

Even for Cashiers, College Pays Off - kingkawn
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/sunday-review/26leonhardt.html

======
bugsy
This article is a very annoying piece of propaganda.

The worst fallacy is the poisoned well ad hominem at the end where he claims
that those who advise against college have degrees and therefore are selfish
meanie "elitists" who are trying to stomp down the poor collegeless masses and
keep them from advancing. It goes without saying that those who haven't been
to college likewise are not allowed to advise against it, since they haven't
been, how would they know? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Whether you
have been to college or not, you are not allowed to have an opinion or advice
others that one should consider carefully whether they want to go into
significant debt in return for college. Regarding the fallacy it can easily be
turned around to argue that the author is not qualified to argue _for_ college
because he has been and therefore has been brainwashed into the cult. Just as
absurd an argument and the same reasoning.

He also claims that the average current cost of attending 4 year public
colleges in the US is $2000. This is complete nonsense.

As others have pointed out here, the reason degreed people are better plumbers
is because they were smarter to begin with, not because they learned plumbing
in college.

There was a study a couple years ago (sorry, no citation, can't find it) that
compared people who were accepted into college but didn't go to those who were
accepted and did go. He found that there was no difference in their earnings.
The study showed that earnings differences are not due to "learning advanced
skills" or such in college, but due to the fact that people who were already
more capable to begin with were the ones that got accepted in the first place.
Duh.

~~~
kenjackson
_He also claims that the average current cost of attending 4 year public
colleges in the US is $2000. This is complete nonsense._

I think the author is correct, but you're largely misquoting him.

The author actually said this: "First, many colleges are not very expensive,
once financial aid is taken into account. Average net tuition and fees at
public four-year colleges this past year were only about $2,000 (though
Congress may soon cut federal financial aid). "

And if you read the cited article it points out that over the five years from
2004 to 2009 (when the cited article was written), while the "sticker price"
of college has gone up dramatically, the actual amount paid by students has
actually declined (for tuition and fees):

"Yes. At public four-year colleges, the sticker price rose by 20 percent over
the past five years (these are inflation-adjusted dollars, as are all
historical comparisons I’m making), but the average net price fell $400 — from
about $2,000 to $1,600. At private four-year colleges the sticker price rose
by 15 percent, but the average net price fell 9 percent, or about $1,100.

It is important to note that these figures are just for tuition and fees.
Students also have to live, eat, buy books, and cover other expenses while
they are in school. "

~~~
Duff
I wonder if the author went to college? By his logic, my $200k house only
costs me $16,000, because of financial aid. (ie. mortgage)

~~~
kenjackson
I'm really not sure what you're talking about, but this might be relevant:

"The net prices I mentioned don’t take loans into account. We consider loans
to be part of the students’ contribution. The students have to pay them back
eventually."

~~~
bugsy
Thanks very much for digging that up, that's a good find and very relevant.
That is the source he uses to claim it's $2000, and the interview it's from
claims the actual cost has gone down from $2000 to $1600, but then near the
end admits that loan debt is not considered part of college cost using the
reasoning that "it's the students contribution". So it's not a cost, it's a
contribution.

[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/q-a-the-real-
co...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/q-a-the-real-cost-of-
college/)

~~~
kenjackson
_but then near the end admits that loan debt is not considered part of college
cost using the reasoning that "it's the students contribution"._

Actually she said the opposite. :-)

She says, "The net prices I mentioned don’t take loans into account. We
consider loans to be part of the students’ contribution. The students have to
pay them back eventually."

Net price is the price the student pays. It is reduced by financial aid, but
she says that they do NOT take loans into account (whereas they do take Pell
Grants into account). That is because students have to pay the loan
eventually.

So if you have a college tution that is $10,000/year. The sticker price is
$10,000. If you have $2,000 in grants and $4,000 in loans then your net price
is $8,000. They don't take loans into account when computing the net price.

------
TomOfTTB
The problem here is the author is mischaracterizing the debate. Right now we
have a job environment where most good jobs require a college degree. The
debate as to whether college is necessary asks if that environment is
appropriate since college costs a lot of money and often falls short when it
comes to imparting lifelong knowledge.

When all those TV Shows, Newspapers and Blogs are having this debate the
question they are asking is whether the environment that requires a degree
should exist. So arguing that people with a degree make more money in the
current environment is irrelevant to the debate itself.

(He does set up a straw man of parents on the edge deciding not to send their
kids to college but I see that as unrealistic. No parent who is going to send
their kid to college changes their mind based on what Katie Couric says or
what they read on a blog)

------
Duff
The college vs. no college debate is bunk. The real question is: Why doesn't
high school prepare folks with the skills needed to succeed in one of the
professions mentioned in the article. The key to succeeding in all of those
jobs is command of reading and arithmetic. If you can read a manual and do
enough math to handle money at some scale, you're 80% of the way to succeeding
somewhere.

Public schools utterly fail at helping students achieve this. 99% of 18 year
olds should be able to interpret a train schedule or read and understand a
big-city newspaper. 99% of 18 year olds should be capable of doing long
division and computing percentages without tools. The reality is far less.

Getting through college is essentially a filter that eliminates the folks who
are not appropriately literate or capable of doing math.

As an extreme anecdotal example, I worked with an illiterate retail computer
salesman in his 30's while I was in college. He was a good salesman who relied
on memorization and mastery of the legacy, AS/400 terminal based system. He
was an intelligent, driven man -- but he couldn't advance, and struggled when
the company introduced a browser based configure to order system.

~~~
socillion
Both you and TFA make the assumption that college increases your skill in
fields such as plumbing. Correlation (college & higher pay) =/= Causation
(college => more skill => more pay), and that is why people debate the current
college situation. Why is it that a future plumber needs to go to college to
maximize his earnings, when it will have little to no benefit to his plumbing
prowess, and would in fact hinder it due to the opportunity cost of those 4
years?

> Getting through college is essentially a filter that eliminates the folks
> who are not appropriately literate or capable of doing math. What a
> ridiculously wasteful filter.

> Public schools utterly fail at helping students achieve this. 99% of 18 year
> olds should be able to interpret a train schedule or read and understand a
> big-city newspaper. 99% of 18 year olds should be capable of doing long
> division and computing percentages without tools. The reality is far less.
> Are you sure about that? Long division is admittedly rapidly becoming a lost
> art (calculators, cell phones, anything electronic has a way to divide!)
> However, I'd be surprised if nearly everyone wasn't capable of the rest.

~~~
Duff
The article implies that college magically gives you skills that make you a
successful plumber. I argue that getting into (and out of) college means that
you have the basic academic skills to be a successful plumber. Those aren't
the same arguments.

Plumbing isn't just unclogging toilets. You need to be capable of measuring,
computing distances, reading manuals for boilers and pumps, etc. Not rocket
science, but beyond the capabilities of 40-60% of the _graduates_ of many high
schools.

In my mind, the _problem_ is that 30 years ago, a high school degree was
sufficient to assume that you can perform basic skills (skills that most
successful programmers probably can demonstrate around age 12).

Is long division archaic in the age of the smartphone? Perhaps -- I've found
it to be a fantastic screening device for high school interns. Print out a few
Amtrak Northeast Corridor train schedules and ask questions about getting
between various points between various points as a second level screen.

~~~
socillion
I see what you mean, I agree. It does seem a bit excessive that college is
needed to prove those skills, though.

I think the problem with high school education being insufficient now is a
cultural mindset that academic success before college is not important. I
could be wrong on that, but I don't think what is being taught is
insufficient, just what is learned.

------
Pinckney
The article conflates two different questions: a) whether universal higher
education is sensible, and b) whether it makes financial sense for an
individual to get a college education.

Do individuals benefit financially from a college degree, given certain
assumptions about degree and institution? Yes. But a more interesting question
is to what extent those degrees provide increased human capital, and to what
extent it is a signal of existing quality.

For instance, if the value of certain college degrees is only as a method to
differentiate between good and bad employees, universal higher education
accomplishes nothing but to destroy that signal, without adding value. This
provides an example scenario under which it is sensible for individuals to
obtain higher education, but universal higher education is nevertheless
inferior as a policy to limited higher education.

Thus the author errs in providing the individual benefit as a justification
for universal higher education.

------
petegrif
My faith in some of the research underlying this article took a fatal hit when
I read that the researchers discovered that whereas a dishwasher with no
degree earned $19K, a college graduate earned $34K for the same menial task.
It may just be me but that rings so untrue that it bears investigation. To me
it is unfathomable why an employer would pay a dishwasher 15K a year more
because he/she has a degree. I don't buy it.

------
dereg
College provides the greatest benefit for specialized fields like engineering,
for example, in which the college education is effectively the job training.

------
reader5000
_Construction workers, police officers, plumbers, retail salespeople and
secretaries, among others, make significantly more with a degree than without
one. Why? Education helps people do higher-skilled work, get jobs with better-
paying companies or open their own businesses._

I would argue they earn more simply because of the signalling dynamics of
possessing the degree, not that a college grad can do higher skilled work than
a similarly situated non-grad. The question is is it fair/efficient to saddle
young people with exorbitant debt and four extra years of classroom lecturing
just to be able to competitively signal.

~~~
yummyfajitas
One possible way to test this: compare the outcomes of people with All But
Degree to people with degrees.

If human capital is the important factor then being 6 credits short of a 140
credit degree shouldn't affect outcomes. If signalling matters, it should have
a rather large effect.

~~~
paganel
> If human capital is the important factor then being 6 credits short of a 140
> credit degree shouldn't affect outcomes. If signalling matters, it should
> have a rather large effect.

It it matters, I'm a CS dropout from an an Eastern European country which is
also part of the European Union. Let's say I've got 125 out of 140 credits (so
I got pretty close to actually finishing it).

Anyway, I have a pretty good job and all, but once in a while I receive a job
offer that actually sounds interesting. It did happen to me to actually get
rejected from such a job "because as you don't have a degree, and as we work
with an European Union agency, and as said EU Agency requires that all our
employees should have a CS degree, we're sorry to announce to you etc", as
they elegantly put it. Some other guys said no to my salary requirement
"because you don't have a CS degree, we won't receive the tax breaks given by
the Government to us for hiring people with CS degrees, so we're going to pay
you less". Fuck them, I said :)

I don't know what the moral of the story should be. What I got out of it all
is that I should always work in an environment very close to a meritocracy
(and small startups seem to be the closest thing to this), and maybe later
down the road open my own shop.

~~~
megablast
As someone who worked in the EU before, I was never asked to prove I had a
degree or an honours degree. Have you been asked to prove it, or are you just
being honest?

~~~
paganel
> or are you just being honest?

I hope I'm being honest, why would I lie? Anyway, said company had a contract
with a European Union Agency, and, as mentioned, said Agency was putting a
major emphasis (as in more points awarded as part of the tender process) on
sub-contractors that had only CS-graduates as programmers.

And the "tax-deductions for companies hiring CS-graduates part" I'll admit,
it's not an EU-wide, EU-mandated policy (hence my mention that the tax was
collected by my country's Government), but my suspicion is that my country is
not the only one adopting this particular tax treatment. I think the people
that came up with this policy thought that this would somehow create an IT
bonanza. It might achieve that, who knows? But you'll have to admit it has
some perverse effects, such as non-graduates like myself being at a
disadvantage compared to degree-holding programmers.

------
tokenadult
Charles Murray points out

[http://www.openeducation.net/2008/08/20/charles-
murray-%E2%8...](http://www.openeducation.net/2008/08/20/charles-
murray-%E2%80%93-for-most-people-college-is-a-waste-of-time/)

that what employers need is a signal of competence, but a four-year college
degree is a very costly signal for a job-seeker to obtain. Many poor, hard-
working people are locked out of the job market by the price of a college
degree.

Isn't it possible that college degree holders are at an advantage in seeking
employment by comparison to persons without college degrees simply because of
the signaling effect of possessing a degree? The current job market seems to
say that possessing a college degree is an advantage even if students are
learning very little during their four years of college.

[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-
coll...](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-
students-not.html)

~~~
kenjackson
_The current job market seems to say that possessing a college degree is an
advantage even if students are learning very little during their four years of
college._

The problem with these studies is that what they actually say and the spin are
two very different things. For example, from your link:

"After four years, 36 percent showed no significant gains in these so-called
"higher order" thinking skills."

So 64% of students showed significant gains in higher order thinkings skills?
That's non-trivial. This says to me that a good majority of college students
are much stronger than when they left high school. And I suspect, much to the
chagrin of many on HN, that many of those in the 64% are also top students.
And for those that aren't top students, they're obvious in other ways.

The other thing the article seems to point out is that you can get through
college with minimal effort if you choose to, but if you do put in the effort
you reap the rewards.

While college is too expensive, I'm not sure its failing as an institution of
learning. Its biggest problem appears to be making it too easy on those who
want to take the easy way out.

------
paganel
> The educated American masses helped create the American century, as the
> economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz have written

More evidence needed. IMHO, the Nazis and their craziness did a lot more for
creating "the American century" than US schools. First, by forcing to emigrate
all the smart Jewish University professors in the 1930s, and then by getting
defeated in WW2 and allowing both the Americans and the Soviets to take
advantage of their research in rocket-related fields.

------
dusklight
Just a quick comment about averages .. the writer makes the argument that the
average income of a college graduate is much higher than someone who did not
go to college but this is a very misleading statistic .. because the incomes
of college graduates who got engineering, finance, medicine and law degrees
have much higher incomes, but someone who got a history degree for example,
does not.

------
bhickey
I didn't see any mention of cost of living adjustment.

Could it be that plumbers living in Boston are more likely to have college
degrees than plumbers living in Salem?

------
teyc
The article failed to make the case that college graduates are better adapted
to the current economic environment.

------
rkon
Correlation doesn't imply causation. How is that still so hard for some people
to grasp? His entire argument is invalid because it's based on that simple
fallacy.

The selection process will obviously skew any results in favor of colleges.
It's the same as trying to argue that playing for the San Francisco Giants
automatically makes you better at baseball. Is that really the case, or did
they just do a good job of picking players who were already the best?

------
delinquentme
published in NYT .. who within NYT has vested interests in the college market?

