Do We Need More College Graduates?
Should the United States try to increase the number of college graduates in the country? At first glance, the answer seems like an obvious “yes.” But some serious questions have been raised about the seemingly obvious. One set of concerns centers around the fact that on some reads the wage premium earned by college graduates has leveled out possibly indicating that the economy can’t put a larger number of skilled workers to good use. Another set of concerns focused on the idea that the wage premium may be purely a “sorting” effect — graduates get paid better because they have better underlying characteristics, not because going to college actually helped them. Paul Osterman has a paper out released yesterday by CAP that tries to delve into the empirical issues here in a rigorous way and concludes:
–The wage data do show that in the past several years the advantages of college relative to high school attainment have leveled off (although they remain substantial). However, there have been previous ebbs and flows in the wage data, and there is no reason to believe that in the long run the gains associated with college will disappear.
–Occupational projections suggest that employers’ demand for skill will grow over time, albeit at a modest rate.
–Direct observation of trends in work organization also supports the view that skill demands are increasing.
–The experience of graduates of the open admissions program at the City University of New York shows that a sudden substantial increase in college attainment did not depress wages, but rather that the graduates reaped substantial benefits. Perhaps more importantly, the children of the graduates also performed better over time.
–A comparison of the projected productivity gains associated with a doubling of the rate of college attendance versus the costs of such a policy shows that the increased attendance would be good public policy.
Long story short, increasing the proportion of Americans who graduate from college wouldn’t be the cure-all for inequality that some tend to suggest it would be, but the benefits of doing so would be substantial. Of course how to accomplish that is an important question on its own terms. You can see video of a CAP event discussing this paper and a couple of other new higher education releases here.
49 Responses to “Do We Need More College Graduates?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 13th, 2008 at 8:38 am
College education doesn’t matter – skills matter, whether acquired through college, the military or just old fashioned smarts.
The problem is with HR departments, whose denizens are loathe to hire people’s whose CVs don’t look like theirs.
In fact, given the price of tuition these days, one could even say that some universities are a scam that suck your money out of your wallet, and keep on sucking until you’re well into your 40s because of student loans.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:54 am
A continued investment in public universities would be a start, as they are the best way to impart the most knowledge to the most citizens at the most reasonable price. As calipygian suggests, many private universities are essentially a scam these days, whereby you accrue $35k+ per year in debt for an education that is in no way superior to that offered by a decent public university.
I dunno…public universities just seem like the obvious solution to me. Is funding a problem? Sure. But I would think that a forward-thinking state might look at the truly insane tuition rates private colleges are charging these days and realize that the time has never been better for state universities to compete directly with private institutions.
My suggestion: a massive affirmative action program based solely on income, through which low income students are provided affordable education, combined with a heavy emphasis on competing directly with “premier” private schools through the creation of “honors colleges” within the university system,and other mechanisms through which the best students could receive both advanced education and the kind of prestigious resume fluff that private schools purport to provide. For example, UMass Amherst has the Commonwealth College, which is an “honors college” within the greater university. There is no separate campus or anything…but it gives an additional layer of achievement for top students without a huge increase in costs.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I agree that shipping more kids off to college is not a cure-all. Calipygian is correct that skills acquired through apprenticeships, trade schools, military, on-the-job experience is what should really matter.
More thoughts here if interested.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I think we need more well trained plumbers, electricians, etc. Too many colleges are money pits where 18 year olds go to party for 4 years before getting a low level office job.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:00 am
1) Actually, the greatest public good would occur if the College Curriculum was greatly REVISED — so that our universities don’t continue to graduate the most fucking Ignorant people on the planet.
2) I think a democracy can survive only if its citizens are smart enough to throw a George W Bush off the stage when he says Sept 11 occurred “because they hate our freedom”.
Or smart enough to know that George’s $2 Trillion tax cut for the rich went to create jobs in CHINA, not the USA.
As well as a knowledge of the REAL WOrld, a little knowledge of business and entrepreneurship would also help.
3) But for that to happen, universities would have to act in the interests of their students — instead of working to turn our brightest minds into heavily-indebted wage slaves for the FOrtune 500 Rat Race.
Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:19 am
The U.S. will need more agriculturalists, farmers, agronomists, botanists, taxonomists, basic biologists and naturalists in the future than it will need MBAs, marketing majors and IT wonks.
The people who will best weather the first wave of the upcoming economic shakedown will be rural populations with a strong tradition of home gardening and canning, hunting and fishing, and basic home repair and restoration skills. All us Art History grads will slink diffidently to them for a few crappies from their buckets or some tomatoes.
In a generation or less, someone who can tell you why your bean plants are withering will be worth more than someone who can debug your laptop or set up an online shopping site or do your home office to feng-shui standards.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I partly agree with JMarra, except that survivalists have a saying: “Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who don’t”.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Let us not forgot us poor unfortunate souls with more than B.A. that can’t get a job after a six month search (in education, no less!). An untold story is the abysmal placement rate for first year teachers – 4.4%! This is even worse in the Midwest where I was destined to start my teaching career. Consistently I have been lauded for my great resume and performance in interviews but have lost to those with classroom experience. I feel as though I am in a Hamilton College (now Kaplan University) commercial. I’m heading to a temp agency!
The competition is great and it is easy for those with jobs already to encourage more college grads, but the truth is, there isn’t a lot of places for us in certain fields to go. I agree with the need for more trade/skill workers – or at least a need for education to take these trades seriously. If only I had gone into electrical engineering like my father said… Sorry/thanks for the rant.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:38 am
This post is an example of why I love this blog
August 13th, 2008 at 9:44 am
A lot of American eighteen-year-olds need two years of junior college just to have a barely adequate education.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:49 am
In that case, yours truly may end up plowing for a 21st century Hatfield or McCoy. Hoe them rows, girl.
I’m constantly reminded of the situation immediately after the South fell in the Civil War. Many newly “freed” black slaves were imprisoned under relentless, hateful Jim Crow laws at Parchman Farm. Some survived the deathly conditions, most didn’t. I have a feeling we’re going to see more Parchman Farms in our future, perhaps called ICE Farms.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Maybe what’s needed is fewer college students majoring in useless majors like philosophy.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Part of the problem is that this argument never made a lick of sense:
One set of concerns centers around the fact that on some reads the wage premium earned by college graduates has leveled out possibly indicating that the economy can’t put a larger number of skilled workers to good use.
To figure out if the supply of college graduates was in equilibrium with demand, the point you would be looking for is not a level wage premium. Rather, the point you would be looking for is something like when the expected lifetime wage premium for college graduates (adjusted to NPV) was equal to the total cost of becoming a college graduate (and in a sophisticated version of this, you would include all externalities). In other words, you are looking for the price for college graduates to equal the marginal cost of producing an additional college graduate, and a level wage premium does not answer that question.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Maybe what’s needed is fewer college students majoring in useless majors like philosophy.
I’d rather some of that course load (ethics and logic for instance) be implemented in high school and earlier. Philosophy is a useful discipline for living one’s life and for citizenship, if not necessarily employment. Being able to put together a cogent argument, to weigh facts, and logically refute the arguments of others is not a bad skill to have, especially in situations like the one mentioned by Don Williams in post five (i.e. “they hate us for our freedom”).
Then again, we can’t even seem to fund physical education programs, much less what I want, so…
August 13th, 2008 at 10:39 am
This is kind of a shot in the dark, but I believe the next wave of social-service jobs will now reside in care of the elderly. Not only the frail elderly needing custodial care, but in active elderly people who will want the services of teachers, social workers, companions, and other high-touch occupations (which cannot be outsourced).
Perhaps the only work-around available, and perhaps not as lucrative, but it may be where the only jobs are. I work with seniors now (sans degree of any kind) and I know there are many niches to fill by people who have a liberal-arts or social work degree. Even an Art History major with some ability to speak before a group can make money doing presentations to people at Elderhostels.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:42 am
To back up Josh R., I also think college has purposes in addition to improving one’s economic prospects, and some of those are of benefit to society as well. Liberal arts majors can be high in value in those senses, even if they are only indirectly beneficial in the economic sense (although in my experience being good with logical reasoning, analyzing written texts, and producing written material can be a pretty useful set of skills in the purely economic sense).
August 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Actually, I think “useless” majors like philosophy is EXACTLY what a university degree is for.
Skills that don’t require a university degree, like “hospitality management” or other made up, bullshit degrees are what’s killing the four year degree. It used to be that if you wanted to get into “hospitality management”, you worked behind the bar at an event or the front desk and worked your way up over the years, earning experience.
Now you get a degree from Ohio University in some fake, made up discipline and STILL end up behind the front desk, while the University collects tuition and fees and the loan companies collect interest on your student loans.
University needs to be an elite place for pure thought and research, or complex professions like engineering or medicine.
Every thing else, including law and business, is trade school.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Maybe what’s needed is fewer college students majoring in useless majors like philosophy.
For those who didn’t get the joke, SLC was mocking MattY, who majored in philosophy.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I have an accounting degree from a major state university. No doubt all those courses have been useful. But the really important courses were in math, science, philosophy and literature. The point of an undergraduate higher education is to develop critical thinking skills which can be widely applied.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Breeding faster than high paying job creation/service industry(?). Outsourcing. We’re “stupid” internationally.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Perhaps I should amend my statement about the uselessness of a major in philosophy. I have no problem with somebody majoring in engineering, chemistry, physics, computer science, etc. taking a course or two in philosophy. In fact, it’s probably a good idea. The issue is majoring in it, which I consider to be a waste of time and educational resources.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
A problem with calling for more college graduates is the disconnect between the ends–college graduates–and the means–programs aimed at getting student into college. Put simply, getting into college doesn’t mean you’ll graduate. And of all possible outcomes, spending money on college without getting a degree is the worst possible, leaving students with the same job prospects as those with a high school degree, but adding large amounts of debt to the equation.
So I think the real thing to worry about is creating programs that push students into college before they’re ready to succeed while in college.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
SLC,
But what if the subject matter of engineering, chemistry, physics, et al would be mostly irrelevant to your future career?
For example, I’d bet a lot of Philosophy majors end up in law school. Pre-law majors are not always offered, and there is little evidence that majoring in Pre-law helps much with law school or a legal career anyway. Basically, for future attorneys college just serves the purpose of building up critical reasoning, reading, and writing skills, and Philosophy is as good a major for that purpose as any, and better than some. In fact, some of the subject matter of Philosophy is actually relevant to legal subjects (e.g., a lot of criminal law is informed by various moral theories).
So what would be the benefit to insisting on future attorneys majoring in Physics instead of Philosophy? Seems rather like a “waste of time and educational resources” to me.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Re DTM
1. One of the problems in this country is that there are too many lawyers already.
2. Actually, a putative lawyer might be better off majoring in a scientific discipline, considering the increasing importance of scientific testimony in jurisprudence (e.g. DNA evidence). Just as an example, Scott Peterson might not be on death row in California if his attorney, Mark Garagos, had had enough scientific expertise to competently cross examine an expert witness concerning how far along in development Mr. Petersons’ child was when it was found along with his ex wifes’ body. Most experts who have commented on the expert witness’ testimony have said that it was total rubbish but that Garagos’ cross examination was incompetent. One can only wonder where Mr. Peterson would be if the cross examination had been conducted by attorney Barry Scheck (Dennis Fung anyone).
3. It is my understanding that most putative lawyers major in subjects like English, History, Political Science, etc., rather then Philosophy.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
The average American college degree is worth about the same as a high school education and the freshman year elsewhere.
The institutions now make big money from graduate degrees, where there’s less in the way of tuition support and fees that add up to the cost of a house. Except that plenty of professions that require graduate degrees have a very limited range of employment options that will ever pay back the tuition loans. The psychologists at the VA counseling returning Iraq vets with PTSD might be on $60k a year, but a fifth of that will go into loan repayments.
Nan Mooney’s (Not) Keeping Up With Our Parents talks about this. There’s a good interview with her at Salon.
And calipygian’s right that the transformation of the apprenticeship into a pseudo-vocational degree course is part of the problem. There’s also an obvious flaw in SLC’s argument: I don’t know the precise data on how many hard science majors end up as accountants and lawyers, but based upon what my friends who took phys/chem/bio are doing, I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s comparable to the number who become research scientists.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Since SLC’s . The NYT has a piece yesterday on the idiosyncratic partisan expert witness model in US courts. Having more science-major lawyers and judges doesn’t change that. It’s just the attempt to rationalise a personal prejudice.
Shoe-horning apprenticeships into degree courses is a different matter.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
SLC,
Taking your points in turn:
(1) Then why are lawyers paid so much? It actually is easier to make the case that we have too few lawyers rather than too many lawyers, largely thanks to various efforts by existing lawyers to raise barriers to entry (basic guild economics).
(2) It is extremely unlikely that most litigators would be able to get significant and relevant technical expertise for more than a tiny fraction of their cases through any given college major, and of course many lawyers aren’t litigators anyway. The only lawyers who really incorporate a particular technical background on a regular basis are patent attorneys, and for them there is in fact a technical background requirement (for admission to the patent bar).
(3) As an aside, I would note you originally named technical subjects like engineering and hard sciences, but now you are listing other liberal arts subjects. Anyway, the ABA lists History, English, Philosophy, Political Science, Economics, and Business as “major[s] in subjects that are considered to be traditional preparation for law school.” So, yes, English, History, and Political Science are on their list, but so is Philosophy. Which makes sense–all of these majors are going to involve some relevant subject matter and the generally-acknowledged benefits of a liberal arts major–but Philosophy no less so than the others.
Finally, I happen to know that Philosophy/Religion is the second-highest major grouping by average LSAT score (#1 is Physics/Math, and #3 is Economics). Now obviously it isn’t clear from that ranking that majoring in Philosophy is necessarily providing good training for law school, but at a minimum it suggests there are common skills involved. Which again is quite obvious.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Do We Need More College Graduates?
Even though my generic answer is yes, any policy to this end should not, and cannot, be separated from the fact that something on the order of 25% of students don’t graduate high school, even when given five years. So obviously, any program to increase college attendence will be less than useless to this (alarmingly substantial) group of people.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Re DTM
1. The reason that lawyers are paid so much is that there is so much litigation in this country. Observe what percentage of the members of Congress and state legislatures are lawyers. The lawyers write the laws so that only other lawyers can interpret them. The number of lawyers in this country, compared to the population, is far larger then any other country in the world. As radio talk show host Bruce Williams puts it, we are a litigious society.
2. Mr. DTM apparently has a reading comprehension problem. I listed the college majors that currently supply the bulk of the entrants to law schools. I contend that we need more attorneys with a science background and fewer who majored in history.
3. Mr. DTM apparently hasn’t been paying attention to ongoing litigation in US courts. The use of scientific expert testimony is pervasive in a number of areas, for instance criminal cases, product liability cases, paternity suits, etc. The fact is that the ability of an attorney to effectively cross examine an expert witness is ofter the difference between winning and losing a case (don’t believe it, just ask Scott Peterson and O. J. Simpson).
Re pseudonymous in nc
The NY Times article is absolutely correct and accurate. However, that’s the system we have and until it is changed, that’s the system that attorneys have to work with. Under that system, it is imperative that an attorney be able to effectively cross examine an expert witness, whether for the prosecutor or the defense. That ability can make the difference between winning and losing. Scott Peterson sits on death row because of the inability of his attorney, Mark Garagos to effectively cross examine an expert witness. O. J. Simpson spends his time on the golf course, in part, because of the number one of his attorneys, Barry Scheck, did on LA criminalist Dennis Fung. We need more Barry Schecks and fewer Mark Garagos!
August 13th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
JMarra–brilliant comment–”In a generation or less, someone who can tell you why your bean plants are withering will be worth more than someone who can debug your laptop or set up an online shopping site or do your home office to feng-shui standards.”
Watch for a new book in the works entitled “Myth of the Information Age”
August 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
SLC,
(1) A relatively large amount of litigation would indeed create a relatively large demand for lawyers, but to get such high prices for lawyers, you need supply to be limited relative to demand. So while it could make sense to complain that there is too much litigation in our society (although I think people aren’t always thinking carefully about the alternatives), nonetheless relative to the amount of litigation we actually do have, there appears to be too few lawyers competing to meet that demand. Which again is precisely what one would expect in a guild situation.
(2) I think you swapped this for point #3. Anyway, I’m now not sure if you are trying to contrast other liberal arts majors like History with Philosophy or not, and if not then I don’t understand the point of your original claim #3.
(3) Again I think this is a response to original point #2. Anyway, I am well aware that scientific and technical experts are important in many instances of litigation. My counterpoint was that not all lawyers are litigators, and moreover that even with litigators, a particular college major might not be relevant to the scientific and technical issues in a given case. Indeed, there are experts who have specialized in particular issues that tend to crop up in various sorts of legal cases, and the odds of your college major having well-prepared you on those particular issues are quite small.
Which is why in fact if you are a litigator, you would never, ever, think you could effectively counter an expert witness with whatever you happened to learn in college. You would instead get your own expert, because a college major in some likely unrelated scientific or technical area does not an expert make.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Re DTM
1. My sister is an attorney in California and a graduate of the Santa Clara Law school. One year after her graduation, 1/2 of her graduating class who had passed the bar had failed to find a job with a law firm. This in California which has the toughest bar exam in the nation.
2. Mr. DTM is quite right that a litigator has to provide his/her own experts in a legal action. However, the attorney still has to cross examine the other sides experts and a background in science is invaluable in doing so effectively. The more damage an attorney can do to his/her oppositions’ expert witnesses on cross examination, the more likely it is that his/her own experts will be credible. The cross examination of Dennis Fung by Barry Scheck in the O. J. Simpson case is used in a number of law schools to demonstrate to students the art of cross examination. The damage that was done to Marsha Clarks’ case by the dismemberment of Dennis Fung was incalculable. Judge Ito remarked to one of the attorneys in the case that in all his years as a prosecutor and judge, he had never seen a witness so completely discredited.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
SLC,
(1) Do you think that is inconsistent with the view that the American legal community has created high barriers to entry? It is actually confirmation.
(2) I’m also not denying cross-examination is important in litigation. Once again, my point is that many lawyers are not litigators, and in any event any particular college major will not be substantially relevant to most cases. That will be part of your own expert’s role: to prepare you for an effective cross-examination.
And in fact, it occurred to me it might be interesting to look up Mr. Scheck’s college major, since you are relying so heavily on that particular example. It turns out he majored in American Studies and Economics at Yale.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Re DTM
1. Does Mr. DTM think that bar examinations should be eliminated and that anybody should be allowed to practice law?
2. Relative to Mr. Scheck, it is my information that he took a number of science related courses while at Yale and also as a law student at UC Berkley. In addition, one of Mr. Simpsons attorneys, whose name I cannot recall, has a degree in physics from Cal Tech.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
(1) I think the bar exam as it stands is poorly designed to select for legal competence and I would favor changing it significantly (by the way, for what it is worth I did very well on the bar exam, but I still think it is poorly designed). I also think the JD should be a two year degree, and we should revive the apprenticeship alternative to the JD (meaning you could take the bar exam and get admission to the bar without a JD after training in place with a licensed attorney).
But the fundamental problem is the guild nature of legal practice, meaning tight control of admissions to the profession by existing professionals. As long as that is true, they will find ways to restrict supply. What you really need is non-lawyers regulating admissions to the profession, but that is not an easy thing to achieve since lawyers are in control of the government.
(2) I’m all for requiring everyone who goes through college to take some science courses. But now we aren’t talking about majors anymore.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 11th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:55 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 4:12 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 11:10 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
viagra