Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    A college degree is nothing more than your "union card", "ticket",
    "entry fee", or whatever you want to call it.
    
    You should be judged by the quantity and quality of the work that you
    do, but, times are ah' changing...you gotta have that "entry fee" to
    even show 'em what you cna do...
    
    Jerry

When I first started looking for a job as a programmer, I found that some
companies wouldn't accept an application from a non-degreed applicant (for
a programming job).  If I remember correctly, they would have accepted one
for a computer operator without a degree.

My brother also told me that some companies (I believe American Airlines was
one of them) won't promote you above certain levels without certain degrees,
that to be a manager at certain levels you're required to have a masters
degree.

Due to the difficulties I ran into with no degree and no experience, I chose
to get the degree (along with the experience).  If I should ever decide to
look elsewhere, then I shouldn't run into many closed doors. 

    
    
    But does having a degree ensure the employer that the employee
    is capable of doing the job?  To me, the degree shows that
    the employee completed x amount of schooling, but in practical
    application what does it ensure?  That degreed person may get
    his or her foot in the door with the piece of paper, but that 
    doesn't guarantee a greater level of productivity or expertise 
    than someone who hasn't had the schooling and has spent the 
    same number of years in the workforce.  Of course, my way of
    thinking won't work in fields such as the medical field and
    other things along those lines (who'd want to have surgery 
    done by someone who had been practicing on flour sacks in their
    garage??!! :^} ) but in the business world I see good people
    being held back.
    
    It's too bad that people can't be recognized for the great
    potential and drive that they have without spending x years
    buried in textbooks.
    
    Cherie                            
    
      

Re: .1 by MORO::BEELER_JE,

>    A college degree is nothing more than your "union card", "ticket",
>    "entry fee", or whatever you want to call it.

I beg to differ. A college degree is a lot more than a union card, 
ticket, or entry fee. It is formal proof that the person has (at 
least) attended and (hopefully) passed exams to prove their
proficiency in various subjects. They have met the requirements for
success in the job they are applying for. 

That's not to say that a non degreed person has not somehow 
managed to attain the same knowledge, education and proficiency. 
It simply mean that a non degreed person has not yet **proved** that
they have. 

I think the hiring manager who rejects a non degreed person is
making a mistake. Experience shows that attaining the equivalent
level of knowledge through self study is a lot more difficult than
going through school. A person who has succeeded in doing so on
their own are going to be of a higher value than a college
graduate. 

-- Ron

.5> I beg to differ. A college degree is a lot more than a union card, 
.5> ticket, or entry fee. It is formal proof that the person has (at 
.5> least) attended and (hopefully) passed exams to prove their
.5> proficiency in various subjects. They have met the requirements for
.5> success in the job they are applying for. 
    
    One of the best VAX engineers that DEC has has a degree in physical
    chemistry.  One of the best micro-code programmers that DEC has (she
    did a lot of the BI work) has a degree in music from Oberlin.  My PhD
    is in Physics and I'm a Sales Executive.
    
    In my previous life (non-DEC) I hired people with degrees in English,
    as programmers for some weapons programs...I could (did) teach him to
    program ... I liked his attitude, demeanor, etc...and, the degree told
    me little about the guy other than it was "required" for the position.
    
    For the most part, the four year degree means that a person "stuck it
    out" for four years of whatever...no...I disagree...the degree is still
    pretty much of a union card.
    
    The General

    re: .6
    
    Please don't judge me too harshly, but I would refuse to work for an
    employer that treated my soon-to-be B.S. in Computer Engineering in the
    same manner as a degree in "basketweaving".  Regardless of the ability
    of the "basketweaving" graduate to learn the same technical information
    that I have, I already know it.  In some positions, the technical
    background is essential, and the on-the-job training would have to be
    so extensive that the employee is better off attending school.
    
    I'm not saying that people can't pursue other interests.  Some of my
    friends that have graduated from college are entering fields that have
    little or nothing to do with their college discipline.  Hopefully,
    university study has not only provided an educational background, but
    also some direction in choosing a vocation.  
    
    Also, academic achievement is an important criteria.  Barely getting a
    diploma (eg. straight D's) can be an indication that the student did
    not absorb a lot of the material that was required in that program.  Of
    course, that can be found out soon enough with a quick quiz.  I
    remember in one interview I was asked some technical questions to
    which I had no answer.  I was honest and said I didn't know, but the
    engineer could have easily known whether or not I really knew the
    answers.
    
       - Larry
                                    

    Several of these replies have indicated that job knowledge -- whether
    obtained through formal education or on-the-job training -- should be
    the key factor in whether an individual is qualified for a given 
    position.  To the extent that this is true, a college degree should
    carry no more weight than equivalent job experience.
    
    BUT -- and it's a big but -- there is a presumption that someone who
    has successfully gone through the effort of obtaining a college degree
    has, at the same time s/he learned the requisite job knowledge, learned
    a bit more about life, about people, about history and how it relates
    to what's happening today and tomorrow.  In other words, the college
    degree is SUPPOSED to indicate knowledge in a broad range of
    disciplines.  That broader range of knowledge is vitally important when
    times they are a changin' and jobs get restructured and even -- gasp --
    go away.  The educated individual should be able to call upon even more
    skills and adapt right along with the work environment.  (That's why
    you'll find people with English degrees doing programming, and people
    with math degrees writing, and people with education degrees selling.)
    
    I'll never put down someone who has learned their craft the hard way. 
    But chances are they will be less adaptable should adaptation be
    required.  (Standard disclaimers: there are exceptions.  I've known a
    number of them personally.  But it takes an unusual manager to look
    beyond the norm to find those exceptions.)
    
    Karen
                                                               

    A college degree does not guarantee professional success; it indicates
    that a person has taken basic courses in whatever subject and
    graduated.
    
    Professional success is determined by the ability to recognize one's
    abilities in a field and figure out how to move through the ranks,
    whatever they may be.  Along the way, there will be managers who will
    help move their employee's career forward; there will also be managers
    who will be an obstacle.
    
    I chose to earn a master's degree, but I found that once I was out in
    the "real world", the career I had chosen wasn't right for me.  My job
    now has nothing to do with my degrees, but I wouldn't trade either the
    educational or job experience I have gained along the way.
    
    A degree is a tool, but not a guarantee.  It all depends how you use
    the knowledge gained and the people you meet along the way.
    
    Judi
    

    There's also the matter of how failures are handled:
    
    If you hire a guy with an engineering degree, and the bridge falls
    down, you can at least say you tried when the liability suit comes
    along; if you hire some guy with no degree but work experience
    and the bridge falls down, you will have a much harder time convincing
    a judge or jury that you took proper care in selecting an engineer.
    
    So from the point of view of an employer, degreed people are easier
    to hire--it's like a brand name.
    
    			-John Bishop

    re .10
    
    If the degreed engineer had less than 5 years experience and the non-
    degreed engineer had more than 5 years experience, I would hope that
    experience would be taken into consideration.
    
    
    Judi
    

    ...and make sure that I'm not on the bridge at the time!  :-)
    
    But seriously...I agree with the statements made by the last couple of
    Noters.  The experience I gained in the classroom and staying up all
    night studying (or is it cramming?) for a test have been invaluable. 
    When I think back to 4 years ago, and what I wanted to accomplish, I've
    found that I've exceeded my expectations.
    
       - Larry 

    
    
    re:  1038.8 
    
    Karen,
    
    I'd be interested in hearing more of your reasoning behind
    your statement that someone without a formal education would
    probably be less flexible in a changing business world.  Are 
    you saying that someone with a degree in, say, programming could
    more easily adapt to learning something new should the programming
    field go away?  I wouldn't think that someone with a degree in
    programming would have an easier time learning something new than
    someone who doesn't have a degree in programming but has been doing
    it for 5 years.  If the person has the talent, inclination and
    ability to learn something new they should be given the opportunity,
    regardless of formal education, IMHO.
    
    Cherie  

An interesting quote from a fellow employee:

	" All college does is teach someone 'how' to learn."

B^)

			A college degree means nothing.  
			  (in my humble opinion.)

The people I've known without the BA/BS, for the most part, were harder
workers, quicker thinkers,  and more determined to find answers themselves.

Some people with the BA/BS tend to bask in their educational glory and have
people wait on them, as if they had already earned their way.

I know for myself, my education started the day I joined Digital. I learned
everything I needed at DEC.  Only two of my college courses were relevant to my
career.  

(Just for the record, I was and English major with a concentration in tech
writing.  I've been an editor/writer with DEC.)

When I've had to look over resumes, the amount of education didn't mean as much
as the amount of cold hard pertinent experience.  

I find that people who learn skills on their own are especially  valuable.  If
someone's learned to use DCL or TPU by reading the doc'n and  applying what
they've learned, you can bet they're motivated. It's one thing to be spoon fed
in lecture halls during college. It's another to investigate and dig until you
get the answers.


kmw  

I'll remind some people that not having a degree doesn't mean that the
person didn't attend college.  At least in my profession, software engineering,
I found that college courses taught very little that was of practical use.
It was the exposure to certain concepts and the experience of doing certain
things that was valuable.  Having the piece of paper in itself proves little.

				Steve

    I've run across the opposite problem.  Since I have a master's degree
    in Arts Administration and a B.S. in Theatre, I have to write my resume
    carefully, to outline my real life skills.  Some have looked at my
    degree and thought "why does she want to work here?".
    
    I went to grad. school because I *wanted* to (and I was able to live in
    San Francisco for a while!).  My career has been based upon the skills
    and knowledge I have acquired in the workplace and the willingness to
    learn more.
    
    Judi
    

    re: .15
    
>When I've had to look over resumes, the amount of education didn't mean as much
>as the amount of cold hard pertinent experience.  
    
>I find that people who learn skills on their own are especially  valuable.  If
>someone's learned to use DCL or TPU by reading the doc'n and  applying what
>they've learned, you can bet they're motivated. It's one thing to be spoon fed
>in lecture halls during college. It's another to investigate and dig until you
>get the answers.
    
    Interesting.  Now you have two applicants.  One has a formal education
    but no "pertinent" experience.  The other has no formal education, no
    pertinent experience, but a great desire to learn on the job and build
    him/herself up.  Whom do you choose?  Neither one has the cold hard
    pertinent experience that you're looking for, but you'll have to admit
    that applicant A has had a better opportunity to at least acquaint
    him/herself to certain concepts and methods involved with the position.
    
    I've been cooping for Digital for 10 months over a two year period. 
    Cooping was the reason I chose my school and for the most part, coop
    experience will be the reason why I'll be in a much better position
    (in job hunting) upon graduation.  However, I can't simply dismiss the
    knowledge and experience I received at school.
    
    I also think that it's very unfair to say that students are "spoon fed"
    during course lectures.  I know of some computer science students at my
    school that can put many system managers to shame.  The motivation to
    investigate problems and to find solutions CAN be developed at school.
    In many cases it is.  
    
        - Larry

    The names are fictitious, the scenario is not:

    The position:  Terminals technician.  Works primarily from a van, and,
    for the most part either FRU (Field Replaceable Unit) or module swap
    philosophy for terminals and desk top computers that we sell.

    The candidates:

    John:  Associates degree in electronics from a trade school.  Very (!)
    good personality, lots of individual initiative, enthusiasm for doing a
    good job, enthusiastic about the job that's open.

    Jim: Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering.  Not nearly the strong
    personality that John has.  You have this feeling that it's a "stopping
    off" position until he can find something better.  

    Technical exam shows that both are equally qualified,
    technically, so, who gets the job?

>    John:  Associates degree in electronics from a trade school.  Very (!)
>    good personality, lots of individual initiative, enthusiasm for doing a
>    good job, enthusiastic about the job that's open.

I take John.  Enthusiasm counts.

I've worked with several people who regarded their jobs as "stopping
off" positions and none of they were great contributors.

As for the degree vs experience, I feel confident enough of my
judgement that I would hire a tech writer or editor sans degree 
if I liked their writing samples, what they told me of their 
experience, and them.  But the degree would be *very* important to 
me if I had to hire someone for something I couldn't judge as
well. Say, if I had to hire a marketing person, the degree would
really matter to me. hmmmm ... I guess this boils down to, when
I lack confidence in my judgement, I want them to wave a badge 
at me.

I finished my degree because no one would hire me for tech pubs --
even with my writing samples and publications. A week after the
degree, I was a working editor.

    re: .19
    
    I'd hire John for sure because
    
    	A. I think he's qualified for that position.
    	B. He showed some enthusiasm in the interview.
    	C. He'll more than likely work hard at doing a good job, and 
    	   chances are he'll STAY in that position for "awhile".
    
    Choice C is not to be neglected.  Finding a good match (qualifications,
    good personality, ability to work with others, etc.) is not always that
    easy and it's important that someone is found that will stay in that
    position (if it's a permanent position) longer than a few months.
    
    Someone who comes in with the attitude of "Well, I'm only going to stay
    here for a few years, until I can find a better group" is definitely
    not going to raise my confidence level.  On the other hand, an engineer
    fresh out of college that is not sure what he/she wants to pursue, may 
    turn out to use that position as a stepping stone.  And that isn't so
    bad as long as he/she works hard to prove him/herself.
    
       - Larry

Another example...

I remember going through basic training at Lackland Air Force Base and an
instructor pointing out that the Air Force was made up of 82.5% enlisted folks,
and these were people without college degrees... Of course some might have
them, but they were few, a straw in a hay stack.  His comment was then... "Who
do you think runs the best G__D___ Air Force in the world???  Who makes it
happen?"

I worked at the Air Force Academy.  Many of the kids there get so spoiled,
being "spoon fed" as another noter pointed out, acting like they are already
Generals.  They go to school there for four years, graduate, come out of the
Academy, the showcase of the Air Force, as we're told and re-told, and they
have their little "butter bar" upon their shoulders, and guess what???  Some go
to pilot school, but most will not.  Most will go out into the "real Air Force"
and find out that those folks without degrees, that they always thought were
ignorant as most had high school degrees, who work under/beside them, are their
most valuable asset!  Because they have something that is second to none...
experience!  They CAN do the job!  They went to school all right, the school of
hard knocks!  They've paid their dues.  The Academy grad doesn't know which way
is up!  All of a sudden they're in the "real Air Force" and they have no
experience!  They feel lost.  At this point in their career, they're educated
idiots.

Who do you think carries more weight, a young officer out of the Academy or an
enlisted Sergeant with several years of experience under his/her belt???  I'll
give you a hint, there's no brass on their collar...

-dwight

    Before I start, let me repeat what I've said earlier.  I'm fully aware
    that there are exceptions to the "rule," whatever the rule is.  I know
    some exceptions -- quite well.  Every one of us can offer examples.  So 
    what I'm about to say is offered in a general sense, not in a universal
    application sense.  Please keep that in mind, especially if you
    (generic you) are one of the exceptions.  I hope, for your (generic
    your) sake, you (generic you) are.
    
    Cherie (-.13), in reply to your request for more information about my
    statement that someone with a formal education would probably be more
    flexible in a changing business world, all I can do it reiterate what I
    said in an earlier paragraph of the same reply (-.8).  To get a college
    degree, students are required to take courses what are unrelated to
    their major field of endeavor.  Some (probably most, certainly too
    many) students view these required courses as just a pain, something 
    they have to get through with minimal effort.  
    
    (Which might lead to the perception of "spoon feeding" college students.  
    Such an image -- spoon feeding a student -- really riles me.  No teacher 
    AT ANY LEVEL deserves to be called a teacher unless s/he is teaching 
    students how to think and how to reason and how to draw their own 
    conclusions rather than regurgitate memorized pap.  OK, blood pressure 
    back to normal level and discussion back on track.)  
    
    Yet _respected_ colleges, _good_ colleges, continue to require these 
    courses.  Has anyone ever wondered why?
    
    Because those courses are supposed to prepare the student for life. 
    They're supposed to teach one how to reason, how to think, how to
    interact beneficially with their world.  No, the courses have no
    bearing on preparing the student for a particular job.  They weren't
    intended to.  They were intended to prepare the student for life.
    
    Unfortunately, in today's society, we've developed a very narrow
    attitude about what constitutes a good education.  If the course of
    study doesn't have direct bearing on a marketable job skill, then it's
    useless.  That attitude is reflected repeatedly in many of the
    responses to this string.  I have no argument with preparing the young
    people of our world to earn a living, but I would hope that we can do
    more, that we can prepare them to live, as well.
    
    Historically our secondary schools were supposed to turn out graduates
    that could earn a living.  A college education was seen as frosting on
    that cake -- sure, the college graduate might be able to earn a better
    living than the high school graduate (though that has never been a
    universal truth and should not, IMO, be the reason for going to
    college).  But high schools have fallen down on the job.  (The reasons
    for their failure is fodder for another note at another time.) 
    College have, of necessity, been forced to fill in the gaps, and have 
    too often done nothing more than become trade schools.  Please let me be 
    clear that this type of college preparation is not the type I mean when 
    I talk about a college _education_.
    
    What type of manager says, "I'm hiring this individual for this
    particular job X," without considering that job X, especially in this
    industry, will probably go away within five years?  What will that
    manager do with this individual, who is fully capable of doing job X 
    but has no other discernable skills, when the job goes away?  What will
    the individual do?  Look around you.  What do you think the buy-out
    plan was all about?  Such a manager is not doing himself a favor; he's
    not doing the employee a favor; and he's certainly not doing the
    company a favor. 
    
    I'm sure I'm stepping on some toes here.  I wish my time today allowed
    me to pursue this reasoning further.  I've not gone from this
    discussion; but I have a job to do that DEC pays me for.  I shall
    return.  (And I certainly hope that someone in the reading audience has
    a good enough education to recognize that last sentence as a quote from
    an historical figure, and maybe someone even knows who that figure is
    and why the quote bore historical significance.  Dare I hope that we
    could even find significance for Digital by applying that historical
    lesson to our current situation?  Sigh!)
    
    Karen  

    Karen, is it "I'll be back" from _The Terminator_?  :-) :-)
    
    I think that college or non-college really depends on the job and the
    person.  To compare an enthusiastic person who didn't go to college
    with a mildly interested person who did go to college is apples and
    oranges -- you are really interested in the enthusiasm level, not in
    the level of ability to do the job efficiently.  
    
    There have been studies comparing college graduates with liberal arts
    backgrounds and college graduates with engineering/scientific
    backgrounds.  At work after school, the liberal arts majors had less
    specific knowledge but were more adaptable and better at communication. 
    The engineering/science majors had in-depth technical knowledge, but in
    a narrow field.  They had more difficulty adapting to changing
    environments, in general.
    
    I think of this when I think of the differences between college and
    non-college applicants.  DEPENDING ON THE PERSON AND THEIR BACKGROUND,
    either applicant could be the one you want for the job, DEPENDING ON
    THE JOB.  
    
    On the one hand, a college graduate has learned how to learn and has
    taken classes in a specific field as well as other fields.  Yet they
    don't usually have actual experience (I think cooping is great) and
    they mostly only know how to get along with other people who have gone
    to college.  On the other hand, a non-college person has had to
    self-motivate and has on-the-job experience. They know more practical
    things than theoretical things, in general, and they may have only
    worked in a narrow field.  (But it's also possible they have worked in
    a variety of other jobs, giving them a wider experience of the world
    and the people in it.)
    
    Suppose the job has shifting requirements and isn't all that technical. 
    Should you hire a college graduate who has learned ways of learning and
    coping with change, or should you hire a non-college person who has
    worked in a variety of jobs?  Suppose both are enthusiastic and get
    along well with people.  It's unclear.  Suppose the job is technical
    and requires detailed knowledge?  Is it better to have someone who has
    taken classes to get understand the technical concepts or is it better
    to have someone who has got their detailed knowledge by actually
    working with the machine?  Unclear.
    
    My bias is that I went to college.  I like having a broad background of
    relatively useless information (for the job I do now, which is writing
    technical manuals for CAD tools for chip design).  I mean, who here
    cares that in 1982 I wrote a term paper describing the lives of
    abbesses in medieval England?  Yet the work I put into researching,
    writing, rewriting, tracking down new sources, staying up all night to
    "unidraft" a 25-page paper, feeling the accomplishment of answering all
    the questions I had about the subject, is work that I will remember and
    is work that shapes my approach to work I do for money now.  
    
    My degree has been a badge allowing me to get some jobs with no hassle. 
    I think having a degree helps more than it hurts, but that hiring
    anyone for any job completely on the basis of whether they went to
    college or not is foolish.  It should be a decision made on an
    individual basis, based on the applicants' strengths and weaknesses.
    
    Pam

RE:QUIVER::STEFANI Note 1038.18  

>    Interesting.  Now you have two applicants.  One has a formal education
>    but no "pertinent" experience.  The other has no formal education, no
>    pertinent experience, but a great desire to learn on the job and build
>    him/herself up.  Whom do you choose?  ....
>       ....you'll have to admit
>    that applicant A has had a better opportunity to at least acquaint
>    him/herself to certain concepts and methods involved with the position.
       
I'm sorry Larry, I can't admit that canditate A has a better opportunity. His
formal education doesn't mean he learned a thing. I'd wouldn't choose either
candidate, since they both don't meet the  requirements.  I'd have to interview
more candidates.

RE: SAGE::GODIN Note 1038.23  

>    (Which might lead to the perception of "spoon feeding" college students.
>    Such an image -- spoon feeding a student -- really riles me.  No teacher
>    AT ANY LEVEL deserves to be called a teacher unless s/he is teaching
>    students how to think and how to reason and how to draw their own
>    conclusions rather than regurgitate memorized pap.  
    
I agree Karen, but reality is reality. Most profs have been teaching the same
old stuff for years. They're tenured, so they don't care if they make a
difference any more. They drag out the same notes they've been  using for 10
years. 

I can't think of a better term than "spoon feeding."  I did well in college
because I learned to adapt to the prof's style and act accordingly.  If you
really want to do well in college, mimic the prof.  When you write a
paper, use the prof's favorite phrases.  Use his terms  when you
answer a question. This is a real ego booster to the professor, who already
feels much like a modern Plato.

I've resorted to the same mimic techniques at DEC at times, so  I guess you
could say that this better prepared me for life.  

>    No, the courses have no
>    bearing on preparing the student for a particular job.  They weren't
>    intended to.  They were intended to prepare the student for life.

I never bought into the statement that courses unrelated to your major were
supposed to "prepare you for life."  I have never used what I learned from  my
psych, history, and philosophy courses.  They didn't make me a better person,
they just upped my GPA.   I did learn alot from Basic, Cobol, and tech writing
courses. 

If students aren't supposed to prepare for a particular job, then why do
engineering students spend much of their time in courses that directly apply to
their future careers?  Civil  engineers spend hours and hours surveying. 
Plastics engineers spend time with injection molding.  Chem engineers spend time
trying to set fire to the lab 8).  

This kind of "hands on" training should apply to every major!  English majors
who want to tech write shouldn't read Sylvia Plath, they should read the 
style guide for the NY Times.  

The more *practical* experience, the better.

>(And I certainly hope that someone in the reading audience has
>    a good enough education to recognize that last sentence as a quote from
>    an historical figure, and maybe someone even knows who that figure is
>    and why the quote bore historical significance.  Dare I hope that we
>    could even find significance for Digital by applying that historical
>    lesson to our current situation?  Sigh!)

Sigh....why?  Why? That last para would be good cocktail party conversation
but it reeks of intellectual snobbery.  

woody            

    With respect to the case in #.19.
    
>    John:  Associates degree in electronics from a trade school.  Very (!)
>    good personality, lots of individual initiative, enthusiasm for doing a
>    good job, enthusiastic about the job that's open.

>    Jim: Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering.  Not nearly the strong
>    personality that John has.  You have this feeling that it's a "stopping
>    off" position until he can find something better.  
    
    Jim got the job.  The BS in EE was he overpowering reason.  I think
    that it is a pure unmitigated tragedy that we have to be that way.

    Reference: Graduates favoring other college graduates;
    
    I think this is an unfair statement.  I have friends who are college
    graduates and friends who aren't.  I am not a college graduate although
    I do have some college.  What we are dealing with here are attitudes. 
    In reading the responses to the original note I have seen many
    different points of views and sensitivites or lack there of.  There
    have been many college educated respondents who feel a degree should not
    be a prerequisite of promotion and there are those who feel it should
    be.  So please do not generalize in your observation.  I do not
    appreciate being termed "generic" because I do not have a college
    degree.  I hope I can contribute more to the world and to the people
    around me.
    
    Reference: students do not regurgitate memorized material but use their
    minds and thoughts in their work (I don't have the note in front of me
    but it is to that effect);
    
    It was not uncommon when I took college courses to have a professor
    that literally dictated their material to the students.  And on the
    tests it was expected to be given back in the same word for word
    manner.  Karen, you are off the mark there.
    
    People grow up with different obstacles and situations and
    opportunities.  Sure, some people don't go to college right out of high
    school and miss that opportunity because they want to take the time and
    learn about themselves and life before making a decision the area they
    wish to concentrate on for a career.  18 is very young.  I think it's
    great for those that can make that decision at a very young age.  It
    doesn't mean that person is incapable of doing a good job and learning
    quickly nor that they cannot communicate well if they do not go to
    college right away or have the opportunity to go to college.
    
    Karen,  I'm afraid you lack in compassion and experience.  Many people
    have braved situations much more difficult than getting a college
    degree.  There are people in this world that have had to forgo
    opportunities because of tragedies you may not be aware of.  Illnesses,
    death of a spouse, raising a child alone on a salary that won't even
    pay rent, taking care of dying parents.  Yet these people have so much
    experience in living and surviving and fighting to stay above water
    while working full time and fulfilling their obligations.  No you don't
    need to pull out the violins.  THIS is life.  For whatever reasons a
    person does not go to or finish college is irrelevant.  You keep
    mentioning these "exceptions" you are aware of.  There are lot's of
    exceptions!  Let's not hold these valuable assets back from the
    company.  I think college is a wonderful priviledge, but it does not
    ensure a valuable asset.  Attitude, determination, loyalty, flexibility,
    comunication skills lie in a person's character and are proven in life
    situations and in the workplace.
    
    Ginny  
         

    I'm a hiring manager. Two candidates, roughly equal _real_
    qualifications. One has a degree. One does not. 
    
    I'm a CYA type. If the new hire should fail at the job, and
    
    a) he has no degree, I'll get reamed for hiring somebody 'without
       the qualifications'
    
    b) he has a degree, I can say I *hired* a *qualified* person, the
       failure is *his* fault.
    
    Now, who gets the job ? Call me cynical, but I believe that most
    people who've made it to where they can make hiring decisions
    are adept at CYA logic.

    I've been going to school forever and though I'm listed as a senior I
    still don't have my degree, but it's slow going at 3-6 credits a
    semester. I do list my college time on my resume. I am in a job that is
    heavy with college degreed people. This is just to let you know the way
    I may be biased.

    I think a college degree is often just used as winnowing out factor to
    thin the ranks of people you have to interview. We are still in the
    baby boom and there are more of us, who were raised to expect middle
    class type jobs, than there are jobs. The next generation I expect to
    see the need for a degree diminished. There will be more jobs than
    people trained to do them.

    As for the liberal arts part of the college program. I believe it's
    vital to keep that for a well rounded education. When I was a freshamn
    I was a performance music major. I could see no earthly reason why I
    had to take natural sciences or math. I'm sure glad I did though, since
    I ended up a programmer instead of a full time musician. I believe
    those with a more well rounded education will be better adapted to a
    changing society. I'm in career number 3 right now and it may not be
    the last. If all I had know was music I'd have been in big trouble.
    liesl

re: .25        
    
>sorry Larry, I can't admit that canditate A has a better opportunity. His
>formal education doesn't mean he learned a thing. I'd wouldn't choose either
>candidate, since they both don't meet the  requirements.  I'd have to interview
>more candidates.

    First of all, his formal education could mean he learned A LOT.  In
    some positions experience is mandatory, especially when deadlines
    approach and there is no time to "hold hands".  However, it's not
    always possible to find someone with that kind of experience, and it
    becomes necessary to hire the person who is more than likely able to
    catch up to speed in a short time.

    I'm not saying that a college degree is the end-all of human
    achievement.  I know of a number of DEC employees that have learned their
    jobs along the way and made it to positions that they feel comfortable
    with, without holding a degree.  However, in every case, these
    individuals had to really push themselves and migrate more slowly than
    if they were able to take a few years off for study.


>I can't think of a better term than "spoon feeding."  I did well in college
>because I learned to adapt to the prof's style and act accordingly.  If you
>really want to do well in college, mimic the prof.  When you write a
>paper, use the prof's favorite phrases.  Use his terms  when you
>answer a question. This is a real ego booster to the professor, who already
>feels much like a modern Plato.

    That's one example at one college.  With few exceptions, my college
    professors encouraged diversity and helped students learn to think on
    their own.  You were usually penalized for simply repeating the lecture
    notes.  It would become obvious to the professor that you haven't read
    or absorbed the material.  Even if you get the high marks, aren't you
    cheating yourself if you don't put any part of "you" into a paper?

    
>I never bought into the statement that courses unrelated to your major were
>supposed to "prepare you for life."  I have never used what I learned from  my
>psych, history, and philosophy courses.  They didn't make me a better person,
>they just upped my GPA.   I did learn alot from Basic, Cobol, and tech writing
>courses. 

    Never say never, my friend.  Besides, there is something to say about
    being a well-rounded individual who has learned something in many
    diverse areas.  It's little things like reading some of Nietzche's (sp?)
    work in a philosophy class and associating the name in the movie "A Fish
    Called Wanda".  Sure, I haven't entered any philosophical debates, and
    I don't ponder the meaning of universe on a daily basis, but I really
    enjoyed that class and added something new to my life.
    
    I'm a much better person for taking those courses and whether you realize
    it or not, you are too.
     
        - Larry                                            

    >> The next generation I expect to see the need for a degree diminished.
    >> There will be more jobs than people trained to do them.
    
    Liesl, I believe that the need for a degree will increase because
    employers will require employees to have even more knowledge in a wider
    area.  An employee that knows only one thing and is content in doing
    that one thing is fine...until the job is eliminated or changes.  An
    employee is definitely more "marketable" if he/she can work in
    different positions.  Maybe having expertise in only a few areas, but
    at least a little knowledge in a few more areas.
    
       - Larry

    
    So, getting back to the basenote, what are people's feelings
    surrounding the comment made by that hiring manager - namely
    that the employee wasn't serious/dedicated to his/her career
    because s/he didn't have a college degree.
    
    That way of thinking bothers me because it implies that one
    cannot be seriously pursuing a career if they haven't gone 
    to college for it.  
    
    I guess I really opened a can of worms with this topic!  I'm
    glad there are so many others out there that feel as strongly
    about this as I do, even though we may not agree.
    
    It's really interesting to see how this topic is developing....
    
    Cherie

    It has occured to me the direction of discussion has changed from the
    original memo which prompted our response.
    
    The original memo referred to PRESENT employees without a degree who
    are trying to advance and their degree of dedication to their career vs. 
    degreed individuals currently employed or from the outside and their
    dedication to their careers.  
    
    A career spans many years, even decades.  Because someone did not take 
    4 years and get a college degree does this mean as they continue to 
    work and contribute to a company years later they are less dedicated? 
    I think not.
    
    Where this has gotten off track in this discussion is that many of you 
    are referring to CYA's in respect to chances of risk involved in hiring 
    a degree individual vs. an undegreed because there are no guarantees and you
    don't know more about this person you are taking a chance on.  We are
    not talking about taking a chance to the degree you suggest.  We are
    talking about people who have already proven themselves at Digital,
    employees who can present performance appraisals and internal training
    records that will provide evidence of the employees abilities
    dedication and character.  This eliminates the risk and need to CYA.
    
    People who get degrees work hard for them.  And people who have
    on-the-job experience work hard for that.  I believe on-the-job
    experience is suppose to count for credit in relation to college time. 
    
    I think the correct question to pose would be:
    
    Who would you hire for the same position?
    
    A.  A degreed individual with plenty experience at DEC and the right
    skills but whose communication and cooperation skills may be very
    limited or difficult.
    
    B.  A non-degree individual who has plenty of on-the-job experience, a
    great attitude, proven ability and a desire to advance.
    
    C.  A degreed individual from outside the company whose degree lies in
    the area of need but possess no experience.
    
    Dedication to a career can mean many things; dedication soley for one's
    own career; or dedication to one's career for not only their success
    but as important for the success of the company.
    
    Who would you choose?
    
    Ginny
    
         

Re: .6 by MORO::BEELER_JE,


>    For the most part, the four year degree means that a person
>    "stuck it out" for four years of whatever...no...I
>    disagree...the degree is still pretty much of a union card. 

The major difference between a technician's job and an Engineer's
job is that the former requires tactical thinking while the latter
requires strategic thinking. Similar observations can be made with
regard to most degreed positions vs. their non-degreed counterparts.

Schools that teach Engineering take this into account. The course of
studies is designed to encourage the students to develop this
capability. This is even more pronounced in graduate work and is of
paramount importance at the PhD level. 

A technician's 'on the job' experience tends to make him a better
technician, not an Engineer. Many non-degreed individuals do have
the required kind of reasoning skills, having acquired them either
through self study or by being born with the knack. Also, many
people complete four years of undergraduate studies and emerge
non-engineers (albeit, with the raw knowledge an engineer is
supposed to possess). 

However, if you compare a cross section of college graduates against
a similar cross section of non-degreed individuals, you will find a
much higher percentage of people capable of strategic thinking among
the college graduates. If for no other reason, than for the fact
that they had spent four years acquiring the capability. 

I do not mean to belittle the technician's job. All I am saying is
that Engineering requires different capabilities, that must be
acquired. It is possible to acquire them elsewhere but,
statistically, schools seem to produce the best results. For that 
reason, I think a college degree is more --a lot more-- than a union
card. 

-- Ron 

I'll hypothesize about the basenote...

Maybe (just maybe) when the person (referred to in the base note) said 
"come back when you're serious..." it was an evaluation of the candidate's 
maturity?  I have known people who change their mind about a career choice at 
the drop of a hat, and I wouldn't be in a hurry to hire them.  I think if were
in the position of hiring someone, I would like to see something that 
indicates that the person is truly interested in pursuing Job X -- something 
like taking some related courses (internal or external), or having related 
experience.  Even within a company, if you want to change your job, being 
enthusiastic and hardworking may not sufficiently qualify you for that new 
position.

Back to the two candidate scene...

If you have two candidates and one says, "I would like job X because it sounds
interesting and I want a change..." and the other says, "I want to get job X 
and I've done A, B, and C in preparation..."  Now who would you chose?

For example I could decide I that sales or management is where I want my
career to go, but none of my education or experience relates to those fields.  
But if I took it upon myself to get some related training wouldn't it help 
indicate that indeed I was serious about the job change?  And possibly show 
that I had some real understanding of what I was trying to get into?

Just a guess...Barbara

    This spring some engineers from Japan visited Worcester Poly Tech. 
    What amazed them is that the engineers were required to take liberal
    arts courses, whereas Japanese students (for the most part) take
    primarily technical courses.  The liberal arts courses were a new
    concept to the visitors, and they were going to broach the idea upon
    their return.
    
    
    Technical courses teach the basics which are required in the field (as
    does law, medicine and other specific fields).  Liberal arts courses
    opens up other ways of thinking and seeing the world.
    
    If I was a hiring manager reviewing resumes and the applicants were
    applying for a technical position, I would *first* look at their
    experience and knowledge.  Beyond that, it's a judgment call.  If the
    position was entry level, I would ask the candidates where they
    expected to go after the entry level position.
    
    A degree doesn't guarantee anything.  It's up to the individual to seek
    knowledge and experience and apply them.
    
    Judi
    

    I got my B.S. in Biology/Pre-Med. I changed my mind and decided against
    med school and ended up doing mostly secretarial/administrative work
    for 10 years. 4-1/2 of those years were at DEC. After exposure to
    computers, which I had never touched before, I decided I liked them. I
    liked the stuff I heard my engineer friends talk about. 

    I decided I wanted to change my career, and started taking courses with
    the full encouragement of my manager, and doing prereq stuff for a
    Masters. I started looking for an software engineer position after I
    had taken about 4 or 5 courses. This gave me much less experience and
    knowledge than someone with a B.S. in computers, but also showed that I
    was determined to do this. I found a job as a software engineer,
    primarily because I was in a Masters program. They knew I had no
    experience and not a lot of knowledge, but that I had lots of interest
    and was serious about my career goal, since I was not sitting on my
    duff, but was actively educating myself, with no guarantee that I would
    find a job soon.
    
    I think this may be similar to the attitude in the base note. I showed
    I was serious about my career, by being in school. Certainly I couldn't
    be serious about wanting to be an engineer, if I weren't doing
    something about it, right? Now this is different from someone who has
    the experience but no degree, but I can understand a hiring manager
    wanting to make sure the person was serious about their career. I know
    several supervisors/principle engeineers, etc. who have no college
    degree, but who have 25+ years of experience. I don't believe that
    today it is possible to get the sort of experience these folks have
    professionally without a degree.

    If you have a Bachelor of Science degree why in the world did you have
    to go for your Master's to get into SW?  Why couldn't you follow the
    internal training route?  You've already got your "ticket" and proved
    your "stick to it" determination that seems to be necessary and this
    discussion is all about.  New hires straight out of college go that
    route.  Some SW support people and Sales Reps don't have bachelor
    degrees.
    
    The unfortunate part was that you took an administrative job.  It is
    very hard to get supervisors to take an administrative employee
    seriously for promotion to other areas even though secretarial work has
    diversified into many other areas of responsibility.
    
    I have no qualms about technical training necessary for a technical
    job but there are different ways of obtaining it which include internal
    and external.  It's great if you want a Master's but I have to ask if
    you are being properly compensated? 
                                                        
    

    re: .39
    
    Oddly enough, there are some positions in the VTX Online Job Book that
    require MS and Phd's.  Granted, there might be some call for an
    extensive background in a particular area, but from the job
    descriptions a BS in engineering and a few years experience seem
    appropriate to me.
    
    Then again, what do I know?  ;-)
    
       - Larry

    re .40
    
    In many cases those positions that "require" an MS or Phd are asking
    for a "union card".
    
    Rich (who has a BS, but neither an MS or a Phd)

    .41> In many cases those position that "require" an MS or Phd are
    .41> asking for a "union card".
    
    Precisely!
    

For forty plus responses to the base note, we've explored some of the 
reasons a manager might prefer a degreed candidate for some jobs.  What 
we haven't explored, and what raises my curiosity, is why there's so much 
resistance to getting a degree, especially among current Digital employees 
who are young enough to still have several decades of career ahead of them.  

The company pays -- quite generously -- for educational expenses.

The individual earning the degree could realize considerable benefit from 
the effort (though, as previously noted, this isn't guaranteed to be in the 
form of higher salaries).

This country's (and our industry's) major overseas competitors are very 
education-minded.  I don't foresee this changing.

How better can we, as a company and a society, prepare for the years ahead?


Re. REGENT::WOODWARD (.25)
  >>    (Which might lead to the perception of "spoon feeding" college students.
  >>    Such an image -- spoon feeding a student -- really riles me.  No teacher
  >>    AT ANY LEVEL deserves to be called a teacher unless s/he is teaching
  >>    students how to think and how to reason and how to draw their own
  >>    conclusions rather than regurgitate memorized pap.  
    
  >I agree Karen, but reality is reality. Most profs have been teaching the same
  >old stuff for years. They're tenured, so they don't care if they make a
  >difference any more. They drag out the same notes they've been  using for 10
  >years. 
  >  If you
  >really want to do well in college, mimic the prof.  When you write a
  >paper, use the prof's favorite phrases.  Use his terms  when you
  >answer a question. This is a real ego booster to the professor, who already
  >feels much like a modern Plato.

Woody, I agree that reality is reality, and that there are some professors
and schools where this type of teaching passes as an education.  I prefer
not to subsidize such teachers and such schools through either my tax 
dollars, my tuition payments, or my attendance.  But just because I prefer
not to doesn't mean I haven't done so at times 8-}.  The point is, we
won't get anything better unless we demand it.


  >I never bought into the statement that courses unrelated to your major were
  >supposed to "prepare you for life."  I have never used what I learned from  my
  >psych, history, and philosophy courses.  They didn't make me a better person,
  >they just upped my GPA.   I did learn alot from Basic, Cobol, and tech writing
  >courses. 

Perhaps this statement would carry more weight as proof of your point if
we knew how many years you are past your college days and how many 
positions you've been in during the interim.

I _have_ used what I learned in these courses, to my benefit and the benefit 
of my employers.  It's been 22 years since I earned my BA, and I've been in 
11 different positions in that time.

Maybe all we've proved here is that some people use their educations; some 
people don't.


  >If students aren't supposed to prepare for a particular job...

I never said that, nor do I believe it.


  >>    (And I certainly hope that someone in the reading audience has
  >>    a good enough education to recognize that last sentence as a quote from
  >>    an historical figure, and maybe someone even knows who that figure is
  >>    and why the quote bore historical significance.  Dare I hope that we
  >>    could even find significance for Digital by applying that historical
  >>    lesson to our current situation?  Sigh!)
 
  > Sigh....why?  Why? That last para would be good cocktail party conversation
  > but it reeks of intellectual snobbery.  

I'm sorry you think so.  I was merely trying to show that lessons learned 
in history classes have bearing on situations we face today, in the 
business world, not just at cocktail parties.  As someone once said, "Those 
who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."


Re. SWAM2::SIMKINS_GI (.28)

   >I do not
   > appreciate being termed "generic" because I do not have a college
   > degree.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.  My use of the term "generic" was to 
ensure that Cherie (whose direct question I was about to answer) didn't 
think I was referring to her, and her alone, in that statement.  I had no 
    intention of putting down anyone for their lack of a college education,
    only to wish them well.
 
    
   > Reference: students do not regurgitate memorized material but use their
   > minds and thoughts in their work (I don't have the note in front of me
   > but it is to that effect);
    
   > It was not uncommon when I took college courses to have a professor
   > that literally dictated their material to the students.  And on the
   > tests it was expected to be given back in the same word for word
   > manner.  Karen, you are off the mark there.

Please see my comments about colleges and professors I chose to support 
with my tax and tuition dollars.  As an additional thought, I'd suppose 
that some courses do demand a "text book" response to certain types of 
questions.  Math, science, and engineering courses, when dealing with 
measurable data and right/wrong answers are examples.  But I'd hope that 
such courses still leave some room for creativity (even if the professor 
doesn't), or else we're doomed to live in an unchanging, never-advancing 
world from now on, because everything that's ever to be discovered or 
created has already happened.  I certainly hope not!


   > Karen,  I'm afraid you lack in compassion and experience. 

I'd really like to know what in my writing has led you to this conclusion.  
Since you don't know me personally, I don't understand how you arrived 
here.


  >  There are lot's of
  >  exceptions!  Let's not hold these valuable assets back from the
  >  company.

As my replies have stated repeatedly, I agree with the first sentence.  As 
for the second sentence, I have never once advocated holding these assets 
back, either for the company's good or for their own.  I've merely 
attempted to communicate, in response to an inquiry in the base note, some 
of the reasons behind managers' looking for college-educated employees for 
some positions.  While I can understand these reasons, I don't advocate  -- 
and never have advocated -- their universal application without regard to 
individual applicants and situations.

Karen

    Karen, I think what you are seeing as resistance is more a defensive
    stance. People without degrees are (sometimes) made to feel that they
    aren't quite good enough. There are places, even within Digital, where
    you just flat can't get the job if you don't have the parchment.

    As to the issue if good and bad teachers, that too can be a learning
    experience. I've had some professors that would grade you down if you
    didn't like their views or their style. I've worked with a few managers
    who were the same way. I'd say that school taught me how to deal with
    that. Personally I've been lucky. Over half the classes I've taken at
    the local university have been taught by professors from the Air Force
    Academey who were moonlighting. I feel like I'm getting a few of my tax
    dollars back. :*)

    A college should be more than a trade school. An education is more than
    detailed technical knowledge. The only skills that never go out of
    style are people skills. liesl

    Karen,
    
    This is a very touchy subject.  For many people it is a personal issue. 
    I could say in this discussion it might have begun with terming
    individuals "generic" which yes does strike a flat key.  This is a put
    down.  I am a firm believer in not generalizing.  This is where the
    difficulty lies.
    
    No one can dispute that college is a good learning experience. 
    However, there are also a many good people out there for whatever
    reason did not go to or complete college and have proven their
    intelligence, determination and adaptability.  These are the many
    exceptions I am referencing.  Does not commitment and hard work account
    for anything?  Again, doesn't experience count for some education as
    one attempts to further their career?
    
    I have read the responses by those in hiring positions wishing to take
    less risk hiring a degreed individual thereby CTA's.  Again, there are 
    proven employees within dec that without degrees with records 
    substantiating their work history.  Why must it take an unusual manager 
    to look beyond the norm to find these exceptions?  Many times they are 
    beaming in front of their faces getting shining reviews.  This is not a 
    question of an unknown without a degree vs. and unknown with a degree.  
    No one has broached this since I brought it up.
    
    It is hard not to take it personally sometimes when a person
    continually gets excellent reviews and praise yet because they don't
    have "the ticket" they are held back.  They have goals they are
    striving for, too.  They have responsibilities, too.  They are an asset
    waiting to be tapped.      
                         
    

    If ya don't have a "ticket," you may be treated like a second class
    citizen.

re:     <<< Note 1038.43 by SAGE::GODIN "Summertime an' the livin' is easy" >>>
>>                            -< Why the resistance? >-

>> ......								What 
>> we haven't explored, and what raises my curiosity, is why there's so much 
>> resistance to getting a degree, especially among current Digital employees 
>> who are young enough to still have several decades of career ahead of them.  

I say the resistance is from a lack of time. People working full-time, and 
trying to run a house and maybe having some kids find it very difficult to
attend classes, do gadz of homework and still have a life. Then finding out
it could take 10 years to finish a degree can be overwhelming. That's why I 
resist (besides the fact that I absolutely hate school) . I don't want to work
8 hours a day, then go to school for 5 more and spend the rest of my nights 
doing homework. But I'm not complaining, it took me less than 4 years at DEC 
to work from a tech to an engineer on an associate's degree. I had one person 
offer me a job but tell me he would make me as a tech 4 rather than an engineer 
without a degree. It was his loss. I'm not naive enough to believe that I could
waltz out into the real world and get an engineering job without a BS degree
though. And it would seem kind of funky for DEC to pay me to get a BS only so
I could get a better paying job at another company.

When I look around I find it kind of interesting that there are lots of 
engineering and management types around that hold degrees in things totally
unrelated to what they're doing. My brother, for instance, is a DEC engineer
and his degree is in Wildlife Biology. So it seems to me it doesn't matter
*what* your degree is in as long as you have one. Go figure...

Jenna

    I know its been a *long* time since this note has been active, but
    after reading it  I had to put in my 2 cents worth.  
    
    This has been a big discussion around my house for years!  Let me show
    you my own personal example of what college has done for the people in
    my family.  We have 4 men (brothers & brothers-in-law) all
    approximately the same age.  2 have college degrees, (not even advanced
    ones) and 2 have just high school degrees.
    
    WITH DEGREES:
    
    #1 - is a bank vice-president, married but wife does not work, has 3
         kids, huge house, 2 very nice cars, etc. etc.  = BIG BUCKS!
    
    #2 - is a captain with a major airlines, married, wife has never
         worked, 4 kids, really huge house, 2 very nice cars, etc. etc. = 
          BIG BUCKS!
    
    WITHOUT DEGREES:
    
    #1 - is an electrician with the local Electric Company, married, wife
         must work to help pay bills, 3 kids, small house, old cars =
         mediocre bucks. (it has taken almost 10 years, to be a low level
         electrician.)
    
    #2 - after nearly 20 years, is just now a manager for a very
         inexpensive chain of clothing stores (in other words - cheap
         clothes that I wouldn't put on my dog), married, wife must work to
         help pay bills, 2 kids, small rental house, 2 not old/not new
         cars, = mediocre bucks.
    
    Conclusion:
    
    When my son and I are talking about whether or not he wants to go to
    college, I just point these examples out to him.  What do you think he
    wants to do?

    re .48, "what do you think my son wants to do"
    
    He wants to be a rock star.
    
    		-John Bishop

         Watched a re-run of Johnny Carson yesterday:  George
    Washington didn't go to college.  Abe Lincoln didn't go to college;
    Harry Truman didn't go to college.  Dan Quayle went to college.

    ...
    
         Going to college has become a ritual and a rite of passage
    for the mass, and they just want to get done with it and get a good
    job.  For the few of us who actually go to college to learn, it is a
    rewarding experience.  One develops entirely new and different senses
    and intuition--some deeply emotional, others utterly rational. 
    Ultimately, the diverse knowledge and experience learned and lived
    becomes a single uniting philosophy that defines who we
    are and provides a foundation for the rest of our lives.  When we 
    finally emerge from these great institutions, technical knowledge and 
    competence and all the other necessary skills needed to become a 
    productive member of the society is but only a side benefit and comes
    naturally without much effort.  

         Often Our more materially oriented friends are amazed by 
    our ability to get easy A's.  To us, there are very few fundamental 
    principles in science and art is pure emotion.  While
    our friends spend days and days drilling over the technical 
    details and detailed facts, we are walking on the beach and going 
    to concerts.  Our learning is done everywhere every minute.  When
    we see a lightening in the sky, we see electrical charges in our
    minds with the set of Maxwell's equations in the background.  When
    we see the sun setting in the crimson sky, we hear Beethoven's sixth 
    symphony ringing in our ears.  Learning becomes an integral part of 
    our lives.  So when it comes down to competing on technical competence, 
    our friends never have the chance.  Oh, they would tell us that our 
    knowledge will become obsolete after six months if we don't "keep up", 
    but we never listen to them.  For we know what we learned are the 
    universal and timeless fundamentals. 

         We may never become rich.  Some of us even take an oath of abject 
    poverty to become professors in those universities.  Others choose 
    mundane jobs to support themselves, so they can further nurture their 
    talents.  We don't necessarily live a happy or even comfortable life.  
    Some become seriously depressed at times.  But we are promised a rich 
    and rewarding life, full of extraordinary visions that blind the average, 
    and deep emotions that others may never reach.
    
    Eugene

        Attention:  This note isn't directed at any one noter... but
        addresses some of the attitudes entered by various noters.

	<flame on>


        Seems many people equate college degrees with better jobs and
        *having more.*  Seems those same people *measure* others on what
        kind of *book learning* they have and what they own.  Some people
        seem to measure a man by the fact that his wife is working.  If you
        don't measure up, you're obviously unsuccessful and are a 2nd rate
        citizen.  Shameful.  What's wrong with you anyhow?

        And you've got to like classical music and recite bad poetry to be
        taken seriously.... And remember, people with high IQ's like
        champagne... while people that don't measure up, (blue collar
        workers), like Miller beer.

        You might put down a guy for being an electrician, but did it ever
        occur to you that some people are very happy with being an
        electrician?  Some electricians were probably kids that wanted to
        be electricians when they grew up. 

        And what if you're a VP of some company, (that will probably be
        bought out by the Japanese anyhow), but building a guest house
        behind your mansion, AND you NEED the SKILLS of an electrician to
        put in the wiring... you've got to hire the services of one of
        *those* people!!!  They have skills.  Skills that you didn't
        acquire at Harvard!  Damn!  Now you've got to have this... less
        than ambitious, person at your residence.  Yea, you might dream of
        designing a shopping mall atop a sky-scraper in New York, but you
        can't even build a simple picture frame, you jerk!

        Big deal if a guy looks at a sun set and hears Beethoven's sixth
        symphony while a plumber looks at the sun rise and hears the
        Beatles singing, "Here Comes The Sun," or "Helter Skelter" for that
        matter!  BFD.  And the last note makes it sound like he's got some
        *divine* understanding of heaven and earth!  (Barf, barf)

        My Dad had an 8th grade education.  He owned his own business for
        over 30 years.  He did OK.  My mom never worked another job.  She
        stayed home and helped him out from time to time at his TV shop. 
        No, he wasn't an airline pilot.  No, we didn't have $50,000
        automobiles.  We lived well and were happy. My Dad was his own
        boss.  He set his own schedule.  He worked repair, sales, and did
        his own book-keeping.  He put two children through college and has
        helped the baby of the family out on many occasions during some bad
        spots in his life.  I've always admired him.  He was a success, a
        bigger success, by most peoples standards, than the two children he
        put through college.

        Some people go to college to get high paying jobs and enter into a
        rat-race of the *have-mores.*  They get titles and work for
        somebody else.  Somebody else dictates their lives, their
        schedules, hangs a paycheck in front of their face... saying, "Not
        till Friday."  They often wind up in jobs they hate but keep right
        on going in... day in... day out.  They're slaves to someone else's
        dream.  Look around you now.
        
        As for describing money situations... you can be broke at any
        level.  You can be broke at a $12,000 a year salary, or at a
        $75,000 a year salary.  I read once that most Americans live 25% or
        more above their income.

        As for Vice Presidents of banks... let me tell you something about
        big shot titles.  As I said, my Dad ran a successful TV shop. 
        Every month, he sent out statements... (that's bills to you
        uneducated peoples).  The people he had the hardest time collecting
        from, were often big shots from banks, doctors, lawyers, and other
        professional people.  He turned MANY of them in to the Credit
        Bureau.  He took some of them to court.  He had to stay after them
        to make monthly payments towards their debts.  Sometimes, he had to
        get a court order and go to their homes and repossess his TV that
        they were behind several payments on.  Yet, they drove nice cars,
        (probably making, or trying to make, payments on them), took nice
        vacations, wore nice threads.  But many of them had no money to pay
        on their accounts.  Yet, many poor whites and blacks from the
        projects, (in the south), would faithfully come in and pay on their
        accounts.  

        Don't talk to me about degrees equaling success and bringing you
        divine wisdom.  As some have pointed out... some of the most
        respectful people in the world were not educated people.  There was
        one man that lived many years ago that is highly respected and
        loved by many today, and was considered a wise man, although he had
        no formal education.  He WAS A SIMPLE CARPENTER.  His name was
        Jesus.  No, I'm not selling religion here... just making a point to
        educated idiots.

	Re: .50 (Eugene)

>         Going to college has become a ritual and a rite of passage
>    for the mass, and they just want to get done with it and get a good
>    job.  For the few of us who actually go to college to learn, it is a
>    rewarding experience.  One develops entirely new and different senses
>    and intuition--some deeply emotional, others utterly rational. 
>    Ultimately, the diverse knowledge and experience learned and lived
>    becomes a single uniting philosophy that defines who we
>    are and provides a foundation for the rest of our lives.  When we 

	One can have just as rewarding an experience, develop new senses,
	get a foundation, etc., *even if* one's primary motivation for
	going to college was to get a good job.  Those things can also be
	achieved without ever setting foot in college.  And many a person who
	went to college "to learn" achieved none of those things.  There's 
	nothing inherently nobler about those who go to college "to learn" as
	opposed to those who went "to get a job."


>    finally emerge from these great institutions, technical knowledge and 
>    competence and all the other necessary skills needed to become a 
>    productive member of the society is but only a side benefit and comes
>    naturally without much effort.  

	Huh?  Just because one goes to college "to learn" doesn't mean it 
	comes easily.


>         Often Our more materially oriented friends are amazed by 
>    our ability to get easy A's.  To us, there are very few fundamental 

	Oh, so now the materially-oriented aren't as smart as the non-material
	oriented.  Right.


>    our friends never have the chance.  Oh, they would tell us that our 
>    knowledge will become obsolete after six months if we don't "keep up", 
>    but we never listen to them.  For we know what we learned are the 
>    universal and timeless fundamentals. 

	You're both right.  College teaches the fundamentals, but if you 
	don't continue learning, keeping up as it were, your knowledge gets 
	out of date.  Plenty of universal truths remain valid, but the 
	current application and understanding of them continues to change.


	Sure, there's a lot to be learned at college besides what is taught 
	in the classroom.  Different people get different things out of it, 
	hopefully picking the pieces which are best for them.  Some may
	choose the scholar's route, some the working man's path, and others 
	may do neither.  This is as it should be, for we need all types. But 
	initial motives for going to college can change radically in the 
	few years while one is there, and in any case, are not innately 
	ennobling.


	-Andy

      >    Note 1038.51 by IMTDEV::BERRY "Dwight Berry" >>>


		GREAT note !


		kits

    I am always amazed by the level of anti-intellectual sentiment of this 
    country.  It is strange that being a Harvard graduate was considered
    a negative for Dukakis when he ran for presidency.  Bush went to Yale 
    which was only slightly "better".  I am amazed because I thought this type 
    of anti-intellectual activity can only occurred in China during the height 
    of its absurd "cultural revolution".  Any wonder why the role models
    are not the scientists and poets, but football players, boxers and
    Madonna?  No wonder the Japanese are taking over our banks.

    There is no denying that it is better to drive a BMW than
    a Ford Escort which is what I am driving.  It is better to have more
    money than less.  It is better to be a bank VP than an electrician.
    Finally, it is better to go to college than not.  College education 
    does make one a better person than he used to be.  That is if he takes it
    seriously.  This is what education is all about--to make you a better 
    person.  To me the question has never been if one should go to college,
    but rather how can we get more people into college.

    re .51,

    You know Johnny Carson was right:  George Washington didn't go to 
    college.  Abe Lincoln didn't go to college; Harry Truman didn't go 
    to college.  Dan Quayle went to college.

    re .52,

    We are not necessarily smarter than our more materially oriented friends.  
    We take our college experience as a foundation building process, brick by 
    brick, while they take it as a bag of jigsaw puzzle pieces.  So our 
    structures are solid, and while we marvel at the beauty of our architecture,
    our friends keep searching for the relevant pieces in their bags, and 
    absolutely hate the searching process.

    Eugene

>    I am always amazed by the level of anti-intellectual sentiment of this 
>    country.  It is strange that being a Harvard graduate was considered
>    a negative for Dukakis when he ran for presidency.  Bush went to Yale 
>    which was only slightly "better".  I am amazed because I thought this type 

	Both sentiments can also be viewed as examples of anti-elitism, 
	rather than anti-intellectualism.


>    There is no denying that it is better to drive a BMW than
>    a Ford Escort which is what I am driving.  It is better to have more
>    money than less.  It is better to be a bank VP than an electrician.
>    Finally, it is better to go to college than not.  College education 
>    does make one a better person than he used to be.  That is if he takes it
>    seriously.  This is what education is all about--to make you a better 
>    person.  To me the question has never been if one should go to college,
>    but rather how can we get more people into college.

	Better educated does not equate with being a better person any
	more than it makes you a smarter person.  There are plenty of 
	college graduates who are just as greedy, self-centered, and/or 
	<insert favorite negative adjective here> as their less-educated 
	counterparts.  I imagine the percentage of "good" people who are 
	college-educated is higher than the percentage in the rest of 
	the population, and of course I applaud that. 


>    You know Johnny Carson was right:  George Washington didn't go to 
>    college.  Abe Lincoln didn't go to college; Harry Truman didn't go 
>    to college.  Dan Quayle went to college.

	Ok, I'm confused.  Are you saying that Dan Quayle is a better 
	person than George Washington, then?


>    We are not necessarily smarter than our more materially oriented friends.  
>    We take our college experience as a foundation building process, brick by 
>    brick, while they take it as a bag of jigsaw puzzle pieces.  So our 
>    structures are solid, and while we marvel at the beauty of our architecture,
>    our friends keep searching for the relevant pieces in their bags, and 
>    absolutely hate the searching process.

	Wait, I'm confused again.  In your first paragraph, you said that
	wealth and other material things were good goals, yet here you seem
	to imply that they aren't.

	My point was that the ability to learn through a foundation 
	building process is not exclusively possessed by scholars.  It 
	can (and often is) used by those who are materially oriented!  
	How else could they be so successful?



	-Andy

    re.51
    Dwight my friend great note!
    
    A college education dosen't amount to S#IT unless the person holding it
    does something with it. My ex had a masters degree and was unemployable
    she simply diden't have any common sense. I have and still am attending
    college but not for the purpose of ever getting a degree. I am totaly
    convinced that common sense and determination will get a person further	
    along in life than a degree ever will.
    
    -j

   Figure out what you want to do with your life and then figure out what
   you need to do to accomplish those goals.  Adjust as necessary.



   							Terza

Johnny Carson was having a tough show on that particular night.  None of
his joke worked.  But as an experienced professional comedian that he was,
he saved something for the end as usual.  When he cracked up that line, it
brought the entire house down.  Frankly, it was pretty funny, and I laughed
too.  Yet there is no question as to the anti-intellectual content of that
message.  As I opened the HR file the next day, this particular note string
appeared, so I read it in its entirety in one sitting.  And I am very 
disturbed by the strong anti-intellectual sentiment present in these notes.
Getting a college degree is equated with "burying in the textbooks for four
years" or a "union card" or "spoon fed for four years" and so on and so forth.
This type of intellectual nihilism is, in my opinion, absurd to say the
least.

I don't know about you, but there is no doubt that my college experience made
me smarter than I was.  There is no doubt that my college experience made
me a better person than I was.  There is no doubt that Bach IS better than the 
Beetles; Yeats IS better than 'Guns 'N Roses', and Mozart IS better than 
Madonna.  Culture nihilism is just as absurd.

College does not come easily for most of us.  Much of the time we work as 
hard as the real world folks with "work experience" and getting paid at 
the rate of the minimum wage.  But looking back, I wouldn't have it any other 
way.

Some people don't go to college because they can't hack it.  Nothing wrong
with that.  We are all talented in our own ways.  Others choose not to go 
for various reasons.  For those of us who went, we would like to share our
experience too--the joy and sorrow that comes from learning and 
contemplating about the world and ourselves, experience that is unique
to our choice.

I freely admit I never know what running a TV repair shop is like, and
I value the experience of the "Dad".  But why is it that when us college 
graduates want to talk about our experience, we are always accused of 
practicing elitism or being snobs?

Am I bothered by those bashings?  Of course not.  I laughed at the Carson's
joke as hard as the next person.  But personally, I think those bashers just
don't feel very secure about themselves.  Excellence is rare and there are
very few original thinkers in the world who set examples that we may never 
match but will never stop admiring and striving toward.  Mediocrities are
those who put down those aspirations due to their own feelings of
inadequacy and jealousy.  Anyone who has seen the movie _Amadeus_ 
understands that.

Eugene

re:  .58

>>>I don't know about you, but there is no doubt that my college experience made
me smarter than I was.  There is no doubt that my college experience made
me a better person than I was.  There is no doubt that Bach IS better than the 
Beetles; Yeats IS better than 'Guns 'N Roses', and Mozart IS better than 
Madonna.  Culture nihilism is just as absurd.

Saying that Bach is better than the Beatles, (maybe you meant to spell it wrong
or did they spell in that way in college?), is purely a matter of taste.  I
know one thing, you'll find opposing views in the BEATLE conference!

As for college making you "better," it probably did.  Most experiences in life
teach us something, make us wiser, college or otherwise.  I know of a lot of
people that went to college and received degrees... but they didn't come out
"enlightened" about the meaning of life.

>>>But why is it that when us college  graduates want to talk about our
experience, we are always accused of  practicing elitism or being snobs?

I don't think that is the case.  Or, I could say, why do college graduates act
like snobs and put down those that either didn't want to go, or didn't have the
opportunity to go!  But that isn't the case either.  As you admitted reading
all the replies here... you found that many of the persons opposing your views
were also college grads.

>>>Excellence is rare and there are very few original thinkers in the world who
set examples that we may never  match but will never stop admiring and striving
toward.  

What has this got to do with college grads verses non-college grads?  Perhaps
this is a common vision, not just shared by college grads staring out of their
penthouse window, watching the sun setting, listening to Mozart.

>>>Mediocrities are those who put down those aspirations due to their own
feelings of inadequacy and jealousy.  Anyone who has seen the movie _Amadeus_ 
understands that.

Good movie.  I own a copy, and hey... I ain't a college grad!  Ain't that some
____?

db

"Union card"
"PHD=Pile higher and deeper"
"Spending x years buried in text books"
"Educated idiot"
"Spoon fed in lecture hall"
"____"
"S#IT"
...

Those parents who sent their kids to colleges would be real glad to know 
what their kids are getting for their sacrifices.  And those who have 
children approaching college age can take a deep breath and relax.  Come 
to think of it, why don't we close Harvard, Yale, MIT and all the other 
institutions of high learning?  All they do is churning out pompous arrogant 
educated idiotic college brats.

I came to this country 11 years ago when I could barely utter a coherent
sentence in English.  I am not about to apologize for the education I 
worked hard to get in this country (God bless America).  (And surely I 
will not apologize for the occasional mis-spelled words in my essays).

But I want to say to the parents who sent, send or is about to send their 
children to college to know that a college education is worth all the 
sacrifices they made.  I want to let them know that their kids are not just 
getting a job training, but building a foundation for the rest of their 
lives.  I want to let those who are in colleges or are about to go to 
colleges to know that college is more than getting good grades, a piece of 
paper, a good job and a high pay, and I wish they have as wonderful an 
experience as I had when I was in college.

Right now, I am holding a technically challenging job in a high tech company.  
I have been a very productive worker (at least I would like to believe) for the
last three years.  But compared to the learning experience I had in college,
it has been, well, very long except for a course I took about a year and 
half ago in MIT (no apologies for that either), and I am very grateful to DEC
for paying the tuition.  Still sometimes, I have a feeling that my mind is 
beginning to rust...

In my culture, a learned man is revered and is an example for the young
to follow, not to be put down, mocked and certainly not shunned.  The 
frontier pioneering and sometimes anti-intellectual spirit has carried 
this country thus far, and we can all be thankful for that.  But we had 
better begin to take education seriously lest the Japanese to take over 
because we no longer "import" as many "learned" men and women from Europe 
as we used to.  If that makes me a "elitist", so be it.  And I pray 
every kid will grow up to be such an "elitist".

A pompous snobbish smug arrogant "better than thou" elitist brat and proud 
of it.  See I can play the same game.

Eugene

    For years I felt work experience had the most value.  After all those
    college grads didn't even know the rules for validating an Accounts
    Payable disbursement...and I knew them all.
    
    Then my work and talent was recognized.  And I was promoted.  
    
    And I take courses and they are always applicable to my postion.  I
    feel I am getting knowledge one nanno second before I need to use it!
    
    And I observe the many folks that were promoted as I was that have not
    furthered their education, there knowledge is limited to their area of
    expertise.
    
    And I watch the work change...I am working on an EDI project.  Our area
    of expertise will become a small portion of a huge database.  
    
    The young people of today will be severly handicapped it they cannot
    view their work in the big picture.  To develop work experience in the
    whole cycle of producing a piece of hardware or software would take a
    career.  College gives us the knowledge and/or skills to accumulate new
    knowledge quickly.
    
    In five years Eugene, you will be able to say "I told you so!"  I hope
    you are known as Dr. Eugene Xia by then, because I have a feeling that
    will be necessary!

The problem I am seeing with all this bantering about college vs. not is that
people are projecting their personal experiences on the rest of the population!

Eugene, just because you went to college and greatly enriched yourself as a
person, doesn't mean that I don't know a large number of kids who took the
easiest courses they could find just to get a good grade and to get out!

We both see two very different realities of college....who is right?  
we both are.

Likewise, Dwight Berry's Dad had a wonderful life without much formal 
education.  Is he the only one like this?  Of course not.  But for every 
person like the senior Mr. Berry, there are individuals who are not interested 
in anything other that check every Thursday.

Again, these are both realities.

From my personal experience, one of the most wonderful, caring, giving, 
supportive, and philosophical people I ever knew was a carpenter and then a 
building inspector.  And on the flip side, one of the laziest, most 
self-centered individuals I know has several college degrees and has been 
unemployed for several years because he refuses to "work" to get paid.  He
believes he is owed lots of money because of the papers he holds in his hand...

All I'm really trying to say with all this, is that having or not having a 
college education does not make or break a person.  Everyone is different.  
You have to look at each person as an individual, with different opportunities 
and different definitions of "success" for their lives.  

It is not our right to judge other people as successful or having worth by our 
own standards.  You can only accurately judge whether or not you are yourself.

Barbara

    RE: .62  Great note!  You hit the nail right on the head.  

This has turned into an excellent discussion!

.60> In my culture, a learned man is revered and is an example for the young

To me, Eugene and Dwight seem to be debating the definition of "learned man"...

Just what is a "learned man/woman"?  What attributes of "learned man/woman"
should/can all people strive for?  How does one know when he/she has achieved
the status of "learned man/woman"?  

        re .54,
        
>>    I am always amazed by the level of anti-intellectual sentiment of this 
>>    country.  It is strange that being a Harvard graduate was considered
>>    a negative for Dukakis when he ran for presidency.  Bush went to Yale 
>>    which was only slightly "better".
        
        Often when the tv news wants to talk to an "expert" about
        something, they dredge up some big name east coast college
        or university professor who then proceeds to spout a bunch
        of extreme left wing anti-American garbage.  After a while
        that becomes the image the word "intellectual" brings to
        mind.
        
        Dan
        

    I think there are two or three reasons why college education is held
    in such low regard in this country.  One is college-educated people
    spouting off about how X is, obviously, better than Y when that's
    really a matter of artistic opinion (sorry, Eugene).  It smacks of
    elitism, which doesn't bring people over to your point of view.
    
    An other reason is that some people, tragically, never had the
    financial or support services to go to college.  So they have less
    respect for college-educated people since they are a threat (in that
    they can get "better" jobs, higher pay etc.).
    
    And a third reason is what Dan said: some college educated folks appear
    to be complete buffoons.  You hear lots of jokes about "so and so went
    to college but still doesn't have any common sense."
    
    These are pretty gross generalizations, I know.  Even if I'm wrong, the
    truth of the matter is that the US is going to be having a serious
    decline in economic power over the next two decades.  And the heart of
    the matter is high school/college education.  Jobs that involve
    repetive motion can, by and large, just as easily be done off-shore
    at 1/3 - 1/5 the wage of US workers.  That's a large chunk of the US
    populace.  The only major edge we have right now is our relatively
    well-educated work force.  And that's rapidly becoming a myth as
    our schools decline, college costs continue to skyrocket, and people
    drop out of high-school and can't even read or do math.
    
    Jim

        re .66,
        
>>    people drop out of high-school and can't even read or do math.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^
        
        Someone more cynical might have said "graduate from" there. :-(
        
        Dan

Barbara,

It is always the easiest to advocate populist views.  After all it is
meant to offend no one and it is the most popular by definition.  
Unfortunately, they are usually very short on substance, sort of like
the flag issue during the last presidential campaign.  "Everyone has
the right to be different."  Who in his right mind can oppose that?  
However, it doesn't really say much, does it?  Where is the difference
between good and bad, excellence and mediocrity?  To use your own example,
who are we to say the wonderful philosophical carpenter is better 
than the laziest, most self-centered college grads?  After all, doesn't
the college grad have the right to be lazy and self-centered?  See it is not 
enough to just say "everyone has the right to be different" because there ARE 
differences.

I agree there are people who go to college and take the easy courses and 
just want to get done with it (see note .50 about rituals and the rite of
passage and all that).  I also think it is sad and unfortunate because 
they missed such a wonderful opportunity, but I think you should take it up 
with Andy Lee not me.

But, I have met a few Harvard and Princeton graduates and many MIT graduates.  
They are without exception the most brilliant bunch (And these are the 
"Ivy snobs" our college bashers are after, not the lazy average guys,
say, from Virginia Tech, aren't they?).  The graduate 
schools in those places have the very best in their fields and all of them 
(the piled higher and deeper type) work very hard.  Advance degree programs 
do not pay very well (an assistantship pays about 10,000 a year).  Anyone
who is not genuinely interested in those stuff would be out on the Wall Street.
The course I took at MIT was a very humbling experience for me.  I suddenly
found out I wasn't the top dog any more.  For a moment, I was quite jealous
of some of those fellas and fancied them to be snobs.  Well, I was only
human.  But they really weren't snobs.  It was all in my head.  Anyway as I 
said, that was just for a moment.

Dan,

I disagree.  This sort of anti-intellectual thing has been going on for 
a long time and certainly pre-dates the invention of the TV.  The college 
graduates here in this notesfile certainly has not done anything to
warrant this sort of thing.

Jim,

After reading the list of .50, I felt it was a lost cause 
to try to convince them otherwise.  I also think it is stretching a bit
to say the difference between Madonna and Mozart is merely a matter of
taste.  I think we have played this type of game for too long in the name
of not offending anyone.  The result is culture and intellectual nihilism.
How do we convince our kids to stay in school and go to college if we
keep telling them high learning is an arbitrary choice and all is a matter 
of taste?  For the sake of our kids and this nation's future, we had
better make the message clear, wouldn't you think?

	* * *

We had a nanny at my grandma's place.  She had been with us for over 40
years by the time I left China and as far as I know is still with the family.
She essentially ran the household and us kids all called here "grandma",
well, a rather informal form, sort of like "granny".  In any case, she wasn't
very pleased when she heard I was about to come here to the United States.
People of her generation had many mis-conceptions about what America is
like...  Since she was an elderly figure, us kids were obliged to pay 
attention to what she had to say.  Well, her objection went away as 
soon as I told her that I was going to America to "study books" (to 
give a literal translation that is).  A few days before I went to
the airport, she pulled me aside and said, "I never had a chance to
learn to read and write.  I always feel like I am blind.  Now you have 
the opportunity to go and learn another language and many many more.
Many people have made big sacrifices to make your trip possible.  Please don't
disappoint us."  So here was granny who never had any formal education and
couldn't read or write a word.  But when she sent me away, she didn't say
college education is "burying x years in the text book" or a "union card"
or even "get a good education to make more money", but to learn and open another
"pair of eyes".  To her, learning for learning's sake is axiomatic.  Lord
knows the Chinese culture has its problems, but I think the Americans
can use some of these Confucian ideas with regards to learning and education.

Finally, I want to make one point absolutely clear and that is I am not out to
judge people who do not go to college.  To do so is tantamount to judging 
granny, but here we have the richest country in the world and opportunities
for high education abound.  You know I would really like to hear granny's 
reaction to the "educated idiot" remark.  And I know what granny would
have said about those who take the easiest courses in order to graduate.

I am here to convince more people to go to college, and I think this is of 
paramount importance.  College is for learning and learning and pursuing 
of art, science, music, mathematics and myriads of other experiences are what 
allow men and women to acquire the wisdom of a "learned man".  The side 
benefits are better jobs and higher pays for everyone.

I hope I have not disappointed granny.

Eugene

Re: .66 by CALS::MACKIN,


>    I think there are two or three reasons why college education is held
>    in such low regard in this country.

Not the least of which is that uneducated people have difficulty
comprehending what it is that the educated person has that they do 
not. It is easy to dismiss things whose significance we do not 
appreciate.

None of us like to agree that someone else is superiour. Some 
people tend to denigrate that which they do not understand, rather 
than try to comprehend it.

Of course, many of us do acquire the knowledge and understanding 
through self-education and experience. Unfortunately, that higher
level of understanding is --statistically speaking-- more prevalent
amongst people that have enjoyed higher education.

-- Ron

.68>Finally, I want to make one point absolutely clear and that is I am not out to
.68>judge people who do not go to college.  

Thank you for saying that.

I sincerely hope that is the truth, because it feels so contradictory to 
everything you have written about Mozart and Madonna, sunsets, etc.

If you believe that, why did you try to make a mockery of my last reply (I'll
quote you, "it really doesn't say much, does it?") which was trying to suggest
that we all stop judging people from our own personal point of view?

Barbara

    Eugene, when it comes to science I might agree with you that there is
    a "right" and a "wrong."  At least until proven otherwise.  But I will
    not agree that Mozart is de facto better than Madonna.  I personally
    don't like much of Mozart's work; I find a lot of it boring and tedious
    to listen to.  But I can respect other people who think he is the cat's
    meow.  Its similar to people hating violin concertos because of the
    illusions of pretentiousness.  Art to some; Sominex to others.
    
    The toughest problem, as Ron pointed out, is how to demonstrate to
    people today that college really does offer something positive, even in
    the light of numerous examples of people without doing great things and
    people with being total butt heads.  My personal opinion is that the
    thing college does, which you don't get anywhere else, is a chance to
    really refine how you think and analyze situations.   This is a skill
    that is invaluable in later life.  Its the challenge of good college
    courses that really hone those skills.
    
    Jim

    Jim,

    Hope I don't sound too argumentitive...  But if we admit there is
    such legitimate profession as art critic or music critic or restaurant
    critic, then we must accept there is a difference.  I went to Maison
    Robert (sp?) once in uncomfortable suit and tie.  Frankly, I didn't think 
    the food was that great and it costed a fortune.  I don't think I will ever
    go there again.  However, it will be absurd for me to say that Big Mac 
    is just as good as Maison Robert.  Ok so in this case, it is a matter of
    "taste".  In anycase,  everybody understands that (college or no
    college).  
    ...
    Why is it when it comes to art and music, it suddenly becomes
    a matter of "judging other people" (and I might add some people who are 
    vehemently against judging other people never hesistate to throw out terms
    like "educated idiots" or "laziest most self-centered" to describe others)?
    As to science, someone (the new age fellas) might claim their crystal is 
    just as good as Newton's law of gravity (and Jim, I am not mocking you or 
    in that matter anybody else).  
    
    I have been drilling myself on Bach's music for the last two months, 
    and I just plain don't get it.  However, I would be stretching it if I 
    claim Bach's music is as bad as..., well in the name of not offending 
    anyone, I will let you fill in the blank because the mere fact that Bach 
    has endured all those years says a lot about his music.  By the way, this
    year is the bi-centennial of Mozart's death and people all over the
    world are dedicating concerts to this occasion and that includes China.
    
    Eugene

    re.72
    I reached an understanding of Bach in high school music.
    
    Would you consider the uneducated "granny" you refer to back a few
    notes any less valueable due to her lack of formal higher education?
    Or did she seem to have a wisdom from an undefineable source that made
    her just as valueable in your family and comunity?
    
    The degree gives a man a title but the man and how he uses his degree
    makes it valueable or not.
    
    -j