mamselle's "100 Readers" story from Dire Financial Straights thread

[Wahoo Redux]

mamselle posted this over on the Colleges in Dire Financial Straights Thread:

Missed the edit window:

P.S. Should we (did we already?) start a commentary/asides thread to ride around with this one?

It might help this thread stay more on-topic with specifics while allowing for broader thought linked to posts on this or other threads. - M.

And 5hen this showed up...

   https://www.boston.com/community/readers-say/how-readers-feel-about-the-rising-cost-of-college/

[mamselle]

OK! Thanks, Wahoo...I was still pondering. Glad to see this.

So, maybe a few questions...

First question--how much does this represent what this forum keeps saying over and over and over and over....and how much does it differ?

Second question: Are overlaps because that's "what everyone says," or because "It's true," or because....? "Something else?"

And...third, are the differences true, or unrealistic, or due to the various vantage points this forum has (primarily academic) as different from other, maybe "lay" points of view?  Or something else?

Or...others?

M.

[Wahoo Redux]

These two responses particularly struck me for their hyperbole (which the interviewees probably believed to be objective and grounded) and the overt antagonism. 

"Putting kids into major debt without even a guaranteed job when done is unconscionable. Schools need to find ways to cut costs and assure employability. Maybe start by getting rid of the massive amounts of overhead paid to people who teach NOTHING! Stop paying coaches more in one year than most of these graduates will make in ten years. Wake up schools or continue to lose more enrollees." — Stephen G., Sudbury

"I am a tech executive and I'm paying people in their 20s six-figure salaries to manage social media communities while working remotely. No college degree is needed. While this is a modern job, in the past everyone just learned on the job, from newspaper reporters to stockbrokers. The widespread degree inflation — that is, the constant application of college degrees to every job whether necessary or not — is absurd and I'm glad the wheels are finally falling off the janky college car." — James, Jamaica Plain

The first quote struck me because of the alternative fact regarding employment (I imagine Stephen is thinking about the 'lazy' R1 professor who researches more than teaches).

The second quote struck me because James seems to think that managing "social media" is a long term career.  Perhaps it will be.  But it is also likely that the current social media "communities" will be radically different in a decade or so, maybe sooner.  One thing we know about "on the job" training is that it tends to leave people with narrow skillsets packing their personal belongings and getting on the bus after they are let go.

Very interesting, mamselle, and very timely of Boston.com.

[Mobius]

Highly skeptical someone is making six figures just managing social media without a degree unless they are an "influencer."

How did these folks learn analytics?

[Istiblennius]

I didn't find those statements to be particularly hyperbolic - Stephen was clearly referencing coaching costs, which at worst indicates a poor understanding of how budgets at D1 schools are managed. As for the other statement, I think there are many many routes to well paying careers, some of which involve college, but not all.

The following is anecdotal, so take for what it is worth.

The 3/5 members of my family who make the most (in 6-7 figure salaries) do not have college degrees. One is in construction and worked their way up from a work crew to lead bidder. Another works in luxury sales. The third is a consulting creative designer. (the two with degrees are in law and finance). They all make a lot more than I ever will with my B.A., M.S, and PhD degrees. I love what I do, but not everyone is me.

Based on conversations with my students, I have grown to believe (I use believe because it is an opinion, not an objective fact) that it is elitist to divorce higher education from career aspirations just as much as it is elitist to assume that liberal arts and sciences exposure should be limited only to those who can afford to attend SLACs and ivies.

We need to do a better job of showing students and potential employers how their major programs and degree requirements provide opportunity both to employers and employees for better future outcomes.

[Wahoo Redux]

I didn't find those statements to be particularly hyperbolic

I was thinking of "paid to people who teach NOTHING!" and "I'm glad the wheels are finally falling off the janky college car."

These sorts of intemperate sentiments are also part of the rage machine running amok in American culture these days.

An example from the comments:

Bigteddyk
4 hours ago

Maybe if they didn't pay teachers 300k a year for 1 class it may be cheaper
I Wonder if Pocahontas agrees?

[RatGuy]

I also see some of those comments as hyperbolic and reflective of social-media-outrage. I do think that it's tough to fight the impression that your "major" is somehow your professional caste for the rest of your life. Not simply "all English majors flip burgers for a living," which isn't anything new. But the whole "If you major in 'English' then you must be an English teacher as a job" mentality. I mean, one of my best friends is an engineer and his BA was in music (he still plays trumpet on the weekends). Twenty years ago, the medical school with which we are affiliated, was accepting more English/Music/Art majors than Biology majors, but it seemed that few people ever believed me when I'd tell them that.

That said, we've got our largest Freshman class in history this fall. I believe many of our students are thinking less about grades or job security than they are the "experience" and "football." And I don't know many, if any, of my friends with management jobs who are interested in hiring someone without a 4-year degree. They might complain that "no one needs college anymore," but their hiring practices say otherwise.

[pgher]

I think two articles speak to this issue: one on the most expensive colleges and another on Terry Pratchett's boots theory.

The "most expensive colleges" article is just dumb. My kid is about to graduate from an Ivy in the top ten of list price. But these big-name schools have huge endowments and give huge aid. Basically, the FAFSA EFC is what you pay. If it's zero, you pay zero; that was actually my bill this year, though I had to pay for off-campus rent. But people don't know that. They see the list price, assume they would have 6-figure debt at the end, and don't even try.

The "boots theory" speaks to short-term vs. long-term investments. An 18-year-old may know that a liberal arts education from a highly-ranked college has the best long-term payoff. But if their time horizon is "I need a job now because my family is broke," that won't matter. They'll get a BS in something that promises a job, or they'll get a technical certification so they can go into a trade. In the IT field, they may know that a BS in computer science has a better career path, but choose a Microsoft certification so they can get a job now. The problem with the latter approach is that every certification has a shelf life, so they will have to continually re-tool throughout their career.

[marshwiggle]

Based on conversations with my students, I have grown to believe (I use believe because it is an opinion, not an objective fact) that it is elitist to divorce higher education from career aspirations just as much as it is elitist to assume that liberal arts and sciences exposure should be limited only to those who can afford to attend SLACs and ivies.

What fascinated me about the comments was how the vast majority considered the employment outcomes to be critical to the calculation about whether the degree was a good idea or not, and even the few who were less focused on that still felt the education gave them more flexibility in the long term for employment.

No-one considered post-graduation employment to be irrelevant.

[Puget]

I see a lot of motivated cognition (we want to feel valuable and protect our own jobs), egocentrism (other people are/should be like us), and elitism in these discussions. I think we'd all be a lot better off if we stopped trying to make unsupportable cases that every 18 year old should get a 4-year degree, let alone a liberal arts degree. The expectation that they should is a historical anomaly.  Some certainly should, but there are other good paths. The goal should be to match young folks with a good educational and career path for them.

There is a huge shortage of skilled trades people for example--and those are highly paid jobs. Nor are those necessarily boring jobs, as some here may assume-- I've just been interacting with electricians and an HVAC/solar designer, and was struck by how much creative and strategic problem solving their work involves. And we will never NOT need these tradespeople.

The "boots theory" speaks to short-term vs. long-term investments. An 18-year-old may know that a liberal arts education from a highly-ranked college has the best long-term payoff. But if their time horizon is "I need a job now because my family is broke," that won't matter. They'll get a BS in something that promises a job, or they'll get a technical certification so they can go into a trade. In the IT field, they may know that a BS in computer science has a better career path, but choose a Microsoft certification so they can get a job now. The problem with the latter approach is that every certification has a shelf life, so they will have to continually re-tool throughout their career.

Regarding the first, this may be true, but I'd want to see evidence that it is so adjusted for family SES. Otherwise, educational effects are confounded by generational wealth and social capital. What you really want is a measure of what sort of educational experiences lead to the most economic mobility, not raw earnings. There is obviously also strong selection bias in who gets into elite institutions, so you'd have to try to adjust for that. I'm sure there is research that has tried to do that, though it would be tough to fully do so. Then there is the question of how much of the advantage is a result of social capital (brand name recognition by employers, alumni network in positions of power). In other words, the answer is going to be really complicated.

Regarding the second, so will the person with a CS degree-- everyone in technical fields has to continuously update their skills.

[Wahoo Redux]

I see a lot of motivated cognition (we want to feel valuable and protect our own jobs), egocentrism (other people are/should be like us), and elitism in these discussions. I think we'd all be a lot better off if we stopped trying to make unsupportable cases that every 18 year old should get a 4-year degree, let alone a liberal arts degree. The expectation that they should is a historical anomaly. 

Respectfully, no one has said those things.

I suspect a lot of the comments on the article itself, particularly the most vehement, have a lot to do with the reverse of this, actually.

Has anyone had a family or extended family interaction (I assume this would most like be a family interaction) with someone who works in the trades and resents your education?  Even my poor lost sister (may she rest in peace) began telling me I was "an elitist" as soon as I finished the doctorate.  We'd grown up in exactly the same environment, but she had never finished her associate's degree and married into a blue-collar family who overtly resented our nuclear family with our degrees.  The marriage did not last, but the sense that we thought "we were better than them" stayed.

No one can say for sure, of course, but a lot of the antagonism toward education has nothing to do with cost or career outcomes in my experience.

[apl68]

No, I don't ever recall having met anybody who seemed resentful toward my level of education.  And I regularly spend time with people who are...well, very uneducated indeed.  That includes extended family on my ex-wife's side.  We always seemed to get along well (She herself was the only member of her family who ever seems to have developed a problem with me).  I've heard education and credentials and expertise (not mine) spoken of in a slighting manner before, and it can be annoying, but it happens.  On rare occasions I've heard people complain of being condescended to or undervalued in some way because they lacked a college degree. 

In a working-class town like the ones where I've lived most of my life, those of us who do have higher college degrees know that the world doesn't revolve around us.  And we know that there are lots of other qualities besides a certain level of education that can lead to, and are worthy of, respect.  I think that attitude has generally kept us from being resented.

Many years ago I knew an older man who would speak of having met what he called an "educated idiot"--somebody who had developed a formidable level of expertise in a demanding technical field, but had little experience of life outside it.  That field so dominated his thinking that he struggled to hold a normal conversation with anybody outside his field.  The man who said this was always something of a blowhard who had to be taken with a grain of salt.  But that observation about "educated idiots" stuck with me.  When I was in PhD school I consciously tried to avoid becoming too completely sucked into my field and forgetting how to talk to people outside it.  I've always tried to appreciate all sorts of people, and the different things they know.  Almost everybody knows something that's worth hearing, if you listen for it.

I don't guess that any of this is proof against meeting with resentment, but it does seem to have worked for me.  When people have shown resentment toward me it has at least been for something besides my education!

[Wahoo Redux]

apl, I think you described exactly what I was posting about.  And sure, it goes both ways.

Personally, my sister, antagonized by a pathological level of sibling rivalry, is the only person in my life who has overtly demonstrated disdain for my education.  I was actually a favorite of her in-laws----I was simply very aware of their views about what I do (they once refused to buy a house when they found out that there were doctors and lawyers in the neighborhood).  But I am also from a blue-collar town and now live in a very blue-collar Trumpee city.  I never have problems myself, but I am very aware of the cultural divide that can occur when education is a factor in people's relationships.

What you described above are examples of this very thing.

[mamselle]

I don't know, so I'm asking...I may not understand the terms aright....

Would "selection bias" automatically be denied by those practicing it, or are there other criterion under which it would be denied?

Just curious.

M.

[Puget]

I don't know, so I'm asking...I may not understand the terms aright....

Would "selection bias" automatically be denied by those practicing it, or are there other criterion under which it would be denied?

Just curious.

M.

Are you referring to my post?
"Selection bias" simply means that your sample is not representative of the population. It's not something colleges would deny-- elite institutions by definition are practicing selection bias, that's what being "selective" is.

The problem is not the selection bias (well, that would be a different discussion anyway). The problem is that it makes it extremely challenging to disentangle selection effects from effects of attending an elite institution. That is, to make a causal claim that, as pgher stated, "a liberal arts education from a highly-ranked college has the best long-term payoff" you'd ideally want to randomly assign students to this vs. some other educational experience. Of course you can't do that. The best you could do would be to try to compare samples from different institution types that are matched on as many pertinent characteristics as possible (e.g., high school GPA, test scores, family SES etc.).

But is is hard to know and measure all the potential confounding factors -- e.g., even if you match on all those, students are still likely to differ on other personality, family, and cultural factors that caused some to apply for and enroll in a SLAC and others to go to Big State U.

This is what is called the "third variable problem"-- You may think you have a causal relation between A and B, but there can be an unmeasured third variable (or many) that actually causes both A and B, leading to a spurious correlation between them. It is something you always have to be aware of when interpreting findings that don't involve random assignment to condition.

I'm not saying there aren't benefits to attending an elite SLAC (I'm the happy product of one myself), just that a simple comparison of outcomes between such students and other students can't demonstrate that, and that a big chunk of such an apparent effect can almost certainly be explained by the characteristics of the students and their families before starting college (i.e., selection effects).