Biggest Offender in Outsize Debt: Master’s Degrees(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Biggest Offender in Outsize Debt: Master’s Degrees
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/upshot/student-debt-big-culprit-graduate-school.html
169 comments
This is why I'm so skeptical of the "free college" rhetoric from Elizabeth Warren and the like... The underlying problem is the giant wealth transfer to colleges, and the progressive fixes seem to be to transfer even more wealth to them.
> This is why I'm so skeptical of the "free college" rhetoric
I assume by "this" you are refering to the OP's statement that "This is what happens when there's 0 pressure on universities to price their programs competitively."
One of the idea's behind free public college is to apply market pressure to private college's, so that they have to price their programs competitively. In a risk free debt financed system, prices will rise, the same dynamic happens for both medical care and real estate.
I am not sure on what basis you think this kind of system would make the problems worse.
Also I am curious, are you in favor of abolishing public high school? What part of your argument against free college does not apply to free high schools? One of the many talking points behind the free college proposal is that in today's job market, a college degree has the some utility that a high school degree used to have.
I assume by "this" you are refering to the OP's statement that "This is what happens when there's 0 pressure on universities to price their programs competitively."
One of the idea's behind free public college is to apply market pressure to private college's, so that they have to price their programs competitively. In a risk free debt financed system, prices will rise, the same dynamic happens for both medical care and real estate.
I am not sure on what basis you think this kind of system would make the problems worse.
Also I am curious, are you in favor of abolishing public high school? What part of your argument against free college does not apply to free high schools? One of the many talking points behind the free college proposal is that in today's job market, a college degree has the some utility that a high school degree used to have.
I am not against free public education, and if I were starting a system from scratch I think making public universities free would be a great idea, for the reasons you point to.
The current proposals as I understand them will subsidize tuition at the current, severely inflated rate, letting the colleges get away with their price gouging, and I want to see accountability there. I wonder if as an incremental step attaching cost effectiveness conditions to school's ability to accept loan funds would be better. I believe this was Obama's general approach, though I will admit I have not looked into the issue deeply.
The current proposals as I understand them will subsidize tuition at the current, severely inflated rate, letting the colleges get away with their price gouging, and I want to see accountability there. I wonder if as an incremental step attaching cost effectiveness conditions to school's ability to accept loan funds would be better. I believe this was Obama's general approach, though I will admit I have not looked into the issue deeply.
> The current proposals as I understand them will subsidize tuition at the current, severely inflated rate, letting the colleges get away with their price gouging
This is great point in my opinion. Solving this issue in the real world is not simple, it comes down more to the political power of various competing factions than it does to coming up with a "big idea". Once you have a "big idea" (like free public college), unless your faction has sufficient political power, then how are you going to implement it?
The problem is not that we are lacking big ideas that will work, there are many of them. The problem is we don't have the political power to implement a single one of them.
Consider this statement from the OP:
"Look no further than this chart (https://i.imgur.com/B3sVMjg.png), around 2010 was when the gov started fully backing and giving the loans directly, and conveniently it's when students needs for loans skyrocketed. It's so obvious that colleges took advantage of it."
Right now the gov't intervene's in public education by "fully backing and giving the loans directly". My position is that not all forms of government intervention are inherently bad, for example, the way the government intervenes in public high school is something we both agree is good.
I believe that the current way the gov't intervenes in college education is deeply problematic, and that instead of completely removing the role of gov't, we should copy the model from high school which has proven to work very well.
This is great point in my opinion. Solving this issue in the real world is not simple, it comes down more to the political power of various competing factions than it does to coming up with a "big idea". Once you have a "big idea" (like free public college), unless your faction has sufficient political power, then how are you going to implement it?
The problem is not that we are lacking big ideas that will work, there are many of them. The problem is we don't have the political power to implement a single one of them.
Consider this statement from the OP:
"Look no further than this chart (https://i.imgur.com/B3sVMjg.png), around 2010 was when the gov started fully backing and giving the loans directly, and conveniently it's when students needs for loans skyrocketed. It's so obvious that colleges took advantage of it."
Right now the gov't intervene's in public education by "fully backing and giving the loans directly". My position is that not all forms of government intervention are inherently bad, for example, the way the government intervenes in public high school is something we both agree is good.
I believe that the current way the gov't intervenes in college education is deeply problematic, and that instead of completely removing the role of gov't, we should copy the model from high school which has proven to work very well.
Does the model from high school actually work that well?
High schools definitely seem cheaper (though I’m not sure how much cheaper), but I don’t think high schools have as much incentive to increase performance.
Regardless, I think the bigger problem here is we don’t really know what we want from colleges. They’re a status symbol, a rite of passage, a place to learn about the world, a place to try out adulthood, a place to party, a place to demonstrate intelligence, a place to learn career specific skills, and a place that promises to lift people out of poverty.
Those are all very different things.
I think we’d be better off if each of those goals were separated into different institutions. Colleges have become little utopian towns in which everything a young adult would want is wrapped into a single package. It’s like the space shuttle: it’s been designed by a committee that wants it to do everything. Expense and compromised performance is inevitable.
I think parents, kids and employers are as much to blame as the institutions themselves. You can get a lot of what college promises from different sources for a fraction of the cost. But we don’t accept the alternatives that should be driving the cost down because college is such a deeply ingrained institution, and is considered the only onramp for most forms of success. We accept the price because we feel like we have to.
The key to a good negotiation is the willingness to walk away. Until we accept that there are alternatives to the fantasy package that is modern day college, I don’t think the price will lower.
High schools definitely seem cheaper (though I’m not sure how much cheaper), but I don’t think high schools have as much incentive to increase performance.
Regardless, I think the bigger problem here is we don’t really know what we want from colleges. They’re a status symbol, a rite of passage, a place to learn about the world, a place to try out adulthood, a place to party, a place to demonstrate intelligence, a place to learn career specific skills, and a place that promises to lift people out of poverty.
Those are all very different things.
I think we’d be better off if each of those goals were separated into different institutions. Colleges have become little utopian towns in which everything a young adult would want is wrapped into a single package. It’s like the space shuttle: it’s been designed by a committee that wants it to do everything. Expense and compromised performance is inevitable.
I think parents, kids and employers are as much to blame as the institutions themselves. You can get a lot of what college promises from different sources for a fraction of the cost. But we don’t accept the alternatives that should be driving the cost down because college is such a deeply ingrained institution, and is considered the only onramp for most forms of success. We accept the price because we feel like we have to.
The key to a good negotiation is the willingness to walk away. Until we accept that there are alternatives to the fantasy package that is modern day college, I don’t think the price will lower.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. But the education system functions as a means of enforcing class divisions and preventing economic mobility.
The major issue is student debt, regardless of any other legitimate criticisms of college culture/education, this is literally the largest source of debt in America today. There is more student debt than there is real estate debt. In many ways, college has become a scam designed to entrap young people in a life time of debt servitude. We dont have to fix all the other problems with college at the same time. I am lucky to have no student loans, but most people I know are saddled with massive debt. I want to do something to help them.
The major issue is student debt, regardless of any other legitimate criticisms of college culture/education, this is literally the largest source of debt in America today. There is more student debt than there is real estate debt. In many ways, college has become a scam designed to entrap young people in a life time of debt servitude. We dont have to fix all the other problems with college at the same time. I am lucky to have no student loans, but most people I know are saddled with massive debt. I want to do something to help them.
Agreed, student loan debt is the worst part of it.
I’m not sure the debt situation can be fixed until we deprogram people to stop seeing college as this one, singular, necessary thing, though. We can transfer that debt around, but I think the key to really getting rid of the bloat is to change how people think about college and to get them to pick the specific things they need/want most.
I’m not sure how you do that without creating competitive, viable substitutions for the different purposes colleges seem to serve that people are willing to do instead of college. I think a lot of those alternatives exist already, people just don’t accept them as substitutions. EX: apprenticeship programs, online classes, meetups, conference organizations, maker spaces, etc. I think part of the key to that is coming up with a reliable measure of performance in and quality of alternative programs.
But at the end of the day, I don’t think there’s an easy solution; I think a lot of things need to change. I’m pessimistic about our ability to reign in the bloat/debt from a top down approach before any of that other stuff happens. I think that any solution that doesn’t solve those other problems will result in student loan debt of about the same size just being passed on to taxpayers.
I’m not sure the debt situation can be fixed until we deprogram people to stop seeing college as this one, singular, necessary thing, though. We can transfer that debt around, but I think the key to really getting rid of the bloat is to change how people think about college and to get them to pick the specific things they need/want most.
I’m not sure how you do that without creating competitive, viable substitutions for the different purposes colleges seem to serve that people are willing to do instead of college. I think a lot of those alternatives exist already, people just don’t accept them as substitutions. EX: apprenticeship programs, online classes, meetups, conference organizations, maker spaces, etc. I think part of the key to that is coming up with a reliable measure of performance in and quality of alternative programs.
But at the end of the day, I don’t think there’s an easy solution; I think a lot of things need to change. I’m pessimistic about our ability to reign in the bloat/debt from a top down approach before any of that other stuff happens. I think that any solution that doesn’t solve those other problems will result in student loan debt of about the same size just being passed on to taxpayers.
> I’m not sure the debt situation can be fixed until we deprogram people to stop seeing college as this one, singular, necessary thing, though.
This is an interesting point of view, and I would like to push back on this.
In my view, it is not a practical suggestion to "deprogram people" like you describe, anymore than it is practical to "deprogram" the general population to no longer fall victim to ponzi scheme's or other scams like fake ICO's etc... This is because con-artists prey on fundamental aspects of human nature and employ sophisticated social engineering techniques to manipulate the behavior of their victims. In order for the social engineering of "our side" (i.e. deprogramming people) to overcome the social engineering of con-artists, we would need to be better at it than they are! We are not going to beat them at their own game, and attempting to do so is a losing strategy.
The student loan industry is a predatory and hostile industry which is backed by the biggest banks and has enormous political influence in congress. The main goal of their lobbying is to prevent being regulated.
This is a smart strategy for them because in my opinion, history has clearly demonstrated that the best solution to this type of problem is government regulation which prevents the worst abuses of a free market system.
There used to be laws where you could clear your debt by filing for bankruptcy, but this is no longer possible for student loans. If my generation had more political power in DC, we would pass laws to allow this as well as cancel a very large percentage of outstanding student debt.
So I strongly disagree with proposal that people need to be "deprogrammed" because I don't think this is a practical approach to address this major problem.
This is an interesting point of view, and I would like to push back on this.
In my view, it is not a practical suggestion to "deprogram people" like you describe, anymore than it is practical to "deprogram" the general population to no longer fall victim to ponzi scheme's or other scams like fake ICO's etc... This is because con-artists prey on fundamental aspects of human nature and employ sophisticated social engineering techniques to manipulate the behavior of their victims. In order for the social engineering of "our side" (i.e. deprogramming people) to overcome the social engineering of con-artists, we would need to be better at it than they are! We are not going to beat them at their own game, and attempting to do so is a losing strategy.
The student loan industry is a predatory and hostile industry which is backed by the biggest banks and has enormous political influence in congress. The main goal of their lobbying is to prevent being regulated.
This is a smart strategy for them because in my opinion, history has clearly demonstrated that the best solution to this type of problem is government regulation which prevents the worst abuses of a free market system.
There used to be laws where you could clear your debt by filing for bankruptcy, but this is no longer possible for student loans. If my generation had more political power in DC, we would pass laws to allow this as well as cancel a very large percentage of outstanding student debt.
So I strongly disagree with proposal that people need to be "deprogrammed" because I don't think this is a practical approach to address this major problem.
Fair point about bankruptcy.
I definitely agree with allowing people to file for bankruptcy to clear student loan debt, and agree it’s a much more practical step than changing the culture. That will cause lenders to be much more cautious and prevent people who can’t afford college and aren’t going into high paying fields from being saddled with enormous debts.
That being said, I don’t think we should ignore the cultural problem, as legislation tends to reflect the culture, whether that be through enforcement of the culture or abuse of the culture. There’s a complex feedback loop going on, and it goes both ways, but I think an approach that only looks at adding or reforming legislation, while maybe more practical in the short term, will eventually lead back to where we are now. A side effect of allowing bankruptcy will be a reduction in the amount of people going to college, since fewer will be able to get the loans to afford it. They will likely demand access to college and get us back to where we are now, or a future where college is “free” and everyone’s taxes start to look like student loan payments.
I think what people currently want is quite expensive, even if we could trim all the fat. Someone needs to pay for it. We could add roadblocks in the form of legislation to prevent lenders from abusing what is often an unnecessary want rather than encouraging it, but as long as that want exists, there will be a large incentive to take advantage of it.
I’m also not sure about the history of this problem. I think a lot of it stems from legislation rather a lack of legislation. Federally backed student loans seem to be a major part of the issue.
So to be clear, I’m not against legislative reform, I’m just worried that it’s not sufficient, and that the current public conception of post secondary education is inevitably going to be too expensive to sustain. In my opinion there are much cheaper and more effective ways of doing what colleges do. The most effective long term solution is to accept more of those alternatives and force colleges to compete.
I definitely agree with allowing people to file for bankruptcy to clear student loan debt, and agree it’s a much more practical step than changing the culture. That will cause lenders to be much more cautious and prevent people who can’t afford college and aren’t going into high paying fields from being saddled with enormous debts.
That being said, I don’t think we should ignore the cultural problem, as legislation tends to reflect the culture, whether that be through enforcement of the culture or abuse of the culture. There’s a complex feedback loop going on, and it goes both ways, but I think an approach that only looks at adding or reforming legislation, while maybe more practical in the short term, will eventually lead back to where we are now. A side effect of allowing bankruptcy will be a reduction in the amount of people going to college, since fewer will be able to get the loans to afford it. They will likely demand access to college and get us back to where we are now, or a future where college is “free” and everyone’s taxes start to look like student loan payments.
I think what people currently want is quite expensive, even if we could trim all the fat. Someone needs to pay for it. We could add roadblocks in the form of legislation to prevent lenders from abusing what is often an unnecessary want rather than encouraging it, but as long as that want exists, there will be a large incentive to take advantage of it.
I’m also not sure about the history of this problem. I think a lot of it stems from legislation rather a lack of legislation. Federally backed student loans seem to be a major part of the issue.
So to be clear, I’m not against legislative reform, I’m just worried that it’s not sufficient, and that the current public conception of post secondary education is inevitably going to be too expensive to sustain. In my opinion there are much cheaper and more effective ways of doing what colleges do. The most effective long term solution is to accept more of those alternatives and force colleges to compete.
I think I agree. instead of having the federal government back loans for students to attend private college, why not just double down on funding for public universities?
there are already some very high quality state universities in the US where you can get a first rate education. fund these schools to the point where tuition is somewhere between $0 and $5000 a year and see how the elite private schools justify their prices.
there are already some very high quality state universities in the US where you can get a first rate education. fund these schools to the point where tuition is somewhere between $0 and $5000 a year and see how the elite private schools justify their prices.
> Also I am curious, are you in favor of abolishing public high school? What part of your argument against free college does not apply to free high schools?
High schools are for minors. The return/cost benefit of them is much higher, and the users of it are not responsible adults, a decision is made unto them.
College is used mostly by the upper half of society, and the majority that goes to college can afford it. Taxing the populace to give the richer resources is "trickle down economics".
High schools are for minors. The return/cost benefit of them is much higher, and the users of it are not responsible adults, a decision is made unto them.
College is used mostly by the upper half of society, and the majority that goes to college can afford it. Taxing the populace to give the richer resources is "trickle down economics".
> This is why I'm so skeptical of the "free college" rhetoric from Elizabeth Warren and the like...
ITT! American discovers something else almost all of the rich world is doing, claims it can't be done.
ITT! American discovers something else almost all of the rich world is doing, claims it can't be done.
Most public colleges had significant funding guarantees in the State budget. A consequence of the 2008 financial crisis was that most State legislatures cut these obligations significantly. Accordingly, colleges had to raise tuition prices to compensate for the lost funding. I see student loans as basically a tax on the middle class. Get an education and a better job and pay an additional 6.5% tax on what you borrowed for 10 years. It would be better to have higher taxes on everyone but this is basically what we have now.
From what I've seen, State Universities seem to be awash in cash, and use it for enormous amounts of expensive construction.
Well, they raised tuition and have record enrollments due to demographic change.. The construction to take advantage of continued revenue trends (to put it in financial terms)... but maybe I missed your point?
Not exactly. Public uni finance is complicated. They are building, but in many cases, construction is required to compete for research grants. The chemical engineering labs built in the 50s are not always sufficient for modern science, for example. And in general, State Universities should be growing to serve their state's growing populations.
Where things get tricky is funding this. By and large, new construction is donor secured -- it's relatively easy to put a name on a building. But those donations come attached with strings, ie the name on the building. you can't reallocate it elsewhere. And donor funding for endowed faculty seats or administrative costs are not so frequent. Ongoing costs of running the university (salaries, utilities, maintenance, public safety, cleaning) are funded via three main sources: state funding (ever dwindling), tuition (ever growing but small overall) and research. Research is where state universities pull in the big bucks, but it also often requires expensive specialty capital equipment and facilities in which to install and run it. A rule of thumb is 30 percent of research grant is handed over to administrative overhead. That is effectively rent to pay for depreciation of the building.
tl;dr: expensive construction is required to further the mission of public universities, and doesn't mean general funds are available.
Where things get tricky is funding this. By and large, new construction is donor secured -- it's relatively easy to put a name on a building. But those donations come attached with strings, ie the name on the building. you can't reallocate it elsewhere. And donor funding for endowed faculty seats or administrative costs are not so frequent. Ongoing costs of running the university (salaries, utilities, maintenance, public safety, cleaning) are funded via three main sources: state funding (ever dwindling), tuition (ever growing but small overall) and research. Research is where state universities pull in the big bucks, but it also often requires expensive specialty capital equipment and facilities in which to install and run it. A rule of thumb is 30 percent of research grant is handed over to administrative overhead. That is effectively rent to pay for depreciation of the building.
tl;dr: expensive construction is required to further the mission of public universities, and doesn't mean general funds are available.
[deleted]
Or to do exactly as the OP said: this is what we’ll pay per student.
Is this what is being proposed though? I agree with this approach, but I haven't seen the proposals being framed this way.
School vouchers.
Still bad for college: why give free money to the richest of society?
Still bad for college: why give free money to the richest of society?
it's not really giving them free money when they've already paid way more than the value of a single voucher in taxes that year.
Because they will stay in our country and help us develop the most productive economy on earth. imo.
Thats usually critiqued as "trickle down economics", curiously by the same group that advocates free college.
Free college works just fine elsewhere.
Yes, but do other places have the complication of having to replace systems that are sucking billions of dollars out of students to line the pockets of university presidents?
This is what makes me skeptical. A solution in the United States for our education, healthcare, or other problems has to involve removing the leeches from the system. But political bribery is legal in the US, and the leeches have more than enough money to bribe the politicians.
So insurance companies will keep existing. University presidents will keep taking home 7 figures. Turbotax won't go away anytime soon. You can either find a way to suck money away from the vulnerable, or you can be poor.
This is what makes me skeptical. A solution in the United States for our education, healthcare, or other problems has to involve removing the leeches from the system. But political bribery is legal in the US, and the leeches have more than enough money to bribe the politicians.
So insurance companies will keep existing. University presidents will keep taking home 7 figures. Turbotax won't go away anytime soon. You can either find a way to suck money away from the vulnerable, or you can be poor.
Canada did switch from "for profit" health care to universal one in the 60's. Of course the doctors were furious, but it worked, eventually. Same thing for electricity in Quebec in the 40's. Same thing from prying the education system out of the church hands in the 60's.
In all the case of electricity, it is hugely profitable for the government and used to balance the budget. I went to university and turned a good profit working part time as a programmer (while paying everything and having an apartment). My University had a balanced budget too and grew over 50% since I graduated. Hospitals are as good as anywhere else. They spend billions building them and replace the older facility as they become obsolete. Yet the cost are totally under control.
Public infrastructure work as long as the bureaucracy is kept in check and corruption is managed properly. Inefficiencies and corruption is unavoidable, but at least the slippery slope of "on purpose" waste like US Universities is avoided.
edit: typo
In all the case of electricity, it is hugely profitable for the government and used to balance the budget. I went to university and turned a good profit working part time as a programmer (while paying everything and having an apartment). My University had a balanced budget too and grew over 50% since I graduated. Hospitals are as good as anywhere else. They spend billions building them and replace the older facility as they become obsolete. Yet the cost are totally under control.
Public infrastructure work as long as the bureaucracy is kept in check and corruption is managed properly. Inefficiencies and corruption is unavoidable, but at least the slippery slope of "on purpose" waste like US Universities is avoided.
edit: typo
Unfortunately for America, the grift is part of the system. American colleges aren't expensive because they've been investing in the organization, often they budget for a worse university. Each year, more money is allocated to administrators who aren't involved in teaching at the expense of instructional material/quality.
Moving to a university as a center for education means ending the iron rice bowl for overeducated good thinkers. Good luck.
Moving to a university as a center for education means ending the iron rice bowl for overeducated good thinkers. Good luck.
It does, but by being different in ways America wouldn't like: much more spartan accommodations, stricter entrance criteria, valid alternate middle-class career paths that sop off the demand, and (IIUIC) price controls.
It's not like Europe has a carbon copy of the American system but with a greater commitment to throwing money at it.
It's not like Europe has a carbon copy of the American system but with a greater commitment to throwing money at it.
Then tax-funded colleges could be just like that. Some states already have free community college.
I get that. It's just a mammoth caveat that somehow gets lost in the debate over free college and, if advocated, makes it a much more fundamental and far-reaching change than any candidate is letting on.
With much lower post secondary attainment, achieved by having much more stringent entrance requirements, limited to the best students who are already given free ride scholarships in America anyway. So, really, nothing needs to change other than the idea that everyone needs to go to college. Which, as we have seen in the rest of the world, is unnecessary anyway.
if they want government to pay for college then government should decide what is worthy of being paid for and how much.
after all that is the attitude with regards to medical care.
However I feel a better solution is for the government to still do it as loans but set the rates and required classes for each degree type. simply put there are valueless degree programs out there which only enrich the schools. Colleges would still trip over themselves to offer class and degree programs to fit into these restrictions, those that don't could rely on the private market, endowments, and scholarship programs.
after all that is the attitude with regards to medical care.
However I feel a better solution is for the government to still do it as loans but set the rates and required classes for each degree type. simply put there are valueless degree programs out there which only enrich the schools. Colleges would still trip over themselves to offer class and degree programs to fit into these restrictions, those that don't could rely on the private market, endowments, and scholarship programs.
I don't like the idea that only career-focused degrees are important. I studied math not to get a job with those skills, but because I enjoyed math and wanted to add to the world's knowledge.
Money is a means to quality of life, sure. But you can't ignore the things that are part of the "quality" because they're not profitable.
Money is a means to quality of life, sure. But you can't ignore the things that are part of the "quality" because they're not profitable.
Math isn't a non-career-focused degree. It's not as immediately applicable as engineering, sure, but it does lead pretty directly to good-paying jobs.
What the OP is referring to is probably degrees such as theater, women's studies, philosophy, etc. Women's studies and philosophy have no real job potential, and while theater might, there's only a very small market for actors compared to the number of starlets who dream of that job, which is why LA is so full of "actors" working as restaurant waiters.
What the OP is referring to is probably degrees such as theater, women's studies, philosophy, etc. Women's studies and philosophy have no real job potential, and while theater might, there's only a very small market for actors compared to the number of starlets who dream of that job, which is why LA is so full of "actors" working as restaurant waiters.
Pure maths is a non-career degree. Much like physics, philosophy, and history, the intent of most programs is to produce teachers and researchers. It just turns out that math is incredibly useful in many disciplines, so knowing high-level math makes you clearly employable.
Career-oriented math degrees are found in the engineering school.
The difference between math and philosophy is that having a pure maths degree will provide someone with a number of job prospects. But that isn't really the intent of math programs. I venture to guess most people studying math are like the GP and doing so because they enjoy math.
Career-oriented math degrees are found in the engineering school.
The difference between math and philosophy is that having a pure maths degree will provide someone with a number of job prospects. But that isn't really the intent of math programs. I venture to guess most people studying math are like the GP and doing so because they enjoy math.
>The difference between math and philosophy is that having a pure maths degree will provide someone with a number of job prospects. But that isn't really the intent of math programs.
I realize this, but the reality, as you stated yourself, is that it really does make you employable. The intent doesn't matter; the actual employability the degree confers does.
Theater degrees are basically the opposite here. The goal of that degree is surely to produce people who can act on stage (and have it transferrable to TV/movies too I suppose), but the reality is that it isn't very employable because there just aren't many job openings in that field compared to the number of people who want to work in it.
The intent doesn't matter if you're in control of allocating money for degrees for prospective students; the only thing that matters is how likely those borrowers will be to pay back their loans, or if this is a grant (i.e. free university), how likely this investment will be to produce someone who will pay back society with taxes. A degree that has a very poor likelihood of leading to a decent-paying job is not a good investment from this point-of-view, and the "intent" of that degree is irrelevant.
I realize this, but the reality, as you stated yourself, is that it really does make you employable. The intent doesn't matter; the actual employability the degree confers does.
Theater degrees are basically the opposite here. The goal of that degree is surely to produce people who can act on stage (and have it transferrable to TV/movies too I suppose), but the reality is that it isn't very employable because there just aren't many job openings in that field compared to the number of people who want to work in it.
The intent doesn't matter if you're in control of allocating money for degrees for prospective students; the only thing that matters is how likely those borrowers will be to pay back their loans, or if this is a grant (i.e. free university), how likely this investment will be to produce someone who will pay back society with taxes. A degree that has a very poor likelihood of leading to a decent-paying job is not a good investment from this point-of-view, and the "intent" of that degree is irrelevant.
I also have a math degree. If the prevailing model of a university education is to give you career skills that you'll use, well ok, I maybe use 10% of it.
But if you think of a degree as purely a signaling mechanism, then a pure math (or astrophysics or latin or whatever) degree is a very clear signal about what your brain is capable of.
But if you think of a degree as purely a signaling mechanism, then a pure math (or astrophysics or latin or whatever) degree is a very clear signal about what your brain is capable of.
State universities in other countries either supply control through very high entrance standards or keeping everything cheap (think the interior of the typical USPS post office).
What's wrong with the post office interior? You're there to mail stuff, not to vacation.
I don’t think OP was criticizing it.
From my experience with State funded education in India. The quality of education is far from what you expect somewhere in West. Biggest problem is attracting teachers at professional education institutions like Engineering. The salaries are less than $1000 a month vs in Engineering companies which would pay a multiple of that. The schools do attract a talented bunch of students who have to clear extremely high entrance standards.
I understand what you mean but USPS post office would be lot better than most of the buildings in university I attended in my country :)
Well when it’s free & the gov pays, they’ll make sure their budget is tight.
I can't tell if you meant for this to be sarcastic or not.
Lots of government-sponsored social programs manage on shoe-string budgets.
In the US, it really comes down to how Republicans feel about a program. The programs they hate are often forced to run at maximum efficiency because they face an large amount of scrutiny and budget instability.
It's the programs that Republican fail to scrutinize that become symbols of waste and mismanagement. The biggest and most obvious case is the military. I can't imagine the HHS being in a situation where they are forced by Congress to spend a few hundred million dollars on equipment they don't need, so it's given away, or having any project that costs $1,500,000,000,000.
I hate to be political like this, but it's an observable trend. Scrutiny over the use of public funds by officials is an efficient means of cost-control. But the country has an issue with selective enforcement based, it seems, on how much of a program's budget is funneled into the hands of private government contractors.
In the US, it really comes down to how Republicans feel about a program. The programs they hate are often forced to run at maximum efficiency because they face an large amount of scrutiny and budget instability.
It's the programs that Republican fail to scrutinize that become symbols of waste and mismanagement. The biggest and most obvious case is the military. I can't imagine the HHS being in a situation where they are forced by Congress to spend a few hundred million dollars on equipment they don't need, so it's given away, or having any project that costs $1,500,000,000,000.
I hate to be political like this, but it's an observable trend. Scrutiny over the use of public funds by officials is an efficient means of cost-control. But the country has an issue with selective enforcement based, it seems, on how much of a program's budget is funneled into the hands of private government contractors.
This is a really interesting train of thought. Why do you think the Republicans are so effective at driving efficiency in the government? It seems like they're fantastic watch dogs of social programs, do you think the Democrats could become watch dogs of the other programs?
Like the giant wealth transfer to elementary and high schools...?
As the child of a couple teachers, I can tell you they're both still waiting on this wealth transfer you speak of.
As the child of a couple teachers, I can tell you they're both still waiting on this wealth transfer you speak of.
This is a non-sequitur. The wealth transfer isn't going to teachers, it's going to administrators, stakeholders, and shareholders. Essentially the wealth is being transferred to the corporation, not the employees.
Who are these stakeholders and shareholders in Public Universities?
As for non-sequitur - the administrators are making their money off of the sports teams, not tuition.
As for non-sequitur - the administrators are making their money off of the sports teams, not tuition.
Right. I do not see media attaching 'Populist' tag to her as they seem to do when they do not like a politician.
> The dept of education needs to treat universities the same way Medicaid treats healthcare providers. Determine what it actually costs per student per year to run a university, and tell the schools "Accept $x or shove off". If they're going to benefit from gov backed loans, they should play by the govs rules.
This.
Either eliminate Federal aid entirely, or if you want aid, here's the price you're gonna charge.
This.
Either eliminate Federal aid entirely, or if you want aid, here's the price you're gonna charge.
How do you reckon that the government won't keep cutting the cost to make budget for the next shiny fighter jet?
In other countries that have free education, students get very involved with politics whenever the government tries to do that.
The very best thing to create an engaged electorate is to make policies that affect the people you want voting. This is why Democrats are pushing for these changes (and Republicans resist). It's also why even though Republicans will cut the budget, and cut social programs, they always promise (not necessarily promises they intend to keep) to leave Medicare alone (old people vote, and are more Republican than young people).
The very best thing to create an engaged electorate is to make policies that affect the people you want voting. This is why Democrats are pushing for these changes (and Republicans resist). It's also why even though Republicans will cut the budget, and cut social programs, they always promise (not necessarily promises they intend to keep) to leave Medicare alone (old people vote, and are more Republican than young people).
In the current context, the government is spending $X for education. We can say $X = $X_students + $X_schools + $X_lenders, where the subscripted variables represent the portion of the benefit each of the groups captures.
I don't necessarily want to change the level of $X. I just want to raise $X_students at the expense of the other two.
I don't necessarily want to change the level of $X. I just want to raise $X_students at the expense of the other two.
> The dept of education needs to treat universities the same way Medicaid treats healthcare providers. Determine what it actually costs per student per year to run a university, and tell the schools "Accept $x or shove off". If they're going to benefit from gov backed loans, they should play by the govs rules.
This sounds appealing, but healthcare and education are different in some fundamental ways.
People (generally) don't end up in the hospital, on Medicaid, by choice. So there is a moral argument to be made in regulating pricing to avoid the exploitation of sick people who need medical care to survive, by capping prices for that care.
But people do choose to attend Masters degree programs -- they aren't forced to by circumstances outside their own control. The moral argument for preventing exploitation by capping price is much weaker compared with other avenues: transparency about outcomes, truth in advertising, required financial projections, etc. -- give people more data about what a Masters' degree is actually worth, and hopefully they'll make better choices. When you're in the back of an ambulance unconscious you are not able to make any choices, justifying societal intervention.
In education, limiting the amount of loans available / backed by the government for a single individual would do just as much as artificially capping prices. (From the article: "there are no hard caps on how much someone can borrow for graduate school".)
Let the crappy Masters' programs that aren't worth it get exposed and lose enrollment. By capping prices you're implicitly also saying that every Masters' program that charges this much is worth this much, an implication that is very much false. The value of a degree is not really correlated with the cost to provide it -- why base the price on cost rather than value? (Plus, how would you even "determine what it actually costs per student per year to run a university"? This probably depends on a zillion factors like endowment, cost of living, faculty salaries -- and their alternative job prospects -- availability of land and housing, etc. Would you average it across the country? Good luck running a school in NYC or SFBA, then.)
Telling a university how much it can charge for a Masters degree is like telling Tesla how much it can charge for the Model 3.
This sounds appealing, but healthcare and education are different in some fundamental ways.
People (generally) don't end up in the hospital, on Medicaid, by choice. So there is a moral argument to be made in regulating pricing to avoid the exploitation of sick people who need medical care to survive, by capping prices for that care.
But people do choose to attend Masters degree programs -- they aren't forced to by circumstances outside their own control. The moral argument for preventing exploitation by capping price is much weaker compared with other avenues: transparency about outcomes, truth in advertising, required financial projections, etc. -- give people more data about what a Masters' degree is actually worth, and hopefully they'll make better choices. When you're in the back of an ambulance unconscious you are not able to make any choices, justifying societal intervention.
In education, limiting the amount of loans available / backed by the government for a single individual would do just as much as artificially capping prices. (From the article: "there are no hard caps on how much someone can borrow for graduate school".)
Let the crappy Masters' programs that aren't worth it get exposed and lose enrollment. By capping prices you're implicitly also saying that every Masters' program that charges this much is worth this much, an implication that is very much false. The value of a degree is not really correlated with the cost to provide it -- why base the price on cost rather than value? (Plus, how would you even "determine what it actually costs per student per year to run a university"? This probably depends on a zillion factors like endowment, cost of living, faculty salaries -- and their alternative job prospects -- availability of land and housing, etc. Would you average it across the country? Good luck running a school in NYC or SFBA, then.)
Telling a university how much it can charge for a Masters degree is like telling Tesla how much it can charge for the Model 3.
If all people were buying Teslas using government-backed loans that the gov was then responsible to collect, while Tesla got paid up front and claimed to be a non-profit, they would absolutely have the right to tell them what they could charge.
If a university is going to call itself non-profit, they should only be charging whatevers needed to cover costs of operating. Tuition has skyrocketed in the last 10-20 years, with no reasonable explanation for what aspect of operating costs has gone up enough to justify that.
If a university is going to call itself non-profit, they should only be charging whatevers needed to cover costs of operating. Tuition has skyrocketed in the last 10-20 years, with no reasonable explanation for what aspect of operating costs has gone up enough to justify that.
> they should only be charging whatevers needed to cover costs of operating.
Effectively that is the case. The problem is that when you have more to spend, your costs go up. You might opt to buy higher quality equipment, for example. But most especially, when you have more money to spend, your workers want to receive more money. A lot of the income gains that the colleges have seen have gone straight back out as administrative costs.
Effectively that is the case. The problem is that when you have more to spend, your costs go up. You might opt to buy higher quality equipment, for example. But most especially, when you have more money to spend, your workers want to receive more money. A lot of the income gains that the colleges have seen have gone straight back out as administrative costs.
First, tuition and costs have both gone up for universities, and you can make up whatever costs you want. New sports facility? Part of the costs. 7-figure salaries for administrators? Part of the costs. How would you decide which costs are "reasonable" and which aren't? It's a real morass -- what you are suggesting, to be effective, would require government micromanagement of private education.
Second, government already runs public education -- those institutions cost less, but costs have still gone up and tuition has still skyrocketed.
Third, despite the fact that Medicaid does impose price caps, both the list price and costs for medical care have also skyrocketed.
Explain again how price caps solve anything? Every market with price manipulation looks like a disaster. Housing (rent control) and medical care (medicaid & insurance payments are limited or contractually negotiated) are just two examples.
I think what we want are not mandated prices, but mandated transparency in value, so that you know if the price is worth it!
Second, government already runs public education -- those institutions cost less, but costs have still gone up and tuition has still skyrocketed.
Third, despite the fact that Medicaid does impose price caps, both the list price and costs for medical care have also skyrocketed.
Explain again how price caps solve anything? Every market with price manipulation looks like a disaster. Housing (rent control) and medical care (medicaid & insurance payments are limited or contractually negotiated) are just two examples.
I think what we want are not mandated prices, but mandated transparency in value, so that you know if the price is worth it!
> But people do choose to attend Masters degree programs -- they aren't forced to by circumstances outside their own control.
Really? You don't think the climbing housing and living prices and job hiring requirements have anything to do with more people pursuing a Master's degree?
Really? You don't think the climbing housing and living prices and job hiring requirements have anything to do with more people pursuing a Master's degree?
Huh? People do things for all sorts of reasons, including pursuing a Masters' degree.
Are you saying people are forced to get these degrees because housing is expensive and job requirements are increasing, in the same way that someone unconscious in an ambulance is forced to get medical care?
Are you saying people are forced to get these degrees because housing is expensive and job requirements are increasing, in the same way that someone unconscious in an ambulance is forced to get medical care?
>Their non-profit status hasn't even done much to keep costs low, as they can just keep hiring tons of redundant administrators and have never-ending construction, thereby justifying higher tuitions as "operating costs".
Is there any evidence of non-profit universities doing that? Here's the best expenditure data I have from the Department of Education. Per-student real expenditures are up about 20% over 17 years. That doesn't seem like "hop(ping) on the gravy train".
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_334.30.a...
Is there any evidence of non-profit universities doing that? Here's the best expenditure data I have from the Department of Education. Per-student real expenditures are up about 20% over 17 years. That doesn't seem like "hop(ping) on the gravy train".
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_334.30.a...
The data you linked to is for private non-profit universities.
At least in the state I went to public university at, its not so much that per-student expenses went up (though they did to some degree), its that the State started funding a far lower percentage of costs, leaving the student (and the student's ability to take loans) to pay for a larger share.
At least in the state I went to public university at, its not so much that per-student expenses went up (though they did to some degree), its that the State started funding a far lower percentage of costs, leaving the student (and the student's ability to take loans) to pay for a larger share.
> funding a far lower percentage of costs
Yes, in the past few decdes there is much less of a sense that having an educated population is a common good, and much more of a sense that it is an individual investment.
Yes, in the past few decdes there is much less of a sense that having an educated population is a common good, and much more of a sense that it is an individual investment.
This is a significantly underappreciated cause of the student debt crisis. People love to harp on overpaid or unneeded administrators and buildings but they are largely unaware of how much state budget cuts have contributed to rising tuition. My public alma mater gets well under 10% of their funding from the state at this point.
Then what's the explanation for the thousands of private non-profit universities who have never received state funding?
They charge 2-3X higher tuition.
In the US, 4-year private (non-profit) college tuition averages somewhere around $60K/year, while 4-year public (in-state) college tuition is closer to $20K. Out of state tuition is much higher, and state schools make a "profit" on out of state student ($50K tuition). But they are still competitive because similar private colleges cost even more.
In the US, 4-year private (non-profit) college tuition averages somewhere around $60K/year, while 4-year public (in-state) college tuition is closer to $20K. Out of state tuition is much higher, and state schools make a "profit" on out of state student ($50K tuition). But they are still competitive because similar private colleges cost even more.
Tuition was never the main revenue source for universities, hence why students are paying such a high burden
Yes, but there's similar data in an adjacent table for public institutions. I think either dataset still shows clearly that Universities haven't greatly increase spending. It is, as you note, the huge disinvestments in tertiary education by the state governments.
What's your evidence that government backed loans have anything to do with this? I haven't been able to find much historical tuition data, but what little I have found (e.g., Stanford going back about 100 years) shows a pretty steady tuition increase over time, at a rate quite a bit above the inflation rate of the time. This was happening before government backed loans became available, and continued happening about the same after they became available.
"Lessons from Chile’s transition to free college":
https://www.brookings.edu/research/lessons-from-chiles-trans...
HN discussion when it was introduced four years ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9514404
An essay by By Andreas Schleicher, Deputy Director for Education and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary- General, OECD from 2013 that looks at free higher education and concludes that a combination of public/private financing seems best:
http://www.oecd.org/forum/education-for-all.htm
OECD data show that tertiary education creates large social benefits in the form of economic growth, social cohesion and citizenship values that justify public investment. Equally, in light of the very significant–and growing–private benefits of tertiary qualifications, individual graduates should be expected to bear some of the cost, too. The case for costsharing is strongest when tight public budgets would otherwise lead to cuts in the number of tertiary students, a decline in the quality of instruction, or a decrease in the resources available to support disadvantaged students. Cost-sharing allows systems to continue to expand with no apparent sacrifice of instructional quality, and makes institutions more responsive to student needs. Institutions also become less reliant on taxpayers’ money and are able, within certain limits, to raise their own funds. The savings from these kinds of arrangements can be used to broaden access to tertiary education by expanding student support systems.
All things in moderation, however. Countries that rely solely on the market to determine the cost of higher education, such as the United States, often see tuition fees rise to such stratospheric levels that higher education becomes inaccessible to many prospective students. And that, in turn, undermines these countries’ own intentions of raising the level of their populations’ educational attainment. Thus, there is a case to be made for fee-stabilisation policies that contain costs.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/lessons-from-chiles-trans...
HN discussion when it was introduced four years ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9514404
An essay by By Andreas Schleicher, Deputy Director for Education and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary- General, OECD from 2013 that looks at free higher education and concludes that a combination of public/private financing seems best:
http://www.oecd.org/forum/education-for-all.htm
OECD data show that tertiary education creates large social benefits in the form of economic growth, social cohesion and citizenship values that justify public investment. Equally, in light of the very significant–and growing–private benefits of tertiary qualifications, individual graduates should be expected to bear some of the cost, too. The case for costsharing is strongest when tight public budgets would otherwise lead to cuts in the number of tertiary students, a decline in the quality of instruction, or a decrease in the resources available to support disadvantaged students. Cost-sharing allows systems to continue to expand with no apparent sacrifice of instructional quality, and makes institutions more responsive to student needs. Institutions also become less reliant on taxpayers’ money and are able, within certain limits, to raise their own funds. The savings from these kinds of arrangements can be used to broaden access to tertiary education by expanding student support systems.
All things in moderation, however. Countries that rely solely on the market to determine the cost of higher education, such as the United States, often see tuition fees rise to such stratospheric levels that higher education becomes inaccessible to many prospective students. And that, in turn, undermines these countries’ own intentions of raising the level of their populations’ educational attainment. Thus, there is a case to be made for fee-stabilisation policies that contain costs.
> Countries that rely solely on the market to determine the cost of higher education, such as the United States,
This essay ends with a correlation but not causation conclusion. It is not the free market that makes private colleges expensive in the US.
This essay ends with a correlation but not causation conclusion. It is not the free market that makes private colleges expensive in the US.
> Countries that rely solely on the market to determine the cost of higher education, such as the United States
is this a joke? it's true only in the extremely narrow sense that the US does not directly legislate the price of private college tuition.
is this a joke? it's true only in the extremely narrow sense that the US does not directly legislate the price of private college tuition.
> it's true only in the extremely narrow sense that the US does not directly legislate the price of college tuition.
Given the significance of public universities in US higher ed, it's not even really true in that sense, either, unless by “US” you mean just the federal government.
Given the significance of public universities in US higher ed, it's not even really true in that sense, either, unless by “US” you mean just the federal government.
good point, I edited my comment.
That chart illustrates federal student loans, not (federal + private) student loans. The total has been only been increasing linearly, as shown by this chart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_debt#/media/File:Stude...), while the percentage owned by the federal government has drastically increased.
I went back for my masters in CS after being a civil engineer for two years and learning cs my free time.
These articles panning formal education don't fully grasp how difficult it is to get your foot in the door as a non-cs person whose also working full time.
I also wanted to do something more technical than just web dev, which most career changers seem to land up in. Being a grad student opened a lot of doors into more technical roles in companies that are _only_ reserved for grad students.
Grad school is expensive, but I went in with a solid plan. I mitigated some of this by going to an in-state school with a good CS program and commuting to class. I was very focused in my course choices and was a 4.0 student, which unlocked even more opportunities.
I was able to land two good internships (one in embedded development and one in machine learning) and used that experience to springboard into a high paying role in NYC. I have no problems living alone in the city, paying my loans, and still saving a significant amount of money per paycheck.
This is completely anecdotal but what I'm arguing is that grad school can be a good idea if you have a solid plan of how to get the most out of your education. The people I see who haven't gotten their money's worth came into school and just drifted through while assuming that opportunities would come to them just by virtue of being a grad student.
These articles panning formal education don't fully grasp how difficult it is to get your foot in the door as a non-cs person whose also working full time.
I also wanted to do something more technical than just web dev, which most career changers seem to land up in. Being a grad student opened a lot of doors into more technical roles in companies that are _only_ reserved for grad students.
Grad school is expensive, but I went in with a solid plan. I mitigated some of this by going to an in-state school with a good CS program and commuting to class. I was very focused in my course choices and was a 4.0 student, which unlocked even more opportunities.
I was able to land two good internships (one in embedded development and one in machine learning) and used that experience to springboard into a high paying role in NYC. I have no problems living alone in the city, paying my loans, and still saving a significant amount of money per paycheck.
This is completely anecdotal but what I'm arguing is that grad school can be a good idea if you have a solid plan of how to get the most out of your education. The people I see who haven't gotten their money's worth came into school and just drifted through while assuming that opportunities would come to them just by virtue of being a grad student.
From the article:
> Master’s degrees in fields like computer engineering, education, English, history and math seem to have fewer outlier programs and lower borrowing amounts over all. It’s the less mainstream programs, where vague promises of a lucrative career are easier to make, that seem to encourage irrationally large debt.
> Master’s degrees in fields like computer engineering, education, English, history and math seem to have fewer outlier programs and lower borrowing amounts over all. It’s the less mainstream programs, where vague promises of a lucrative career are easier to make, that seem to encourage irrationally large debt.
Well it is not news that it would work out fine for 1% motivated/extraordinary/well-off people. It's the rest who need more caution and be realistic about their prospects.
I’m a CE too and almost done with my PE. I want to stay engaged with learning after I’m done. And CS is definitely something I want to do afterwards but don’t really want to pursue a Master’s or any schooling. Can you recommend any CS books you loved? Anything iOS related would be great but I’ll take any recommendations from a fellow CE.
One of my favorites when I was a CE and looking for interesting usecases for my job was Automate the Boring Stuff with Python. I was able to automate and speed up lot of slow, manual processes like signing and stamping shop drawings.
Ok thanks! I’ll get the book and go through it. Funnily enough, the only CS course I took in college was Python. I am familiar with the language but I’ve only made very simple scripts that are barely 20 lines of code. Looks like it’s a good road to go down to get better at things.
CE here with only FE (only 25) I taught myself programming in my free time as I work for a state DOT with a decent amount of free time. One of the cool things about CS (specifically data engineering/science) is it sort of is / will be permeating every technical field so you can sort of combine the two.
If your asking about the order I learned things I got pretty good with python for 2 years, tinkered with web stuff intermittently, then started programming in go and that is easily my favorite. I always always focused on geospatial programming which is at least tangentially related to CE.
The cool thing is you can start to see problems and build stuff to fix it in your free time, for example, this is something I built that gives mile points out in the field locally (no service needed), when normally a $800+ DMI is used to the same thing at a much hackier level.
TL:DR; Depending on what your wanting, I don't think you need to go to school to get competent at CS (although I'm sure I lack some fundamentals), just sort of hack on problems that interest you. Also I have had job offers for software / data engineering positions so I am employable in the field as well I guess.
If your asking about the order I learned things I got pretty good with python for 2 years, tinkered with web stuff intermittently, then started programming in go and that is easily my favorite. I always always focused on geospatial programming which is at least tangentially related to CE.
The cool thing is you can start to see problems and build stuff to fix it in your free time, for example, this is something I built that gives mile points out in the field locally (no service needed), when normally a $800+ DMI is used to the same thing at a much hackier level.
TL:DR; Depending on what your wanting, I don't think you need to go to school to get competent at CS (although I'm sure I lack some fundamentals), just sort of hack on problems that interest you. Also I have had job offers for software / data engineering positions so I am employable in the field as well I guess.
That’s the plan. I don’t plan to get a degree in CS. The most I’d be willing to do is attend a boot camp and that’s a big IF.
Like I mentioned in the comment to the other commenter, the only CS course I took in college was Python. I’m very familiar with it but haven’t used it too much. I am not wanting to change careers because I also have a similar job like yours. I have plenty of time to learn and I just want to stay productive.
Anyways, thanks for the info. Really. And good luck on your PE if and when you take it. It’s not hard. It’s just a lot.
Like I mentioned in the comment to the other commenter, the only CS course I took in college was Python. I’m very familiar with it but haven’t used it too much. I am not wanting to change careers because I also have a similar job like yours. I have plenty of time to learn and I just want to stay productive.
Anyways, thanks for the info. Really. And good luck on your PE if and when you take it. It’s not hard. It’s just a lot.
What kind of role are you in now? I'm curious as I work with a lot of embedded devs but see that most of the salary money is flowing towards AI (very unclear what many of these roles actually are) and its less sexy but more concrete counterpart of cloud devops
The embedded work was just for an internship at Nokia/Bell Labs. I work at the place where I did my second internship; started doing ML engineering then pivoted to more data engineering work.
You're right about embedded though. Most telecom hardware is a race to the bottom and there were a lot of layoffs at Nokia when I was there.
You're right about embedded though. Most telecom hardware is a race to the bottom and there were a lot of layoffs at Nokia when I was there.
Yea thanks for the reply. Glad everything worked out for you, sounds like you had a solid plan from the get go and executed well
Thanks! It was risky quitting to go to school full time but having professional work experience helped a lot to manage myself.
I'm actually considering doing something similar...would love to have a quick chat if you have time, my email is [email protected] - thanks.
If you have strong computer science fundamentals, you are not limited to just web development. You might start there, but it certainly isn't the be-all and end-all.
As someone who's hiring folks right now, a shocking trend is applicants who chained expensive middle tier private college expenses with middle to low tier private college masters programs - often times unrelated to the ultimately role they're applying to now.
These investments aren't setting them up to be compelling candidates against folks who have equal and sometimes lesser tier schools as their undergraduate education coupled with meaningful real world experience. This carries over to performance in interviews as it related to applied knowledge as well. I'd say when putting a risk lens to this, it doesn't bode well for the likelyhood of timely repayment of this debt at scale.
These investments aren't setting them up to be compelling candidates against folks who have equal and sometimes lesser tier schools as their undergraduate education coupled with meaningful real world experience. This carries over to performance in interviews as it related to applied knowledge as well. I'd say when putting a risk lens to this, it doesn't bode well for the likelyhood of timely repayment of this debt at scale.
How much of what you see is people who had pursued master degrees during the economic downturn?
I heard that there was an enormous amount of people exiting the workforce to pursue education when there were few jobs available. Instead they likely got a pile of debt with no real furtherance of career goals as the economy recovered.
I heard that there was an enormous amount of people exiting the workforce to pursue education when there were few jobs available. Instead they likely got a pile of debt with no real furtherance of career goals as the economy recovered.
This is a great question. There may be some variability by role type, but for the last two hires where I started noticing this trend usually the masters was acquired 17-18 or 18-19 on the resume (2 year masters programs). These are also for mid-level roles as opposed to entry level or senior. Probably a lot of factors but I'd wonder if the readily available access to student loans was the biggest enabler. Just off the cuff I'd be curious if these decisions involved the perception of necessity for masters degrees or in how many cases they simply wanted to prolong the experience of undergrad (college is often a good time, I get it), and with the barrier being no more frictive than the student loan process they navigated for under grad, the decision just being the path of least resistance more than a calculated risk/reward decision.
The relationship between the business cycle and demand for graduate school is complicated. Some programs have a very strong countercyclical component to their demand, and others don't. See http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.648... (and section 5 in particular).
out of curious, what roles do you hire for?
in my world which is software engineering: lesser tier, middle tier and ivy league doesn't make a difference for actual wage work, with ivy league seeming to have outsized advantages in capital formation and being around capital in general.
for wage work, no degree + experience is the same as have any degree. completely obliterating the tier of school. people with no experience having the same conundrum whether they have a degree or not, but at least people with a degree can do coding interviews.
in my world which is software engineering: lesser tier, middle tier and ivy league doesn't make a difference for actual wage work, with ivy league seeming to have outsized advantages in capital formation and being around capital in general.
for wage work, no degree + experience is the same as have any degree. completely obliterating the tier of school. people with no experience having the same conundrum whether they have a degree or not, but at least people with a degree can do coding interviews.
Currently mostly non-technical: Marketing, Sales, CX.
The topic of school tier is a messy one. Unless you're in a big org that's running really active recruiting efforts at the source of top tier schools, you may not have a real representative set of high tier applicants to ultimately check for differentiation. This topic also gets political and ideological really quick, but we do have some reasonably sound data that says for example that (and I'm speaking broadly here) people with MBA's from "division 1" style schools tend to annihilate (to put it lightly) lower tier MBA's in work simulation exercises involving business acumen related competencies.
The topic of school tier is a messy one. Unless you're in a big org that's running really active recruiting efforts at the source of top tier schools, you may not have a real representative set of high tier applicants to ultimately check for differentiation. This topic also gets political and ideological really quick, but we do have some reasonably sound data that says for example that (and I'm speaking broadly here) people with MBA's from "division 1" style schools tend to annihilate (to put it lightly) lower tier MBA's in work simulation exercises involving business acumen related competencies.
ah, you are talking about MBAs alongside marketing and sales. I would agree there
I was talking about undergrad and masters degrees that weren't business programs
I was talking about undergrad and masters degrees that weren't business programs
> These investments aren't setting them up to be compelling candidates against folks who have equal and sometimes lesser tier schools as their undergraduate education coupled with meaningful real world experience.
It sounds like you're hiring juniors.
What about seniors? Where would you rank someone with an undergrad + 10 years work experience, versus a masters + 6 years work experience?
What about 20 vs 16?
It sounds like you're hiring juniors.
What about seniors? Where would you rank someone with an undergrad + 10 years work experience, versus a masters + 6 years work experience?
What about 20 vs 16?
Mid-levels mostly. Non-technical.
For senior level, and YMMV, but for non-technicals, as time goes on experience beats the education badge and I think as you go higher in the sophistication of the hire the more nuanced the process becomes to where at least at the first level evaluation, formal education becomes increasingly less compelling.
For senior level, and YMMV, but for non-technicals, as time goes on experience beats the education badge and I think as you go higher in the sophistication of the hire the more nuanced the process becomes to where at least at the first level evaluation, formal education becomes increasingly less compelling.
Grad school really needs to have a cost/benefit analysis applied. I'd have loved to go and really deepen my understanding, but it's pretty clear that both in terms of income lost and not a huge premium paid by the industry over my BS and experience it's not worth it.
It is something I may pursue if I get a windfall and am no longer concerned about retirement.
It is something I may pursue if I get a windfall and am no longer concerned about retirement.
I think maybe the only real way to know what the cost benefit might be for an individual is to just ... go work for a while and then see what you find in your experience and life.
Then you're making a much more educated calculation as far as what you think it might get you, and if you want to go back to school and that.
Just throwing that all on the front end while you're in school seems a bit like gambling.
Then you're making a much more educated calculation as far as what you think it might get you, and if you want to go back to school and that.
Just throwing that all on the front end while you're in school seems a bit like gambling.
The only advantage I can see to going for an MS straight out of undergrad is that your lifestyle should be pretty low-rent.
But doing grad school because you're good at school and don't know what else to do is a trap lots of otherwise smart people fall into.
But doing grad school because you're good at school and don't know what else to do is a trap lots of otherwise smart people fall into.
It's a major advantage. I went to the same state university for my masters, so to me it was a continuation of my undergrad but in classes I was actually interested in. Even dumping money into a startup, I graduated with a low amount of debt. I lived a thrifty lifestyle, made money from internships, and after my sign on bonus for my full time job, I was debt free after graduation.
My concentration for my MS was AI & Computer Networks...which I've never used :) Because of market forces I'm an application developer.
I graduated 11 years ago and between then and now (married, 2 kids) I doubt I would have found the time and motivation to go back to school. It was around the housing crisis and jobs were crappy/not available so that was another motivation to do my MS. I also had the connections to form a startup (which failed) with other peers which has lead me to my current career.
My concentration for my MS was AI & Computer Networks...which I've never used :) Because of market forces I'm an application developer.
I graduated 11 years ago and between then and now (married, 2 kids) I doubt I would have found the time and motivation to go back to school. It was around the housing crisis and jobs were crappy/not available so that was another motivation to do my MS. I also had the connections to form a startup (which failed) with other peers which has lead me to my current career.
Grad school can be a very, very dangerous trap.
An M.S. isn't necessarily a risky thing to do, though, since they an be completed relatively quickly, and from a reputable CS or Engineering school, the grads are employable. At state colleges, they tend to be relatively affordable too. Professional degrees at UC schools come with very high surcharges that don't apply to academic degrees, so an MS in CS or engineering at Berkeley is $15k a year (in state tuition) instead vs ~$50k a year for the Law School (tuition is only a little higher for out of state for professional degrees).
An M.S. at Berkeley does make it a easier to get on the radar of a lot of tech companies for recruiting, so that can be an advantage. That's probably not a big factor to you if you're already an undergrad at Berkeley or other well known tech feeder school, but if that's not the case for you, it could help, it's not especially expensive, and you can often do it in a year if you crank the coursework.
Actually, if this was the profile of the typical student debtor, I doubt anyone would care. I read the NYTimes article, and I don't understand how anyone can say a $90k debt for art school with a starting salary of $35k is what was intended here. I mean, wow, they really did feed the beast, didn't they?
An M.S. isn't necessarily a risky thing to do, though, since they an be completed relatively quickly, and from a reputable CS or Engineering school, the grads are employable. At state colleges, they tend to be relatively affordable too. Professional degrees at UC schools come with very high surcharges that don't apply to academic degrees, so an MS in CS or engineering at Berkeley is $15k a year (in state tuition) instead vs ~$50k a year for the Law School (tuition is only a little higher for out of state for professional degrees).
An M.S. at Berkeley does make it a easier to get on the radar of a lot of tech companies for recruiting, so that can be an advantage. That's probably not a big factor to you if you're already an undergrad at Berkeley or other well known tech feeder school, but if that's not the case for you, it could help, it's not especially expensive, and you can often do it in a year if you crank the coursework.
Actually, if this was the profile of the typical student debtor, I doubt anyone would care. I read the NYTimes article, and I don't understand how anyone can say a $90k debt for art school with a starting salary of $35k is what was intended here. I mean, wow, they really did feed the beast, didn't they?
I continue to debate if my Masters (MEng) was a good idea in hindsight. My University's program was targeted at an "accelerated" MEng rather than a BS with grad and undergrad classes overlapped, so finish the MEng was a lot of momentum from when I signed up for undergrad. I was pretty certain I'd never have finished a Masters if I didn't finish straight through like I did.
On the one hand, I learned a lot from graduate classes and also used graduate school lifestyle/loans/insurance situation as an excuse/umbrella to explore a startup opportunity (that didn't succeed).
On the other hand, I sometimes regret the opportunity cost of not seeking paid employment sooner, especially given the non-success of that startup attempt versus how much I loved the last employer I interned with in undergrad versus graduating in a major recession I likely couldn't have predicted. The majority of my student loans have been from the graduate semesters and it does often leave me wondering if it was worth even the financial cost.
On the one hand, I learned a lot from graduate classes and also used graduate school lifestyle/loans/insurance situation as an excuse/umbrella to explore a startup opportunity (that didn't succeed).
On the other hand, I sometimes regret the opportunity cost of not seeking paid employment sooner, especially given the non-success of that startup attempt versus how much I loved the last employer I interned with in undergrad versus graduating in a major recession I likely couldn't have predicted. The majority of my student loans have been from the graduate semesters and it does often leave me wondering if it was worth even the financial cost.
>But doing grad school because you're good at school and don't know what else to do is a trap lots of otherwise smart people fall into.
I suspect that is very much a thing. School is a great system that if you're good at it provides very clear paths to lots of affirmation and ... a good time.
I don't blame anyone for being hesitant to step out of that bubble.... but not doing so can be pretty terrible too.
I suspect that is very much a thing. School is a great system that if you're good at it provides very clear paths to lots of affirmation and ... a good time.
I don't blame anyone for being hesitant to step out of that bubble.... but not doing so can be pretty terrible too.
1 out of 10 masters classes changed my life. I imagine my peers had 0/10.
A masters degree doesn't pay in dollars, but experience that can set you apart in the future.
A masters degree doesn't pay in dollars, but experience that can set you apart in the future.
> A masters degree doesn't pay in dollars, but experience that can set you apart in the future.
Surely "experience that can set you apart in the future" can be captured in calculations of lifetime earnings?
Surely "experience that can set you apart in the future" can be captured in calculations of lifetime earnings?
Go ahead then. My website is unprofitable but it's a conversation piece.
Did my website get me a 6 figure job or my undergrad in engineering?
Did my website get me a 6 figure job or my undergrad in engineering?
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make.
If you're saying your website is unprofitable but helped you get a 6 figure job then it isn't really "unprofitable" in a broad sense because despite not generating revenue directly it contributed to your lifetime earnings, so I don't think this conflicts with the idea of trying to capture indirect benefits by looking at lifetime earnings.
If you're saying your website is unprofitable and will never help you get a job (even as a conversation starter or indirectly through experience you obtained creating it) but is nonetheless an "experience that will set you apart" like grad school, I would disagree about whether it is really "setting you apart" after all.
If you're saying your website is unprofitable but helped you get a 6 figure job then it isn't really "unprofitable" in a broad sense because despite not generating revenue directly it contributed to your lifetime earnings, so I don't think this conflicts with the idea of trying to capture indirect benefits by looking at lifetime earnings.
If you're saying your website is unprofitable and will never help you get a job (even as a conversation starter or indirectly through experience you obtained creating it) but is nonetheless an "experience that will set you apart" like grad school, I would disagree about whether it is really "setting you apart" after all.
You may be able to answer the questions with a study, although it will be tough to pick all right variables to control for.
The benefit to me for my MS in comp sci was the networking. Whether you like the concept or not a lot of smart people end up going to these programs and I know people working at FAANG as a direct result. I also got exposed to concepts that no one talked about in undergrad, and it’s nice to have a theoretical focus instead of the practicalities that take over when you start working.
Work experience has been valuable in a different way, and lost income is a big concern. Personally I opted for a 15 month, 4 quarter program to minimize the debt and start earning as soon as possible.
Work experience has been valuable in a different way, and lost income is a big concern. Personally I opted for a 15 month, 4 quarter program to minimize the debt and start earning as soon as possible.
> cost/benefit analysis
There's no benefit, so unless there’s no cost, don’t do it. I got a master’s degree that one of my former employers paid for, about 10 years ago. I enjoyed it, learned a lot, felt like I got out of it, but I have no reason to believe that it’s added even one dollar to my income: I’m certain I’m in exactly the same place, career-wise, that I would have been if I had just stopped with a four year degree (in fact, there are plenty of people who consider a master’s degree in CS an anti-indicator of competence: http://blog.alinelerner.com/how-different-is-a-b-s-in-comput...).
There's no benefit, so unless there’s no cost, don’t do it. I got a master’s degree that one of my former employers paid for, about 10 years ago. I enjoyed it, learned a lot, felt like I got out of it, but I have no reason to believe that it’s added even one dollar to my income: I’m certain I’m in exactly the same place, career-wise, that I would have been if I had just stopped with a four year degree (in fact, there are plenty of people who consider a master’s degree in CS an anti-indicator of competence: http://blog.alinelerner.com/how-different-is-a-b-s-in-comput...).
In engineering the quip was always "if you're paying for graduate school you're doing it wrong" ... to even get in the door for most hardware jobs fresh out of school you need a MS. A PhD may be preferred, and will start with a higher salary -- but put in ~5yrs instead of 2. As long as the tuition is covered and you make money as a TA or RA in a low-cost of living area you should come out ahead in the engineering field. Not sure how that translates to software.
I did undergrad research in school (CS, moved on to industry after I got my BS) and I heard the same thing; all of the grad students I worked with (Masters as well as PhDs) were paid by grants and the like. I went to a large state university that was pretty good at CS but not elite, yet all the people I worked with managed to not go into debt to get their advanced degrees. It's anecdotal I know, but I thought it was a given to never go into debt as a CS/engineering grad student if you can help it.
It’s not anecdotal. Some schools even don’t accept you if you don’t have a scholarship for a PhD.
>In engineering the quip was always "if you're paying for graduate school you're doing it wrong"
This is what I faced pursuing graduate studies in physics as well. Problem was, I graduated from undergrad in 2009 and the only grad school willing to pay for me during the economic downturn had a new, very poorly run program. I (voluntarily) dropped out after a year.
This is what I faced pursuing graduate studies in physics as well. Problem was, I graduated from undergrad in 2009 and the only grad school willing to pay for me during the economic downturn had a new, very poorly run program. I (voluntarily) dropped out after a year.
HW is a bit like this but with some good internship experience and a bachelors at a (>=good public state tier) school companies are interested. Of 4 HW friends I know just getting their bachelors 2 are going to do verif in industry and 2 are planning on PHds.
I think a good example of good economic value are the growing offerings for M.S. in C.S., like Georgia Tech's OSMCS program which is offered completely online at a price less than $10K total.
""" Tuition & Fees for OMS CS: Tuition: $510 per 3-credit hour course (most OMS CS courses will be 3 credit hours) Fees: $301 per academic term of enrollment ($194 institutional fee + $107 technology fee). Fees are assessed only for those terms in which students are enrolled in courses. """
> https://www.omscs.gatech.edu/program-info/cost-payment-sched...
There are other programs, like Data Analytics.
""" Tuition & Fees for OMS CS: Tuition: $510 per 3-credit hour course (most OMS CS courses will be 3 credit hours) Fees: $301 per academic term of enrollment ($194 institutional fee + $107 technology fee). Fees are assessed only for those terms in which students are enrolled in courses. """
> https://www.omscs.gatech.edu/program-info/cost-payment-sched...
There are other programs, like Data Analytics.
I'm not sure what societal purpose is being served by Federal student loans as a class for graduate school. Eliminate them entirely.
The primary effect will be to reduce the disconnect between the cost and the value. As an added benefit prices should come down, schools at the margin will fail.
The primary effect will be to reduce the disconnect between the cost and the value. As an added benefit prices should come down, schools at the margin will fail.
And number of graduate degrees conferred should come down. I'm not sure what purpose is being served by the vast majority of graduate degrees other than being a requirement to get your "foot in the door" because everyone else has one, too.
I wonder as far as education goes if graduating college, working, and then returning for a masters or similar things would be a better pattern. Or even graduating high school, working, college, working, college, or something else would be a better pattern.
I've worked with some folks with MBAs who have no clue about how to work with people / think they're just "the boss" and what they say goes because no reason at all. Worked with folks with CS degrees who I don't think really like to code / can't troubleshoot at all.
Front heavy education seems efficient on the surface, but I'm not sure makes sense without having a perspective on what life is like after that.
I've worked with some folks with MBAs who have no clue about how to work with people / think they're just "the boss" and what they say goes because no reason at all. Worked with folks with CS degrees who I don't think really like to code / can't troubleshoot at all.
Front heavy education seems efficient on the surface, but I'm not sure makes sense without having a perspective on what life is like after that.
I really don't like the idea that education is a thing you do once in your late teens/early twenties and then finish. There are good reasons to do something then, but there's no good reason to stop.
Some sort of continuing education would be ideal, but once you settle into a career and the financial obligations of being an adult, stopping your income and ramping up your outgo to go back to school for a year or two becomes very untenable for most people. A master's degree isn't a particularly valuable credential, either, except in a few cases where it does directly unlock a higher pay grade.
A lot of the industries that do require continuing ed, it's often at best a rubber stamping process, or an excuse for junkets - at least from what I have seen from friends and family in education, law and medicine. What doctors do to get their continuing ed credits blows away even the fat old days of tech shows like Lotusphere.
With software, you can't just stop learning, but I'm not convinced that formal education is of much use. An RSS reader and a curated Twitter list would probably be a better investment of time.
A lot of the industries that do require continuing ed, it's often at best a rubber stamping process, or an excuse for junkets - at least from what I have seen from friends and family in education, law and medicine. What doctors do to get their continuing ed credits blows away even the fat old days of tech shows like Lotusphere.
With software, you can't just stop learning, but I'm not convinced that formal education is of much use. An RSS reader and a curated Twitter list would probably be a better investment of time.
I changed careers via a bootcamp. I've got VERY mixed feelings on how that industry works...
But just the idea of going back to school to sort of "retool" or expand your toolset for 3 months full time, or 6 or something and get something worthwhile IMO could be the future. The question is if employers will support it.
Granted going back for a more traditional school experience could be a very legitimate route too.
But just the idea of going back to school to sort of "retool" or expand your toolset for 3 months full time, or 6 or something and get something worthwhile IMO could be the future. The question is if employers will support it.
Granted going back for a more traditional school experience could be a very legitimate route too.
I don't like the bootcamp model. I also don't like what a lot of graduate programs have become, insofar as they're jockeying to become souped-up bootcamps by making ever more grand career promises while trying to minimize the amount of time it takes to earn a degree.
Just no. Schools shouldn't be selling jobs. They should be selling education.
To that end, what I really want to see is more schools than just community colleges allowing you to take classes without being enrolled in a degree program. Once upon a time I contacted a university to see about taking some additional classes to fill in some gaps I didn't manage to fill while I was getting my bachelor's, and they told me that I couldn't just take a few classes; I'd have to enroll in a bachelor's program, become a major in the school, and go through earning a second bachelor's degree in a field for which I already held a bachelor's, just to get access to one or two classes.
That's ridiculous. And anachronistic. It's a model that's designed for an era when postsecondary education was primarily reserved for children of a privileged elite class, and a very few people who were trying to break into the wealthy elite class. There's a huge gap between that model and what we actually need nowadays. In failing to adapt, the orthodox educational establishment is doing society a huge disservice, because the only other people to address it are a bunch of for-profit organizations who see the demand, first and foremost, as an arbitrage opportunity to exploit.
Just no. Schools shouldn't be selling jobs. They should be selling education.
To that end, what I really want to see is more schools than just community colleges allowing you to take classes without being enrolled in a degree program. Once upon a time I contacted a university to see about taking some additional classes to fill in some gaps I didn't manage to fill while I was getting my bachelor's, and they told me that I couldn't just take a few classes; I'd have to enroll in a bachelor's program, become a major in the school, and go through earning a second bachelor's degree in a field for which I already held a bachelor's, just to get access to one or two classes.
That's ridiculous. And anachronistic. It's a model that's designed for an era when postsecondary education was primarily reserved for children of a privileged elite class, and a very few people who were trying to break into the wealthy elite class. There's a huge gap between that model and what we actually need nowadays. In failing to adapt, the orthodox educational establishment is doing society a huge disservice, because the only other people to address it are a bunch of for-profit organizations who see the demand, first and foremost, as an arbitrage opportunity to exploit.
>Schools shouldn't be selling jobs. They should be selling education.
I think that is what we have now... the education is disconnected from the jobs in the sense that the price makes no sense.
I think a lot of what you describe is what happens when an education system thinks they're just selling "an education" without consideration that their student's are can't afford it.
I think that is what we have now... the education is disconnected from the jobs in the sense that the price makes no sense.
I think a lot of what you describe is what happens when an education system thinks they're just selling "an education" without consideration that their student's are can't afford it.
This seems to really come down to a couple of factors:
- What program the student chooses
- Is said program at the University recognized
- If recognized does the program provide a proper mix of theory and application
- What opportunities does the program actively provide for the student
- Is the student willing to be an active participant in their education
- Is student and active participant in what resources the program offers
If yes to all of the above, then student really receives a proper well rounded education practical knowledge, and the resources to find a job. Along with that they have the tools to continue to be a competitor in the market and in their current employment.
Far too often it seems that a degree just implies employment and competitive salary. If properly used and taken advantage of it really implies being a much better competitor when all else is held equal.
- What program the student chooses
- Is said program at the University recognized
- If recognized does the program provide a proper mix of theory and application
- What opportunities does the program actively provide for the student
- Is the student willing to be an active participant in their education
- Is student and active participant in what resources the program offers
If yes to all of the above, then student really receives a proper well rounded education practical knowledge, and the resources to find a job. Along with that they have the tools to continue to be a competitor in the market and in their current employment.
Far too often it seems that a degree just implies employment and competitive salary. If properly used and taken advantage of it really implies being a much better competitor when all else is held equal.
In LA, UCLA Extension fills the bill of a la carte classes for working adults. They have a huge variety of courses available, and a number are offered online.
Totally agree. A career should be a constant mix between learning and working. But only a few get the chance to learn on the job and going to school while working on a job (and making needed money) is very hard.
Paying for education (and doing education full time) might well be things that you stop. They can be a good idea for a while without being a good idea forever.
Not by choice exactly I’ve done College -> Work -> Work/College -> Professional Job.
The first 6 months of my “real” career job in tech I learned almost as much as the first 2 years of college. I couldn’t imagine having a masters especially an MBA without having worked professionally, internships aside. I’m excluding the medical professions where the minimum to employment is a masters/doctorate. Even non-doctors have a lot of clinical/hospital experience before/during a masters.
I’m about to start looking at Masters or MBA programs in my area. I’ll have almost 10 years of experience by then and happy I didn’t do it straight after school.
The first 6 months of my “real” career job in tech I learned almost as much as the first 2 years of college. I couldn’t imagine having a masters especially an MBA without having worked professionally, internships aside. I’m excluding the medical professions where the minimum to employment is a masters/doctorate. Even non-doctors have a lot of clinical/hospital experience before/during a masters.
I’m about to start looking at Masters or MBA programs in my area. I’ll have almost 10 years of experience by then and happy I didn’t do it straight after school.
The good MBA programs basically require professional work experience at a reputable firm. Generally, you graduate perhaps at age 21 to 23, then work for a few years, then go get an MBA, and finish around 26 to 28.
Edit: See Wharton class stats, shows a mean work experience of 5 years.
https://mba.wharton.upenn.edu/class-profile/
MIT/Harvard/Stanford show similar:
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/admissions/class-2020-profile
https://www.hbs.edu/mba/admissions/class-profile/Pages/defau...
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/admission/class-pr...
Edit: See Wharton class stats, shows a mean work experience of 5 years.
https://mba.wharton.upenn.edu/class-profile/
MIT/Harvard/Stanford show similar:
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/admissions/class-2020-profile
https://www.hbs.edu/mba/admissions/class-profile/Pages/defau...
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/admission/class-pr...
That makes a lot of sense.
I worked with an MBA who couldn't seem to iron his shirts (or just didn't) for a while. Slowly his job duties were shifted to me... the guy he was supposedly help manage after he proved he couldn't figure out scheduling a 24/7 schedule.
He clearly had no experience beyond school and some internships.
I worked with an MBA who couldn't seem to iron his shirts (or just didn't) for a while. Slowly his job duties were shifted to me... the guy he was supposedly help manage after he proved he couldn't figure out scheduling a 24/7 schedule.
He clearly had no experience beyond school and some internships.
I would actually assume someone with an MBA without professional work experience either couldn't get a (decent) job, and/or is not smart enough to research the difference between an MBA that's worth something vs another excuse for schools to make money.
Yeah this was during the height (well as far as advertising goes) of the situation where everyone was offering MBAs in every form.
Like this guy couldn't manage a taco bell... maybe that should be the barrier to entry, to get into class you have to manage a taco bell for a time....
Like this guy couldn't manage a taco bell... maybe that should be the barrier to entry, to get into class you have to manage a taco bell for a time....
Actually, that's a really good idea.
Funny enough, many years ago I had a very aggressive candidate for a mid-level technical development manager position who was insistent that his newly minted, no computer experience required, MSCE certificate or some such plus his handful of years managing a Pizza Hut qualified him for the job, because "a good manager can manage anything". I disagreed he was right for the job.
Funny enough, many years ago I had a very aggressive candidate for a mid-level technical development manager position who was insistent that his newly minted, no computer experience required, MSCE certificate or some such plus his handful of years managing a Pizza Hut qualified him for the job, because "a good manager can manage anything". I disagreed he was right for the job.
This is a quite solid concept. Especially regarding MBA's there's a lot of people management concepts where you can't really get the proper context without having seen in practice the environment in which they'd be applied, and you can't get that environment in a classroom. There are professional MBA programs which require a few years of work experience to join, and it makes quite a difference IMHO.
I'm not that certain about CS. If you're doing software engineering (or research on 'meta-SE' e.g. methodology, architecture, programming languages), then yes, it'd make all sense to get some industry experience between college and masters; however if you're going to grad school for theoretical CS or machine learning or cryptography or quantum algorithms or any other directions of primarily academic research, then industry experience is helpful but definitely isn't necessary.
I'm not that certain about CS. If you're doing software engineering (or research on 'meta-SE' e.g. methodology, architecture, programming languages), then yes, it'd make all sense to get some industry experience between college and masters; however if you're going to grad school for theoretical CS or machine learning or cryptography or quantum algorithms or any other directions of primarily academic research, then industry experience is helpful but definitely isn't necessary.
California already had free education. See the "California Master Plan for Higher Education." We had to stop because of prop 13.
"The State’s higher education and prison systems are a study in opposites. The prison system saw its state funding in dollars leap 436% between 1980 and 2011. Back then, spending on prisons was a mere 3% of California’s budget; it’s now 10%."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/california-publ...
https://time.com/4276222/free-college/
https://senate.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2017-02/Reclaimi...
"The State’s higher education and prison systems are a study in opposites. The prison system saw its state funding in dollars leap 436% between 1980 and 2011. Back then, spending on prisons was a mere 3% of California’s budget; it’s now 10%."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/california-publ...
https://time.com/4276222/free-college/
https://senate.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2017-02/Reclaimi...
I did school => work => now going back to school. Granted I didn’t study CS undergrad but taught myself a lot.
Since, I’ve learned and worked on some interesting problems. I want to work in big tech or in consulting. To do so, I need to be a lot better and/or have great grades.
So spending 2 years going back to school and improving seems worth it to me.
I have 0 student loans from undergrad and very minimal commitments as is.
Since, I’ve learned and worked on some interesting problems. I want to work in big tech or in consulting. To do so, I need to be a lot better and/or have great grades.
So spending 2 years going back to school and improving seems worth it to me.
I have 0 student loans from undergrad and very minimal commitments as is.
Who the hell pays for an MS?
At least back when I was in engineering grad school, everyone was covered by RA or TA grants, in addition to being paid by those.
Of course in-state tuition at KU in 1996 was under $100/credit-hour, so if I did pay, those 9 credits/semester would be under $1k total.
At least back when I was in engineering grad school, everyone was covered by RA or TA grants, in addition to being paid by those.
Of course in-state tuition at KU in 1996 was under $100/credit-hour, so if I did pay, those 9 credits/semester would be under $1k total.
There are 2 tiers of graduate studies. Ones paid by grants and are more PhD style and are mostly free as you said. They are selective and do not have a lot of slots.
And the 'free standing' ones that have a lot more slots, are not research focused and cost a lot more. Often seen for professionally licensed professions like psychology, law, or medicine.
Sometimes to a degree where it's a really bad idea. Like in psychology where private grad school costs 5-7 years of your life and $200-$400k of %6-%8 debt for a job that pays $100-150k/yr.
And the 'free standing' ones that have a lot more slots, are not research focused and cost a lot more. Often seen for professionally licensed professions like psychology, law, or medicine.
Sometimes to a degree where it's a really bad idea. Like in psychology where private grad school costs 5-7 years of your life and $200-$400k of %6-%8 debt for a job that pays $100-150k/yr.
I’m confused as well, I’ve known a few MS CS students who didn’t do the RA TA Route, but were paying out of pocket. I never asked why because it seemed to be an infringement on their privacy.
RA TA requires you are a slave of the professor. If you just want that degree by taking classes and doing a small project then you gotta pay up. Trafeoff
Yeah but RA or TA requirements are A) pretty beneficial B) worth the thousands of dollars that are in exchange especially when considering A
or your company pays, which is how i got an MS in applied math.
That’s a double edged sword. The schools will charge exorbitant tuition if they know employers are paying for it. Did your employer reimburse you, or was it a direct payment? I took several classes after my MSEE, and employer reimbursed, with the downside that it was taxable.
i had to show them my grades, then they reimbursed me.
Every time the topic of universities comes up, I’m reminded of how the staffing makeup of my university has changed, even just in the past 5 years. It’s gone from the majority of staff being academic to a majority being non-academic. Whether this is a symptom or a cause is as yet unclear, but at least here in the UK, a trend towards the wastefulness I hear about in US institutions seems clear. Just this month we’ve started an academic restructure which adds an additional layer of administration staff across the university, replacing the few specifically departmental administrators with a much larger body of admin staff who have a much larger remit.
Something I've speculated on - being a student provides a person with an identity that is reasonably "high status", or certainly higher status than an entry level position one might be forced to take in absence of a finding a job in one's chosen field of study upon earning a Bachelor's degree. (Especially if it's a Master's program.) So, for some, continuing on with a master's degree is preferable, despite the questionable marginal return.
On the other hand, degree inflation is now a thing. In some fields, those you are competing with you for a job likely have master's degrees already, and you'll suffer by comparison.
*edit: typos
On the other hand, degree inflation is now a thing. In some fields, those you are competing with you for a job likely have master's degrees already, and you'll suffer by comparison.
*edit: typos
A Master's Degree seems most useful in two cases:
1. to change field if you made a mistake with your Bachelor's, or
2. to enter the US after getting a Bachelor's in your home country.
“To quote an official of the U.S. Department of Education, many colleges “choose to increase tuition because they can get away with it.” - The scandal of tuition by Thomas Sowell
Academy of Art is a real estate company with an education problem. They have countless illegally modified buildings around SF (https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Academy-o...), with a ton of diesel buses spewing pollution to cart around wanna-be artists from all over the world. Note that these students didn't have to show any portfolio to get in, they just needed to come up with the $$$$$ somehow. The owners have a showroom for their classic car collection which isn't generally accessible to even the transportation design students (https://thebolditalic.com/just-how-much-is-academy-of-art-s-...).
What an idiotic story for the NYT.
OK, so you have a really awful Masters program for art at a for-profit school. So that damns all masters programs?
The problem isn't the school or the loan program... it's that someone would be so ignorant to think there is any sort of return on that kind of investment in education. It's not like the school is lying (that's not the allegation at least). There has got to be some level of personal accountability here. I'm assuming people incurring the debt at this school are adults with an undergraduate degree and I'm assuming if you've made it that far in life, you probably understand debt, the job market and how you might repay that debt.
Normally I'd say a Masters in Journalism is a waste of money but clearly this author might have benefited from learning some critical thinking.
OK, so you have a really awful Masters program for art at a for-profit school. So that damns all masters programs?
The problem isn't the school or the loan program... it's that someone would be so ignorant to think there is any sort of return on that kind of investment in education. It's not like the school is lying (that's not the allegation at least). There has got to be some level of personal accountability here. I'm assuming people incurring the debt at this school are adults with an undergraduate degree and I'm assuming if you've made it that far in life, you probably understand debt, the job market and how you might repay that debt.
Normally I'd say a Masters in Journalism is a waste of money but clearly this author might have benefited from learning some critical thinking.
One thing I wish the article touched on: Why aren't we asking ourselves how current tuition rates got so high in the first place? If the federal government allows public universities to get away with creating administrative roles like 'Director of Picking Blue or Yellow Gatorade for the Football Team', that demands close to six-figure salaries, there's no wonder students have to incur debt to go to school. They aren't paying for their degree, they are paying the salaries of ballooning administrative chaff.
Let's face it, most humans do not want to think about financial reality, look at Greece, look at a substantial number of the debtors owing that 1.5 Trillion in loans for 'education'. It's one thing to get a meaningful degree, and something entirely different to get a MFA at a school that didn't even review an application portfolio. We try to have some standards for mortgage borrowing, wouldn't it make sense to do the same for education borrowing?
[deleted]
This is a big reason I chose a cheap state university for my MBA and have paid for it in cash while taking classes part-time. I absolutely wasn’t willing to take out $165,000 at a 9% I test rate for some of the top tier programs and private schools.
Excellent article by my hero Thomas Sowell:
http://thelawofentropy.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-scandal-of-c...
http://thelawofentropy.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-scandal-of-c...
tldr
The Academy of Art (San Francisco) is just another place that figured out how to scam the loan system by labeling itself a Graduate School where the $limits are higher. Yale is substantially lower priced so it's not about quality or student degree choice... it's about scamming.
The Academy of Art (San Francisco) is just another place that figured out how to scam the loan system by labeling itself a Graduate School where the $limits are higher. Yale is substantially lower priced so it's not about quality or student degree choice... it's about scamming.
Privately owned for-profit art school should be a giant warning to anyone thinking of enrolling.
No kidding. And foisting massive debt on art students just seems abusive.
"But I'm following my passion."
Absolutely this. My stepson (quite talented visual artist) was looking at going to SCAD. We met with the counselor, realized very quickly that they were more than happy to pile him up with a debt load that based on the odds of his getting a job in-field and his earning prospects if he did would see him still paying off his loans should he be fortunate to live into his second century.
Mentioned in the article is a company called 2U. The Huffington post had an article not too long ago about how online program managers like 2U contribute to the high cost of programs, and how masters programs are specifically targeted because there are not reporting requirements on admissions.
https://www.huffpost.com/highline/article/capitalist-takeove...
https://www.huffpost.com/highline/article/capitalist-takeove...
Their non-profit status hasn't even done much to keep costs low, as they can just keep hiring tons of redundant administrators and have never-ending construction, thereby justifying higher tuitions as "operating costs".
The dept of education needs to treat universities the same way Medicaid treats healthcare providers. Determine what it actually costs per student per year to run a university, and tell the schools "Accept $x or shove off". If they're going to benefit from gov backed loans, they should play by the govs rules.
Look no further than this chart (https://i.imgur.com/B3sVMjg.png), around 2010 was when the gov started fully backing and giving the loans directly, and conveniently it's when students needs for loans skyrocketed. It's so obvious that colleges took advantage of it.
Enough is enough, this college cost situation is entirely the fault of the gov for allowing it to happen, and it's a massive drag on our economy and the potential of our citizens.