Its been 5 years since I graduated college, where I acquired my bachelor's degree.. and I can't help but feel a little pissed off? I look at my loan payments and I am only 2/3 of the way through paying them. With that "golden job" you ask? No! I have some job (working 40 hours a week) that doesn't require any degree and work amongst those that have any college experience.
All throughout my young days I was encouraged to go to college and if I didn't I would be stocking shelves at Wal-Mart over night. I was thinking of getting my Master's degree, but then I realized, what's the point. Should I just cook meth with Walter White and live life on the edge from here on out?
Is college a huge scam? I'm sure people will give me a lecture on how it's my fault that so many degrees and the rhetorical nonsense you learn from school gets you practically nothing, but I'm sure some people are in the same boat as me. I couldn't believe the amount of worthless classes I took in my college days. Intro to Communication? Women in Society? Social Problems?? Please.
A lot of the time I bump into my classmates who followed the same path and that are paying down their debts until they turn 76. I paid the first 2 years out my pocket and I kinda feel like college was just a place I went to deposit my money and never got it back lol
H.S. Degree: $40,000
Bachelor's Degree: $66,000
That's the annual median difference. So, we're really not talking the students that selective colleges draw from.
You make up that $150,000 difference in less than 6 years (assuming no discount rate), and, assuming a steep discount rate of 10% (but a total upfront cost of $150,000), make it up in less than 9 years.
This simple example controls for literally nothing, so it's an over-estimate and under-estimate at the exact same time.
I'm glad I went and I think it was worthwhile. I'm glad my kids went and I think it was worthwhile (jury is still out though). And I think pretty much everyone here would feel the same. But this is a very selective bunch. On the whole I would guess that we're already more natively intelligent, better off economically even before college, and in general more white-collared. To progress to our parents level and beyond, college is essential and worthwhile.
But I think the vast majority of American as not like us. I think their average native intelligence (at least from an academic perspective) is fairly average and I think most Americans are pretty much disinterested in academics for knowledge sake and, I guess to the point of necessity for a degree, not helpful for a future career. IOW, I think that as we have devalued work in general as a society over the past 5 or 6 decades, we have devalued the importance and worth of trades and over-sold college as a necessity. Basically, if you need it, it's worthwhile but IMO most people don't really need it.
In addition, I am interested in kicker's study on private schools (and I forgot to add in my last post...does his conclusion hold true still if you take out the ivies and ivy wannabees and just look at the other privates, where networking may not be as beneficial), but my instincts say that for the vast majority of people who do go to college and for whom it might be beneficial, you are better off at a state school.
Finally, I'll be a curmudgeon and say that the worth, especially at a pricey private school, beyond the classroom, gives value is in my opinion BS or, at the least, oversold. I do believe in the academics and the networking, but the social, maturing, friends for life parts is definitely hoakum, IMO.
That's missing the point of the numbers.
The numbers don't say that you will get benefits from college if you go automatically.
It assumes there is a natural sorting process in place (there is). It's not an absolute. It's a relative return. It's not meant as a draw for the bottom of the barrel in terms of ability, but a draw for the continued marginal students who are deciding where they would be better off, on average.
Oh, and the extra benefits of a private school are not hokum...
It's my qualified, cautious and reserved agreement
Quote:
and not disinclined to disagree with the OP completely.
I'm glad I went and I think it was worthwhile. I'm glad my kids went and I think it was worthwhile (jury is still out though). And I think pretty much everyone here would feel the same. But this is a very selective bunch. On the whole I would guess that we're already more natively intelligent, better off economically even before college, and in general more white-collared. To progress to our parents level and beyond, college is essential and worthwhile.
But I think the vast majority of American as not like us. I think their average native intelligence (at least from an academic perspective) is fairly average and I think most Americans are pretty much disinterested in academics for knowledge sake and, I guess to the point of necessity for a degree, not helpful for a future career. IOW, I think that as we have devalued work in general as a society over the past 5 or 6 decades, we have devalued the importance and worth of trades and over-sold college as a necessity. Basically, if you need it, it's worthwhile but IMO most people don't really need it.
In addition, I am interested in kicker's study on private schools (and I forgot to add in my last post...does his conclusion hold true still if you take out the ivies and ivy wannabees and just look at the other privates, where networking may not be as beneficial), but my instincts say that for the vast majority of people who do go to college and for whom it might be beneficial, you are better off at a state school.
Finally, I'll be a curmudgeon and say that the worth, especially at a pricey private school, beyond the classroom, gives value is in my opinion BS or, at the least, oversold. I do believe in the academics and the networking, but the social, maturing, friends for life parts is definitely hoakum, IMO.
That's missing the point of the numbers.
The numbers don't say that you will get benefits from college if you go automatically.
It assumes there is a natural sorting process in place (there is). It's not an absolute. It's a relative return. It's not meant as a draw for the bottom of the barrel in terms of ability, but a draw for the continued marginal students who are deciding where they would be better off, on average.
Oh, and the extra benefits of a private school are not hokum...
Explain...
I'm not talking about networking or service, I'm talking about cultural or recreational aspects. at not meaning to single out privates. Even at public school costs, I think that's a waste of the money.
The network benefits of having a higher fraction of people living on campus.
Ability and ease to join in wide-ranging campus events.
More ability to work with campus-wide community support.
However, for ALL public vs. ALL private, there is a $2,000 initial starting salary wage gap, and a $5,000 mid career wage gap. But that is, essentially, useless information.
And yes, like any numbers, if you bring down the top (like the Ivies), the average will fall. I don't understand this line of reasoning. If you take away the flagship state schools with higher price tags (or the in-state tuition benefits), the average benefit of state schools decreases while the average cost increases.
Yeah, you're probably right
The network benefits of having a higher fraction of people living on campus.
Ability and ease to join in wide-ranging campus events.
More ability to work with campus-wide community support.
Hey...you just described my school...:)
Again, simply because you want to truncate at a different place isn't valid.
You can't truncate one set of data and leave the other untouched, and expect to have a reliable and valid set of data. If I take out the flagship state schools, private schools look a lot better. But that's a useless comparison.
You want to make it a more apropos consideration, take out the religious private schools that cater only to religion. Which means eliminating a ton of schools with graduates that don't earn much income.
Quote:
outside your school/degree.
The network benefits of having a higher fraction of people living on campus.
Ability and ease to join in wide-ranging campus events.
More ability to work with campus-wide community support.
Hey...you just described my school...:)
Obviously, you made your college costs back. Even before you graduated :-)
Unless you assume that people are stupid and more government involvement is needed, because there are serious misallocations of resources, yes, you make it back.
If comparing mid-tier public vs. mid-tier private (the median salaries for privates are higher than the median salaries for public, by about the same figures; $2,500 for start of career, $6,000 for mid-career).
Well, shit...you know exactly how it is with your son being in similar situation. But yeah, the cost of going to school was free but the overall cost wasn't free...not even close.
Quote:
Obviously, you made your college costs back. Even before you graduated :-)
Well, shit...you know exactly how it is with your son being in similar situation. But yeah, the cost of going to school was free but the overall cost wasn't free...not even close.
But you fun extracurriculars...
It is, but imperfectly, since the wage records often don't link up with IQ.
SAT scores are routinely used, as are other cognitive measures (some form of standardized tests).
It's called "ability bias" in the literature.
SAT scores are routinely used, as are other cognitive measures (some form of standardized tests).
Close enough. So how much do the income numbers change if you look at college grads versus H.S. grads matched on cognitive ability?
And by fun you mean mandatory and not fun, sure.
Quote:
SAT scores are routinely used, as are other cognitive measures (some form of standardized tests).
Close enough. So how much do the income numbers change if you look at college grads versus H.S. grads matched on cognitive ability?
Sorry, had class and a meeting.
There has been very limited cognitive matching tests done because those tests aren't matched up well in the large datasets we have.
They have been done on a limited basis in the military (and some international comparison test), where the returns don't fall by that much (by about half a percentage point, from 9 to 8.5).
What has been done to offset this a bit is looking at observationally equivalent individuals (or creating the relevant counterfactual) who don't go to any college, drop out of 2 year college, and graduate 2 year college.
And there is even a positive return for each semester completed (I think each semester adds close to 1.5% to wages). This has reduced the difference between looking at individuals who are different (the variance is much smaller, so the numbers are closer to being statistically unbiased).
Quote:
SAT scores are routinely used, as are other cognitive measures (some form of standardized tests).
Close enough. So how much do the income numbers change if you look at college grads versus H.S. grads matched on cognitive ability?
And the reason is the following:
Each matched cognitive ability pair has about the same ex-ante (before the decision to go to college or not) probability to succeed.
However, employers don't view these cognitive abilities. They use completion of a college degree as a signal. So, the ex-post (after going to college or not) probabilities have now separated (known in the literature as a separating equilibrium, where what was once identical now is not, because of the realization of some event, in this case, completing college).
So, even with identical abilities, those who go into jobs where college degrees are not required still have the signal and are compensated accordingly.
Here's the deal - I started out in a job just like you - surrounded by people who didn't have a college education, just trying to make a little money. This is what I found:
Hard work and a professional attitude helps, but is not enough.
Hard work and a professional attitude combined with actual talent will get you into entry-level management positions, with college unnecessary.
Hard work and a professional attitude combined with actual talent and people skills can get you qualified for mid-management.
Here is where you need the degree. You will find that at that level, not having a degree is an automatic disqualifier. It's a built-in excuse for senior managers to overlook you. So you definitely need a degree at this point. It's frustrating to those without the degree - as often they see that they have the most talent in the shop, work as hard as anyone else, have great professional/social skills, but cannot get that next promotion.
Senior managers must have all of the above, and typically an advanced degree. Barring this, they must have an exceptional track record of success and experience.
Executive managers must have all of the above, including an advanced degree + track record + industry knowledge.
Now you can bypass much of these requirements by having the right degree and having the right connections. Depending on the quality of these two components, you can walk into almost any office in America ready to take a job.
If you are stuck somewhere be glad that you have that degree. You can fix a lot of what you are missing (gain social & other skills/talent, change/fix professional approach/effort, grow contacts/experience/industry knowledge) and find the lack of degree will hold you back.
I hope the teaching is going well!
I feel sorry for many young people that complain about their situation, because they got a liberal arts degree and want a 6 figure job thrown in their laps...
So on average there may be a small benefit, but as careers progress, the differnce can become huge. It is also so large at the end that I doubt the average benefit in the beginning is significant. Which brings us back to square one - it may not matter that much for most people. If you're not ambitious, be honest with yourself and save alot of money.
was thinking the same thing. connections made at a 4 yr level are a bit overblown, IMO. However, having a spiffy college on your resume is like dressing for success. employers perk up when they see nice dress, or nice college (even if the college isn't necessarily better, it has the name recognition).
There's also the aspect that Ivy league entry often includes connections to begin with, and money families (and money families usually come with connections, unless you're a lottery winner), so it's more likely you come from a culture of connections, and even if you're a dunce at it, you can make it based on family connections. Thus it all becomes a spiral upwards. The college education may not be any better, but the cultural aspect of it from all angles is. But all that is a completely separate issue of whether college is worth attending.
It's sad to see a generation experiencing this, and I understand the variables involved. But, I do question the wisdom in choosing to borrow for a massively expensive education in the current economic environment, and then complaining about it later when it's not a secret the workforce is lacking opportunities for entry level candidates.
It's sad to see a generation experiencing this, and I understand the variables involved. But, I do question the wisdom in choosing to borrow for a massively expensive education in the current economic environment, and then complaining about it later when it's not a secret the workforce is lacking opportunities for entry level candidates.
I get that, but it's not like 17 year olds and 18 year olds are remarkably astute consumers. They see (nearly) free money, and they rely on advice from parents steeped in previous economic realities, and who also view children attending college - particularly a good college - as some sort of evidence of their own success in parenting. A thirty year old who goes to law school doesn't have much of an excuse. There is ample evidence out there to suggest that with rare exceptions it is a bad investment. But a teenager with a limited number of obvious alternatives (construction? table service? retail)?
For all other recessions, the impact of graduating at the peak (or near the peak) of the recession is significant and long-lasting.
We may not want them to face those realities as much, but the demand for labor with a college education is still growing strong and, depending on your view of how technology will complement or substitute for these workers in the interim will drive your predictions.
just betting i'll be a little better off than i was without it.
Quote:
There's some significant confirmation bias, regret, and sour grapes all blended together, which produce a bitter and negative view.
It's sad to see a generation experiencing this, and I understand the variables involved. But, I do question the wisdom in choosing to borrow for a massively expensive education in the current economic environment, and then complaining about it later when it's not a secret the workforce is lacking opportunities for entry level candidates.
I get that, but it's not like 17 year olds and 18 year olds are remarkably astute consumers. They see (nearly) free money, and they rely on advice from parents steeped in previous economic realities, and who also view children attending college - particularly a good college - as some sort of evidence of their own success in parenting. A thirty year old who goes to law school doesn't have much of an excuse. There is ample evidence out there to suggest that with rare exceptions it is a bad investment. But a teenager with a limited number of obvious alternatives (construction? table service? retail)?
I hear you as well, but there's always the conservative compromise of attending an in-state school. Someone in the decision making equation has to use their brain. I made the same decision at 18, two of my cousins as well, etc. I realize this isn't always the end result, but speaking from a logical, common sense perspective it appears a relatively simple thought process, imv.
I hope the teaching is going well!
I agree. It's something that the datasets should include more of, but with the sensitive nature of administrative data documents, I'm not sure you could link the cognitive tests even if you wanted (rely much more on self-reported income data, which has its problems).
Teaching is going well. Dealing with that, research, and some other projects makes my days long!
Hope you are well.
I had help with undergrad but I am still paying for my decision to go to UVM. I started out at Rowan, which was fine, but instead of looking at Rutgers or other good NJ schools (or even just less expensive state schools) I went for one of the most expensive public schools in the country because it's a nice campus and my girlfriend was there.
There's a huge difference between graduate and undergrad, just as there's a difference between undergrad and a 2yr degree, and I learned a skill even though I have minimal/no college vs 'I never learned a job skill and now I'm doomed to plucking chickens, or pumping gas, or stocking shelves at Wally world'.
Does more college help? for particular professional band jobs (like law), absolutely. you're not getting the job without it, and you're dwindling down to the top few percent of the workforce.
however, a lot of 4 yr vs 2 yr jobs are a bit grey. now you're talking the middle band of workers, skilled, but not professional band. I work for a high tech R&D center. for a while, the company wanted 4 year degrees for technicians. Then they found that 4 yr students had an unrealistic expectation of what their career possibilities were, and became disillusioned and lesser workers. They found 2 year degrees were exactly what they needed, while 4 yr degree students were stuck in no man's land, thinking they're too good to be techs and not qualified to be engineers. I suspect it's the same for many 4 yr degrees.
Then, there's the base of the pyramid: those who are unskilled or semi-skilled, where college may not be a requisite at all.
There's too much general discussion without acknowledging that what applies for graduate degrees, may not apply to undergrad, and may be completely foreign for <4 years of schooling.
The results are based on the number of people who currently go to college, so we are even now rapidly reaching where the marginal person is coming into play (which means none of this comes close to extrapolating to a large minority of jobs, or applies to a large fraction of people).
The easy money made that marginal person be much lower on the income spectrum, but did it speed up an inevitability (the growth in college grads has been rather constant across time), or did we move beyond the taper point long ago?
I think it's the former, but speeding up the process ain't desirable.
I applied for law school after undergrad and actually sent NYU a deposit check (which they didn't refund, nor would they even waive a reapplication fee) before deciding to enlist. As my enlistment wound up I started reapplying, and by this time I had a wife and a daughter so I was much more discriminating. I got into two (arguably) better schools the next time around but accounting for living expenses and the little bit of financial aid I received UVA was 1/2 the price of the other two, so thankfully I was smart enough to decide based on this. I can't fathom having 2-3x the loan burden, which it probably would have been had deployments not postponed my last two years into the timeframe of the post-9/11 GI Bill.
Teaching is going well. Dealing with that, research, and some other projects makes my days long!
Hope you are well.
Yeah, I'm fine. The workload doesn't seem to change much compared to grad school. :) You just have a (little) more control over your time (at least that's been my experience).
Don't let me slide on the research study. I'd still like to get back to talking about it at some point. Maybe next semester?
I need to not slide as well :)
Coming from the financial world i feel it's destined to get worse. There is certainly money to be made yet i feel it's for fewer people.
Quote:
I desperately wanted to go NYU, and the price tag in 1988 and upwards of $100k in student loans triggered my frugal middle class brain. My SUNY education wound up costing less than $10k including books and luckily has served me well.
I applied for law school after undergrad and actually sent NYU a deposit check (which they didn't refund, nor would they even waive a reapplication fee) before deciding to enlist. As my enlistment wound up I started reapplying, and by this time I had a wife and a daughter so I was much more discriminating. I got into two (arguably) better schools the next time around but accounting for living expenses and the little bit of financial aid I received UVA was 1/2 the price of the other two, so thankfully I was smart enough to decide based on this. I can't fathom having 2-3x the loan burden, which it probably would have been had deployments not postponed my last two years into the timeframe of the post-9/11 GI Bill.
Good stuff, we certainly agree a little age and experience goes a long way. I beat myself up for a few years after passing on NYU, but the lack of monster payments got me to let it go before long.