To have the economic privilege to spend $80k a year on education without worrying about the employment result is rare indeed. The colleges created this mess with their relentless price increases, which forced families to start questioning the return on investment, not because of some political campaign. At these prices, most people need positive ROI.
Public funding for higher education has been in a downward spiral for 40 years. That is not new. The sky high costs are relatively new.
Thatâs a nice ideal, but it ended around 1965 or so. Employers arenât suddenly going to provide more OJT training, they will just find other applicants. While I am all for personal growth during and after college, upon graduation my kids needed to pay the now average apartment cost of $2k, have health insurance, and buy food. It is not cheap to live in most coastal cities anymore. The workplace may be evolving slowly in the future, but they need to eat in the present
Understood, but most schools donât cost $80k/year. And that decades-long downward spiral for funding of all public education (K-12, community college and 4-year schools) is the reason why systems that have been stretched beyond their limits are finally collapsing. You (the collective you, not you personally) cannot starve institutions for decades and then be shocked when they donât produce the increased results you still, inexplicably, demand.
I never asked for increased results. Colleges are multi-million dollar businesses which can be expected to govern their own financial condition-they know the revenue in and the expenditures out, and need to live within their budget, whatever that may be. Assuming inelastic demand for their courses regardless of their cost is a failure of basic Econ 101.
I recently attended a brunch hosted by the Cal alumni association that was part of the orientation for spring admits to UC Berkeley. The alumni arrived first and mingled, then self-selected groups based on whomever you happened to talk to first. The groups were then seated at large round tables, at which point the new students arrived and chose alumni tables to sit at. Each alumnus/alumni was given a large sign with their Cal major written on it in so that the new students could look for alumni who had studied something similar to what they hoped to study, so they could learn about the potential career paths for their major once they graduated from Cal.
The table I sat at had me (a language/linguistics alumna), a environmental science alumnus, a public policy alumnus, a political science alumnus, and a history alumna. As we got to know each other, we all quickly realized: not a SINGLE one of us actually works in field directly (or sometimes even indirectly) related to what we had majored in.
And soon that became one of the takeaways for the entering students who sat with us: what you major in doesnât need to be your destiny or define your future or even determine your career goals. Major in what youâre interested in and learn critical thinking, analytical reading, coherent and correct writing, effective communication, how to formulate a sound argument, and other transferrable skills. You can gain those skills in many, many different majors and use those skills in many, many different jobs not at all dependent on your major. Just as every alumna/alumnus at our table had done. So I think in many cases - with obvious exceptions like CS or engineering or some other STEM fields - that major can be of secondary importance in gaining marketable skills.
Thatâs great, but has little to do with how most students calculate the value of their college education.
Of course, those skills-critical thinking, good writing, etc, can be obtained in many ways besides college attendance. And judging from the article, many college grads arenât acquiring them despite attendance.
I was responding to a specific point about marketable (and by extension non-marketable) majors. However, I believe it is relevant to the larger conversation about how and what people may value in education and what one hopes to gain from a college education.
The " return" on the investment in college (better intellectual skills, etc) may have remained stable but the cost of the investment has exploded. As a result, the ROI is not what it was.
I note studies have suggested that if you (a) actually graduate from (b) a non-profit four year college, then your ROI is very likely to be strongly positive regardless of major. I think that supports your impression the benefits of college do not necessarily depend on major choice. But if you donât actually graduate (one regrettably common outcome), or go to a for-profit institution (also all too common), then all bets are off.
College net tuition costs have decreased due to an increasing discount rate and increasing inflation. Of course there is wide variability in what a given family might pay, but still, the averages are instructive from a macro perspective. Nor does this include room and board, but room and board charges are often discounted as well, not to mention many students can live off campus for all or most of their years of attendance at rates lower than what a college might charge.
From CollegeBoardâs most recent report:
The majority of full-time undergraduate students receive grant aid that helps them pay for college.
Full reports available here, including data by income ranges.
I seem to know only those paying a whole lot more. Perhaps for them, the ROI is very different. If those numbers are accurate, there should not be a student debt crisis nor widespread complaints about the cost of higher ed.
Definite variability in what a given family is paying, like I said in my post. Full pay families can often pay less, but choose not toâŠand thatâs ok, itâs up to them.
Again, these numbers are average net tuition costs. And they are decreasing on average. The average tuition discount rate is now 56% (linked in my post above)âŠthere are too many colleges competing for a limited pool of students.
I have not heard any source questioning the veracity of these data. Many news sources have been tracking and reporting these data, all showing that average net tuition has been decreasing for roughly the last decade.
This is for undergraduates. Most of the debt when people talk about the student debt crisis is for grad and professional schools.
I believe there is also some lingering debt associated with uncompleted and/or for-profit undergraduate programs (2 or 4 years), but again very little with completed non-profit programs.
I also would suggest widespread complaints about how everything is more expensive these days are a constant in an economy with an inflationary monetary system.
Agreed. The data I showed do not include for profit schools.
And often has a lot to do with accrued interest over years of making only the minimum monthly paymentâŠ
Yeah, I have some beloved relatives who simply are not good with money. They are constantly getting themselves into what to me are obviously avoidable financial problems, if they just did things a bit differently.
Point being while some debt issues are truly bad luck (lots of medical debt, for example), others are in some sense unforced errorsâalthough that is not to discount all the forces encouraging such errors.
I have not read all of the replies.
Did anyone mention the article in yesterdayâs NYT about Bloombergâs $250 million funding of HS programs that will train HS grads to work in health care settings immediately upon HS graduation?
I referenced it wau up threadâŠ
Thanks! I just went back and read through.