Working With Your Hands vs Going to College

[tango]

Well.... IN PART.... that's the reality in the USA for COLLEGE. Is it a good thing? Should we support college for only the rich?

And if college should be only for the rich, why not high school? Why not elementary school?

The USA - leading the world - first made elementary school (through 8th grade) for all and for free. We did that about 200 years ago, and slowly, the rest of the world followed. We did it because we valued education FOR ALL (not just for the rich). Then roughly a century later, States began extending this through high school (at the time, few rural areas even had a high school, so the building of these quickly followed) - and the rest of the world slowly followed. Now, many Western countries have extended this through college, valuing education for ALL (not just the rich)... even a number of "third world" countries have this, valuing education for all. But the USA is moving in the opposite direction, with the cost of college rising faster than just about anything else. Even states that once had no tuition (like California) now do, and it's rising fast. IMO, this is simply a fruit of a nation that no longer values education much and no longer leads in this area.




.

This sort of thing invariably turns into a question of extent and scope.

It's not difficult to argue that there is a benefit to society in funding the higher education of those who are intellectually capable of pursuing it but lack the financial means to make it happen. But what of higher education that doesn't directly benefit society but is of more benefit to the individual themselves? Should we offer public funding so an individual can pursue a degree in liberal arts, or gender studies, or golf course design, or whatever else? We could make a case that it broadens the mind and enriches the individual but so does travelling the world, yet few would argue that world travel should be on offer courtesy of the taxpayer.

For myself I think the reason college costs are rising so fast is the increase in the availability of money. It's basic supply and demand - when more and more jobs demand a degree even though a person without a degree could do the job the demand is artificially created. Normally rising costs would put a cap on demand but the availability of student loans merely fuels the demand, raising the cap at which demand tops out and forces the price to stabilise. Of course this creates a situation where those near the top of the economic scale just write a check and forget about it, those at the bottom who get assistance don't even notice the price, and those in the middle get hammered harder and harder. I suspect this is not an accident.

 

[Josiah]

It's not difficult to argue that there is a benefit to society in funding the higher education of those who are intellectually capable of pursuing it but lack the financial means to make it happen. But what of higher education that doesn't directly benefit society but is of more benefit to the individual themselves? Should we offer public funding so an individual can pursue a degree in liberal arts, or gender studies, or golf course design, or whatever else? We could make a case that it broadens the mind and enriches the individual but so does travelling the world, yet few would argue that world travel should be on offer courtesy of the taxpayer.

Should we end public funding of high school if students seem to take courses that don't benefit them or society? Things like English, things like a second language, things like math or chemistry? Or maybe if they take PE or wood shop? If we should support education for all - but ONLY for SOME subjects, what subjects would those be? For elementary school? For high school? Should we support a high school that auto repair but not i it teaches Spanish? Or the other way around? My Dad's degree is in history, many would consider that a worthless degree so should all public schools be required to drop all history classes or be unfunded? So you see my point?

the availability of student loans merely fuels the demand

IMO, the fundamental question is whether we - as Americans - value college education, regardless of how wealthy the student is.

IMO, the ABSURDITY of the "well loan you the money to pay for education" is that it contradicts our whole view of education. It costs taxpayers about $17,000 a year to teach an elementary school student. Do we "loan" this money to the 6 year old and require he someday pay it back with interest? Nope. The USA lead the world in providing for PUBLIC education for ALL (regardless to how much money the student has or his/her ability to repay some loan). We lead the world for elementary education and then for high school. We are badly trailing the world for college.

IMO, the USA states that at 18, we have an adult. His/her parents are not responsible (financially for otherwise) for him or her. College students are not children, not minors, not in any sense their parent's responsibility. But we have one exception: college. If I go to college, it wants to know all about my parents finances and the State assumes mom and dad will pay the way for an ADULT for whom they are in no way responsible. This slowly fades (by the mid 20's, colleges are no longer asking about parents) but this should apply at 18 either. Parents pay taxes.... THAT is their support of education - for elementary school, for high school, for all school.

I agree with you... the availablity of LOANS enables this terrible situation, this "education is for only those with rich parents and those able to go deeply in debt" mentality for college but not for high school or elementary school. As I mentioned earlier, the SAD reality is that few colleges deal much with real aid (especially for younger adults) but because loans are easy to arrange, they just slap the adult with a lot of loans - so that they graduate with a huge debt load (NOT for high school but only for college). States are rising the tuition FAST because education isn't valued much and beause these young adults can borrow the money. It's quite inconsistent with the American view of education and it's very inconsistent with insisting that at 18, one's finances has nothing to do with their parents, they are now on their own. How colleges typically treat 25 year olds (on their own) is how they should treat 18 year olds. And how we regard education for 14 year olds is how we should regard education for 19 year olds, IMO.


Now... I'm not arguing for no restrictions. I DO think students should be academically qualified for the school they wish to attend; not everyone should be admitted to UCLA (but I DO think SOME college should be available even for those who need a "second chance") And I do think there needs to be a limit to this, say 140 units or 200 credits, we don't offer perpetual high school for students who just want to stick around forever, and nor should we for college. And I would not be opposed to some courses not be covered (although don't ask me which, lol). At my college, there were "non-credit" classes and generally they were "priced" uniquely and there are courses outside what accrediting boards will accept - and they might not be free. Just as their are restrictions on elementary and high schools, and already largely in place for college, I support such continuing. Again, when my Dad attended UCLA, there was NO tuition at all. None. Yes, some minor fees and of course books and room and board... but no tuition. But that was added and is now pretty high and rising fast. Even my community college was free when I went there but no longer. THIS is what I reject. I think states need to reverse this and (gradually, no doubt) go to tuition free just like elementary schools and high schools (and like many colleges USED to be). Just because some 18 year old has rich parents should not be a factor for college anymore than for high school (LESS! He is no longer a minor to whom parents are responsible). Just because a state can now get a student to borrow the money the state no longer will grant is not sound educational polity and only creates the absurdities noted in this thread. American needs to value education .... instead of quickly moving in the opposite direction. We need to once again lead the world in education instead of falling behind third-world countries.


MY view...


- Josiah




.

 

[tango]

You highlight my point very well, although we're no closer to finding out to what extent things should be funded by the taxpayer.

As you quite rightly say, if we follow the route of expecting people to pay their own way then sooner or later we're sending 7-year-olds out to the mines because their parents can't afford for them to be in school. And if we follow the route of funding it all centrally then sooner or later we're forever paying for the perpetual student who can't get a proper job so spends their life in academia for its own sake, taking one course after another after another.

I think we need to ignore what the scions of billionaires and trust fund babies will do because they can fund their own way to more or less whatever they want, and there's little point designing a system that is based around little more than spite for the wealthy.

One problem is that if the government is picking up the tab there is ever-less incentive for universities that operate for profit to reject the students who are borderline candidates. If the government is paying for the tuition the university might as well take them on - if they fail after the first year and leave they still got a year's tuition from them. But if the individual is picking up the tab then people who are incredibly bright but from poor families lose the social mobility that adds so much to society as a whole.

With regard to education up to the age of about 18 it makes a lot of sense to allow kids to choose options that reflect what might be useful to them. If someone really wants to be a carpenter it makes more sense to teach them woodwork than cellular biology. I don't doubt there is a benefit in learning for the sake of learning but when it comes to preparing people for adulthood there should perhaps be more time spent on things that are specifically useful than on things that are little more than curiosities. Of course the best outcome would be for people to leave school with a love of learning - they've got their whole adult life ahead of them that can be used for learning things that interest them. Maybe what is needed is the majority of time to be spent on things that will be useful for a productive adult life, with additional classes to provide a taste of options that were not chosen. For example, the brilliant musician might study music to age 18 but those who didn't want to study it in detail could get a cut down course to teach at least a level of appreciation of music.

What I think would make a lot of sense is to get rid of the idea of a simple "graduated / didn't graduate" distinction and grade individual subjects. If you look at my education certificates from school in the UK you can see grades for each subject so you can tell whether I'm good at science, arts, woodwork, whatever. If you look at my wife's certificate you can see she graduated high school but can tell nothing about whether she's good at this subject or that subject. And that's even before going back to the original topic of offering certification in more practical, vocational areas like woodworking.

I think I mentioned a guy I went to school with earlier. Academically speaking he was thick - there's really no other word to describe him. If the class was given a test it was a pretty safe bet he'd come bottom of the class - he always did. One year he was kept back to repeat a year. This was practically unheard of in the UK so not only was it noteworthy there was also a lot of stigma attached to it - people weren't kept back to repeat a year unless they really couldn't keep up. But it turned out he was brilliant at all sorts of practical skills - from gardening to woodwork. If you want someone to do your taxes you'd want me to do it rather than him. If you want someone to make you a set of dining room furniture you wouldn't want to be asking me, unless you really enjoyed sitting on the floor among a pile of broken pieces of wood that were a chair until a few seconds previously.

Admittedly as one more academic than him I can learn a lot of what he does (and have done, over the years). That's not really the point here - if education sets young people up for a productive adult life it has served its primary purpose. If it spits out a succession of young people who appreciate art, love music, have a passion for this craft or that hobby, but are unable to hold down a job and can't hear both sides of an argument and consider their relative merits, it doesn't seem to have done society any favors.

I guess a short version of all of this is simple enough - if education primarily benefits society it makes at least some sense for society to pay for it. When education primarily benefits the individual it's easier to make a case for the individual to pay for it. Of course defining the difference remains the crucial question.

 

[Josiah]

You highlight my point very well, although we're no closer to finding out to what extent things should be funded by the taxpayer.

As you quite rightly say, if we follow the route of expecting people to pay their own way then sooner or later we're sending 7-year-olds out to the mines because their parents can't afford for them to be in school. And if we follow the route of funding it all centrally then sooner or later we're forever paying for the perpetual student who can't get a proper job so spends their life in academia for its own sake, taking one course after another after another.

Valid....

I'm NOT suggesting that a person can remain in elementary school or high school or college FOREVER. At some point, elementary school stops being funded for nearly all.... same with high school.... and I hold if college is finally (or again) also made tuition free like we made elementary schools 200 years ago and high schools 100 years ago, it also should have a limit on how long. No perpetual students. And I agree, there needs to be qualifications and there likely are classes which don't qualify (as is currently the case). It isn't like we're re-inventing the wheel..... we've had free public education in this country for over two centuries (the US invented it) and we once had many colleges and universities that were tuition free for all (my father attended one, I attended one - neither is tuition free now, and both are rising such far faster than the cost of living). The USA no longer seems to value education much.... and while we use to lead the world, we now trail a lot of third-world countries. I think we need to reverse this, although likely it will require a "phasing in" process.


And I find it ironic that in the USA we stress that at 18 one is an ADULT and independent of their parents financially (and otherwise) - EXCEPT when it comes to college costs. Then, for those 18 to mid 20's - it's all about how rich their parents are and how much in debt the ADULT can be put... but somewhere in the mid 20's or so, all that is forgotten and the student is regarded as financially an adult. IMO, it makes LESS sense to consider the parents income for college than it does for high school. Parents (childless or otherwise) support public education by paying taxes. In California, back when state income taxes and sales taxes were much less, we had free college. No more. I think we need to move back in that direction.... because I value education (and America used to).

If you want someone to make you a set of dining room furniture you wouldn't want to be asking me, unless you really enjoyed sitting on the floor among a pile of broken pieces of wood that were a chair until a few seconds previously.

Just as I welcome high schools having auto shop and business classes (etc.) so I welcome higher education doing that. The Community College (free THEN) that I attended had typical stuff (which I took as a physics major) BUT it also had MANY certificate programs - Cafeteria worker, restaurant cook, computer repair, auto repair, plumbing, electrical, building contractor, practical nurse, dental assisting, vet assisting, even several programs for those working in a funeral home! GREAT!!!! I wholly and passionately support these, espeially on the post-high school level. Students could just get the certificate or they could get an AA degree which added the usual college "core" classes to that. When I was there, no one paid any tuition (regardless of how rich or poor they were.... or their parents or grandparents). Yes, they paid for books and materials and room and board and clothes but no tuition. There were no loan programs (that I knew of) but there was financial aid for those who needed help with books and materials. It was assumed students could work part time and supply the rest (although, I admit, my parents provided SOME of it - my car for example - and I supplied some by working part time during the school year and full time in the summer).

I'm NOT saying college should be tuition free only for those majoring in physics or even those heading for a BA. Just like I'm NOT saying high school should be tuition free only for students majoring in math or chemistry - I'm find with majoring in auto shop.

I guess a short version of all of this is simple enough - if education primarily benefits society it makes at least some sense for society to pay for it. When education primarily benefits the individual it's easier to make a case for the individual to pay for it. Of course defining the difference remains the crucial question.

Valid.... although it's hard for me to make such a distinction; I tend to think that all education can be beneficial.... and if it benefits the individual, it likely benefits society. In general. Whether we're talking about 6th grade in elementary school or 10th in high school, or the Junior year in college. Americans use to value education. We lead the world. We have a different value now.


MY perspective....


- Josiah

 

[tango]

Valid....

I'm NOT suggesting that a person can remain in elementary school or high school or college FOREVER. At some point, elementary school stops being funded for nearly all.... same with high school.... and I hold if college is finally (or again) also made tuition free like we made elementary schools 200 years ago and high schools 100 years ago, it also should have a limit on how long. No perpetual students. And I agree, there needs to be qualifications and there likely are classes which don't qualify (as is currently the case). It isn't like we're re-inventing the wheel..... we've had free public education in this country for over two centuries (the US invented it) and we once had many colleges and universities that were tuition free for all (my father attended one, I attended one - neither is tuition free now, and both are rising such far faster than the cost of living). The USA no longer seems to value education much.... and while we use to lead the world, we now trail a lot of third-world countries. I think we need to reverse this, although likely it will require a "phasing in" process.

In all of this I can't help wondering how much of the problem we are discussing is by design. It is very hard to imagine that 535 people allegedly competent to lead a nation can't come up with at least some ideas that actually work.

I still agree with much of what you say but, as always, the eternal question is where lines are drawn. It's easy to say it's currently drawn in the wrong place but the obvious followup question, namely where it would be better drawn, is much harder to answer.

And I find it ironic that in the USA we stress that at 18 one is an ADULT and independent of their parents financially (and otherwise) - EXCEPT when it comes to college costs. Then, for those 18 to mid 20's - it's all about how rich their parents are and how much in debt the ADULT can be put... but somewhere in the mid 20's or so, all that is forgotten and the student is regarded as financially an adult. IMO, it makes LESS sense to consider the parents income for college than it does for high school. Parents (childless or otherwise) support public education by paying taxes. In California, back when state income taxes and sales taxes were much less, we had free college. No more. I think we need to move back in that direction.... because I value education (and America used to).

It is certainly a curious observation that as taxes rise, so what the people get back seems to be ever-less. As you say it is ridiculous that an 18-year-old can leave home and set up on their own, but if their chosen path includes higher education the parents are expected to continue to fund it. But then I guess for as long as parents cosign loans, or spend much of their most productive career time saving everything they can to fund a college education, they remain pliable.

Just as I welcome high schools having auto shop and business classes (etc.) so I welcome higher education doing that. The Community College (free THEN) that I attended had typical stuff (which I took as a physics major) BUT it also had MANY certificate programs - Cafeteria worker, restaurant cook, computer repair, auto repair, plumbing, electrical, building contractor, practical nurse, dental assisting, vet assisting, even several programs for those working in a funeral home! GREAT!!!! I wholly and passionately support these, espeially on the post-high school level. Students could just get the certificate or they could get an AA degree which added the usual college "core" classes to that. When I was there, no one paid any tuition (regardless of how rich or poor they were.... or their parents or grandparents). Yes, they paid for books and materials and room and board and clothes but no tuition. There were no loan programs (that I knew of) but there was financial aid for those who needed help with books and materials. It was assumed students could work part time and supply the rest (although, I admit, my parents provided SOME of it - my car for example - and I supplied some by working part time during the school year and full time in the summer).

I think there's a lot to be said for different types of qualifications for different purposes. Your degree in physics, taken in isolation, indicates that you are (or at least that you were when you took it) capable of academic study at that level. It's reasonable to assume you know a thing or two about physics, although if you haven't worked in physics since you took your degree it's also reasonable to figure some of it will be rusty. If all I have to go on is a piece of paper that says "degree" and "physics" I have no idea whether you'll make a good employee or whether you're the kind of person who is academically brilliant but totally lacking in common sense. On the other hand something more vocational requires much more practical testing before certification is issued - I might be able to recite the National Electrical Code but if I can't join two wires together with a wire nut without them coming apart if either of them is nudged then I'm not going to be a very successful electrician. Knowing the NEC inside out and backwards may make me suited to be an inspector or a designer, but if I can't use wire nuts I can't actually do the electrical work. If I'm applying for a job as an electrical inspector, or a job as an electrician, my prospective employer would probably like to know which of the two I am. If I can't remember much of the NEC I could still potentially get a job as an electrician, albeit starting at an apprentice/trainee level.

Just part of the problem with turning everything into a degree is when people who have a degree regard work as being beneath them. I remember a family friend who had experience of the UK healthcare system as both a nurse and a patient, and who said that in days gone by nursing was seen as a vocation but as soon as people got a degree in nursing they regarded some of the less pleasant aspects of nursing (typically relating to cleaning up after patients) to be beneath them and wouldn't do it, which meant it wasn't done as there wasn't a lower tier of staff to basically do all the jobs nobody else wanted. One summer during my university days I had a temporary job and saw a guy arguing with his boss because he didn't think he should have to take the trash out (he lost that one - as the boss pointed out it's nobody's job in particular and sometimes he took the trash out himself). The guy who considered taking out the trash beneath him didn't have a degree.

I'm NOT saying college should be tuition free only for those majoring in physics or even those heading for a BA. Just like I'm NOT saying high school should be tuition free only for students majoring in math or chemistry - I'm find with majoring in auto shop.

The only way I can see that happening is if the numbers attending are massively reduced, which will meet with opposition from the universities that have to scale back their operations and will almost certainly be met with claims of elitism or some form of discrimination. As soon as the numbers of non-white students fall (even if the reduction is entirely in line with the reduction in white students) it will be blasted as racist, likewise it will undoubtedly trigger someone claiming it's sexist/transphobic/whatever.

Valid.... although it's hard for me to make such a distinction; I tend to think that all education can be beneficial.... and if it benefits the individual, it likely benefits society. In general. Whether we're talking about 6th grade in elementary school or 10th in high school, or the Junior year in college. Americans use to value education. We lead the world. We have a different value now.

The trouble with "if it benefits the individual, it benefits society" is still a question of degree. Travel benefits the individual but nobody expects the taxpayer to fund their trip across Europe however much the exposure to new cultures and different ways of life might benefit the individual.

I think to a large extent the problem in the west is that we got lazy. We used to need educated and trained people to produce stuff, to make stuff, to manage stuff. Then the people at the top figured it was cheaper to outsource it to China and Mexico. When the economy needs people to say "thankyou for shopping at Wal-Mart", "do you want fries with that?" and "your total is $51.99" because all the stuff that happens in between is outsourced to another country, there's less need for education. And then there's the more conspiracy-oriented viewpoint, that people who are less educated and incapable of critical thought and analysis are easier to lead.

 

[Josiah]

As you say it is ridiculous that an 18-year-old can leave home and set up on their own, but if their chosen path includes higher education the parents are expected to continue to fund it.

Yes. Especially since we've agreed for over two centuries that there should be no tuition for those in the fifth grade - when the student IS totally dependent financially on their parents - but we provide ALL with FREE education. Of course, rich parents pay a whole lot more taxes that in part pay for that schooling.... poor parents may not be paying any taxes at all. BUT for ADULTS (but only if they are in the 18 to 23 age range or so), PARENTS are on dock for paying this.

Your degree in physics, taken in isolation, indicates that you are (or at least that you were when you took it) capable of academic study at that level. It's reasonable to assume you know a thing or two about physics, although if you haven't worked in physics since you took your degree it's also reasonable to figure some of it will be rusty.

I worked in the area of physics until a bit over a year ago. OF COURSE, there are many subjects I took in school where data learned is (as you say) rusty. I likely knew more factoids about colonial American the day of my final in that class than I do today, I'd agree. But then over on that of the pond, do you have the TV show, "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" Adults are matched with 10 year olds on subjects taken in the Fifth Grade.... it's pretty funny... Does that mean that the Fifth Grade is worthless? That nothing of lasting value is gained there?

If all I have to go on is a piece of paper that says "degree" and "physics" I have no idea whether you'll make a good employee or whether you're the kind of person who is academically brilliant but totally lacking in common sense.

I'm NOT supportive of education simply because it might help get someone their job. It's ENTIRELY possible that many employed today could do their job if they were illiterate. MANY worked before education became widespread. MANY in California can't read or speak English - but have a job. Does that make English a meaningless thing to study? I think education has value beyond whether it causes one to more easily get their job.

When I left college (with my Ph.D.) and after a couple of short things, I got a job with a fine company. I can't tell you more than that (or I'd need to shoot you) but it was a good job. On my team, about one-third had doctorates (some in math, some in physics, some in chemistry) and the rest were engineers (about half with graduate degrees). I got the job because I had proven I could learn and could evaluate scientific work and I could apply things (even creatively)... and perhaps above all, because I had a solid reputation for being a good "team player" and could work well in a group (a skill gained largely by doing scientific work in grad school). The exact factoids I could rattle off in physics was .... frankly.... of little value in this assignment. That I was a scientist, who could think in such ways, and could work WELL with others and could bring to the table a physics perspective - that's what they valued. I came on as an intern (making very little) for 6 months, and then hired at a good salary (approaching $100K) and then got good annual salary increases... not because of the factoids I had on my brain but because my brain was trained in a way useful to them. Ironically, I now work in a field very much NOT science (we "flip" shopping centers and office complexes) BUT I was deemed right for the job because of the way I work and approach things and because I work well in a team environment - and this company values that. My degree is still of great value - even though the facts I learned in all those physics classes never once comes up.

On the other hand something more vocational requires much more practical testing before certification is issued - I might be able to recite the National Electrical Code but if I can't join two wires together with a wire nut without them coming apart if either of them is nudged then I'm not going to be a very successful electrician.

Again, I strongly support vocational higher education. Just as much as academic education. Although I don't see a major distinction: all education if valuable.

Just part of the problem with turning everything into a degree is when people who have a degree regard work as being beneath them.

I regard all vocations as divine callings, as equal ministry to God (remember: I'm Lutheran, lol)

Back in the days when boss and employee were both illiterate, I don't think there was more mutual esteem. When the prince and the serf who worked his land were both uneducated, there was not less class distinction or more mutual respect. Eliminating public, free education won't make us value the work of others more.

The only way I can see that happening is if the numbers attending are massively reduced

I disagree. I don't think enrollment would decline.

We're paying for elementary schools and high schools - without decreasing enrollment. When States in the US made high school free, there were in fact few high schools that even existed at the time - it exploded once all could afford them, enrollment when way, way up. And we still have free high schools in the USA.

When my dad was at UCLA, there were lots of students there - and none of them paid any tuition at all. If we could do it then, we can do it now. When I attended my community college, it was free. NO ONE paid a dime in tuition. If we could do it just a few years ago, we can do it now. I agree.... most states won't be able to do this over night; some may have to phase this in.... if a state could reduce the tuition by 10% each year, that would be something I'd greatly rejoice in.

Does having free education mean attendance will grow? Maybe.... Is that bad? When the USA made elementary schools free, attendance went up. When we made high schools free, attendance skyrocketed. Is that bad? Honestly, I think the biggest changed will be an end to a lot of the stupid games and contradictions..... parents of 18 year olds having to fork out money but not of 23 year old children..... parents having to hide their savings in products the college can't "see" so that their ADULT child can get more grants.... handicapping young people with tens of thousands of dollars in loans, But IMO, this is mostly about values. IMO, the reason education is tanking in America.... the reason more and more universities have ended being free and are now charging tuition at rapidly rising rates.... the reason school debt is becoming a major issue.... is fundamentally the same reason more kids are not gaining much from high school: America once valued education. It no longer does. We once lead the world in education, we are now trailing some third-world nations. When education again is valued, I think we we FINALLY get up to the level of Uruguay.

This is an issue where (I can't believe I'm typing this!) Bernie is right. Where he is wrong is that this is not a federal issue and the president has nothing to do with it (besides the "bully pulpit"). Each State will need to recapture the value of education. And put into place a plan to gain (or return to) free college education (whether such be purely vocational, purely academic or a combo of the two - as I believe all good education is).


As usual, I don't think we are in so different camps on this.... I 'get' what you are saying, and there's much wisdom there.





.

 

[tango]

Hm. I saw this show up in my "new posts" feed and I'm sure I answered this last post before. Did my post go missing in the database crash?

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

My first ideal job occurred to me when I first started work – that was at a steelworks.

The internal roads were delimited by small concrete pyramids on each side of the road, spaced a couple of yards apart. They were painted an iridescent silver, and stood out in the day and at night, and even when raining.

But the steelworks is a dirty place, and soon the pyramid markers would be coated in grime. A team of workers armed with cans of paint and paint brushes had the task of walking the roads and re-coating the markers. From memory, it was a weekly cycle.

For some time, that seemed the ideal job to me. It combined positive contribution to the lives of others (via ensuring their safety), and was free of stress. It might have been trying in wet weather and temperature extremes, and the pay mightn’t have been that good, but no job is perfect.

==============================================================================================

But I later realised that there was an even better job. Being a “lollipop” person at roadwork sites.

It had all the advantages of the other job, but it also offered a sense of power! Imagine being able to hold people up for extended periods, whether or not the situation required it.

Cool.

==============================================================================================

Unfortunately, my dad would have gone berserk if I’d landed one of those jobs. So I just had to apply myself to demotivating studies.

But from time to time I’d let my mind wander, and dream on.

==============================================================================================

 

[Jason76]

Working with your hands is commendable - but as I said before - "What about the 10,000 guys in Tennessee who can (as opposed to say they can) repair a car?". What are the odds that even 10 percent can start a business or even get hired by one?

Therefore, everything is marketing - whether for a college or non-college applicant.