NBC: Why Americans are increasingly dubious about going to college

[downer]

Is there a optimal percentage of people who should be going to college?
Doesn't the US already have more people going to college than most other countries?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-educated-countries
(Though it is hard to believe that people in the US really are the most educated in the world. One factor is how bad US high school education is. A lot of US college education seems to bring students to a level that other countries' students get to in secondary education.)

The US advocates higher ed for most and then gets people into huge dept. I'd suspect it's a scam perpetuated by the higher ed industry.

Despite decades of focus on learning outcomes in higher ed, there still seems to be rather hazy evidence about what proportion of students benefit from going to college. Overall, it raises people's earning power and income, but what proportion of students would be better off avoiding college and going straight into a career?

[Parasaurolophus]

(Though it is hard to believe that people in the US really are the most educated in the world. One factor is how bad US high school education is. A lot of US college education seems to bring students to a level that other countries' students get to in secondary education.)

I'm a little puzzled, because it's not, and your link shows as much. It's up there, but for tertiary education it's nearly 10% behind Canada, which leads the pack.

[downer]

(Though it is hard to believe that people in the US really are the most educated in the world. One factor is how bad US high school education is. A lot of US college education seems to bring students to a level that other countries' students get to in secondary education.)

I'm a little puzzled, because it's not, and your link shows as much. It's up there, but for tertiary education it's nearly 10% behind Canada, which leads the pack.

Right. I should have said among the most educated. Less than Canada and Russia, about the same as Australia and the UK. I'm not putting a lot of credence into the exact stats since I'm sure there are different ways of measuring.

[Hibush]

The graphic counts tertiary education as "completed some form of tertiary education: a two-year or four-year degree or a vocational program" (the OECD definition). I suspect a fair bit of the variation among countries in the offerings for two-year and vocational programs, and that those account for a large proportion of the total number. There is also a huge variation in demographics, change in education level over time and proportion of old people. There is a nice graph showing the level for more recent graduate age (25-34).

For the purposes of most forumites, the question might be the proportion of the population with a four-year undergraduate degree. What is your sense of the proportion of current high school grads who will truly benefit from a bachelors degree and the education it provides?

[Wahoo Redux]

The rising cost problem would be worse if people didn't think of it in terms of improving their employment prospects. How much more student and/or family debt would people be expected to accept purely for "personal enrichment"? The only sensible reason to spend that kind of money is if the investment is going to ultimately have sufficient monetary payoff to justify it.

It's a fair point. 

The paradox is that a college education is provably, empirically an economic benefit for degree holders and has been for a long time (the article touches on this)-----so it cannot be simply that. 

The glaring truth about this, regardless of how much some choose to overlook it, is that there is a great variation in the economic benefit based on what someone studies. Is there a big decline in enrollment in professional programs? Those are the ones most likely to have a significant economic payoff.  People (including prospective students and their parents) aren't stupid. Trying to gloss this is futile, and the declining enrollments make that clear.

Plus, studies have shown that people are able to pay off student loans and still have a healthy middle-class lifestyle.

As above, that depends greatly on what they study.

The cost factor is clearly important, maybe the single most important factor, but there is something more than just that.

The rising costs of education are especially hard to justify in fields where the infrastructure required hasn't really changed over time. In STEM, where things like lab facilities are expensive and need to be kept up to date, increased costs make sense. But in fields where the resources required are largely unchanged over decades, it's hard to justify constant increases above the rate of inflation. Increases in costs above the rate of inflation means that the economic payoff has to be increasing over time in order to make sense.)

I thought you were here when we went over all this.

Engineering makes a lot of more money than most majors.  Business has a bump at the beginning of their careers but this levels out with most other degree holders.

So no, over a lifetime what you study does not in fact make a major difference in lifetime earning.

I have no intention of digging back through my posts to find it, but you've fallen into a familiar confirmation bias.

[marshwiggle]

Engineering makes a lot of more money than most majors. 

So no, over a lifetime what you study does not in fact make a major difference in lifetime earning.

The second statement is only "true" if you intentionally exclude one very obvious (and large) group of people from the analysis. That's like saying women tennis players are all pretty much the same (if you exclude Serena Williams).

[Wahoo Redux]

Engineering makes a lot of more money than most majors. 

So no, over a lifetime what you study does not in fact make a major difference in lifetime earning.

The second statement is only "true" if you intentionally exclude one very obvious (and large) group of people from the analysis. That's like saying women tennis players are all pretty much the same (if you exclude Serena Williams).

Most tennis players are the same if you exclude Serena Williams.

And most college grads have the same success in life.

I don't think you made the point you thought you made.

[marshwiggle]

Engineering makes a lot of more money than most majors. 

So no, over a lifetime what you study does not in fact make a major difference in lifetime earning.

The second statement is only "true" if you intentionally exclude one very obvious (and large) group of people from the analysis. That's like saying women tennis players are all pretty much the same (if you exclude Serena Williams).

Most tennis players are the same if you exclude Serena Williams.

From http://www.tennisnow.com/Rankings/WTA-Singles.aspx

Current Women's Singles Ranking
Monday 8/8/2022
1   Iga Świątek   8396
2   Anett Kontaveit   4476
3   Paula Badosa   4190
4   Maria Sakkari   4190
5   Ons Jabeur   4010
6   Aryna Sabalenka   3366
7   Jessica Pegula   3116
8   Garbiñe Muguruza   2886
9   Daria Kasatkina   2800
10   Emma Raducanu   2772
11   Cori Gauff   2746
12   Belinda Bencic   2635
13   Leylah Fernandez   2534
14   Karolína Plíšková   2532
15   Simona Halep   2415
16   Jeļena Ostapenko   2302
17   Danielle Collins   2273
18   Veronika Kudermetova   2220
19   Barbora Krejčíková   2163
20   Victoria Azarenka   2076

I don't know how the rankings are determined, but the top player has almost twice the points of the second ranked player, and 4 times the points of the 20th ranked player.

And from [urlhttps://scores.nbcsports.com/tennis/rankings.asp?tour=WTA&rank=3]https://scores.nbcsports.com/tennis/rankings.asp?tour=WTA&rank=3[/url]

Earnings:
Iga Świątek $6,557,835
Anett Kontaveit $818,988
Victoria Azarenka $675,702

The top player's earnings are about 8x those of the second ranked player.

And most college grads have the same success in life.

I guess so, if you count those tennis players as "same".

[Wahoo Redux]

May I suggest, my friend, that you've got caught in one of your argumentative loops that is tangential and not really the point?

[Anon1787]

It may be true that the average person benefits from finishing college, but the completion rate is only around 60%. Marginal students would be better off taking advantage of the good labor market rather than suffering the increasing financial and opportunity costs of eventually dropping out of college.

[bio-nonymous]

Engineering makes a lot of more money than most majors. 

So no, over a lifetime what you study does not in fact make a major difference in lifetime earning.

The second statement is only "true" if you intentionally exclude one very obvious (and large) group of people from the analysis. That's like saying women tennis players are all pretty much the same (if you exclude Serena Williams).

Most tennis players are the same if you exclude Serena Williams.

And most college grads have the same success in life.

I don't think you made the point you thought you made.

I don't know about that. It seems to me that a typical physician or an organic chemist will make much more in lifetime earnings than an MSW or a "___-studies" major. Choices in majors or even in just careers do have consequences in earning potential. Most licensed electricians will make more in lifetime earnings than most art history majors. BUT, perhaps I missed something in this discussion coming in late...

[apl68]

It may be true that the average person benefits from finishing college, but the completion rate is only around 60%. Marginal students would be better off taking advantage of the good labor market rather than suffering the increasing financial and opportunity costs of eventually dropping out of college.

Yes!  And that's something worth considering.  A great many students have been pushed to go to college who weren't really good candidates for college success.  They dropped out after, in many cases, spending a lot of money and amassing a good deal of debt for no return.  This experience has been common enough to make many who have experienced it or seen it skeptical of whether attending college is a good idea.

[downer]

It would be unfair to expect college education to guarantee a net gain. It is a gamble.

But right now, for a lot of students, it seems less than 50% chance of having a net gain.

[Wahoo Redux]

Engineering makes a lot of more money than most majors. 

So no, over a lifetime what you study does not in fact make a major difference in lifetime earning.

The second statement is only "true" if you intentionally exclude one very obvious (and large) group of people from the analysis. That's like saying women tennis players are all pretty much the same (if you exclude Serena Williams).

Most tennis players are the same if you exclude Serena Williams.

And most college grads have the same success in life.

I don't think you made the point you thought you made.

I don't know about that. It seems to me that a typical physician or an organic chemist will make much more in lifetime earnings than an MSW or a "___-studies" major. Choices in majors or even in just careers do have consequences in earning potential. Most licensed electricians will make more in lifetime earnings than most art history majors. BUT, perhaps I missed something in this discussion coming in late...

No, you are on the page.

But this has been hashed out a number of times before.

Yeeeeeeessssss, certain majors do better economically, and yes, the dropout rate is atrocious and it would be better for everyone if these people did something else, and yes, certain trades are very gainful-----but the overall economic and lifestyle benefits of college graduation are well documented.

I guess there is no way around having the same conversations over and over again.

[dismalist]

It would be unfair to expect college education to guarantee a net gain. It is a gamble.

But right now, for a lot of students, it seems less than 50% chance of having a net gain.

We don't encourage actual gambling. There is no reason to do it with higher ed's college completion wage premium -- a lifetime gamble.

As was pointed out upthread, those who do not graduate, do not collect the college wage premium. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

And major in fact matters, vastly. Engineering is way up there. Business is in the middle. And the arts and humanities are at the bottom of the college wage premium.

No one has yet done the work on the evolution of the college wage premium to figure out what's going on, and no one can because it can only be done retrospectively. At the moment, it must be about expectations and alternatives.

As for right wing press reports on left wing colleges, which could affect expectations, it must be true, for one can't make  this stuff up. :-)