Disclosure: I dropped out of college just before my senior year in order to accept a position in my chosen field.
I don't think that college is unnecessary. In fact, I'd say that as more and more people go to college, it becomes more necessary to hold a degree in order to compete--even at entry-level positions. I have friends that are getting beaten out for restaurant work because they don't have a degree (really).
This, to me, is where the problem lies. We are simultaneously overvaluing (for basic, entry-level work) and undervaluing (for higher-level jobs) college degrees.
There is no doubt that to get, say, an entry-level engineering job in today's market, you need a degree (and from what I've seen, preferably a Master's). But if you have your bachelors and are still struggling to get work that traditionally doesn't require one (administrative assistants, call center employees, service industry staff, etc. come to mind), is it worth spending $40-$200k on a degree?
Furthermore, skilled trades in the United States are plummeting. Mike Rowe addressed this very well in his TED talk[1]: electricians, plumbers and mechanics are getting more and more rare (and are still highly in demand) because of the stigma of not attending college.
I believe that in the next several years, as unemployment for college graduates becomes more visible, that skilled trades will once again become respectable, admired careers. It's crazy to me that people like Master Electricians ever became stigmatized at all--we are in serious need of their services, and it requires immense skill and intelligence to perform their jobs.
In some communities people can get away without doing any work. I know dozens who have perused degrees in liberal arts only be barristers or get an MS in a field like journalism and get paid 35,000 to write music reviews (the quality of which could be found on mechanical turk). I take it as fact that enjoying your life and living off your parents is more socially expectable than skilled trades: I think we have a long way to go before plumber becomes respected.
The stigma might be associated with jealousy. I know I would be annoyed if the median income of a HS-degree profession were higher than my college-degree income. If not watched carefully, that would lead to thinking that while they are better off financially, they lack in other areas, like small world view, no critical thinking, etc - in other words, stigma.
It's kind of unsettling that the idea that a college-level education is for the elite only is starting to settle in. Rich benefactors like Peter Thiel and Mayor Bloomberg, both of whom seem to think they got where they are on talent alone, are broadcasting this idea that college is totally unnecessary.
Rather than telling students to skip college shouldn't we be finding a way to make a high-quality college education affordable and not confined to the very rich or exceptionally gifted? I agree with Bloomberg on many things (but certainly not all) but this is just snobbery and elitism diguised as "reasonableness."
Bloomberg has been a huge donor to Johns Hopkins. Perhaps he should redirect more of his contributions from propping up the endowment of an elite institution like Hopkins (some of which, in fairness, does go to financial aid) to actually directly paying for underprivileged kids to obtain such an elite education.
Why should we have increased college attendance as a goal? It started as a finishing school for the elite, and then mid-century briefly became a marker of a certain level of education.
We give it prestige because of it's history as a marker of success. But wow that more people have degrees, it has little value as a marker.
In the case of social sciences and humanities, college produces very little societal value.
So if a kid doesn't like school, and would enjoy being a plumber, why shouldn't he take a path that leaves him with less debt and more money?
We disparage it now because it's not prestigious, and this has harmful consequences for those who would enjoy the trades. They face an undeserved stigma for pursuing a career they would find satisfying.
I say that as a social science graduate. I think there's very little value produced in those fields. I don't really think they produce critical thinking.
In retrospect, I shouldn't have included the humanities. I think everyone should read the materials studied in those fields. I personally lean towards reading them on my own time, but for many a humanities education is the impetus to read many works they would otherwise never read.
Edit: I'll add that, while I didn't give a reason why I think they produce little value, you didn't do anything to refute me. You just gave an ad hominem attack.
There is some value produced in those fields. However, it is very difficult to produce a controlled experiment in the social sciences. Yet they have scientific and mathematical pretensions. I agree with Nassim Taleb that much of what they produce is uncertain, tenuous and misleading.
Further, they teach students poor skills. The writing requirements encouraged bloated writing, which leads to the opposite of clear thinking.
I'm also a logic teacher (I work in LSAT prep). I see A students who have not learned how to think. I have seen no evidence that undergraduate social science degrees encourage better patterns of thought or erudition, the two most cited reasons for a liberal arts education.
I can definitely be debated if the current state of education is the best one, but that isn't really how your original statement read. For the record my reply wasn't meant as an attack on you (as in ad hominem), but on your statement which is far too common on HN.
I think social sciences when done correctly do produce good thinking, as any theory is only as good as its reasoning. In my opinion the real tragedy occurs when soft and hard sciences mix. Many times, especially in this setting, because someone with a hard science mindset doesn't understand, or ignore, the premise of soft science. I personally think this is why there are so many wild disagreements on things like systems engineering within the tech community.
It can also be argued that college isn't the best format (age, place, duration) to learn social science, but that can be said about many areas of study. It would also be to, as much of the debate do, ignore the lack of alternatives. In technology there are many examples of people dropping out and having success, at least as a practitioner, in their field. In many other areas this isn't as true. It might even say more about CS education than anything else.
Of course college also has value as an experience. It's where many people find their independence and meet long standing friends, colleagues and partners. Which would be perfectly fine to do anywhere else, but plumbing probably isn't it.
"I think social sciences when done correctly do produce good thinking"
But the fact you have to include that caveat is itself evidence that it generally isn't.
We have to get over this blind devotion to the idea that college is so awesome that even questioning its value is heresy, and take a hard look at the facts. Yes, frankly, the value generated by the humanities right now by our colleges is not commensurate to the money we are pouring into it, nor the debt slavery we're imposing on people for it. That doesn't mean it's worthless, but the solution isn't letting the humanities continue to rot while they hide behind our blind obeisance to "education is of infinite value so we need not consider the costs! Ever! Don't even ask or you're no better than a knuckle-dragging hillbilly!"
Beyond a sober reconsideration of exactly what sort of benefits we are getting are better benefits than what we are now. But first, we have to ask the questions.
I think the problem with social sciences is that it's too easy to make subtle mistakes and have them become established doctrine because they confirm some sort of pre-existing societal belief and/or political ideology. Once people get invested in the large body of work developed on top of these subtle mistakes, they refuse to unlearn all of it, even when faced with compelling arguments.
I believe plumbers should have a college education. As I said in an above reply, I don't believe college education is about learning things that are directly relevant to any profession. It is about learning critical thinking, how to work with others at a high level, and how to acquire new skills easily.
You don't need college to develop critical thinking and learn how to learn. In fact, by the time students reach college, it's already too late: the main complaint I hear from acquaintances that teach at private colleges is that students don't want to work for the knowledge; they expect an extension of high school with a diploma at the end.
And no matter how enlightening this experience is, we can't ignore the financial side. A young person saddled with $50,000 in debt and no prospect of a high-paying job is in effect a serf. Add a mortgage a few years down the line, and you are ensuring that this person will never be free.
> It is about learning critical thinking, how to work with others at a high level, and how to acquire new skills easily.
All 3 of which can, and should be learned outside of college.
Hell, of the 3, the second 2 are only really learned out in the work force. After all, learning new skills easily when you are going to school is fairly trivial. It's learning new skills after you've hit the work force. When you aren't spending the day in school, being fed the information.
If all college does is provide you with those 3 things, it's a waste of time.
The generation ahead of me believed exactly this, that college education was for the "elite." The generation behind me challenged this perception and went to college. It was a boon for the oldest of that generation. Then the world became saturated with college grads expecting top-notch salaries and benefits; when it was obvious that not everyone with a degree would receive The Best Salary Ever, the younger of the same generation began to question the need for post-secondary education.
I think we're just coming back to previous perceptions. I think with this ebb-and-flow of Things That Will Always Be is just happening faster than ever because of increased awareness (faster communication, broader audiences) brought about by technology; specifically the internet.
As for needing a "college level education," why would everyone require this? Are we all, the entire population, headed toward a society where every job is performed by a machine, leaving us to advance our existence through focused philosophy? This, I feel, is the utopian world of The Academics. Anything short of that simply requires access to the knowledge that allows one to function in the world and perform their chosen profession.
I agree. This is nothing new. But I believe even people in the trades should have a college-level education. College education is not about learning facts that are directly relevant to whatever we end up choosing to do. It is about learning critical thinking, how to work with others at a high level, how to acquire new knowledge and talents efficiently. These are skills that are valuable everywhere, in every profession.
"Are we all, the entire population, headed toward a society where every job is performed by a machine [...]"]
In short, yes. This won't happen for a while but most of our manual professions will be automated in the not-so-distant future. That will leave us, collectively, with a lot of time on our hands to figure out what to do with ourselves. Knowing where the next horizon lies will require a ton of high-level, specialized scientific knowledge, and those of us who were not lucky enough to receive a college education will be worse off as a result.
That education in critical thinking would be a waste, due mainly to the sorts of businesses and products people like us develop and push here everyday.
People are less and less able to work with each other at a high level (consider the inability to deal with blue-collar banter at conferences, and the common situation of ignoring each other to tweet or use phones).
People are not interested in acquiring new knowledge (they may, perhaps, cache relevant results from Stack Overflow or Google--usually not).
People do not want to think critically--think about how much effort we put into making our tools as simple and intuitive as possible, and how much we emphasize convention over configuration, and how much we spend on advertising to make people want our stuff.
There is probably no next horizon--there's just bullshit makework to help people function in a token economy spoonfed ads by Adsense on their iJiggers.
I think you missed his point. The Mayor is talking about student who are so-so, which means won't perform quite well and won't have a good chance of finding a job later.
Why waste their time on a degree if they'll finish later in McDonalds? Learning a craft is much better than working in McDonalds, having a huge debt and a degree.
As a college grad, my opinion might not be considered all that informed (and maybe that's fair), but honestly, "everybody gets college" seems like a shit goal to me.
Not only do most professions not need a liberal arts education, many people just aren't interested in it (very, very few people really need it, though the people that do, in my opinion, include anyone who intends to get into any kind of politics or social science).
It's long been my opinion that technical schools are horribly under-utilized, at least in the US (which is the basis for all my comments, as I'm woefully unequipped to comment on anything else). I also believe that apprenticeships are perhaps the best possible method of practical education there has ever been, and that this is an area presenting a massive business potential that's being significantly underutilized.
Why not be a plumber? It's a dirty job -- many are -- but not only does somebody have to do it, a lot of people have to do it, or a lot of people without dirty jobs are going to get dirty and not know how to deal with it.
This is a vital profession that doesn't require expensive education. There are many like it. We should encourage consideration of options like this for everyone.
- personal betterment -> college is no longer necessary
- academic career and scientific research -> applies only to the best of the best.
- as a professional investment -> the return on investment has to be considered. Is degree X for University of Y increase individual's earnings potential sufficiently to justify investing 4 years and $50-200K? For significant chunk of people, certainly not all, the answer is no. If you're not getting a degree that is in demand, attending an elite university, chances are investment in college does not make commercial sense, and as Bloomberg states, may be better of learning a trade.
Food for thought: If 3 high school graduates pooled their financial resources they would be investing into private college education, they'd have ~$360K seed money (from tuition), and 4 years living expenses to come up with a viable business. I bet they'd learn a ton as well. Better yet, if they had first learned a trade and worked a couple of years, they may actually build some useful things instead of yet another social network.
Laurence Kotlikoff is really famous for his claim that plumbers actually lead pretty good lives. He says that a general practitioner would on average make only $423 more per year in discretionary income than a plumber. Here's a piece from him where he talks about the numbers involved. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-09/study-hard-to-find-...
I'd take Kotikoff's research with a grain of salt. His analysis was done during the midst of the housing boom, which latest from the late 90s through the late 00's, where new homes and new condos, and gut-rehabs demanded A LOT of plumbing.
Our housing starts are less crazy today. I imagine lower demand goes hand-in-hand with lower wages.
This is just conjecture on my part though. I'd be happy to be wrong.
Circa 2011, in a low population area, I had to call 4 or 5 plumbers to find one that thought dealing with a clogged toilet was worthwhile. One was busy, another thought it was too far a drive (~30 miles!), another said it didn't sound like a job he wanted and the fourth didn't get back to me before I had found someone else. Who knows if I got burned, but it was $350 when I did get it done, so maybe worth that extra 5 miles of driving.
(roots had (probably) grown into the line to the septic tank)
The real issue is the "four years spending $40,000, $50,000 in tuition without earning income". Education is essential for the meaningful progress of society and humanity, we can't let a "tough economy" stand in the way of long-term thinking. We also can't let greed stand in the way of bright young minds realizing themselves. Education needs to be free, thorough, and challenging, that way the minds that crave it will have unrestrained access to it, and those who don't can go ahead and pick a trade job, but not because of an empty wallet, but because that's what they genuinely want.
My plumber is a salt-of-the-earth type and he is loaded. I told him I considered telling my daughter to get into the business. He said that she would make a killing because housewives are generally afraid to let strange men in.
The second part to that is that a plumber's job cannot be done "over the wire" in any current sense (or likely for many, many years given some of the problems being shown in remote medicine).
Tis a shame we threw away apprenticeships in the rush to colleges.
He's right. People need education, not necessarily the education that you get for a BA in whatever.
What's wrong with plumbers, anyway. People in the this thread seem to be implying that it is a lesser profession. You solve problems, have opportunities for entrepreneurship, and have a progressive path for mastery of the craft.
I know a few people always whining about Sallie Mae. They are art teachers, social workers and service sector types. All of these folks borrowed 6 figures to get degrees from private schools in fields that require a lot of expensive education and little compensation.
Making $60k to watch 6th graders draw sounds like a sweet gig... But paying $650/mo in loans makes it a subsistence job.
Remember that a good portion of college debt is held by people who thought they wanted to go to college, went in, accrued debt and then decided to do something different. Its good to have people in power say, 'do what is right for you.'
I live in Western Australia. We have a massive skills shortage in trades such as electricians, plumbers, mechanics etc. The stigma attached to non-university careers scared parents into encouraging offspring into degrees instead. (Combined with a mining boom soaking up tradesman job hunters)
Today, I do not know any good 'tradies' that are not making at least 100k per year, and far, far more if heading to the mining industry.
Suffice to say, I do more youtube searching on how to 'fix a leaking tap' than ever before.
I wonder how many of our current social problems in high school are caused by our dropping apprenticeships and vocational education and going "college is the only acceptable result" route? We treat high school age students like children but expect them to think in terms of their adult future. At a time when some maturity and critical thinking needs to be developed, we keep the same factory system from elementary school.
>> The only schools that cost $40,000 or $50,000 like the mayor said are elite schools,” Kantrowitz said.
uh... I hope they are talking per year here. The article doesn't make that clear, but 40k in debt after 4 years at a public/state college is very very possible... Bloomberg might be out of touch with how tuition has skyrocketed. Heck, I graduated in 07, and in-state tuition at my alma mater has DOUBLED since then...
That quote is referencing Bloomberg's earlier quote “You don’t spend ... four years spending $40,000, $50,000 in tuition without earning income.” So it's pretty clear here's talking about per-year tuition.
The sticker price has gone way up (no surprise). But, because the value of grants and scholarships has also grown, average net price has grown much more slowly. In fact, in the past five years, average net price at private colleges has actually fallen.
We should really be asking WHAT we want out of college then look at the best way to provide that whether it is college or not.
Also, this question is somewhat US centric since in Europe (correct me if I am wrong), if you want to become a lawyer, you can just go straight to law school (instead of doing 4 years and then going to law school).
I personally think that these are the most important goals:
1) time and space for young adults to ask basic questions of themselves and the society they live in, to try and fail, pick yourself up again
2) exposure to some of the best the society has to offer: art, science, literature, etc...
3) training ground for specializing in a field
So going into a trade will give you 3), but should there be more societal support for 1) and 2)? IMHO, coursera and the like theoretically spread limited availability of 3) but because of their virtual nature do a worse job of 1) and 2).
In the US it -used- to be that kids who didn't have all the money they needed for school could -fairly easily- find a job or two to help themselves get through.
That was helped by the fact that public-school tuition was CHEAP. In the 60s at a major university you might pay $150 tuition PER QUARTER ($225/semester). Room and board at a university dormitory? $120/month. With maid service.
Compare $500/year to $15,000 -- 33 times more costly -- and ask yourself what happened in the US to make education SO much more expensive (rent in that period has increased by a factor of 10 to 15) and why part-time jobs are either looked down on or so much harder to find.
Add to that a willingness to go deeply into debt (without, it seems, much understanding of how dangerous that is) that would have been -unthinkable- at that time.
Education is costly, so much that in sometime it's going to be elite only. Hell, it's elite only right now, minus the huge loans.
So, instead of making it affordable, elites(whether they reached their elite spot on talent alone or they were born with silver spoons) they are suggesting to skip it altogether(if one can't afford it).
It's a lot better in those countries where Govt. provides quality education to greater extent and even private fees are regulated. Or maybe it's demand and supply mechanism. For people from other countries it's just the best short cut for a green card, especially the Asians.
no it's not ,USA makes it expensive ,it doesnt have to be that expensive. In USA , education is FOR-PROFIT . It's not in most part or EUROPE for instance.
I think this was true earlier but not anymore, IMHO.
Take the example of Swedish higher education and other countries. They are as costly, especially for people coming from outside - from Non-EU/US and third world countries and low prospective of jobs after finishing the course makes practically these universities more expansive.
Now take an example of UK. Jobs are scarce there and once you finish the degree, you don't have a job offer, you leave the country that very day. Cost of education there? Don't even ask it!
I don't think that college is unnecessary. In fact, I'd say that as more and more people go to college, it becomes more necessary to hold a degree in order to compete--even at entry-level positions. I have friends that are getting beaten out for restaurant work because they don't have a degree (really).
This, to me, is where the problem lies. We are simultaneously overvaluing (for basic, entry-level work) and undervaluing (for higher-level jobs) college degrees.
There is no doubt that to get, say, an entry-level engineering job in today's market, you need a degree (and from what I've seen, preferably a Master's). But if you have your bachelors and are still struggling to get work that traditionally doesn't require one (administrative assistants, call center employees, service industry staff, etc. come to mind), is it worth spending $40-$200k on a degree?
Furthermore, skilled trades in the United States are plummeting. Mike Rowe addressed this very well in his TED talk[1]: electricians, plumbers and mechanics are getting more and more rare (and are still highly in demand) because of the stigma of not attending college.
I believe that in the next several years, as unemployment for college graduates becomes more visible, that skilled trades will once again become respectable, admired careers. It's crazy to me that people like Master Electricians ever became stigmatized at all--we are in serious need of their services, and it requires immense skill and intelligence to perform their jobs.
1: http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.htm...