Bleak Future for Young Adults [Archive]

SmilesSoSweet

01-25-2006, 12:57 AM

A college degree "will determine the size of their paycheck, the safety of their neighborhood, the reliability of their car and ... the opportunities they will be able to provide for their own children." However, it is that education, increasingly required for even low-paying jobs, that is hard to finance and can take more than a decade to pay off.

If that's the case, I really want my money and time back. Damnit. And it'll take me a good decade or two to pay off my student loans.

Thus, bouncers are born. This group moves between jobs in pursuit of the elusive trifecta: decent pay, ample benefits and the chance to scale the corporate ladder

It's sad that we can't even get two of the three - decent pay and ample benefits. The scaling up the corporate ladder I can do without for the first few years of a job. But the pay and benefits? I would totally find another job if I had crappy benefits. Right now, my medical is okay, vision and dental are non-existant.

Adding to the stress: the difficulty in finding affordable housing.

No shit! Just when I moved out to Phoenix and thought I can afford a home, it's really getting tough!

Among the suggestions: Kicking credit card companies off college campuses, where many cash-strapped students develop bad financial habits due to the ease of obtaining cards.

That might be a good idea. Even though it is everyone's own will power to not apply for credit cards, how else is a struggling college student going to support himself, even if he works full time while going to school?

All this just makes me angry that there are people who are going to college for undergrad and graduate degrees yet still can't find jobs within their field.

WeirdBrake

01-25-2006, 01:34 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060124/bs_usatoday/youngearnersfaceintensefinancialchallenge

Thoughts?

Yep.

*voice of James Belushi with a Texas accent*

This sounds like a bunch of bullshit if you don't mind me sayin' so. :twisted: :p

Deadend

01-25-2006, 02:27 AM

This sounds like a bunch of bullshit if you don't mind me sayin' so. :twisted: :p

And why do you think that?

wordsmith

01-25-2006, 02:43 AM

1. I'm 29 today. Exactly one year from 30. If I break $35,000 at my current job, ever, I will consider myself rolling in the dough.

2. Articles like this actually don't make me feel badly at all. I'd feel badly if I felt as if I were alone in my relative poverty. T'ain't so.

yankeeyosh

01-25-2006, 07:31 AM

Well, I do think there is definitely going to be an intragenerational gap, of sorts, financially that is greater than any in history among our generation. Baby boomers may not retire as fast as previously expected, and there will be a rapid increase in the number of people getting college degrees as the peak of the Echo Boom (another name for Gen 'Y') encroaches. Unless the economy starts partying again like it's 1999, it may be rather bleak for many in the near future, due to fewer opportunities. Right now, I would say that for college grads, the economy is pretty good...salaries are pretty much on mark with the Class of 2000 right now, even after adjusting for inflation...even though the number of jobs is not as plentiful. But if there is another downswing, I don't see this continuing.

Another thing...not only is the BS/BA vital, but the Master's degree has pretty much replaced the bachelor's degree in many fields...I would venture to say that most people in our generation get it not because they want to but it's a means to an end. There are fields where it's not necessary, but it's nearly a "given" for many people that they will get it (the Freshman Survey from UCLA has indicated in recent years that 2/3 or more of college freshmen expct to receive a professional degree...what percentage of them actually do it is questionable, but there is clearly demand). So those without the MS/MBA will likely fall further behind in many fields...not all, but many.

shimmer728

01-25-2006, 08:56 AM

yankeeyosh

01-25-2006, 09:19 AM

Articles like this make me nervous, too. I am doing OK now, even though I only make in the mid-20s. Why? I don't have much loan debt (although it will still take me years to pay off what I do have on my salary) and I live in a cheap, cheap, cheap rural area. That really saves my ass. But what the hell is going to happen when I go to move somewhere else? That's inevitable. And yes, I might very well make more money then, but then again, I might not.

Yes, stuff like that really freaks me out.

Keep in mind that they are talking about the generation as a whole. The people here on QLC generally represent the top 10% of the group, so it is far more likely that we will succeed than some 23 year old who is aimlessly jumping from job to job with half a degree completed and no real direction. Also, we seem to be more independent than the typical "entitlement" kids who rely on their parents to get them out of trouble. That is also key.

shimmer728

01-25-2006, 09:34 AM

Keep in mind that they are talking about the generation as a whole. The people here on QLC generally represent the top 10% of the group, so it is far more likely that we will succeed than some 23 year old who is aimlessly jumping from job to job with half a degree completed and no real direction. Also, we seem to be more independent than the typical "entitlement" kids who rely on their parents to get them out of trouble. That is also key.

That's a good point. Thanks. :)

WeirdBrake

01-25-2006, 10:01 AM

And why do you think that?

Because it's just a bunch of gloom n doom with no real evidence to back it up. I didn't spot any hard data in the article. Only vague pronouncements and loosey-goosey conclusions.

wordsmith

01-25-2006, 10:12 AM

This is where my regional perspective really helps me out...

Given that with a B.A. alone, I'm already more educated than many of the successful people around me, I just can't worry that much. I'm surrounded by people who are doing just fine at life, without master's degrees, without bachelor's degrees, in many cases. It all depends on where you are, what you want, what your goals are. My mom has a high school diploma. She loves her job and makes more than I do. She's a special education aide. My bank president, and local well-to-do man about town, takes great pleasure in pointing out the fact that he was able to rise in the ranks despite having only an associate's degree in formal education. He does quite well for himself. It's a small town. Expectations are different. If he were seeking to become a higher up in the corporate offices of major investment banking firm, would he be able to do so with an associate's degree in finance? I'm sure he wouldn't. But if he's the CEO of a small local family of community banks, and it allows him to live well under the cost of living in a small town, is that not success?

It's true that the way things are going, without continued degrees, there are fields where fierce competition may ace one out of opportunities...not disputing that at all. But it's important to note that it's only a certain segment of the population that is aggressively aspiring to come out as top dog in extremely competitive working environments.

yankeeyosh

01-25-2006, 10:20 AM

This is where my regional perspective really helps me out...

Given that with a B.A. alone, I'm already more educated than many of the successful people around me, I just can't worry that much. I'm surrounded by people who are doing just fine at life, without master's degrees, without bachelor's degrees, in many cases. It all depends on where you are, what you want, what your goals are. My mom has a high school diploma. She loves her job and makes more than I do. She's a special education aide. My bank president, and local well-to-do man about town, takes great pleasure in pointing out the fact that he was able to rise in the ranks despite having only an associate's degree in formal education. He does quite well for himself. It's a small town. Expectations are different. If he were seeking to become a higher up in the corporate offices of major investment banking firm, would he be able to do so with an associate's degree in finance? I'm sure he wouldn't. But if he's the CEO of a small local family of community banks, and it allows him to live well under the cost of living in a small town, is that not success?

But your mom and bank president are of totally different generations. That's the thing. For Generation 'X' and without any doubt 'Y', this would be impossible. These jobs would be offlimits today unless you have the credentials.

wordsmith

01-25-2006, 10:39 AM

But your mom and bank president are of totally different generations. That's the thing. For Generation 'X' and without any doubt 'Y', this would be impossible. These jobs would be offlimits today unless you have the credentials.

Nope...support staff positions at the local school district are still available without a college degree. The bank president thing, not as likely, even for a small community banking company, so point taken...BUT, trust me. Small towns definitely have the advantage of making a liveable wage and achieving finanancial success without continued study. Most of my high school classmates who are still in the area are doing a lot better than I am financially with my B.A., and most of them have an associate's from the community college AT MOST. They are generally laborers, entrepreneurs, small business owners and contractors. The money and the success are there.

Being competitive and having the highest degree possible in your field is really far more mandatory for the corporate/white collar set than anyone else. I realize this is probably most of us. But not all. I'm just bringing it up to reinforce the perspective that there are those in our age group who don't aspire to that. I don't think it makes sense to say that our generation is doomed. This doesn't apply to everyone.

winneythepooh7

01-25-2006, 10:40 AM

Well, for one, I knew going into my field that I was never ever going to make much money. I am living I guess what could be considered "comfortable". Also, most of us do have the option of at least getting approved for a mortgage at some point down the line. From what my parents tell me, it was harder back then. I also feel that the past few generations are more about spending money on things, most of which is not a need. I think a big reason why people a few generations ahead of us may have gotten ahead financially so to speak, is because they didn't spend so much money on things like clothing and CD's. If they didn't have the money, they didn't buy it. I think about how much money I could even save if I never bought things like this and lived like my parents or grandparents did.............

wordsmith

01-25-2006, 10:45 AM

I also feel that the past few generations are more about spending money on things, most of which is not a need. I think a big reason why people a few generations ahead of us may have gotten ahead financially so to speak, is because they didn't spend so much money on things like clothing and CD's. If they didn't have the money, they didn't buy it. I think about how much money I could even save if I never bought things like this and lived like my parents or grandparents did.............

Totally. If there is a real bleak future and downfall to our generation, it doesn't lie in college being expensive, jobs hard to come by. It lies in finding it perfectly acceptable and normal to be living beyond our means to purchase things that aren't necessities. Maxing out credit lines on nonessential stuff, buying things you don't have the money for and don't need. That's the downfall to us and several before us. I understand that living is expensive, and credit has many uses that fall in the realm of necessary purchases. I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about overextending yourself on things you absolutely do NOT need, and so many of us do it. I think that's a WAY bigger concern for our financial future as a generation than anything else.

Barring necessities and emercencies, I don't buy anything I can't pay for on the spot. Car included, so don't "what about a car payment" on me. I simply cannot justify 99% of the time spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

Deadend

01-25-2006, 10:47 AM

Because it's just a bunch of gloom n doom with no real evidence to back it up. I didn't spot any hard data in the article. Only vague pronouncements and loosey-goosey conclusions.

Which you just did again. If you take issue with a lack of footnotes then why don't you just say that.

So you're trying to contest that colledge debt is NOT at an all time high? That housing prices aren't through through the roof? and that 20 somthings are not carrying more credit debt then ever before?

MetFanL

01-25-2006, 10:54 AM

I think this is mostly just timing, as yankee kind of said. We were all told when we graduated that the boomers would all retire and those jobs would be ours. Execept, they're not. They need/want more money and aren't ready to just walk away from work... those b*stards enjoy it. ;) So, our generation ends up fighting for positions. Eventually, they will have to retire.

Honestly, I'm surprised more of them haven't, really. I'm surprised employers are really valuing their institutional knowledge more than the fact that they can pay a young person less...

winneythepooh7

01-25-2006, 10:58 AM

I am not even talking about using credit cards, because I rarely do anymore. But if say you have $800.00 a month left over after all your bills are paid, and even money in savings. That doesn't mean that is neccesarily "disposable income". I think this is how many people in our generation "can't afford things".

WeirdBrake

01-25-2006, 10:59 AM

Which you just did again. If you take issue with a lack of footnotes then why don't you just say that.

Because I thought it would be more fun to quote James Belushi in the '96 B-movie Retroactive. :p

So you're trying to contest that colledge debt is NOT at an all time high?

I don't know if I'd contest that C-O-L-L-E-G-E debt is at an all-time high, but it would make sense that everything is at an all-time high because the cost of almost everything has steadily increased over time. Housing prices, cars, tuition, etc. They were all probably at an "all-time high" in 1990 and in 1980, too. So it's a meaningless statement. It's like saying, "We're living in the most technologically advanced age of all time." It's pretty much true whenever you say it.

What I contest is that young adults have a bleak future ahead of them. I'd also contest an article that claimed young adults will have a bright future ahead of them. Some will, and some won't. I saw nothing in the article to justify any conclusion that young adults, in general, are doomed.

yankeeyosh

01-25-2006, 11:07 AM

Honestly, I'm surprised more of them haven't, really. I'm surprised employers are really valuing their institutional knowledge more than the fact that they can pay a young person less...

Yeah, and it's not just knowledge, but specialized knowledge. I mean, I'm still holding out hope it's not going to fall that way, but I fear that even having a master's degree won't be enough because it's in meteorology, while companies I'm eyeing expect a degree specificially in math or statistics or something like that, even though 99% of the stuff you studied won't be used. So as I've been groaning about every freakin' hour this past month and probably making many of you sick to your stomachs (sorry :redface: ), I may have to trundle to school AGAIN to get yet another master's degree so I have a fighting chance for a decent job, and not a mindless job which is just lots and lots of busywork and trust accounting nonsense I have no interest in. And even then, I'll still be at a disadvantage because employers want DIRECT experience, so 3-4 years' experience in retirement planning plus 2 years' experience as a grad research asst will be of no value, since companies want a specific resume, and if you don't have it, they won't hire you. So as the old expression goes, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

MollyMe

01-25-2006, 11:53 AM

So you're trying to contest that colledge debt is NOT at an all time high? That housing prices aren't through through the roof? and that 20 somthings are not carrying more credit debt then ever before?

College debt might be at an all time high, but more people are going to college which will lead to better jobs and a more educated and knowledgeable workforce.
Housing prices are only through the roof in some areas. But I've also read that housing is more affordable and attainable now than ever before.

winneythepooh7

01-25-2006, 12:10 PM

What I contest is that young adults have a bleak future ahead of them. I'd also contest an article that claimed young adults will have a bright future ahead of them. Some will, and some won't. I saw nothing in the article to justify any conclusion that young adults, in general, are doomed.

It's interesting that you mention this WB. Not everyone WILL be as successful as everyone else. Not everyone who gets a college diploma will find a good job for one reason or another. I mean, there are crazy-ass people out there these days that get degrees in Social Work. Obviously, it is going to be hard for them to get a job in this field. I think almost anyone can get the degree, but actually having the skills and the ability to do a certain job is another thing. It sucks, it sounds mean and completely horrible, but that is unfortunately the reality. Personality and intelligence also plays a big part in it all. There are high paying, powerful positions out there in my field. Like overseeing say, the New York State Office of Mental Health, for example. However, I can honestly say I don't have the personality, or the extreme high-level of intelligence it would take to do a job as politically charged as this one. Not that I am "dumb" but y'all know what I am saying.........it's survival of the fittest out there..........

and1grad

01-25-2006, 12:17 PM

Honestly, I'm surprised more of them haven't, really. I'm surprised employers are really valuing their institutional knowledge more than the fact that they can pay a young person less...
Tell you the truth, I'm not. Experience trumps degrees. Always has, always will. I think the degree chasing adds another element of entitlement to people who shouldnt have it. Getting a job comes down more to marketing yourself than it does to multiple degrees and I'd be SHOCKED if someone with a good amount of valuable experience were denied a job over someone with none b/c they didnt have an extra degree.

I don't know if I'd contest that C-O-L-L-E-G-E debt is at an all-time high, but it would make sense that everything is at an all-time high because the cost of almost everything has steadily increased over time. Housing prices, cars, tuition, etc. They were all probably at an "all-time high" in 1990 and in 1980, too. So it's a meaningless statement. It's like saying, "We're living in the most technologically advanced age of all time." It's pretty much true whenever you say it.

What I contest is that young adults have a bleak future ahead of them. I'd also contest an article that claimed young adults will have a bright future ahead of them. Some will, and some won't. I saw nothing in the article to justify any conclusion that young adults, in general, are doomed.
Agreed.

yankeeyosh

01-25-2006, 12:31 PM

Housing prices are only through the roof in some areas. But I've also read that housing is more affordable and attainable now than ever before.

Yes, but the interest rates will be going up soon. A $250,000 mortgage with a 5% interest rate (or whatever the rate is...I have no idea...I'm not even thinking of buying a house) is a lot cheaper than one with a 9% rate.

yankeeyosh

01-25-2006, 12:39 PM

I don't know if I'd contest that C-O-L-L-E-G-E debt is at an all-time high, but it would make sense that everything is at an all-time high because the cost of almost everything has steadily increased over time. Housing prices, cars, tuition, etc. They were all probably at an "all-time high" in 1990 and in 1980, too. So it's a meaningless statement. It's like saying, "We're living in the most technologically advanced age of all time." It's pretty much true whenever you say it.

Yes, but tuition is increasing at a rate MUCH faster than inflation, and there's no end to it...plus grant aid is lagging behind. Fortunately, Boomers tend (not universal, obviously, but tend) to be more willing to pay for college than previous generations (due to smothering of kids and due to the fact that they value education more than previous generations), so kids oftentimes are able to get decent parental support. But if your EFC is $15,000, which is roughly what it would be for a family with $80,000 in income, and they have no savings for college and can't afford to pay more than $5,000 in tuition...the other $10,000 will come from loans. So over the course of four years, you'll be $40,000 in debt just like that, plus interest if they're unsubsidized. That means $500 a month for ten years just to pay off college...two car payments, four months of grocery bills, possibly a rent payment...things have to change.

Those people, by the way, I don't despise when they have ultra-high expectations for salary starting out, because they can't help it.

MollyMe

01-25-2006, 12:45 PM

Yes, but the interest rates will be going up soon. A $250,000 mortgage with a 5% interest rate (or whatever the rate is...I have no idea...I'm not even thinking of buying a house) is a lot cheaper than one with a 9% rate.

How do you know the rate is going up?
Here is a graph of key interest rates. Some are more correlated than others. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/fed/fedchart.asp
This is an article about where mortgage rates are headed. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10696255/

Cole

01-25-2006, 12:56 PM

I would say a lot of that article sounds very familiar from what many of my friends and I have experienced. To be honest, it makes me feel better, knowing that looking at my college debt (I don't even have car payments or a credit card!) and my income makes me feel like I'll be stuck forever. I'm glad to hear that it's a common struggle, and it's not that I messed up somehow.

I think it's true that a college degree doesn't get you as much of a salary increase anymore, while everything else has gotten more expensive. I definitely think it's harder for us to get good paying jobs and get out of debt than it has been for past generations.

I don't think the "fixes" they offer would help though.

yankeeyosh

01-25-2006, 01:14 PM

How do you know the rate is going up?
Here is a graph of key interest rates. Some are more correlated than others. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/fed/fedchart.asp
This is an article about where mortgage rates are headed. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10696255/

It will probably go up...maybe not immediately, but the rates are directly tied to what the Fed does wrt short term interest rates.

But if you're in career where your salary is essentially capped at $50 or $55K, and you live in a major metro area, unless you have a sugar daddy or momma, face it...you can never afford a house.

yankeeyosh

01-25-2006, 01:46 PM

I agree that the tuition rates are rising faster than inflation rates.

I do not think that the "decent parental support" you mentioned should include the 5k out of 15k example you used. Maybe if the amount that the family could pony up were half or so.

A family living on Long Island making $80K will not exactly have an easy time ponying up $15K. It's possible, but would require tremendous sacrifice.

In addition, I'm not sure that a lot of kids look into schools that they can afford (either through grants, financial aid through the school, scholarships, or just whatever amount of money there is availble to them or their families) when they look at colleges.

Perhaps the "best" school is significantly more expensive than the second or third choices that are maybe less expensive but still have pretty good programs. And if students do look into those schools and choose to attend school somewhere more expensive, where loans will be necessary, then I don't feel bad when they have student loans to pay off and I don't think "society" should either.

Well, the problem is many in our generaton is more concerned about the "brand name" than the cost...they will do whatever it takes to get into a leafy, private college, even if they're in debt up to the ceiling. A lot of states have really good state schools that are a lot cheaper (SUNY has a good selection, plus you have UVA, UMD, FSU/UF, Rutgers, U-Del, etc. etc.). Yet pressure from peers and parents and guidance counselors force many into schools they can't afford.

Financing the education should be part of the decision making process. This choice is exactly the reason I have student loans. I applied to multiple schools, several of which were out of state. Oddly, the two schools that would have been the least expensive for me were even out of state. I love the college I went to, and I think it was the best fit for me, but I definitely knew going into it that I was choosing to go somewhere more expensive than most of my other options (but still not that expensive, comparatively), and would have student loans to repay upon my graduation. It is very possible, even for people whose parents aren't financing their undergraduate college educations to go to college without owing ridiculously enormous amounts in student loans. Probably less possible than it was in the past, I'll grant you, but still possible.

Yeah, it definitely is. Many people even go to community college for two years and transfer to a brand-name school. Countless people went to Nassau Community College (the local CC near me), and then transferred to Cornell after two years...if they attend a statutory college (which gives substantially reduced tuition than the endowed colleges), they could get an Ivy League degree for about $40K...about the same as if they went to state school for four years.

SmilesSoSweet

01-25-2006, 01:56 PM

Perhaps the "best" school is significantly more expensive than the second or third choices that are maybe less expensive but still have pretty good programs. And if students do look into those schools and choose to attend school somewhere more expensive, where loans will be necessary, then I don't feel bad when they have student loans to pay off and I don't think "society" should either.

I knew a lot of college students whose parents just would just cut a check for the quarterly tuition and housing costs without any problems. My parents did support me, my brother and my sister throughout our years in college, but my parents took out PLUS loans for each kid. So it was like we were handed a free ride either. Yes we did have a tuiition free program because of my dad's disabled veteran of war millitary benefits. I choose to go to a public Cali. State Univ. school because my other choice being USC was just insane. For the 1996-97 school year tuition, my CSU school was $1,975. USC was $58,000. For five years at the same rate, my CSU education was under $10k, whereas USC would have been $290k. (It wasn't a tough choice to make. Was the $290k of college tuition really worth the USC name? Nope!) The $1,975 was waivered for the five years I was in college because of my dad's benefits. Because I choose to go to a more affordable school, I was able to live in the dorms which meant I still had to take out loans (just not as much if I went to USC) and my parents took out loans, too.

What really bothered me were the kids that got handed everything from their parents while in college. Those same parents also bought them brand new cars for college. I was barely getting by, but knew I was getting my money's worth. I was car-less my freshman year of college. It wasn't until my next year that I got a car (my sister's old car) which I still drive til this day.

yankeeyosh

01-25-2006, 02:05 PM

For the 1996-97 school year tuition, my CSU school was $1,975. USC was $58,000.

Are you kidding me? I remember the Ivies being about $30K around that time when I applied (I was a frosh in 96-97). That makes Harvard look really, really cheap...

SmilesSoSweet

01-25-2006, 02:08 PM

Are you kidding me? I remember the Ivies being about $30K around that time when I applied (I was a frosh in 96-97). That makes Harvard look really, really cheap...

Maybe it was $29k a year not per semester? I think I added that wrong. So $29k a year times five years is $145k which is still a lot of money compared to the $1,975/yr at a state school. That's sounds better, but still not worth going. I have no idea what the cost for tuition is now at USC.

cameralady

01-25-2006, 02:55 PM

Yeah, it definitely is. Many people even go to community college for two years and transfer to a brand-name school. Countless people went to Nassau Community College (the local CC near me), and then transferred to Cornell after two years...if they attend a statutory college (which gives substantially reduced tuition than the endowed colleges), they could get an Ivy League degree for about $40K...about the same as if they went to state school for four years.

I wish someone had suggested that as an option. The people at my high school tended to look down on our local community college.

At 30, she has yet to make more than $35,000 a year in any job.

I'm 28 now. If I make that much by 30, I'd consider myself being "in the money"! (And I live in a major metrpolitan area to boot.)

SmilesSoSweet

01-25-2006, 03:15 PM

The people at my high school tended to look down on our local community college.

We were the same way. The community college nearby were referred to grades 13, 14, 15, 16, and even 17. I wasn't allowed to go to a community college as my number one choice of college. It was okay to attend there for summer school, but not during the regular school year. This is because when I was figuring out where I wanted to go to college during my senior year of high school, my sister was a junior at Univ. of Cali school. My dad asked her about her friends that just went to the local CC. Most of her friends were still there in their third year not even close to having enough credits to transfer. So the CC route wasn't ideal in my parents' opinion. Besides with my dad's military benefits I could attedn either a CC, CSU or UC school with free tuition. I know a lot of people who spents a good 5+ years at a CC and then another 3-4 years at the CSU level to finish. Not many transferred to the UC. I also know a few that did the two years at CC then another two or three at a CSU or UC too.

RudeGirl

01-25-2006, 11:50 PM

While there is an argument to be made that the name can be a big deal, I do think that it's possible to get a good education practically anywhere

Yes. I got mine from the public library and the Internet. I don't credit college with a thing.

As is the case with some of you, most of the kids from my high school who didn't go to college are pretty well-off, financially. They went to work as CNAs, or as roofers, or as plumbers, and a few own their own construction businesses and are pulling in 50K at the age of 22. One could make the argument that their earnings will stay stagnant over time while mine will increase, but I don't think that's likely. A construction-company owner is a businessman, and if he's shrewd, he'll only continue to profit over time.

Community college -- around here, known as CCAC -- is identical to "real" college in every way, except for how the two sets of kids dress to rebel against their parents. I'm not sure if it's because community colleges are becoming more challenging to attract quality professors or if "real" universities are dumbing down admissions standards to get more first-year tuition money, or if the institutions always were comparable, and four-year being inherently superior to two-year was always a myth.

lilyflower

01-25-2006, 11:58 PM

What really bothered me were the kids that got handed everything from their parents while in college. Those same parents also bought them brand new cars for college. I was barely getting by, but knew I was getting my money's worth. I was car-less my freshman year of college. It wasn't until my next year that I got a car (my sister's old car) which I still drive til this day.

Oh yeah, there was nothing like being piss ass broke in college (so much so that you have to sell your plasma to get by) and looking at the brand new BMWs and such of the rest of the students at your ridiculously expensive private school. (Just under $20K for tuition when I graduated)

yankeeyosh

01-26-2006, 12:13 AM

Community college -- around here, known as CCAC -- is identical to "real" college in every way, except for how the two sets of kids dress to rebel against their parents. I'm not sure if it's because community colleges are becoming more challenging to attract quality professors or if "real" universities are dumbing down admissions standards to get more first-year tuition money, or if the institutions always were comparable, and four-year being inherently superior to two-year was always a myth.

Community college isn't a walk in the park...my brother, who attends the CC here, had to do calc homework. His problem set was 37 questions, and I was struggling to help him (and I am an indisputable math dork :) )

glitterchick81

01-26-2006, 04:19 PM

I wish someone had suggested that as an option. The people at my high school tended to look down on our local community college.

I have to agree. The kids at my high school looked down on it as well, yet most of them ended up there. Since I was one of the "smart" kids, I knew that I'd be laughed at if I went there. I ended up at a well-known local college since I already knew what I wanted to major in (I was one of those rare breeds that never changed their major...haha). Looking back, it would've been a smarter idea to go to community college (I would've saved a lot of money), but it's too late now.

MuBetaPsi_Xi

01-27-2006, 09:37 PM

I know that some people are sucessful without having a college degree, but it takes a rare, highly talented type of person to be able to do that. It also takes a little bit of luck. One of my best friends attended roughly 6 different colleges, didn't graduate from any of them and doesn't have a single degree to her name, and she makes more money than I do. (I think her salary is somewhere in the 50's now.) We work in the same field, and we actually started our careers at the same firm. She started out there as a data entry clerk and did such a good job that they started training her for more advanced work, and she built her career on this. The problem is that she started at this firm about a year and a half before I did. By the time I started working at that firm, management had realized that the local job market was oversaturated with cheap labor from college grads, and they decided that henceforth they would hire only Bachelor's degree holders for ALL of their positions. By the time I left four years later, they were hiring master's degree holders desperate for a job to do the same work that my non-degreed friend had once done.

I also thought it was interesting that somebody had mentioned that they knew people who made alot of money working as CNA's (Certified Nursing Assistants.) My mother is a licensed nurse, and she had to attend formal training and a state licensing exam. She made okay money working as a nurse. However, she was in charge of supervising CNA's, and they made practically NOTHING. One summer in college I worked in retail and I made almost as much per hour as they did. In additon, the work is extremely strenuous, and requires alot of lifting. I've heard that the work causes alot of back problems. My mother and I both know people who quit their CNA jobs to work as waitresses.

shimmer728

01-28-2006, 11:10 AM

I have to agree. The kids at my high school looked down on it as well, yet most of them ended up there. Since I was one of the "smart" kids, I knew that I'd be laughed at if I went there. I ended up at a well-known local college since I already knew what I wanted to major in (I was one of those rare breeds that never changed their major...haha). Looking back, it would've been a smarter idea to go to community college (I would've saved a lot of money), but it's too late now.

I never changed my major, either! We are a rare breed.

Everyone in my HS made fun of our community college--we called it 13th grade or 3 C's (for Westmoreland County Community College). My parents, too, would have been mortified if I had ended up there with all my "potential." I don't wish I'd gone there, but in retrospect, it probably was a waste of money to pay to go to a state school OUT OF STATE. They totally jack up the tuition for out-of-staters.

WeirdBrake

01-28-2006, 11:20 AM

in retrospect, it probably was a waste of money to pay to go to a state school OUT OF STATE. They totally jack up the tuition for out-of-staters.

Tell me about it. :redface:

glitterchick81

01-28-2006, 08:04 PM

I never changed my major, either! We are a rare breed.

Everyone in my HS made fun of our community college--we called it 13th grade or 3 C's (for Westmoreland County Community College). My parents, too, would have been mortified if I had ended up there with all my "potential." I don't wish I'd gone there, but in retrospect, it probably was a waste of money to pay to go to a state school OUT OF STATE. They totally jack up the tuition for out-of-staters.

Yayy! Go us!! :D

We called it 13th grade, too (the community college here was CCAC, and I know a few people that actually went to WCCC!). Ugh, yeah, I know a lot of people's parents, my mum included, didn't want their kids to go there. I got accepted to schools that were out-of-state but my Mum put her foot down because it would cost waaaay too much. I never did get why college tuition for out-of-staters is sooo expensive.

MuBetaPsi_Xi

01-29-2006, 05:53 PM

Somebody above mentioned Westmoreland County Community College, I think (WCCC). I've never attended the school, but my dad was a member of WCCC's first ever graduating class back in the 70's before he went to a nearby state school to finish his bachelor's degree. I think having the local access to education that WCCC provided was one of the things that really encouraged my dad to finish his education.

When I was a freshman at nearby St. Vincent, a bunch of the kids in my dorm were really stuck up about anybody who didn't also attend St. Vincent, and they called WCCC "We Can Color and Count." One of my friends attended WCCC, and she hated it and called it "high school with ash trays."

Q21

01-30-2006, 10:37 AM

yankeeyosh

01-30-2006, 10:49 AM

Are we really the top 10% of the group? I've only been on here a little while. Seems interesting.

I would say so...most of us are college grads (not to dismiss those who didn't), and many of us went to or are in grad school. If you look at the educational statistics, even among our generation, the so called "Education Generation", that's really a pretty small percentage...especially if you did it by age 22 or 23.

wordsmith

01-30-2006, 12:48 PM

The community college in my area gets a shit rap (it's up on the river bluffs, everybody chidingly calls it Harvard on the Hill). But it's not a bad school. I took a couple of classes there in the summer because they were tough ones for me and I didn't want to take them with a full class load at my college...wanted to focus on them individually. I can't say they were blowoffs or unchallenging, at all. It was important for me personally due to wanting to assert some independence to go away, far from my hometown and state, to a residential college, but even I admit that the community college is a fine, very affordable place for people to start. And the stigma of this one in particular isn't especially deserved. I saw blowoff classes at my private college that were easier than some of the tougher gen eds offered at this community college.

RudeGirl

01-30-2006, 08:44 PM

I don't really get off on this Generation Y stuff, truth be told, and I'm not sure I buy it, either. I don't feel anything in common with the people they describe in the articles, and I'm not easily categorized by a News Weak article.

I've always felt like a Gen-Xer, partially because I socialize with them, partially because I listen to their music ("grunge"; "metal") and not the "emo" and "indie" and "hip-hop" that defines "Generation Y," partially because I'm impervious to attempts at corporate branding, and partially because I don't care -- and never have cared -- nearly as much about achievement as other members of my generation did.

There's nothing wrong with asking your parents for money. I did it in college, though I refuse to do it now, and my boyfriend has done it recently because he lost his job and got hit with a hefty load of bills all at once. Some people ask, and some people don't ask for money. Some people do it all on their own, and some have their parents pay for every cent of their upbringing. Most of us are in-between, and I bet in ten years, it won't matter one whit.

yankeeyosh

01-30-2006, 09:01 PM

I don't really get off on this Generation Y stuff, truth be told, and I'm not sure I buy it, either. I don't feel anything in common with the people they describe in the articles, and I'm not easily categorized by a News Weak article.

I've always felt like a Gen-Xer, partially because I socialize with them, partially because I listen to their music ("grunge"; "metal") and not the "emo" and "indie" and "hip-hop" that defines "Generation Y," partially because I'm impervious to attempts at corporate branding, and partially because I don't care -- and never have cared -- nearly as much about achievement as other members of my generation did.

Well..my brother was born in 86 and he's into grunge and heavy metal and punk. You can't just paint a broad brush and generalize every person based on the year they were born...some people have different characteristics than others. But I think that you just defined yourself a 'Y'er because you did admit that people your age generally are concerned about achievement...one of the trademarks of Gen 'Y'. :)

RudeGirl

01-30-2006, 09:37 PM

But I think that you just defined yourself a 'Y'er because you did admit that people your age generally are concerned about achievement...one of the trademarks of Gen 'Y'. :)

I went to a 7-12 high school, and believe me, there were as many kids born in 1977 -- Xers, according to the media -- who cared about grades and extracirriculars as there were kids born in 1983.

This "Generation Y" hooey is a result of the media needing something to jump on that characterizes each generation -- and "achievement-driven" and "materialistic" are it for this one. There are "slackers" and "nerds" in every generation; if there weren't, films like Fast Times at Ridgemont High wouldn't be possible. There are tons of Jeff Spicoli Gen-Yers, believe me; I went to school with a lot of them.

There were tons of Boomers who voted for the GOP and turned their noses up at joints and beer in their youth -- they just did not a good media stereotype of their generation make.

Sure, members of this generation are "materialistic"; but then, so is America in general, so it can't necessarily be indicative of a generational trend. Every time I see a News Weak article about the poor 21-year old who's in unspeakable debt because he had to max out his credit cards buying a sound system and designer clothing, I can't feel too sorry for him, frankly. Our poor have iPods and air-conditioning. England's middle-class doesn't. It's the 'Murican Way.

yankeeyosh

01-30-2006, 09:43 PM

I went to a 7-12 high school, and believe me, there were as many kids born in 1977 -- Xers, according to the media -- who cared about grades and extracirriculars as there were kids born in 1983.
Actually, the 12th graders would have been born in 1978 when you were in 7th grade :)

This "Generation Y" hooey is a result of the media needing something to jump on that characterizes each generation -- and "achievement-driven" and "materialistic" are it for this one. There are "slackers" and "nerds" in every generation; if there weren't, films like Fast Times at Ridgemont High wouldn't be possible. There are tons of Jeff Spicoli Gen-Yers, believe me; I went to school with a lot of them.

That's true, but the overall ***trend*** is for less slackerness and more achievement among teens and 20-somethings...

There were tons of Boomers who voted for the GOP and turned their noses up at joints and beer in their youth -- they just did not a good media stereotype of their generation make. The Boom is a mess. I don't even want to start on them.

Sure, members of this generation are "materialistic"; but then, so is America in general, so it can't necessarily be indicative of a generational trend. Every time I see a News Weak article about the poor 21-year old who's in unspeakable debt because he had to max out his credit cards buying a sound system and designer clothing, I can't feel too sorry for him, frankly. Our poor have iPods and air-conditioning. England's middle-class doesn't. It's the 'Murican Way.
That's true...in a way you can think it's progress. My goodness, thirty years ago, many poor people didn't even have electricity. But you shouldn't be whining about money while wearing Ralph Lauren clothes or driving a "pimpmobile"...

RudeGirl

01-30-2006, 09:44 PM

Mark:

It's true. I don't believe in Gen-Y. I also don't believe in global warming, though, so take that into account. The media and I are not in love.

yankeeyosh

01-30-2006, 09:46 PM

Mark:

It's true. I don't believe in Gen-Y. I also don't believe in global warming, though, so take that into account. The media and I are not in love.

That's cool...I respect your opinion :) I don't know if I believe in global warming myself....

RudeGirl

01-30-2006, 09:51 PM

shimmer728

01-30-2006, 10:30 PM

[QUOTE=MuBetaPsi_Xi]
When I was a freshman at nearby St. Vincent, a bunch of the kids in my dorm were really stuck up about anybody who didn't also attend St. Vincent, and they called WCCC "We Can Color and Count." QUOTE]

Ah yes, another popular local nickname for WCCC.

yankeeyosh

01-31-2006, 08:13 AM

I wasn't sure where you stood on that; I was actually gonna ask. Most pro-warming folks state that we anti-warming folks are "creationists," when, in fact, there is ample scientific evidence supporting the anti- side.

Unless, of course, your name is Pat Robertson. Then, you abscribe to, uh, shall we say, "alternative" theories of hurricanes...

I can't tell where I stand right now...there is a trend towards global warming, but it may suddenly reverse itself. Climate cycles last thousands of years, and we have not had sufficient data to determine where we stand. Yes, we've had more active weather recently, particularly on the hurricane side, but global sea surface temperaures are only one of many factors that determines hurricane activity. Also, we have had similarly active periods before, in the 30's, 40s and 50s.

Bruiser

01-31-2006, 09:34 AM

I can't tell where I stand right now...there is a trend towards global warming, but it may suddenly reverse itself. Climate cycles last thousands of years, and we have not had sufficient data to determine where we stand. Yes, we've had more active weather recently, particularly on the hurricane side, but global sea surface temperaures are only one of many factors that determines hurricane activity. Also, we have had similarly active periods before, in the 30's, 40s and 50s.

Finally, another meteorologist who agrees that we don't have enough data to support the Global Warming theory, or to tear it down. I used to get into heated discussions with my professors over this. I guess the fact that their research into "proving global warming due to man's activities" pays their salaries blinds them.

yankeeyosh

01-31-2006, 09:43 AM

Finally, another meteorologist who agrees that we don't have enough data to support the Global Warming theory, or to tear it down. I used to get into heated discussions with my professors over this. I guess the fact that their research into "proving global warming due to man's activities" pays their salaries blinds them.

Actually, if sea surface temperatures increase too much, they may actually prevent the "category seven" type storms that the media seems to be hyping these days. What will happen is that at such high sea surface temperatures, the thunderstorm clouds will become so intense that they will actually shroud the eye of a hurricane, thus preventing the storm from ventilating.

wordsmith

01-31-2006, 11:48 AM

yankeeyosh

01-31-2006, 01:21 PM

As long as we're on this topic, I have a question, and excuse my ignorance, because I truly DON'T have much more than a rudimentary background in weather and climatology stuff...enough to do some environmental themed reporting is all. But, I have to say that I don't really understand the controversy behind whether or not global warming exists. I do know that where I live in the northern portion of the Midwest, we used to have long, snowy winters. Now, we still have long stretches of cold from November through March, but our snowfall seems to have drastically decreased. I don't think it's just me having selective memory, but as a kid, I used to spend all winter ice skating and sledding. This winter, for example, there is NOwhere there is ice for that, and we've had about three significant snowfalls, period, enough for about three weekends' worth of sledding/snowsports. And it's not just a fluke, a particularly warm year...it's been working to this for many years now. I'm only 29...would an abrupt climate change really occur in that short a span of time? I literally know not much about global warming and/or climatology. But I do know that winters are not what they were here less than 30 years ago, and I don't know why.

It's very complex...there are multi-annual and multi-decadal cycles that could change weather patterns throughout the world. Just because it is warm here doesn't mean it's warm everywhere; Europe is having one of its coldest winters in recorded history. Simply put, wherever the jet stream, which is a ribbon of air in the upper atmosphere which drives storms and which advects temperature changes, is set up dictates where the cold and warm weather will be. For much of the past 15 or so years, it has been set up so that much of the Northeast and Midwest has experienced warmer than average temperatures. But areas that are outside the realm, like the Northwest, are getting below average temperatures, and plenty of rain/snow.

Frankly, if anything, I think the pattern has moderated to some degree. At least here in the northeast, we have had plenty of record highs during the winter, but we haven't really had them during the summer. It would be interesting if someone could do a statistical study on the patterns of extrema.

and1grad

01-31-2006, 02:06 PM

Finally, another meteorologist who agrees that we don't have enough data to support the Global Warming theory, or to tear it down. I used to get into heated discussions with my professors over this. I guess the fact that their research into "proving global warming due to man's activities" pays their salaries blinds them.
Although I disagree, I'm not a meteorologist so I wont act like I'm an expert. From the research presentations I've seen, the research has shown that in the last 100 years the Earth's surface temperature has increased more than in any comparable time period. Is the debate that global warming may not be happening or that our activity is the cause of it?

yankeeyosh

01-31-2006, 02:27 PM

Although I disagree, I'm not a meteorologist so I wont act like I'm an expert. From the research presentations I've seen, the research has shown that in the last 100 years the Earth's surface temperature has increased more than in any comparable time period. Is the debate that global warming may not be happening or that our activity is the cause of it?

Well, I can't disagree with that, but we really only have reliable data for the last hundred years. Temperature averages from previous centuries were derived using various methods, and have room for error. So there might be more variability historically than what is shown to you. I will admit that this is a warming uptick, but who knows if we enter a cooling period soon? I didn't specialize in climatology, but it's rather interesting...

and1grad

01-31-2006, 03:23 PM

Dreamchasa

01-31-2006, 04:27 PM

and1grad

01-31-2006, 05:10 PM

Does it conclude then that the Earth is not a living organism? I've always related the toxins we put in the air to smoking to humans. Of course that said George Burns smoked a cigar and lived to be over 100.

I tend to be of the opinion of global warming that even though it might not be bad for the earth b/c she can correct herself but why take the chance of being wrong? Also even if its not hurting the earth our lungs aren't exactly loving it. (Least I don't think.) Gotta love science.
It doesnt go into whether or not the Earth is a living organism. To use a similar analogy, you can say that the Earth takes care of itself, it's weight fluctuates a little but usually stays about the same. A couple pounds here or there. Well, you can compare the man-made influence of global warming to a fast food diet.

yankeeyosh

01-31-2006, 11:45 PM

One of the things I noticed in the timeline graph this researcher presented is that from the span of the year 1000 to 1900 they saw a trend of the temperature rectifying itself (essentially going back to baseline) within a hundred year period. Another thing that I found interesting was that the significant increases seemed to be from about 1900 - 1940 and 1970 - 2000.

There was something called the "Little Ice Age", which took place from roughly 1300 to 1800 or so...Before 1300, the Earth was quite warm...in fact, even Greenland was lush with vegetation (hence the name Greenland). But suddenly, a climatic shift occurred which resulted in colder temperatures and expanding glaciers. This resulted in dramatic changes in society (the demise of the feudal system, growth of cities in Europe), besides the obvious temperature changes. In 1815-16, right around the end of this period, Mt. Tambora in Indonesia erupted, and this resulted in what is referred to as the "Year without a Summer"...snow fell in New England during the summer, and frequent frosts occurred all the way to near the coast. It's hard to say what caused it...whether it's part of the "normal" climatic cycle or something bigger, but it's rather interesting.

chicagogirl

02-01-2006, 01:00 AM

Deadend

02-01-2006, 02:09 AM

Here's the thing, and as someone with a fairly substantial environmental background this is a somewhat qualified statement. Global warming is very real. The primary argument against it is that the S/N ratio associated with the data collection does conclusively indicate specificaly anthropogenic causes. It's a very convenient "not my fault" argument but does not specifically rule out the actual action.

And yet it's been easily popularized by the so-called "godfather" of global warming denial Fred Singer because frankly we don't want to hear that there are consequences to our actions. That is of course, when he's not cashing his cheques from Exxon.

So there's flaws in the argument from the get go. This is of course not even addressing the issue of the modern phenomenon of highly politisized (and highly funded) "think-tanks" who present their ample evidence in media outlets and public forums while eschewing the far more stringent scientific forum of peer reviewed journals.

Neither does it address the obvious consequences of every thermochemical model we have. Singer's response is that the biosphere is just too complex to model and therefor all the computer models are invalid.

But hey we're all entittled to our beliefs right? I don't have to believe in seatbelts, but that belief won't help me much when my ass goes through my skull. Walk into your local university ES department and it won't take long to get a grasp on what the "general scientific consensus" is. Or ask Royal Dutch / Shell why they constructed their north sea drilling platforms several feet higher to account for rising seas - a move that cost millions.

So why is it even an issue? The fact that we all live in the same environment, let alone the same biosphere intrinsically applies that our actions affect, and therefore to some extent, are beholden to one another is in somewhat of a contradiction to the prevailing ethos of organizations such as the cato institute and other so called "free-market" (and therefore anti-regulation) conservatives. They suggest that if everybody looks out for their own interests, everything will be ok. And perhaps this would be a good idea if we all lived in outer space floating around or something. So rather than changing the economic model to fit the science, we see them trying to change the science to fit the economic model. But science isn't subjective so they're left with - denial.

Lastly, I'm not "pro-warming", or whatever the hell that means. As if scientific accuracy had anything to do with a popularity contest. I will point out that just about everyone on the denial side of the debate has their hands in Exxonmobile's pockets.

As they say on tikibar tv - when you turn your back on science, science will take you from behind.

and1grad

02-01-2006, 02:17 AM

I don't have to believe in seatbelts, but that belief won't help me much when my ass goes through my skull.
Absolutely hilarious!

Deadend

02-01-2006, 02:42 AM

.in fact, even Greenland was lush with vegetation (hence the name Greenland).

Sorry dude, but I'm going to have to question your chronology as you're pretty mistaken on that. Erik the Red discovered greenland and the story goes that he made up the name in order to attract settlers - precisely because it was such a frozen shithole.

Ironically enough "iceland" got its name from the same kind of process. It was nice and they were trying to keep people out. That one I'm not so sure about, but geenland I tottaly am. There is no way that greenland glacier would have melted, even temporarily.

yankeeyosh

02-01-2006, 07:15 AM

The one thing that I don't see the article mention (and maybe it's in the book), is that the Baby Boomers retiring could open up a heck of a lot of jobs for us. Right now the job market is horrible, and it seems to be across all fields. As the Baby Boomers retire, their jobs, which are likely to be at the top of the corporate ladder, will be empty, and people move up. Oh, I don't expect to be a department head tomorrow, but at least some movement should take place.

What if they don't? I mean, they're squarely the reason why workaholism is so omnipresent. Poll after poll says that the Boom will not "completely" leave the workforce...and given the fact that few have saved enough to retire sufficiently, it leads one to doubt. The important years will be around 2010-2015, when two things happen: the leading edge of the Boom reach retirement age, and the peak of the Echo Boom (another name for Generation 'Y') graduates college. What these two groups do will be very, very important.

Keep in mind that the recession we just had, which was arguably the mildest in US history, affected people coming out of college born between 78 and 81 the most...which is just the very beginning of Gen 'Y', and the sheer numbers have just started to bounce back from the beginning of the "Baby Bust". In 5-10 years, the people born between 88 and 91 will be graduating...a 20% increase by just population standards alone...and they're even more achievement driven then our own super-human selves, so you can be sure that the numbers of college graduates will skyrocket, and the resumes of your average college grad will look like one of a Fortune 500 exec. So you know the competition will be incredibly fierce if there's a downswing in the economy.

yankeeyosh

02-01-2006, 07:19 AM

Sorry dude, but I'm going to have to question your chronology as you're pretty mistaken on that. Erik the Red discovered greenland and the story goes that he made up the name in order to attract settlers - precisely because it was such a frozen shithole.

Ironically enough "iceland" got its name from the same kind of process. It was nice and they were trying to keep people out. That one I'm not so sure about, but geenland I tottaly am. There is no way that greenland glacier would have melted, even temporarily.

No, from all accounts, Greenland was quite a liveable place back then...I mean, it was no tropical isle, but at least the southern part of Greenland had vegetation, and was quite suitable for living. Yeah, I'm sure that the middle of Greenland was always a vaste frozen wasteland, but the shoreline was pretty lush.

labrat2111

02-01-2006, 07:31 AM

What if they don't? I mean, they're squarely the reason why workaholism is so omnipresent. Poll after poll says that the Boom will not "completely" leave the workforce...and given the fact that few have saved enough to retire sufficiently, it leads one to doubt. The important years will be around 2010-2015, when two things happen: the leading edge of the Boom reach retirement age, and the peak of the Echo Boom (another name for Generation 'Y') graduates college. What these two groups do will be very, very important.

I think the not saving issue will be the big problem. I saw (and I am too lazy to look up the source so you don't have to take my word for it) a survey that showed that only 8% of folks 55-59 (those retiring in 5-10 years) have more than 200,000 saved (not including their house) and only 20% even have 50,000 saved. I really think a lot of boomers will continue to work not because they want to but because they have to or else accept a substandard retirement.

Q21

03-02-2006, 04:52 PM

Forgive me if any of this has been said before, just giving my 2 cents.

I agree that the financial environment for us is pretty bleak at the moment. It's taking us so much longer to get financially independent. But I think there are things to look forward to. Most interestingly, studies that happiness isn't related to money (although I certainly wouldn't turn down a few 1000 or so). Still, I figure that generations before me went through worse, and I always have control over my attitude. Yes, this kind of stuff makes my blood boil, but I figure it has to get better some time. *shrugs* :)

I agree. I think what makes this generation different then many others is that we didn't really have a Depression, World War, or Cold War to knock us to reality and get realistic about our future. Many of us expect to get a college degree and be set, without even investing time to see how the workplace really works. It's like that commercial I love from years back where the college grad is on his first day of the job stuck with grunt work and says "But I'm an MBA".

But on the otherhand, we DO have a lot to worry about. We are a generation that has had to worry about our future our whole lives. "What if I don't get into that college?" "What if no one hires me?" "What if I didn't pick the right major?" "What if my job is obsolete in 10 years?" "What if everyone else has better credentials then me?". The security and hyper-competiveness is stressful as hell, especially when it's just about finding a job. What about having a personal life, some self development, working on GOALS , and everything else? We spend so much time nowadays just looking out for our asses to make sure we get enough money to live that we can't focus on anything else, let alone LIVE. Other generations got a job and didn't wory about it that much and then came home and did other things. This generation has to keep up, check the bussiness news for downsizeing and future market trends, up their skills, and live with the knowledge that they are easily replaceable and will most likely need to train for another job every 5 years or so. We're always on the go and are fragmented and not very connected at all when you think about it. Everyone HAS to look out for number one, or else they will be out of a job.

yankeeyosh

03-02-2006, 04:59 PM

Forgive me if any of this has been said before, just giving my 2 cents.

I agree. I think what makes this generation different then many others is that we didn't really have a Depression, World War, or Cold War to knock us to reality and get realistic about our future. Many of us expect to get a college degree and be set, without even investing time to see how the workplace really works. It's like that commercial I love from years back where the college grad is on his first day of the job stuck with grunt work and says "But I'm an MBA".

But on the otherhand, we DO have a lot to worry about. We are a generation that has had to worry about our future our whole lives. "What if I don't get into that college?" "What if no one hires me?" "What if I didn't pick the right major?" "What if my job is obsolete in 10 years?" "What if everyone else has better credentials then me?". The security and hyper-competiveness is stressful as hell, especially when it's just about finding a job. What about having a personal life, some self development, working on GOALS , and everything else? We spend so much time nowadays just looking out for our asses to make sure we get enough money to live that we can't focus on anything else, let alone LIVE. Other generations got a job and didn't wory about it that much and then came home and did other things. This generation has to keep up, check the bussiness news for downsizeing and future market trends, up their skills, and live with the knowledge that they are easily replaceable and will most likely need to train for another job every 5 years or so. We're always on the go and are fragmented and not very connected at all when you think about it. Everyone HAS to look out for number one, or else they will be out of a job.

Well said, Q, well said, I can't put it any better.

Q21

03-02-2006, 05:16 PM

Why thank you Mark. I have always liked your posts, so I appreciate your kind words.

wordsmith

03-02-2006, 05:35 PM

But on the otherhand, we DO have a lot to worry about. We are a generation that has had to worry about our future our whole lives. "What if I don't get into that college?" "What if no one hires me?" "What if I didn't pick the right major?" "What if my job is obsolete in 10 years?" "What if everyone else has better credentials then me?".

I don't see how these are any different than previous generations' worries, honestly (amongst the college-bound, obviously...and not everyone was or will be college-bound). But this is about competition, coming out on top. People have always dealt with competition. Always.

Part of the pressures we deal with are ones we put on OURSELVES. In part because we've become accustomed to not always entirely realistic expectations. We don't want to live modestly, even if we earn modestly. We're not willing to make sacrifices, we overspend, we aspire to more than we need, etc. If we look back at previous generations' blue collar jobs that they clocked in, clocked out of, and didn't worry about too much when they weren't at them, we need to ask ourselves if we're content to take those sorts of jobs and the lifestyles they afford.

yankeeyosh

03-02-2006, 06:39 PM

I don't see how these are any different than previous generations' worries, honestly (amongst the college-bound, obviously...and not everyone was or will be college-bound). But this is about competition, coming out on top. People have always dealt with competition. Always.

Well, among a lot of Gen 'Y' (and I'm not saying everyone, but a good chunk), there is a drive to succeed and get into the "right" school and the "right" career path that is unprecedented. For instance, twenty years ago, to get into an Ivy League school, you just needed a nice GPA, strong boards, and a few "well rounded" extracurriculars to get into an Ivy. Now, you pretty much have to cure cancer AND win a Pulitzer to have a chance to go to one of these colleges.

Part of the pressures we deal with are ones we put on OURSELVES. In part because we've become accustomed to not always entirely realistic expectations. We don't want to live modestly, even if we earn modestly. We're not willing to make sacrifices, we overspend, we aspire to more than we need, etc. If we look back at previous generations' blue collar jobs that they clocked in, clocked out of, and didn't worry about too much when they weren't at them, we need to ask ourselves if we're content to take those sorts of jobs and the lifestyles they afford.

Exactly. We've become a culture of spend spend spend, even if we're not making that money. We demand our Ipods on a transistor radio salary, a plasma Hi-Def TV on a 13 inch Magnavox salary, etc. It's glitz and glamor we all expect, and a lot of us have this notion as though, "Ah, I'll be a millionaire some day so I can pay it off then".

By the way, thanks Q for your kind remarks :)

arrogantguy1980

03-08-2006, 10:14 PM

I am 25, and I do not consider my future "bleak". This is coming from someone who only has a high school education. My senior year of high school (2000) I set up a ROTH IRA account, which I have contributed monthly towards since 2000. I invest in my employers (Quiktrip Corporation) profit sharing, 401 (k) plan (6% of my check) and employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). I own my home,(thanks to my grandmother, who listed me as #2 title owner of the home, she's #1 title owner)(NO MORTGAGE.) and I am raising my daughter Abby, on my own as a single father(As I can no longer physically have children). I also own one of Iowa's most prolific, and valuable collections of sports memorabilia and autographs.(Auction block, someday) Therefore, I do not consider my future "bleak" but rather, successful with an early retirement.

Sincerely,

Adam J. Moraine

p.s. I only make about 30-35 K per year !

yankeeyosh

03-08-2006, 10:18 PM

I am 25, and I do not consider my future "bleak". This is coming from someone who only has a high school education. My senior year of high school (2000) I set up a ROTH IRA account, which I have contributed monthly towards since 2000. I invest in my employers (Quiktrip Corporation) profit sharing, 401 (k) plan (6% of my check) and employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). I own my home,(thanks to my grandmother, who listed me as #2 title owner of the home, she's #1 title owner) and I am raising my daughter Abby, on my own as a single father(As I can no longer physically have children). I also own one of Iowa's most prolific, and valuable collections of sports memorabilia and autographs. Therefore, I do not consider my future "bleak" but rather, successful with an early retirement.

Sincerely,

Adam J. Moraine

p.s. I only make about 30-35 K per year !

Good job! I salute ya! :)

arrogantguy1980

03-08-2006, 10:30 PM

yankeeyosh

03-08-2006, 11:11 PM

Thanks, Mark! The point that I am trying to make is this:A college education does not predict success. I have two cousins who are school teachers, both witha 4 yr degree from a private college. One cousin, is married, has two children, owes 40K in student loans, and a mortgage, she's a spender, and doesn't save for her future. I look a her situation, and say to myself, damn, I am glad that I am not in her shoes!

Regards,

Adam J. Moraine

Exactly. There are plenty of young people who are doing quite well without a college education. Frankly, since the demand for college is so high, there are a lot of well paying jobs for skilled workers that don't require such a degree. If you don't think a degree is necessary, and you can make a living, then all the power to you! Don't think that you're a "slacker" since you don't have the glitzy B.S. or M.S. or MBA or whatever.

MuBetaPsi_Xi

03-09-2006, 09:07 PM

Well, among a lot of Gen 'Y' (and I'm not saying everyone, but a good chunk), there is a drive to succeed and get into the "right" school and the "right" career path that is unprecedented. For instance, twenty years ago, to get into an Ivy League school, you just needed a nice GPA, strong boards, and a few "well rounded" extracurriculars to get into an Ivy. Now, you pretty much have to cure cancer AND win a Pulitzer to have a chance to go to one of these colleges.

When I was watching the Olympics a few weeks ago, Bob Costas mentioned that one of the American kids who won a gold medal was rejected by Yale a few months ago. I think it was that Cheek guy, the speed skater, who said that if he won anything, he was going to donate his prize money to a charity that supports sports for kids that are war refugees. He ended up winning several medals, and donated all the money to this charity, and several corporations came up with matching funds donations to this same charity.

yankeeyosh

03-09-2006, 09:09 PM

When I was watching the Olympics a few weeks ago, Bob Costas mentioned that one of the American kids who won a gold medal was rejected by Yale a few months ago. I think it was that Cheek guy, the speed skater, who said that if he won anything, he was going to donate his prize money to a charity that supports sports for kids that are war refugees. He ended up winning several medals, and donated all the money to this charity, and several corporations came up with matching funds donations to this same charity.

Bravo...very noble of him :)

MuBetaPsi_Xi

03-09-2006, 09:41 PM

yankeeyosh

03-09-2006, 09:56 PM

Bob Costas made a point of saying, "If anybody from the Yale admissions department is watching now, I'll have to ask you to reconsider your decision."

Personally, if it was me in that position, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with Yale now if they got down on their knees and begged me to go there.

Well, unfortunately, college admissions over the last ten years have been nothing short of a crapshoot. To get into the most competitive of colleges, nothing is guaranteed.

yankeeyosh

03-09-2006, 09:57 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/torino/speedskating/2006-02-13-cheek-cover_x.htm

Hmmm...according to this, he's 26, but he's just gained interest in starting college now. He's also interested in Harvard, Duke & Georgetown.

pisces2473

03-09-2006, 10:11 PM

New Haven sucks anyways.

MuBetaPsi_Xi

03-09-2006, 10:19 PM

Well, even if he hadn't won the medals, I would have thought that merely placing high enough in the national qualifiers for the Olympics would have been a hell of an extracurricular.

Also, he sounds as if he has an interest in social justice, so I think he sounds like a good fit for Georgetown, which was founded by Jesuits. The Jesuits are the scholars of the Catholic Church. Of course, I'm biased because I graduated from a college that was founded by another Catholic religious order, the Benedictines.

MuBetaPsi_Xi

03-09-2006, 10:21 PM

Anyway, I was wrong. He was turned down at Harvard but his application is still pending at Yale.

wordsmith

03-09-2006, 10:27 PM

Also, he sounds as if he has an interest in social justice, so I think he sounds like a good fit for Georgetown, which was founded by Jesuits. The Jesuits are the scholars of the Catholic Church. Of course, I'm biased because I graduated from a college that was founded by another Catholic religious order, the Benedictines.

The Jesuits ROCK in terms of their contributions to the social justice arena. Their volunteer program, the JVC, is the program that my volunteer program was modeled after.

yankeeyosh

03-09-2006, 10:27 PM

Well, even if he hadn't won the medals, I would have thought that merely placing high enough in the national qualifiers for the Olympics would have been a hell of an extracurricular.

Well, it's a crapshoot. I don't know how **I** got into an Ivy League school.

Anyway, I was wrong. He was turned down at Harvard but his application is still pending at Yale.

Whoops...misread everything. Harvard's even tougher than Yale. Everyone who applies there is a superachiever, and they admit less than 10% of this set.

MuBetaPsi_Xi

03-09-2006, 10:46 PM

The Jesuits ROCK in terms of their contributions to the social justice arena. Their volunteer program, the JVC, is the program that my volunteer program was modeled after.

I went on several class trips to Washington D.C. when I was in college. I remember that one time in particular, our bus went past Georgetown, and somebody pointed it out. One of the Benedictine monks who taught at our college and who had come on the trip made a point of saying that if we students had attended Georgetown instead, the Jesuits would have killed us with their academics.