3 ms·

This pessimistic view doesn’t seem that well supported by the data. In the US, we’re pushing nearly 40% of bachelor’s degree attainment, which is far broader a

by dahart 4y ago

This pessimistic view doesn’t seem that well supported by the data. In the US, we’re pushing nearly 40% of bachelor’s degree attainment, which is far broader a population than you suggest. There’s also the problem that degree holders earn an average of 2x more than non-degree holders. I was very surprised by this! The St. Louis Fed published this statistic in an article arguing that the wealth advantage of college was waning, but it kinda backfired on me when I looked at their absolute numbers. The fact that many many many good jobs require a degree and that earnings are statistically higher for people with degrees, I speculate, is driving college rates far more than all three reasons you proposed, combined… from a students’ perspective.

jletienne 4y ago
it's unclear if the causation here is having a degree. but it is correlated to a very large degree
- dahart 4y ago
  This has been quite widely studied, actually. Many papers conclude that it’s a mix of causation, there is (unsurprisingly) some amount of actual learning of skills in college, and also (unsurprisingly) some amount of credentialism in the job market. What does it matter though? Parent was presuming to argue from a students’ perspective. The amount of relative causation might be pretty irrelevant to a student who just wants to know what do to to maximize their chances of having a decent career. From a student’s perspective, lack of causation might even be a stronger reason than otherwise, it potentially means they can enjoy a more lucrative career with less work.
  - jedberg 4y ago
    No, the main question is are the highest paid workers getting that because of college, or did the most driven and smartest go to college, and would have been equally successful had no one gone to college? Back in the day (pre-WW2) most successful people did no go to college. College was for wealthy trust fund kids to spend some time meeting other wealthy trust fund kids, because there just weren't all that many colleges nor any need to go. That whole college==more money thing didn't start until after WW2.
    - dahart 4y ago
      Yes, that is precisely the question that has been asked & answered, and the general consensus in the academic literature (for example https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322) is that it’s both. The Fed paper I linked to here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35212497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35212497 shows dramatically higher income and wealth premiums for educated people in the 30s and 40s, so you might want to take a peek.
      - rahimnathwani 4y ago
        The GP asked what the outcomes would have been if no one had gone to college. This isn't answered by the paper you linked, which discussed the impact on individuals of college choice in a world where people do* go to college.
        dahart 4y ago
        This and other papers are trying as best they can to answer exactly that question, of what if there was no college. Since the hypothetical universe where college never existed doesn’t exist, they have to resort to careful scientific techniques that attempt to factor out every bias we can think of. They’re working with what they have. Papers have, for example, studied the family history of college attendance and adjusted (discounted) for when parents and grandparents attend, they have adjusted for family wealth, for race, for geographic location, for country, for tuition, etc. etc.. You can either accept that they’ve tried rather hard and come up with a reasonable answer, or accept that the question you’re demanding be answered in the specific way you want it answered is not answerable that way, your choice. Again, I have to ask (since it hasn’t yet been answered yet in this thread) why does this hypothetical question matter from a student’s perspective? Students are deciding what to do in the world that exists now, not in a world where people don’t go to college. All they know is that outcomes are better with a degree that without, on average. If you were choosing college right now, why does it matter what happens in the alternate reality? Don’t you just think about the jobs you want in the future, what you’re interests are and how much money you want to make, and then go or not?

by dahart 4y ago

jletienne 4y ago

it's unclear if the causation here is having a degree. but it is correlated to a very large degree

dahart 4y ago
This has been quite widely studied, actually. Many papers conclude that it’s a mix of causation, there is (unsurprisingly) some amount of actual learning of skills in college, and also (unsurprisingly) some amount of credentialism in the job market. What does it matter though? Parent was presuming to argue from a students’ perspective. The amount of relative causation might be pretty irrelevant to a student who just wants to know what do to to maximize their chances of having a decent career. From a student’s perspective, lack of causation might even be a stronger reason than otherwise, it potentially means they can enjoy a more lucrative career with less work.
- jedberg 4y ago
  No, the main question is are the highest paid workers getting that because of college, or did the most driven and smartest go to college, and would have been equally successful had no one gone to college? Back in the day (pre-WW2) most successful people did no go to college. College was for wealthy trust fund kids to spend some time meeting other wealthy trust fund kids, because there just weren't all that many colleges nor any need to go. That whole college==more money thing didn't start until after WW2.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Yes, that is precisely the question that has been asked & answered, and the general consensus in the academic literature (for example https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322) is that it’s both. The Fed paper I linked to here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35212497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35212497 shows dramatically higher income and wealth premiums for educated people in the 30s and 40s, so you might want to take a peek.
    - rahimnathwani 4y ago
      The GP asked what the outcomes would have been if no one had gone to college. This isn't answered by the paper you linked, which discussed the impact on individuals of college choice in a world where people do* go to college.
      - dahart 4y ago
        This and other papers are trying as best they can to answer exactly that question, of what if there was no college. Since the hypothetical universe where college never existed doesn’t exist, they have to resort to careful scientific techniques that attempt to factor out every bias we can think of. They’re working with what they have. Papers have, for example, studied the family history of college attendance and adjusted (discounted) for when parents and grandparents attend, they have adjusted for family wealth, for race, for geographic location, for country, for tuition, etc. etc.. You can either accept that they’ve tried rather hard and come up with a reasonable answer, or accept that the question you’re demanding be answered in the specific way you want it answered is not answerable that way, your choice. Again, I have to ask (since it hasn’t yet been answered yet in this thread) why does this hypothetical question matter from a student’s perspective? Students are deciding what to do in the world that exists now, not in a world where people don’t go to college. All they know is that outcomes are better with a degree that without, on average. If you were choosing college right now, why does it matter what happens in the alternate reality? Don’t you just think about the jobs you want in the future, what you’re interests are and how much money you want to make, and then go or not?