Job insight.. More $$$ or Benefits?

[Madison]

Differently specified models.

Her specification, and thus your original specification, is that she thought someone who went to an Ivy League school should be able to get a job. The statistic you cite to "support" your case is a sample of all college grads, not the best-quality Ivy League grads who should have much, much better chances than your average grad, and finding a job at all versus finding a job in your chosen field.

If you're not picking up on things like that, maybe you should go to college.

I didn't figure you'd be dumb enough to think there are zero unemployed ivy league graduates out of that 60%, so the only problem I have is I gave you too much credit. Once a troll always a troll.

Who said it was only one study? You need to wake up and pay attention. In any case, between Econ Nobel winner who specializes in labor and works with actual nation-wide data (we had fairly strict privacy protocols put in place as we worked with Census data which had been stripped of identifying characteristics) and random Internet Tough Guy who never finished college who just leads out with quips and smilies, I'm taking the Nobel winner 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

And you need to get out of my thread. You came in here, added nothing, and insulted those who were discussing something.

Glad to hear your man is such a great guy.

People who have looked at it for a profession have decided that, on average, it is a good investment. It may not be a good investment for all. But if you're 18 years old and not sure, going to college is the positive value option.

The underlined is what I've been saying. Now that you've proven that for me, you know where the door is.

"Reality" isn't for only the top what, 5% (random guess)? We all have to live in the real world, some just figure it out later than others.

Maybe you should talk to this guy.

I've extended the invite many times and I'll do it again. You want to see the real world, come on down. First beer is on me.

Nah, no beer for you, but I guess I'd let you drink my urine if you really want to.

[Matthias]

Differently specified models.

Her specification, and thus your original specification, is that she thought someone who went to an Ivy League school should be able to get a job. The statistic you cite to "support" your case is a sample of all college grads, not the best-quality Ivy League grads who should have much, much better chances than your average grad, and finding a job at all versus finding a job in your chosen field.

If you're not picking up on things like that, maybe you should go to college.

I didn't figure you'd be dumb enough to think there are zero unemployed ivy league graduates out of that 60%, so the only problem I have is I gave you too much credit. Once a troll always a troll.

You're like the guy who failed out of school but still living in the frat house. You don't work here, you don't play fantasy sports, you just hang and try and talk tough.

In any case, I never said there were zero Ivy League unemployed. I said that a statistic of all college grads, 60% not working in their area of study is a very different statistic than looking at the %age of Ivy League graduates who don't have a job. From what part of your head are you coming up with this crap?

Who said it was only one study? You need to wake up and pay attention. In any case, between Econ Nobel winner who specializes in labor and works with actual nation-wide data (we had fairly strict privacy protocols put in place as we worked with Census data which had been stripped of identifying characteristics) and random Internet Tough Guy who never finished college who just leads out with quips and smilies, I'm taking the Nobel winner 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

And you need to get out of my thread. You came in here, added nothing, and insulted those who were discussing something.

Glad to hear your man is such a great guy.

You were having a debate over something for which there is a factual answer. A college degree has a positive NPV. Whatever you think about it or however you feel about yourself going to college makes zero difference. None.

People who have looked at it for a profession have decided that, on average, it is a good investment. It may not be a good investment for all. But if you're 18 years old and not sure, going to college is the positive value option.

The underlined is what I've been saying. Now that you've proven that for me, you know where the door is.

You've been trying to say much more than that. But whatever. College isn't for everyone or rather not everyone who goes to college will find it worth it? Shocker. The same could be said of anything.

"Reality" isn't for only the top what, 5% (random guess)? We all have to live in the real world, some just figure it out later than others.

Maybe you should talk to this guy.

I've extended the invite many times and I'll do it again. You want to see the real world, come on down. First beer is on me.

Nah, no beer for you, but I guess I'd let you drink my urine if you really want to.

Point missed. Again.

But drinking your urine? Seriously? You need to get out more.

[Madison]

you just hang and try and talk tough.

Talk tough? You really didn't read this thread, did you? We were having a nice conversation until you showed up and starting insulting everyone. While others might be nice enough to just ignore you, I decided to respond politely, but after your second insulting post, I just couldn't ignore it any longer. Sorry you can't take what you dish out.

[AussieDodger]

Just have sex and get it over with

[The Artful Dodger]

I'd say the #1 problem for most kids is that they aren't taught critical thinking and how to think for themselves anymore. Earlier it was discussed at what age someone should be ready to tackle the world, for me, that is 18 years old. Several disagree with that, but if a kid is taught to think for himself and is exposed to how the real world works at a young age, there is no reason for a kid to not be ready at 18. Unfortunately school has become nothing more than "memorize this", which does no good at all.

I'll agree with schools not teaching critical thinking skills or putting them as more of an educational priority. This in some way, validates the reason why kids should go to college. In college, students aren't just taught skills on how to perform a job well. They're also being educated in the way they think. You're not likely to think so and/or you believe that way of thinking can be acquired outside of college. That's OK, it's a lot harder to quantify or attach economic value to a way of thinking than it is to an entry-level job or salary. You're also not likely to agree with my observation that those who graduated from college think differently from their counterparts who didn't go to college. This is harder for me to prove, but from what I observe, college students/graduates tend to see things from different perspectives and deal with ambiguity better than those who didn't go to college. Even those who went to college and didn't complete their degree think differently from when they first entered.

Here's an example, but it has more to do with the skill aspect of education, not the whole thing... Software engineers with a computer science background vs. software engineers who learned through work. The latter is likely the person who has a great functional knowledge/understanding of their work, the type that learned programming skills and practices through experience. They're likely equally as proficient as CS graduates in their work. However, the CS graduates are likely to approach problems a bit differently and they probably have a stronger theoretical background to solve more complex problems head-on (i.e. data mining, artificial intelligence).

Back to your point about critical thinking in primary/secondary education... you can think of education as two kinds at this stage: 1) repetition of concepts and 2) critical thinking. Kids who are likely to have mastered remembering the concepts and putting them into practice (repetition) are likely to stand the challenge of putting their knowledge to the test in more ambiguous situations (critical thinking). For whatever reason, a lot of kids struggle in the repetition stage for a lot of reasons within and beyond their control, which leads to more time re-learning and absorbing those ideas. The kids who have mastered the concepts are more likely to progress to higher-level honors and AP courses, which should enable them to explore situations that require a detailed answer. So, think of a History class, for example. If you were really great at remembering historical dates, facts, and people, then really there's no need to think of History as just that: remembering/memorizing things. You're better served thinking of History in a deeper social, cultural context, as to the how and why things happened...

There are courses that involve more critical thinking, but I think it speaks to the meritocracy (which is natural, OK, and good) and the growing socioeconomic inequality in education (which is bad). Meaning, that not only do you have winners and losers (which is natural) but the standards of education differ from school to school, place to place, private to public. The schools that better prepare those kids for college are those which are better served in getting students to think critically, which tends to be the emphasis in university education. Sadly, a lot of schools for a variety of reasons within and beyond their control, fail to do that.

[The Artful Dodger]

By the way, as to our discussion on businesses failing or succeeding, this is in the scroll news window at Yahoo right now:

Fortunately, more new businesses succeed than fail. According to the Census Bureau, nearly 7 in 10 new small businesses survive at least two years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/112778/business-startup-traps-yahoo-small-business

I know we define "success" a little differently, so I'm not going to say I was right or anything, but just some food for thought.

Well, if anything, you proved me right about 3 of every 10 failing.

Having scanned through the article, I find it odd that the writer chose to conclude with that snippet you chose to highlight. It practically reads as "having your own business is hard, you'll fail (even successful albeit likely more talented people than you failed), but don't worry, nearly 7 in 10 new small businesses survive at least two years". That's misleading and irresponsible writing, IMO. If people knew that starting and operating a business is hard work, but at least 7 of 10 stay in business for at least two years, well, they might as well drop everything and get cracking on an idea. A 70% chance of getting close to reaching a break even point makes for fantastic odds, if that's what "survival" constitutes. Anyhow, results on small business failure/success rates tend to be contradictory and ambiguous, and so I won't delve deeply into that.

I will say that entrepreneurs/small business owners should go into business for the experience as the primary motivator, not just for the money. I'll also say that people should go to college or pursue a postgraduate degree for the experience mainly over just the objective of getting a good job. Both business owners and students are likely to get themselves in debt and at times, the ROI on their businesses and degrees isn't exactly ideal. Win or lose, success or failure, they'll learn important lessons that transcend their businesses and/or studies. They should think of becoming better people, not just becoming better economically. Unfortunately, that higher goal gets lost amidst the performance-obsessed culture and it's important to have that perspective going in, during, and out of the experience.

[buffalobillsrul2002]

I will say that entrepreneurs/small business owners should go into business for the experience as the primary motivator, not just for the money. I'll also say that people should go to college or pursue a postgraduate degree for the experience mainly over just the objective of getting a good job. Both business owners and students are likely to get themselves in debt and at times, the ROI on their businesses and degrees isn't exactly ideal. Win or lose, success or failure, they'll learn important lessons that transcend their businesses and/or studies. They should think of becoming better people, not just becoming better economically. Unfortunately, that higher goal gets lost amidst the performance-obsessed culture and it's important to have that perspective going in, during, and out of the experience.

This. And critical thinking is a skill that is very well-developed in college, and it's a very neat skill to have. College isn't like a technical school at all; the point of college is supposed to be that you are a "better person" coming out. Of course, many kids aren't interested in that end of it at all and therefore they fail to learn anything. In some cases, that then becomes a very poor decision if a positive ROI isn't made off of the education (which, so far in the year I've been out of school, I see that the kids with less critical thinking skills generally get the worse jobs [though not always] and end up gaining little from college). Those kids end up having to go work for years in order to get to the point that they should have been at after leaving college...

[shawngee03]

wait Madison...if you are the creator of paypal....what are you doing hanging around at the cafe. go buy and island and hang out w supermodels

PayPal Co-Founder Hands Out $100,000 Fellowships To Not Go To College
Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder and one of the first investors in Facebook, is proposing a controversial path toward more rapid innovation. Today his Thiel Foundation announced that it was giving 24 people under 20 $100,000 fellowships to drop out of school for two years to start a their own companies

.

http://financedad.com/scholarship-to-not-go-to-school-wait-what/

[The Artful Dodger]

I've been reading about the Peter Thiel program for a while now. Yesterday, the fellows were announced:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1755089/lege ... -whiz-kids

Read about what those kids accomplished, and tell me that many are capable of ever reaching that level, let alone outside of college. They likely don't need college or a fellowship program such as this because they're likely to be successful. Those kids are a one in a million find, perhaps not literally, but most at that age generally don't realize their potential, talent, and ability later (many just aren't that talented to begin with). College helps to bring that out, and even a few in the fellowship took college courses and/or used their resources to explore research opportunities.

[Madison]

Sorry for the delay guys, been really busy.

Own Paypal? That sure would be nice.