
Too little is known about whether money spent on higher education is worth it - e15ctr0n
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647285-more-and-more-money-being-spent-higher-education-too-little-known-about-whether-it
======
ht_th
Growing up in the late 20th century, I cannot imagine not having gone to
university. Without it, I'd still live in a small village and probably doing
some menial work in a factory or on a farm. I would not have had the
experience of focussing on a subject for five years straight. I would not have
had the experience of being able to reflect on society and my role in it. I
would not have had the experience of discovering ideas far beyond my
imagination during my teenage years.

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?

~~~
dreamdu5t
I never went to HS or college. It's pretty easy to learn if you're motivated
and have an internet connection. I have a high-paying career that I made for
myself. Of course, whenever I bring this up people write me off as some kind
of genius (I'm not) or some kind of exception. I'm really not. Yes, statistics
show that going to college is correlated with more financial success than
those who do not attend college. I suspect that has more to do with the
demographics associated with those who attend college rather than what was
learned in college.

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).

~~~
sprusr
I'm a high school student in the UK in the process of applying to university
courses beginning September this year. I haven't really put much thought into
why I'm applying to universities as opposed to doing something else. It just
seems like the done thing.

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.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
This is one opinion. Please get counter-opinions for balance.

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.

~~~
guyzero
There is no GitHub or StackOverflow for mechanical engineering, civil
engineering, high-voltage electrical engineering, biotech lab work, etc.

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?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It's true those all have better reward profiles than CS. But I'd still
consider an apprenticeship instead of a degree for civils and mech eng.

>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.

------
shmageggy
Really? The author is advocating extending universal testing to higher
education? Because that's working so well in secondary schools... /s

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.

~~~
Donzo
While I agree with your general sentiments,

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.

~~~
DannoHung
Maybe the Common Core standard is fine, but whoever is coming up with the
actual problem sets for the Common Core seems to be an actual crazy person.

~~~
mturmon
I have to agree. My kid's fourth grade class (Common Core, California; adopted
a NY State based text) has been going over multiplication of two and three
digit numbers in three different ways for over a month now.

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.

~~~
bsder
The problem here isn't Common Core, it's "mainstreaming".

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.

------
rayiner
Too little is known about whether money spent in education is worth it,
period. The US spends more on education per capita than almost all OECD
countries, but performs worse on international metrics. What's the value
proposition?

~~~
nmrm2
Is that per capita? The US is also one of the largest OECD countries in terms
of population, so if not, it's a pretty meaningless statistic.

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.

~~~
gdubs
It looks like the US is right near the top in terms of spending. A more
meaningful question might be, how is the money spent within the category of
education?

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.

------
rdudek
My honest belief is that learning is always worth the cost. If you're only
going for a certificate/degree then it may bring little value. Being able to
learn and fully grasp the subject matter and socializing with like-minded
folks will always be worth the cost. How much a person is willing to spend
greatly depends on the person's financial situation. Going into $200k+ debt
may or may not be worth it for everyone.

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.

------
haihaibye
Required reading on this topic is the signaling model of education, here's an
example by Bryan Caplan:

[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/the_magic_of_ed....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/the_magic_of_ed.html)

------
barry-cotter
>More information would make the higher-education market work better.

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.

------
mattnewton
The basis for the argument seems to be that, we do not do as well on
international test but produce more cited research. Maybe the problem is that
the international tests measure the wrong things from the wrong people? I
can't see why teaching towards tests is necessary just given the arguments in
this article, and my gut reaction having been processed through public schools
full of standardized tests is utter revulsion at the thought that higher
education math could be molded to fit the topics that some central authority
chose.

------
ElectricFeel
It's worth it to get an education but you have to MAKE IT worth it

------
skalawag
One glaring problem with the proposal is that, even where we can expect
university curricula have even treatment across universities (the hard
sciences, say), university curricula simply are _not_ the same. Nor are the
students who take them. Does anyone really think that courses taught at (say)
regional universities and the students that get through them can be measured
alongside the courses/students at top tier universities? That's unlikely. For
one, the students were more or less uniformly measured going in and found to
differ significantly. Second, I doubt the curricula are comparable in terms of
depth and coverage (I can't prove it, of course, but my experience suggests
that this is so).

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.

~~~
judk
Large schools have many classes, room for advanced and remedial study.

------
vijayr
This is a very interesting blog on American education, mostly high school
level though
[https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/](https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/)

------
madengr
Worth a watch:

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/](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.

~~~
mjklin
This is the real strategy. Phoenix looks at what the federal government needs
and offers classes in those subjects. Students get federal loans to pay for it
all. Money is funneled straight from US govt to Phoenix, with students on the
hook for it.

~~~
drawkbox
The thing that sucks about that is there is a real need for adult acceptable
college, we declare people done/sorted way to early in life at 22/23.

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.

------
swehner
Too little is known on whether the Economist is worth it.

------
roguecoder
As an economist, if people are willing to pay the price being charged it is
almost by definition worth it.

~~~
delecti
Doesn't that entirely ignore the phenomenon of bubbles bursting?

How many homes were "worth" more in 2007 than in 2009?

------
wahlis
Perhaps your assumptions are wrong? Not everything should be measured against
a monetary value standard.

~~~
thuuuomas
The measure is implicit when said thing is assigned a cost!

~~~
cafebeen
Is that still true if you can't resell said thing? I think the value of school
also depends on how well the person takes advantage of opportunities and
resources.

------
mrdrozdov
Not worth the read with a clickbait title and only one mention of online
courses.

> 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.

~~~
dang
We replaced the title with the subtitle (a compressed version of it).

------
jkot
Higher education improves economy and reduces unemployment. "whether it is
worth it?" is wrong and irrelevant question.

~~~
mrdrozdov
Many actions have diminishing returns, education included. The article asks
some decent questions, but presents them as if they are not being already
addressed. It is akin to asking is pollution bad without mentioning that there
is recycling.

~~~
jkot
Well its good for government :-)

