socaliganbear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Ursa and WIAF:

Great input and comments for SFCITY, but I am going to assume that by TRADES, SFCITY did NOT mean drivers, baristas, construction labor, assembly line manufacturing and McDonald's employees. I'm pretty sure that he was referring to Plumbers, Electricians, Arborists and others with professional associations. Contrary to popular belief (but in agreement with most AI studies), these jobs are in high demand and will likely NOT be replaced by AI in the next 100 years. Manufacturing, many areas of medicine, driving, baristas ARE all very likely to be replaced by semi-intelligent robots. But most of the trades that require professional training, fine motor skills and onsite analysis will not.

To SFCITY: These trades are a great opportunity for young people and many do not require a 4-year degree. However, many people with university sheepskin DO go into these fields. Why? Better money, work conditions and an opportunity to be your own boss. Now the universities and the guidance counselors may not want people to know that, but that is part of their racket. My children all went to Campolindo high school in Moraga. All they ever heard from counselors and soccer moms is that if you don't get a college degree, you are worthless ****e.

I own a 'TRADE' business. My employees are skilled specialists that can make $40-$60K at age 18. More experienced employees make six figures. My General Manager will probably make $250K per year at age 30. My son will probably buy my business from me and be worth about $5 Million at age 35. That's pretty good compared to high paying tech jobs. If you want to learn about academic issues, I suggest going to college. If you want to make money, learn about business, buy a house and become financially secure, I recommend at least a technical degree OR a TRADE.

Anyway, the TRADEs are still out there and there are many trade schools supporting them. To SFCITY"s point, at least at the High School level, most students are being directed to 4-year colleges without regard to their desires or aptitude. While I don't agree that it is a liberal plot to control lives, it is a shame.

---

. . .

But your statement that if you want to learn about academics, go to college, if you want to make money, learn a trade is just not statistically sound. Statistically college degrees increase earning potential that more than pays for the degree and opportunity cost. That probably won't be true in the individual case of your son, who I assume does not have much worry about job security and gets the benefit of your knowledge and the value you have built in a business (my guess is a college education would not have a good ROI for him at all). But for most people it is true

---

OTB - you caught me doing something I generally despise! That is distilling a complex situation into a neat dichotomous soundbite. You are right! My intent was to differentiate non-degree employment and remind others that the TRADEs do offer rewards that many incorrectly assume are not there. There is a difference between a barista and plumber. Similarly between a truck driver and an arborist.

College offers may things that any job does not. Personally, I enjoyed the unique opportunity in today's world to be on my own, without too many economic pressures to produce and be in learning mode. FWIW, my son DID go to Cal Poly, enjoyed his time there, but hated the companies he worked at afterwards. Half my TRADE employees have degrees. Those that didn't go to college have technical training. My other business is 100% college degree types. However, I'll stand by my attempted point that not all non-degree employment options are the same, and the social pressure to attend college is just silly and not supported by the statistics you mention (which apply to the entire economy,not individuals).

---

one of the great professions is carpentry. one of my best friends never went to college, and went into carpentry. his skill amazes me, and he has had a long and successful career. his skills are very transferable to just about any place in the country, and can leave in big cities or small towns and make a living. He could also go out on his own as a contractor/developer. lots of flexibility and income.

I agree that we should have more trade schools. I agree that JCs fulfill some of that, but should be expanded in that area.

One thing however about carpentry. He got started in a special program, but he said had he not it is extremely difficult to get into the carpentry field unless you know someone.

---

I just had a smoke break convo with an elevator mechanic here in NYC that said the same thing. Great pay, hard as **** to get into. Says jobs mostly stay within families.

---

part of what we do is construction and the trades generally are either family businesses or guys who have broken away from family businesses. I really don't see learning construction trades in college, other than maybe electricians, since they are now computer jocks.

The comments about it being hard to enter the trades (I had a client who was African American and did an apprenticeship program in welding, but was told by a number of union members that welding wasn't a profession for black people and gave up after a while) illustrates one of the points here. Yes, we need more options for individuals who don't want to or can't manage college. But the opportunities are limited and won't accommodate the numbers who are likely to be unemployed in the coming decades.

By "trades," I was referring to those occupations requiring skilled manual labor, usually mechanical, or electrical. These are also referred to as "crafts." As a professional engineer myself, I have produced designs which have been fabricated or built by carpenters, plumbers, electricians, drywall installers, welders, steamfitters, instrument technicians, sheet metal workers, painters, and so on. These are occupations that need to be done on site, not in one location, like a factory, and often at different sites in a week, and as such are not likely to be replaced by robots.

When I was a child, San Francisco public elementary schools all had a wood shop with a teacher, or if they didn't, then they were required to send their male students to a school which did have such a shop, for training in basic carpentry and woodworking skills. When I graduated and went to a junior high school (now called middle school), the junior high school also had a wood shop, and in addition had a sheet metal shop and a print shop, where boys could be taught how to fabricate using sheet metal, and how to set type and run printing presses. Today, printing has become much more automated, virtually eliminating that occupation, but the need in society for carpenters and sheet metal workers remains. Most of our high schools at the time had shops like and auto shop or an electronics lab.

My father also had training in carpentry and woodworking as a child in elementary school. Some of the furniture he made, I still have and display. He went on to attend Cal in the 1930s and study architecture. Frank Lloyd Wright was a big influence on Bay Area architecture, and he believed that the architect should not only design the building, but also the furniture that would go into the building. My dad's woodshop training held him in good stead, because when he was a struggling young draftsman working to get the experience to get his Architect's license, he used to leave home at night, and head over to a carpenter's workshop, where they fabricated pieces of modern furniture. Over two hundred of my dad's coffee tables were sold by Gumps in San Francisco. He always said that architects who had a background in carpentry made the best designers, because they knew how to put two pieces of wood together. My dad's drawings, notes, and files are now a part of the Archives of Cal's College of Environmental Design, where students study them and work on their theses based on his work. A final note: My dad used to hire Cal graduates when he could, but he found them to be to theoretical and impractical. He much preferred hiring Cal Poly graduates because they already knew how to make a working drawing without any instruction. Cal grads from say 1950-1995 at least, had to be given lots of training in order to produce a design that carpenters could build. As a small business, my dad could not afford the time to train them.

I followed a similar path. As my dad was pretty busy, he had no time to repair anything around the home. My mom had her own toolbox, but when I became old enough, I repaired everything for them. Radios, washing machines, clocks, their automobile, power tools, a refrigerator, chairs, and tables. I had the woodshop training in school, so I learned the carpentry skills. After Cal, I joined the Cal staff at the Richmond Field Station, where I did research and advised students. A maintenance man there taught me to steamfit, to do plumbing, arc welding, oxyacetylene welding and cutting. I spent my career as an engineer, first mechanical, then civil, followed by electrical. In all those fields, I always felt I was a better engineer than I would have been if I hadn't had all that training in the trades.

Finally, I'd like to add a word about whether any of these trades are disappearing. I think demand is increasing, actually. As I wrote elsewhere, I used to do all the work on my parents' home and now on my home. When I got to old to be climbing on the roof or going into crawl spaces, I hired illegal aliens, because I could not afford professionals. I taught them how to use tools of all kinds. Now they have gone on to get steady six-day-a week jobs, and I they are more skilled than I ever was at this work. I need all sorts of work done on my home now, but I can't find workers. Try and find a carpenter, even a handyman, and they tell you to wait six months. Many seniors need work on their homes. I would add arborists to this. I have big trees, and I have to wait months for an arborist to do some pruning, and the prices are many thousands of dollars. I need landscaping work, not just "mow, blow, and go", but people who know trees, shrubs and plants and can do pruning and pull weeds. So far I can find no one. There are no more illegals on streetcorners looking for work. In this town, they already all have good jobs.

I think it is likely that the need for skilled craftsmen (and women) is growing, but it is still a drop in the bucket compared with the overall workforce and employment projections for the future.

BTW, I want to echo a comment earlier in this thread that it definitely wouldn't be on the WeAreSC board! I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this sort of thing here.

SFCityBear said:

---

By "trades," I was referring to those occupations requiring skilled manual labor, usually mechanical, or electrical. These are also referred to as "crafts." As a professional engineer myself, I have produced designs which have been fabricated or built by carpenters, plumbers, electricians, drywall installers, welders, steamfitters, instrument technicians, sheet metal workers, painters, and so on. These are occupations that need to be done on site, not in one location, like a factory, and often at different sites in a week, and as such are not likely to be replaced by robots.

When I was a child, San Francisco public elementary schools all had a wood shop with a teacher, or if they didn't, then they were required to send their male students to a school which did have such a shop, for training in basic carpentry and woodworking skills. When I graduated and went to a junior high school (now called middle school), the junior high school also had a wood shop, and in addition had a sheet metal shop and a print shop, where boys could be taught how to fabricate using sheet metal, and how to set type and run printing presses. Today, printing has become much more automated, virtually eliminating that occupation, but the need in society for carpenters and sheet metal workers remains. Most of our high schools at the time had shops like and auto shop or an electronics lab.

My father also had training in carpentry and woodworking as a child in elementary school. Some of the furniture he made, I still have and display. He went on to attend Cal in the 1930s and study architecture. Frank Lloyd Wright was a big influence on Bay Area architecture, and he believed that the architect should not only design the building, but also the furniture that would go into the building. My dad's woodshop training held him in good stead, because when he was a struggling young draftsman working to get the experience to get his Architect's license, he used to leave home at night, and head over to a carpenter's workshop, where they fabricated pieces of modern furniture. Over two hundred of my dad's coffee tables were sold by Gumps in San Francisco. He always said that architects who had a background in carpentry made the best designers, because they knew how to put two pieces of wood together. My dad's drawings, notes, and files are now a part of the Archives of Cal's College of Environmental Design, where students study them and work on their theses based on his work. A final note: My dad used to hire Cal graduates when he could, but he found them to be to theoretical and impractical. He much preferred hiring Cal Poly graduates because they already knew how to make a working drawing without any instruction. Cal grads from say 1950-1995 at least, had to be given lots of training in order to produce a design that carpenters could build. As a small business, my dad could not afford the time to train them.

I followed a similar path. As my dad was pretty busy, he had no time to repair anything around the home. My mom had her own toolbox, but when I became old enough, I repaired everything for them. Radios, washing machines, clocks, their automobile, power tools, a refrigerator, chairs, and tables. I had the woodshop training in school, so I learned the carpentry skills. After Cal, I joined the Cal staff at the Richmond Field Station, where I did research and advised students. A maintenance man there taught me to steamfit, to do plumbing, arc welding, oxyacetylene welding and cutting. I spent my career as an engineer, first mechanical, then civil, followed by electrical. In all those fields, I always felt I was a better engineer than I would have been if I hadn't had all that training in the trades.

Finally, I'd like to add a word about whether any of these trades are disappearing. I think demand is increasing, actually. As I wrote elsewhere, I used to do all the work on my parents' home and now on my home. When I got to old to be climbing on the roof or going into crawl spaces, I hired illegal aliens, because I could not afford professionals. I taught them how to use tools of all kinds. Now they have gone on to get steady six-day-a week jobs, and I they are more skilled than I ever was at this work. I need all sorts of work done on my home now, but I can't find workers. Try and find a carpenter, even a handyman, and they tell you to wait six months. Many seniors need work on their homes. I would add arborists to this. I have big trees, and I have to wait months for an arborist to do some pruning, and the prices are many thousands of dollars. I need landscaping work, not just "mow, blow, and go", but people who know trees, shrubs and plants and can do pruning and pull weeds. So far I can find no one. There are no more illegals on streetcorners looking for work. In this town, they already all have good jobs.

---

SFCity - If you have not read it yet, you have to get the novel "A Man Called Ove". I mean that sincerely. I hope you would enjoy it.

UrsaMajor said:

---

I think it is likely that the need for skilled craftsmen (and women) is growing, but it is still a drop in the bucket compared with the overall workforce and employment projections for the future.

BTW, I want to echo a comment earlier in this thread that it definitely wouldn't be on the WeAreSC board! I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this sort of thing here.

---

The trades are no drop in the bucket. Here are the just the union workers in the trades:

Electrical Workers, 750,000
Boilermakers, 70,000
Carpenters, 522,000
Sheet Metal Workers, 148,000
Steelworkers, 860,000
Machinists, 646,000
Operating Engineers, 393,000
Firefighters, 271,000
Painters, 127,000
Bridge, Structural Iron Workers, 125,000
Plumbers, 330,000
Bricklayers, Masons, 76,000

Total: 4.3 million jobs

This does not include trades which don't have a union, like millwrights, or non-union trade workers, which are very many. And it does not include manufacturing workers, like Autoworkers, nearly 1,000,000 strong. Autoworkers aren't going anywhere in terms of their jobs becoming obsolete. The Auto industry is more or less fully automated, and they still need people to manage their machines. In fact, even with technology, what historian Will Durant wrote so many years ago is true. "There are two kinds of men. Those who manage machines, and those who manage the men who manage the machines." One small change we can add is there are women who also do those jobs.

In 2016, the most popular job in America was retail sales, 4.6 million workers. So a job in the trades was almost just as popular as a job in retail. Retail jobs are the ones going away (but I expect they will come back or at least still be near the top of the list, when folks figure out that you don't always get what you want by shopping online.) In many cases we need some brick and mortar place to go and see and feel what we are buying. In my case, I also depend on personal relationships when I shop. I am friendly with all the clerks and salespeople in my neighborhood, and they often let me know when there is a bargain coming next week, and so forth.

If you look at the top 10 jobs in America, in terms of popularity, only one, Registered Nurse, requires a college education. If you look at the top 100 most popular jobs in America, only 18 of them require a college education. So most folks get along and live their lives without graduating from college. College is important for many people for different reasons, and we do need better educated citizens, but it is not essential for getting a job which can support you, evidently. I went to college, and I became a professional engineer, mostly involved in construction projects. Quite often, the trade workers who built the plants and buildings I designed made a higher salary than I did. They got more benefits than I did, for sure. And they had more job security than I ever had, that is also for sure. And in the latter stage of my career, they were able to be in far better physical shape by doing a physical job, while I spent most of my day sitting in a chair staring at a computer screen.

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I think it is likely that the need for skilled craftsmen (and women) is growing, but it is still a drop in the bucket compared with the overall workforce and employment projections for the future.

BTW, I want to echo a comment earlier in this thread that it definitely wouldn't be on the WeAreSC board! I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this sort of thing here.

---

The trades are no drop in the bucket. Here are the just the union workers in the trades:

Electrical Workers, 750,000
Boilermakers, 70,000
Carpenters, 522,000
Sheet Metal Workers, 148,000
Steelworkers, 860,000
Machinists, 646,000
Operating Engineers, 393,000
Firefighters, 271,000
Painters, 127,000
Bridge, Structural Iron Workers, 125,000
Plumbers, 330,000
Bricklayers, Masons, 76,000

Total: 4.3 million jobs

This does not include trades which don't have a union, like millwrights, or non-union trade workers, which are very many. And it does not include manufacturing workers, like Autoworkers, nearly 1,000,000 strong. Autoworkers aren't going anywhere in terms of their jobs becoming obsolete. The Auto industry is more or less fully automated, and they still need people to manage their machines. In fact, even with technology, what historian Will Durant wrote so many years ago is true. "There are two kinds of men. Those who manage machines, and those who manage the men who manage the machines." One small change we can add is there are women who also do those jobs.

In 2016, the most popular job in America was retail sales, 4.6 million workers. So a job in the trades was almost just as popular as a job in retail. Retail jobs are the ones going away (but I expect they will come back or at least still be near the top of the list, when folks figure out that you don't always get what you want by shopping online.) In many cases we need some brick and mortar place to go and see and feel what we are buying. In my case, I also depend on personal relationships when I shop. I am friendly with all the clerks and salespeople in my neighborhood, and they often let me know when there is a bargain coming next week, and so forth.

If you look at the top 10 jobs in America, in terms of popularity, only one, Registered Nurse, requires a college education. If you look at the top 100 most popular jobs in America, only 18 of them require a college education. So most folks get along and live their lives without graduating from college. College is important for many people for different reasons, and we do need better educated citizens, but it is not essential for getting a job which can support you, evidently. I went to college, and I became a professional engineer, mostly involved in construction projects. Quite often, the trade workers who built the plants and buildings I designed made a higher salary than I did. They got more benefits than I did, for sure. And they had more job security than I ever had, that is also for sure. And in the latter stage of my career, they were able to be in far better physical shape by doing a physical job, while I spent most of my day sitting in a chair staring at a computer screen.

---

Excellent post! To expand on your points, another highly compensated job that requires no college degree is that of oil refinery operator. The mean salary for the position is $72,000 and the 90th percentile is $98,000. Plus, the benefits are among the best anywhere--excellent pension, healthcare, 401K plans, all heavily subsidized by the company.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Christ rambles. Shows weakness.

---

Disagree. I think she's killing it. She is the best Chancellor I remember us having since my time in the Lair started 30+ years ago.

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion in this thread of online undergrad and graduate programs. For better or worse, it seems to me that is the solution to pushing more students through UC, particular a campus like Berkeley where the ability to grow is limited and costs are high. Not to mention the ability to pump revenues without much additional costs (assuming you simply tape professor lectures that they are giving to some students live).

Attending a purely online university would be a real crimp on the college experience - the things outside the classroom that are more important in the long run (for most people). But it an obvious solution to the numbers issues. Maybe a hybrid model with some online classes and some in person would be attractive.

I know that many schools are already doing this - ASU comes to mind.

tequila4kapp said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Christ rambles. Shows weakness.

---

Disagree. I think she's killing it. She is the best Chancellor I remember us having since my time in the Lair started 30+ years ago.

---

Aaaaahh. I thought CALiforniaALUM was making a religious comment. Thanks for the clarification

BearGoggles said:

---

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion in this thread of online undergrad and graduate programs. For better or worse, it seems to me that is the solution to pushing more students through UC, particular a campus like Berkeley where the ability to grow is limited and costs are high. Not to mention the ability to pump revenues without much additional costs (assuming you simply tape professor lectures that they are giving to some students live).

Attending a purely online university would be a real crimp on the college experience - the things outside the classroom that are more important in the long run (for most people). But it an obvious solution to the numbers issues. Maybe a hybrid model with some online classes and some in person would be attractive.

I know that many schools are already doing this - ASU comes to mind.

---

I was going to go there, but was afraid of getting toooo far off topic. Probably best for an OT thread, but I agree with your points and see it as the future of a large percentage of higher education. I have taken a number of online graduate level courses and IMHO, they are generally superior to anything I took in a class room at Berkeley. Certainly, there are some areas that this may not work as well, but quantum chromodynamics worked very well.

However, I also feel that a large part of current higher education is a racket. And as such, online solutions do not fit in with the revenue model. That is why programs like ASU doing it makes sense. They are not able to compete with Cal and Stanfurd on the graduate level programs. Cal has been doing a lot of online coursework, but I feel they could embrace it more.

OaktownBear said:

---

Honestly, I think we have gotten so wrapped up not wanting to act like we think we are better than others to not acknowledge a straight statistical fact. People with college degrees are a lot more marketable in the job market than those without. They make a lot more money, get treated better, and have more job security. It doesn't mean I think I'm better or that others don't work hard and be commended for it. I'm talking reality. If a kid doesn't really want to go to college, don't go. But you know what? They should know the reality of what they are giving up. And if they don't want to go learn a trade either, you have to wonder if the issue is more motivation than interest. I think what a lot of you are not acknowledging is that the college degree is becoming the new high school diploma. People didn't used to think those were necessary either (and how many of your top 10 jobs really use skills developed in high school?

If someone doesn't want to go to college and wants to learn a trade - great! So if you want to be a plumber, go learn to be a great plumber. It's a great profession to go into. But if you don't learn some skill, you are going to have a tough time in life. That is the straight up truth and I don't see that sugar coating it helps.

---

I have lots of respect for OTB, and am probably about put my mouse in my hard drive (foot in my mouth). But I think the end of these last two paragraphs is a miss. Sugarcoating? I wasn't reading that in any of the comments (nor was that the intent of mine). Other than that, I think most are in agreement about college/skilled specialties and how it relates to the job market. I will add that some of SFCity's anecdotes and OTC's statistics are both very accurate, but may be outdated and don't match up with changes I've seen in the last few years. However, as jobs/careers and trends change, OTB makes one point that I think will hold true for much longer (forever?).

When a college graduate loses their job, they can often displace someone else without a degree. This probably even works for a barista at Starbucks and anyone in retail sales (as long as the graduate is willing to do the job). However, it will never work the other way, when the barista gets canned, I doubt they will be able to displace me.

OK OTB - I'm sure I contradicted myself - fire away!

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Honestly, I think we have gotten so wrapped up not wanting to act like we think we are better than others to not acknowledge a straight statistical fact. People with college degrees are a lot more marketable in the job market than those without. They make a lot more money, get treated better, and have more job security. It doesn't mean I think I'm better or that others don't work hard and be commended for it. I'm talking reality. If a kid doesn't really want to go to college, don't go. But you know what? They should know the reality of what they are giving up. And if they don't want to go learn a trade either, you have to wonder if the issue is more motivation than interest. I think what a lot of you are not acknowledging is that the college degree is becoming the new high school diploma. People didn't used to think those were necessary either (and how many of your top 10 jobs really use skills developed in high school?

If someone doesn't want to go to college and wants to learn a trade - great! So if you want to be a plumber, go learn to be a great plumber. It's a great profession to go into. But if you don't learn some skill, you are going to have a tough time in life. That is the straight up truth and I don't see that sugar coating it helps.

---

I have lots of respect for OTB, and am probably about put my mouse in my hard drive (foot in my mouth). But I think the end of these last two paragraphs is a miss. Sugarcoating? I wasn't reading that in any of the comments (nor was that the intent of mine). Other than that, I think most are in agreement about college/skilled specialties and how it relates to the job market. I will add that some of SFCity's anecdotes and OTC's statistics are both very accurate, but may be outdated and don't match up with changes I've seen in the last few years. However, as jobs/careers and trends change, OTB makes one point that I think will hold true for much longer (forever?).

When a college graduate loses their job, they can often displace someone else without a degree. This probably even works for a barista at Starbucks and anyone in retail sales (as long as the graduate is willing to do the job). However, it will never work the other way, when the barista gets canned, I doubt they will be able to displace me.

OK OTB - I'm sure I contradicted myself - fire away!

---

I am not disagreeing with you at about trades. I agree with you wholeheartedly and with SFCity when he talks about trades. If college isn't your thing, and learning a trade is your thing, go learn a trade. To me that is a higher education of a different sort.

So I guess I will put it this way. Get a higher education whether that be college, trade or other marketable skill. Whether it be at school or on a job.

But I think it IS sugarcoating it to say the top ten jobs are fast food workers and cashiers that make little money, so college isn't necessary. Those jobs are not favorable. Frankly most people do them because it is all they can get.

I'm not questioning the decision of someone who doesn't go to college because they do something like a trade. I'm questioning the kid who doesn't know what they want to do, knows that no one can make them go to school anymore, so they don't go. Only they don't realize work is as much work as school, and fast food worker won't help you in the future.

Frankly, I think that is a lot of kids. I think the "college is not for everyone" advice is bad advice for them. Maybe it isn't for them, but I think it is too easy a give up. Of course a lot of kids won't like school at 18. Schools have controlled their whole lives at that point. But college is different, and if independence or less work is what you are looking for, fast food worker won't be better.

The other issue with anecdotes is it is great that someone retired in 2010 after taking a different path to success. But the job market in 2010 looked a lot different than the one that will exist in 2065, which a hs graduate needs to look at today. They have to be marketable for the next 50 years, not the last.

And frankly, isn't this a lot of the cause of the political climate today. People upset because their coal mining job or manufacturing job they took out of high school has left their towns and they have found that the promise of doing that that for their whole life is not fulfilled? Jobs are moving to urban areas. It is now unlikely you can take a job at the local plant after high school and work there and raise a family in your home town for 50 years the way many in our parents generation did.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Honestly, I think we have gotten so wrapped up not wanting to act like we think we are better than others to not acknowledge a straight statistical fact. People with college degrees are a lot more marketable in the job market than those without. They make a lot more money, get treated better, and have more job security. It doesn't mean I think I'm better or that others don't work hard and be commended for it. I'm talking reality. If a kid doesn't really want to go to college, don't go. But you know what? They should know the reality of what they are giving up. And if they don't want to go learn a trade either, you have to wonder if the issue is more motivation than interest. I think what a lot of you are not acknowledging is that the college degree is becoming the new high school diploma. People didn't used to think those were necessary either (and how many of your top 10 jobs really use skills developed in high school?

If someone doesn't want to go to college and wants to learn a trade - great! So if you want to be a plumber, go learn to be a great plumber. It's a great profession to go into. But if you don't learn some skill, you are going to have a tough time in life. That is the straight up truth and I don't see that sugar coating it helps.

---

I have lots of respect for OTB, and am probably about put my mouse in my hard drive (foot in my mouth). But I think the end of these last two paragraphs is a miss. Sugarcoating? I wasn't reading that in any of the comments (nor was that the intent of mine). Other than that, I think most are in agreement about college/skilled specialties and how it relates to the job market. I will add that some of SFCity's anecdotes and OTC's statistics are both very accurate, but may be outdated and don't match up with changes I've seen in the last few years. However, as jobs/careers and trends change, OTB makes one point that I think will hold true for much longer (forever?).

When a college graduate loses their job, they can often displace someone else without a degree. This probably even works for a barista at Starbucks and anyone in retail sales (as long as the graduate is willing to do the job). However, it will never work the other way, when the barista gets canned, I doubt they will be able to displace me.

OK OTB - I'm sure I contradicted myself - fire away!

---

I am not disagreeing with you at about trades. I agree with you wholeheartedly and with SFCity when he talks about trades. If college isn't your thing, and learning a trade is your thing, go learn a trade. To me that is a higher education of a different sort.

So I guess I will put it this way. Get a higher education whether that be college, trade or other marketable skill. Whether it be at school or on a job.

But I think it IS sugarcoating it to say the top ten jobs are fast food workers and cashiers that make little money, so college isn't necessary. Those jobs are not favorable. Frankly most people do them because it is all they can get.

I'm not questioning the decision of someone who doesn't go to college because they do something like a trade. I'm questioning the kid who doesn't know what they want to do, knows that no one can make them go to school anymore, so they don't go. Only they don't realize work is as much work as school, and fast food worker won't help you in the future.

Frankly, I think that is a lot of kids. I think the "college is not for everyone" advice is bad advice for them. Maybe it isn't for them, but I think it is too easy a give up. Of course a lot of kids won't like school at 18. Schools have controlled their whole lives at that point. But college is different, and if independence or less work is what you are looking for, fast food worker won't be better.

The other issue with anecdotes is it is great that someone retired in 2010 after taking a different path to success. But the job market in 2010 looked a lot different than the one that will exist in 2065, which a hs graduate needs to look at today. They have to be marketable for the next 50 years, not the last.

And frankly, isn't this a lot of the cause of the political climate today. People upset because their coal mining job or manufacturing job they took out of high school has left their towns and they have found that the promise of doing that that for their whole life is not fulfilled? Jobs are moving to urban areas. It is now unlikely you can take a job at the local plant after high school and work there and raise a family in your home town for 50 years the way many in our parents generation did.

---

Frankly, OTB, I think the argument re the top ten jobs don't require college is not sugarcoating, but a thinly-veiled argument against tax dollars going to higher education.

GMP said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Honestly, I think we have gotten so wrapped up not wanting to act like we think we are better than others to not acknowledge a straight statistical fact. People with college degrees are a lot more marketable in the job market than those without. They make a lot more money, get treated better, and have more job security. It doesn't mean I think I'm better or that others don't work hard and be commended for it. I'm talking reality. If a kid doesn't really want to go to college, don't go. But you know what? They should know the reality of what they are giving up. And if they don't want to go learn a trade either, you have to wonder if the issue is more motivation than interest. I think what a lot of you are not acknowledging is that the college degree is becoming the new high school diploma. People didn't used to think those were necessary either (and how many of your top 10 jobs really use skills developed in high school?

If someone doesn't want to go to college and wants to learn a trade - great! So if you want to be a plumber, go learn to be a great plumber. It's a great profession to go into. But if you don't learn some skill, you are going to have a tough time in life. That is the straight up truth and I don't see that sugar coating it helps.

---

I have lots of respect for OTB, and am probably about put my mouse in my hard drive (foot in my mouth). But I think the end of these last two paragraphs is a miss. Sugarcoating? I wasn't reading that in any of the comments (nor was that the intent of mine). Other than that, I think most are in agreement about college/skilled specialties and how it relates to the job market. I will add that some of SFCity's anecdotes and OTC's statistics are both very accurate, but may be outdated and don't match up with changes I've seen in the last few years. However, as jobs/careers and trends change, OTB makes one point that I think will hold true for much longer (forever?).

When a college graduate loses their job, they can often displace someone else without a degree. This probably even works for a barista at Starbucks and anyone in retail sales (as long as the graduate is willing to do the job). However, it will never work the other way, when the barista gets canned, I doubt they will be able to displace me.

OK OTB - I'm sure I contradicted myself - fire away!

---

I am not disagreeing with you at about trades. I agree with you wholeheartedly and with SFCity when he talks about trades. If college isn't your thing, and learning a trade is your thing, go learn a trade. To me that is a higher education of a different sort.

So I guess I will put it this way. Get a higher education whether that be college, trade or other marketable skill. Whether it be at school or on a job.

But I think it IS sugarcoating it to say the top ten jobs are fast food workers and cashiers that make little money, so college isn't necessary. Those jobs are not favorable. Frankly most people do them because it is all they can get.

I'm not questioning the decision of someone who doesn't go to college because they do something like a trade. I'm questioning the kid who doesn't know what they want to do, knows that no one can make them go to school anymore, so they don't go. Only they don't realize work is as much work as school, and fast food worker won't help you in the future.

Frankly, I think that is a lot of kids. I think the "college is not for everyone" advice is bad advice for them. Maybe it isn't for them, but I think it is too easy a give up. Of course a lot of kids won't like school at 18. Schools have controlled their whole lives at that point. But college is different, and if independence or less work is what you are looking for, fast food worker won't be better.

The other issue with anecdotes is it is great that someone retired in 2010 after taking a different path to success. But the job market in 2010 looked a lot different than the one that will exist in 2065, which a hs graduate needs to look at today. They have to be marketable for the next 50 years, not the last.

And frankly, isn't this a lot of the cause of the political climate today. People upset because their coal mining job or manufacturing job they took out of high school has left their towns and they have found that the promise of doing that that for their whole life is not fulfilled? Jobs are moving to urban areas. It is now unlikely you can take a job at the local plant after high school and work there and raise a family in your home town for 50 years the way many in our parents generation did.

---

Frankly, OTB, I think the argument re the top ten jobs don't require college is not sugarcoating, but a thinly-veiled argument against tax dollars going to higher education.

---

Or for the idea that only the rich should be allowed to go to college.

My point about the trades earlier in this thread (I admit, the term "drop in the bucket" was inelegant) is that the trades, even at 4.7 million (SFCity's stat) are still a small portion of the workforce. Currently, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 156 million working Americans and around 7 million out of work and looking. That's 163 million, although given the fact that many people work more than one job, the # of jobs is probably higher. Even using the 163 million statistic, the trades account for less than 3% of the workforce. Are they important? Absolutely. Are they a good place for people without a degree to find well-paying work? Again, absolutely. But on a mass basis, they still only account for a few individuals.

go to trade school to learn coding. in silicon valley you can get a very good job and have a very good career. it's about supply and demand.

but it won't be nearly as rich and rewarding personal journey as going to college (IMHO)

Since a few of you have misunderstood what I meant by writing that UC had a goal of providing an education for all who can afford it, I will explain by way of anecdote again, if you can bear with me.

In my senior year of high school, I really gave little thought to college. I just expected that I would go to Cal, as my father had done before me. I went to an academically elite high school, ranked either #1 or #2 public high school in the country, and kids at the top of the class were applying also to Stanford and Ivy League Schools. Not wanting to feel left out, I applied to MIT and Cal Tech as well as UC. I got accepted to all three. I told my parents, and my dad asked me, "How are you going to pay for MIT or Cal Tech? They were both expensive private institutions. It was the first time, I realized that I was about to go out on my own, leave home, and for the first time, I realized I had to figure out how can I afford to go to college? My father, who made about $6K a year as an architect could not afford to put me through college. And the best education I could get for the money was going to be at Cal.

I had been working all along. I got my first job when I was ten, in a bowling alley. About the same time, my grandmother got run over by a streetcar, and was an invalid, so she used to pay me a dollar plus lunch to bicycle over to her house and water her garden. Over the years I worked in offices doing odd jobs. In high school, I spent one summer on a construction job. So I had always been working, but I never connected work as being necessary to affording college. My dad had told stories of how he worked at Cal as a hasher in fraternities, and worked as manager of the store in the Architecture building, which sold drafting, drawing and painting supplies to students. But still it never dawned on me that I would need to work to be able to afford college. Now, it suddenly dawned on me, that hey, I have to take on this responsibility to afford college, because my parents can only do so much to help.

I looked into scholarships. To show you how few were available, only three students in my class of 300 got scholarships. I was one. I was recommended for the Army Corps of Engineers scholarship, which had some strings attached. I would have to take ARMY ROTC, study only Civil Engineering, work for them every summer, and work for them for 5 years after I got my degree. I wanted to study physics, not civil engineering, with some of America's greatest physicists at Cal. My parents would have liked the scholarship, but they agreed that the most important thing was that I study what I wanted to study, not what the Army wanted. So I turned the scholarship down.

I looked into student loans. There was one source, the Federal Government. I would apply for a loan a few years later, but the government disqualified me, because my father had one good year in business, when he made $40K, and the loans were based on financial need. My dad's big client that year was UC, and they gave him a big project to remodel the old SF State Campus into the new UC Extension Center. The UC contract insisted that my dad had to hire an engineering consultant named Richards. When Mr Richards showed up to their first meeting in a Rolls Royce, my dad knew this was going to be expensive. That $40K my dad made that year all went to Mr. Richards, as well as another $40K that took my father 4 more years to pay him. My father refused to do any more work for UC after that screwing. He remained an old Blue, however, and donated all his files and drawings to UC when he died.

So if I was going to afford college, it would be by working, and with some help from my parents. During the school year, I worked as a hasher in a girls' boarding house for all my meals. I also picked up a lot of odd jobs for little old ladies living in the Berkeley Hills, building stairs, installing windows or doors, or some plumbing and electrical work. In summers I worked for banks, and various other companies. I took most of a year off to work in an aerospace plant. It took me 5-1/2 years to get my degree. My dad had paid about half of my expenses, and after graduating I took a job as an engineer with Douglas Aircraft, and I sent my parents $100 every month out of my paycheck, until their business got back on its feet again.

So when I said the goal of UC was to educate all students who can afford to go, I meant the student needed to take responsibility for figuring out how to afford college and use what ever resources he could come up with to pay his expenses. He needs to take the responsibility of paying for his education, and it is one of the rites of passage. It should not be free. He needs to take the responsibility of studying hard so he can have a chance at a scholarship. If it takes him longer to finish school because he has to work and make the money to pay for it. If he needs to borrow money, then he needs to be responsible and pay the money back after he begins to earn steady income in a better job after college. In any case, the responsibility to pay should fall on the student, to plan and use all the resources at his disposal, and pay back any debt he incurs. It will mature him into an adult very fast, and we won't have the phenomena of kids depending on parents or government, or charity for everything, which for some kids these days continues many years after college.

SFCityBear said:

---

Since a few of you have misunderstood what I meant by writing that UC had a goal of providing an education for all who can afford it, I will explain by way of anecdote again, if you can bear with me.

In my senior year of high school, I really gave little thought to college. I just expected that I would go to Cal, as my father had done before me. I went to an academically elite high school, ranked either #1 or #2 public high school in the country, and kids at the top of the class were applying also to Stanford and Ivy League Schools. Not wanting to feel left out, I applied to MIT and Cal Tech as well as UC. I got accepted to all three. I told my parents, and my dad asked me, "How are you going to pay for MIT or Cal Tech? They were both expensive private institutions. It was the first time, I realized that I was about to go out on my own, leave home, and for the first time, I realized I had to figure out how can I afford to go to college? My father, who made about $6K a year as an architect could not afford to put me through college. And the best education I could get for the money was going to be at Cal.

I had been working all along. I got my first job when I was ten, in a bowling alley. About the same time, my grandmother got run over by a streetcar, and was an invalid, so she used to pay me a dollar plus lunch to bicycle over to her house and water her garden. Over the years I worked in offices doing odd jobs. In high school, I spent one summer on a construction job. So I had always been working, but I never connected work as being necessary to affording college. My dad had told stories of how he worked at Cal as a hasher in fraternities, and worked as manager of the store in the Architecture building, which sold drafting, drawing and painting supplies to students. But still it never dawned on me that I would need to work to be able to afford college. Now, it suddenly dawned on me, that hey, I have to take on this responsibility to afford college, because my parents can only do so much to help.

I looked into scholarships. To show you how few were available, only three students in my class of 300 got scholarships. I was one. I was recommended for the Army Corps of Engineers scholarship, which had some strings attached. I would have to take ARMY ROTC, study only Civil Engineering, work for them every summer, and work for them for 5 years after I got my degree. I wanted to study physics, not civil engineering, with some of America's greatest physicists at Cal. My parents would have liked the scholarship, but they agreed that the most important thing was that I study what I wanted to study, not what the Army wanted. So I turned the scholarship down.

I looked into student loans. There was one source, the Federal Government. I would apply for a loan a few years later, but the government disqualified me, because my father had one good year in business, when he made $40K, and the loans were based on financial need. My dad's big client that year was UC, and they gave him a big project to remodel the old SF State Campus into the new UC Extension Center. The UC contract insisted that my dad had to hire an engineering consultant named Richards. When Mr Richards showed up to their first meeting in a Rolls Royce, my dad knew this was going to be expensive. That $40K my dad made that year all went to Mr. Richards, as well as another $40K that took my father 4 more years to pay him. My father refused to do any more work for UC after that screwing. He remained an old Blue, however, and donated all his files and drawings to UC when he died.

So if I was going to afford college, it would be by working, and with some help from my parents. During the school year, I worked as a hasher in a girls' boarding house for all my meals. I also picked up a lot of odd jobs for little old ladies living in the Berkeley Hills, building stairs, installing windows or doors, or some plumbing and electrical work. In summers I worked for banks, and various other companies. I took most of a year off to work in an aerospace plant. It took me 5-1/2 years to get my degree. My dad had paid about half of my expenses, and after graduating I took a job as an engineer with Douglas Aircraft, and I sent my parents $100 every month out of my paycheck, until their business got back on its feet again.

So when I said the goal of UC was to educate all students who can afford to go, I meant the student needed to take responsibility for figuring out how to afford college and use what ever resources he could come up with to pay his expenses. He needs to take the responsibility of paying for his education, and it is one of the rites of passage. It should not be free. He needs to take the responsibility of studying hard so he can have a chance at a scholarship. If it takes him longer to finish school because he has to work and make the money to pay for it. If he needs to borrow money, then he needs to be responsible and pay the money back after he begins to earn steady income in a better job after college. In any case, the responsibility to pay should fall on the student, to plan and use all the resources at his disposal, and pay back any debt he incurs. It will mature him into an adult very fast, and we won't have the phenomena of kids depending on parents or government, or charity for everything, which for some kids these days continues many years after college.

---

The total cost of attending Cal in 2018, adjusted for inflation, is 5 times the cost of attending Cal in 1960 and double the cost of attending Harvard. What Cal students pay in tuition alone, a cost you did not have, would virtually pay for tuition, room and board and all expenses for a 1960 Harvard student.

Since you could not afford MIT back then, you could not have even paid Cal's tuition if they charged the equivalent of today. Government paid for your tuition, they just did it by not charging you. Not fair to ask students today to do what you could not have done.

OaktownBear said:

---

Since you could not afford MIT back then, you could not have even paid Cal's tuition if they charged the equivalent of today. Government paid for your tuition, they just did it by not charging you. Not fair to ask students today to do what you could not have done.

---

Do Pell grants no longer cover in-state tuition?

This may come as a stunning shock to some, but it is no longer the 1950's. The IN STATE cost of a Cal education is north of $30K per year. There are Pell Grants, but they are shrinking in number, and while they may cover the lowest income students, the middle and lower-middle classes are usually left out. SFCity blithely suggests working and student loans; one of the biggest economic problems now is the crushing debt many have because of loans. Many students graduate owing more than $100,000. While I agree fully that students need to take some responsibility for their education, in our rigid class society these days, some simply cannot without help. I am reminded of that famous Anatole France quote: "The law in it's majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, or steal bread."

Such a disconnect in this thread.

Civil Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Since you could not afford MIT back then, you could not have even paid Cal's tuition if they charged the equivalent of today. Government paid for your tuition, they just did it by not charging you. Not fair to ask students today to do what you could not have done.

---

Do Pell grants no longer cover in-state tuition?

---

Maximum Pell grant = $6095. Berkeley tuition = $14,184.

HoopDreams said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Ursa and WIAF:

Great input and comments for SFCITY, but I am going to assume that by TRADES, SFCITY did NOT mean drivers, baristas, construction labor, assembly line manufacturing and McDonald's employees. I'm pretty sure that he was referring to Plumbers, Electricians, Arborists and others with professional associations. Contrary to popular belief (but in agreement with most AI studies), these jobs are in high demand and will likely NOT be replaced by AI in the next 100 years. Manufacturing, many areas of medicine, driving, baristas ARE all very likely to be replaced by semi-intelligent robots. But most of the trades that require professional training, fine motor skills and onsite analysis will not.

To SFCITY: These trades are a great opportunity for young people and many do not require a 4-year degree. However, many people with university sheepskin DO go into these fields. Why? Better money, work conditions and an opportunity to be your own boss. Now the universities and the guidance counselors may not want people to know that, but that is part of their racket. My children all went to Campolindo high school in Moraga. All they ever heard from counselors and soccer moms is that if you don't get a college degree, you are worthless ****e.

I own a 'TRADE' business. My employees are skilled specialists that can make $40-$60K at age 18. More experienced employees make six figures. My General Manager will probably make $250K per year at age 30. My son will probably buy my business from me and be worth about $5 Million at age 35. That's pretty good compared to high paying tech jobs. If you want to learn about academic issues, I suggest going to college. If you want to make money, learn about business, buy a house and become financially secure, I recommend at least a technical degree OR a TRADE.

Anyway, the TRADEs are still out there and there are many trade schools supporting them. To SFCITY"s point, at least at the High School level, most students are being directed to 4-year colleges without regard to their desires or aptitude. While I don't agree that it is a liberal plot to control lives, it is a shame.

---

. . .

But your statement that if you want to learn about academics, go to college, if you want to make money, learn a trade is just not statistically sound. Statistically college degrees increase earning potential that more than pays for the degree and opportunity cost. That probably won't be true in the individual case of your son, who I assume does not have much worry about job security and gets the benefit of your knowledge and the value you have built in a business (my guess is a college education would not have a good ROI for him at all). But for most people it is true

---

OTB - you caught me doing something I generally despise! That is distilling a complex situation into a neat dichotomous soundbite. You are right! My intent was to differentiate non-degree employment and remind others that the TRADEs do offer rewards that many incorrectly assume are not there. There is a difference between a barista and plumber. Similarly between a truck driver and an arborist.

College offers may things that any job does not. Personally, I enjoyed the unique opportunity in today's world to be on my own, without too many economic pressures to produce and be in learning mode. FWIW, my son DID go to Cal Poly, enjoyed his time there, but hated the companies he worked at afterwards. Half my TRADE employees have degrees. Those that didn't go to college have technical training. My other business is 100% college degree types. However, I'll stand by my attempted point that not all non-degree employment options are the same, and the social pressure to attend college is just silly and not supported by the statistics you mention (which apply to the entire economy,not individuals).

---

one of the great professions is carpentry. one of my best friends never went to college, and went into carpentry. his skill amazes me, and he has had a long and successful career. his skills are very transferable to just about any place in the country, and can leave in big cities or small towns and make a living. He could also go out on his own as a contractor/developer. lots of flexibility and income.

I agree that we should have more trade schools. I agree that JCs fulfill some of that, but should be expanded in that area.

One thing however about carpentry. He got started in a special program, but he said had he not it is extremely difficult to get into the carpentry field unless you know someone.

---

Yep, restricting the labor supply to keep wages high. An acquaintance of mine lasted exactly a week at Cal back in the 1970s, then got a job as a union carpenter. He retired after 30 years partially because he was afraid that the union pension fund wouldn't last long enough for him to get his fair share. But one of the conditions of getting the pension is that he's forbidden from doing carpentry for hire. I will say that he's one of the few carpenters I've seen who has all his finger-tips.

UrsaMajor said:

---

This may come as a stunning shock to some, but it is no longer the 1950's. The IN STATE cost of a Cal education is north of $30K per year. There are Pell Grants, but they are shrinking in number, and while they may cover the lowest income students, the middle and lower-middle classes are usually left out. SFCity blithely suggests working and student loans; one of the biggest economic problems now is the crushing debt many have because of loans. Many students graduate owing more than $100,000. While I agree fully that students need to take some responsibility for their education, in our rigid class society these days, some simply cannot without help. I am reminded of that famous Anatole France quote: "The law in it's majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, or steal bread."

---

I don't see how the students can afford housing anywhere near campus.

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

This may come as a stunning shock to some, but it is no longer the 1950's. The IN STATE cost of a Cal education is north of $30K per year. There are Pell Grants, but they are shrinking in number, and while they may cover the lowest income students, the middle and lower-middle classes are usually left out. SFCity blithely suggests working and student loans; one of the biggest economic problems now is the crushing debt many have because of loans. Many students graduate owing more than $100,000. While I agree fully that students need to take some responsibility for their education, in our rigid class society these days, some simply cannot without help. I am reminded of that famous Anatole France quote: "The law in it's majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, or steal bread."

---

I don't see how the students can afford housing anywhere near campus.

---

Certainly not by while covering your tuition at the same time on a 20 hour a week part time job... this is simply not realistic.

I'm guessing there's a strong cross section of people who still think this is possible with the Bay Area demo that fights housing development at every turn.

OaktownBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Since you could not afford MIT back then, you could not have even paid Cal's tuition if they charged the equivalent of today. Government paid for your tuition, they just did it by not charging you. Not fair to ask students today to do what you could not have done.

---

Do Pell grants no longer cover in-state tuition?

---

Maximum Pell grant = $6095. Berkeley tuition = $14,184.

---

That's a shame.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't see how the students can afford housing anywhere near campus.

---

which is why the university needs more dorms

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't see how the students can afford housing anywhere near campus.

---

which is why the university needs more dorms

---

Uhhhh, usually the dorms are the MOST expensive option. All of my kids were REQUIRED to stay in dorms their freshman year. It was a relief when they were allowed to live off campus. Sure, Berkeley is different, but they have probably trippled housing capacity in the last few decades.

Long way from my freshman experience where I thought I would be homeless until the week before classes started.

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't see how the students can afford housing anywhere near campus.

---

which is why the university needs more dorms

---

Uhhhh, usually the dorms are the MOST expensive option. All of my kids were REQUIRED to stay in dorms their freshman year. It was a relief when they were allowed to live off campus. Sure, Berkeley is different, but they have probably trippled housing capacity in the last few decades.

Long way from my freshman experience where I thought I would be homeless until the week before classes started.

---

I'm afraid the "tripled housing capacity" is at best a myth. Housing is acutely short in Berkeley. There are nearly 200 students who are homeless each semester (sleeping in cars or couch surfing), a few who even sleep in classroom buildings when they can.

Dorms used to be more expensive, but now housing in Berkeley is approaching San Francisco prices, with studios going for $2000/month near campus, and 1, 2,3 bedroom places way higher.

OTB wrote..
> If you have not read it yet, you have to get the novel "A Man Called Ove". I mean that sincerely. I hope you would enjoy it.

dint read the book, sorry, but scored the fine video from the local public library. Ove got 2 oscar noms, including best foreign film.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4080728

wiaf wrote
> I don't see how the students can afford housing anywhere near campus.

you're probably right, but like many decades ago i'm guessing the *relatively* inexpensive (highly recommended) student co-ops are an option.

https://www.bsc.coop

rates
https://www.bsc.coop/index.php/academic-year-rates

per semester, whoops: Room & Board - 3609

UrsaMajor said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't see how the students can afford housing anywhere near campus.

---

which is why the university needs more dorms

---

Uhhhh, usually the dorms are the MOST expensive option. All of my kids were REQUIRED to stay in dorms their freshman year. It was a relief when they were allowed to live off campus. Sure, Berkeley is different, but they have probably trippled housing capacity in the last few decades.

Long way from my freshman experience where I thought I would be homeless until the week before classes started.

---

I'm afraid the "tripled housing capacity" is at best a myth. Housing is acutely short in Berkeley. There are nearly 200 students who are homeless each semester (sleeping in cars or couch surfing), a few who even sleep in classroom buildings when they can.

Dorms used to be more expensive, but now housing in Berkeley is approaching San Francisco prices, with studios going for $2000/month near campus, and 1, 2,3 bedroom places way higher.

---

What I meant is that there are probably TRIPLE the number of dorm beds than there were thirty years ago. I'll admit that is hyperbolic, but there are DEFINITELY MORE dorm beds. Still an acute shortage and maybe it is double, but in the last thirty years, they have in-built the three 'Units', added Clark Kerr and a number of other facilities of many names. In 1983 (OK that was 35 years ago), there were probably closer to a 500 couch surfing FRESHMAN alone that did not sort out housing for weeks. Every freshman I have known at Berkeley that last 10 years has had much easier access.

As for Bay Area rental pricing - Yes - that is a unique monster and another example of how difficult college affordability is. I'm sure the student population has grown as well, so that exacerbates the problem.

Anyway, outside of the Bay Area and NYU, forced freshman dorm costs are a racket. While spending your first year in a dorm definitely has its merits. Requiring it (along with meal plans) at a premium just makes the calculus that much worse for those that are trying to handle college costs on their own.

BeachedBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't see how the students can afford housing anywhere near campus.

---

which is why the university needs more dorms

---

Uhhhh, usually the dorms are the MOST expensive option. All of my kids were REQUIRED to stay in dorms their freshman year. It was a relief when they were allowed to live off campus. Sure, Berkeley is different, but they have probably trippled housing capacity in the last few decades.

Long way from my freshman experience where I thought I would be homeless until the week before classes started.

---

I'm afraid the "tripled housing capacity" is at best a myth. Housing is acutely short in Berkeley. There are nearly 200 students who are homeless each semester (sleeping in cars or couch surfing), a few who even sleep in classroom buildings when they can.

Dorms used to be more expensive, but now housing in Berkeley is approaching San Francisco prices, with studios going for $2000/month near campus, and 1, 2,3 bedroom places way higher.

---

What I meant is that there are probably TRIPLE the number of dorm beds than there were thirty years ago. I'll admit that is hyperbolic, but there are DEFINITELY MORE dorm beds. Still an acute shortage and maybe it is double, but in the last thirty years, they have in-built the three 'Units', added Clark Kerr and a number of other facilities of many names. In 1983 (OK that was 35 years ago), there were probably closer to a 500 couch surfing FRESHMAN alone that did not sort out housing for weeks. Every freshman I have known at Berkeley that last 10 years has had much easier access.

---

I got it. It wasn't clear to me originally. Problem is: in the 70's, there was enough dorm+fraternity/sorority space to house over 50% of undergrads. We now house 22% and less than 9% of graduate students.

smh said:

---

wiaf wrote
> I don't see how the students can afford housing anywhere near campus.

you're probably right, but like many decades ago i'm guessing the *relatively* inexpensive (highly recommended) student co-ops are an option.

https://www.bsc.coop

rates
https://www.bsc.coop/index.php/academic-year-rates

per semester, whoops: Room & Board - 3609

---

Wow - when I lived there in 1974-1976, it was $900/year, so 8x increase. I wonder if they still have that curry dish that we referred to as "Green Death" on the menu. Let's just say you didn't live there for the food . . . some wild parties at Cloyne, though.