With Jacques Steinberg’s piece in last Sunday’s Times (Plan B: Skip College), the “Is college really worth it?” meme seems to be in full flower, in part because it’s an interesting issue and in part because the media has a fatal weakness for novelty and counterintuition. But most of these discussions suffer from confusion about what question they’re actually trying to answer. In roughly ascending order of importance, here’s how various people are framing the issue:
Is college for everyone? This is a dumb question. Of course college isn’t for everyone. Just last week, the Post profiled 17-year old high school senior Bryce Harper, who definitely shouldn’t go to college. Instead, he should (and will) become a professional baseball player and earn millions of dollars. The number of good career paths that don’t require a college degree is small and shrinking but not non-existent. Some people start families, others aren’t smart or hard-working enough enough to complete college-level work. Defining the question in absolute terms does little other than identify the questioner as a sloppy thinker.
Does everyone in college need to be there? Again, of course not. There are 19 million people in college; obviously some of them shouldn’t be.
Is going to college a bad decision for some students? Sure. Going to college incurs time and money costs, and produces benefits of various kinds. There’s no upper bound on costs so logically they can exceed benefits. Borrowing tens of thousands of dollars for a substandard nursing degree, for example, is a bad idea. The average lifetime earnings differential for college graduates still exceeds the average cost of college by a substantial amount (the exact figure is subject to debate) but those are just averages.
(Johns Stossel thinks that because there are some students on the wrong side of both averages–costs too high, benefits too low–this proves that college in general is a “scam.” His article does prove something: John Stossel is a hack. This we already knew.)
Are too many students going to college? This is a question actually worth asking. The Times article cites several credible academics, plus Charles Murray, answering “yes.” Economist Richard Vedder, whose work I find thought-provoking if not always convincing, notes that 15 percent of mail carriers have bachelor’s degrees. “Some of them could have bought a house for what they spent on their education,” he says. But the optimal number of postal carriers with bachelor’s degrees surely isn’t zero. That’s because of the specific nature of the college experience.
Matriculating at a university isn’t like buying a car. Anyone with enough money can buy the nicest car available, at any time in their life, regardless of what cars they have or have not bought before. College, by contrast, is a process and an experience associated with a great number of prior and subsequent contingencies: you can only go to college if you successfully engage in various previous activities, and various subsequent options are only available to those who complete college.
Some students, moreover, are far more vulnerable than others to the policy choices likely to result from our collective understanding of these questions. Statistically speaking, my daughter will almost certainly go to college. First-generation students, by contrast, along those who come from from low-income backgrounds and bad high schools, stand at the precipice of non-attendance. The way we think about college matters for them in profound ways.
Which is why the conventional approach to higher education has been, and should continue to be, expansive. It’s a cliche, but it’s true: college opens the door to opportunity. Not for everyone and not always, but very often and certainly often enough. Crucially, there’s no way to know for sure ahead of time exactly who will benefit. Attempts to do so invariably discriminate against the marginalized students noted above. So we accept some inefficiency and additional societal expense, because the net result is positive and the people who benefit the most on the margins from expansiveness need it the most and deserve it the most. We’re a wealthy nation and a surplus of enlightened mail carriers seems low on the list of problems to solve. How many of them, in retrospect, regret their degrees?
It would be possible, of course, to carry an expansive policy too far. But as David Leonhardt notes, income data show that the returns in the job market to a college degree relative to lesser credentials have steadily increased even as access to higher education has grown at the same time. And we should take seriously the collective wisdom of millions of college-educated parents who consider no option other than giving their own children a chance for higher education. This isn’t just about status and social norms; it represents a rational and highly-informed estimate of cost, contingency, opportunity and benefit, all pointing in one overwhelming direction. For the last century America has led the world in expanding access to successively higher forms of education. Does anyone seriously believe this was, in retrospect, unwise?
Vedder et al do make some good observations about college credentialing. There’s a lot to be said for developing more creative, efficient, and flexible ways of certifying what people know and can do and matching those credentials up with the emerging labor market–as long as it doesn’t have the effect of shutting students out of future opportunities to advance further down the post-secondary path.
But in the end, a lot of those questions really come down to whether or not the solution to various difficult higher education problems should or should not serve the narrow interests of institutions and people who enjoy disproportionate wealth and power in society and have already benefited from access to college themselves.
If a lot of students enter college unprepared, which they do, we can shut them out of higher education as lost causes, or we can do the hard work of fixing public high schools and investing more resources in the community colleges and open-access public universities that do most of the heavy lifting in post-secondary education.
If many students drop out of college, which they do, we can can pretend that this represents fidelity to high academic standards or we can starting holding colleges accountable for graduating a reasonable number of students as compared to peer institutions with similar academic missions and admissions profiles, and do a much better job of giving at-risk students the academic support they need.
If the ever-growing cost of college pushes more students on to the wrong side of the cost/benefit equation, which it is, we can pretend that skyrocketing tuition is an immutable force of nature, or we can create a more transparent higher education market where colleges have strong incentives to restrain costs and ban colleges that plunge their students into unmanageable debt from federal aid programs.
College is extremely important and more people need it now than ever before. It’s noteworthy that the people who argue otherwise are in nearly all cases great beneficiaries of college themselves.
Click Image To Enlarge
5/29/2012 | The New York Times discusses Mary Nguyen's report "Degreeless in Debt: What Happens to Borrowers Who Drop Out."
5/28/2012 | The Washington Post discusses Mary Nguyen's analysis of college dropouts and loan defaults from her Chart You Can Trust, "Degreeless in Debt: What Happens to Borrowers Who Drop Out." 
5/24/2012 | Education Week discusses Anne Hyslop's views on Mitt Romney's education plan.
{ 10 comments }
Craigie, I’m familiar with the RAND study, “How Taxpayers Benefit When Students Attain Higher Levels of Education.” With that being said, education and a college degree are two seperate things. The RAND study doesn’t look into individuals with certifications, apprenticeships, and the military to either complement, supplement, or substitute their college education.
Another thing the RAND study doesn’t fully look into is the graduation rates for college (or drop out rates), interest rate, inflation and the lack of productivity by that individual because they’re not working (full-time, or in a job that pays less because of scheduling conflicts) into the end costs. If you factor variables those in, the cost is a lot higher than the reported cost.
This also goes back to my original argument: Why should individuals that think their education will pay for itself, or benefit themselves somehow other than monetarily, make others who disagree pay it? That is socialism.
What about the recent study from Rand about the significant benefit to the taxpayer of having a more educated populace?
I find it quite interesting that people who think college education pays for itself, want to subsidized their education either through loans or grants through the taxpayers.
If the education pays for itself, and, or is a rewarding experience in of itself why not take out a private loan instead and take a loss on the difference from interest?
Although the statistics vary drastically on how much you will make over time with & without a college degree, I would like to know how much the difference is for the tax payer.
Steve,
I joined the Navy right after high school in 1988. The day I joined I began getting a $400 paycheck twice a month. In the first six months I learned how electronics worked and could troubleshoot radio communication circuits and radar units. In the next six months I learned nuclear physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, mechanical and electrical systems. The next six months I learned how to operate a nuclear reactor.
The next year and a half I was stationed on a Nuclear submarine. In that time I had been physically pushed until I failed. I had spent all of my free time one week studying for a test and failed.
I had fixed a broken piece of equipment that others had been unable to fix. I had outperformed everyone else during an evaluation, and had been the hero, the go to guy. I had performed perfectly when real lives were at risk.
I had laid in my bunk in complete fear for a full minute because I was sure I was about to die.
I have had friends I trusted my life to. I had friends that trusted me with their lives and I did not let them down.
I had stood on the North pole and had a snowball fight. I had spent a week in Bergen Norway and drank akvavit. I spent a week in San Juan Puerto Rico. I had been to Scotland and Germany. I spent a week stranded in Panama with nothing but $8 in my pocket.
I got married, then fathered a child and supported my family. I was part of a crew that performed missions with a real value to the country.
This was what I accomplished in those four years instead of going to college.
Please professor, explain how my life could have been better, how I could have been more educated, less ignorant, a clearer thinker, or a better citizen if I had gone to college instead. What did I miss by not having the “college experience”?
One of the disturbing things about the spate of “is college necessary?” stories is the unquestioned way they allow marketplace imperatives to frame the college experience. The value of a college education is nearly always stated as a financial analysis: will X amount of tuition dollars lead to X amount of lifetime income? Nothing is mentioned about the social or political value of having a higher educated populace, not to mention the value to the individual. Ignorance and narrow worldview are not especially conducive to democracy, freedom or the dignity of having an ability think clearly.
Why shouldn’t 85 or even a 100 percent of postal carriers have a college degrees? After all, they aren’t just postal carriers; they are neighbors, voters, parents and fellow citizens. Why wouldn’t it be a good idea to encourage all human beings to reach their full intellectual potential?
As a professor I encounter this narrow marketplace view of education a lot. I ask students what they want to be, and they reply an accountant, a artists, a nurse, etc. I always respond the same way: “No, that’s simply what you want to do. I asked you something a lot more important.”
Kevin’s post and Ramon’s reply do a good job of outlining the arguments pro and con for assuming that everyone should go to college. I’d like to add one point that gets overlooked: turning third tier (and increasingly, 2nd tier) colleges into high school (which is what we are doing at some level) may be good for some students — those who found their motivation later in high school, those whose high schools prepared them poorly, those who face special economic or cultural challenges, etc, etc. But by doing this, we are a. letting high schools off the hook in a major, major way; and b) prolonging adolescence in a way that is hugely monetarily expensive to students, parents, and taxpayers. Plus, 3) we are extending adolescence to an unhealthy extent. We should want every student, including the underprepared, to be able to access college, but what we end up with is colleges that baby the majority of their students, who would rather be out in the real world but have chosen college exclusively for the credential. Anyone who spends any time in a third tier college (i.e. most of them) is well aware of this.
Interesting that a previous reply took as given that any brilliant poor student always seems to find their way to higher Ed…how does (s)he know? Very interesting assumption…
It would be nice to see a direct comparison of options other than college. I would be interested to compare people who join the military after high school to people who went to college after high school. There are other options to obtain the skills needed for a high income without going into debt.
” The number of good career paths that don’t require a college degree is small and shrinking but not non-existent.”
I would say it is rather large and shrinking
“Defining the question in absolute terms does little other than identify the questioner as a sloppy thinker.”
Not true. You see, the education establishment has always pushed the idea that education is for everyone or at least that it should be as inclusive as posible.
The question is asked in that context.
“…Johns Stossel thinks that because there are some students on the wrong side of both averages–costs too high, benefits too low–this proves that college in general is a “scam”.”
It is a scam in the sense that government subsidies to education may be creating the ilusión of being in the other side. In this sense it is a scam to taxpayers.
It may be a scam to students who, following education chearleader´s exagerations, later discover that it is not as glamorous as advertised.
“…But the optimal number of postal carriers with bachelor’s degrees surely isn’t zero.”
but almost certainly below what it is now.
“Matriculating at a university isn’t like buying a car. ”
the my-industry-is-special-and-should-be-subsidized argument which is quite convenient for the education people.
“First-generation students, by contrast, along those who come from from low-income backgrounds and bad high schools, stand at the precipice of non-attendance. The way we think about college matters for them in profound ways.”
which means we should think more profoundly about disadvantage students and screening issues. This is not an argument about the size of education, but about the efficiency of education.
“…Crucially, there’s no way to know for sure ahead of time exactly who will benefit. Attempts to do so invariably discriminate against the marginalized students noted above. So we accept some inefficiency and additional societal expense, because the net result is positive and the people who benefit the most on the margins from expansiveness need it the most and deserve it the most.”
Brilliant students who are born in poverty usually find their way to college, and even if they don´t, they are successful somehow. the diffrence between both paths could be positive for sure.
However most poor students who should go to college but don´t, are most likely marginally college material. So, the loss is not that great as to justify that infinity weight on preventing exclusion errors.
“…David Leonhardt notes, income data show that the returns in the job market to a college degree relative to lesser credentials have steadily increased even as access to higher education has grown at the same time.”
The optimal pool of college graduates surely grew in the last decades, but we don´t know if the actual size is greater than that optimal.
Besides, beware of AVERAGE returns to educations. You have already warned us about the dangers of thinking in average terms.
“before And we should take seriously the collective wisdom of millions of college-educated parents who consider no option other than giving their own children a chance for higher education.”
And take seriously the wisdom of even more milllions of parents and students who don´t consider college as a particularly good investment.
Of course college educated parents have higher incomes, smarter children and an obvious bias towards that course of accion.
“Does anyone seriously believe this was, in retrospect, unwise?”
But there is no reason that it was wise either. The fact that so many good thing have come out of education and that the country is rich, does not mean that tha activity was not wasteful for large segments of the population. Again, beware of averages.
“…whether or not the solution to various difficult higher education problems should or should not serve the narrow interests of institutions and people…”
Including the interest of unions, academics, and those who want to see a dramatic expansion of education.
“…or we can do the hard work of fixing public high schools and investing more resources…”
“…start holding colleges accountable for graduating a reasonable number of students…”
“…giving at-risk students the academic support they need.”
Is not funny that the solution is always subsidize and subsidize more.
Isn´t this a policy that incidentally benefits the education stablishment?
Haven´t you said that no special interest should dictate education policy?
“…It’s noteworthy that the people who argue otherwise are in nearly all cases great beneficiaries of college themselves.”
Those who argue otherwise are people for which college education is a no brainer. The problem involves marginally smart people, whose benefits from college exceed oportunity costs (from renouncing alternative paths), but only thanks to subsidies. You argue that they should be subsidized anyway, many of us do not see anything mistical about education to justify it.
The world is a big place, people in general see thinks differently from the education inclined people like us.
In my country (Ireland) we have a slightly different problem. Higher education is practically free here (I paid less then €5000 in tuition for my undergrad, about €6000 for my masters, and that was without any financial aid, which could have knocked it down to ~€1500 all in) which means that huge amounts of people go to college. So over here, there are pretty much no decent jobs available to non-graduates.
The government is prioritising education just for the sake of it, which hasn’t resulted in greater access for less college-going schools and areas (as was the intention), instead, it’s providing a free education to many middle-class people who could afford to pay more. The result here is that many people feel entitled to a college education, but have little regard for college when there. So colleges are churning out graduates with average degrees, further filling the job market with degree-holders and pushing non-graduates out of competition. Many schools don’t even consider that their students won’t be continuing on education.
As a result, college is pretty much just an extra three/four years of high school for many people. It has no specific benefit for many of these people, or for ‘the knowledge economy’, but the government can keep telling people they’re heavily pro a highly educated population.
Comments on this entry are closed.