next »

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I think the author of the CHE/TNR articles we're discussing would argue that even the weak students are better off with the degree than without one.  - DvF

[lhbphd]

I think the author of the CHE/TNR articles we're discussing would argue that even the weak students are better off with the degree than without one.  - DvF

Indeed, but I think the question is whether the additional benefits justify the additional costs.  As a professor at a SLAC, but in a major that tends to be associated with high earning power in the long run, my main problem is still with the general methodology of the study, which measures costs and benefits in a narrow Return on Investment framework.

To focus on one of the less obvious problems with this methodology, one working within the framework should consider the time spent in school as an opportunity cost, since a student is not earning income that they could otherwise earn while they were in school (one of the reasons that the "true" economic cost of attending medical school is much higher than typically reported).  On the other hand, the time that one spends in college often count for among the "happiest" years of a person's life, as the individual in question subjectively evaluates their own life experiences.  But is that happiness simply a result of being young?  What additional happiness does college add to the normal "happiness" that an older person recalls when reflecting on their youth? 

How do you factor something like that into a simple ROI framework? 

I'm not sure that my undergraduate and graduate education resulted in a good financial return on investment, but the non-pecuniary returns have been considerable.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

As a professor at a SLAC, but in a major that tends to be associated with high earning power in the long run, my main problem is still with the general methodology of the study, which measures costs and benefits in a narrow Return on Investment framework.

There is no study in the article which is the subject of this thread.  - DvF

[sciencegrad]

The student . . .  There was a very interesting, well-researched article on this in a magazine that I get from NEA or some such body. (Anyone remember what it was?)  Turns out that the traditional 4-year college, with a pile of debt at the end, is a good investment ON AVERAGE. But that average includes all the bright and/or motivated and/pr privileged kids, who did well in HS, get a lot out of college, and do well in their various careers.  Those who fumble along without learning much in high school, and manage to get into a 4-year college where they take many remedial classes and maybe scrape by, again without learning much even if they do end up graduating (many don't), will never recoup their financial investment.  Lured by the notion that going to university gives you good paychecks for a lifetime, they build up mountains of debt while getting very little out of being at school.  Peers of similar below-par academic motivation and abilities who instead got an Associates degree in a hands-on subject, do much better financially in the long run.  (This is despite the fact that bachelors degree holders, ON AVERAGE, earn substantially more than associates degree holders.)  

This makes a lot of sense.  I always believed that a motivated student can make any major work for them.  A big problem, I think, is that too many students think that they need to find jobs in the field of their major.  But in the case of things like English and philosophy, it just isn't going to happen without a PhD.  But the motivated student will think outside the box.  He or she will realize the strengths of the education (great writing quality, critical thinking, etc.) and use these skills to get good jobs that are not directly related to the major.

[egilson]

I'm not too surprised that claims that college is useless and that many or most people with expensive college degrees are flipping burgers, bussing tables, and making lattés make an almost seasonal return in the news media. Interview one barista with an MFA, and you have a story. It's a story that no one will challenge because everybody has known at least one barista with an MFA; moreover, I think that for many people such stories play into a fascination with gossip and comeuppance (look at that uppity college boy/girl who can't get a real job!) that guarantees they'll be read and talked about. Once again, taking a closer look at common knowledge is always a good idea.

The other thing I got from that article is reinforcement of the fact that, even with a degree from Smith, you still have to work your way into the type of job you want. That college pays off in time and with effort both during and after the years in the classroom is certainly a message that I'll try to convey to my students. Nudging them in the direction of the career services office early on would probably be good as well, and even better if that office can share a view beyond the first six months after graduation.

[northeast_nick]

Hi there, I thought to chime in, sorry for being late.  In my case college wasn't worth it.  I have myself to blame--I got (wince) a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Creative Writing from Emerson twenty years ago.  Did me absolutely no good in searching for a job--in fact, to make it in the "real" job world I had to put a lot of their ideas out of my head.  On one occasion, when I went for a job that was posted internally at my company, the hiring VP even asked me, upon looking at my resume, why someone from Emerson was working at the company (i.e., why an Emerson grad was working a "real job").  For the past several years I haven't even posted my degree on my online professional profile or on my resume and have denied having a four-year degree on the rare occasions when I'm asked outright.  Hard lessons learned but good ones.  I'm glad I put it behind me.  Now with the experience and certifications in real and relevant areas that I've earned, I feel I'm in a much better position without the albatross on my neck.  And yes, I know, I brought it on myself with my very poor choice.

[lorentech]

I can certainly see your point.  But in the long run a college degree is usually going to pay off a little better than being without one.  It's been proven financially that a bachelors's degree will earn you a least a million dollars more than just a high school degree over a lifetime.

[history_grrrl]

This is really off-topic, but I just feel like saying: from an employer's perspective, supervising undergraduate interns is an unbelievable time suck, akin to babysitting, whose advantages are very difficult to discern. YMMV.

[lyndonparker]

This is really off-topic, but I just feel like saying: from an employer's perspective, supervising undergraduate interns is an unbelievable time suck, akin to babysitting, whose advantages are very difficult to discern. YMMV.

Of course. And that is the biggest benefit we provide. While we are teaching them, they mysteriously change from 18-year olds to 22-year olds.

[polly_mer]

This is really off-topic, but I just feel like saying: from an employer's perspective, supervising undergraduate interns is an unbelievable time suck, akin to babysitting, whose advantages are very difficult to discern. YMMV.

Of course. And that is the biggest benefit we provide. While we are teaching them, they mysteriously change from 18-year olds to 22-year olds.

And, after someone has already put in that huge time suck, the 22-year-olds can be hired into the company and be good workers since the hard part of the training and sorting is done.  Oh, and the recruiting is mostly done, too.  Say, good intern, do you have any friends who need jobs and know almost as much as you do?  Great.  Send them our way.