College enrollment rates are dropping, especially among low-income students(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
College enrollment rates are dropping, especially among low-income students
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2015/11/24/college-enrollment-rates-are-dropping-especially-among-low-income-students/
30 comments
Very limited data provided in the article, and no subgroup analysis by college type or major or other demographic variables. It is more worrying, to me, if all low income future engineering students skip college to become line workers. It is less worrying if the low income students are deciding not to take 40k in debt for an English degree from a for-profit college they are unlikely to graduate from.
One thing we've been watching is that there are less people graduating high school - in other words, there are less people in the school system now. We've been preparing for this for a couple years now by looking to attract more veterans and non traditional students looking at retraining.
There's got to be a point where prices are high enough and job prospects are poor enough that people will finally start questioning the "get a degree" wisdom.
I don't discount this theory, i've wondered it myself a few times in recent years. However, i'm not sure of the data to back that theory. The article itself says that the job situation has improved in the US. The question is around the opportunities that open and close based on having a degree (eg. over qualification vs under qualification vs expectation).
It also mentions that the data is from 0.1% of students. While that's still a fair number, there's room for error.
It also mentions that the data is from 0.1% of students. While that's still a fair number, there's room for error.
Exactly. Also, I don't have a source for this off the top of my head, but from what I've read most of the crisis in loan repayments comes from people who don't graduate. Starting but not graduating may be the most perfidious outcome.
In addition, "college" doesn't make much sense as a category of discussion, because "college" is so many different things. I've been writing as much for years: http://jakeseliger.com/2012/12/15/college-william-deresiewic... and doing so mostly futilely, it seems.
In addition, "college" doesn't make much sense as a category of discussion, because "college" is so many different things. I've been writing as much for years: http://jakeseliger.com/2012/12/15/college-william-deresiewic... and doing so mostly futilely, it seems.
why does everyone need to go to college?
why can't we have a apprentice/trade track for people who don't want to waste time with college (like in most other countries)?
why can't we have a apprentice/trade track for people who don't want to waste time with college (like in most other countries)?
Holberton School [0] & Make School [1] are very good alternative to college.
[0] https://www.holbertonschool.com [1] http://www.makeschool.com
[0] https://www.holbertonschool.com [1] http://www.makeschool.com
>for people who don't want to waste time with college
s/time/time and money/
s/time/time and money/
We can. We don't. Yet.
>like in most other countries
For most of the world, with "trade track", you make "ends meat" for the country (developing world included).
That's why you see such a mindblowing competition for Chinese students to graduate from good colleges.
For most of the world, with "trade track", you make "ends meat" for the country (developing world included).
That's why you see such a mindblowing competition for Chinese students to graduate from good colleges.
There are many marginal college students in the US who would be far better off becoming plumbers, electricians, or auto techs than going to college, IMO.
Problem is many people look down on these blue-collar skilled trades and college is seen as the way up.
Problem is many people look down on these blue-collar skilled trades and college is seen as the way up.
I agree with you on trade school.
However, I would think it's often the poor who would benefit most from college, because it's there they can network with people who would never otherwise be available to them. That could also provide positive peer pressure and some concrete examples of people you can emulate. And college will teach them how to learn and critically think, which might not be skills they have yet.
However, I would think it's often the poor who would benefit most from college, because it's there they can network with people who would never otherwise be available to them. That could also provide positive peer pressure and some concrete examples of people you can emulate. And college will teach them how to learn and critically think, which might not be skills they have yet.
I think the benefit of the college network is probably the most overlooked. But while colleges might teach people how to learn and think critically, they don't teach people who aren't affluent how to network.
Career centers might provide optional workshops on networking, but this isn't enough to prepare students for how to integrate socially. It can be a culture shock when people enter a competitive school and realize that learning isn't the primary objective.
Some people question why it should be that people from non-affluent backgrounds should have to adapt to the culture, and it is a source of resentment and likely a catalyst for some vengeful campus politics. It's a valid concern but people should be making efforts to meet in the middle. Efforts by people with the most power, like Ycombinator going out of their way to recruit women and minorities, are an important part of the solution.
Career centers might provide optional workshops on networking, but this isn't enough to prepare students for how to integrate socially. It can be a culture shock when people enter a competitive school and realize that learning isn't the primary objective.
Some people question why it should be that people from non-affluent backgrounds should have to adapt to the culture, and it is a source of resentment and likely a catalyst for some vengeful campus politics. It's a valid concern but people should be making efforts to meet in the middle. Efforts by people with the most power, like Ycombinator going out of their way to recruit women and minorities, are an important part of the solution.
Because an educated, critical-thinking society who's members are good at communication is better for everyone. "Just learn to make money" is a great way to stagnate progress. What is the point in all of the advances in productivity, technology, and culture if we just decide that it isn't worth it to actually provide the benefits to everyone, and instead send our young adults off to just learn a trade because "it's too expensive" to expand our higher education system to everyone and create a better world.
> Because an educated, critical-thinking society who's members are good at communication is better for everyone.
Oh, is that what you get from college? I can guarantee you that at best only a tiny percentage of college graduates are properly categorized as "educated critical-thinkers".
Oh, is that what you get from college? I can guarantee you that at best only a tiny percentage of college graduates are properly categorized as "educated critical-thinkers".
Your kids first. Studies have shown time and time again that despite all those "Is it worth it?" talk, having a college degree in anything still equals better earning prospects over a lifetime. Everyone I've talked to who proposed "fewer people should go to college" / "more people should go to trade schools" has at least one kid in or graduated from a 4 year degree program.
So when people say "fewer people should go to college," I hear, "other people's kids should earn less so my kid doesn't."
It's time we took a hard look at how we pay for college and its costs, most assuredly. But it's not time to discourage people from getting an education, especially with all the predictions about automation.
So when people say "fewer people should go to college," I hear, "other people's kids should earn less so my kid doesn't."
It's time we took a hard look at how we pay for college and its costs, most assuredly. But it's not time to discourage people from getting an education, especially with all the predictions about automation.
i would suspect most people skilled in a trade would earn more than the typical non STEM college graduate.
The colleges are taking a disproportionate amount of credit for kids that probably already had the gumption to do what it takes to make a higher salary.
I remember a study from a Malcolm gladwrll piece where they compared the earnings from students who could have gone to UPenn, but opted to go to the state school, Penn St. The result, the state kids earnings were on par with the Ivy League School kids.
I remember a study from a Malcolm gladwrll piece where they compared the earnings from students who could have gone to UPenn, but opted to go to the state school, Penn St. The result, the state kids earnings were on par with the Ivy League School kids.
>The colleges are taking a disproportionate amount of credit for kids that probably already had the gumption to do what it takes to make a higher salary.
I'd like to know why you think that. When the job application says you must have a bachelor's degree to be considered, gumption doesn't enter into it.
>The result, the state kids earnings were on par with the Ivy League School kids.
State school graduates earning a similar wage to Ivy League graduates doesn't extrapolate to trade school graduates earning as much as state school graduates.
In any case, the hyper-focus on earnings is misplaced. It says nothing of the intangible value of an education and the four year college experience, nor the exposure to various other pursuits that influence a person's entire life afterwards.
I'd like to know why you think that. When the job application says you must have a bachelor's degree to be considered, gumption doesn't enter into it.
>The result, the state kids earnings were on par with the Ivy League School kids.
State school graduates earning a similar wage to Ivy League graduates doesn't extrapolate to trade school graduates earning as much as state school graduates.
In any case, the hyper-focus on earnings is misplaced. It says nothing of the intangible value of an education and the four year college experience, nor the exposure to various other pursuits that influence a person's entire life afterwards.
>I'd like to know why you think that. When the job application says you must have a bachelor's degree to be considered, gumption doesn't enter into it.
Yeah it does. Many of the jobs I've gotten have had various requirements I didn't meet, including that particular one. Pretty much the only truly inflexible sector I've encountered is government. Even there, it's amazing what can be done if the right people want it done.
I think getting a degree was one of the poorer financial decisions of my life and not that great in terms of educational outcomes either. Degrees rarely imply the kind of "intangible value" you're talking of.
TLDR; education > schooling
Yeah it does. Many of the jobs I've gotten have had various requirements I didn't meet, including that particular one. Pretty much the only truly inflexible sector I've encountered is government. Even there, it's amazing what can be done if the right people want it done.
I think getting a degree was one of the poorer financial decisions of my life and not that great in terms of educational outcomes either. Degrees rarely imply the kind of "intangible value" you're talking of.
TLDR; education > schooling
I think you're an exceptional case. Take a look at the Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment:
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
If most of these college graduates could have made it where they are without a degree, wouldn't this count be a little more even? The drastic difference appears somewhat artificial. I agree that a person doesn't "need" a college degree to succeed -- but I think it's fair to say it helps quite a bit.
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
If most of these college graduates could have made it where they are without a degree, wouldn't this count be a little more even? The drastic difference appears somewhat artificial. I agree that a person doesn't "need" a college degree to succeed -- but I think it's fair to say it helps quite a bit.
Earnings are difficult to compare due to the selection bias in admissions. Even if that weren't the case, you'd have to factor in the compounded interest from all of the money spent on schooling as well as that of the money not earned during those four years.
Additionally, there's the cost of delaying and/or slowing one's education while spending those years schooling (which generally moves at a glacial pace).
There are some cases in which the schooling truly is worth the cost and yields exceptional results for those admitted (as opposed to only admitting those who would be exceptional regardless). Those cases are rare and getting rarer.
Additionally, there's the cost of delaying and/or slowing one's education while spending those years schooling (which generally moves at a glacial pace).
There are some cases in which the schooling truly is worth the cost and yields exceptional results for those admitted (as opposed to only admitting those who would be exceptional regardless). Those cases are rare and getting rarer.
If you look at college as a means to getting further educated, and you consider other options outside of college such as going through a startup accelerator or going through a college alternative like Make School, then you can make a stronger argument for apprenticeship-type programs. These options are still heavily intellectual and learning focused, sometimes even teaching you more in specific topics than you'd be exposed to in college.
I can maybe understand where you are coming from calling college a waste of time, but would interpret it as college not being the most optimal option for every individual, rather falling somewhere on the scale between best and worst option.
I can maybe understand where you are coming from calling college a waste of time, but would interpret it as college not being the most optimal option for every individual, rather falling somewhere on the scale between best and worst option.
why does everyone need to go to college?
To spread the common memetic and rhetorical foundation required for rational discussions of contradictory sources of information and conflicting ideas. To make civilized society possible.
To spread the common memetic and rhetorical foundation required for rational discussions of contradictory sources of information and conflicting ideas. To make civilized society possible.
Everyone doesn't need to go to college, and I agree apprentice/trade stuff would be great for people who don't want to go to college.
Anecdote, but my half brother is apprenticing under his father in welding. However, both he and his dad get paid relatively low (no special certifications or whatever it takes to make good money as a welder). Also, I don't think he's learning cutting edge and highly desired welding skills, just basics. I think apprenticeship isn't going to be enough to put someone in a great position to learn a craft as a master or to make great money in a trade. Just as a degree won't guarantee success, neither will apprenticeship, though it is another path.
Where I work, for many positions I don't think a resume will be considered without a college degree on it. A bachelor's is the new high school diploma. To encourage apprenticeship, businesses would need incentives to do so. Why would they choose to apprentice people if there is a glut of college graduates desperate for work? It seems convincing business owners would be the key, and what incentives would those businesses have to do this? If businesses don't do it, who would? Colleges?
Anecdote, but my half brother is apprenticing under his father in welding. However, both he and his dad get paid relatively low (no special certifications or whatever it takes to make good money as a welder). Also, I don't think he's learning cutting edge and highly desired welding skills, just basics. I think apprenticeship isn't going to be enough to put someone in a great position to learn a craft as a master or to make great money in a trade. Just as a degree won't guarantee success, neither will apprenticeship, though it is another path.
Where I work, for many positions I don't think a resume will be considered without a college degree on it. A bachelor's is the new high school diploma. To encourage apprenticeship, businesses would need incentives to do so. Why would they choose to apprentice people if there is a glut of college graduates desperate for work? It seems convincing business owners would be the key, and what incentives would those businesses have to do this? If businesses don't do it, who would? Colleges?
Basically you're saying it needs to be a realistic option for it to be an option. Yeah, pretty much.
I think the knowledge from college is pretty useful and I enjoy having it. I also think the format sucks and it's really expensive and a mixed bag as to whether you actually have a good / useful experience doing it. Roughly 3/4 of my courses felt like bullshit at a top 50 CS university that is top 10 for engineering. Either they were useless to me (sorry gen ed, you aren't accomplishing your goals) or the profs really didn't give a fuck about teaching and often simply lacked the skills for teaching.
I think the knowledge from college is pretty useful and I enjoy having it. I also think the format sucks and it's really expensive and a mixed bag as to whether you actually have a good / useful experience doing it. Roughly 3/4 of my courses felt like bullshit at a top 50 CS university that is top 10 for engineering. Either they were useless to me (sorry gen ed, you aren't accomplishing your goals) or the profs really didn't give a fuck about teaching and often simply lacked the skills for teaching.
Could this have anything to do with the crackdown on for-profit (and often poor quality) universities that used to vacuum up low income students?
[deleted]