Because it's too fucking expensive and we've reached the point where most men would rather work an almost exclusively male trade than sit on their ass getting fat in a cubicle full of infographics about microaggressions
Part of a cadre of advisers deployed by the state to prod more Tennessee high school graduates into college, the women in this conference room have suddenly found their jobs to be much harder.
I was speaking from experience. The job was soul-suckingly dull already, but then around 2011/2012 the building started filling with posters telling us 'It's not banter, it's ABUSE' and the competitive performance stats were taken off the wall to avoid upsetting people who were perpetually shit at their job, I bailed.
A decade ago they were cheering this. This was the 'end of men', 'men are finished,' etc. Women were so much smarter and better because they were going to college and men weren't.
Actual smart people explained the trend: when women take something over it dies. The fact that more women than men were going to college was a sign of decline.
The underhanded subversive methods and goals of critical studies, and their passively aggressive advocacy for the destruction of Western culture and society, are particularly suited to the female temperament.
The agents and dupes of neo-Marxism captured and destroyed the higher learning.
It's still a pipeline to sinecures in all levels of the establishment bureaucracy, providing political indoctrination that ensures ideological conformity. Colleges still have a monopoly on scientific and technological training and research. Though Elon Musk is finding ways to get around it, he and others who want to work outside the established technocracy need people trained in the sciences.
The second letter to the editor here, from another 'unfortunate', is written by a 19th century London strumpet with no formal education. Compare that to any writings coming out of Harvard and it's clear that our educational institutions are actively retarding.
Forcing people into debt slavery for the privilege of severe intellectual injury is abhorrent. It is only reasonable to forgive all student loans after these malicious institutions and their assets have been seized and their records destroyed. If anyone has accidentally gained useful skills from these most deleterious programs, it will be easily demonstrable without requiring the presentation of a certificate of indoctrination.
"you don't pay a prostitute for sex; you pay them to leave"
This adage ignores all the men with zero game. However, just pointing that out also ignores that many of those men are also such spergs that they wouldn't have the confidence to even hire a whore.
College is a very expensive display of loyalty to the regime. It used to be education and then it became a proxy IQ test but now it's just a loyalty test. Unfortunately any position of influence is gated behind this very expensive loyalty test. It would be almost trivial to start a cheap, effective and fast post-secondary school- and the federal government would immediately go to war with it for ignoring TITLE 1-TTILE ∞, and no corporation or government agency would hire graduates.
Creating organizations that are resistant to sovereign powers is necessary but may be impossible. Look at Assange if you want to see what happens when an organization attempts to operate outside of the approval of sovereign powers.
We have tons of federal employment regulations already, why not add another? Make it illegal to require a college degree, period. Companies can still require trade school, technical school, or completion of specific coursework as proof of proficiency in a skill. Combine with stripping endowments from the universities. Boom you've just set the establishment Left back 30 years.
Two paragraphs before (still lacking other examples):
Other headlines include the ones about resurgent scams and scandals that have forced taxpayers to assume the debt of students whose colleges and universities misled them. The U.S. Department of Education in June discharged $5.8 billion worth of federal loans borrowed by students of the defunct for-profit Corinthian Colleges, for example. Cases such as that have “really put a sour taste in the mouths of some people,” Hicks said.
It linked an article about the loan discharge decision, which has several links. The article itself only mentions misleading job placement rates and ability to transfer credits to some other institutions.
One might guess there would be more of that to find if they ever looked into some specific departments in presumably every liberal arts school.
Going to college is downright dangerous if you're not going into a professional license-controlled field (like law or medicine).
All of our statistics show that college grads earn more than non-college grads, but they don't tell you the details of that stat.
If you take 4 years of college, and you take a highschool grad who starts working immediately, the life-time earnings of a college grad will be larger than that of a highschool grad. However, by definition, the rate of yearly earnings changes, so there is a period of time where the highschool grand out-earns the college grad because the college grad is still in college.
So for example: After 1 year out of highschool, say by Age 19: the highchooler nets $28 k, and then the college grad nets $0. After 2 years, the highschooler nets 29 k, and the college grad $0. That's total earnings of : ($59k : $0k)
We get a table that looks something like this, the values are notional:
Age 19 - $28k : $0k | TE - $29k : $0k
Age 20 - $29k : $0k | TE - $59k : $0k
Age 21 - $30k : $0k | TE - $87k : $0k
Age 22 - $31k : $0k | TE - $118k : $0k
Age 23 - $32k : $32k | TE - $150k : $32k
...
Age 51 - $60k : $88k | TE - $1.452m : $1.740m (let us assume peak earning years)
...
Age 65 - $58k : $84k | TE - $2.277m : $2.942k (end of working life)
Obviously, from the table, there should be a point where the life-time net earnings of the college grad out-earn that of the highschooler. Something like this data point:
Age 38 - $47k : $62k | TE - $750k : $752k
The financial logic here is that even the cost of the total student loan debt, which may be as high as $80k for a 4 year degree, can absolutely be offset by the large increase in life-time earnings. Especially if those total earnings are closer to $500k and up. Overall, it's a good benefit.
But all of this data is based on earlier generations, where that was true. These calculations take in college students got out of college and walked into a middle management job. It was also a time when blue-collar work, even when skilled, wasn't going to make you $80k a year. And when it was true, that age of cross-over point, where the the total earnings of the college grad surpassed the highschooler... was at the age of 40.
By taking 4 years of work experience out of your life, it took you 19 years to catch up, assuming the highschooler NEVER pursues a degree later in life. That's a fucking dangerous investment, but the only reason it works is if the life-time earnings completely out-weight that delay, by $500k.
HOWEVER, that's even later than my example data where the college grad has the same yearly income out of college as the highschool does after 4 years of work experience. Worse, my example assumes the college grad gets an increase in pay of $2k every year, whereas the highschooler gets only an increase of $1k a year. In previous eras, it was safe to ASSUME that that would be true, the college grad gets into management earlier, he gets to protect his higher value income longer into life, his job options are more competitive, and he can walk out of college with a job. Hell, there was once upon a time in the land of boomer-ville, where a college grad would have a higher starting salary than a highschool grad with 4 years of work experience.
Now, let's be more realistic to our era! Let's say :
The college grad gets the same job as the highschooler did, because they are both entering the workforce with 0 years of work experience.
The college grad needs a year off to "find himself"
The highschooler follows a technical career path: The highschooler focuses on a technical skill after 10 working years, where he increases by $2k a year. (Tier 2 skillset) After another 10 working years, he's getting $3k a year. (Tier 3 skill set)
The college grad goes into a managerial career path, where he gets into a safe salary job which increases his pay $15k every 5 years, but he only gets to that point after the first 10 years of his working life.
As before, they will both stop increasing thier earnings at Age 56, and will remain constant for five years, after 5 years they will lose $1k in annual salary.
Now what do our table look like:
Age 19 - $28k - $00k | TE - $00k : $00k
Age 20 - $29k - $00k | TE - $57k : $00k
Age 21 - $30k - $00k | TE - $87k : $00k
Age 22 - $31k - $00k | TE - $118k : $00k
Age 23 - $32k - $00k | TE - $183k : $00k (CG "finds himself" for a year)
Age 29 - $38k - $33k | TE - $363k : $183k (HG begins Tier 2)
Age 35 - $50k - $53k | TE - $633k : $416k (CG gets first managerial promotion)
Age 39 - $58k - $53k | TE - $853k : $628k (HG begins Tier 3)
Age 40 - $61k - $68k | TE - $914k : $696k (CG gets middle managerial promotion)
Age 45 - $76k - $83k | TE - $1.264m : $1.051m (CG gets upper-middle managerial promotion
Age 50 - $91k - $98k | TE - $1.689m : $1.579m (CG gets upper managerial promotion
Age 51 - $94k - $98k | TE - $1.783m : $1.579m (Peak Earnings reached)
Age 65 - $92k - $96k | TE - $3.084m : $2.936 (End of Earnings)
There is no crossing point. The college grad never out-earns the highschool grad. What we're looking at is that the middle managerial elite come out slightly worse than anyone driving themselves forwards in work experience alone. This is why they have to use protectionism, regulation, and racketeering to keep skilled labor from out-earning and out-competing them. Our generation has been completely fucked by going to college, and it didn't really help that much in the first place. Worse, the person who comes out of college is not going to be the type of person who's going to easily push up the corporate ranks every five years with his innovative thinking and strategy. Instead, they are going to be useless pets and golden handcuff slaves who just diddy-bop around until another corporate overlord takes pitty on them. The fall in their wages is going to be more serious, and much earlier, and might precipitate a change of careers.
The person with income 4 years earlier as higher potential investment income, which is ignored because this is "earnings" not net worth. I don't think I've ever seen one of these analyses factor that in.
I'm making the calculations as simple as I can to explain why college might not be being taken up, given the lack of real profit off of the investment.
In the other direction, this is assuming that no one has any kind of income while attending college.
We could add that in, but we're still talking quite small amounts. $10k-$15k a year I suppose.
You can get highest level degrees from Scottish Universities for like 10% the money. In the northern cities you will also easily find a job to pay for housing and amenities.
If you are into engineering or medical direction Eastern Europe can provide education for 5% the money.
Most of you have at least one ancestor from a European country so get a fucking passport to be able to move and learn a second language like French or German.
This is actually an interesting idea to me. What's the situation for English speakers? Should I tell my son to speed some Eastern European language if he wants a degree without college debt?
Something I rarely see mentioned in these discussions is the impact of COVID vaccines and lockdowns/restrictions.
When COVID hit, many students decided to defer a year, waiting either for vaccine requirements to go away, or for restrictions to lift. When these dragged on and lasted longer than one year, a significant number of these students ended up never going to college. I suspect this is why there's a significant drop in enrollment for recent years.
Maybe these facts will lead more employers to ignore degrees, to stop automatically believing a degree confers some sort of general suitability for employment (it never has) and focus on actual applicant skills that mesh with their needs. Internships!
It would also be helpful for high schools to emphasize vocational skills again and get away from this college grooming nonsense, but expecting any sort of public school reform is futile.
They're easy, with no real way to measure success.
If you work in a factory or in a trade, it's a simple matter to quantify your performance against your peers: how many widgets did you produce, how many service calls did you complete? What is your defect rate and how many customers called again?
Now think of a single performance metric for a guidance counselor or HR person? I can't. Teachers have graduation rates, but look at how they've dumbed down the curriculum and ended standardized testing to keep those artificially high.
Even more nebulous Blue collar work like custom or artisanal works can I have performance metrics, unlike these busywork jobs the women are doing.
For example I work for a high-end kitchen design and appliance company and hand make many items.
Where my metrics come in, given each project has its own bid, is how much I can be trusted to work in excellence and not have my work eye-fucked by quality control. My shit never needs to be sent back to me to be finished again.
Or, how often a repair is needed. Shitty welders don't last long at my job.
Because it's too fucking expensive and we've reached the point where most men would rather work an almost exclusively male trade than sit on their ass getting fat in a cubicle full of infographics about microaggressions
"The women".
Yeah, there's another problem.
I was about to post the second quote when I saw you beat me to it.
I was speaking from experience. The job was soul-suckingly dull already, but then around 2011/2012 the building started filling with posters telling us 'It's not banter, it's ABUSE' and the competitive performance stats were taken off the wall to avoid upsetting people who were perpetually shit at their job, I bailed.
Notice that this is the government paying for marketing.
A decade ago they were cheering this. This was the 'end of men', 'men are finished,' etc. Women were so much smarter and better because they were going to college and men weren't.
Actual smart people explained the trend: when women take something over it dies. The fact that more women than men were going to college was a sign of decline.
The underhanded subversive methods and goals of critical studies, and their passively aggressive advocacy for the destruction of Western culture and society, are particularly suited to the female temperament.
The agents and dupes of neo-Marxism captured and destroyed the higher learning.
It's still a pipeline to sinecures in all levels of the establishment bureaucracy, providing political indoctrination that ensures ideological conformity. Colleges still have a monopoly on scientific and technological training and research. Though Elon Musk is finding ways to get around it, he and others who want to work outside the established technocracy need people trained in the sciences.
The second letter to the editor here, from another 'unfortunate', is written by a 19th century London strumpet with no formal education. Compare that to any writings coming out of Harvard and it's clear that our educational institutions are actively retarding.
Forcing people into debt slavery for the privilege of severe intellectual injury is abhorrent. It is only reasonable to forgive all student loans after these malicious institutions and their assets have been seized and their records destroyed. If anyone has accidentally gained useful skills from these most deleterious programs, it will be easily demonstrable without requiring the presentation of a certificate of indoctrination.
This adage ignores all the men with zero game. However, just pointing that out also ignores that many of those men are also such spergs that they wouldn't have the confidence to even hire a whore.
Yeah, cause your average man will fuck anything after a dry spell.
College is a very expensive display of loyalty to the regime. It used to be education and then it became a proxy IQ test but now it's just a loyalty test. Unfortunately any position of influence is gated behind this very expensive loyalty test. It would be almost trivial to start a cheap, effective and fast post-secondary school- and the federal government would immediately go to war with it for ignoring TITLE 1-TTILE ∞, and no corporation or government agency would hire graduates.
Creating organizations that are resistant to sovereign powers is necessary but may be impossible. Look at Assange if you want to see what happens when an organization attempts to operate outside of the approval of sovereign powers.
We have tons of federal employment regulations already, why not add another? Make it illegal to require a college degree, period. Companies can still require trade school, technical school, or completion of specific coursework as proof of proficiency in a skill. Combine with stripping endowments from the universities. Boom you've just set the establishment Left back 30 years.
Not willing to go deeper on this one, huh?
Two paragraphs before (still lacking other examples):
That doesn't really go in depth about what the misrepresentation was.
It linked an article about the loan discharge decision, which has several links. The article itself only mentions misleading job placement rates and ability to transfer credits to some other institutions.
One might guess there would be more of that to find if they ever looked into some specific departments in presumably every liberal arts school.
Going to college is downright dangerous if you're not going into a professional license-controlled field (like law or medicine).
All of our statistics show that college grads earn more than non-college grads, but they don't tell you the details of that stat.
If you take 4 years of college, and you take a highschool grad who starts working immediately, the life-time earnings of a college grad will be larger than that of a highschool grad. However, by definition, the rate of yearly earnings changes, so there is a period of time where the highschool grand out-earns the college grad because the college grad is still in college.
So for example: After 1 year out of highschool, say by Age 19: the highchooler nets $28 k, and then the college grad nets $0. After 2 years, the highschooler nets 29 k, and the college grad $0. That's total earnings of : ($59k : $0k)
We get a table that looks something like this, the values are notional:
Obviously, from the table, there should be a point where the life-time net earnings of the college grad out-earn that of the highschooler. Something like this data point:
The financial logic here is that even the cost of the total student loan debt, which may be as high as $80k for a 4 year degree, can absolutely be offset by the large increase in life-time earnings. Especially if those total earnings are closer to $500k and up. Overall, it's a good benefit.
But all of this data is based on earlier generations, where that was true. These calculations take in college students got out of college and walked into a middle management job. It was also a time when blue-collar work, even when skilled, wasn't going to make you $80k a year. And when it was true, that age of cross-over point, where the the total earnings of the college grad surpassed the highschooler... was at the age of 40.
By taking 4 years of work experience out of your life, it took you 19 years to catch up, assuming the highschooler NEVER pursues a degree later in life. That's a fucking dangerous investment, but the only reason it works is if the life-time earnings completely out-weight that delay, by $500k.
HOWEVER, that's even later than my example data where the college grad has the same yearly income out of college as the highschool does after 4 years of work experience. Worse, my example assumes the college grad gets an increase in pay of $2k every year, whereas the highschooler gets only an increase of $1k a year. In previous eras, it was safe to ASSUME that that would be true, the college grad gets into management earlier, he gets to protect his higher value income longer into life, his job options are more competitive, and he can walk out of college with a job. Hell, there was once upon a time in the land of boomer-ville, where a college grad would have a higher starting salary than a highschool grad with 4 years of work experience.
Now, let's be more realistic to our era! Let's say :
Now what do our table look like:
There is no crossing point. The college grad never out-earns the highschool grad. What we're looking at is that the middle managerial elite come out slightly worse than anyone driving themselves forwards in work experience alone. This is why they have to use protectionism, regulation, and racketeering to keep skilled labor from out-earning and out-competing them. Our generation has been completely fucked by going to college, and it didn't really help that much in the first place. Worse, the person who comes out of college is not going to be the type of person who's going to easily push up the corporate ranks every five years with his innovative thinking and strategy. Instead, they are going to be useless pets and golden handcuff slaves who just diddy-bop around until another corporate overlord takes pitty on them. The fall in their wages is going to be more serious, and much earlier, and might precipitate a change of careers.
That's not necessarily true. Typically the highschool grad doesn't need to do permanent damage to excel at a niche skill.
I'm making the calculations as simple as I can to explain why college might not be being taken up, given the lack of real profit off of the investment.
We could add that in, but we're still talking quite small amounts. $10k-$15k a year I suppose.
You can get highest level degrees from Scottish Universities for like 10% the money. In the northern cities you will also easily find a job to pay for housing and amenities.
If you are into engineering or medical direction Eastern Europe can provide education for 5% the money.
Most of you have at least one ancestor from a European country so get a fucking passport to be able to move and learn a second language like French or German.
It might be cheaper but you're still paying for same liberal brainwashing.
Not to mention supporting the inept EU
Heidelberg is woke? Semmelweis U in Hungary? Vilnius U in Lithuania?
Say it ain't so!
This is actually an interesting idea to me. What's the situation for English speakers? Should I tell my son to speed some Eastern European language if he wants a degree without college debt?
English is especially accommodated at Semelweis U in Hungary.
Something I rarely see mentioned in these discussions is the impact of COVID vaccines and lockdowns/restrictions.
When COVID hit, many students decided to defer a year, waiting either for vaccine requirements to go away, or for restrictions to lift. When these dragged on and lasted longer than one year, a significant number of these students ended up never going to college. I suspect this is why there's a significant drop in enrollment for recent years.
Overall, good news. Much rationalization.
Maybe these facts will lead more employers to ignore degrees, to stop automatically believing a degree confers some sort of general suitability for employment (it never has) and focus on actual applicant skills that mesh with their needs. Internships!
It would also be helpful for high schools to emphasize vocational skills again and get away from this college grooming nonsense, but expecting any sort of public school reform is futile.
They're easy, with no real way to measure success.
If you work in a factory or in a trade, it's a simple matter to quantify your performance against your peers: how many widgets did you produce, how many service calls did you complete? What is your defect rate and how many customers called again?
Now think of a single performance metric for a guidance counselor or HR person? I can't. Teachers have graduation rates, but look at how they've dumbed down the curriculum and ended standardized testing to keep those artificially high.
Even more nebulous Blue collar work like custom or artisanal works can I have performance metrics, unlike these busywork jobs the women are doing.
For example I work for a high-end kitchen design and appliance company and hand make many items.
Where my metrics come in, given each project has its own bid, is how much I can be trusted to work in excellence and not have my work eye-fucked by quality control. My shit never needs to be sent back to me to be finished again. Or, how often a repair is needed. Shitty welders don't last long at my job.