Analysis Of Mike Rose: Blue Collar Brilliance

986 Words2 Pages

Mike Rose: Blue-Collar Brilliance On-the-job education greatly surpasses the benefits of a college education for one main reason: practicality. According to Mike Rose in Blue-Collar Brilliance, working-class citizens may meddle through years of college education, force their minds—in a failed effort—to absorb classroom material, and dutifully complete assignments; however, no education can compare to the real-life test of competence associated with an occupation. How can a blue-collar job compete with or overpower a professional university? Rose explains, “though work-related actions become routine with experience, they were learned at some point through observation, trial and error, and, often, physical or verbal assistance from a co-worker …show more content…

He would claim, as with Rosie, that much more potential could shine through them using a liberal arts education. However, the question must still be considered, is it really necessary? Although Ungar is correct to suggest that everyone could benefit from a liberal arts education, I agree with Rose that not everyone needs to. To support this, Murray offers, “the problem begins with the message sent to young people that they should aspire to college no matter what” (pp 239). A job that provides a living while creating enjoyment seems to be the end goal of any career, so what is the difference if the path to that goal does not require years of education? This is the central claim of Rose and Murray—one that I support. Of course, if satisfaction is not present, then Ungar would be fully justified in his effort to encourage seeking higher potential through a liberal arts education. As Addison advocates, community college could allow blue-collar workers to simply start at a level with which they feel comfortable. Community college would also provide a meaningful education—within a reasonable price—through the changes presented by Hacker and …show more content…

It is people like Rosie that would seem to upset Carey. In his mind, a successful, hard-working person should spend their small earnings on a quick for-profit degree to be eligible for an occupation with better pay; however, I see this as a cover story to justify the corrupt purpose for the existence of for-profit colleges. Owners of for-profit institutions are on the lookout for prey such as Rosie. To my disgust, along with Hacker and Dreifus, their marketing technique pounces on blue-collar workers, convincing them to spend their earnings on an excessive tuition. How else would a profit be made? After contributing to the greedy for-profit owners’ fund, the degree obtained could never compensate for the likely debt remaining. In the view of Hacker and Dreifus, a blue-collar worker enrolling in a for-profit institution would result in forfeiting a stable occupation—in which they were successful—and a steady income to obtain a degree that would only benefit the institution owners. How can the following debt possibly be worth the cost of a degree? On that note, I agree with Hacker and Dreifus that a blue-collar worker such as Rosie has no reason to sacrifice a steady income, along with a job that creates satisfaction and happiness, to obtain any sort of degree, let alone the mere piece of paper Carey

Open Document