Or maybe skip the fry cook job and try actually getting an education from your education, and parlay that into a decent job - unless you have no confidence in your ability to learn, but then why did you enroll in college?

Really, share a home with a roommate and cut back a little on dining? How about commuting from your parent's home and pooling your resources as a family? You can save tens of thousands that way. I never ate out and the health benefits only made learning easier.

@jbw....I concur about living at home while in at least the first two years of college.

1.Your most precious commodity is time. Learn to budget your time.

2.Find the best education locally and commute. Get rid of the car and rely on public transportation.

3.Don't give into the temptation of credit cards. Do your banking with a credit union and a debit card is all you need. If you don't have money in your account, then you won't be spending money you don't have.

4.Get a "burner cell phone" and skip all the bells and whistles.

5.During good weather use a reliable bicycle, you can use the exercise.

6..Learn to cook from "scratch" and skip the microwave heat and serve. It will do wonders from your health and eliminate the "freshmen 15".

7.Buy clothes from resale stores. Don't buy shoes from resale. Get a couple good pair of shoes and walk. Also, if you are in winter climates, get a good pair of boots.

8.For the first two years, avoid getting involved in organizations, especially sororities and fraternities.

9.Alcohol, tobacco and drugs are a budget buster. Substance use and abuse is available everywhere and it will drain your bank account, let alone waste your time.

10.Take advantage of free entertainment on campus. Dating should be done on the cheap. When you have to spend, go dutch.

That is a great list, Lyle.

@Lyle

"9.Alcohol, tobacco and drugs are a budget buster. Substance use and abuse is available everywhere and it will drain your bank account, let alone waste your time"

Really? I don't recall paying for ANY of my substances in college.

Dronc, if you didn't pay, someone else did (unless you grew it or brewed it yourself I suppose, but even that costs a little.). Hence the saying, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" Or are you saying you didn't use those substances in college?

If you are staying in a dorm at a UW school, the housing food is inexpensive.
Lyle, you have a point about staying home for the first two years, many parents would prefer this. Commuting is not always the easy answer.
Smart phones with internet are almost needed for todays UW students.
Finals in Madison were canceled last minute in December 2012 due to an 18" snowfall, those with smartphones were able to see alternatives.
Ramen noodles are okay once and a while, a healthy body and mind need much more than some bullion and noodles to operate properly.

I agree that the smartphone has nearly become a must have item. It is the monthly service, much more than the 'phone', that is the budget buster. If my own somewhat limited experiences are representative(I've got two on my bill and the 'taxes' are more than their 'usage' charges), the 'University Campus' is blanketed in WiFi;one can get a very low cost monthly service plan and rely heavily/primarily on the WiFi.

I think that Tracphone does offer smartphones. With pay as you go minutes and campus wi-fi, the cost should be fairly reasonable and easy to keep under control.

Obama gives free phones and food and ebt. When signing up for one you will be offered the rest.

Perhaps you should do a little research on how the arts impact the economy. How boring life would be if we were all business majors.

Nuitari has a point. The arts are usually the first thing people cut out of their budgets when the economy is down. Those having degrees in the arts are generally not as valued by employers as those with other degrees.

I agree with CowDung. Additionally, there should be no government funding for the arts.

Let me clarify to all you sensitive "art people" out there. Of course our society is enriched by music, art, and all kinds of great expression. However, our children have been forced into thinking that college degrees are automatic passes to getting a job.

Not the case so much anymore. They need more specific skills, not some degree in liberal arts. Manufacturing is still in demand. I'm not saying we turn our universities into mere tech schools, but a different approach to secondary education needs to comply with today's economy.

Of course if you're in disbelief, you might want to consult the 53% of recent college graduates that are unemployed or at best, working as baristas.

Instead of dismissing the arts as without "real" value, perhaps we should rework the arts curriculum to include courses on how to turn it into a viable career. I like your idea about incorporating more tech and manufacturing into universities as well. Besides, a varied graduating population benefits all. If everyone just graduates with a computer science or business degree, then there will be a surplus and the result will still be people without jobs.

"our children have been forced into thinking that college degrees are automatic passes to getting a job."
Very true, I agree 100%.. My generation is full of people with degrees only because they wanted to "go to college," and or mommy and daddy paid for them to go. Not for the education itself. Also, many of them wanted to give back to society and be educators. One of the hardest jobs to find due to the saturation of candidates.
I also agree that just because you have a degree doesn't equal getting a job. However, all of the degrees available at any small or large institution can give the knowledge and know hows to get a job. Its not the degree that doesn't help one economically, its the individual effort put forth after you get the piece of paper. Don't assume that all Barista's are failed art majors. Thats a pretty shallow assumption.

Laura:

I think the distinction that needs to be made is the value of the arts vs. the value of a degree in the arts. I don't think that anyone is dismissing the arts as having no value. The point was that a degree in the arts isn't likely to reward the degree earner with a monetary return for the investment--particularly when college is so expensive these days.

Your statements about reworking art curriculum is a good idea for improving the value of the arts degree, but we are still likely to have a surplus of artists while we continue to have a shortage of those educated in the STEM fields.

While it's notoriously hard for those with arts degrees to get lucrative work, I don't think that the idea of having a non-arts degree with guarantee a well-paying position is a safe one. I knew a lot of kids who went to college to study law, medicine, and business with the idea that these paths of study would be a quick way to make a bunch of money. A few years later, many of those young men and women are still struggling in internships and paying off loans. There's no one way to make a living, and there's no one way to be successful. I think that career planning courses should be required for all first-year college students regardless of their majors: how to write a resume, go on an interview, where to look for jobs, what's a valuable job and what's a waste of time, that kind of thing.

As for STEM fields, they're becoming more integrated with the arts as digital design and the like develop rapidly, and frankly, I'm excited to see the two fields, which everyone seems to think are these polar opposites, merge. The arts have a huge impact on many fields and qualified people are required to make those impacts. They might as well get a degree and learn to do it right.

I think that career planning needs to happen way before college. I think our middle and high schools need to step up their game and play a bigger role in helping students on their path to rewarding careers, rather than just pushing them into getting degrees in the liberal arts and floundering around trying to find a job afterward...

I don't ever remember being "pushed" into a liberal arts career. But you're right, basic career guidance is a good idea. I don't think we should adopt the European model of specialized high schools, though. I know a few people who grew up with them and thought them detrimental. Students need to be taught how to turn what they enjoy doing into viable careers. You still seem to be saying that one educational or career path is better than another, and I can't agree with that. Any degree is useless if you don't know what to do with it--or you're not taught what to do with it.

I also don't think everyone needs to go to college at all. It's not for everyone, but lately, people who should be doing other things are made to feel like failures if they don't go. And so they waste their time and money.

The value of a degree also depends on what one expects to gain from it. If one wants a stable job and decent income, there are certainly degrees that will increase one's chances of obtaining that. Of course, nothing is guaranteed.

I do agree that the person holding the degree (or lack thereof) can influence their value to employers by a tremendous amount. I've known many degreed engineers that were all but worthless on the job, but I've also known many non-degreed 'engineers' that were excellent engineers.

@G.Q. - Sports is like the arts. What does it contribute to society, bottom line?

Dirk:

I would argue that sports are more important than the arts to society--contributing physical fitness and exercise. If more kids were active in sports, we'd have fewer overweight kids...

Maybe we should rethink athletic scholarships and the importance of sports in universities. After all, playing college football only turns into a lucrative career for a select few. That, and there's a history of college athletes being allowed to slack off in academic subjects. How does that help their future?

In my view, the arts are important because they serve as a method of record-keeping. Art generally reflects the times--maybe not the actual events, but the feelings and beliefs of populations. It's used to communicate feelings and to help people communicate with one another. Plus, there is a lot of intersection between the arts and math and science, so it's ultimately impossible to have one without the other. It gets a bad rap as being esoteric, and sometimes it is, but it affects daily life more than you realize. I'm personally not of the belief that one major field of study, which encompasses many disciplines, can ever be written off as "less useful." Frankly, that's stupid. Having preferences for one or the other is normal, but just because you're not into something doesn't mean it has less value objectively. Maybe arts majors would be more successful if everyone stopped telling them how useless their education was.

But seriously, I'm not much into sports, but I'm not going to tell people they shouldn't do it because it doesn't "benefit society."

@CowDung - So very predictable about your attitude about sports being more important than the Arts. However, the question was in response to G.Q.'s statement that the government should not fund the Arts.
If so, let's question the myriad of government subsidized sports in the lower grades, high school, college, and even professional ranks. Sports also contribute to most people sitting in front of the TV, at the sports bar, or at the stadium overconsuming snack foods and beverages, serious lnjuries (some persisting through life), elitism, gambling, drugs, riots, regional rivalry, even the more than occasional death. We might add that very few athletes ever attain the professional ranks from high school and college, even though that was their career path, leaving them with no degree or a dumb one like recreaton. Then even many well paying pro careers end up with the athlete bankrupt or struggling through life, used up by the sports industry, then tossed.

Dirk:

Is there a National Endowment for the Sports? The National Endowment for the Arts is the program that is being criticized when one complains about 'government funding for the arts'...

At the school levels, there is probably at least as much government money spent on art, music and drama programs than there is on school sports programs.

...and I don't think that anyone should be 'majoring' in a sport in college.

Laura:

Nobody is claiming that the arts have no benefits to society. The claim is that majoring in the arts usually isn't the best way to a financially secure career.

Athletic scholarships tend to be much smaller than most people believe them to be. Aside from football, basketball and volleyball, athletes don't get full scholarships these days.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2010/06/22/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-sports-scholarships

I would almost argue that college sports benefit the college more than they do the student athlete. Having a great sports program is essentially a marketing program to bring in more students (tuition money), alumni donations, as well as big revenues from ticket sales, broadcast TV/radio contracts, etc.

I think that kids that 'major' in their sport and slack off in their studies are doing a huge disservice to themselves.

Do you know the difference between a Bachelor of Arts Degree and a frozen pizza? A frozen pizza can feed a family of 4.

Seriously folks, don't let your kids get a liberal arts degree, it is a waste of time for them and you.

My response to the idea that one should not major in the arts in college. Financially less secure? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it's a waste of time automatically, and should not be seen as such. And it's why students should have resources in place to counterbalance that, not that that would solve larger-scale economic issues. But it would leave them with a better grasp of the job world than, say, I was when I graduated.

Of course, this is all tangential (though interesting). Saving money while still in college is actually a different issue. We all just got derailed. I do remember subsisting a lot on pasta and beans.

Oh, a fun and cheap thing to do in college is to have potluck parties--everyone makes a dish and meets up at a central location. That way, you're eating a meal (instead of drinking one) but no one person is paying for everything. We used to do that a lot.

@Cowdung - You are not that naive to believe that sports are not subsidized by government(s) to a great degree.Granted, there is no National Endowment to Sports, but there are billions in "hidden" subsidies to sports otherwise. What about your local taxes going to school sports and civic sports fields and leagues? What about all the stadium subsidies throughout the country, including Miller Park in the Milwaukee metro area, and Lambeau in Green Bay. Many of these get tax breaks and are the subject of state bonds, which are made tax-exempt by the federal goverment, a form of subsidy.Some host cities subsidize the streets near stadium, water and sewer services, match-day safety and crowd control services. Moreover, the stadium and its operations are often tax exempt from property taxes. Stadium leases grant generous revenues and low rent to the team owners as a subsidy.
In colleges, only four have self-supporting sports programs, according to a USA Today survey: Ohio State, LSU, Purdue, and Nebraska. What is even worse than tax money being used is student tuition and fees to pay for all these sports programs.
We really have to question the priorities of eliminating public funding for the Arts, and actually increasing the funding of sports. As I have observed with Tea Party types, they hate other people's subsidies, but they expect government to step in and help their "noble" causes. If you want to reduce taxes, share the pain.

Sports provide entertainment for people, just as art and music do. Why is watching an overpaid behemoth running up and down a field more valuable than going to a broadway play, symphony, or art museum? In sports, the only ones benefitting in the economy are the overpriced athletes and the greedy owners. Having said that, I love football and would never do away with my SundayTicket, but that doesn't justify the salaries these guys are paid. As I said, it's entertainment.

What makes sports more valued is the fact that millions of people turn out to watch the games at stadiums as well as on TV. They are willing to spend their money to watch the sport. Simply put, more people find a football game to be more entertaining than an art exhibition or gallery night.

If nobody went to the games or watched them on TV, player salaries would drop and the 'greedy' owners would find themselves bankrupt as the teams fold.

...and those benefiting in the economy would be the bars/restaurants where people gather to watch the games. The stores that sell team merchandise. Even the guys that charge $ to park on their property benefit from sports.

Well you are correct about the supply and demand aspects of sports, however, at what point do ticket holders get tired of paying more each year for what is already a price that is out of reach for many? Why do taxpayers get stuck with the bill for building stadiums that the owners could well afford to at least pay a little? Street vendors and car parkers increase their rates when everything else goes up, and who's going to say anything if a restaurant or bar charges a little bit more than it used to? The owners and the athletes profit much much more than the local economy. it's always going to be a win-win situation for sports teams as long as they can keep milking the customers for more and more. Frankly, I wouldn't pay a dime to go to Soldier Field to watch the home team play (well maybe if they're playing the Packers I might- and I'd proudly be wearing green and yellow).

How much the consumer is willing to pay is the key to any business plan. As long as the fan base is wealthy enough to keep buying tickets, prices aren't going to go down. Same sort of thing with stadium funding. Most of those referendums pass because people in a given area like the sports team enough to vote for a tax. Owners of local businesses certainly don't want to see their revenues take a hit should the stadium be built farther away, so they support stadium funding.

The owners make big money, so the players make big money--I'd rather see that than to have the owners making all the money. I also don't have a problem with them making more money than the local economy--they are the ones that are on the hook to make the multi-million dollar payroll. If they risk more money, then they deserve to reap the rewards that may result from taking on that risk.

European studies is on your banned list? You're an example of what is wrong with education in America. We need to know everything, especially in understanding history and how to communicate with the other 6 and a half billion people on the Earth. We're not that exceptional simply by saying that we are.

My kid was offered an opportunity to study in China this Summer.
I can think of many better ways to spend $8000 on education than the airfare.

FSA?

Free S^%t Army
(lifelong welfare/handout recipients that CHOOSE to milk the .gov/us...)

Oh, you were referring to yourself. Thank you for clearing that up.

What do 'you kind of people' cut out of their budgets?

What 'kind of people' do you think I am?

When the economy is down, people cut out trips to the museums. They don't go to concerts. They don't buy pieces of art. They don't download music. They don't go to movies.

...and for the record, I don't have any cable TV package.

...and I rarely wear a suit.

If affordable, double major- one for one's true interest and one that's more practical. Or go to a school with an open curriculum in which you can build your own area of study. College would be extremely boring and staid if one could only take economics or business type classes. There's more to life than sitting behind a desk working on balance sheets, budgets, and the like.

Question, CowDung- what would happen to majors such as Psychology (which in today's world is really meaningless unless you go to grad. school), Archeology, Astronomy, etc- occupations that do not support the economy in the short term, but have lasting long-term effects?

Not sure why everyone thinks that 'business major' is the only alternative to degrees in the arts. Not every non-artist works with balance sheets, budgets and the like...

"leave the boring stuff to the suits" - typical pompous artist/waiter

Actually, lots of people have been cutting the cable in recent years--and some people would actually consider the medium of television to be included as one of the arts...

I still think that Nuitari has a point. Artists aren't known for having economic stability in their lives. Doesn't it follow that earning an arts degree isn't necessarily something that will benefit oneself economically?

I think that our economy as a whole would be better off with more engineers and scientists rather than more artists. That's not saying that there isn't a place for the arts, but we are woefully short of quality people working in the STEM fields...

Our economy would be better off if college weren't so expensive so that there could be more students majoring in anything at all. A lot of talented people are kept away from higher education because of costs.

Sully Sez "Our economy would be better off if college weren't so expensive..."

hmm, I wonder how 'We The People' created that quagmire?

Anthony, you fat arrogant slob. Go get a cheeseburger from McDonalds. W

And Thank You Lyle for that bit of insight.. spot on.

Televised sporting events are another opiate for the masses, just like religion. In other words, a total waste of time.

you mean "how do you get someone with a philosophy major..."

(not all philosophy majors are not philosophers and not all philosopher have philosophy majors)

Not to belabor the over-analysis of a joke, but the intention is to imply that the kid has graduated with a philosophy degree rather him being a 'philosophy major' working his way through school as a pizza guy...

How "loving" of you to only pay if he majors in something you want. History majors can teach at whatever level they choose. they can provide valuable information regarding how past crises were handled or nor handled, or can provide research for (gasp) politicians. Historians can refute theories such as the world is only 6,000 years old. There are plenty of things people who major in "ideas" can do. You prefer a country of automatons? So if no financial aid for certain majors, what do those kids do? Study something they can't stand for a career they will hate? Or maybe they can just go on welfare.

@Bob...Do your son a favor and don't pay for his education. If he has to come up with a way to go to school, he will. Also, there is nothing wrong with a degree in history. If he is committed to scholarship, then maybe his calling is academics. I have a friend who made his kids pay for their own education and when they graduated he picked up their accumulated student debt. However, as they were going to school, they had no idea that he was going to pay off their debt. Each one of his kids graduated with either honors or high honors. The kids all are reasonably successful adults. Be careful for how much you do for your kids, if they don't have any skin in the game, they won't know the value of their education.

There's a huge difference between a passion and a career. If you love history, music, etc. study in those areas, but also study something that will make you employable and able to sustain yourself. No one is saying abandon your passion, we're just saying be reasonable. It might seem like tough love now, but saying, "No, I will not pay you to get a degree in European literature," is actually a gift to your child.

How many of us as adults have a job/career, but at the same time pursue additional interests? I encourage my children to think that way as well. College is too expensive to study something that does not lead to viable employment options.

Sully, few history majors can find a teaching job these days. In Illinois we have an excess of about 75,000 certified teachers above demand, and most of those out of work area history and liberal arts folks. If you can't teach special ed or a "STEM" discipline. you're likley out of work. This being said there's no reason that history and business should be mutally exclusive. You MUST understand the history of markets and cause and effect to be successful in economics, finance, or management.

The problem many history majors have is they've been taught has been revisionist history about the economic deelopment of America and the free market system. If they had been properly educated, there's pretty much no way they'd be supportive of Obama and his failed economic policies.

Lyle, I've taught my kids about the value of investment and the danger of debt. Making them take an eduation loan at 6.5% interest is contrary to what I've taught them.
When I graduated from the University of Illinois school of engineering in the 1970s, only 60% of the freshman I started with graduated within five years. Some transferred, some just gave up on education from the pressures and stress. These were ALL top students, but they couldn't get past the "culling of the herd" big land grant colleges use to weed out those who actually require instructor help to learn.

I worked my way through in four years in a work study program because my parents couldn't afford to help out much. I made it and came out stronger, but many didn't.
My kids' "job" is to develop and succeed at their education. I'll ensure they get into some sort of professional development over the summers. That's what I think is the best path of success for them.

Well said, Jacob. I completely agree (although I do think there are certain circumstances where a young adult may need to live at home for a little while longer).

@Jacob Chodash....Sound advice for those mature enough to handle it. However, most young people are less successful if there thrown out to sink or swim before they're ready for it. I've advised a number of young people to grow up first and if that means going into military service to do so, so be it. Just remember, teaching someone how to swim by throwing them in only works for some, not all.

@Karen...You're right on the money. I have had four go through college and GPA was never an issue. Budgeting time and money were the real challenges.

If you are looking to "gain proper independence", I highly recommend joining the Armed Services for a few years. Way cheaper than college, and they will MAKE you learn what you need to know, not just lead the horse to water. and then come out and go to college and use the G.I. Bill, so you don't come out with a B.A. and debt of $100K+.

@Kyla....How much student debt did you graduate with? Forget about the idea of young adult independence, some people can only afford an education on the cheap. It doesn't sound like you did. Study abroad, that's a pipe dream for most. Which sorority did you belong too? Were you active as member of the Young Republicans? I'm glad to see you are in a professional position where you influence hiring. It sounds like you're looking for your carbon copy. What about the person who had to financially struggle to get through school and didn't have time for all the goodies? Don't they deserve a fair chance of employment also?

Lyle:

While it may seem unfair to those who struggled to pay their way through college and could not live on campus, the reality is that internships, volunteer activities and campus activities are things that employers look at favorably. When an employer is looking for fresh college grads (as opposed to requiring x years of experience), these are the things that can influence a hiring manager to approve the candidate.

@CowDung....I fully understand what you're saying about those doing internships, etc. However, we talk constantly about equal opportunities and pull oneself up by their boot straps, but to blatantly state that those who are able to pursue extra curricular activities are given a clear advantage for hiring, seems to place priorities in the wrong place. You're a PE and made a statement that some of the worst engineers are degree engineers and some of the best have no degree, but have that all important experience. Thinking like Kyla, she'll never let the best in because she's looking for all the wrong things. Same thing with screening out people who haven't had the opportunities that others enjoy. Personally, as an owner/manager, I look at where someone started to get where they are at.

I agree with you CowDung (how about that!). I would rather hire a young person with a well-rounded education and life experiences than someone who never leaves the city they were born in and knows only a lot but only about one thing. In my experience, well-rounded individuals seemed to be much more creative, spontaneous, and flexible in the way they approach tasks or problems.

Bad grammar in that last post. I apologize.

Lyle:

I stated before that a college degree isn't a guarantee of a quality employee. Those non-degreed engineers I spoke of had good experience and worked their up into their engineering positions. I'm all for giving people a chance, but there needs to be something to go by.

The hiring manager only has so much to go on when evaluating fresh college grads. The more desirable things on a resume, the bigger the advantage in getting hired. If they don't have the resume, then it is up to the candidate to show that they have qualities that make them worth being hired.

@CowDung....You know as well as I do that in large companies, HR screens all the applicants before they ever get to a hiring manager. If the screener is screening out because somebody's resume wasn't flashy enough. I seen it happen over and over again. If I'm the hiring manager, I review every applicant's resume with the screener before we start culling them out. Most of the screeners don't have the breadth of experience to make some decisions.

Part of being a good parent is deciding what is right for your child. A community college is not always the right choice- depending on the kid's aspirations.
Very few students have the ability to pay the $100,000 bill, or obtain the loan to begin with. From my experience, it is the parent who pays the tuition or obtains a parent loan for the bulk of the education costs.

@Mr. Turner....I understand the hiring practice intimately. Your client is the business or company; and, as such, it is your task to find the best candidates to funnel into the hiring managers. However, you show an inappropriate bias against both UWM commuter students and students that worked low skilled jobs. I would suggest you do some self examination of your own biases. In any case, I agree that if you all you are looking at is a bevy of business graduates, and they are a dime a dozen, then it only makes sense to differentiate as you do. My own bias is that a BBA and other business degrees, except for accounting, are not worth the paper they're printed on. I know I have this bias and when I was still active in business I would have to look beyond my biases.

Lyle:

How would you propose that he evaluate commuters and those that don't have job-related internships or work experience in favor of those that do? He's looking for things that show responsibility and initiative. Commuters should be able to be involved in a similar level of activities and/or career related work experience as an on-campus student. If they aren't, then I don't think it is necessarily wrong to hold it against them in favor of those that do.

Lyle:

You stated earlier that you had a '5 years of experience' requirement for the people you hire. How can you be OK with a bias against inexperience while insisting that people are wrong to weed out those that didn't do internships and have no other experience that indicates some level of responsibility and/or initiative?

Isn't it obvious to everyone by now that Mr. Ruble makes things up as he goes along? Do not take him seriously as he posts from the Northshore Mental Asylum.

I think Mr. Turner is stating facts not a bias. Look at the pool of applicants in the metro Milwaukee area, and you'll see a trend. A bachelor's degree is often the minimum standard requirement in many of today's professional industries. If the applicant doesn't have a degree, he/she will not be considered. If the degree is in a major not suited to the position, work experience in the field is sometimes used in lieu of the specialized major, but completion of a bachelor degree program is often required. I don't think Mr. Turner mentioned anything about business degrees or BBAs in his post.

@CowDung....I think you are missing the point that when screening candidates, there are a number of relevant issues. You can't automatically make the assumption that because a student is a commuter student that they may be so because of other issues. I know a number of commuter students who are tied to their families for economic reasons or family structural issues. I know several students who not only go to school full time, work part time and take care of their siblings while their parent works. There is very little available time to pursue internships, etc.

When I referred to not hiring engineers without at least 5 years experience, I was referring to the fact that my operation didn't have time to train new engineers to do process design and application design. Other positions in the firm didn't require as much time in position. The positions that required the most experience were the draftsmen. In short, I am stating that making decisions based on standardized criteria, doesn't account for special circumstances.

Maybe I am missing a point, Lyle--I don't think we should make any assumptions about the commuter student, but you seem to be insisting that they deserve to be considered ahead of job candidates that have more relevant experience like internships or involvement in various activities.

It is not uncommon to get 100+ resumes for an open position. There obviously isn't time to bring everyone in for an interview, so the employer has weed people out based on the strengths/weaknesses shown on their resume and/or cover letter.

I feel it is entirely up to the recruiter or employer what methodology they use to narrow down the stacks of resumes. If they decide to throw away all resumes that are only printed in black and white and not color- that is their choice. If the criteria is to toss all resumes that are not in a binder- so be it.
Some employers do not want community college graduates and prefer to have a grad from a school with higher entry standards.
It is part of life, get used to it.

Lyle, I'm also an engineering project manager and I prefer to hire new graduates and mentor them into proficiency. Good managers can make a $20/hour new grad and make them perform as productively as a $50/hr pro. As Leads, we're not paid just for what we do, WE'RE PAID TO MAKE THOSE AROUND US BETTER!

It's more work, but as a former college and high school teacher I enjoy the challenge!

@Lyle Ruble -- Mr. Turner can talk about 'initiative' all he likes, but giving preference to those applicants who had the funds to go away to school and the leisure to become involved in community activities rather than grind away at that job they've had since high school tends to weed out those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The kind who really HAD to work and save every penny.

So much for the fiction of'work hard, live prudently, get an education and have the American dream'.

You said that in a much nicer way than I did the other day (prior to deleting my comment), Randy.

I'd suggest that if the extent of a recruiter's initial in-depth analysis consists of culling resumes on something so superficial as whether or not the applicant went away to school and could afford the leisure time to participate in a lot of extra activities, perhaps that explains why they're a dime a dozen as well.

@Bob McBride -- It's very telling that we had one of our rare moments of accord on this. I react badly to people who judge on superficialities. It starts so early these days. Little Tiffany came in second in her toddler gymnastics competition and she didn't get into the highly rated Fluffy Bunny Pre-school, so she might as well kiss Harvard good-bye and will end up as a barrista at Starbucks for her entire life.

People who really need work and would be excellent at the job can't even get a foot in the door because they went to the wrong school or have too long a hiatus between jobs. Never mind why. I knew a young man who was working virtually full-time during high school and was providing much of the support for his family. He didn't have time for all those impressive extra-curriculars.

Randy:

That is one of the reasons why colleges have essays as part of their application. It gives students the opportunity to tell their life story and the challenges they have faced and have overcome. Working to support one's family while going to school does demonstrate initiative and responsibility--traits that are looked upon favorably by college admissions officers as well as employers.

@Cow Dung -- Only if you have the money to got to that college one you get admitted. You not only have to be admitted to the institution, you have to be able to pay for it, unless you get a scholarship.

I once knew a fellow who was on full scholarship to Harvard, and my hat was off to him because he had to be incredibly brilliant. But I also knew some meiocre folks whose parents could afford to both prod them into extra-curriculars and then send them off to whatever college would take them.

Mr.Turner is just a sign of our times.

Taco Bell isn't real food.

yeah...FREE frigging uniforms man!!!!

I realized after that the conversation shifted to being employed there and not eating there. Oops. Vicky, have you seen how many people are excited about the Doritos tacos. It's sad. To some, it is fine cuisine. I'd rather chew cardboard....more fiber too.

I would never hire anyone who eats at Taco Bell, they are too offensive to other employees and hour after lunch.

yep.
and it reminds you WHY you are going to school...

Like stripping! Good way to earn some extra cash on the side if you're not a fatty

In a word, yes, Mr. Huff. I have used algebra and geometry in daily life. Mostly it involved using various equations in spreadsheets that perform useful tasks for me. I can't say as I've used the trigonometry yet,but never say never.

However, we might want to define the difference between an education and 'training' for a specific field.

@Randy1949...Not everyone needs to get a BA/BS. But, there are tremendous needs for technicians in all fields, which usually involves two years of training. For those that don't want the full education experience, I suggest non-degreed programs.

A liberal arts degree in a variety of majors is a clear indication of an "educated person". However, we must ask, is there a place for an educated person in today's world or is it just about what one can do to make the most money possible?