
Buyer's Remorse: High Debt and Low Pay Leave Some College Grads Rueful - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-28/buyer-s-remorse-high-debt-and-low-pay-leave-some-grads-rueful
======
wpietri
One of the theories behind the massive rise in student loans is "let the
market decide!" But I think this shows why it's not a great theory.

Markets work really well when experienced purchasers make frequent purchases
and can readily evaluate the quality and utility of the purchase. E.g., we're
all pretty good at picking restaurants. But a degree is a very expensive
product sold to people who, by definition, don't know much about the topic.
It's no shock to me that a lot of them end up with buyer's remorse. And I'm
not seeing how to fix this; schools are getting paid either way, so they're
not motivated to solve the problem.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _a degree is a very expensive product sold to people who, by definition, don
> 't know much about the topic_

We've also insulated everyone but the student from the consequences of the
decision. Lenders, universities and counselors have zero exposure to students'
lifetime earnings.

Making student loans dischargeable (and modifiable) in bankruptcy and
requiring colleges who maintain an endowment to guarantee first losses on
their students' loans would be good first measures.

(Uncomfortably, this will mean a liberal arts degree will become much more
difficult to secure a loan for. It will mean fewer schools will be willing to
print unlimited English degrees. This doesn't mean we don't need English
majors. But if someone cares enough about the future of English majors, they
should stand ready to hire them at a competitive wage.)

~~~
jogjayr
> Uncomfortably, this will mean a liberal arts degree will become much more
> difficult to secure a loan for.

Or colleges might charge differently per credit hour depending on course and
major. It's always seemed a bit ridiculous to me that a credit hour of
American poetry and a credit hour of propulsion systems costs the same amount,
considering the wildly different overhead and input costs. That's how it
worked when I was a student in India.

Liberal arts, business, and law students are being ripped off right now -
there's no way it actually costs that much to deliver most of those courses.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
They aren’t really, since costs in most courses are dominated by facilities
(space) and administration. Unless there is a hands on lab for the propulsion
systems class, it has an overall cost similar to the poetry one. Even the
course instructors are likely to have comparable salaries, unless the poetry
class is being taught by an adjunct.

~~~
Mvhsz
I always thought that the liberal arts majors subsidized the more expensive
STEM majors, but your comment made me question that. So I took a look at my
Alma Mater's financial statements and it turns out that the subsidy is less
that I thought, but still significant. Facilities are a pretty small part of
the university budget, dorms turn enough profit to cover utilities and
maintenance. Most of the upfront cost of academic buildings is paid for by
donors (may not be the case everywhere). 60% of the University expenses are
salaries and about 20% of the staff are faculty. However the majority of the
employees work in revenue-generating parts of the university. Room and board
mostly covers the salaries for low-wage positions like food service, security,
building maintenance. Athletic revenue mostly covers the cost of coaches and
athletic staff. So the remaining number of non-revenue generating
administrators (bursar, registrar, etc.) is about equal to the number of
faculty. Since STEM faculty are generally paid more that liberal arts, I would
estimate the cost premium of operating a STEM class over a liberal arts class
to 10% at this particular school (NE USA, Private, D1).

~~~
roymurdock
It sounds like you basically dropped all other costs but teacher salary and
found STEM professor salaries to be 10% higher

(Facilities dropped, same cost per student on dorms + maintenance, building
capex dropped)

You really need to do a per-student cost analysis - e.g. if there are 500 STEM
graduates and 2000 liberal arts, the costs are not evenly spread across the
non-academic staff, and you need to account for the separate facility costs
(e.g. a computer/science lab is much more expensive to maintain and stock than
an english classroom)

And There are also lots of intangibles to factor in -

-How many of the alumni contributing to the endowment and paying for academic buildings are STEM vs. liberal arts graduates

-How do graduation rates and job outcomes differ between STEM vs. liberal arts, and affect the college's KPIs (e.g. 95% graduate on time and 80% get a job within 6 months making a median $70k, for marketing)

Also presumably your school has an endowment and investment managers, which is
the largest source of revenue for top tier schools (Yale's endowment of $27.2B
returned 12.3% in 2018, the school spent $1.4B of that return on operating
costs making up 34% of the university's net revenues [0])

So really in the grand scheme of things, most major universities are safe
investment vehicles that are (1) extremely marketable to wealthy alumni (2)
have great information networks and (3) generally enjoy major appreciation on
their real estate value, making the comparison of STEM vs. liberal arts
salaries pretty negligible

[0] [https://news.yale.edu/2018/10/01/investment-
return-123-bring...](https://news.yale.edu/2018/10/01/investment-
return-123-brings-yale-endowment-value-294-billion)

------
sharkweek
I’ve told this story before on here, but most of my social circle went to
college. In general, most of those I’ve stayed in touch with are doing alright
for themselves.

But we graduated college between 2007-2010, so it was a rough economy to be
looking for a first job.

One friend skipped college and joined the local electrician union. He did his
10 years to get his lifetime card, and started his own business a few years
ago.

Not only is he already making a ton of money, he has zero debt, and more
importantly charges close to whatever he wants an hour because of how in
demand he is.

He jokes that he’s going to be the only electrician in the city in the next
ten years because all the old guard is retiring, and way fewer millennials
went into trades.

College would have been a bad idea for him and he knew it.

~~~
tsss
The common denominator for making a lot of money is not "the trades" but
owning a business. Of course he's gonna make more if he doesn't have to
relinquish the majority of his profits to a boss.

A lot of people here and on reddit like to romanticize the trades while
sitting in an air-conditioned office like it's some secret tip to instant
wealth without the need to study for years. But the reality is grim for the
majority of salaried tradesmen. It's a job that is very hard on your body and
the heralded "fresh air" suddenly sounds a lot less nice when you have to do
physical labor in intense heat or cold.

Those who go above and beyond will always succeed no matter the field but for
the average Joe a solid education is a much better bet and you are doing them
a disservice by spreading these second-hand anecdotes.

~~~
jamesmp98
I actually got sick of the "trades" trope recently and did a little research.
Looking at local job listing, the entry level pay for most of the trades is
very grim and you have to put years and years of work to get a decent wage.
This is in a low CoL area

~~~
busterarm
This is pretty comparable to the low wages the majority of people will receive
just out of college, except the trade job is much more likely to build career
skills and relationships without the huge debt burden.

It wasn't until I had about 5 years of solid experience before I started being
able to significantly increase my income regularly in my field.

~~~
jamesmp98
Perhaps you're right. I probably have a warped view of wages working in tech,
but I just can't imagine working for over a decade just to max out around
$50-$60k without starting my own business

~~~
busterarm
That's the reality for almost everyone unless they're willing to relocate.
Most tech jobs aren't in low CoL areas and remote work is ultra competitive.

There is a ceiling to what local opportunities can provide. More specialized
or more senior roles are usually available elsewhere.

------
JumpCrisscross
The labor markets for entry-level professionals is broken. On the demand side,
we have companies looking for competent professionals. On the supply side, we
have high school students.

In between we have guidance counselors, standardized test purveyors, lenders
and scholarship providers, college ranking guides, universities and their
career offices, internship recruiters, recent college graduate (RCG)
recruiters...a line of middlemen!

Improving the transmission of information, most critically wages, as well as
hiring conditions and preferences, from the demand side to the supply side is
something we need but seldom discuss. How can we incentivise those close to
high school graduates to have--directly or indirectly--skin in the game down
the road? Or, vice versa, incentivise those close to RCG hiring to talk--
directly or indirectly--to high-school graduates.

Many markets have lots of middle men and long transmission channels. But few
are so benign about broken price transmission.

(Anecdote: I inadvertently avoided this problem by aggressively pursuing
internships early on, including in high school. This let me peer through the
process to the decision makers on the other side. I don't know how scalable
this is as a solution, however.)

~~~
alistairSH
In addition to employers wanting competent employees, they are mostly
unwilling to train them or pay them.

Andecdote time...

I have a friend who manages a food production facility (big factory, think
Coca-Cola) and they are always short on skilled welders who can do food-grade
work. While the wages look good on paper, the working conditions are
spectacularly awful (working inside giant metal tanks that get hot as hell,
lots of long hours and weekends, etc). And there is no internal path to get
these jobs.

When I ask how an 18 year old gets these jobs, he doesn't have a good answer
(beyond "go to trade school"). When I ask why an 18 year old should pick this
job over [generic office job], he doesn't have a good answer (beyond "it pays
slightly better"). Sorry, nobody is going to pick $25/hour in shit conditions
(with the wear and tear on body and lack of job security) over $20/hour in an
AC'ed office (it may pay less, but at least you won't be crippled by the time
you're 60).

~~~
Balgair
> In addition to employers wanting competent employees, they are mostly
> unwilling to train them or pay them.

I've seen this SO many times. From very big firms, to ten man shops. No one
does any substantive training anymore. They mostly just throw you at the
problems and then let you learn on your own (read: Google it). However, in
every one of these firms, they tend to be skilled/high-tech. By that, I mean
that the firms are doing things that no school would ever teach you how to do.

How many HNers know how to properly do an Atterberg test in Oregon?

How many of you can get a simulation of a PCB running in pSpice by the end of
the day?

How many of you can harvest and patch-clamp a neuron from a gerbil this
afternoon?

But when I talk to these managers and execs, they all complain that they
cannot afford to train people. Usually, they state that if they do train the
person, then that person will just then go walk off with the training
experience and work at another firm. These 'right to work' states act
perniciously. At Walmart, such laws heavily favor the employer, but at small
highly trained firms, it heavily favors the employee. I wonder what the
population stats look like in terms of how 'right to work' laws function
towards small and medium sized firms.

~~~
alistairSH
_if they do train the person, then that person will just then go walk off with
the training experience and work at another firm._

That's the free market at work. If a trained [skilled job] is worth $100k, but
you're only willing to pay $90k because "they're new", they _should_ walk
across the street.

I absolutely _hate_ when self-declared "free market" believers don't
understand that there are two sides to every market. And employment is just
another market. (not claiming you're making that mistake, but it's one I see
frequently when wage discussions come up)

~~~
repolfx
I think you're missing the deeper point.

In a highly mobile labour market training people makes no sense. A trained
workforce is a commons, and what we see is a classic tragedy of the commons.

Consider two firms with a budget of $100,000 for an employee for a year. Firm
A decides to offer wages of $50k to an untrained worker and invest the other
$50k in an intensive 3 month training program. Firm B decides to do no
training at all. Worker joins firm A, benefits from the three months training
and then immediately quits to go pick up the $100k salary for the rest of the
year.

Generic job training is an investment, but, there's no way to get reliable ROI
on it unless the training is super firm specific (like training in your own
trade secrets). So nobody trains and everything is pushed onto the employees
themselves via universities and trade schools, because that resolves the
tragedy of the commons.

~~~
alexmlamb
It seems like this can easily be fixed by having people sign up for contracts
that last more than 1 year or at least have some financial incentives that
accrue to employees who stay longer? For example, tech companies have stocks
that only vest after 4 years. I don't see why in principle this couldn't be
even longer.

I don't know much about it personally, but I think the US government has a lot
of benefits (like retirement) that scales with years of service.

I actually suspect that at least for many big companies the problem isn't
getting people to stay after training, it's getting the best employees to stay
and getting lower-performing employees to leave. I think for this reason, most
tech companies structure pay with a 4-year contract, which promises a high
salary for 4-years (due to bonuses and stock), and then an implicit pay drop
if there's no promotion after 4-years.

------
jedberg
I think part of the problem is what society views as the purpose of college.
Is it to create well rounded individuals with a broad base of knowledge, or is
it to prepare people for careers? Up until about 80 years ago, it was
exclusively the first, and mostly for children of wealthy people to go and
learn a broad base of knowledge.

Then when it became career training, the government stepped in and provided a
lot of money to help non-wealthy people enter the system, which was probably a
good thing. The unintended consequence of that was that colleges starts
sucking up all that money the government was giving out, creating a vicious
cycle.

Government funded universities would solve this, because they would set the
price, but we'd probably lose out on a lot of great programs. You could also
solve this by outlawing charging tuition and switch college funding to being a
percent of the graduate's future income. Of course, this would get the
colleges to optimize for only majors that have high incomes after graduation,
and we'd lose all of our philosophers and writers and artists (which I
personally think would be a bad thing).

Maybe there is a hybrid approach here, were you can choose to pay now or pay
later with a percent of your income. Those that choose pay later would most
likely be forced to choose a "high potential earning" major, and those that
paid now could choose whatever they want. But then this would lead us back to
only wealthy kids being able to afford "the arts".

~~~
iguy
> But then this would lead us back to only wealthy kids being able to afford
> "the arts".

To the extent that we want to fund talented but not wealthy kids in the Arts,
let's spend the money on explicit scholarships for them. Then at least it's
transparent what we are paying for. Much better than funding them by having
them take impossible loans funded from some slightly disguised arm of the
government, which we will hound them about paying for decades, and eventually
write the money off.

"Percentage of future income" sounds like a great model to me, too. IIRC this
is what the Australians did? Only I would prefer for the percentage taken to
be something negotiated (within limits) by a private lender, because the
offers made would provide valuable information to those signing up.

~~~
xythian
You're thinking of "Income Share Agreements" which have made their way into
the USA.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/why-
on...](https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/why-one-
university-is-sharing-the-risk-on-student-debt/519570/)

"ISAs provide students money to cover college costs, and in exchange, students
agree to pay back a percentage of their future income for a set period of
time—interest-free and capped. At Purdue, for example, a senior majoring in
economics who took out $13,000 in a “Back a Boiler” ISA would pay 4.39 percent
of her income over 100 months, up to a maximum of $32,500."

"If a student struggles to secure a job after graduation or earns less than
$20,000 per year, the college would collect no money. If a student is
extraordinarily successful financially, Purdue could be paid back up to 250
percent of the amount originally awarded."

~~~
iguy
That sounds good, thanks. Although it seems like the terms are fixed, and it's
only smallish amounts for already-attending students, but still a great start.

~~~
xythian
I imagine there are a lot of university foundations watching the Purdue
experiment while planning their own version of ISAs. Taking loan interest away
from banks and injecting it back into university endowments has to be a very
appealing idea.

------
outlace
There really needs to be dis/incentives for choosing one’s major. I majored in
Neuroscience and looking back it was a colossal waste of time and money. I
don’t remember most of it, and it was all just acquiring an existing knowledge
base which I could have done by independently studying a few textbooks.

Meanwhile I still remember the basics of calculus from AP calculus in high
school and it has become useful to me. I strongly regret not majoring in
something skill-based like math or engineering because those are things that
are much harder to teach yourself without mentorship, they tend to stick with
you longer, and they make up the foundation skills for so many other areas.

But I had no disincentive for choosing neuroscience. I was attracted to the
subject and so thought it was reasonable to major in it, not taking into
consideration its long term value. If a neuroscience degree came with a black
box warning or student loans weren’t so easy to get with that degree or if
there was a social stigma to choosing useless degrees then maybe I would have
been nudged toward math or computer science.

Anyone can study neuroscience in their spare time but it becomes increasingly
difficult to spare the time to learn something like quantum field theory in
your own time outside of college. Already having a strong math background
would make self-teaching complex mathematical subjects like that do-able.
Whole swaths of human intellectual achievement are effectively out of reach to
me due to my limited math skills.

~~~
sunshinelackof
Calling a degree useless because its value is not realized by the market today
is myopic. If there were an explicit disincentive to study neuroscience, it's
very unlikely that you would have textbooks summarizing decades of work in
neuroscience.

This sort of thing basically existed in 1800's with surgeons. They weren't
valued for their work and had a social stigma placed upon them. It took
surgery a century to dig out of that hole, only thanks to the people who were
dedicated enough to it.

~~~
outlace
I disagree strongly. Neuroscience as it is taught at the undergraduate level
is just a body of knowledge you are tasked with memorizing. I can’t think of
any job that just requires you to spit out answers to multiple choice
questions about neuroscience or anything else for that matter. Surgery,
however, is a skill that is honed by repetition. You can’t learn surgery from
a book.

This is the point I’m making. Skills matter and it may be worth it to pursue a
skill-based degree but knowledge is cheap. Why spend $30k/yr getting a degree
in neuroscience when you could buy the same textbooks, memorize the same
information and yet only spend a few hundred dollars on the books themselves?

I’m not saying neuroscience knowledge isn’t valuable, I’m saying it doesn’t
make sense to go get a 4 year degree out of it. The most valuable things I
gained out of my college experience were extracurriculars working in a
research lab (gained practical research skills), leadership skills from
starting and running student organizations, and work skills from a part time
job.

And there certainly still would be textbooks even if there were no
undergraduate neuroscience major. You could still pursue a graduate degree
where you take some classes but then spend most of your time building skills
and working toward a real contribution to the field.

------
WhompingWindows
Supply and demand - the supply of college degree holders has gone up
dramatically, therefore the cost of those degree-holders' labor to employers
can be much lower. Combine this with rampant anti-labor practices, poor wage
growth since the recession, and the huge increases in tuition/fees due to
federal loans. These loans allow universities to jack up the costs, and then
at 6% interest on federal loans, the govt is robbing our graduates.

Can we take a step back and consider this: Germany and other modern nations
provide free education, while poor and middle class graduates are paying 6% or
more interest on their loans. Absolutely disgraceful!

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
13th Grade. — Still waiting for someone to change my mind.

When I was graduating there was no option but to apply to colleges. We carved
our time in classes to fill out applications. We were sent to guidance
counselor to help select schools. I remember the worst kids in class who hated
school talking about what college they were going to next year.

At least now Trade School isn’t a bad word, and coding boot camps are a step
in the right direction (sort of).

I shake my head when I see calls for free college. There IS GOING TO BE a
barrier of entry SOMEWHERE. We moved it from BA/BS degrees on to Masters, now
those are becoming worth less and less as the prices go up. Now people act
surprised, but this seems obvious.

~~~
T-hawk
> There IS GOING TO BE a barrier of entry SOMEWHERE.

This is correct. When everyone has a degree, then no one does.

There is a limit to how many productive professional jobs can exist. All the
necessities for society and life can be produced and distributed by really
about 10% of the workforce, working with economies of scale. Everything else
is nonessential service jobs or entertainment.

Around the 1960s, the 10% that had college degrees happened to match that 10%
of skilled jobs. We fooled ourselves into thinking that was causation. It's
not. Awarding four times as many college degrees does not mean four times as
many productive jobs will somehow exist or the consumptive power to sustain
them. Companies don't want to hire a degree, they want to hire from the most
able 10% of their applicant field. A degree used to be a proxy with
significant signal towards that, but now has little.

~~~
rightbyte
"When everyone has a degree, then no one does."

Wait, what? "When everyone can read, no one does"?

Your assumption for that statement to be correct is that degrees have no real
underlying value except as a discriminatory tool.

10% is probably to low. I'll guess somewhere around 30-40% (of non senior
adults).

------
radcon
Employers: "You have to go to college to prepare for the workforce."

Colleges: "It's not our job to prepare you for the workforce."

Recent grads with $50k+ in debt and no useful job skills: "..."

~~~
scarface74
Speaking specifically about computer science degrees, God forbid that the
colleges teach useful skills instead of all “theory” because a college degree
should not be a “vocational degree” and it should “make you a better citizen
of the world and expand your mind”.

~~~
bpyne
I think having separate Software Engineering and Computer Science tracks would
probably help the situation. The SE track still covers some "good to knows",
like data structures and algorithms and hardware basics, but emphasizes the
use of modern tools to build software. Preferably, it requires an end-of-year
project each year with the projects gradually becoming more difficult.

Meanwhile, the CS track leads to grad school and a research career.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
Software Engineering has nothing to do with "modern tools."

Data structures and algorithms are absolutely essential to software
engineering, which itself is just a buzzword for applying known and repeatable
methodologies to writing software. Every single "software engineering" concept
outside of maybe QA / testing is already a subset of a modern computer science
curriculum.

"Modern tools" is specious. Does it make sense for a student to use git or
JUnit or Vagrant or Node to get their work done?

Sure.

Should a professor spend any time covering these things in class?

Hell no.

Any student who is unable to figure these things out on their own is going to
be unemployable when they graduate anyway. A prof should give them directions
to the documentation, and that's it.

~~~
asdffdsa
"Any student who is unable..." this is a sink or swim mentality that is just
wrong imo and doesn't account for students' workload. Most everyone who
started out had difficulty understanding software tools and the paradigm they
operated in, and college students taking 4+ courses have 4x the material, not
to mention the ramp up of 4x the tools to use, documentation to read, etc. If
you're going to throw 40+ hours a week of course work, and then the
responsibility of learning git, gdb, python, LaTex, fundamentals of the Linux
terminal, etc without extra time or assistance, then most likely you're going
to have a lot of pragmatic young people throw their hands up and say, "forget
it, I'm gonna study business/physics/x engineering" instead

~~~
chrshawkes
Do you realize how many new programmers struggle with simply adding Python to
their path? That simple concept is beyond most engineering students and can
literally cost them days in research. It's easy to forget where we started.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
If a person can't figure out how to use google to find out what they need to
know and they don't have the social capacity to ask their fellow classmates
then I don't ever want to work with that individual, and neither does anyone
else.

~~~
bpyne
Some people are slow starters for various reasons, often lack of confidence.
As long as I see some interest in becoming better, I'll gladly mentor.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
There's a difference between a slow starter, or someone who lacks confidence,
and someone unwilling to put forth the effort to learn something because his
professor didn't put him in a high chair and spoon feed it to him.

------
throwayEngineer
>High costs are still keeping people out of higher education.

I did a bachelor's in Engineering, did community college, commuted from home,
worked full time. Graduated without debt or mommy and daddys money.

What I did is unacceptable to most internet commentators.

I don't understand why this hard lifestyle is unacceptable and impossible. I
clearly did it.

If we say this possible outcome is too hard for most people, I want to nail
down the impossible part.

~~~
Fomite
"commuted from home..." "Graduated without debt or mommy and daddys money."

One of these things is not like the others. If you lived rent free at your
parent's home, you did it with your parent's money. I know a number of people
who, come 18, were on their own.

~~~
graeme
What's your estimate for the percent of the university population for whom it
would have been impossible to live at home and commute to a local college?

I don't imagine it's more than 20% and I expect it is substantially less. If
so, what is the point of your objection?

The bast majority of people could do what OP did, but don't. That's
interesting.

~~~
rayiner
Social stigma is powerful. I took an extra $60-70k in debt to go to school in
Chicago instead of DC, where I could have commuted from home. It’s our
culture. College is supposed to be a 4-year vacation where binge drink and do
a lot of drugs. Hard to do that when you’re living at home.

~~~
t3rabytes
Not questioning your decision making, but DC seems like a fine place to go to
college. I would've gone to Georgetown or GW without any qualms, same way that
I decided to go to NC State (even though I've lived just outside of Raleigh
since middle school).

Disclosure: I went to college 50 minutes away from where my parents lived and
still lived on campus because I had to get out of living in the middle of
nowhere and a 50 minute commute to class wasn't my thing.

~~~
tdfx
DC is a wildly expensive place to go to college. GW is consistently ranked
amongst the most expensive colleges in the US. Even if you're on a full ride,
you likely won't be able to pay your living expenses with a part-time job.

------
siffland
So one thing i dont see is what their degrees were. If you have a bunch of
people saturating the field, then jobs will be hard to find and low paying. If
you have people getting degrees in leisure studies, they wont get a job,
etc...

My 17 year old wants to go to trade school to be a beautician. We live in San
Antonio, there is a nail place like every 2 blocks. After she goes to school,
how is she going to do in that saturated field (hopefully well). My oldest
sister got a 4 year degree in english, she graduated in 1994 and is still
paying student loans. She never planned on writing or teaching, so now she
does neither, was that a good choice for a degree.

Point is, are the degrees people are getting in "in demand" fields? Are people
activily talking to students about their career paths and getting statistics
if they are even in demand. I understand chasing dreams, but be prepared for
the outcome.

~~~
kemiller2002
I understand what you are saying, but really how many alternatives do they
have? What if you aren't interested (or just not good) at things that are in
demand like engineering, computer science, or accounting? Does that mean you
don't go? That significantly diminishes (like to almost none) the possibility
of ever getting a job within an office environment. So you're stuck, do you
wait tables for the rest of your life, grind it out in retail, or roll the
dice and get a degree in a "useless" field?

The argument is always, "well there is always trade school" and that's
true....for some people. I have the utmost respect for people doing trades,
and the thing that most people skip over in this argument is that it is hard
and often brutal work. Pulling cable is hard, building cabinets is hard,
cooking food for 400 customers is hard. It can be absolutely crushing on the
body, and not everyone can do it.

People going into extreme debt for a shot at an OK life is a massive problem,
and personally, I don't think its fair to just say "well you should have
thought about that before." I agree, they do need to take some responsibility
to think things through, but at the same point, we as a society need to
leverage their intelligence and work ethic, and give them a path forward in
life. We don't do that now for the majority of cases.

~~~
chii
> we as a society need to ... give them a path forward in life

that's what degrees like science/engineering is. It's a path forward. The
trades are also one, but less "comfortable". What else could've society done?

~~~
_hardwaregeek
There's something seriously concerning about having the only path forward be
science/engineering and trades. That's essentially limiting the liberal arts
to only the rich and the delusional. If fields such as architecture,
literature, photography, film, journalism are populated by people who grew up
with wealth, their privilege be reflected in their work. Would a journalist
who grew up in a gated community be the best choice to cover and discuss
income inequality and gentrification? Would an architect who has only lived in
million dollar houses necessarily understand how to design public housing?

The liberal arts fundamentally shape how we view, live and act in the world.
If this perspective is purely driven by the rich and the privileged, we risk
losing an understanding of how the other half lives.

~~~
malvosenior
Of the fields you list, architecture stands out as different in that it seems
hard to self study. The rest have already been totally subsumed by amateurs
(photography) or are on their deathbeds (journalism). Youtubers are as well
known if not more so than professional actors. Most journalists _are_ already
filtered down to the upper classes (the ones with jobs anyway).

Being productive in liberal arts, and more broadly, creative endeavors is
absolutely attainable without a university degree. The internet has made self
study, guidance and distribution open to anyone. It's also decimated many of
these fields from a professional perspective.

------
gooftop
IMO there's a fallacy among some that _any_ course of study from _any_ college
is worth taking on debt. While education is getting commoditized - and there
are no guarantees even with so-called high ROI careers - there is a real risk
of falling into a debt trap if its not considered carefully. At that point,
its no use blaming "college education" for choices about which college and
what education to get, that didn't work out.

------
povertyworld
How could someone still be paying student loans from 1994? Do people realize
how cheap college was in 1994? Not to mention that she's had 25 years to pay
it off? Higher ed surely is overpriced these days, but some of these student
debt stories are getting incredible.

~~~
brianwawok
State school was generally dirt cheap, but there were still very expensive
private colleges in 1994. I bet you could have spent 100k for 4 years then.
Add in a few years of deferments, and you could have a balance well into the 6
figures.

~~~
siffland
She did go to a private college and never had a job that paid more than 20k a
year (mostly her fault). She has got extensions, deferments, etc... She is 7
years older than me so i didnt understand the differences in colleges at the
time.

My step son was going to go to Texas A&M. He wants to do meteorology, it took
me forever to convince him to take the first 2 years at community college to
get general education classes out of the way, it is so much cheaper. I implore
everyone to do that. But he didnt want to at first because he was going to
miss "the college experience". Yeah it is saving him 10's of thousands of
dollars.

~~~
nkrisc
> But he didnt want to at first because he was going to miss "the college
> experience".

This is a big part of the problem, in my opinion. It's marketing, pure and
simple. Spend tens of thousands of dollars for the college experience you've
been indoctrinated with by mass media when you're in high school. You know,
everything but the actual learning part.

~~~
hombre_fatal
I went straight to UT Austin at 18 on a scholarship.

My sisters rotted at home for two years at a community college before
escalating to a major university.

The "college experience" isn't a myth. I had a _much_ better two years of
personal and social development than they did due to the "college experience."

The question is whether it's worth it after considering your finances and the
cost of the particular school. But if money wasn't an option, most people
aren't going to pick staying at mom's house age 18-20 like they're still in
high school. You don't need marketing to see why that's quite shit.

~~~
malvosenior
There are other options besides "the college experience" and "rotting at
home". Get out into the real world and get a job. That will actually mature
you _far_ more than college, of which the "experience" consists mainly of
irresponsible drinking.

~~~
brianwawok
What kind of jobs can you get with a HS diploma? Food prep? Factory? Are those
really good for personal development?

~~~
okmokmz
I know multiple engineers that don't have college degrees and are earning well
into the 6 figures

------
oldjokes
"Median pay for a Bachelor's degree is below 1990 levels"

This is really something. 30 years, and we're moving backwards. This is
completely unacceptable, we need to rethink the foundations of our society if
we're failing so many people who work hard and play by the rules.

~~~
mettamage
But it never is by the rules is it?

A ton of startup founders striking it rich were already rich.

A ton of scientists in the medieval and rennaisance era were already rich.

People who went to university back in the day had an advantage because they
had knowledge no one else had.

I'm seeing a couple of patterns, they are:

1\. You need to have a solid base in life and quite some free time in order to
invest in a competitive advantage. This used to be knowledge, but now this is
less the case.

2\. People who are able to game supply/demand mechanics will win in the game
of money. Some people don't play that game, they also win (by focusing on
their own goals). Other people who do play that game simply lose.

3\. Currently having a strong network is a competitive advantage.

I feel like these things really follow the theory of (I forgot what it was
called): something that is an advantage becomes a requirement 15/30 years
later.

~~~
ineedasername
> * something that is an advantage becomes a requirement 15/30 years later.*

We see this within the realm of college competition itself. 20 years ago,
shiny new dorms, rec facilities, and food service was a competitive advantage.
Now, it's a requirement that drives up costs for everyone.

------
duxup
College needs to be a business decision on the part of the individual. Taking
on massive amounts of debt at anytime is no small matter.

In my experience though a lot of the questionable talk about how much / easily
a graduate might earn is from other students, none of whom are working /
earning that money.

There seems to be a bit of a feedback loop when it comes to expectations.

~~~
davidsawyer
> College needs to be a business decision on the part of the individual.

As much as I agree, can we just step back and think about how much pressure is
put on these 17, 18, 19 year olds? Parents, counselors, and other adults
_have_ to do a better job helping these kids to make sound decisions around
their major and college they attend.

I didn't have anyone coaching me to think about my debt load vs. what my
career prospects would be, so I basically lucked out that I chose computer
science as my major in my freshman year after coming in undeclared to a UGA, a
public school. Pell grant and Georgia's HOPE Scholarship helped to reduce the
amount of debt I took on, and I lived in Athens, a cheap college town, and
paid $265-300 a month for my rent.

I feel so bad for people who didn't have such luck and are now getting crushed
under the weight of an un-marketable degree and a heavy student loan burden.
Seems so unfair.

------
tombert
I feel like a lot of this comes down to the fact that looking at job postings,
it's not uncommon to require a certain "quality" of school to even look at
your resume.

For example, when I worked at Jet/Walmart, they started hiring "category
specialists", and controversially these people had to be from a "top 20
school" (whatever that means). This felt like a slap in the face to a lot of
the engineers who didn't have wealthy parents to send them to an Ivy League or
didn't want to be stuck with $200,000 of debt (not to mention the two dropouts
like myself who were already working there).

They eventually walked back that policy, but my point is that this is a
symptom of a bigger problem. It shouldn't be basically-mandatory to put
yourself in a mortgage-level of debt in order to simply be employable, and we
shouldn't be so willing to dismiss public universities because they're not
"top 20".

------
ryanmercer
And this is why, at 34, I have zero desire to get a degree yet many employers
want a 4-year degree for even entry-level positions now. I had a company last
summer refuse to even interview me for not having a degree, despite the fact
at the time they'd existed for 6 years and I had been doing the EXACT job for
12 years for a company that dwarfs them.

I hate it, no one will give me a chance because I don't have a degree so I
scrape by at 32k a year with virtually no hope of retirement only receiving
merit-based increases that often leave me taking home the exact same amount
(once or twice LESS) if you factor in inflation and annual increases in
insurance costs.

It's infuriating. I can either take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt
and spend 4-6 years chasing down a 4-year degree while working full time so I
can compete for jobs at 38-40 that 20-22 year old applicants are applying for
now that some high schools are set up so that students graduate with an
associates degree and a good chunk of their bachelor degree done or I can slip
more and more into lower class each year, hoping like hell that I don't have
some unforseen emergency or unemployment, while I watch people on /r/leanfire
/r/financialindependence etc talking about how "I'm on track to retire by 30,
should we work til 32 so we can have an extra 250k?" and I'm like "yeah, I'm
34, I barely have a year's gross in my retirement accounts let alone the 25x
(minimum) my annual spend needed to retire"... so at this rate I can retire by
the time I turn 350 years old give or take a few decades.

Whats worse is I have friends that are independently wealthy at this point
(the most successful of which is a college dropout), that can choose to do
whatever job they want, they can chase their passion, while I have to work
just to be able to live so that I can work more.

Even with introductions to some startups within their first 5 years or so from
investors, they're like "yeah, come back when you have a degree or have a
major accomplishment of working on a big project" and I'm over here like
"dude, I'll do remote customer service for a fraction of what you are paying
people or mop floors just to prove myself!"

My own employer (well my opco) will not let you move up more than a couple of
rungs without a 4-year degree minimum, they'll flat out tell you as much, and
hey prefer an MBA. This is a parent company with 400k something employees...

FML.

~~~
switchbak
Honestly, I think a lot of people in your position just lie about having a
degree. I wouldn't recommend it though, the downside is large (and it's not
ethical).

How about an online degree? At your level of seniority no one even cares about
grades or how long the degree was. It's usually only: type of degree
(bachelor's, Master's, etc), and if it's a well known school or not. I don't
even go into detail about my degree, just where I went and what degree it was.

Jumping ship is really the only way to get a good raise in this business. Go
to a bigger city if you have to so you have more choices. Really avoid the
"tell us your salary history" trap.

If you get on with a good company, their healthcare plan should cover you from
the unforeseen windfalls. Otherwise you could move somewhere that has a
reasonable government healthcare program (semi serious here).

If you actually have a proven ability to provide value in an important
capacity, that's actually quite bankable. Maybe have someone help you with
your resume, and self marketing. You ought to be able to double your income
(WAG here, I don't know what you do).

I've worked with folks in your situation - and I find it shocking how some
people will accept being so radically underpaid. Research the market, what
you're really worth, and stand up for it until you get it.

~~~
ryanmercer
>How about an online degree?

Online degrees are often more expensive than in-state school (my current
employer has partnered with a major university for a SPECIFIC online degree at
420$!!! a credit hour and will reimburse a whopping 5k of that a year), still
require proctored exams.

And again, it's still going to take 4-6 years to get a BA/BS with tens of
thousands of dollars of debt and puts me at 38-40 competing against 20-22 year
old applicants.

Age discrimination is very real and 22 year olds often have far lower expenses
than 40 year olds, so they will work for less.

------
mAEStro-paNDa
This might not be a popular take, but I think there is a serious issue with
the way we perceive education, at least in the US. A previous comment noted
how this needs to be a business decision, and it appears to me that's
precisely the issue.

Increasing costs and other factors has led to education being treated as an
investment to improve your standing in the workforce, as opposed to being seen
as a net good on it's own. Society benefits from a more educated population
overall, but through the connection to employment, wages, etc, as a collective
we seem to have lost sight of that.

------
_hardwaregeek
What's interesting is the quantity of degrees deemed "useful" is shrinking.
Even within the commonly accepted STEM grouping there's quite a few degrees
that alone, are not quite automatic meal tickets. For instance, biology,
chemistry, and chemical engineering aren't extremely employable except with
graduate degrees. Perhaps instead of accepting that college students who
majored in "useless" degrees are simply stupid and should have gone into
engineering/CS/trades, we should analyze why this has changed.

For instance, if I had gotten a degree in Art History in the 50's, would I
have had better career prospects than today? And how much of that is tied into
class? Because in the 1950's, just getting a college degree was indicative of
one's class. Therefore, it's much more likely that a college graduate in the
50's had a solid career network and opportunities. While today, a college
graduate is less a Boston Brahmin and more a Pittsburgh Proletariat, and less
likely to have the type of contacts who would hire an Art History major simply
out of goodwill.

And of course, there's the looming sword about the conversation that maybe
there's just not enough jobs. If people were to heed HN's advice and all
become programmers and electricians, would we really have enough jobs? Do we
really need _that_ many programmers? I'm not so sure.

------
gigatexal
...which is why schools that opt for revenue share agreements and actually
focus on matriculating students that have mastery of valuable skills are
killing it in the market, schools like YC alums Lambda School
([https://lambdaschool.com](https://lambdaschool.com)).

Disclaimer: I've no affiliation with the school other than being one of the
founder's friends.

~~~
ibeckermayer
Lambda school is far and away the best version of this so far. I went to an
alternative "bootcamp" but now recommend Lambda School to everybody who comes
asking, owing to following Austen Allred on Twitter and judging him a person
of good character and with a strong understanding of what makes an institution
like Lambda valuable in the long term.

------
sct202
Honestly, I don't think what I learned academically in college was really that
useful. But, every place I've worked wouldn't hire someone without a degree
for the positions I've been in; it's just an arbitrary barrier.

Making college free or heavily subsidized is fine, but we shouldn't funnel
people into it to dump 4 years of their lives into it if they don't have to.

------
danesparza
The prefrontal cortex (the region of the brain associated with complex
planning) isn't fully formed in a person until they are in their mid-20's. Of
course they are going to make poor decisions.

Why aren't parents guiding their young adult kids more through this process?
Or at least reminding them of the consequences of their choices more?

(Disclaimer: I am the father of two kids over the age of 19)

~~~
mac01021
While that prefrontal cortex factoid may be technically true, I don't think
it's all that relevant.

People of all ages are generally poor decision makers and parents, to the
extent that they have a clear vision of the best path for their children do
provide guidance, but their vision seems to be just as hazy as their
children's.

------
LarryDarrell
"Go into the trades" "Useless English majors" "Get a degree in STEM otherwise
it's your own fault."

What everyone is saying is that we do not have a robust, healthy economy.
There are too many "Old Economy Steves" and people doing well at-the-moment
for things to change or even have a meaningful conversation about it.

------
gingabriska
Perhaps we should stop pedaling fake dream to gullible teens that education =
well paid job, free of stress.

This system produces few winners like salmons swimming upstream and only few
get to reproduce.

~~~
ryanmercer
The problem is, a lot of even entry level professional jobs are now requiring
a 4-year degree so we're basically saying "Go do low-level blue collar work or
take on tens of thousands (or hundreds) of dollars of debt as a lottery ticket
to see if you'll get lucky enough to actually be able to service that debt in
a timely fashion"

~~~
sodafountan
This is a myth, If you're good people will hire you, the problem is entry
level people typically aren't very good at anything so it kind of becomes a
catch-22

~~~
ryanmercer
It isn't a myth, I was flat our rejected for no less than 1-dozen jobs last
year that could have been described as 'entry level' with the specific
citation "we are looking for applicants with at least a bachelor's degree" or
some similar statement, sometimes with the alternative of "or that have worked
on an important project".

Edit: here's the exact wording from the one that rejected me, without an
interview, for not having one when I had twice as much experience as years
they'd been in business:

>Hope all is well, Ryan! I wanted to extend a virtual wave and thank you for
your interest in joining our team. You obviously have many of the skills we're
looking for. However, for the Customs Brokerage role we require a BA/BS degree
as well as previous experience in a broker role doing entries and customs
classifications

I'd literally been writing entries and doing customs classification for TWELVE
YEARS at that point. I even have multiple awards for it, which were reflected
on my CV.

Trying to get out of this field I applied to dozens of of jobs last year that
were 'entry level' or minimal learning curve with any previous office
experience and I think exactly 12 replied (the rest never heard from, even
after trying to follow up), all of them stating lack of degree as a
disqualifier.

One included:

>We'd welcome another application in no fewer than 12 months - the best way to
stand out is to complete a major project or produce an important result in
that time

Which was obviously copy paste from other job positions as none of that even
makes sense for the listing I bloody applied to! It was an entry level
assistant job and even then they said MASTERS preferred but no requirement.

------
MSM
I've long thought that the cost of college should be fronted by the colleges
themselves should you get accepted. Once you graduate, you owe the college a
percentage of your income in perpetuity (say, 2%- nothing crazy, and you
graduate debt free).

This flips everything on its head in a good way. Colleges then have no
incentive to give people degrees in fields they know there's no future
employment opportunities for, it's in their best interests to give you the
best education they can, they expand and contract departments based on
employment demand, and they would actively seek to find employment
opportunities for alumni. I honestly don't know who it would hurt other than
loan companies.

~~~
Ductapemaster
A similar structure is available already. It's called an Income Sharing
Agreement. Example:

Company: [https://vemo.com/](https://vemo.com/)

Article:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-09/college-g...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-09/college-
grads-sell-stakes-in-themselves-to-wall-street)

~~~
MSM
Very interesting, thank you for sharing! This is has a little twist on what
I'd like to see, but I had no idea something like this "graduate market"
existed. I'll have to dig into this a little bit more.

------
leesec
I am a college dropout turned coder who eventually re-enrolled in school and
want to shout out Western Governors University. I would have never gone back
if it was 4 years and a huge amount of money. WGU offers the ability to test
out of every class (or complete a project) for credit. You also pay by the 6
month term not the credit hour. This means for people who already have the
skills or who have the work ethic you can finish a large number of credits
very quickly. In the past 5 months I have completed 60~ credits. I will finish
in likely 9 months and will pay no more than 7k total for the two semester.

A world of difference from 20-30k at 3-4 years.

~~~
chexx
Is there a reason why you decided to go back?

I am on a similar path (dropped out and landed SWE @ big bank) and still
relatively early in my career (just turned 21).

~~~
leesec
Stability is the main reason. I've gone broke a lot in my life and hope to
never do it again. Probably like 30-40% of companies won't care about a
degree, but that still leaves 70-60% that might not even let you in the door.
For 7k and 9 months it seems almost a steal to cement my employability and
future stability.

~~~
chexx
Has that been an issue you have come across?

Granted, it felt like 99% of companies did not let me through the door, but I
was under the assumption that after actually having industry experience, it
wouldn't be as hard.

------
thehappypm
Three case studies from three people I went to high school with

Student A was an A student. He got into several ivy league schools. He chose
to go to a mid-pack private school that offered him a generous scholarship and
some financial aid, and took on a small amount of debt, which he knocked out
in a couple years. He's an engineer now.

Student B was a B student. He used every trick possible (intensive SAT prep,
using family connections, applying early decision, visiting campus several
times, tailoring essays) to get into the a particular almost-ivy-tier private
school. He got zero aid and scholarships, and took on 6-figure debt. He has a
solid job in accounting now.

Student C was a C student. He wasn't super interested in college but ended up
going to a local state school. Lived at home, worked part-time, graduated on
time. I don't think he took on much or any debt at all. He got a job in a
local law firm.

In high school, everyone thought that Student B was a legend for getting into
such an incredible school. Everyone said Student A was wasting a one-in-a-
lifetime opportunity to go to a top school, and Student C was going to be a
garbage man. In reality, Student A still got a great education, and by being
an A student, excelled in college and naturally excelled in his career.
Student B did get a springboard into the industry by going to a top school,
but the debt has absolutely crushed his ability to build wealth, buy property,
etc. And Student C basically ticked off the box for "I went to college" and
got a solid job, without debt baggage.

~~~
chii
So student B tried to live beyond his means, and paid for it in lost
opportunities (from the debt). Bottom line is that taking on high debt to get
educated is only worth it if the expected wages from said degree is going to
be high - like a medical/law degree. Paying such high debt for a low paying
job (presumably, accounting isn't a high paying job) isn't worth it.

------
sunshinelackof
The solution isn't to tune properties of the university to make it more
efficient in the market. The university is not very compatible with markets.
Professors and researchers are employed to study specific areas of research,
typically independent of their market values, for decades. Of course it's all
really important, that research feeds into a framework of tools that societies
and corporations utilize.

The solution more likely involves making life easier for people who don't want
to continue education. The high cost of college represents a fear that if you
don't go to college, you're more likely to end up poor. From this perspective
a lot of people are attending college that wouldn't if they felt they had
other options. It's not hard to understand why people have this fear. 40% of
American households don't have $400 to spend on an emergency. Unless we
address the fear that opportunity is increasingly scarce the cost of
opportunity will continue to rise.

------
jpollock
Am I the only one who looked at BLS statistics for demand by job designation
in high school before deciding on what school to go to and what to study?

Although, even though actuaries were in extremely high demand, that did not
interest me in the least. :)

~~~
ausbah
I think most high schoolers don't even know what the BLS is, much less having
the forward thinking ability to really think thigs out post high school.

~~~
jpollock
I didn't either, but I had multiple schools (USA and Canada) where the
guidance counselor basically sat you down with a book and said, "Here, check
what you're interested in in the book first."

------
ocschwar
I'm debt free and employed, so I shouldn't be too worried about my own
prospects, but when the college tuition bubble pops, so will the value of my
house since I'm near BOS. It needs to happen but I am not looking forward to
it.

~~~
cannonedhamster
I wouldn't be too worried in BOS. There are multiple categories of companies
in the area that work to keep a total collapse from happening. Further out
west in the state you get problems, but not near BOS proper. It'll be a hit
but then the rebound will be quick.

~~~
ocschwar
Those companies are here because the colleges are here.

------
Zombiethrowaway
>The Fed data shows that a degree still makes an important contribution to
financial stability

I don't see the causality explained. I would replace "contribution", with
"correlation".

------
jsmith99
In the UK, about 50% of people go to university but the government is heavily
pushing 'apprenticeships' instead. These involve on the job training with
(hopefully) a professional qualification.

Some apprenticeships are just in it for the tax breaks, but others are
worthwhile, such as engineering at Rolls Royce or accounting at the B4
(accountants don't actually need a degree in UK, unlike CPAs in US, but they
take more exams).

------
godson_drafty
One huge factor that could help students enter the workforce without crippling
debt would be to expand the scholarship counselling programs available at the
high school level. Perhaps state governments could set aside funding for more
guidance counselling, or even funds aimed at training existing guidance
counsellors to better aid motivated students towards plentiful scholarship
funding that often goes unclaimed.

------
mullingitover
Let college students of this generation declare bankruptcy to discharge their
debt, like the generation who banned this practice could.

Let colleges who have too many bankrupt students lose their ability to receive
federal loans. If colleges know that a given major isn't a viable career, let
them disallow debt-based financing for those majors.

These two things would very quickly resolve the market failure we call higher
education.

------
craftinator
I found the percentages of "people who say they are financially OK" in this
article interesting, given the relatively high percentage of US citizens who
live at or below the poverty line. I believe the percentages they cite are
inconsistent with known levels of poverty in our country; it would be good to
know what subsets they surveyed

------
swiley
People argue (morality aside) that one of the major deterrents to many crimes
is how they’ll make it almost impossible to have a decent life after being
convicted.

Avoiding a university education does the same thing. Why do we have no farmers
and electricians? Why do we have too many graduates and too much student loan
debt? Because everyone is threatened into attending university.

~~~
Mediterraneo10
> Why do we have no farmers

Farming is being automated away. Small family farms in the USA have
overwhelmingly been merged into large corporate concerns, and you would be
amazed how much land can be farmed with a minimal workforce thanks to things
like GPS-equipped tractors.

Sure, there might still be work for fruit pickers, but that has been
considered shit work for a long, long time now, generally left to immigrants,
and certainly not a reasonable alternative to university.

~~~
bill_joy_fanboy
> ... GPS-equipped tractors.

I have a dear family member who is a farmer. He's elderly now. One of his
points of pride was that he could "lay off a straight row." I thought this was
funny, but it was true. Farmers in the area used to compare themselves to each
other based on how "neat" their fields were. If you've ever had the privilege
of driving a tractor, you'll know: it's almost impossible to be "neat."

Interestingly enough, this wasn't just vanity. Farmers desired "neatness"
because fields that were "neat" could be picked more efficiently. If your rows
weren't straight, you'd have difficulty navigating through the field with the
picker, and plants would be missed.

GPS-equipped tractors (and pickers) changed all of this.

This particular farmer has always been an aggressive adopter of new
agricultural technology. He was one of the first farmers in his area with a
GPS-equipped tractor, and he immediately acknowledged that this tractor
performed better than he did.

One thing is interesting to me, though. When the GPS fails, work stops. No one
who works for him knows how to do what he used to do. When the computer system
can't steer the tractor, for whatever reason, everyone just goes home.

I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

------
ineedasername
I surprised the "Benefits outweigh the costs" question clocked in at only 55%
for vocational/technical training. I wonder if that is pushed down so low
because of the prevalence of private for-profit vocational schools. I'd be
surprised if it wasn't much higher among students who received such training
at community colleges.

------
WhyKill
its almost like encouraging the uneducated to get educated without educating
them on why doesn't work out so well.

------
mountainofdeath
College is never really about the education. Ask your average Ivy League art
history major why Goldman Sachs and Google try to recruit them. It's a signal
that you are capable of something, which is why the brand name and selectivity
of a school really matter as much, if not more, than the content.

------
supernova87a
Sigh -- unfortunately the same demographic shifts and aging of the economy
problems trickle down into the need / market for education.

Our parents generation valued a degree because at the time, a growing post-war
economy allowed almost anyone to hold down a stable, well-earning, middle-
class job even without a college degree. Having a college degree, especially a
graduate degree distinguished you so much as to put you on the track to be
that generation's 1%. Ok, maybe 10%. But "Go to college" was still good advice
to stand out and have an advantage.

Unfortunately as they say, if things cannot last forever, they end. The age of
easy jobs and growth slowed (unavoidable demographic fate), positions
requiring little more than a warm body were occupied by boomers who don't
retire, and pretty soon a college degree became mandatory just to meet the bar
of jobs that did appear -- if only as a sorting mechanism for employers to see
who they should interview.

And why could companies do this? Because we fundamentally have an oversupply
of labor in this country. Most countries today do. The country was built in an
age with a certain level of demand, which created jobs of that era. But then
those people had kids, who wanted those same jobs, which were already filled
by willing workers not yet retired. Add to that the spigot opened of foreign
(or virtual) talent willing to compete for jobs for less $.

So, people follow the advice in a competitive market to try to stand out and
get a job. But just like people trying to capture the $ boom of early baseball
cards, as soon as everyone started printing them to ride the wave, they became
less valuable. Now, college is expected, and not having it is the
disadvantage. And when something is mandated, you can be sure that
companies/institutions will latch on to it to make money. Maybe they don't
call it that, or label it with a higher class branding, but yes there seems to
be a demand-inflation dynamic going on, with little to anchor college tuitions
except ultimately, people discussing like in this thread, that college is no
longer worth it.

------
40acres
The supply side realized long ago that a college education was a commodity and
the consumers haven't, that's how we end up with stories like this and student
loans that will last forever.

When I was a junior I had no idea what I wanted to study: I did some research
on the highest paying jobs and narrowed it down to healthcare, finance, energy
and technology. After cross referencing that with what local (cheap) schools
offered and what career paths I could achieve with 4 years of education I
settled on CS and graduated with no debt and a high salary.

Just because society highly values education doesn't mean we have to be poor
consumers about it.

