5 ms·

Uh, I've been spared this doom-widget. I feel the press is a bit bubble-happy these days, but the scale of the economic depression doesn't make that unmerited.

Uh, I've been spared this doom-widget. I feel the press is a bit bubble-happy these days, but the scale of the economic depression doesn't make that unmerited. In fact, I welcome it; education costs have gotten more and more out of hand and no one seems to be making a fuss about it except those having to pay. The bubble craze has pointed out areas where things have been going wrong for a very long time, it's sort of like draining a swamp to reveal all the bodies. I think part of the bubble is an untested assumption, that having a degree will always net you more income in the long run, much like it was assumed that house prices would never, ever, ever fall. It's a core indicator of a bubble, because it's easy for reality to break things if the assumption stops being true. I can definitely vouch for those who have gotten degrees and lead careers that have nothing to do with them; from a career perspective (not a personal or educational one, mind you), a lot of people have just wasted four years of their life. I was raised by engineers who got degrees to go work in the very specific fields they got degrees in, so of course this flies directly in the face of what I thought was supposed to be the way things work.

coliveira 18y ago
The fact that people have a career in an area different from their university degree doesn't mean that they wasted time with education. They just didn't know what they wanted to do, and the education helped despite not being in the field that they ended up working. A better comparison would be: how many people with college degrees are doing worse than people without them? If you do the math, you will see that very few people without college education are working in the same job as people with degrees. The main reason for that is that a college degree is a pre-requisite for most well-paying jobs. Which means that people cannot afford not to have a university education, because their prospects will be pretty limited without it.
wallflower 18y ago
"Writer Noel Weyrich compared college administrators to the mafia. "Call it La Alma Mater," he suggested. "Cultivated and well-connected, its kingpins are masters of what amounts to a high-stakes protection racket. 'Nice kid you got there,' goes the shakedown. 'What a shame if he ends up flipping burgers without a degree.' That's an offer most parents can't refuse." http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=3 http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=3
netcan 18y ago
I don't think it is right to think of this as a economic bubble. Degrees are not a straight investment. It differs from place to place, of course. But on the whole, demand isn't that related to real or assumed future income effects. Even when it is, it is also related to prestige, ideas about what it's like to be a lawyer/engineer/doctor & other things. It's not unreasonable that the price will outweigh benefits & that people will pay to be a lawyer. >>from a career perspective (not a personal or educational one, mind you), I don't think you can isolate those two in the long run. But all that said, the education world can be turned on it's head. There are more ways to learn things now & there are potentially much, much cheaper ways to provide education. Students subsidising research doesn't make much sense. I once worked out that for a year of full time study, I was only getting about 5-10 hours of dedicated lecturer/tutor time. That includes some classes with low enrolment & some with massive enrolment & doesn't include preparation or marking.
- neilc 18y ago
  Students subsidising research doesn't make much sense. I don't think that is very common: the vast majority of the funding for research comes from the government (e.g. NSF, DARPA, NIH), various non-profits, and corporate sponsorship.
  - netcan 18y ago
    A lot comes from these sources, but often a lot comes from fees. Also funding is not necessarily research grants. It also includes keeping the physical Universities & their bureaucracies going. In any case, my point was that the fees charged by elite US schools are disproportionate to the cost of providing the education. Even the costs are probably disproportionate to the what costs would be if universities were competing on efficiency/price.
    - kurtosis 18y ago
      my advisor is charged a significant ~50% overhead on my stipend and a significant percentage overhead on all equipment (e.g. 100k laser systems). This is paid out of NSF grants and it is supposed to cover costs of building maintenance and utilities.

coliveira 18y ago

The fact that people have a career in an area different from their university degree doesn't mean that they wasted time with education. They just didn't know what they wanted to do, and the education helped despite not being in the field that they ended up working. A better comparison would be: how many people with college degrees are doing worse than people without them? If you do the math, you will see that very few people without college education are working in the same job as people with degrees. The main reason for that is that a college degree is a pre-requisite for most well-paying jobs. Which means that people cannot afford not to have a university education, because their prospects will be pretty limited without it.

wallflower 18y ago

"Writer Noel Weyrich compared college administrators to the mafia. "Call it La Alma Mater," he suggested. "Cultivated and well-connected, its kingpins are masters of what amounts to a high-stakes protection racket. 'Nice kid you got there,' goes the shakedown. 'What a shame if he ends up flipping burgers without a degree.' That's an offer most parents can't refuse." http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=3 http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=3

netcan 18y ago

I don't think it is right to think of this as a economic bubble. Degrees are not a straight investment. It differs from place to place, of course. But on the whole, demand isn't that related to real or assumed future income effects. Even when it is, it is also related to prestige, ideas about what it's like to be a lawyer/engineer/doctor & other things. It's not unreasonable that the price will outweigh benefits & that people will pay to be a lawyer. >>from a career perspective (not a personal or educational one, mind you), I don't think you can isolate those two in the long run. But all that said, the education world can be turned on it's head. There are more ways to learn things now & there are potentially much, much cheaper ways to provide education. Students subsidising research doesn't make much sense. I once worked out that for a year of full time study, I was only getting about 5-10 hours of dedicated lecturer/tutor time. That includes some classes with low enrolment & some with massive enrolment & doesn't include preparation or marking.

neilc 18y ago
Students subsidising research doesn't make much sense. I don't think that is very common: the vast majority of the funding for research comes from the government (e.g. NSF, DARPA, NIH), various non-profits, and corporate sponsorship.
- netcan 18y ago
  A lot comes from these sources, but often a lot comes from fees. Also funding is not necessarily research grants. It also includes keeping the physical Universities & their bureaucracies going. In any case, my point was that the fees charged by elite US schools are disproportionate to the cost of providing the education. Even the costs are probably disproportionate to the what costs would be if universities were competing on efficiency/price.
  - kurtosis 18y ago
    my advisor is charged a significant ~50% overhead on my stipend and a significant percentage overhead on all equipment (e.g. 100k laser systems). This is paid out of NSF grants and it is supposed to cover costs of building maintenance and utilities.