Worthwhile article that, for me, puts focus on the different kinds of  value
that people have for education  --speaking of formal schooling. One  comment
by a reader says something that strikes me as crucial --
 
"...the author's concept of higher education is a little narrow, as for me, 
my university degree has enriched my whole life in general, and 
not just opened doors in my career."
 
This is the crux of the matter ;  the article seems  to assume that there 
is only
one possible way to value education , economic payoff.
 
For sure,   there has to be some payoff, majoring in a field for  which 
there
are close to zero employment opportunities doesn't make much    -or any-  
sense.
But economic "underemployment"   --less money than in other  occupations--
may make excellent sense if you achieve goals that fall under the  heading
of "education for a mission."  That is, sure, a foreign missionary  will 
earn far less
than an MBA or someone with a degree in hard science or computer  science,
but under what circumstances can someone say that the missionary is a  fool,
stupid, crazy, etc, ?   Only if money is regarded as the only  valid 
yardstick
to measure value.
 
"Mission" can mean many things, devotion to an art, for example, like the  
desire
to write a world class novel and nothing will stop you, and you intend to  
learn
everything feasible necessary for the task.  Mission can also mean  strong 
desire
to gather as much intellectual capital as possible in order to achieve  
something
significant in some position of leadership, anything from politics to  
journalism,
knowing full well that others with comparable degrees may earn some  
multiple
of your income. What IS your goal ?   To become richer than  anyone else ?
To do as much social good as your potential allows, as a missionary  or
an executive at a non-profit ?  To become smarter than anyone  else
and create an intellectual legacy ?  To find something worthwhile to  do
with your life at a time when jobs are scarce and grad school
allows you to explore far more options than would
otherwise have been possible ? Plus grad school 
might offer all kinds of "social opportunities."
 
All of this said, the article does tell us that in terms of lifetime  
earnings
and the burden of student debt, there is a serous problem
in the realm of higher ed.  A VERY serious problem.
 
Billy
 
===============================
 
 
 
from the site :
The Motley Fool
 
Educating Ourselves Into Shackles?

 
By Brian Stoffel  
April 17, 2012 
 
There's a cancer that threatens to poison the global economic recovery, and 
 it's not _Europe_ 
(http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/11/02/fear-frustration-and-the-eurozone-crisis.aspx)
   or the _housing  market_ 
(http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/03/05/all-fingers-point-to-housing.aspx)
 
. It comes, in fact, from the very thing that's supposed to elevate  our 
populace and our economy: graduate school. 
Dr. Deborah Stewart, president of the Council of Graduate Schools, points 
out  that there's a well-defined pattern that has taken hold: "Both 
historically and  in recent years, there's an inverse relationship between the 
economy and  graduate student enrollment." 
Could this trend be a sign that we've lost our creative edge in America?  
Indeed, a case is being made that, recession or not, advanced degrees -- in  
fields outside of medicine, the sciences, and engineering -- fail to add the 
 type of value needed to justify their costs. 
Below I intend to show that the inclination to pursue a graduate degree  
during -- and because of -- difficult economic times is often 
counterproductive,  and it has left millions of students with little to show 
for their 
efforts  except crushing levels of debt. 
Debt, debt, debt
Just how bad is the _debt  situation_ 
(http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/03/13/the-next-bursting-bubble.aspx)
  for college students? Consider 
the fact that it far outpaces  credit card debt and is hovering around $1 
trillion today. 
It wasn't always such a problem, but student loan debt grew by a cumulative 
 511% between 1999 and 2011, outstripping average household debt by a  
longshot. 

Sources: The Atlantic, the New York Fed, and  Bureau of Economic Analysis. 
You'd think that with a growing problem like this, lenders -- and schools  
that are _consistently  raising their tuition_ 
(http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/01/06/surging-tuition-more-than-meets-the-eye.aspx)
  -- would 
start to worry. But they're not incentivized  to. 
You see, student loan debts are some of the "safest" bets around. 
Borrowers,  or the indebted students, can't shed the loans even if they declare 
bankruptcy,  and collectors are given extensive powers to make sure they get 
their money. 
This means that every year, more and more graduates have to put off buying 
a  new suit, car, and, most importantly, a house, because they can't afford 
it with  their student loans. These decisions affect all of us. 
Come to think of it, the "college for all" battle cry that we hear so often 
 sounds awfully similar to the "homeownership for all" mantra that began in 
the  late '90s. And we all know what a mess that misguided venture _brought 
 us_ 
(http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/06/creative-destruction-in-the-housing-market.aspx)
 . 
Diminishing returns
As Fellow Fool Travis Hoium _has  shown_ 
(http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/03/14/education-isnt-the-slam-dunk-investment-it-used-t.aspx)
 , 
the returns on a college education have diminished markedly. In fact,  the 
return on investment for a bachelor's degree in 2009 was 20% to 25% lower  than 
it was in 1995. 
Just as a bachelor's degree has become the new high school diploma, so the  
master's degree seems to be the next undergraduate certificate. 
Extrapolated out  over time, one can only wonder where this escalation might 
end. 
So why are students willing to play along with this game? The answer is  
pretty simple: Those with higher degrees get paid more and are unemployed  
less. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
Is graduate school even worth it?
But here's where things  start to get really insidious. The stats above 
indicate correlation, not  causation. It could just as easily be the case that 
lurking variables  (socio-economic background, IQ, professional ambition, 
etc.) account for the  differences in wages and unemployment. 
What if graduate schools, especially in the humanities and business realms, 
 don't add one iota to your educational or career prospects? What if all 
the  benefits you gained through years of graduate studies could have been had 
--  for free -- by interning, volunteering, finding a mentor, or starting  
your own business? 
Creativity crisis?
There's a growing chorus out there  that believes we've lost our creative 
touch. They believe that instead of  putting ourselves out there during tough 
economic times, we're retreating to the  safety of graduate school to "open 
up new doors," even if we could find our own  way through at a fraction of 
the cost. 
Indeed, _recent studies_ 
(http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html)  
have shown that Americans' creativity quotient, 
 or CQ, has been declining steadily since 1990. Think that's not important? 
A  poll of 1,500 CEOs found that creativity is the most important 
"leadership  competency" moving forward. And childhood CQ is three times 
stronger at  
predicting lifetime creative accomplishments than childhood IQ. 
Maybe that helps explain why, when push comes to shove, so many are paying  
graduate schools huge sums of money to teach them what they need to know,  
instead of learning through experience. 
Granted, there are some experiences you just can't get anywhere but 
graduate  school, but those tend to be the exceptions, not the rules. When it 
comes 
to  getting your MBA, for instance, studies have shown the degree to have 
little to  no effect on your future salary or position in an organization. 
And The  Economist recently demonstrated that some graduates take a steep pay  
cut after getting their MBA. 

Source: The Economist. 
In the end, it's not hard to come up with examples of wildly successful  
people who excelled without a college degree. Steve Jobs, Bill  Gates, Henry 
Ford, and Steven Spielberg are all examples of individuals who were  able to 
hone their creative energies by learning how to succeed from life  
experience. 
But you don't have to be one of these titans to be successful without a  
graduate degree. You just need to be willing to take what many consider to be 
an  unconventional path to finding your niche. And when you get there, you 
won't be  saddled with debt. 
Not only will that provide you with the financial flexibility necessary to  
get on with your life, but it will allow you to make the basic purchases 
you  need -- and help keep our feeble economic recovery moving forward. 
====================================== 
Selected Comments : 
 
Dr. Gary North (_garynorth.com_ (http://garynorth.com/) ) has long 
advocated a sort of self-education  degree, whereby a student finds the 
requirement 
for a certain college course, or  studies clep notes and then cleps out of 
the course and a local college. This is  a much cheaper way of obtaining 
college credits. One of his "students" in fact  got his BA on his 18th birthday 
(at the same time he graduated high school) and  it cost his family under 
$12000.00. 
This has saved him (and his family) a huge sum of money and  enabled him to 
get a jump on gaining experience in the job market. But, I  believe he 
actually opted to start a business. 
I believe many kids opt to stay in college because the job  market is so 
bad for non-experienced workers. But many students never finish  their degree 
objectives. They just quit, leaving a huge education loan that will  follow 
them for many years. 

------------ 
 
I'd argue that debt and graduate degree should not even be  used in the 
same sentence.  
Almost all graduate schools offer teaching/research  assistantships and/or 
fellowships, especially in the science and engineer  majors. If you can't 
get one - you are not good enough and should consider an  alternative career 
move - it's as simple as that. The fellowship would not get  you far, you 
will be living a life of a working poor, but it is enough to get by  for 5 
years (been there, done that). 
If you need to get a law degree or an MBA I suggest finding a  real job in 
the field first and then making your employer pay for an evening  program.  

------------------------------- 
 
The problem with this article and many others like it is that  it asumes 
that anything that does not add to the GDP is of no value. Humanities  is a 
discipline that is often put into that category. Where the STEM disciplines  
are being crammed down our educational throughts, all they really do is teach 
us  to follow procedures. While this often leads to new, often profitable 
ways to  produce pratical solutions, it is the Humanities that fosters 
creativity and the  ability to reason, the true sources of problem solving. 
Yet, 
in a society that  values entertainers and athletes more than teachers, is it 
any surprise that we  place the greatest value on material culture? 

------------------------ 
As someone who graduated with a degree in the humanities, I  have to take 
issue with an assumption you're making. I agree that humanities  fosters 
creativity, but...so does life. 
It would be silly to think that without an advanced degree in  humanities 
we would be bereft of creativity. It's something that's FREE for  those that 
apply themselves. 
--------------------------- 
 
^ I don't think this is a problem with the article. It's  almost a 
corollary. Do not do a degree unless you genuinely want to learn more  about 
the 
subject.  
And if you think that a graduate degree in one of the "STEM"  disciplines 
is only about following procedures, with no creativity...I'm sorry,  but I 
don't think you understand how science and engineering research works. 

------------------------------ 
 
As a current MBA student I have had a very different  experience in grad 
school than the one described (may be more exception than  rule). I left a 
well-paid job in 2010 to return to school because I wanted to  switch careers 
and found that leaving work gave me the time and opportunity to  explore many 
opportunities that had not occurred to me previously. Unlike just  leaving 
my job to try new things, which ultimately would have looked somewhat  
flakey to prospective employers, I was able to gain this experience and build  
much needed skills (networking, presenting, finance and accounting acumen) 
while  gaining perspective that is much harder to come by when you can't remove 
 yourself from the day-to-day tasks of life and work. 

--------------------------------- 

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to