FYI: Last week, I got together with a few of my old high school friends. Our educations differ. So do our incomes. As a high school teacher, my salary was the lowest. Andy, a former business school graduate, makes a bit more than me. Joe, a civil engineer, makes more than Andy
Two other friends, Moze and Jeff, don’t have college degrees. But they make more money than we do. Even better, they were never saddled with college debt. Moze drives a Canadian National Railway freight train. Jeff owns a business that sells school supplies.
Regards,
Ted
http://assetbuilder.com/andrew_hallam/is_college_a_waste_of_time_and_money
Comments
2. The wealth disparity in this country is astounding. It's unfortunate that not all - especially our young - have equal educational opportunity.
3. Before anyone doubts the value of colleges and universities they best consider the impact these have had on their own well being. I'm talking about the medical advances and technological breakthroughs so many of our great schools contribute. It's likely you know someone who's undergone a life-saving procedure at one of our medical schools. Cutting-edge stuff.
---
Oh, the article - LOL! Maybe it should be renamed to reflect that it deals with just one aspect of higher learning - increasing one's net worth over a lifetime. I recognize that's always been a big "selling point" for higher education. (I'm all for using whatever it takes to motivate kids to advance their learning.) But from an adult perspective - the college and the experiences it offers are about so much more than making money. Some of the brightest, best educated and happiest people I know live in shoddy homes and have few material possessions. It's the knowledge and learning itself that makes their lives worthwhile. Could give a damn about that other stuff!
Time to go watch today's Pluto fly-by.
Whether it is a waste of money depends on what degree one was able to purchase.
@Ted: I hereby classify this post as "tabloid material", Ted. (You've appointed yourself to be in charge, I've appointed myself as the classifier-in-chief.)
The proliferation of college came about because of:
The Vietnam war - people tried to stay in longer for the deferment.
Public schools didn't prepare students so college tried to do what public schools didn't
Businesses got rid of apprentice programs
Computers go rid of many entry level jobs e.g. jr. accountant, secretary.
This non-disparity lasted a short period of time - after WWII to the peak in 70s.
So, this disparity will most likely get worse.
We keep asking wrong question. Debate should be how should you pay for college degree. A plumber applies for a license to be able to do plumbing. We are doing the same thing by getting a college degree.
First, let me add to the anecdotal replies. I have 3 university level degrees: a mechanical engineering degree, and advance aeodynamic and nuclear engineering degrees. My wife has a microbiology degree. We both believe that these degrees were necessary for the profession that we practiced and the success that we earned.
In our instance, we believe the education was mandatory. I suppose much depends on the seriousness and goals of each student.
Second, let's take a look at the comprehensive National statistics. You guys knew that I would quickly default to a stat measurement. Here is the Link to a graph prepared by the government:
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
This data is clear. Payday wages are substantially higher as the education level increases, and unemployment is greatly reduced. Except for special circumstances, the cumulative data is compelling.
Those special circumstances include a host of diverse factors like IQ, financial resources, discipline, commitment, handicaps, family support, and local environment.
A college education might not be necessary for everyone, but it was for my family.
Best Wishes.
The below link is for a program aired in 2012 regarding problems with China's education system. I found similar connects to the U.S. public school system. From recall, the majority of their system was "rote" learning of facts, etc. IMO, this is not all bad and some forms of "rote" learning/memorizing is needed for some information and formation of thinking.
The largest failure at the time was the ability for "critical thinking". This is also the case, I suspect; for most U.S. public systems.
As parents, we had already decided and knew that this aspect (critical thinking) was going to have be facilitated from the "home front". For the most part, this was not going to be found in many class offerings or methods.
Now, to be clear; there are those classes and some teachers which deal with this area of learning. Still pretty thin pickings at public school for this method.
I also attempt to recall from the China program, that students were "surprised" when doing interviews for the then new NYU school program introduced into China of how much of their "rote" learning did not help. The students were not used to critical thinking; thinking outside of the box.
This is a critical skill, regardless of how advanced a student may choose to travel with their education. Critical thinking will serve them well in many facets of life, period.
Critical thinking has served this house well with investing, too.
Lastly, I do not expect many changes in the public schools systems. Teachers, the ones who really are not suited for their work are impossible to remove from the system. As a parent, one does not even begin to attempt to "raise hell" about anything, or you and your child or children will be on the shit list in the school system till death. A most lovely situation. So, one teaches and supports as much at home as possible, in addition to the "system".
A local school system budget currently uses about 85% of the monies for salaries and benefits for the educators. Some of this short fall for everything else is state education caused from changes in funding; and also the resistance of the teachers union to adjust monetarily to what has become the norm in the private sector regarding wages and benefits. This does not bode well for the future. Those of you with school aged children should plan to become teachers for them, in the home, too. They need your full support for the full public school system adventure.
And no!; I will not debate the value of a teacher and/or their salary. I've done the math for Michigan and have my view. They are well paid for the most part when constructing their wage and hours worked, versus the private sector. I have friends and relatives in both fields.
This PBS program was recently run again on some Michigan stations. But, you should be able to view this online, too. The link first takes you to a 4 minute overview of the program.
PBS-TV, China Education/Poverty
Take care,
Catch
"Learn a Skill and Economic Security will be yours"
Get a College Education and a Diploma (piece of paper) will be yours... you will be Educated (but not Smart)
Figure this one out...
Depending on the degree one is seeking, TB may be right that your skills may not be valued economically if your degree is in, say, anthropology. But who knows: You may actually love anthropology and believe expanding your mind is a worthwhile pursuit in itself. Stranger things have happened.
1. Education is critical in today's knowledge economy. Note that education does not
necessarily equate to college education. It is a life-long process of commitment to learning through all means available to you.
2. Cost of college education has to come down by some kind of democratization. Technology is moving towards it through the Courseras, Udemys, etc. Not perfect, but I foresee a future where the Amazons of education will drive the cost down by offering
more choices for the buyer and more channels for the sellers to come to a more
efficient market to price it appropriately.
3. As it stands today, I think college is still valuable, especially for certain professional degrees like engineering, medicine, law). One can be very successful without college degrees, but one can be very unsuccessful as well. The deviation of returns without college degree is much higher, so that risk-reward ratio still favors getting a college degree. We tend to hear more about only those who succeeded without a college degree, but my sense is that there are disproportionately more who failed without a college degree (failed in the sense of getting much lower income and perspective).
Education also can help prevent drawing wrong conclusions, for example somehow connecting realization of how little one knows to dumbness. Or something.
All of the cost future wrenching is going to be amazing to watch shake out, as it both worsens and improves. Certainly for many, the old models with all of their good and bad (high-caliber education accompanied by the bullshit of elite vetting, self-screening and self-selection, brandname opps and launch, peer networking, all that process, which my family, going back and continuing with my kids, has been able to avail itself of for generations) are surely going to transform mightily if not die outright. Probably a good thing, ultimately. Just under 50k total a year for Augustana and over 60k total a year for say Tufts or Brandeis seems unsustainable, although I would've said the same a decade ago. Finaid notwithstanding.
The merits of higher education varies from student to student based on personal motivation, but I cringe at what I see approaching a disparagement of the educational process.
I wonder if David Snowball has an opinion on the subject of this thread from the perspective of an educator.
College education is the new housing bubble
Builder = college
Lender = Finaid institutions
Location = fields of study with poor job prospects
High risk buyer = student
Contractors/builders = Teachers/administrators (many with tenure and overpaid)
Bundling of mortgage backed securities = Fed Gov't
Default/bondholder = default/taxpayer, when the Fed Gov't forgives the $1T+ in debt.
Unfortunately for the student they can not walk away from student loans. They will be enslaved by their loans for many years.
College Aid Means Higher Tuition
http://www.wsj.com/articles/college-aid-means-higher-tuition-1437345298
I also don't understand how anyone can view ANY learning experience as a waste of money. And I suspect that those trashing college have never attended one and so have little knowledge of it.
To me all education is valuable. That includes not only college, but things like reading MFO, subscribing to the WSJ or NYT, traveling or reading a book. Partake of those opportunities which you choose.
Without education/learning you'd be unable to read and write. We'd still be living in caves without electricity. We wouldn't the have Internet access and would be unable to debate this thread-bare topic.
I saw that and was reminded of this thread. Except for your first and last sentences we speak the same book. Threads like these hang around for more than weeks because people keep throwing the topic out there, round and round.
So anyway it's all BS, except for the little boy with new hands. That's as sweet as it gets!
There are lots of things wrong if you follow the money path, yup, and too many admins and many overpaid top people, yup, but this assertion is nonsense for the dozen private universities I have firsthand or secondhand experience with.
Asking whether college tuition is too high currently is different from asking whether a college education is a waste of time and money. Here's an example illustrating the difference:
cuny.edu/about/alumni-students-faculty/alumni/nobel-laureates.html
Every one of those Nobel Prize winners from CUNY graduated when CUNY was a free university without any tuition whatsoever. Was it a waste of time and taxpayer money educating them? Obviously not.
But I actually agree with Dex that tuition is now way too high at most universities and they are in fact now being run like a business, even at some very prestigious institutions. Too much is being spent on administration, luring marquee professors and students and sports facilities and not enough is being spent on just teaching kids. The average salary for adjunct professors who do most of the actual teaching at even the most famous universities is way too low. Meanwhile, government subsidies for universities have been cut dramatically and the burden of education costs now falls on students and their parents via loans.
@LewisBraham: Lewis- from many other topics and post you are quite aware of which corner I "come from" with respect to sociological issues, so please interpret my remarks from that perspective.
One thing that I've surely learned by this stage of life is that it's rare for any particular position on an issue to be completely right, or completely wrong. Frequently the optimal position (at least as I would see it) is somewhere on the line between the two polar extremes.
With regard to "government subsidies", there is, of course, no such thing. Those "subsidies" are in all cases transfers of income or wealth from one segment of a society to another. By no means is this a bad thing: more often than not it is a necessary and well-intentioned effort to solve an obvious societal need. As governments attempt to deal with these needs, in the beginning it works pretty well because there is a clear overview of the extent of the need, and of the resources available to meet that need.
Unfortunately, as time progresses and these programs evolve and increase in number, it becomes harder and harder to accurately forecast or determine the aggregate effects of all of the various wealth transfers. Additionally, over a long period of time the needs rarely diminish, but unpredictable macro changes to the national economy, changes in the national birth rate, changes in the income scale of various parts of the potential tax base, job losses to competition and technology, and various other economic factors gradually change the nature of the transfer equation. At some point it becomes sufficiently complex and opaque to create genuine concerns about the viability of the entire package. Those concerns then morph into simplified take-no-prisoners articles of political faith, sometimes transitioning to extremist groups such as the "Tea Party".
It's absolutely true that government subsidies for universities have been cut dramatically, but at the same time it's also absolutely true that government expenditures have also increased dramatically. Because of the governmental financial complexities which have evolved in just my lifetime (say roughly from the end of WW2) I'm not sure that anyone or any group can accurately calculate the health (or not) of governmental finances either now or for the future.
This is one of the better articles I've seen on the subject in a while.