Is Higher Education All It Is Cracked Up To Be?

The standard flow of students these days is...

Go to school until Year 12
Then go to university and get a degree
Then use that degree to get a job

But is this sequence the ideal sequence - or - has everyone been sold a bill of goods and is everyone being lead down the garden path?

Personally, I think that latter. And for a variety of reasons you will see in a minute.

When I went to uni - yes, yours humbly did go - I could not understand WHY I was being taught a bunch of stuff I would not be using. In fact, I thought this before uni. I thought this in highschool.

In highschool I wondered why I was being forced to memorize so much "history" of which I had no interest. Sure it was interesting to learn about WWI and WWII. But I couldn't see how knowing this stuff to a level to pass a test, would be of benefit to me in the big wide world. The only use I could see of being FORCED to learn this history was if I wanted to go to university and learn to be a history teacher, or some kind of historian.

I had the same view of the math I was learning. I thought those who were doing "Math in Society" were learning far more practical math that had everyday applications. While I was not learning that and was, instead, learning higher level math that had no real immediate use other than learning even higher math at uni.

So while doing my B.Sc/DipEd. you can understand how I was puzzled as to WHY I would need to learn such a high level of science when the degree would enable me to only teach lower school-level science.

It's pretty hard to be enthusiastic about something that doesn't make a real lot of sense to you. So I deferred my studies. And something interesting happened. I was sent a results card half way through the year - even though I had NOT enrolled for that year. Of course, because I wasn't there and had not sat any test, my results were all "Fail."

At the end of the year I got another results card. Same result - Fail. And there was an additional note. Because I had failed the same subjects for two semesters, I was not allowed to do those particular subjects for 12 months. Well, because I had "failed" ALL subjects, I was not allowed to do any for 12 months.

Anyway. I looked at the possible rewards of continuing on. And what I had to look forward to was a $30,000 a year job - which was ok at the time. But I did some calculating and it went like this...

If I left and made $25,000 a year (the average wage), by the time I finished my degree after four years (it was a four year degree) I would have earned $100,000.

If I complete the degree I can get a $30,000 a year job - only $5,000 a year more. And at $5,000 a year more, it will take me 20 years to make up for the lost income of $100,000 I could have earned during those four years.

And if I factor in the student loan I would have to pay back should I stay, it might take an additional five years to make up the short fall. So I was looking at spending 25 years to catch up what studying for four years would cost me.

How many other business/income opportunities would I miss in those four years while I was holed up trying to learn subject matter I would never use?

And what if I wanted to do something else besides being a science teacher. Such as a Park Ranger. I'd need a science degree, but WHY. How would such a degree help me be a better ranger? How would such a degree help me be a better fighter pilot - if I joined the airforce? I could see no way it could, and all these years later I still cannot.

Police in my state have to do 12 months of uni before going to the academy. Why? How does that enable them to be better police officers? How does that enable them to interact with the public better? I cannot see how it does. And so if I wanted to be a cop, I would be doing something I felt had no bearing. So would not be enthusiastic about it. And so wouldn't do it to the best of my ability, and probably would drop out as I view it as silly.

Most staff in an office have a degree. How many tasks performed require that degree? I cannot think of any. After all, a short course in typing and using Word or Excel would teach them most of what they need to know. And the rest would be taught on the job as they learn how that business uses Word or Excel. Which means, the student loan taken to get the degree, as well as the time spent in its attainment, were not wise investments.

And of that loan... migrants tend to be more successful than people born in a country because they arrive without any ability to get into debt - even if they wanted to. And so, being forced to remain debt free, debt free becomes a habit. And instead, they invest their money.

Picture the poor student. Fresh out of uni with a debt of $20,000. They are behind the eightball. They may earn a little more than a migrant in a $25,000 process working factory job - BUT - they are paying off a debt which sets them back in more time and effort.

If you want to know something for your own sake, study it. You don't need a piece of university paper to say you studied it. Just do it.

And if you want to obtain a skill, then it can be self-taught (just like how I learned to program in Visual Basic and Delphi, how I learned to type (does it show?:o)), how I learned to code webpages by hand, and so on). If I wanted to get a job working for someone, I would present my "evidence of ability" as my way in, not some piece of university paper which doesn't let the potential employer know I can do anything other than pass a test.

I cannot see a valid reason for most people going to university. The degrees they get don't make them better able to do anything. And if anything, cost them in time, effort and money, and put them into debt before they earn anything.

AWOL

Since my last entry a tad shy of two weeks ago, I've been absent from the blogosphere. Not only haven't I written, I haven't even visted my usual blogs to see what's what.

To some, it could have appeared as if I had abandoned all of blogdom. I am sure this would have made certain people happy, and others wondering.

For those who wish I had gone first let me say, thanks for reading. For the others out here in blogsville, let me add, I will be back to regular blogging in a little while.

My absenteeism has been due to a new project I have nearing completion. As the 80/20 rule states, 80% of the work is done in the last 20% of the time. Or to put it another way, the last 20% takes up 80% of the time.

Either way, the new project has been a time drain in its creation and launch. Time I would have spent blogging, has been spent doing fiddly things to get this new beast moving.

One of the laws of motion states that is takes more energy to get a reting body moving than it does it keep it moving. And the same can be said of projects - it takes more time and effort to get them going than it does to keep them going.

All should be completed some time within the next two weeks. And normal blogging shall return - as if I (or my actions) have ever been what could be called normal.

Slave To The Govt

YOU are a child. YOU are worthless and weak. YOU must do what you are told by your betters. For you don't know how to do what's right all by yourself. You have no brain with which to form a thought to do the right thing. So says the govt.

And to demonstrate this attitude the South Australian state govt is banning plastic bags. Yep. The people of South Australia - the only state to offer money for recycled plastic bottles - has decided enough is enough. It cannot be bothered waiting for the trend to see people switch from plastic bag use to calico and those green heavy-duty plastic bags everyone is using theses days. The switching trend is happening way to slow.

And so in their parental wisdom, they are banning plastic bags.

Businesses will no longer be able to give you a plastic bag with your purchase. Otherwise THEY will be breaking the law.

And bag makers will lose what had become a nice little cash cow for them. Their investment in machinery will be worth zero. I wonder if the bank will still want the money on the loan paid back?

It's kind of funny when you think about it....

South Australia - where it is LEGAL to grow pot, but don't you dare have a plastic bag.

Many people will be in agreement with what that state govt has done. But they will fail to see the principle behind it.

If it is ok to ban plastic bags, why not all plastic used in packaging? What would rice and bread be sold in? How about the liquid laundry detergents? Bottled water? The wrapping on boxes of tea? The wrapping that covers meat. What would butchers (which is a store that sells just meat, for my American readers who don't have butcher stores) put the meat in? What about those naughty sealed magazines at the newsagents? How will people pick up their dog's poop? What about trash bags in offices, and even at home?

Logic would suggest we move to paper bags. But that requires trees to be cut down. And the same dickhead greenies who don't want plastic bags would jump up and down about that too.

I know. Why don't we just all turn our backs on modern society and go and live in a hole in the ground and wear clothing made from leaves. Greenies are such fuckers.

But back to the govt. What else does this set a precedent for? What is next on the govt hit list to tell us what to do? Mandatory "anti-smoking" injections (don't laugh, I see it going that way)? Compulsory anti-fat injections once the chemical has been perfected some more? A ban on all meat in case we could get mad cow disease? Hmmm... the meat board might be too powerful for that one.

How about gas rationing. Can only fill up on odd and even days and only put a maximum of $20 in the tank. Say good bye to courier work across the state as they all run out of gas - unless they buy directly from suppliers in 44 gallon drums and fill their vehicles at home, or pay for a permit for unlimited gas filling - now there's an idea for the govt to raise extra revenue.

The South Australian govt is now on my official "Fuckers" list.