5 ms·

> If the salary of those without college degrees is falling more than those with college degrees then it still may be a prudent financial decision. Do note th

> If the salary of those without college degrees is falling more than those with college degrees then it still may be a prudent financial decision. Do note that if you look at income data a little bit closer, you will notice that people with _only_ a bachelor's degree represent roughly 20% of every income bracket, which implies there is no significance to just having a degree as it relates to income. It is only those with post-graduate degrees who see a sharp rise in the upper income brackets. However, we tend to lump them all into a "college degree" category, which allows the latter group to bring up the numbers. Unfortunately, this leads people to believe that getting any college degree is a prudent financial decision, even though the data does not back it up. It is worth looking at the numbers, for sure, but be careful out there. There are a lot of traps that are easy to overlook.

timr 13y ago
"It is only those with post-graduate degrees who see a sharp rise in the upper income brackets. However, we tend to lump them all into a "college degree" category, which allows the latter group to bring up the numbers. Unfortunately, this leads people to believe that getting any college degree is a prudent financial decision, even though the data does not back it up." Incorrect: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.gif http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.gif
- randomdata 13y ago
  How are "weekly earnings" calculated? For instance, I get all of my income in lump sums, typically two or three times per year. Does that mean my weekly earnings are $0 (or some really large number if you get me on a specific week), or do they take yearly income and divide it by the number of weeks? If the latter, why bother breaking it down to per week? Also, given that the Bureau of Labour is the source, do they include non-labour income sources? It seems pretty important, at least in my mind, to include all income sources. The average high school-only graduate will have $100K of potential to invest by the time someone in college graduates. Even with a low 3% interest rate, that is $3,000 in additional income for high school grads each year. Educational Attainment by Annual Household Income: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/glqwiblfrkemnu8b6ij8aq.gif http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod...
  - timr 13y ago
    The source is cited. If you truly care, you can look into the methodology to your heart's content. The Gallup link you provide doesn't tell you anything about causality because the relationship is backwards ("educational attainment by income"), while still providing data to refute your original argument (there's a clear positive correlation between education and wealth).
    - randomdata 13y ago
      > there's a clear positive correlation between education and wealth I'm not seeing it. There is very little variance except on the lowest rungs: <20K 5% 20-29K 8% 30-39K 11% 40-49K 14% 50-74K 18% 75-99K 22% 100-149K 25% 150-249K 25% 250-499K 24% 500K+ 23% And we can derive from other data that people with the lowest incomes tend to be people just entering the workforce. i.e. someone straight out of high school might work a low paying job to gain experience in the field instead of furthering education. By the time his peers are graduating, the gap narrows considerably. If bachelor's degrees and incomes had a significant correlation, you would expect a considerable increase in each income bracket like you see for the postgraduates, not just a few percentage points between them. The only interesting correlation is with those who have post-graduate educations, but that was never disputed. It was the argument all along.
      - timr 13y ago
        There's a positive correlation between those data series. If you use the original data, instead of subtracting the columns (arbitrarily), the correlation is stronger. For both columns. But hey, you keep arguing with facts. I have better things to do.
kenjackson 13y ago
Do note that if you look at income data a little bit closer, you will notice that people with _only_ a bachelor's degree represent roughly 20% of every income bracket, which implies there is no significance to just having a degree as it relates to income. That's probably not the right way to look at the data -- too many weird factors (what is the distribution in the brackets, how are the brackets defined, etc...). The best study that I've seen that breaks this out is a bit old (2002), but still probably relevant is from the US Census: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf It shows that over a lifetime there is a significant benefit in having a bachelors. Furthermore, having a bachelors sets you up to get further degrees later in your career.
- spikels 13y ago
  Everyone should agree that a college degree has some positive impact on future earnings. The problem is that the real cost of that degree has been doubling every decade for more than 30 years while the real earnings of college graduates have increased very little both on an absolute basis and relative to those without a college degree. Assuming college is worth it today if these trends continue it's net value (benefit - cost) will rapidly decline. This is a problem.

timr 13y ago

"It is only those with post-graduate degrees who see a sharp rise in the upper income brackets. However, we tend to lump them all into a "college degree" category, which allows the latter group to bring up the numbers. Unfortunately, this leads people to believe that getting any college degree is a prudent financial decision, even though the data does not back it up." Incorrect: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.gif http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.gif

randomdata 13y ago
How are "weekly earnings" calculated? For instance, I get all of my income in lump sums, typically two or three times per year. Does that mean my weekly earnings are $0 (or some really large number if you get me on a specific week), or do they take yearly income and divide it by the number of weeks? If the latter, why bother breaking it down to per week? Also, given that the Bureau of Labour is the source, do they include non-labour income sources? It seems pretty important, at least in my mind, to include all income sources. The average high school-only graduate will have $100K of potential to invest by the time someone in college graduates. Even with a low 3% interest rate, that is $3,000 in additional income for high school grads each year. Educational Attainment by Annual Household Income: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/glqwiblfrkemnu8b6ij8aq.gif http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod...
- timr 13y ago
  The source is cited. If you truly care, you can look into the methodology to your heart's content. The Gallup link you provide doesn't tell you anything about causality because the relationship is backwards ("educational attainment by income"), while still providing data to refute your original argument (there's a clear positive correlation between education and wealth).
  - randomdata 13y ago
    > there's a clear positive correlation between education and wealth I'm not seeing it. There is very little variance except on the lowest rungs: <20K 5% 20-29K 8% 30-39K 11% 40-49K 14% 50-74K 18% 75-99K 22% 100-149K 25% 150-249K 25% 250-499K 24% 500K+ 23% And we can derive from other data that people with the lowest incomes tend to be people just entering the workforce. i.e. someone straight out of high school might work a low paying job to gain experience in the field instead of furthering education. By the time his peers are graduating, the gap narrows considerably. If bachelor's degrees and incomes had a significant correlation, you would expect a considerable increase in each income bracket like you see for the postgraduates, not just a few percentage points between them. The only interesting correlation is with those who have post-graduate educations, but that was never disputed. It was the argument all along.
    - timr 13y ago
      There's a positive correlation between those data series. If you use the original data, instead of subtracting the columns (arbitrarily), the correlation is stronger. For both columns. But hey, you keep arguing with facts. I have better things to do.

kenjackson 13y ago

Do note that if you look at income data a little bit closer, you will notice that people with _only_ a bachelor's degree represent roughly 20% of every income bracket, which implies there is no significance to just having a degree as it relates to income. That's probably not the right way to look at the data -- too many weird factors (what is the distribution in the brackets, how are the brackets defined, etc...). The best study that I've seen that breaks this out is a bit old (2002), but still probably relevant is from the US Census: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf It shows that over a lifetime there is a significant benefit in having a bachelors. Furthermore, having a bachelors sets you up to get further degrees later in your career.

spikels 13y ago
Everyone should agree that a college degree has some positive impact on future earnings. The problem is that the real cost of that degree has been doubling every decade for more than 30 years while the real earnings of college graduates have increased very little both on an absolute basis and relative to those without a college degree. Assuming college is worth it today if these trends continue it's net value (benefit - cost) will rapidly decline. This is a problem.