids. I had to cash in some IRA's to pay for it. He has now been accepted to two major universities and expects acceptance at a few more. He is a good kid with a great intellect. He made some of his own problems to be sure but he also was bullied and taken advantage of by friends and acqaintences. My son just couldn't deal with the typical immature stuff that kids do to each other.

Busy work makes up the majority of assignments in school these days. Really, it's just a babysitting service.
 
FWIW, the OECD has published its latest information on educational attainment: Education at a Glance 2011 | OECD Free Preview | Powered by Keepeek Digital Asset Management | www.keepeek.com

Some highlights:

1. The U.S. decline in higher education attainment (Bachelor's Degrees/Type A-Tertiary Education) continues. The U.S. fell from 8th to 11th in the OECD from 2008 to 2009.
2. The 25-34-year old male cohort in the U.S. now has a lower level of college attainment than the age 55-64 cohort.
3. The age 25-34 cohort in the U.S. is about as educated as the age 55-64 cohort (a 0.4% higher attainment level). That's tied for worst in the OECD.
4. The increase in U.S. educational attainment from 2001 to 2009 for the age 25-34 cohort was 2.2%, 31st out of 32 OECD countries and less than one-fourth of the OECD average increase

The bottom line is that OECD countries are moving past the U.S. That trend, if not addressed, will have broad, adverse implications for U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Gimmicks such as an overemphasis on two-year degrees and alternatives to higher education (e.g., as espoused by Charles Murray, et al.) could accelerate the relative decline in the U.S. and translate into an absolute decline (already underway among male students).
 
FWIW, the OECD has published its latest information on educational attainment: Education at a Glance 2011 | OECD Free Preview | Powered by Keepeek Digital Asset Management | www.keepeek.com

Some highlights:

1. The U.S. decline in higher education attainment (Bachelor's Degrees/Type A-Tertiary Education) continues. The U.S. fell from 8th to 11th in the OECD from 2008 to 2009.
2. The 25-34-year old male cohort in the U.S. now has a lower level of college attainment than the age 55-64 cohort.
3. The age 25-34 cohort in the U.S. is about as educated as the age 55-64 cohort (a 0.4% higher attainment level). That's tied for worst in the OECD.
4. The increase in U.S. educational attainment from 2001 to 2009 for the age 25-34 cohort was 2.2%, 31st out of 32 OECD countries and less than one-fourth of the OECD average increase

The bottom line is that OECD countries are moving past the U.S. That trend, if not addressed, will have broad, adverse implications for U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Gimmicks such as an overemphasis on two-year degrees and alternatives to higher education (e.g., as espoused by Charles Murray, et al.) could accelerate the relative decline in the U.S. and translate into an absolute decline (already underway among male students).

Sadly, we are already seeing that trend. Aside from the current level of outsourcing, there are also many educated foreign workers flooding this country. When I think of all of the grants available to people from other countries, grants that regular Americans almost never get, it sickens me.
 
Sadly, we are already seeing that trend. Aside from the current level of outsourcing, there are also many educated foreign workers flooding this country. When I think of all of the grants available to people from other countries, grants that regular Americans almost never get, it sickens me.

It's not just that, at least for me.
I want to finish school, but every time I attend, it's the same old crap.

I don't feel like I'm learning anything, it seriously deprives me of sleep and I wonder why I'm putting myself through this.
Plus all the nonsensical busy work, I don't always have time for.

They don't make education dynamic enough, to attract enough people.
 
Back
Top Bottom