3 ms·

You are right but it was based on math. Graduates made $32K more per year than non graduates. But it doesn't take into account that most graduates were in caree

You are right but it was based on math. Graduates made $32K more per year than non graduates. But it doesn't take into account that most graduates were in careers that pay more. Doctors and lawyers can really bump the average. We needed more honest reporting of this. How much do college graduates make more per year by degree? So then people know that a BA in art history likely has a negative outcome.

WalterBright 7y ago
> How much do college graduates make more per year by degree? Google [salaries by college major]. You're welcome :-)
bsanr2 7y ago
Well, when we approach the problem from that angle, we have to ask what we value and why, and how that informs what work we value. Running that same analysis would find that a BA in education similarly underpays compared to private or academic STEM work, or finance, or law. So, we value work that, for example, actively undermines the stability of the economy for personal gain, or that often rent seeks on interpersonal grievances, or that drives climate change, over the raising and training youth to be positive and thoughtful contributors to society. In that light, I wonder if that BA in art history is such a bad thing. Maybe we ought to value the work those people do more. It's a decision whether or not to do so, not some natural phenomenon of the "market" that we have no control over.
- snarf21 7y ago
  I'm not disagreeing that we don't value things fairly. Just that we never were open and honest with people that these jobs won't pay more. Then add in $50K-$100K in debt and it makes the choice easier.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    I still think there's a problem with the logic, even accounting for "market forces." The "shortage" of STEM workers (whether that's an actual shortage of actual capable bodies or simply a shortage of people willing to put up with being undercompensated in some regard) makes us forget that, at some point in revolutionizing college education so that it churned out only STEM graduates, you'd reach the top of the curve, the paradigm would flip to there not being enough jobs, and salaries would start to fall. What you're really saying is that those types of jobs incentivize capitalists to invest in the workforce, so we should encourage people to go for that carrot. I'm saying that the capital is already there, regardless. We should be directing that money to society's priorities (which we should actually explicitly declare), not at the whims of a relatively small class of property-holders. I mean, the debt is also a decision. We could forgive it, if we really wanted to.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  My mothers comment was that it used to be a BA in English was a valuable degree because outside of a few skilled fields employers didn't care what your degree was in. That went away with the rise of business schools. If you want to know how long the rot has been taking hold on us my mother died 25 years ago. I also think that the value of a liberal arts degree is better not gauged solely on balance sheet economics.

WalterBright 7y ago

> How much do college graduates make more per year by degree? Google [salaries by college major]. You're welcome :-)

bsanr2 7y ago

Well, when we approach the problem from that angle, we have to ask what we value and why, and how that informs what work we value. Running that same analysis would find that a BA in education similarly underpays compared to private or academic STEM work, or finance, or law. So, we value work that, for example, actively undermines the stability of the economy for personal gain, or that often rent seeks on interpersonal grievances, or that drives climate change, over the raising and training youth to be positive and thoughtful contributors to society. In that light, I wonder if that BA in art history is such a bad thing. Maybe we ought to value the work those people do more. It's a decision whether or not to do so, not some natural phenomenon of the "market" that we have no control over.

snarf21 7y ago
I'm not disagreeing that we don't value things fairly. Just that we never were open and honest with people that these jobs won't pay more. Then add in $50K-$100K in debt and it makes the choice easier.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  I still think there's a problem with the logic, even accounting for "market forces." The "shortage" of STEM workers (whether that's an actual shortage of actual capable bodies or simply a shortage of people willing to put up with being undercompensated in some regard) makes us forget that, at some point in revolutionizing college education so that it churned out only STEM graduates, you'd reach the top of the curve, the paradigm would flip to there not being enough jobs, and salaries would start to fall. What you're really saying is that those types of jobs incentivize capitalists to invest in the workforce, so we should encourage people to go for that carrot. I'm saying that the capital is already there, regardless. We should be directing that money to society's priorities (which we should actually explicitly declare), not at the whims of a relatively small class of property-holders. I mean, the debt is also a decision. We could forgive it, if we really wanted to.
Gibbon1 7y ago
My mothers comment was that it used to be a BA in English was a valuable degree because outside of a few skilled fields employers didn't care what your degree was in. That went away with the rise of business schools. If you want to know how long the rot has been taking hold on us my mother died 25 years ago. I also think that the value of a liberal arts degree is better not gauged solely on balance sheet economics.