That doesn’t change the stats, since the stats are about those who completed college. I don’t disagree about the potential costs of trying, and failing, at college. I don’t think that dionisus1122 argued that, on the average, it’s better to have tried to go to college than to not go at all. I suspect that for the vast majority of those who tried and didn’t complete that they would have been better off skipping the whole thing entirely.
Which I think is true too. And if that is the case, how are we doing anyone a disservice by saying hey, there might be better options for some people than college and actually bringing those to the table. Because if this group would have been better off not going in the first place, then it was not, literally not, the BEST option for them to go.
Sure. But that’s historical data, since we already know they tried and didn’t complete. If we’re willing to look to historical data, there are statistically significant chunks that can be easily identified in both cohorts to argue against college: millionaires who didn’t do a lick of college and multi-degree graduates who economically failed at life. For either of those historical groups, obviously the statement that college is better isn’t true.
Again, the stats are this: those completing college, on the average, do better (economically) than those who don’t. I don’t think that statement is controversial, given the data.
I do think even those not destined for a 4-year college can benefit from things JCs offer.
Sure.
But they’re looping everyone else, including drop-outs right, in that “other” group. What if we took out the tried and failed because, well they did go just didn’t finish. How do they compare to say the trades…
I saw another throw away remark like well college is better than waiting tables or something, but that’s not the only option. Go to College or pump gas… there are other paths in there.
I highly suspect that they would be worse off. Again, I don’t understand your point once you talk about groups that history has proven out a specific outcome for, already. As I said, the statement that “college is better for MOST” is obviously wrong if you want to point to actual, failed college grads and actual, non-college beyond-the-norm successes.
Honestly, it just seems like you’re responding to a broad, statistical statement about the averages with “but it’s not true for this specific example of ”. You’re right, it’s not true for X. How does that change the statement to one that is false?
When you say that more than fifty percent who go to college drops out, that means more people are not making it than are. That is not a minor thing. And that’s before you look at the outcomes for the groups, like the Millenials, one of the most educated generations ever, and the situation that is happening right now. High debt, Low number buying houses. Questions about the ability to earn.
Her response makes sense when framed against the notion ‘college is the the best option out there’. Because it is true… for those that complete it.
However the number of people who go, but don’t get a degree, is non trivial. Which means that college is not flat out always the right choice. Which means that we, as a society, need to do better at incentivizing those alternate pathways for whom college is not the right answer.
You keep saying 50%, but that includes lots of metrics that give different reasons for failing out, such as Phoenix University and Community Colleges. For profit colleges have a retention rate of 29%!!
And then you control for acceptance rates. The schools that have open admissions (meaning anyone gets in) is 32%.
I call these numbers out because those schools are not setup to support students the same way. They are by design, going to be cheaper schools that don’t provide academic services, and disability services, and career services.
But the flip side of the coin is that you aren’t paying as much to fail out there. If you go to 4-year state school, you will pay around $30k per year (in-state. tuition plus room and board). That school is going to have a retention rate of 85% or above, and it will provide you all the services I noted before (plus many more). To your point, if you fail out of there after two years, then yeah - you’re out $60k! That is terrible! But the school is going to do everything it can to prevent that from occurring.
If you fail out of community college, over the same period, you are out $7k. That isn’t nothing, but it isn’t debilitating debt either.
That is why I don’t think you should be looking at it as a 50% of attendees drop out.
Also, just to add because I looked this up, if a student transfers from one school to another, the original school gets dinged on their retention rate while the second school gets zero credit for the retention. So, those folks who take care of some general electives at community college then transfer to a 4-year are artificially deflating retention rates.
My nephew finished a program which made him a licensed barber before he’s finished high school. Frankly, I think that’s awesome. He still intends on going to a nearby state school for college, but he’ll be able to work for a decent wage and have a career to fall back on if college doesn’t work out.
If most people should go to college than most college should be publically funded like primary and secondary education.
Right now college in the USA lies in the worst of both worlds of being “necessary” yet dependent upon your ability to pay. If you think otoh college should be reserved for the technical or social elite (ie STEM and liberal arts respectively) then there are too many students being pushed into college right now, since the dropout rate for all students nationwide is so high.
In an ideal world all college would be mandatory and paid for by the state, but that those whose skills were more trade could attend trade colleges and become journeymen in “hands on” skills that they could immediately employ in industry.
I totally agree. Public funding for college has been gutted the last 20 years. I would love for them to be free or heavily subsidized.
How much have University expenditures increased over the last 20 years? How much have University revenues increased? How much to administration? How much to teaching faculty? On a per student basis? What about expense per student for housing and food?
I highly doubt that the actual cost to house and teach students has increased over the last 20-30 years at anywhere near the rate of tuition inflation. And I doubt that state and federal funding has much to do with it.
This one I may see differently. The ‘manditory’ amenities required to draw donor dollars and high value students? They certainly play a role. Plus the increase in vanity funding over need funding.
Yeah the school got a nice big check, but the donor insisted on a nice top line new building with their name on it rather than systematic improvements to exiting infrastructure and buildings. Never mind all those features will include additional yearly costs!
Parents and kids do like to have tours of the dorms. the community colleges don’t have all that… extra stuff. The lack of funding in the state schools is also the reason why i suggested above that many private school may turn out to be “cheaper” for some students because they can get the “free” money that states schools can’t give them. This is not as obvious as it should be for those kind of navigating a bit blind.
Why do you doubt that?
in 2001, 29% of tuition covered the costs of higher education. After the .com bubble burst and we had a recession, that went up to 36%. After the Great Recession, it jumped to 48%.
In Colorado, where I work, tuition covers 65% of college costs (remember, the state pitches in 4% now)
There aren’t many people living fat off the hog in higher education. I mean, the higher levels do ok, but are really nothing compared to their equivalents in the private sector.
I will readily admit there is waste in the system, because colleges are large, decentralized bureaucracies, but it isn’t awful when balanced out with where corners are cut (salaries, for example).
As far as expenditures - again, I’m only going to look at my University.
in 2006 expenditures were $736mm ($920mm in 2019, accounting for inflation). The 2019 budget shows expenditures of $1.6bb now. So definitely a significant increase.
I don’t have a line-item by line-item breakdown, but so far the increases look like research, and big investments in Academic Support and Student Services - which makes sense with the competitive recruiting atmosphere and drive to up retention. I can think of multiple new student support buildings, so that makes sense to me that those administrative costs have risen accordingly.
If you care, you can look up the budgets of any public institution in the country. It is all wide open, and usually the schools are very good at making it accessible. You can even go review individual salaries (they have been anonymized)
Colleges seem like high-percentage staff cost, organizations. How much of the increases are the cost of employee health care benefits just passed on to the students?
Do you know what used to cover the lion’s share of the costs? Was gov’t funding like 50% back in 2001 and now shriveled to 4% for your university?
On costs, I’ve anecdotally heard that pension liabilities are a big part of the ballooning costs. Not sure how accurate that is.
State appropriated funding per student for public universities appears to have declined by 25% since 2000. Presumably that cost has been transferred to tuition.
It’s a longer-term trend, but I can’t find clear numbers. This offers an idea of the scope of the problem. Basically, states have decided to let students pay most of the cost of state universities directly.