Is College a Rip Off? - John Stossel & Physics Majors

[AdkinsJr]

...that's the claim I'm hearing. Anyone ever see that 20/20 segment with John Stossel?



I understand that the claim that a college grad makes a million more than a high school grad may be misleading, but the big question that seems to be neglected is what are these unsuccessful grads majoring in? I'm a physics major; should I be concerned by the myth buster's (John Stossel's) segment?

 

[Pengwuino]

Some majors are useless. Theater, drama, psychology, ethnic studies, communications and many other majors are either useless or extraordinarily lacking in jobs for the number of people in the programs. The arguments are very flaky. For example, saying that some people become rich without even having a 4 year degree. Well, DUH. Who cares? To add to that, you find, as he termed "the super rich", coming from people who aren't high school educated as well that help combat the skewing he was saying exists. How many super rich people in the entertainment industry have college degrees? Surprisingly few!

I think the real scam is universities not teaching students what an average is or that a piece of paper is a piece of paper, it's up to the students to present themselves as a good hire. A job just doesn't magically appear because a university graduates someone in the field.

 

[Phyisab****]

The question is vague and impossible to answer. If you want to learn physics then majoring in physics is probably not a rip off. If you want to get rich then majoring in art is probably a rip off. There is no answer to this question. I would hope that as a physics major, you could apply some critical thinking before posing a question which you could just as well answer yourself.

 

[Antiphon]

There is presently a non-market driven pricing for college.

You pay the same for a worthless bachelors in political science as you do for the highly paid degree in engineering.

If college degrees were priced like anything else in a free market, a poli-sci degree would cost a few hundred bucks.

The myth of the equality of all degrees is part of what creates the ripoff

 

[russ_watters]

Some majors are useless. Theater, drama, psychology, ethnic studies, communications and many other majors are either useless or extraordinarily lacking in jobs for the number of people in the programs. The arguments are very flaky.

This actually tells you the exact opposite of the point of the 20/20 episode: they are arguing that for a lot of people (those with useless degrees like the girl they follow in the story), a college degree is worth a lot less than a million dollars. Well then obviously for the average to be a million dollars, for those with a useful college degree, the value is much, much more than a million dollars. I'll be very disappointed if my degree (mech E) doesn't end up being worth 3-5 mil. I'm on track. And I'm not bragging: I don't consider myself special.

Also, the "a college degree is the new high school degree" is not an argument against college, it is an argument for college!

Terrible, terrible newsertainment piece.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah my argument doesn't actually have the same implications for the 20/20 argument. However the reasoning and main focus seem to be the same, that college is useless for some people in some fields. To make $1M more a year, realistically over a 30 year working period, you only need to make around $35000 more a year consistently than a high school graduate. Depending on what kinda motivation a high school graduate has in his career vs. a college educated person has, that may or may not be a fairly easy task.

I think one thing that is sorely overlooked is the opportunities people have. High school graduates flip burgers and need to be lucky to get in on the ground floor of any decent career outside of that. College graduates are better situated to start at higher, even if they're still pretty lowly positions. To add to that, depending on the field, you could start at a salary that might be considered disappointing to other people in that same field but is still more than what the high school graduate might retire at.

Sure you can find a lot of people who regret going to college; there are genuine problems in the system. However, if you took a survey of how many high school graduates in the workforce today feel they would have better lifestyles if they had a college degree, this report wouldn't be as shocking.

 

[AdkinsJr]

Some majors are useless. Theater, drama, psychology, ethnic studies, communications and many other majors are either useless or extraordinarily lacking in jobs for the number of people in the programs. The arguments are very flaky. For example, saying that some people become rich without even having a 4 year degree. Well, DUH. Who cares? To add to that, you find, as he termed "the super rich", coming from people who aren't high school educated as well that help combat the skewing he was saying exists. How many super rich people in the entertainment industry have college degrees? Surprisingly few!

I think the real scam is universities not teaching students what an average is or that a piece of paper is a piece of paper, it's up to the students to present themselves as a good hire. A job just doesn't magically appear because a university graduates someone in the field.

That's basically what I was thinking; people waste their time and money in college studying useless subjects. However, I must admit that I don't really know much about the job market out there, and haven't done much research. I just sort of assume that I'll be alright because it's physics. I selected physics mainly because I enjoy problem solving; and I've always found theoretical physics interesting.

 

[fillipeano]

To me, if you are unable to get a scholarship or a grant for college, going to a junior college is the best way to save loads of money.

 

[Mépris]

"I was misinformed"? Seriously, man? Going to college =/= getting ridiculous amounts of money. Letting others choose for one is acceptable by my standards but blaming these "choosers" in question for the repercussions of that choice, is however, not. I believe that the least one could do before choosing to study a specific degree is to look at the course outline and ask themselves whether that is something they think they would be able to study and whether they might even enjoy it. Question the relevance of these things with regards to your areas of interest which, for most people would be, money.

I for one would love to study Mathematics or English Literature at university but is that ever going to get me the money that I would like? Chances are not. By the time I end up with a BA or a BSc, there's bound to be people who either can do my job better than I can do it, people with relevant work experience in that particular field (say, teaching), people who know the right people to land them these jobs or all of the above. And honestly, while I wouldn't mind that much to be a teacher, I like some fancy things which a teacher's salary won't be able to get me. Furthermore, I can teach Mathematics to myself.

So what do I do? I choose to study something else which is relevant to my interests (while also having the potential for more job slots), which, in this case, would be: science and money. Right now, it seems, that engineering would be the most logical choice. Not to mention that I like the idea of doing something worthwhile for the community, in general.

/rant

 

[chronon]

I think it's questionable whether ever more formal learning is an efficient way of doing things compared with starting a job at a younger age, and learning on the job combined with a philosophy of lifelong learning. However, as the system is at present, clearly a degree is vitally important if you are applying for higher paying jobs.

 

[ThomasT]

...that's the claim I'm hearing. Anyone ever see that 20/20 segment with John Stossel?



I understand that the claim that a college grad makes a million more than a high school grad may be misleading, but the big question that seems to be neglected is what are these unsuccessful grads majoring in? I'm a physics major; should I be concerned by the myth buster's (John Stossel's) segment?

I don't get the question/consideration. If your goal is simply to make lots of money, and if you're an intelligent and self-disciplined person, then you don't need college to learn what you need to learn to make lots of money. There's so much money in America that there are, virtually, an incalculable number of ways to get rich in America if you have brains and balls.

On the other hand, as a physics major, if you're simply fascinated by some specialization in physics, and want to confer with similarly oriented people and be a part of research and have access to resources that pretty much only proceeding through the college, graduate and post doc programs offers then it won't be a ripoff -- no matter how much money you make from it.

If you're just interested in money, then if, after getting your doctorate, you don't conjure some innovation that nets you millions, then is that the fault of your college education? Or were you simply not up to it in the first place?

Who's John Stossel?

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Also, the "a college degree is the new high school degree" is not an argument against college, it is an argument for college!

I'm not sure about this whole thing. Sure, that's an argument *for* college. But I think it's also a sad indictment of what our society is turning into. In my opinion, people are getting their prioties mixed up. People that are smart in high school feel obligated (and although it's usually a willing obligation I would still question it) to go to college/university. I find a sad amount of people nowadays thinking less of people that didn't go to college, whether it's always up front or not.

Now, I went to a great high school - a ridiculously high percentage of my year went on to go to university. At the time, the attitude I had, now that I can look back on it, boils down to: "well, I'm smart - how could I *not* go to university? I should do something difficult, like physics too!"

I don't regret going to university, and I don't regret getting my PhD. I enjoy life in research - but every now and then I wonder about how my life would have been different had I even entertained the idea of going from school straight into work. At the time, I genuinly didn't think that it was a valid option - and it wasn't presented to me as such by my institution or my parents. Why not?

Diverging a little, but the point that I'm bringing in reply to this thread is that: for me, college isn't as much of a necessity to happiness and success that it's made out to be. In that sense, yes, I think it's a rip off. People have different priorities, and at the time in ones life that you choose to go to university - I don't think you're really in a position to make the decision about what's important to you.

I could probably chat about this topic all day, and I think there are too many good arguments from both sides to ever really make a decision so I'll cut it there

 

[twofish-quant]

Some majors are useless. Theater, drama, psychology, ethnic studies, communications and many other majors are either useless or extraordinarily lacking in jobs for the number of people in the programs.

However, in taking those majors you learn general skills (meeting deadlines and writing reports) that are useful in office jobs. People that major in French literature generally don't get jobs in French literature, but they do end up being office drones for which a general bachelors is useful.

Also there are a lot of jobs in theater and drama, but most of those happen behind the camera.

I think the real scam is universities not teaching students what an average is or that a piece of paper is a piece of paper, it's up to the students to present themselves as a good hire. A job just doesn't magically appear because a university graduates someone in the field.

On the other hand if government policy is broken, it doesn't matter how good your credentials are.

 

[twofish-quant]

There is presently a non-market driven pricing for college.

And market pricing doesn't work for everything. Markets are sometimes bogus.

 

[twofish-quant]

I believe that the least one could do before choosing to study a specific degree is to look at the course outline and ask themselves whether that is something they think they would be able to study and whether they might even enjoy it.

One problem is that there is a chicken and egg problem or perhaps more accurately a fox watching the hen house problem.

The problem is this. How is a student supposed to get the information that they need to make reasonable life decisions. Now I have the silly and perhaps old fashion notion that college is the place where professors teach you enough about the world so that you can make good life decisions.

However, if professors get paid more if students make certain decisions, then you have a serious conflict of interest. Not sure how to get around this issue.

I for one would love to study Mathematics or English Literature at university but is that ever going to get me the money that I would like?

Actually what you really want to ask yourself is how much money you would like and why you like money.

So what do I do? I choose to study something else which is relevant to my interests (while also having the potential for more job slots), which, in this case, would be: science and money. Right now, it seems, that engineering would be the most logical choice. Not to mention that I like the idea of doing something worthwhile for the community, in general.

The problem is that if a lot of people go through the same thinking process and come up with the same answer, you've got yourself a bubble. Ironically, you also end up with anti-bubbles. People don't go into teaching because there is no money, and because there is a shortage then suddenly you have a demand for teachers.

And then there are some deeper questions. Is this the society we really want to live in?

 

[twofish-quant]

There's so much money in America that there are, virtually, an incalculable number of ways to get rich in America if you have brains and balls.

That's the myth. I don't really think it's true.

If you're just interested in money, then if, after getting your doctorate, you don't conjure some innovation that nets you millions, then is that the fault of your college education?

There is something called the middle class that seems to be disappearing. In most stable societies there are lots of people that are neither hyper-millionaires or living in poverty, and I think one big problem in the US is that the middle class has disappeared which makes everyone money obsessed because people are terrified at being poor.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm not sure about this whole thing. Sure, that's an argument *for* college. But I think it's also a sad indictment of what our society is turning into. In my opinion, people are getting their prioties mixed up.

I also think this is because colleges got their priorities mixed up. What ever happened to learning French literature for the sake of learning French literature. Does everything have to be about money?

At the time, I genuinely didn't think that it was a valid option - and it wasn't presented to me as such by my institution or my parents. Why not?

In my situation I was in a cultural context in which it was considered a good thing to be educated, for reasons other than being educated helps you make money. The main reason I *had* to finish my Ph.D. was because my father was unable to finish his.

Now if you put me into a situation where I had a real choice about getting a job after high school, then I'd be living in a totally different environment. In my cultural environment, physics plays pretty much the same role as football does in some parts of West Texas. Part of the reason college was useful was that I had enough time to study enough history to figure out *why* physics was so important. OK, I believe X because my parents told me X, but who told my parents the stuff that they thought.

One time I was reading this obscure philosopher and I thought it was a freaky coincidence that he happened to believe exactly what I believe. It took a while for me to realize that this wasn't a freaky coincidence, and that I found one of the people that brainwashed my great-grand parents so that they could end up brainwashing me. If you take French literature seriously, then you'll find other people like that.

Diverging a little, but the point that I'm bringing in reply to this thread is that: for me, college isn't as much of a necessity to happiness and success that it's made out to be.

For me it's pretty much the opposite. Physics is a part of my life.

Also, I was pretty lucky to go to the college that I did. The coursework of my college isn't particularly spectacular, but one thing that I learned in college (and in some ways it's the most dangerous thing that a college can teach you) is that "you can change the world."

 

[soothsayer]

If you look to college solely as a way to make more money, then of course, if you're not making an equal return on the money you spent on education, you'll see it as a waste of time and money. But college is also an experience, it's a great place to learn things you're interested in, meeting people, doing things you'd otherwise never get the chance to do. I'm a junior and I can tell you it's been the best three years of my life, I would start all over if I could. There is worth in college outside of the increased amount of money you will make in getting a degree, if you see it this way, you'll realize that it isn't a waste.

 

[Mépris]

One problem is that there is a chicken and egg problem or perhaps more accurately a fox watching the hen house problem.

The problem is this. How is a student supposed to get the information that they need to make reasonable life decisions. Now I have the silly and perhaps old fashion notion that college is the place where professors teach you enough about the world so that you can make good life decisions.

I can't speak for college, I have never been to one but I've been to two high schools last year. The second is a private institution and something which they have, which my previous school does not (or at least, did not at the time), was career guidance. There was a career's week at school, where every afternoon, for ninety minutes or so, people would come, most of which were parents whose children went to that school, and talk about their jobs, how they got there, etc. (pretty much a good insight into their professional lives)

Furthermore, there was this one day, where representatives from various institutions came. They all had their little stands with brochures a go-go and these people would talk about the universities or institutions they represent. For example, there was this woman from the US embassy, who explained about going to university in the US and another, who was a UCAS representative in the country and outline the whole UCAS-process.

Now this might not be that much of a big deal and it might be the norm in US high schools and perhaps, you might have better "guidance" than this but hey, that's all I got.

My teachers are helpful with regards to "life decisions" and it's good to have further insight, rather than what just your parents have to tell you.

At any rate, I find that "being misinformed" is a terrible excuse. If people around you aren't of much help, USE THE INTERNET! University/college websites? Forums? Hello?

Actually what you really want to ask yourself is how much money you would like and why you like money.

I thought that was implied with regards to the "fancy things" phrase. Sure, it was vague but I hardly have to illustrate every one of my possible ("fancy") wants to make point, now, do I?

The problem is that if a lot of people go through the same thinking process and come up with the same answer, you've got yourself a bubble. Ironically, you also end up with anti-bubbles. People don't go into teaching because there is no money, and because there is a shortage then suddenly you have a demand for teachers.

And then there are some deeper questions. Is this the society we really want to live in?

Is that not extrapolating a little too much?

Face it, with a degree in Maths or English, there are not many other available options besides high-school teaching. While I have toyed with that idea before, I don't want to get stuck in that kind of job - who knows, even if I do, I might find some kind of "opening" at some point and earn more but at this stage, I would like to have a certain amount of income which teaching high school students alone, will not get me. Don't get me wrong, I do like the idea of teaching but as I said, money is a problem here.

Haha, in a bubble I am, yes. Things might not work out the way I would like them to but I'd rather give this a shot than do nothing at all or settle for "less". If the opportunities present themselves, when doing my degree in whatever engineering field I will be doing, I'll take a few courses in subjects that interest me, like creative writing/journalism, history, economics or law.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Face it, with a degree in Maths or English, there are not many other available options besides high-school teaching.

This isn't true, at all, and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what college is about. I'm sure if you end up going to one, you'll find out. Mathematics is a great degree to have specifically because you get so many options. The world is a big place, but I'm sure you'll grow to appreciate that in time.

College is about learning skills, and when you graduate and are looking for a job, the skills are often more important than the knowledge. For instance, as a mathematics graduate you'll find all kind of jobs where companies are looking for someone that enjoys sitting down to some obscure problem and won't be phased. Mathematics graduates are good problem solvers, and comfortable with technical material - which makes them suitable for many of the same graduate program jobs that engineers and physicists can go for, the company can train them in whatever bits and pieces of knowledge they need. There may not be many jobs that are specifically only mathematicians, but then a high school maths teacher isn't either.The situation is similar, but not quite as straight forward for English graduates. As an English graduate, chances are you're pretty good at reading/summarising documents, writing big reports, being clear + concise. These are skills that have applications in lots of different places as well. Consider an archivist, for example - English graduates are ideal for these positions because they probably don't mind sitting reading all day, and are good at quickly identifying key information within a document.

 

[Pengwuino]

If you look to college solely as a way to make more money, then of course, if you're not making an equal return on the money you spent on education, you'll see it as a waste of time and money. But college is also an experience, it's a great place to learn things you're interested in, meeting people, doing things you'd otherwise never get the chance to do. I'm a junior and I can tell you it's been the best three years of my life, I would start all over if I could. There is worth in college outside of the increased amount of money you will make in getting a degree, if you see it this way, you'll realize that it isn't a waste.

Ah yes this is quite true! It is an EXPERIENCE! As a graduate student, the university pays me to go to conferences to find out the latest in physics. What high school graduate gets to say that? VERY FEW. Infact, they don't even know about this world that people who have experience in academia know about. Undergrads occasionally get these kinda opportunities as well. Then again, I think we're talking in generalities and for most college students, it's get in, get your degree, and get out.

One thing I can think of as a counter to just going from high school is the fact that your ceiling is not high. You're trained to do the job that you are hired to do. Why would you advance? I feel probably a vast majority of people learn very few skills in their 30 years of working. Then again, i wonder how well college graduates are after their 30 years of work is up as far as skills are concerned?

There was a study done and I wish I had the link about 90% of college graduates saying that they did not learn the real world skills required in their field from college. I mean, to be honest, I'm sure most students don't have a clue as to the day in the life of someone in their field. Does anyone know of ANYONE who wasn't given a wake up call upon moving from college into industry?

 

[chiro]

One thing I can think of as a counter to just going from high school is the fact that your ceiling is not high. You're trained to do the job that you are hired to do. Why would you advance? I feel probably a vast majority of people learn very few skills in their 30 years of working. Then again, i wonder how well college graduates are after their 30 years of work is up as far as skills are concerned?

I think its true that this can happen, but for some fields out there, you can be exposed to a lot of different things and in some cases can take 10+ years to really have a concise coherent organized skillset that sees things from multiple perspectives.

Its kind of why some senior lawyer or engineer can charge tonnes of money to solve problems, because they can solve very complex and intricate problems in a matter of hours or days and not weeks or months. I'd go as far as saying this holds for many industries where exposure to many situations and a lot of hours of work gives you this insight that is a function of time and hard work.

Also nowadays many people don't stay in the same job their whole life, like the baby boomers did. A lot of people move around for various reasons, and this can help contribute to people learning more broadly and deeply than our older counterparts.

 

[twofish-quant]

At any rate, I find that "being misinformed" is a terrible excuse. If people around you aren't of much help, USE THE INTERNET! University/college websites? Forums? Hello?

Part of the the problem is sometimes there is too much information and not all of it is good. Sometimes the problem is that you don't know a key bit of information (like go to this website or google for this word).

Face it, with a degree in Maths or English, there are not many other available options besides high-school teaching.

That's not true for Math. One reason for going to college is so that you can ask some "so what can I do with a Math or English or French literature degree."

 

[caffenta]

That's not true for Math.

I would add that it’s not even true for English, or theater, or music. I think it’s safe to say that people who choose these majors are not really interested in science or engineering, so why should they choose a “useful” science/engineering major? There are plenty of professional avenues for the other majors. Lots of people say that a physics degree is useless, and lots of people say that grad school is useless unless you want to be a professor. Both of which is total bs.

 

[Pengwuino]

I would add that it’s not even true for English, or theater, or music. I think it’s safe to say that people who choose these majors are not really interested in science or engineering, so why should they choose a “useful” science/engineering major? There are plenty of professional avenues for the other majors. Lots of people say that a physics degree is useless, and lots of people say that grad school is useless unless you want to be a professor. Both of which is total bs.

No there are majors where this is true. There ARE jobs for almost every major, but when you start talking about english adn theater and drama, you have way too many graduates for far too few jobs. Then of course you have majors like ethnic studies which... I can't even imagine there are jobs in the first place, let alone too many graduates for them.

 

[Sankaku]

I would guess that 80% of Kids don't know enough to choose the 'right' degree when they are 18 or 20 yrs old. For them, we need a world where it is acceptable to go into the workforce out of high-school and then go back to University later, when they actually know what they want to do and why it might be important/useful to them.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I've always thought that all knowledge was inherently valuable, so this thread just saddens me.

 

[Mépris]

Part of the the problem is sometimes there is too much information and not all of it is good. Sometimes the problem is that you don't know a key bit of information (like go to this website or google for this word).

That's where things like a reputation system or member awards come in handy. Don't get me wrong, people who do not have awards, of course, do come up with useful stuff but someone with a tag such as "Contributor of the Year" under his username is bound to be taken a little more seriously, if nothing else, by newbs on some forum or another.
Also, information given via forums and such can be verified by checking other websites. If one is still in doubt, calling the actual colleges/universities or some kind of advice hotline should be of use, no? Actually, doing that in the first place would probably be a safer bet, no?

That's not true for Math. One reason for going to college is so that you can ask some "so what can I do with a Math or English or French literature degree."

I suppose that's what is great about the US, where you can wait up until your sophomore year to declare your major. (:

I would add that it’s not even true for English, or theater, or music. I think it’s safe to say that people who choose these majors are not really interested in science or engineering, so why should they choose a “useful” science/engineering major? There are plenty of professional avenues for the other majors. Lots of people say that a physics degree is useless, and lots of people say that grad school is useless unless you want to be a professor. Both of which is total bs.

That is like saying that people who enjoy listening to Bloodbath cannot be Lady Gaga fans as well. Sure, they are probably very few in numbers but I'm sure they exist. Heck, I love me some 'Eaten' and don't mind the few Gaga tracks I've heard so much.

I'm near-certain there are other people, who like me, have a high-enough interest in both science/applied science fields as well as the arts. It just so happens that along with a few personal reasons, the chances of me earning more are higher in the applied science fields.

No there are majors where this is true. There ARE jobs for almost every major, but when you start talking about english adn theater and drama, you have way too many graduates for far too few jobs. Then of course you have majors like ethnic studies which... I can't even imagine there are jobs in the first place, let alone too many graduates for them.

Echoed.

 

[Ryker]

That's where things like a reputation system or member awards come in handy. Don't get me wrong, people who do not have awards, of course, do come up with useful stuff but someone with a tag such as "Contributor of the Year" under his username is bound to be taken a little more seriously, if nothing else, by newbs on some forum or another.

Which isn't necessarily a good thing, because if you have a "local star" on a messageboard, that doesn't mean his or her words have any value in real life and, secondly, you mistake the argument of power for the power of an argument.

Also, information given via forums and such can be verified by checking other websites. If one is still in doubt, calling the actual colleges/universities or some kind of advice hotline should be of use, no? Actually, doing that in the first place would probably be a safer bet, no?

I think you're being extremely unrealistic. Everyone will present their own views and that holds for universities, hotlines etc., as well. They don't know everything, and as has been said here often, even the professors themselves are a lot of times out of touch with reality outside of academia, so how do you expect to get a true answer (however you define that) from someone like that, or even worse from a person employed at a university that doesn't really deal with the subject you're interested in, but just gives you general advice. Plus, on messageboards you get to hear of personal experience, from which you can draw a false picture, but since it's a personal experience, there's no real way to verify it. Studies haven't been done on everything, and even if they were, there's only certain variables that are controlled. In any case, you can learn lots by doing research, so I do agree with you on that, but you don't always get a clear picture. And you do have to factor in time constraints, misguidance by either peers, parents or other people, the age and "wisdom" factor etc. high school students are dealing with, not only look at the theoretically optimal environment or how it *should* be done.

Echoed.

First of all, how do you know there aren't any jobs for people graduating with such degrees? Do you have one and have you tried getting a job with it? Or is that, as I presume, just a general impression that you have? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I think this just might be the case here. I think it's safe to say you actually don't know what the market is for those degrees and you're just going off of what little insufficient data you've gathered about them, making rash conclusions. After all, you don't see that many adverts for jobs looking for Physics graduates, but as it's so often spoken of here, it's the skills that matter and you may get a lot of jobs you wouldn't necessarily think of with such a degree. Why would that not be the case for other degrees, as well?

And secondly, there being too many graduates for the number of jobs is kind of a chicken and egg problem. Are universities made to supply the job market or should the human kind pursue knowledge it wishes to obtain and create its needs (entailing jobs) based off of that?

 

[ensabah6]

Some majors are useless. Theater, drama, psychology, ethnic studies, communications and many other majors are either useless or extraordinarily lacking in jobs for the number of people in the programs. .

There is presently a non-market driven pricing for college.

You pay the same for a worthless bachelors in political science as you do for the highly paid degree in engineering.

If college degrees were priced like anything else in a free market, a poli-sci degree would cost a few hundred bucks.

The myth of the equality of all degrees is part of what creates the ripoff

No mention of philosophy?

 

[Mépris]

Which isn't necessarily a good thing, because if you have a "local star" on a messageboard, that doesn't mean his or her words have any value in real life and, secondly, you mistake the argument of power for the power of an argument.

That was a very general statement on my part and I did not imply it to be a good thing (or at least, did not want to make it sound thus). What I wanted to say is that I think this to be some kind of good starting point, as far as message boards are concerned. Sure, not all "local stars" as you put it, will know what they're on about and "Contributor of the Year" is a fairly vague award and one could have won it, say, for their sarcasm or perhaps their humour, which in this context, would not be relevant to the needs of somebody look for college/university advice. In these boards for instance, the awards are far more specific and you have people being awarded with titles such as "Science Advisor" among other things. Also, I would think that the members of the site's 'Staff' would know a thing or two. ;)

I think you're being extremely unrealistic. Everyone will present their own views and that holds for universities, hotlines etc., as well. They don't know everything, and as has been said here often, even the professors themselves are a lot of times out of touch with reality outside of academia, so how do you expect to get a true answer (however you define that) from someone like that, or even worse from a person employed at a university that doesn't really deal with the subject you're interested in, but just gives you general advice. Plus, on messageboards you get to hear of personal experience, from which you can draw a false picture, but since it's a personal experience, there's no real way to verify it. Studies haven't been done on everything, and even if they were, there's only certain variables that are controlled. In any case, you can learn lots by doing research, so I do agree with you on that, but you don't always get a clear picture. And you do have to factor in time constraints, misguidance by either peers, parents or other people, the age and "wisdom" factor etc. high school students are dealing with, not only look at the theoretically optimal environment or how it *should* be done.

Then again, what is true? We could argue about this all day (figuratively) and this would no doubt, turn into some epistemological issue of some sort.

I am not claiming that there is a correct way per se, in finding out about all of these things, without going to university/college first-hand and studying a specific subject or another, but think about it, if one actually made a good effort in finding all of these things out, it would be quite improbable that they get all the information wrong! My point in an earlier post, I believe, was that some of these persons in that video, probably did not research enough and the fact that they ended up without jobs post-graduation, has more to do with them, rather than what others have told them.

First of all, how do you know there aren't any jobs for people graduating with such degrees? Do you have one and have you tried getting a job with it? Or is that, as I presume, just a general impression that you have? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I think this just might be the case here. I think it's safe to say you actually don't know what the market is for those degrees and you're just going off of what little insufficient data you've gathered about them, making rash conclusions. After all, you don't see that many adverts for jobs looking for Physics graduates, but as it's so often spoken of here, it's the skills that matter and you may get a lot of jobs you wouldn't necessarily think of with such a degree. Why would that not be the case for other degrees, as well?

I do not and I agree with you, especially with regards to what you said about the importance of acquiring skills. There's also knowing the right people, which I would think, is another factor in getting that one job, so to speak, set in stone.

If ever you're interested in how I came to this conclusion, here goes. I do not know much about the job market outside of where I live, which is a fairly small place. I haven't done my research yet and that's largely due to me not knowing yet whether I would like to work in my country or try my luck abroad. I am at this point in my life where I am still figuring things out, lots of them and I would rather know more about where I am from right now and how things are looking up here itself, before trying to venture elsewhere. Having said that, my knowledge of the local job market does not go beyond what I have heard from teachers, parents and relatives, and although some of these sources I would consider good, they are not exact statistics. At any rate, over here, most people with French, English, Mathematics or science-degrees are high school teachers, as far as I know. There might be the odd person working elsewhere with that kind of qualification but I doubt they are many. Again, these are mostly what I have heard from others and what I have seen for myself and not the stats speaking. ;)

And secondly, there being too many graduates for the number of jobs is kind of a chicken and egg problem. Are universities made to supply the job market or should the human kind pursue knowledge it wishes to obtain and create its needs (entailing jobs) based off of that?

It's not a black/white thing now, is it? I would guess it's a bit of both.

 

[caffenta]

I'm near-certain there are other people, who like me, have a high-enough interest in both science/applied science fields as well as the arts. It just so happens that along with a few personal reasons, the chances of me earning more are higher in the applied science fields.

And that's very good of you to be interested in both. You will pick a science/engineering major and take some elective classes in the arts. Where exactly is the rip-off part?

Other people are mostly attracted by the creative subjects, just as some people are interested only in the technical subjects. They choose a major based on their primary interest and university provides them an easy way to check other subjects. You never have that opportunity later in life.

And what do people in this thread propose to fix the supposed problem? Eliminate all "useless" majors? Who decides what is useless? You might end up with all science majors eliminated because the powers that be think that engineering is where it's at.

 

[Mathnomalous]

I like Antiphon's idea (page 1) about market prices for university degrees. Maybe fixed prices for different degrees (e.g. $500 for a BA History and $50,000 for a BSME) or let the prices float according to supply/demand. Of course, in the name of hypocrisy, something like this would have to be implemented after I earn a BSEE.

 

[caffenta]

Yeah, great idea. Then everybody would flock to the cheap degrees and only 2 guys per year would show up in engineering classes. That's going to solve all the problems.

 

[twofish-quant]

I like Antiphon's idea (page 1) about market prices for university degrees. Maybe fixed prices for different degrees (e.g. $500 for a BA History and $50,000 for a BSME) or let the prices float according to supply/demand. Of course, in the name of hypocrisy, something like this would have to be implemented after I earn a BSEE.

The problem is...

1) demand for degrees isn't very elastic,
2) it's trivial to arbitrage. Suppose I pay $500 for a BA in History but then I take all engineering classes for my electives. At that point I've got a cheap BA in Engineering
3) information issues
4) social equity issues - people with money can choose whatever degrees they want, and people without money end up with the leftovers

Markets work really, really well in some situations, but in things that involve health and education, markets tend to work really badly, in large part because the assumptions that go into the market framework break down in a big way.

One problem with health and education is that health and education aren't tradable commodities. For example, if I have a block of gold, I can trade that block of gold for a hot dog. I lose a block of gold and get a hot dog. Someone else loses a hot dog and gets a block of gold. Presumably we are both better off, or else we wouldn't have made the trade.

Health and education just doesn't work this way. I can't sell my degree for money, and there is no way that I can sell knowledge in the same way that I sell gold. If I give you a block of gold, I'm out one block of gold, but if I teach you astrophysics, I don't lose that knowledge. So the economics is going to work very differently, and there is no reason to think that what works for tangible goods will work for intangibles.

Something that I should point out is that once you put prices on something, it becomes obvious that people aren't interested in knowledge. I can give you the same Algebra I course that you could get from me at University of Phoenix. What you get from UoP is not a better course, but a piece of paper that you can convert to a job that presumably makes you more money that you paid UoP.

 

[Mathnomalous]

TwoFish-Quant, from what you describe, it seems college is indeed a rip off. To me, it makes no sense that an English major and a Physics major pay the same amount of tuition when, after the degree is obtained, the Physics major is going to profit more than the English major.

I understand your point about the economics of intangibles vs tangibles. The problem is that those intangibles are being attached to tangible assets; for example, it is possible to train myself in an academic field with just a library card, but the person who paid $ to obtain a piece of paper that certifies (s)he learned the exact same knowledge will probably get the job over me.

 

[mathwonk]

post 27 pretty much said it all. was it euclid ? who told his slave to give the mercenary student an "obolus:, "since he must gain something for everything he learns".

 

[Pengwuino]

Wait wait, why do we keep arguing the value of an education based off what you can get in terms of a high paying job upon graduation? That's not the universities problem. It costs relatively the same amount to teach a physics major as it does a philosophy major as it does a political science major. Professors don't see too much variation in their pay from department to department. The facilities are roughly the same. Sure STEM majors require equipment and labs, but at the same time they bring in external funding to counter those costs.

The cost of the degree should be based on how much it costs to educate a person for that degree. If you base everything on how much you are expected to make in your field, then you'll turn every major into systems such as med schools and law schools. You would have to pay engineers more because universities would charge more and as you pay engineers more universities would charge more and you'd be in a nasty cycle.

 

[caffenta]

Wait wait, why do we keep arguing the value of an education based off what you can get in terms of a high paying job upon graduation? That's not the universities problem. It costs relatively the same amount to teach a physics major as it does a philosophy major as it does a political science major. Professors don't see too much variation in their pay from department to department. The facilities are roughly the same. Sure STEM majors require equipment and labs, but at the same time they bring in external funding to counter those costs.

The cost of the degree should be based on how much it costs to educate a person for that degree. If you base everything on how much you are expected to make in your field, then you'll turn every major into systems such as med schools and law schools. You would have to pay engineers more because universities would charge more and as you pay engineers more universities would charge more and you'd be in a nasty cycle.

Wasn't it the point of the original post (college is a rip-off)? I agree that it's not the universities' problem, but apparently some think it should be. I don't see anything wrong with colleges today.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Wait wait, why do we keep arguing the value of an education based off what you can get in terms of a high paying job upon graduation? That's not the universities problem. It costs relatively the same amount to teach a physics major as it does a philosophy major as it does a political science major. Professors don't see too much variation in their pay from department to department. The facilities are roughly the same. Sure STEM majors require equipment and labs, but at the same time they bring in external funding to counter those costs.

The cost of the degree should be based on how much it costs to educate a person for that degree. If you base everything on how much you are expected to make in your field, then you'll turn every major into systems such as med schools and law schools. You would have to pay engineers more because universities would charge more and as you pay engineers more universities would charge more and you'd be in a nasty cycle.

Because a good chunk of those who attend university do so more for economic reasons than for intellectual reasons. Many universities respond to this demand by increasing tuition and promising their graduates better chances of a lucrative career. Let us put it this way, how many people would pursue a Pure Sciences Ph.D. if they were required to pay full tuition for it? How many people would attend a university if they were told they had the same chances of obtaining a job as a high school graduate?

I agree it is not the universities' problem, but they do not necessarily point it out.

 

[caffenta]

Let us put it this way, how many people would pursue a Pure Sciences Ph.D. if they were required to pay full tuition for it?

You do pay full tuition as a grad student. It is part of the stipend you receive as a research or teaching assistant. Check with your department. Degrees that do not have a research side are forced to teach, very often outside their degree.

How many people would attend a university if they were told they had the same chances of obtaining a job as a high school graduate?

Perhaps they shouldn't attend university.

 

[Mathnomalous]

You do pay full tuition as a grad student. It is part of the stipend you receive as a research or teaching assistant. Check with your department. Degrees that do not have a research side are forced to teach, very often outside their degree.

Great. Instead of a RA or TA slot, treat it as an unpaid intern position.

Perhaps they shouldn't attend university.

Hey, I agree. How many people on these forums would follow this advice?

 

[caffenta]

Great. Instead of a RA or TA slot, treat it as an unpaid intern position.

Well, you do get paid, a little. On the bright side, if a post-doc is ever bragging about how much more money he makes, you can always tell him that your portion of the research grant is pretty much the same as his since he has no tuition included.

 

[Antiphon]

The problem is...

1) demand for degrees isn't very elastic,
2) it's trivial to arbitrage. Suppose I pay $500 for a BA in History but then I take all engineering classes for my electives. At that point I've got a cheap BA in Engineering
3) information issues
4) social equity issues - people with money can choose whatever degrees they want, and people without money end up with the leftovers

Markets work really, really well in some situations, but in things that involve health and education, markets tend to work really badly, in large part because the assumptions that go into the market framework break down in a big way.

One problem with health and education is that health and education aren't tradable commodities. For example, if I have a block of gold, I can trade that block of gold for a hot dog. I lose a block of gold and get a hot dog. Someone else loses a hot dog and gets a block of gold. Presumably we are both better off, or else we wouldn't have made the trade.

Health and education just doesn't work this way. I can't sell my degree for money, and there is no way that I can sell knowledge in the same way that I sell gold. If I give you a block of gold, I'm out one block of gold, but if I teach you astrophysics, I don't lose that knowledge. So the economics is going to work very differently, and there is no reason to think that what works for tangible goods will work for intangibles.

Something that I should point out is that once you put prices on something, it becomes obvious that people aren't interested in knowledge. I can give you the same Algebra I course that you could get from me at University of Phoenix. What you get from UoP is not a better course, but a piece of paper that you can convert to a job that presumably makes you more money that you paid UoP.

2). Charge by the course then no arbitrage can occur.
4). The social equity issues are alread there. I would have liked to go to harvard but could only afford a public university.

Markets work just fine in health care and education. You have simply confused goods with services.

By your reasoning markets don't work well for buying cable TV or software.

You are correct that people don't get degrees for the knowledge but for the certificate. I don't hire engineers who have read a lot on their own but haven't got a degree. Why would I?

 

[Mépris]

And that's very good of you to be interested in both. You will pick a science/engineering major and take some elective classes in the arts. Where exactly is the rip-off part?

Other people are mostly attracted by the creative subjects, just as some people are interested only in the technical subjects. They choose a major based on their primary interest and university provides them an easy way to check other subjects. You never have that opportunity later in life.

And what do people in this thread propose to fix the supposed problem? Eliminate all "useless" majors? Who decides what is useless? You might end up with all science majors eliminated because the powers that be think that engineering is where it's at.

I was never for the sentiment that college/university is a rip-off.

The (allegedly) "useless majors" can be studied solely on the basis of academic interest, no? Whatever happened to learning for the sake of learning/personal interest? Being able to get a job through them, I guess, would just be a bonus.

 

[twofish-quant]

2). Charge by the course then no arbitrage can occur.

In that case you have arbitrage between the same course teaching two different departments.

4). The social equity issues are alread there. I would have liked to go to harvard but could only afford a public university.

So why make the system worse?

Markets work just fine in health care and education. You have simply confused goods with services.

Markets are quite broken in health care and education for various reasons.

By your reasoning markets don't work well for buying cable TV or software.

They work only because you have IP laws that enforce transferability. And in many situations that don't work pretty well because you end up with network effects in which you have groups that make monopoly profits. It's called rent-seeking. Increases prices. Decreasing efficiency.

You are correct that people don't get degrees for the knowledge but for the certificate. I don't hire engineers who have read a lot on their own but haven't got a degree. Why would I?

Because you are propping up a system that is basically broken.

 

[caffenta]

I was never for the sentiment that college/university is a rip-off.

The (allegedly) "useless majors" can be studied solely on the basis of academic interest, no? Whatever happened to learning for the sake of learning/personal interest? Being able to get a job through them, I guess, would just be a bonus.

We are in perfect agreement on that. I'm sorry if I made it sound like you were arguing the opposite. I was mostly answering the thread in general.

I recommend to anyone to take a few classes outside their normal coursework if they can. I didn't do it so much as an undergrad, but I did so in grad school and I'm glad I did.

 

[Mépris]

We are in perfect agreement on that. I'm sorry if I made it sound like you were arguing the opposite. I was mostly answering the thread in general.

I recommend to anyone to take a few classes outside their normal coursework if they can. I didn't do it so much as an undergrad, but I did so in grad school and I'm glad I did.

You're going to need more than your word.


Seriously though, I'm glad we do.

 

[Pengwuino]

Because a good chunk of those who attend university do so more for economic reasons than for intellectual reasons. Many universities respond to this demand by increasing tuition and promising their graduates better chances of a lucrative career. Let us put it this way, how many people would pursue a Pure Sciences Ph.D. if they were required to pay full tuition for it? How many people would attend a university if they were told they had the same chances of obtaining a job as a high school graduate?

Yes but as you say, that's not the universities problem. Hell, to steal the cable tv analogy, i only watch a few cable channels but still have to pay full price for all of them (not that that doesn't annoy the hell out of me...). We also do pay full tuition. It's just that various entities find it beneficial to pay students to attend (ie the slave labor of a TA)

 

[Shaun_W]

I think it's a bit of a rip off. It only really exists as a form of proof to employers that I can jump through a certain amount of hoops. I suppose that's quite useful for becoming another faceless cog in the corporate machine, though.

I feel it's very much a case of examination over education. I spend too much time learning how to answer questions the way that the lecturer wants them to be answered, too much time writing and preparing useless lab reports and too much time memorising rather than understanding. It's not really an education any more, though, is it, given that for pretty much any career nowadays you need a degree to get your foot in the door. Universities know this and thus can charge extra because they know that you'll get nowhere without their bit of paper. We're in the bizarre situation where people are essentially paying to get a job!