5 ms·

> it’d be disingenuous to assume the conversation is about anything other that the economic trade off. To me it seems hollow and sad to think about higher educ

by dahart 3mo ago

> it’d be disingenuous to assume the conversation is about anything other that the economic trade off. To me it seems hollow and sad to think about higher education purely in job and money terms, but maybe I’m weird. I studied what I wanted to learn about, and was naïve about any economic trade offs. There were a few companies I thought were cool and dreamt about working for, and at some level I knew it’d take a degree to get in, but in my book school was quite valuable beyond the jobs I’ve had, in many non-financial ways. > you’re basically telling them their economic value is shit before they are even grown. I don’t believe in that. Maybe I didn’t understand, but I can’t quite reconcile your suggestion to only look at college as an economic trade off, with not believing in recommending college due to your pessimistic interpretation of the message. It’s a fact that in the US, people with 4-year degrees earn more than people without, statistically speaking. (And the factor is a lot bigger than I thought.) People with advanced degrees statistically earn a considerable amount more than people with 4-year degrees. If you want to look at this as an economic trade off, it seems like there’s only one recommendation that makes any sense, no? Like, based on the numbers and my own experience, it doesn’t feel like going to school has particularly strong negatives that offset the positives. (BTW I went to a state school, and borrowed money to pay tuition.)

bonoboTP 3mo ago
It's not necessarily fully causal though. You'd need a comparison group who are just as intelligent and conscientious and equally rich as the college graduating population for comparison. They would likely find ways to demonstrate their value in other ways if forced not to attend college.
- dahart 3mo ago
  No you don’t need to do a study. We already know college is causal in the sense that you can’t get good jobs without the credential. The job market already enforces the causal relationship. And that’s a major reason why the advice to go to college is sound advice: we know for a fact that it broadens one’s options and enables a vast set of higher paying jobs. Whether this system is good or fair is reasonable to debate, but doesn’t change today’s economic “tradeoffs”. What you’re asking is whether the credential represents a measurable and valid increase in skill and learning, and ideally adjusted for socioeconomic status. That’s an interesting question, and there’s a whole field of literature on this topic. But the answer to that question won’t change the economics nor the advice. Many papers go much further than what you suggest and they adjust for things like race and family history of higher education, in addition to intelligence and family income. I have read through quite a few papers myself, and the conclusions I’ve seen vary on where they land on the causality axis between true learning and credentialism, but none of them come to the conclusion that true learning isn’t a significant factor. And it would be pretty silly to assume that people who spent 4 years learning learned nothing, right?
  - bonoboTP 3mo ago
    It's a bit phosophical though. If you had a huge cohort of smart and capable people on the job market who didn't go to college, the job market would adjust its requirements. Currently the filter regarding a degree gives high enough signal,and it's generally considered legally acceptable, while other types of filters are more legally risky. Everything is connected to everything else. Things respond to changes in other things. Of course as an individual the actionable recommendation is a different thing than diagnosing the overall societal scale usefulness of pushing so many people though college. Analogy: is binding your daughter's foot good for her future prospects? Under a certain cultural context it was "good" for the marriage prospects. But the causation goes through a social-cultural consideration, that can shift and still "work" well. So whether the modern world could drop the college ritual or not is a question that's still up for debate even if the individual advice remains "go to college / bind the feet".
    - dahart 3mo ago
      > Things respond to changes in other things. Yes. For example, when people take 4 years to learn full time, by the end they generally have learned. > college ritual I don’t buy that foot binding is a valid analogy to college. Why do you believe it is? Foot binding as a practice has died, while college hasn’t. Foot binding causes lifelong health problems, while college leads to lifelong benefits. Your language suggests you see no value in 4 years of education. Why? What are the downsides to college? What is the objection to learning? Isn’t learning on the job the alternative? Some people say there’s 4 years of job market opportunity cost. Except the people who start work out of high school get stuck in lower paying jobs forever. The people who go to college get to learn & explore many topics outside of “work” for 4 years and then immediately take a higher paying job that statistically surpasses their GED working friends in 3 years, and then keep earning more forever. Some people borrow money to attend college and go into debt. This can be a real issue for some, and I believe the average debt is higher than when I went to school. For the majority who get decent jobs, this is temporary, and the debt gets paid off, and then they end up richer. What if university was free to attend? Does that change your calculus? Would you still consider college a “ritual” or a tradeoff if there was no direct financial cost to attending?

by dahart 3mo ago

bonoboTP 3mo ago

It's not necessarily fully causal though. You'd need a comparison group who are just as intelligent and conscientious and equally rich as the college graduating population for comparison. They would likely find ways to demonstrate their value in other ways if forced not to attend college.

dahart 3mo ago
No you don’t need to do a study. We already know college is causal in the sense that you can’t get good jobs without the credential. The job market already enforces the causal relationship. And that’s a major reason why the advice to go to college is sound advice: we know for a fact that it broadens one’s options and enables a vast set of higher paying jobs. Whether this system is good or fair is reasonable to debate, but doesn’t change today’s economic “tradeoffs”. What you’re asking is whether the credential represents a measurable and valid increase in skill and learning, and ideally adjusted for socioeconomic status. That’s an interesting question, and there’s a whole field of literature on this topic. But the answer to that question won’t change the economics nor the advice. Many papers go much further than what you suggest and they adjust for things like race and family history of higher education, in addition to intelligence and family income. I have read through quite a few papers myself, and the conclusions I’ve seen vary on where they land on the causality axis between true learning and credentialism, but none of them come to the conclusion that true learning isn’t a significant factor. And it would be pretty silly to assume that people who spent 4 years learning learned nothing, right?
- bonoboTP 3mo ago
  It's a bit phosophical though. If you had a huge cohort of smart and capable people on the job market who didn't go to college, the job market would adjust its requirements. Currently the filter regarding a degree gives high enough signal,and it's generally considered legally acceptable, while other types of filters are more legally risky. Everything is connected to everything else. Things respond to changes in other things. Of course as an individual the actionable recommendation is a different thing than diagnosing the overall societal scale usefulness of pushing so many people though college. Analogy: is binding your daughter's foot good for her future prospects? Under a certain cultural context it was "good" for the marriage prospects. But the causation goes through a social-cultural consideration, that can shift and still "work" well. So whether the modern world could drop the college ritual or not is a question that's still up for debate even if the individual advice remains "go to college / bind the feet".
  - dahart 3mo ago
    > Things respond to changes in other things. Yes. For example, when people take 4 years to learn full time, by the end they generally have learned. > college ritual I don’t buy that foot binding is a valid analogy to college. Why do you believe it is? Foot binding as a practice has died, while college hasn’t. Foot binding causes lifelong health problems, while college leads to lifelong benefits. Your language suggests you see no value in 4 years of education. Why? What are the downsides to college? What is the objection to learning? Isn’t learning on the job the alternative? Some people say there’s 4 years of job market opportunity cost. Except the people who start work out of high school get stuck in lower paying jobs forever. The people who go to college get to learn & explore many topics outside of “work” for 4 years and then immediately take a higher paying job that statistically surpasses their GED working friends in 3 years, and then keep earning more forever. Some people borrow money to attend college and go into debt. This can be a real issue for some, and I believe the average debt is higher than when I went to school. For the majority who get decent jobs, this is temporary, and the debt gets paid off, and then they end up richer. What if university was free to attend? Does that change your calculus? Would you still consider college a “ritual” or a tradeoff if there was no direct financial cost to attending?