I can't believe how even well educated and highly respected economists always get this concept wrong.
Taking a sample of people who go to college (including those who don't graduate) and comparing that sample to the general population is biased.
Why? Because the people who go to college tend to be motivated, have better connections and are well educated.
It's not a fair comparison. It's a sample bias combined with a correlation error.
The question shouldn't be "Are the people who go to college making more money than the people who don't?" The question should be "Are highly motivated and educated people better off if they go to college instead of doing something else?"
And the answer to that is often "No, they aren't."
There are only a few categories of people who should go to college:
1) If it's free and you want to do it.
2) If your preferred field requires it (Doctor, Lawyer)
3) If it's cheap enough and you don't know what you want to do with your life, so you take a class or two to get an idea of what is out there.
Other than those instances. I can't see why we cram college down almost every 18 year old out there.
It just drives me crazy how many economists make this even simple mistake.
I can't find the study right now, but economists are not stupid, and there are experiment design to combat sampling bias.
One study I remember followed students who barely made the admission cut, and who barely didn't make the cut. To illustrate, let's say people who go to college average 1800 in SAT score, and general population average 1200. This indeed causes sampling bias. So you compare two groups with average 1610 and 1590 instead. The first group went to the college, the second group didn't. This should minimize sampling bias. You get the idea.
College helps teach critical thinking skills, which is very important.
A lot of people seem to have the notion that college is "job/career training", well, it isn't (and if you are in college thinking that, you're in for an unpleasant surprise). No CS student graduates and is capable of engineering large-scale projects without at least several years as being a junior to someone and learning "how to do it in the real world". Most CS students graduate and don't even know what source control is.
No, but college is about learning to think critically, and independently. You learn some cool topics along the way (and some not-so-cool topics), which stretch your brain and challenge those critical thinking skills.
I think people view college wrong. Everyone should go to college. We want a more educated, more critically and independently thinking society. And that's what college provides.
Agreed, it's amazing how pervasive this myth is despite the glaring flaw you mentioned.
The last time there was a suitable control group was during the Vietnam war, when people flocked to colleges based on their draft number rather than their career ambitions [1]. Unfortunately, that was over 40 years ago.
Your point #2 implies that there is a short list of fields that require a degree. I think you have that backward. I'd be interested in seeing a list of middle class career track jobs that don't require a degree to get in the door. Web developer? "Entrepreneur"? As far as I can tell, the economy is largely divided between service jobs and jobs that require a college degree.
4) If you want a good theoretical grounding in computer science/software engineering
Yes, you can become a programmer without it. A very few of the good ones I know are autodidacts to the extent they didn't need it. But the vast majority of the best people I know did do a degree and will tell you the structured, deep learning benefitted them and their careers immensely.
And yeah, as others have stated - engineers of all stripes need a degree. I don't want people 'hacking' a bridge or building.
> The question shouldn't be "Are the people who go to college making more money than the people who don't?" The question should be "Are highly motivated and educated people better off if they go to college instead of doing something else?"
> And the answer to that is often "No, they aren't."
It's certainly possible to get a job in some fields (notably tech) without a degree. And if you work long enough, you'll probably get to the same point you would have with one. On the other hand, I'm quite willing to bet that the average salary of a 22 year old with a 4-year CS degree vastly exceeds the average salary of a 22 year old with 4 years of work experience.
The same goes for graduate degrees, especially for tech companies that have a technical job ladder (those where you can get promoted without becoming a manager): take a look at the starting point for new hires with various degrees, then take a look at the average work experience of people who worked up to those starting points.
When I first started considering graduate school, I actually ran the numbers for whether it made economic sense to pursue a graduate degree, and it most definitely did, by a huge margin.
I do, however, agree with the concept of selection bias here: college is as much a signal of who you already were when you entered as what you learned.
This reeks of limited world-view. While in tech people may be able to hack it and get hired with a degree, that is not the case in other most(all?) other engineering disciplines, finance, education, etc. "2) If your preferred field requires it (Doctor, Lawyer)" understates the situation massively.
Sometimes it's just an investment. Many $80-100k entry level jobs do require very specific education. I bet those high-paying entry level jobs are fairly impossible to get without the right degree.
Student costs certainly have gone up. Back in 1983-84 school year, tuition and fees for CSU (California) system was just under $500 for the year. Now, I think it is a bit under $7000. (UC system is now about twice that, but I don't know what it was back in the 80s, as I opted not to leave town to go to Berkeley)
By comparison, minimum wage has just a bit more than doubled. It's a lot harder to put yourself through school.
I also feel like even if you were being charged the tuition of 30+ years ago, you wouldn't be getting nearly as much for your money. I looked through the introductory Russian textbook for my state university and was kind of blown away by how verbose and obnoxious it was. This same school cut operating systems and anything related to low-level programming (people complain that they just want to learn Java or .NET so they can get a job, so I guess they got their way), and rearranged basic English to make it easier to pass. 100 years ago, learning Greek and/or Latin was standard - it seems like there's a noticeable trend towards "dumbing down", or maybe I'm viewing a time period I didn't live in with rose-colored glasses...
For motivated students, getting tuition assistance, and sometimes even free tuition is not difficult. There are so many scholarships available, FASFA, free grant money, and at worse, loans which are very low interest and you don't start making payments on it for several years.
Tuition today may be inflated a little, I'll give you that. But I believe it more accurately reflects what it costs to provide said education. Who pays for the lights? Water? Building maintenance? It's not sustainable (as has been proven) to subsidize college education so significantly for everyone. So instead, the subsidies have been moved to scholarships, grants, loans, etc. It's a perspective thing.
I'm a firm believer that college should not be free. You have to have some of your own "skin in the game", otherwise it's taken for granted. Your education, and accomplishments thereafter will be much more tangible if it was achieved by you for you.
Concerning the relative importance of the diploma and what you learn in college, following experiment design comes to mind.
Measure wage premium for (1) not enrolled to college (2) enrolled to college for 1 year and dropped out (3) 2 years and dropped out (4) 3 years and dropped out (5) graduated.
One hypothesis suggests linear improvement from 1 to 5, the other hypothesis suggests discontinuity between 1~4 and 5. I don't have this data, but this seems very doable, so it probably was already done. Can you help with literature search?
These sorts of articles always conflate the most basic premise of success- the quality of the people.
Sure, you can point to statistics about how people who graduate from college earn more over a lifetime, but does that really tell you having a degree accounts for their success?
If, tomorrow, we took away all diploma's from people who had graduated from college and gave them to people who hadn't, do you really believe wages would follow?
Education definitely plays a role in creating high quality successful people. I agree that there's some fundamental aspects of people which will strongly influence their success in life, but it's disingenuous to suggest that quality people aren't created in part by their education (which is strongly influenced by their upbringing and their families economic situation.)
Quality is ambiguous here--some portion of what you call quality I'd define as "born in the right zip code." I'd settle for "ability", providing we remember what goes into rendering one able to do this or that.
This article could be a case study in misinterpreting data.
Americans from "advantaged backgrounds" are enrolling way more in schools, graduating more, and making more money afterwards. Is this evidence of college being worth it? Maybe having parents who can invest six figures in your college education for you, and put you in contact with potential employers is a bit of a confounding variable here?
Economists are not stupid. Studies do control for confounding variables. For example, to control for influence of parents, there are twin studies. And you would have known if you followed links.
I don't think the question is whether or not college is worth it. Because that's a generalization. I also don't think the question is whether or not college is worth it to some people. Because that's exclusionary. The question is, can college make a reasonably positive impact on a persons quality of life, given all of their life choices. It's exactly the same as a gym membership. Lots of recent research shows that you lose more weight through diet than through exercise. But gyms have more benefits than just helping you to lose weight. Also, you have to actually use the gym to get those benefits, simply paying the fee and showing up once in a while will do nothing. It's the same with college, it's a tool. And you can choose to use it or you can choose to not use it. There is no right or wrong answer.
You are wrong. The question whether college is worth it is asked in context of informing public policy decision. Namely, if college is worth it but people don't go to college, shouldn't we subsidize people to go to college, by tax? You can choose to use college or not, but you can't choose to pay tax or not.
I would say that you seem to have a bizarre misunderstanding of what college (and education) is about. The point of college is to teach stuff, not to separate people into "success" and "failure" bins. It is quite possible to increase graduation rates without lowering academic standards, by helping students stay motivated, removing distractions and ensuring that they only enroll for subjects they are motivated and talented enough to finish.
1) I should bother to better myself and learn more, show motivation and ambition; I can always be better.
2) I shouldn't bother to better myself and learn more, show motivation nor ambition; I'm good enough right now.
Cost of education is largely irrelevant if you pursue scholarships and grants, or even low interest loans. Majority of a student's "school expenses" are not tuition, but rather in large part are living expenses -- which the student would incur even if not attending college.
"they’re an argument for programs aimed at improving graduation rates."
which will end up making a college degree worth a lot less.
Most employers require a college degree not because they need the specific training, but because a college degree is a piece of paper that says that the holder has at least a bare minimum level of intelligence and self-discipline.
A grade 12 education used to say that, but efforts to improve graduation rates have removed that filtering indication.
It depends on if you are going to actively take advantage of the resources you are paying for or if you are just going to passively get spoon fed information and coast through the whole experience for a nominal piece of paper that said you jumped through hoops for 4 years.
How does this follow? Wage premium data support that it is a nominal piece of paper that said you jumped through hoops for 4 years, not actively taking advantage of the resources you are paying for, that benefits your wage. Do you have data to the contrary?
What about taking advantage of free time to pursue your own interests on the side by passively going through college.
I’ve received plenty of Bs and even Cs for classes that I was incredibly proud of because they came from hardly no time spent at all. Time that I could then spend on reading my own curriculum, starting my own projects, and running my own businesses. - DHH
[+] [-] socrates1998|11 years ago|reply
Taking a sample of people who go to college (including those who don't graduate) and comparing that sample to the general population is biased.
Why? Because the people who go to college tend to be motivated, have better connections and are well educated.
It's not a fair comparison. It's a sample bias combined with a correlation error.
The question shouldn't be "Are the people who go to college making more money than the people who don't?" The question should be "Are highly motivated and educated people better off if they go to college instead of doing something else?"
And the answer to that is often "No, they aren't."
There are only a few categories of people who should go to college:
1) If it's free and you want to do it.
2) If your preferred field requires it (Doctor, Lawyer)
3) If it's cheap enough and you don't know what you want to do with your life, so you take a class or two to get an idea of what is out there.
Other than those instances. I can't see why we cram college down almost every 18 year old out there.
It just drives me crazy how many economists make this even simple mistake.
[+] [-] sanxiyn|11 years ago|reply
One study I remember followed students who barely made the admission cut, and who barely didn't make the cut. To illustrate, let's say people who go to college average 1800 in SAT score, and general population average 1200. This indeed causes sampling bias. So you compare two groups with average 1610 and 1590 instead. The first group went to the college, the second group didn't. This should minimize sampling bias. You get the idea.
[+] [-] Alupis|11 years ago|reply
A lot of people seem to have the notion that college is "job/career training", well, it isn't (and if you are in college thinking that, you're in for an unpleasant surprise). No CS student graduates and is capable of engineering large-scale projects without at least several years as being a junior to someone and learning "how to do it in the real world". Most CS students graduate and don't even know what source control is.
No, but college is about learning to think critically, and independently. You learn some cool topics along the way (and some not-so-cool topics), which stretch your brain and challenge those critical thinking skills.
I think people view college wrong. Everyone should go to college. We want a more educated, more critically and independently thinking society. And that's what college provides.
[+] [-] DontBeADick|11 years ago|reply
The last time there was a suitable control group was during the Vietnam war, when people flocked to colleges based on their draft number rather than their career ambitions [1]. Unfortunately, that was over 40 years ago.
[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w4067
[+] [-] sanderjd|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nursie|11 years ago|reply
Yes, you can become a programmer without it. A very few of the good ones I know are autodidacts to the extent they didn't need it. But the vast majority of the best people I know did do a degree and will tell you the structured, deep learning benefitted them and their careers immensely.
And yeah, as others have stated - engineers of all stripes need a degree. I don't want people 'hacking' a bridge or building.
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|11 years ago|reply
> And the answer to that is often "No, they aren't."
It's certainly possible to get a job in some fields (notably tech) without a degree. And if you work long enough, you'll probably get to the same point you would have with one. On the other hand, I'm quite willing to bet that the average salary of a 22 year old with a 4-year CS degree vastly exceeds the average salary of a 22 year old with 4 years of work experience.
The same goes for graduate degrees, especially for tech companies that have a technical job ladder (those where you can get promoted without becoming a manager): take a look at the starting point for new hires with various degrees, then take a look at the average work experience of people who worked up to those starting points.
When I first started considering graduate school, I actually ran the numbers for whether it made economic sense to pursue a graduate degree, and it most definitely did, by a huge margin.
I do, however, agree with the concept of selection bias here: college is as much a signal of who you already were when you entered as what you learned.
[+] [-] Crito|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nrao123|11 years ago|reply
Curious if you have an data/research to back this up.
I presume trying to get defintion & then sample of "highly motivated" people & the opposite of them- would be quite a challenging task.
[+] [-] lingoberry|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Roboprog|11 years ago|reply
By comparison, minimum wage has just a bit more than doubled. It's a lot harder to put yourself through school.
[+] [-] jgg|11 years ago|reply
I also feel like even if you were being charged the tuition of 30+ years ago, you wouldn't be getting nearly as much for your money. I looked through the introductory Russian textbook for my state university and was kind of blown away by how verbose and obnoxious it was. This same school cut operating systems and anything related to low-level programming (people complain that they just want to learn Java or .NET so they can get a job, so I guess they got their way), and rearranged basic English to make it easier to pass. 100 years ago, learning Greek and/or Latin was standard - it seems like there's a noticeable trend towards "dumbing down", or maybe I'm viewing a time period I didn't live in with rose-colored glasses...
[+] [-] cowls|11 years ago|reply
Nowadays it costs around £27,000 (~$45000)
You dont pay up front but instead get a loan you pay back over your career.
Personally I would still choose to go even with the massively increased fees, as it opens many doors
[+] [-] Alupis|11 years ago|reply
For motivated students, getting tuition assistance, and sometimes even free tuition is not difficult. There are so many scholarships available, FASFA, free grant money, and at worse, loans which are very low interest and you don't start making payments on it for several years.
Tuition today may be inflated a little, I'll give you that. But I believe it more accurately reflects what it costs to provide said education. Who pays for the lights? Water? Building maintenance? It's not sustainable (as has been proven) to subsidize college education so significantly for everyone. So instead, the subsidies have been moved to scholarships, grants, loans, etc. It's a perspective thing.
I'm a firm believer that college should not be free. You have to have some of your own "skin in the game", otherwise it's taken for granted. Your education, and accomplishments thereafter will be much more tangible if it was achieved by you for you.
[+] [-] RRRA|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sanxiyn|11 years ago|reply
Measure wage premium for (1) not enrolled to college (2) enrolled to college for 1 year and dropped out (3) 2 years and dropped out (4) 3 years and dropped out (5) graduated.
One hypothesis suggests linear improvement from 1 to 5, the other hypothesis suggests discontinuity between 1~4 and 5. I don't have this data, but this seems very doable, so it probably was already done. Can you help with literature search?
[+] [-] SloughFeg|11 years ago|reply
Sure, you can point to statistics about how people who graduate from college earn more over a lifetime, but does that really tell you having a degree accounts for their success?
If, tomorrow, we took away all diploma's from people who had graduated from college and gave them to people who hadn't, do you really believe wages would follow?
[+] [-] sanxiyn|11 years ago|reply
On the other hand, I do believe if you give a diploma to a person who doesn't have it, it will have positive impacts on the wage. Do you disagree?
[+] [-] leoedin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cafard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cowpig|11 years ago|reply
Americans from "advantaged backgrounds" are enrolling way more in schools, graduating more, and making more money afterwards. Is this evidence of college being worth it? Maybe having parents who can invest six figures in your college education for you, and put you in contact with potential employers is a bit of a confounding variable here?
[+] [-] sanxiyn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zacinbusiness|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sanxiyn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielweber|11 years ago|reply
I can fix that in 1 step: automatic graduation for everyone.
You might say this would make the college degree worthless. I might say that is the point.
[+] [-] brazzy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alupis|11 years ago|reply
The sides are:
1) I should bother to better myself and learn more, show motivation and ambition; I can always be better.
2) I shouldn't bother to better myself and learn more, show motivation nor ambition; I'm good enough right now.
Cost of education is largely irrelevant if you pursue scholarships and grants, or even low interest loans. Majority of a student's "school expenses" are not tuition, but rather in large part are living expenses -- which the student would incur even if not attending college.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|11 years ago|reply
which will end up making a college degree worth a lot less.
Most employers require a college degree not because they need the specific training, but because a college degree is a piece of paper that says that the holder has at least a bare minimum level of intelligence and self-discipline.
A grade 12 education used to say that, but efforts to improve graduation rates have removed that filtering indication.
[+] [-] brixon|11 years ago|reply
- Cost of school or Debt Load
- Type of Degree
- Reputation of School
- If you finish
They all need to be weighed together.
[+] [-] k__|11 years ago|reply
With my first job I paid the dept I got from my studies in one year.
[+] [-] quaffapint|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daemonk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sanxiyn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redmaverick|11 years ago|reply
I’ve received plenty of Bs and even Cs for classes that I was incredibly proud of because they came from hardly no time spent at all. Time that I could then spend on reading my own curriculum, starting my own projects, and running my own businesses. - DHH
[+] [-] SimpleXYZ|11 years ago|reply