Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 195 posts

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#131

Post by jeffdavis »

soundwave106 wrote: post #107
jerf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a null argument. It cuts both ways equally, and therefore can not distinguish between the two.

In these days when STEM is so promoted, I think sometimes there is too much tendency to dismiss the arts and humanities as complete lightweight fluff compared to STEM. Perhaps there are some subjects which fall in this category. But I know, for instance, with music theory and composition, the heavy stuff can get fairly complicated and technical very fast. Certainly few people would be dismissive of the technical trai…

"I think sometimes there is too much tendency to dismiss the arts and humanities as complete lightweight fluff compared to STEM."

It's not that the subjects are lightweight fluff, it's that the students are disproportionately so. STEM is fairly objective, so it's comparatively hard to hide your lack of depth.

But if you just want to go to college as a social signal, and a ticket to 4 years of parties, then arts and humanities will offer you a place of comfort. Not every professor for every class at every university; but at pretty much any university you can find some kind of lazy path through the arts/humanities departments.

There are a few reasons for this:

* Many professors / TAs use classes as a political platform first, and an education platform second. If you just tell them what they want to hear (a slightly avant garde kind of progressive liberalism will do the trick pretty much anywhere), you get an A or B.

* Based on the title of the course, huge mobs of lazy students will sign up assuming that it's easy (this is never a serious STEM class). The professor then adapts the grades so that a lot of them pass, because otherwise there will be a revolt.

* Universities like to provide "a path to success" for pretty much all of their students who are willing to put in even small amounts of effort. If they can't tell the difference between a concerto and a sonata, then the counselors can take them out of music theory, and put them in "post-modern ethno musical studies".

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#132

Post by morgante »

School-Cotton wrote: post #123
morgante wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where did you go to college? I went to New York University. > Also, I did IB too, and anecdotally I think it's dramatically easier than the French high school diploma. French exams are notorious for their grading. That doesn't mean the education actually includes greater depth. Anecdotally, my friends who went through the French education system have a keen appreciation for difficult exams but aren't any more knowl…

> After all, even in France you do in fact have higher education beyond high school. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about broad "liberal arts" curricula that touch on a variety of subjects. In France, it would be very unusual for a math student in university to take classes on philosophy, literature, etc. (ok, maybe some easy English classes for practical reasons, but that's it) Yes I of course ag…

> In France, it would be very unusual for a math student in university to take classes on philosophy, literature, etc.

I know. There's a reason that I chose to attend college at a US university rather than in Europe.

The point of the liberal arts curriculum isn't, in my view, necessarily to give you a basic grounding in different areas. As you point out, a good high school education is typically sufficient to gain such a grounding (for example, any chemistry I know is from high school). Instead, what a good liberal arts education allows you to do is to explore specific disciplines outside your core specialization. These explorations are not necessarily to give you a general understanding of the field, but instead expose you to interesting ideas in alternative fields far beyond what you'd learn in high school. For example, I still don't know much about theater—but my class on comedies has given me some interesting ideas for how to incorporate humor into a bot I'm developing.

Distribution requirements are not comparable to a "good high school education" in Europe. That's grossly overvaluing the quality of European education and undervaluing American universities.

> BTW, NYU is not typical; it's an elite school. You can't compare your experience there to typical colleges in the US.

I'm aware. But the typical college experience in the US doesn't really include the liberal arts.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#133

Post by kingnothing »

goldbrick wrote: post #127
jerf wrote: post #4

In addition to the obvious 0 line, it's worth taking the article's observation that S&P has returned 7.8% and mentally drawing a line there too. Also, for anyone in the position of deciding which to do, I'd add the observation that it is way easier to go to college and get a formal education in science, math, or engineering, and pursue an ongoing adhoc self-directed education in the arts and humanities in your remain…

> it is way easier to go to college and get a formal education in science, math, or engineering, and pursue an ongoing adhoc self-directed education in the arts and humanities in your remaining decades of life, than the other way around. This isn't really true. You can't really have any kind of art career, for example, if you don't go to art school. Meanwhile, tons of companies will happily hire whatever chumps code…

I'd wager you have a better shot of getting a paying "art career" by starting with a STEM degree and trying to move to that field than getting an art degree. There's a reason we have a societal meme about art majors working as baristas and waiters -- it's more or less a degree that does not lead to a relevant career.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#134

Post by VLM »

jerf wrote: post #100
emodendroket wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be very surprised if business people spend much time reading Japanese literature, learning anything other than pure modern business Japanese, or probably even learning to read and write the language.

Who cares what other people do? What are you going to do? Are you incapable of leveraging from an intro course in Japanese into anything you want? If so, why do you think you're going to do any better in a formal environment either? It's not like they crack open your head and pour pure distilled knowledge into it while you passively sit back and just take it in. Also, I think people are fundamentally missing the comp…

The meta problem is we're in the discussion comments of a linked article that buys into the belief that the only purpose of the higher ed system is monetarily rewarding vocational training.

In the real world that's a completely wrong way to look at the purpose of life and education, but in the small minded narrow constraints of the article its actually "correct".

A side issue is outside bubble areas, every low paid service industry worker has a liberal arts degree and they guarantee the ROI of self taught foreign languages or liberal arts will be zero. A guy looking for employment who merely is a lifelong expert on Japanese will never get hired if the competition is ten baristas, bartenders, and real estate agents all with bachelors or masters or PHDs in Japanese Literature.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#135

Post by frobozz »

utexaspunk wrote: post #39
fredley wrote: post #18

It also depends on how much your parents earn: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/graduate-earnings-what-y...

While cronyism and nepotism are probably significant factors, beyond those I don't know if what your parents earn matters as much as it may be an indicator of your manners, knowledge of social customs, proper grammar, etc.. Perhaps those raised in wealthy homes tend to know better how to behave among wealthy people than those who come from poor backgrounds. All else being equal, those who comport themselves better ar…

In the broad middle, I don't think there is much of a manners/customs/grammar distinction. Any well-brought up middle class child should be perfectly capable of interacting with all but the wealthiest nobility. Of course, there are a few upper-middle class snobs who will think less of you for your lack of oenological prowess or your off the peg suit, but such people are not a common direct influence on that many people.

There are other factors:

* One thing is simply understanding the opportunities available to you. The idea that "People like me don't (go to university | start companies | go for promotion beyond a certain level)" is quite harmful.

* It is not uncommon that people go into the same field as one of their parents, simply because of how big an influence they are on your life as a child. If one is a doctor, and the other a barrister, then if you follow one of them, you'll make more money than if they are both in minimum-wage jobs.

* If you do follow your parents in their careers, you will have had early exposure to some of the concepts. You may therefore perform better at university intake interviews, and the relevant prerequisites. They will also know about how to progress through the career in the best way.

* Regardless of nepotism, your parents' friends are another source of examples to follow in a similar way, and may be able to dispense similar advice.

* Even if you don't follow your parents in their careers. Having a parent who graduated from a competitive course at a prestigious university (which might be indicated in their lifetime earnings) means that you still have an example to follow, and their experience to draw on. One of the reasons for poor state school intake at Oxford is that most youths don't actually know how to apply. Also, if you know what to expect from such a place, you can make more of it, particularly in terms of the extra curricular offering - e.g. networking, bursaries and careers service.

* A youth with wealthy parents may be able take better advantage of low-paid and unpaid internships. If your parents can't support you through university and early career, then you may have to make more short term decisions - e.g. taking a low-paid summer job at a bar, instead of a lower or even unpaid job at a law firm, or working evenings and weekends instead of studying.

* At the extreme end, a child in poverty is likely to have fewer books and poorer nutrition when those things matter most.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#136

Post by Retric »

emodendroket wrote: post #78
Retric wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the idea was you are better off studying something else and then picking up Japanese on the side. Instead of studding Japanese and learning that other thing on the side.

Well, besides that, twenty years is a lot longer than it took me to achieve.

Sure, but it's a classic time money tradeoff. If you have a large trust fund it's a non issue. Or, if you can pay for two degrees in time and effort then the second degree need not pay for its self.

However, if you have two interests then gathering credentials in the one which can make more money is probably a better investment.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#138

Post by emodendroket »

jerf wrote: post #100
emodendroket wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be very surprised if business people spend much time reading Japanese literature, learning anything other than pure modern business Japanese, or probably even learning to read and write the language.

Who cares what other people do? What are you going to do? Are you incapable of leveraging from an intro course in Japanese into anything you want? If so, why do you think you're going to do any better in a formal environment either? It's not like they crack open your head and pour pure distilled knowledge into it while you passively sit back and just take it in. Also, I think people are fundamentally missing the comp…

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing match about what discipline is harder. The point is that learning Japanese at a university is not an experience that could be easily duplicated somewhere else and that there are probably other "soft" disciplines of which the same could be said.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#139

Post by loco5niner »

goldbrick wrote: post #127
jerf wrote: post #4

In addition to the obvious 0 line, it's worth taking the article's observation that S&P has returned 7.8% and mentally drawing a line there too. Also, for anyone in the position of deciding which to do, I'd add the observation that it is way easier to go to college and get a formal education in science, math, or engineering, and pursue an ongoing adhoc self-directed education in the arts and humanities in your remain…

> it is way easier to go to college and get a formal education in science, math, or engineering, and pursue an ongoing adhoc self-directed education in the arts and humanities in your remaining decades of life, than the other way around. This isn't really true. You can't really have any kind of art career, for example, if you don't go to art school. Meanwhile, tons of companies will happily hire whatever chumps code…

> You can't really have any kind of art career, for example, if you don't go to art school.

This can't possibly be true.

Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where

#140

Post by thaw13579 »

rayiner wrote: post #29
emodendroket wrote: post #8

I find it disheartening that the only way it seems we can think about college anymore is a sort of vocational school where we train for careers.

I find that point of view to be a conceit. It's an emulation of the noble classes of yore, who learned things they didn't need to know as a way of signaling that they could afford to do so because they didn't need to work. Most people are no better off 10-years down the line for having learned about what native Americans used to live in Virginia or what covalent bonds are.

One point I'll grant you is that ignorance is indeed bliss.
Post reply on HN