3 ms·

The author should also mention the increase in competition in the labor market and the lack of labor protection laws to prevent outsourcing. Statistically speak

The author should also mention the increase in competition in the labor market and the lack of labor protection laws to prevent outsourcing. Statistically speaking, a 4-year degree still yields a higher ROI than just a high school diploma in lifetime earnings. A lot of the negative sentiments I conjecture come from the higher standards across the board and the ubiquity of a bachelor's degree in the labor market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_theory

randomdata 2y ago
> a 4-year degree still yields a higher ROI than just a high school diploma in lifetime earnings. How can that be given that incomes have held stagnant through the rise of post-secondary attainment? In reality, a person in a given place on the spectrum seems to earn the same regardless of whether or not they have a degree. Perhaps you are mistakenly comparing people situated in different places on the spectrum, noticing that colleges reject/fail those who don't meet a certain "calibre"? Indeed, I think we intuitively understand that the kid with down syndrome, or some such condition, is, statistically, not going to make it in college and is also going to have limited earning potential once joining the working world, but there is little evidence to support that handing them a college degree provides a cure.
- guccigav 2y ago
  > A person in a given place on the spectrum seems to earn the same regardless of whether or not they have a degree. Real income to GDP ratio has been stagnant by some degrees but in this case, we're only looking at average IQ on a normal distribution, average as in 85-115 (or whatever the official range is), assuming that's what you mean by 'spectrum'. e.g. for the average {IQ} or whatever metric you meant in a person, he/she will earn more compared to the same person ceteris paribus, but without a university education.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    Humans are way more complicated than IQ. Someone with a high IQ but little ambition is not going to go far in college nor are they going to go far in the economy. People over time is the only reasonably reliable measure we have. And the data is clear: Statistically, people did not start earning more when they started attaining college degrees.
- Aleksdev 2y ago
  Couldn’t agree more. At this point when hiring developers I don’t even look at the college degree. I could care less. I know people without degrees that earn much more than those with degrees. I don’t think development is so difficult where it takes 4 years straight to learn.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > How can that be given that incomes have held stagnant through the rise of post-secondary attainment? They haven't; real incomes and the spread of real incomes have both increased over time. (That is, both median real income and the ratio between any given higher-than-median percentile and the median has increased over time.) > A person in a given place on the spectrum seems to earn the same regardless of whether or not they have a degree. It is tautological that people on the same place on the income spectrum earn the same regardles of other factors, but having a degree has a substantial effect on where you are on that spectrum. If you are talking about something else, it would probably help to more clearly articulate your meaning.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > real incomes [...] have both increased over time. This does not seem to be the case, at least not when observed over long enough time periods to filter out the noise. Looking at the earliest income records we seem to have, incomes were on par with what we find today. Wages have increased, which is perhaps what you meant, largely because they are a comparatively recent invention and had nowhere to go but up. Of course, now that most incomes are derived as wages, wages have reached the point of stagnation as well. > having a degree has a substantial effect on where you are on that spectrum. The spectrum is that of humans, not of income. Clearly someone with, say, down syndrome is not the same as someone without. To think that people are all the same is erroneous. Indeed, someone who has down syndrome is statistically unlikely to succeed in college and, likewise, statistically unlikely to do well in the broad economy. –– That does not imply that attaining the college degree they lack will cure what ails them. > If you are talking about something else, it would probably help to more clearly articulate your meaning. Help in what way? I understand what I am articulating. If you are, perhaps, implying that someone else might not understand, that is certainly possible but affects me not. There would be no logical reason to seek to improve clarity in the case.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Every property constructed dataset I have seen shows incomes have increased greatly. Increases in taxes, Healthcare spending, and housing spending, and others have consumed most of that growth. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
cm2187 2y ago
I believe it really depends on the degree. STEM, no question. Humanities, I have seen studies showing a negative ROI.

randomdata 2y ago

> a 4-year degree still yields a higher ROI than just a high school diploma in lifetime earnings. How can that be given that incomes have held stagnant through the rise of post-secondary attainment? In reality, a person in a given place on the spectrum seems to earn the same regardless of whether or not they have a degree. Perhaps you are mistakenly comparing people situated in different places on the spectrum, noticing that colleges reject/fail those who don't meet a certain "calibre"? Indeed, I think we intuitively understand that the kid with down syndrome, or some such condition, is, statistically, not going to make it in college and is also going to have limited earning potential once joining the working world, but there is little evidence to support that handing them a college degree provides a cure.

guccigav 2y ago
> A person in a given place on the spectrum seems to earn the same regardless of whether or not they have a degree. Real income to GDP ratio has been stagnant by some degrees but in this case, we're only looking at average IQ on a normal distribution, average as in 85-115 (or whatever the official range is), assuming that's what you mean by 'spectrum'. e.g. for the average {IQ} or whatever metric you meant in a person, he/she will earn more compared to the same person ceteris paribus, but without a university education.
- randomdata 2y ago
  Humans are way more complicated than IQ. Someone with a high IQ but little ambition is not going to go far in college nor are they going to go far in the economy. People over time is the only reasonably reliable measure we have. And the data is clear: Statistically, people did not start earning more when they started attaining college degrees.
Aleksdev 2y ago
Couldn’t agree more. At this point when hiring developers I don’t even look at the college degree. I could care less. I know people without degrees that earn much more than those with degrees. I don’t think development is so difficult where it takes 4 years straight to learn.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> How can that be given that incomes have held stagnant through the rise of post-secondary attainment? They haven't; real incomes and the spread of real incomes have both increased over time. (That is, both median real income and the ratio between any given higher-than-median percentile and the median has increased over time.) > A person in a given place on the spectrum seems to earn the same regardless of whether or not they have a degree. It is tautological that people on the same place on the income spectrum earn the same regardles of other factors, but having a degree has a substantial effect on where you are on that spectrum. If you are talking about something else, it would probably help to more clearly articulate your meaning.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > real incomes [...] have both increased over time. This does not seem to be the case, at least not when observed over long enough time periods to filter out the noise. Looking at the earliest income records we seem to have, incomes were on par with what we find today. Wages have increased, which is perhaps what you meant, largely because they are a comparatively recent invention and had nowhere to go but up. Of course, now that most incomes are derived as wages, wages have reached the point of stagnation as well. > having a degree has a substantial effect on where you are on that spectrum. The spectrum is that of humans, not of income. Clearly someone with, say, down syndrome is not the same as someone without. To think that people are all the same is erroneous. Indeed, someone who has down syndrome is statistically unlikely to succeed in college and, likewise, statistically unlikely to do well in the broad economy. –– That does not imply that attaining the college degree they lack will cure what ails them. > If you are talking about something else, it would probably help to more clearly articulate your meaning. Help in what way? I understand what I am articulating. If you are, perhaps, implying that someone else might not understand, that is certainly possible but affects me not. There would be no logical reason to seek to improve clarity in the case.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Every property constructed dataset I have seen shows incomes have increased greatly. Increases in taxes, Healthcare spending, and housing spending, and others have consumed most of that growth. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

cm2187 2y ago

I believe it really depends on the degree. STEM, no question. Humanities, I have seen studies showing a negative ROI.