generation limbo: 20-somethings today, debt, unemployment, the questionable value of a college education

they don't have to,they could be rappers, or noise bands, or musical theater dudes, I mean the world is your oyster without student loans

you could become a dockworker!

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/can-the-middle-class-be-saved/8600/?single_page=true

still making my way through this article, not exclusively about college grads but does contain this

The return on education has risen in recent decades, producing more-severe income stratification. But even among the meritocratic elite, the economy’s evolution has produced a startling divergence. Since 1993, more than half of the nation’s income growth has been captured by the top 1 percent of earners, and the gains have grown larger over time: from 2002 to 2007, out of every three dollars of national income growth, the top 1 percent of earners captured two. Nearly 2 million people started college in 2002—1,630 of them at Harvard—but among them only Mark Zuckerberg is worth more than $10 billion today; the rise of the super-elite is not a product of educational differences. In part, it is a natural outcome of widening markets and technological revolution, which are creating much bigger winners much faster than ever before—a result that’s not even close to being fully played out, and one reinforced strongly by the political influence that great wealth brings.

Recently, as technology has improved and emerging-market countries have sent more people to college, economic pressures have been moving up the educational ladder in the United States. “It’s useful to make a distinction between college and post-college,” Autor told me. “Among people with professional and even doctoral (degrees), in general the job market has been very good for a very long time, including recently. The group of highly educated individuals who have not done so well recently would be people who have a four-year college degree but nothing beyond that. Opportunities have been less good, wage growth has been less good, the recession has been more damaging. They’ve been displaced from mid-managerial or organizational positions where they don’t have extremely specialized, hard-to-find skills.”

College graduates may be losing some of their luster for reasons beyond technology and trade. As more Americans have gone to college, Autor notes, the quality of college education has become arguably more inconsistent, and the signaling value of a degree from a nonselective school has perhaps diminished. Whatever the causes, “a college degree is not the kind of protection against job loss or wage loss that it used to be.”

Without doubt, it is vastly better to have a college degree than to lack one. Indeed, on a relative basis, the return on a four-year degree is near its historic high. But that’s largely because the prospects facing people without a college degree have been flat or falling. Throughout the aughts, incomes for college graduates barely budged. In a decade defined by setbacks, perhaps that should occasion a sort of wan celebration. “College graduates aren’t doing badly,” says Timothy Smeeding, an economist at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on inequality. But “all the action in earnings is above the B.A. level.”

from the same article, re: degree creep

All of that said, the overall pattern of change in the U.S. labor market suggests that in the next decade or more, a larger proportion of Americans may need to take work in occupations that have historically required little skill and paid low wages. Analysis by David Autor indicates that from 1999 to 2007, low-skill jobs grew substantially as a share of all jobs in the United States. And while the lion’s share of jobs lost during the recession were middle-skill jobs, job growth since then has been tilted steeply toward the bottom of the economy; according to a survey by the National Employment Law Project, three-quarters of American job growth in 2010 came within industries paying, on average, less than $15 an hour. One of the largest challenges that Americans will face in the coming years will be doing what we can to make the jobs that have traditionally been near the bottom of the economy better, more secure, and more fulfilling—in other words, more like middle-class jobs.

also cards on the table i am a liberal weenie type who would like everyone to go to college for the sake of going to college, what is the point of living in the richest and most technologically complex society on the planet if were not at least making the effort to give everyone the tools to talk about good books

I think this is true, but there's no reason it has to be done using today's college education structure. I mean we're operating w/ a basic model that's been around for centuries (okay it's a lot different today, but we've inherited the overall structure), not because it's the best of all possible ways to teach 18 year olds how to talk about books / create signals for the job market, but more because...well, it's there. in 2011 it still gets the job done. a BA is still a good investment, overall, I agree. but if you look at the trends w/r/t cost, value, risk - I don't think our current system is on a sustainable path. the best comparison is w/ our health care system.

another old blog post by the same author:

http://www.quickanded.com/2010/08/uc-world.html

basically the problem w/ online education today is that it lacks rigor, post-degree signaling, and it's mostly run by evil for-profit companies. but can you, in theory, get the equivalent of a *college education* online? absolutely. (this is harder w/ science and lab courses, but I suppose some institution could create a private lab an online student could go to.)

but basically, if college is just about 'learning how to talk about good books', there's no reason why we can't create a cheap, scalable way for people to learn the same stuff.

yes i agree with all of that!

"but can you, in theory, get the equivalent of a *college education* online? absolutely"

stomach flu worse today so p much all I can manage is "lol"

evidence-less techno Utopianism

I mean it's coming but the point is that it's gonna be shitty, cheap but shitty, & we'll make big money off it & maybe it'll be good enough for a lot of shitty white-ish collar work but that's not the Dewey dream & im gonna put my stake in that dream over further cheap atomized memorization in order to serve the ruling class

yeah I'm sure you can get one kind of college education through online services, but will it be equivalent to the traditional idea of a college education? by what metrics will you measure this?

what's the evidence that our current system is actually working when it comes to giving someone 4 years of education? it appears to be performing worse than ever:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/18/study_finds_large_numbers_of_college_students_don_t_learn_much

45 percent of students "did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning" during the first two years of college.

you don't think an online model can compete with...this?

well I guess that depends on what your goal is - to outperform middle of the pack 4 year colleges, or to approximate the kind of education offered at a top tier school

Theoretically this is possible, because the technology is there but

a) the interaction between students/student-and-teacher will always be mediated, and
b) the price will be roughly equivalent to traditional school b/c the model for 'quality education' will always be plain ol' college, not some other (better, more equitable and Dewean ideal) system of learning and dissemination of material
c) an online degree of any merit whatsoever requires roughly the same amount of attention and ability from professors, TAs, and adminstrative staff.

So there is an argument to be made about accessibility and customizability of a degree done online, and its but if it's done correctly it is neither cost-saving (at least for labor and materials) nor time-saving.

also not sure how an online model would ever replicate the social aspect of college, which is not really easy to quantify!

I'm involved in the tests they're talking about; we're implementing the collegiate learning whatever this year. It tests skills that ought to have taught in elementary school (crit thinking etc). Let's work on stuff there! and in pre-k

also I read ilx & see how seriously a decently smart community took college, imagine what others are like. A lot of people aren't ready for college at 18

like should we just dumb things down? What's the point?

or to approximate the kind of education offered at a top tier school

Why would you need to do this for people who otherwise might not go to college at all? A much less rigorous level of direction toward thinking/reasoning/critical skills would be just fine, probably. This is not a slur. People who get their livelihood by learning a trade are not also at the same time going to be the nation's foremost scholars. If they're using an online method, it doesn't have to approximate the offerings of an ivy or something.

fwiw i've taken a few classes on line and they were - save one - uniformly terrible. mostly, subject-area professors are pretty unsavvy, conservative, and old-fashioned in their computer usage, and schools don't want to invest in the video technology that would make online tutoring/mentorship/discussion actually useful. the one valuable online class i took involved weekly skype check-ins with the professor, t.a.,; streaming video lectures with online chatting & question submitting, a lively discussion board, and a lot of free resources (.pdfs) provided inline in the course framework.

well I guess that depends on what your goal is - to outperform middle of the pack 4 year colleges, or to approximate the kind of education offered at a top tier school

online university doesn't need to complete with harvard. most of the country goes to middle of the pack 4 year colleges - outperforming and underpricing that model would be enough.

xp iatee otm.

To remy: I'm not saying the tech or the methodology is there right now, you're the expert on this stuff! But even for a hypothetical future.

Fwiw I went to an expensive-ish liberal arts school, hated it, hated my classes, took a bunch of crap that I don't remember because I didn't have any framework to put it in because I grew up in a box where we didn't even watch the nightly news because it showed sensationalistic, violent, depressing stories. I needed another LIFETIME to grow up before I went to college. Would have been better served by working some low-level job and just living.

as noted in the article, the keyword is rigor. if an online unversity program is *very hard* it'll be a the path towards gaining respect, esp when getting a generic BA from local U is easier than ever.

be on the path

for sure, laurel.

I also think it's interesting that word 'rigorous' is currently so very loaded in elementary education. In my experience 'rigorous' is a cipher for 'quantifiable STEM and LA knowledges and discrete skills and abilities' as opposed to the more holistic, vocational, child-sensitive, broad-based, social science and socially/artistically inclusive curriculum that would actually be more valuable to pretty much everybody. Obv. I'm not parsing your use of 'rigor' that way, but even if I do I think the point stands that 'rigor' is much less important than whole-child education.

STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. Education is full of the most absurd acronyms.

ok laurel - but if you argue for a less rigorous, online approach, what separates that from phoenix university?

basically I think it's amazing that America has such an amazing university system given how incurious our population is, & it's sad that we're gonna wash that away to save a few bucks & lose the last, great hope of mankind

well blame the people who run those universities!

also our state gov'ts

and I'm still talking under the influence of that atlantic article, but is there any evidence that the market for middle class jobs - i.e. jobs that pay $40-60k (or even 80!) and would thus be a reasonable goal for someone who enters a middle of the pack 4 year college or online equivalent - is growing? what use is training someone for a middle class job or for trade if those jobs aren't there in the first place?

also us news and world report

Re "rigorous": Hm yes, I was just looking for a more neutral word to describe a less advanced, slower-paced (maybe?), program that would assume people coming in didn't have any background in the material yet, for instance. Dunno. Thinking about people who are not natural "students", and whose focus in time & energy is on another part of their lives at the same time they're using this hypothetical study program.

Dayo: oh god, I have no idea. I was just questioning the demand for a program "as good as" top schools, for the purposes that have been given here.

and I'm still talking under the influence of that atlantic article, but is there any evidence that the market for middle class jobs - i.e. jobs that pay $40-60k (or even 80!) and would thus be a reasonable goal for someone who enters a middle of the pack 4 year college or online equivalent - is growing? what use is training someone for a middle class job or for trade if those jobs aren't there in the first place?

the overall performance of the american economy is not something that our universities can control, but I agree, all signs point downward and think this is one of the factors that's going to take down the system.

given how incurious our population is

This feels like a...strange thing to say. Or at least a pre-judged thing? I mean, how did our population GET so "incurious"? Americans aren't stupider than other (what other?) populations, I'm p sure.

it's kind of a chicken and the egg question - why push 18 year olds into debt for college when so far all signs point to the economy not being able to support them when they graduate

This feels like a...strange thing to say. Or at least a pre-judged thing? I mean, how did our population GET so "incurious"? Americans aren't stupider than other (what other?) populations, I'm p sure.

― brb recalibrating my check engine light (Laurel), Saturday, September 3, 2011 11:13 AM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark

I am always wary about talking about things like these, but for one thing, education isn't as highly valued by our culture (or certain segments of our population) as it is by other cultures

also cards on the table i am a liberal weenie type who would like everyone to go to college for the sake of going to college, what is the point of living in the richest and most technologically complex society on the planet if were not at least making the effort to give everyone the tools to talk about good books

i feel like this is kinda projection or s.thing, like if were talking techno-utopias then a system that got 'most ppl' into and out of school earlier wld be the ideal, with college being open to the ppl who 'really want it'

I am always wary about talking about things like these, but for one thing, education isn't as highly valued by our culture (or certain segments of our population) as it is by other cultures

― dayo, Saturday, September 3, 2011 8:14 AM (3 minutes ago)

Teachers especially. There's still some sort of respect (at least in the form of paycheck, often) for professors, and a ramping-up of respect as age-level of students progresses, but damned if I don't believe that teaching kindergarten (well) in failing district is a far sight harder than teaching 10th grade history in a wealthy independent. But we esteem the high school history teacher as an intellect, and passively denigrate the kindergarten teacher as basically a kid technician

I am always kind of shocked to see how little respect teachers get in this culture until you reach the professor level - "those who can't do, teach" etc.

hmm i guess i dont have particularly well-formed opinions on this subject im just kind of suspicious of a lot of the discourse that springs up when we talk about reform or whatever; im wary of the idea that "college just isnt for everyone" in the current state of things, i.e. huge wealth gap, increasingly stratified society and so forth. just seems like another way to reify those distinctions

that was xp to lamp

and the underlying assumption is that anybody could teach, given the opportunity and necessity. It's the only job in the world that everybody thinks they know how to do! Nearly everybody has had 13 years exposure to hundreds of different teachers, many of them terribly poor in quality - and because so much of the job is invisible/off-stage, especially for good teachers, it even looks like an easy job. (xp to dy)

for someone who ends up w/ serious debt from a for-profit university, "college" has only served to increase the wealth gap

and you can also argue that various institutions are key players in the huge wealth gap + increasingly stratified society

xp

well yeah

yeah remy my only experience w/ how other cultures perceive teachers is in china, but there if you tell someone you're a teacher it's an automatic +1 - respect for teachers is baked into the culture, there are loads of teacher training colleges (even if the methods they learn are questionable), a lot of students want to become teachers. I'm sure there are other cultures out there w/ similar views

like if there was more inherent respect for teaching as a profession, it would siphon off some of the brain drain that's going into finance, it would make it easier for teachers to get better compensation, more benefits, make it a much more attractive profession as a whole

i struggle with this q, will universal (or graeatly expanded) university opportunities lead to better wealth distribution? or will it simply debase the signaling power of a degree and leave a lot of ppl with debt and few technical skills (4 those who dont pursue professional degrees)? i don't know, i guess i'm a fence sitter, i don't know what to tell a student other than "go, it's the best option" but i also want 2 live in a world where not going to college is not a death sentence for your career prospects.

and a lot of it has to do, v. simply, w/ shitty pay. highly qualified young people (male, especially) don't want to enter into a low-regarded profession in which finding employment is difficult, where the salary is capped at 70,000 after 20 years of work.

i guess i should stress that the ideal "lets all go to college and discuss great books" world is unachievable so long as college costs so darn much

like, in comparison to other careers which require (or at least privilege) post-secondary ed, teaching is lower on the totem pole, but in a lot of communities, it might be one of the better paying jobs there. i worry more about plumbing and electricians and sewage and waste management and etc being considered "beneath" middle class kids (thus flooding the available college spots with those who can afford it).

yeah max i think its hard, i mean i dont want a return to pre-50s college system either but increased access hasnt seemed to do all that much for income equality either. obv its a completely subjective argument but my ~feeling~ is that if we had some kind of system wherein ppl could leave school @ 15/16 for apprenticeships/job-training/a career the # of ppl who wld want to pursue post-secondary education wld drastically decrease, and that many people who currently spend 4 years and X dollars on a communications/business degree wld be a lot happier?

i mean its sort of a pointless opinion to have @ the moment since no1 really needs an apprenticeship to learn how to work at wal-mart but in an america that had actual jobs i guess its worth thinking abt ways to 'de-credentialize' some careers?

^^^
i guess my line of thinking right now is basically pining for "true" meritocracy (obv a term fraught w complication). in that, if you are an excellent student, u get the k-12 education you deserve to help prepare u for the rigors of university ed regardless of your background. if u fuck around in lib arts type classes bc it doesnt interest u, there are other things u can do and support yrself/family as an adult. from my own exp, i see middle (the upperish side of that) class kids go to college whether or not it interests them bc they feel they "have to", frequently getting the degree that still serves as a signal of employability. and i see poorer kids who were the top students in their respective high schools getting to college without the skills to be successful (not just academic, but for lack of a better descriptor "professional" skills, parents didnt come from privlege, dont know how interview for professional positions or the jargon of higher ed or whatever), dropping out more frequently (w debt).

if we had some kind of system wherein ppl could leave school @ 15/16 for apprenticeships/job-training/a career the # of ppl who wld want to pursue post-secondary education wld drastically decrease, and that many people who currently spend 4 years and X dollars on a communications/business degree wld be a lot happier?

right but what worries me is that those numbers would decrease largely out of the pool of lower-income, underrepresented students. if i thought that people from all different backgrounds would forgo a liberal arts education in favor of apprenticeships i would be more in favor of it, but the way things "work" right now i think you end up stacking the deck.

if i am king i probably nationalize higher education and make it free for everyone who wants to go

my other idea is to make all kids between the ages of 13 and 20 go work on farms year-round without tv, the internet, or video games

^^^feelin this