Uncategorized

We Might Be Wrong on University Enrollment

Sorbonne University
Comments (29)
  1. Traversable mgtow says:

    Yes the problem now for most male is the high priced degrees will pay no better short of medical work . Even then; a man hanging doors with a team of say 5 will pay the same . In most real life Jobs Like my profession electrical engineering you will end up working for a gynocentric agency with dead female weight to carry or become an independent service provider which you could have done 2 years earlier.
    Skilled male work is still market driven and overskilled male work is gyno accessible . Most men are highly underpaid according to their skill level due to the fact of male job discounting . We enter a building and are looked at as the workers or underling and in most cases are more educated . So why not go for the trade degree or under degree and make the same amount of money .

    1. Jessire Nagy says:

      ♂ “Blue pill” males can be helped. I have a plan to start a group soon on social networking of something very popular – a Beetle’s fan-club, or something like that. When the membership numbers quickly gains ~80,000(+) members, flood the entire space with “red pills” & then state: “We’ve recently changed the policy to psychology studies” in the description section. I’ve already done this several times with much less members due to impatience, but now that I have a newer idea for something more popular, it’ll be more effective. ¶ If you’re not a content creator – don’t type, don’t record, etc., you can still disseminate info. like the above typed. It’s actually really fun, like a video game. ¶ I used to do this more often, & I’m still informed with the data of “weird” music demographics. News travels fast with such groups because they’re already frequently planning for gatherings. Some of the message have made oblivious males aware because of the “rickochet” effect of implanting the info.. Even if you anger those groups, all that’s going to do is make them advertise ideals by accident. ♂

  2. Smacktalk says:

    Very rational, non-hysterical analysis. Consider also that, in a world where males are no longer necessary for females to have happy families (they have Daddy Sam as a silent, non-judgmental financier) increased incomes for males are less attractive anyway. Males should be recognizing that the increased incomes that used to be necessary to have a family are now, at least, no longer necessary if we’re going to give up on that scam and go MGTOW.

    If a male is willing to abandon the idea of supporting a female (and he fucking SHOULD because the wenches will never agree to a fair partnership with all the social advantages she has over him) the fact is this is an incredibly free, opportunity-filled society. I strongly recommend young males graduating high school (or even if they don’t graduate) check out workaway (dot) info for opportunities that will expand their life far more than college.

    We are essentially superhuman at this point in evolution — easy access to most of the world’s knowledge. We have more of everything (intellectually) online, via our phones, than the smartest geniuses had 40 years ago. College education? Screw that absurd status game. Go be a man in this new world! And stay away from women lol.

  3. kirea says:

    I would argue that universities are in a way about to obsolete themselves. They are nothing like the elitist institutions they used to be, and a university degree does by no means guarantee you a good job any more. They still do provide some kind of eduction of course, but in a very bloated and expensive way.

  4. Dave says:

    True, but there is a gotcha.

    The heart of a university is its faculty and its library.

    But it’s no longer the case that if you go to a university, your education will be overseen by a genuinely brilliant academic. Why? Because these days universities take in an enormous number of people. They take in far more people than they used to, but the number of genuinely brilliant people is no different to what it always has been. So your education will be seen to by some grad student with no teaching experience or training.

    And as for library: the days when you needed to journey to Oxford to learn from it’s amazing collection of scrolls by candlelight is over.

    So sensible young men are rethinking college an university. But these institutions have managed to insert a gotcha into the law: under equal employment legislation, being “qualified” is grounds for choosing one candidate over another. If you are an employer and one candidate is a 22-yo female with a degree in gender studies and the other is a 22-yo male who spent the last four years actually learning out in the world, you’ll be in all kinds of trouble if you don’t hire the female.

    The feminists have seized academia because it’s a valve, a gatekeeper, it decides who gets the lucrative jobs.

    At least, that was the plan. What is actually going to happen is that the universities will lose prestige to the point where having one of those bullshit degrees from an academic sausage machine will actually be seen as a negative. People still need to get work done by competent people, and so if it’s illegal to hire one, then businesses and workers will work around the law. Hence the rise of temping and contracting.

    1. TFCNU says:

      There’s a lot of logic to what you’re saying but it leaves out an important variable. The people who make hiring decisions in most companies went to university. While they may agree that there are too many university graduates coming out, they still place value in university. University degrees have value at this point because people believe they have value. That might seem insignificant but it’s profoundly difficult to change something that is, at this point, culturally ingrained.

      In the age of LinkedIn, companies, like women in the dating market, can pick from a host of potential candidates. One of the biggest challenges companies face is how to narrow that list down. If you can say to HR, “cut out the people without a university degree” and narrow your applications from 100 to 50, you’re going to do it. It isn’t that the university degree is going to get you the job. It won’t. All it does is stop your resume from getting deleted after the first pass. That’s not quite as marketable, but it’s still damn valuable.

      Finally, people get pissed off because the first job they get out of university doesn’t require a degree. In a lot of entry level jobs a BA is useless. However, in a lot of companies if you want to move up to a more senior position, you better have a degree. That’s why I think the best strategy might be to try to get that non-BA requiring entry level job straight out of high school and pursue the degree at night. By the time you have the experience to get the more senior job, you’ll have the degree you need to get past the first hurdle.

      1. kirea says:

        “That’s why I think the best strategy might be to try to get that non-BA requiring entry level job straight out of high school and pursue the degree at night.”

        Sounds kind of brutal, but if you really want to devote your life to climbing that corporate ladder, for whatever reason, I suppose that may the way to go.

  5. TFCNU says:

    The endnotes got cut out of this so here we go:

    1. There are a lot of studies on earning potential. Here’s one from Carleton University in Canada: https://library.carleton.ca/sites/default/files/find/data/surveys/pdf_files/Price-of-Knowledge_4th-edition_2009-11_chapter-1_en.pdf . Here’s one from the US Federal Reserve: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2014/may/is-college-worth-it-education-tuition-wages/
    2. Here’s the link to the enrollment growth numbers: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.10.asp
    3. As an aside, this ability to act as a predictor of success is why the Princeton Mom who famously told the women at Ivy League schools to find their husband on campus was right from an evolutionary/hypergamy standpoint. The university has basically vouched for the future high status of the men there.
    4. Here’s the enrollment by major table: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_318.30.asp
    5. Re: High paying, low-skill jobs discouraging men from going to university, Spain is the best example of this where young men abandoned school to go work in the housing boom only to be left unemployable in the housing bust: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-apprentices-idUSKCN0RY09N20151004

  6. Kong says:

    As with everything else women are bestowed with privilege in this area. I genuinely believe that universities are making a deliberate attempt to have women outnumbering men. Also I think this issue will connect to the wage gap and glass ceiling myths as when women apply for jobs the companies they work for can justify paying them more than men because they have degrees. Women already have an unfair advantage and I have seen young girls aged 20 – 23 hired straight into management positions for which they have no experience, no maturity and no ability to do. And the companies justify this by saying they have a degree. One in my own company was hired into a management role having studied music!

    Men are the majority of the unemployed, their education is being deliberately harmed and they have few opportunities in the working world. Believe me this is by design.

    1. TFCNU says:

      It’s a self-sacrificing strategy by the university if it’s intentional. Male graduates are more successful and make more money over the course of their career than female grads. They are better potential alumni.

      All of the negative impacts you’re talking about are true. I’m not saying the gap doesn’t hurt men. I just prefer explanations that don’t require a nefarious conspiracy.

      1. Ergeniz says:

        What one may ‘prefer’ often doesn’t coincide with reality. The very state of our government and society bending over backwards for women goes well past a clean explanation involving logic so I don’t understand why you would insist on such a manner of thinking.

  7. Still, any humanities or business degree will get you a better job than no degree. Basically we are creating here a class of unemployable males, especially with all the manufacturing jobs getting outsourced or replaced by robots. It is a problem and it is also a problem if men are somehow under the impression that they either get an engineering degree or do not attend higher education at all.
    It is also noteworthy that in countries that have no fees/Free tuition tend to have also more gender symmetry. It is also very harmful to have whole professions like medicine, law and education dominated by women. Young boys miss male teachers and kindergarten workers, male patients might feel often more comfortable with a male doctor and maybe an accused man might open up more with a male lawyer or judge. I think this is creating just more dysfunction.
    So bottom line: if the trend continues we will see more marginalized men, and will end up with a class of working poor/men on welfare.

    1. Kyle says:

      LAexander! Love your videos man! One dimensional male was great.

      1. thanks M8…lots of work to do in the community

  8. colttaine says:

    Fantastic article man. This has been my position for quite some time. However I think as part of this discussion, we do have to look at the validity of some of these arts courses.

    I agree that university doesn’t necessarily bestow intelligence, but rather acts as a filter for future success, but if that’s the case, these kind of courses seem to act as very VERY poor filters.

    Putting the issue of gender completely aside, should universities be running these courses in the first place? Especially if they’re being funded by government tax money? (Directly as a public university, or indirectly through student loans)

    The talking point for public funded education has always been that it’s an investment in the county’s future (and I don’t necessarily disagree, filthy leftist that I am) but I have to wonder; what is the country’s return on investment from an English lit degree? What is a person with that particular degree going to contribute back to the county’s economy?

    Here in Australia, our university admissions are actually calculated by the number of people who apply, as well as the number of new jobs in the field per year. Engineering and medical course placements are ultimately based on available industry positions, and the entry score is based on the number of people applying for those positions. Supply and demand basically.

    This does lead to a few weird “free market” side effects. For instance, there are a limited number of new teaching positions each year, and everyone wants to be a gym teacher, so you need to be in the 97th percentile on the UAI (Australian version of the SAT) but nobody wants to be a math teacher, so any dummy in the 60th percentile can apply. As a result, you end up with some very smart gym teachers, and very dumb math teachers, which is not ideal, but for the most part, this system counters some of the problems leading to too many people getting certain degrees without future job prospects.

    For some reason though, these selection standards don’t seem to apply to the liberal arts degrees. I have to wonder how university admissions would change, if the courses only had places based on how many new professional painters or writers, can actually start a financially successful career each year.

    If you needed to be in the +95th percentile to get into sculpture, or English lit, I suspect most people with such scores would probably prefer to go into something more useful like law or medicine.

    1. TFCNU says:

      Thanks for your kind words. Big fan of your content. I agree that there’s a huge disconnect between the university system and the economy but historically, that’s not what universities were for. A “classical” university education was mostly a bunch of arts courses with some rudimentary math and science. That’s because university was set up to be a finishing school for aristocrats not a workplace training program. It’s precisely because we’ve gotten the relationship between universities and success backwards that we’ve created these market inefficiencies where highly educated workers are performing low skill jobs.

      The issue with trying to limit the spaces in universities according to market demand is that predicting what training the market will be looking for in four years is a fool’s errand in most cases. Within a profession like teaching where people retire at a predictable age and demand for labour follows demographic trends, a system like the one you describe in Australia may be possible but for the broader labour market? Good luck. Also, outside of some highly specialized professions most people these days will do a bunch of different things in their lives. They may start their career according to their educational path, but they might not end up in the same profession by the end. For people graduating with BA’s (and I fall into the category), that diversion from their educational path starts sooner. I have a friend who graduated with the dreaded English LIt degree and within a couple years he was working, and succeeding in finance. Similarly, while I can trace a path between my political science degree and my job, it’s not exactly a straight line. I think that’s more normal than we let our 17 year-olds think.

      In short, I don’t fully buy the “we don’t need all these XYZ majors” argument because we don’t know what we’ll need and people aren’t limited to one profession. However, the idea that the government should be subsidizing university education is also, I concede, seriously flawed. Giving money to people who would have succeeded without your help is kind of silly. However, as long as people believe that going to university somehow causes you to be more successful, voters in democratic countries will continue to ask for help paying for their children’s education. Until we can disabuse people of that causality, the subsidies are going to stay in place.

      1. colttaine says:

        “most people these days will do a bunch of different things in their lives.”

        Yeah, i was actually thinking about this the other day (possibly do a video on it at some point) its not the same world as the baby boomers grew up in. Lifelong careers rarely exist any more. You don’t stay in a job for more than 5 years these days. The average UK rental tenancy is only 20 months. And i think a common mistake by most people, is that they don’t realise marriage is ultimately part of the same socioeconomic system. I think the idea that you can successfully “settle down” into a job, or a marriage, or even a geographic area, for the rest of your life, is a fairly antiquated concept. But i digress.

        I actually have a BA msyelf. Fine arts, majoring in painting and sculpture. Thing is though, looking at the out of school success, my fellow students basically all followed one of two pathways. They’re either working shit retail or food service jobs, to try and fund their artistic side projects, or they got a dip-ed to become art teachers themselves, ultimately teaching the same shit to a whole new generation of art students, who themselves will become art teachers… in a never ending cycle of teaching for teaching’s sake, without ever actually producing anything of relevance.

        Out of my class, i’m basically one of the only people who’s made a career out of something peripherally related to my area of study (Advertising. Which ironically despite career success, in the eyes of some classmates would basically make me a sellout doing the devils work).

        I guess you could say i’m the exception to the rule (possibly like your english lit friend), but based on the outcomes of my fellow classmates, i don’t think we needed to be dumping thousands of public funds on BAs, for these people to essentially become baristas, perpetually trying to scrape enough together to put on a personal exhibition at some no-name off Broadway gallery, where they won’t sell any of their artwork.

        My point isn’t necessarily that “we don’t need all these XYZ majors”, or that university should necessarily be focused on vocational training in specific XYZ professions, but i think as institutions that do simply filter the wheat from the chaff, some majors are better indicators of potential success (filters) than others. Despite having a degree in fine arts myself, i couldn’t really recommend the course continue to be funded. Or, the standards should be at least as high, and the course work as rigorous, as your political science degree, to filter the future baristas from the future marketing execs. (honestly, some of the people in my class were borderline retards).

        1. MA says:

          You’re missing the point though. Universities were and are largely places to network for the future elite. What gives you the highest chance of getting hired? You guessed it, connections. And that’s what a university provides. Does the average university do that? Nope. The average university is barely more than “proof that you can see something through”. Not much more than that, except if you really get into a useful field such as STEM. Another function of the university is, of course, indoctrination. Most of what you learn is not useful in any way. But there are hundreds of ways to subtly push a certain way of thinking, much like in school. The whole education system is based on fitting you into that working drone box. You learn some actual skills, but most of the stuff you learn is just there so you’ll willingly accept that 9-5 lifestyle.
          I have a university degree in business myself. Most of what I’ve learned was pretty useless and I’ve realized more and more that the degree I’ve got qualifies me for little else than becoming a glorified paper pusher. I say thank you, but no thank you. I’ll try building my own damn thing and if that fails well then I’ll try again because I’ll be damned before I become just another cog in the machine. Fuck that noise.
          Anyway, rant over.

        2. TFCNU says:

          I think you’ve identified an interesting phenomenon. There is among a lot of arts majors this resistance to “working for the man” or “selling out”. It’s never something that I’ve bought into so I struggle to understand it. One could argue that there’s never been a better time to be fine arts major like your delinquent colleagues. However, if they don’t want to work in advertising, film, video games etc. because they view that as selling out well, I’m not sure what we can do to help them. I’m also not sure how you separate people like you, providing needed skills to your employer that were at least augmented by your degree from delinquents who are “starving for their art” by wasting their lives handing out coffees at Starbucks. I guess the hope is that there are enough people like you to balance it out in the wash.

          The bigger issue these days might be the women who get professional degrees and then drop out 5-10 years later when they start having kids or realize they can rely on their husband’s income and don’t have to put in the hours. I know in Canada law firms are trying to figure out what to do to retain these women. These women come in to the firm, they’ve graduated top of their law school classes, they’re good lawyers, they end up on track to be partners in the firm and then, poof, they’re gone at 30 or 35. The law firm’s left holding the bag. It may be as you’ve identified part of this general trend of people being more transient in their lives. However, like marriage, these professions are just not set up for that sort of transiency. It’s starting to wreak havoc.

          1. kirea says:

            Delinquents? Since when is serving coffee a crime? How are people who get by working in retail of food service while doing the art they enjoy “wasting their lives”? You’re pushing your own value system onto people who might not share your views. People have different values. Those who live for the art think that people who follow the money and end up in something like advertising are “sellouts”. Likewise, those who are more of the money-driven “go-getter” type have a tendency to think that the foamer category consists of “losers” who are “wasting their lives”.

          2. kirea says:

            You seem to be stuck in some kind of traditional value system, where men are expected to make lots of money and support families. Outside of that system, there is nothing wrong with a man who choses to work a low-paying job, live minimalistically, and do the art he enjoys. I agree that calling those who decide follow the money “sellouts” is kind of rude and disrespectful, but so is calling those who don’t want to follow the money “delinquents”.

  9. tamerlame says:

    This article is junk.

    The author is encouraging dysfunctional self marginalizing behavior from men.

    Why not give up even more of society to women? That has worked so far, being so reactive and passive, why not double down on that behavior eh?

    1. tamerlame says:

      Instead of looking down on others, perhaps right wing men should shed their egos?

      When right wingers accuse the left of having the politics of resentment, they are projecting.

  10. “Universities are looking for their graduates to become successful so that a) they can bolster the reputation of the university and b) they can afford and want to donate as alumni.”

    I can attest to this having worked in the alumni offices of two of the most renowned, US-based universities in the world.

  11. Sandtheb says:

    I disagree, We should still talk about how shortchanged boys are in education, since feminists and women are doing everything they can to push/force men and boys out of schools, mainly elementary schools. Also VIsa recipients can’t come in great enough numbers to replace the numbers being pushed out of education. Imagine if all things were equal and men and boys weren’t being pushed out of education, the STEM fields would be like 99.9% male but the numbers of STEM graduates would actually go up, since boys aren’t being forced out for being “treated like defective girls” they can actually pursue not only what they are good at but what they enjoy. Rather then dropping out because they have failed when graded all their lives as children to be the best girls they can be.

  12. Jakes says:

    Finally someone who is being logical about this.
    Most tradesmen out earn these ‘degree holders’. I have worked with non-technical degree holders and unless they are managers, out earned all of them- my job was also more secure.
    Most young men I know are going for more secure low-profile jobs. One just started a new job working in waste water maintenance (sewage worker), he earns above the national average and absolutely 0 women, so a good team spirit.
    Also if a woman that he doesn’t like tries approaching him, he tells her he is a sewage worker- wow the fun!

  13. Matt says:

    As a teacher with both undergraduate and post-grad qualifications, I will tell you that enrolling into university means incurring a massive opportunity cost (i.e. not just expenses, but money that you could be making) to learn in the most inefficient way possible. By repetitively going to lectures and listening to someone talk, a student actually only retains about 5% of what was lectured, and that’s giving that student the benefit of the doubt that he/she was turned on throughout the lecture. Most teenagers – particularly the non-academic – will switch off after about 20 minutes.

    An apprentice, by contrast, learns as he does, and can be expected to retain about 75% of what he was taught. Not only that, but he’s actually being paid for his work, albeit not much.

    And this nonsense I hear about a university degree paying dividends later on…. As a post-grad, I’m still earning below the median salary, with debt almost in the 6 digit figures. Bottom line is if I didn’t go to university, I’d have a house by now. University may benefit the top 10% of the population who know how to distinguish themselves from the rest; but for the mediocre majority of whom the universities direct their marketing power, it’s a scam best avoiding.

  14. AWOL Geordie says:

    Interesting article. I’ve done both tracks. I left school at 16 doing a 5yr electrical engineering apprenticeship with the Royal Navy. At 26 I went on to study a BSc(Hons) and MSc in STEM fields. I now teach Grade 11/12 Maths and Physics in an International School in Asia.

    My degree-less exRN colleagues all out-earn me and I have difficulty deciding what to advise students finishing grade12 to do. Good article.

  15. Keith Emery says:

    “Why then, do we contend that the gap in the rest of university is caused by institutional sexism?”

    Because I experienced it directly, not just individually but on mass. There was not problem with my enrollment whatsoever until I voiced my opposition to gender quotas in-front of the wrong person.
    Once one considers all of the other inculpatory evidence. There is just no escaping why the engineering lecture theaters were all exactly half empty +- two women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *