Does education really = success?

It seems to be a common attiude that to make a lot of money you have to go to a good university. that if you graduate from a big university you are guranteed a good salary and success.

What I never got about this is it nevers takes into consideration indvidual skills. I never understood how going Harvard automatically more successful then if I went to a local university.

I've always had an indivdualistic view of life, so that might have something to do with it. Your thoughts?

Nothing is guaranteed. Going to a good school does however provide a better chance at getting what you want in terms of success.

Going to college in general gives you a better chance than just high school too.

Ultimately, success belongs to you and you alone and whether you decide to take opportunities when they knock or let them pass.

edited 18th Dec '10 11:25:04 AM by MajorTom

For once I totally agree with Major Tom.

Careful everyone, the pigs will be flying in soon.

What they said.

Here, have a graph, too.

It depends on what your meaning of 'success' is.

I did not go to university - I was accepted into an IT degree after high school, deferred a year to save up money, and then realised there was no way in hell I wanted to study IT, so I decided to keep working until I made up my mind what I wanted to 'be'.

Now I'm 28, and have worked my way up to a good, high-paying job in a huge finanical company. Now, because I don't have a degree, there are certain jobs I can't pursue, so I probably will do a part-time degree in my 30's, but I can still go up several levels without a degree, just purely based on experience and connections I've made with higher-ups.

I'll also add - and I know that tertiary education works a little different in the US - that out of all of my friends who did go to university, only one has a job in the field he actually studied for - education. The others - journalism, marketing, business etc. - couldn't find jobs in what they'd studied for because they just didn't have any experience, or the market was crap (especially for marketing). It seems if you don't work at all during your time at univeristy/college, it's a real struggle to find a decent job after.

I'll have my Bachelors in criminal justice soon, and it's a major requirement to go to any agency that you have a bachelors.

I know of a few that don't require it, for instance, the US Marshals Service requires either a bachelors or 3 years of relevant experience in law enforcement. Air Force OSI doesn't require a degree at all, and Army CID only requires an associates.

Still wondering what I'll do, but I have a steady job and an associates, so I might pursue the US Marshal route.

It doesn't guarantee success, nothing really does. It gives you a new skill set, it's not necessarily a useful one though.

It depends on what your education is in. I'd say some variety of training at a trade school is more likely to be practical than a university education in something arbitrary like classical literature or folklore.

Even the sciences are no guarantee. My sister did a biochemistry degree at university, went on to a college to do a food safety program, and her current job isn't even relevant to either, though she is applying for a food inspection job which if she gets would probably be relevant to both...

Not necessarily, but you do have a higher chance than someone who doesn't.

As people have been saying, it is not 100% guaranteed that you will be successful without some college degree, but it gives you a leg up. But you definitely have to finish high school to get anything nowadays.

Completing a couple of degrees certainly hasn't helped me with success in any financial way.  ^*

In my case, it's kinda my fault. I have a mindset and attitude which corporations and large organisations find unattractive.

I often ask if it was worth the large debt, but I can't deny that I am a changed person who better understands how the world works as a result of getting my degree. My family and friends say that it'll pay off in the long run, I just still have some growing up to do.

Bear in mind that, if you're seeking skills in order to better your financial situation, university often isn't the best way to go about that. It is often cheaper, quicker and easier to learn a trade at trade school, community college or do an apprenticeship.

Pretty much all the paying gigs I've picked up have been due to what I learned at TAFE rather than university.

So my advice with regards to university is that it's probably a good idea to just learn some practical trade skills now and save it for when you're a bit older. Young people often don't get a chance to use what they learn in university until about 10 years after they graduate, by which time their knowledge is a little stale unless they've kept up with their PD.

It would depend on what you want to do. Some careers, like most in the sciences, need a uni degree, simply because there's so much theory you need to learn. But then, for some careers that require mainly practical skills, it might be better to take an apprenticeship or learn on the job.

University learning doesn't necessarily mean more money or more sucess. Most tradespeople earn a lot these days, and some jobs that require degrees pay a pittance.

edited 18th Dec '10 4:39:53 PM by LoniJay

Education paves the way for success if you major in something useful. If you're a Women's Studies/Theater major, probably not. But if you're an Economics/Women's Stuies/Theater major...

edited 18th Dec '10 5:03:09 PM by Tsukubus

Here's a statistic FWIW. Unemployment for high-school dropouts is about 20%, high-school grads 10%, college grads 5%, and postgrads 3%.

On the other hand, PH Ds are near worthless according to a recent Economist article. Apparently, there are several times as many PHD students as there are PHD specific jobs to fill.

Schools have an incentive to enroll as many PHD students as possible because they are virtual slave labor for the professors.

http://www.economist.com/node/17723223

If you have a skill set that is important to society you have a higher chance of being "successful" in life. Most require higher learning but some don't. Soldiers only need a grade ten over here and they make pretty decent pay and learn a skill set that can be extremely useful later in life if they should leave the army.

I won't repeat everyone else, but I'll throw out a few other relevant issues that may or may not be reassuring.

A recent US study (sorry for the American-centric data) showed that only 17% of all millionaires have a level of education at or above the master's degree. A vast majority of millionaires acquired their wealth through labor-accessed annual income rather than inheritance, which goes against the erroneous belief that most rich people inherit their wealth. However, the article and data sets where I'm getting this information are insufficient in that they don't clarify the difference between the type of millionaire who has a net worth of approximately one million dollars and the millionaire who actually has a disposable income at or in excess of one million dollars. Most working class people like us can't tell the difference from a distance, especially with regard to education. To clarify the first stat I just gave, it basically means that you don't need an advanced education in order to be rich, let alone successful.

Having worked in the humanities as a graduate student, I have to say somewhat painfully that literature and linguistics are not fields you get into for the money, and I'm prepared for that. I love literature and I love studying language mechanics, but there's little money in either one. That's fine with me, especially since I have back-up plans I can use to support myself. The plus side of working in the humanities, particularly college-level teaching, is that the environment is more relaxed than the work of a day laborer or corporate worker. To paraphrase one professor, I may make only 35k a year, but I don't have to go to work until late in the morning or noon, I make my own syllabus, and I get paid the same amount regardless of whether I have two students or fifty students per semester.

To expound and generalize a bit further, look at it this way. I have friends who work in communications with only high school diplomas. Right now, they're making more money than me, and I'm less likely to get hired for a well-paying job because I'm in school. However, the person with the lower level of education is more likely to have a lower cap-off point in terms of pay grade as opposed to the college graduate who will take longer to make what will eventually be more money. As a short-hand example, the no-college person reaches 45k in 7-10 years of work experience and not much higher until he or she goes back to school or enters a training program to become more valuable. On the other hand, the college person spends 10-15 years making 60-70k. This process is retarded by the fact that the college person has to pay off student loans and build work experience, but hastened by the fact that he or she has the degree and the technical knowledge for the profession in question. I made up the numbers, but you see the gist of what I'm saying, right?

There is no perfect solution. It's all hard work, and that goes without saying at this point. I suppose the shortened version of my post is this: do you want to make a modest bit of money right now, or do you want to make much more money at a slower pace? There are other factors that will either strengthen or jeopardize the efficiency of your education such as your spending habits, your marital status, your criminal record, and your outlook on life. I'd say that the latter is overlooked too often. Your attitude, be it post-grad or post-trade school, illustrates your character more than you think, and if you think prospective employers won't pick up on your bad vibes, you're wrong.

As for the old humanities-versus-math/sciences debate, there are some problems on both sides. People in the humanities run into problems not because their degree is useless, but because they don't know how to use it. You wouldn't believe the number of English and writing majors who don't realize that there is a high demand for them in advertising and computer engineering. This is why I roll my eyes when people find out that I'm a BA in English and linguistics and immediately ask the dreadfully redundant question: "So, are you gonna teach?" I say balance creativity with realism in your degree program. I can't stress versatility enough. I worked in a biology lab for year as a technical writer and editor, an attribute that most English majors can't claim. I also have a friend with a fine arts degree who did extracurricular work with the computer science department, and her resume has opened doors in both art and computers. Mix it up when you can.

The problem with math and science majors, by contrast, is that they over-specify their desired field of work. I know plenty of starving poets and artists like me and my girlfriend, but I also know plenty of physics, biology, and math majors who are still waiting for that oh-so-certain call from NASA or the Center for Disease Control. While humanities people run the risk of lacking direction, math and science people run the risk of being TOO focused on job area when they're inadvertently closing doors in the faces of employers outside of their target area.

That's my two cents.

To paraphrase one professor, I may make only 35k a year, but I don't have to go to work until late in the morning or noon, I make my own syllabus, and I get paid the same amount regardless of whether I have two students or fifty students per semester.

Reminds me of my highschool German teacher. He said that the person fixing the school roof just outside is making a lot more money than he is, but at least he gets to work where it's air conditioned.

May be of interest.

Statistically speaking, (if the numbers haven't changed recently), having only a high school education means you probably make (in today's dollars) around a million, but having a university education means you'll likely gain around 2.5 million dollars in your lifetime on average.

One of the funny things about a education is that, for the money-making degrees, you were already highly intelligent before you went in the first place (that's how you got the high marks to get accepted afterall). Education can help to make you money but those are mostly science/engineering degrees. Liberal arts degrees are just for expanding your mind really, since there's no real jobs attached to those.

Now, speaking of my friends for some anecdotal discussion, the ones that did not get post-secondary education (I am also including skilled labour as post-secondary education) basically have garbage jobs and earn minimum wage or only slightly more than that. Guys who had a post-secondary education of any sort make more money.

"Liberal arts degrees are just for expanding your mind really, since there's no real jobs attached to those." - breadloaf

If that's the case, then those degrees are arbitrary. There are plenty of ways to expand your mind, why single out a liberal arts degree?

^ Because people pay money for liberal arts degrees?

That's exactly why I was asking why to single it out; there are plenty of ways to expand your mind, and thus "expanding one's mind" hardly sounds like a good enough reason for paying for a liberal arts degree.

You pay for it because it is an excellent way of doing so. I could gather junk in a scrapyard to use to build a car, or I could pay top dollar for a sedan from a dealership, they both get me an automobile.

Universities act as an excellent location because it has a high concentration of motivated individuals who share the passion for learning. It contains a high amount of resources, such as professors, research projects, labs and educated individuals. It is difficult to simulate this environment on your own.

I mean you talk about the high cost of tuition fees but how would you accomplish it on your own? You get the guidance of thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and the quickened pace you can run through it if you're motivated to do so. How many people developed amazing art or technology who wasn't educated? There's a reason it is immensely useful.

It used to be that people in engineering/science would also study some liberal arts, expressedly for the purpose of expanding one's mind. It's difficult to innovate without that.