Also, the college prep and tutoring industry has been ballooning in the US. Historically, Chinese companies dominated this market in terms of consumer base, but we'll probably see a continuation of this trend in the US too as universities become more selective and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy where the more selective you become more students/parents will consider you as more "elite".
The increase in price probably comes from a combination of demand for college education and some monopolistic competition in the accredited university market, where government regulation suppresses the supply of accredited universities. I think we're seeing some change with the latter supply (e.g. community college, online degrees, etc) but demand for a U.S. college degree still stands strong on the global market from international students.
It would be nice to get data on yearly university applications and do an empirical analysis on supply and demand.
> The increase in price probably comes from a combination of demand for college education and some monopolistic competition in the accredited university market
I think you're missing a big factor, rising admin spend [1].
The author should also mention the increase in competition in the labor market and the lack of labor protection laws to prevent outsourcing. Statistically speaking, a 4-year degree still yields a higher ROI than just a high school diploma in lifetime earnings. A lot of the negative sentiments I conjecture come from the higher standards across the board and the ubiquity of a bachelor's degree in the labor market.
> a 4-year degree still yields a higher ROI than just a high school diploma in lifetime earnings.
How can that be given that incomes have held stagnant through the rise of post-secondary attainment? In reality, a person in a given place on the spectrum seems to earn the same regardless of whether or not they have a degree.
Perhaps you are mistakenly comparing people situated in different places on the spectrum, noticing that colleges reject/fail those who don't meet a certain "calibre"? Indeed, I think we intuitively understand that the kid with down syndrome, or some such condition, is, statistically, not going to make it in college and is also going to have limited earning potential once joining the working world, but there is little evidence to support that handing them a college degree provides a cure.
> How can that be given that incomes have held stagnant through the rise of post-secondary attainment?
They haven't; real incomes and the spread of real incomes have both increased over time. (That is, both median real income and the ratio between any given higher-than-median percentile and the median has increased over time.)
> A person in a given place on the spectrum seems to earn the same regardless of whether or not they have a degree.
It is tautological that people on the same place on the income spectrum earn the same regardles of other factors, but having a degree has a substantial effect on where you are on that spectrum.
If you are talking about something else, it would probably help to more clearly articulate your meaning.
> real incomes [...] have both increased over time.
This does not seem to be the case, at least not when observed over long enough time periods to filter out the noise. Looking at the earliest income records we seem to have, incomes were on par with what we find today. Wages have increased, which is perhaps what you meant, largely because they are a comparatively recent invention and had nowhere to go but up. Of course, now that most incomes are derived as wages, wages have reached the point of stagnation as well.
> having a degree has a substantial effect on where you are on that spectrum.
The spectrum is that of humans, not of income. Clearly someone with, say, down syndrome is not the same as someone without. To think that people are all the same is erroneous. Indeed, someone who has down syndrome is statistically unlikely to succeed in college and, likewise, statistically unlikely to do well in the broad economy. –– That does not imply that attaining the college degree they lack will cure what ails them.
> If you are talking about something else, it would probably help to more clearly articulate your meaning.
Help in what way? I understand what I am articulating. If you are, perhaps, implying that someone else might not understand, that is certainly possible but affects me not. There would be no logical reason to seek to improve clarity in the case.
Every property constructed dataset I have seen shows incomes have increased greatly. Increases in taxes, Healthcare spending, and housing spending, and others have consumed most of that growth.
> Every property constructed dataset I have seen shows incomes have increased greatly.
Sure, but I was talking about Canada, the "most educated nation" according to the OECD, which, importantly, crossed the 50% attainment threshold a long time ago. The USA only did so recently.
In the interest of fairness, it might be too early to see the big jump we're told to expect in the US data. I am a little surprised you reached for it for that reason. If we're not too early, then I am still surprised you reached for said data. The data shows a fairly consistent growth trend over the span of decades, with no instantaneous growth of any substantial amount to account for the point where the degree was obtained. Perhaps you mistakenly linked to the wrong datasets?
That said, it is telling that US median income has risen – quite significantly, really – even while the median income did not possess a degree. Which, frankly, echoes that the relationship trying to be painted earlier isn't actually there. While we can try to be fair, you and I both know there won't be a big jump in the median income to account for the US median income finally attaining a degree. The idea that a degree would provide increased earnings doesn't even make sense.
What does exist is college filtering mechanisms (entrance requirements, academic rigour, etc.), which have traditionally kept out those who aren't destined to earn much in life, but that, again, doesn't mean attaining a college degree is a cure for what ails them. Indeed, in a given cohort, it is statistically likely that top performers who succeed in everything they do in life will also succeed in college and in the economy in general. But what does that tell us? Don't be born into life problems? Not exactly actionable.
I was intending to address your statement specifically about lack of real income growth, not any underlying causality with degrees. I brought it up because it is often stated as fact here in the US, and has a large impact on Collective sentiment, but is not reflective of reality.
I agree that the topic of education is much more nuanced. There are obvious factors such as the types of degrees, their utilization, and ultimate productivity that need to be taken into account. Less obviously, there are factors like the changing composition of national production it's relative specialization with respect to the global economy. Please make it necessary to evaluate the impact of Education against a counterfactual where education is held constant at a national level.
Similarly, I would argue that the education to outcome statistics that are often trotted out are misleading due to uncontrolled confounders and intrinsic differences in the groups that go on to receive various levels of Education. That is to say, there are likely many differences between the average person that gets a post-secondary degree and one who does not complete Primary School besides their educational attainment.
> A person in a given place on the spectrum seems to earn the same regardless of whether or not they have a degree.
Real income to GDP ratio has been stagnant by some degrees but in this case, we're only looking at average IQ on a normal distribution, average as in 85-115 (or whatever the official range is), assuming that's what you mean by 'spectrum'.
e.g. for the average {IQ} or whatever metric you meant in a person, he/she will earn more compared to the same person ceteris paribus, but without a university education.
Humans are way more complicated than IQ. Someone with a high IQ but little ambition is not going to go far in college nor are they going to go far in the economy.
People over time is the only reasonably reliable measure we have. And the data is clear: Statistically, people did not start earning more when they started attaining college degrees.
A job is a job, construction jobs are physically demanding although pay can be competitive for the bar of entry, pilots can be a fun and prestigious career but your trade-off is your sleep schedule and days away from home every week.
I vaguely remember Richard Thaler published this research on risk as the determinant for career earning.
In Vietnam, marine wildlife sanctuaries help enormously. Fisherman are banned from fishing in certain areas, but can fish with great success around those areas. The protected areas allow stock to be replenished. It’s the goose that laid the golden egg phenomenon.
Exactly what you said, R is easy to get started for individuals in social science fields. Most people I know who want to dive deeper end up learning Python anyway.
This is true, I've found teaching r to get things done is very fast and readable fully achievable in a semester compared to teaching pandas (and also having to teach how to program in python)
And people wishing to delve even deeper switch back to R? I don't use it, but I understood that most advanced techniques in statistics are implemented first, and sometimes only, as R packages, no?
