13 ms·

When College Might Not Be Worth It

42 points by jnord 2y ago

mystraline 2y ago
Long story short, given that a academic loans are just as undismissable as a criminal judgement, school is a scam. And since having a degree guaranteees absolutely nothing, doubly so.
- lanfeust6 2y ago
  There are no guarantees in anything. It's a moot point. As the article makes clear, you can still expect to earn more on average with a degree.
  - mystraline 2y ago
    That is true, especily after https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co. That forbid IQ testing in the workplace. The next best, and completely legal requirement was a 'college degree'. What college? We don't care. What degree? Again, we dont care. Its a bar that less black people pass than white people. So completely legal discrimination, but on its face is completely equal.
- catamaranaran 2y ago
  [dead]
- freddie_mercury 2y ago
  "College Is Still Worth It Even with Higher Out-of-Pocket Costs" You could at least try to engage with what the article actually says.
  - mystraline 2y ago
    I read the article. My comment is a direct refutation of the premise of the article. I think much 'higher education' is an inflated scam partially for being able to discriminate against black people, and they not as able to afford high education costs. I still think apprentice work, but under multiple people with mastery, is the most effective. But only the trades see that as true.
- paulcole 2y ago
  For a large number of adults: They’ll never have lower expenses and a greater tolerance for not having money than at ages 18-22. They’ll never be in closer contact with such large numbers of people their age with the same level of freedom. I get not spending insane money to go to college but 4 years at an in-state school with reasonable tuition can be a very fun time that you really only get the chance to do once. I wouldn’t go into debt $100k to do it, but $30k-50k doesn’t seem like an outrageous number for how much fun it can be.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    4 years of fun for $50k plus living expenses. You can have fun for 4 years for just the living expenses and save the 50k. The only reason college makes more sense is because your parents are covering the living expenses. Something they probably won't be willing to do if the premise is just having fun.
  - xp84 2y ago
    As someone who did just that (and to be fair, I was the beneficiary of an inheritance that paid my $40k off immediately after graduation) I can agree with you, but also it seems silly to have to pay all the tuition and do all the stupid graduation requirements when the main benefits are networking with cool fellow young people, and lack of responsibility. I learned so much more last year from YouTube videos than I did in 4 years of college 20 years ago. I guess what I'm saying is, if they had a 'college' which only had dorms, cafes, interest clubs, and various paths of casual, part-time study which gave no grades and automatically conferred a 'participation certificate' after 4 years, and cost half as much, I'd tell my kids to go there.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Depends on what you go for. The arts degrees you are probaply right but the engineering degrees need serious study.
    - paulcole 2y ago
      > if they had a 'college' which only had dorms, cafes, interest clubs, and various paths of casual, part-time study which gave no grades and automatically conferred a 'participation certificate' after 4 years I got an English degree from University of Florida and that is basically what you are describing lol.
- Alupis 2y ago
  There is truth to what you say - but it's not absolute. So very many students I knew when at University were surviving entirely off loans/debt, instead of having a job. That's one of the easiest ways for people to rack up 5-6 figures of "student" debt... even though a non-trivial amount was spent on Chipotle and Blaze Pizza... along with expensive apartments or dorms (all expenses the individual would incur regardless if they were a student or not). Many people believe University (and therefore a degree) is an automatic door to a high paying job - yet fail to realize what your field of study is matters a lot. We almost shouldn't even offer student loans for anything outside of STEM, but even within STEM your job prospects are largely up to the individual. University largely doesn't teach you how to do a job... it teaches you how to think. You spend a lot of time in your field of study thinking deeply about issues, ideas, past works, etc. None of which prepares you for your first day in the office. University (and the college experience in general) is meaningful and powerful. I recommend it - but not with debt. Get a full-time job, and work your way through your degree program. It will take much longer to get your degree, but you will be a much more complete adult at the end, filled with equal parts life-experience and domain knowledge.
  - wisty 2y ago
    > it teaches you how to think Is there evidence for this? I'm pretty sure people already know how to think. And IIRC tests of critical thinking (not subject specific) to college seniors and freshmen there's not convincing evidence that college really does that much. https://opportunityamericaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/EXCLUSIVE-TEST-DATA-MANY-COLLEGES-FAIL-TO-IMPROVE-CRITICAL-THINKING-SKILLS.pdf https://opportunityamericaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... - also 4 years of anything tends to make an 18-22 year old a bit older and wiser. A meta argument - colleges are at least halfway competent at assessing critical thinking, and if they were good at improving critical thinking then you'd expect to hear from the unis that can prove they did a good job, and you'd get more than just a slogan. Playing League of Legends also has a bit of face validity to any claim that it improves teamwork, problem solving, decision making under pressure, etc.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      When I say "teach you to think", I don't just mean critical thinking. I mean the entire "mind" experience. Being forced to take subjects you have no interest in, and to do well you must think about them deeply. This expands your mind, and teaches you how to approach things you find boring, have little interest in, and/or don't want to do. Someone is there to hold you accountable for your learning, knowledge and work - all things you must learn to rationalize and do on your own. Many like to say "when am I ever going to use X?", failing to understand not all of the value is in that particular subject - instead it's the complete experience. On reflection, I found some of my most mundane classes to be the most impactful on my life, such as Film Appreciation or Theory of Criminality. These challenged my beliefs and assumptions, expanded my thoughts, and forced me to communicate (vocally and in writing) why I held them. Instead of just "knowing" something, I was challenged to think about and understand why. You will be a better human being, after surviving the experience. You will be more capable of adaptation, reasoning, critical thinking, personal discipline and more. None of this are things you can't learn on your own, or experience somewhere else. But University is a really great way.
- ks2048 2y ago
  I think only about half of students take out loans, so that's only part of the consideration.
  - mystraline 2y ago
    I make 160k/yr, and blew 30k on school that amounted to absolutely nothing. I taught myself systems - there aren't even any degrees that discuss systems architecture. Its not even a thing. I was sold a lemon. At least vehicles have a lemon law. Education has nothing such, and worse yet, has protections against things like even bankruptcy. Edit: For those of you who -1ed this, I would love any sort of citable proof that university has a demonstrable anything positive. As far as I've seen, I've had to teach myself all the monetizable skills. All I have from what Uni classes I took is a big bill and absolutely no positive things.
    - lanfeust6 2y ago
      Your degree had an impact on your hireability and marketability. It signals passing a threshold of work and knowledge, your self-edification doesn't. You can of course build something, but so do college grads, whom you compete against. You also admitted that your wage is such that paying off the tuition was trivial. That makes it seem like a good deal, not a bad one. Even if you're strictly criticizing knowledge-transfer, most people would disagree and find some value in the format.
xnx 2y ago
Aside: For everyone who thinks they can recognize AI images. Did you notice this one jump out at you? Feels like we're one year away from totally undetectable AI images, and just after that for video.
- 101008 2y ago
  It's easy to tell the article image is AI, easiest clue is guy's ear, the wire goes nowhere. But this is a placeholder image that has no purpose and it's there just because there has to be an image. No one pays attention.
  - newfocogi 2y ago
    Nah, those are just the newest version of the LobePods
  - jagged-chisel 2y ago
    How about the bone/wire in her hand?
- AstroBen 2y ago
  i didnt even look at the image
- ks2048 2y ago
  The only thing that jumped out at me - what thought process leads to thinking this image improves this article / page?
  - o_m 2y ago
    I have argued with web editors about this. Most articles doesn't need an image. Period. The only need for the image is where the articles are listed and articles with interesting images are more likely to be clicked on. Finding good relevant pictures is hard, because they usually add nothing.
    - xnx 2y ago
csdreamer7 2y ago
tldr: "College Is Still Worth It Even with Higher Out-of-Pocket Costs", however the bottom quarter of college students see little premium over a high school degree. Until 1995 the median high school only educated person earned more than the bottom 25% of college graduates. One of my Mom's friends told me back then companies were desperate to hire anyone with a college degree. Also, gives a breakdown per field. It really tells you something when a fine arts degree has a better return then education. (Edit: missed this: "Returns are especially low for education majors, though it should be noted that annual wages for this group typically reflect teacher salaries for a nine-month school year.")
AstroBen 2y ago
there's something disturbing about learning just being reduced to an ROI calculation. Is there no non-monetary value in the knowledge and skills? If it doesn't make us money it's not worth it?
- fallingknife 2y ago
  This is a useless statement unless you provide an alternative metric to decide how much education is worth having.
- branperr 2y ago
  Keep in mind some people can't afford to make bad financial decisions.
- disambiguation 2y ago
  Are they giving liberal arts educations away for free? No? > If it doesn't make us money it's not worth it? By definition, that makes it a luxury.
- logical_proof 2y ago
  At the ridiculous cost of attendance at a traditional university a love for learning is not a good value proposition. Someone who loves learning would be better served doing self led study with occasional tutoring. Costs will be much lower and the education far more specialized. Of course I wouldn’t want a medical professional to diagnose my hypothetical cancer with a trade school education either. As with a great many things, YMMV.
  - markus_zhang 2y ago
    100% this. Many non experimental topics can be self taught with the help of paid tutors -- I'm sure university tutors are happy to give you tutorials if you pay them cash. Plus all colleges have very stringent prerequisites rules and tons of BS classes one has to take. Some colleges have independent studies, which are much better, but you still have to go through the prerequisites gate and other annoyances, plus it's still expensive.
- 2y ago
xp84 2y ago
I sincerely hope that we start sending a more considered and nuanced message to young people now about "college." In my father's (Boomer) generation, you could incredibly easily see the net effect that college vs. no college had on career potential and thus earnings, and as a result I was coached to aim exclusively for college. If I'm being honest I gained two main things from those four years: 1. I personally enjoyed a few fascinating or culturally uplifting classes, most of which were outside my major 2. By luck, I happened to meet someone in a class (which was an overall graduation requirement for the College of Business), who connected me to my first tech-related job. Thankfully my school was cheap and I only graduated with about $40k in debt. But if I'd spent those 4 years living at home and teaching myself to code, I'd have been far ahead in my skills. To the extent anyone refused to hire a "non-college educated" software engineer, it would have been their loss, because it contributed nothing to my skills. I will not be suggesting to my kids that they target "college," unless they have a very specific career goal and are confident on the job prospects and the median earnings being sufficient to pay back the loans and still be a net positive. There are just too many of the 'requires college' careers now that used to be somewhat viable and now are a dead-end joke, such as teaching, journalism, etc. Including software development, probably, for Gen Alpha, since nobody wants to hire juniors anymore, for rational reasons.
- TuringNYC 2y ago
  >> Including software development, probably, for Gen Alpha, since nobody wants to hire juniors anymore, for rational reasons. This point is the best so far -- from my standpoint in technology, the market for entry-level has almost completely disappeared. When speaking with my kids, I dont know how I could propose over-leveraging for college any longer in any field where there isnt forced scarcity or licenses or some other protection mechanism for entry-level workers looking to go up the ladder.
  - xp84 2y ago
    As someone who now spends my time conducting over a dozen interviews a week for senior software engineers, it absolutely breaks my heart that I can't tell a smart, tech-loving 18-year-old to either learn to code or get a CS degree and go into software. I don't know which outcome I'd hate more: • It turns out that AI has hit a ceiling and in 20 years when I retire there will be no one left to do the complex work that senior engineers do today because we shut out a whole generation of engineers, or • AI continues to advance and no humans are even involved in software in 20 years
jpollock 2y ago
The lifetime ROI of college is only 13%? https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2025/04/is-college-still-worth-it/ https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2025/04/is-col... Doesn't that mean over the working life of the person (40 years), they spend (1-0.13) * 40 = 34.8yrs paying for the cost of college from their additional earnings? I think my college was paid for with additional earnings inside of 5 years.
- bena 2y ago
  I think it’s the difference between going and not going. So if you make 100 without college, you’d have made 113 with it. And I don’t know if loan repayments are factored in. It could be that college educated individuals wind up with 13% more wealth than similarly situated non-degreed individuals
- CGMthrowaway 2y ago
  ROI (as a %) at 5 years out is going to be much higher than Lifetime ROI. A non-graduate will be able to make up most of the gap they start with.
- paxys 2y ago
  It's your annual ROI. The total investment is 4 years of tuition + 4 years of opportunity cost. The total return is your salary till age 65 - salary of someone without a degree. Subtract 1 from 2, annualize it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- alterom 2y ago
  >The lifetime ROI of college is only 13%? Yeah, that's BS. Right off the bat, I'm seeing different numbers[1] for median earnings elsewhere: $60K for college graduates vs. $36K for high-school diploma holders. I have no idea where they got the $47K wage for high-school graduates from, and it's a substantial difference. Because the difference between being able to make ends meet, and not being able to make ends meet isn't quantifiable in terms of ROI. Not having to worry about your card bouncing at the grocery store is a step-function-like quality of life increase alone. What's the ROI of decreased risk of depression and suicide? [2] Or living 7 years longer, as the article we're discussing acknowledges. Then, the devil is in the details. Wages of someone with only a high school diploma and 20 years of experience today might be acceptable, but that's because they were able to get into the field with only a high school diploma 20 years back. The job landscape right now is different, and will be different still 20 years into the future. We all know that a factory worker in the 1950s could get by just fine with only a HS diploma, but lumping their end-of-career earnings with those of a fresh high-school grad entering a dead-end job makes for bad analysis. Yet this study attempts no such distinction. Then, there's looking at the toll jobs available to HS diploma folks take on them. With social security and retirement potentially not being an option anymore, that's probably the most important factor to look at today. I can go on and on; the point is, ROI calculation could make sense, but it is awfully incomplete in studies like this. And that's ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that colleges are not merely trade schools. College education develops the mind, introduces people to different perspectives and backgrounds - and, on average, creates more informed voters with better critical thinking skills and more ability to resist Russian-style firehose-of-falsehood propaganda.[3] There is no cure to that, aside from teaching critical thinking (according to the same RAND study) - which Finland has started doing a decade ago, starting from elementary school[4]. That kind of thing is one of a million reasons of why college education (beyond being a trade school with an ROI) is important for the society as a whole. That, and probably the fact that even if a plumber makes the same as a college-level mathematics instructor, we shouldn't be pushing potential mathematicians to become plumbers for a better ROI. Just a thought. [1] https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/employment-earnings https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuv... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6739140/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6739140/ [3] https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
b8 2y ago
There's some hacks around College debt such as going to Berea College, federal work colleges, or Deep Springs College. Also Community College to a local college (ensure that your credits will transfer 100%) is a cheaper option. I've been fortunate enough to get jobs without a degree. I've also attended community college, a prestigious college (Tulane) and Berea College. Their courses are essentially the same, but different costs. People are a little smarter, so the standard for homework is a bit higher at Tulane. Honestly it's not worth to get debt for a brand name that most employers don't care about these days.
- analog31 2y ago
  I don't think it's a hack at all. It's how higher education should work. My dental hygienist was sending her daughter to college that way, and was just delighted with the deal that they were getting. While our present system is what it is, and educates a lot of people, the same can be said for our health care system. But both are these opaque public-private enterprises that cost twice or more as in other civilized countries, for no reason that anybody can discern. I've long believed that our best bet towards reforming higher education is to support and strengthen the public institutions that are doing a lot of good for a lot of people.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
alganet 2y ago
What if I don't care about the economic benefits? What if I just really want to learn something?
- fallingknife 2y ago
  That's free on the internet
  - alganet 2y ago
    No, it's not. I don't have labs or fancy equipment necessary for a lot of things. Also, the classmates on the internet are mostly clowns and gamblers.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      You can fake a lot of lab equipment.
- sonzohan 2y ago
  Depends on what you need. For general knowledge or broad exploration, there are plenty of general education courses you can take at community colleges. However for specific knowledge that requires lab space or equipment you can't get at home, you generally need to enroll in a degree program nowadays.
  - alganet 2y ago
    Thanks. That was a very kind answer. I must say my intent was only to show that college can offer things that the internet can't. While I don't have a degree myself (I am too old by now), I do see value in younger people getting one.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Many colleges have night school for working adults who want to learn something.
klysm 2y ago
Social scene in college is pretty hard to beat
i_like_cake 2y ago
In Ireland my college cost €3000 per year and most got it for free through government grants. I lived with my parents and went to the local college because I didn’t have big ambitions. The course gave everyone work placement with most people keeping the job after the course, starting at €28,000 - €35,000 salary on average. My following job 4 years later paid €70,000 and then 2 years later €80,000. At age 28 I am €35,000 above the median Salary of the country which is around €44,000. The ROI has been massive on that €12,000 spent on college. edit: I additionally have many friends who came from family’s where their parents / siblings were not working and sitting on welfare. through free college via grants, these friends became the first in their families to get degrees and subsequently are earning well over €60,000+ on average. I would also like to highlight that some of these people even only got a very low passing grade and weren’t prodigies by any means of the word.
- lagniappe 2y ago
  Cheers, keep going!
- karim79 2y ago
  Weirdly enough, my dad spent roughly the same on my college (in Ireland). I had no hopes nor expectations as to how my degree would end up being of benefit. It allowed me to see another part of the world, and "learn how to learn" so to speak. I ended up doing another course in computing at the same time, which I had to pay for myself, using any and all free time I had during the college course, paid for by a shitty call center job I managed to get which paid, at the time, about EUR 3,60 / hour. Later on, I went from approx. 1000 EUR / month in my first professional gig as a Java dev, to doubling that in the same establishment by getting promoted. Then I got hired by a fortune 500 and left my country of origin (not Ireland) which paid....so much more. Then founding a startup, and now... My conclusion is that the learning-to-learn aspect of it is of utmost importance. I think college is great for learning how to learn, even more than the content of what it happens to be that one is pursuing.
- leereeves 2y ago
  > In Ireland my college cost €3000 per year and most got it for free through government grants. That's a great deal. My local university costs $10k per semester.
CGMthrowaway 2y ago
Grinds my gears to see every discussion of college ROI look at tuition and majors, but always the "Average" or "typical" student, NEVER segmented by, e.g. socioeconomic background. If you can afford college, it is absolutely worth it to go to college. For a variety of reasons, ROI not top of the list. If it may be hard for you to afford college, then it's a better question to ask.
- smitty1e 2y ago
  1. Doing something practical ahead of college is always in order. 2. As someone trying to finish the PhD, there is zero ROI, due to closeness to retirement. If genuine intellectual curiosity were not the driver, it would truly be a waste of time.
  - HPMOR 2y ago
    As a YC backed college drop-out, I think there is enormous character development value in a college education. It is a great segue into real/high-value commercial endeavors. It teaches you so much more than "something practical". It's not about the formal pedagogy per-se, but the community and learning to navigate it.
    - butterlettuce 2y ago
      > I think there is enormous character development value in a college education. It is a great segue into real/high-value commercial endeavors. It's a great segue into real/high-value commercial endeavors if you're lucky. For others not so fortunate, they graduate into a Starbucks barista role.
      - smitty1e 2y ago
        Was there some shame in being a barista? I'm just a lowly keymasher, but I have a college classmate who is a US Senator. Do I envy him? Why, no; no, I do not.
        2y ago
ks2048 2y ago
Don't you have consider that many jobs require a college degree? You can certainly argue that this is a dumb requirement - but regardless of "ROI", if you want job X, you need to get a degree (for many X). It is very obvious that everyone doesn't choose their career path to maximize income. Of course, maybe that is changing rapidly. Tech seems to be ahead on this since there are more direct ways to prove your ability.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Sure but there are jobs that don't as well. the low end of jobs that require a degree pay far less than the high end that don't. (Ignoring own your own business which can pay very well without a degree)
dehrmann 2y ago
I'd also like to see return by college ranking, selectivity, and ROI for drop-outs.
disambiguation 2y ago
The real story is 3 links deep, in the PDF of the original analysis and methodology from 2014 - the same is applied to the 2023 data, so it's still relevant source material for understanding their numbers. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/current_issues/ci20-3.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/curre... So, as a layman who does not work for the NY fed, I thought it was a good analysis ;) that is, right up until the final number crunching where there appears to be some mathematical sleight of hand. Essentially, their ROI is a comparison of wages with and without a degree, but the opportunity cost only counts earned wages and conspicuously omits investing those wages as part of the calculation. The sleight of hand is they make a point to compare ROI of education to the stock market _after the fact_ rather than baking it into the initial formula. Equally problematic is the complete omission of student loans which has the same effect. To be charitable, hand-waving rates makes sense in the world of ROI - 12% with a late start will eventually overtake 7% with a head start, and is therefore numerically superior. But the paper repeatedly emphasizes its own caveat, that their analysis is "all based on historical trends, which are no guarantee of future patterns." It's precisely because of current trends - the rising student debt, soaring tuition, and the growing chasm between graduation and securing your first job - that this "late start" really needs further attention. Where is it headed, and what's the tipping point? Maybe it's still valuable if you're graduating today, but what about 4 years from now? Back to the methodology - the scenario explores averages, but should be one of ideal financial decision making, so someone with only a high school degree has an automatic 4 year head start earning AND investing money, but those that pursue a degree are set back by debt AND negative interest rates. The question is: how big is the gap and how long does it take to catch up? This is a function of tuition, interest, wages, job opportunities, and cost of living. Again, there's no arguing with ROI, but the living reality that this data reflects is a delayed start in life at best, and a marginally positive ROI on education at worst. The paper mentions another significant caveat challenging its own fundamental assumption: education is an investment and not a filter. I'm not aware of any analysis comparing outcomes based on socioeconomic background, but we can assume the high academic achievers would still do well financially if they didn't go to college. But there a very real and growing cohort of individuals experiencing negative ROI, where debt exceed earnings. The best data I could find on this is from 2016, we're overdue for an update. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-relationship-between-student-debt-and-earnings/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-relationship-between-... Yet there are further confounding factors - not at all mentioned is how the modern job market is dependent on educational attainment. Employers have entirely deferred training to colleges, and the vast majority of high earning jobs today (even beyond white collar roles - ex. running a daycare) have a hard requirement of higher education. With the exception of the recent, short-lived, learn2code/bootcamp trend, there is very little latitude for non-degree holders. In summary, there's a worrying shift in the function of modern education. It all started as a common, shared dream to give young people a better chance in life. Gradually it became an economic investment to secure better employment, then it turned into training for jobs that no longer provide such resources. Today its used to filter out those found unqualified, and at worst is a form of gatekeeping, excluding those considered unworthy. Education has become a monolith and a monopoly that controls the "all day access pass" to the labor market. ROI is a diversion, the fact is its the only game in town. "Go to college and do well, or perish." I would like to see the fine folks at the NY Fed follow up and try to compute these extra scenarios. Don't average the outcome like you're making a sales pitch. Give us a multi-dimensional breakdown like an economist - or else us unwashed, unqualified, uneducated folks will start doing our own sloppy math and running amok, giving people wrong ideas and ultimately mislead them into bad financial decisions, that other predatory institutions run by educated folks can profit off of. (What's the ROI on that outcome?)
k1tanaka 2y ago
While I understand the need to have this type of conversation in our current society and economy, I think it is sad that we need to discuss the merits of going to college on a economical basis. Ideally, I think the goal of college is to further education in a specific field. Reducing it as a opportunity for return can be counter-productive with the goals of it on the long term. Of course, this is ideally speaking, the real world doesn't function like that and there is a need for a return both on a individual and societal level.

42 points by jnord 2y ago

Long story short, given that a academic loans are just as undismissable as a criminal judgement, school is a scam. And since having a degree guaranteees absolutely nothing, doubly so.

lanfeust6 2y ago
There are no guarantees in anything. It's a moot point. As the article makes clear, you can still expect to earn more on average with a degree.
- mystraline 2y ago
  That is true, especily after https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co. That forbid IQ testing in the workplace. The next best, and completely legal requirement was a 'college degree'. What college? We don't care. What degree? Again, we dont care. Its a bar that less black people pass than white people. So completely legal discrimination, but on its face is completely equal.
catamaranaran 2y ago
[dead]
freddie_mercury 2y ago
"College Is Still Worth It Even with Higher Out-of-Pocket Costs" You could at least try to engage with what the article actually says.
- mystraline 2y ago
  I read the article. My comment is a direct refutation of the premise of the article. I think much 'higher education' is an inflated scam partially for being able to discriminate against black people, and they not as able to afford high education costs. I still think apprentice work, but under multiple people with mastery, is the most effective. But only the trades see that as true.
paulcole 2y ago
For a large number of adults: They’ll never have lower expenses and a greater tolerance for not having money than at ages 18-22. They’ll never be in closer contact with such large numbers of people their age with the same level of freedom. I get not spending insane money to go to college but 4 years at an in-state school with reasonable tuition can be a very fun time that you really only get the chance to do once. I wouldn’t go into debt $100k to do it, but $30k-50k doesn’t seem like an outrageous number for how much fun it can be.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  4 years of fun for $50k plus living expenses. You can have fun for 4 years for just the living expenses and save the 50k. The only reason college makes more sense is because your parents are covering the living expenses. Something they probably won't be willing to do if the premise is just having fun.
- xp84 2y ago
  As someone who did just that (and to be fair, I was the beneficiary of an inheritance that paid my $40k off immediately after graduation) I can agree with you, but also it seems silly to have to pay all the tuition and do all the stupid graduation requirements when the main benefits are networking with cool fellow young people, and lack of responsibility. I learned so much more last year from YouTube videos than I did in 4 years of college 20 years ago. I guess what I'm saying is, if they had a 'college' which only had dorms, cafes, interest clubs, and various paths of casual, part-time study which gave no grades and automatically conferred a 'participation certificate' after 4 years, and cost half as much, I'd tell my kids to go there.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Depends on what you go for. The arts degrees you are probaply right but the engineering degrees need serious study.
  - paulcole 2y ago
    > if they had a 'college' which only had dorms, cafes, interest clubs, and various paths of casual, part-time study which gave no grades and automatically conferred a 'participation certificate' after 4 years I got an English degree from University of Florida and that is basically what you are describing lol.
Alupis 2y ago
There is truth to what you say - but it's not absolute. So very many students I knew when at University were surviving entirely off loans/debt, instead of having a job. That's one of the easiest ways for people to rack up 5-6 figures of "student" debt... even though a non-trivial amount was spent on Chipotle and Blaze Pizza... along with expensive apartments or dorms (all expenses the individual would incur regardless if they were a student or not). Many people believe University (and therefore a degree) is an automatic door to a high paying job - yet fail to realize what your field of study is matters a lot. We almost shouldn't even offer student loans for anything outside of STEM, but even within STEM your job prospects are largely up to the individual. University largely doesn't teach you how to do a job... it teaches you how to think. You spend a lot of time in your field of study thinking deeply about issues, ideas, past works, etc. None of which prepares you for your first day in the office. University (and the college experience in general) is meaningful and powerful. I recommend it - but not with debt. Get a full-time job, and work your way through your degree program. It will take much longer to get your degree, but you will be a much more complete adult at the end, filled with equal parts life-experience and domain knowledge.
- wisty 2y ago
  > it teaches you how to think Is there evidence for this? I'm pretty sure people already know how to think. And IIRC tests of critical thinking (not subject specific) to college seniors and freshmen there's not convincing evidence that college really does that much. https://opportunityamericaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/EXCLUSIVE-TEST-DATA-MANY-COLLEGES-FAIL-TO-IMPROVE-CRITICAL-THINKING-SKILLS.pdf https://opportunityamericaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... - also 4 years of anything tends to make an 18-22 year old a bit older and wiser. A meta argument - colleges are at least halfway competent at assessing critical thinking, and if they were good at improving critical thinking then you'd expect to hear from the unis that can prove they did a good job, and you'd get more than just a slogan. Playing League of Legends also has a bit of face validity to any claim that it improves teamwork, problem solving, decision making under pressure, etc.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    When I say "teach you to think", I don't just mean critical thinking. I mean the entire "mind" experience. Being forced to take subjects you have no interest in, and to do well you must think about them deeply. This expands your mind, and teaches you how to approach things you find boring, have little interest in, and/or don't want to do. Someone is there to hold you accountable for your learning, knowledge and work - all things you must learn to rationalize and do on your own. Many like to say "when am I ever going to use X?", failing to understand not all of the value is in that particular subject - instead it's the complete experience. On reflection, I found some of my most mundane classes to be the most impactful on my life, such as Film Appreciation or Theory of Criminality. These challenged my beliefs and assumptions, expanded my thoughts, and forced me to communicate (vocally and in writing) why I held them. Instead of just "knowing" something, I was challenged to think about and understand why. You will be a better human being, after surviving the experience. You will be more capable of adaptation, reasoning, critical thinking, personal discipline and more. None of this are things you can't learn on your own, or experience somewhere else. But University is a really great way.
ks2048 2y ago
I think only about half of students take out loans, so that's only part of the consideration.
- mystraline 2y ago
  I make 160k/yr, and blew 30k on school that amounted to absolutely nothing. I taught myself systems - there aren't even any degrees that discuss systems architecture. Its not even a thing. I was sold a lemon. At least vehicles have a lemon law. Education has nothing such, and worse yet, has protections against things like even bankruptcy. Edit: For those of you who -1ed this, I would love any sort of citable proof that university has a demonstrable anything positive. As far as I've seen, I've had to teach myself all the monetizable skills. All I have from what Uni classes I took is a big bill and absolutely no positive things.
  - lanfeust6 2y ago
    Your degree had an impact on your hireability and marketability. It signals passing a threshold of work and knowledge, your self-edification doesn't. You can of course build something, but so do college grads, whom you compete against. You also admitted that your wage is such that paying off the tuition was trivial. That makes it seem like a good deal, not a bad one. Even if you're strictly criticizing knowledge-transfer, most people would disagree and find some value in the format.

xnx 2y ago

Aside: For everyone who thinks they can recognize AI images. Did you notice this one jump out at you? Feels like we're one year away from totally undetectable AI images, and just after that for video.

101008 2y ago
It's easy to tell the article image is AI, easiest clue is guy's ear, the wire goes nowhere. But this is a placeholder image that has no purpose and it's there just because there has to be an image. No one pays attention.
- newfocogi 2y ago
  Nah, those are just the newest version of the LobePods
- jagged-chisel 2y ago
  How about the bone/wire in her hand?
AstroBen 2y ago
i didnt even look at the image
ks2048 2y ago
The only thing that jumped out at me - what thought process leads to thinking this image improves this article / page?
- o_m 2y ago
  I have argued with web editors about this. Most articles doesn't need an image. Period. The only need for the image is where the articles are listed and articles with interesting images are more likely to be clicked on. Finding good relevant pictures is hard, because they usually add nothing.
  - xnx 2y ago

csdreamer7 2y ago

tldr: "College Is Still Worth It Even with Higher Out-of-Pocket Costs", however the bottom quarter of college students see little premium over a high school degree. Until 1995 the median high school only educated person earned more than the bottom 25% of college graduates. One of my Mom's friends told me back then companies were desperate to hire anyone with a college degree. Also, gives a breakdown per field. It really tells you something when a fine arts degree has a better return then education. (Edit: missed this: "Returns are especially low for education majors, though it should be noted that annual wages for this group typically reflect teacher salaries for a nine-month school year.")

AstroBen 2y ago

there's something disturbing about learning just being reduced to an ROI calculation. Is there no non-monetary value in the knowledge and skills? If it doesn't make us money it's not worth it?

fallingknife 2y ago
This is a useless statement unless you provide an alternative metric to decide how much education is worth having.
branperr 2y ago
Keep in mind some people can't afford to make bad financial decisions.
disambiguation 2y ago
Are they giving liberal arts educations away for free? No? > If it doesn't make us money it's not worth it? By definition, that makes it a luxury.
logical_proof 2y ago
At the ridiculous cost of attendance at a traditional university a love for learning is not a good value proposition. Someone who loves learning would be better served doing self led study with occasional tutoring. Costs will be much lower and the education far more specialized. Of course I wouldn’t want a medical professional to diagnose my hypothetical cancer with a trade school education either. As with a great many things, YMMV.
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  100% this. Many non experimental topics can be self taught with the help of paid tutors -- I'm sure university tutors are happy to give you tutorials if you pay them cash. Plus all colleges have very stringent prerequisites rules and tons of BS classes one has to take. Some colleges have independent studies, which are much better, but you still have to go through the prerequisites gate and other annoyances, plus it's still expensive.
2y ago

xp84 2y ago

I sincerely hope that we start sending a more considered and nuanced message to young people now about "college." In my father's (Boomer) generation, you could incredibly easily see the net effect that college vs. no college had on career potential and thus earnings, and as a result I was coached to aim exclusively for college. If I'm being honest I gained two main things from those four years: 1. I personally enjoyed a few fascinating or culturally uplifting classes, most of which were outside my major 2. By luck, I happened to meet someone in a class (which was an overall graduation requirement for the College of Business), who connected me to my first tech-related job. Thankfully my school was cheap and I only graduated with about $40k in debt. But if I'd spent those 4 years living at home and teaching myself to code, I'd have been far ahead in my skills. To the extent anyone refused to hire a "non-college educated" software engineer, it would have been their loss, because it contributed nothing to my skills. I will not be suggesting to my kids that they target "college," unless they have a very specific career goal and are confident on the job prospects and the median earnings being sufficient to pay back the loans and still be a net positive. There are just too many of the 'requires college' careers now that used to be somewhat viable and now are a dead-end joke, such as teaching, journalism, etc. Including software development, probably, for Gen Alpha, since nobody wants to hire juniors anymore, for rational reasons.

TuringNYC 2y ago
>> Including software development, probably, for Gen Alpha, since nobody wants to hire juniors anymore, for rational reasons. This point is the best so far -- from my standpoint in technology, the market for entry-level has almost completely disappeared. When speaking with my kids, I dont know how I could propose over-leveraging for college any longer in any field where there isnt forced scarcity or licenses or some other protection mechanism for entry-level workers looking to go up the ladder.
- xp84 2y ago
  As someone who now spends my time conducting over a dozen interviews a week for senior software engineers, it absolutely breaks my heart that I can't tell a smart, tech-loving 18-year-old to either learn to code or get a CS degree and go into software. I don't know which outcome I'd hate more: • It turns out that AI has hit a ceiling and in 20 years when I retire there will be no one left to do the complex work that senior engineers do today because we shut out a whole generation of engineers, or • AI continues to advance and no humans are even involved in software in 20 years

jpollock 2y ago

The lifetime ROI of college is only 13%? https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2025/04/is-college-still-worth-it/ https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2025/04/is-col... Doesn't that mean over the working life of the person (40 years), they spend (1-0.13) * 40 = 34.8yrs paying for the cost of college from their additional earnings? I think my college was paid for with additional earnings inside of 5 years.

bena 2y ago
I think it’s the difference between going and not going. So if you make 100 without college, you’d have made 113 with it. And I don’t know if loan repayments are factored in. It could be that college educated individuals wind up with 13% more wealth than similarly situated non-degreed individuals
CGMthrowaway 2y ago
ROI (as a %) at 5 years out is going to be much higher than Lifetime ROI. A non-graduate will be able to make up most of the gap they start with.
paxys 2y ago
It's your annual ROI. The total investment is 4 years of tuition + 4 years of opportunity cost. The total return is your salary till age 65 - salary of someone without a degree. Subtract 1 from 2, annualize it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
alterom 2y ago
>The lifetime ROI of college is only 13%? Yeah, that's BS. Right off the bat, I'm seeing different numbers[1] for median earnings elsewhere: $60K for college graduates vs. $36K for high-school diploma holders. I have no idea where they got the $47K wage for high-school graduates from, and it's a substantial difference. Because the difference between being able to make ends meet, and not being able to make ends meet isn't quantifiable in terms of ROI. Not having to worry about your card bouncing at the grocery store is a step-function-like quality of life increase alone. What's the ROI of decreased risk of depression and suicide? [2] Or living 7 years longer, as the article we're discussing acknowledges. Then, the devil is in the details. Wages of someone with only a high school diploma and 20 years of experience today might be acceptable, but that's because they were able to get into the field with only a high school diploma 20 years back. The job landscape right now is different, and will be different still 20 years into the future. We all know that a factory worker in the 1950s could get by just fine with only a HS diploma, but lumping their end-of-career earnings with those of a fresh high-school grad entering a dead-end job makes for bad analysis. Yet this study attempts no such distinction. Then, there's looking at the toll jobs available to HS diploma folks take on them. With social security and retirement potentially not being an option anymore, that's probably the most important factor to look at today. I can go on and on; the point is, ROI calculation could make sense, but it is awfully incomplete in studies like this. And that's ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that colleges are not merely trade schools. College education develops the mind, introduces people to different perspectives and backgrounds - and, on average, creates more informed voters with better critical thinking skills and more ability to resist Russian-style firehose-of-falsehood propaganda.[3] There is no cure to that, aside from teaching critical thinking (according to the same RAND study) - which Finland has started doing a decade ago, starting from elementary school[4]. That kind of thing is one of a million reasons of why college education (beyond being a trade school with an ROI) is important for the society as a whole. That, and probably the fact that even if a plumber makes the same as a college-level mathematics instructor, we shouldn't be pushing potential mathematicians to become plumbers for a better ROI. Just a thought. [1] https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/employment-earnings https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuv... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6739140/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6739140/ [3] https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

b8 2y ago

There's some hacks around College debt such as going to Berea College, federal work colleges, or Deep Springs College. Also Community College to a local college (ensure that your credits will transfer 100%) is a cheaper option. I've been fortunate enough to get jobs without a degree. I've also attended community college, a prestigious college (Tulane) and Berea College. Their courses are essentially the same, but different costs. People are a little smarter, so the standard for homework is a bit higher at Tulane. Honestly it's not worth to get debt for a brand name that most employers don't care about these days.

analog31 2y ago
I don't think it's a hack at all. It's how higher education should work. My dental hygienist was sending her daughter to college that way, and was just delighted with the deal that they were getting. While our present system is what it is, and educates a lot of people, the same can be said for our health care system. But both are these opaque public-private enterprises that cost twice or more as in other civilized countries, for no reason that anybody can discern. I've long believed that our best bet towards reforming higher education is to support and strengthen the public institutions that are doing a lot of good for a lot of people.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

alganet 2y ago

What if I don't care about the economic benefits? What if I just really want to learn something?

fallingknife 2y ago
That's free on the internet
- alganet 2y ago
  No, it's not. I don't have labs or fancy equipment necessary for a lot of things. Also, the classmates on the internet are mostly clowns and gamblers.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    You can fake a lot of lab equipment.
sonzohan 2y ago
Depends on what you need. For general knowledge or broad exploration, there are plenty of general education courses you can take at community colleges. However for specific knowledge that requires lab space or equipment you can't get at home, you generally need to enroll in a degree program nowadays.
- alganet 2y ago
  Thanks. That was a very kind answer. I must say my intent was only to show that college can offer things that the internet can't. While I don't have a degree myself (I am too old by now), I do see value in younger people getting one.
bluGill 2y ago
Many colleges have night school for working adults who want to learn something.

klysm 2y ago

Social scene in college is pretty hard to beat

i_like_cake 2y ago

In Ireland my college cost €3000 per year and most got it for free through government grants. I lived with my parents and went to the local college because I didn’t have big ambitions. The course gave everyone work placement with most people keeping the job after the course, starting at €28,000 - €35,000 salary on average. My following job 4 years later paid €70,000 and then 2 years later €80,000. At age 28 I am €35,000 above the median Salary of the country which is around €44,000. The ROI has been massive on that €12,000 spent on college. edit: I additionally have many friends who came from family’s where their parents / siblings were not working and sitting on welfare. through free college via grants, these friends became the first in their families to get degrees and subsequently are earning well over €60,000+ on average. I would also like to highlight that some of these people even only got a very low passing grade and weren’t prodigies by any means of the word.

lagniappe 2y ago
Cheers, keep going!
karim79 2y ago
Weirdly enough, my dad spent roughly the same on my college (in Ireland). I had no hopes nor expectations as to how my degree would end up being of benefit. It allowed me to see another part of the world, and "learn how to learn" so to speak. I ended up doing another course in computing at the same time, which I had to pay for myself, using any and all free time I had during the college course, paid for by a shitty call center job I managed to get which paid, at the time, about EUR 3,60 / hour. Later on, I went from approx. 1000 EUR / month in my first professional gig as a Java dev, to doubling that in the same establishment by getting promoted. Then I got hired by a fortune 500 and left my country of origin (not Ireland) which paid....so much more. Then founding a startup, and now... My conclusion is that the learning-to-learn aspect of it is of utmost importance. I think college is great for learning how to learn, even more than the content of what it happens to be that one is pursuing.
leereeves 2y ago
> In Ireland my college cost €3000 per year and most got it for free through government grants. That's a great deal. My local university costs $10k per semester.

CGMthrowaway 2y ago

Grinds my gears to see every discussion of college ROI look at tuition and majors, but always the "Average" or "typical" student, NEVER segmented by, e.g. socioeconomic background. If you can afford college, it is absolutely worth it to go to college. For a variety of reasons, ROI not top of the list. If it may be hard for you to afford college, then it's a better question to ask.

smitty1e 2y ago
1. Doing something practical ahead of college is always in order. 2. As someone trying to finish the PhD, there is zero ROI, due to closeness to retirement. If genuine intellectual curiosity were not the driver, it would truly be a waste of time.
- HPMOR 2y ago
  As a YC backed college drop-out, I think there is enormous character development value in a college education. It is a great segue into real/high-value commercial endeavors. It teaches you so much more than "something practical". It's not about the formal pedagogy per-se, but the community and learning to navigate it.
  - butterlettuce 2y ago
    > I think there is enormous character development value in a college education. It is a great segue into real/high-value commercial endeavors. It's a great segue into real/high-value commercial endeavors if you're lucky. For others not so fortunate, they graduate into a Starbucks barista role.
    - smitty1e 2y ago
      Was there some shame in being a barista? I'm just a lowly keymasher, but I have a college classmate who is a US Senator. Do I envy him? Why, no; no, I do not.
      - 2y ago

ks2048 2y ago

Don't you have consider that many jobs require a college degree? You can certainly argue that this is a dumb requirement - but regardless of "ROI", if you want job X, you need to get a degree (for many X). It is very obvious that everyone doesn't choose their career path to maximize income. Of course, maybe that is changing rapidly. Tech seems to be ahead on this since there are more direct ways to prove your ability.

bluGill 2y ago
Sure but there are jobs that don't as well. the low end of jobs that require a degree pay far less than the high end that don't. (Ignoring own your own business which can pay very well without a degree)

dehrmann 2y ago

I'd also like to see return by college ranking, selectivity, and ROI for drop-outs.

disambiguation 2y ago

The real story is 3 links deep, in the PDF of the original analysis and methodology from 2014 - the same is applied to the 2023 data, so it's still relevant source material for understanding their numbers. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/current_issues/ci20-3.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/curre... So, as a layman who does not work for the NY fed, I thought it was a good analysis ;) that is, right up until the final number crunching where there appears to be some mathematical sleight of hand. Essentially, their ROI is a comparison of wages with and without a degree, but the opportunity cost only counts earned wages and conspicuously omits investing those wages as part of the calculation. The sleight of hand is they make a point to compare ROI of education to the stock market _after the fact_ rather than baking it into the initial formula. Equally problematic is the complete omission of student loans which has the same effect. To be charitable, hand-waving rates makes sense in the world of ROI - 12% with a late start will eventually overtake 7% with a head start, and is therefore numerically superior. But the paper repeatedly emphasizes its own caveat, that their analysis is "all based on historical trends, which are no guarantee of future patterns." It's precisely because of current trends - the rising student debt, soaring tuition, and the growing chasm between graduation and securing your first job - that this "late start" really needs further attention. Where is it headed, and what's the tipping point? Maybe it's still valuable if you're graduating today, but what about 4 years from now? Back to the methodology - the scenario explores averages, but should be one of ideal financial decision making, so someone with only a high school degree has an automatic 4 year head start earning AND investing money, but those that pursue a degree are set back by debt AND negative interest rates. The question is: how big is the gap and how long does it take to catch up? This is a function of tuition, interest, wages, job opportunities, and cost of living. Again, there's no arguing with ROI, but the living reality that this data reflects is a delayed start in life at best, and a marginally positive ROI on education at worst. The paper mentions another significant caveat challenging its own fundamental assumption: education is an investment and not a filter. I'm not aware of any analysis comparing outcomes based on socioeconomic background, but we can assume the high academic achievers would still do well financially if they didn't go to college. But there a very real and growing cohort of individuals experiencing negative ROI, where debt exceed earnings. The best data I could find on this is from 2016, we're overdue for an update. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-relationship-between-student-debt-and-earnings/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-relationship-between-... Yet there are further confounding factors - not at all mentioned is how the modern job market is dependent on educational attainment. Employers have entirely deferred training to colleges, and the vast majority of high earning jobs today (even beyond white collar roles - ex. running a daycare) have a hard requirement of higher education. With the exception of the recent, short-lived, learn2code/bootcamp trend, there is very little latitude for non-degree holders. In summary, there's a worrying shift in the function of modern education. It all started as a common, shared dream to give young people a better chance in life. Gradually it became an economic investment to secure better employment, then it turned into training for jobs that no longer provide such resources. Today its used to filter out those found unqualified, and at worst is a form of gatekeeping, excluding those considered unworthy. Education has become a monolith and a monopoly that controls the "all day access pass" to the labor market. ROI is a diversion, the fact is its the only game in town. "Go to college and do well, or perish." I would like to see the fine folks at the NY Fed follow up and try to compute these extra scenarios. Don't average the outcome like you're making a sales pitch. Give us a multi-dimensional breakdown like an economist - or else us unwashed, unqualified, uneducated folks will start doing our own sloppy math and running amok, giving people wrong ideas and ultimately mislead them into bad financial decisions, that other predatory institutions run by educated folks can profit off of. (What's the ROI on that outcome?)

k1tanaka 2y ago

While I understand the need to have this type of conversation in our current society and economy, I think it is sad that we need to discuss the merits of going to college on a economical basis. Ideally, I think the goal of college is to further education in a specific field. Reducing it as a opportunity for return can be counter-productive with the goals of it on the long term. Of course, this is ideally speaking, the real world doesn't function like that and there is a need for a return both on a individual and societal level.