Is the value of college overemphasized?
Posted at 5:00 AM on December 5, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(31 Comments)
Filed under: Education
An Intelligence Squared debate being aired on Midday today looks at the question of whether too many young people go to college. Unemployment among college graduates is high, and student-loan debt now exceeds credit-card debt. Today's Question: Is the value of college overemphasized?
Comments (31)
Apparently neither could you, Swift.
No nerve, just a pragmatic voice. Never put wealth over happiness, but then “the lady doth protest too much”
Just couldn't help yourself could ya?
My, my! I seem to have touched a nerve. But that tends to happen when one challenges others' ideologies.
Some degree curriculums should come with a warning label: “This degree has little likelihood of securing a sustainable living wage. Pursue at your own risk.” While it may be fascinating to study and get a degree in art history of the Paleozoic era, it will not sustain you; “happiness” will be a vague apparition on the horizon as you scratch feed out of the dust.
Oh my yes, the value of a college degree is way over valued unless it is in a marketable field or unless one comes from a wealthy family willing to subsidize the off spring; where a career isn't needed to sustain their life style.
"And as long as going to college is seen as primarily a business decision, its value is indeed questionable." That is so TRUE!!! As long as there are people who will risk their _ own money to build a business and hire others so that liberals can claim they_ have a right_ to others earnings, then any college degree has some value? They don't have to invest as much as others, expecting free handouts.
As B.H.O. says, " everyone should own a home and everyone should have a degree..." The problem is, many degrees are worthless for ensuring marketable skills. Who will be the plumbers, the carpenters, the electricians and drivers to keep the country functioning when most have degrees in GLBT and other stupid studies?
Whether getting a degree in something like wildlfe management is a mistake depends on what one truly values in life. Does a six figure income make one a better person? Is it evidence that one is a better person than someone with less? Does a six figure income make one happier than a lower but sufficient income does? Is getting rich an admirable achievement, apart from the effect on other people of one's life and work? If you love your job and can take pride in your work, knowing that you're helping make the world better, is that less valuable than raking in a huge salary? (Those are rhetorical questions, in case you couldn't tell.) Absent an ethical understanding of what money is for, the mere aquisition of it is pointless, or worse. And as long as going to college is seen as primarily a business decision, its value is indeed questionable.
"One of my children makes a six figure salary as a software engineer at a Fortune 500 company and he did it without any college degree."
kimMN
Would this be one of the children that were exposed to the horrific view of naughty words written on the side of a train that you had commented about a week or two ago regarding vandalism and tagging?
Most high school teachers will tell their students, " If you want a good job, you have to get a college degree." What they don't specify is the term, " GOOD JOB." A teacher's job is pretty "good" once the Unions protect them from scrutiny and prevent their dismissal for failing to perform.
One of my children makes a six figure salary as a software engineer at a Fortune 500 company and he did it without any college degree. He completed three semesters of college before realizing that by the time he graduated, the field would have evolved faster than the university could keep up in teaching current advancements. My other child made the mistake of earning a bachelor's degree in Fish and Wildlife before returning for an engineering degree where he makes close to a six figure income and he loves his position.
Proven skills is more important than a degree in many fields. My neighbor learned his skills on the job and later was licensed as an electrician. No degree and he loves his job and makes over a six figure income running his own contractor business..self taught in business and successful, and all without a degree. Too many kids today expect_ a guaranteed job once out of college because they are so special, at least in their mind, having grown up by indulgent, coddling, liberal parents.
Even Barack spoke of how America has gotten weak and lazy..of course he says that nonsense only to remove himself of any responsibility as a failed leader or as projection; what he secretly feels about himself_ rather a lazy, over vacationing, squandering, a 'Lead from Behind' grassroots organizer that uses Class Warfare tactics to build his own self image of the savior. Today he wants to extend and expand the Payroll Tax cuts, without realizing that those taxes keep Social Security funded!
The "Master Craftsman" argument is specious because it presumes a static or nearly static employment market. In an era of of disruptive technological change, today's Master Craftsman is tomorrow's unemployed buggy whip maker. The value of a traditional college education in those circumstances is cultivation of a flexible mind and an historical perspective that can adapt a Master Craftsman status subtly or dramatically when circumstances change. There is no shame in being a master cabinetmaker, but, a master cabinet maker with a BA in design or art history can create artistic or period reproduction cabinets that appeal to the up-market custom cabinet crowd while the master cabinet maker without is more likely to be stuck trying to compete with an automated assembly line.
As is the case with any question about "value," the answers I read here depend on how each person is defining "value." As is usually the case, there is no one answer that can account for all of these assumptions. For me, the value of a college education is in the capacity to take an overly-simplified question and make it more complex and therefore more productive of useful answers.
What's the value of a college eduction: for whom?
Value to a future employer? for what kind of job? skill set? in terms of social competence? maturity? potential?
value to the individual? as a foot in the door even being considered? as a source of social mobility? as a means realize one's potential as a human being? for the sake of learning itself? as a way to have access to collaboration with experts with valuable knowledge and skills to impart that you can't get anywhere else?
Is the degree as the objective, or the learning? do we define value in purely utilitarian terms as monetary value? salary, benefits, retirement potential, unemployment rates? are we placing the priority on value in terms of education as a general good to society? or do we mainly think of value in terms of U.S. competitiveness with other countries in a more global society?
I would give just about anything and go into debt to earn my degree. In the last three years I have stayed up til 1am-2am every night to study and get my papers in on time. Parenting four kids and wokring part-time have made going to school difficult. I've had to take a timed, online midterm with a puking kid on my lap. There is no break when you are a non-traditional student. I just plow through one task after another. I'm beginning to become irrelevent as a person because I cannot remember what leisure and friendship are like or how to partake in them.
This semester I had one lousy math class to re-take. For the last two weeks I haven't been able to find free childcare. I didn't get the Pel Grant and the student loans are spent, so I can't hire childcare. I've missed more classes than one is allowed and even if my instructor does allow me to make it up, I have no extra time built into the schedule to do it before the comprehensive final.
Why bust your butt for what seems to be a meaningless endeavor?
I'm single. A degree would make the difference between me being a bright, educated, underemployed single mom, who is temporarily making do at Target until the economy picks up vs. an uneducated, poverty ridden, single mom with no future. Might not mean anything to the guy that falls in love with me, but I've already learned that it makes a difference with the friends and family.
I'm an adult and I know who I am and where my talents can make a difference. What does that matter if I don't have the piece of paper to get me in the door??? I need that degree and masters to teach. I need the degree to add credence to my writing. I need the degree to prove I'm valuable so someone will take a chance on me. Until I get it, I will be a poverty wage earning, single mom with no future. It's all that you'll let me be.
Without college, one's options are very limited. If one wants a job that 1: will actually be enjoyable (or should I say, not despised?) and 2: will provide a living wage, college is a must. I would argue that one reason for high unemployment of college grads has to do with choice of major (a bachelor's degree in, say, german studies is not very marketable...) However, competitiveness of the job market is also a factor. The fact is that there are not as many jobs available as there once were. In an age where efficiency (and by that I mean the highest output with the lowest input) is valued above all else, job destruction is always going to be a problem. (No matter how much rambling politicians do about "job creation"...)
To even stand a chance of obtaining that increasingly scarce and elusive Career, one must be college educated. Unfortunately, when applicant pools are strictly among college grads, some are still going to end up jobless. Let's call paying for a college education with student loans what it is: a gamble. Either don't do it and end up in an unfullfilling job with meager pay and no college loan debt, or do it and have a CHANCE at a fulfilling, lucrative career while risking that you will still end up in the meager, unfulfilling job AND have the added burden of student loan debt.
Or like this, Peggy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaxECcTjCuw
If you don't go you may end up like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
A high school diploma won't get you very far in the workplace, either, but that doesn't mean its value is overemphasized. You probably need a college degree for most good jobs. You probably need a lot more, too.
If students graduating from high school are dead set on going directly to college I would suggest taking one class at a time and paying for it in cash. It gives them a foot in the door and a taste of higher education. It allows them the opportunity to ingest and digest what they are learning. It gives them time to look around at all the possibilities and it keeps them from joining the rankis of accumulated debt that cannot be paid.
What "we" - policy makers, parents, pundits, K-12 and college administrators - emphasize college courses as primarily about training for getting a job, or use admissions screenings primarily to "find" those who are "ready" for particular majors that lead to particular careers (white collar and professional) then it's not that college is overvalued but that core land grant values and the value of education for creating a future - rather than replicating business as usual - have been narrowed. If college is about learning - and in that not not learning as acquisition of facts, but participation in building ideas - then we are no where near valuing it enough.
Yes - especially right out of high school. the vast majority of high-school graduates know little or nothing about themselves - nor about what they really want or ought to be. But - I don't know if we have an economic system that is designed to let them do anything else. I think that system is the problem. We don't know how to grow employees "in-place". We've become entirely adicted to the SEP ( somebody else's problem") model for our business and corporate operation. We've combined lack of organizational responsibility - and just in time-ed-ness in the worst possible delivery system for trained people. Often a wrong deicsion in 2009 - leads to a vacant dead-end career and massive debt in 2014.
If you think of going to college as merely a way to make one more employable and to get a higher salary, then yes, it's over emphasized. If you think it's part of a process of becoming a better citizen, more able to contribute to the well-being of humanity, then it may well be under emphasized. When business elites get us to go along with their misguided belief that collecting money is the most important thing in life, sneering at the study of subjects such as history, literature, music, arts, philosophy, etc., we lose sight of what money is for and become mere cogs in the soulless machine of business.
I am a stay at home mom who never made it beyond the secretarial pool in my 15 year working career. But, my Bachelor of Arts in Communication from the University of Minnesota is one of my most valuable possessions.
High school students and their parents need to understand that the higher price tag at a small private college does not give you a better education or an edge in the job search - unless your small private college is part of the Ivy League.
Young people entering the workforce also need to develop a thick skin and fight their way up the ladder. In my 15 year secretarial career that spanned four companies, I saw alot of ambitious people do some nasty things to get ahead. And they were successful.
Yes and no. It's what you make of your degree that sets you apart.
What I see missing in the youth of today is lack of interpersonal communication skills. Talking on a telephone, the meet and greet hand shake, good writing skills, sales presentation, negotiating, and deal making, etc. No matter how high tech we get, people buy from people. If it's not selling products or services, it's selling yourself at a job interview or working yourself up the ladder at whatever type of business you are in.
The next thing I see missing is a competitive spirit. This is now the generation that always got a trophy even though they didn't win. Heck, sometimes they didn't even keep score or have a winner. A generation where self-esteem was given and not earned. They have not had the experience of finishing last, or the experience of winning. With both build character.
I am a chemical engineer. Any chemical engineer with 3 years of experience who is willing to move can get a high paying job in America today. The recruiters are begging for candidates for their positions. My company has had an opening for a process engineer for over 2 years that we have been unable to fill.
Chemical engineering is just about the hardest undergraduate degree that you can take. The current mentality regarding universities is that what is valuable is where you go, not what you learn. So ambitious young scholars and their parents put an enormous effort into high high school grades, SAT prep, and extracurricular box ticking so that they can apply to Harvard and the like. Once there, the accepted wisdom is that riches will flow to graduates who are well-connected. Actually working hard at university is not associated with future success, so undergraduates generally take a leisurely course schedule and work hard on their social life. After all, if who you know is what matters, you should try to get to know a lot of people (especially the right people). If you take chemical engineering you will have to work hard and you will mostly meet other engineers (fun crowd, not well connected).
A society that values who you know, not what you know, generates few chemical engineers. The corrupting influence of Wall Street, high tuition private schools, the high-priced end of the legal profession and the medical profession, and the perception that these high end jobs only go to those who 'work the system', know the right people, attend the right school, all corrupt the process that generates high-skilled graduates. American students don't take 'hard' courses, because they have learned (albeit this is only partially true) that the big money goes to the connected, not the highly skilled.
Farm automation eliminated the need for unskilled farm workers, and factory automation eliminated the need for unskilled factory workers. In 1970, a man with a strong back and a good attitude could get a good paying factory job, and that is no longer true. But farms and factories still need skilled professionals and technicians (and a few unskilled workers who are flexible). What we are seeing is office automation eliminating the need for unskilled office workers. In 1990 a graduate with no trained skills but some intelligence, decent people skills, and a good attitude could find an office job which would put him in the middle class. That graduate could even rise and thrive. In 2010, a graduate without a professional degree (or some other source of actual acquired skills) may not get in the door. A generation ago, the path to success was to obtain the minimal University degree, get into a good company and learn how to 'do business' by 'doing business'. I ask everyone who I interview what he or she will bring in to the company. Today, a good work ethic isn't nearly enough.
There is a shortage of skilled engineers, skilled tradesman, skilled craftsman of all sorts. There is no shortage of educated people who can dress for business and give a power-point presentation. Yes, we still need post-secondary education. But the days when 'learning how to learn' was enough to entice an employer to hire a graduate are done. Bring some actual skills to the table, or you will be turned away. Universities are going to have to adapt to teach more actual skills or lose their relevance.
A 4 year university degree is an increasingly common commodity. The ability to speak clearly, dress nice, and give a 20 minutes power-point presentation using the latest business jargon doesn't impress anyone anymore. Actual technical skills (cf CA-Oxonian) and experience, on the other hand, are vanishingly rare. Rich world workforces who have headed into business and commerce degrees for 20 years, relying on the cream of the crop from China and India to fill the gaps in the technical professional fields. The best grads from China and India are staying home, now. Emerging economy grads from second rank schools who look like they have a professional degree are often not worth the time it takes to explain to them what they are supposed to know and do. The fact of the matter is, you just can't hire a high quality engineer or technician these days. I see this as a long term problem, as high quality engineers need to go through high quality schools, the capacity and number of which cannot be quickly increased. And those engineers and technicians only really become useful after working 3-5 years under an experienced high quality engineer. Enough bright Americans have not been going into these professions for a generation, heading for Wall Street instead, or into the ranks of management and sales where their skills are not needed but the pay has been higher. Skilled professionals will be a scarce and increasingly expensive commodity for a long time to come, and the problem won't begin to be fixed until pay scales adjust.
Learning ? We don't need no stinkin' learning. We're paying for a diploma.
American higher education is all about the business of certification. Let's be blunt - most of the people who go to college cannot profit from any more education than used to be provided by a good high school. Training is another matter, but it does not belong on a college campus. To be effective, it ought to be in the workplace, perhaps as internships funded by the school system.
It is long past time for education to leave the middle ages behind. We need root-and-branch transformation.
First, and most obviously, just making the decision to enter college indicates a higher level of motivation than deciding not to. (Yes, that is an over-generalization. But a frequent one.)
Second, a basic level of literacy (i.e. the ability to write a coherent sentence and to create a document, of any length, that successfully communicates) used to be signaled by a high school diploma. But by 1980 (give or take 5 years), businesses found that was no longer the case in many cases. On the other hand, someone with a college degree would very likely have that basic level. They might have other desirable characteristics, but that was irrelevant for many positions which posted "college degree required".
Logical thinking, analytic thinking, etc. are all nice to haves. But without the ability to communicate they are not worth much. And while a college degree may not signal whether someone has those abilities, filtering on having one at least gives a smaller pool for the interviewer to look thru for them.
I think Clark too heavily discounts the influence of a college degree in signaling. It is not only the possession of a degree (signaling achievement) that is a factor, but also the pedigree of the college (enter the insidious U.S. News rankings) and the rigor of the academic program as reflected in the transcript and GPA.
While standardized testing may serve as a proxy for academics, I highly doubt that given the diversity of students, schools, and programs, not to mention the diversity of hiring firms and particular skills sought, there will be any single test that could adequately capture all the relevant metrics. Instead, you have the current system whereby each industry sets forth its own standardized test as it sees fit, which may or may not be open to all takers. For example, the Series 7 for brokers or the ASE for auto mechanics.
The other discounted signaling factor is the maturity of the student after 2, 4, or 6 years in transitioning from an adolescent to an adult. Granted, this is a highly imperfect signal, but it is used nonetheless. Unless a standardized test delves into a candidate's psychology, there is no proxy for a college degree in signaling that a person has attained some level of mental and social development (regardless of actual learning). I think it is this traditional outlook that underlies the push to make college available to as many students as possible, and it is this outlook that underlies the income disparity between graduates and non-graduates.
I'm not sure this is the right question.
When I was graduating from high school the question was this: Are you going straight to work or are you going to college first? And that was a valid question because at that time you could actually get a livable job out of high school.
I believe the reason most kids go to college nowadays is because they believe a college degree is a mandatory step in getting a good-paying job. The thought is that, all other things being equal, the applicant without the college degree won't be selected for the job.
That said, college is all too often over priced. One practical question is this: In today's world, since you're going to be unemployed anyway, why burden yourself with all that debt?
At the same time it's sometimes reported that employers can't get enough people with the right skills. So here is another practical question: How can we bring back on-the-job training or apprentice-type education?
Having done my share of interviewing candidates and seeing how well they do in the company, you can tell which ones overpaid for the name of the school (are even top rated schools no longer teaching fundamentals for the degree?), and you can tell which ones held a part-time job during school. The latter group is by far more mature and ready for the "real world" of work. Some students are definitely paying too much for that paper they receive while wearing a robe.
Due to the high number and poor quality of college graduates, a college degree today is worth about the same as a high school diploma in 1975. Too much supply and not enough demand.
As a hiring manager in the private business world, I would say yes.
Though I assume there are other valuable areas of concentation, if you did not concentrate in one of the following areas below, at least for an entry level position, your resume will not make it out of HR in my organization.
Engineering
Accounting
Finance
Marketing
Math
Foreign language is also a valuable major.
| December 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock