Too little is known about whether money spent on higher education is worth it
economist.com
economist.com
Was it worth it? To me, certainly. To society at large? The society being a post-industrial society morphing into an information society, having yet another worker for factories or farms that do not need it, does not seem to be a good contribution. I went to university, and because of that I contributed in ways I would never have been able otherwise: I've taught in high school; I've done historical research at a university; and I've done research on how to better prepare our children for participation in the information society. But was it worth it?
To be honest—without being a reductionist—, my contributions to society are slim. Maybe I've effected one or two students in a way that will set them on a path true contribution to society. Maybe I've effected others to take a wrong turn. I don't know. And my research? In the end its target audience was a small research community and, although I've been cited enough, its impact is just a drop, if that at all.
But that is just me. I imagine that your stories and those of other who went to university are similar in a way. Our contributions might be tiny, but what about taking together all of our tiny contributions?
Regardless, my problem with college is they take zero responsibility for their student's success while simultaneously employing rhetoric and advertising that tells kids that it will help them get a job. This is borderline fraud. Colleges should not be able to sell kids degrees on the idea that they will get a job with them whilst not actually accomplishing that.
What do I mean by taking responsibility for success? There are trade schools where if you don't get a job within X years you only owe a fraction of the tuition (or none at all).
Oh, you know, just my entire upbringing. Job ads asking for a B.S, M.S., or Ph.D. help too.
I consider myself fairly knowledgeable when it comes to programming and software design, but if I were to be thrust into a working environment right now I'm sure I'd be woefully unprepared. My thought has always been that these kinds of 'working' skills are what you get at university, but really I have no idea.
Ultimately I quite dislike the world of assignments and exams, and entering into university I assume will just be a continuation of this. Your comment has really made me start considering my choices more carefully. This is probably the first time I've even considered going straight into a job in fact.
Do you have anything to add? Thoughts or advice?
Edit: should clarify that I did realise there were options other than uni but never considered them. Also I realise experience is a key part of 'learning how to work', but even with that in mind I feel like there would be a huge barrier to overcome if I chose to take a job now.
IMO only mugs and rich kids go to university in the UK now.
I doubt you'll get working skills at uni. Depending on the course, you're more likely to get mind-broadening introductions to CS ideas and techniques you're not yet familiar with - hard stuff about algorithms, difficult languages you wouldn't usually touch, and the like.
But you don't get actual work experience unless you do a course with a one-year industrial placement.
At best you get solo and group practice projects you can maybe showcase to employers.
But - here's the thing. With GitHub and StackOverflow you can get similar project experience working from home.
And academically, there is nothing at all you can learn on a CS course you can't learn from books and the Internet. You may have to find and buy a few expensive books - but you'll have to buy the books anyway.
Three years from now everyone else will be leaving uni with no practical job experience and three years of debt. You have the potential to have zero debt and one, two, or even three years of practical experience, having built a solid project portfolio that should at least get you on a shortlist for many jobs.
And if you're interested in startups and business, you're much better off getting into that as soon as you can.
Assumption - you're fine with working hard. If you just want to sleep all day, this plan won't work.
There are three downsides. One is that some tech jobs specifically demand a degree. Depending how stupid the company is, HR may specifically filter out non-degreed applicants.
That's definitely a downside, but it's only some employers,
Another is that uni gives you networking opportunities and personal friendships you won't get at work. Some can last a lifetimem. They certainly have a personal value, and in the top-rank unis they have financial value too. (To be blunt about it.)
But if you're applying to Average Uni of Middleshire I'm not sure they're worth three years of debt and the lack of cash later when you're (e.g.) thinking about buying a house.
The final downside is that you have to look at the quality and location of the work you can get now. If you're in London or a tech hub like Cambridge, it's worth considering. Likewise Bristol, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, and so on.
Also, international remote. Well worth exploring.
Smaller towns - not so much. I'm sure there are small-town jobs with a future, but personally I've never seen one advertised anywhere.
So this only works if you have a realistic chance of a job with some prospects. If it's a crappy timewasting job where you learn nothing and get paid peanuts - no.
Of course you have to avoid those later too. They don't go away just because you have a degree...
tl;dr - if you decide you absolutely have to have a degree, you can always get one later. But the loan is a huge downside, and it can cripple your choices later.
It's smart to at least think about avoiding it. If you decide in the end it's worth the cost, you'll be making a conscious decision, not just following the herd.
I'd keep applying, just because. But unless things have changed you're not obligated to start a course until you sign up for one. So even if you get offers, you can look around for jobs for the next few months and not sign up for a course if you find something with prospects.
Would you hire an accountant for your business who was just enthusiastic and good with Google?
You know there are other degree programs other than CS at most universities right?
>Would you hire an accountant for your business who was just enthusiastic and good with Google?
Oddly enough I taught myself basic biz accounting using enthusiasm and Google. The wheels haven't come off yet, so it may not have been a total failure.
Bio lab work you can do from school. Bio innovation is a whole other thing and you'd certainly need a good degree for that, if not a PhD.
But OP specifically mentioned computing and showed no interest in civils, elect eng, bio, etc. So snarky comments about not knowing that other options are possible are perhaps misplaced.
Also, I remain unconvinced by the quality of much degree-level education in the UK. The mid-lower market seems more about getting bums on seats, and high value degrees are not so easy to find. With so much competition from (rich) fee-paying foreign students they're even harder to get onto.
If you were going to take a gap year anyway you could look for an internship gap, or do a bootcamp like general assembly in London or Iron Yard in Madrid/Barcelona and then intern/freelance.
This is not a defence of mass undergraduate education. I believe the social value of that is, and that the credentialism it enables is a cancer. The private returns are great though.
If you never find yourself broke and looking for a job, any job, if your career is basically uninterrupted starting from the tech space, skipping university to go straight into work will be fine. If you save a lot while working you should also be fine. You can go back to school when the economy disappears for three years if you want to.
You are unlikely to be as special as you think you are. Having a degree signals conformity, conscientiousness and intelligence. Employers really like all three. Don't commit to anything. If a gap year works out great keep going but not having a degree turns some jumpable barriers into climbable ones and makes some climbable ones impossible.
Now this is only my perspective as someone living in New Zealand, I'm not very familiar with the UK. But I think it would still be similar in the UK.
P.S I feel I should disclose that I am biased against universities, none of my friends have gone to uni and my flatmate is in the same situation as me. I don't really believe in the reasons most people go to university, I certainly don't think it's a decision someone should make coming out of highschool.
You will not. You will acquire those working skills in the course of the profession. A degree program may expand your academic knowledge of computer science, and attendance at a university will provide networking opportunities where you will meet people and be exposed to new ideas, but it will not teach you to be a tradesman.
If you want to be a trademan (specifically, a programmer), you need to start working in that trade - find a job as a junior programmer. You'll learn more relevant to your desired career there than you possibly could at university.
As ever, every example has a counter-example. I don't know which approach is right, but crazy grateful I didn't go through the American system. The cost strikes me as crippling.
Student costs are similar in France and Germany, if not a lot lower.
It's simply a question of the US government spending money on things other than educating its citizens.
Plenty of people come up with most or all of that as working students. And one of my roommates came from Europe because it was cheaper than any school in his country though this was a while ago.
My little sister got into a school that charges (ED: 43.2k tuition/year 2015-2016) which she wanted to go to. But, decided to go somewhere else for obvious reason. Some collages in the US charge a lot because they can find students willing to pay that much money, but there plenty of reasonable options.
The strange consequence of this is that it is almost better (from a selfish viewpoint), if you are not rich, to not have money saved for college if you send your kid to Harvard, because they'll take any money you do have.
The room and board cost is mostly based on cost of living (Boston and the Bay area are more expensive than Madison, Wisconsin), but financial aid will often cover that too.
The sticker price is misleading though. There are scholarships for merit and grants for need. Work study (often in makework jobs with ample downtime for studying) for almost anyone who seeks them out.
Even after that, employers in competitive fields offer loan repayment as a starting bonus, or doled out over time for retention. Work in public service makes some eligible for loan forgiveness.
Even without that, the loan companies have provisions for indefinite deferment during unemployment and automatic forbearance during enrollment in any other academic program. Income based repayment is a standard option. Essentially, if you wanted to break the system, you could pay full price for a ridiculously priced private school degree then probably go work at starbucks and send them $20 a month for a while, then go take four years off to study pottery at a community college to pay $0 a month while the fed pays all your interest.
Oh, then even after that, even if you are actually personally paying interest on a loan, historically the rates have been competitive (though that flipped a few years back), and there are tax credits for education spending, and deductions that kick in even when you're just repaying school loans.
The most surprising feature of the American system to me is not the price, but how hard it works to camouflage all its progressive and meritocratic features.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/college-is-chea...
Most of these (scholarships, work study) are available in other countries without the sticker price in the USA. Employers don't need to offer loan repayment as a starting bonus in other countries because the sticker price isn't so ridiculous.
It worries me how you rationalize this away - what happens if you don't get a scholarship or that loan repayment as a starting bonus and don't want to work for the government? If you just want to work for a mid-tier accounting firm then your education could be costing you an astronomical portion of your paycheck.
That's a distinction without a difference if almost no one is paying the sticker price except for the trust fund kid without any ability or willingness to work.
> It worries me how you rationalize this away
I disagree with you because the alternative model, "free or cheap for all," ends up subsidizing that trust fund kid who has no ability or desire to work. If you're subsidizing the rich, it's ultimately at the expense of the poor. It's a regressive system dressed up as progressive, it's just a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Characterizing our disagreement as "me rationalizing something away" though is undeservedly patronizing. If I responded in kind the discussion would quickly devolve into name calling.
We have a good faith disagreement. We can treat it that way or just not bother discussing it.
Back in 2011, I got into a few prestigious schools (CMU, U Chicago) that talked a big game about need-based aid. They trimmed a good bit off the sticker price for me, but it was still more than I could afford without getting into more debt than I was comfortable with. I'm graduating next month from the University of Pittsburgh where I pay no tuition because I grew up nearby and my high school performance was up to par. So my friends who do pay tuition are subsidizing my degree.
It's not that the government spends too LITTLE money - it's because it spends too MUCH without any in the form of cheap student loans with no risk based pricing.
Any 18 year old with no credit history can go and and take out over a $200k of student loans ($57,500 / year) from the government, without any regards to school or risk.
Barely graduated high school and majoring in underwater basketweaving at BoneHead U? As long as it's an "accredited school" (a sham process in and of itself), here's your money - at 3.5% interest! Nothing secured against the loan, no evaluation of your ability to repay, nothing - just free money with the not-so-insignificant fact that these loans are mostly non-dischargeable in bankruptcy or in some cases even death[1]
Majoring in computer science at Stanford? Here's the same loan at the same terms!
Now tell me which student is more likely to default and which is the better risk?
It's ABSOLUTELY because loans are underwritten by the US government willy-nilly in the name of "education for all" that we're in this mess, with universities building movie theaters and lazy rivers[2] at taxpayer expense.
It's a trillion dollar bubble waiting to pop.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_Sta...
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/fashion/college-recreation...
Why loan money tot he student to pay it to the university?
Why not just pay it directly to the school and charge the student some nominal amount? There's academic entrance requirements either way.
For less than 3% of their endowment, they could give 'free education'. Obviously the whole picture is a little more complex, but it does add some context around funding.
People do not tend to graduate MIT in deep debt and without job prospects.
If we made it so college debt was like normal debt, meaning it could be discharged in bankruptcy, the cost of a higher education would likely plummet, and come back down into the affordable range again.
We as humanity at a crossroads in our history as species and a civilization and we need to stand up to this challenge and conquer our problems and fears.
Finally, I must congratulate on your contributions to the progress of humanity, every good word counts and every good idea enriches out lives.
Thank you for all!
Common core is a failure. The idea of extending that model to cover an even broader, more diverse set of subjects and topics is really poorly thought out. Who's going to design these tests? What professor is going to give a shit about them when their evaulations are based solely on research performance, not teaching? What top school with world-class faculty would ever agree to hamstring itself with a generic curriculum rather than let its experts teach what they know best?
What a terrible idea.
I find that most people who bash the Common Core State Standards don't really understand them.
Why, exactly, do you feel that Common Core is a failure?
Education is one of the few areas that the state has clear, Constitutionally defined authority to manage over the federal government.
Yet, 46 out of 50 states have accepted the Common Core, which seems to me to be a tremendous success.
In my examination of the Common Core State Standards, I have found them to be thoughtfully designed, and a tremendous improvement over the fragmented and rambling state standards of old, at least in Illinois.
I find that most people who bash CCSS think that it's a method of teaching, rather than what it truly is: broad learning standards that give educators some general goal in which they can use any method to achieve.
Now, if I move my family to California, New York, or Wisconsin, these students should be working on roughly the same concepts.
This to me seems like a good thing.
Of course, there must be a reason why you think that they are a failure, and I am certainly willing to hear you out.
I believe receiving Race to the Top money was tied to adopting Common Core, which contributed to the adoption rate. I think a state could in theory have adopted a different standard but Common Core granted them the most money and was the most easily accessible.
I like math, and I can see what they're trying to do (build intuition in a multi-faceted way & justifying different multiplication algorithms) but the way it is done is boring her to death. It is too much repetition, and they have squeezed the fun out of it in what seems like a desire for repeatability.
The issue is that the good students will always learn quickly and be bored while the average student is learning.
The only solution would be to skip her ahead a year in math.
So with California and NY adopting CC this fuels the adoption of CC in more states as a standard because it opens access to more resources at reduced cost since you aren't buying, essentially, custom materials and books. I think that rubs a lot of people the wrong way and has contributed to a lot of noise around CC.
CS industry in general is a little bit strange because jobs are so plentiful and many of those jobs don't require particularly deep understanding of the core content of the scientific field. The same is not the case for e.g., mechanical engineering or medical professions.
A lot of countries are paying higher teacher salaries, so that could be something.
I'd argue that regardless, the US _should_ spend a lot on education. My intuition is that the problem might have more to do with how stretched parents are financially, and how their participation (or lack thereof) can affect a child's education.
I've spent hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for a course that I thought was very beneficial to me, and I'll gladly do it again as I find useful things to learn.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/the_magic_of_ed....
Not by that much. Most graduates get jobs that their degrees are irrelevant to. Also, more selective universities will have better results than less selective ones even if they are merely equally good at teaching as less selective ones.
>Common tests, which students would sit alongside their final exams, could provide a comparable measure of universities’ educational performance. Students would have a better idea of what was taught well where, and employers of how much job candidates had learned.
There is no necessary connection to universities here. Why not just straight up separate teaching and testing? Why restrict taking these tests to people in their final year of university? P.Eng. exams are respected without being a university degree, like the Royal Statistical Societies certificates and diplomas.
To be clear, I am _not_ saying there are not good courses/universities outside the top tier. I know of some. But I think that on balance, my claim would hold up.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/
Interviews an ex rocker, coke addict, making $$$ starting for profit schools, who's latest endeavor (Hope University or some such nonsense) milks tuition grants from ex-cons and the homeless. University of Phoenixes are strategically located near freeway exits.
University of Phoenix started for that need and actually used to have some decent focus in that area before it was bastardized for profit and major growth late 90s/early 00s. They may have also proved online learning is acceptable somewhat as you see other schools and traditional Universities offering it now. OSU offers a full CS online degree. The problem for UoP is they did not focus on quality and got greedy, they can't compete with traditional online as much now.
I think that online is partly the future of education and there also needs to be a focus on actually preparing young as we do now, and regular adults for new challenges. Anytime someone at any age is willing to go on a learning challenge the systems we have should encourage that.
How many homes were "worth" more in 2007 than in 2009?
> Online courses, which have so far failed to realise their promise of revolutionising higher education, would begin to make a bigger impact. The government would have a better idea of whether society should be investing more or less in higher education.