It’s been over 30 years since I finished my college education, where I majored in health-related fields. I found satisfaction in pursuing a long-held interest in medical science and saw how degrees in these areas were almost a guarantee of stable employment.
College was also enriching in other ways, as I enjoyed the bonding and identification that seemed to develop naturally, forming friendships that in one case has lasted a lifetime. The dorm roommate I had in the 1970s remains my best friend today, even though we live in different states.
In light of my experience, I have always accepted the common belief that higher education is not only the means to a secure financial future but also the pathway to fulfillment derived from developing talents and using them to make a contribution to the world. It makes intuitive sense, and there seemed to be no reason to question it over the years. Furthermore, my feelings were bolstered by what I read and heard in the mainstream media and from our political leadership.
Recently, however, I found occasion to look at another side of higher education that indicates the real story could be very different. While I still contend that the common view that going to college is worth the student’s investment holds true for a segment of the populace, I now think that this ideal should be tempered with a dose of realism for the broader population.
My exploration led me to question another commonly held belief that once seemed perfectly reasonable to me. The supposition is that subsidizing educational institutions at high levels is necessarily beneficial to society, as it leads to greater affordability and access to college educations for more people.
It came to me that the belief that subsidizing higher education at a high level to increase access is based upon two premises: doing so will enable the recipients of college educations to have better jobs, and a better educated public will spur economic growth. Therefore, so the story goes, making education accessible to more people will foster prosperity. Although these beliefs once seemed like no-brainers to me, I now wonder if they were based upon fiction rather than fact.
Some statistics from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity provided me with a grim reality check on the financial risks involved, reporting that half of the country’s recent college graduates are working in jobs that do not require a degree. Moreover, in 2010 the Bureau of Labor Statistics listed the specific occupations where large numbers of college graduates were employed, which included 317,000 waiters and waitresses, 54,000 telemarketers and 18,000 parking lot attendants.
I was beginning to get the picture. The jobs prospect for today’s graduates is far from the rosy outlook I had been led to believe. Indeed, individuals’ investments in higher education in today’s world seem like quite a gamble. While the gamble’s winners obtain jobs that enable them to pay off student loans within a reasonable period of time, an alarming percentage of graduates are not as fortunate. Those not so fortunate often have to settle for blue collar jobs, which makes them enslaved to their college debts.
One thing that likely skewed my previous view in favor of the benefits of higher education was my own college experience. Most of the people who made up my small undergraduate world were health majors. To get a realistic view of the overall value of college, it was necessary to consider the broad spectrum of available majors.
I discovered that one reason that college pays off poorly for so many graduates today is the popularity of non-marketable degrees. In addition, I found that degrees in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) may no longer guarantee a good job. It is a widely held conviction that a STEM degree is a ticket to a secure future because of the perception that our country has a shortage of these workers. I was surprised to find that this is not altogether true. Surprisingly, this is a myth. Rather than the workforce having a STEM deficit, in many STEM areas it actually has a glut. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the US has more than enough STEM workers available. More disturbingly, they discovered only half of college graduates with a STEM degree are hired into STEM jobs.
Continuing with my research, I have become aware of another education villain. Aside from non-marketable degrees and degrees that no longer provide security, colleges offer an abundance of frivolous and trendy courses. Disengaged students have an ample selection of what they refer to as Mickey Mouse courses, some of which are useless in the extreme, such as heavy metal music studies. I have no doubt that this substitution of fluff for rigorous, substantive courses does not serve society well.
What about the premise that subsidizing colleges at high levels to foster a better-educated public will lead to economic growth? This premise, like the first one, also seemed completely logical to me. But I came across evidence that appeared to contradict this commonly held belief, suggesting instead a negative rather than a positive correlation. Professor Richard Vedder of Ohio University put this assumption to the test by analyzing data on higher education spending and economic performance. While he expected his study to show a positive relationship, it surprisingly showed that the opposite is true: subsidizing higher education potentially leads to economic decline.
While Vedder’s conclusion startled me, some international comparisons corroborated his findings, lending support to the existence of this inverse relationship. Alison Wolf, author of Does Education Matter?, notes that some countries that have invested liberally in higher education, leading to a greater percentage of their populace obtaining degrees, have lagged economically. On the other hand, Wolf points out that other nations with strong economies have made little effort to make higher education more accessible to their people. She identifies Egypt as being an example of the first observation and Switzerland as being an example of the second. These studies suggesting an inverse relationship were fascinating to me because they diametrically oppose the public’s predominant view of the subject. Her study created further doubt about whether making education more accessible to the public causes a nation to be more prosperous.
My delving not only showed that subsidizing colleges at high levels fails to spur economic growth, but it also spotlighted the dichotomy that subsidization appears to have a detrimental effect on the quality of education. Making it possible for more people to get degrees appears to be a threat to academic integrity, as it has ushered in a general devaluation of the system. This greater access to college has led to an influx in disengaged students, which has resulted in lowered academic standards and inflated grades.
How so? Professors who wish to avoid negative end-of-semester faculty evaluations feel pressured into grading more leniently and making their courses less stringent. It is clear to me that the relaxing of standards to accommodate students who are not serious has made education less challenging for those with the aptitude and interest to learn more. I came to the conclusion that a college degree simply does not have the same value it had decades ago.
One by one, the beliefs I held about higher education seemed to be crumbling under examination. In fact, the further I delved into the issues affecting higher education, the more I came to realize that rampant misconceptions pervade this entire area and these delusions are deeply entrenched within the public psyche.
After finding that college may not be a good option for everyone, I wonder how viable the alternatives of on-the-job training and an associate degree are. In a projection of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the majority of the top 10 occupations expected to show the most growth over the next 15 years are those that do not require a degree, such as retail salespersons and customer service representatives.
As positive as this sounded, I found yet more good news. Not all jobs that do not require a bachelor’s degree are low paying. Kiplinger reports that 30 percent of high school graduates earn more than those with 4-year degrees. They cite the mean yearly salaries of several occupations that fall into this category, including commercial pilots at $67,000, insurance sales representatives at $46,000 and electricians at $48,000, along with manufacturing sales representatives at $41,000, telecommunications equipment installers at $54,000 and plumbers at $46,000.
At its best, I feel higher education can be a profoundly life-enhancing experience, stimulating the intellect, enabling accomplishment and opening doors of opportunity. We only get one chance at life, so it is wise to aspire to be the best we can be, seeking a livelihood where we can use our talents to their fullest. For some, a college degree is the means to this end. Yet I concede that it is not for everyone. I am now convinced that others are better served by pursuing these aspirations through alternative channels.
My advice for anyone contemplating college is to carefully weigh the alternatives of a degree. If you decide to proceed with college, examine your motivation in pursuing your intended major. Resist the impulse to enter a field merely because it is presumed to be lucrative, as expert projections can sometimes be wrong. Enroll in a course of study in which you have a strong interest, avoiding the obviously frivolous fields. Make your decision only after long research and thoughtful deliberation.
