Americans no longer see four-year college degrees as worth the cost
(nbcnews.com)489 points by jnord 4 days ago
489 points by jnord 4 days ago
Illiterate incoming freshman are the product of the public middle and high school systems, not the university system.
For reference:
> Beginning in Fall 2022, the number of students placed into Math 2 began to grow rapidly. Math 2 was first created in 2016, and it was originally designed to be a remedial math course serving a very small number of first-year students (less than 100 students a year or around 1% of the incoming class) who were not prepared to start in our standard precalculus courses [...] In Fall 2024, the numbers of students placing into Math 2 and 3B surged further, with over 900 students in the combined Math 2 and 3B population, representing an alarming 12.5% of the incoming first-year class (compared to under 1% of the first-year students testing into these courses prior to 2021).
https://senate.ucsd.edu/media/740347/sawg-report-on-admissio...
These are students that even middling American public schools would have failed to pass from high school in decades past, or would have later failed to meet standardized test requirements prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
It so happens I went to high school in California. My math teacher mentioned how much interaction she had with the state universities, and also lamented the fact that universities offered remedial math courses. She felt that if somebody needed remedial math, they shouldn't be in a university; a junior college would be a better fit.
At the time it felt elitist, but now I agree with her. Yes, this example shows that the high schools are doing a bad job, but it's not clear to me that the universities should clean up the mess. There are other possibilities.
> Illiterate incoming freshman are the product of the public middle and high school systems, not the university system.
That doesn't matter for the op's point. Students starting from this base won't get good in 4 years.
I wish it were dubious. I recently worked with 11th grade Algebra 2 students in New Mexico and found exactly that, and worse. Most couldn't begin to do algebra because they couldn't do simple addition and subtraction. Out of a class of 24 there were two who were arguably ready for it. But everyone is moved forward anyway. I understand your skepticism because I was shocked by it. The teachers said it all went down the drain during Covid and has not recovered.
It must severely limit what they can learn in college.
If a university's administration overlooks a complete failure of the student selection process, it's easy to imagine that it may well overlook a complete failure of the professor selection process. The price of admission is also way too steep to wind up being the peer of mental 8th graders.
This is incorrect. It's 1 in ~50. Still bad!
8.5% of incoming freshmen place in Math 2. 25% of a class of Math 2 students could (EDIT: couldn't) answer 7+2=_+6
8.5% x 25% is about 2%, so 1 in 50.
The more important question is do they learn to solve it, fail out, or just get pushed through?
One of those is a bad outcome, but the other 2 are fine.
At my liberal arts and sciences college about 10 years ago my entry level biology teacher straight up said to the class that if people are having trouble with some of this math on the board to go home and learn algebra tonight.
You'd go to UCSD if you could solve that equation, and want to learn to do more. (If you can't solve the equation, UCSD is a very expensive way to learn how.)
I think the more relevant question is, why would you go to grade school and high school at institutions that produce graduates like that?
> why would you go to grade school and high school at institutions that produce graduates like that?
Do you not know how U.S. K-12 public schools are funded by local property taxes, which means the quality of a child's education is a direct causal relationship of the wealth of their neighborhood?
Why don't these children just grow up in richer neighborhoods?
Do you not know that the US is a Federal system and there are (at minimum) 50 different ways that schools are funded?
California's schools (for instance) aren't funded by local taxes, they're funded by the state and allocated funding based on a formula[1] of performance, need, population, etc. They can be augmented by local taxes, but in practice that's rare as the wealthy just avoid the system altogether; instead, opting for private institutions.
That's at least 12% of the population that is not funded in the manner you outline.
Equity remains a valid criticism of LCFF in California specifically.
For one unremarkable observation in this area, see the following think tank report:
> States often commission cost studies to establish the level of funding required to help students meet state standards. LPI analyzed five of the more recent of these studies [...] All of these studies recommended additional weighted funding to support English learners and students considered "at-risk," which was most often defined by a measure of family income and also included other factors [...] The recommended weights for English learners in these studies ranged from 15% to 40% of the base grant level in each state. The recommended weights for at-risk students ranged from 30% to 81%. Compared to the recommended funding in these states, the LCFF’s supplemental grant weight of 20% is at the lower end of the recommended range of weights for English learners and below the range of weights for at-risk students.
The quality of an education isn't proportional to the amount of money spent; learning is remarkably cheap if a school wants to focus on outcomes. There's a bit of give in where the teacher sits on the bumpkin-genius scale (although even then, the range of salaries isn't that wide in the big picture).
Although forcing the funding to go through a collective rather than letting people choose a school and pay on in individual basis would probably deliver a pretty serious blow to the quality.
Fear not - the American school system was built on and holds fast to the supposition that the affluent should be able to avoid any unwanted exposure to the problems of those less fortunate than themselves.
what does it add to the conversation? The fact that incoming UCSD freshman cannot solve the problem is being brought up as a failure. That this six year old can solve it does nothing to address the issue of UCSD students being unable to solve a problem that we all expect them to. It it as if you are a stoichastic parrot, bringing up a fact that, yes, it happens to be true, because it is nearby on some vector space. Hence the downvotes.
It may come across as bragging to some. You can decide if that is fair.
The fact that the student debt crisis is going on shows that colleges are not worth it. If it was, most would have been able to pay it back.
My impression is, unless you can get into a top X college, it isn't worth it.
This also depends on the cost of course. My university in Thailand back then was 1,000 USD per year, so that seems worth it, even tho it isn't in the top 20.
We need to spend so much on healthcare and education that we can no longer afford our wars and imperial misadventures
Doesn’t help when leaders are trashing it and classifying things as not “professional” to further put up more barriers to entry. Along with the constant attacks about them being indoctrination centers, pulling funding for being too liberal, or not pro-Israel enough, or whatever else this administration has officially been able to strongarm many institutions about.
Education in modern times is only about training and certifying workforce so that employers can easily filter the prospective employees.
If that training and certification can be made available via other easier means, that's the end of brick-mortar universities with grand campuses. The dinosaur has to evolve into a bird.
I dropped out after my university added various "studies" courses to the required list.
I took just one such course—gender studies—which was utterly abysmal. There was zero tolerance for debating ideas or considering opposing viewpoints. You either assimilated with the group think, or you were castigated for your heresy. It was indoctrination, not education.
I will give you an upvote to offset the negative expressions. I've heard of at least one instance at a very well known Bay Area university in such a class.
From what was described to me, and I trust this person to not misrepresent their experience, was that they were essentially told 'hi, cis white male, sit down and don't say a damn thing, this isn't your place to talk'. And then go on to essentially present a curriculum that was essentially a myriad of thinly-veiled misandry, compounded by extremely clear classroom rules/culture where any opposition was decidedly unwanted by the lecturers.
I'm the first to champion equal rights and equal opportunity, but that that sort of thing was going on in higher ed left a bad taste in my mouth.
When I see posts like this, it reminds me of when I went to community college. I was working towards an associate degree to transfer to a larger university which saved both money and allowed me to bypass some of the admission issues. One of the classes I was taking was a Gen Ed class around the philosophy of religion. I was an especially strong atheist at the time, and this class involved a well-rounded discussion and examination of religions from across the world as well as debates around our religious beliefs.
By the end of the class I had softened on my stance a bit (though still an atheist), and I saw multiple Christians get up, walk out of the class mid-lecture and never come back. Not all of them mind you, but a few of them took such great offense at the class even mentioning other religions that they left, and some really couldn't handle any sort of debate or discussion.
I have a hard time believing this story. You seriously dropped out because you didn't like one class? That doesn't seem to show much fortitude.
Which university, which year was this, what was your major, and what happened with your education and/or career after you dropped out?
And what precisely do you mean by "castigated," in your specific case?
> You seriously dropped out because you didn't like one class?
No. The university added other "studies" courses to my requirements that contributed to my decision. After taking gender studies, I knew I could not tolerate the other "studies" courses the university was suddenly demanding—which were not required when I first started.
> Which university
The University of Utah
> which year was this
2014
> what was your major
Computer Science
> what happened with your education and/or career after you dropped out?
I still have 8 classes left. Nothing happened to my career.
> And what precisely do you mean by "castigated," in your specific case?
One of our guest speakers was a man with autogynephilia—a man who derives sexual pleasure from dressing like a woman.
In a follow-up discussion, I committed the "sins" of referring to him as a man, and saying things like he is not a woman, and there are only two sexes.
My instructor and some students went scorched earth on me over these elementary facts. They made it quite clear that the only acceptable narrative was that, because he "identifies" as a woman, he is a woman.
This is just one example of the kind of "thinking" that went on in this course. I don't like it when I'm told what I must think. As I said before, that's indoctrination, not education.
> I have a hard time believing this story.
Why? It's all true.
> In a follow-up discussion, I committed the "sins" of referring to him as a man, and saying things like he is not a woman, and there are only two sexes.
Sincere question: Why were you not able to just think "Oh, ok, some people do this and feel this way." and then just move on? I'm not sure why these particular things needed to be discussed.
> One of our guest speakers was a man with autogynephilia—a man who derives sexual pleasure from dressing like a woman.
> In a follow-up discussion, I committed the "sins" of referring to him as a man, and saying things like he is not a woman, and there are only two sexes.
Now I definitely agree with the other poster that this sounds made up, or at the very least you are significantly embellishing the story in such a way to completely ruin your own credibility.
https://www-old.cs.utah.edu/docs/Undergraduate/UGHandbook_20...
According to the University of Utah Computer Science Undergraduate Student Handbook 2014-2015, "Students must take two intellectual explorations courses in each: fine arts (FF), humanities (HF), and social sciences (BF). Two of these six courses must be upper division – one should meet the diversity (DV) requirement and one should meet the international (IR) requirement" and "The diversity (DV) requirement can be satisfied by taking a course from an approved list as part of the intellectual explorations courses." So, there was only one required diversity course, from a list of courses, meaning that gender studies was not specifically mandated. If you took gender studies to satisfy the diversity requirement, it was because you chose gender studies, which seems like an odd choice, given your beliefs. In any case, you would not have to take multiple diversity courses.
> I still have 8 classes left. Nothing happened to my career.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. As a result of dropping out, do you not have a career in computing? Alternatively, did dropping out without getting a computer science degree not harm your career at all, and if it didn't, then why were you spending time and money ("I refused to spend another dollar of my hard-earned money") to get a degree?
In a later comment, you say:
> this was the beginning of why I personally no longer thought a college degree was worth the cost.
> sitting through courses where I was not allowed to openly debate the ideas being presented to me.
I'm confused here. For you, is the monetary value of a college degree to openly debate ideas in class? And if so, why did you major in computer science, as opposed to philosophy, for example, which is known for open debate of ideas in class, unlike computer science?
> My instructor and some students went scorched earth on me
Scorched earth is a metaphor. It's not in this case an accurate and informative description of reality. I suspect you just mean that you got criticized, which is exactly what you asked for: an open debate of ideas. The use of hyperbolic phrases like "castigated" and "scorched earth" does not make your comments plausible.
Which viewpoint did you oppose? It matters.
If it was "Women should be allowed to vote" I can understand the teachers reluctance to engage in debate.
> Which viewpoint did you oppose? It matters.
> If it was "Women should be allowed to vote" I can understand the teachers reluctance to engage in debate.
I was in a class like this at an elite school 3 decades ago. I was told by two other students that my role as a cis straight white male was to say nothing or validate what others said.
This was during a time that the core concepts of what is currently called DEI were being fleshed out.
My “sin” was asking whether certain research and data were being reported and represented accurately (they weren’t). The creative interpretations led to policy suggestions that were about 180 degrees from what the author intended. How did I know that? I knew the researcher and had discussed it with him directly.
That class was an absolute circle jerk, and it’s the kind of circle jerk that gives progressives a very bad name while being completely unnecessary (i.e., many parts of the progressive agenda have plenty of solid research support without wildly creative interpretations).
Anyway, the professor in this class was having none of it. He appreciated my questions. That said, half the class thought I was satan incarnate.
You may have had a bad instructor. I don't think I've ever been in a class where I couldn't do some genuine questioning, but of course I didn't always feel the need to do so.
Edit to add: Also, you failed to learn the lesson that you can't always quit in the face of tyranny. Did you never have a history or civics class in high school?
No. I had one that had something to do with anthropology though.
Peter Thiel seen rubbing his greasy palms together at this news. It wouldn't be surprising to learn that he somehow engineered this poll himself.
Thiel and his ilk are eager to shove the US back into feudalism, with themselves at the top like some kind of warmed-over Borgia family. An educated populace that is capable of operating a democracy competently is absolutely intolerable for them.
College is still worth it for maybe the top 100 schools especially well-funded state schools. Why? Because people still get hired based on such a connection alone. Think about Waterloo. It’s a mediocre school with a strong pipeline to SV. You wanna end up at SV but didn’t study hard in high school or just weren’t smart enough for MIT/Stanford? Go to Waterloo.
My kids will still go to a four-year university, but for the education and experience, not for any vocational aspirations. I have no delusions about the marketability of an undergraduate degree.
A happy side effect of that university degree was a more rounded education, which now many young adults will be missing out on. The downstream effects could be catastrophic.
> A happy side effect of that university degree was a more rounded education, which now many young adults will be missing out on.
Absolutely! So many people bemoan taking general Ed classes, but knowing the basics about economics, literature, science, art, math, history is valuable if you want to think critically about the world.
Teaching is a deliberate act, and it cannot be replaced by a Google AI summary.
>> but knowing the basics about economics, literature, science, art, math, history is valuable if you want to think critically about the world.
Sure if that is relevant to what your goals in life are. I chose to get an education that was tightly coupled with the outcome I wanted.
That’s kind of my point. Everyone wants to narrowly focus on what will bring them the most value as quickly as possible. Being educated in a wide array of subjects doesn’t seem useful at first, but it actually makes you a better communicator, and citizen.
Also, knowing a little about a lot of things doesn’t preclude you from being an expert in your field.
Agreed. Going to college for the social experience and for generally learning about the world is effectively a luxury good now. For people who just want a path to stable employment, the ROI on college no longer makes sense at all.
I think our society’s obsession with thinking of everything in terms of ROI is destructive.
I suggest they live in on-campus dorms, at least the first couple of years: a cultural broadening experience like no other.
Four-year anything is not seen as worth the cost, when every platform firehoses you with stories about people who became billionaires in 7 months.
Being long degeneracy [1] is the number one strategy right now
The pendulum swings. College was only for the elite. Then it slowly expanded until it got to the point of, “everyone should go to college, doesn’t matter what you study.” Now it’s swinging back. Hopefully we manage to get to a reasonable place and not go all the way back to college only being for elites.
Polls really need to start adding filter questions like "Do vaccines work?" "Did humans evolve from small mammals?" because some people not believing something works is actually a positive signal.
Are there problems in Higher Ed? Almost certainly. Are changes to the situation driven by the "vaccines don't work crowd" likely to make things even worse for everyone? Oh yes.
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/01/1058326127/wet-leg-tiny-desk-...
opening lyrics of first song
I think we, as a society, put way too much emphasis on everyone going to a four-year college and now everyone has a degree and they’re basically useless.
A lot of people would likely have been better off going to a trade school or going into a trade apprenticeship.
Parents should focus on helping their kids figure out what they want to do and developing a path to achieve it. The path may take them to university, a trade, or something else.
Capitalists have sucked all available liquid assets from the economy and are shocked-- shocked to learn what happens when people don't have enough money to buy non-essentials.
Look forward to an article like this about every economic sector every few months
Employers just hire experienced h1bs instead, they won’t leave after being trained, no reason to hire an American
Why is tech high paying exactly? Maybe low supply of qualified labor? Maybe that can be solved with qualified immigration? We can call such a program H1B, for example, and it would benefit the American economy overall at the cost of slightly reducing compensation fir the already extremely highly paying tech jobs.
> Now do the tech industry
Do you have numbers? If you don’t, the appropriate baseline is population.
And Americans leave because employers will just replace them with offshoring and h1bs to save money. It's a self perpetuating cycle. Loyalty goes both ways. Employees finally realized that they should be treating employers like employers have always treated employees. That's capitalism.
Oh good, I was worried this thread wouldn't have any anti-immigrant sentiment.
Trump could cancel H1B but most likely he won't. If for no other reason than as a favour to his billionaire friends. They are more important than the popular idea of America first, American jobs etc. here Trump literally says we need H1B because we need talent, and USA doesn't have the talent. Not a good look for a supposedly America first president.. https://youtu.be/U2XUNKcKtx0?si=GOFyMGxqUIbyGD6T
What's the point? You're either going to be replaced by AI or a robot (or both) anyway.
I encourage everyone to read how Economists think about education: Spencer’s Job Market Signaling paper.
https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/Spence.pdf
It’s not just about learning skills, but it’s a natural and rational mechanism to filter talents.
College is for partying. It is the right age to party, raging hormones and all that. Frats, sororities. It is the most fun/$. Escape out of parents control. Do what you want with whoever you want. Anybody looking for education is looking at the wrong place, most everything is available to self-learn.
College degrees now have negative value for hiring. A company wanting to hire a reliable and competent worker will avoid college graduates.
Seems like you’re hurting some feelings.
I’m a manager in a unique field where people come in with many educational levels. There is little correlation between educational credentials and job performance. A variety of previous jobs and having lived a few different places seems to correlate more with performance.
My comment is generalizing, as is the thread subject. It has been a downwards moving trend, and for young workers I will say that a college degree is now a negative factor. But that doesn't define the candidate.
Also: Any positive or negative effect of a college degree is either amplified or moderated by candidates self-selecting. A candidate who greatly values their college degree will seek out employers who do the same, and vice-versa.
Sure, get the high school dropout to build your bridge for you. See how well that non-traditional hire works out.
Becoming a Professional Engineer requires four years experience under the guidance of an already licensed engineer and passing a rigorous exam. No fresh college graduate is qualified to design bridges, same as the high school dropout.
This was the intended result in the 80’s when Reagan destroyed public college subsidies.
White rich people hated competition from poor and brown people. That whole even playfield thing was their nightmare.
Ask the rich families if college degrees are still important. You’ll get a different answer.
1 in 8 incoming freshmen at UCSD (a leading institution in the states) cant solve "x + 5 = 3 + 7"... Why would I pay 30k a year or whatever it is to get a degree from somewhere like that?