3 ms·
It's much more complicated than that. >> If an undergraduate program's graduates don't earn more than workers who never went to college, Lots of things affect
by bruce511 3mo ago
It's much more complicated than that.
>> If an undergraduate program's graduates don't earn more than workers who never went to college,
Lots of things affect earnings. Obviously education is one of them, but it's not the only one.
Location, economic environment, social status, personal network - all are factors. In other words comparing unequal things leads to unequal results.
For example, a first-generation college attendee gets a solid job working at a non-profit helping others. Someone else in the same town goes straight into Dad's profitable factory as a manager.
Of course those might be outliers. We can use statistics to smooth things. But equally we can use statistics to show anything we want.
Yes, there are lots of really crap colleges. There are colleges that specialize in nonsense degrees in useless subjects. (English Poetry you say? Hah. Poets never made any money...)
But equally there are lots of community colleges, taking in marginal students, giving them opportunities where others won't. Some, maybe most, of those students won't make it. But some will.
The effect of a rule like this is that colleges are forced to game the system. To exclude those who might fail. To reduce social mobility.
A cynic might even suggest this is the real goal of the rule to begin with.
- 3eb7988a1663 3mo agoAlso unclear how it works for the PhD pipeline. If you roll straight from bachelor's to a doctorate program - you have abysmal earnings for the next 5-6 years of your life.
- bruce511 3mo agoIndeed. Equally the person who has 4 Years experience in the workplace probably does better than a first year grad. In other words, when trying to measure value outcomes, what time period should one consider? And does the rule apply at the college level or the program level? If I churn out 100 people in my law school, can I average their prospects with 50 from my Archaeology degree? Or with 50 from my "music in movies" degree?
- dataflow 3mo agoUnless a program has a habit of sending the majority of its undergrads into PhDs, that part might not be so hard to resolve -- just exclude everyone who does that from the measurement sample.
- bruce511 3mo agoWho decides who should be included or excluded from the statistics? The govt? In this era of open hostility to institutions that won't toe the line? Who are looking for ways to punish what they don't like? Or perhaps the college? If they decide then can they pick and choose who goes into what statistic? Does a drop-out (like say Bill Gates) get included or excluded? Do we even accept the premise, that education's sole goal is higher salaries? This whole rule is performative. It merely gives power to the powerful to exercise in whatever way they like.
- 3eb7988a1663 3mo agoWe took a random subset of the football team who graduated and went pro. College is looking like a fantastic investment!
- WalterBright 3mo agoYou're right that getting a PhD comes with a vow of poverty. Unless your doctorate is in AI.
- clcaev 3mo agoPhD programs are generally not funded with loans. Professional schools are.
- 3eb7988a1663 3mo agoThe question at hand is about undergraduate. The student's pre-PhD education likely did have loans. If you go straight from bachelors + loans to a multi-year PhD program, the student appears completely destitute in the stats. Even if they are making long-term investments in their/societies future.
- sieabahlpark 3mo ago[dead]