WSJ Poll: Majority of Americans Doubt Benefit of a College Degree

[Wahoo Redux]

WSJ Poll: Americans Are Losing Faith in College Education, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

It looks like there's been a 10% shift in the demographic in the last 10 years or so.

A majority of Americans don't think a college degree is worth the cost, according to a new Wall Street Journal-NORC poll, a new low in confidence in what has long been a hallmark of the American dream. 

The survey, conducted with NORC at the University of Chicago, a nonpartisan research organization, found that 56% of Americans think earning a four-year degree is a bad bet compared with 42% who retain faith in the credential.

Skepticism is strongest among people ages 18-34, and people with college degrees are among those whose opinions have soured the most, portending a profound shift for higher education in the years ahead.

Comment from a Reddator on the "professors" sub-reddit:

This feels like a misleading article. If you look at the demographic numbers, the responses of 18-50 range has barely changed in the past 6 years.

The primary drop is in the over 50+ range, which I would attribute to the fact that the 50+ demographic skews more conservative, and as we know there is a strong anti-woke college sentiment in some conservative circles.

That being said, there is of course the enrollment cliff that's coming but that's just due to the birth numbers.

[downer]

Who knows whether the numbers are really changing. There are a lot of variables at play.

There's also the gender difference in going to college. It's about 60% women and 40% men. Is that proportion stable? Are young men more skeptical than young women?

I'd also like to know the reasons for doubt. Is it because of Republican rhetoric, because they have seen their friends and relatives fail to get good jobs after college, or because they read Brennan and Magness?

[BTW, isn't the word Redditor?]

Thanks for posting this btw. I nearly did.

[Wahoo Redux]

[BTW, isn't the word Redditor?]

Thanks for posting this btw. I nearly did.

D'oh.  My bad.

You're welcome.

I find these things so distressing no matter how they were manufactured.  We simply have to get the cost of college down somehow.

[dismalist]

The second graphic down shows that 18-34 year olds are indeed a tad more skeptical of four year degrees than they were six years ago. Do not discount the 50-64 year olds, for they pay for part of the costs of the 18-24+ year olds!

Perhaps most revealing is the large jump in a skeptical attitude among women, for women are the college goers nowadays [60% of college attendees].

Still, I myself am skeptical about surveys that ask opinion questions. It costs nothing to answer them any which way.

What has been actually happening? The share of the 18-24 cohort attending college is here:

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cpb/college-enrollment-rate

We see a mild decline in share of 2-year college attendance and a steady 30% share going to 4-year colleges.

The shrinking of higher ed, through 2020, is largely a 2-year phenomenon plus a birth rate phenomenon. We'll see what post-Covid has to show.

[downer]

We simply have to get the cost of college down somehow.

My knee jerk reaction is to say let's get rid of 75% of the administrators and get rid of those expensive sports coaches. But I don't know if that would make much of a difference.

I guess places like Sweden make college free by having high taxes and subsidizing college more than the US.

[dismalist]

Part of the reason that Sweden can make tertiary education cheap is that it's rationed by quality of student. It's a myth that Sweden educates a greater share of it cohorts in college and university education than the United States. In the 20-24 year age cohort, in Sweden it's 28% while in the US it's 36%.

Internationally comparable data from the OECD https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=EAG_ENRL_RATE_AGE#

I am always astounded at wishes that somebody else pay for the benefits to be received by those being educated [and those doing the educating].

I am less astounded by the widespread misunderstanding of the Nordic welfare states. Their middle classes pay a higher share of taxes than in the US and their safety nets are characterized by, well, tough love.

[downer]

Right. Well, it's not entirely surprising that paying for higher education through taxes doesn't sit well with you, D.
It's not entirely surprising that I'm fine with it.

I'm also fine with fewer students going to college, both here and there. Obviously, a great deal of US college education is spent making up for the deficiencies of students' high school education. Most of us in the US are very familiar with college students who are not prepared for college. That's probably far less of an issue in the Nordic states. The US (often Democrat) goal of expanding college education to most people seems like a mistake to me. There are other better ways for young people to prepare for the workplace. And it would be better (though politically difficult) just to improve high school education.

I will keep on looking to strong welfare states as paradigms so long as they continue to fill the top 10 of the happiest countries in the world.

[dismalist]

Good. We  largely agree.

Nothing against proper welfare states. Insurance, 'ya know, where the market no woik, such as income insurance. Taxes are the premium.

Tertiary education is not about insurance. The educated largely get the benefits. So let the educatees largely pay.

Careful about the happiness stuff. It's just a re-weighting of all kinds of good stuff and stuff the weighter likes. Survey results are well explained by per capita income ±.

[spork]

[. . . ]

The shrinking of higher ed, through 2020, is largely a 2-year phenomenon plus a birth rate phenomenon. We'll see what post-Covid has to show.

I don't have the time or inclination to dig further into the data right now, but I suspect that part of any "shrinking" involves the decline of "for-profit" tertiary ed, which delivered a crummy product at a relatively high price. 

I am not surprised that a "Majority of Americans Doubt Benefit of a College Degree" when ~ 70% of Americans don't have a college degree.

[marshwiggle]

Skepticism is strongest among people ages 18-34, and people with college degrees are among those whose opinions have soured the most, portending a profound shift for higher education in the years ahead.

The second graphic down shows that 18-34 year olds are indeed a tad more skeptical of four year degrees than they were six years ago. Do not discount the 50-64 year olds, for they pay for part of the costs of the 18-24+ year olds!

Perhaps most revealing is the large jump in a skeptical attitude among women, for women are the college goers nowadays [60% of college attendees].

These two things together make a sobering point: People who have gotten degrees don't think it was worth it. It's one thing for people who are contemplating higher education (and thus have a sketchy idea of what it entails) to be skeptical based on whatever messages they've seen, but it's quite another for the people who completed it and thus presumably derived all of the typical benefits of it to feel like it wasn't worth it.

Cost may be a factor, but it would be naive to think it's the only factor.

[marshwiggle]

I am always astounded at wishes that somebody else pay for the benefits to be received by those being educated [and those doing the educating].

Bright people are a precious resource in any society. Getting them the education they need is valuable to society, not just to themselves. So it's in society's best interests to be able to find and finance those people. Especially if they are first generation students, they won't have the cultural capital to know how likely they are to succeed in a program, and so less likely to risk significant debt to enrol.

Rich kids don't have to worry about whether they pass or fail; poor kids do. So poor, bright kids will be deterred from higher education if it's prohibitively expensive, which is a loss to society. (Those doctors, lawyers, and engineers will pay much more in taxes over their careers than the cost to subsidize their education, so they're a bargain for society to pay for. And if society needs them, then it's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face to refuse to support them just because they will get a significant personal benefit from it.)

[dismalist]

I am always astounded at wishes that somebody else pay for the benefits to be received by those being educated [and those doing the educating].

Bright people are a precious resource in any society. Getting them the education they need is valuable to society, not just to themselves. So it's in society's best interests to be able to find and finance those people. Especially if they are first generation students, they won't have the cultural capital to know how likely they are to succeed in a program, and so less likely to risk significant debt to enrol.

Rich kids don't have to worry about whether they pass or fail; poor kids do. So poor, bright kids will be deterred from higher education if it's prohibitively expensive, which is a loss to society. (Those doctors, lawyers, and engineers will pay much more in taxes over their careers than the cost to subsidize their education, so they're a bargain for society to pay for. And if society needs them, then it's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face to refuse to support them just because they will get a significant personal benefit from it.)

Bright people are a precious resource in any society. They are especially a precious resource for themselves! They capture the bulk of what they produce. Those who produce positive externalities are few and we don't know who they are ex ante. That's why all faculty get paid. Poor bright kids can borrow on commercial terms. That's what capital markets are  for.

The last sentence is wrong. If they, whoever they are, will get a significant personal benefit from their education, there is no need to transfer money to them.

[marshwiggle]

I am always astounded at wishes that somebody else pay for the benefits to be received by those being educated [and those doing the educating].

Bright people are a precious resource in any society. Getting them the education they need is valuable to society, not just to themselves. So it's in society's best interests to be able to find and finance those people. Especially if they are first generation students, they won't have the cultural capital to know how likely they are to succeed in a program, and so less likely to risk significant debt to enrol.

Rich kids don't have to worry about whether they pass or fail; poor kids do. So poor, bright kids will be deterred from higher education if it's prohibitively expensive, which is a loss to society. (Those doctors, lawyers, and engineers will pay much more in taxes over their careers than the cost to subsidize their education, so they're a bargain for society to pay for. And if society needs them, then it's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face to refuse to support them just because they will get a significant personal benefit from it.)

Bright people are a precious resource in any society. They are especially a precious resource for themselves! They capture the bulk of what they produce. Those who produce positive externalities are few and we don't know who they are ex ante. That's why all faculty get paid. Poor bright kids can borrow on commercial terms. That's what capital markets are  for.

Governments invest funds for pensions, etc. How is "investing" in students with good potential for repayment in the form of taxes  a bad idea for the government? (There is a good case to be made that government investment regardless of program or student ability isn't smart economically.)

The last sentence is wrong. If they, whoever they are, will get a significant personal benefit from their education, there is no need to transfer money to them.

If they can be issued crystal balls in high school, so they can see the overall benefit of their choice, then this would be true. When they have to incur debt up front with no guarantee of the ability to pay it off, then its a gamble that, ironically, many of the brightest students will see as such and refuse to take. Again, if the economy will get a net benefit from them getting the education, then it is economically rational for the government to invest in it as long as the potential payoff to the economy is sufficient.

[dismalist]

I am always astounded at wishes that somebody else pay for the benefits to be received by those being educated [and those doing the educating].

Bright people are a precious resource in any society. Getting them the education they need is valuable to society, not just to themselves. So it's in society's best interests to be able to find and finance those people. Especially if they are first generation students, they won't have the cultural capital to know how likely they are to succeed in a program, and so less likely to risk significant debt to enrol.

Rich kids don't have to worry about whether they pass or fail; poor kids do. So poor, bright kids will be deterred from higher education if it's prohibitively expensive, which is a loss to society. (Those doctors, lawyers, and engineers will pay much more in taxes over their careers than the cost to subsidize their education, so they're a bargain for society to pay for. And if society needs them, then it's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face to refuse to support them just because they will get a significant personal benefit from it.)

Bright people are a precious resource in any society. They are especially a precious resource for themselves! They capture the bulk of what they produce. Those who produce positive externalities are few and we don't know who they are ex ante. That's why all faculty get paid. Poor bright kids can borrow on commercial terms. That's what capital markets are  for.

Governments invest funds for pensions, etc. How is "investing" in students with good potential for repayment in the form of taxes  a bad idea for the government? (There is a good case to be made that government investment regardless of program or student ability isn't smart economically.)

The last sentence is wrong. If they, whoever they are, will get a significant personal benefit from their education, there is no need to transfer money to them.

If they can be issued crystal balls in high school, so they can see the overall benefit of their choice, then this would be true. When they have to incur debt up front with no guarantee of the ability to pay it off, then its a gamble that, ironically, many of the brightest students will see as such and refuse to take. Again, if the economy will get a net benefit from them getting the education, then it is economically rational for the government to invest in it as long as the potential payoff to the economy is sufficient.

Governments invest in many things. The point here is that the educatee gets the returns, or the bulk of them. No need for a taxpayer intermediary as would be the case where I get a small share of the benefits of, say, an open access roadway.

There is no reason to countervail someone's risk aversion. The risk averse person, if bribed into taking risk, will get the bulk of the benefit. It's only going to society as that person is a member of society.

Your thinking would work if there were lots of positive externalities. That's where we could disagree. I believe there aren't. At best they could appear in science. We have government spending for  that output already. Foundations, prizes, etc. No need to subsidize the inputs [students] too. The bulk of product gets paid to the scientists.

Engineering produces no externalities. It goes into products that are sold. Engineers collect their contribution.

When we get to some social sciences and humanities one can argue that there are negative externalitites! :-) I won't, but I will say that on these boards there is much complaint of too many people in the humanities at very low wages. And that, in part, is a result of already too generous government policy toward higher education.But there is absolutely no reason to subsidize this factor of production called students.

[Wahoo Redux]

When we get to some social sciences and humanities one can argue that there are negative externalitites!

Hand out the drum and there will always be some tribe member willing to beat it.