I was talking to an electrician that was working on my sister's place last year, and he had his grandson with him helping him out. He makes over 100k per year and really wants his grandson to take over after he retires, but the kid wants to go to college and go into IT. He joked saying he was still training his grandson anyway, just in case he ever changes his mind, or needs a backup job.
Cripes! Are you a caveman? Do you want anything to change? Ever? Tradesmen had to figure out how to go from copper pipe to PVC, from tar to shingles, and from cathode ray tubes to coax-cable. I am pretty sure the world will go on.
While I agree that a college degree is not always necessary for gainful employment, that 'social premium' you discuss is likely a bigger deal than you realize. While some say it isn't necessary, you seem to be discounting it as overrated. It is only a 'barrier to enter' if it is required by those posting the job in which case so would be the requirement of citizenship. College degrees are not necessary for certain lines of work, however degrees (even those that are considered lame) offer considerable experience above and beyond the course of study alone. Much the same as an apprenticeship would.
I disagree here. A typical apprenticeship offers hands on real world experience taught by a master tradesman, while the degree very seldom has any real world experience. There is a saying that honestly has some merit to it when it comes to this. "Those who can....Do. Those who can't.....Teach"
In an effort to move this thread back to its original intent (CSX in JoCo), here's an article from this week's Selma News about the perceived impact of social media (i.e., #FirghtForTheFarm) on the JocCo CSC decision. A real shame that a few (already) wealthy folks worked so hard to keep the rest of JoCo in poverty.
I am referring to the general studies that often accommodate a degree. I should have been more clear. While and apprenticeship will focus on one specific field, a college degree often provides a host of areas of study that compliment the major or at least broaden the students perspectives. For example, a parks and recreation degree will also require certain business courses, biology, statistical analysis, and perhaps even theater. Many of these are basic, introductory courses they provide a firm basis in 'other things'. I had to take a communications class and while I could have gone for the predictable Intro to Communications 101, I went for Introduction to Public Speaking. It had nothing to do with my major, but eventually it paid off as my career often requires me to present to peers. This is intrinsic value of a college degree above and beyond the specific course of study. Granted many students choose the easy route with some course where you phone in your participation (looking at you UNC athletics ).
the problem with that is that there are too many useless courses out there to be taken. Example...friend of mine took bowling as an elective course when he went through college and it counted towards a Phys Ed credit. so twice a week the "class" would meet at the bowling and spend an hour bowling....no instruction, no physics behind it, no principles of why this or that happens. They just bowled.
Ha! Yes, and I took racquetball. You know what I learned? 1) How to play racquetball, obviously 2) That my coach / instructor was the men's baseball pitching coach and could not be beaten at racquetball 3) That the final exam was to play the instructor 4) That no one passed the final exam. Ever. 5) That had I not had to choose a physical education class as an elective I would never have learned to enjoy the sport which I continue to play from time to time 6) That there is a lot out there to learn even if it is some lowly little fringe sport Did it factor into my career? Somewhat. I have played racquetball with clients in the past, so same as a golf outing I suppose. When you factor in what those three credits cost me in terms of tuition, was it worth it? Debatable, but probably not. Dang, how did we get so far off topic? Wow.
Oh, I see you're back with your "original intent" to publicly shame Private JoCo landowners again, and blame them for every conceivable "ill" under the sun, like this ridiculous article is still trying to do - even AFTER the whole debacle! I wonder why is that? Also, you keep shaming the owner of "The Farm", when many other private landowners refused to sell which is their right.
Perhaps you should READ the article. Only a few of the landowners were blamed. Some were victims of those blamed landowners directly and the rest of the county are victims of the long term impact. The long term impact was expected by anyone looking at the issue objectively.
Oh, you again - Angry Peaches! I read the article in its entirety, and can understand the intent of it very well, thank you. When are you going to stop blaming and publicly shaming private landowners on this forum? For goodness sakes - CSX and JoCo is yesterday's news, and there was no need for that ridiculous shaming article to have been published after the fact. What's the point of this thread now - just more shaming, blaming, and coveting of your neighbor? Good Lord, have some decency!
Are you talking about "boycotting" the owner of "The Farm" ( country entertainment venue for music and weddings?)
Yes, there was a good reason for bringing it up. It explains why it is going to be harder to get any new companies to look at any major projects in Johnston County in the near future. The extent of the effect will not be known until it is over and until that time the economic development people are explaining that it is not because they are not doing their jobs, but it is due to the way some of the people in Johnston County reacted. I could not care less about The Farm or those few landowners. My children used better venues when they were married and I am not looking to purchase any overpriced land beside the tracks, thank you.
Thou shalt not screw over thy neighbors to benefit thyself lest your neighbors turn away and you receive what you sowed.
