Except that some of the most successful people in the US are not necessarily masters or higher degree holders.
Take the medical field for example. Everyone thinks docs are getting away with millions. Even NY Times posted a completely irresponsible story and opportunity for people to look up their doctor and see how much they “made”, when in reality, that was a number (often inaccurate) of how much they billed medicare. That number often included the the total billed for services, that was then used to pay overhead, salaries of nurses, salaries of techs, electric bills, rent, equipment and med costs, etc, before a doc even picked up his salary from there. Or what was the funniest, the lab director for Mayo Clinic in Rochester being quoted as one of the top 5 money-makers in the country, when actually, any lab that got ordered at Mayo, the billing department attached that poor bloke’s name to the lab billing receipt. They had to put up a press conference explaining how much he really makes, the guy was startled to find he was being accused of being a billionaire.
In reality, the people making real money in medicine aren’t the docs, or the ones with the more techincal degrees.
It’s actually the CEO’s of companies - insurance companies, healthcare systems etc. Those people MAYBE have a masters, often paid for through their work as they climbed the ladder. If you collected their information and profiled them, many of these successful businessman completed a bachelors degree and did their masters if they did one as they worked, and it was paid for by their business.
Fact is, you make a lot of money in this country with your wits and your skill.
How? In India and Pakistan, medicine is subsidized by the government. Those who study medicine for free or next to free are not the ones with mummy and daddy money, they are the ones who had the best scores in their FSc, and most of the time these kids come from working class familiies. That’s not to say that universities don’t take mummy daddy money, after all, they are there to make money as well. But if you have some kind of requirement for the education to be subsidized then there will be no such thing as minorities being pushed to the side in favor of the richer kids.
Getting into medicine in US/Canada/UK is bloody hard. The scores, marks and extra-curricular work you need to get into medicine is ridiculous. Even if you have mummy daddy money it doesn’t mean you’re going to get into a med school. If you look at just the desi population that is aiming to get into medicine I bet you majority of those kids belong to immigrant families, so they aren’t privileged middle class as you put it. And then when a kid does graduate from medical school, he has at the minimum a $100K loan, plus years of living on less than minimum wage.
To use your own words getting into STEM is bloody hard. And I agree. I didn’t just say privileged. I said middle class and privileged. The kids from such families definitely have a better chance of getting into STEM.
Everything is relative. To the middle class someone else is better off. To upper middle class the rich r better off. But all of these sections have the tools to get a fair shot at STEM.
The underprivileged minorities with history of discrimination can only dream of being in the same situation. Don forget that most immigrants who.come here have a degree and a decent job. And the background to give their kids that leg up. Plus the networking.
Sure, some segments of the poor will make it. But that wouldn’t mean it would not be institutionalized discrimination. Not because minorities are ACTIVELY blocked. But that such a policy will result in folks having more tools gain greater access to STEM since they would have better scores.
Southie you’re arguing a different point. Yes, kids from good public schools and stable backgrounds are more likely to do well, but this has nothing to do with the rise of tuition. It’s off topic. Once a kid has the grades to get in, how does he or she pay for school? That’s what we’re talking about.
Since it’s the taxpayers’ money that funds government loans, STEM courses should be given preference because a) they’re harder and are naturally lower in applicants and b) they are more likely to offer direct employment. If someone wishes to enlighten themselves through education then a library card is much more efficient than taking out a loan for tens of thousands of dollars.
I’ve never understood this either. Surely individuals who choose to study the fine arts and other soft subjects are aware that jobs, let alone lucrative jobs, in these areas are rather limited? I think that if one feels that they absolutely must acquire a degree in fine arts, one should also acquire a second degree in a more practical field.
Personally, I think the more creative fields require more than a degree in order to be successful. These also require vision, work ethic and entrepreneurial skill in addition to the knowledge gained at uni. Interestingly though, people often cite Bill Gates and other people who became quite successful without a degree as a testament to the fact that one can be successful without a degree in STEM subjects. What they conveniently fail to mention is that Bill Gates and other individuals who succeeded without a degree also had vision and a tremendous work ethic, which, sadly, many people of our generation lack.
^ Not to mention that entrepreneurship is hard! Especially nowadays. Guys like Bill Gates were more than intelligent enough to have completed tough degrees, but they took a risk instead. Ironically, this is a case for **not **going to college. And even startups nowadays are increasingly done by kids from technical universities; universities that have programs aimed at helping students get their businesses of the ground. I went to a university like this and trust me, the overwhelming majority of startups were founded by kids from engineering, not “softer” degrees.
Re posts 28 and 29, using outliers such as Gates to make ones point probably also off topic? Of course creativity entrepreneurship etc are necessary to be successful. I am not sure why anyone would be surprised that overwhelming number of startups from TECHNICAL universities would be spearheaded by students with TECHNICAL degrees. And why that observation is not off topic!
Most such startups are in “soft technologies” such as Facebook twitter etc. Which don’t need hard core engg background. You won’t find the next space program start up headed by a gee wiz kid fresh out of uni. Or the next breakthrough in genes research.
Right. I was not suggesting that startups were founded by individuals with degrees in the soft subjects. In mentioning Bill Gates, my point was that people should not use his example too liberally as a case for not going to uni as he is quite intelligent and has qualities that not everyone possesses, such as entrepreneurial skill and ingenuity, so to state that “oh, he was successful without a degree” is a bit simplistic and rather disingenuous.
My other point was that if one decides to enter a field such as psychology, philosophy, fine arts or the creative fields, such as music or drama, one will need creativity and drive, in addition to some type of entrepreneurial skill, as most people who are successful in these fields are successful largely due to their work ethic and being creative enough to look for or create opportunities for themselves where there aren’t any rather than simply thinking that their degree is enough to get them the job.
This is what happens when we don’t address the root cause of skyrocketing tuition fees. We start picking and choosing who should get subsidy and who should not. Merit and means should be the criterion for subsidy. I think Sen Elizabeth Warren is also working on ways to reduce the onerous interest rates charged on student debt. Spending on sports stadiums, paying multi million dollar salaries to coaches certainly don’t help. Making everything a rat race for faculty to advance just makes them spend more time writing proposals and publishing than teaching.
Got to address these. Rather than jump at knee jerk solutions. Though the former requires work. And the latter is easy.
Have to strongly disagree with STEM courses should be free but not arts. Thats nothing more than blatant preferential treatment.
Youre essentially saying that courses that give you a higher chance of employment after an undergrad, should be free. While the ones who have difficulty finding jobs should be charged.
Zero sense there. The aim is to make educational affordable for everyone. Not just STEM students.
If people who can find jobs dont have to pay, but those who struggle do, how does that change anything for anyone apart from STEM students.
The income and social status of the applicant should be the deciding factor when it comes to determining how much a student should pay.
By your logic, if a doctors kid want to be doctors its free. But if a poor man’s kid wants to study graphic design he has to pay. Completely disagree.
as it is in Canada, the university education is need based irrespective of what kinda degree you going to do. the return of loans must be made easier. here, students start making the payment [according to the ability to pay] six months after graduation. the interest rate is prime+1% which is quite reasonable. the system must be fair for all.
They had to put up a press conference explaining how much he really makes, the guy was startled to find he was being accused of being a billionaire.