Recently, there has been a flurry of news coverage awakening to the reality that the student loan crisis is the next big bubble to burst. Though many media outlets have provided shallow commentary of what’s really going on, Michael Snyder of Business Insider cuts through the crap with a sharp critique of the American college education system. His “Sixteen Shocking Facts About Student Debt” exposes the facts that are often overlooked and foreshadows the peril that lies ahead.

And his take on the system is something that I can personally attest to:

Sadly, the quality of the education that most of these college students is receiving is a complete and total joke.

Take it from someone that has graduated from a couple of very highly respected institutions. I have an undergraduate degree, a law degree and another degree on top of that, so I know what I am talking about. Higher education in America has become so dumbed-down that the family dog could literally pass most college courses.

It is an absolute joke. The vast majority of college students in America spend two to four hours a day in the classroom and maybe an hour or two outside the classroom studying. The remainder of the time these “students” are out drinking beer, partying, chasing after sex partners, going to sporting events, playing video games, hanging out with friends, chatting on Facebook or getting into trouble. When they say that college is the most fun that most people will ever have in their lives they mean it. It is basically one huge party.

Of the little “education” that actually does go on, so much of it is so dedicated to pushing various social engineering agendas that it makes the whole process virtually worthless. Most parents would be absolutely shocked if they could actually see the kind of “indoctrination” that goes on inside U.S. college classrooms today.

A college education can be worth it for those in very highly technical or very highly scientific fields, or for those wanting to enter one of the very few fields that is still very financially lucrative, but for nearly everyone else it is just one big money-making scam.

The New York Times considers whether one’s choice to attend an elite undergraduate college really confers a measurable advantage justifying the cost of such an education. Their conclusion: it depends.

I’ve shared my thoughts on the name recognition value of attending an elite law school, and I have to say my thoughts are similar for undergraduate education. I went to a public university for my undergraduate degree and to a top five law school. In my experience, attendance at a state school actually made it easier for me to gain admission into my law school, because I had a 4.0 (something I probably would not have had at an elite school) and I wasn’t competing with a ton of other people at my school as were the people applying from Yale or other such schools.

Nonetheless, as I’ve written previously, having paid nothing for my undergraduate degree but a ridiculous amount of money for law school, I still completely regret having wasted so much money for the caché of graduating from NYU Law. Sure, the degree provides some networking advantages and commands a certain amount of respect, but was it worth sacrificing my twenties to paying off the debt? No way.

The same can be said for shelling out $200,000 to attend an elite undergraduate institution. I can’t even imagine racking up the amount of debt necessary to cover the full cost of attendance at an elite undergraduate school, only to leave with a liberal arts degree and limited job prospects for paying off that “investment.”

(via Above the Law)

A new report by a professor at the London School of Economics concludes that the wage gap between men and women is attributable not to unequal pay for comparable work, but for women electing work that is compatible with family and lifestyle preferences. Those women who do rise to senior positions achieve equality in pay, but the consequence is often a “nominal family” and having to subcontract out the task of raising children.

So it seems that not all women want what comes with salaries equal to their male counterparts —- a life identical to that of a man.

Is there hope to end the trend of skyrocketing college tuition? The Center for College Affordability and Productivity offers some suggestions.

Will Meyerhofer, lawyer-turned-therapist and Above the Law contributor describes why the law was a poor fit for him. I couldn’t agree more!

(via Above the Law)

Borrowing a term from playwright Richard Foreman, Marshall P. Duke reflects that the information overload and instant gratification of the internet is shaping a generation of “Pancake People” —- young people that are “spread wide and thin” … “able to cover and have access to enormous ranges of information yet having minimal depth of knowledge within.” While access to information clearly provides a number of benefits, it encourages knowledge to be stored outside of one’s own mind, limiting one’s ability to engage in creative thinking and original thought.

Instead of pancakes, he contends we should strive to be muffins —- “having a very broad top, but with a significant and foundational area of depth beneath at least part of it.”

But is the real problem that we are spread thin by the vast amount of information provided by technology, or is it that the information most readily available (and most widely popular) fills our minds with junk, leaving little room left for quality information?

Some recent graduates are creating their own career futures without relying on the traditional job market, which boasts a 9.8% unemployment rate. Sure, entrepreneurship is risky, but perhaps less risky and potentially more gratifying than navigating traditional career paths. And thanks to technology, it’s more accessible than ever.

Ron Lieber likens spiraling student loan debt to the mortgage crisis, noting that alhtough responsibility must be shared among several entities, the largest share lies with the universities that lead students to get in too far over their heads.

Regarding similarities with the mortgage crisis:

So in an eerie echo of the mortgage crisis, tens of thousands of people like Ms. Munna are facing a reckoning. They and their families made borrowing decisions based more on emotion than reason, much as subprime borrowers assumed the value of their houses would always go up.

On the universities’ role:

Meanwhile, universities like N.Y.U. enrolled students without asking many questions about whether they could afford a $50,000 annual tuition bill. Then the colleges introduced the students to lenders who underwrote big loans without any idea of what the students might earn someday — just like the mortgage lenders who didn’t ask borrowers to verify their incomes.

Ultimately, the college is looking to protect its financial interests and reputation:

Then there’s a branding problem. Urging students to attend a cheaper college or leave altogether suggests a lack of confidence about the earning potential of alumni. Nobody wants to admit that. And once a university starts encouraging middle-class students to go elsewhere, it must fill its classes with more children of the wealthy and a much smaller number of low-income students to whom it can afford to offer enormous scholarships. That’s hardly an ideal outcome either.

Finally, universities exist to enroll students, not turn them away. “Aid administrators want to keep their jobs,” said Joan H. Crissman, interim president and chief executive of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. “If the administration finds out that you’re encouraging students to go to a cheaper school just because you don’t think they can handle the debt load, I don’t think that’s going to mesh very well.”

The student profiled in the piece, while only 26, is already showing signs of feeling careared:

Ms. Munna understands this tough love, buck up, buckle-down advice. But she also badly wants to call a do-over on the last decade. “I don’t want to spend the rest of my life slaving away to pay for an education I got for four years and would happily give back,” she said. “It feels wrong to me.”

While reading one high school senior’s musings on being trapped as a “prisoner” by the college admissions process, I was bothered by the author’s whiney attitude towards writing application essays. This kid was complaining about sacrificing just a few days of what was supposed to be his “carefree” senior year of high school on “lockdown.” His tone would suggest those days consisted of mild torture, though in reality the painful experience he spoke of was actually contributing to a great privilege that, unfortunately, many young people take for granted. If just writing a few application essays was enough to elicit such a negative reaction (and get it published in the New York Times), I can’t imagine how much this guy is going to huff and puff when his actual schoolwork in college requires him to sacrifice his precious “hanging out” time because, really, that’s what college is all about to kids these days.

One commenter aptly captured what I found so terribly wrong with the piece:

I have a hard time feeling sympathy for Mr. Hazel. Where is it written or promised that senior year should be “carefree?” He highlights, perhaps unknowingly, a major problem with our kids, our parents, our educational system, and our society. Why should a whole year of school be considered irrelevant?
—- mikem

I was probably just as annoyed by having to write college essays as Kori Hazel. I was also too intimidated by three-hour long science labs in college, and the resulting dent it would put in my free time, to pursue a science major that may have been more useful than my political science and psychology degrees in terms of securing work after graduation. I was naïve and selfish, like many college students are encouraged to be.

It’s not until the shock of the “real world” sets in that many young people are awakened to the fact that high school and college don’t even come close to mimicking the hard work, responsibility and struggles of adulthood.

Someday, this kid will be longing for the days of “lockdown,” when his only concern was writing a 500-word essay describing an experience that most shaped his character.

Do you strive for external validation, or is your path dictated by a deeper sense of personal fulfillment? Marcia Reynolds cautions against pursuing careers motivated by “cravings,” or impulses to earn other’s approval. Instead, you should seek out your “calling” —- the type of work you would do if you didn’t care what other people thought. The article is geared towards women, but I think its message applies to both men and women.

A few notable excerpts:

I also found many younger women had an irrepressible desire to be renowned. They had been told as a child that they could grow up to accomplish great things. This is not a bad message to give children. Yet it needs to be balanced by the message, “You are good and lovable even if you aren’t the best.” If not, girls are brought up feeling they have to be recognized as great at what they do or they aren’t good enough whether they choose to be a mom, a CEO, or both.

If your purpose rests on recognition, you will always be looking for “something more.” The quest is often exhausting, disappointing, and unfulfilling in the end. You miss what makes you feel good in the present.

[I]f you can’t articulate what activities give you fulfillment, you leave the assessment of your value to other people’s judgment. You end up relying on others to tell you if your work is important and good. You might think you feel fulfilled when you are just pleased that they noticed how much you know and how hard you worked.

Job-hopping can be a trial and error process that helps you discover the type of work that best suits you, but it can also lead to chronic indecisiveness and feeling that “the grass is always greener.” This thoughtful article by Christine Scivicque weighs the pros and cons.

Some bits of important insight embedded in this jaded and sarcastic (but very funny) video, created by David Kazzie:

Here are my favorite exchanges:

Student: I really want to work on the important issues of the day … I also want to work for legal aid. It must be so fascinating to help poor people with their legal problems.
Lawyer: What’s fascinating is that you will be one of these poor people. Except you will have $100,000 in law school debt.

Lawyer: So how do you plan to pay for law school?
Student: I’ll have to take out a few loans.
Lawyer: You realize you will be paying those back for the next 20 years even if you decide you hate being a lawyer.

Lawyer: Have you ever spent the Thanksgiving holiday reviewing 1.2 million pages of billing records in a warehouse in Topeka?

Lawyer: Are you aware that you’ll be spending three years in an environment that in no way, shape or form prepares you for anything remotely resembling a law career?
Student: I am very dedicated. I will work very hard.
Lawyer: I’m sure you will. You don’t plan on ever seeing your kids, right?

(via The Washington Post)

A recent study conducted by the University of Wisconsin suggests that telecommuting —- even just a few days a week —- contributes to employee happiness by reducing stress levels and alleviating work-life conflict.

New York career coach Roy Cohen advises his clients to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of getting an advanced degree, and cautions that “full-blown graduate programs are not always the best idea.” Instead, he urges his clients to consider certificate programs and other continuing education options that can also be useful and cost much less money.

It’s all about practical thinking:

It’s one thing to fantasize about an advanced degree. It’s another to go out and get a job using that degree.

Caroline Dowd-Higgins offers some advice on turning your holiday gatherings into career-brainstorming sessions. Organizing a rousing game of “What’s Your Career Passion” or asking guests to write down five things they think you do well could provide some helpful guidance, but be warned that you may take home the title of “most annoying person of the party.”

Ewan McIntosh charges that the “factory model” of schooling produces graduates who are ill-equipped for the realities of the business world.

[E]verything being done to formal schooling by the political classes in America and England runs against what business actually requires: self-starting, creative, entrepreneurial youngsters.

So what’s the problem? To begin with, schooling is based on several premises which discourage an enthusiasm for learning and independent thinking, and encourage dependency on institutional structures:

1) Knowledge is scarce.

2) Learning needs a specific place and specific time (lessons in classrooms).

3) Knowledge is best learnt in disconnected little pieces (lessons).

4) To learn you need the help of an approved expert i.e. a teacher.

5) To learn you need to follow a path determined by a learning expert (a course of study).

6) You need an expert to assess your progress (a teacher).

7) You can attribute a meaningful numerical value to the value of learning (marks, grades, degrees).

In the end, students reared in this broken system are too often unable to learn on their own and struggle to keep their heads above water in the business world.

Education teaches us to believe that a university degree signifies that one possesses the skills to perform a job, but in reality it simply demonstrates one’s ability to “play the game” of schooling. As a result, many people are released into the real world having no idea what they have gotten themselves into. As someone who attended an elite law school only to learn that my overpriced education failed to prepare me for the tough legal profession, I couldn’t agree more that the factory model of schooling really is, as John Taylor Gatto says in his superb book, Dumbing Us Down.