Forbes Article on Regional Pilot Pay vs McDonalds Pay

TwoTwoLeft said:
That was one thing great about aviation, you could have a degree in pretty much anything and you could get hired! You didn't have to put all your eggs in one basket like so many other industrial technology jobs out there.
Click to expand...


Don't really see that - the curriculum for almost every technology degree is mostly the same. Jobs are generally pretty specialized, and you don't get that experience in school, you get it by working in that field for many years.

My friends from school majored in Physics, Mathematics, Engineering, CS -- none of them have had any trouble pursuing careers in technical fields unrelated to their degrees. But you don't just walk out of school with an EE degree and start doing cutting edge work, it just opens the door to understand what is out there.
 
Dugie8 said:
Whoa whoa. Having a degree and PFT/PFJing aren't even in the same ballpark Jules. Thinning the herd, yes. That's just lazy HR stuff, ain't nothing ever going to change that. No one's resume is ever going to be so "Kung Fu Panda Awesome" without a degree that a HR drone is going to look at it, proclaim multiple orgrasms and run right up the stairs to the boss and demand hiring practices be changed.

The game has rules, play within them or don't or start your own airline and change the rules.
Click to expand...

Didn't say you had top agree with my opnion. And no one said I don't play, or plan on not playing by the rules. I plan on finishing mine as soon as money allows. Kids put the kabosh on a lot of plans. Mine is just going to take a little longer than most.
 
mshunter said:
This is what I'm trying to get at. It's a metric used to "thin the herd." IMO, it's not that far off from PFT/PFJ, as necessary as it may be.
Click to expand...

Well, use the degree requirement for some airlines as your own discriminator of companies you don't think match your philosophy and that you don't want to work for.

I wouldn't want to work for a company that saw employees as a profit center (PFJ/PFT) and that was part of my selection criteria when I was a CFI.
 
mshunter said:
What I'm getting at is ask yourself this question. if all of the sudden there is a 10% rise in people getting a degree, there is 10% more people who are "better employees?"
Click to expand...


Unless something has systematically changed in higher education, there absolutely are 10% more people in a group that is statistically likelier to be better employees.

If you want to discuss what having a degree really means or whether the quality of higher education has changed in the last two decades, we absolutely can.
 
desertdog71 said:
No. I gave you the origin of why college degrees became important.

You made it about something else.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


I'm not sure you're really understanding Wilson's speech. I'm trying to find a copy of it, but the only reference to it I can find is from a Post-Gazette article that makes it sound like Wilson was totally opposed to a good-old-boy culture of exclusiveness in higher education. Whether he was right or wrong a century ago has little bearing on modern higher education.
 
zmiller4 said:
I'm not sure you're really understanding Wilson's speech. I'm trying to find a copy of it, but the only reference to it I can find is from a Post-Gazette article that makes it sound like Wilson was totally opposed to a good-old-boy culture of exclusiveness in higher education. Whether he was right or wrong a century ago has little bearing on modern higher education.
Click to expand...
I'll read it in a little while. I've never seen it referenced before.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Don't really see that - the curriculum for almost every technology degree is mostly the same. Jobs are generally pretty specialized, and you don't get that experience in school, you get it by working in that field for many years.

My friends from school majored in Physics, Mathematics, Engineering, CS -- none of them have had any trouble pursuing careers in technical fields unrelated to their degrees. But you don't just walk out of school with an EE degree and start doing cutting edge work, it just opens the door to understand what is out there.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about people I know who graduated with me about 10 years ago when these "specialized degrees" were in full swing. The idea was with these degrees you could get hired directly into lower management. All the lower division courses are pretty much the same but the upper division is where the focus narrows to your particular field. Aside from the Aviation group, most who I know are either stuck in fields they hate, dead ended or vanished. They could always change companies, but they were always stuck doing the same job. A few are choosing to now go back to school. Now those with general engineering, physics, CS and GIS they are doing great. They weren't tied down to a particular field and had more freedom when things got bad.
 
zmiller4 said:
I'm not sure you're really understanding Wilson's speech. I'm trying to find a copy of it, but the only reference to it I can find is from a Post-Gazette article that makes it sound like Wilson was totally opposed to a good-old-boy culture of exclusiveness in higher education. Whether he was right or wrong a century ago has little bearing on modern higher education.
Click to expand...
I have a full text of this speech at home.

While Wilson indeed wanted to expand the availability of higher education he also saw the self educated as a threat. In expanding availability the "men of the institution" retain control of the curriculum which leads to the indoctrination part. Let's not forget that Wilson was a politician as well as elitist that felt these same "men of the institution" should be in control of the levers of power.

Self made industrialists and self educated men were the enemy in those days. Although in the end he was bought off like those before and after him. See Federal Reserve Act.

He even tried to give our sovereignty up to the League of Nations (more central control).

Anyways. I doubt anyone but WacoFan will agree with one word of it.

zmiller4 much respect to you for at least taking a look. I don't care if you agree but you at least were willing to look into it and I appreciate that.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
desertdog71 said:
He even tried to give our sovereignty up to the League of Nations (more central control).
Click to expand...


That isn't remotely accurate. The League of Nations was Wilson's idea, as much as anyone else, with the goal of preventing the defensive alliances in Europe that led to WW I, and it was Wilson that got it included in the Treaty of Versailles. The Republican opposition had more to do Henry Cabot Lodge not liking Wilson personally, and also not wanting the US to be that closely involved with European treaties and politics.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
That isn't remotely accurate. The League of Nations was Wilson's idea, as much as anyone else, with the goal of preventing the defensive alliances in Europe that led to WW I, and it was Wilson that got it included in the Treaty of Versailles. The Republican opposition had more to do Henry Cabot Lodge not liking Wilson personally, and also not wanting the US to be that closely involved with European treaties and politics.
Click to expand...

Where'd you learn that, COLLEGE? :)

Wait, aren't you an Academy grad or something?
 
desertdog71 said:
I have a full text of this speech at home.

While Wilson indeed wanted to expand the availability of higher education he also saw the self educated as a threat. In expanding availability the "men of the institution" retain control of the curriculum which leads to the indoctrination part. Let's not forget that Wilson was a politician as well as elitist that felt these same "men of the institution" should be in control of the levers of power.

Self made industrialists and self educated men were the enemy in those days. Although in the end he was bought off like those before and after him. See Federal Reserve Act.

He even tried to give our sovereignty up to the League of Nations (more central control).

Anyways. I doubt anyone but WacoFan will agree with one word of it.

zmiller4 much respect to you for at least taking a look. I don't care if you agree but you at least were willing to look into it and I appreciate that.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

I find Wilson repugnant. League of Nations and it's offspring the UN are repugnant. Federal Reserve, in its present form, is repugnant. The only good Wilson did while in office was have a stroke.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
That isn't remotely accurate. The League of Nations was Wilson's idea, as much as anyone else, with the goal of preventing the defensive alliances in Europe that led to WW I, and it was Wilson that got it included in the Treaty of Versailles. The Republican opposition had more to do Henry Cabot Lodge not liking Wilson personally, and also not wanting the US to be that closely involved with European treaties and politics.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the "giving up sovereignty" line was too much (although I'm not certain it was) but the League of Nations, the UN, and the Treaty of Versailles have been shown to be colossal failures in my view.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
That isn't remotely accurate. The League of Nations was Wilson's idea, as much as anyone else, with the goal of preventing the defensive alliances in Europe that led to WW I, and it was Wilson that got it included in the Treaty of Versailles. The Republican opposition had more to do Henry Cabot Lodge not liking Wilson personally, and also not wanting the US to be that closely involved with European treaties and politics.
Click to expand...
Giving the League of Nations power to force the U.S. into a war sounds like giving away our sovereignty to me. Perhaps you have a different definition.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
WacoFan said:
I find Wilson repugnant. League of Nations and it's offspring the UN are repugnant. Federal Reserve, in its present form, is repugnant. T
Click to expand...


The League of Nations was a generally powerless body - you would probably prefer it to the UN now... Of course, NATO and the Warsaw Pact did pretty much prove that the concept of both organizations was entirely moot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top