America's Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor's Degree | Hacker News Reader

America's Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor's Degree

chronicle.com

54 pointsmlLK38 comments

Actually I think the umbrella concept is really just that that colleges are businesses. So it is illogical for customers to think that these entities would NOT run as a business i.e. streamline customer turnover, optimize resources, cut costs where possible, market like theres no tomorrow, and MARK UP. This is a gross oversimplification but the point, which i think people really do miss, is that college runs on money, they want your money, and they will do what they need to do to get it.

Post secondary education is not some altruistic gift sent down by the Gods; its an industry that has managed to market a product as 'indispensable' to your childs future; the college degree. The author is simply saying we should treat this consumer product like we would treat ANY OTHER consumer product. Look at reviews, consider cost/benefits, value propositions, long term worth. We should do our research and shop around. We should know not all brands are created equal. And of course we should all take a step back and realize that 80% of what we are seeing is a finely tuned marketing campaign. I hope more people read this article, not because 'degrees are bad' but because all consumers should do their research.

I'm sure that there are some colleges where other factors have greater influence on the behavior of the college. But for the vast majority, all that I've seen, the schools are operated exactly as you say.

The other factors are just a marketing trick. You know higher quality is a niche on its own --- and you have to seemingly ignore sales and concentrate on high ideals alone, to generate good sales in this niche. At least that's what works for industries other than education.

It's funny how the price vs. demand curve is often inverted in the education marketplace. Charging higher prices signals customers to think that the education must really be better, and so more students try to get in even when the actual quality of education is no better than at cheaper schools.

Having more data available about the value added by each school would certainly help eliminate this market inefficiency. But if that value add were to be calculated using a standardized test taken by all entering freshmen and graduating seniors that could lead to unintended consequences, such as teaching to the exam rather than providing a liberal education.

I don't think price makes people think it's a better education; I think it's US News rankings and popular hearsay put out by books and movies. I bet that everyone who shops diligently for these things believes that the Cooper Union is great, but that expensive non-famous liberal arts colleges are not.

With no intention to disagree with what you're saying, I want to bring up the point that "colleges are businesses" doesn't apply nearly as much as, well, "businesses are businesses". It's an approximate model at best.

The poster child for this is the idea of "academic" work as being less valuable (in dollars, anyway) than work done in a business environment. It's more than just cultural — colleges don't suffer under market stress in quite the same way. Part of that effect is an appreciable tuition, walled garden style.

So then you have to question what an academic "floating" environment can provide. If half the reason you're there is because you're already motivated to succeed without being there, what do you gain? Does Ivy League provide that in greater amounts? How much do connections and environment really matter?

I feel like that might be the stronger question that'll lead to informative answers.

I like where you are going with this. First, my friend and I were discussing this post earlier and he did as well, bring up that the idea that colleges are worth much more than just their functions as businesses. Granted they DO function as businesses, but as you bring up, they are unique in that they invest in cultural and societal advancement and inquiry, things that are quite intangible. So in a sense yes we do have to think about them in a unique light. Secondly, as a person that willingly choose not to go to college (I would have just graduated) I can tell you from experience that it is indeed not so much what you learn in college that is important, but it is the connections and influence if you will, that you get for being affiliated with a "recognized" entity. Truth be told, I have submitted a proposal to ycombinator and as an aspiring web developer IT IS PAINFULLY hard to attract and team up with like-minded individuals. So yes, you heard that right, I did not say it is hard to learn how to program, how to run a business (i currently do), hard to pay your bills, hard to grow up and mature, no no I said its hard simply to find people. So in that respect, I think that is colleges greatest reward. And don't get me wrong, civilization was built with TEAMS, so its a good reward.

You can see then how it all neatly comes to fit. The environment you are placed in contains a certain type of people. Colleges help you connect with these people in this environment. It's just so "structured" that way. You become connected with mentors (your professors and alumni) and you connect with peers, and you connect with protegees. It's the whole neat, clean package.

No it is not impossible to meet and connect with people and build something great (as many have done) but college just streamlines the process.

You don't pay to go to college to learn. Just as you pointed out the self-motivated will ALWAYS find a way to learn. And to add to that, think about just how much abstract and intangible things that are SO IMPORTANT to a good life that you can't learn in college, you can't learn anywhere. You have to learn them through your own conscious efforts toward self-improvement.

I think colleges should constantly measure the % their students who have become entrepreneurs in their life.

Clearly the problem with the US is that we have too much education.

Ugh. Complaining about the drop rate is valid. Sure. But blaming individual actors for systemic failure is no better than blaming your loan officer for the economic meltdown.

Note that critiques of education follow two lines:

1. You don't get enough for your first job (e.g. real-life skills --- such as C++/Java).

2. You don't get enough for the rest of your life (e.g. critical thinking).

A cute dichotomy, but unsatisfying. Frankly what I don't like about all this is the static "learn" phase followed by the static "work" phase. I grew up working while in school (not the heroic part-time school, part-time student way, just the lazy "I need RAM money, time for a summer gig" method). I like the idea, and it's made me a better student and a better professional programmer.

What gets me is little incentive I see for people to alternate between school & work. Either you work 12 hrs a day (8 for work, 4 for school), or give up work (& salary) to go back. Neither are good choices if you've got a spouse and kids.

Are there employers that give you a break on responsibilities (at least in hard time) to get an advanced degree? The payoff in smarter employees seems pretty worthwhile.

It'd be better to make undergrad less of a make-or-break situation, and more of a path of work/learning that continues for the rest of your life. But eh, that's more touchy/feely than most would like.

this is a terrible article.

the degree itself is not bad, the schools and programs are the things that should be criticized individually. i am content with my degree, because i made it through the curriculum. two of my pals who started with me couldn't cut it, and they were both pretty sharp guys. dropout/failure rate from my major at my school was something like 65%. (i don't know what it is now, could be easier to slide by nowadays)

just because some schools and majors don't have standards doesn't mean that all schools and majors don't have standards.

I think you missed the point when you get hung up on the fact that he'd prefer standards. His larger point is this:

College is a wise choice for far fewer people than are currently encouraged to consider it.

He's not so much speaking to you, but to your two buddies that couldn't hack it.

i don't think i missed the point. i understand what he's saying, but he jumps between two points and fallaciously labels it.

a bachelor's is not overrated. nor is a masters or doctorate. the issue is that technical and vocational schools (the 2 year degrees) are underrated. people view them as for the stupid kids, which is patently false.

Your comment doesn't address any of the arguments in the article.

how about this, then:

i agree with a lot of the facts, ideas and arguments presented, but i disagree with some of the conclusions.

a bachelor's is not overrated. the technical and vocational schools are underrated, and american society has put a bit too much pressure on students either continuing to a 4-year university or jumping straight into work, totally ignoring the other options.

because of that, substandard schools and garbage degrees have come in to fill the gap, babying people through a bachelor's degree as long as they're willing to pay, giving them a feel-good degree that is almost worthless in a competent workplace.

imo, the solution is to make the 2 year degree a more standard educational choice, removing the stigma associated with it.

I think you're missing a key distinction. Certain Bachelor's degrees from certain colleges are not overrated; perhaps that includes your degree. But many, perhaps the majority, have a negative value when you add up the price and opportunity cost. Due to a lack of reliable and relevant data it's often hard for customers (students) and prospective employers to distinguish the good from the worthless.

i'm not defending the common bachelor's degree or anything, as i mentioned before, i think associates degrees and vocational school are underrated.

however, i'd like to see some proof that a large portion of bachelor's degrees have a negative value. i find that one a toughie to swallow as stated.

I think part of the problem is that the way the schools are set up they only encourage doing enough to get by, and don't encourage learning for learning's sake. What concerned me about the article is the author's espousal of some sort of universal test. I think most college students would probably only be motivated enough to learn enough to pass the test, and miss out on more important skills.

My degree was a great education in Scheme and AI (Prolog, Bayes, search). I met a few people who I don't talk to much anymore.

My AI was one-to-one, with a couple of lecturers, because I was simply the only person that year to take it. I guess that's why I learned a lot.

I decided not to take a job placement for the 3rd year, as I needed to finish the course before I lost interest.

Do you do the degree quickly or postpone a year with a job?

I got a 2:2 which doesn't look very impressive to employers, but I don't regret taking the degree. An opportunity will come along.

That's one issue - Do you flunk year after year until your grades are at the top, or do you do the degree as quickly as possible and get a lower grade?

Not all of us went to MIT.

I didn't go to MIT, I was just lucky they let me take AI in the 2nd and 3rd years. In the 1st year, I did well in a regional computer quiz that we entered, so when I needed the head of the school to shout at the people deciding I shouldn't do AI, he did, and I got to do AI one-on-one.

That is an absolutely terrible, myopic analysis. Instead of saying that our nation's education system is not adequately preparing students for college, it's making the argument that college is taking advantage of unprepared students.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

> it's making the argument that college is taking advantage of unprepared students.

How is that inaccurate? They are allowing people to blow tens of thousands of dollars knowing it is for naught. It is fraudulent to admit many of these people. It's not so different from suckering fat people into your diet program.

The biggest problem with college education is the inflated prices, which have been caused by the subsidization of the student loan market. As the student loan market dies universities will be forced to cut costs and tuition DRAMATICALLY. Silver lining on every cloud...

Exactly. It's much like the housing market: government-subsidized financing was supposed to help poor people purchase homes and advance the "ownership society". Instead it mostly just drove up prices.

College education prices have been rising faster than the rate of inflation for years. The only reason they've been able to get away with it is the corresponding increases in financial aid. If the subsidies get cut back they'll have to get some financial discipline. For a start they could quit wasting money on unnecessary gold-plated facilities. You don't need fancy dorms, classrooms, and labs to deliver a solid undergraduate education.

It doesn't simply say that students are unprepared; it says that colleges do a bad job of teaching, because they staff teaching jobs with people who are trained and competant only to do research work. When it asserts that colleges take advantage of students, it backs it up with arguments like "students end up in large lecture classes" or classes taught by grad students.

In my experience, there is a large gap between the smaller, liberal arts "teaching" college and the large, research institution. I did my Bachelor's at the former and had great teachers and small classes (no classes with more than 30 students in 4 years). I did my Master's at a Research I university and there the undergrads are put into huge classes taught by professors that couldn't care less about them and grad students who are overworked and underpaid. Of course, at the graduate level the tables turn in the student's favor again: the Research I university offers small classes taught by some of the foremost experts in the world.

I think this is a problem with the students as well.

Kindergarteners need to be taught by people who are trained for teaching. Eleven-year-olds need to be taught by people who are trained for teaching. But by the time you get to the the university level, you're supposed to be clever enough that you can pick up a subject just by having one of the world's super-experts in the field stand up and ramble in front of you for a while. If you can't learn without hand-holding, you don't belong at university.

The quality and level of education in school in the US is somewhat pitiful. On the other hand, at least in grad school, I found the level to be very satisfactory and pushing my own intellectual needs and interests. I didn't do an undergrad in the states, but would do one 100 times out of 100. Would not be where I am without my education, and I like where that is.

I think the problem with the degrees is that they focus way too much on the concepts and way too little on practice. Schools need to offer and require at least one class where you spend days actually doing the jobs available for your major. Instead of doing BS work problems where instead of using Excel like they do in the real world, you have to use a blank piece of paper.

To offer the contrarian view, I know many who've changed careers and explored alternative paths because they had a sound conceptual understanding. Yes, you can't just be theoretical, but I'd argue that you go a lot further when you know why you are using Excel in the first place and what you want to achieve with it.

well thats the thing in most cases the teachers will talk about the concepts without really touching on how to apply them in real life. So sure you might know what an integer is and know what that does in all languages, but that won't help you program competently

No it won't but if you don't know what an integer is, how are you going to program simple math? You have to understand the basics. Programming is implementation, and of course, must be taught well to be mastered, but it becomes a whole lot easier if you understand what you're trying to program. It's not the best analogy in the world, but hopefully makes some sense

So, like a vocational / trade school?

Not school, just a few courses for each major to prepare the students for the work force. I mean right now you come out of school, and you really have no idea wtf you can do. At least with some vocational practice you can see if its a job you want to do for the next 50 years

Let's be honest...the value of post-secondary education is measured in terms of life-experience, not professional. Am I better equipped to function as an economist armed with a degree in economics? Sure. Am I better equipped as a person to function rationally, efficiently and humanely with four years of campus life under my belt? Without question.

I had never thought of this. I don't agree that it's overrated, but I agree it can be overrated and marketed too heavily.

bachelor degrees are only overrated because of grade inflation.

Way to generalize. The points mentioned in this article do not apply to the top tier colleges at all. Consider Harvard, or MIT, or Caltech. These colleges have no problem with cost. The suggestions mentioned in the article will needlessly weigh down these institutions. In return for "protecting" the lowest common denominator who have trouble even with graduating from a 4-yr institutions, we will sacrifice the competitiveness of these top thinkers of our time. Historically, never a good trade off.

This article is argued from the assumption that college ought to be like a factory. Comparing dropout rates with the failure rates of manufactured goods is a complete non sequitur.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com