• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is a college degree worth the cost? You decide.

It is worth it because at this point I have invested so much of my time, money, and effort into it that I would probably lose all emotional stability if I could no longer justify it to myself.

Do you really want to push the issue further?
 
I responded directly to the question you raised at the beginning of this thread.

The point was to provide numbers from which one can make one's own calculations. The video lacks the kind of statistics one needs to make an informed judgment.

To determine whether it makes sense for each individual--at least in financial terms--one must calculate the discounted cashflows associated with a college degree and those with only a high school degree. Even if one assumes a high tuition (well above the median figure), a college degree makes sense. That holds even if one allows for four years' additional work time for the high school graduate and if one assumes an elevated rate of inflation (>5%). When one includes financial aid (which reduces the net cost of college attendance) and job security (which reduces the risk of one's income stream being interrupted), the net benefit of a college degree is even larger.

The latest employment data (October 2012) show the importance educational attainment makes when it comes to employment. The following were the unemployment and labor force participation rates by educational attainment:

Less than high school: 12.2% (45.9% labor force participation rate)
High School/No College: 8.4% (60.1% labor force participation rate)
National Average: 7.9% (63.8% labor force participation rate)
Some College or Associate Degree: 6.9% (69.0% labor force participation rate)
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 3.8% (75.3% labor force participation rate)

Of course, as with anything, there is a degree of uncertainty. But, in general, a college degree is worth the cost. Cases where it isn't are the exception, not the rule.

I hate statistics like these because they are a reflection of what was, not what will be. In other words, I could probably go back to 2008 and make a pretty strong statistical argument up to that point for how investing in a house is a great idea and will always be totally worth it. It would be a mistake to assume that college is anymore of a sure bet than the housing market was simply based on statistics of how great it has been in the past.
 
I responded directly to the question you raised at the beginning of this thread.

To determine whether it makes sense for each individual--at least in financial terms--

This is an important thing you're bringing up. The other major issue with the premise of the OP is the notion that the purpose of college is to enable someone to make more money. Obviously that's exactly why many people go to college, but it's clearly not the case that that's the only reason to go to college. Want to make craploads of money without a degree? Get a small business loan right out of high school and put together a successful start up company. It's risky, but if you pull it off, maybe you'll be the next Mark Zuckerberg. Are you female and hot? Work in the porn industry for four or five years. Those girls can make obscene amounts of money (pardon the pun - I couldn't resist). At the other end of the spectrum, there are plenty of people who genuinely want to learn about a given subject, and - ideally - get jobs related to fields that don't necessarily pay all that well, but are interesting to them. PhD's in astrophysics make (generally) way less money than anyone with an undergraduate finance degree, but they're doing something that they love. That's a reward that can't entirely be measured.
 
I hate statistics like these because they are a reflection of what was, not what will be. In other words, I could probably go back to 2008 and make a pretty strong statistical argument up to that point for how investing in a house is a great idea and will always be totally worth it. It would be a mistake to assume that college is anymore of a sure bet than the housing market was simply based on statistics of how great it has been in the past.

Several things:

1. The historical experience (documented by Professor Shiller) revealed that housing is usually a low-return investment. There were two occasions with abnormally high returns in the U.S. experience: Prior to the Great Depression and the late 1990s-mid 2000s bubble.

2. The earnings data is post-recession. The numbers have changed, but the major point that a college degree has value remains unchanged.
 
This is an important thing you're bringing up. The other major issue with the premise of the OP is the notion that the purpose of college is to enable someone to make more money. Obviously that's exactly why many people go to college, but it's clearly not the case that that's the only reason to go to college. Want to make craploads of money without a degree? Get a small business loan right out of high school and put together a successful start up company. It's risky, but if you pull it off, maybe you'll be the next Mark Zuckerberg. Are you female and hot? Work in the porn industry for four or five years. Those girls can make obscene amounts of money (pardon the pun - I couldn't resist). At the other end of the spectrum, there are plenty of people who genuinely want to learn about a given subject, and - ideally - get jobs related to fields that don't necessarily pay all that well, but are interesting to them. PhD's in astrophysics make (generally) way less money than anyone with an undergraduate finance degree, but they're doing something that they love. That's a reward that can't entirely be measured.

As you correctly noted, there are non-financial/non-economic reasons people attend college, too. It's difficult to quantify the value of those intangibles whether one is talking about increased personal satisfaction or enhanced critical thinking skills, among many other possibilities.

It should also be noted that there are people who have not completed college and have been wildly successful i.e., some top athletes, some leading entertainers, some top fashion models, some notable entrepreneurs, etc. However, the universe of those people is so small, it does not wipe out the earnings gap between those with a college degree and those without it.
 
Several things:

1. The historical experience (documented by Professor Shiller) revealed that housing is usually a low-return investment. There were two occasions with abnormally high returns in the U.S. experience: Prior to the Great Depression and the late 1990s-mid 2000s bubble.

I wasn't arguing that it was a "high return" investment. I was arguing it was perceived as a safe investment; as in low risk and moderate return.

2. The earnings data is post-recession. The numbers have changed, but the major point that a college degree has value remains unchanged.

I'm less concerned with the Great Recession and more concerned with its aftermath. Growth seems to be increasingly less sustainable for the United States and unless their is some sort of incredible technological boom that rivals the internet within the next few years, I'm thinking it is fairly probable that things are going to grind to a halt and there will be far, far more college degrees flooding the job market than college level jobs.
 
In terms of income the argument can be made that either way depending on the career field. IMHO a masters is generally the most versatile degree. It is generally worth the time and money. You also may find that it gives you more control within your workplace.

Sadly the days of getting a degree to enhance the quality of your life are all but gone, unless you are among the idle rich. Now it's all down to "why do it unless I make can make a certain income". I understand that. I think it is unfortunate.

I hated high school, but thoroughly enjoyed college and grad school. Many people have a reverse opinion.
 
I'm less concerned with the Great Recession and more concerned with its aftermath. Growth seems to be increasingly less sustainable for the United States and unless their is some sort of incredible technological boom that rivals the internet within the next few years, I'm thinking it is fairly probable that things are going to grind to a halt and there will be far, far more college degrees flooding the job market than college level jobs.

That's already true, but it's also the case that there are fewer and fewer entry-level positions for people without degrees. Manufacturing jobs, for instance, are increasingly nonexistent in the US. We just can't compete with borderline slave labor overseas. The issue here is less about whether or not there are enough college level jobs, than about whether or not Americans are getting the right kinds of degrees. There are plenty of jobs in engineering and computer science (many of which are currently going to foreign nationals). That's not going to change anytime soon. It's also useless to a comparative lit major. The long and the short of it is that the US job market is way the hell more competitive than it has ever been. That's true on all levels.
 
I'm less concerned with the Great Recession and more concerned with its aftermath. Growth seems to be increasingly less sustainable for the United States and unless their is some sort of incredible technological boom that rivals the internet within the next few years, I'm thinking it is fairly probable that things are going to grind to a halt and there will be far, far more college degrees flooding the job market than college level jobs.

There is definitely a risk that the degrees being attained and the requirements of the evolving labor market might not be a match. Fields that involve the sciences (e.g., health) will have robust growth in job openings, but employers might have to turn outside U.S. borders to fill those positions. Greater responsiveness by educational institutions and improved performance will be needed to help address those issues.

It's probably too soon to be sure, but the shelf life of some degrees might prove shorter than in the past. If so, college graduates in those particular fields will likely need to reinvent themselves in terms of their education/skills more often than in the past. Higher Education or some other mechanism will need to be able to fill the need created by that situation.

On the other point about the economy's evolution, through at least the medium-term, there are headwinds that will likely continue to hinder economic growth. Government debt and household debt remain elevated. The quality of U.S. governance has deteriorated where policy makers find it difficult to address even the nation's major problems in an efficient and effective manner. Retiring Baby Boomers and those moving toward retirement will undercut the growth rate of personal consumption expenditures (still just over 70% of GDP). Global shifts in capital flows could also undercut U.S. growth as attractive options open up overseas and the savings glut in developing countries begins to shrink. There is also gathering empirical evidence that innovation in the U.S. is slowing for complex reasons and, if that trend persists, the nation's long-term growth rate would also be dampened. One of those reasons is the decline in educational attainment in the U.S. relative to other developed and even developing countries.
 
That's already true, but it's also the case that there are fewer and fewer entry-level positions for people without degrees. Manufacturing jobs, for instance, are increasingly nonexistent in the US. We just can't compete with borderline slave labor overseas. The issue here is less about whether or not there are enough college level jobs, than about whether or not Americans are getting the right kinds of degrees. There are plenty of jobs in engineering and computer science (many of which are currently going to foreign nationals). That's not going to change anytime soon. It's also useless to a comparative lit major. The long and the short of it is that the US job market is way the hell more competitive than it has ever been. That's true on all levels.

I get the feeling that the so called STEM degree shortage is the same kind of media perpetuated myth that the pharmacological degree shortage was less than a decade ago. However, I am open to evidence that suggests otherwise.
 
One of those reasons is the decline in educational attainment in the U.S. relative to other developed and even developing countries.

I disagree. I simply don't see a significant link between educational attainment and innovation. Hell, many of our most successful innovators dropped out of college or chose never to go in order to pursue their respective dreams. I don't think we can simply assume that achievement in higher education has anything to do with developing innovative abilities.
 
I disagree. I simply don't see a significant link between educational attainment and innovation. Hell, many of our most successful innovators dropped out of college or chose never to go in order to pursue their respective dreams. I don't think we can simply assume that achievement in higher education has anything to do with developing innovative abilities.

That's not really true. A few of our most famous innovators (e.g. Bill Gates, Mark Zukerberg) dropped out of college. Most of the people who work for them (also for Apple, Intel, etc) have advanced degrees in various engineering fields.
 
Sadly the days of getting a degree to enhance the quality of your life are all but gone, unless you are among the idle rich. Now it's all down to "why do it unless I make can make a certain income". I understand that. I think it is unfortunate.

I understand what you are saying, and my experience is perhaps a little different from the average American student. I am starting the first year of a five year double degree in Law and International Affairs. It is likely that at least the LLB will enable me to earn a tolerable income, but I am studying in those disciplines largely because they interest me.

I am fortunate inasmuch as my father left a trust for my education which will be sufficient to encompass whatever tertiary level I am capable of attaining, and my mother has put no pressure upon me as to the choice of discipline.

Higher education, in my family, is regarded as a sine qua non for a rewarding life, and not merely a tool for earning money. So I relate to your alarm at the concept of education simply being a means to a commercial end. It is my view that the state education should not conclude at the sixth form (year 12) of high school, but that it should encompass at least a Baccalaureate, for those who qualify academically. And an exposure to history, philosophy, literature, music and the arts, should be considered more important than some Mickey Mouse degree in business administration.
 
FYI not all union members dont have degrees
Also check how many of the workforce is actually in unions...
Also if you wanna make an argument, a good way not to start is by saying this, "Those charts are lies about salarys that do not reflect the real world" because last time i checked the BLS is a pretty damn good source.

Yes I know, because I work with several people that were teachers and QUIT because the rail road pays more and requires no degree.
I have useless degrees that dont pay and only care about $$$$$ union work.
Also my pizza delivery guy, he spent years working thru collage to be a teacher, he also quit because he makes more at Dominos.

% in unions is down because of war since PATCO strike......that will now change.
 
And we love banning your slave made products from USA, and naming the WTO as an Enemy of the USA.

SMOOT HAWLEY 2012!!!!!!
 
I responded directly to the question you raised at the beginning of this thread.

The point was to provide numbers from which one can make one's own calculations. The video lacks the kind of statistics one needs to make an informed judgment.

To determine whether it makes sense for each individual--at least in financial terms--one must calculate the discounted cashflows associated with a college degree and those with only a high school degree. Even if one assumes a high tuition (well above the median figure), a college degree makes sense. That holds even if one allows for four years' additional work time for the high school graduate and if one assumes an elevated rate of inflation (>5%). When one includes financial aid (which reduces the net cost of college attendance) and job security (which reduces the risk of one's income stream being interrupted), the net benefit of a college degree is even larger.

The latest employment data (October 2012) show the importance educational attainment makes when it comes to employment. The following were the unemployment and labor force participation rates by educational attainment:

Less than high school: 12.2% (45.9% labor force participation rate)
High School/No College: 8.4% (60.1% labor force participation rate)
National Average: 7.9% (63.8% labor force participation rate)
Some College or Associate Degree: 6.9% (69.0% labor force participation rate)
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 3.8% (75.3% labor force participation rate)

Of course, as with anything, there is a degree of uncertainty. But, in general, a college degree is worth the cost. Cases where it isn't are the exception, not the rule.
I did 't raise any question. I simply repeated the title of the video.

And I care not what you say about this - college is a good idea if you know what you want to do and it requires a degree and there is reasonable chance of employment after you graduate.

If the above is not the case - then it is not a good idea (unless you are rich or your tuition is paid for by another).

The notion that simply getting degree in ANY field is a good idea is utter nonsense.

In some it is, in others it is not.
 
And I care not what you say about this - college is a good idea if you know what you want to do and it requires a degree and there is reasonable chance of employment after you graduate.

If the above is not the case - then it is not a good idea (unless you are rich or your tuition is paid for by another).

The notion that simply getting degree in ANY field is a good idea is utter nonsense.

In some it is, in others it is not.

With respect, may I suggest that you are evaluating tertiary education as a means to a commercial end, and I don't believe that is all it can be. I am not sufficiently familiar with the American systems of further education, and your reference to attending college is a little confusing. We attend a university, which usually consists of many colleges, but that may simply be a question of two nations separated by a common language. :)

My point being that further education can and should be a way of enhancing your experience of life - not merely a way of increasing your income. University exposes you to many new experiences, new people, and new ideas, which a technical college or trade school is unlikely to. Not only does this provide opportunities to learn new stuff, but it piques your interest in new, and hitherto unexplored, fields of knowledge.

Think of how much more interesting society can be, when the general interest, and knowledge base, goes a bit further than the fortunes of the local football team, or what's on the box tonight. When you can discuss the motivations of Gustav Mahler in writing Kindertotenlieder, or what Fredrich Nietzsche meant to convey when he wrote "...if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." with the local greengrocer. :)
 
I did 't raise any question. I simply repeated the title of the video.

The video's title asks a broad question and the broad answer from the data is unambiguous. The empirical data demonstrates that, in general, a college degree is worth the cost in financial terms. There are some exceptions, but the data show that there is financial/economic value to a college degree overall. The early post-financial crisis/early post-recession data have not changed that situation. The literature is mixed, some shows a narrowing of the relative value (some of which might be due to the role of technology), other literature shows an increase in the value. Moreover, the changes in the value of a college degree are not uniform across economic sectors.
 
I disagree. I simply don't see a significant link between educational attainment and innovation. Hell, many of our most successful innovators dropped out of college or chose never to go in order to pursue their respective dreams. I don't think we can simply assume that achievement in higher education has anything to do with developing innovative abilities.

In the macroeconomic context, innovation is fueled by investments in research and knowledge creation/assimilation. Educational attainment has a direct statistical relationship to knowledge creation/assimilation, both in developed and developing countries. Educational attainment is a proxy for knowledge and knowledge-related critical thinking/analytical skills. It's not perfect, but it is a good proxy.

The increasing complexity of new products, growing role of specialization in various fields, evolving global market structures, etc., all require greater knowledge than had been the case even a generation ago. Even more generalist positions e.g., senior management, requires greater knowledge than had been the case before, as the industry structures have become more fluid than they had been in the past (more subsitutes, more global competition, expanded range of viable business models, etc.) and top managers need to be better versed in functions related to their companies' value chain/supporting activities.
 
With respect, may I suggest that you are evaluating tertiary education as a means to a commercial end, and I don't believe that is all it can be. I am not sufficiently familiar with the American systems of further education, and your reference to attending college is a little confusing. We attend a university, which usually consists of many colleges, but that may simply be a question of two nations separated by a common language. :)

My point being that further education can and should be a way of enhancing your experience of life - not merely a way of increasing your income. University exposes you to many new experiences, new people, and new ideas, which a technical college or trade school is unlikely to. Not only does this provide opportunities to learn new stuff, but it piques your interest in new, and hitherto unexplored, fields of knowledge.

Think of how much more interesting society can be, when the general interest, and knowledge base, goes a bit further than the fortunes of the local football team, or what's on the box tonight. When you can discuss the motivations of Gustav Mahler in writing Kindertotenlieder, or what Fredrich Nietzsche meant to convey when he wrote "...if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." with the local greengrocer. :)

Are you serious?

Fast Facts

Spending upwards of tens of thiusands of dollars (tuition/fees/room/board/etc.) to talk Nietzsche with your local grocer?

It's a LOT cheaper to just read Nietzsche on your own. You don't need some condescending prof telling you his interpretation of his writing's to get the gist of it.

I went to a private, US, mid-western university. The main things I learned are what it's like to be in a fraternity and how to get drunk on a budget.


I have run my own business since 1995.

And I learned virtually nothing in university (when I was not partying) that has helped me run my business.

University cannot teach you creativity, economic common sense, discipline, hard work, understanding people - all of which (imo) you need to run a successful business.


You want to. Be a lawyer, doctor, nurse, accountant, engineer, bean counter, white collar middle management? Then you better get a degree in those fields.

But if you want to learn about life?

Get out in the real world, take chances and LIVE.

It's aHECK of a lot cheaper and you will probably learn a a TON more about the real world and yourself.

But each to their own.
 
College is about much more than a piece of paper and a job. It represents time spent regulating oneself and succeeding. It teaches critical thinking and provides for socialization. It exposes people to different cultures, ideas and politics. It is an excellent system of "growing up" that can not be simulated via reading alone.
 


Whatever happened to kids working while they're in college? I don't know any who do. Didn't students used to work 10-15 hours a week and then try like hell to get jobs all summer long? Not that they can pay for their college in this way, but surely they can start immediately paying back their student loans.

If the government wants to subsidize kids' colleges, I'd be for exempting interest while they were in school -- giving them an opportunity to pay down debt rather rapidly if they work at it. Then having interest kick in six months after they graduate.

Whatever happened to kids starting to work summers when they turn 16 and saving half of everything they make towards college?

Whatever happened to parents/grandparents saving up for college for their kids? Instead of the crap they get at Christmas/birthdays? Why not contributions to their college fund and a $10 present?

Whatever happened to parents/grandparents saving in order to kick in at least a few thousand dollars each for their kids' college?

Kids are being led down the path to student loans as "a normal course of events" and mortgaging their futures in the process.
 
Whatever happened to kids working while they're in college? I don't know any who do. Didn't students used to work 10-15 hours a week and then try like hell to get jobs all summer long? Not that they can pay for their college in this way, but surely they can start immediately paying back their student loans.

Lots of people work part time, or even full time, during college. Most universities also have "work study" programs to offset the debt burdens of qualifying students.

Whatever happened to kids starting to work summers when they turn 16 and saving half of everything they make towards college?

So far as I know, people still do this (I certainly did, back in the mid 90's). Unless they're getting a summer job as an investment banker, it's probably not going to make much of a dent. This also gets complicated once they're in college, because unpaid summer internships are by far the best way to ensure you walk into a good job after college. This tends to give trust fund babies a huge leg up in the job market.

Whatever happened to parents/grandparents saving up for college for their kids? Instead of the crap they get at Christmas/birthdays? Why not contributions to their college fund and a $10 present?

Whatever happened to parents/grandparents saving in order to kick in at least a few thousand dollars each for their kids' college?

People still do that, but again, college is now ridiculously expensive. A few grand might - might - buy you half a semester at a public university. And that's just the tuition. Yearly expenses at, say, a UC (Univeristy of California) school run to about $53k (all inclusive). Private schools are probably $10-$20k higher than that. This puts the cost of a four year education at a public university at slightly higher than $200k.

Kids are being led down the path to student loans as "a normal course of events" and mortgaging their futures in the process.

That is certainly true, and it's a problem, but I don't see it changing unless college suddenly becomes quite a lot cheaper.
 
Back
Top Bottom