The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: wing117 on July 23, 2013, 07:05:45 AM
-
Looking around I see a LOT of people with the following generic scenarios: "34, married, $30,000 left in student loan debt" or "26, single, $200,000 in student loan debt"
These prices are INSANE to me and shows just a glimmer into how broken the US education system is. I am a long standing supporter of open, free and cheap education and questioning the classical "I must go to college to not flip burgers". I personally hold no college degree (27 credit hours before I realized how useless the education was). I believe some careers should absolutely require professional training and checks - Architects, Engineers, Doctors, etc... (notice I did not say college specifically) But there are hundreds, if not thousands, of high paying careers that would benefit from an apprentice/master style learning and most of the knowledge for these careers can be learned independently as well.
Yes, getting by HR's straight and narrow vision is a little more difficult at first, but I assure you it's very possible to be incredibly successful without a college degree. I've been my departments hiring manager for two separate companies and I can say without a doubt, those who have taken the non-college path have usually been more up to date, driven, independent and passionate about their work. It was very rare I hired a college student or a recent grad. (Disclaimer: My experience is in IT Administration/Support/Architecture/Programming)
There are tons of resources out there now to learn everything from your basic mathematics (up through Calc) and whole college courses available online (Khan Academy, Coursera, udacity, LearnStreet, Codecademy, etc...).
So my very serious questions are: Is college (the time, cost and energy) worth it? What's the break point? What career paths should always going through a college system; which ones should be removed and different system setup? What type of learning systems should take place of college (classic apprenticeship, on job learning, community-based learning, self taught, etc...)?
-
As with a lot of questions, I think the answer is it depends. In MOST professional jobs a degree will help get your foot in the door and will also help with a higher starting salary. I think you're right that often times those who worked their way up are more driven because they have/had to be to get where they are now.
On the topic of education costs, it is only that expensive if you let it be. There are plenty of stories around here of people with lots of student loan debt and also plenty of us that graduated with none. The bigger issue to me is that loans are made easily available to a group of people often unaware of the what the loans will mean to their financial future. I graduated with my undergrad in computer science in five years alternating school and full time work semesters. This is an option available at most schools. I got a lot of experience and made good money ($16/hr) while being a student. This put me in a position to graduate with a couple K in the bank and no debt.
It is very possible to get a great college education with going in debt even in the US. You just have to work at it.
-
32, married, $9k left in student loan debt :)
As someone with a BA and a master's degree, I would say it's worth it but only if you are willing to put in the work and really understand if the degree is required for what you want to do. For me, it was a requirement (I'm a librarian and the professional requirement is an ALA accredited master's degree) and I wholeheartedly believe that I would not have the job I have without the degree. But, I am the first to caution people about master's degrees not always being worth it, especially in my field. A degree won't necessarily lead to a job in that field, depending on a lot of other factors over which you have no control. The same could be true of a BA, except there are a lot of jobs that just want you to have a BA, regardless of what it's in, because of the idea that a liberal arts degree makes you a well-rounded person, and that can be proven easily with a diploma. Agree or disagree with that, but it's how a lot of people think.
I got promoted from a paraprofessional library job to a professional job just four months after graduating, with little directly related experience but a lot of general work experience in libraries. But the degree gave me legitimacy and is required by most libraries (or at least most libraries where I'd want to work). My BA is in English, and while that's a dying degree, it did help me develop better writing skills, which help me in my job every day; I find writing much easier and do it a lot faster than many of my colleagues, and since so much of every job is spent just communicating with people, I am glad I have the degree. I'm also glad my parents paid for me to go to state school and graduate with no debt from undergrad.
-
There is about a 3.5 percentage point gap between the unemployment rate of college graduates (under 4%) and that of high school graduates (7.5%). At the peak of the recession the gap was much larger - 5% vs 11%. This is in the US. On average, a college degree makes you quite a bit more likely to be hired.
My job requires a college and graduate degree. I had no student loans, luckily.
-
I think you are in a niche market, where someone can do really well if they have the skills -- regardless of whether they acquired them on their own or with a degree. My spouse is a self-taught programmer and is making more $$ than I am as a lawyer.
For the person who is not interested in programming or another skills-based field, I think the college degree is important. Whether they need to give up their first born to pay for it is a different issue: There are good community colleges and public universities, there are merit scholarships and need-based financial assistance, Resident Advisor positions that pay your room and board, and parents can plan for paying for an education by putting $$ away in a tax-sheltered account. Both my spouse and I left undergrad with about $5k in student loans. That's it.
It was law school that saddled us with debt, and even that debt could have been mitigated. I was offered a fabulous scholarship at a comparable law school, but I turned it down for regrettable reasons. Scholarships are out there if you're well qualified and meet a demographic need (I was out of state). Lawyers do need undergraduate and professional training. Three years of law school does seem like overkill though, at least the way that it's currently structured. Two years of learning plus one year of clinical work would be my preferred model.
Signed,
35, married, with $200k in student loans
-
Sure, you can get better jobs and make more money with a college degree.
But is the college education worth the money on its own merits?
I attended a major Midwestern private university on 50% scholarship. Even though the school has a good reputation, it seemed like the bulk of my money was going to beautiful grounds and facilities and the college "experience," with only a handful of really useful, educational classes.
I've heard similar stories from others, but perhaps it's just anecdotal. Thankfully, I didn't have to deal with too much of the indoctrination that others have experienced in college.
It would be nice if college were more like advanced vocational schools. Get rid of the frills, and focus on education. Offer the "experience" as an option for those who want it.
-
I think the system becomes broken in high school. Not every student is on a college track nor needs to be. I'm not sure how it is today, but back in my high school years the entire point of those four years was college prep. Never mind the students that would never need college and would have done better with learning a trade. I know we have one public high school in town that focuses on trades -- everything from medical tech to auto-body repair in addition to gen ed requirements -- but most schools focus just on the final product of college and lose a lot of students along the way.
College is often a product sold to a captive and nervous audience at a vulnerable moment in their lives. Why are there so many liberal arts majors? Because we were convinced we had to go to college for something or fail for the rest of our lives. Fortunately I got out without student loan debt, but most of my compatriots didn't.
My sis has a pointless art degree and the student loans to prove it. Yes, she's an artist, but by her own admittance all art school really taught her was how to take moodily lit pictures of deodorant. Her husband is an engineer. His degree has paid off tenfold so in his case it is worth it. I'm a writer, and I really didn't need a degree to become one. It's not even mentioned in my bio and I don't think an editor anywhere has ever asked me if I attended college. Maybe if I had gone into journalism, but for my niche not so much. In fact, what I should have done was spent a year becoming a master gardener then continuing my education through free and inexpensive classes through that program. That was never even laid on the table as an option when I was 17. It was college or flippin' burgers.
What's sad is I have friends with HSers paying for AP classes so they can earn college credit early. Our state has a wonderful program that allows a high school student to earn an associate's degree and a HS diploma simultaneously at a community college their junior and senior year, with no cost other than books. Most parents and kids have never heard of the program, and those that have "don't want to cripple their kids with a community college degree," or "but he'll miss out on dorm life and frats!" Never mind that some very prestigious schools regularly recruit higher ed students from our local community college, which also features many of the same teachers that work at the local 4-year state college.
-
30, married, started with $13k in debt and now $2,800 left in student debt making minimum payments on 2.2% APR since graduation. I am new to this "smart money" thing :).
I think a problem is that we are only talking about the "business job" model, which I hate but am a part of. It just requires a vague skill set to do most of these jobs - able to think, sit at a desk for 9 hours without losing your shit, communicate as a normal human, have a decent grasp on non-calculus math. I think the bachelors degree validates that, and you need validation somehow to get an interview (because HR doesn't choose to develop a model to assess new hires w/o experience). I got my first, and likely second, job primarily based on the fact that I went to U of I. Now I need credentials to move up, but I found a company that pays 100% for certifications and MBA so I'll be debt free and have a shitload of letters after my name in 5 years.
I'd like to see the German system here, which would be a huge boon to the middle class loss we are experiencing. Voc training option that starts at 16/17, advanced levels of trade school, highly skilled manual labor force. I remember my high school had something like this, a half-day voc option for 1 year and then you try for ITT Tech or something, but nobody I am aware of really developed further so it seemed a broken approach. The best "laborer class" guy I knew was a welder that had a bachelors in Metallurgy and Mech Engineering, so he still had to go the traditional route to make that jump up.
-
I have a Masters Degree in a field that generally doesn't make a bunch of money (history) but I did it without any debt and actually saved money.
Of course a college education is overpriced in the US and getting more expensive rapidly (at least in California) but that doesn't mean that it HAS to ruin your finances.
I agree with a lot of other people that support apprenticeships/vocational schools/internships/etc. and think that a University Education isn't for everyone and shouldn't be as "required as it is now."
But I do kind of question the idea that if a college degree doesn't increase my salary X% then it is or isn't worth it. I mean there is more to life than just making money and I think learning about a bunch of stuff enhances people's life. Of course people can learn for free on their own, but I think arguing that people should learn whatever they want and schools and teachers don't add much is actually arguing against ALL school not just college.
So I guess this is a sort of really long way to say that it depends on what you mean by "worth it."
-
What's sad is I have friends with HSers paying for AP classes so they can earn college credit early.
Too be fri when I took AP classes (over 10 years ago so it may have changed) there was no additional cost but the AP exam at the end: $75 at the time (defintiely cheaper than most of my college books). And I got 32 hours of credit, plus a scholarship my freshman year for that cost, a pretty good ROI, considering it is esentially the equivalent of a 2 year associates degree. I guess I don't really know how the two way out in terms of costs and ability to transfer into more traditional universities, but I just wanted to point out that they could be pretty equivalent.
As for whether a university degree is worth it, it depends on what you want to do. In my feild it's absolutely necessary, you can't become a vet without one. ( I could start a whole different discussion on whether the way it is currently structured is the best model or not, but I think a degree should be required). However, I agree it's not for everyone, and I do think the emphasis on college prep for EVERYONE in high school misses the point.
The goal should be to prepare people for future, successful careers, which as the OP pointed out does not necessarily require a BA.
-
Sure, you can get better jobs and make more money with a college degree.
But is the college education worth the money on its own merits?
I attended a major Midwestern private university on 50% scholarship. Even though the school has a good reputation, it seemed like the bulk of my money was going to beautiful grounds and facilities and the college "experience," with only a handful of really useful, educational classes.
I've heard similar stories from others, but perhaps it's just anecdotal. Thankfully, I didn't have to deal with too much of the indoctrination that others have experienced in college.
It would be nice if college were more like advanced vocational schools. Get rid of the frills, and focus on education. Offer the "experience" as an option for those who want it.
Having attended my state university, my experience with regards to this was that valuable (depending on your perspective) courses were available if you wanted to take them. Most of the 100 or 200 level classes didn't really provide me with much, but I managed to exempt out of most of the required ones. The upper level undergrad and lower-level grad courses I thought were overall pretty good for me. Yeah, it's still all stuff that I could've learned on my own, but the combination of having a professor do all the hard work of putting things together in a cohesive way so that they build on each other and having a large group of fellow students who were working on the same things to discuss with made it a lot easier.
I managed to only have one liberal indoctrination class (I actually lean somewhat liberal, but really, I'm paying for an education, not to listen to the professor rant about how terrible Bush is), and I just avoided taking any further classes with that professor.
Then again, my university had quite possibly one of the ugliest campuses I've seen, so I hope at least that they weren't diverting much money to the grounds and experience; if so they weren't getting much for it :).
-
Most people don't know how to make it cheap. I went to a pretty good (top 40 or so) university in the midwest. Tuition for 7 semesters was about $42K. Dorm for first 2 years was $10K (shouldn't have lived there 2 years, first year was required). Room and board for 3rd year was $7500. Room for 7th semester was $1000 plus maybe $2000 for my own food. Books in total were about $2000?
That works out to a grand total of $75K in expenses while in college for 3.5 years. This number includes tuition and living expenses. I did receive a lot of help from my parents, but had I not, I would have it entirely, or close to entirely, paid off by now, and I've been working 18 months.
While there is a problem with university costs, the biggest part of the problem is the students and parents, not the costs.
That problem is two-fold. 1) Everyone is told they have to go to college. This results in people going to college who shouldn't. This not only costs them, but drives up rates as well. 2) An 18 year old HS graduate is a child, financially speaking. It's up to the parents to educate them on college choices, and most the parents are stuck in the 70s when thinking about the benefits of college. This results in a very easy situation for students to fall into massive debts.
-
For medicine, hard science, math, business I think college still generates a return for the money.
For IT/computer experience is much better. You can get training and be making money in under two years. It is a field that ability can get you offers. I have a couple friends who got job offers because of programs they wrote on the side. (Neither was even applying) A degree will open some doors for you in IT but an experience resume for programing, networking, etc is worth more.
As far as the college experience goes, I don't buy that argument that it is worth it or makes you well rounded. Society learns lots off discovery type TV programing or educational videos they have interest in. I know of no one who says, "yea setting in that 101 class with 90 other kids, with a undergrad teacher was a great experience, I learned lots of interesting about xyz. Most mandatory class or just short of torture for both the instructor and the student.
I attended community college, paying as I went. My degree got me interviews but never got me a job. Have never worked in the field I studied.
One of the changes in USA society that I expect to happen in the decline of college degrees. Two many young adults are saddled with large student debt, near worthless degrees, working for low wages. That bad taste will sour many and influence the next generation on the value of college.
-
Not every student is on a college track nor needs to be. I'm not sure how it is today, but back in my high school years the entire point of those four years was college prep. Never mind the students that would never need college and would have done better with learning a trade. I know we have one public high school in town that focuses on trades -- everything from medical tech to auto-body repair in addition to gen ed requirements -- but most schools focus just on the final product of college and lose a lot of students along the way.
Agree 100% on the bolded part. Some people might see that as an insult, but it absolutely is not. There are numerous well paying and dignified career paths that simply don't require college.
There are well meaning efforts to give "every kid a college education," but clearly most 18-year-olds are not suited for that path -- and not because they're stupid or can't benefit from continued education of some sort.
-
26 married and 100k paid off 100k to go. In hindsight, it was great for me, not so great for my wife.
The problem my wife and I ran into was the lack of financial education before starting school. We both went the the same private school which had tuition in the top 10 nationally. Before we started school we didn't know any of these things:
1. How much 100k in student loan debt really is.
2. What kind of job is required to pay that off.
3. You can do 2 years at a Community College and then transfer to many schools and save ridiculous amounts of money.
4. Even when enrolled at a 4 year private school, many times they will let you take gen-ed requirements at the local community college or other cheap sister school. (Could have saved 3k / class this way)
5. Using loan money to cover living expenses is kinda dumb. We should have had a job. (Figured this out Junior year)
6. In many cases, a state school education is just as good as a private school education because many employers just look for a checkbox. This certainly was the case for my wife (any degree would have gotten her where she is now)
Educate your kids about these things before they start applying to schools. Help them make fully informed decisions. Its not a case of "College is/is not ever worth it." Its that there are many different paths to the same financial goals and some of them are much less expensive than others.
Maybe I'm an exception but I believe if someone had sat me down and explained how much the loans really wer going to cost and what the benefits of a degree were, I likely may have taken a different path than I did.
-
I only attended grad school in US (for free), but it was definitely worth it. I knew quite early what exactly I wanted to do and PhD is a requirement for it. In fact my current company rarely hire anyone without a postdoc as well...
-
Agree 100% on the bolded part. Some people might see that as an insult, but it absolutely is not. There are numerous well paying and dignified career paths that simply don't require college.
There are well meaning efforts to give "every kid a college education," but clearly most 18-year-olds are not suited for that path -- and not because they're stupid or can't benefit from continued education of some sort.
Are there? I can't think of many other than owning your own business...
-
Agree 100% on the bolded part. Some people might see that as an insult, but it absolutely is not. There are numerous well paying and dignified career paths that simply don't require college.
There are well meaning efforts to give "every kid a college education," but clearly most 18-year-olds are not suited for that path -- and not because they're stupid or can't benefit from continued education of some sort.
Are there? I can't think of many other than owning your own business...
Construction type work - Plumbing, Electrician, etc.
They do take training, but they pay fairly well, especially when you account for the lower costs of education. And they are FAR more conducive to owning your own business.
-
Agree 100% on the bolded part. Some people might see that as an insult, but it absolutely is not. There are numerous well paying and dignified career paths that simply don't require college.
There are well meaning efforts to give "every kid a college education," but clearly most 18-year-olds are not suited for that path -- and not because they're stupid or can't benefit from continued education of some sort.
Are there? I can't think of many other than owning your own business...
Construction type work - Plumbing, Electrician, etc.
They do take training, but they pay fairly well, especially when you account for the lower costs of education. And they are FAR more conducive to owning your own business.
Yeah, those are good examples. I suppose it comes down to how one defines "numerous."
But craftsmen and tradesmen can make pretty darn good money these days.
Another such career path that just popped into my head is Realtor. I know it's a pretty competitive industry and hard to really succeed in, but the money can be great for those who do. My brother-in-law wasn't college material, but he's carved out a nice living off this.
-
No. College is absolutely not worth it, if you don't care about learning to think critically, write effectively, do laboratory research (or any research at all), or understand and appreciate thousands of years of developments in the fields of philosophy, art, literature and science among many civilizations.
-
Plumbers and auto mechanics make good money. Great examples of non-college training paying well. Also a trusted mechanic or plumber can find themselves with more work/jobs than hours.
-
No. College is absolutely not worth it, if you don't care about learning to think critically, write effectively, do laboratory research (or any research at all), or understand and appreciate thousands of years of developments in the fields of philosophy, art, literature and science among many civilizations.
Other than perhaps the lab research, I submit that any of the rest of those things can be enjoyed and learned without spending thousands of dollars at a university.
Scientific research seems like it's perfectly suited for that setting though.
-
I agree with much of what I've read here.
My wife and I went to an in-state university in New Mexico and only walked away with about $10,000 in student loan debt between us. NM has a state lottery program, so it's pretty cheap to go to school if your a resident and have like a 2.5 GPA. A lot of our fellow high-school friends of ours that ended up going out of state to private schools have many times the debt, and don't seem to have substantially more benefit from it.
But you don't know that in high school, and i remember at the time being disappointed that i was settling for an in-state school while some of my friends we're going to Michigan, NYU, etc.. Now, i wouldn't trade it for anything. There's simply no way that an education at NYU is $100,000 (+ interest) more valuable than the same education at the University of New Mexico.
I would also go back and plan my degree better. My political science degree is basically useless, and I haven't used at all since I graduated. I've needed to have the "graduated college" checkbox, but I wish i had chosen a degree that had broadened my skill set. It might have been harder, but probably worth it.
So with my kids, when the time comes we'll be looking at state schools, community colleges and what type of education will be of value. And starting at a young age i'll make them aware of how awful debt is, because as a high-schooler, its just such a faraway concept. If someone at tought me more about debt, i probably wouldn't have maxed out 2 credit cards my freshman year!
-
There are a dozen or so professions for which University education is essential (physical and natural sciences, engineering, law, medicine etc.) and usually more than BS is needed. For most other professions a degree serves only as a weeding out tool.
-
No. College is absolutely not worth it, if you don't care about learning to think critically, write effectively, do laboratory research (or any research at all), or understand and appreciate thousands of years of developments in the fields of philosophy, art, literature and science among many civilizations.
That's right. I forgot all the libraries in the country shut down!
-
There are a dozen or so professions for which University education is essential (physical and natural sciences, engineering, law, medicine etc.) and usually more than BS is needed. For most other professions a degree serves only as a weeding out tool.
this. it all depends on what you want to do. my brother does sales, he didn't really NEED a marketing degree, i work as a chemist, they wouldn't even look at you without a BS in a hard science
-
Have you read this post?
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/07/interview-with-a-ceo-ridiculous-student-loans-vs-the-future-of-education/
-
Just my experience, but in general, it's not worth it if you're not intending to do something with your degree when you get out.
A relative went, got a perfectly useless degree since she had no idea what she could do with it except teach, and she hated teaching. She wasn't ambitious or even interested in doing anything else with it either, and there was no thought to how she would support herself with that degree.
I've known plenty of people like that. Either going to college because that's what you're supposed to do but with no real idea of what they'll do when they get out, or because it's a fun way of pretending to be an adult and still have the relative safety of college academia life (career students).
Either choose something that has lots of available job paths, or if it's a highly competitive field, go into it knowing you're going to have to excel and work your ass off... otherwise, total waste.
I've also known plenty of people that probably would have done very well in college but didn't have the opportunity to go. Highly intelligent and yes, even brilliant, but without the college experience. You don't have to go to college to have a thirst for knowledge or to hone intelligence.
-
this. it all depends on what you want to do. my brother does sales, he didn't really NEED a marketing degree, i work as a chemist, they wouldn't even look at you without a BS in a hard science
Similar situation in my family. I'm a chemist and my sister is working in advertising. She has a degree but didn't really need it except for getting her first 1-2 jobs.
-
My DH and I both attended a good state university in our hometown. My father was a professor there, so I received half tuition. I had a scholarship that paid the rest of my tuition and fees. Dad bought my books with his employee discount. It wasn't my dream to attend school in my hometown, but it turned out great. I agree that parents and kids get excited about prestigious schools they have been accepted to, and discount local options or community colleges.
A bachelors degree was required for my husband's job, but it wouldn't have mattered if it was from a state U OR an Ivy League. As for me, I became a SAHM, so I was grateful not to have accumulated debt. DH went on to get an MBA, mostly paid by his employer. I will be applying for graduate school when my youngest child is in full day school. I'm glad I already have my bachelors degree, so that I can jump right in to my future career path.
How Am I raising my kids? They are all bright, so I expect them to go to college/university. But I would be fine if they did a different professional track. My oldest got a volleyball scholarship at a state university that pays for everything, plus a modest living allowance. She is very frugal and makes the amount stretch so that she doesn't have to dip into her savings. I have kids who are taking advantage of the associates degree available in high school here. Our state will then give them a two year scholarship to finish their bachelors. They will be able to combine that with other scholarships and work/study to pay for school. Where I live there is little reason to go into debt for an education at all. My dad got his PhD at Stanford, but his undergrad at a state U. He always recommended a good state school for undergrad, then possibly spending more on your graduate work. (Of course, Stanford was a lot cheaper in the late 60's than it is now!)
-
Just remember, You'll never get ahead working for someone else when you get out of college and even after a few years of working and saving, you'll keep wondering why your income isn't ever increasing at the job. (CEO's want it all as the employees slave away, unless they share evenly all the profits).
Plus sometimes the non-essential majors are treated as hobbies, rather then professional. It's like an engineer saying, " Your major is my hobby.", to a drum major.
-
I've got one more year of undergrad and ~$60,000 of debt so the jury is still out on whether it was "worth it" financially.
Maybe this is just naivete, but it seems like now college/education is another commodity. I don't think it used to be like that. Sure people wanted good paying jobs, but they valued the education itself, not only what it could get you. Unfortunately now school is so expensive that you have to land a relatively high paying job in order to pay off the debt. I don't think it's good for society to have everyone picking majors almost entirely based on earning potential.
-
Just remember, You'll never get ahead working for someone else when you get out of college and even after a few years of working and saving, you'll keep wondering why your income isn't ever increasing at the job. (CEO's want it all as the employees slave away, unless they share evenly all the profits).
I beg to differ. In just about any job that you get with a technical degree, your starting salary will put you well ahead of the pack. If you're wondering why your salary isn't increasing, you might start by asking why it should increase, then taking a good look in the mirror.
-
Just remember, You'll never get ahead working for someone else when you get out of college and even after a few years of working and saving, you'll keep wondering why your income isn't ever increasing at the job. (CEO's want it all as the employees slave away, unless they share evenly all the profits).
I got ahead just fine working for someone else out of college, a few years of working, and saving. My income has also increased, sometimes in line with inflation, sometimes at a faster rate.
Not sure what this rant was supposed to be about.
-
What's sad is I have friends with HSers paying for AP classes so they can earn college credit early.
Too be fri when I took AP classes (over 10 years ago so it may have changed) there was no additional cost but the AP exam at the end: $75 at the time (defintiely cheaper than most of my college books). And I got 32 hours of credit, plus a scholarship my freshman year for that cost, a pretty good ROI, considering it is esentially the equivalent of a 2 year associates degree. I guess I don't really know how the two way out in terms of costs and ability to transfer into more traditional universities, but I just wanted to point out that they could be pretty equivalent.
I'm not against AP classes, I took a few in high school. The issue is in our state, high school students can get their associate's degree for free (minus books) instead of just a few credits via AP. I'm not sure what fees people are paying these days, I just know I hear complaints about the costs. The parents I know are shooting down the free associate's option because it comes from a community college or because their kids won't experience dorm life. I know my 13 year old is stoked over this program and is already actively working to make sure he qualifies at 16. The way he sees it, he can take a gap year without falling behind his peers that go straight to college at 18, or he can finish his Bachelor's early and get a head start on his adult life.
As for career paths that don't require a traditional 4 year degree? Well besides the skilled trades (welder, electrician, plumber), we have nearly all the creative fields (writer, artist, etc), many of the medical and vet tech fields, pilots, telecommunications "linemen," cosmetology, sales and many, many more.
Now, both my kids are young but they seem to be on a college track. One wants to be a vet or work in forestry management, while the other goes back and forth between astrophysicist and aerospace engineer. These are fields where a degree is both necessary and worthwhile, so damn straight we'll encourage it. As for me, being self-employed in a creative field? I probably should have saved my cash and skipped the degree.
-
There is about a 3.5 percentage point gap between the unemployment rate of college graduates (under 4%) and that of high school graduates (7.5%). At the peak of the recession the gap was much larger - 5% vs 11%. This is in the US. On average, a college degree makes you quite a bit more likely to be hired.
Devil's advocate here: Okay, let's assume that's 100% true. But if you were able to spend 4 years looking for a job and save $80k in the process -- is that such a bad thing?
I'm not really arguing against college... but I do think we've saddled a generation (or two) with the "you can't do it any other way." I got a degree but I have known lots of people that worked beside me making (roughly) the same money that didn't finish or didn't go at all.
You could outsource my job to someone working remotely anywhere. Try that with your plumber.
-
I think it depends. I really believe that experience trumps education (and I have 3 degrees), but employers a lot of the time won't even consider you if you don't have a degree. A degree is more of a stepping stone.
-
I think it depends. I really believe that experience trumps education (and I have 3 degrees), but employers a lot of the time won't even consider you if you don't have a degree. A degree is more of a stepping stone.
I think there is a general agreement here. My job certainly requires a degree as a condition of employment, but the work could be done by a 2 year old ... Actually, I'll give it a little credit. I think it might take a 10 year old.
Why do y'all think I'm on here all day?
-
Everyone who says the investment is worth it if you get a "hard science" degree should be careful. Physics is as hard as science gets--but according to Statistics Canada, un- and underemployment amongst holders of Physics B.Sc.'s is equivalent to that amongst holders of B.A.'s in English.
And I would disagree with the assertion that the university environment is the only, or even the best place to do science. On whose faculty did Darwin serve? Which endowment funded Einstein’s work on Relativity? One could make a convincing case that 'gentlemen naturalists' of a type a mustachian would be eminently suited to become have had at least as much influence on the advancement of science as all the university professors put together.
And why shouldn't they? A professorship was originally supposed to be a teaching position. That's what Professor means: teacher. Even Doctor comes from the same root as educator. (drop the e, and you'll see how that happened.) Even if you're ignoring your teaching function, in academia, you spend more time on grant money than on science, and the science you can do is determined by the politics of the funding agencies.
Why, then, go to college? They're the gatekeepers of a great many professions, 'tis true. If you simply must work in one of them, fine, by all means, attend a University and then attend to the financial burden. If you're here, though, you're probably not going to weld your self-identity to your wage-earning, and you should find a trade that gives you the best ROI instead. (Welding metal is much more satisfying than welding self-identity, anyway.) If you are the intellectual sort, you can still work a trade while you pursue higher learning as a hobby, and once FI, audiodictate yourself to a PhD-level knowledge of any subject you choose to.
-
Everyone who says the investment is worth it if you get a "hard science" degree should be careful. Physics is as hard as science gets--but according to Statistics Canada, un- and underemployment amongst holders of Physics B.Sc.'s is equivalent to that amongst holders of B.A.'s in English.
And I would disagree with the assertion that the university environment is the only, or even the best place to do science. On whose faculty did Darwin serve? Which endowment funded Einstein’s work on Relativity? One could make a convincing case that 'gentlemen naturalists' of a type a mustachian would be eminently suited to become have had at least as much influence on the advancement of science as all the university professors put together.
And why shouldn't they? A professorship was originally supposed to be a teaching position. That's what Professor means: teacher. Even Doctor comes from the same root as educator. (drop the e, and you'll see how that happened.) Even if you're ignoring your teaching function, in academia, you spend more time on grant money than on science, and the science you can do is determined by the politics of the funding agencies.
Why, then, go to college? They're the gatekeepers of a great many professions, 'tis true. If you simply must work in one of them, fine, by all means, attend a University and then attend to the financial burden. If you're here, though, you're probably not going to weld your self-identity to your wage-earning, and you should find a trade that gives you the best ROI instead. (Welding metal is much more satisfying than welding self-identity, anyway.) If you are the intellectual sort, you can still work a trade while you pursue higher learning as a hobby, and once FI, audiodictate yourself to a PhD-level knowledge of any subject you choose to.
No offense, but your view about science is a bit naive. Darwin was a Cambridge graduate, Einstein studied physics at ETH Zurich. It's true that his first influential papers were published while working for the Swiss patent office, but after that he held professorships in the best universities of his time and was of course paid for his research. Anyway times are different now, you'll never get to do a serious research in chemistry, physics, molecular biology and similar areas without a formal education. Scientific research is a lot more expensive these days than in late 19th century and requires a lot of machinery. Fundamental research is mostly done in academic and government funded institutions, applied science mostly in industrial labs (with ample interface between the two). It's not just about educating yourself to a high level, but also about being around many other similarly educated people. Great ideas rarely develop in vacuum!
P.S. I'm not Einstein, but I do scientific research for living (industrial) so I think I know a bit what is going on. :)
-
Everyone who says the investment is worth it if you get a "hard science" degree should be careful. Physics is as hard as science gets--but according to Statistics Canada, un- and underemployment amongst holders of Physics B.Sc.'s is equivalent to that amongst holders of B.A.'s in English.
And I would disagree with the assertion that the university environment is the only, or even the best place to do science. On whose faculty did Darwin serve? Which endowment funded Einstein’s work on Relativity? One could make a convincing case that 'gentlemen naturalists' of a type a mustachian would be eminently suited to become have had at least as much influence on the advancement of science as all the university professors put together.
And why shouldn't they? A professorship was originally supposed to be a teaching position. That's what Professor means: teacher. Even Doctor comes from the same root as educator. (drop the e, and you'll see how that happened.) Even if you're ignoring your teaching function, in academia, you spend more time on grant money than on science, and the science you can do is determined by the politics of the funding agencies.
Why, then, go to college? They're the gatekeepers of a great many professions, 'tis true. If you simply must work in one of them, fine, by all means, attend a University and then attend to the financial burden. If you're here, though, you're probably not going to weld your self-identity to your wage-earning, and you should find a trade that gives you the best ROI instead. (Welding metal is much more satisfying than welding self-identity, anyway.) If you are the intellectual sort, you can still work a trade while you pursue higher learning as a hobby, and once FI, audiodictate yourself to a PhD-level knowledge of any subject you choose to.
No offense, but your view about science is a bit naive. Darwin was a Cambridge graduate, Einstein studied physics at ETH Zurich. It's true that his first influential papers were published while working for the Swiss patent office, but after that he held professorships in the best universities of his time and was of course paid for his research. Anyway times are different now, you'll never get to do a serious research in chemistry, physics, molecular biology and similar areas without a formal education. Scientific research is a lot more expensive these days than in late 19th century and requires a lot of machinery. Fundamental research is mostly done in academic and government funded institutions, applied science mostly in industrial labs (with ample interface between the two). It's not just about educating yourself to a high level, but also about being around many other similarly educated people. Great ideas rarely develop in vacuum!
P.S. I'm not Einstein, but I do scientific research for living (industrial) so I think I know a bit what is going on. :)
At the risk of derailing the thread, I'd like to respond in detail.
One: you no longer need to attend a university to get a the equivalent of formal education; you just need self-discipline. The textbooks, the course-notes, the assignments and exams for full degrees in all the sciences are available on MIT OpenCourswear and other places. I'm not Enstien either, but this view is shared by Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel laureate in Physics, amongst others far above us in the Ivory Tower.
Also, the courses Darwin took at Cambridge was laughably unrelated to the sort of naturalism that made him famous, if you look into the curriculum of the time. This is not true for Einstein, but since much of his best work was done in a patent office on his own time, the fact that he later became a household name and worked at an Ivy League institution is a bit of a red herring, in my opinion.
As for "being around many other similarly educated people.", I never had any of that in grad school-- nobody talked outside of their tiny research groups, because they weren't interested beyond the laser-beam focus imposed on them by their funding committees. When we did get together, it was to forget about our damned theses, not to celebrate them. Furthermore, I'd suggest the internet can take over in this regard, as well: I got a lot more comradeship and assistance from the PhD Comics Phorum (sic, it's a pun) than I ever did anyone local.
"Scientific research is a lot more expensive these days than in late 19th century and requires a lot of machinery. "
This depends on what you're doing. If you're interested in Fusion research, you can be on the cutting edge and build a polywell inertial confinement device for a few thousand dollars, as a number of hobbyists have begun to do.
The fact that the English vernacular now contains the word "biohacker" should tell you something about how much PCR machines and other gene-splicing equipment costs these days.
The fellow who has the (unconfirmed) world record in high-temperature Tc doesn't work at a university or an industrial lab, and appears to be operating out of his basement.
You don't need anything other than a pencil, paper, and a hard surface to bang your head against to get into theoretical physics (though Mathematica does help quite a bit with the unsolvable bits).
The academic space-guard program has started to plug the gaps, but for many years the discovery of new asteroids and comets, especially NEOs, was the parvenu of amateurs.
A dark sky, a decent amateur telescope and a spectrograph will let you make perfectly valid observations of variable stars, and things like astroseismology, etc.
If you're more the Engineering type and want to join the space race, the guys at Copenhagen Suborbitals serve as a good example.
Arguably Paul Stamets is one of the more respected Mycologists out there, and he's just a dirty hippy.
I admit that most of those examples are drawn from physics and astronomy, but that's just because that's where my background lies, but I think I have given enough examples to prove my point, non?
Sure, you're not going to build the LHC in your basement, but that's not the only kind of science left to be done. Just because most work is done by wage slaves in an industrial or academic setting does not mean it has to be.
-
If your intention from university is strictly to get rich, you should consider an MBA or possibly dental school. Both can lead to high incomes at an early age.
I'm impressed with how much people in public jobs earn and how fabulous their pensions are. I am thinking of cops, firemen, etc who can earn huge overtime. In some cities and states they retire after 20 years on a huge fraction of their highest income, which could be vast with enough overtime, and great health insurance. Even military service can lead to great savings, income and early retirement. None of these areas requires more than high school education.
-
I still don't agree, but since you wrote an intelligent answer I'll try to respond likewise.
One: you no longer need to attend a university to get a the equivalent of formal education; you just need self-discipline. The textbooks, the course-notes, the assignments and exams for full degrees in all the sciences are available on MIT OpenCourswear and other places. I'm not Enstien either, but this view is shared by Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel laureate in Physics, amongst others far above us in the Ivory Tower.
True in principle, but there are several practical issues with this. 1) Mathematics and some branches of physics are somewhat an exception, but to be an expert in most sciences one needs experience in the lab as well. You are never going to become a competent chemist (my field) or biologist without it let alone discover something new. 2) unless you are born with a lot of money you'll need to market your skills to get a job and/or funding for your research. That will be tough to do (impossible, I'm tempted to say) without a formal paper. 3) You can't really wait until attaining FI - human mind is most nimble at age 20-40. Most important discoveries tend to be made while scientists are still young. Einstein did very little of importance after emigrating to US.
2) and 3) might change in the future, 1) I don't think so.
Also, the courses Darwin took at Cambridge was laughably unrelated to the sort of naturalism that made him famous, if you look into the curriculum of the time. This is not true for Einstein, but since much of his best work was done in a patent office on his own time, the fact that he later became a household name and worked at an Ivy League institution is a bit of a red herring, in my opinion.
True about Darwin (long time ago!), not true about Einstein. In fact he was an exception among the leading physicists of his time in starting his career at patent office. He didn't stay there long - by 1916 he was already a president of the German physical society. He wasn't alone in developing the new field of quantum physics and his other famous contemporaries (all Nobel prize laureates) were purely academic scientists. I'm talking about people like Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Enrico Fermi, Max Planck, Enrico Fermi, Erwin Schroedinger and several others. By the way it's not a coincidence that most of them were centred Germany or neighbouring countries. It was the world centre of physics in those days.
As for "being around many other similarly educated people.", I never had any of that in grad school-- nobody talked outside of their tiny research groups, because they weren't interested beyond the laser-beam focus imposed on them by their funding committees. When we did get together, it was to forget about our damned theses, not to celebrate them. Furthermore, I'd suggest the internet can take over in this regard, as well: I got a lot more comradeship and assistance from the PhD Comics Phorum (sic, it's a pun) than I ever did anyone local.
Your PhD experience was more cloistered than mine then although it is true that at this stage and from the point of view of student there is not as much collaboration as there should be. It's professor who is going to conferences, speaking with other colleagues, consulting industry etc. When I got my current industrial position the biggest change was moving from highly individual projects to highly collaborative. I've met some very smart people while in grad school or while doing my postdoc, but in fact there is a much greater concentration of them in the company. Scientific excellence is the foremost criteria for being hired here. I personally find it both inspiring and intellectually challenging.
"Scientific research is a lot more expensive these days than in late 19th century and requires a lot of machinery. "
This depends on what you're doing. If you're interested in Fusion research, you can be on the cutting edge and build a polywell inertial confinement device for a few thousand dollars, as a number of hobbyists have begun to do.
The fact that the English vernacular now contains the word "biohacker" should tell you something about how much PCR machines and other gene-splicing equipment costs these days.
The fellow who has the (unconfirmed) world record in high-temperature Tc doesn't work at a university or an industrial lab, and appears to be operating out of his basement.
Fusion is very far from what I do, so I can't really judge the validity of what you wrote... PCR is a standard technique in biochemistry these days, but just because you know how to use it doesn't mean you'll come up with anything new. I can tell you that chemistry is a fairly expensive science to run. Not LHC expensive, but you need al lot of reagents which aren't cheap, labs space and glassware plus some machines to analyse your results (NMR for sure), plus access to chemical databases and online journals. That's not even accounting for all the safety aspects and the fact that many vital chemicals are controlled substances and wouldn't be sold at all to the guy in the basement.
You don't need anything other than a pencil, paper, and a hard surface to bang your head against to get into theoretical physics (though Mathematica does help quite a bit with the unsolvable bits).
They use computers extensively these days, but otherwise true. Pure mathematics could still be done alone in the basement and there have been some recent examples. I'm not aware of any such instances in theoretical physics, though.
The academic space-guard program has started to plug the gaps, but for many years the discovery of new asteroids and comets, especially NEOs, was the parvenu of amateurs.
A dark sky, a decent amateur telescope and a spectrograph will let you make perfectly valid observations of variable stars, and things like astroseismology, etc.
That's only because for many years academics/government weren't particularly interested in such discoveries. I can understand them - just another rock so what?
I admit that most of those examples are drawn from physics and astronomy, but that's just because that's where my background lies, but I think I have given enough examples to prove my point, non?
Sure, you're not going to build the LHC in your basement, but that's not the only kind of science left to be done. Just because most work is done by wage slaves in an industrial or academic setting does not mean it has to be.
You gave few decent ones, but as I illustrated above scientific disciplines more heavily based on experiments are very difficult to replicate by amateurs. It doesn't have to be in academia or industry, but it still needs a serious funding and be done by professionals. In industry it depends where exactly, but I'm yet to hear a professor admit that they are "wage slaves". At least those who do meaningful research tend to be very passionate about their jobs and voluntarily work very long hours. Sure they are still humans and will take more money over less given the choice...
P.S. Sorry to all others readers about the technical language and "slight" derailing of the thread.
-
No. College is absolutely not worth it, if you don't care about learning to think critically, write effectively, do laboratory research (or any research at all), or understand and appreciate thousands of years of developments in the fields of philosophy, art, literature and science among many civilizations.
I struggle with the question in light of the insanity of college costs, but I think I am with you, zhelud. My rather troubled 18y.o. son is now reading Jane Austen for pleasure, because he happened to take a literature course in his first semester at university. He's at a large state school because, with his crappy grades, he didn't get into any of the ritzy private liberal arts colleges he applied to (so glad we dodged that expensive bullet!). And, truth be told, he didn't do very well in his first year; he has no study habits yet (was incorrigible in HS, refused to do any work. Only got into any college at all [via the wait list, yet] because of good SATs). By rights, he should wait until older to pursue his degree, since he really has no clue what he wants to do. And yet, on his summer vacation, he's reading Jane Austen! And Confucius! And books on economics! Just because he's interested! So, I have to think there's value in just being in a place where scholarship is happening. I'm praying that something clicks for him. Thankfully, it is not a struggle for us to pay in-state tuition at his school. My heart goes out to other "lost kids" like my son who do not have the option to go to college and screw up a little bit, but hopefully take some steps toward finding themselves through understanding and appreciating thousands of years of the fruits of human thought, as you have so eloquently put it. To me, there is nothing in the world like the feeling of having your brain stretched with new ideas.
-
I think it honestly depends on what you do with your degree after it and your earning potential after the degree compared to before the degree. My DH went to a tier 2 engineering school and definitely got some job offers/interview options that he might not have gotten from a state school, mainly due to projects off campus and networking opportunities with graduates. He did get a sizable scholarship and without this he would have gone to the cheaper state school as it was not worth $160k-200k in debt for an engineering degree. I had a similar situation that I went to an above state school school and got a sizable scholarship, at the end it was the same cost as the big state school and that tipped me in favor of the non-state school. To get my professional license, I did need to get a master's degree and I did take out some loans.
So long in short to answer your question is it worth it to spend any money? It depends on what your end goal is for a job/profession/career.
Is it worth it to spend more than the bear minimum? Again it depends on what you can gain from the pricey school. If the pricer school is still reasonable and allows you different opportunities than the cheaper, then it might be worth it to go to the pricier school.
-
I did a 4 year maths degree because I didn't know enough. Sure, I could have learnt all that for free (probably), but I don't regret learning in person. I'd have needed the actual qualification to get funding for a PhD, even if I'd somehow convinced an academic to take me on with a sketchy formal mathematics history.
-
@Albert,
I'll concede some disciplines would be virtually impossible for amateurs to get into, but maintain there are nearly an equal number for which this is not true--and that in an age of increasing austerity, we may see more advances coming from Victorian-style gentleman (or gentlewomen) scientists and mathematicians in the future.
As for the young brain thing... it seems to be very much true in physics, but significantly less so in pure mathematics. Also in terms of physics, saw an analysis in Physics Today a long while back which suggests the effect was strongest in the heroic generation that developed QM (and you're putting Einstein’s best work there, and not in gravitation? Really?) and the average age of Nobel-worthy work has been creeping up constantly since.
I suppose you'll have to take what I say with a grain of salt--following a fairly lonely master's degree, I didn't finish my highly-cloistered PhD (the funding regime I was decrying pushed me into a project I was entirely unsuited for) so perhaps I have an axe to grind as well, since my hope now seems to be that I become one of those gentleman researchers.
That said, my advice to college-aged students remains the same. I would tell them not to pursue a degree in physics (or any other hard science) unless they were absolutely certain of their passion for the field, and that they had no interest in other work. As you say about professors, this is something they do for love, not money... and so while it's wrong to call them "wage slaves" in reference to their research, the majority of the ones I've known approach their teaching and administrative duties with exactly this attitude.
tl;dr : kids, only go into science if you're absolutely bonkers for it. Actually, that goes for any University program. If you're not going to love the work, or can live without, just get into a trade with the best ROI so you can FIRE and forget.
-
It just doesn't have to cost that much. A BA or BS at my institution runs under $20K, books and all, whole thing. Not $20K per year, $20K total.
-
It just doesn't have to cost that much. A BA or BS at my institution runs under $20K, books and all, whole thing. Not $20K per year, $20K total.
yeah mine was about that much. granted it was 7 years ago and they've gone up a bit, so possibly 30k for all 4 years now. i did go to a public state school though (UNC at Wilmington) . my lab partner went to a private college (Dartmouth) where one year cost more than all 4 years of my school. well 5 because i was a "super" senior.
anyways, we get paid the same, exact thing. as do all pay grade 7's throughout my companies 8 north american plants.
-
As an "uneducated" individual my take on this is colored heavily by my experience, so take this with a grain...etc.
It has been made very clear to me by several layers of management that regardless of my past history of raises and promotions that I will cap out soon (I make about 41k) due to my lack of a degree. It has been openly discussed that it is not my drive, work, or messy desk that will will cause this. It is solely my education level.
With that being said you can work your way up and get to a level within an organization without a degree. An advanced degree is not for everyone and I agree that we as a country (US) have done a disservice to the blue collar jobs by blindly promoting getting the degrees. On the flip side it has been very good for women. I think rather than just promoting one type of educational achievement the focus should be on education as a broad function within our society. I like the idea of a smart populace whether or not they had formal education.
-
It does strike me as odd the thought that college is only there for financial or career reasons. What about being an educated human? By the same token, couldn't you ask "is 7th through 12th grade worth it?" I work closely with members of the public, at all different education levels. In general terms, I do find a difference in how well people understand information, and it does correlate pretty closely to education level. Yes, there are always outliers, but, by definition, most people are not outliers.
-
It does strike me as odd the thought that college is only there for financial or career reasons. What about being an educated human? By the same token, couldn't you ask "is 7th through 12th grade worth it?" I work closely with members of the public, at all different education levels. In general terms, I do find a difference in how well people understand information, and it does correlate pretty closely to education level. Yes, there are always outliers, but, by definition, most people are not outliers.
We're an economic bunch, I guess. Money should be spent only to satisfy your core values--if education is one of those, then go nuts, for sure. Like it or not, though, most folk these days do view college as a stepping stone to "a good job" and economic success, which is evidently debatable, since we seem to be debating it on this forum right now.
I'd like to see if that correlation holds for autodidacts, though. Most people don't bother learning much of note after they leave formal education. Then again, I suppose the people who chose to teach themselves (which, let's face it, in a class of 300 is mostly what you're doing anyway) during their leisure time are already outliers in your scheme. Formal education is necessary only because the vast majority of people do not have the drive to slog up a learning curve on their own, without some structured support/encouragement.
-
It just doesn't have to cost that much. A BA or BS at my institution runs under $20K, books and all, whole thing. Not $20K per year, $20K total.
What school is this? I go to a public 4 year and tuition alone is ~$8,500 per year.
-
A possibly-useful data point based on the new Statistics Canada release:
http://www.universityaffairs.ca/margin-notes/the-value-of-a-degree-earned-in-canada-vs-one-earned-abroad (http://www.universityaffairs.ca/margin-notes/the-value-of-a-degree-earned-in-canada-vs-one-earned-abroad)
Basically, it says that the employment value of a degree is even greater than previous studies suggest, because the numbers are skewed down by the archetypal immigrant-PhD-driving-a-taxi.
Whether that justifies the massive costs some schools are now asking, I don't know. But I reiterate again for American readers -- if you or your young 'uns are planning to go away for university anyway, you should seriously look into doing a degree in Canada, where tuition is still manageable.
[edited to fix words in wrong order the]
-
And remember that graduate school in sciences does not cost anything. Might be a better deal financially than law school or medical school particularly if you don't end up working for top law firms or as a surgeon in a hospital. However they key is that you need to like your chosen field as well. In my opinion it's stupid to choose medicine or engineering just for money. You are unlikely to be a particularly good at it anyway if that's your only motivation.
-
It does strike me as odd the thought that college is only there for financial or career reasons. What about being an educated human?
1.) I'm sure we all support the further education of "humans."
2.) The issue is whether the financial cost and potential debt created are matched by the educational value and earning potential provided by the average university. It's not the only issue, but it's the issue that the original poster wanted to discuss.
3.) Universities are not the only means by which an adult can obtain continuing education.
-
It just doesn't have to cost that much. A BA or BS at my institution runs under $20K, books and all, whole thing. Not $20K per year, $20K total.
What school is this? I go to a public 4 year and tuition alone is ~$8,500 per year.
my school (UNCW's) tuition is $6,343 a year at this time for in state. it does not include room and board but most people lived off campus when i went to school there i know i did. when i went to school it was like 4000 a year.
http://uncw.edu/finaid/costofattendance.htm
they give a total of 20,000 a year but most of that is room and board. there are apartments that rent super cheap (like 200 a month a roommate) within a mile. i lived in one that was literally 20 feet from campus property and walked to all my classes.
-
It was worth it for me. Simply because as a student with a particular major, I qualified for an internship. They later hired me on full time and promoted me fairly regularly. It launched my career.
Most of what matters day in and day out, I learned on-the-job, not at school. But there's a serious possibility that without qualifying for that internship I would have ended up a bus driver or security guard (both fine), instead of doing what I really love, which is rock climbing writing software.
-
I'm impressed with how much people in public jobs earn and how fabulous their pensions are. I am thinking of cops, firemen, etc who can earn huge overtime. In some cities and states they retire after 20 years on a huge fraction of their highest income, which could be vast with enough overtime, and great health insurance. Even military service can lead to great savings, income and early retirement. None of these areas requires more than high school education.
That one's easy: those jobs demand that you risk life and limb daily. That's worth something. Also, the physical demands are so high that after 20 years most people can't keep up.
Please have some gratitude. A good pension for 20 years of saving lives is fair.
-
I'm impressed with how much people in public jobs earn and how fabulous their pensions are. I am thinking of cops, firemen, etc who can earn huge overtime. In some cities and states they retire after 20 years on a huge fraction of their highest income, which could be vast with enough overtime, and great health insurance. Even military service can lead to great savings, income and early retirement. None of these areas requires more than high school education.
That one's easy: those jobs demand that you risk life and limb daily. That's worth something. Also, the physical demands are so high that after 20 years most people can't keep up.
Please have some gratitude. A good pension for 20 years of saving lives is fair.
I didn't read it as a lack of gratitude. I read it as "here's a good opportunity for folks that want a rewarding career with semi-early retirement." ...but maybe I'm reading too much into it.
-
I suspect many people who go to university would have been better off financially learning a skilled trade instead. (electrician, mason, carpenter, welder, plumber, lab technician, you name it)
This may be true, and I've heard it said many times that skilled tradesmen can make more than college educated workers. However, the thing that people ignore is that most of those are very physically demanding jobs. I wouldn't want to be doing them as I got older, esp. like the average worker, waiting for full retirement at age 65 or whatever.
My dad specifically encouraged my sister and I to get jobs we could do even with a physical disability, since in his profession as a vocational counselor, he worked with so many skilled workers who couldn't work after they were injured. They often had few 'office job' type skills and so needed re-training or just were unable to work at all. Becoming disabled in some capacity is way more likely than people realize: http://www.disabilitycanhappen.org/chances_disability/disability_stats.asp
Being able to sit at a desk for 8 hours a day is a luxury to me, since I used to be on my feet all the time in customer-service type jobs. I can do this job until I'm as old as dust, as long as I keep up with my professional development.
-
I'm actually working on writing an eBook about saving money on college by going to college in a foreign country (which is what I did--got a BA for a little over $20,000). It surprises me that more people don't go abroad.
-
I suspect many people who go to university would have been better off financially learning a skilled trade instead. (electrician, mason, carpenter, welder, plumber, lab technician, you name it)
This may be true, and I've heard it said many times that skilled tradesmen can make more than college educated workers. However, the thing that people ignore is that most of those are very physically demanding jobs. I wouldn't want to be doing them as I got older, esp. like the average worker, waiting for full retirement at age 65 or whatever.
While this is true, they can also be extremely satisfying jobs. (I'm not blue collar, but there are times that I think I might have enjoyed that more.) There is something immensely satisfying about working out a problem beginning to end and seeing the results of your work. And there is also something to be said for jobs that require you to use both your brain and your muscles.
-
I must say I've loved the discussion so far. I notice there are quite a few folks who believe that not attending university/college equates to being uncultured and uneducated. That is quite sad. As other posters have commented, the autodidact folks are far from uncultured or uneducated. How many of us are autodidact though? Do we have a population number? All I have is anecdotal evidence currently. So it's hard to put some good reporting around that (unless someone has a source?).
I, for one, would be classified as autodidact and have delved deeply into the sciences: Physics, electronics, biology and astronomy specifically outside my immediate career (granted, I'm at a hobbiest level due to my own limitations of interest). I use free mathematics courses to further my understand there as well. The skills I've learned to perform my job functions were all self taught or through certification-style 5 day courses paid for by my employer to cover new technologies. I perform analytic and critical thinking daily - and if I'm wrong it would cost businesses thousands, if not millions of dollars in damages. At a previous job, I controlled a 2 million dollar yearly budget. I managed 15 workers and have shaken hands and performed mission critical work for CEO/CIOs of Fortune 500 companies. Perhaps I'm the outlier. I've worked with many people who make 80-150k/yr and have no college education. (Admittedly skewed information: 90% in IT industry).
I think my overall complaint here is not whether or not people should be striving for knowledge and to enlighten themselves with the profound amount of information the human race has managed to uncover, discover and document - I support that FULLY- but that I don't believe the costs associated with accessing and assimilating that information should be so high or that people are pushed to these institutions as the only path of success. I also disagree with the dated structure in which this information is presented to students as well - there are several movements starting on that front, however, to change the structure.
As stated earlier in this thread, when a student is in a class of 300 (or more!), how much teacher/student value is there? Does the student not need to be autodidact anyway to gain much knowledge from a situation like that? Why can a student pass all their tests, papers and homework but be failed from a class due to attendance if the knowledge was actually gained? (This does happen.)
I've worked in K12 and Higher Ed. (collectively called P20) my whole life and I completely enjoy working with students to help them learn and grow. I have tons of stories of wonderful moments in student's lives; of them having that Aha Moment. Again, I just don't approve of the cost and current structure more than anything else and believe, for a lot of people, there are better paths for them to take.
-
There is something immensely satisfying about working out a problem beginning to end and seeing the results of your work. And there is also something to be said for jobs that require you to use both your brain and your muscles.
Annnd this is why I'm thinking about getting out of IT. At the end of the day, with all the knowledge and toil to keep systems running, all I have done, ultimately, is changed 0's to 1's and 1's to 0's. That's it. Back and forth every single day. Once I realized that, I have had an overwhelming desire to do something more physical and real with my life.
-
There is something immensely satisfying about working out a problem beginning to end and seeing the results of your work. And there is also something to be said for jobs that require you to use both your brain and your muscles.
Annnd this is why I'm thinking about getting out of IT. At the end of the day, with all the knowledge and toil to keep systems running, all I have done, ultimately, is changed 0's to 1's and 1's to 0's. That's it. Back and forth every single day. Once I realized that, I have had an overwhelming desire to do something more physical and real with my life.
Yep. Been in IT (or equivalent) since about 1988.
-
I just graduated from a top private engineering school in the US, with about $150k in debt. Luckily my parents are covering 2/3rds of it. So while still expensive, it'll at least be manageable. I secured a well paying job with great perks months before I even graduated college but I do feel like I paid too much in retrospect. I think the university style of learning really was best for how I learn, but I could have done it for a lot cheaper.
At the same time, I don't see how I could have been persuaded to go somewhere else at age 17. By the end of high school I was absolutely SICK of living a suburban teenage life. I felt seriously trapped and immobile, and I felt like the only thing I could do to save my sanity was run off and go to college in a real city. There's nothing you could have possibly told me at that age to convince me to stay in New Jersey and attend a public university, even if I could go for free. Going to college in a place with good public transportation, walkability, cultural institutions, and the ability to socialize with people outside a very small group of peers (my high school class was only 79 people) were all extremely valuable to me, among other things. Overall, I did benefit significantly both in terms of my mental and physical health by going to an out of state private school, given how shitty things were before then. I just didn't do so great by my financial health. And since I was uneducated in financial matters as a teen, I didn't realize what I was doing until the water had already passed under the bridge.
So while yes, I could have gone to an affordable state school and continue to live with my parents and save tons of money, I would also probably have continued wallowing in depression through my college years wondering what could have been if I had gone to the fancy private school. I wasn't in a position where I conceivably could have made that choice with a clear conscience. I seriously needed a fresh start at the time and in the end I'm better off for it, even if my first year or so of post college wages will have to be surrendered to the bank. Not to mention, the confidence that came from getting myself out of a situation I didn't want to be in and into the exact place I wanted to be was extremely powerful.
Perception is reality and I would have perceived myself as a failure for not getting my ass out of NJ. Luckily, I got more out of my college experience than just an education. Today I'm in a much better state of mind to figure out what makes me happy, and how to get to where I want to be in the future.
-
Well, I started going to post-secondary before realizing anything I could possibly want to learn is available freely online and through libraries. Fortunately I hadn't run up too much student loans at that point and was able to clear them out quickly.
My boyfriend had a creative writing degree and it's proven to be absolutely useless. Fortunately, his parents covered the cost of that, so no real harm done besides a few lost years when he could have been getting more experience..
If you have a desire for a career, university is great(provided you study something useful). I've never particularly wanted a career, or to work in general.
-
It just doesn't have to cost that much. A BA or BS at my institution runs under $20K, books and all, whole thing. Not $20K per year, $20K total.
What school is this? I go to a public 4 year and tuition alone is ~$8,500 per year.
I'm not comfortable saying exactly where I teach in a forum where I'd like to be able to speak freely; I hope you understand. But you can research high and low cost options at various levels of education at this DOE site. You'll find my school near the low-cost end of the "public, four year and above" list, on both the lowest tuition and lowest net cost lists.
http://collegecost.ed.gov/catc/Default.aspx (http://collegecost.ed.gov/catc/Default.aspx)
-
For college will be worth it because I am aiming to go into a niche field (Crime Mapping) that has very little formal requirements except being knowledgeable in GIS and Criminal Justice. And the school I am going is one of the best in the nation for criminal justice.
Not only that but it is relatively cheap with total cost for the first and second semester ~$14,000 gross, $6,000 of it being required because I have to take the rooming* and a certain selection of meal plans** first year. So basically ~$3,400 of that money is being ripped out of my pocket by force.
Also for this year I have $1,700 saved up in scholarships already and I am hoping to get a position as a library assistant working 9-15 hours per week so that will help.
Next year I plan on going overseas as an exchange student because I can save a couple thousand easily*** since dorm rooms will be cheaper and I can cook for my self.
Final year I will plan getting an internship (or another if I already did one), being in an apartment because by then dorm rooming will be much higher, and cooking for myself.
Last year
*I got the cheapest one w/ the Honors dorm. And apartments are about the same price.
**All of them expensive as hell. Seriously who spends $400 dollars a month on food in RL?
***Plan on going to Finland.
EDIT: Fix'd some things.
-
Hmm, as fellow mustachian who has been lurking for a while, I thought I should finally register to answer this question. Since this question always comes up, and I, like many of you, prefer to perform (at least) some back-of-the-envelope calculations before big financial decisions, I actually made a site to help figure this out for you:
http://www.collegeriskreport.com (http://www.collegeriskreport.com)
It's basically a Net Present Value calculator, but also calculates some other financial metrics in case those help you make a better decision. It stores all of the college costs in a database, as well as their annual increases, to calculate the expected cost to make your life easier.
It's my little hobby, but my ego is not attached to it, so feel free to offer criticism as I always hope to keep improving it as time permits.
But to answer your question, after working on this tool for a while and seeing thousands of different outcomes, college being FINANCIALLY worth it boils down to this: how much you pay for college, and how much earning potential your degree has. For example, it makes sense to get a STEM degree in most situations (public, private, in-state, out-of-state), but paying more lowers your rate of return, and the NBER reports seem to show that earnings depend on the person, not college, because students who turn down acceptance into top-tier colleges still make as much money if they go to a lower-tier college as their peers who go ahead and go to the top-tier college. On the other hand, getting a liberal arts degree while paying full tuition at a private school (or even out-of-state tuition at a public school) is probably not the best idea and really doesn't pay off relative to some alternatives like a 2-year degree.
-
Hmm, as fellow mustachian who has been lurking for a while, I thought I should finally register to answer this question. Since this question always comes up, and I, like many of you, prefer to perform (at least) some back-of-the-envelope calculations before big financial decisions, I actually made a site to help figure this out for you:
http://www.collegeriskreport.com (http://www.collegeriskreport.com)
It's basically a Net Present Value calculator, but also calculates some other financial metrics in case those help you make a better decision. It stores all of the college costs in a database, as well as their annual increases, to calculate the expected cost to make your life easier.
It's my little hobby, but my ego is not attached to it, so feel free to offer criticism as I always hope to keep improving it as time permits.
But to answer your question, after working on this tool for a while and seeing thousands of different outcomes, college being FINANCIALLY worth it boils down to this: how much you pay for college, and how much earning potential your degree has. For example, it makes sense to get a STEM degree in most situations (public, private, in-state, out-of-state), but paying more lowers your rate of return, and the NBER reports seem to show that earnings depend on the person, not college, because students who turn down acceptance into top-tier colleges still make as much money if they go to a lower-tier college as their peers who go ahead and go to the top-tier college. On the other hand, getting a liberal arts degree while paying full tuition at a private school (or even out-of-state tuition at a public school) is probably not the best idea and really doesn't pay off relative to some alternatives like a 2-year degree.
Some actual numbers! I like seeing this. And the report generated was much more substantial than I had expected. Well done! I'm still diving into everything on the site. Good stuff.
-
I think it's pretty silly to ask generically if college is worth it. It depends heavily on what your major is, what field you will go into, and how much you will pay for your degree.
Is it worth it to pay $200,000 for a B.A. in Psychology (I know someone who did this)? Almost certainly not.
Is it worth it to pay $30,000 for a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math degree from a good state university? Almost certainly yes.
College degrees can still be very worthwhile, you just have to decide beforehand what your goals are and not waste your time / money while at the school.
-
I suspect many people who go to university would have been better off financially learning a skilled trade instead. (electrician, mason, carpenter, welder, plumber, lab technician, you name it)
This may be true, and I've heard it said many times that skilled tradesmen can make more than college educated workers. However, the thing that people ignore is that most of those are very physically demanding jobs. I wouldn't want to be doing them as I got older, esp. like the average worker, waiting for full retirement at age 65 or whatever.
While this is true, they can also be extremely satisfying jobs. (I'm not blue collar, but there are times that I think I might have enjoyed that more.) There is something immensely satisfying about working out a problem beginning to end and seeing the results of your work. And there is also something to be said for jobs that require you to use both your brain and your muscles.
With all due respect, did you read the rest of my comment? I did not say the jobs aren't satisfying.
My dad specifically encouraged my sister and I to get jobs we could do even with a physical disability, since in his profession as a vocational counselor, he worked with so many skilled workers who couldn't work after they were injured. They often had few 'office job' type skills and so needed re-training or just were unable to work at all. Becoming disabled in some capacity is way more likely than people realize: http://www.disabilitycanhappen.org/chances_disability/disability_stats.asp
My argument is more than you may be able to do a physically demanding job for 20-30 years, and sure, it might be 'rewarding' to do something with your hands, but your likelihood of becoming partially or permanently disabled is much higher in those jobs, and an injury makes you less able to do those jobs. Your ability to do a desk job is less hindered if you develop any number of disabilities, which is way more common than being killed at a young age. This means you can work in the office job longer, if needed. Even if you earn less with the college degree, being able to work more years may allow you to earn more, and work while partially disabled. Even if you are just partially disabled for 3 months and unable to work, for some people, 3 months without income means utter and total ruin--sad, but true.
Also, ome of the jobs mentioned are not steady income, they are more project-based. So you can have lulls and busy times, and while that's probably not a huge deal for a mustachian who can budget, having a steady, regular, predictable paycheck is a pretty big deal to a lot of folks.
Lastly, if the computer/software programmers here want to feel more 'useful,' try working for a non-profit organization that really needs a good website or software to run their program. Heck, volunteer a few hours each week and build a website or program from home for an organization you care about. I work in a seemingly boring administrative job in a library, but just about everything I do ultimately helps someone get better help with their question or problem, which is highly rewarding. P.S. Libraries have IT departments, too.
-
I think it's pretty silly to ask generically if college is worth it. It depends heavily on what your major is, what field you will go into, and how much you will pay for your degree.
Is it worth it to pay $200,000 for a B.A. in Psychology (I know someone who did this)? Almost certainly not.
Is it worth it to pay $30,000 for a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math degree from a good state university? Almost certainly yes.
College degrees can still be very worthwhile, you just have to decide beforehand what your goals are and not waste your time / money while at the school.
That's the key, yes. Psychology is a good career economically (not great, but good, and assuming it's a subject that really interests you, you'll be far happier spending 20 years as a psychologist and then retiring, vs. spending 10 years as a corporate lawyer and then retiring). That said, there's a vast range of ways to get the necessary training, and most of them cost a heck of a lot less than $200k.
One other thing that doesn't come up often enough, IMHO, is how important the choice of location can be. For instance, an English degree actually can help you get a great job in publishing, but not if you're doing the degree in Nebraska or wherever. It makes WAY more sense, if you want to get into publishing, to go to school in the NYC area, since that's where the publishing industry is, which makes it VASTLY easier to make the connections and get the internships you need to get into the industry. Same goes for, say, entertainment technology degrees or degrees in things like entertainment management or certain performing arts (i.e. if that's the career you want, go to school in NYC, LA, Silicon Valley [home of the computer games industry] or Nashville [country music]).
Those places all have a high cost of living, but that's just where you have to live if you want to be in those industries. So if someone is considering a degree in those fields, it'd be good advice to suggest that they look for the good-to-best schools for those fields that are located in those cities, and then, between the various school options, pick the least expensive one.
-
Hmm, as fellow mustachian who has been lurking for a while, I thought I should finally register to answer this question. Since this question always comes up, and I, like many of you, prefer to perform (at least) some back-of-the-envelope calculations before big financial decisions, I actually made a site to help figure this out for you:
http://www.collegeriskreport.com (http://www.collegeriskreport.com)
It's basically a Net Present Value calculator, but also calculates some other financial metrics in case those help you make a better decision. It stores all of the college costs in a database, as well as their annual increases, to calculate the expected cost to make your life easier.
It's my little hobby, but my ego is not attached to it, so feel free to offer criticism as I always hope to keep improving it as time permits.
But to answer your question, after working on this tool for a while and seeing thousands of different outcomes, college being FINANCIALLY worth it boils down to this: how much you pay for college, and how much earning potential your degree has. For example, it makes sense to get a STEM degree in most situations (public, private, in-state, out-of-state), but paying more lowers your rate of return, and the NBER reports seem to show that earnings depend on the person, not college, because students who turn down acceptance into top-tier colleges still make as much money if they go to a lower-tier college as their peers who go ahead and go to the top-tier college. On the other hand, getting a liberal arts degree while paying full tuition at a private school (or even out-of-state tuition at a public school) is probably not the best idea and really doesn't pay off relative to some alternatives like a 2-year degree.
Very nice! I think it works better at comparing different majors (especially to a 2-year degree - psychology major is a fail) than it does at comparing colleges, though. For colleges, it appears the only differences it takes into account are the costs, when the prestige of the college can certainly have an influence. I understand it's hard to quantify, but there's no way the average lifetime earnings of Electrical Engineers from the school I went to are the same as those who went to MIT instead.
-
Hmm, as fellow mustachian who has been lurking for a while, I thought I should finally register to answer this question. Since this question always comes up, and I, like many of you, prefer to perform (at least) some back-of-the-envelope calculations before big financial decisions, I actually made a site to help figure this out for you:
http://www.collegeriskreport.com (http://www.collegeriskreport.com)
It's basically a Net Present Value calculator, but also calculates some other financial metrics in case those help you make a better decision. It stores all of the college costs in a database, as well as their annual increases, to calculate the expected cost to make your life easier.
It's my little hobby, but my ego is not attached to it, so feel free to offer criticism as I always hope to keep improving it as time permits.
But to answer your question, after working on this tool for a while and seeing thousands of different outcomes, college being FINANCIALLY worth it boils down to this: how much you pay for college, and how much earning potential your degree has. For example, it makes sense to get a STEM degree in most situations (public, private, in-state, out-of-state), but paying more lowers your rate of return, and the NBER reports seem to show that earnings depend on the person, not college, because students who turn down acceptance into top-tier colleges still make as much money if they go to a lower-tier college as their peers who go ahead and go to the top-tier college. On the other hand, getting a liberal arts degree while paying full tuition at a private school (or even out-of-state tuition at a public school) is probably not the best idea and really doesn't pay off relative to some alternatives like a 2-year degree.
Very nice! I think it works better at comparing different majors (especially to a 2-year degree - psychology major is a fail) than it does at comparing colleges, though. For colleges, it appears the only differences it takes into account are the costs, when the prestige of the college can certainly have an influence. I understand it's hard to quantify, but there's no way the average lifetime earnings of Electrical Engineers from the school I went to are the same as those who went to MIT instead.
i also think its super cool! i plugged in my stuff and it was pretty spot on. it makes me cranky that my job wouldn't even have interviewed me with "just" a 2 year degree as my lifetime NPV it totally higher if that had been the case.
-
Very nice! I think it works better at comparing different majors (especially to a 2-year degree - psychology major is a fail) than it does at comparing colleges, though. For colleges, it appears the only differences it takes into account are the costs, when the prestige of the college can certainly have an influence. I understand it's hard to quantify, but there's no way the average lifetime earnings of Electrical Engineers from the school I went to are the same as those who went to MIT instead.
Yes, I thought this was a major issue. Based on the data I've seen, the average salary of my classmates in my major at 15 years after graduation (in my case, as of last year) is approximately 2.3 times what this calculator projects a current graduate (same major, same school) to be making in 15 years. That seems unlikely.
Hey, thanks. This is actually what I was alluding to when I was murmuring about NBER reports. Clearly, if the college you went to had a significant impact on your earnings, then I need a better statistical model. I spend a lot of time worrying about this, until I found this report:
http://www.nber.org/digest/dec99/w7322.html (http://www.nber.org/digest/dec99/w7322.html)
It basically says that earnings depend on the PERSON, not the college. The way they determined this is by tracking people who were accepted to a top-tier school, but decided not to attend it, vs. people who did attend a top-tier school. In this way you are controlling for the school, but still allowing for variability in people's talents/skills/whateveryouwanttocallit. They found that after controlling for that, school didn't matter. People that were, say, accepted to Ivy League schools, bud didn't go, made as much as those who were accepted at Ivy League schools and did go for a given major, implying that the school doesn't matter as much as the person's talents/drive/etc. This is the main reason I included Section 8 of the report: to account for over- and under-achievers and how that might affect their financial outcome.
In other words, Ivy League/top tier schools have higher average earnings NOT because of the school, but because of the people they attract, which is something I can't address in the report without knowing more about the individual person requesting a report.
-
I happen to have something of a higher education hobby going. I'm part of a couple of groups that use credit by exam (CLEP and DSST exams) to knock substantial costs off the sticker price of accredited degree's...the extreme MMM could even apply these techniques to earn an accredited US degree for well under $10,000.
Would you guys be interested in hearing about this? There is a lot to it, probably require it's own thread.
-
Posted my "badassitty" on bachelors degree's here: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/share-your-badassity/college-education-the-$6000-bachelors-degree/
-
It basically says that earnings depend on the PERSON, not the college.
So what's the point of your project?
Edit to add: I'm not trying to be facetious, but the project seems to be about making decisions to pay for a particular college, which seems at odds with your statement.
I'm not sure I understand your confusion, but let me point out several reasons why it still matters. If college prestige doesn't affect earnings (which the NBER report shows), and your goal is to maximize NPV of college, then you want to go to an inexpensive college. This helps you compare colleges by cost. Furthermore, if you have multiple majors that you are considering that suit your interests, then this helps you assess which major might be more lucrative. It then combines these two factors to give you an estimate of your financial outcome. Most college ranking sites only consider the college costs in isolation, when major choice is at least as important. On top of all that, it gives you a baseline comparison to 2-year degrees (on average) and high school only earnings to give some perspective by making a relative comparison against other paths a prospective college student might consider.
-
It basically says that earnings depend on the PERSON, not the college.
So what's the point of your project?
Edit to add: I'm not trying to be facetious, but the project seems to be about making decisions to pay for a particular college, which seems at odds with your statement.
I'm not sure I understand your confusion, but let me point out several reasons why it still matters. If college prestige doesn't affect earnings (which the NBER report shows), and your goal is to maximize NPV of college, then you want to go to an inexpensive college. This helps you compare colleges by cost. Furthermore, if you have multiple majors that you are considering that suit your interests, then this helps you assess which major might be more lucrative. It then combines these two factors to give you an estimate of your financial outcome. Most college ranking sites only consider the college costs in isolation, when major choice is at least as important. On top of all that, it gives you a baseline comparison to 2-year degrees (on average) and high school only earnings to give some perspective by making a relative comparison against other paths a prospective college student might consider.
But your site says it's an analysis of "your prospective college and career path versus alternative," but now you're saying that that just means the cost of that college (not the job and salary development), and you're saying that we can ignore that side of the equation on the basis of a study based on admissions decisions from 35 years ago. Have there been changes in college admissions in the past 35 years? In the economy generally, we read regularly that vast portions of all income gain in that time period have gone to a small group---you're confident that's not relevant?
And regardless of whether it's the student or his or her choice of college that primarily shapes later income, it still doesn't make sense to me to generate a report that reflects an income projection that has nothing to do with either the student or the college and instead just reflects an overall average.
I'm definitely not saying that. I'm not sure if you are only skimming my text, but I said quite clearly that "It then combines these two factors to give you an estimate of your financial outcome." The two factors being college expenses, and career earnings - indicating that it is taking both college choice/cost and career/major into account.
So let me be more clear in case I am not. You originally indicated that you agreed with TLV that the report may not be taking into account a variance in earnings due to college choice (e.g. MIT grads earn more). A valid concern which I also shared while developing the site until I found the NBER report. What the NBER report says is that variance in earnings for a given major is not due to college attended, but that the variance in earnings is due to an individuals characteristics (whatever those may be). Mathematically, that is: Pr(salary | major, person, college) = Pr( salary | major, person) and thus Var( salary | major, person, college) = Var( salary | major, person). I.e. college attended is an irrelevant parameter in predicting the variance in earnings given a person (per the NBER findings).
I suppose you can argue with the NBER report findings. Fine. But if it is correct, you have to realize how incredibly important it is. The common narrative is that you have to get into a "top tier" or Ivy League school to make higher than average salary for your field, but the NBER report contradicts that, saying that graduates of top tier schools earn more (on average, than the average for a major) because they attract people that have better earning potential, for whatever reason (work ethic, intelligence, etc.), but that the individuals higher-than-average earning potential is present regardless of what college he/she attends. That's huge because it means if you are really smart/hard working/lucky/whatever you don't need to pay for a top tier degree to have that higher than average salary; you will still get that higher salary, on average, if you go to an inexpensive state school.
As to "we read regularly that vast portions of all income gain in that time period have gone to a small group---you're confident that's not relevant?" It's possible, although it seems that's largely due to wealth concentration leading to more wealth concentration, and doesn't seem related to college choice. Frankly, there's a lot of things I can't be confident are not relevant. GPS coordinates of person's birthplace? Astrological sign the sun was in when the college was founded? Years a major has been available? Frankly, if I could model every possible factor and had the statistical distributions on those factors, I would be doing this on Wall Street and making so much cash that buying a Lambo would be mustachian. I would probably also hate my life, but that's another thing.
But just so I'm really clear on what's going on, let me give you a simplified version of the model the site runs through to generate the NPV in the report:
NPV = f(College Expenses, Career Earnings, discount rate) and...
College Expenses = f( college tuition and other expenses, increase rates, years in college)
Career Earnings = f( major, annual raise rate, years worked)
Keep in mind all monetary values in the calculation are brought to present value through the discount rate.
Could I improve earning estimates if I knew more about the individual? Yes, by asking things like IQ score, socioeconomic background, etc., but it's not really feasible, and people tend to inflate those factors when self-reporting. This is why Section 8 is so important. Specifically 8.3 - Lifetime Earnings, which shows how your NPV will change if you're an overachiever/underachiever, which I leave the user to judge for themselves.
Hope that is clear enough.
-
This study says Yes.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Unemployment.Final.update1.pdf
-
College can be worth it if it's a requirement for certification in a skilled field.
I just hope that young people today can learn not to do what I did. I went off to college when I was 17 and because I come from an impoverished background with no family support whatsoever I ended up deeply in debt with a useless BA in English. I had nobody to help me understand what degrees lead to careers, because my family didn't know either and my guidance counselor was uninterested in helping me because I was poor. Since I was 17 and inexperienced, it didn't click with me that one day I'd have to pay back the student loans, so I did a lot of stupid things like live entirely off the loans without meaningful work, buy frivolous items like a musket for historical reenactment with loan funds, and take out unsubsidized federal loans.
I eventually managed to also get a Master's in Teaching, which allowed me to have a career, but I've been paying on those student loans ever since. I still owe $73,000 and I am 34 years old and in a career where I earn about $60,000 a year.
-
I had nobody to help me understand what degrees lead to careers, because my family didn't know either and my guidance counselor was uninterested in helping me because I was poor.
This is terrible! I am training to be a school counselor, and I am sorry yours was so awful.
For me, getting my B.A. in English was worth it, because otherwise, I couldn't do what I love (teach English); I would not have pursued a M.A. in Education at full price, but my entire program at an expensive private school only cost about $2000 due to various scholarships and stipends. I'm working on my M.A. in School Counseling and paying almost full price, but at a very inexpensive public university. I will make a little more money as a counselor, but this is really an emotionally driven decision--I want to be a school counselor, and I have to go back to school for a certification, so that's what I'm doing. I have no student debt--I had a lot of scholarship money during my B.A., and my parents were also very helpful.
My husband, on the other hand, is a computer programmer and really regrets getting his B.A. in Psychology. He doesn't need it for his job, and he had to take out about $45,000 in student loans.
-
If I could do it all over, I would just get my Bachelor's in English Education, which would have saved me about $30,000 and would have gotten me the same work in the state where I now live. Even if I had been conscious of trying to keep costs down, I still couldn't have done a very good job of it, because I couldn't live at home to save on room and board due to my family's poverty. My family were actually relieved when I left because that was one fewer mouth to feed.
A lot of people don't understand what poverty does to your mindset. John Cheese on Cracked.com has done an excellent series on it. Basically, you learn to hate and fear money because the deck is stacked against you to be able to get it and you learn helplessness. It was humiliating to have to depend on welfare and the charity of others to be able to have basic things like food and clothing and everyone at school knew about it, so I was very depressed from all the bullying, but any money I made from the low-paying jobs I could get (and I started working at age 14) went back immediately into paying for bare necessities. I was never able to save anything. I didn't even know how a checking account worked until I was in college.
I only began to escape from the self-destructive mindset of poverty a few years ago when I really began educating myself about personal finance through Suze Orman books and websites like MyFico. Learning to set long-term goals, buy goods wholesale and in bulk, using rewards credit cards for discounts, pay in full rather than use installment plans -- these were all new concepts to me. I live a very frugal life now and my only debt is my student loan debt.
-
There are numerous well paying and dignified career paths that simply don't require college.
There are well meaning efforts to give "every kid a college education," but clearly most 18-year-olds are not suited for that path -- and not because they're stupid or can't benefit from continued education of some sort.
This, for sure. Most of the people I was friends with in college would have been better off not going. They're still doing the same types of jobs that don't need the degree, but they're still paying off tens of thousands in student debt. There just aren't enough jobs that require a college degree out there to satisfy all the debt these kids are taking on.
I got lucky and was able to go to college for free. I really hate the rigid structure of schools, but love learning. I came out knowing more than I started with, but it cost me 5 years of my life and didn't change the job/pay range I went into. It did marginally improve my chances on getting hired. Knowing what I know now, I'd go for free again like that, but definitely wouldn't pay.
-
I happen to have something of a higher education hobby going. I'm part of a couple of groups that use credit by exam (CLEP and DSST exams) to knock substantial costs off the sticker price of accredited degree's...the extreme MMM could even apply these techniques to earn an accredited US degree for well under $10,000.
Would you guys be interested in hearing about this? There is a lot to it, probably require it's own thread.
Yes! I have a high IQ son that should be able to benefit from AP/CLEP type exams. He is eleven and makes mostly perfects in his standardized tests now....
Hi mom to 5, I put the post in its own thread....https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/share-your-badassity/college-education-the-$6000-bachelors-degree/
-
I happen to have something of a higher education hobby going. I'm part of a couple of groups that use credit by exam (CLEP and DSST exams) to knock substantial costs off the sticker price of accredited degree's...the extreme MMM could even apply these techniques to earn an accredited US degree for well under $10,000.
Would you guys be interested in hearing about this? There is a lot to it, probably require it's own thread.
Yes! I have a high IQ son that should be able to benefit from AP/CLEP type exams. He is eleven and makes mostly perfects in his standardized tests now....
You and your son need to start looking at scholarship options soon, as well. I went a much more traditional route, which suited me, for free. SAT scores are central to starting the academic scholarship process, and the test should be taken (the first time) early in the junior year.
Also, if your public school system has an academic magnet high school, start looking into how to get him into that. His preparation will be better, and colleges will take his applications for admission and scholarships more seriously.
-
You and your son need to start looking at scholarship options soon, as well. I went a much more traditional route, which suited me, for free. SAT scores are central to starting the academic scholarship process, and the test should be taken (the first time) early in the junior year.
Also, if your public school system has an academic magnet high school, start looking into how to get him into that. His preparation will be better, and colleges will take his applications for admission and scholarships more seriously.
Its important to find a path and plan that much is certain. So much of higher education is still geographic dependent. In Florida dual enrollment is free, my oldest daughter took advantage of that and between free courses and CLEP exams she graduated HS and College with an AA degree at the same time. No scholarships, no SAT score. She was top 8 in her class of 800 at college and they actually gave her a small scholarship when she left. Being in the Honor Society she tapped funds that are generally restricted to the top students and had her first semester at an Ivy League school covered via academic scholarship (see http://www.ptk.org/scholarships)...all said and done she should wind up with a degree from a top University with less than $10K out of pocket.
I'm not a fan of local magnet schools nor honors classes. The local school board decided to make the poor performing schools into magnets as a way to attract better students....problem is that all the poorer performing students are still there....unacceptable to me. YMMV
Honors classes may sound good, but experience has shown they can be more difficult and result in lower GPA. GPA is vital to achieving merit scholarships....its a double edged sword. I would investigate carefully before jumping in.
-
There is one public school we will consider that is nationally recognized and tends to have students that do get accepted to top schools. My brother went there and had 27 AP credits coming out of there. That said, it is like two schools in one building. Honors/AP are the college track and the regular classes are not for kids that choose to go to university. So, if we decide to do traditional for him, he would go there and only do honors. It is in the rough part of town, and there are violence issues o campus with kids that aren't college track.
The other issue, for him in particular, is that he is very studious, and I believe that a couple of the private schools would suit him better for high school. The downside, it's 10-12k for those privates...
If he's very studious, he can learn in any environment. Indeed, if you mean those words the way I would mean those words, you would have a very hard time stopping him. I know I never let my classes hold me back in high school.
(I can recall a conversation I had in freshman science, during the biology unit. I was reading in class, what a sin! I told the teacher what he'd been talking about, and apparently (since I hadn't been paying attention) a few things he hadn't gotten to yet. I'd read an old introductory college bio textbook in gr.4, you see, and back then my memory was a wonderful sponge. I mostly didn't get hassled and coasted through the next 4 years, never letting school get in the way of my education.)
-
There is one public school we will consider that is nationally recognized and tends to have students that do get accepted to top schools. My brother went there and had 27 AP credits coming out of there. That said, it is like two schools in one building. Honors/AP are the college track and the regular classes are not for kids that choose to go to university. So, if we decide to do traditional for him, he would go there and only do honors. It is in the rough part of town, and there are violence issues o campus with kids that aren't college track.
The other issue, for him in particular, is that he is very studious, and I believe that a couple of the private schools would suit him better for high school. The downside, it's 10-12k for those privates...
If he's very studious, he can learn in any environment. Indeed, if you mean those words the way I would mean those words, you would have a very hard time stopping him. I know I never let my classes hold me back in high school.
(I can recall a conversation I had in freshman science, during the biology unit. I was reading in class, what a sin! I told the teacher what he'd been talking about, and apparently (since I hadn't been paying attention) a few things he hadn't gotten to yet. I'd read an old introductory college bio textbook in gr.4, you see, and back then my memory was a wonderful sponge. I mostly didn't get hassled and coasted through the next 4 years, never letting school get in the way of my education.)
humblebrag alert/
I had 53 AP credits and 2 "other" credits coming into school, making me a junior. I was 18 and fresh out of high school. I have never taken CLEP exams, but I will say that I might have if I had wanted to pick up the AP credits that I didn't get for AP Euro and Chemistry.
/end humblebrag
If I had wanted to finish school as soon as possible (for example, if my parents hadn't been lavishing money and love on their college-aged daughter), I pretty simply could've done it in 2 years and 2 summers with 2 majors (Spanish and Psych OR International Business and Legal Studies). Because I was a cosseted and well-equipped student with four merit scholarships, I just stayed and did everything I wanted to.
I will say that I'm glad that I started reading ERE when I was 18, because that's probably worth as much if not more than some people's college educations.
-
Was college worthwhile for me? Totally! I've been highly employable and have "had back" every penny I spent on college many times over.
Was it worthwhile for my husband? Yep, even more so than for me.
Yeah, some people will do well without a degree, but those people tend to have 1) a good idea for a new or unique business, 2) a tendency towards business. These things aren't in my skill set, nor my husband's.
-
It depends on what you are considering as valuable. If you want to know if going to college is the best way to make a bunch of money then the answer is hell no. If that's all you want go ahead and become an electrician. Then go work in one of the very high paying areas like the North Slope oil fields. They'll throw money at you, give you free food and housing, and you always get overtime! Six figures is easy and quick if you are willing to do stuff like that.
On the other hand, if your passion is something like research (and especially in the life sciences), get your ass in a classroom seat ASAP. Even then, you could eventually work your way up on your own, but I can almost guarantee that the traditional route is going to get you there quicker. Lord help you if you want to do something large scale habitat research on your own, though.
-
There is one public school we will consider that is nationally recognized and tends to have students that do get accepted to top schools. My brother went there and had 27 AP credits coming out of there. That said, it is like two schools in one building. Honors/AP are the college track and the regular classes are not for kids that choose to go to university. So, if we decide to do traditional for him, he would go there and only do honors. It is in the rough part of town, and there are violence issues o campus with kids that aren't college track.
The other issue, for him in particular, is that he is very studious, and I believe that a couple of the private schools would suit him better for high school. The downside, it's 10-12k for those privates...
If he's very studious, he can learn in any environment. Indeed, if you mean those words the way I would mean those words, you would have a very hard time stopping him. I know I never let my classes hold me back in high school.
(I can recall a conversation I had in freshman science, during the biology unit. I was reading in class, what a sin! I told the teacher what he'd been talking about, and apparently (since I hadn't been paying attention) a few things he hadn't gotten to yet. I'd read an old introductory college bio textbook in gr.4, you see, and back then my memory was a wonderful sponge. I mostly didn't get hassled and coasted through the next 4 years, never letting school get in the way of my education.)
humblebrag alert/
I had 53 AP credits and 2 "other" credits coming into school, making me a junior. I was 18 and fresh out of high school. I have never taken CLEP exams, but I will say that I might have if I had wanted to pick up the AP credits that I didn't get for AP Euro and Chemistry.
/end humblebrag
If I had wanted to finish school as soon as possible (for example, if my parents hadn't been lavishing money and love on their college-aged daughter), I pretty simply could've done it in 2 years and 2 summers with 2 majors (Spanish and Psych OR International Business and Legal Studies). Because I was a cosseted and well-equipped student with four merit scholarships, I just stayed and did everything I wanted to.
I will say that I'm glad that I started reading ERE when I was 18, because that's probably worth as much if not more than some people's college educations.
What is AP? I don't think we have this in my country. From context, I'm guessing these are advanced classes you take in high school that can be counted towards college credits?
I can see how those would be a very, very good thing to have, especially considering what you pay per-credit in the US. Plus, getting out early gets you into the workforce sooner... yes, I can see how that would be a very good thing indeed.
I tried my darndest to get out early, but I did my BSc in a very small program where some required classes weren't (and still aren't) offered but every other year-- so it's impossible to go through in less than four years for the full honours degree.
-
In my field, which is pension consulting, a degree is required. Most of the VPs have advanced degrees, designations and/or certifications. I could see my firm hiring an exceptional junior person without a degree, but one would be required to progress. The college itself is not so important here. We have people from the Ivies and state schools. Our top execs are a mix. I would agree with the other posters that so much depends on the field and the company. Some Wall Street financial companies only hire MBAs from top 20 schools. Consulting firms like Bain may only hire MBAs from top 10 schools, and you have to be top of your class at the top 10. Large accounting firms don't seem to care where you get your degree, but they totally care about your grades. I interviewed (and got the job) at Ernst & Young years ago, and one of the partners was very concerned that I did not have an A in Economics 101. I was 39 at the time.
-
What is AP? I don't think we have this in my country. From context, I'm guessing these are advanced classes you take in high school that can be counted towards college credits?
Yep, AP classes are Advanced Placement courses you take in high school. At the end of the year, you take an exam that costs ~$80 (there are waivers for low income students I believe). Then colleges will award credit based on that score. I took an AP Literature course and got a 3 (scale is 1-5) on the exam. So I never had to take an English class at my 4 year college.
-
Wow, I couldn't get through all the comments here but my conclusion is this, if you can market a perpetual motion machine you built in your basement, you don't need a college degree.
-
College is where the girls are!
-
The other benefit is that you end up with a higher GPA in high school for AP classes. A B in AP classes count the same as an A in a regular class.
Depending, of course, upon how your specific school district calculates weighted GPAs. What you're saying is slightly different in my district.
-
The only "issue" with AP classes is that they aren't as available as other forms of credit by exam like CLEP and DSST. If your in High School you have access, but the exams are offered only once or twice a year and they are often only done at a specific HS within a region...so they can be hard to access.
CLEP and DSST on the other hand are subject specific, don't require any specific class or training, and are available at just about any college campus in the US and at many testing centers around the world. You typically pay around $100 to take an exam worth 3 credits (though some CLEP are worth 6 credits).
AP, CLEP, and the SAT are all from the same company...The College Board http://about.collegeboard.org/what
-
The only "issue" with AP classes is that they aren't as available as other forms of credit by exam like CLEP and DSST. If your in High School you have access, but the exams are offered only once or twice a year and they are often only done at a specific HS within a region...so they can be hard to access.
CLEP and DSST on the other hand are subject specific, don't require any specific class or training, and are available at just about any college campus in the US and at many testing centers around the world. You typically pay around $100 to take an exam worth 3 credits (though some CLEP are worth 6 credits).
AP, CLEP, and the SAT are all from the same company...The College Board http://about.collegeboard.org/what
Wait. You need SAT scores to get into college down there, right? So your entire system of higher education is beholden to a single for-profit corporation that serves as gatekeeper?
That's crazy.
-
The only "issue" with AP classes is that they aren't as available as other forms of credit by exam like CLEP and DSST. If your in High School you have access, but the exams are offered only once or twice a year and they are often only done at a specific HS within a region...so they can be hard to access.
CLEP and DSST on the other hand are subject specific, don't require any specific class or training, and are available at just about any college campus in the US and at many testing centers around the world. You typically pay around $100 to take an exam worth 3 credits (though some CLEP are worth 6 credits).
AP, CLEP, and the SAT are all from the same company...The College Board http://about.collegeboard.org/what
Wait. You need SAT scores to get into college down there, right? So your entire system of higher education is beholden to a single for-profit corporation that serves as gatekeeper?
That's crazy.
many colleges do require SAT scores, but it's entirely possible to go to good schools without them.
-
Wait. You need SAT scores to get into college down there, right? So your entire system of higher education is beholden to a single for-profit corporation that serves as gatekeeper?
That's crazy.
I wouldn't say the College Board controls the entire system, but they do play a very profitable role. There is a competitor to the SAT - the ACT (provided by another for profit corporation...) that's used heavily in the midwest.
-
Wait. You need SAT scores to get into college down there, right? So your entire system of higher education is beholden to a single for-profit corporation that serves as gatekeeper?
That's crazy.
I wouldn't say the College Board controls the entire system, but they do play a very profitable role. There is a competitor to the SAT - the ACT (provided by another for profit corporation...) that's used heavily in the midwest.
...and many schools automatically accept you if you're in the top X% of your HS graduating class.
-
One can attend a CC without a ACT or SAT score usually...if you take the CLEP English Comp and College Algebra you can likely skip the typical placement tests as well. Once CC is done there are usually matriculation agreements in place to continue on to a 4 year school without taking the SAT/ACT. The Harvard Extension School will admit anyone who passes three courses with a "B" or better (harder than it sounds)...but again no standardized testing for the admission process. there are plenty of routes around the SAT/ACT.
-
Wait. You need SAT scores to get into college down there, right? So your entire system of higher education is beholden to a single for-profit corporation that serves as gatekeeper?
That's crazy.
[/quote]No, the SAT isn't flat-out required.
You could take the ACT instead.
You could begin at a community college; they don't require any standardized testing.
You could choose a college that doesn't require any standardized testing. In my state we have a slew of small, private universities that're aimed at kids who either aren't very smart or who didn't work very hard in high school . . . but who have parents with deep pockets. They tend not to require testing.
On the other hand, if you want to attend one of the big-name state schools, yes, you must take the SAT. Still, it isn't the be-all-end-all for college admission. Your high school GPA and the rigor of your high school coursework weigh more heavily than the SAT score.
-
I do believe in extending education beyond high school. It's value is really to be determined by you. The idea of dropping 80k or more on a degree to get a 50k a year job seems like going backwards tho imo.
I was able to get a 2 year, nationally accredited degree with honors from Ashworth College (an online school) for less than $4k (included books and shipping, zero interest loan too). For many years i've chortled at how much people pay for college until I came here and saw the CLEP'ing strategies outlined. Seems like I could have gotten a bachelors for that amount!!!