Wages for college graduates across many majors have fallen since the recession
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
MS the new BS
BS the new HS diploma
I should have stayed for my PhD 22 years ago, but back then it was only for acedemia track. These days there seem to be plenty of freshly minted PhD. Maybe that will soon be the minimum job qualification.
"“Several years ago it became very clear to us that master’s education was moving very rapidly to become the entry degree in many professions,” Dr. Stewart says. The sheen has come, in part, because the degrees are newly specific and utilitarian. These are not your general master’s in policy or administration. Even the M.B.A., observed one business school dean, “is kind of too broad in the current environment.” Now, you have the M.S. in supply chain management, and in managing mission-driven organizations. There’s an M.S. in skeletal and dental bioarchaeology, and an M.A. in learning and thinking."
Wage stagnation for 15 years heavily and 40 years overall does a number on the wallet while the costs of everything are far beyond inflation[2].
America has lost the ability to give meaningful wage increases to keep growth going in a consumer based economy. When the consumer based economy is low on fuel (cash in wallets and accounts) then it sputters.
Back in the day America viewed wages as a sign of good work and companies saw benefits of increasing workers pay. This led to more money in the system, employees that buy and recommend where they work, better customer service, better informed employees and more.
To "Make America Great Again" either raise wages as a function of work over time/productivity or drive down the dollar so Americans can get raises again. In both cases the wealthy will have to be willing to pay their part, but they didn't get rich by paying.
[1] https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/06/2393/
[2] http://fortune.com/2015/09/01/heres-the-real-reason-you-dont...
However, I don't think an "oversupply" is the correct explanation. At least in the technical, engineering, and manufacturing fields that I know, companies are desperate for more good people. And this is even as STEM graduation rates are at an all time high.
Looking at it from the the graduate's side, every single clueful person I know that graduated in the last five years is employed, and quickly so.
How can can average wages be going down, even demand increases?
The key is that we are talking "average wages". College graduates in any field are not a uniform bunch.
The number of new competent individuals graduated seems to be holding steady, while around them grow an increasing sea of people who don't show up for work, or have a clue about getting actual work done in their profession.
Not desperate enough to give the recent college grads a raise, apparently
It used to be, in engineering school, 2/3 flunked out or changed majors. Even with the remaining 1/3, there are the C/D students. I'd only want to hire the A/B students.
I think people are figuring out engineering is a lot tougher than the "making stuff".
To bring up the average salary? Does that matter to any individual?
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_322.10.a...
My generation's apathy doesn't come from nothing.
When those people go into STEM, they are fools for pursuing a field they aren't passionate in.
When they don't go to school, and can't get any jobs, because they all require bachelors degrees, they are lazy, and unmotivated.
What exactly is an 18-year old do?
Isn't this simply a Just World fallacy? Outside of the simulations of economists, I know of no example where the labor market operates with this degree of narrative and rationality.
But before I went to University I was unemployed, working as a industrial cleaner, working as a seller in a little Ice cream parlor, and customer support ( through the phone ) and more unemployed.
So yes my degree is just to get in the door, it's ridiculous but it's the world we live in. Maybe I could have tried harder, maybe this and that. But I'm not the only one in my class that thinks like me and had the same experience.
I just do it to not be unemployed or work low paying jobs for the next 40 years.
By your own admission, you've learned little. You've put in just enough effort to pass your classes. You aren't seemingly interested in the field. And you're not motivated to learn more on your own in a field where knowledge is rapidly obsoleted.
The credential of a university degree was previously a signal of having learned about a topic, having worked hard in doing so, having interest in the field, and (at least in this field) being interested and/or capable enough to continue learning as necessary.
If it's no longer a strong indicator of these things, why should employers value it as highly? My own experience mirrors your admission here: fresh university grads frequently lack even the bare minimum ability that would be expected to be productive. Many don't follow this pattern, but they're the exception rather than the rule. And they get hired while the others don't.
It's not the degree that gets you the job, it's the ability. And if you have a degree but little ability, you're not getting the job. The focus on going to university should be about getting the ability, but it's become about getting the credential, even though the credential was never really the valuable part to begin with.
I want to be clear here that there's no judgment on my part of you or your character. You're doing what you think is best and/or necessary in your life and it's not my place to try and find fault with that. I'm only trying to point out that your approach seems symptomatic of a larger problem — and one that I don't have meaningful solutions for. I do worry though that just getting the credential won't be enough to give you the chance of success you're hoping it will, but I wish you luck regardless.
Yes we don't know at all how it will turn out, but I at least think that I can't be worse of than if I hadn't gone to university.
I see two options available to us: Either we restrict globalization to increase demand for lower-class labor(which would then create Unions, increase consumer spending, lower inequality) or we can introduce universal basic income(which would at least let the lower class survive while their jobs continue to be outsourced). Either way, there will be stiff opposition from the major corporations, and thus the politicians will fight against it.
- To get an interview in the first place.
- To get a decent starting salary.
- To get into management positions as you progress.
* Full life-long gapless CV
* marital status
* family status
* hobbies
* original college transcript
* multiple references
* picture
To your point, there definitely seems to be more stigma against those without college education. I once accidentally sent a resume without my college info, and was asked matter-of-factly if I was "uneducated". In the US, most employers don't even seem to care about my schooling anymore since I have 5+ years of professional experience.Gapless CV, degree transcript and references are more common.
Further, after significant involvement in the interview and hiring process at my last position (a very large technology company), it's my belief that this would be counter-productive to most firms. Finding candidates that have the skillsets necessary, fit the culture, and perform well in the interviews is difficult enough.
I didn't need transcripts though. You don't need a transcript to verify that someone obtained a degree.
Plus, while it does not matter whether you have degree for programming, it does matter whether you lie about it.
Your comment on "fit the culture" can be considered somewhat offensive, and an indicator to candidates that they may want to consider other opportunities.
I think you're a ways off here. Culture is character (and not a "bundle of soft skills"). Some companies want candidates that value and empathize with customers. Others may want candidates that demonstrate integrity and ability to collaborate with others. Often, these values are codified as principals to work and measure by. When a candidate fails to demonstrate valued traits, or provides examples that are contrary to those values, that is "not a culture fit".
Because "culture", in vernacular, does not mean what you propose. Would you agree that it broadly consists ofthe shared history and norms that bind a group together socially? That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but it does implicitly defining other people as outsiders. When you add "fit", it can become exclusionary. That's what I mean by the term legitimizing bias.
Just a guess but I'd say they've been burned in the past by people lying about their transcripts (class/grade history) and as a result they ask for it going forward. Either that or overzealous HR trying creating more work and process.
I've never heard of a company in the USA asking for a transcript. I'm not aware of anyone asking for a copy of a diploma either. Though presumably if you lie about it on your employment application and they subsequently find out about it it'd be grounds for termination with cause.
It's usually called a 'transcript' (in British English at least)
(That would be a hell of a strange thing for a potential employer to ask for here, too.)
But yeah, at the same employer, they apparently don't ask for proof of a master's degree (or BS).
Some people lie about qualifications.
"Being a professional" is about your ability and how you go about doing your job.
There are plenty of CS masters/PHD holders who write horrifically unprofessional code.
What countries have this problem?
Still, for the past 3 years I have been using my weekends and evenings to work on my BS in CS. And, while surely I was able to be successful building software without it, a new clarity has come that had never been there before. Perhaps it's because I have industry experience to draw on but I regret not having done this earlier in my life (I'm 39). So my point is, if you're in college reading this now, please do yourself a favor and see it through to completion. You're in a fortunate position (even though the daily grind sucks), take a deep breath, pause, and enjoy it.
I would like to hear a few other folks here share whether they felt a general increase of clarity and insight as they have come into their middle ages.
My dad always said he did his best thinking in his 40s. He said that he knew he wasnt as fast or as sharp, but still having a lot of that, plus a really good working model of the world by that point, left him with the best product of those factors.
Or maybe it's just obvious and not true at all.
Exactly. I have 2 degrees, obtained about 8 years apart, so I've spent a few years doing undergraduate work. Not sure what it's like in the US, but here in Canada it's nearly impossible to flunk out of University. Between the ability to find "bird courses" with the help of technology to rank and rate classes and profs, to the garbage incentives of "if this person flunks out, there goes next year's tuition" pretty much everyone can scrape by.
Most high school grads won't become programmers. They will work in warehouses, low level healthcare jobs, etc. The wage growth for high school graduates is worse than college graduates. It's a problem with the whole economy, not colleges specifically.
Solution: Don't waste money one college.
I got downvoted before for stating that position, but HN has been a little hypocritical on that matter. On the one hand, when discussing issues of automation, many state that there will always be enough of jobs, we just have to educate people better and in the right fields.
On the other hand, I often see the statements that people should be able to learn (and get paid for it) anything they want.
I disagree with both of these positions.
So categorizing degrees into "useless" and "useful" is -- at best -- whistling past graveyards if you are still lucky to possess one of those "useful" degrees. Or maybe it's wishful thinking.
Same with the degree. When everyone has a degree, it's not special anymore. It's merely a way to get people in debt and transfer the cost of job training to the employee.
For a multitude of others, however, there isn't much space to work around if you don't qualify for scholarships, grants, and the like - neither can such education be avoided. I'd rather nurses, doctors, and teachers to go to school - for example - and I very highly doubt you'll get similar knowledge otherwise. I'm also not sure how else folks will get practical experience - I'd not let a new nurse, with no classroom experience, draw my blood.
Nor is there a shortage of cultural and intellectual events - there are often free talks from famous authors, different cultural festivals, art exhibits, etc. Or sports, for that matter.
I remember reading on a financial site that bundled products are often a disadvantage for the consumer, since they force you to buy products you don't need. This is how I feel about college. I appreciate that there are many people who don't take advantage of cultural and intellectual events unless pushed, or people who don't want to live in a population dense area outside of a dormitory setting. But there is often a lack of understanding that many of us do take advantage of these things outside of a college area, that the world isn't necessarily an intellectual wasteland outside of the university setting. But when we want the necessary credentials for a career provided by a university (and the somewhat poor training that accompanies it), we're forced to pay for many things we simply don't want or need from the university.
Are you going to buy your own electron microscope? Glassware? Broker bulk deals with chemical suppliers? Can you afford an MRI? Purchase a billion different journal subscriptions at exorbitant costs? For these types of equipment it makes sense to pool together resources and achieve economies of scale, which is (beyond social mingling) where the main advantage of college lies in my view.
I'm frequently put in situations that draw on social skills that I honed during college, and I'm not just talking about partying. Things like student government or other organizing events help me as a technical consultant.
In an ideal world, I would recommend people to go to university iff they want to do research level work. For everyone else, there should be on the job training and a highschool education which teaches you how to efficiently approach a new subject on your own.
In reality, the undergraduate programs take the place of a proper highschool education and businesses look to degrees for accreditation, so I think it's very dangerous to tell people that there is "no value in universities"... On the other hand, if you happen to live in a country where universities charge you tens of thousands of dollars every year, the situation is entirely different. That is crazy and everyone knows it.
College education these days looks more like a luxury good, not a job prerequisite. It is of more value if you want to do research or work on bleeding edge fields like advanced artificial intelligence or biotech, but if you just want to be a decent software engineer, it doesn't make economic sense anymore, in my opinion.
(Disclosure: worked 10 years in the industry before finally getting my degree — because I wanted to move to R&D).
Now managers expect everyone to "hit the ground running" and as one consequence employees are much more careful about only acquiring skills that will be of use when they come to move to their next role. Hardly surprising.
The industry could do really well out of recognizing that it's a vocational occupation and switching to an apprenticeship model.
As I've worked my way into more technically demanding roles, it's been very useful to have a foundation of big-O analysis, the expressive power of different levels in the Chomsky hierarchy, (mathematical) optimization theory, graph theory, compilers, and/or computer architecture.
Many of these topics could be learned by a bright person on-demand.
However, some of the topics are important to be familiar with before taking on a project, because they let you avoid costly, time-consuming mistakes.
a major part of the mission of any college is its ability to pick a curriculum that actually has value for the student's life and career - topics whose study will be truly worthwhile.
colleges are saying "of all the topics you might study, out of the vast ocean of knowledge which a person could not hope to master in ten lifetimes, we have selected a manageable but critical/valuable/useful subset."
based on your comment and many others, it seems colleges are failing at that part of the mission. it seems the world is simply changing too fast and most colleges fail to keep up.
This is the unspoken down side to the German model if Hans take the vocational track he will be limiting his career progression.
School acts a bit like equalizer - it allows you to a.) create network b.) acts as alternative to experience in case you don't have network.
In computer science you will learning about generic concepts like parsers, compilers or whatever.
For vocational you would learn about something specific like asp.net mvc.
You don't know whether your code is maintainable until you had to maintain it for a while.
Plenty even studied physics or something similar instead of computer science and then got job in company desperate for people on the basis of "you are smart so we guess you will be able to learn". Actually turned out that if you have brain for physics or math, you can learn programming reasonably fast too. (And ended up being better then weak cs students.)
They would not be suitable for all companies and positions obviously, but grasping enough of basics so you can be useful enough to create part of frontend pages/load data from db/whatever with a bit of supervision is not that hard.
Unfortunately, the job might just be management at the local box store. They tend to not care so much about what your degree is in so long as you have one. Nurses generally have no trouble finding work either.
"College education these days looks more like a luxury good, not a job prerequisite". This very much depends on the field. I've seen administrative assistant positions that require a college degree, especially if it is at a large company. Sometimes it is just a legal requirement: A school superintendent in indiana needs to have a teaching license. The school business manager doesn't need that - merely a 4 year degree in business, though a masters degree is more normal.
You just have to expand the industry you are looking at to find it: obviously, there are lots of exceptions.
Big tech firms hold campus hiring events. Many companies aggressively go after college grads. Some even go after juniors for internships (which is great for the company - it's a several month opportunity to vet a candidate without commitment. If things work out, the candidate gets invited to come onboard when they graduate).
College hires won't get very exciting work initially. At a fast moving company, they're going to be learning on the job (which means they need to be dynamic/adaptable and curious). Unfortunately, this can mean picking up operational work that more seasoned engineers don't enjoy (however, still a great opportunity to learn and grow for most).