Exactly. Also, I think it errs by treating all colleges as equivalent. Since the government subsidises educational loans there are many colleges out there that do not provide much of an education but mostly exist to siphon off those subsidised loans.

I think there are many colleges out there which are just not worth going to. Mind you, I am not an ivy league snob, I am not saying go to a top 50 school or not at all. There are many great schools that are ranked much lower.

But all of those for profit colleges that advertise heavily are mostly a waste of money. If you want to learn something, go to a school that is either public or private but set up as a non-profit and has an established reputation of supporting scholarship and research. Just forget about the ITT techs and universities of phoenix. Community college would be better than those.

I think the government is just too loose with the loans it subsidises.

absolutely. if people paid market rates for education loans, you'd see an increased focus on rate of return. And we'd also see an increased focus from schools on quality instruction in well paid fields and less spending on recreational facilities.

For-profit schools may not be as well regarded, but remember that they have to pay taxes while the others don't. And many get a lot of other subsidies as well. So the real costs are somewhat obscured.

I am not sure I agree with that. I like subsidized loans. They should just be more careful that the loans go to worthwhile schools and degrees.

they'd be more careful if they personally were taking on the real debt that makes the subsidies possible. instead, others are forced to take it on because they'll be stuck paying off a massive $13 trillion national debt.

its time people took responsibility for their own choices.

Every school that plays competitive college football advertises on TV during those games (if not also at other times). This includes Stanford, Notre Dame, UCLA, USC, Berkeley, and plenty of other great schools.

What should a parent tell a child who wants to go into a non-"money" field? Should one still pay $80,000 for 4 years of "Social Studies"? Tell them not to go at all and get a 2 year degree from a community college?

We all grew up brainwashed with the idea that "4 year college"="better jobs"="better life". Colleges have been raking in good profits all these years by exploiting that mantra. It is really hard to all of the sudden deny it and go against the popular opinion.

do you have the money to spend? Many of my family members got liberal arts degrees, and they felt enriched by the experience. I know visiting them, it sure looked like they were having a good time, meeting interesting people, etc.

Me, I got a SysAdmin job rather than going to school, and continued on in that direction. Sure, when I was my sister's age, I made 5x what she does now, but I don't think that was her primary reason for going to school.

I mean people spend that much on cars that aren't any more utilitarian than a $15,000 civic, so why not spend it learning an interesting skill while living around interesting people?

Money's freedom, tho'. How many foreign countries could you visit, how many experiences could you have, for the price of a 4-year liberal arts degree?

It's harsh but there are only 2 types of people in college. Those studying towards the field they want to work in, and those pursuing a hobby full-time. The latter would be better served spending the money on first-hand experiences instead of reading about it other people's second-hand.

This is an excellent view. The books are there to read, the art is there to view. College can motivate a person who is interested in grades, but not someone interested in the subject. You do lose out on the professor reading a book to you, but you could just read it yourself. Also, the professor isn't there to answer your questions, but, you might ask them via email. Some professors might feel delighted to discuss their subject with a genuinely interested party, rather than a grade seeker.

I think the most important thing you miss out on is the ease of finding peers to discuss the subject with. My degree was in math and physics, and, while I didn't talk to many people about physics (which I feel I don't know very well, btw), I had a good friend in math, and we would often hang out and discuss it. We took a lot of the same classes together (even outside of math), because we got so much out of our discussions.

I think we have a logic/emotion split about college, where logically we know college costs lots of actual money and should be regarded as an investment, but our emotions have been manipulated to think of college as a certain kind of life-validating experience.

So the decision to go to college is governed by the logic of college as investment, but then the content part is guided by the emotion of college as personal self-realization.

So we end up with a society where countless people pour thousands of dollars into attending college for fundamentally emotional reasons. Or even worse, for mistaken factual reasons about the practical benefit of their education.

In other words, as Ted Rall put it even before college costs doubled, college is for suckers:

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/cruz/09.26.96/student-9639...

That is a good article. A classic. A key part of it for me is:

---

Although America's universities are churning out a steady stream of brain-dead simpletons, our society relies almost exclusively on college credentials as the central determining factor of social status and employment opportunities.

---

I know it is a farce. But I also want the HR departments across the country to know that too. (I guess the lesson is: don't work for companies that consider college degree + GPA as the main determinant for your employment criteria).

Where are all these mythical talented engineers working as cashiers and waitresses?! Last time we hired I interviewed tons of people who frankly had zero clue about programming. We finally found a kid fresh out of school who is super smart, but barely takes showers. At least he gets work done though which makes my day easier and that's what counts ;)

At worst a CompSci person should be able to go into government contracting. They are nearly always hiring, mostly require minimum schooling, and the pay is usually pretty good.

There are some fields that usually require more than an undergrad degree to do much with them, but that's isn't anything new. Psychology is a great example, where you have to get an MS or PhD in order to go anywhere with it. If the student didn't realize that till graduation day, well that's their fault.

Reread the comment. The folks working outside their field are the ones without technical degrees. Incidentally, the ice cream parlour cashier has a psych degree (undergrad only).

Whoops, ignore me. I missed withOUT :) Sorry about that.

Where is that story about how it's impossible to multitask again...

I would have guessed the opposite - that your friends with B.A.s would be the ones not working in their field of study. Interesting.

On the upside they probably have decent reading comprehension.