College has been oversold (2011) | Hacker News Reader

College has been oversold (2011)

marginalrevolution.com

45 pointsjseliger60 comments

This talk of free college in this election has been really upsetting to me. It's a huge waste of money and time for millions of more kids to get worthless college degrees. Nobody benefits but the professors and administrators of universities. And degree inflation creates a perverse situation for the sane people who don't want to spend four years of their life getting a college degree to be an administrative assistant.

College shouldn't be the default. It should be an option society encourages only for the very few fields that require four years of dedicated academic study.

It's also a regressive policy. It assumes the only cost of attending college is tuition. That's the cost that the middle class is attuned to, but it's probably not the most important thing keeping low-income people out of school: for them, a very important additional concern is opportunity cost. Not everyone has the luxury of forgoing 4 years of income to attend additional school.

It's also the case that the pipeline to college attendance is constructed to reward children brought up under middle class circumstances. Unless you think it's the case that food and shelter insecurity, the requirement to care for and sometimes transport younger siblings, and sometimes total lack of supervision doesn't contribute to poorer school performance.

In that sense, proposals for free college tuition aren't that much different than the (totally, unbelievably, egregiously regressive) tax favoritism we accord home ownership through the mortgage income deduction.

How about we fix childcare and K-12 first?

>How about we fix childcare and K-12 first?

Well, you already know that the answer to that. Desirable employers don't screen job applicants based on which childcare facility and high school they attended. It's always college that's the focal point. Seems inevitable that the reactionary conversation then gravitates towards fixing college access rather than K-12 quality. (Therefore, it doesn't matter if K-12 is actually the more important thing to fix.) As an example, James Clark of Netscape dropped out of high school[1] but his future employers didn't care because he had a college degree. The college degree overshadows the stigma of being a high school dropout.

If McKinsey Consulting, Goldman Sachs, Google Inc, etc filtered out candidates based on what kind of public libraries the candidate had access to while he grew up, I suppose we'd be having political conversations about "building better public libraries!" so children can compete for jobs.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Clark#Early_life_and_...

You're missing my point. I'm saying, if you want to universalize college education to equalize opportunity between children raised in low-income families and children raised in high-income families --- a coherent cause, and one I happen to support --- you need to fix the systemic problems that keep low-income students from attending college, or free tuition will simply be another giveaway the government gives to people who don't need the help.

I'm not arguing against college (I think there are arguments against college as an opportunity equalizer, but I'm not making them). I'm arguing against free tuition for everyone as a vector for getting more low-income people into college.

If you want more low-income people to attend college, fix childcare first, so high-school age students aren't sacrificing class rank to take care of younger siblings and graduating high school into circumstances that demand they immediately find a wage.

Or, if you're dead set on applying pressure at college itself: means-test the benefit, so at least you're not giving billions of dollars away to families making six-figure incomes while families making less than $40,000 are sending their 17-18 year olds to 5 years of sporadic dead-end service industry employment. Because: "college is too expensive" is not the only reason that happens. There are plenty of extremely inexpensive community colleges that are vast improvements over 9 months working at the Sprint Cell Phone Store. But that's where low-income teenagers often end up.

> How about we fix childcare and K-12 first?

Free childcare for working families (particularly single mothers) would do so much to lift kids out of poverty.

In European countries where free tuition is taken seriously, stipends for students and subsidized part time work for students fill in the gap of mitigating opportunity costs.

Free college tuition is a start, but you're right that even more investment is needed. College students should be paid by the state to invest in their education and enjoy their carefree student days.

Mortgage interest deductions are obviously and inexcusably evil policy, of course. They make a bad example for comparison, like holding up someone's politics to Naziism.

Also, we can't just fix K-12 or child care first and leave everything else aside. Those are complicated issues that will be controversial forever. We do have to improve other things in the meanwhile.

Both the mortgage interest deduction and universal free college tuition are expensive benefits that would accrue primarily to the middle and upper classes. I'm not making an argument any more complicated than that.

Financial constraints shouldn't be the barrier of entry to a college education. College shouldn't be for everyone, but motivated and intelligent students from poor backgrounds will give just as much back to the community as their monied peers. Other countries have already addressed this issue with difficult entry examples (e.g., Germany).

This is a solved problem.

Couldn't a similar argument be put for high school education. Not needed for many fields. Retail, transport, much of manufacturing, etc.

Is education primarily an economic, or social good?

I think it would be fine to end high school at 16 as is done in Germany.

In Florida, a child can quit school at age 16 with the parents' permission. I don't know how many USA states have similar age thresholds. I'm guessing many do.

If you meant that Germany high school ends by default at age 16 for all students, then yes, the USA is radically different in that respect. Also, Germany's summer vacation is 6 weeks instead of USA's 12 weeks. Since Germany ranks ahead of USA in primary education standings, maybe they have the better system.

[1]http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-compulsory-...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't school start when a kid is 6 years old in many parts of the US? If so, that might be part of the reason for the difference in school leaving age. For example, in the UK, schooling is only compulsory until the age of 16, but you start when you're 4. For higher (non-compulsory) education, the common path is two more years at a sixth form college, then three years at University.

Given the studies on things like Head Start, it seems unlikely that the effect of earlier school starts is this powerful.

I'm not familiar with Head Start, what is it?

Federally funded preschool.

I see. What do the kids learn at these preschools?

In the UK we have preschools for kids around 2 to 3 years old. They're mostly focused around play rather than formal lessons, but I think it helps kids to get used to a school-type environment and start to socialise with kids their age.

Here in The Netherlands you can either end high school at 16 and go to a trade school, end at 17 and go to a so called university of applied science (or higher professional education) or end at 18 and afterwards attend a research university. I really don't understand why Americans think that everyone should attend college, for most people that's just a waste of time which could be spent learning practical skills.

It seems logical to me that as society grows more complex and sophisticated, citizens require more years of education to ensure political stability.

Restricting education to what's needed for employment creates a class division between high and low education groups. Social decisions become dominated by expert language that's incomprehensible to the majority, creating conditions for a populist backlash.

I think formal education is a personal vitamin and economic good with inherent diminishing returns, and one that cannot indefinitely require additional years for each societal advancement (since we do not live indefinitely).

Perhaps we should find a better way to distribute education; not just among social economic class, but by span and duration ("doses"). Otherwise we might see unnecessary educational inflation (which I think may be the case now), rather than an educational deflation.

College is a good way for young people to spend four or five years learning to drink, date, and party. Some of them even get a bit of an education.

It's an essential part of living a life of leisure and privilege in modern industrial society. And it should be free for everyone that wants it.

The fact that learning to drink, date, and party is the main thing most people get out of college is why I don't think the government should be footing the bill for it.

I don't believe that "free tuition" should means a blank check to do whatever.

That being said, I'm for the government funding the education of its citizens; but those who recieve government money should have to take certain subjects and pass those classes with an acceptable grade (B's or above).

Do you think the government shouldn't be footing the bill for senior citizens to drink, party, tour national parks, use up the national V14gr4 reserves, and generally lay about recreationally?

I think Social Security retirement pensions are an essential part of a quality modern lifestyle and an important job of government. So is a leisurely four year college experience for anyone that can invest enough intellectual effort to read a few books and keep passing most of his classes.

These are two separate issues, for the most part.

One possible relevant benefit of free college, though, is that it removes a lot of the bad incentives in the university-student relationship. If students aren't in the paying customer role, and universities aren't so strongly incentivized to sell as many degrees as possible, it's a lot easier to enforce strict academic standards. So it could actually improve the degree inflation situation.

Colleges are still going to be rated and paid based on some measure, likely completion rates for courses and degrees. Then you get the situation where the education in the country's best technical university is a joke also known as teach to the test.

> the education in the country's best technical university is a joke also known as teach to the test.

Let's not paint with too-broad a brush here. If the "exam bank" of possible test questions is sufficiently comprehensive and rigorous, then teaching to the test is not a joke at all, but an effective pedagogical method. If students can write acceptable answers to a random selection of questions from such an exam bank, it follows that those students do indeed know what you want them to know, at least to the extent that testing can ascertain whether or not that's the case.

I live in Vienna an this is not the case here. Problem is the other way round (currently, is under discussion) - Universities just get a fixed amount of money. So they try to restrict the number of students by themselves, using different methods to get rid of them.

But all in all, I think it worked out pretty well in the past - no tuition, free access and lectures are public anyway. So everyone gets a chance to try it, most drop out in the first year, probably changing field of study once or twice. But as we don't have that minor/major stuff but the curricula are extremely specialized, this is probably not bad for widening the horizon. Still better than arbitrary tests or the weird numerus clausus in Germany.

I don't think that an university degree should be mandatory for everyone (we have a lot of specialized schools as an alternative), but it's good if the option to try it is there.

Why do you prefer a population that remains minimally educated to a population that benefits from free post-secondary education? I'm legitimately puzzled by why this would be upsetting.

I hope my children's children's children get to live in a future where a Ph.D. (or whatever) is the default. It probably won't happen, but I wish I lived in that world. Is this an upsetting ideal to you? (Serious question, I am honestly very confused by your statement).

Edit: I can understand being upset by the idea of gating jobs by a four-year degree, but I think I disagree about the percentage of (particularly future-safe) jobs for which a four year degree are necessary: medicine, law, engineering, teaching, even public administration. Your average paralegal, nurse, junior high math teacher, and public health official should all probably have degrees. And sure, there are proxies for a degree that aren't a degree, but I think I'd prefer to live in a world where a degree was attainable for those with ability, drive, and cooperative circumstances.

You don't need a four year degree to be a lawyer (much less a four-year degree plus law degree). In the UK a law degree is a three-year undergraduate degree.

Until we have enforced national standards for science in high school, I'd like to see as many people go to college as possible just so they get some education not under the control of their local or state school board, which may have watered down or crippled the science curriculum to better fit their religious views.

An administrative assistant may not get anything at college directly applicable to their job, but they might get something that will help them make more informed decisions when things like vaccinations and climate change become issues in a political campaign or show up on ballot initiatives.

It's also a huge waste to get so many young people borrowing to go to college when they might be happier and more well off as, e.g. firefighters, plumbers, mechanics, electricians, etc, but feel societal pressure to 'succeed' at a point where they're not even entirely sure what that means.

I see 'free college' and 'college by default' as two separate things, not as one. Just because someone can go to college (for free) doesn't mean someone should. In a 'free college' world, we would still need plenty of not-necessarily-college firefighters, plumbers, mechanics, electricians (and I'm sure there are many other routes that aren't best served by college), but people might not feel the same pressure to load up on debt at such a volatile point in their lives.

If the U.S. economy keeps putting downward pressure on non-college wages, people will keep borrowing whatever it costs to have a chance to escape modern serfdom.

I wholeheartedly agree. As a matter of fact, I'd support raising non-college wages, for many reasons. I don't see how free college has to be consistent with lower non-college wages. I don't see how that topic has to be at odds with either 'free college' or 'college by default'.

But it's a default requirement for most white collar entry level jobs in this country, and many blue collar manufacturing jobs have been exported out of the country. College feels like a default requirement for many students because it's the only way they see to get entry into a saught after career, even if they don't have a definite career chosen yet.

We could fix that problem instead of allocating hundreds of billions of dollars to a new benefit that accrues primarily to the middle and upper classes.

Almost 20x the amount of psychology majors than chemical engineering.

From what I read on reddit, news media and HN over the years we have no shortage of chemical engineers, but we do have a severe shortage of psychiatrists and psychologists at least here in Germany. Try getting an appointment - the problem isn't the one initial test appointment itself, but that if they accept you to come in for even just that "test talk" they don't have any room for the follow-up of many sessions over many months.

I think this is as one would expect: Pretty much anyone might use psychological help at some point (many different kinds exist, from "just talk" to prescribing some heavy drugs). How much need is there for chemical engineering? I've taken a few intro courses (just for fun, I'm happy in IT) so I know those guys don't just build chemical factories but also design devices like apheresis machine (great lecture, great professor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38kB2jTOyug). Still each machine needs to be designed only once, humans need help all the time. There should be many more psychologists than chemical or other engineers I think. One field scales much worse than the other one(s).

In the U.S., one is required to obtain either a Ph.D. or a Psy.D to become a clinical psychologist, and can expect a salary of around $75,000/yr... the shortage of psychiatrists is probably not a function of insufficient psych majors.

TO be more specific, a US college psychology major neither trains nor qualifies one for any job whatsoever in the psychiatric care field. Neither is such a major helpful in gaining admission to a trade school where one can learn to be qualified for such a profession.

Psychology is simply the default major for many students that have no specific interest in studies.

For 1,000 years, parents have bought B.A. degrees for their kids as positional goods: "My son, the college man." But a B.A. no longer provides positional status. There are too many people who possess one.

Certification protects many careers: barrier to entry. It does not provide entrepreneurial skills. It provides bureaucratic skills. These will be worth less and less in the digital age.

Evidence says that bureaucratic skills have become more and more valuable in the digital age. Fewer and fewer good jobs are available for qualified skilled people and more and more reward licenses, certifications, and connections.

As long as government spending and subsides are able to sustain them.

People keep missing the fact that 'liberal arts' is just free money for colleges and helps fund for the labs and science majors.

no, the labs and science majors are funded by their own students and grants the science professors win. the "liberal arts" is just free money for colleges and goes into their endowment.

Yes, but how much of that money is actually going towards funding STEM education in colleges. Isn't a large part of why tuition has increased in the past decade is due to expanding (unnecessary) amenities and administrators?

it sure has.

but... a good (read: difficult) degree from a good school will always net you at least an interview.

What bothers me about this is that we're now telling 15-year olds to make decisions that they won't understand the outcome of until they're 30. If they're lucky like me then they might manage to end up in a decent career despite having a mediocre degree from a mediocre school. But life has been tremendously unfair to most of the kids I went to high school with, and it's because our high school was mediocre and our parents didn't have the money to make up for it.

I shudder to think what the future will be like for my friends' kids.

... which is the theme of the article!

> Educated people have higher wages and lower unemployment rates than the less educated so why are college students at Occupy Wall Street protests around the country demanding forgiveness for crushing student debt? The sluggish economy is tough on everyone but the students are also learning a hard lesson, going to college is not enough. You also have to study the right subjects. And American students are not studying the fields with the greatest economic potential.

There will always be disproportionate amounts of arts/media majors vs STEM majors (more so now than ever before according to this article)

Not everyone is cut out to be a NASA astronaut space scientist engineering tech-guru UNIX kernel programming god. 1. There exists genetic limitations, and 2. Not everyone has an asperger-style of thinking. It should be no surprise to HN that your average human relates closer to the arts, music and perhaps sports than machine binary code.

Not sure this is true, although it appears to be the dominant perception. Programming skills bear a closer resemblance to language learning or critical thinking for many practical applications. Perhaps NASA engineers, kernel gods and lovers of binary will remain in the minority, but I wouldn't be surprised to see scripting in languages like Swift and Python become a more ubiquitous skill in the next 10 years. Even writing basic iOS apps is not beyond the range of someone with a creative writing degree.

And what share of 18-23 year olds are capable of learning a new language or critical thinking? Darn few. But nearly all are capable of partying, drinking, casual sex, and learning to write and appreciate fine arts a little better.

That's what we should be providing them with free college for.

They all knew their native languages and had enough critical thinking to be accepted to college. SAT/ACTs include math and writing sections. So I would venture all 18-23 year olds accepted to college can learn a language and think critically.

Critical thinking helps kids get accepted to college? It sure didn't help back in my day.

I should have said, few are capable of learning a new language without total immersion. And few are capable of learning to do linear algebra, calculus, or C++ well. Even fewer are capable of serious critical thinking.

But they can still mostly benefit from college.

However, we have people taking out enormous loans to get educations in non-STEM fields that have much less chance of repaying the investment financially.

We as a society push everyone in every possible field towards college. Many of these could be apprenticeships, etc. There's no reason to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn a lot of this stuff.

Even if we went back 40 years to when college was (compared to now) fairly cheap, a lot of fields wouldn't make sense in that environment.

> "1. There exists genetic limitations, and 2. Not everyone has an asperger-style of thinking."

You don't need asperger-style thinking to be able to code, nor do I think the skills you need to code are particularly rare. What's rarer is the inclination to learn.

In my opinion, anyone that can write out a cooking recipe can learn to code. Cooking recipes are basically imperative programming in disguise. The ingredients are the variables, and the cooking instructions are the algorithms.

How about also that the arts are important to a rich and diverse culture?

To people on Hacker News, art is just "content".

Well, I certainly wouldn't be brave enough to speak for a large, mostly anonymous group of users.

While art is essential to any modern culture, you cannot build an country's economy off the creation and trade of paintings. Besides, isn't art a product of creativity - an attribute that cannot be taught? Colleges should exist to enable creativity with the technical skills to implement it. If money is a problem, prioritize practical skills over arts.

"The Arts" - the Liberal Arts, not just "Art". But if you want to talk about art,

> isn't art a product of creativity - an attribute that cannot be taught?

Background: I went to art school. Why would creativity be something that's unteachable? It's a mode of thinking, just like any other. Every talent needs to be practiced, trained, enhanced; people need their ideas challenged, and a safe space to develop. I see little difference in this respect between art and engineering.

Saying that creativity is just an innate property of, "artistic" people is discounting the work involved in the development of someone that is creating the things you are taking for granted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com