A college degree is really an investment. I started out thinking the issue is might be one of tuition inflation, which I talk about later, over salary growth. However, even with tuition inflation a college degree is still a good investment from what I can see. ROI would be a good measure of the worth of the investment. This article talks about educational ROI. https://www.investopedia.com/advisor-network/articles/calculating-roi-college-education/ My exercise below makes me wonder about that 18 year number and how it was arrived at. It could be when loans are paid off on average, which could include people who default (likely those ones that started and never finished). Simple exercise using data from previous post with bar graphs salary median salary school cost over 40 years less education High School Diploma 718x52=37,336 0 1493440 1493440 Bachelor Degree 1819x52=94,588 160000 3783520 3623520 Formatting lost during posting. Sorry. Clearly a degree is a good investment. If I look at education as a 15 year mortgage (could only pick 15 or 20) of 160000, I come up with a monthly payment of $1350/month at 6%. Total of 243,031. It is still better to get a college degree. Relative to tuition inflation: https://www.marketwatch.com/graphics/college-debt-now-and-then/
I'm not sure if you are arguing for or against getting an education. That tuition rise is really killing that ROI you speak of.
The problem I have with some of those stats showing higher income from getting a degree is that these people would likely do better even without college. Not showing up in these numbers is the huge segment of people who were born into dirt poor families. You're basically looking at charts of the most well off segments.
I started out thinking that the cost of education might be the issue, but after running the numbers I made the following statement. Clearly a degree is a good investment. Essentially it doesn't appear to be significant enough to make the investment a bad investment. Thinking a little more about this and this goes to what has been mentioned earlier, the type of degree can make a big difference. A degree in Artic history costs as much as an Engineering degree, but the ROI is less, particularly if you end up working in the fast food market.
Of course, some people are better equipped for success. Does education make the man or does the man make the education? It's not clear if you went to college, but assuming you didn't, where would you have been if you did? If you are successful now, would you have been even more successful? I'll even go out an a limb and say you are probably an outlier like Mr. Wrye as a young expat entrepreneur living in the Philippines. Things like opportunity, timing, etc are very tough to quantify. How much of success is made and how much is luck. In the end, it's all about preparing for life and education is just one piece of that. Another piece is experience as you call out. The numbers say having both is the best path to success. It's hard to argue that an education hurts you and I've shown a good ROI. It's much easier to argue that not having one does. Statistically speaking the numbers show that a degree clearly has value. In the end, I think we just have different perspectives because we look at life through different glasses. What's right for most people isn't necessarily right for everyone. In many circumstances, a degree begets experience, so it's not really one versus the other, but the best way to get the experience. If I want to work for General Motors as an engineer it's going to be a lot easier with a degree. I could also start my own company and do some really cool stuff which also might get me there, but my money is on the degree.
Nobody should get a degree as an “investment” with ROI. That is not what academia is all about and any person who needs to be informed about that is not a good degree candidate anyway. My dad, with no degree but 2 years at Carnegie Tech, who put me through engineering school owned an electrical contracting company and he did much better than me until I was promoted to a senior level at IBM, but by then I was 47. But he did believe in the joy of learning. My brother, who was less gifted in math and calculus ended up working for my dad as an electrician’s apprentice, immediately making money, then a achieving much higher paid union journeyman and finally master electrician and he did much better than me too in my earlier years. Still, if I had to do it all over again I would enroll in the BS engineering curriculum at a good university. In my case, I enjoyed and still appreciate the scientific knowledge, I always liked having a professional career, not just a job “chasing electrons”. I enjoyed my work, never a drudgery. Plus you are generally put in responsible, decision making positions which, if you have never done that sort of thing before, gives you a great sense of fulfillment. I also realize that many people here do not appreciate any of this and see no difference between wiring a house in zero degrees temperature and designing circuits and supervising technicians in your lab, simply getting a “good” salary in excellent working conditions, and, most important, enjoying your work, employing your knowledge and developing products (in my particular case). Also, this is really no different than an art major except for less salary, generally. But if money is a person’s ONLY game, obtaining a degree is not for you. In fact, you should not go to a university and take up space where you might deprive some talented prospective engineer or other professional who is really interested. If money is your thing, by all means, get yourself RICH. The opportunities to do so in the Country I come from are unlimited. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Software is really one of the few sectors where proof of experience and one's capabilities is given easily by an individual, with or without any sort of degree. Show me your github account and I tell you what good a developer you are. That's how recruiters in this industry roll, for good reason. But it's a little bit quick to dismiss degrees in general because of that "anomaly". its much harder for a hardware engineer or chemist to come up with their own impressive side projects published for everybody to see and inspect. And it may well be impossible for a nurse or similar. I'd always encourage my kid to get any education and degree they want. The classic "job" where you learn something and do that for the rest of your life is dead. learning how to quickly acquire new skills is the only really important thing. And that's best practiced by doing just that.
Software would not be considered “academia”. Any script kiddie can show hundreds of lines of code, much of the scripts created by other people but the kid certainly knowing how to creatively implement them. Coding is a job, sometimes quite lucrative but certainly not something based on classical sciences. Bill Gates started windows by buying DOS from some young Geek who wrote an OS to run an Intel 8080 and then selling it to the new IBM PC business unit for mega-bucks, partnering with IBM until Windows was created. IBM thought windows was premature but Gates knew it was just what the people wanted and went off to market it himself, even though IBM was correct that it was way under designed for what the 80XX processors could do, such as running several programs simultaneously. For Hardware without a degree, Michael Dell is a great example. He manufactured computers in his dormitory room. Because of the resounding success of his business, he dropped out of college to create what was once the most successful PC company in the world. But the PC itself was somebody else’s invention. The success of Dell was founded on pre-existing hardware from Intel (processors), commodities already on the market: DASD storage (hard files, floppies, CD-ROMs), motherboards, power supplies, open architecture invented by IBM and improved upon by Compaq and HP, and Windows OS already on the market. Michael Dell was in it for the money and his company surpassed all the rest, not by use of any knowledge related to engineering but a new creative and DISRUPTIVE marketing technique ie not using the established channels but by building everything to order and selling direct. And for the longest time, Dell ate IBM’s and everyone else’s lunch but never coming up with innovations, just giving Customers exactly what they want and delivering within a few days after the order was placed. In all of these cases a classic university education would have been quite irrelevant. But there are not that many Bill Gates’ or Michael Dells’ around. The key to success is DISRUPTION, totally creating obsolescence of existing paradymes. IBM’s PC disrupted the mainframe; yes, IBM disrupted itself and nearly bankrupted itself in do doing. What a mistake! Meanwhile IBM essentially made everyone else rich INCLUDING their PC competitors, Intel, Microsoft etc..Apple’s iPhone disrupted the cell phone but more importantly, the PC. Apple had other major disrupters like the iPad which threatened to take out the laptop. That was after Apple nearly went bankrupt, almost purchased by IBM, but then Steve Jobs came back. People who can figure out how to disrupt existing highly successful industries become extremely rich. Google disrupted Yahoo. YouTube, disrupting cable TV? Facebook disrupting old time in-person social interaction. So many opportunities for our millennials. And the only thing a college education can do is make living their lives more worthwhile. Artificial Intelligence is next. Wow, hang on to your seats. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll refer you to Maslow's Hierarchy. Money is a means to an end, you can't eat it and it's not that comfortable to sleep on. Money is not evil. Using a financial terms to demonstrate why a college degree has value may be a little cold, but the fact is very few people are doing what they are passionate about. Money does not equal happiness. Not having to worry how you are going to your kids what they need is priceless. Passion is an interesting discussion. According to: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...is-passionate-about-their-jobs-300469952.html only 13 percent are passionate, so I like to add a little bit of reality to the fair tale. Bass fishing doesn't pay that well for most people. Heck, a lot of people if asked what they are passionate about would say things that have nothing to do with money or a job. There are lots of unhappy millionaires. By all means, go to college for something you have an interest in. I think most people do. Much easier to be successful following an interest. If it was all about money, we'd all be doctors and lawyers. I too have an Engineering Degree and I've worked for some very large companies like GM, GE and Boeing. I now work for a large IT hardware company. I like what I do, but I still call it a job. My customers are bleeding edge from a technology standpoint and do very interesting things. I'll leave it at that. Personally, it's more about being able provide for my loved ones and helping others when able.
Software development is an interesting example. I attribute that to it being a relatively new and dynamic technology. How many new languages have been developed over the last 20 years? The fundamentals behind Engineering Mechanics hasn't changed much in 100 years. I remember 20 years ago, high school kids that knew HTML could get $100/hr doing websites, then automated web development tools came out and supply approached demand reducing the profitability of such skills. I had a friend who would get trained in the next hot software (SAP/SAS/SF/Siebel) and make a killing for a couple of years, before moving on to the next big thing. Agreed, AI/ML is the next big thing, along with data lakes which feed the technology. Many companies are under going a digital transformation to stay relevant. As an example, how much data a car generates and what Tesla is doing with some of this data. https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/data-privacy-connected-cars-infographic https://www.colocationamerica.com/blog/how-big-data-drives-tesla