3 ms·

>Meanwhile, a computer science major will earn on the order of double what a psychology major might earn, both as a starting salary, and that will compound over

>Meanwhile, a computer science major will earn on the order of double what a psychology major might earn, both as a starting salary, and that will compound over their careers. So? Assuming a fair charge (not the US kind of exorbitant tuition), the costs are similar (salaries from professors, administrative stuff, buildings, libraries, labs, and so on). You're not paying to buy a career, you're paying to buy an education. >There would be no kids with low-value degrees in $250k of debt graduating with a job paying $30k/yr. That simply shouldn’t happen. Yes. Or we could forbid poor people from getting their desired degrees altogether, what you describe is the same thing but with more steps.

ethbr1 3y ago
> Or we could forbid poor people from getting their desired degrees altogether, what you describe is the same thing but with more steps. We probably should. There's little difference between "I graduated with an uneconomic degree, and then failed to get a job in that market and/or labored under student debt I'll never be able to pay off" and "They wouldn't give me money for an uneconomic degree". If anything, the latter is kinder because it nudges the college student into either funding their own uneconomic degree up-front (if they can find the money) or making other decisions. It's always seemed insane to me that we let 18-year olds, sometimes with little financial education, make decisions that will benefit or haunt them for the rest of their life with so little guidance. (And college counselors have very conflicting incentives)
- nebula8804 3y ago
  It may be better to tackle this issue at the school level than to pick and choose what constitutes a valuable degree because that can change depending on what the market wants. What may be true at student entrance may be totally false at student graduation. Isn't this a solved problem in Europe? The state treats public colleges as a utility to invest in the population. So the schools may not be as glamorous but they are easily and cheaply available for people who want to put in the work regardless of major.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    I guess the issue with college funding is: is it an entitlement or an incentive program? If it's an entitlement, we could just give people money whether or not they choose to spend it on college. If it's an incentive (buying a good outcome for society), then it seems fair that the funder has some say in what they're buying. I've heard Canada does have a serious problem with oscillating supply/demand mismatch in their medical education funding. But it feels like that could be smoothed by using look back averaging & creating a +/- % system vs a hard, "there are no more slots" one.
lapcat 3y ago
> Assuming a fair charge (not the US kind of exorbitant tuition) The submitted article was about "American colleges and universities", so we have to assume the US kind of exorbitant tuition. If college students didn't have to pay exorbitant tuition and take out massive student loans, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion about ROI.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >The submitted article was about "American colleges and universities", so we have to assume the US kind of exorbitant tuition I know. My point was "EVEN assuming a fair charge, the costs for different degrees would STILL be similar (classrooms built and maintained, administrative salaries, campus maintenance, libraries, teacher salaries, etc)". So, why would you expect different degrees to charge different tuition? >If college students didn't have to pay exorbitant tuition and take out massive student loans, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion about ROI. @lumb63 was bothered about how different degrees are paying the same - which is a question not tied to the tuition being exorbitant or not. And I think his point was to use cost of the degree to discourage people from degrees that don't make money.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    What's a "fair" charge? Students don't pay all of the costs to run a university even in the US, and certainly not outside the US. Students don't pay any of the costs to run a public high school, after all. But a big problem nowadays is that students are paying a greater share of the public university costs, since the government is subsidizing a smaller share of the costs. If you go back 60 years or so, it wasn't the case. That's why Boomers brag about paying for their college education by working summer jobs and such, because they could! Unfortunately, college costs have become less socialized and more privatized. Different degrees do have significantly different costs, though. To some extent, market forces govern professor salaries, and professors in different departments can make vastly different salaries. Still, universities distort market forces by bundling all of the "goods" into one big package. Imagine if there were separate universities for each department instead of one university covering every department. For example, there would be separate engineering and philosophy universities. The engineering university would have a much higher price, not just due to the higher costs of engineering professors and the materials required by the department but also due to demand for an engineering education. The payoff of a degree with greater economic prospects makes the students more willing to pay a higher price for the degree. (EDIT: One might argue that public universities artificially inflate philosophy professor salaries, for example, beyond what they could command without the help of the other bundled departments.) To be clear, I'm not suggesting that universities should be run according to market forces. On the contrary, I think higher education should be mostly subdizied just like high school and lower education. My point is that "costs" are not inherently fixed. They're subject to economics, both supply and demand, and you can't ignore demand as a crucial factor. Thus, when we think in terms of the costs and price of a university education, I think it's very fair to consider the ROI.

ethbr1 3y ago

> Or we could forbid poor people from getting their desired degrees altogether, what you describe is the same thing but with more steps. We probably should. There's little difference between "I graduated with an uneconomic degree, and then failed to get a job in that market and/or labored under student debt I'll never be able to pay off" and "They wouldn't give me money for an uneconomic degree". If anything, the latter is kinder because it nudges the college student into either funding their own uneconomic degree up-front (if they can find the money) or making other decisions. It's always seemed insane to me that we let 18-year olds, sometimes with little financial education, make decisions that will benefit or haunt them for the rest of their life with so little guidance. (And college counselors have very conflicting incentives)

nebula8804 3y ago
It may be better to tackle this issue at the school level than to pick and choose what constitutes a valuable degree because that can change depending on what the market wants. What may be true at student entrance may be totally false at student graduation. Isn't this a solved problem in Europe? The state treats public colleges as a utility to invest in the population. So the schools may not be as glamorous but they are easily and cheaply available for people who want to put in the work regardless of major.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  I guess the issue with college funding is: is it an entitlement or an incentive program? If it's an entitlement, we could just give people money whether or not they choose to spend it on college. If it's an incentive (buying a good outcome for society), then it seems fair that the funder has some say in what they're buying. I've heard Canada does have a serious problem with oscillating supply/demand mismatch in their medical education funding. But it feels like that could be smoothed by using look back averaging & creating a +/- % system vs a hard, "there are no more slots" one.

lapcat 3y ago

> Assuming a fair charge (not the US kind of exorbitant tuition) The submitted article was about "American colleges and universities", so we have to assume the US kind of exorbitant tuition. If college students didn't have to pay exorbitant tuition and take out massive student loans, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion about ROI.

coldtea 3y ago
>The submitted article was about "American colleges and universities", so we have to assume the US kind of exorbitant tuition I know. My point was "EVEN assuming a fair charge, the costs for different degrees would STILL be similar (classrooms built and maintained, administrative salaries, campus maintenance, libraries, teacher salaries, etc)". So, why would you expect different degrees to charge different tuition? >If college students didn't have to pay exorbitant tuition and take out massive student loans, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion about ROI. @lumb63 was bothered about how different degrees are paying the same - which is a question not tied to the tuition being exorbitant or not. And I think his point was to use cost of the degree to discourage people from degrees that don't make money.
- lapcat 3y ago
  What's a "fair" charge? Students don't pay all of the costs to run a university even in the US, and certainly not outside the US. Students don't pay any of the costs to run a public high school, after all. But a big problem nowadays is that students are paying a greater share of the public university costs, since the government is subsidizing a smaller share of the costs. If you go back 60 years or so, it wasn't the case. That's why Boomers brag about paying for their college education by working summer jobs and such, because they could! Unfortunately, college costs have become less socialized and more privatized. Different degrees do have significantly different costs, though. To some extent, market forces govern professor salaries, and professors in different departments can make vastly different salaries. Still, universities distort market forces by bundling all of the "goods" into one big package. Imagine if there were separate universities for each department instead of one university covering every department. For example, there would be separate engineering and philosophy universities. The engineering university would have a much higher price, not just due to the higher costs of engineering professors and the materials required by the department but also due to demand for an engineering education. The payoff of a degree with greater economic prospects makes the students more willing to pay a higher price for the degree. (EDIT: One might argue that public universities artificially inflate philosophy professor salaries, for example, beyond what they could command without the help of the other bundled departments.) To be clear, I'm not suggesting that universities should be run according to market forces. On the contrary, I think higher education should be mostly subdizied just like high school and lower education. My point is that "costs" are not inherently fixed. They're subject to economics, both supply and demand, and you can't ignore demand as a crucial factor. Thus, when we think in terms of the costs and price of a university education, I think it's very fair to consider the ROI.