(no title)
konaraddio | 7 years ago
> A lot of that has to do with what Goldfarb likes to call the narrative—one that convinced kids that the only route to middle-class respectability was to get a college degree and that suggested failing to do so meant having failed at the American dream of upward mobility. To keep using the economist's terms, I would also say that 18-year-old high school seniors definitely qualify as "novice investors." Their philosophy can be summarized by Colin Hanks in the 2002 movie Orange County. When asked why he's so obsessed with getting into Stanford University and college more generally, he snaps back, "Because that's what you do after high school!"
Too often I see articles about student debt make a comment about how students have been tricked or misled into pursuing a degree. Why does no one talk about the alternative?
Let's talk about the alternative: You don't get a degree and now you're resume gets automatically thrown out of most applications. Only a small fraction of those without degrees manage to get well-paying jobs; they're the outliers. Albeit unrelated to employment rate, look at the salary differences: https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/educa...
Some might say it's worth making $X/yr and debt-free than making $Y/yr with $Z debt but this only holds true when Y > (P*Z + X) where P is the percentage of the total initial debt being paid off per year (e.g. P = 0.2 if you're paying $10k/yr to get rid of a $50k debt). And these values are hard to predict.
cddotdotslash|7 years ago
The decision to get a degree is not a binary one. It's possible to get a degree in a higher-paying field. Or, go to a community college for 2 years and then transfer. Or pick a state school over a $60k/yr private school. Or choose your second choice school that offers more scholarships.
I think some of the blame rests on our guidance counselors and parents who often do little to make the connection between degrees, debt, and post-graduate earnings obvious to students. Too often the question we pose to high school juniors is "what do you like to do the most?" rather than "is there an intersection between something you like to do and opportunities for a degree-holder in that field after graduation?"
wmeredith|7 years ago
JumpCrisscross|7 years ago
The cost isn't $100k. The minimum wage pays $15k per year [1]. Four years of lost wages equals $60,000. Add that to the tuition debt and you have a real cost of $160,000.
The surplus wage is apparently no more than $25k. Even here, we see a 15% return on investment. Not shoddy per se, and certainly a sustainable debt load.
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-workers-poverty...
AstralStorm|7 years ago
Even if you do, you cannot just set all 40k to pay for it, you have to live somewhere and probably have a family, not insignificant expenses. So real repayment rate might be as low as 5k/year... and this assumes you keep in good health, do not get laid off etc. This is at best a 10 year debt for your typical middle class.
And where do you get a house here on top?
ajtaylor|7 years ago
nightski|7 years ago
KozmoNau7|7 years ago
He wants people to work hard and suck it up, instead of unionizing and fighting for fair treatment.
RussianCow|7 years ago
That said, getting that first job without the degree is the hard part—connections and luck play a huge role here. Everything after that becomes substantially easier, and the benefit of a degree becomes lower.
jarfil|7 years ago
Whether it's better to start with the broader or the narrower learning first... well, that's debatable, and it might boil down to personal differences.
LyndsySimon|7 years ago
Is that because it's so much more difficult to get a well-paying job without a degree, or that people who are capable of getting and holding a well-paying job are disproportionately getting degrees?
woolvalley|7 years ago
AstralStorm|7 years ago