Report: 1 of 2 recent college graduates under/unemployed

[M2nFarisFan]

If you haven't read it yet, according to a study done by the government for the Associated Press, nearly half of recent college graduates are either jobless or underemployed with work not relevant to their skills. Story here.

Lots of thoughts I want to spill, but the first thing I'm thinking is "Why would someone take on the debt for a useless degree?" I went to a notable institution and got a science degree, and at least am working, although not for a great amount of money. If you are not well-endowed, you shouldn't go. Simple as that.

A lot of people want to blame Obama and "hopey changey", but I started college under Bush 43, and it wasn't any better. I feel bad for those who have liberal arts degrees, essentially $100,000 to learn a hobby. Others simply say "Push 'em to the trades", which do have jobs now, but I don't want the immature youth of the 90s working on my electronics or plumbing.

Overall, the problem, in my mind, is too many degrees by lower-class people and government funding, plus the fact that Corporate America fails to recognize what was once true: investing in a worker instead of passing the training to another company (hot potato theory). My thing is this: No federal college funding. Either you get the military to pay it through the GI Bill (which is by far the best training in the world; joining the miltary will get you job skills, training, trades, and experience, plus a "check" on the veteran question), get scholarships, or have your Mom and Dad finance it. Anyone who goes to college can easily get that regardless of their family's income.

Personally, I don't see it getting any better any time soon. With the fact that it looks like 1800s Russia with the idle labor pool and low wages and high value placed on efficiency rather than quantity, the socialist agenda will keep going. Companies, in my mind, have no incentive to hire a college graduate. Don't want to train, don't want to pay (internships = free labor, can't get in without one!) and it's bad.

Your thoughts....I want to have a discussion about this, as it means a lot to me. Try not to get too political.

[M2nFarisFan]

But at the same time, neither one of us is doing too well...and think about everyone else in the family. It's not about the degree...everyone has one. College should be for the best only IMO...and trust me, if you are inner city and a hard worker, there's scholarships and grants (I applied for one that they were handing out because I am Italian-American.)

I often get the feeling that you look for a Master's degree as a qualifier for a better life or achievement, as do a lot of people. One problem is that you can have Master's degrees in multiplicity and be homeless (YouTube it). Most employers don't care about school. They want a skill. They have to see the dollar sign above your head when you are interviewing.

The other thing is that it need not be a Penn State education, either. But at the same time, there are a lot of programs that will give you a degree, but ill-equip those whom come out of the program. I believe if you are the best student, you should get into the best program and get the best opportunities. I can't tell you how many inner city bright spots have gone through where I went. The few that got the free rides are studying graduate programs. But there were many who went to hang out and goof off. And the sad thing is they have the same job, but $60k in debt. The point is that like an internship or apprenticeship, to get in, you should have someone to back you. It would cut back on the basket weavers and people just there to drink, party, and get l**d. And at every school, even the lowliest community colleges, there are people there.

And don't get me wrong, I have been fortunate. TBQH, it is more of a curse than a blessing. Despite the fact I don't have any federal Pell or other loan debt, I still have bills to pay back. But at the same time, what about those who went for a psych, history, or other art degree? Should they really have been allowed to increase the $1.2 trillion in loan debt that won't be repaid?

The truth is that despite having 8 college degrees in the family, Big Steve, you don't seem to have had the golden path laid down. I'm the first in my family, and I don't have it either. So that is the point of the decreasing value of the commodity of the sheepskin. After all, from what I understand, most degreed individuals, A.A or 3 Ph.D's, when they spend the first day on the job, the boss says "Got a degree! Wonderful! Put it back in your portfolio. Here's what we do at Conglomerate Accounting/Science. Place red peg A in blue hole B, and green cube C in yellow box D. Repeat 'til break. Questions?" 30 years ago, you'd get that without a degree. Now you need the degree - and accompanying debt.

[racingchick1020]

Basically, if you live in a place where you can't afford to go to college... "Can I take your order?"

[M2nFarisFan]

Well, Mandy, in a world where 1.6 million college graduates say precisely that, would that be "sort of"?

I'm at work and on break, and while I was cleaning up, I thought about my own journey. I applied to a small private college to get my Masters and am awaiting my admission in the fall. The reason why I am doing it is not to get the degree, but to put on my resume that I am pursuing it. When I get a career starting position, I can choose to stop, or even have the company I work for pay the tuition if they offer the program to do so. The latter is what I talk about as being supported properly.

I always believed that the best students with the best entrepreneurial spirit, the most true ambition, and the most potential will get the degrees and experience. The students whom are secondary to that will have to work for it, but nothing says they can't make it. I've never heard of really smart students being left out...contrary to that, most get free rides! It shouldn't be that a Master's is needed to get $8 an hour. A high school dropout with marketable skills should make that. Plus, college doesn't give experience. It is a mind enricher, sure. But there are a ton of graduates promised jobs who will likely never get them.

And as a final thought, what's there to say that they won't pass a law that all of the indentured servants won't be conscripted? Heard that on a job forum today.

[racingchick1020]

Well, Mandy, in a world where 1.6 million college graduates say precisely that, would that be "sort of"?

Uh, no. That's pretty much what everyone who doesn't live in a house with a mommy and/or daddy that has seven or eight figures and can buy them whatever they want (and that includes college) says. By your genius logic, you think that if you can't find a way to get into college, you shouldn't be able to get into college to begin with. Some average Joe Schmo could try to work his arse off in some after-school job, only to find out that he can't get into school because he can't pay for it. That's basically what you're trying to say. Admit it.

Besides... I've heard of people being "overqualified" for a place like McDonald's.

[M2nFarisFan]

Uh, no. That's pretty much what everyone who doesn't live in a house with a mommy and/or daddy that has seven or eight figures and can buy them whatever they want (and that includes college) says. By your genius logic, you think that if you can't find a way to get into college, you shouldn't be able to get into college to begin with. Some average Joe Schmo could try to work his arse off in some after-school job, only to find out that he can't get into school because he can't pay for it. That's basically what you're trying to say. Admit it.

Besides... I've heard of people being "overqualified" for a place like McDonald's.

Well, here's two arguments:

1. You don't have to even be making five figures to go to college. You have to pony up the money if you want to go to an Ivy League or a Big Ten state school, sure. There's a price to get the prestige. And yes, you should have to work to go to college. That's the exact reason why Neko and I are both having so much trouble. And the problem is in tandem that it isn't going to get any better when there's 3 million graduates every year but probably only 500,000 jobs or less open. It's not a problem with his major, aside from the fact that if you have a summer job, you can get a degree from an online for-profit. But for all the so-called basket weavers turned baristas, they have a lot of trouble ahead.

There has to be some limit or some regulation to who can get in. Period. If you think about it, we have a $5 trillion deficit. $1.2 trillion of it is student loans. If half of that is paid off immediately, Obama can say "I reduced the deficit by over 10%!" But instead, he says "we'll forgive loans". Since I financed privately, I don't get benefits like that. And I think it is the most conservative thought I've had.

And it's not to say that just because a family's from West Virginia and is a bunch of hilljacks that they can't send their kids to college. What they should have to do is tell their kids "You have to work hard to get in, take apprenticeships or internships, get grants, etc." It builds character, gets jobs quicker, and reverses the debt. Of course, like I said, if you have well-off parents, chances are you're going to get the job you want eventually, so it makes it irrelevant.

And the thing is even now, McDonald's looks highly upon college graduates over the HS graduate. I work retail, and AFAIK, I got the job because my boss was a college graduate, and so am I. All the younger folk are going to college or other tertiary education. If you finish it (which 50% in this economy don't), it does open doors and can't hurt. The overqualification issue becomes a problem when companies believe in the illusion that people are flying jobs like mad, which isn't happening.

The last sentence is the problem I mentioned before. Too much of Corporate America thinks that it should be someone else's job to train college graduates. College graduates, by design, should have the tools to learn a skill or trade, and their college degree a stamp of knowing. The problem is that we're handing spoiled brats $100,000+ to learn art and history, and then they come on the market and suddenly they become level with me and Neko, who both worked our (a-bomb)es off to get a rigorous degree.

Which brings me to my final point of the night: I know you are an auto racing fanatic. You worked hard to get known and drive, broadcast, whatever. You learned all of this stuff through the school of hard knocks. Now suppose you have me, who doesn't even know how to drive a standard, but I have a piece of paper that says I know just as much as you do. Hence, I get selected over you because of that. Is that fair? Or how about if you worked your (a-bomb) off to buy yourself a '65 Mustang fastback (a good car BTW), which will set you back $100,000, and then the government paid for Ford to build them again en masse and allowed 3 million people per year to get loans that may never be paid back, and now suddenly everyone has the nicest car? What does that signify to your car? One thing I think that you will agree with is that it loses a scatpile of value. And what if in order to go to the track, you have to have a '65 Mustang? Or just to get to the market? What choice do you have?

[racingchick1020]

Which brings me to my final point of the night: I know you are an auto racing fanatic. You worked hard to get known and drive, broadcast, whatever. You learned all of this stuff through the school of hard knocks. Now suppose you have me, who doesn't even know how to drive a standard, but I have a piece of paper that says I know just as much as you do. Hence, I get selected over you because of that. Is that fair? Or how about if you worked your (a-bomb) off to buy yourself a '65 Mustang fastback (a good car BTW), which will set you back $100,000, and then the government paid for Ford to build them again en masse and allowed 3 million people per year to get loans that may never be paid back, and now suddenly everyone has the nicest car? What does that signify to your car? One thing I think that you will agree with is that it loses a scatpile of value. And what if in order to go to the track, you have to have a '65 Mustang? Or just to get to the market? What choice do you have?

In order of questions...

1. Can't answer that fairly because don't have a driver's license.

2. Classic cars are always different. People remake them differently. So no two Mustangs are alike.

3. Well, I'm just butt(f-bomb)ed.

[CarShark]

I'm not really surprised by that statistic. The bachelor's degree is becoming the new high school diploma. It loses its value once more people get it. I've heard some experts refer to it as a "mass-produced product," like a washer or a car. I'm hearing them refer to a college bubble, like with housing. I mean, it makes some sense. Both started with good intentions. George W. Bush wanted everyone to own a home, and the government and banks made it a lot easier to do so, regardless of whether people could pay the loans back or the effect it has on house prices. Obama wants everyone to get a college education, and the government and banks are making it easier, regardless of whether people can pay the loans back or the effect it has on tuition. There are a trillion dollar's worth of student loans outstanding right now. That's future wealth (plus interest) that, when earned, won't be going into the local economies, just back to the banks' coffers. What I think is inevitable is that there will be so many loans outstanding, with so many in default and so much in future income that will have to be spent in paying back loans that someone is going to say, "Screw it. Let's just forgive it all and start again." That'll be a great way to energize the youth demographic in a political party's favor. Or maybe they'll just let people discharge student loans in bankruptcy, like they did before 1998.

The reason more people don't share M2N's view is that we in America value individual choice so much. We don't want to push teenagers and young adults into a field that they don't have passion for, because one of the reasons people want to send their kids to college is so they aren't stuck in dead-end jobs. I get that. It's one thing to love art, history or the humanities. It's another thing to take out $50K, $60K...up to $100,000 in loans to pursue it. I think it all comes down to this: what is the primary purpose of college? Is it to prepare students for the workforce or to make them better thinkers? If you believe the former, as I (and I believe M2N) do, then more analysis needs to be done in regards to how colleges are advising students for post-education as well as their time in college.

[M2nFarisFan]

Agreed, CarShark. There is a problem in this country that we are simply mass-producing college graduates, and that it's diluting those of us who really worked for our degree increasingly.

It's not to say that poor people or those who can't afford it initially can't go. What I am saying is "be careful writing a person with little ability to pay it back $100,000 in loans to do a hobby". I'll give credit to Neko for choosing a profession which is math-intensive, which is in demand nowadays (and should pick up even more once the economy does). The issue is that there are people who are spending four years just to see football or party.

I always thought there was one thing we as Americans did wrong, a very socialist action. It was called No Child Left Behind. The intent, in my mind, was to make sure that all American children would have a chance to be successful. What it really did, in my opinion, was to choke off the aspiring and gifted students to raise up the kids who really had no purpose being in school. It created the "lowest common denominator". I remember that someone brought up how China is passing us by. Well, it's because in China, the best students go to University, the second best go to trade school, third best work in the factory. And everyone's working. Here? We give everyone a chance to get the paper credential, and so, if you have the paper credential, you start with everyone else.

Keep in mind in this day and age college is a business as much as it is education. Penn State hasn't doubled its campus size in the past 25 years for nothing. Pitt hasn't bought every building and hospital it can get its hands on since 2000 for nothing. If you have a family willing to pay $25,000 a year for booze, babes, and babysitting, let them pay. What I am saying is don't let a person who gets a BA in Women's Studies with a 2.0 GPA get in the way of a science-studying Dean's List person like me who didn't party, drink, or have intimate relations.

The one thing I always remember is that my mom didn't have a degree - in fact, she had maybe 20 credits of night school. But she's making enough to pay for four cars, two educations, a house, food, you name it. How did she get there? Hard work and connections, of course. But she got her first secretarial job at 19. The difference? They had businesses who would get people out of school, take them, and train them in their system - the "peg in hole" thing I mentioned before. Thanks to the chicken and egg theory of cost cutting, we expect college students to have that training. They don't, so the indoctrination goes on - except with debt overhead. That is the real problem.

[TheNewNeko]

I see your point, Steve-o. But the problem isn't as much with income as it is with aptitude.

So what's really diluting the market, though? let me ask you that. I'm going to give you some examples of people and see if you get the point. I'm going to throw down some factoids.

When I got out of high school, I had a GPA of 2.50. The main reason was because the idea of curing an Aspie was to give him detention if he wasn't a perfect little slave. I took an aptitude test for the community college. My five scores ranged from 94 in English to 120 for math (not to brag, but the maximum possible score on that test was 120). I went into community college and tried to land a job at the same time. I also burned out during one quarter where it took me 3 hours and 3 busses to get home from school every day. Other than that quarter, my GPA was about a 3.00 the entire time. When I went to the university, my GPA was about a 2.7, until I switched to Accounting and my GPA went up in leaps and bounds. I was pitching between a 3.50 and a 3.70 every quarter. I even managed to graduate with honors (3.31 GPA). I got in because as it turned out, my GPA was in the top 15% of the world.

I had practically no income. Certainly not enough to give a $250 wager to a sports team. But I had a lot of resolve.

Now let's take my spoiled rotten Daddy's boy nephew. He got his degree from the same school as I did but he coasted through school. His grades were so low in high school that he got kicked off the football team. He was a slacker and a jerk. And you know what? He graduated. I honestly don't think he had a high enough GPA to pursue a Master's Degree, as most schools require a cumulative GPA of 2.75 unless you had extenuating circumstances. His dad makes almost $150,000 a year.

You know what the difference is? under your plan, my nephew can still slack his way through and get a college degree. I can't bust my hump and try to get my Bachelor's, let alone my Master's Degree. Your policy would allow snot-nosed daddy's boys to blow $100,000 on an "education" where they could get drunk, party and screw, and the people who have the intellect for, say a 4.0 GPA wouldn't be able to simply because they don't have $20,000+ a year to drop on college life.

[M2nFarisFan]

I just got off of work....gave it some thought. Here are some brief things I want to respond with:

1. I understand that your nephew can slack through college. But we don't have to print him a degree stating he knows anything. I don't have a problem with a 21-year old daddy's son being in college. Everyone is entitled to spend his or her money the way they so wish.

2. In response to the aptitude, first off, community college, at least where I go, is a joke beyond the first two years. I had a test I had to take where the hardest question was the integral of 2x^(-1). So it's not a good indicator of anything, so I wouldn't get too high off of that. Second of all, I don't believe in racism. I believe there's a lot of people who coast through college who are predominantly in bleak neighborhoods. Proof? I went to a branch campus in the ghetto for my first two years (McKeesport campus, now Greater Allegheny). I didn't have any AP classes, after school activities, part time jobs, etc. They took me in in two weeks. Did you get accepted to school that fast?

Back to point, I was around a lot of really second-rate students. I always joked around that it was like Sidney Crosby vs. Kris Letang in the path to the big leagues, where PSUMK was the minors. All the classes there were easier - and I mean, much easier. But yet, there were still people who failed the classes. Should we, as taxpayers, fund that for four years?

3. Be it as it may, I know a lot of people who are in minorities who succeeded in the subjects, got Ph.D.'s, and full rides. But they had to work their tails off. They had to go through NOAA's SOARS program, SCEP, you name it. They deserved it. But there were a lot of them who I only saw smoke weed and shoot baskets.

4. In regards to the entire third and fourth paragraph, I want to tell you a story. When I graduated from high school, I knew a kid who went through a science program at Penn State with me. He was kind of shy, socially awkward, probably had A/S. His grades dipped down to 2.6 GPA. But he had some good parents who loved him, and they were well-to-do. He went and took a $1,000 test to ask whether he had a learning disability or not. They found out that his doctor had prescribed him the wrong medicine, and that it was limiting his thinking capabilities. So, he had Penn State pay for a private note-taker, and got all the time he wanted to take exams, in a quiet room. As a result, his grades went up, and he began making Dean's List every semester. Now, in that scope of things, should he, who had special connections and accommodations, be permitted to receive the same recognition of understanding as a 4.0 GPA student?

5. I always think of college bills this way: Imagine if the government gave an 18-year old $75,000 to start a business, with a 6% interest rate, with no guarantee to pay it back. You'd be crying "socialism! favoritism!" Now switch "business" with "college education". Both make money. Both encourage learning. Both should be an investment. But where is the former considered a poor loan, whereas the latter is smiled upon?

6. Here's my final justification. Neko, in all honesty, you spent about half as much as me to go to school. You've said that you've had trouble and have been living off the loans. I don't have to rehash that because I don't feel like publicizing it. But given what you said, was it worth getting the degree? Should it have been that a two-year program should have net you the $80k job you told me on Facebook once existed? Think about it, because in my mind, you can make that much being in a good union doing menial labor.

[TheNewNeko]

I just got off of work....gave it some thought. Here are some brief things I want to respond with:

1. I understand that your nephew can slack through college. But we don't have to print him a degree stating he knows anything. I don't have a problem with a 21-year old daddy's son being in college. Everyone is entitled to spend his or her money the way they so wish.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a sponsor of the free market. But you kinda missed the point of the contrast. I will say it right now. Taking away the Federal Government's funding of these colleges will lead to exactly the problems I'm talking about. You have 87% of independent students that need some form of government assistance in order to go to school.

You're not going to like what I'm going to say. But I'm going to say it anyways. Most people that come from a wealthier family don't feel as obligated about going to college as the rest of us. When you're REALLY impoverished, you act like the quote from the movie Major League: "Now you listen to me! This is my last shot at a winner and for some of the younger guys it could be their only shot. I don't know what happened to you.". They know if they don't play up to snuff, they're gonna get kicked out. And that's all there is to it. When you have a sense of urgency, you're more likely to give it your all and graduate.

2. In response to the aptitude, first off, community college, at least where I go, is a joke beyond the first two years. I had a test I had to take where the hardest question was the integral of 2x^(-1). So it's not a good indicator of anything, so I wouldn't get too high off of that. Second of all, I don't believe in racism. I believe there's a lot of people who coast through college who are predominantly in bleak neighborhoods. Proof? I went to a branch campus in the ghetto for my first two years (McKeesport campus, now Greater Allegheny). I didn't have any AP classes, after school activities, part time jobs, etc. They took me in in two weeks. Did you get accepted to school that fast?

Most credible colleges take a lot longer than that, although to be fair, I was accepted in eight days after all my paperwork was received to the University of La Verne. But don't worry, Steve-o. The last paper did come in right when they were taking their winter break.

Back to point, I was around a lot of really second-rate students. I always joked around that it was like Sidney Crosby vs. Kris Letang in the path to the big leagues, where PSUMK was the minors. All the classes there were easier - and I mean, much easier. But yet, there were still people who failed the classes. Should we, as taxpayers, fund that for four years?

I have an idea, Steve-o. Let's take your head and cut it off because you have dandruff. You're basically taking the way for 20 million people and saying to all of them "Well, you're out of luck because some of you will loaf". You're basically saying that a person who can't get grants any other way should give up. Remember: Not everyone is eligible for grants from private companies. Oh wait, why do private companies give grants? That's right. The government gives them tax incentives to do it. So you would in essence lose that too.

3. Be it as it may, I know a lot of people who are in minorities who succeeded in the subjects, got Ph.D.'s, and full rides. But they had to work their tails off. They had to go through NOAA's SOARS program, SCEP, you name it. They deserved it. But there were a lot of them who I only saw smoke weed and shoot baskets.

Thank you for proving my point. The Student Career Experience Program is a work study program. Who sponsors the work study program? Yep. The Federal Government. You're talking about cutting off all federal programs, not just loans and grants. Without that, would they have made it? Keep in mind, that most companies would be disinclined to do scholarships because they aren't getting tax breaks.

4. In regards to the entire third and fourth paragraph, I want to tell you a story. When I graduated from high school, I knew a kid who went through a science program at Penn State with me. He was kind of shy, socially awkward, probably had A/S. His grades dipped down to 2.6 GPA. But he had some good parents who loved him, and they were well-to-do. He went and took a $1,000 test to ask whether he had a learning disability or not. They found out that his doctor had prescribed him the wrong medicine, and that it was limiting his thinking capabilities. So, he had Penn State pay for a private note-taker, and got all the time he wanted to take exams, in a quiet room. As a result, his grades went up, and he began making Dean's List every semester. Now, in that scope of things, should he, who had special connections and accommodations, be permitted to receive the same recognition of understanding as a 4.0 GPA student?

When a person has a disability, that should always be a factor. You know that.

5. I always think of college bills this way: Imagine if the government gave an 18-year old $75,000 to start a business, with a 6% interest rate, with no guarantee to pay it back. You'd be crying "socialism! favoritism!" Now switch "business" with "college education". Both make money. Both encourage learning. Both should be an investment. But where is the former considered a poor loan, whereas the latter is smiled upon?

Historically, businesses have been known to fail. Over one-half of them fail in the first 5 years. It's generally accepted that a college education will make the person better ready to handle the work world once they finish it.

6. Here's my final justification. Neko, in all honesty, you spent about half as much as me to go to school. You've said that you've had trouble and have been living off the loans. I don't have to rehash that because I don't feel like publicizing it. But given what you said, was it worth getting the degree? Should it have been that a two-year program should have net you the $80k job you told me on Facebook once existed? Think about it, because in my mind, you can make that much being in a good union doing menial labor.

I admit, life hasn't gone the way I wanted it to. Part of it was this Godawful economy. Part of it is my Asperger's and the fact that people with A/S may have as high as an 80% unemployment rate (I just wrote a paper about that last week and the problems they may have with communicating in a work environment.). There are probably other factors, but the long and short of it is that sometimes the prospect of a high paying job is the only thing that keeps people going. I'm sure that once the economy picks up, I'll be able to land a job with my skills the way they are.

[M2nFarisFan]

Well, first of all, the whole "wealthier people don't feel like going to college" is all B.S. Actually, in truth, wealthier families tend to have higher expectations, which means they have to get Master's degrees and Ph.D.'s. I have some of them in the extended family who are making 10x as much as the people you worked with. Their parents made them stay in college until they could go out on their own. On the other side, I have family that are more broke than you could ever be, Big Steve. None of them went to college, and chances are none of them will.

Also, the difference is SCEP is work study, which means you pay labor to get that position. So it isn't free. I don't have any problem of being paid or paying to do work (it would mean a halt to everything in the Fed, which is wrong.) The issue I have is grabbing some random high-flyer out of a school like Schenley here in Pittsburgh, giving them $100,000 of federal loans, and then letting them be like mother Mary said. That's what I have a problem with. I would cut them off faster than Lorena Bobbitt cut off....well, you know.

And in truth, companies shouldn't worry about the tax breaks. If I started a company right now, I would be glad to give $25,000 to get a high achiever to learn his or her craft in school and come work for me. And that's the way it was, up until companies became overly greedy and started "passing the buck" to get us competitive with China's cheap goods. In fact, most reputable companies that don't have 100% turnover every 18 months will cover partially for your education, regardless of whether there is a tax break. You'll probably come across it someday, Big Steve.

Finally, it is not always living in California or having hardship or "being dealt the bad hand". If you really must know, no person on this earth has everything going for them. Even lottery winners have people piling on for lawsuits. Look at your friend Glen, for example. He makes good money, but can't hold a conversation with most people. The truth is that Asperger's need not be an inhibition - in fact, trying to hide it might be the worst thing to do. Most decent companies want a diverse workforce, with all colors, races, and abilities. The issue might be a little bit more of how you deal with the stress more than the stress itself. But like you mention a lot, Big Steve, I'm not a psychologist. Being that I have a cousin with A/S, I looked up the disorder a couple of times out of curiosity.

And, as many have said to me, if you can't find a job where you are, go somewhere where it is. I've even heard of people buying pay-as-you-go phones with 814 and 570 codes here in PA to make it look as if they lived in central or northeast PA. Companies nowadays don't want to spend on relocation or moving someone, sadly, which as you know, works as a handicap here in Pittsburgh because there are few science jobs within 25 miles of my house.

[TheNewNeko]

Well, first of all, the whole "wealthier people don't feel like going to college" is all B.S. Actually, in truth, wealthier families tend to have higher expectations, which means they have to get Master's degrees and Ph.D.'s. I have some of them in the extended family who are making 10x as much as the people you worked with. Their parents made them stay in college until they could go out on their own. On the other side, I have family that are more broke than you could ever be, Big Steve. None of them went to college, and chances are none of them will.

Your extended family makes 10 times the people I work with? So if I told you that I worked with a spoiled daddy's boy who frequently came in hung over after a night of playing XBox for 11 hours and making $300,000 a year, you're telling me you have individuals who make 10 times that amount? If so, dude, you have no right to ever complain to me about finances again for the rest of your life, because those people could start you with your own freakin' business.

Like I said, rich snot-nosed punks have options. Their super-wealthy daddies can start them in a business if they drop out of college because of their grades. For the poor, it's simply do or die and in this economy, doing sometimes isn't enough. Like I said, my snot-nosed punk nephew only got in his position because his rich Daddy was an executive officer at the company.

OTOH, every poor person I know who is in college views it as their last chance at a better life. They have to play the game to succeed, get the degree and get the (F-bomb) out of the rut of poverty they are in.

Also, the difference is SCEP is work study, which means you pay labor to get that position. So it isn't free. I don't have any problem of being paid or paying to do work (it would mean a halt to everything in the Fed, which is wrong.) The issue I have is grabbing some random high-flyer out of a school like Schenley here in Pittsburgh, giving them $100,000 of federal loans, and then letting them be like mother Mary said. That's what I have a problem with. I would cut them off faster than Lorena Bobbitt cut off....well, you know.

But work study is funded by... that's right. The government. Remember that the Federal Government's loan deficit is not just student loans and grants. They give the school departments money so that you can earn it. When you put all of that together, that's what's causing this collapse. Also, here's something you may not know. When you get up to the Master's level, the only thing you can get is loans. There are no grants, there might be scholarships but they're rare and there's no work study. That's why you have doctors coming out of medical school who are $150,000 in debt.

As a matter of fact, although where I'm going is the first choice for a college, it wasn't the only school I went to. When I went to a rival school, the admissions officer gave me quite an attitude after telling me that their tuition was $18,200 a year. (At the Master's level, you can only borrow $20,500 a year). When I asked if there were other incentives, it was met with a derisive "OUR PROGRAM is for working adults!". Now I was a bit insulted given the fact that California's unemployment rate is still punishingly high. So yes, with your program, even a person who gets a Bachelor's is SOL unless he's someone in your family, apparently.

And in truth, companies shouldn't worry about the tax breaks. If I started a company right now, I would be glad to give $25,000 to get a high achiever to learn his or her craft in school and come work for me. And that's the way it was, up until companies became overly greedy and started "passing the buck" to get us competitive with China's cheap goods. In fact, most reputable companies that don't have 100% turnover every 18 months will cover partially for your education, regardless of whether there is a tax break. You'll probably come across it someday, Big Steve.

Why do companies do tuition reimbursement? Get ready for it...

Tax law states that $5,250 can be contributed tax free up to 2010 for the benefit of employees. Thus tuition reimbursement reduces your business's tax liability while increasing the ability to retain and promote employees.

Finally, it is not always living in California or having hardship or "being dealt the bad hand". If you really must know, no person on this earth has everything going for them. Even lottery winners have people piling on for lawsuits. Look at your friend Glen, for example. He makes good money, but can't hold a conversation with most people. The truth is that Asperger's need not be an inhibition - in fact, trying to hide it might be the worst thing to do. Most decent companies want a diverse workforce, with all colors, races, and abilities. The issue might be a little bit more of how you deal with the stress more than the stress itself. But like you mention a lot, Big Steve, I'm not a psychologist. Being that I have a cousin with A/S, I looked up the disorder a couple of times out of curiosity.

My guess is, like you admitted, you don't have a comprehensive understanding of A/S or what exactly it is or how people who have it are as a person. I'm not going to blame you for that, because honestly, until about three years ago, I didn't really even understand that this was a condition, just that something was different/wrong with me.

Asperger's is not a disease, like cancer. It's a syndrome, which means that you have a number of symptoms and if a percentage of those match up with you, then you are one of the lucky people who have it. One day I hit a paper on it, and holy guacamole, I find a checklist of 27 different symptoms for likely candidates. Every test I've taken has proven me to have it, and a lot of companies dismiss it as exactly what you do. "Bad attitude", the strange part is that depression rates among Aspies are close to 90%, because of this. The worst thing that psychologists are trying to do is blend Asperger's with Autism and what they're doing is calling it "Autism Spectrum Disorder" in the DSM-5. I digress though.

Most Aspies have a very low tolerance for verbal abuse. They also rarely feel anything other than anger and misery. Most times it's because Aspies want to make friends and do things right but really lack the social protocol to do it properly and have no clue what they're doing wrong. Although he doesn't do a perfect job of it, you should watch The Big Bang Theory sometime. If you watch the idiosyncrasies of Sheldon, you might get a perspective of what life is like for someone like me. (to be fair, he also has mysophobia and OCD).

And, as many have said to me, if you can't find a job where you are, go somewhere where it is. I've even heard of people buying pay-as-you-go phones with 814 and 570 codes here in PA to make it look as if they lived in central or northeast PA. Companies nowadays don't want to spend on relocation or moving someone, sadly, which as you know, works as a handicap here in Pittsburgh because there are few science jobs within 25 miles of my house.

Yeah, I might have to, but at the same time, it's prohibitively expensive to move and right now it's way too much for why I didn't get out of here several years ago. You'd be surprised how much cash it takes to move. Although to be fair, all I know in life is living in California. Except for a year in North Dakota, I lived out here for most of my life, so I kinda am a California guy anyways.

[M2nFarisFan]

Well, here's a good statistic for the discussion of too many college graduates: Penn State released their Class of 2012 numbers today. They handed out - get this - 10.491 baccalaureates in one class. Even with everything that's gone on this year. Meanwhile, the economy created just 150,000 new jobs this month.

Considering there are probably a good 150 schools in Div I sports (meaning an enrollment of at least 5,000 or so IIRC), divide by 4, and you get 200,000 freshly minted grads added overnight to the workforce. Add another 100 or so Div II and III schools, community colleges, and such.....you might as well chalk another 350,000 grads in there. Add about 50% of that, or 275,000, to the non-practicing in the field, and you see the problem is getting worse.

Meanwhile, Penn State cited only about 1200 Master's and 220 Ph.D.'s to the pool. Slightly better (and definitely something to be proud about - I can say after taking a graduate level class there that each graduate degree, thesis or not, is earned and well at that.)