• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

A college degree is a lousy investment

PhDeac said:
You're pigeon-holing yourself with this whole "Government bad!! ARGGGH!" nonsense.
Click to expand...

You keep broadening the intent of my positions. Just because I don't believe MORE gov't funding of public education through "free college" programs is bad doesn't mean I think there should be NO public funding for higher education.
 
scooter, you've plainly stated that you're against education paid for by other people. You're against "easy availability of loans and grants."

What are you actually for? Explain that and maybe I'll understand your position.
 
scooter84 said:
You keep broadening the intent of my positions. Just because I don't believe MORE gov't funding of public education through "free college" programs is bad doesn't mean I think there should be NO public funding for higher education.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to respond to my post, as well, scooter.
 
scooter84 said:
Not when the government wastes most of those resources. And please stop trying to pigeon hole me and decide what I believe.
Click to expand...

scooter84 said:
You keep broadening the intent of my positions. Just because I don't believe MORE gov't funding of public education through "free college" programs is bad doesn't mean I think there should be NO public funding for higher education.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty impressed that PhDeac has somehow managed to pigeon hole you while also broadening the intent of your positions. Undepheated indeed.
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/privat...ssure-from-cost-conscious-families-1494820861

"Nearly nine in 10 freshmen now get need- and merit-based grants from the schools, up from 81% a decade earlier, and that aid will likely cover more than 56% of tuition, up from roughly 49% a decade ago."

The concepts of "need" and "merit" are getting stretched to the point where they have no meaning - this is just naked price discrimination. I am especially curious to know how "merit" is defined - is that code for a school discounting to round out their population profile (geography, etc), so a kid from rural Iowa has more "merit" than the same kid from Greensboro?

One of the comments is the following: "Today, full pay upper middle class families send their children to state schools because they are cheaper for them. Lower middle class and poor families send their kids to private schools because they are cheaper due to FA. It was the exact opposite a decade or two ago." That is my general sense, as well. Would like to see what the data actually shows on this point.
 
Last edited:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-diminishing-returns-of-a-college-degree-1496605241

"Rising costs and declining benefits mean the rate of return on a college investment is starting to fall for many Americans. Some observers have begun asking whether it might not be better for more students to forgo college in favor of less expensive postsecondary training in vocations like welding and plumbing. The New York Federal Reserve Bank says about 40% of recent college graduates are “underemployed,” often for a long time. They sometimes resort to taking jobs as Uber drivers or baristas. With some inexpensive vocational training, they could easily get jobs that pay much better."
 
ConnorEl said:
I can’t read the article (paywall).

But, yea, I think a number of private schools have figured out that one way to attract students whose parents are able/willing to pay is to entice them with partial and readily available scholarships.
Click to expand...

It’s like jos a bank pricing strategy: mark everything way up and then put it on sale almost all the time. Most will get it on sale and now they’re more likely to feel like they’re getting a good deal, occasionally some will be silly enough to pay full price and you’ll make a huge margin.
 
AMCDeac said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/privat...ssure-from-cost-conscious-families-1494820861

"Nearly nine in 10 freshmen now get need- and merit-based grants from the schools, up from 81% a decade earlier, and that aid will likely cover more than 56% of tuition, up from roughly 49% a decade ago."

The concepts of "need" and "merit" are getting stretched to the point where they have no meaning - this is just naked price discrimination. I am especially curious to know how "merit" is defined - is that code for a school discounting to round out their population profile (geography, etc), so a kid from rural Iowa has more "merit" than the same kid from Greensboro?

One of the comments is the following: "Today, full pay upper middle class families send their children to state schools because they are cheaper for them. Lower middle class and poor families send their kids to private schools because they are cheaper due to FA. It was the exact opposite a decade or two ago." That is my general sense, as well. Would like to see what the data actually shows on this point.
Click to expand...

100% true for us...our oldest went to Kentucky (go cats) and our youngest is now at Kansas (rock chalk). Full fare, baby! Still half the cost of a good private university...

And...best of all...our daughter got a very good job in her field immediately after graduation.
 
Last edited:
My comment may be a little off subject but it comes up in conversation with my wake buddies, all of us finished in the early 80's, when we talk about the cost of going to Wake. Very few out of our group have kids who went to Wake or are going to Wake. The two major reasons are the cost and the sense (at least the perception) that the faculty and their teaching, like almost other liberal art schools, are overwhelmingly liberal with little representation of those who disagree. I saw this recent study, which does not include Wake, but most of the liberal arts colleges that compete with us, are listed: http://tinyurl.com/ ycfomjy6 which shows almost no diversity when it comes to political affiliation among professors.

My kids have a few years before worrying about college, part of me would love to see them go to Wake but these two factors will probably bother me as well.
 
If you want people who teach politics in the classroom, why not just encourage them to go to religious universities instead of getting a well rounded education?
 
A “liberal education” does not mean you studied under Elizabeth Warren. According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities:


“Liberal Education is an approach to learning that empowers individuals and prepares them to deal with complexity, diversity, and change. It provides students with broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g. science, culture, and society).”
Click to expand...

Those are the things modern conservatism struggles with.

Conservatives have moved further and further from empowering individuals and more toward empowering large organizations run by conservatives (i.e. churches, big businesses, Republican-led governments).

Conservatives have become more resistant to and unable to deal with complexity, diversity, and change (i.e. Make America Great Again).

Conservatives have rejected learning more about the word beyond their own experiences in terms of learning about science, culture and other cultures, and the complexity of society (i.e. you name it).

As a result, fewer people with a higher education who have experienced "liberal education" choose to be conservative. Fewer people who consider themselves to be conservative make the educational commitment and select into jobs in academia.

What I'm curious about that neither of the linked articles explain is this: What do you want to learn from a Republican professor that you don't want to learn from a Democrat? Pick a subject. Engineering, psychology, English lit, whatever.
 
Last edited:
Also, if a liberal education (because the "liberal arts" has nothing to do with liberalism) means exposing your kids to people and cultures and ideas that they wouldn't otherwise engage with, how could you possibly argue that that's a bad thing?

Nobody gets indoctrinated. Students just get exposed to an entirely new world of texts and ideas that expand the narrow upbringing that just about every human being everywhere was subject to.
 
then it seems like from your note, in order to expand your exposure to ideas beyond this "narrow upbringing" that we all receive, you would be concerned as well that only one side of story is being told by professors. And I assure you, all of these parents's kids are doing well in college and after college, they seem to be dealing with the "complexity" of the real world just fine. It is a shame that at least a few them did not end up at Wake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top