That's my problem with academia and university culture. They don't show how their degree can translate to real jobs. So they graduate only to find out they're only qualified to work in universities as a researcher! For example, in biology you only have two options outside of research: law or medicine.
That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold, but it might be inconsistent with the idea that a university education should be for everyone. (I don't think it can ever be for everyone.)
I think there should be special schools for people who just want a job. Most of what you learn at a university isn't particularly important for anything you do in the industry anyway. At least in CS it's like that, I can't speak for other fields.
The problem is that a university degree has more prestige that a technical school. So employers use it as a measure of the ability of the people they are hiring, and then complain that their new hires don't have enough practical skills. So the technical schools become universities and start offering degrees in tourism, IT management, and financial planning.
That's a remarkably blinkered view of the world and I can probably call about about 200 examples where this is incorrect, especially today when biologist could mean someone with expertise in Bayesian analysis.
To be fair, there are also private research foundations and private sector companies -- i.e., drug or medical device companies that also hire biologists. You can also pivot somewhat easily into public health and work for e.g., the Department of Health. And if all else fails, teach high school or lower biology.
"And if all else fails, teach high school or lower biology."
With yet more years in education to get your teacher certificate, while your student debt accrues interest and grows, and which you will have to pay down in a career whose income potential has quite likely already peaked and is quite likely headed down over the next 20 years while you are competing for salary against people who don't need to pay down anywhere near as much debt and with additional qualifications that the schools don't care about at all.
In the US, PhD students in biology are paid tuition plus salary. So assuming his undergraduate student loans were subsidized, a PhD who decided to teach high school would not be in a much different financial position than a recently graduated Science B.Ed.
Not to mention that there are magnet high schools that do very much like the perceived prestige of having PhD level instructors. Your typical public high school wouldn't care, of course.
Not to mention that there are magnet high schools that do very much like the perceived prestige of having PhD level instructors. Your typical public high school wouldn't care, of course.
That's not true everywhere. Where I live, there's nearly unlimited public school choice and school districts must reimburse each other at a state-mandated rate for transferred students. Especially in poorer districts, this rate is generally higher than the per-student funding the schools receive for in-district students. (I've heard it's up to $1500/year more.) Individual schools that can recruit students by offering specialized programs (languages, music, science, etc.) can increase their funding quite a bit.
I assume the rationale is that it's the student's fault if he chooses a major (e.g., sociology) that doesn't cover interest afterwards.
Well, if you say so? Of course, it grossly oversimplifies reality. Job markets are complex; lack of success cannot always be traced back to bad choices. Also, you could level a very similar objection against health insurance. Personally, I'm not comfortable with that kind of senseless cut-throat capitalism.
In the EU, I assume the OP was alluding to the fact that everyone else is forced to pay (most of) your college costs. Therefore, you owe very little debt upon graduation. Private gains, socialized losses.
