NBC: Why Americans are increasingly dubious about going to college

[Wahoo Redux]

The differences in wages between majors are, with the exception of engineering, in the single percentage points.

And the problem with college completion rates is that we don't know how to filter out those who will fail?  We've also hashed this out before.

Should the criteria for entrance to college be raised?  How do you do that with state schools?

The schools with the worst graduation rates (ex. Chicago State) pull down the national average, which are the numbers that everyone knows (look it up).

Do we want to tell adults that they don't have the right to gamble (to use a current term) on their futures because of some predetermined metric which is probably students' performances in secondary education?

How do we tell the people who would benefit most from college (first gen and lower socioeconomic stratus) because their secondary education is subpar (which it often is) that they cannot attend college because they will probably drop out?

We should not talk in simple terms about these things.

[ciao_yall]

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.

Well...

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

Not really a gamble. Statistically speaking, college graduates have higher wages and lower unemployment rates. See?

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.

Also not true. Those with "some college" still have higher wages and lower unemployment rates. See?

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.

As a career, yes, but other research shows STEM majors change majors and/or careers at the highest rate of all majors/professions. And many arts/humanities majors do work in technical jobs because... imagine Amazon.com with out a pleasant user interface. Or books nobody wanted to read, music nobody wanted to hear, or shows nobody wanted to watch.

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.

Ahem.

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. :-)

Again, I can assure you that of whatever political persuasion, people with college educations (1) Recognize the benefit of their college education (2) Are supremely grateful to the taxpayers who made this education possible for them, and (3) Are making sure their kids go to college.

Methinks this argument is the fact that they don't want to pay taxes for someone else's kid to go to college because... they think karma stops with them? IDK.

[dismalist]

No one doubts that there is an educational wage premium. Question is what's the cost, including opportunity costs, and to whom. What is the rate of return? That's what's got to be done retrospectively. Current decisions  are founded on expectations. The non-college deciders can't all be stupid.

Correct about taxes. Why should anyone subsidize something, especially when it's so lucrative? Borrow and pay oneself.

Otherwise, this is just "I want more".

[Anon1787]

People don't know ex ante whether they will graduate and get a higher paying job (many people end up in jobs not requiring a degree). And as the financial advisors say, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Those with some college earn only a 10% premium based on the cited figures. Does it cover the increasing financial and opportunity (i.e. lost wages and work experience/skills) costs of going to college and not finishing?

People who were subsidized by taxpayers may feel grateful, entitled (see Machiavelli's discussion of liberality), or resentful. As indicated in the news story, plenty of people who did get degrees doubt the benefits and are expressing those doubts to young people.

[marshwiggle]

Again, I can assure you that of whatever political persuasion, people with college educations (1) Recognize the benefit of their college education (2) Are supremely grateful to the taxpayers who made this education possible for them, and (3) Are making sure their kids go to college.

How is this any different than the fact that people without college educations recognize the benefit of going directly to work and encourage the kids to do the same?

Confirmation bias works for everyone. It doesn't prove anyone is unambiguously "right".

[downer]

I would still recommend a college experience to a wide range of graduating high school students, especially given the problems with high school. Colleges are also working to stay attractive to students, creating new programs that meet their needs, and catering to their leisure preferences. Investing in higher ed makes sense for tax payers because it benefits everyone in the end.

But I do wonder to what extent higher ed has become an industry designed to perpetuate itself and sell a product to consumers even if they don't really have any need for it.

There's also a problem of quality control with higher ed. There seem to be a lot of lousy colleges.

[Wahoo Redux]

There's also a problem of quality control with higher ed. There seem to be a lot of lousy colleges.

I did not always get on with the late, great Polly_Mere, but she did have a very good point about closing the "lousy" colleges (like the one my wife and I work for) and channeling resources into campuses that have the capability to be really great (like our state's ginormous and relatively prestigious flagship).

If our current campus closes, which it is not in danger of at the moment but seems possible in the future, it would devastate the downtown district here and have a profound effect on the city as a whole.  Probably many of the people who try college here would not go elsewhere----but our retention and graduation rates, particularly among people of color, are pretty awful.

Pooling resources more intelligently is maybe something society should discuss in relation to higher ed. 

[marshwiggle]

There's also a problem of quality control with higher ed. There seem to be a lot of lousy colleges.

I did not always get on with the late, great Polly_Mere, but she did have a very good point about closing the "lousy" colleges (like the one my wife and I work for) and channeling resources into campuses that have the capability to be really great (like our state's ginormous and relatively prestigious flagship).

If our current campus closes, which it is not in danger of at the moment but seems possible in the future, it would devastate the downtown district here and have a profound effect on the city as a whole.  Probably many of the people who try college here would not go elsewhere----but our retention and graduation rates, particularly among people of color, are pretty awful.

Pooling resources more intelligently is maybe something society should discuss in relation to higher ed.

This is the "Belling the cat" problem. Lots of people will agree that this should happen SOMEWHERE, but it always has to be somewhere ELSE.

No-one is willing to "take one for the team".

[Hibush]

But I do wonder to what extent higher ed has become an industry designed to perpetuate itself and sell a product to consumers even if they don't really have any need for it.

Every time society puts money into an important social objective, there as industries ready to pounce on that money. That they show up in higher ed is no surprise at all. Some, like Corinthian, were put out of business. But there are a lot whose priority is to keep the revenue flowing.

Some public schools have their resources cut in ways that make it impossible to meet their true mission with integrity, so they end up with the same revenue-chasing model and a lot of the same consequences for students and staff.

[dismalist]

But I do wonder to what extent higher ed has become an industry designed to perpetuate itself and sell a product to consumers even if they don't really have any need for it.

Every time society puts money into an important social objective, there as industries ready to pounce on that money. That they show up in higher ed is no surprise at all. Some, like Corinthian, were put out of business. But there are a lot whose priority is to keep the revenue flowing.

Some public schools have their resources cut in ways that make it impossible to meet their true mission with integrity, so they end up with the same revenue-chasing model and a lot of the same consequences for students and staff.

There is no important social objective, just private objectives of earning a higher income. If one expects it's worth it, borrow; if not, don't.

Individuals know more about themselves than anyone else does. They are in the best position for figuring out if the education is worth it, in monetary or non-monetary compensation., to them. This is important because the figures presented for the higher wage premia are averages. No one is guaranteed the average. One could be a loser, and the individual is best placed to decide what he or she wants. Everybody is entitled to his own degree of risk aversion. [Think of vaccine rates and masking rates. Let's not encourage people to gamble.]

Moreover, the enrollment decline is nothing new. It's been going on for years, and part of it is caused by the decline in the size of the cohorts. Let's move on. Nothing to see here.

[Wahoo Redux]

There is no important social objective, just private objectives of earning a higher income. I

Income may be the motivation for the majority of college students and their parents (and better incomes would be a net good for society, I would think) but the benefit to society of an educated populace is much greater than merely the money machine, despite the best intentions of students and parents to minimize education to nothing more than an employment passport.

And no, the current post-COVID decline is greater than the demographic cliff.  Something else is happening as well.

[dismalist]

There is no important social objective, just private objectives of earning a higher income. I

Income may be the motivation for the majority of college students and their parents (and better incomes would be a net good for society, I would think) but the benefit to society of an educated populace is much greater than merely the money machine, despite the best intentions of students and parents to minimize education to nothing more than an employment passport.

And no, the current post-COVID decline is greater than the demographic cliff.  Something else is happening as well.

No, a more educated populace is of no benefit to me. An additional plumber or sociologist earns what we value the additional stuff he produces. He receives the extra and we pay him the extra.

Yes, there's more than the demographic cliff going on. Which is what this is all about.

[Anon1787]

I would still recommend a college experience to a wide range of graduating high school students, especially given the problems with high school. Colleges are also working to stay attractive to students, creating new programs that meet their needs, and catering to their leisure preferences. Investing in higher ed makes sense for tax payers because it benefits everyone in the end.

But I do wonder to what extent higher ed has become an industry designed to perpetuate itself and sell a product to consumers even if they don't really have any need for it.

There's also a problem of quality control with higher ed. There seem to be a lot of lousy colleges.

Using colleges for remedial education is a waste of resources. And it's a bigger waste of resources to make colleges more like all-inclusive resorts catering to their leisure preferences.

[marshwiggle]

There is no important social objective, just private objectives of earning a higher income. I

Income may be the motivation for the majority of college students and their parents (and better incomes would be a net good for society, I would think) but the benefit to society of an educated populace is much greater than merely the money machine, despite the best intentions of students and parents to minimize education to nothing more than an employment passport.

There are all kinds of things that would have some "benefit" to society; the question is whether the benefit is remotely worth the cost. If everyone were "educated" to play the guitar, or have lifeguard qualifications, or do calculus, there would be some benefit, but the cost of providing that to most of the population would far outweigh any conceivable value to society.

[pgher]

There is no important social objective, just private objectives of earning a higher income. I

Income may be the motivation for the majority of college students and their parents (and better incomes would be a net good for society, I would think) but the benefit to society of an educated populace is much greater than merely the money machine, despite the best intentions of students and parents to minimize education to nothing more than an employment passport.

And no, the current post-COVID decline is greater than the demographic cliff.  Something else is happening as well.

No, a more educated populace is of no benefit to me. An additional plumber or sociologist earns what we value the additional stuff he produces. He receives the extra and we pay him the extra.

Yes, there's more than the demographic cliff going on. Which is what this is all about.

This, I believe, is the core motivation behind the defunding of public (higher) ed. 100 years ago, we decided that education was a public good. 40 years ago, people educated under that system decided that it was a private good. Thus the end of expansion and beginning of decline.