Is college worth it nowadays?

A concept that is trending in media and parts of the business community is that college is increasingly worthless:

http://nymag.com/news/features/college-education-2011-5/ (Article here if you can get past the initial picture :))

What do you think? Is college necessary for success? Is there inherent value in being "well-educated" in the liberal arts sense? Should we focus more on vocational/practical learning? Are colleges just too damn expensive?

Someone like the Wizard probably could have been successful without college. You do not need a college degree to create a successful gambling info website; the math background could probably be learned in high school, or certainly or one's own. Other people such as Gates and Zuckerberg have been enormously successful dropping out of college. But are they an exception, or the exemplars we should be looking towards?

well getting more education is always a good thing. But the question should be is it worth the cost? I have heard a stat that always gets thrown around and have no idea if its true but, they say "A college graduate will earn 1 million more on avergae over their lifetime then some without a college degree" So if this is true.....Its still hard to say because if you just put 50k in a money market over 40+ years it would be worth more than 1 million. But inflation comes into play and standard of living over those 40+ years so its hard to say.

My parents paid for my college, so I have no loans to pay off so in my case it was worth it LOL. I Think the problem with kids today(i'm 33) is they think when they get out of college they should just be able to walk into a 100k job. This is some myths they have learned. And I have no idea where it came from LOL!

When I got out of college in 2001 with a degree in econ form UW. I went to work as an economist for WAMU putting values on CDO's and I was only making $12.50 and hour to start LOL. And I was happy, I could afford and apartment with some friends and moved up quickly. When WAMU went down(got bought out by Chase). I was making close to 6 figures if you counted benefits.

I think it really just depends on what you want to do. Something you are gonna have to go to college to do. You are not going to be a doctor or lawyer or engineer ect ect without going to college. But if you want to be in sales and maybe open up your own service business then I would say its probably not worth the cost. Then again what 18 year old knows what he want to do with the rest of his life. Like a said I think all this "is the coat of college worth it" stuff thats being thrown around lately is just because everyone thinks if they go to college they will automatically make 6 figure right out of the gate and thats just not going to happen for 95% of college graduates.

College is valuable. The exposure to professors who are leaders in their fields, opportunities to devise and conduct research, and a broad liberal arts curriculum ensure that we as a people will learn from the past, and have an opportunity to shape the future.

For those who consider the college education worthless: Why stop at college? Why do we need High School... or Middle School...? Why not get rid of compulsory education?

Quote:

When [my daughters are] 18 years old, just hand them $200,000 to go off and have a fun time for four years? Why would I want to do that?

Quote:

all the hallmarks of a classic speculative frenzy—­hyperinflated prices, investments by ignorant consumers funded largely by debt, and widespread faith in increasing returns.

Quote:

it borders on immoral to ask America’s youth to incur heavy debt for an education for which millions are simply ill-equipped.

thanks, havent finished and already getting some great quotes I'd like to remember

Quote: teddys

A concept that is trending in media and parts of the business community is that college is increasingly worthless.

http://nymag.com/news/features/college-education-2011-5/ (Article here if you can get past the initial picture :))

What do you think? Is college necessary for success? Is there inherent value in being "well-educated" in the liberal arts sense? Should we focus more on vocational/practical learning? Are colleges just too damn expensive?

Someone like the Wizard probably could have been successful without college. You do not need a college degree to create a successful gambling info website; the math background could probably be learned in high school, or certainly or one's own. Other people such as Gates and Zuckerberg have been enormously successful dropping out of college. But are they an exception, or the exemplars we should be looking towards?

As an initial reaction:

1) The answer is predicated on your definition of "success". Humans have been biologically successful for tens of thousands of years without college. If your definition of "success" is financial, then you've already bought into the capitalist social structure and its utility functions, specifically that more capital is better than less capital. But that is not the only plausible or practical definition of success.

2) College is one of the better ways, but certainly not the only way, to hone one's critical thinking skills. That is perhaps the most important lesson one can get out of a college education. Critical thinking, by the way, allows one to step back and realize that the "media and parts of the business community" is not necessarily the most reputable source of opinion. Remember what capitalist business philosophy is all about.

3) I personally learned most of what I know of gaming math *after* college, but I had a good framework to start from. I also went to a college whose name alone has made a meaningful impact to my lifetime earnings.

4) I have several aspects to my business which would be impossible to carry out without a college degree. Not because the degree is necessary per se, but because the environment in which I operate my business gives it so much weight.

5) Remember, too, what the original intent of colleges was -- to pass on knowledge related to one discipline or another to those who would be practicing and expanding those disciplines. I would argue that the pursuit of science is optimally done in a university setting. I would also argue that the pursuit of the liberal arts is also optimally done in a university setting, but the difference is that many who pursue science continue that pursuit after leaving college. I went to school with a chemistry student -- he went on to get a Ph.D. and is now a chemistry editor for a scientific journal. I went to school with several mathematics students -- one of them is now a quantitative trader for Goldman Sachs, several more are professors of mathematics.

However, if someone is going to college to study French literature and then ends up with a job as a marketer for a technology company, I see the logic in arguing that they would have been better served studying marketing for technology companies. Still, evaluating "better served" requires asking "better how"? If the answer has more to do with business success than academic success, you have to ask the question as to what is more important. Because the two are definitely not correlated:

"I'm a moron. That's how you get to the top. Mr. Carroll, are you a bright man?"
"No I'm not!"
Kayak.com ad

Sheepskin Psychosis ... best seller from the early sixties.

Talk to some of the "yachties"... they ship out as stewardesses/deckhands/EngineeringOfficers/etc. Take only specialized courses, live in a crew house for awhile, its pretty much a college fraternity/sorority experienced in a very condensed format. Then they ship out on sailing yachts or motor yachts or even superyachts. Even a glorified maid (stewardess) makes 30 grand her first year and visits all the Caribbean and Mediterranean playgrounds. Sun, sand, nightclubs. Many did college first but those who didn't do college first generally love the lifestyle and pretty much bank most of their money anyway. Many get a bunch of books for the voyage and are better read while off-watch than many college graduates. A Boatswain/Divemaster on a yacht saved enough money to buy his own dive school and tropical resort. He never regretted the lack of a sheepskin and was fond of saying his major was Enjoying Life.

A robot repairman might be encouraged to "be well rounded" but employers who hire technicians and engineers want them to be qualified in their field, not well rounded. And of course nowadays... diploma mills are a real problem. India turns out pilots who have thousands of hours on their logbooks but don't know how to fasten a seatbelt. India engineering schools have exams wherein the student writes his cell phone number on the test paper, gets a call from the examiner's cousin, pays a bribe, the examiner fills in the exam paper correctly and eventually a degree is granted. Indian technical degrees, business degrees and pilots licenses/logbooks are becoming a real joke. No value whatsoever. American degrees are nowhere near as bad but some schools are worthless. And a degree from some of those vocational schools would be utterly meaningless to an employer.

It depends on your major and plans. No way HS math, even 100 years ago when they still had hard math in HS, would have given the Wizard the math he needed for gaming or acturial work. For my career, the background in a business degree was needed for the first part of my career when I was in management. Now it depends. A 2 year degree would have gotten me able to "do" the jobs. But the rounded backgrounnd has given me the problem-solving skills needed to do more than jsut do it.

Not all degrees are created equal. Any degree with "studies" as part of the wording is basically useless. History and such will get you the background to work in many things, but unless you are going for CIA work it may be a hard slog. Business, math, sciences are best and translate directly to more jobs.

I think the problem with this thread is that the non economic intangibles are not considered. I sent my son to ludicrously expensive Carnegie Mellon not just for the information he would be taught but for the interactions with faculty and other students, and his personal growth at being away from home. It is possible, if not likely, that had I put the money away for him and had him go to our local state school, that he would have more money ten years from now. But college is more than a vocational school, or at least it should be.

Quote: SOOPOO

I think the problem with this thread is that the non economic intangibles are not considered. I sent my son to ludicrously expensive Carnegie Mellon not just for the information he would be taught but for the interactions with faculty and other students, and his personal growth at being away from home. It is possible, if not likely, that had I put the money away for him and had him go to our local state school, that he would have more money ten years from now. But college is more than a vocational school, or at least it should be.

Very good school. I have worked mc nights at both CMU and Pitt and I cannot beging to tell you how much more intelligent the CMU students are. Blocks apart physically, not even in the same dimension in students. The ones I met anyways.

Quote: SOOPOO

I think the problem with this thread is that the non economic intangibles are not considered. I sent my son to ludicrously expensive Carnegie Mellon not just for the information he would be taught but for the interactions with faculty and other students, and his personal growth at being away from home. It is possible, if not likely, that had I put the money away for him and had him go to our local state school, that he would have more money ten years from now. But college is more than a vocational school, or at least it should be.

As a CMU alum ('94) - it's been interesting to watch as CMU went from "what school? Where's that?" to a nationally ranked school. To put in perspective, back in 1990, there were about 5000 applicants for the 4000 spots back then. From what I hear, the admissions are exponentially harder now, last I had heard it was 15-20k applications for the same 4000 spots.

My own perspective is that CMU teaches how to problem solve, as many assignments were due before the professors ever lectured on them. That combined with it's small size is what makes it special.

-B

Quote: toastcmu

As a CMU alum ('94) - it's been interesting to watch as CMU went from "what school? Where's that?" to a nationally ranked school. To put in perspective, back in 1990, there were about 5000 applicants for the 4000 spots back then. From what I hear, the admissions are exponentially harder now, last I had heard it was 15-20k applications for the same 4000 spots.

When I was in HS in the late 1980s, CMU was just coming on strong. To describe it the attitude was somthing along the lines of, "It's very good, but it isn't MIT." Something about the internet era really made the place take off. Now a good combubationb of software engeneering and robotics. A "technology park" down the road at a fomer mill site also really helped as it put some places of employment close by. Helped Pittsburgh avoid getting walloped by the national recession. We have done better than the nation as a whole, used to be this city was first in and last out of recessions.

It totally depends on the college. A lot of the kids that are coming out of city colleges and a lot of state colleges, are no better than HS grads. They can't read, do math, find anything on a map. My niece is graduating from a local state college this month and she's a real nice kid, but knowledge wise she's an idiot. But she has a degree, so she's an educated idiot. My daughter is head of the math dept at a good college, and she says every semester every class she teaches loses 2/3 of the students by the time its over. They come to college knowing nothing about math.

Is college worth it nowadays? Difficult question to give just one answer to. Some colleges strike me as being a waste for most anyone. There are some "students" for which any college would be a waste. But there are plenty of good colleges offering good (and valuable) educations to students who are willing to put in the necessary effort. A college degree doesn't necessarily guarantee you anything, but the lack of one will close a lot of doors -- yes, some non-graduates are very capable, but for many employers it just isn't worth the effort to weed through the incompetent masses searching for a competent non-graduate when there are so many graduates (of good programs) who have proven some ability even before they apply for the job.

The short version of my opinion: if a potential college student has both the ability and the work ethic to earn a degree in a good program from a good school, then doing that will probably be worth it. Some lazy kid screwing around on a campus or two for 4, 5, or 6 years and finally picking up some toilet paper diploma is a waste of time/effort both for the student and for those standing in the front of the classroom.

Absolutely it's worth it, for certain students.

My daughter is a sophomore at Notre Dame. She worked her butt off in high school, and made a lot of sacrifices time-wise. Her tuition is about 65% covered by academic scholarships; of the rest, we're paying half and she's taking loans for the other half. So after 4 years she'll have a very manageable $24k or so in loans, for a BA from Notre Dame.

Here's where it becomes worth it, and what's coming might not be what you think. I was hoping she'd go for international law. She speaks fluent French and Spanish, some Portuguese and some Italian, and American Sign. And she is logical, has excellent recall, and can argue well (in the debate sense). But she's really, really fascinated by anthropology. So, I figure this: She's only going to get ONE chance in her life to study something she truly loves, and learn it from the best in the world. And NOW is that time. She can't get a degree in law and then go back and study anthropology 10 years from now, it doesn't work that way; life makes its demands, and the world moves on, and it never seems to happen. But NOW. Young. Parents can give, some. She earned, A LOT. She covers, some. DO IT. Study anthropology. There's always time for law school, if that's what she wants. ("Law school: a pie eating contest where first prize is more pie.") She should do what she loves, it's the only path to success.

Next semester she's going to Chile, to study at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Who, with her motivation and love of learning, would rather go into the workforce, for ANY amount of money, than study what she loves? What's the money for, if not quality of life? And isn't quality of life a highly personal metric? I would argue that for some students, the ones who are there for the learning, the ones who believe that they can change the world (and aren't ashamed to think that), there is no BETTER place to be.

Quote: Mosca

Absolutely it's worth it, for certain students.

Thats the thing, for certain students. My daughter was Valedictorian of her class in HS and got a full scholarship all the way thru graduate school. It even paid for her whole Junior year at a college in London. Now she teaches ungrateful college students. She is almost a math genius and could have gotten a degree in engineering, but no, she's wasting her time teaching math to students who don't want to be there and could care less.

Thanks for sharing that article with us. I found it enlightening and agree with a lot of the ideas presented therein.

Why college has gotten expensive is laughably simple to this Econ major - it's a case of supply and demand. Before WWII, there were two groups of people, loosely branded, who went to college:

1) Rich people, and
2) Smart people

and not everyone in either group. Now virtually everyone that has anywhere near a middle class lifestyle is pushed hard to go to collge, whether it's best for them or not. And most of them end up giving it a go. Meanwhile, there are sharp limits on how big the better colleges can get, and it's really difficult to build a college these days out of nothing. So, under that scenario, costs go up like a rocket - which is exactly what they've done.

I still think it's worth it for most potential students at this time, but in another generation it could be different.

Thinking longer term, I think we should make education more rigorous for everyone across the board and find something worthwhile for the inevitable half (or more) who wash out of the system.

Quote: fremont4ever

Now virtually everyone that has anywhere near a middle class lifestyle is pushed hard to go to collge,

When I started college in the late 60's, it was a big deal. Everybody didn't go in those days, like they do now. It was hard, the classes were not easy, I felt like I was accomplishing something. Now when I ask young people about their college work, they all say its an extension of high school, some even say its easier. Most of them are bored and just want it to be over.

Quote: fremont4ever

... Why college has gotten expensive is laughably simple to this Econ major - it's a case of supply and demand. ... Now virtually everyone that has anywhere near a middle class lifestyle is pushed hard to go to collge, whether it's best for them or not. And most of them end up giving it a go. Meanwhile, there are sharp limits on how big the better colleges can get, and it's really difficult to build a college these days out of nothing. So, under that scenario, costs go up like a rocket - which is exactly what they've done.....

I agree with many of your comments, but I think you have left out one important item. The fact that people are "pushed hard to go to college" does not mean that the better colleges have to get big enough to let them all get in. Higher application rates do not necessarily imply higher acceptance rates. The first college that I graduated from in the 1960s has indeed increased its enrollment by 60% since I graduated. But that increase was due to converting from an all-men school to a co-educational one, not due to accepting ever-increasing numbers of marginally-qualified applicants just because they would like to enroll.

Of course, the increased demand tends to lead to a supply of new programs (either at existing schools or at new schools), unfortunately not all necessarily providing a quality education. If the "smart people" you refer to are admitted to and attend the good schools and put out the necessary effort, they will probably find that the experience is worth what it costs. Those who don't fit into that category will likely attend a lesser program, and it may or may not be worth anything to them.

Quote: EvenBob

When I started college in the late 60's, it was a big deal. Everybody didn't go in those days, like they do now. It was hard, the classes were not easy, I felt like I was accomplishing something. Now when I ask young people about their college work, they all say its an extension of high school, some even say its easier. Most of them are bored and just want it to be over.

Are you referring to students today in the good programs or those enrolled in programs just created to satisfy the extra demand?

Earlier in this thread, odiousgambit quoted an un-named source in this manner: "it borders on immoral to ask America’s youth to incur heavy debt for an education for which millions are simply ill-equipped." The better programs that are better funded should find ways not to leave their young alumni with such debt. My alma mater that I mentioned above has implemented a program that eliminates loans from the student financial aid packages and yet meets all of the students' financial aid needs. Students now should be able to graduate debt free. Hopefully other schools will follow this path, though the weaker programs will not likely be able to do so.

Quote: EvenBob

When I started college in the late 60's, it was a big deal. Everybody didn't go in those days, like they do now. It was hard, the classes were not easy, I felt like I was accomplishing something. Now when I ask young people about their college work, they all say its an extension of high school, some even say its easier. Most of them are bored and just want it to be over.

This past holiday season, my daughter was telling me about how she signed up for a course titled "California Culture" because she'd get to read Kerouac and Kesey and Ginsburg, and listen to the Dead. The other day she told me it was by far the hardest class she's had in two years. It's all in what's expected to be learned, not in what's being taught.

Here is my story:

In 2000 when I entered college my parents made too much money for me to qualify for most government aid and my grades were just good enough to get me into a private college, but not good enough for me to get scholarships. When I started I paid $17,000 a year and borrowed another $5,000 a year for living expenses. By the time I graduated tuition was $23,000 so I left private undergrad with a total debt of about $75,000.00. I was accepted into law school and again had to pay everything from student loans. Which totaled approximately $150,000.00 for a total debt of $225,000.00. Unfortunately, I have had to work (40-50hrs a week) while trying to study for the bar exam because many of student loans came due right after graduation as I had to use most of my deferments when I had an injury that forced me to miss two semesters and the first job I had in California fell through before I ever took the exam so I wasted 6 months studying for a state bar in a state I really did not want to move to. According to my calculations I will end paying well over $350,000 once everything is paid off.

Starting salary in Nevada for an attorney is anywhere from $35,000-$65,000, so it will be a very long time before I start to really knock off any of that debt.

You tell me was it worth it? I know my salary has the potential to grow into the six-figures, but that is several years off from now.

Quote: SONBP2

Here is my story:

In 2000 when I entered college my parents made too much money for me to qualify for most government aid and my grades were just good enough to get me into a private college, but not good enough for me to get scholarships. When I started I paid $17,000 a year and borrowed another $5,000 a year for living expenses. By the time I graduated tuition was $23,000 so I left private undergrad with a total debt of about $75,000.00. I was accepted into law school and again had to pay everything from student loans. Which totaled approximately $150,000.00 for a total debt of $225,000.00. Unfortunately, I have had to work (40-50hrs a week) while trying to study for the bar exam because many of student loans came due right after graduation as I had to use most of my deferments when I had an injury that forced me to miss two semesters and the first job I had in California fell through before I ever took the exam so I wasted 6 months studying for a state bar in a state I really did not want to move to. According to my calculations I will end paying well over $350,000 once everything is paid off.

Starting salary in Nevada for an attorney is anywhere from $35,000-$65,000, so it will be a very long time before I start to really knock off any of that debt.

You tell me was it worth it? I know my salary has the potential to grow into the six-figures, but that is several years off from now.

Looking back, what would you have done differently?

I was lucky. I went to university before fees started to be charged in the UK. I graduated with some debts, from a great programme that set me up for my career. Except I spent another three brats doing research for a large Japanese electronics form and got another degree out of that. It's only now that people without college degree and limited experience get interviews easily in my field.. fifteen years on.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Looking back, what would you have done differently?

Bottom line I borrowed too much. I guess there is something to be said about paying for college as you go along and only taking the courses that you can afford to take. Law school is super expensive though without any scholarship. When I graduated it was $900.00 per credit hour and you had to take 90 credit hours to graduate. Plus I borrowed a lot for living expenses and books, approximately $15,000 a year b/c there was no on campus living. Additionally there was Bar Loan I took out that cost me another $15,000.

The other part is that when all my loans are due I will be paying somewhere between $2500-$3000 a month in student loans. That means to live somewhat comfortably I need to make at least $80,000. It is going to be a long road with lots of debt.

Another aspect is that I cannot get a loan for anything due to my debt/income ratio. I drive a 2004 chevy cobalt with over 100,000 miles. Not that I want a new car, but I can't even get approved for one. I would like to buy a house at some point, but that is completely out of the question.

It seems there is a misunderstanding among the masses as to what college is. It should be looked at the same way vocational training is. What I mean is with vocational training, there's a set result. You study masonry to go out and lay bricks, you study automotive to work as a mechanic, etc. Few people simply enroll in a bunch of different vocations with the hope that when they're done, they'll magically have The Job. I feel many in college think just that. I know I did, as did nearly all of my friends.

College was never pitched to us in a guided, informative way. It was simply 'if you want to do good in life, you go to college.' As a result, we all ended up taking a bunch of classes we never needed, and in some cases, entire curiculums that were completely worthless. I currently work in gaming protection. Before that, I was a General Manager of a truck stop. Before that, a bunch of random minimum wage jobs. My college? Double major in Biology and Chemistry, minor in Psych/Sociology. Thank all the gods I dropped out before incurring insurmountable debt. The funny (see also: sad) thing is, that while I'm by no means raking in big money, I'm doing better than every single one of those friends who went the distance with their college, plus I have no $X0,000 debt hanging over my head from it.

College is definately needed for the types of jobs some here have. Specialists, whether numbers, the human body, the law of the land, these things couldn't be done simply with a high school diploma. But unless you're 75%+ sure of what direction you want to head, the the idea of college might well be something you want to postpone, if not skip altogether.

I think the reason that college is pushed so hard is that it begins with the teachers. I have never met a teacher that didn't push university/college as the preferred route for 'anyone that had the brains'. Vocational courses or even tech schools were only for those that couldn't qualify for college. A smart ambitious person is going to be able to do good in any career path and often much better than someone with a mediocre college degree. I think human resource departments also cause a lot of the problem when they are too lazy to try and actually assess applicants but rely on a degree to pare down the applicants.

I think the reason that college is pushed so hard is that it begins with the teachers. I have never met a teacher that didn't push university/college as the preferred route for 'anyone that had the brains'. Vocational courses or even tech schools were only for those that couldn't qualify for college. A smart ambitious person is going to be able to do good in any career path and often much better than someone with a mediocre college degree. I think human resource departments also cause a lot of the problem when they are too lazy to try and actually assess applicants but rely on a degree to pare down the applicants.

Quote: Face

It seems there is a misunderstanding among the masses as to what college is. It should be looked at the same way vocational training is. ...

... But unless you're 75%+ sure of what direction you want to head, the the idea of college might well be something you want to postpone, if not skip altogether.

Face: I agree with a fair portion of what you say, and I have some reservations, too. I agree that if you don't have a reasonable idea of what kind of career you want to pursue, you probably need to get some handle on that before making a college commitment. I agree with you and with a previous poster (forget now who it was) that delaying all or some of one's college studies can be warranted. I was a college student during four different periods of my life, and I found each experience to be of value to me.

I also agree that much of college education is vocational training in many cases. But not all. I did essentially all of my collegiate studies at two schools. One is a very good technical institution where studies are very focused on preparing students for specific career areas. The other is a very good liberal arts college where the vocational aspects are often almost invisible -- something like 80% of the students there (at least in the era when I was enrolled) went on to graduate school for their specific career training, while their undergraduate studies provided a foundation both for the graduate studies and for a productive career in general.

While I have studied a variety of areas, I am more an engineer than anything else. Don't discount the value of a liberal arts background for an engineer. It doesn't seem to be very vocationally oriented to engineering, but.... I have encountered far too many engineers who only studied at engineering schools (and at good ones), yet they can't write an effective proposal, they turn out abysmal, unreadable technical reports, and they are absolutely depressing when they attempt to make oral presentations to audiences. A more liberal education would have benefited many of the colleagues I had during my career. Not every bit of education that you need for your career looks "vocational" while you are studying it.

.....