Original Post by Papa TaggartRR (e-mail correspondence)
Posted here via TaggartRR
Feel free to join the conversation.
Interesting. I have thought this for a while. If parents took the same $80-90k that the spent on college and invested it in the child's name and the child learned some trade, would they be better off at 50 years old?
Is it worth it to go to college?
For people considering college, perhaps the greatest lesson of the Great Recession is not that you shouldn't go to college but that you should make sure the investment will pay off.
Source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38561562/from/toolbar
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Thanks for the article. I understand your point that investing 90k at age 25 could grow to between $770,000 and $2,000,000 depending on compound interest rates by age 70 (5% and 7.5% respectively). And I agree that a college education cannot be viewed as a stamp on a resume that ensures career success. You get out what you put in.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if schools, states, and American culture no longer pushed for “higher education for all” it would most drastically affect those in the lower to middle income brackets and minorities, perpetuating a class system, where kids from Bristol, Connecticut go to college and get high paying jobs and kids from Marion, OH don’t. This is an example obviously, but consider Harvard Business school’s website which states that between 65-85% of jobs are found through networking. Kids growing up in Marion, OH without college and subsequent relationships will not have the same opportunities.
A better argument might be: the age at which kids start college, or why the colleges themselves offer degrees in, for example, hospitality management, or that more attention should be paid toward the desire, will, and ambition of the prospective college student for college admissions.
Every individual deserves the opportunity to succeed to the limits of the own ability. So I’m not going to rush to judgment on college cost just yet, but I would advocate for more counseling before college to help kids understand the risk/cost associated with college and help them devise a plan to succeed during and after.
Papa TaggartRR resopnse: via TaggartRR
ReplyDeleteI agree, I am just saying that society needs to get back to respecting some of the trade jobs or believing in "on the job training". We as a society can not afford to require generations to rack up debt in the name of higher education to obtain degrees in fields that should not require that level of education nor pays accordingly. College and debt in some fields have replaced on the job training and income to the extent that I am not sure that you can catch up in a life time.
An additional article worth reading on the topic (specifically the section on degrees being used as a means test for jobs):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.econlib.com/library/Columns/y2008/Leefeducation.html
In the initial MSNBC article, I thought a few of the people/groups quoted made blanket statements that were a bit questionable, such as the following:
"In fact, a small group of economists and others have begun to argue that the investment is, in fact, too risky, and that people should skip both college and the debt associated with it."
I'd be willing to wager money that small group of economists consists entirely of people with four-year degrees.
In regards to on-the-job training, it does seem as if that's essentially been eliminated in regular usage. I can't think of any jobs off the top of my head where somebody apprentices right off the bat to learn the trade, though it's something that could come back if college proves regularly too expensive.
I suspect the problem for many of these jobs is often government intervention to supposedly make things safer for the citizens by requiring certifications (coincidentally) enforced by the city. Once that's in place, on-the-job training probably isn't as valuable because it doesn't confer a specific degree or certification. So in that case workers go for the necessary certification, then they can just get the job directly.
In regards to college, I don't think the value of learning beyond what one does for a career should be neglected. I know many people would argue a lot of graduation credit requirements are just a money-grab by the colleges and universities, but I've definitely had a great appreciation for some classes I had to take that I wouldn't have voluntarily taken.
Furthermore, I think exposure to a variety of fields is ultimately a good thing for individuals and for society as a whole. Without it, some people may never discover fields that they love and excel in.
This isn't to say everybody should go to college. I think somebody essentially already stated that you get out of it what you put in to it. And many don't have any interest in it, so for them it usually won't be worth the debt associated with it.
That article is pure shit Steve. The guy lumps all college degrees together and advocates for no government subsidization (with referenced support) at all for anyone. The author appears to be overly hawkish in his markets are life philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of what you said makes good sense to me, however.
I want to look at the example of medical education. Here, apprenticeship is built into the system (residency). But, I've heard the argument before that residency is where you actually learn everything you need to know anyway. So, how vital are the previous 8 years? Medical School is certainly more valuable than college (it also costs about 4 times as much so it better be more valuable), but a lot of the things learned in college are never used. Many foreigners I've met do not have MDs, but degrees called MBBS where their college time is spent in medical school instead. These guys don't seem any stupider (in fact many seem smarter) for having bypassed a traditional college experience. Again though, my arguments apply to a specific vocation: physicians.
I don't think it's the gospel, but I think he makes many valid points that apply to this topic. In particular, I think his points on what essentially amounts to degree inflation is especially relevant. Considering many jobs now list a college degree as a requirement when the work doesn't require college knowledge (instead it's just a manner of weeding people out), people who otherwise might not go to college at all may just pick the path of least resistance, but in so doing pick up additional debt they really didn't have to. Also, while I don't agree with his stance on eliminating scholarships, I can understand it.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to debt, I wonder how taking on school loans affects other debt. In other words, do people with college backgrounds end up accumulating more outside debt such as credit card, home loans, etc. that ultimately affect their long-term savings. Just a thought, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did limit their savings in some regard.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSteve, you make an excellent point, “I don’t think the value of learning beyond what one does for a career should be neglected.” I absolutely agree. And being exposed to a variety of different topics, living circumstances, etc. can help develop one’s identity and empathy.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, taking the science “fast-track” (B.S. – M.S. – Ph.D.) most of my classes have been geared to that end and most, if not all, of my outside-science interests have been self-elicited. So the question becomes does one need college to achieve that goal.
Also, an earlier comment talks about the need for more emphasis to be placed on trade jobs. I think associates degrees are now accomplishing this, but they receive no where near as much federal or state funding as colleges and universities. Do construction workers, carpenters, dry-wallers, etc. (jobs that pay well and are necessary) need 4-year college degrees?
Also, we need to de-construct the stereotype that those with associates degrees, and/or apprentice educations, are either incapable or resilient to education outside their careers (e.g., humanities, social sciences, arts, literature).
In response to the question posed by Taggart in his last post, I think college for many people serves as an opportunity to learn how to think critically about topics from a variety of disciplines. Perhaps this is what makes college so valuable, even if the future job doesn't require it, and the paycheck can't justify the debt. While many college graduates are still incapable of doing this, many more high school graduates are not.
ReplyDeleteAs a former high school teacher, I can say with confidence that very few graduates of the school I taught at had experience thinking at the higher levels of Blooms Taxonomy. There certainly were exceptions, and likely many of these students would have been fully capable of doing so had they been challenged. Regardless, high school didn't prepare students to think critically in their aquisition of knowledge.
I like to think the situation is better in college. In my experience during undergrad it certainly was. But as a TA for introductory Biology courses of 400+ students, though instructors try admirably, there is much left to be desired. Many students get through with good grades as "memorizers" that forget everything a few weeks later.
I suggest that education systems need to change to better prepare students to think critically about topics both in and out of their area of focus, not for the sake of making better workers, but making better citizens. Colleges and universities seem to currently do this with the most success, but if high schools (or even middle schools) could adapt to better prepare their students, then perhaps college wouldn't be that important for many professions.
I believe with the initiative of No Child Left Behind, where high schools (and teachers) are rewarded for performance on a single standardized test, that teachers instinctively started teaching toward that test. When schools are pinched budget-wise, the first thing to go are the arts, foreign languages, etc. MrL raises the interesting point that perhaps middle schools and high schools can accomplish the larger goal of critical thinking and inter-cultural awareness. This is a platonic heaven where state budgets, federal initiatives, and teacher’s unions don’t impede education. And we have not even broached the topic of individual motivation to desire either of the platonic ends. Which brings me to the point I want to raise here, that our society is ushering kids into college that are not necessarily motivated to go, yet know they have no other career option. Which kind of feeds into the original post that more trade jobs should be marketed.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree on the aspect of learning to think critically. Personally I was horrible with that in high school and made more strides in college and the immediate years after it (when still in the academic setting). To me it's essentially invaluable, and is why I don't think college can simply be considered a white-collar trade school.
ReplyDeleteBut I wonder if students are often ready to make this step when they're in high school. As they still live a relatively sheltered life free of most responsibility (i.e. work/bills/etc), and under the direct influence of their parents, do many venture beyond their comfort zone? I suspect even if teachers try to develop critical thinking in students, their environment outside the classroom (or also in it with other students) often isn't encouraging that.