Community colleges?

I always looked down upon them to a certain extent. I never really knew why. Maybe I thought down on the types of students they had and potenally the quality of the education. I was thinking about going to a school down in downtown Pittsburgh but it was $80,000 a year, and I'm not paying that much because;

1. Don't got the money.
2. Not paying back $350,000 in loans if I end up getting a crappy Game Design tester job making $35,000 a year for the rest of my life. Won't cut it.


So I got stuck going to community college and.... Not bad. Sure, there is a lot of 'undesirables', uh hum, but most kids here are in the same boat then me and they seem good and the teachers seem great expect for one.

Your thoughts on them?

vital and important

The fact you looked down upon them makes you a pompus jackass

I attended one briefly and took a few computer classes a few years back. They were quite informative and I too found the professors to know their stuff just as well as the professors who taught at the 4 year school I attended before that. When I was in High School, there was a community college called Massasoit Community College, we called it 'Massatoilet Community College'. Now I see that it is a pretty good school and a great opportunity for those who cannot afford a 4 year school right out of High School. Many of my HS classmates went on to 4 year schools after completing 2 years in Massatoilet or like community college. Let us all do the carebear salute to community college...right....now! *salutes (with Gina ? )* To nonbelievers? *confused* :)

Considering that my dad makes too much money for financial aid and too little money to help any of his kids in college, CC's are where we go so its cheaper for us in the long run.

I find it dispicable how much those colleges in the US cost actually. It's a disgrace.

On community colleges, well I don't know much (except for quick wikipedia look up) about those, so I'll just conclude with wishing you good luck with your studies. :)

I think the job market is to blame as to why CC are considered lower on the totem pole than non-CC colleges.
Its a fact that businesses will choose a person who graduated from a state school over a graduate from a CC with the same degree, that is, if both candidates were exactly in terms of everything except for colleges. More so if it was between a ivy-leaguer and a CC graduate.

Its quite sad, really, but thats how it is. I personally have nothing against CC.

A possibility as to why many people look down at CC is because of the caliber of some of the people attending.

2 people, IMO, who attend CC:

1)people who cant afford anywhere else
2)people who cant get in anywhere else

Sad, but true.

There's no reason to look down on them. They're a lot better value for education than expensive schools. I know a lot of people who go to CCs for two years than a public university for the last two.

CR

My two-year stint at the local community college after returning from 5 years of rockin' led to immediate employment with the state in information technology at the entry level, making about $28K per year initially as a Programmer I in '91. Within a year, I promoted to II and made $35K. By '95 I was a topped-out Associate making $55K, and by '97--taking my time and enjoying life--I was Staff making $65K. I no longer work in civil service, but Staff IT are making about $75-80K per year now (though here in California many are paying 15% back because the Governator's furloughs, gah). So 9 years total from the start of college, I went from minimum wage to the equivalent of $75K per year on a two-year degree. Masters degree graduates cannot qualify for Staff positions on education alone ... so there's something to be said for community colleges and what they offer.

If targeting the private sector, a four-year degree is advised, but the first 2-3 years can usually be done at a JC for much less than you'd pay at a university. Note that I used the term 'targeting'--my path went very smoothly because I decided on exactly what I was going to do before I did it. After that it was just keeping focus and my head to the grindstone.

Nobody should look down on community colleges. They are much more efficient and cost-effective than the standard Uni.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Nobody should look down on community colleges. They are much more efficient and cost-effective than the standard Uni.

---

Yeah, and you will actually learn something there...unlike the standard Uni. :P Seriously, the difference between the classes I took and am taking at my 4 year State Uni compared to the classes that two of my brothers and my sister took and are taking at a Technical school are outrageous.

Quote:

---

A possibility as to why many people look down at CC is because of the caliber of some of the people attending.
2 people, IMO, who attend CC:

1)people who cant afford anywhere else
2)people who cant get in anywhere else

---

That is a pretty dumb assumption though I think, because the classes at a CC (IME) are general far more difficult then those you would pursue getting your bachelors degree. The regular Uni is just a joke.
Also, why look down on someone because they cannot afford anywhere else? Does that make them stupid? Evil? Any worse that someone with more money?

Quote:

---

A possibility as to why many people look down at CC is because of the caliber of some of the people attending.
2 people, IMO, who attend CC:

1)people who cant afford anywhere else
2)people who cant get in anywhere else

---

That does not me stupid. I'm a very good student, but my family got financial problems,nothing I can do about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Yeah, and you will actually learn something there...unlike the standard Uni. :P Seriously, the difference between the classes I took and am taking at my 4 year State Uni compared to the classes that two of my brothers and my sister took and are taking at a Technical school are outrageous.


That is a pretty dumb assumption though I think, because the classes at a CC (IME) are general far more difficult then those you would pursue getting your bachelors degree. The regular Uni is just a joke.
Also, why look down on someone because they cannot afford anywhere else? Does that make them stupid? Evil? Any worse that someone with more money?

---

I never meant for the two sections to be read together.
I meant to say 2 separate thoughts, which you clearly took to mean as one.

Also, the statement I underlined is just plain wrong. I took 2 classes in philosophy, one at my local CC, one at Emory University, a private college. It was the opposite of what you said. My class at the CC was a joke, no one wanted to be there, many people were texting and spacing out in class, and my class at Emory was much better, people attended and participated and actually cared.
Just pointing that out. University, whether CC or state or private, can be either a joke or very serious. It all depends on what you do with your time there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

That does not me stupid. I'm a very good student, but my family got financial problems,nothing I can do about it.

---

I never said that people who have financial problems were stupid. I do agree though that people who look down on people who attend CC because of financial problems are jerks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I never meant for the two sections to be read together.
I meant to say 2 separate thoughts, which you clearly took to mean as one.

Also, the statement I underlined is just plain wrong. I took 2 classes in philosophy, one at my local CC, one at Emory University, a private college. It was the opposite of what you said. My class at the CC was a joke, no one wanted to be there, many people were texting and spacing out in class, and my class at Emory was much better, people attended and participated and actually cared.
Just pointing that out. University, whether CC or state or private, can be either a joke or very serious. It all depends on what you do with your time there.


I never said that people who have financial problems were stupid. I do agree though that people who look down on people who attend CC because of financial problems are jerks.

---

Actually, I was referring to a state Uni. (I suspect that it is very different at a private Uni like Emory.) My sister studied first at a state Uni, then went in and got a degree at a technical college, and she told me that the classes there were a lot more accelerated, instead of the slow-paced ones at the Uni, and that they were a lot more serious and career oriented. From what my brothers (training in electric power engineering) and others have told me about technical colleges, they seem to be a lot more difficult than a regular state Uni, and you seem to learn a heck of a lot more. I am on my fifth year in a state Uni, and I have learned jackcrap. Maybe it is different at Emory, but to me, my Uni is just a big waste of time.


Let's put it like this, from my homeschooling I tested out of calculus and statistics, and had learned discreet mathematics, and studied game-theory. Literally, getting a math degree would have probably been a two year ordeal if I had wanted to go in for it. I have done NO math at all in the last four years that I have been here, and now would probably struggle in an advanced math course. I used to be reading a book every spare chance I could get, now I just drag myself through the boring BS I am forced to read and touch nothing else, because with classes and commute I have no time at all. My intellect has rotted since I have went to college. I thought that college was supposed to make you smarter and better educated! There are so many subjects that I used to know so much about, that I have forgotten so completely since college has pushed everything out. It has done very similar things to my physical health. Frankly, I think college is the worst thing that could have happened to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Actually, I was referring to a state Uni. (I suspect that it is very different at a private Uni like Emory.) My sister studied first at a state Uni, then went in and got a degree at a technical college, and she told me that the classes there were a lot more accelerated, instead of the slow-paced ones at the Uni, and that they were a lot more serious and career oriented. From what my brothers (training in electric power engineering) and others have told me about technical colleges, they seem to be a lot more difficult than a regular state Uni, and you seem to learn a heck of a lot more. I am on my fifth year in a state Uni, and I have learned jackcrap. Maybe it is different at Emory, but to me, my Uni is just a big waste of time.


Let's put it like this, from my homeschooling I tested out of calculus and statistics, and had learned discreet mathematics, and studied game-theory. Literally, getting a math degree would have probably been a two year ordeal if I had wanted to go in for it. I have done NO math at all in the last four years that I have been here, and now would probably struggle in an advanced math course. I used to be reading a book every spare chance I could get, now I just drag myself through the boring BS I am forced to read and touch nothing else, because with classes and commute I have no time at all. My intellect has rotted since I have went to college. I thought that college was supposed to make you smarter and better educated! There are so many subjects that I used to know so much about, that I have forgotten so completely since college has pushed everything out. It has done very similar things to my physical health. Frankly, I think college is the worst thing that could have happened to me.

---

Also depends on which state school you go to. Some state schools are good, some are bad. For example, There are 2 state schools that are in GA: GA state University and Kennesaw State U. GSU is a good school, KSU is a joke.

Vuk, I have to ask. Do you go to UW-Whitewater? I remember that you live in Wisconsin and I just get the vibe that you're a Whitewater person. Also, if you were an advanced home-schooled student than college SHOULD be easy for you. General education requirements are designed for the people from lousy schools who just barely got into college and if you're use to learning information on your own than the upper level classes should be a piece of cake as well. If classes are so easy for you than you should have taken advantage of things like research(I get to study snail parasites next year!), internships, or study abroad(you went to Hungary right?). Those are things you simply can't get from a CC. However, CCs have their places. In many cases, a CC degree is considered just as good as a bachelors degree. Biotech is a specific case of this. They'll accept either degree and it is not uncommon to hear of CC biotechs making 35-45k out of college. CCs are also a good way to graduate early, by taking their cheap classes over the summer. Going to a CC for the first two years and then transferring to a 4 year college isn't a bad idea either. It is a lot cheaper and gen eds are a waste of time wherever you take them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Let's put it like this, from my homeschooling I tested out of calculus and statistics, and had learned discreet mathematics, and studied game-theory. Literally, getting a math degree would have probably been a two year ordeal if I had wanted to go in for it. I have done NO math at all in the last four years that I have been here, and now would probably struggle in an advanced math course. I used to be reading a book every spare chance I could get, now I just drag myself through the boring BS I am forced to read and touch nothing else, because with classes and commute I have no time at all. My intellect has rotted since I have went to college. I thought that college was supposed to make you smarter and better educated! There are so many subjects that I used to know so much about, that I have forgotten so completely since college has pushed everything out. It has done very similar things to my physical health. Frankly, I think college is the worst thing that could have happened to me.

---

Bro, what the hell are you studying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Bro, what the hell are you studying?

---

History. Literally, there are two classes that you should need to get a history degree 300 and 489, but instead you have to spend 4+ years of learning nothing.

Posters in this thread a mixing up 2 year vs 4 year colleges and public vs private.


A 2 year community college will give you an associates degree. This degree is not very marketable and limits your ability to apply for certain jobs. In IT it may mean a difference between tech support and programming. Having said that, a community college may be a cheap way to knock out 2 years of education and transfer to a 4 year university for the bachelors. In NJ, all community colleges have a transfer path to the state university.

In today's corporate culture a 4 year bachelor's degree is almost a must. According to the census, a holder of a bachelor's degree, earns approximately 36% more than an associate's holder. http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf

Some private universities such as Harvard are very prestigious, and will open many doors for you. However, for the vast majority of schools it's just a box to be checked off on your resume. A few years after graduation the distinction between universities fades, and your resume is driven by your work experience.

2 year private college (DeVry, Chub, etc): Don't even think about
Pros: NONE
Cons: Expensive, not marketable, credits don't transfer, very narrow education

2 year community college:
PROS: very cheap, can transfer credits towards a 4 year degree, some states provide upgrade path to state uni
Cons: Associate degree won't get you far, narrow education focused on major, smaller budgets means less experienced teachers, older equipment etc

4 year state university:
PROS: cheaper than a private school for in-state tuition, bachelor's degree, usually very large budgets, well recognized by employers regionally, wide availability of different subjects
CONS: Not recognized by employers nationally

4 year private university:
PROS: some are very well known (Harvard, etc), bachelor's degree, wide availability of different subjects, "best" national uni for a particular subject is usually private (e.g. MIT for computer science, Princeton for physics)
CONS: expensive, most are not well known, except select few budgets will be smaller than state schools

In my eyes, unless you can get into one of the nationally recognized Ivy League type private schools, the best value for your dollar is at your state school. The cost per credit is comparable to community college (for in-state residents), and often times admission gives preference to local applicants. Wide availability of federal loans and grants (www.fafsa.gov) makes it so even the poorest applicant can afford to go to a state school. Having to repay a $30-40k total loan (or less if you live at home) for an in-state bachelors is a hell of a lot less scary than borrowing $100-150k or so for a private school.

I agree with Yaropolk, but I dont think his statement about 4 year state schools

Quote:

---

CONS: Not recognized by employers nationally

---

is all that accurate. I mean, if that was true, then people would be sticking to the same place they graduated college forever, which isnt true. I think for some jobs thats true, but I think for most its not.

I agree with Yaropolk, but I dont think his statement about 4 year state schools

Quote:

---

CONS: Not recognized by employers nationally

---

is all that accurate. I mean, if that was true, then people would be sticking to the same place they graduated college forever, which isnt true. I think for some jobs thats true, but I think for most its not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

History. Literally, there are two classes that you should need to get a history degree 300 and 489, but instead you have to spend 4+ years of learning nothing.

---

I study a bit of history on the side with the aim of getting a minor degree, but it definitely ain't my major. Be that as it may, by this point, you should be able to read and think critically, have skills in research, an excellent and developed writing style, and an understanding of the history academia. Is this an undergraduate degree, btw? Not much you can do with a undergraduate degree in history. You could use it for high school teaching, but usually people use it to go on and get masters+doctorates in history to study it and teach it at the university level, or perhaps use the undergrad to get into law school (which requires those skills which I mentioned are learned through the study of history). There's a few other paths, too, but an undergraduate degree alone in history isn't worth much.

You can't at all complain about not learning math or sciences. You know why? Because you're not studying that. You're studying history; by all means, you should be a very enlightened and scholarly individual with a great understanding of the world in its current form. :shrug:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEJiOVbr03U

Yeh, it's a pretty good TV show, but season 2 isn't as good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

History. Literally, there are two classes that you should need to get a history degree 300 and 489, but instead you have to spend 4+ years of learning nothing.

---

Good luck trying to get a job. My brother (King Jan III Sobieski) has a BA in History and a MA in Liberal Arts and he is working at Target. He's book about one of our local towns is coming out next year, but that's really the only History stuff he is able to do and get paid for it and stick it on his resume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

Good luck trying to get a job. My brother (King Jan III Sobieski) has a BA in History and a MA in Liberal Arts and he is working at Target. He's book about one of our local towns is coming out next year, but that's really the only History stuff he is able to do and get paid for it and stick it on his resume.

---

lol, thank you for rubbing it in. :P

@Megas Methuselah: Are you kidding me? There are people in my 489 class (the class you need to graduate) who still can barely read...I am not kidding you. The whole darned thing is a joke. It doesn't make anyone enlightened and scholarly, it just wastes their time. No one gives a crap about their classes, don't show up a lot of time, never put an effort into anything, and still get good grades. Our professors just drone on and on about the broadest of subjects (usually just repeating what is in our reading assignment), never encouraging discussion or anything that could actually lead to learning. Yes, we have to analyze sources when we write our papers, but it does not take Dick Tracy to do that. I can spend three days reading my sources and write my paper in a single day. :P Most people wait until the last week! The rest of the semester is just an absolute waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

lol, thank you for rubbing it in. :P

@Megas Methuselah: Are you kidding me? There are people in my 489 class (the class you need to graduate) who still can barely read...I am not kidding you. The whole darned thing is a joke. It doesn't make anyone enlightened and scholarly, it just wastes their time. No one gives a crap about their classes, don't show up a lot of time, never put an effort into anything, and still get good grades. Our professors just drone on and on about the broadest of subjects (usually just repeating what is in our reading assignment), never encouraging discussion or anything that could actually lead to learning. Yes, we have to analyze sources when we write our papers, but it does not take Dick Tracy to do that. I can spend three days reading my sources and write my paper in a single day. :P Most people wait until the last week! The rest of the semester is just an absolute waste of time.

---

Didn't want to sound mean. :balloon2:



Just like in my Math class. My professor is a good guy, but last week for example, Last Thursday we saw 5 out of 18 students, and last Friday was 6 out of 18. T His happens quite often. Having 10 out of 18 like today is a rare occurrence now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

History. Literally, there are two classes that you should need to get a history degree 300 and 489, but instead you have to spend 4+ years of learning nothing.

---

Speaking as a former History major, you can't come close to fully understanding the subject even from a single undergrad degree in it, let alone two classes. If you're learning nothing, you're not trying. Why are you even majoring in a subject that you don't care about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

Good luck trying to get a job. My brother (King Jan III Sobieski) has a BA in History and a MA in Liberal Arts and he is working at Target. He's book about one of our local towns is coming out next year, but that's really the only History stuff he is able to do and get paid for it and stick it on his resume.

---

On an employment level, History is like most of the other social sciences: it's a degree that demonstrates you can learn and have mental flexibility, it's not a door to a job in and of itself. Those majors are for people who want to go into other fields which focus on mental gymnastics and non-rigid production. These are things like journalism, education, psychology, law, and entertainment. Most of these do indeed require another degree after a BA, but the social sciences BA is a very good first step for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Speaking as a former History major, you can't come close to fully understanding the subject even from a single undergrad degree in it, let alone two classes. If you're learning nothing, you're not trying. Why are you even majoring in a subject that you don't care about?



On an employment level, History is like most of the other social sciences: it's a degree that demonstrates you can learn and have mental flexibility, it's not a door to a job in and of itself. Those majors are for people who want to go into other fields which focus on mental gymnastics and non-rigid production. These are things like journalism, education, psychology, law, and entertainment. Most of these do indeed require another degree after a BA, but the social sciences BA is a very good first step for them.

---

That is just it Tin Cow, even with an undergrad degree you will not understand the content and the scholarship of your field to even a workable extent. That is only done by extensive independent research, and is not something that a professor can or will hold your hand through. What is really important, and what college is supposed to teach you is research methods and academic protocol. That is taught in those two courses, and everything else is just BS. You get these tiny little, unhelpful previews of other fields, and occasionally something from your own, but nothing that makes you any closer to being an expert on the field.

And I never said that I do not care about History. History is my true love...it is college that I hate. A four year degree does not make you a Historian. Anything that you write will not get published and will carry no weight at all. All that you really learn about being a Historian you learn in two classes, and everything else is just a repeat of high-school where you get minimum exposure to sources and the available scholarship, and just end up learning trivia facts from tertiary sources. Sorry TC, but majoring in History is just one big waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

That is just it Tin Cow, even with an undergrad degree you will not understand the content and the scholarship of your field to even a workable extent. That is only done by extensive independent research, and is not something that a professor can or will hold your hand through. What is really important, and what college is supposed to teach you is research methods and academic protocol. That is taught in those two courses, and everything else is just BS. You get these tiny little, unhelpful previews of other fields, and occasionally something from your own, but nothing that makes you any closer to being an expert on the field.

And I never said that I do not care about History. History is my true love...it is college that I hate. A four year degree does not make you a Historian. Anything that you write will not get published and will carry no weight at all. All that you really learn about being a Historian you learn in two classes, and everything else is just a repeat of high-school where you get minimum exposure to sources and the available scholarship, and just end up learning trivia facts from tertiary sources. Sorry TC, but majoring in History is just one big waste of time.

---

Bro, did you even read his post? Eh, whatever. If it's of any comfort, though, what you describe does not at all apply to what I experience in my history courses. I don't know, man, but this appears to be another case where I should celebrate the fact that I live north of the 49th parallel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

That is just it Tin Cow, even with an undergrad degree you will not understand the content and the scholarship of your field to even a workable extent. That is only done by extensive independent research, and is not something that a professor can or will hold your hand through. What is really important, and what college is supposed to teach you is research methods and academic protocol. That is taught in those two courses, and everything else is just BS. You get these tiny little, unhelpful previews of other fields, and occasionally something from your own, but nothing that makes you any closer to being an expert on the field.

And I never said that I do not care about History. History is my true love...it is college that I hate. A four year degree does not make you a Historian. Anything that you write will not get published and will carry no weight at all. All that you really learn about being a Historian you learn in two classes, and everything else is just a repeat of high-school where you get minimum exposure to sources and the available scholarship, and just end up learning trivia facts from tertiary sources. Sorry TC, but majoring in History is just one big waste of time.

---

I agree with you that the best education a person gets in a History major are the classes which teach you how to interpret history. Those were not the most interesting classes I took, but they certainly had the longest-lasting impact on me. As for the rest being a "big waste of time," your education is exactly what you make of it. Majoring in history will not make you an expert in history, but frankly you won't be an expert in anything with just a BA or a BS. Yes, it's easier to get a job with a BS in math or engineering these days than a BA in a social science, but that has to do with the job market, not the nature of the education itself. You'll realize very soon after you start working that you know relatively little about the actual subject. Nearly all knowledge is gained by practical on-the-job experience, not undergrad schooling. Undergrad exists to sort out those who are most likely to excel in the workforce from those who are not. It's about learning the basics of adult life, responsibility, and the process of learning itself. The actual content of the courses themselves is of secondary importance to the lesson of learning themselves.

What exactly was your goal in majoring in History? What do you want to do in life? If your career objectives have nothing to do with the benefits accorded by a social sciences degree, you should seriously consider changing majors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Bro, did you even read his post? Eh, whatever. If it's of any comfort, though, what you describe does not at all apply to what I experience in my history courses. I don't know, man, but this appears to be another case where I should celebrate the fact that I live north of the 49th parallel.

---

Unfortunately you do not understand my point Megas. I have taken upper-level history courses in Europe, and was majorly unimpressed. They were ALL content! There was no required research...just lectures and essay exams. Content lectures are about as helpful to a scholar as a Wikipedia article! It does not present a look at the different arguments or require an examination of scholarly works, and you are left taking the professor's word for things. If there is one truth about history, it is that there are a million 'truths'. A historian is supposed to study scholarly works and primary sources, and try to weed out all the different 'truths' until he is left with what he thinks is likely the Truth. There are also a thousand different ways of looking at anyone thing, which makes a college lecture academically useless, as you are only getting one opinion, but not an important published one that carries any weight in its format. History is not about knowing a million trivia facts, it is about being armed with the right tools to study a subject yourself and separate the truth from the lies, understand bias, and try to find out what the heck really happened or what something really means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I agree with you that the best education a person gets in a History major are the classes which teach you how to interpret history. Those were not the most interesting classes I took, but they certainly had the longest-lasting impact on me. As for the rest being a "big waste of time," your education is exactly what you make of it. Majoring in history will not make you an expert in history, but frankly you won't be an expert in anything with just a BA or a BS. Yes, it's easier to get a job with a BS in math or engineering these days than a BA in a social science, but that has to do with the job market, not the nature of the education itself. You'll realize very soon after you start working that you know relatively little about the actual subject. Nearly all knowledge is gained by practical on-the-job experience, not undergrad schooling. Undergrad exists to sort out those who are most likely to excel in the workforce from those who are not. It's about learning the basics of adult life, responsibility, and the process of learning itself. The actual content of the courses themselves is of secondary importance to the lesson of learning themselves.

What exactly was your goal in majoring in History? What do you want to do in life? If your career objectives have nothing to do with the benefits accorded by a social sciences degree, you should seriously consider changing majors.

---

That is my point exactly TC, a degree in History CANNOT make you an expert in a certain subject of History, and it isn't supposed to! It is supposed to train you in the Historical method used by scholars to analyze history. You will not become an expert in a field (no matter how long you are in school) unless you devote years toward a serious, private, and intense study of it. A History degree is simply supposed to give you your spade, and then you are supposed to do the digging (wherever you choose). Why then do they bother with the BS content courses where you never learn about the important scholarship of a subject, really if ever consult primary sources, where debate is discouraged, and where you learn nothing of importance, save the opinions of your professor? Listening to a lecture and being expected to take it at face value (in fact, being penalized on exams if your interpretation of something differs from what the professor said in her lecture) should not be the majority of a higher-education program...like it unfortunately is. In most of my classes the research paper (which you are often expected to write using only sources from a source book that your professor gives you...even if you have access to other and better sources for your subject) is never more than 20% of my grade! It should be at least 75%! Research is what a historian is expected to do...not sit in lectures and be tested on how well he can repeat his professor's opinions!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

That is my point exactly TC, a degree in History CANNOT make you an expert in a certain subject of History, and it isn't supposed to! It is supposed to train you in the Historical method used by scholars to analyze history. You will not become an expert in a field (no matter how long you are in school) unless you devote years toward a serious, private, and intense study of it. A History degree is simply supposed to give you your spade, and then you are supposed to do the digging (wherever you choose). Why then do they bother with the BS content courses where you never learn about the important scholarship of a subject, really if ever consult primary sources, where debate is discouraged, and where you learn nothing of importance, save the opinions of your professor? Listening to a lecture and being expected to take it at face value (in fact, being penalized on exams if your interpretation of something differs from what the professor said in her lecture) should not be the majority of a higher-education program...like it unfortunately is. In most of my classes the research paper (which you are often expected to write using only sources from a source book that your professor gives you...even if you have access to other and better sources for your subject) is never more than 20% of my grade! It should be at least 75%! Research is what a historian is expected to do...not sit in lectures and be tested on how well he can repeat his professor's opinions!

---

I think this is an accurate description of the situation, but I also think that it applies to all areas of undergraduate education, not just History. There is no serious research and no serious production in any undergraduate degree, whether it be Physics, Mathematics, Philosophy, Art, Dance, or Iguana Baiting. Frankly, undergraduates are too immature and have too little knowledge to be able to do serious research and analysis, or to produce a significant work-product. By far the most enjoyable and educational part of my History major was writing my thesis. I spent three months doing full-time original research and wrote a 130+ page paper about my topic based entirely on that research. When I wrote it, I thought my knowledge and analysis was pretty impressive, that I had accomplished something significant, and that I was, in short, hot :daisy:. Looking back on it, the thesis is impressive as an undergraduate work, but it's kind of pathetic in comparison to any serious academic work. Even my high level of effort and commitment didn't come close to approaching anything that would be useful to the academic community.

Honestly, I don't know how you expect to be able to accomplish real original research as part of an undergraduate degree. That requires a level of time commitment equivalent to a full time job, and you would have no room for other studies of any kind. It would be impossible for you to do the amount of research required for just one serious paper in the span of a single semester for even a single class. Beginning to end, I worked on my thesis for a year and a half. You can't expect someone to produce work at that level every semester for every class.

Again, I think you're missing the point of the undergraduate education. You feel like you should be doing real work which is significant to the world, and gaining real knowledge which has hard, practical applications to life after graduation. I can sympathize with this feeling, as I felt that way as well. Take my word for it though, that feeling is unrealistic, and it's not what undergraduate education is intended to do. You think that because you're in college, you're mature, skilled, and worthy of serious responsibilities. Trust me, you're still very, very young and you have very little useful knowledge. The older you get, the more you realize that you didn't know :daisy: even a couple years ago, let alone when you were 19 or 20. Personally, I think anyone under the age of 30 doesn't know :daisy: about anything, they just think they do, and I'm only 32. Older people told me the same thing when I was younger, and I thought they were full of it. They're not, trust me, it's the truth.

Undergraduate education is supposed to give you the most basic knowledge required to qualify at the entrance level for the workforce, and teach you the life skills you will need to succeed in that workforce. Actual practical knowledge is imparted in other forms of education, namely Associate's and Technical degrees for low-level skilled labor, and Graduate degrees for high-level skilled labor. Even then, those degrees are still only giving you the bare-minimum knowledge required to qualify; they're not teaching you to be an expert in anything. You are correct that a four year degree does not make a Historian. However, a four year degree doesn't make you a Mathematician, an Engineer, a Dancer, a Chemist, a Politician, or a Philosopher. A four year degree makes you a college graduate, nothing more. Frankly, that's the same for all degrees. A JD doesn't make you a lawyer, an MD doesn't make you a Doctor, an MBA doesn't make you a businessman, and a PhD in History doesn't make you a Historian. The degrees qualify you for those titles, but whether you become them is a totally separate issue.

It sounds to me like what you need to do is figure out your goal in life. The wonderful thing about college is that you have the time to sit back and ponder that question. You need to identify where you want to be 10 years from now; decide exactly what you want to be doing with your life. You then need to position yourself so that your qualifications coming out of undergraduate will maximize your potential to end up where you want to go.

Also, and this is a point which I cannot stress highly enough, you need to enjoy yourself. You will only experience the level of freedom you currently have this once; you'll never get it back. Life after undergraduate is fun as well, but it's a different kind of fun. You will never again be able to live a life without real responsibilities. Don't let the experience pass you by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I agree with Yaropolk, but I dont think his statement about 4 year state schools

CONS: Not recognized by employers nationally

is all that accurate. I mean, if that was true, then people would be sticking to the same place they graduated college forever, which isnt true. I think for some jobs thats true, but I think for most its not.

---

By that I meant that inside your local region, employers will be well aware of the state school and you can get a leg up on out-of-region competition. However if you apply for a job on the other coast, chances are the employer has never heard of your school and it won't make a difference if you went to your local state U or a private school.

After your first job, your university matters even less, it's all about experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Wisdom and knoweledge.

---

What if my goal is to have sex with all the education majors in my history classes and all the bright eyed women in my Poly sci classes who think they are going to be the next big thing in politics?

AM I LEARNING SKILLZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I have taken upper-level history courses in Europe, and was majorly unimpressed. They were ALL content! There was no required research...just lectures and essay exams.

---

Yeah, I'm taking upper-level history courses right now. What you describe doesn't apply to what I experienced. Sucks to be American, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

In most of my classes the research paper (which you are often expected to write using only sources from a source book that your professor gives you...even if you have access to other and better sources for your subject) is never more than 20% of my grade! It should be at least 75%!

---

Ok, now that's just strange. In first year classes, papers were worth about 30-40 percent. But the higher you go, the more they become. In my current class, I think the paper's worth about 60% of the grade or something. Moreover, my exams aren't true/false or short-answer, trivia questions. They are essays. Last exam, we were given the topic a couple days in advance; from that, I picked my own argument and view, researched the evidence to back it up, remembered as much as I could, then wrote my essay in-class. Sure, the professor's viewpoint might influence your own, but you have the freedom to argue for whatever you want to argue.

So, why is your educational system so inferior to mine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

AM I LEARNING SKILLZ

---

Hellz yeah, esé!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

What if my goal is to have sex with all the education majors in my history classes and all the bright eyed women in my Poly sci classes who think they are going to be the next big thing in politics?

AM I LEARNING SKILLZ

---

Not only is that a worthy goal, it will indeed have practical applications after you graduate (unless you're in a small subsection of theology majors). I think your signature applies particularly well in this scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I agree with you that the best education a person gets in a History major are the classes which teach you how to interpret history. Those were not the most interesting classes I took, but they certainly had the longest-lasting impact on me. As for the rest being a "big waste of time," your education is exactly what you make of it. Majoring in history will not make you an expert in history, but frankly you won't be an expert in anything with just a BA or a BS. Yes, it's easier to get a job with a BS in math or engineering these days than a BA in a social science, but that has to do with the job market, not the nature of the education itself. You'll realize very soon after you start working that you know relatively little about the actual subject. Nearly all knowledge is gained by practical on-the-job experience, not undergrad schooling. Undergrad exists to sort out those who are most likely to excel in the workforce from those who are not. It's about learning the basics of adult life, responsibility, and the process of learning itself. The actual content of the courses themselves is of secondary importance to the lesson of learning themselves.

What exactly was your goal in majoring in History? What do you want to do in life? If your career objectives have nothing to do with the benefits accorded by a social sciences degree, you should seriously consider changing majors.

---

In the end, if you can't get a Historian job making money, it makes no difference. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Ok, now that's just strange. In first year classes, papers were worth about 30-40 percent. But the higher you go, the more they become. In my current class, I think the paper's worth about 60% of the grade or something. Moreover, my exams aren't true/false or short-answer, trivia questions. They are essays. Last exam, we were given the topic a couple days in advance; from that, I picked my own argument and view, researched the evidence to back it up, remembered as much as I could, then wrote my essay in-class. Sure, the professor's viewpoint might influence your own, but you have the freedom to argue for whatever you want to argue.

---

This is much more in line with my own experiences that what Vuk has described. One of the best things about Uni is that I have the freedom to form my own opinions and not just copy outdated rubbish out a textbook (as long as you actually back up what you are saying with references etc). In fact for the dissertation at my Uni you have to form your own viewpoint, its the main point of the project.

Heh, in the comments sections of my essays I am often told my take on things is unique, but I get the marks so its all good. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

In the end, if you can't get a Historian job making money, it makes no difference. :yes:

---

I don't think a history degree is seen as bad at all. My plan is to go into an office job, do the 9-5, rise through the ranks a bit over time, get comfortable. Then possibly do something a bit different once I have a mid-life crisis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

My plan is to go into an office job, do the 9-5, rise through the ranks a bit over time, get comfortable. Then possibly do something a bit different once I have a mid-life crisis.

---

I suggest getting caught in a police sting snorting coke off a nude tranny hooker. Your future ex-wife will have the BEST story out of all her divorcee friends. Of course the kids' therapy bills will be hefty, but you should be able to afford it by then.

Edit: Another choice would be to take up wood carving or surfing

Surfing sounds cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

What if my goal is to have sex with all the education majors in my history classes and all the bright eyed women in my Poly sci classes who think they are going to be the next big thing in politics?

AM I LEARNING SKILLZ

---

Sounds like someone needs some prev med classes.

Welcome back, Yoyoma1910! :bow: The hangover from the Super Bowl celebration finally wear off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Welcome back, Yoyoma1910! :bow: The hangover from the Super Bowl celebration finally wear off?

---

He's a handsome bugger, isn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Welcome back, Yoyoma1910! :bow: The hangover from the Super Bowl celebration finally wear off?

---

Ironically I had to spend that in enemy territory, next to some lady wearing a colts jersey no less. But that's what happens when you serve your country, sometimes you must spend winters in North Chicago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Also, and this is a point which I cannot stress highly enough, you need to enjoy yourself. You will only experience the level of freedom you currently have this once; you'll never get it back. Life after undergraduate is fun as well, but it's a different kind of fun. You will never again be able to live a life without real responsibilities. Don't let the experience pass you by.

---

Words of wisdom :yes:

Never again will you experience the combination of young-as good as no responsiblities aka absolute freedom. Enjoy it while it lasts. Do whatever you want. Obtain the degree, but, by all means, don't put too much time and effort in it or you'll regret it afterwards.

Once you get your first job, the only thing that matters is that you have a degree. How you obtained it, doesn't matter. Future employers will look at your resume. The college degree means "not a complete moron". To see if you're actually worth something, he'll look at your work experience after college.

In short: do the minimum to get the degree; enjoy your youth and freedom to the maximum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaropolk

By that I meant that inside your local region, employers will be well aware of the state school and you can get a leg up on out-of-region competition. However if you apply for a job on the other coast, chances are the employer has never heard of your school and it won't make a difference if you went to your local state U or a private school.

After your first job, your university matters even less, it's all about experience.

---

Fair enough, unless your state school is widely known, like University of Michigan or Berkeley.

My goal:

Get into the law school with the highest amount of nice jewish girls

Goy amateur.

Voilà:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

My goal:

Get into the law school with the highest amount of nice, trust fund jewish girls

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

My goal:

Get into the law school with the highest amount of nice jewish girls

---

Whats with you and Jewish girls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Whats with you and Jewish girls?

---

I like them....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I like them....

---

Speaking of girls, how's your sister doin' these days? Been awhile since we talked about the pretty little thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I like them....

---

I keep telling you that if you convert your chances will go up fivefold.
Just sayin'