Story Comments

Mr. Hough makes reference to what I consider was a great article about the cost of renting versus buying a home. This article is none of the same.

I don't agree that more standards-based testing is needed. What IS needed is for college professors, high school teachers, grade school teachers, administrators, AND PARENTS, to start doing their respective jobs. Students at all levels are receiving passing grades for failing work. This dishonesty starts in kindergarten and is perpetuated all the way through college. It is largely the result of a culture that treats education as a product, rather than a life-enriching journey that occurs in AND OUT of the classroom. The lack of intellectual curiosity is fed by high grades that are no longer rare and thus not worth extending oneself to achieve. This is a cultural problem, not simply a teaching problem. Correcting the problem will only happen when teachers and professors can be truly honest about how students perform. In the current set of circumstances it is nearly impossible to assess honestly because poor grades are always assumed to reflect poor teaching, not undisciplined st...(Read more of this comment)udy habits. I wonder whether study habits and engagement with educational material would improve if teachers and professors had to work within a statistical curve that reflected competition for a rare A? For example, X percentage of students have to fail; no more than X percentage of students can receive an A. But hey, no one working at a tuition mill will want to do that because they'll lose too many poor students before gaining better ones. I also think there's a real need in the U.S. for four-year schools that are frills-free, and can provide an education for less than 20k a year. It's unclear to me why that can't be done when the pay of college professors seems not to be the thing sucking up the higher learning budgets. (Show less of this comment)

Our entire educational system requires revising. All citizens should be well versed in the basics (math, chemistry, science) by the time they are 15 years of age. At that time people may select to be trained in the basic crafts such as electrician, plumber, machinist, mechanic, etc., or select to go on and receive concentrated study for their selected professions/areas of expertise such as chemistry, health care, computer sciences, earth sciences, physics etc...

We have to many people going to college and not enough well trained technical/crafts people. A well trained electrician, plumber, carpenter, mechanic has the potential to make $100,000 plus and society needs them.

All of our citizens should be well trained and educated in the basics to the extent that they are informed/educated citizens, and they can be trained in whatever basic vocational selection they make-young people do not need to spend forever in a class room learning nothing!

Examine the Ge...(Read more of this comment)rman system. We need to get away from the old Engist system of so much general liberal education and get down to specifics!!!

You have to have a college sanctioned education to be able to be licensed or work in specific areas but my goodness why do we have to educate an MD up until he is 32 years of age-can we not get this done by age 24?? Imagine the amount of $$ we would save that could be used to maintain our universities and aid in keeping tuition low.

You made one incorrect asumption about the cost of a college education-the fellow that went to college will not have to pay for it period because dear old mom and dad will pay for it or feel like they will be sentenced to spend the afterlife in eternal hell and damnation.(Show less of this comment)

As a father of one Ivy League and one "new" Ivy League student, I wrestle with the premise of this article often. As parents, we are advised by publications such as SmartMoney, that the best way to secure our childrens financial future is through higher learning. So we do it. However, we all know that success comes through solid work ethics and achieving goals. What differentiates selective schools is the the "filtering" of highly motivated, goal oriented individuals has been completed. So, in essence, these schools are "gatekeepers" to the business community. And for that, we pay a price.

Your perspective might be valid for a Liberal Arts degree, as you specified in the opening. However, it is patently invalid for any technical degree in which you actually learn a valuable skill.

It is possible to become a self-taught engineer, biologist, lawyer, or even a doctor; however, it is far easier to gain the requisite knowledge at an accredited college or university. Furthermore, a degree is essential in most of these professions if you want to use the skills legally.

As to the merits of a "top school" like Harvard, students fortunate enough to be accepted will have the "privilege" of attending classes taught by grad students since the actual professors are too busy doing research and getting published.

A far better strategy is to apply to a second-tier school where you will actually benefit from the personal attention of full time professors.

In any case, a college student is best advised to pursue an education for its own sake, not for m...(Read more of this comment)onetary reward. If your objective is to get rich or simply secure a good retirement, you need not bother with college. If your objective is to build a career doing something of lasting value, a degree is only as good as the sweat you put in it and the knowledge and skills you get out of it.(Show less of this comment)

Just to add some fuel to the fire... We now have a new and massive entitlement for those who go to college.

Yet,in CA 66% of college entrants need 1-2 years before they can read, write, add well enough to take a college level courses. And, more than 50% of those who really need a leg up have already dropped out. This suggests that it would be wiser to concentrate on making earlier education sufficient for most jobs (If teachers didn't need to be policemen, this could be done by the 8th grade.) Those who are honestly academically oriented could go to college. The others could get further training in areas of their interest. The relatively large amounts of money that would have been given to college tuition support would go much farther at the middle school level concentrated on kids who really needed the help and inspiration.

This type of a system (akin to many in Europe) would also place well trained students in appropriate jobs at a much younger age which mi...(Read more of this comment)ght even help out social security and not burden them with massive debt.

Cisco academies, programs for disadvantaged or disaffected youth, and enlightened work/study programs reliably work wonders. Those who graduate these programs get excellent jobs. This is where the effort and $$ should be spent, not on older students who are just going to college because the mantra is that they need to to get a decent job. Especially, in a tough job market, employers have long ago learned that today's college degree means almost nothing.(Show less of this comment)

TomU (6:24 PM EST March 31, 2009) excellent points...

The certification process you describe would be very effeicient, practical, yet fair. It allows the learner to attain the knowledge w/o having to recycle through the whole college pipeline again, and become certified in a new or existing career field - an enormous advantage to people changing careers. It also recognizes the much knowledge is trasnferrable between fields, and should not have to be relearned elsewhere. You proposal also recognizes the value of self-education, of knowledge acquired independent of the university.
Especially nowadays, it is very easy to self-study in subjects like mathematics, the sciences, certain fields of business, and some others. Perhaps the role for universities could increasingly be one of providing the practical labs, internships, and other hands-on aspects of learning unattainable via self-study.

Great post, Tom...

Mr. Hough:

Just heard your segment on the Michael Medved Show, and I could not agree more with your comments. The problems at the core of the higher education system are, if anything, worse than you describe in my view. Some issues to consider...

Our universities are the de facto gatekeepers to the employment market, or significant portions of it. Under the old social contract, where one kept a job for many years after getting out of college, perhaps this wasn't as significant a problem, but now labor - the workers - are told that we must be prepared to switch careers, and thereby retrain at a moment's notice. The problem is that few mid-career folks can afford the time and money to retrain, not without strip-mining their retirement, savings, or amassing yet more debt. Employers have bought into this system, expecting that someone entering the accounting field, for example, must have an accounting degree, plus the necessary certitifications, etc.
The same applie...(Read more of this comment)s for education, a field reputedly friendly to career changers; one must have a teaching license, granted by - you guessed it - a college or university, in conjunction with a state board of education.

The end effect of such a system is to reduce on-the-job training, apprenticeships, and other more practical ways of training workers, in favor of college coursework that more and more families can no longer afford. It also hinders mobility of labor within the economy, the very thing that employers say they favor.

The other problem is over-credentialing; we have become obsessed with licenses, certificates, degrees, and other assorted ephemera that purport to show a state of knowledge, or "prove" that someone is a good mechanic, teacher, nurse, or other specialist. Moreover, these certifications are thought more or less to indemnify employers from malpractice lawsuits, yet more evidence that tort reform is essential in this country.

Consider the ASE certificate that probably hangs in the window of your auto mechanic's place of business. An auto tech may test in various skill areas, such as engine repair, or brakes, on up to the Master Mechanic level. Yet, at no point during the pencil-and-paper testing process are the would-be certificate holders required to demonstrate their proficiency in actual repair; the test is entirely theoretical! The same applies to tests given in many fields. I have been told by many mechanics of personnel in the field possessing all the certificates, who could not make competent automotive repairs. Why bother with the certificate in such a case?

Economists such as the late Milton Friedman argued that the real purpose of licenses, certificates, and the like, was as a back-door form of unionization to restrict entry of competitors into a given field. An equally attractive purpose was as a revenue stream. A would-be nurse, for example, pays a testing service to take a licensing exam, if she passes, pays again in applying for the license from her home state, and pays annually or semi-annually again in perpetuity to maintain that license. Nor does it end there; one is required to take continuing education credits and their accompanying tests to stay current.

So, what has developed under the guise of patient safety, or consumer protection, is a vast system of bureaucracy that nickle-and-dimes both workers and consumers halfway to death, while arguably failing to improve performance. In short, it's a vast scam. Perhaps a cogent argument can be made for licensing healthcare professionals, pilots, and a very few other professions whose work is truly life-saving (or threatening), but is there any real reason a dog-groomer needs a license, or for that matter, an interior decorator? Don't laugh, the state of IL (Obama's home state) requires both to have a license to do business.

My point above is that we are letting the tail wag the dog; instead of an educational and credentialing establishment driven by employer, labor and market needs, we now have system that caters first-and-foremost to the needs of a government/education industrial complex, and then only to the rest of us. Such a system is a profound waste of human capital, time and money.
(Show less of this comment)

I believe that ldswims makes a very valid point in his post. The current system is more geared toward indoctrination than education. The noted preference for the use of computers in place of live teachers in public schools supports this. Students are run through a meat grinder and conditioned like Pavlov's dogs. A lack of critical thinking is the goal of the powers that be. Its more important to produce politically correct drones than to have original thoughts and true innovation. Free thinking persons have historically been viewed as a threat. They question things at the most inconvenient times. I would definitely expect more originality and ingeniusness than what we are currently seeing in degreed people.

There are 2 big problems with this article, which earlier comments may also state. 1) There is an assumption that you can average 8% per year in mutual funds. I guess the writer forgot to look at the stock market over the last 12-15 months. There are lots of godd and very good funds right now whose 10 year average returns have been blasted down to less than 5%.
2) In the real world job market, there are lots of jobs that require a college degree or the employer will not even look at your application.
I do agree that college degrees are not what they may have been at one time. But at the same time, there are less and less high paying jobs that do not require a 4 year degree. There used to be more good paying manufacturing jobs, for example.

I agree completely with poster u240018 - the flaw in this argument is ignoring the standard of living. Give them the same living expenses (the only fair comparison) and Bill at his peak earning potential is saving a whopping 46% of his income, not just 5%.

indeed, the primary characteristic of the top tier college is that their graduates were selected by the admission process as highly competent high achievers. in fact, there was that study a few years back that found that the defining characteristic was merely having applied to an ivy league school, not getting accepted; the kids whose track record and ambition led them to apply had, on the average, as bright a future as though who actually got accepted.

in fact, the availability of education at a top school is a mixed bag. there is definitely more opportunity available, but on the other hand, courses are more likely to be taught by a grad student who isn't very familiar with the english language than by a brilliant professor. in fact, faculty are rated more on their research than on their teaching proficiency, and with rare exceptions, teaching is looked upon as a distraction from their real job.

a degree from a top school will often open a lot of doors, but at the ...(Read more of this comment)same time there is sometimes a negative reaction; you may be "overqualified" or "likely to get bored" or "probably going to want to jump to another job right away", or worst of all, "going to go after your supervisor's job". maybe you will be branded as an elitist or an egghead, unable to fit in to the workday environment or relate to your fellow workers. if you have an advanced degree, even worse.

a good college education should be looked at more like a terrific but expensive vacation; it's a wonderful experience which will enrich your life, but the dollar and cents payoff isn't guaranteed.(Show less of this comment)

I have long maintained that not everyone should get a degree. Another commenter suggested that the college degree now is like the high school degree of yesteryear. IMO, this goes back at least to the 70's and before - when vocations used to be taught on that level. I think college should be a mark of a more intelligent person (not smarter, just more exposed to various ideas), someone who has more drive and motivation, someone who works hard to obtain the degree. If college were like that, it may very well have eliminated me from the pool of degree holders while I was there. I do know that people that were sitting beside me in the courses I was taking were far more clueless than even I.

Add to this the cost of the degree which now means less, well, it's a ridiculous system. Some schools are better than others for preparing college graduates as opposed to college finishers. And that is something everyone is told when thinking about where to apply to - what do you want you...(Read more of this comment)r name associated with? Education? Try an Ivy League. Fun? Try this or that state school. Liberal tendencies? Try this or that state school. Conservative tendencies? Try this or that..

So in the end, if we are only being taught the college's slants, well, guess what. We aren't educated. We are merely drones.

And what does that prove? Where's the value in that?

Criticial thinking has been removed from too much of our education system, and I'm not suggesting just college. Unfortunately, until we get critical thinking back as a mandatory skill set to teach, guess what? This is all moot!

So take on the debt, enjoy the opportunities, but - if you value your degree, question everything!(Show less of this comment)

This is a very insightful article and one that I believe is accurate. As an employer, I am constantly shocked at the quality of the labor pool and increasingly this includes those with a degree. Not only do these graduates have massive debt, but they have been taught all the wrong things at college and come out with an entitlement mentality and seem unwilling to work hard to gain promotions and therefore more money.

I do not have a degree and have worked very hard my entire life to ensure that I earn a good income for my family. I earn significantly above what most degreed individuals earn and believe that my performs is significantly higher than most. Companies should learn that requiring a degree only limits the labor pool and disqualifies numerous quality applicants.

Getting a degree is now a gamble??? Please... I recognize that there are individuals without degrees who outperform and are more succesful then college grads. But the overwhelming evidence is that college grads make more, and will have MANY more opportunities to get their foot in the door and get a job. I've already made my point that the author's entire financial aargument is rubbish. The college grad will have mmuch more cash available throughout his lifetime.

I'll agree that certifications are extremely valuable. I applaud individuals who pursue those options. College degrees are still important, PARTICULARLY in this tough environment. If I was a hiring manager, I'm going to hire in this order:

* College grads with good experience and certifications
* College grads with good experience or certifications
* Non-college grads with good experience and certifications
* College grads with no experience or certifications
* Non-college grads with no e...(Read more of this comment)xperience or certifications

All other factors being equal, the college grad wins every time.(Show less of this comment)

Jack should be Sec. of Education!!

I never finished my bachelors degree. I did graduate an associate degree from a technical school in computer programming. I'm working with guys who have masters degrees and doctorates. Our salaries are comparable. But where they received theory I actually worked and experienced what they just discussed in the lecture halls. I'd love to finish the bachelors, but at my age and connsidering that it won't make any difference in my income, its not cost effective nor worth the effort. In fact they sometimes come to me for help on projects, because I know things they don't and you would expect them to. They admit that the professors never mentioned some of these things in school. With no gurantee of a job in your choosen field and the exporting of engineering and IT jobs over seas why would anyone gamble tens of thousands of dollars on a formal degree. Even in this market, the odds of a good payoff are better just investing the money than f...(Read more of this comment)unding the university president's big house, expensive car and cushy job. I worked assembly lines, warehouses and loading docks while I went to school off and on and paid cash. In the end to get where I'm took no longer than getting that Masters degree and I didn't have the debt. I know business from the ground up and recognize good and bad management when I see it. The big degree guys don't in many cases. They are long on theory but short of application. Considering that our salaries are not that different, they're the ones who were cheated. I am convinced that the education system is more about keeping people in the system as long as they can and getting all the money they can and producing politically correct citizens than they are about a real and useful education. And the politicians are big on needing more money to improve public education. I say no more taxes for public education. I say this because if all the money they have previously taxed out of the public actually went to improve public education it would not be in the miseable condition it currently is. You see a perfect example of this when a state university runs TV spots for their ball teams after announcing program and staff cuts along with tuition hikes because of the bad economy. If they are that short of funds why are they buying air time on TV for sports? (And the sports as a money maker arguement doesn't hold with me so don't even go there.)

Today's degrees are not always worth the paper they are printed on. There's no gurantee that the graduate really knows everything they should.
No gurantee of a good job in your field. They only indicate the completion of some structured program likely deficient in learning because they have to be politically correct. And they are expensive. A bachelors degree is what a high school diploma used to be.
(Show less of this comment)

Jack is spot on, I'd nominate him for Sec Education today.
I have certifications (CPA, CMA, and CFM) and I have degrees (BBA and MBA). The degrees were fun, and prove my stick-to-it-ness, the certifications demonstrate what applied knowledge I have. I am often disappointed with new hires' with diplomas, yet rarely disappointed with those who have certifications. Learning is a life long process, where once one could learn most everything needed in a four year bachelors program, the world has accelerated and education needs to follow (even possibly lead someday?). Jack's ideas to improve knowledge acquisition are spot on, kudos.

Yeah, this article makes far too many generalizations and assumptions, several of which have already been mentioned. Ignoring the fact that the college grad has twice the standard of living is just the start. Also, it ignores the fact that those who have those overpaid union jobs that inflate the averages for those without college educations are likely about to not be overpaid anymore (if paid at all.)

Also, the numbers shown for starting earnings for college grads are FAR lower than what college grads in many fields make. For instance, in my field (Computer Science) starting salaries averaged around $57,000 last year, a far cry from the $23,500 used in the article. Mid 50's to low 60's starting salaries are common to CS and Engineering fields. Furthermore, these fields also have a far lower chance of being laid off, since you can't just send the jobs to Mexico, we don't have unions making idiotic decisions for us, and the supply of graduates is still less than the demand. Eve...(Read more of this comment)n in this economy, IT unemployment is still south of 3% (as opposed to the 8% overall.) In my personal experience in a poor economy in one of the lowest cost-of-living states in the Union (TN,) I received 3 offers from the 3 companies that I applied to before I even graduated, with 2 of those offers in the high 50's and one in the low 50's. Certainly, I could not have had anything close to that without a degree. Furthermore, this was after attending a state school with my degree paid for the whole way (plus some, actually,) resulting in no debt at graduation.

Regarding the proposed testing, colleges already give such exit exams and those data must be supplied to the accreditation organizations in order for the school to maintain its accreditation and for the particular major to remain accredited. Also, you don't just get a degree from the school, you also get a GPA. This allows potential employers to quickly see the difference between the students who were just passing and the students who were excelling. Furthermore, standardized tests simply do not constitute a sufficient assessment of a candidates abilities and there are many subject areas that do not limit themselves to such tests. Designing and implementing software (my profession) is one of those areas. Yes, there is some basic knowledge that can be (and is) tested, but you simply cannot design a test sufficient to determine how well someone can design and implement software, let alone all of the diverse specialties within software development. The only way to gauge that ability is by having classes where you actually are required to implement such systems and your performance in doing so is rated by people with sufficient knowledge and experience to give an accurate rating (such as by Ph.D.'s in CS.)

By the way, schools (and particular degree programs within schools) don't rate their own reputation. They have to develop those reputations (and, therefore, the value of the degrees that they issue) over time by producing high-quality graduates who are successful in the workplace after graduation, by obtaining and maintaining accreditation from known organizations, and by contributing quality research to the academic community. If they start to produce lower-quality graduates, then they will lose that reputation among employers and their graduates won't get jobs.(Show less of this comment)

If you throw numbers at somebody, most people accept it as a fact without doing some investigation. This argument is bogus. Again, I'll point out that the author just dismisses the fact that the college grad will have MUCH more money for living expenses during his working years, and his standard of living will be considerably higher.

If you run the numbers, and the college grad has the SAME living expenses as the non-college grad (with the SAME standard of living) and all that extra money he makes goes to savings, at age 65 the college grad will have TWICE as much money as the non-college grad.

Every situation is different. I'm sure there are non-college grads about to retire from GM, who have worked a great union job for years, who are better off then a degreed elementary school teacher in Bozemon, Montana. BUT... overall college grads are going to have the most opportunities, and are going to be better off financially, despite the author's skewed data.
...(Read more of this comment)> Look at the job market now. It's a fight for jobs. If it's a battle between two candidates and one has a degree, the guy with the degree is going to get the job. Anyone considering that?(Show less of this comment)

Interesting...although too many factors are assumed here. Even if 17-18 yr olds stopped to read an article like this and realized the math is compelling, I would bet that a particulate of that group would not invest the dollars you are talking about and continue to invest at that rate until they are 65. Yes, the math works out to the HS grad's favor...in the end. And if that is your sole argument, then I would say it is a valid one. However, you are leaving out too many details and I think if you actually looked at retirement portfolios of college grads and HS grads the latter would be much lower in assett value.

What may be unrealistic in this article (and what really hamstrings the college grad) is the understated borrowing load that most students have assumed as they come out of college. With the ups and downs of the economy over the last ten years (dot com bust, 911) most college funds took big hits. This forced a booming demand for the bane of our collective genrerations... DEBT. Many students are likely to have matriculated college with $50K in loans and semi-worthless degrees. They will labor for years paying this off. (I continue to push my sons to consider military service where they may learn a trade (usable) and gain college funding (bankable) for the best choice of options.)

I tend to agree that a college diploma may not be as attractive as it once was when we (the US) made mostly butter and guns. Instead, today's grad is faced with a service economy and lower wages based on "do you want fries with that?" jobs.

Where to start. There are so many ridiculous assumptions. For example, how many graduating high school seniors will have saved $16,600, and invest it in the stock market? Either they don't have the money, or they need it for living expenses.

Also, the non-college worker, at a peak income of $32,538, will only have $30,911 to live off of after contributing 5% of his pay to savings. The college grad, with a peak income of $56,808, will have $53,967 to live off of!

If you TRULY want to make a fair comparison, make both individuals have the same living expenses of $30,911. The numbers swing DRAMATICALLY to the college grad if he lives off $30,911 like the non-college grad, and contributes the other $25,897 of his peak income to savings.

I hope no one takes this article seriously. The non college grad may have more money at retirement under the author's scenario, but he'll have to live like a pauper compared to the college grad to achieve that.

I am hard pressed to see validity in this article. There is no one-size-fits-all assessment here. A bachelors degree in one area may turn out to be much more valuable than one from another. And everyone's career choices are different. Like all investments, there will be a risks associated with return. But investing in yourself is what gives you half a chance to succeed. Just another gloomy and flimsy forecast.

I live in Michigan and have long argued that with union pay and pensions getting a college degree was a losing battle. I went to college anyway because I wanted to be an engineer and not work in a factory. Based on the time and money I spent in college against people who worked and made money / pension / benefits I can never catch up to them.

But, with the government making it easier to off shore jobs, labor competing with the world market and unions recently lowering pay for incoming workers in order to compete, I'm not sure this same scenario will play out for the current generation entering college.