I think that everyone in the world is too focused on the nonimportant things. As if the whole point of life is for undeveleoped countries to become developed, not so that they can afford food on their plate, but so they have more spending power, not so that they can have a stable government, but so that there’s hope to democratize them, not because they can become literate and get an education and thus have the opportunity to pursue their dreams, but so that they can go to college. Perhaps this is all a far stretch from what I’ve been thinking about lately, but I’ve always been of the mindset that not everyone should go to college. That it would best serve society if people accepted that some people should be plumbers or electricians, that some people should take year off and live in a foriegn country, to expand their horizons, surely, but to do it in their own individual way.
I think the reason why the U.S. has been successful for so long is because we are a nation of creative-thinking individuals. We are a nation that defined specialization, we are a growing service industry that continues to advance by honing our skills. If education is a lung, it is pertinent that air reaches all the branches of it and that we particuarly focus on the ends of those branches, where the oxygen is delivered to the blood. That means we need some people to study biochemical engineering, others to study auto mechanics. We need both of these individuals to have had a basic education with one another, so that each can understand the other, and then we need them to at some point branch off. But to say that they should both take the same path, that indeed, one path is better than the other, that is a flaw of the system. It is typical in our society to admire the lawyers and doctors, but not the English major or the Sociology major, who is studying a ‘softer’ field (English professors are typically payed less than their science and math counterparts, largely because those professors produce research that earns bigger $$$–do you think that’s fair? Let me know). We discredit the electricians of the world simply because the position doesn’t hold the same prestige, and seems to require less ‘work,’ less ‘brilliance.’
I believe everything I’ve said, yet I often feel like a hypocrite. I’m one of those girls, raised with the expectation that college is the only option. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, except for the only option part. College might be the path I need to take; if I decided to be a carpenter I know I’d have little success. I think the important thing is to have some sort of an education but not have that be limited to college, or, in the close-minded, liberal, upper-echelon of society, to be limited to a ‘good’ college—community or state colleges are a viable, affordable option. The important thing is to keep learning, keep growing, to not limit students who aren’t good at Calculas (ahem, me) but who are good with their hands (ahem, not me) to persue something else. That means if you’re in a band, give it a shot. If you’re a mechanic, ditto. High schools should offer other options besides reading riting and rithmitic because an education isn’t just about grades, it’s about knowledge. And knowledge is learning what you’re passionate about, not something that’s being forced down your throat.
I think you’re overlooking the economic basis for why certain jobs are looked upon more highly than others. They’re looked upon more highly because they pay more. Why do they pay more? Because of the laws of supply and demand: the demand for educated people performing skilled labor is strong, whereas the supply of educated people capable of performing such tasks is limited in our society. Furthermore, certain jobs simply are more important to the economy than others: a plumber is only able to do a certain number of plumbing jobs a day, thus limiting productivity when each plumbing job is only of a certain value to the economy as a whole. On the other hand, a large-scale investor is of great value to the economy, as that large-scale investor is able to make sure that capital is available to those ventures most likely to use those funds productively and profitably.
Thus, it’s a very good thing that, at the moment, skilled-labor jobs pay more, as it encourages more people to become qualified to do those jobs. As the supply and demand of educated labor become more balanced over time, we can expect the differences in job perceptions to decrease. To see this, let us consider a society in which everyone was equally well-qualified to do every job. In such a society, who would be paid the most? The answer would be the person who does the least intrinsically desirable job would be paid the most – why should the garbageman be a garbageman when he can be a teacher, or an artist, unless he’s rewarded for being the garbageman by having a higher salary? And we’re slowly but surely moving towards that ideal situation: more and more people are granted college degrees every year, and lo and behold: the salary of sanitation department workers continues to rise – the annual salary of an employee of the Sanitation Department of New York is $58000.
I read an article in Newsweek the other day entitled “In Defense of Teachers” that detailed a woman whose family looked down on her for choosing to pursue teaching. They prayed it was just a phase, that she would soon move on to some loftier position and that teaching was just some convenient stepping stone to a higher calling. I think it’s absolutely true that money has a lot to do with the prestige of a job, thus why her family supposed teaching was somehow beneath her, especially in light of her expensive college diploma. And after all, shouldn’t jobs that require more investment (i.e. college, graduate school) pay more? Certainly that’s the way it works in the business world, thus why some argue Wall Street deserves their bonuses.
I fully realize the notion of supply and demand, which is why, as you state, in the perfect world where most people get college degrees, the sanitation worker is king. Alternatively this is why, in a perfect world where unemployment is nonexistent, the economy would be unable to function, since competition would dissolve, productivity would decrease, and people would feel secure in their positions—this is why the ideal unemployment rate is about 5%, experts say.
I suppose my post simply meant to throw out the idea that prestige should be associated with money. The teacher of the Newsweek article worked hard, she offered an important good to a society that could not appreciate it. And yet, I’m sure, we are all more sympathetic to teachers than to plumbers. But why? The only jobs I feel that truly deserve low prestige are the jobs of individuals who did not try to advance themselves, who received this job because they never worked hard or did anything productive. Besides, it seems hardly efficient to squander the future plumbing talents of one person simply because his parents or society or whatnot decided that it wasn’t “good enough.” In other words, perhaps the sons of business tycoons shouldn’t be expected to go to their fathers’ alma maters, etc, etc. I see far too many kids who are mediocre high school students planning to go into higher education, despite their affinity for art, for music, for cars. Perhaps it is not an option and is not even a smart option for all of these children to abandon the quest for higher education (god knows the U.S. needs its future scientists and engineers), but for some of them, there should be another option.