College is Overrated

[Greg]

On a slightly related note, I think it'd be interesting if college tuition rates were largely dependent on what society needed. So if we needed more Nurses in the U.S. or a particular geographic area of the school, then the tuition rate would lower to entice more people to go into nursing. Same would go for those that wanted a major that wasn't needed as much by society (or not a lot of jobs currently for them), so tuition would be higher.

Granted this is then a double-whammy for those desiring to pursue a degree that doesn't have as much job prospects (less jobs available after graduating plus high tuition for that degree), but it would help out those trying to get degrees in stuff society needs.

This however is social engineering and not sure if this could take off or not.

[Pointedstick]

Isn't there some happy medium between not blundering into becoming debt ridden and unemployable, and yet at the same time not having your life course dictated by scurrying around seeking money? It sort of saddens me to think of an 18 year old choosing a career path based on the hope that it pays well. If someone finds finance fun then great and then the great pay is a bonus. But otherwise why spend a massive chunk of your life on something just because the pay is good? Surely all that matters is to do what you love and to be able to live OK from it? What's so special about being rich?

The concept may be increasingly coming under technological assault, but high pay is still a marker for high utility to others, and money is still required to enjoy the luxuries of modernity, that's why. Nearly all the people I know who are wealthy work exceptionally hard and provide a lot of positive value to others. And by contrast, of the people I know who are very poor, almost none of them provide a great deal of much of economic value to others. For example I am friends with some artists who create art that nobody likes, or that people might like if they would bother to try and sell it, and they make most of their spending money working menial jobs that do not require college degrees. Because these people produce very little value to others, they suffer the ill effects of poverty, and are unable to dig themselves out from the mountain of student loan debt they have accumulated.

[stone]

On a slightly related note, I think it'd be interesting if college tuition rates were largely dependent on what society needed. So if we needed more Nurses in the U.S. or a particular geographic area of the school, then the tuition rate would lower to entice more people to go into nursing. Same would go for those that wanted a major that wasn't needed as much by society (or not a lot of jobs currently for them), so tuition would be higher.

Granted this is then a double-whammy for those desiring to pursue a degree that doesn't have as much job prospects (less jobs available after graduating plus high tuition for that degree), but it would help out those trying to get degrees in stuff society needs.

This however is social engineering and not sure if this could take off or not.

We have something much like that in the UK : https://www.gov.uk/nhs-bursaries/overview

If you’re studying medicine, dentistry, nursing or a healthcare course in England, you may be eligible for an annual payment from the NHS to help with your study and living costs (known as a ‘bursary’).

You don’t have to pay your NHS bursary back.

[Greg]

On a slightly related note, I think it'd be interesting if college tuition rates were largely dependent on what society needed. So if we needed more Nurses in the U.S. or a particular geographic area of the school, then the tuition rate would lower to entice more people to go into nursing. Same would go for those that wanted a major that wasn't needed as much by society (or not a lot of jobs currently for them), so tuition would be higher.

Granted this is then a double-whammy for those desiring to pursue a degree that doesn't have as much job prospects (less jobs available after graduating plus high tuition for that degree), but it would help out those trying to get degrees in stuff society needs.

This however is social engineering and not sure if this could take off or not.

We have something much like that in the UK : https://www.gov.uk/nhs-bursaries/overview

If you’re studying medicine, dentistry, nursing or a healthcare course in England, you may be eligible for an annual payment from the NHS to help with your study and living costs (known as a ‘bursary’).

You don’t have to pay your NHS bursary back.

Cool! The things you learn from other countries. Same goes for looking at various countries healthcare and what they do right (but that's a topic for another discussion)

[stone]

Isn't there some happy medium between not blundering into becoming debt ridden and unemployable, and yet at the same time not having your life course dictated by scurrying around seeking money? It sort of saddens me to think of an 18 year old choosing a career path based on the hope that it pays well. If someone finds finance fun then great and then the great pay is a bonus. But otherwise why spend a massive chunk of your life on something just because the pay is good? Surely all that matters is to do what you love and to be able to live OK from it? What's so special about being rich?

The concept may be increasingly coming under technological assault, but high pay is still a marker for high utility to others, and money is still required to enjoy the luxuries of modernity, that's why. Nearly all the people I know who are wealthy work exceptionally hard and provide a lot of positive value to others. An by contrast, of all of the people I know who are very poor, almost none of them provide very much of economic value to others. For example I am friends with some artists who create art that nobody likes, or that people would like if they would bother to try and sell it, and they make most of their spending money working menial jobs that do not require college degrees. Because these people produce very little value to others, they suffer the ill effects of poverty, and are unable to dig themselves out from the mountain of student loan debt they have accumulated.

I'm sure most people paid a lot do work very hard but I don't see that that fact is relevant to the point I was making. Similarly lots of people paid a lot are doing very useful stuff. But sadly, people can work extremely hard and be brilliantly clever doing stuff that is useless or even parasitic.

IMO getting lots of pay really ISN'T a reliable indicator that you are doing something valuable. Often it is more a reflection of market distortion weirdness. It would be nice if we could just follow money and rest assured that in doing so we were automatically making good use of our lives. But I don't think we live in such a world. Basically a lot of what seems to gather exceptional pay amounts to tapping into and exploiting the very fabric of money itself as far as I can see. It isn't really being paid "by society" to do what is needed. Rather isn't much of the FIRE industry just diverting money (and so resources) away from useful use into bloating the financial overhead that the useful economy has to bear? I don't see why it is so easy to understand that bureaucracies can become excessive, self-serving and parasitic and yet some people have a blind spot when it comes to seeing the same phenomenon in financial systems. Let's face it, in Nigeria say, the way to get insanely rich is to become a politician or to marry one. Is our financial system all that different from that?

[I Shrugged]

One thing about community college... transferees to 4 year colleges are not given anywhere near the scholarship money that they could get as a freshman.

I honestly don't know how to advise on this matter.  Friends and I have talked about it as our kids went through college.  The most we could come up with if we had it to do over again is we would be less hands off.  Not that we would force our choices on them, but that we would make sure they were making well informed choices, and that they knew our opinions and reasoning.  And when push came to shove, we should have pushed and shoved.

There has to be a lot of stress on kids today.  Between all the testing, and all the strategies for applying and getting in, the college courses in high school, etc.  I just went to a junior college, worked part time, then went to a very affordable state college.  I didn't need any money from my parents, but had to take out a small loan in my last year.  I don't recall stressing at all about the choices, testing, etc.

One option PS mentioned is one that I really liked but have no first hand experience with, is to have the kid get a free ride to a lesser college.  One of our kids was super bright and was given free tuition to one very respectable (out of state) state U, and a super deal at Tulane (trying to attract students post-Katrina).  But, said kid was not paying so those options were not as high on the list as we would have liked.  But a kid doesn't have to be in the top 1% of class to get great offers.  There are so called 3rd tier state U's out of state, which are still perfectly good schools, and are dying to get some smart out of state kids.  These are names like Southwest (insert state name) State, and the like.  Truman State in Missouri comes to mind as a decent place that was giving very nice money to good out of staters at the time we were in the market.

[I Shrugged]

I will add one thing I strongly believe in.  Whatever is gotten out of college is 90% up to the student.  There are differences in the quality of the offering, but the student is ultimately the determining factor.  IMO.

[Pointedstick]

I'm sure most people paid a lot do work very hard but I don't see that that fact is relevant to the point I was making. Similarly lots of people paid a lot are doing very useful stuff. But sadly, people can work extremely hard and be brilliantly clever doing stuff that is useless or even parasitic.

IMO getting lots of pay really ISN'T a reliable indicator that you are doing something valuable. Often it is more a reflection of market distortion weirdness. It would be nice if we could just follow money and rest assured that in doing so we were automatically making good use of our lives. But I don't think we live in such a world. Basically a lot of what seems to gather exceptional pay amounts to tapping into and exploiting the very fabric of money itself as far as I can see. It isn't really being paid "by society" to do what is needed. Rather isn't much of the FIRE industry just diverting money (and so resources) away from useful use into bloating the financial overhead that the useful economy has to bear? I don't see why it is so easy to understand that bureaucracies can become excessive, self-serving and parasitic and yet some people have a blind spot when it comes to seeing the same phenomenon in financial systems. Let's face it, in Nigeria say, the way to get insanely rich is to become a politician or to marry one. Is our financial system all that different from that?

I think you may be falling into the classic liberal trap of focusing so much on the exceptions that they seem to take over the common case in your mind. We are not Nigeria. FIRE is barely over 20% of the economy in the USA. It is true that you can always find individual exceptions, and even whole jobs that are exceptions, but that does not diminish the general rule that most people who are paid well are paid well because they are producing a lot of value that someone is willing to pay for and not because of because of "market distortions." Maybe you don't know enough poor people, or maybe the UK economy is insane, I don't know. All I can say is that from my personal experience, high income tends to be correlated with producing a lot of things that other people in society want to consume, and low income tends to be correlated with producing very little, or very little that other people in society are interested in consuming.

[Tyler]

On a slightly related note, I think it'd be interesting if college tuition rates were largely dependent on what society needed. So if we needed more Nurses in the U.S. or a particular geographic area of the school, then the tuition rate would lower to entice more people to go into nursing. Same would go for those that wanted a major that wasn't needed as much by society (or not a lot of jobs currently for them), so tuition would be higher.

Granted this is then a double-whammy for those desiring to pursue a degree that doesn't have as much job prospects (less jobs available after graduating plus high tuition for that degree), but it would help out those trying to get degrees in stuff society needs.

This however is social engineering and not sure if this could take off or not.

Interesting idea.  The more passive market-based one I'd prefer is to 1) make student loan debt dischargeable in bankruptcy again, and 2) place the schools on the hook for half the money written off.  Right now schools are completely shielded from negative market feedback.  But if they no longer get paid for cranking out useless degrees, then they'll be forced to either improve their classes, reduce their prices to a reasonable market rate, be a bit more selective in admissions rather than just taking anyone who can dig up a loan, or go out of business.  All would be marked improvements over the current system, IMO.

[stone]

I'm sure most people paid a lot do work very hard but I don't see that that fact is relevant to the point I was making. Similarly lots of people paid a lot are doing very useful stuff. But sadly, people can work extremely hard and be brilliantly clever doing stuff that is useless or even parasitic.

IMO getting lots of pay really ISN'T a reliable indicator that you are doing something valuable. Often it is more a reflection of market distortion weirdness. It would be nice if we could just follow money and rest assured that in doing so we were automatically making good use of our lives. But I don't think we live in such a world. Basically a lot of what seems to gather exceptional pay amounts to tapping into and exploiting the very fabric of money itself as far as I can see. It isn't really being paid "by society" to do what is needed. Rather isn't much of the FIRE industry just diverting money (and so resources) away from useful use into bloating the financial overhead that the useful economy has to bear? I don't see why it is so easy to understand that bureaucracies can become excessive, self-serving and parasitic and yet some people have a blind spot when it comes to seeing the same phenomenon in financial systems. Let's face it, in Nigeria say, the way to get insanely rich is to become a politician or to marry one. Is our financial system all that different from that?

I think you may be falling into the classic liberal trap of focusing so much on the exceptions that they seem to take over the common case in your mind. We are not Nigeria. FIRE is barely over 20% of the economy in the USA. It is true that you can always find individual exceptions, and even whole jobs that are exceptions, but that does not diminish the general rule that most people who are paid well are paid well because they are producing a lot of value that someone is willing to pay for and not because of because of "market distortions." Maybe you don't know enough poor people, or maybe the UK economy is insane, I don't know. All I can say is that from my personal experience, high income tends to be correlated with producing a lot of things that other people in society want to consume, and low income tends to be correlated with producing very little, or very little that other people in society are interested in consuming.

I was particularly thinking about how people on here were suggesting finance jobs. I have to restate that if someone finds that work fun then great -make the most of it, just don't suppose that the money is coming in because something useful is being done.

And yes the UK is much more finance centered than the US is. It is I guess a bit like say New York state in isolation as a stand alone country.

[WiseOne]

We sort of have systems like that around:  if you're in certain professions and willing to work in an underserved area, you get relief from student loans.  These programs are well worth looking into.  My sister and her husband did that, went to work for the Indian Health Service in Anchorage for several years.  And I benefited from an NIH program designed to entice physician scientists away from private practice careers.

So back to you Barrett:  previous posters have generated a very nice list of options for potential career paths that you might present to your daughter.  To which I can add the following:  law, veterinary medicine, teaching.  There are also lots of medical jobs apart from being a physician:  physician assistant, nurse/nurse practitioner, social worker, clinical psychologist.  And alternative medicine careers (acupuncture, herbalist etc).  I'm kind of hoping my niece decides to go to vet school - she wanted to be a vet for years when she was a kid, and it still seems like a good fit for her.

Another option to consider if she is still completely confused:  seek out a good career counselor.  Investing a few K up front may be well worth it to avoid wasting megabucks on years of unproductive education.  Just taking the tests can provide some really useful insights into what kind of work she would like to do, beyond the Meyers-Briggs categories

[MachineGhost]

Isn't there some happy medium between not blundering into becoming debt ridden and unemployable, and yet at the same time not having your life course dictated by scurrying around seeking money? It sort of saddens me to think of an 18 year old choosing a career path based on the hope that it pays well. If someone finds finance fun then great and then the great pay is a bonus. But otherwise why spend a massive chunk of your life on something just because the pay is good? Surely all that matters is to do what you love and to be able to live OK from it? What's so special about being rich?

Being rich buys you freedom.  But when you're young you have a lot of freedom (unless you have like an Anal Tiger Mom or an American Beauty-style Homophobe Dad).  It's only when you get older after going through the grind, punching the clock, kowtowing to the boss that you learn to appreciate freedom and want to become rich to achieve it.  But, being rich in and of itself is of no use if you're merely in-debted at a higher level.  I may be envious of all the rich hedge funds exploiteers in extremely upscale Greenwich, Connecticut living a lifestyle most of us can only dream of, but it has a tremendous cost in terms of stress, income requirements, etc..  True financial independence is incredibly rare.

[MachineGhost]

This however is social engineering and not sure if this could take off or not.

I'm pretty sure a true free market in higher education will solve the problem once equilibrium is restored instead of everyone gaming the system.  We don't need all them lawyer-attorney idiots in Congress setting educational supply and demand quotas.  What do they know about economics?  Nothing.  What a world.

[MachineGhost]

I was particularly thinking about how people on here were suggesting finance jobs. I have to restate that if someone finds that work fun then great -make the most of it, just don't suppose that the money is coming in because something useful is being done.

You don't think managing risk aka insurance is useful?  We wouldn't have a functioning capitalist democracy today if that hadn't been invented.

Do I provide a beneficial and useful service to society in agreeing to buy someone's stock when their stock is selling off?

[Tyler]

Here are a few good resources I found in a similar thread on another forum.

http://www.payscale.com/content/value-c ... degree.pdf

http://www.payscale.com/college-roi/

http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report

[Pointedstick]

Here are a few good resources I found in a similar thread on another forum.

http://www.payscale.com/content/value-c ... degree.pdf

http://www.payscale.com/college-roi/

http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report

I see a lot of "mines & technology" in the names of schools listed in the second link. I'm shocked.

[Mountaineer]

Here are a few good resources I found in a similar thread on another forum.

http://www.payscale.com/content/value-c ... degree.pdf

http://www.payscale.com/college-roi/

http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report

I see a lot of "mines & technology" in the names of schools listed in the second link. I'm shocked.

Oh frack!

... Mountaineer

[Mark Leavy]

This whole thread is a great discussion.  Thanks to all for the sincere and insightful comments.  I've been reading attentively.

I have a good friend with a daughter due to start college next year.  The girl is as sharp as can be and can pass any class.  She likes the arts, but also shows up for math and science and just does the work and uninterestedly gets good grades.  She is going to go to college because her mom tells her that she should.

Argh!!!!

I'm tempted to sponsor her education, but it goes against everything that I believe.  I think we are still on the cusp of a college degree being required as the proof of intellect for any high paying job.  But... I *really* wish it weren't so.  I'm hoping to convince the girl to get an AA in radiology or something before pursuing a degree.  But... who are we (us old farts) to second guess the folks that will have to live with their decisions...

This really bothers me.

[Tyler]

I see a lot of "mines & technology" in the names of schools listed in the second link. I'm shocked.

Ha!  Well since not everyone wants to be an engineer it is helpful to sort by major.  The Arts are quite the ROI wasteland, especially for out of state students.  If you're gonna go that route it looks like the school really does matter and you need to do your research.  It's also sobering to see big schools like USC with a negative ROI for Humanities. 

I do think there's more to a college and major decision than ROI.  Not everything in life should revolve around maximizing money.  But at a minimum I believe it's important to set a baseline to protect yourself from avoidably bad outcomes.

And I really wish they included technical schools and other education alternatives in the list.  I suspect that a plumber or electrician certification from even an average program would destroy many of these schools in overall ROI.  I truly think many people would be much better off avoiding the 4-year schools altogether. 

[stone]

Isn't there some happy medium between not blundering into becoming debt ridden and unemployable, and yet at the same time not having your life course dictated by scurrying around seeking money? It sort of saddens me to think of an 18 year old choosing a career path based on the hope that it pays well. If someone finds finance fun then great and then the great pay is a bonus. But otherwise why spend a massive chunk of your life on something just because the pay is good? Surely all that matters is to do what you love and to be able to live OK from it? What's so special about being rich?

Being rich buys you freedom.  But when you're young you have a lot of freedom (unless you have like an Anal Tiger Mom or an American Beauty-style Homophobe Dad).  It's only when you get older after going through the grind, punching the clock, kowtowing to the boss that you learn to appreciate freedom and want to become rich to achieve it.  But, being rich in and of itself is of no use if you're merely in-debted at a higher level.  I may be envious of all the rich hedge funds exploiteers in extremely upscale Greenwich, Connecticut living a lifestyle most of us can only dream of, but it has a tremendous cost in terms of stress, income requirements, etc..  True financial independence is incredibly rare.

It seems ironic to me for someone to not study what they want and not do the type of work they want all in the the quest for "personal freedom". To me, truer freedom would come from being content with less money and so not needing to let money interfere too much in the decision process.
That "Greenwich lifestyle" sounds a load of pointless fluff to me. I wouldn't give a proverbial about having a load of baubles and looking flash. It just sounds a hassle to me.

I was particularly thinking about how people on here were suggesting finance jobs. I have to restate that if someone finds that work fun then great -make the most of it, just don't suppose that the money is coming in because something useful is being done.

You don't think managing risk aka insurance is useful?  We wouldn't have a functioning capitalist democracy today if that hadn't been invented.

Do I provide a beneficial and useful service to society in agreeing to buy someone's stock when their stock is selling off?

I'm not trying to say that the entire FIRE sector is pointless. I'm just saying that it is currently vastly bloated and the pay available in that sector is not indicative of its usefulness. I think the comparison with government bureaucracy is a useful metaphor. It makes sense to be vigilant about the dangers of getting an over-expanded self-serving government bureaucracy. Making that point isn't tantamount to saying that government plays no useful function. Likewise I'd favor having a paired down, utility style FIRE sector, designed to serve the real economy rather than to suck it dry.

[stone]

One thing I would say is that perhaps if a student has a chance to go to a truly top flight University, then jump on it. My other half went to Cambridge (in the UK). By the sound of it, it gave a real turbo boosted education. The expectation and standard demanded from the students seemed to be on another level.

This ranking puts Caltech, Harvard and Stanford as being US Universities like that:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/w ... ld-ranking

[Mountaineer]

It seems ironic to me for someone to not study what they want and not do the type of work they want all in the the quest for "personal freedom". To me, truer freedom would come from being content with less money and so not needing to let money interfere too much in the decision process.

I very much agree.  However, I'm likely biased since I was one of the "E" in the FIRE sectors, was raised in a home that emphasized living within ones means and had a couple of "E" uncles and fantastic high school math and science teachers that encouraged me.  I was blessed to study something I really liked (Chemical Engineering) and to have roles that I (mostly) enjoyed throughout my career, and make good money along the way.  And, I was fortunate to work for a highly ethical Fortune 50 company my whole career.  It is easy to say "follow your dream" when you are looking back from a position of "enough" instead of a position of "lack", regardless of the cause.  I can't think of many worse things than to pursue a career for the money and be unhappy all the while.  What good is a big pile of money if you are miserable or working 18 hours a day?  Your mileage may vary.

... Mountaineer

[I Shrugged]

This whole thread is a great discussion.  Thanks to all for the sincere and insightful comments.  I've been reading attentively.

I have a good friend with a daughter due to start college next year.  The girl is as sharp as can be and can pass any class.  She likes the arts, but also shows up for math and science and just does the work and uninterestedly gets good grades.  She is going to go to college because her mom tells her that she should.

Argh!!!!

I'm tempted to sponsor her education, but it goes against everything that I believe.  I think we are still on the cusp of a college degree being required as the proof of intellect for any high paying job.  But... I *really* wish it weren't so.  I'm hoping to convince the girl to get an AA in radiology or something before pursuing a degree.  But... who are we (us old farts) to second guess the folks that will have to live with their decisions...

This really bothers me.

Mark, your example is a perfect illustration of the problem today. 

My answer for someone who likes the arts is that arts (or music, etc.) make wonderful hobbies.  Something you do for enjoyment in your spare time. Seriously.   

[stone]

mountaineer:

I'm likely biased since I was one of the "E" in the FIRE sectors, was raised in a home that emphasized living within ones means and had a couple of "E" uncles and fantastic high school math and science teachers that encouraged me.

I was taking the FIRE acronym to be for "Finance", "Insurance" and "Real Estate" -basically the economic sectors that since 1980 have bubbled up to unprecedented levels .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_economy

I'm not sure that was your "E"?

[Mountaineer]

mountaineer:

I'm likely biased since I was one of the "E" in the FIRE sectors, was raised in a home that emphasized living within ones means and had a couple of "E" uncles and fantastic high school math and science teachers that encouraged me.

I was taking the FIRE acronym to be for "Finance", "Insurance" and "Real Estate" -basically the economic sectors that since 1980 have bubbled up to unprecedented levels .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_economy

I'm not sure that was your "E"?

It wasn't!  Laughing hard ... my E is engineering.  More tortoise than hare (re. big piles of money) but still rewarding.  I was thinking of the FIRE as Floundering, Inherited, Retired, and Engineering ... just kidding.

... Mountaineer