It's probably worth noting my bias: since its founding by Roger Babson (who also founded Babson College) and his wife Grace Knight Babson in 1927, Webber International University has always been laser focused on its graduates getting jobs. When Board members routinely call to ask about the latest job placement statistics, the importance permeates throughout the organization. While as a traditional liberal arts college it brings to the table broader educational offerings, since its founding in 1896 St. Andrews University has been focused on turning out graduates who, irrespective of their degrees, are trained in critical thinking and lifelong learning. Not only have the successes of our graduates validated our methods, but I like and believe in what we do. Such are my biases exposed and in the open.
The widespread recent attacks on the value of a college education -- notwithstanding a mountain of evidence showing neither employment nor earnings are equally distributed amongst those of all educational levels (one example) -- leave out an important consideration. Perhaps the debate shifts, and, indeed becomes more meaningful, if we collectively stipulate that a college degree is a tool, and, like any other tool, cannot be valued in a vacuum but instead must be considered in light of what the tool enables one to do, what other tools are at one's disposal, and what the job at hand entails.
Take, for the sake of a simplifying analogy, the hammer. Most of us, I think, are better off in many situations with a hammer than without one. But a hammer's value is dependent upon a variety of factors, the complex calculus of which is challenging to reduce to a simple one size fits all formula. I have a brother who is a cabinet-maker by trade. His hammer allows him to, quite literally, bang out a handsome living. While he could not have provided for himself or family without it during his carpenter days, my retired father's hammer now doesn't have a lot of value, though the occasional threat to remodel my sister's house doubtlessly brings him as much joy as does his periodically using it to rearrange the photos on his wall. And for me, well, if my can opener breaks, there's always my hammer. And don't get me started on the subtle differences between sledge hammers, claw hammers, and ball-peen hammers or whether the top of the line hammer drives a straighter nail. Clearly, the average reader is willing to concede by now, the value of a hammer varies from person to person, life stage to life stage, the intended use of the hammer, the other tools in one's toolbox, and likely other factors as well.
One wonders, therefore, if it becomes challenging to universally and definitively value a hammer, how we would go about valuing something as complex and varied as a college education. We have all heard the remarkable (perhaps, in part, because of its rarity) story of one having become a billionaire irrespective of not having completed college (or, more rarely still, high school). But, in the aggregate, the data are inescapable -- in terms of likelihood of being employed and earning potential, it's better to have a college degree than to not have one. Does a college education help every single person earn a better living? It's as reasonable a question as "does owning a hammer help every single person earn a better living?" with the same answer: of course not. Having a tool -- even the right tool for the job -- is but part of the equation. Another huge part of the equation is what one choses to do with it.
We would not say categorically hammers are bad investments because some people chose not to use theirs. Neither would we brand them categorically overpriced because some folks purchase a different model than their profession requires. So here's a humble proposition... what if we turn our energy away from discussing a question -- is a college degree worth it? -- already amply and indisputably answered in the aggregate by the empirical data, and focus instead on a question where our collective input might have some value: what should we assume any college graduate knows and knows how to do? There will be varied opinions, of course -- I have a friend who thinks knowing how to insert an IV is critical and another who believes that every comprehensive exam should have a pass fail question demonstrating the candidate's ability to discern between and properly use "its" and "it's." There are those who believe that a passing acquaintance with the masterworks which have shaped humanity is essential to being human and those who think that balancing a checkbook is a non-negotiable. Divergent views, of course, which may well not congeal into a consensus about what a college graduate needs to know. But, perhaps it is time to again define what having a college degree means. While offerings, like people, are too diverse to lend themselves to the "bright lines" or common curricula some have proposed or a stripping of the unique aspects that make so many programs special (if standardization was so swell, we would not have both sledge hammers and finish hammers), perhaps we can reach some agreement about what saying "I have a college degree" ought to convey to society.
Kevin Jennings: Graduation Special -- What's an Education Really Worth?
Maria Mayo: Forgive Us Our Student Loan Debts?
Tom Segal: Rethinking the Learning Experience: Part I
It is just as likely that those from wealthier and more privileged backgrounds tend to get more
credentials and thus reproduce the social structure.
You would need to isolate degree earners from disadvantaged backgrounds and do a longitudinal study to prove your point. I've never seen such a study.
A degree doesn't mean what it once did. We have too many students chasing too few jobs resulting
in huge amounts of Credential Inflation. Thus we have people with advanced degrees in the liberal arts working as Barristas.
Sorry, an Expensive Sheepskin does NOT make sense for every person across the board.
You have to consider the opportunity cost, the cost of borrowing, and the chance of gaining employment. More and more when those questions are asked the answer is a NO.
But, to argue against the value of a college degree in general requires disregarding a MOUNTAIN of data. They’re not my data; they’re the UDOL's data. It’s a big, deep, fat, normalized, free, and largely validated datset so there have been thousands of studies using it. Within any segment you choose to look at, those with college degrees earn statistically significantly more than those without. If you’re going to set the bar at “causation”, few indeed will be the conclusions in the realm of social science. While an experiment is interesting as a thought exercise, selecting kids who are roughly equal in all other variables which contribute to success (and good luck in defining those and that!) and randomly deciding which we will send to college and which we will not (without this random assignment to treatment groups, one only gets to claim correlation, not causation), and then seeing how they do has some, I think, insurmountable ethical and logistical issues. Consequently, correlation is all we’re going to get.
My point is that shifting our efforts to shaping a consensus about “what should having a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctorate degree mean?” might actually yield graduates more universally competitive, more universally employable, more universally suited for today’s society.
The missing component is that the average IQ of a college graduate is significantly higher than the average IQ of a one without a college degree. Getting a college degree is what educated people call "signalling". The value in the degree is not what you "learned" (most people forget 99% of what they were taught in college*) but the value is in your ability to differentiate yourself from everyone else when applying for a job.
*I challenege anyone with a college degree that took Calc to answer, what is L'hopital's rule is used for without looking it up.