Missy, if you aren't actually going to USE that degree . . .

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . then drop out of college now and give your spot to a man--er, woman--who will.

[prisonchaplain]

Education is its own reward...though at the high prices charged by high-end brand universities, it might be smart to value shop for the school--especially if staying at home is a probable choice. Ironically, many of these Ivy League schools offer many of their course lectures online, for free. The money buys the credits and the sheep skin, but the content can be had for a few mouse clicks.

[Anddenex]

Wow.

[Guest]

I loved what someone just said in conference- was it Elder Holland?- about learning being a lifelong pursuit. It doesn't start or end with getting a degree.

[Guest]

More on point with the OP, I advance the cause of women by striving to raise 4 good, responsible, confident, and kind women here at home.

[applepansy]

We never know how our education will impact our family. I am bothered by the idea that a woman isn't using her degree if she chooses to be a stay-at-home Mom. Of course she's using her degree. Her education will effect the way she raises her children.

Also, children (girls in particular) who have parents who both graduated from College are most likely to attend College themselves. (don't has me for a reference, I can't remember where I read it. :) Because of my life experiences I believe this to be true.)

[SanctitasDeo]

Oh, man, there is so much wrong with that.

I think this goes all the way down to our conception of what the good life is. Education of part of what makes a good life. That does not necessarily mean an ivy league university, but it means that education should be part of one's life no matter how one plans to spend it.

I feel like there is an attitude nowadays that education is only for work. Someone I know proposed that the government prohibit universities from offering a Philosophy major* because it does not produce the kind of workers that America needs. This is a similar attitude to that offered in Goff's article.

The other attitude that I feel is problematic is the idea that there should be an elite which needs to protect itself by circling the wagons and keeping out people who do not agree in some way. She clearly feels that some people are better than others and should be kept separate.

This is an extension of the pernicious idea that women who do not work are betraying their fellow women, as if they were all on a team against men, and leaving work to have kids is not an equal choice.

I understand their ideological framework, but I feel like it misses a lot of what it means to be human.

[SanctitasDeo]

But I do consider any Harvard Law School degree obtained by a woman who then chooses not to use it in any sort of professional capacity throughout most of her life a wasted opportunity. That degree could have gone to a woman who does want to spend her entire life using it to advance the cause of women – or others in need of advancement – not simply advancing the lives of her own family at home, which is a noble cause, but not one requiring an elite degree.

Perhaps instead of bickering over whether or not colleges and universities should ask us to check boxes declaring our racial identity, the next frontier of the admissions should revolve around

asking people to declare what they actually plan to do with their degrees. There's nothing wrong with someone saying that her dream is to become a full-time mother by 30. That is an admirable goal. What is not admirable is for her to take a slot at Yale Law School that could have gone to a young woman whose dream is to be in the Senate by age 40 and in the White House by age 50.

From the Goff article. This is funny. Apparently, it is unfair if someone who earns a spot at one of these schools is not going to work and displaces a woman who will, despite the fact that she did earn the spot.

This is interesting partly because it bypasses the usually extremely individualist bent of most feminist theory and conceives of women as a collective who should work out a concept of fairness between themselves in order to achieve collective goals in society.

[NeuroTypical]

Remember - discrimination is bad. Unless we're discriminating against women who want to be mothers. Then it's good.

[BadWolf]

This is such a case of an argument coming full circle/ 2 polar opposite extremes having the same end goal:

- Women shouldn't go to college because they're mothers / SAHMs

- Women who are mothers/SAHMs shouldn't go to college.

Both misogynistic viewpoints can go do something anatomically improbable.

And, again, SAHDs are completely ignored. Maybe I should change that to both misanthropic viewpoints could try removing their heads from so far up that the little bump in their throat is their nose. Furor has died down? Ha! This is one woman whose furor hasn't died down. [Mod deleted - sorry - it was a really good rant]

* ETA... I can delete the last wee bit o' name calling if its line crossing, Mods.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[SanctitasDeo]

This is such a case of an argument coming full circle/ 2 polar opposite extremes having the same end goal:

- Women shouldn't go to college because they're mothers / SAHMs

- Women who are mothers/SAHMs shouldn't go to college.

Both misogynistic viewpoints can go do something anatomically improbable.

I didn't catch that wrinkle. Good point. That would be really funny if it wasn't so sad.

[applepansy]

This is such a case of an argument coming full circle/ 2 polar opposite extremes having the same end goal:

- Women shouldn't go to college because they're mothers / SAHMs

- Women who are mothers/SAHMs shouldn't go to college.

Both misogynistic viewpoints can go do something anatomically improbable.

And, again, SAHDs are completely ignored. Maybe I should change that to both misanthropic viewpoints could try removing their heads from so far up that the little bump in their throat is their nose. Furor has died down? Ha! This is one woman whose furor hasn't died down. [Mod deleted - sorry - it was a really good rant]

* ETA... I can delete the last wee bit o' name calling if its line crossing, Mods.

Can we read the "really good rant" in a private message?

[Gwen]

When I was in the hospital just after having #5 two cleaning ladies came in to care for my room. As they were working they were talking about a woman in town that I knew who was about to have her 6th. They went on and on about how sad it was that she just stayed home with all those kids. "And can you believe she has a college degree!" I just had to shake my head. This family had the father's career income, they owned a local business and rental properties. Guess who managed the business and rental properties while dad worked? She also home schooled all her children. She was using her degree more than many ppl and she was taking care of her family. But no one seemed to understand that because "she was just a stay at home mom".

[Guest]

Yeah, like Anne Romney has no clue about economics because she's JUST a stay-at-home mom.

[selek]

From the Goff article. This is funny. Apparently, it is unfair if someone who earns a spot at one of these schools is not going to work and displaces a woman who will, despite the fact that she did earn the spot.

More specifically- implicit in the rant is the idea that someone who earned the spot should surrender it to someone who did not, in order to advance "the cause".

This is interesting partly because it bypasses the usually extremely individualist bent of most feminist theory and conceives of women as a collective who should work out a concept of fairness between themselves in order to achieve collective goals in society.

Equally ironic is the fact that this notion implicitly rejects equal opportunity (and equal rights for women) in favor of a specific ideologically-based outcome.

If the school were to explicitly limit the number of women accepted in order to increase the number of male graduates (based on the ideological supposition that this would produce a greater number of men able to support their families), Goff would be beside herself with outrage and be throwing poop at the zoo-keepers and passers-by.

So why is her ideology (that motherhood is a lesser goal than a political career or CEO-dom) to be privileged over someone elses?

Particularly when both are paying for the privilege of the education?

[SanctitasDeo]

More specifically- implicit in the rant is the idea that someone who earned the spot should surrender it to someone who did not, in order to advance "the cause".

Yes. I find this disturbing. It is affirmative action for 'the right kind of woman.'

So why is her ideology (that motherhood is a lesser goal than a political career or CEO-dom) to be privileged over someone elses?

Particularly when both are paying for the privilege of the education?

Because it is the 'right' kind. Because apparently we should want to replace the older social norm with the new one, which says that women who work are better than women who do not because they are not advancing the common (collective) cause of women everywhere.

As far as I can tell, this is the radical feminist position. Most of the women I have talked to about it don't agree with Goff--but they are not radical feminists. Specifically, they do not agree that women must work if they get a degree.

[Smudge]

I haven't used my degree directly but I have used elements of it, but more importantly I have used what I learnt during my degree - I gained confidence and courage, improved skills I already had such as public speaking and cooking, learnt to budget, met wonderful people who are still in my life, experienced and learnt more about other cultures than I could have learnt from books/tv/internet, reactivated one person created many friends of the church particularly in the muslim community. I have friends around the world who know who I am and what I stand for. Had I not gone to uni I wouldn't have worked at summer camps were I directly affected the lives of of serveral hundred children and which got me back into Guiding were I have impacted many more children and adults including bringing one person into the church. So I while I may not actually be using my degree I don't feel that it was wasted.

PS thanks for helping me to see what I gained from my time at uni.

[annewandering]

Women who stay at home to raise kids but get their degree are following the prophets advice of being prepared. It is very difficult to get the degree after the husband dies and she has kids that need care plus a minimum wage job to get food on the table. Best to be prepared.

That said there is more than one way to be educated. Even without classes there are these little things called books and internet. Women have the opportunity to chose how they wish to be educated and how they will use it. We all have that right.

[bytor2112]

Everyones getting degrees and accumulating enormous debt in the process and the Universities just add more degree programs and rake in the cash. Once a Bachelors degree was a high educational accomplishment, now it is all too common. Lots of worthless degrees and lot's of people with degrees that can't get a job because they really can't do anything with the worthless degree.

Blue collar work or learning a trade is promoted as a last resort. Fit only for those who can't cut it in college. education and the idea that everyone should go to college is baloney. As if a college degree somehow really equates to being educated.

Go to Stanford, get your PHD in Philosophy and cure....ah, expect a high salaried position to pay off some enormous debt. Maybe I could teach??

The education system is so flawed in our country. Not everyone should go to college. Learning to weld, or to be a plumber or whatever is honest work and very much needed and some of my wealthiest clients are plumbers.

[Smudge]

I think you have hit on the crux of the issue - it isn't women gaining degrees and not using them but rather the push for people to get degrees when they would be better in vocational training. My dorm mates were studying law with people who could barely construct a logical sentence who were at uni because that is what you did as a British Asian! Regardless of if you actually wanted to or were academically able too.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Smudge

[Guest]

More specifically- implicit in the rant is the idea that someone who earned the spot should surrender it to someone who did not, in order to advance "the cause".

That's not in the rant. The rant is about a woman who earned the spot that got into the university versus a woman who would have earned the spot but the university did not have room for her because it is occupied by the other woman.

[Guest]

Everyones getting degrees and accumulating enormous debt in the process and the Universities just add more degree programs and rake in the cash. Once a Bachelors degree was a high educational accomplishment, now it is all too common. Lots of worthless degrees and lot's of people with degrees that can't get a job because they really can't do anything with the worthless degree.

Blue collar work or learning a trade is promoted as a last resort. Fit only for those who can't cut it in college. education and the idea that everyone should go to college is baloney. As if a college degree somehow really equates to being educated.

Go to Stanford, get your PHD in Philosophy and cure....ah, expect a high salaried position to pay off some enormous debt. Maybe I could teach??

The education system is so flawed in our country. Not everyone should go to college. Learning to weld, or to be a plumber or whatever is honest work and very much needed and some of my wealthiest clients are plumbers.

I think you have hit on the crux of the issue - it isn't women gaining degrees and not using them but rather the push for people to get degrees when they would be better in vocational training. My dorm mates were studying law with people who could barely construct a logical sentence who were at uni because that is what you did as a British Asian! Regardless of if you actually wanted to or were academically able too.

I disagree with both sentiments. It presumes that people are idiots and have no clue how to balance college loans with potential earnings.

In the Philippines where jobs are scarce, a college education is highly valued. You need at least 2 years of college (which includes language courses) to work in McDonald's. If you want to work at the McDonald's next to the hospital, you need those 2 years of college to be in a medical field. McDonald's require their people to be able to speak in fluent English and be able to converse in professional matters. Next to the hospital, McDonald's servers are expected to be able to converse in medical matters.

Why is this? Because competition for the job of McDonald's burger flipper is fierce. To trim down the applicants, the operator of McDonald's can use any filter he feels necessary to pick the elite out of the bunch.

If there were 10 job openings to 5 applicants, McDonald's will hire any able-bodied to flip the burgers.

So, why is a degree required in the USA these days? Because jobs are scarce and businesses can demand any qualification to filter out the multitude of applicants.

Such is the cycle of education versus employment. When jobs are plentiful again, you will see people fresh out of high school earning loads of money without needing to spend a single cent on a college degree.

A college, therefore, should not be an elitist institution. It should be open to anybody who want to pursue higher education for whatever reason - including just so they can fulfill their dreams of using college diplomas for wallpaper.

[Smudge]

I just think that some courses should not be university level for example that spring in the UK are Surf, science and tech where the focus is surfing and Golf

[Vort]

I disagree with both sentiments. It presumes that people are idiots and have no clue how to balance college loans with potential earnings.

No, it presumes that most people wrongly confuse getting an education with getting a degree; that it is possible to live an intelligent, well-informed life without ever setting foot on a college campus; and that many people are better-suited by temperament and by circumstance to make a living using technical training than with a college degree.

[Anddenex]

When jobs are plentiful again, you will see people fresh out of high school earning loads of money without needing to spend a single cent on a college degree.

There are already kids who are not yet out of high school who are earning "loads of money" because they take advantage of what is available while they are young.