And, Sadly, This Voice Of Reason Will Be Scoffed At...

[Quoner]

Absolutely it does. I'm fortunate enough to be part of a non-union labor force...and I like it that way. I feel I have more opportunities without the politics. That said, even the unionized DXers at other carriers are pretty level headed folks. It's the pilots that throw them under the bus for doing their job properly and the accountants that are dictate policies despite having no knowledge of operational factors that make them/us angry.

I agree with you on the level-headed remark for sure. It's not even close.

I am wondering about the fuel requirements though since there are a few airlines where fuel reserves have become a contract issue. Many guys are allegedly over-fueling to make a point and then promising to scale back and save money when and only when they get their contract gains. The pilots then play it as a PR battle that the airline doesn't want to store enough fuel (when FAR requirements are already in place by the FAA.) Since I never get to peel back the curtain and see anything except the management angle, I'm just wondering what you think about all that.

It's also weird to be hijacking a thread without making a sex joke.

[UNTflyer]

My point of posting this article was this...we are getting to a point where qualified people are being passed over for completely unqualified people just because they have what amounts to a $75,000 piece of paper on the wall. And there is something wrong with that.

It is an emotional subject for me, because I do feel like there are things I've been passed over for because I felt sitting in a room with a bunch of people who were dumber than me benefitted me very little.

And, for the record...I'm trying to get my stuff together to go back to school...but mostly online classes. Not because I want to, because I think the vast majority of college classes are useless, but because I do feel like I will never move up without that certificate of attendance.

Absolutely it does. I'm fortunate enough to be part of a non-union labor force...and I like it that way. I feel I have more opportunities without the politics. That said, even the unionized DXers at other carriers are pretty level headed folks. It's the pilots that throw them under the bus for doing their job properly and the accountants that are dictate policies despite having no knowledge of operational factors that make them/us angry.

I feel ya, dude. I've worked in IT for going on 14 years. I just received my Bachelor's in May. It was shortly after 9/11 when I was having trouble finding work simply because I didn't have a degree, but at the time had 6 years of IT experience.

[meangreendork]

The importance of a degree is really more based upon specific industries as opposed to just a blanket statistic. In one industry, it doesn't matter, in another, it may be all you need to get in, or in another, you'll need a degree and the right connects.

However, in creative fields like advertising, copywriting, design and art direction it's a little different. Generally speaking, the school you got a degree from isn't as important as your book (for art directors/designers/ad or copywriters) or your portfolio (for designers-only). If your work isn't strong, then no one cares what greek you were nor school you came from. No one cares who you work for or what your connections are if you have weak work.

In my case, I've been able to break into interviews I wouldn't normally be allowed to since UNT has such a strong program for design. Some places wouldn't let the average person through the door without a related degree + 2-3 years experience, but I was able to get in because the interviewers know how strong UNT is or because they know someone or that interviewer IS UNT alumni. But again, this is still an isolated thing for a field that's comparatively small and dissimilar in requirements from other fields. And on top of that, you can't really learn the fineries of this profession without formal training.

But if a friend's younger brother or sister asked me if they should go to college, I would probably say they should. It's up to them to stay in or not.

Edited August 22, 2008 by meangreendork

[Eagle1855]

Everyone has their own interview requirements. Personally, if you walk into my office for an interview and you're not wearing a jacket and tie carrying a box of donuts and a bag of Shipley's sausage jalepeno kolaches, you can forget about a 2nd interview.

Fixed to reflect my hiring practices.

[Censored by Laurie]

I work as a metalurgist.

I have a bachelors in History with a Philosophy minor.

I actually agree with yyz (save the shot at my liberal arts education). If you don't think there were idiots in your survey classes who probably had no business setting foot on a college campus than there is a pretty good chance you are that idiot we're referencing. The only way I temper my agreement with Murray is that I felt I got more out of college and developed more as a well-rounded person outside of a true classroom setting...and that technical schools would be unable to provide that same experience.

[Kelly Green]

By the time I got into the 3000 and 4000 level classes, I was mostly surrounded by good, intelligent, thoughtful and hard working people. (COBA… some of you Liberal Arts guys might not understand what I meant by “Hard Working”… JUST KIDDING!) The losers weed themselves out, and those getting their degree are well deserving and have done the work to earn it.

I think that supports one of the points this article is making. Don't waste your time and money going to a university if you aren't going to cut it. Those "losers" should be encouraged to pursue their future careers with the training and type of education that suits them better.

[JayDub]

I am wondering about the fuel requirements though since there are a few airlines where fuel reserves have become a contract issue. Many guys are allegedly over-fueling to make a point and then promising to scale back and save money when and only when they get their contract gains. The pilots then play it as a PR battle that the airline doesn't want to store enough fuel (when FAR requirements are already in place by the FAA.) Since I never get to peel back the curtain and see anything except the management angle, I'm just wondering what you think about all that.

It's also weird to be hijacking a thread without making a sex joke.

Weird indeed...

The problem at a certain airline that operates roughly 300 silver MD-80's in and out of DFW everyday is two-fold.

On the one hand, you have a heavily unionized workforce that is, as far as the industry goes, very senior and incredibly bitter. The bitterness is understandable, as most management/executives at the large legacy airlines are completely out of touch with the frontline employee. On the other side of the coin, you have management that is, as I stated before, allowing accountants to dictate operational policy.

Yes, the FAR minimum fuel supplies are being followed (there is no leeway in these regs.) and on many days, that's all you really need. However, you can't make policies that don't allow for proper planning into certain weather and traffic conditions...and that is what a large amount of the uproar is about.

Some of the issue stems from pilots who have been taking "comfort fuel" for no reason other than to have it on board for years...and they don't like being told that they don't need 2 hours of extra gas when flying to Omaha on a perfectly clear day along the entire route. Dispatchers are essentially being threatened with their jobs when they plan extra fuel for extended holding when weather or traffic management initiatives are anticipated at the arrival time is "not necessary".

Here's how we do it...and how I feel it should be done (and, honestly, how the FARs dictate depending on your interpretation). Dispatcher plans the flight taking into account all factors. If extra fuel was planned (above the FAR requirements and the company-policy standard contingency fuel for that aircraft type/variant), the dispatcher will make a note on the dispatch release explaining the situation that he/she felt required extra fuel. If the pilot gets the release and and does not feel that fuel load is adequate, the captain will call the dispatcher and they will discuss. 99% of the time, this is resolved quickly between the pilot and dispatcher with a change in fuel load or an agreement that the pilot's requested fuel is not necessary. As long as there was a legitimate reason for planning extra fuel, that is the end of story. The company puts their trust in us to plan properly for each individual situation that each individual flight might face.

What needs to happen is a big tone-down of rhetoric. The US Airways and AA Pilot's Unions seem to think that they can win over the general public by advertising that management is trying to make them fly with less. The problem with that old-school union logic is, no one in the general public gives a rat's ass about them. These days, the general public views pilots as whiney and overpaid. It's a misconception, but perception is reality. The quicker the unions shut up with the rhetoric...and the quicker airline management starts running an airline for the long-term and stops with the constant appeasement of the shareholders' short-term interests...the better off everyone in this business will be.

[Guest JohnDenver]

To me, all of the boils down to the most glaring deficiency of all: our system of education. We are truly unique in our education approach, which emphasises broad knowledge over specialized knowledge. Russian schools, for example, begin targeting specializations in their equivalent of junior high. Once you are into high school, you have already completed all of your "generalized" education, and you begin to focus on what you will be doing for the rest of your life. That's why you can have a high school Russian pianist come over to the states and be on par with a graduate level music student. They might not be aware of the finer points of general physics, but they can by God play the hell out of a piano. And, in the final analysis, isn't that's what is important? Shouldn't being good at your job be more important than a bunch of extraneous knowledge aimed at making you more "well-rounded?"

The system is great.. We are flooded with international students wanting to use our system.

The strength is exactly what you point out, it allows a breadth of choices for your education. You chose a degree which you never use, and you were fully aware of that when you were pursuing it.

I took many years of Anthropology, which I don't directly use, however indirectly I use it daily in my world view.

I took many years of English, again, I don't use it daily. However, sitting at a bar with similarly educated folk, I can drop an Enkidu gay wrestling joke.

The last three years of school were focused on Computer science, math and technical writing. Which I use daily.

I don't see a problem with it. I see it as a strength.. I would hate to have been shoved into a social science field as a kid because I wasn't too interested in math. I grew into it though and have a good career.

[TheTastyGreek]

I got my Bachelor's of Science in Physiognomy (Phrenology minor) and I can't tell you how many doors it's opened for me.

I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing right now (specifically, lying naked in bed in a dark room at 2:00 in the afternoon, posting my thoughts on a college sports messageboard while cuddling a stuffed cow) if it weren't for my college education.

[Quoner]

Some of the issue stems from pilots who have been taking "comfort fuel" for no reason other than to have it on board for years...and they don't like being told that they don't need 2 hours of extra gas when flying to Omaha on a perfectly clear day along the entire route. Dispatchers are essentially being threatened with their jobs when they plan extra fuel for extended holding when weather or traffic management initiatives are anticipated at the arrival time is "not necessary".

Here's how we do it...and how I feel it should be done (and, honestly, how the FARs dictate depending on your interpretation). Dispatcher plans the flight taking into account all factors. If extra fuel was planned (above the FAR requirements and the company-policy standard contingency fuel for that aircraft type/variant), the dispatcher will make a note on the dispatch release explaining the situation that he/she felt required extra fuel. If the pilot gets the release and and does not feel that fuel load is adequate, the captain will call the dispatcher and they will discuss. 99% of the time, this is resolved quickly between the pilot and dispatcher with a change in fuel load or an agreement that the pilot's requested fuel is not necessary. As long as there was a legitimate reason for planning extra fuel, that is the end of story. The company puts their trust in us to plan properly for each individual situation that each individual flight might face.

What needs to happen is a big tone-down of rhetoric. The US Airways and AA Pilot's Unions seem to think that they can win over the general public by advertising that management is trying to make them fly with less. The problem with that old-school union logic is, no one in the general public gives a rat's ass about them. These days, the general public views pilots as whiney and overpaid. It's a misconception, but perception is reality. The quicker the unions shut up with the rhetoric...and the quicker airline management starts running an airline for the long-term and stops with the constant appeasement of the shareholders' short-term interests...the better off everyone in this business will be.

I think your plan is what both sides want - but the biggest obstacle to it is a pilot's union that has gone bat shit crazy. Meanwhile, US Airways pilots union is calling every station up and down the east coast seeing who will bite on the rumors that flights don't have enough fuel to make routine trips. Then, when that doesn't work, they just buy ads. Luckily, they never understood the true power of billboards. If they had, the entire aviation industry would already be shut down. It'd be like 9/11 times a billion.

[JayDub]

I think your plan is what both sides want - but the biggest obstacle to it is a pilot's union that has gone bat shit crazy. Meanwhile, US Airways pilots union is calling every station up and down the east coast seeing who will bite on the rumors that flights don't have enough fuel to make routine trips. Then, when that doesn't work, they just buy ads. Luckily, they never understood the true power of billboards. If they had, the entire aviation industry would already be shut down. It'd be like 9/11 times a billion.

If there is anything that could be as bad than airline management like United's Glenn Tilton, who rape and pillage the company at the expense of the employees...it is the idea of allowing pilots to run the company. Pilots are intelligent, skilled people. However, most of them are incapable of seeing the big picture beyond their own aircraft. Which is good...that's the kind of pilot I want. Worry about your domain, not the rest of the operation.

I like how the US Airways dispatchers came back in the media and pretty much made the pilots look like idiots. The AA pilots do a pretty good job of that for themselves.

[meangreendork]

but I think the system works. By the time I got into the 3000 and 4000 level classes, I was mostly surrounded by good, intelligent, thoughtful and hard working people. (COBA… some of you Liberal Arts guys might not understand what I meant by “Hard Working”… JUST KIDDING!) The losers weed themselves out, and those getting their degree are well deserving and have done the work to earn it.

Hahaha, I'll admit, some of the art kids are slack-offs.

But that's why also did the same thing the COBA kids did who bailed before the 3000/4000 level classes. Once you start hitting the classes that have you doing 20-25 hours of homework on top of your regular class load, the lazy kids bail out fast.

Maybe some programs should do what they do in mine - pass a review every year. If you don't, you get another shot to pass it the next year. If you blow that one, then you're out of the program. The CommDesign program cuts 400+ students down to 30-40 with this.

To me, all of the boils down to the most glaring deficiency of all: our system of education. We are truly unique in our education approach, which emphasises broad knowledge over specialized knowledge. Russian schools, for example, begin targeting specializations in their equivalent of junior high. Once you are into high school, you have already completed all of your "generalized" education, and you begin to focus on what you will be doing for the rest of your life.

I don't agree with over-specialization, especially starting at such a young age. Think about it this way - how many bat****crazy parents out there would push their kids into doing something they don't really love to do? Or how many people decide they don't want to stick to what they've been doing with their lives and aim for a second career? An education system that does this will only make the situation worse.

The real problem is teaching to the lowest common denominator (that's mom and dad's fault) and teaching to tests.

Edited August 22, 2008 by meangreendork

[yyz28]

I actually agree with yyz (save the shot at my liberal arts education). If you don't think there were idiots in your survey classes who probably had no business setting foot on a college campus than there is a pretty good chance you are that idiot we're referencing. The only way I temper my agreement with Murray is that I felt I got more out of college and developed more as a well-rounded person outside of a true classroom setting...and that technical schools would be unable to provide that same experience.

The Date, Time and Place shoud be marked... a highway marker should be erected. CBL and YYZ agree on something on this day.

...sorry 'bout the Liberal Arts joke.

[Green Mean]

Well everybody has their own opinion and I feel that everybody is right in some way or another. I started out at community college and took all my BS classes and then transferred to UNT to get my degree in Radio/TV/Film. I graduated last year and I got a job in the IT field and an analyst for a fortune global 500 company. Honestly I think I got that job because I felt that I aced the interview and that I had a college degree. If I had the same interview and did not have a college degree then I really dont think they would have hired me. So I dont think it really matters the type of degree you obtain in college because most people can probably get a good job of some type no matter what it is....however there are exceptions. I feel that KingDL1 is pretty right when that degree means something. For me it took me forever to get that diploma but I stuck to it and in the end it payed off because I achieved something that is generally highly regarded to most people in this world. I feel that these days college is certainly a must because sooo many people go to college and its such a competitive society that people that dont go to college I feel dont have much of a shot in getting into a field unless if a specific field is specialized and or you start way way at the bottom and eventually make your way up the ladder through experience. I think its become to the point where a bachelors is just not good enough. I think the standard these days is really getting your masters because it seems that its easy to get a bachelors. So if that is the case then I just dont think its wise for people to make the decision to drop out or dont to go college and get a degree because competition is getting a lot tougher and they will pretty much always be overlooked. For those people with already a lot of experience and have been doing their field for say 10+ years or so, I think they are already in because they got in at the right time. But from here on forward I think its wiser to go to college and get that degree because you are right its just a peice of paper but that peice of paper takes you far and for the most part it shows that you worked at something and achieved it. But everybody has made some great points and its hard to say if there is a right or wrong answer to any of this.

[untgirl04]

I think there's clearly a bias towards those who have degrees, and I think, historically speaking, it's pretty obvious why. Thirty years ago, college enrollment rates were nowhere near as high as today. Going to college meant something, because it put you in a class of people equivalent to what a Master's Degree means today. You were a select group of people who demonstrated both ambition to attain that higher degree and competence to get through the rigorous college coursework.

Today, the picture is completely different, but the thinking remains the same. The workforce market is flooded with people with, as one poster put it, dumbed-down degrees. While a college degree used to make a job candidate a more or less surefire prospect, nowadays, it really reveals nothing about what type of employee you'll get. But, because classical thinking is "degre = better employee," a non-degreed candiate is automatically lowered a rung, even if they might actually be a better worker. The industry standard has moved, making a bachelor's degree a baseline qualifier rather than a mark of advanced achievement.

The problem I have with all of this is that, unless there is a specific correlation between degree and job (Engineering for an engineer, Accounting for an accountant, Computer Science for an IT worker, et cetera), there is very little knowledge value in a bachelor's degree. My undergraduate degree is a B.A. with a History Major, and it is quite possibly the most maddening excercises in irrelevance I've ever been involved with. I have not used, in my work, a single fact that I "learned" during the coursework. So, I had to go back and get my master's degree to stand out. And, an increasing amount of my peers are doing just that, in a rapidly spiraling game of one-upsmanship that might one day end with a required Doctorate before you can get an entry level job.

One poster said something about experience being the driving factor in all of this. I completely agree. In a world flooded with people with academic knowledge, the value shifts to experiential knowledge, since it is in the minority. Used to be that it was the other way around.

To me, all of the boils down to the most glaring deficiency of all: our system of education. We are truly unique in our education approach, which emphasises broad knowledge over specialized knowledge. Russian schools, for example, begin targeting specializations in their equivalent of junior high. Once you are into high school, you have already completed all of your "generalized" education, and you begin to focus on what you will be doing for the rest of your life. That's why you can have a high school Russian pianist come over to the states and be on par with a graduate level music student. They might not be aware of the finer points of general physics, but they can by God play the hell out of a piano. And, in the final analysis, isn't that's what is important? Shouldn't being good at your job be more important than a bunch of extraneous knowledge aimed at making you more "well-rounded?"

Degrees can still mean something, but, to keep pace with the rest of the world, generalization MUST stop at high school. If I am going to college to study history, I should be studying history. If I am going to study sociology, that's what I should be taking. I shouldn't be spending HALF of my college hours learning things that have nothing to do with my job.

The poster who said that students need to keep an eye on the destination, not the road, is right on the money. Until we realize that, and conform our education to furthering that idea, you're going to continue raising a generation of students with a broad, but EXTREMELY shallow knowledge base.

While I see your side of the argument, allow me to make a counterpoint. You are absolutely right that the United States is unique in our approach to education. However, I think that this is what makes us more successful. True, we may not have the concetrated studies of the Russian pianist who can play the piano better than any American. But ask that Russian pianist anything about his country's literature, or maybe even a basic principle of business, and he's completely lost. The problem is that he's in his own little musical silo and has no clue about the vast array of knowledge outside. So when that Russian pianist develops arthritis at the age of 30 and has no real love nor talent for teaching, what is he to do?

The broad studies required in the United States give us the ability to change our focus at any point. Others have complained about useless knowledge in their studies. Believe me, I had my share of what I felt were pointless classes. However, studies have shown that different subjects stimulate different parts of the brain and require different methods of thinking. For instance, literature stimulates a lot of abstract and analytical thinking, while business and science are much more pragmatic (on a general level). The advantage to this kind of education is that whenever you are thrown into a difficult situation at work, you have multiple ways of approaching a problem. This developed ingenuity is one of the things that puts American workers on a different level from the rest of the world. While we may not be as highly trained or specialized in one area, encounter a problem and everyone is looking to the Americans to figure it out. In the 'Land of Opportunity' is it really fair to ask a 15-16 year-old to decide his or her fate for the rest of his or her life?

American universities overall are considered the best in the world. If our higher education system is so bad, why is it that everyone is sending their students over here to learn?

[FirefightnRick]

Could it be there are too many high school students going to college simply because so few people want to actually go to work these days? Anyone here raised on a farm or ranch? Ever tie steel on a road or foundation crew, or work on a dock or deliver supplies for a living? Ever mow yards, haul hay or roof houses for a living? Ever frame/AC/HVAC, plumb or wire a house, pour concrete or line fences? Seems to me that if you ever did any of the above and so many other countless laborous jobs and were offered the opportunity to go to college for a chance at something better, if that simply meant to "Learn" how to go into business for yourself doing those same things "YOUR WAY", you would then jump on it.

I see both sides of this, and have seen it myself and within my own family and realize College isn't for everyone. Anyone remember the 10 plus point unemployment percentage Texas was in back in '91? My college counselor told me to go back to school for a grad degree after I graduated because it was one of the worst times to be degreed and unemployed in Texas since the '72 OPEC crisis. I walked on December 15th, 1990. Three weeks later close to 40,000 people in the DFW metroplex lost their jobs. I interviewed nearly 5 times a week and alway's seemed to be the least experienced compared to the other candidates in the waiting room. A couple of times the employers were very upfront and honest, telling me I was way under experienced, which I was. Others told me I was "over qualified" for the job and that they knew I would leave for something better as soon as I got the chance, so "No Thanks". Because of that, I started to NOT list my degree just to see if it would get me in the door, and I recieved a couple of offers but nothing I really wanted. Most other offers were out of state and I was determined to stay near home. I started to question why in hell I spent that time and money getting my degree. After all, I have one uncle who never degreed and started simply handling baggage in Lubbock for Southwest Airlines. He parlayed that into a V.P. position under Herb and retired by the time he was in his early 50's. He now lives in a massive house in the Florida Key's, and SWA has now offered him more money to come back? My brother, 40 hours from finishing a degree from Tarleton State, started delivering Potato Chips for Frito Lay. Come to find out, he had a unique talent for sniffing out stolen money other deliverers were stealing from the company and moved on up the ladder. 6 years later Tropicana/Gatorade hired him out from under Frito and now he has a staff of 30 working under him in their Atlanta distributorship earning a very nice living and I'm very proud of him. However, he's hit their ceiling and is currently trying to finish his degree with the U. of Phoenix because he has been told to get it or he can't be considered for the next Job. He would agree with Jay Dub on all of this.

For me, after working countless jobs I hit the lottery in regards to getting to do what I always WANTED to do. And that is the most important to me and I realize that not everyone in this world gets that opportunity. Even though I didn't have to have my degree to get my job, what I learned and went through in getting it gave me the insurance I needed to pursue what I dreamed of always wanting to do. Also, what I love about my choice in attending North Texas is that my EIP pay(Educational Incentive Pay), will have paid me back every dime I spent on my degree in about another 4 years. Also, I was able to pay my student loans off in a year or so. I love it when TCU grads on my job start ribbing me about North Texas. They spent how many more times than I did just to get to work right beside me? Whenever the "TCU is better than North Texas" garbbage starts up from them I simply ask: "I haven't paid a student loan payment in over 16 years, how quick did you pay yours off"? Wipes the smart ass smile right off their face, every time.

Anyhow, good discussion all around.

Rick

Edited August 23, 2008 by FirefightnRick