Value is only quantifiable in the context of a purpose. Is a liberal arts degree valuable as an instrument to garner income? Statistically, no. Is it valuable as a set of experiences which help to better understand the world we live in? Absolutely.

But does that make it valuable enough to justify the cost? I dunno. Ask Ken Ilgunas.

Absolutely not. What did he learn that was worth $32k to him that he couldn't have learned at a cheaper school or by himself? Networking in his field is of little or no value.

Well, considering he is now a published author, with a second book on the way, maybe there was some monetary value form that degree after all?

Of course this isn't the case for the vast majority of liberal arts graduates.

Sure. And he's a very determined individual. I mean, did you hear about the time he lived in a van to keep grad school financially within his reach?

The statistics definitely don't play out in a vacuum... His kind of determinism holds far more bearing on his successes (financial or otherwise) than any degree (liberal arts or otherwise) ever could alone.

Also, don't ever forget the power of defining your own terms for success. I mean, it's pretty hard to fail when you're successful by definition. Although sadly it's nowhere near as easy to do as it sounds...

How can you say for sure it has the second type of value?

> I dunno. Ask Ken Ilgunas.

Or to be a bit less of a dick, I think this is a cross between the ancient philosophical question, "how does one know anything to be true?" and the cliché, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." It only holds this kind of value to an individual if the individual thinks it does. [Edit: And just to avoid the bigger philosophical question let's just say that the individual is or isn't confident that it holds this value, not that they know that it does or doesn't. ;-)]

Either way, there's always the risk that you aren't getting what you pay for.

Absolutely not. What did he learn that was worth $32k to him that he couldn't have learned at a cheaper school or by himself for free? Networking in his field is of little or no value.

Is that secondary value best given by a college experience or finding it yourself then?

That's an optimization problem. As such it doesn't really fit the context of what I was trying to say.

To put my point differently, this is an example of a market which trades extrinsic value for intrinsic value. Sure, some mechanisms are certainly better than others for this purpose, but as is the nature of intrinsic value, "better" can only be defined on a very individual basis.

i came here to say something like this, albeit a lot less tactfully.

that said, i admit that i'm torn. on the one hand, we definitely need people to study history, language, writing, etc. the arts, and the liberal arts, are what help define a culture and help us develop that culture, those values, and pass them down and create a rich history. i wish our society valued that more, or rather appreciated what we have (and are at risk of losing).

the other side of it is the practical side. when i read that he had difficulty finding an internship at newspapers, that he had to push carts at home depot i thought "shouldn't that have been a sign to him that he's going to have difficulties in finding a role in the job market?" but the risk is that we, as a society, push towards vocational schools and away from developing thinkers, and that we stagnate because of that.

i'm glad he's writing about it and finding traction there, i assume he can use that to pay down his debt. that said not everyone - not by a long shot - can do that. the consumer marketplace just doesn't have that capacity.

this leaves me to wonder, then, about what roles we as a society have for the bulk of the people out there, and how to best serve them for education, expectations, and our future survivability. i am not creative enough to have any good ideas to help solve that challenge.

I've heard that Germany is MUCH more pragmatic, and heavily promotes technical and vocational schools, and tries to fit (or strongly pushes/forces?) students into the studies that are more likely to lead to success in the workplace.

My uncle works in heavy industry, and he says German workers are vastly better trained than any others he's worked with (mostly from South America, and some from US and China).

I've read about the lack of plumbers, carpenters, mechanics and other skilled tradesmen. I believe more people should be taught those (and definitely don't believe them inferior to, say, programming):

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/report-shows-worl...

About Germany:

http://www.imove-germany.de/cps/rde/xchg/imove_projekt_inter...

It seems to me the problem is not that we don't value history, language, etc- it's that it has become commoditized, as so many people get degrees in those fields. That probably drives down wages and drives up tuition.

Tuition is rising, across the board, without much regard for marketability of degrees. It's more a function of the way society values school 'brands' and the way government guarantees abet this behavior by allowing essentially anyone to borrow as much as they want for whatever they want.

(Want to get a run-of-the-mill BA from an outrageously-expensive private college? Just sign here.)

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that the government should cap loans by degree-marketability or restrict school selection by a grading of school outcomes, but either a massive social re-valuation of tuition needs to happen, or things along those lines are going to need to be approached.

Our economy can't really grow when every young person is buried under student loan debt for years and years. Particularly not as we've transitioned to defined-contribution retirement plans. A decade of paying off student loan debt would either then be followed by large 'catch-up' contributions to make up the difference -- further delaying/retarding productive economic engagement -- or be underfunded, leading to higher social safety net expenditures when those workers retire without sufficient savings.

At no time and no place did a history degree really pay off in terms of monetary compensation for knowledge of history. It was always commoditized, because precise knowledge of historical facts is not greatly compensated for, as the norm.

It paid off in terms exercising a mind in the craft of delving into an ambiguous question, forming complex ideas out of evidence, and expressing those ideas in a more concise and accessible form. A history degree is about as a good a "pre-law" or "pre-sales and marketing" degree as any other.

As a society, we benefit from people knowing a bit of history. But that is one reason we have public schools, theoretically.

A degree may traditionally not have paid off monetarily, but it didn't used to put you so far underwater. Which worked out ok- the people that loved the subject did it for the love of the subject, and didn't suffer too greatly financially from it.

Points at his own comment elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5795016

Essentially: surely that depends on your notion of value?