Free College for most?

[jimbogumbo]

So one study finds that there are 5 rmain easons why students go to college.

To get into their best college;
To do what's expected of them;
To get away;
To step it up; and
To extend themselves.

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/01/06/pervasive-narrative-students-are-going-college-just-get-job-isnt-always-so-true

I'm not sure how to interpret all those reasons, but it does seem that the word "pleasure" doesn't come up.

Claims adjusters and elevator repair people start in the $60s with a high school diploma.

Higher education is a passport to the middle class way of life for which the career is only part of the equation.

Claims adjustor starts around $40. Average (mean) is $52.

[Wahoo Redux]

So one study finds that there are 5 rmain easons why students go to college.

To get into their best college;
To do what's expected of them;
To get away;
To step it up; and
To extend themselves.

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/01/06/pervasive-narrative-students-are-going-college-just-get-job-isnt-always-so-true

I'm not sure how to interpret all those reasons, but it does seem that the word "pleasure" doesn't come up.

Claims adjusters and elevator repair people start in the $60s with a high school diploma.

Higher education is a passport to the middle class way of life for which the career is only part of the equation.

Claims adjustor starts around $40. Average (mean) is $52.

Thank you.  I simply took a sampling from the web.   

Pedantry aside, we know that generally college confers more income over a lifetime than merely a high school diploma, but if the primary motivation for college is income (preferably with the lowest or without debt) there are options. We also know from recent postings that many college graduates struggle financially in the first years out of college. Anyone who has Internet access should be able to find this info. 

The point is that people have reasonable options and still choose college, even with the amount of rhetoric out there.

I think a thread on why the posters on this thread decided to attend undergraduate college would render up the expected responses, but it might be interesting to survey their family and cultural expectations about college...or maybe that would render up the expected responses...

[marshwiggle]

Pedantry aside, we know that generally college confers more income over a lifetime than merely a high school diploma, but if the primary motivation for college is income (preferably with the lowest or without debt) there are options. We also know from recent postings that many college graduates struggle financially in the first years out of college. Anyone who has Internet access should be able to find this info. 

The point is that people have reasonable options and still choose college, even with the amount of rhetoric out there.

I think a thread on why the posters on this thread decided to attend undergraduate college would render up the expected responses, but it might be interesting to survey their family and cultural expectations about college...or maybe that would render up the expected responses...

This represents a particular subset of students going into PSE; those who aren't considering the content of their studies to be directly required for their employment. Anyone in professional programs and most people in STEM have chosen their studies to lead to specific types of careers.

It might indeed be interesting to survey the subset who don't have these goals, but it's important to emphasize the distinction.

[Caracal]

So one study finds that there are 5 rmain easons why students go to college.

To get into their best college;
To do what's expected of them;
To get away;
To step it up; and
To extend themselves.

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/01/06/pervasive-narrative-students-are-going-college-just-get-job-isnt-always-so-true

I'm not sure how to interpret all those reasons, but it does seem that the word "pleasure" doesn't come up.

Claims adjusters and elevator repair people start in the $60s with a high school diploma.

Higher education is a passport to the middle class way of life for which the career is only part of the equation.

Claims adjustor starts around $40. Average (mean) is $52.

Thank you.  I simply took a sampling from the web.   

Pedantry aside, we know that generally college confers more income over a lifetime than merely a high school diploma, but if the primary motivation for college is income (preferably with the lowest or without debt) there are options. We also know from recent postings that many college graduates struggle financially in the first years out of college. Anyone who has Internet access should be able to find this info. 

The point is that people have reasonable options and still choose college, even with the amount of rhetoric out there.

I think a thread on why the posters on this thread decided to attend undergraduate college would render up the expected responses, but it might be interesting to survey their family and cultural expectations about college...or maybe that would render up the expected responses...

I never thought of it as a choice, which is the family and cultural expectations part. Of course, I was far more excited about the academia part than the social part of the whole thing. I suspect that's where we are going to be a very unrepresentative group. Middle and upper class people are heavily overrepresented in academia, but most academics are also people whose interest and choices in college weren't primarily based on considerations of future income.

As a side note, this is part of the reason why I find the attitude of some STEM people on here towards the humanities so infuriating. Its annoying enough to be lectured by business types about supposedly impractical degrees, but its far more irritating to get the same lecture from people who were so fascinated by chemical engineering that they went on to get a doctoral degree in it. They didn't choose their undergraduate degree because it was financially lucrative, but because they were passionate about it and now want to misuse earnings data to argue that people who are equally passionate about some humanities subject are fools.

[marshwiggle]

I never thought of it as a choice, which is the family and cultural expectations part. Of course, I was far more excited about the academia part than the social part of the whole thing. I suspect that's where we are going to be a very unrepresentative group. Middle and upper class people are heavily overrepresented in academia, but most academics are also people whose interest and choices in college weren't primarily based on considerations of future income.

There are probably only a small percentage of students whose choice is primarily based on income; most are probably choosing something they think would be interesting but which would pay a decent professional-level income.

As a side note, this is part of the reason why I find the attitude of some STEM people on here towards the humanities so infuriating. Its annoying enough to be lectured by business types about supposedly impractical degrees, but its far more irritating to get the same lecture from people who were so fascinated by chemical engineering that they went on to get a doctoral degree in it. They didn't choose their undergraduate degree because it was financially lucrative, but because they were passionate about it and now want to misuse earnings data to argue that people who are equally passionate about some humanities subject are fools.

Engineering makes a really bad example of something which was pursued because of "fascination" and not "because it was financially lucrative".  Virtually any engineering sub-discipline is known to lead to pretty decent income, even with an undergraduate degree. I'd be interested in seeing the data showing any humanities discipline whose graduates have salaries similar to engineers.

As I said above, maximizing income isn't the same as guaranteeing a reasonable floor for income. Lots of students will do the latter; only a minority will attempt the former.

On edit: "Greater than a high school graduate" is NOT a reasonable floor for many students.

[Caracal]

I never thought of it as a choice, which is the family and cultural expectations part. Of course, I was far more excited about the academia part than the social part of the whole thing. I suspect that's where we are going to be a very unrepresentative group. Middle and upper class people are heavily overrepresented in academia, but most academics are also people whose interest and choices in college weren't primarily based on considerations of future income.

There are probably only a small percentage of students whose choice is primarily based on income; most are probably choosing something they think would be interesting but which would pay a decent professional-level income.

As a side note, this is part of the reason why I find the attitude of some STEM people on here towards the humanities so infuriating. Its annoying enough to be lectured by business types about supposedly impractical degrees, but its far more irritating to get the same lecture from people who were so fascinated by chemical engineering that they went on to get a doctoral degree in it. They didn't choose their undergraduate degree because it was financially lucrative, but because they were passionate about it and now want to misuse earnings data to argue that people who are equally passionate about some humanities subject are fools.

Engineering makes a really bad example of something which was pursued because of "fascination" and not "because it was financially lucrative".  Virtually any engineering sub-discipline is known to lead to pretty decent income, even with an undergraduate degree.

Sure, for undergraduate degrees. But, the premium for doctoral degrees isn't really that high. If the salary of a bachelors degree holder is going to average almost 100k, are there really that many people who are going to try to get a PHD just because it is likely to result in a small bump in salary?

[mleok]

As a side note, this is part of the reason why I find the attitude of some STEM people on here towards the humanities so infuriating. Its annoying enough to be lectured by business types about supposedly impractical degrees, but its far more irritating to get the same lecture from people who were so fascinated by chemical engineering that they went on to get a doctoral degree in it. They didn't choose their undergraduate degree because it was financially lucrative, but because they were passionate about it and now want to misuse earnings data to argue that people who are equally passionate about some humanities subject are fools.

It's hard to argue that it's foolish to get a doctoral degree in engineering when it does open up opportunities in industry. As I've mentioned before, my most recent PhD student received a $250K/year job offer straight out of his PhD. In any case, it's precisely because I know what a high risk-moderate reward decision it is to pursue a career in academia that I strongly caution most students against it, I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

[mleok]

Sure, for undergraduate degrees. But, the premium for doctoral degrees isn't really that high. If the salary of a bachelors degree holder is going to average almost 100k, are there really that many people who are going to try to get a PHD just because it is likely to result in a small bump in salary?

Most people with an undergradaute degree in engineering will not be receiving almost $100K in salary, even with decades of experience, and unless you have an engineering degree from Caltech, MIT, or Stanford, it probably does improve your advancement opportunities to obtain a MS or PhD, particularly if you wish to stay in engineering as opposed to transitioning to management.

[mleok]

Engineering makes a really bad example of something which was pursued because of "fascination" and not "because it was financially lucrative".  Virtually any engineering sub-discipline is known to lead to pretty decent income, even with an undergraduate degree. I'd be interested in seeing the data showing any humanities discipline whose graduates have salaries similar to engineers.

I know many students in my high school who were passionate about math and physics and all went into engineering as a pragmatic choice that leveraged their analytical abilities. Some went on to do PhDs, but most of those that did went on to industry positions, which paid more (and had better long term prospects) than what they could have commanded with just a BS or MS, so as you say, it's hard to argue that pursing even a PhD in engineering does not have a pragmatic component to it.

[marshwiggle]

Engineering makes a really bad example of something which was pursued because of "fascination" and not "because it was financially lucrative".  Virtually any engineering sub-discipline is known to lead to pretty decent income, even with an undergraduate degree. I'd be interested in seeing the data showing any humanities discipline whose graduates have salaries similar to engineers.

I know many students in my high school who were passionate about math and physics and all went into engineering as a pragmatic choice that leveraged their analytical abilities. Some went on to do PhDs, but most of those that did went on to industry positions, which paid more (and had better long term prospects) than what they could have commanded with just a BS or MS, so as you say, it's hard to argue that pursing even a PhD in engineering does not have a pragmatic component to it.

I realized the problem here:

As a side note, this is part of the reason why I find the attitude of some STEM people on here towards the humanities so infuriating. Its annoying enough to be lectured by business types about supposedly impractical degrees, but its far more irritating to get the same lecture from people who were so fascinated by chemical engineering that they went on to get a doctoral degree in it. They didn't choose their undergraduate degree because it was financially lucrative, but because they were passionate about it and now want to misuse earnings data to argue that people who are equally passionate about some humanities subject are fools.

There's a false dichotomy suggested between "passion" and "finance" as though students have to choose between doing what they love and being poor versus being rich but doing something which is drudgery.

Instead of encouraging students to pursue the thing that is their passion, it makes more sense to get them to think of a handful of things that interest them. Then, from that list there are probably one or two that will be potentially much easier to do lucratively.

I knew a man who, when in high school, loved both math and music. He figured that he could pursue one as a career and one as a hobby. Math as a career and music as a hobby was a much clearer path than music as a career and math as a hobby, so that's what he did, and got to enjoy both.

It makes no more sense for students to ignore the financial implications of their decisions than it does for them to ignore their interests.

[mleok]

There's a false dichotomy suggested between "passion" and "finance" as though students have to choose between doing what they love and being poor versus being rich but doing something which is drudgery.

Instead of encouraging students to pursue the thing that is their passion, it makes more sense to get them to think of a handful of things that interest them. Then, from that list there are probably one or two that will be potentially much easier to do lucratively.

I knew a man who, when in high school, loved both math and music. He figured that he could pursue one as a career and one as a hobby. Math as a career and music as a hobby was a much clearer path than music as a career and math as a hobby, so that's what he did, and got to enjoy both.

It makes no more sense for students to ignore the financial implications of their decisions than it does for them to ignore their interests.

Indeed, it's a multi-objective optimization problem, with numerous Pareto optimal solutions, that depend on one's relative emphasis on passion vs. financial implications.

[Caracal]

Engineering makes a really bad example of something which was pursued because of "fascination" and not "because it was financially lucrative".  Virtually any engineering sub-discipline is known to lead to pretty decent income, even with an undergraduate degree. I'd be interested in seeing the data showing any humanities discipline whose graduates have salaries similar to engineers.

I know many students in my high school who were passionate about math and physics and all went into engineering as a pragmatic choice that leveraged their analytical abilities. Some went on to do PhDs, but most of those that did went on to industry positions, which paid more (and had better long term prospects) than what they could have commanded with just a BS or MS, so as you say, it's hard to argue that pursing even a PhD in engineering does not have a pragmatic component to it.

Of course it has a pragmatic component. The actual point I was making, however, wasn't about grad degrees at all, but undergrad degrees. We've been over this a million times, but the truth is that when you consider all the other factors, there isn't much evidence that doing a humanities degree doesn't leverage people's writing or non stem analytical abilities.

[downer]

I guess the free community college plan is still part of this thread.
Interesting article here.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/bidens-plan-would-make-community-college-free-it-could-also-have-unintended-downsides

I like the idea of evidence-based approaches to retention, in theory. I wonder what the evidence-based approaches are. I mostly see students who struggle in classes also struggle to use support services. It is rare, for example, that a student actually makes good use of a writing center.

If college is free, then will that mean students are spending less time working in jobs to pay for college so they devote  more time to their college work?

[marshwiggle]

I guess the free community college plan is still part of this thread.
Interesting article here.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/bidens-plan-would-make-community-college-free-it-could-also-have-unintended-downsides

I like the idea of evidence-based approaches to retention, in theory. I wonder what the evidence-based approaches are. I mostly see students who struggle in classes also struggle to use support services. It is rare, for example, that a student actually makes good use of a writing center.

If college is free, then will that mean students are spending less time working in jobs to pay for college so they devote  more time to their college work?

If it's free, it's pretty much a given that there will be a lot more failures since there is no literal cost for failure. Would students be prevented from registering at other institutions if they fail out? If not, expect a lot of "Hail Mary" registrations in programs and courses.

(Before anyone points out that free tuition should allow people to do less part-time work and thus have more time for studies, if tuition is free, then people can take more part-time work than otherwise, since they can just sign up in lots of courses without worrying about their potential failures.)

[Hibush]

I guess the free community college plan is still part of this thread.
Interesting article here.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/bidens-plan-would-make-community-college-free-it-could-also-have-unintended-downsides

I like the idea of evidence-based approaches to retention, in theory. I wonder what the evidence-based approaches are. I mostly see students who struggle in classes also struggle to use support services. It is rare, for example, that a student actually makes good use of a writing center.

If college is free, then will that mean students are spending less time working in jobs to pay for college so they devote  more time to their college work?

It appears the proposal also includes "Pre-K" for three-and four-year olds. That will allow more time for college work for parents of kids that age. College students with young children must be mostly at community colleges. The announcement focused on the educational value for the children, but I see the impact on the parents as being more important.