Is College Worth The Time & Money?

[Beco]

I've done it all, college, tech schools, apprenticeship, correspondence courses, hands-on/on the job training. If it was up to me I'd limit college to MDs, engineers, and hardcore scientists.

I got laid a lot in college.....so for me was worth it....

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

College rarely trains a person for a profession but that little paper gets you hired and helps you get promoted. But somehow I expect you already knew this and I am not sure why you even asked.

A generation ago a college diploma was proof you could complete an expensive, long-term project successfully. But since Affirmative Action came to be a college diploma is proof of nuthin. Many programs offer no challenge...period. Special Interest 'unions' with rich lobbyists create the degree requirement for jobs.

 

[Interested_Girl]

An education is about more than your job prospects, you fucking barbarians.

Fucking, honestly.

Good thing it isn't up to you, our economy would be non-existent.

There's so much empirical data out there that answers this question there was no point in you asking.

This is also very true.

I have my Honours Bachelors Degree in Political Science from a Canadian University and I did a semester abroad. I was in a Co-Op program as well. I technically graduated in June of that year. I left, went to Europe for three weeks after my exams in April. I was gone from May 3-26. I walked into my office on the 27th of May with a job.

Education teaches you more about life than just what you are learning, and I know for a fact that regardless of what people say, my degree is awesome. It taught me a lot, not just about Politics but about analysis, formal writing, critical thinking, synthesizing information, public speaking, articulating ideas in a clear and concise manner...etc etc. The skills derived from a University education, if you aren't a moron are useful. They are valuable.

There are very few 23 year olds who walk out of school and start making 55K a year with benefits and pension. I was lucky, I worked my ass off and at the ripe age of 25 I am about to go up a bracket in salary, or relatively soon *crosses fingers*. In this economy, you have to remain competitive and one of the best ways to do that is to continue to learn inside or outside of the classroom and to make connections. University taught me to make connections with the right people to ensure my security. I am so very lucky to live in a country where I was able to get a student loan to go to school, and yes, every month I pay a good chunk of my pay cheque to the government to pay it all back. The debt though, doesn't out weigh the benefits, it never will.

Get an education, stop being a slacker and do something with your life.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Good topic. I found this article about education interesting. Education is a value for some, not for others. It's not a guarantee of interesting and rewarding work, but it does help through teaching critical thinking and organizing and presenting ideas clearly and concisely.

This article is pointing to the fact that growing spending in education isn't producing results, in fact, our levels of achievement decades ago was much better than now despite the huge increase in real terms of the cost and resources dedicated towards it.



Op/Ed|2/15/2012 @ 3:22PM
Forbes
Louis Woodhill

Solyndras In the Classroom: How We Vastly Overrate Education

Barack Obama hardly ever gives a speech without mentioning the need to “invest more in education”. Many so-called “Conservatives” voice agreement with this notion. The unstated assumption on both sides of the aisle is that “investment in education” produces an attractive return. But is this true?

No, it’s not. The numbers strongly suggest that, at least in economic terms, America has gotten nothing for the enormous increase in educational “investment” that we have made over the past 60 years.

Before going any farther, it is important to realize that what Obama (and even most Conservatives) think of as “investment in education” is really “government spending on education”. Much, perhaps most, of the learning vital to the functioning of the economy occurs on the job. None of this “education” is reflected in the numbers that the politicians look at.

Accordingly, the “investment in education” that Obama wants more (and more, and more) of is actually “federal-government-directed investment in education”. When considering whether we really want more of this, it is important to remember that it was “federal-government-directed investment in energy” that gave us Solyndra, Ener1, and Beacon Power, and that it was “federal-government-directed investment in housing” that has cost taxpayers more than $150 billion in losses (thus far) at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So, how would we know if increased government “investment” in education was producing a return? We would see a steady rise in the ratio of GDP to “nonresidential produced assets” over time. Our GDP is produced by a combination of physical capital and human capital. Accordingly, if the economic value of our human capital were rising, the impact would show up in the numbers as increasing productivity of physical capital.

Now, here is the bad news. While total real ($2010) government spending on education increased almost 13-fold from 1951 to 2009, the measured GDP return on physical capital actually declined slightly, from 47.7% to 44.1%. This could not have happened if we were getting an appreciable economic return on our huge “investment” in education.

What follows is a “first approximation analysis”. The numbers could be done with more precision, but they are good enough to give us an idea of what the nation has been getting (actually, not getting) for its massive “investments” in education.

Assuming that about 25% of our total population is in school at any one time, average real (2010 dollars) government spending per student rose from $1,763 in 1951 to $12,209 in 2009. This is an increase of about 7 times. Assuming an average of 13 years of education per student (some go to college, some drop out of high school), this means that during this 58-year time period, we increased our real “investment” in the human capital represented by each student from $22,913 to $158,717.

Meanwhile, we have also been investing more in physical capital. Real nonresidential produced assets per worker increased from $79,278 in 1951 to $206,717 in 2009. So, each worker in 2009 had $127,439 more in physical capital and $135,804 more in educational “capital” to work with than he did in 1951.

Unfortunately, it is clear from the numbers that GDP tracks only physical assets, and not the sum of physical assets and educational “assets”. Excluding the GDP produced by the housing stock, the ratio of GDP to nonresidential produced assets has been essentially constant over the 59 years 1951–2009 (it has oscillated with the business cycle around a midpoint of 48.2%).

So, it appears that our massive “investments” in education have produced no measurable economic return. Should we be surprised by this? No. Average scores on standardized tests have not risen, despite the fact that we are “investing” seven times as much in real terms in each student than we did six decades ago. So, even by the measures used by the educational establishment, it is clear that the higher spending has not created any additional human capital.

The nation and its people would be much better off today if most of the additional “investment” in education that we have made over the past six decades had been used to create more nonresidential produced assets. GDP, real wages, and our standard of living would all be considerably higher.

Also, imagine if, instead of being given a 2009 education for $158,717, an average student were given a 1967-style education for about $58,000, and $100,000 in capital with which to start his working life. This would be sufficient to start any number of small businesses. Alternatively, if put in an IRA earning a real return of 6%, the $100,000 would grow to about $1.8 million over 50 years.

The huge government “investments” made in education over the past 50 years have produced little more than “Solyndras in the classroom”. They have enriched teachers unions and other rent-seekers, but have added little or nothing to the economic prospects of students. America does not need more such “investment”.

Let me get this straight. You learned to read, write, speak, do math, how to use a computer, & how to work with other people AFTER your job hired you?

 

[dirtybelle]

I am a teacher.
College is not for everyone.

However, it is mandatory for some professions....ie...teachers, doctors, things of that nature.

 

[Interested_Girl]

Let me get this straight. You learned to read, write, speak, do math, how to use a computer, & how to work with other people AFTER your job hired you?

I just laughed in real time. This doesn't happen often, but that is what that is saying, yes.

 

[Wataru_Gin]

Everyone has a path to walk. Some is better for others. College was indeed the right path for me. I enjoyed it immensely... and they in turn very much enjoyed the years of college loans I had to pay back.

 

[wideeyedone]

Even as I pay my college loans off, i am glad for all that I got the chance to learn while I was in college. Not everything I have elarned has been applicable to everyday life, but I grew and learned. I had the chance to hear the opinions and thoughts of others.

Not every career is going to turn around and pay off college bills immediately. But education is about more than how much money you can make.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I am a teacher.
College is not for everyone.

However, it is mandatory for some professions....ie...teachers, doctors, things of that nature.

The dummest humans I ever met I met at college. College gives people a false sense of mastery.

 

[unregistered]

 

[lovingfingers]

It is entirely dependent on what one wants to do in life. Good indicators are job descriptions in your chosen fields. Some entry level positions now require a BA. Some don't. Do some research before you make what will likely be a large investment.

 

[Saint Peter]

There are lots of hot babes at school.


Yeah, it is worth it.

 

[JohnnySavage]

There are lots of hot babes at school who wonder why the creepy old guy in carhartts keeps staring at them.


Yeah, it is worth it.

FYP!!

 

[colddiesel]

When I went to University (in Scotland) 50 years ago we were paid to attend through scholarships. Only 3 to 4 % of the population got in, money could not buy a dumbass a place. We were an intellectual elite and all got employment. There were no basket weaving courses.

Now 50% plus go to college and most of them waste their time because all they have done is lower standards to let them in. Most people who go to college would be better off at a trade school.

I would not restrict college to specific courses as JBJ suggests. I would limit entry to 5% of the population, entrance by competitive examination only. I would then pay them to attend but instruct the professors to fail at least 5% on the entry every year - to encourage them to work. No rights of retest and return. With that kind of regimen we would be teaching masters level work to bachelors candidates within 3 years.

It's only elites that move society forward.

 

[JohnnySavage]

When I went to University (in Scotland) 50 years ago we were paid to attend through scholarships. Only 3 to 4 % of the population got in, money could not buy a dumbass a place. We were an intellectual elite and all got employment. There were no basket weaving courses.

Now 50% plus go to college and most of them waste their time because all they have done is lower standards to let them in. Most people who go to college would be better off at a trade school.

I would not restrict college to specific courses as JBJ suggests. I would limit entry to 5% of the population, entrance by competitive examination only. I would then pay them to attend but instruct the professors to fail at least 5% on the entry every year - to encourage them to work. No rights of retest and return. With that kind of regimen we would be teaching masters level work to bachelors candidates within 3 years.

It's only elites that move society forward.

So a young person, who happens to live in a terrible school district should be excluded from higher education?

Wow.