UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
any liberal arts degree will get you on average about $58,000 a year.
more for other degrees.
maybe you should stop living in an imaginary, delusional world and stop telling so many lies.
Student Loan Debt Now Surpasses Credit Card and Auto Loan Debt
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
any liberal arts degree will get you on average about $58,000 a year.
more for other degrees.
maybe you should stop living in an imaginary, delusional world and stop telling so many lies.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
^^^^ could get you is one thing what you get is another example ...
When Clair Parker graduated from high school, her parents urged her to go to college and learn a trade. However, being a strong student and ambitious, college seemed like selling herself short. “Going to university was the automatic thing to do,” she says. “Prestige is the appropriate word to describe how university was presented to me in high school.”
Fascinated by economics and international relations, Ms. Parker signed up for political science at Carleton University in Ottawa. Although she wasn’t sure where she’d end up, she believed that getting a university education would lead her to a fulfilling career.
But when she graduated in January, 2014, she felt completely unprepared for a job related to her field. “When I came out of university, I wondered, ‘Why did I just do that?’” she laments. Ms. Parker is now patching together a living working at a restaurant and an artisan deli. She plans to enroll in a public relations program at Humber College in January, 2015, in the hope of landing a communications role in the food industry. “I just hope I come out actually employable,” she says.
Ms. Parker’s story is all too familiar. Too many young people flounder around the margins of their chosen field, bouncing from unpaid internship to short term contract to coffee shop job. Youth unemployment continues to hover stubbornly around 13 per cent, only 2 per cent lower than its peak during the recession and double the national average. And the unemployment rate doesn’t tell the whole story. According to a recent report published by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the rate of those underemployed − people stuck in part-time or low income jobs, unable to secure full-time work related to their field − is double the unemployment rate.
It seems like a bleak picture. And yet, if some politicians and employers are to be believed, Canada is facing a severe shortage of skilled labour. Last year, a Canadian Chamber of Commerce report estimated that skilled job vacancies would hit 1.5 million by 2016. Those most in demand are said to be in the STEM fields: scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians. In multiple surveys, employers complain that not only are applicants graduating from university without the needed technical knowledge, but also with a lack of soft skills such as communication, analysis and collaboration.
When Clair Parker graduated from high school, her parents urged her to go to college and learn a trade. However, being a strong student and ambitious, college seemed like selling herself short. “Going to university was the automatic thing to do,” she says. “Prestige is the appropriate word to describe how university was presented to me in high school.”
Fascinated by economics and international relations, Ms. Parker signed up for political science at Carleton University in Ottawa. Although she wasn’t sure where she’d end up, she believed that getting a university education would lead her to a fulfilling career.
But when she graduated in January, 2014, she felt completely unprepared for a job related to her field. “When I came out of university, I wondered, ‘Why did I just do that?’” she laments. Ms. Parker is now patching together a living working at a restaurant and an artisan deli. She plans to enroll in a public relations program at Humber College in January, 2015, in the hope of landing a communications role in the food industry. “I just hope I come out actually employable,” she says.
Ms. Parker’s story is all too familiar. Too many young people flounder around the margins of their chosen field, bouncing from unpaid internship to short term contract to coffee shop job. Youth unemployment continues to hover stubbornly around 13 per cent, only 2 per cent lower than its peak during the recession and double the national average. And the unemployment rate doesn’t tell the whole story. According to a recent report published by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the rate of those underemployed − people stuck in part-time or low income jobs, unable to secure full-time work related to their field − is double the unemployment rate.
It seems like a bleak picture. And yet, if some politicians and employers are to be believed, Canada is facing a severe shortage of skilled labour. Last year, a Canadian Chamber of Commerce report estimated that skilled job vacancies would hit 1.5 million by 2016. Those most in demand are said to be in the STEM fields: scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians. In multiple surveys, employers complain that not only are applicants graduating from university without the needed technical knowledge, but also with a lack of soft skills such as communication, analysis and collaboration.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
Yo uncle buck
Regardless of who’s to blame, a gap has emerged between young people’s expectations for their future (as cultivated by social norms, parents and even some guidance counsellors) and the realities of the labour market.
“We’ve directed kids to university who would normally not have gone to university because we’ve said that it’s the path to success,” says Janet Lane, director of the Centre for Human Capital Policy at the Canada West Foundation. “It’s an expensive way to learn what you’re best at.”
So wherein lies the truth? Is a university education still the leg up that it once was? A close look at the numbers reveals a more nuanced story, in which the right sort of education is still the best route to a good job, decent income and, even better, health and happiness. But what makes an education relevant to this brave new world doesn’t fit neatly into the “skills shortage” narrative, and not all universities are delivering.
Ms. Parker wishes her high school and university had done a better job of providing accurate information about viable career paths. “The Carleton website lists jobs you can get with specific degrees and under political science, it lists ‘diplomat.’ How many people get a poli sci degree and go on to become a diplomat?”
So if young people need to readjust their expectations for their future, what should they expect? How can they reconcile the story told by those decrying Canada’s shortage of skilled workers with the grim job market their generation is experiencing? And what kind of education will equip them to succeed?
ARE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEGREES THE ANSWER?
“Our national welfare, our defense, our standard of living could all be jeopardized by the mismanagement of this supply and demand problem in the field of trained creative intelligence,” said James Killian, former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. If Mr. Killian had used today’s preferred phrase of “STEM worker” instead of “trained creative intelligence” you could easily imagine his comment fitting into the debate over a skills gap today. But, in fact, he said this in 1934.
The point is that we’ve heard this refrain for decades: Too few young people are studying technical fields like science and engineering, companies can’t find qualified employees and it threatens our countries’ competitive advantage. So, get a degree in STEM and you’re practically guaranteed a job – right?
This is where the mystery begins. Why do so many people with STEM degrees end up in non-STEM jobs? According to a study conducted by the U.S. Commerce Department, only 25 per cent of the 15 million Americans who have a STEM degree work in a STEM job. And of all the people working in STEM fields, less than half hold a STEM degree. So, at least in the United States, you don’t necessarily need a STEM degree for a STEM job and if you do get one, it won’t guarantee a job in the field anyway.
Regardless of who’s to blame, a gap has emerged between young people’s expectations for their future (as cultivated by social norms, parents and even some guidance counsellors) and the realities of the labour market.
“We’ve directed kids to university who would normally not have gone to university because we’ve said that it’s the path to success,” says Janet Lane, director of the Centre for Human Capital Policy at the Canada West Foundation. “It’s an expensive way to learn what you’re best at.”
So wherein lies the truth? Is a university education still the leg up that it once was? A close look at the numbers reveals a more nuanced story, in which the right sort of education is still the best route to a good job, decent income and, even better, health and happiness. But what makes an education relevant to this brave new world doesn’t fit neatly into the “skills shortage” narrative, and not all universities are delivering.
Ms. Parker wishes her high school and university had done a better job of providing accurate information about viable career paths. “The Carleton website lists jobs you can get with specific degrees and under political science, it lists ‘diplomat.’ How many people get a poli sci degree and go on to become a diplomat?”
So if young people need to readjust their expectations for their future, what should they expect? How can they reconcile the story told by those decrying Canada’s shortage of skilled workers with the grim job market their generation is experiencing? And what kind of education will equip them to succeed?
ARE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEGREES THE ANSWER?
“Our national welfare, our defense, our standard of living could all be jeopardized by the mismanagement of this supply and demand problem in the field of trained creative intelligence,” said James Killian, former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. If Mr. Killian had used today’s preferred phrase of “STEM worker” instead of “trained creative intelligence” you could easily imagine his comment fitting into the debate over a skills gap today. But, in fact, he said this in 1934.
The point is that we’ve heard this refrain for decades: Too few young people are studying technical fields like science and engineering, companies can’t find qualified employees and it threatens our countries’ competitive advantage. So, get a degree in STEM and you’re practically guaranteed a job – right?
This is where the mystery begins. Why do so many people with STEM degrees end up in non-STEM jobs? According to a study conducted by the U.S. Commerce Department, only 25 per cent of the 15 million Americans who have a STEM degree work in a STEM job. And of all the people working in STEM fields, less than half hold a STEM degree. So, at least in the United States, you don’t necessarily need a STEM degree for a STEM job and if you do get one, it won’t guarantee a job in the field anyway.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
Yo uncle lol
HOW DOES A DEGREE RELATE TO A GOOD LIFE?
In April of this year, Statistics Canada released a new report that tracked people who graduated from university in 2010. It found that two years after graduation, the unemployment rate among graduates who entered the work force (didn’t go back to school for more training) was 5 per cent, two points lower than the national average. More interestingly, this number is unchanged from five years earlier when the economy was at the height of the boom. Average salaries for bachelor’s degree holders actually saw a 7-per-cent increase over that period after being adjusted for inflation.
So while it’s undeniable that this period of economic stagnation has affected the job market for young people more than older workers, a bachelor’s degree appears to insulate graduates from the harsh job market experienced by their non-educated peers. But not all university educations were created equal. As we’ve discovered, getting a STEM degree does not necessarily guarantee a job. So what should students concerned about their future look for in their university education?
David Helfand, president of the liberal arts institution Quest University in British Columbia, argues that we shouldn’t conflate education and training, that a university education ought to be about learning to think, not about acquiring a set of employable skills. To illustrate his point he recalls a conversation he had with Shirley Bond, B.C.’s minister for jobs, tourism and skills training. “A Quest education sounds great for some students,” he recalls her saying. “But B.C. needs 40,000 pipe fitters and you aren’t going to send them to me.” Dr. Helfand’s response: “That’s true, but we might supply the one person who can show you why you only need 10,000 pipe fitters.” The idea that learning to think, regardless of a student’s field of study, will prepare them for the real world may be difficult for young people to swallow while coping with anxiety about their future. But a new survey of 30,000 college and university graduates published by Gallup and Purdue University contains quantitative ammunition in support of Dr. Helfand’s assertion that education is about something more fundamental than gaining skills for a job.
HOW DOES A DEGREE RELATE TO A GOOD LIFE?
In April of this year, Statistics Canada released a new report that tracked people who graduated from university in 2010. It found that two years after graduation, the unemployment rate among graduates who entered the work force (didn’t go back to school for more training) was 5 per cent, two points lower than the national average. More interestingly, this number is unchanged from five years earlier when the economy was at the height of the boom. Average salaries for bachelor’s degree holders actually saw a 7-per-cent increase over that period after being adjusted for inflation.
So while it’s undeniable that this period of economic stagnation has affected the job market for young people more than older workers, a bachelor’s degree appears to insulate graduates from the harsh job market experienced by their non-educated peers. But not all university educations were created equal. As we’ve discovered, getting a STEM degree does not necessarily guarantee a job. So what should students concerned about their future look for in their university education?
David Helfand, president of the liberal arts institution Quest University in British Columbia, argues that we shouldn’t conflate education and training, that a university education ought to be about learning to think, not about acquiring a set of employable skills. To illustrate his point he recalls a conversation he had with Shirley Bond, B.C.’s minister for jobs, tourism and skills training. “A Quest education sounds great for some students,” he recalls her saying. “But B.C. needs 40,000 pipe fitters and you aren’t going to send them to me.” Dr. Helfand’s response: “That’s true, but we might supply the one person who can show you why you only need 10,000 pipe fitters.” The idea that learning to think, regardless of a student’s field of study, will prepare them for the real world may be difficult for young people to swallow while coping with anxiety about their future. But a new survey of 30,000 college and university graduates published by Gallup and Purdue University contains quantitative ammunition in support of Dr. Helfand’s assertion that education is about something more fundamental than gaining skills for a job.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
wrong may be some grads on this site might chime in and give you a wake up call there sunny boy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lege-grads-have-a-job-related-to-their-major/
First, a significant number of college grads appear to be underemployed: In 2010, only 62 percent of U.S. college graduates had a job that required a college degree.
Second, the authors estimated that just 27 percent of college grads had a job that was closely related to their major. It's not clear that this is a big labor-market problem, though — it could just mean that many jobs don't really require a specific field of study. (You can find Abel and Dietz's longer paperhere, and note that they are excluding people with graduate degrees in this second chart — so no doctors, lawyers, college professors, etc.)
There's an important twist here, too. The chances of finding a job related to your degree or major go up a few points if you move to a big city:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lege-grads-have-a-job-related-to-their-major/
First, a significant number of college grads appear to be underemployed: In 2010, only 62 percent of U.S. college graduates had a job that required a college degree.
Second, the authors estimated that just 27 percent of college grads had a job that was closely related to their major. It's not clear that this is a big labor-market problem, though — it could just mean that many jobs don't really require a specific field of study. (You can find Abel and Dietz's longer paperhere, and note that they are excluding people with graduate degrees in this second chart — so no doctors, lawyers, college professors, etc.)
There's an important twist here, too. The chances of finding a job related to your degree or major go up a few points if you move to a big city:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
and still nothing but anecdotal evidence.
college grads with any degree are far less likely to be unemployed. the stats don't lie, canuck kiddo.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
america has a lot to learn when it comes to schooling and thems are facts ther sunny boy
Millions of laid-off American factory workers were the first to realize that they were competing against job seekers around the globe with comparable skills but far smaller paychecks. But a similar fate also awaits workers who aspire to high-skilled, high-paying jobs in engineering and technical fields unless this country learns to prepare them to compete for the challenging work that the new global economy requires.
Q. & A. With Arthur Levine
By DAVID FIRESTONE
A longtime critic of the quality of teacher preparation in the United States.
The New York Times
The American work force has some of the weakest mathematical and problem-solving skills in the developed world. In a recent survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a global policy organization, adults in the United States scored far below average and better than only two of 12 other developed comparison countries, Italy and Spain. Worse still, the United States is losing ground in worker training to countries in Europe and Asia whose schools are not just superior to ours but getting steadily better.
The lessons from those high-performing countries can no longer be ignored by the United States if it hopes to remain competitive.
Finland: Teacher Training
Though it dropped several rankings in last year’s tests, Finland has for years been in the highest global ranks in literacy and mathematical skills. The reason dates to the postwar period, when Finns first began to consider creating comprehensive schools that would provide a quality, high-level education for poor and wealthy alike. These schools stand out in several ways, providing daily hot meals; health and dental services; psychological counseling; and an array of services for families and children in need. None of the services are means tested. Moreover, all high school students must take one of the most rigorous required curriculums in the world, including physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, music and at least two foreign languages.
But the most important effort has been in the training of teachers, where the country leads most of the world, including the United States, thanks to a national decision made in 1979. The country decided to move preparation out of teachers’ colleges and into the universities, where it became more rigorous. By professionalizing the teacher corps and raising its value in society, the Finns have made teaching the country’s most popular occupation for the young. These programs recruit from the top quarter of the graduating high school class, demonstrating that such training has a prestige lacking in the United States. In 2010, for example, 6,600 applicants competed for 660 available primary school preparation slots in the eight Finnish universities that educate teachers.
The teacher training system in this country is abysmal by comparison. A recent report by the National Council on Teacher Quality called teacher preparation programs “an industry of mediocrity,” rating only 10 percent of more than 1,200 of them as high quality. Most have low or no academic standards for entry. Admission requirements for teaching programs at the State University of New Yorkwere raised in September, but only a handful of other states have taken similar steps.
Finnish teachers are not drawn to the profession by money; they earn only slightly more than the national average salary. But their salaries go up by about a third in the first 15 years, several percentage points higher than those of their American counterparts. Finland also requires stronger academic credentials for its junior high and high school teachers and rewards them with higher salaries.
Canada: School funding
Canada also has a more rigorous and selective teacher preparation system than the United States, but the most striking difference between the countries is how they pay for their schools.
American school districts rely far too heavily on property taxes, which means districts in wealthy areas bring in more money than those in poor ones. State tax money to make up the gap usually falls far short of the need in districts where poverty and other challenges are greatest.
Americans tend to see such inequalities as the natural order of things. Canadians do not. In recent decades, for example, three of Canada’s largest and best-performing provinces — Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario — have each addressed the inequity issue by moving to province-level funding formulas. As a recent report by the Center for American Progress notes, these formulas allow the provinces to determine how much money each district will receive, based on each district’s size and needs. The systems even out the tax base and help ensure that resources are distributed equitably, not clustered in wealthy districts.
These were not boutique experiments. The Ontario system has more than two million public school students — more than in 45 American states and the District of Columbia. But the contrast to the American system could not be more clear. Ontario, for example, strives to eliminate or at least minimize the funding inequality that would otherwise exist between poor and wealthy districts. In most American states, however, the wealthiest, highest-spending districts spend about twice as much per pupil as the lowest-spending districts, according to a federal advisory commission report. In some states, including California, the ratio is more than three to one.
This has left 40 percent of American public school students in districts of “concentrated student poverty,” the commission’s report said.
Shanghai: Fighting Elitism
China’s educational system was largely destroyed during Mao Zedong’s “cultural revolution,” which devalued intellectual pursuits and demonized academics. Since shortly after Mao’s death in 1976, the country has been rebuilding its education system at lightning speed, led by Shanghai, the nation’s largest and most internationalized city. Shanghai, of course, has powerful tools at its disposal, including the might of the authoritarian state and the nation’s centuries-old reverence for scholarship and education. It has had little difficulty advancing a potent succession of reforms that allowed it to achieve universal enrollment rapidly. The real proof is that its students were first in the world in math, science and literacy on last year’s international exams.
One of its strengths is that the city has mainly moved away from an elitist system in which greater resources and elite instructors were given to favored schools, and toward a more egalitarian, neighborhood attendance system in which students of diverse backgrounds and abilities are educated under the same roof. The city has focused on bringing the once-shunned children of migrant workers into the school system. In the words of the O.E.C.D, Shanghai has embraced the notion that migrant children are also “our children” — meaning that city’s future depends in part on them and that they, too, should be included in the educational process. Shanghai has taken several approaches to repairing the disparity between strong schools and weak ones, as measured by infrastructure and educational quality. Some poor schools were closed, reorganized, or merged with higher-level schools. Money was transferred to poor, rural schools to construct new buildings or update old ones. Teachers were transferred from cities to rural areas and vice versa. Stronger urban schools were paired with rural schools with the aim of improving teaching methods. And under a more recent strategy, strong schools took over the administration of weak ones. The Chinese are betting that the ethos, management style and teaching used in the strong schools will be transferable.
America’s stature as an economic power is being threatened by societies above us and below us on the achievement scale. Wealthy nations with high-performing schools are consolidating their advantages and working hard to improve. At the same time, less-wealthy countries like Chile, Brazil, Indonesia and Peru, have made what the O.E.C.D. describes as “impressive gains catching up from very low levels of performance.” In other words, if things remain as they are, countries that lag behind us will one day overtake us.
The United States can either learn from its competitors abroad — and finally summon the will to make necessary policy changes — or fall further and further behind. The good news is that this country has an impressive history of school improvement, as reflected in the early-20th-century compulsory school movement and the postwar expansion, which broadened access to college. Similar levels of focus and effort will be needed to move forward again.
Millions of laid-off American factory workers were the first to realize that they were competing against job seekers around the globe with comparable skills but far smaller paychecks. But a similar fate also awaits workers who aspire to high-skilled, high-paying jobs in engineering and technical fields unless this country learns to prepare them to compete for the challenging work that the new global economy requires.
Q. & A. With Arthur Levine
By DAVID FIRESTONE
A longtime critic of the quality of teacher preparation in the United States.
The New York Times
The American work force has some of the weakest mathematical and problem-solving skills in the developed world. In a recent survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a global policy organization, adults in the United States scored far below average and better than only two of 12 other developed comparison countries, Italy and Spain. Worse still, the United States is losing ground in worker training to countries in Europe and Asia whose schools are not just superior to ours but getting steadily better.
The lessons from those high-performing countries can no longer be ignored by the United States if it hopes to remain competitive.
Finland: Teacher Training
Though it dropped several rankings in last year’s tests, Finland has for years been in the highest global ranks in literacy and mathematical skills. The reason dates to the postwar period, when Finns first began to consider creating comprehensive schools that would provide a quality, high-level education for poor and wealthy alike. These schools stand out in several ways, providing daily hot meals; health and dental services; psychological counseling; and an array of services for families and children in need. None of the services are means tested. Moreover, all high school students must take one of the most rigorous required curriculums in the world, including physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, music and at least two foreign languages.
But the most important effort has been in the training of teachers, where the country leads most of the world, including the United States, thanks to a national decision made in 1979. The country decided to move preparation out of teachers’ colleges and into the universities, where it became more rigorous. By professionalizing the teacher corps and raising its value in society, the Finns have made teaching the country’s most popular occupation for the young. These programs recruit from the top quarter of the graduating high school class, demonstrating that such training has a prestige lacking in the United States. In 2010, for example, 6,600 applicants competed for 660 available primary school preparation slots in the eight Finnish universities that educate teachers.
The teacher training system in this country is abysmal by comparison. A recent report by the National Council on Teacher Quality called teacher preparation programs “an industry of mediocrity,” rating only 10 percent of more than 1,200 of them as high quality. Most have low or no academic standards for entry. Admission requirements for teaching programs at the State University of New Yorkwere raised in September, but only a handful of other states have taken similar steps.
Finnish teachers are not drawn to the profession by money; they earn only slightly more than the national average salary. But their salaries go up by about a third in the first 15 years, several percentage points higher than those of their American counterparts. Finland also requires stronger academic credentials for its junior high and high school teachers and rewards them with higher salaries.
Canada: School funding
Canada also has a more rigorous and selective teacher preparation system than the United States, but the most striking difference between the countries is how they pay for their schools.
American school districts rely far too heavily on property taxes, which means districts in wealthy areas bring in more money than those in poor ones. State tax money to make up the gap usually falls far short of the need in districts where poverty and other challenges are greatest.
Americans tend to see such inequalities as the natural order of things. Canadians do not. In recent decades, for example, three of Canada’s largest and best-performing provinces — Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario — have each addressed the inequity issue by moving to province-level funding formulas. As a recent report by the Center for American Progress notes, these formulas allow the provinces to determine how much money each district will receive, based on each district’s size and needs. The systems even out the tax base and help ensure that resources are distributed equitably, not clustered in wealthy districts.
These were not boutique experiments. The Ontario system has more than two million public school students — more than in 45 American states and the District of Columbia. But the contrast to the American system could not be more clear. Ontario, for example, strives to eliminate or at least minimize the funding inequality that would otherwise exist between poor and wealthy districts. In most American states, however, the wealthiest, highest-spending districts spend about twice as much per pupil as the lowest-spending districts, according to a federal advisory commission report. In some states, including California, the ratio is more than three to one.
This has left 40 percent of American public school students in districts of “concentrated student poverty,” the commission’s report said.
Shanghai: Fighting Elitism
China’s educational system was largely destroyed during Mao Zedong’s “cultural revolution,” which devalued intellectual pursuits and demonized academics. Since shortly after Mao’s death in 1976, the country has been rebuilding its education system at lightning speed, led by Shanghai, the nation’s largest and most internationalized city. Shanghai, of course, has powerful tools at its disposal, including the might of the authoritarian state and the nation’s centuries-old reverence for scholarship and education. It has had little difficulty advancing a potent succession of reforms that allowed it to achieve universal enrollment rapidly. The real proof is that its students were first in the world in math, science and literacy on last year’s international exams.
One of its strengths is that the city has mainly moved away from an elitist system in which greater resources and elite instructors were given to favored schools, and toward a more egalitarian, neighborhood attendance system in which students of diverse backgrounds and abilities are educated under the same roof. The city has focused on bringing the once-shunned children of migrant workers into the school system. In the words of the O.E.C.D, Shanghai has embraced the notion that migrant children are also “our children” — meaning that city’s future depends in part on them and that they, too, should be included in the educational process. Shanghai has taken several approaches to repairing the disparity between strong schools and weak ones, as measured by infrastructure and educational quality. Some poor schools were closed, reorganized, or merged with higher-level schools. Money was transferred to poor, rural schools to construct new buildings or update old ones. Teachers were transferred from cities to rural areas and vice versa. Stronger urban schools were paired with rural schools with the aim of improving teaching methods. And under a more recent strategy, strong schools took over the administration of weak ones. The Chinese are betting that the ethos, management style and teaching used in the strong schools will be transferable.
America’s stature as an economic power is being threatened by societies above us and below us on the achievement scale. Wealthy nations with high-performing schools are consolidating their advantages and working hard to improve. At the same time, less-wealthy countries like Chile, Brazil, Indonesia and Peru, have made what the O.E.C.D. describes as “impressive gains catching up from very low levels of performance.” In other words, if things remain as they are, countries that lag behind us will one day overtake us.
The United States can either learn from its competitors abroad — and finally summon the will to make necessary policy changes — or fall further and further behind. The good news is that this country has an impressive history of school improvement, as reflected in the early-20th-century compulsory school movement and the postwar expansion, which broadened access to college. Similar levels of focus and effort will be needed to move forward again.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
But when you break it down even 4th year american university student is still stupid to a gade 12 person in Europe pretty sad Eh
how stupid do you have to be told you are before you realize that
how stupid do you have to be told you are before you realize that
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
Here some more stupid for you no wonder that was a hit are you smarter then a 4th grader only in the usa here Buck she must be dabbing you think
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
do they not teach canucks how to speak english?
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
No worries about me there dude no need to be upset either you just need to understand that your not number one at anything ,, Owe wait you are number 1 in debt that is about it
honestly if you want to really look at where usa falls in smartness here just for you buck make sure you look where Canada is and where USA is lol
Complete Rankings:
1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong
3. South Korea
4. Japan (tie)
4. Taiwan (tie)
6. Finland
7. Estonia
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. Canada
11. Poland
12. Vietnam
13. Germany
14. Australia
15. Ireland
16. Belgium
17. New Zealand
18. Slovenia
19. Austria
20. United Kingdom
21. Czech Republic
22. Denmark
23. France
24. Latvia
25. Norway
26. Luxembourg
27. Spain
28. Italy (tie)
28. United States (tie)
30. Portugal
31. Lithuania
32. Hungary
33. Iceland
34. Russia
35. Sweden
36. Croatia
37. Slovak Republic
38. Ukraine
39. Israel
40. Greece
41. Turkey
42. Serbia
43. Bulgaria
44. Romania
45. UAE
46. Cyprus
47. Thailand
48. Chile
49. Kazakhstan
50. Armenia
51. Iran
52. Malaysia
53. Costa Rica
54. Mexico
55. Uruguay
56. Montenegro
57. Bahrain
58. Lebanon
59. Georgia
60. Brazil
61. Jordan
62. Argentina
63. Albania
64. Tunisia
65. Macedonia
66. Saudi Arabia
67. Colombia
68. Qatar
69. Indonesia
70. Botswana
71. Peru
72. Oman
73. Morocco
74. Honduras
75. South Africa
76. Ghana
honestly if you want to really look at where usa falls in smartness here just for you buck make sure you look where Canada is and where USA is lol
Complete Rankings:
1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong
3. South Korea
4. Japan (tie)
4. Taiwan (tie)
6. Finland
7. Estonia
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. Canada
11. Poland
12. Vietnam
13. Germany
14. Australia
15. Ireland
16. Belgium
17. New Zealand
18. Slovenia
19. Austria
20. United Kingdom
21. Czech Republic
22. Denmark
23. France
24. Latvia
25. Norway
26. Luxembourg
27. Spain
28. Italy (tie)
28. United States (tie)
30. Portugal
31. Lithuania
32. Hungary
33. Iceland
34. Russia
35. Sweden
36. Croatia
37. Slovak Republic
38. Ukraine
39. Israel
40. Greece
41. Turkey
42. Serbia
43. Bulgaria
44. Romania
45. UAE
46. Cyprus
47. Thailand
48. Chile
49. Kazakhstan
50. Armenia
51. Iran
52. Malaysia
53. Costa Rica
54. Mexico
55. Uruguay
56. Montenegro
57. Bahrain
58. Lebanon
59. Georgia
60. Brazil
61. Jordan
62. Argentina
63. Albania
64. Tunisia
65. Macedonia
66. Saudi Arabia
67. Colombia
68. Qatar
69. Indonesia
70. Botswana
71. Peru
72. Oman
73. Morocco
74. Honduras
75. South Africa
76. Ghana
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
Sure there are college and university recent grads on this site ask them how many got a high paying job in the field they studied or working as a waiter now ??? just saying or growing n selling dope to make ends meet
most importantly ask them what year they think they will have there tuition loan paid off lol wen there 40 ?? 50 ??? does that debt cause them issues in purchasing a house or having anymore credit or with there lower paying job they have now there locked up and can not get ahead living paycheck to paycheck chasing bills
most importantly ask them what year they think they will have there tuition loan paid off lol wen there 40 ?? 50 ??? does that debt cause them issues in purchasing a house or having anymore credit or with there lower paying job they have now there locked up and can not get ahead living paycheck to paycheck chasing bills
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
Nearly half of American households are just one paycheck away from financial disaster despite D.C. touting an economic recovery, a new survey indicates.
To make matters worse, another survey found that many Americans’ finances have not recovered from the 2008 economic meltdown.
The most disturbing finding from the new data: A full 43 percent of US households would not be able pay their bills if they went one month without a paycheck, The Springleaf Financial Strength Survey found. They are living on the verge of poverty with no savings.
Other findings from Springleaf’s poll of 2,010 US consumers included:
For Those Who Desperately Want Out Of The Rat-Race But Need A Steady Stream Of Income
“We were surprised to see that nearly 20 percent of adults don’t have enough of a cushion to last two weeks without a paycheck,” said Springleaf Executive Vice President of Marketing and Analytics Dave Hogan. “What was especially surprising is that this is true across all education and salary levels.”
Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
A second poll, The Consumer Sentiment Survey of 1,000 adults from McKinsey & Company, was just as disturbing, and mirrored the Springleaf findings. It indicated that many Americans are worse off economically than they were in 2012. It found:
“There is no doubt that predicting the vitality and future growth of the American economy is a tricky science,” McKinsey & Company said in a release. “Since the system is so heavily dependent on consumer spending, much depends on the level of confidence Americans have about their jobs, their cash flow, the value of discretionary spending, and the strength of the overall economy. We find … that because inflation-adjusted median household income has dropped over the past few years, consumers are feeling reluctant to increase spending and are instead remaining thrifty.”
Said Springleaf’s Hogan, “We are concerned that so many Americans aren’t willing to take the time to learn the skills they need to make better financial decisions,” said Hogan. “As money management remains a challenge among consumers, the study serves as an eye opener to just how critical financial education is among today’s adults – and how far we still have to go.”
It looks as if the economic recovery is not occurring for large numbers of Americans. Instead, nearly half the population is struggling to survive.
To make matters worse, another survey found that many Americans’ finances have not recovered from the 2008 economic meltdown.
The most disturbing finding from the new data: A full 43 percent of US households would not be able pay their bills if they went one month without a paycheck, The Springleaf Financial Strength Survey found. They are living on the verge of poverty with no savings.
Other findings from Springleaf’s poll of 2,010 US consumers included:
- 26 percent admitted that they did not save money or rarely save money.
- 24 percent of those polled acknowledged they have less than $250 left in their bank account at the end of the pay period.
- 10 percent said they had less than $50 left by the time payday rolls around.
- 27 percent of respondents with graduate degrees admitted they would have to sell property or borrow money to pay bills if they missed one paycheck.
For Those Who Desperately Want Out Of The Rat-Race But Need A Steady Stream Of Income
“We were surprised to see that nearly 20 percent of adults don’t have enough of a cushion to last two weeks without a paycheck,” said Springleaf Executive Vice President of Marketing and Analytics Dave Hogan. “What was especially surprising is that this is true across all education and salary levels.”
Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
A second poll, The Consumer Sentiment Survey of 1,000 adults from McKinsey & Company, was just as disturbing, and mirrored the Springleaf findings. It indicated that many Americans are worse off economically than they were in 2012. It found:
- 40 percent of consumers surveyed said they lived paycheck to paycheck, up from 31 percent in 2012.
- 39 percent of those surveyed are worried about losing their jobs, roughly the same as 2012.
- 40 percent of American families making less than $75,000 a year admitted that they were cutting back on spending.
“There is no doubt that predicting the vitality and future growth of the American economy is a tricky science,” McKinsey & Company said in a release. “Since the system is so heavily dependent on consumer spending, much depends on the level of confidence Americans have about their jobs, their cash flow, the value of discretionary spending, and the strength of the overall economy. We find … that because inflation-adjusted median household income has dropped over the past few years, consumers are feeling reluctant to increase spending and are instead remaining thrifty.”
Said Springleaf’s Hogan, “We are concerned that so many Americans aren’t willing to take the time to learn the skills they need to make better financial decisions,” said Hogan. “As money management remains a challenge among consumers, the study serves as an eye opener to just how critical financial education is among today’s adults – and how far we still have to go.”
It looks as if the economic recovery is not occurring for large numbers of Americans. Instead, nearly half the population is struggling to survive.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
my claim that any college degree will allow you to earn more money has nothing to do with the anecdotal, unsupported claim you are trying to make. kiddo.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
No what you are lacking is the understanding that you think college degrees will in fact give you more money when in fact its not a guarantee .
like saying if you do not smoke you will not get lung Cancer
did you know that 20 percent of the people that die from lung cancer every year never smoked ??
your being hogwashed into thinking anything different , If schooling educated people on how to manage there spending people would have money truth is most crucial things needed in the work force is not taught in school
and like i said we just have to wait and see who here that are undergraduates have a job in there field ????
this is what its all about really
like saying if you do not smoke you will not get lung Cancer
did you know that 20 percent of the people that die from lung cancer every year never smoked ??
your being hogwashed into thinking anything different , If schooling educated people on how to manage there spending people would have money truth is most crucial things needed in the work force is not taught in school
and like i said we just have to wait and see who here that are undergraduates have a job in there field ????
this is what its all about really
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
when did i say it was guaranteed?
i just posted all the studies which show that college graduates, even those with liberal arts degrees (ONOZ! LIBERAL ARTS!) make way more money than high school grads.
everything you are arguing is irrelevant to what i am arguing, or not even stated by me.
you are very dumb and bad at debate.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
But here is the real kick in the ass
After kids get their degrees, the prospects of making that hard-earned money and study pay off aren’t great. Youth unemployment in December 2014 was 13.5%. A recent report from the Canadian Labour Congress says the underemployment rate – those working in jobs unrelated to their field after graduating – is about twice the unemployment rate. This means that less than three-quarters of Canadian graduates are able to land an entry-level job in their area of study.
Here’s a different scenario: What if kids took the $68,933 for their degree and invested it, instead of spending four years at school? Assuming a 5% return annually over 45 years, it would be worth about $619,364. Plus they’d be able to get started early and spend four extra years working as baristas, dog-walkers or rock stars.
In the extreme scenario that they lived at home with Mom and Dad, and could bank 100% of their after-tax earnings from the $30,817 average high school grad employment income for four years, and invest it at 5% through retirement, they’d have about another $800,000. So call it $1.4 million extra going into retirement from bringing in money during the first four years after high school instead of shelling out. Not bad. Not that $1.4 million would buy them nearly as much in 45 years’ time, but still, it’s not chump change.
But do you think that graduate that spent 4 years in school will have more money when they retire ??? lets not forget it probably that student loans are free up to 6 months but who can pay that off so 4 years later @ 8.5 percent interest rates sure add up fast to being so in debt its not even funny yup smile the government put that hook in your mouth at the beginning of your life never to get off now your living paycheck to paycheck for the remaining of your sorry life
After kids get their degrees, the prospects of making that hard-earned money and study pay off aren’t great. Youth unemployment in December 2014 was 13.5%. A recent report from the Canadian Labour Congress says the underemployment rate – those working in jobs unrelated to their field after graduating – is about twice the unemployment rate. This means that less than three-quarters of Canadian graduates are able to land an entry-level job in their area of study.
Here’s a different scenario: What if kids took the $68,933 for their degree and invested it, instead of spending four years at school? Assuming a 5% return annually over 45 years, it would be worth about $619,364. Plus they’d be able to get started early and spend four extra years working as baristas, dog-walkers or rock stars.
In the extreme scenario that they lived at home with Mom and Dad, and could bank 100% of their after-tax earnings from the $30,817 average high school grad employment income for four years, and invest it at 5% through retirement, they’d have about another $800,000. So call it $1.4 million extra going into retirement from bringing in money during the first four years after high school instead of shelling out. Not bad. Not that $1.4 million would buy them nearly as much in 45 years’ time, but still, it’s not chump change.
But do you think that graduate that spent 4 years in school will have more money when they retire ??? lets not forget it probably that student loans are free up to 6 months but who can pay that off so 4 years later @ 8.5 percent interest rates sure add up fast to being so in debt its not even funny yup smile the government put that hook in your mouth at the beginning of your life never to get off now your living paycheck to paycheck for the remaining of your sorry life
Last edited:
Similar threads
