Is a College Degree Absolutely Necessary

[LiquidMidnight]

It's called capitalism. The extra effort a doctor puts into education is significantly more than the effort one expends to become a construction worker. Further, there are far fewer doctors than construction workers, and the service provided by the doctor is more critical and immediate than that provided by the construction worker, so society is willing to pay more money for that service.

Your assessment sounds a lot like "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" (communism). When the rewards of undertaking an ambitious career path are taken away, there's no reason to follow that path. I went to Russia in the '90s, and it was immediately clear why they were a virtual third world country. As our guide put it after I asked why nothing seemed to happen after 11:00 a.m., "The government pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work."

As a scientist and engineer, I made plenty of money in the last 25 years of my career. That's because people value the feeling of security that their structures aren't going to go sliding down the mountain or collapse during an earthquake. I certainly don't apologize for making more money than the bulldozer operators I saw on the job.

As for those poor pilots, they made choices just like the rest of us. There are a lot of pilots who pull down six-figure money. That's also as a result of choices they made. You can sit there and wish someone would give up money they work hard to earn to redistribute it to people who don't feel like working so hard, but you'll have more luck if you move to a socialist state and leech off them.

Growing up, my family had approximately zero money. I served in the Marine Corps in the late '60s (check Wikipedia to discover what was going on then) to get the GI Bill to help pay for my college education. After I got out of the Marines, I took 16 to 18 units a semester and worked part-time to get through college as expeditiously as possible. After all that, I am seriously disinclined to let some government wonk tell me I'm going to have to work for a wage he and his fellow wonks set for me, just so they can give some of my money to people who don't want to work for it. I already was paying over 40 percent of my income in taxes. If I was on your set salary, the wonks would have been getting a lot less money from me.

Regarding the rat race, I suppose you could label a productive life that way. For me, even as the leader of my company, I developed lifelong friendships with a large number of educated professionals who also didn't use "the rat race" as a cop-out, rather, they chose to make the world a better place through the work they do. Society likes that, and compensates them generously for it.

Finally, because of the choices I made in my life, I can and do have any gear I want.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, there are some issues. First, it's assumed that supply and demand of the labor market is inherently tied into an algorithm of the difficulty, education, and hardwork exerted by a person, which then determines his or her equilibrium price (i.e., wages). However, a pure competition market only takes into consideration the supply and demand of one's skills and how that value is added to the economy in pure quantitative terms, not whether that person busted his or her ass to get those skills. For an extreme example, if the market determined that for some reason, my feces was valuable, I could get rich for doing nothing more than taking a crap while someone who was a brilliant scholar with a PhD in literary criticism struggled because there was a lack of tenured track faculty positions and thus low demand.

Second, it's assumed that strategic HR processess are not considered or that strategic HR processess always want the most skilled employees. For better or for worse, sometimes strategic HR wants to get rid of the high performers, particuarly if they are highly experienced, because of legacy costs or for organizational change purposes.

 

[rakirksey]

For an extreme example, if the market determined that for some reason, my feces was valuable, I could get rich for doing nothing more than taking a crap while someone who was a brilliant scholar with a PhD in literary criticism struggled because there was a lack of tenured track faculty positions and thus low demand.

Have you listened to the radio recently ... I'm not sure your example is really that far off.

As far as Doctors, it's an artificially controlled supply. There are a fixed number of spots for Medical School and a fixed number of spots for Residence programs in various fields.

 

[Munjibunga]

Not that I necessarily agree with you, but its always good to get a reminder that behind that cryptic veil of one-line posts is a mind at work.


I've always thought that the inherent thrust of the argument (capitalism promotes go-getting, communism promotes laziness) could be the subject of a really wild experiment, since I'm not sure that the idea isn't based in anything more concrete than the societal conditioning we get from being raised in a capitalist nation.

Really, it'd just be another variant on the Nature vs. Nurture bit (which has shown itself to be a bit of a false dichotomy, but that's neither here nor there).

Education is a topic about which I am passionate. I sit on advisory boards for both of the major engineering schools here, and chair other advisory boards for pre-school education, and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). There is no doubt that education at every level not only increases the options open to the individual, but also improves society in general.

As far as capitalism vs. communism, as I said, I saw it with my own eyes. I went to Russia as a scientist meeting with Russian scientists. My first exposure to how poor their economy was, were the weeds growing out of the cracks in the runway of the airport at St. Petersberg. We saw countless structures partially completed with no one working on them and re-bar rusted beyond salvation.

One reason we "won" the cold war is that the Soviet economy couldn't generate enough revenue to compete in the arms race any more. Because they put such a huge portion of their GNP into arms, the people suffered, and it showed all over the country.

We were compelled to buy Rubles for any purchases we made in Russia, so we bought them on the black market at 20 rubles per dollar (the official rate was 6:1). The problem was that Russian merchants would not accept rubles from Americans. "Rubles is not money ... dollars is money" was what one merchant told me.

At the end of the trip, I still had about $40 worth of rubles left, and you couldn't take them out of the country. So as we were crossing the street in a tunnel, I saw a woman with a couple kids sitting against the wall, begging. So I gave her all the rubles I had left. She started crying, saying, "spasiba, spasiba (thank you)." As I walked off , I wondered what the big deal was. I figured out a little while later I had just given her about a half year's pay.

Bottom line, communism was the ruin of the Soviet Bloc. And no, I'm not a John Bircher. I maintain that, if you take away the profit motive, you take away the motive to excel.

 

[Kosko]

I agree with you greatly Munji as far as profit driven incentive is concerned.

I would like to question how you feel about a system where certain fields of education are heavily subsidized, just to get future professionals into the system.

For instance, allowing doctors, engineers and tradesmen to go to school for little cost (if they're doing well). So that we have a country of skilled professionals. But not subsidizing liberal arts degrees. I realize this creates a huge gray area, but it just seems like a way to allow the same opportunities to everyone, while what that person does with the opportunity is up to them.

 

[Munjibunga]

I agree with you greatly Munji as far as profit driven incentive is concerned.

I would like to question how you feel about a system where certain fields of education are heavily subsidized, just to get future professionals into the system.

For instance, allowing doctors, engineers and tradesmen to go to school for little cost (if they're doing well). So that we have a country of skilled professionals. But not subsidizing liberal arts degrees. I realize this creates a huge gray area, but it just seems like a way to allow the same opportunities to everyone, while what that person does with the opportunity is up to them.

I think it would be money well-spent, but I doubt the government would be able to administer the program without much of the money being siphoned off into other programs or pockets. Many private companies and foundations provide scholarships and grants to do what you're suggesting, but I wouldn't be opposed to a government program if I could trust them to run it.

Also, the fact is that many states, California included, already heavily subsidize college education. The actual cost of putting a student through school is much greater than the tuitions charged by the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU). Community Colleges are even more heavily subsidized. Back when I started college at SDSU, my tuition was ... hold your breath ... $51 (Fifty-one dollars) a semester. Books were about another 50 bucks.

Th U.S. is falling back in its leadership in science and technology. While we will graduate 50 to 60 thousand engineers this year, China will graduate over 300,000. India, about 150,000. Enrollment in engineering schools is dropping in the U.S., and fifty percent of our engineers are within 10 years of retirement. Some readers may be saying, "So what? What's the big deal about engineering?" Well, look around you. Every single thing you see had at least one engineer involved with its creation or existence, and usually more than one, or a team.

The CEO of a large bio-tech firm here says that most of their scientists are foreign nationals. They'll eventually take what they learn here back to their countries. An interesting side note: In China, there are more people in the top 25 percent of intelligence than there are people in the U.S.

 

[greekorican]

In China, there are more people in the top 25 percent of intelligence than there are people in the U.S.

I think that has to do with the fact that China has 1 billion more people in their population than we do. Sure, they might have more people in the top 25%, but they also have more people than we do that fall into the lower 75%. China probably beats us in any category involving population, simply because their population is enormous.

 

[Kosko]

I think it would be money well-spent, but I doubt the government would be able to administer the program without much of the money being siphoned off into other programs or pockets. Many private companies and foundations provide scholarships and grants to do what you're suggesting, but I wouldn't be opposed to a government program if I could trust them to run it.

Also, the fact is that many states, California included, already heavily subsidize college education. The actual cost of putting a student through school is much greater than the tuitions charged by the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU). Community Colleges are even more heavily subsidized. Back when I started college at SDSU, my tuition was ... hold your breath ... $51 (Fifty-one dollars) a semester. Books were about another 50 bucks.

Th U.S. is falling back in its leadership in science and technology. While we will graduate 50 to 60 thousand engineers this year, China will graduate over 300,000. India, about 150,000. Enrollment in engineering schools is dropping in the U.S., and fifty percent of our engineers are within 10 years of retirement. Some readers may be saying, "So what? What's the big deal about engineering?" Well, look around you. Every single thing you see had at least one engineer involved with its creation or existence, and usually more than one, or a team.

The CEO of a large bio-tech firm here says that most of their scientists are foreign nationals. They'll eventually take what they learn here back to their countries. An interesting side note: In China, there are more people in the top 25 percent of intelligence than there are people in the U.S.

Well stated Sir! You should probably run for office.

I think theres little incentive while actually in school to carry through with an engineering degree, they're tough and usually all male.

And this is coming from the slacker of the engineering degrees, computer science. People would try it, drop out to Digital Arts, then drop that for Communications. I mean the cost is the same across all majors, so theres no monetary incentive to being in a more difficult major (unless the student can grasp earning WAY more from a more valuable major).

I also find a problem with my generation entering the world with 20-50 grand in debt. Thats pretty much a down payment on a house (plus some). Its fine if you have a lucrative position, but thats difficult to pay back with a fine arts degree, or sadly, a music degree. These days I pretty much tell anyone going in to works towards a valuable skill, and that it will help open doors to that profession as well.

My father taught me an important lesson... everyday he would say it... "Do things that are congruent with your long term goals." Ie, don't work at a restaurant through college even though it'll make more than simple IT position at school. Best advice ever.

 

[rakirksey]

I think theres little incentive while actually in school to carry through with an engineering degree, they're tough and usually all male.

I don't know if I'd agree with this. I guess it depends on your other comment regarding long term goals. I graduated in Electrical Engineering, which was supposed to be the hardest, and my incentive was that I just needed to graduate with a 3.0 and I would come out making 40K minimum. This was in 1998.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Do you think there's a fear of engineering positions being outsourced to places like India, which results in less people taking an interest in purusing the profession as a career?

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Education is a topic about which I am passionate. I sit on advisory boards for both of the major engineering schools here, and chair other advisory boards for pre-school education, and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). There is no doubt that education at every level not only increases the options open to the individual, but also improves society in general.

As far as capitalism vs. communism, as I said, I saw it with my own eyes. I went to Russia as a scientist meeting with Russian scientists. My first exposure to how poor their economy was, were the weeds growing out of the cracks in the runway of the airport at St. Petersberg. We saw countless structures partially completed with no one working on them and re-bar rusted beyond salvation.

One reason we "won" the cold war is that the Soviet economy couldn't generate enough revenue to compete in the arms race any more. Because they put such a huge portion of their GNP into arms, the people suffered, and it showed all over the country.

We were compelled to buy Rubles for any purchases we made in Russia, so we bought them on the black market at 20 rubles per dollar (the official rate was 6:1). The problem was that Russian merchants would not accept rubles from Americans. "Rubles is not money ... dollars is money" was what one merchant told me.

At the end of the trip, I still had about $40 worth of rubles left, and you couldn't take them out of the country. So as we were crossing the street in a tunnel, I saw a woman with a couple kids sitting against the wall, begging. So I gave her all the rubles I had left. She started crying, saying, "spasiba, spasiba (thank you)." As I walked off , I wondered what the big deal was. I figured out a little while later I had just given her about a half year's pay.

Bottom line, communism was the ruin of the Soviet Bloc. And no, I'm not a John Bircher. I maintain that, if you take away the profit motive, you take away the motive to excel.

Again, the USSR was hardly a legitimate vision of communism, for a whole bunch of historic reasons which really don't do justice to the idea. You also have to factor in the idea that the Soviet Union was a world power, which necessitated the use of currency--not exactly a communist idea.

But yes, attempting to hold to communistic economic principles while being a world player didn't work out so well for them. That's why China's doing so much better than the USSR did--they're communist in name only.

I'd suggest that the profit motive is something we're imbued with at a young age, so the idea of doing work without a paycheck or payout as a result seems utterly alien to most people.

Of course, there's no real way to conduct this experiment, since you'd have to grow a pair of independent cultures--one with a utilitarian bent (i.e. we grow these crops so everyone can eat, he makes basses so everyone can hold down the low end, etc.) and one with a more traditional, ethical egoism viewpoint.

Also

An interesting side note: In China, there are more people in the top 25 percent of intelligence than there are people in the U.S.

Doesn't that make sense, given the relative populations of the two nations?

 

[Munjibunga]

But yes, attempting to hold to communistic economic principles while being a world player didn't work out so well for them. That's why China's doing so much better than the USSR did--they're communist in name only.

So does that mean there is no example of an economically succesful communist regime? Also, capitalism is the only economic system that produces a food surplus.

Doesn't that make sense, given the relative populations of the two nations?

Of course. I'm just sayin' ...

 

[Munjibunga]

Well stated Sir! You should probably run for office.

I think theres little incentive while actually in school to carry through with an engineering degree, they're tough and usually all male.

And this is coming from the slacker of the engineering degrees, computer science. People would try it, drop out to Digital Arts, then drop that for Communications. I mean the cost is the same across all majors, so theres no monetary incentive to being in a more difficult major (unless the student can grasp earning WAY more from a more valuable major).

I also find a problem with my generation entering the world with 20-50 grand in debt. Thats pretty much a down payment on a house (plus some). Its fine if you have a lucrative position, but thats difficult to pay back with a fine arts degree, or sadly, a music degree. These days I pretty much tell anyone going in to works towards a valuable skill, and that it will help open doors to that profession as well.

My father taught me an important lesson... everyday he would say it... "Do things that are congruent with your long term goals." Ie, don't work at a restaurant through college even though it'll make more than simple IT position at school. Best advice ever.

No offense, but there's some silly rhetoric in there. The reward for sticking out a tough major is the potential future income generated from that type of degree. A lot of people are coming out of school these days (well, maybe three years ago, but soon again) pulling down $60K or more with just a bachelor's degree.

Otherwise, I agree with you. Frankly, we're graduating too many communications majors (burger flippers) and park rangers.

It is possible to leave school with no debt. Just join the Marines, serve three years, get the GI Bill and unemployment, make hippie leather goods and you're set. Worked for me. My point is there are ways to get through school without incurring a lot of debt. My favorite is do extremely well in high school academically and/or in sports, and let the universities fight over who gets you. I hope my daughter does that but, in case she doesn't, I've set aside money for her education.

 

[rakirksey]

Do you think there's a fear of engineering positions being outsourced to places like India, which results in less people taking an interest in purusing the profession as a career?

It's already happening as far as I know, but mostly in the more menial areas of science and engineering.

The US still has the advantage in product design where many other countries only replicate what the US innovates, but considering the reduced supply of US engineers that won't continue forever.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

So does that mean there is no example of an economically succesful communist regime?

I'd say there's no example of a communist regime that was allowed to go unmolested by capitalist interests, so that's hardly a fair assessment- Chile's a great example of this, Guatamala's another.

In fact, there was a study done in the 50's by a conservative think tank (the name escapes me right now, but if you really want me to, I can dig it up) that determined that communist countries were a threat because of their disinterest in sharing resources--nothing ideological about it.

Capitalist interests (businesses) needed access to these resources, so the communists were molested.

Also, capitalism is the only economic system that produces a food surplus.

I'm not trying to deny the merits of capitalism (and it is also certainly the most efficient business system out there), I'm just pointing out that communism never got a chance to flourish, so we can't make any suppositions about its viability.

Of course. I'm just sayin' ...

Same here.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

It's already happening as far as I know, but mostly in the more menial areas of science and engineering.

The US still has the advantage in product design where many other countries only replicate what the US innovates, but considering the reduced supply of US engineers that won't continue forever.

I think that holding onto intellectual capital and proprietary information is going to help inoculate American positions, at least somewhat, from being outsourced. Knowledge workers have become a large part of our economy, but unfortunately, I think it's foolish that some people think that can sustain our entire economy.

 

[Surly]

Do you think there's a fear of engineering positions being outsourced to places like India, which results in less people taking an interest in purusing the profession as a career?

I work in the field, and it's a sad reality. However, I don't know of any job that is totally secure.

 

[fdeck]

Do you think there's a fear of engineering positions being outsourced to places like India, which results in less people taking an interest in purusing the profession as a career?

I think the decline in engineering majors started before the outsourcing boom. For some time, the "hot" major was Business. Universities added or beefed up business-related departments such as Marketing. Humanities departments were heavily marketing their degrees as being somehow germane to the business world as well.

Another possibility is the dumbing down of the math and science curriculum in schools. The decision to pursue a technical career such as a "hard" branche of science & engineering is made sometime in fourth grade.

 

[jasox]

Great to see that this thread is witnessing an overwhelming response. However, it is dismal to learn that many people have the notion of college degree as a bad investment. It is true that starting a career does not necessarily require college education. However, we cannot deny the fact that people having college degrees were the ones who were least affected by recession. Individuals enrolled in [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] that made them employable and ensured that they are invulnerable to recession. Also, it is a known fact that most in-demand occupations require a vocational degree and specific skills sets. Thus, to conclude, I would say a college degree is a worthwhile investment.

 

[IotaNet]

... Frankly, we're graduating too many communications majors (burger flippers) ...

Great discussion here and I agree with a great deal of what Munji has so eloquently stated about the value of a Degree. I do however, take exception to the "Communications Majors [as] burger flippers" statement.

My Degree is in Speech Communication/Public Relations. I got this degree on purpose because I wanted a career in Corporate Sales. I've been doing it for over 26 years and have made a very good living at it. You'd be surprised how much money can be made by being able to speak and write well -- especially in an economy/society where information exchange is the coin of the realm. (And just for the record, none of the companies for whom I've worked would have even interviewed me if I hadn't had a degree. Period.)

Don't get me wrong -- I have no issue with Science degrees. My Stepdaughter is an Aerospace Engineer and she earned it the hard way -- with a 4.0 in Mechanical Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon. We need those kinds of degrees from those kinds of folks too.

As far as I'm concerned, any degree is better than no degree. Mine is the best investment I've ever made.

 

[Pilgrim]

I was at a national conference last week in which authoritative speakers made these points:

- Boomers are starting to retire in big numbers, opening up good positions. Millenials are often under-qualified and under-trained. This problem will intensify over the next 10 years; those with degrees and experience are in a good position. (Conclusion: GET a degree and experience ASAP.)

- Georgetown recently did a study which indicated that 62% of jobs will require some college education by 2018, and more than half of all jobs will require at least a bachelor's degree. (Source: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2009)

I don't know what's hard to understand about this. Although there will be exceptions here and there, if you want a good job, having a college degree is a basic qualification - and it will become more important with every year that passes.

I would also like to support the positive comments (above) about communications as a field. There is a huge benefit to using the language well; many people have pitiful language skills (writing, spelling, etc.) and it hurts them. Communications graduates interview well, communicate with supervisors, co-workers and customers well, and succeed in many fields. I have often said that if you can't communicate what you know to others, your knowledge is largely irrelevant.