
The Dwindling Power of a College Degree - nir
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/changing-rules-for-success.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
======
yummyfajitas
The article makes a common mistake.

" _But these days, many workers have lost a near guarantee on a decent wage
and benefits — and their careers are likely to have much more volatility
(great years; bad years; confusing, mediocre years) than their parents’ ever
did._ "

But in actuality, this is not really true. Most workers have a decent wage and
benefits _by the standards of their parents_ , and this doesn't even account
for the fact that CPI considerably overstates inflation.

In fact, the majority of Americans are better off than their parents were at
the same age. Aggregate statistics don't reflect this due primarily due to
Simpson's paradox.

[http://crazybear.posterous.com/did-immigrants-and-
simpsons-p...](http://crazybear.posterous.com/did-immigrants-and-simpsons-
paradox-cause-the)

I'm also a bit surprised by the blatant USA-centricism of the article: "
_Global trade works much the same way. It’s horrible news for a textile
factory worker in North Carolina, but it may be great for a fashion designer
in New York._ "

In addition to being great for the fashion designer in NY, it's also great for
the textile factory worker in Tamil Nadu. But I guess he is so insignificant
that he doesn't deserve even a parenthetical mention.

------
Turing_Machine
"Countless secretaries were replaced by word processing"

The numbers don't back that up. There were 13 million clerical workers in the
United States in 1970 (a 40% increase from Mad Men's 1960, btw):

[http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_...](http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED073294&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED073294)

There are now over 21 million: <http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes430000.htm>

Granted, the population has increased somewhat, but the data don't appear to
support the claim that there were vast hordes of clerical workers who were
"hurt" by computers.

~~~
billswift
The problem appears to be the same as the "paperless office" and the
"productivity paradox". As computers became more powerful and common, rather
than reducing the demand for secretaries or paper, or for making business
systems more efficient, computers increased the amount of information
(including on paper) being processed by more than enough to offset the
expected changes. (I don't have a reference, because this is my own
speculation based on a great deal of reading on how computers were expected to
be, and actually have been, used.)

------
numlocked
Headline is a little deceptive. While the article does point out that a
college degree by itself is no longer a good predictor of success, it does
point out that education, especially technical, is incredibly important. It
even concludes by saying most of us "should go to school, learn some skills
and prepare for a rocky road."

------
cottonseed
> Today nearly a third have college degrees, and a higher percentage of them
> graduated from nonelite schools.

I wonder how value of degrees from elite schools have eroded (or grown). That
might go to explain part of the intensity with which people clamor to get into
them.

~~~
hs
what happens when luxury becomes comodity?

------
marshallp
Wait till machine learning starts kicking in (which is pretty soon - next 5
years), the concept of a job will become outdated for most people. The new
york times needs to start going beyond degree/no degree talk and start
discussing adding proper safety nets. Read Manna by Marshall Brain (short read
online) for where things are heading.

------
maeon3
Pure research and entertainment are the only jobs which will never disappear,
those two should even survive the technological singularity when we all become
borg.

