So when people say "fewer people should go to college," I hear, "other people's kids should earn less so my kid doesn't."

It's time we took a hard look at how we pay for college and its costs, most assuredly. But it's not time to discourage people from getting an education, especially with all the predictions about automation.

I remember a study from a Malcolm gladwrll piece where they compared the earnings from students who could have gone to UPenn, but opted to go to the state school, Penn St. The result, the state kids earnings were on par with the Ivy League School kids.

I'd like to know why you think that. When the job application says you must have a bachelor's degree to be considered, gumption doesn't enter into it.

>The result, the state kids earnings were on par with the Ivy League School kids.

State school graduates earning a similar wage to Ivy League graduates doesn't extrapolate to trade school graduates earning as much as state school graduates.

In any case, the hyper-focus on earnings is misplaced. It says nothing of the intangible value of an education and the four year college experience, nor the exposure to various other pursuits that influence a person's entire life afterwards.

Yeah it does. Many of the jobs I've gotten have had various requirements I didn't meet, including that particular one. Pretty much the only truly inflexible sector I've encountered is government. Even there, it's amazing what can be done if the right people want it done.

I think getting a degree was one of the poorer financial decisions of my life and not that great in terms of educational outcomes either. Degrees rarely imply the kind of "intangible value" you're talking of.

TLDR; education > schooling

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

If most of these college graduates could have made it where they are without a degree, wouldn't this count be a little more even? The drastic difference appears somewhat artificial. I agree that a person doesn't "need" a college degree to succeed -- but I think it's fair to say it helps quite a bit.

Additionally, there's the cost of delaying and/or slowing one's education while spending those years schooling (which generally moves at a glacial pace).

There are some cases in which the schooling truly is worth the cost and yields exceptional results for those admitted (as opposed to only admitting those who would be exceptional regardless). Those cases are rare and getting rarer.

Anecdote, but my half brother is apprenticing under his father in welding. However, both he and his dad get paid relatively low (no special certifications or whatever it takes to make good money as a welder). Also, I don't think he's learning cutting edge and highly desired welding skills, just basics. I think apprenticeship isn't going to be enough to put someone in a great position to learn a craft as a master or to make great money in a trade. Just as a degree won't guarantee success, neither will apprenticeship, though it is another path.

Where I work, for many positions I don't think a resume will be considered without a college degree on it. A bachelor's is the new high school diploma. To encourage apprenticeship, businesses would need incentives to do so. Why would they choose to apprentice people if there is a glut of college graduates desperate for work? It seems convincing business owners would be the key, and what incentives would those businesses have to do this? If businesses don't do it, who would? Colleges?

I think the knowledge from college is pretty useful and I enjoy having it. I also think the format sucks and it's really expensive and a mixed bag as to whether you actually have a good / useful experience doing it. Roughly 3/4 of my courses felt like bullshit at a top 50 CS university that is top 10 for engineering. Either they were useless to me (sorry gen ed, you aren't accomplishing your goals) or the profs really didn't give a fuck about teaching and often simply lacked the skills for teaching.

s/time/time and money/

To spread the common memetic and rhetorical foundation required for rational discussions of contradictory sources of information and conflicting ideas. To make civilized society possible.

I can maybe understand where you are coming from calling college a waste of time, but would interpret it as college not being the most optimal option for every individual, rather falling somewhere on the scale between best and worst option.

However, I would think it's often the poor who would benefit most from college, because it's there they can network with people who would never otherwise be available to them. That could also provide positive peer pressure and some concrete examples of people you can emulate. And college will teach them how to learn and critically think, which might not be skills they have yet.

Career centers might provide optional workshops on networking, but this isn't enough to prepare students for how to integrate socially. It can be a culture shock when people enter a competitive school and realize that learning isn't the primary objective.

Some people question why it should be that people from non-affluent backgrounds should have to adapt to the culture, and it is a source of resentment and likely a catalyst for some vengeful campus politics. It's a valid concern but people should be making efforts to meet in the middle. Efforts by people with the most power, like Ycombinator going out of their way to recruit women and minorities, are an important part of the solution.

[0] https://www.holbertonschool.com [1] http://www.makeschool.com

For most of the world, with "trade track", you make "ends meat" for the country (developing world included).

That's why you see such a mindblowing competition for Chinese students to graduate from good colleges.

Problem is many people look down on these blue-collar skilled trades and college is seen as the way up.

Oh, is that what you get from college? I can guarantee you that at best only a tiny percentage of college graduates are properly categorized as "educated critical-thinkers".