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

Post by commenter1239 » Wed, May 04, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #38

kdamken wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it costs upwards of $100,000 to attend, you better be thinking of what you're getting for your money. Unfortunately in America it doesn't come free.

My oldest daughter is just entering high school and we are indeed thinking about maximizing the return on education investment. I went to school for computer science and while I have a very good and easy life, I regret not spending more time studying the humanities. I've told her about this hoping to provide another perspective than what she gets at school where they push STEM relentlessly. An investment in education…

Post by goldbrick » Wed, May 04, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

loco5niner wrote: post #139

goldbrick wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Post by kamaal » Wed, May 04, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #61

rayiner wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. That all depends on how you measure better off. Knowledge, understanding, wisdom are goods unto themselves. No doubt, we need to eat, but I'd rather know Latin, Norse mythology, Anselm's ontological proof, the Platonic solids, and the major players in the Glorious…

Post by saint_fiasco » Wed, May 04, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #126

saint_fiasco wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Knowledge, understanding, wisdom You can get the first two for free on a library. You are making a mistake when you compare the knowledge, understanding and wisdom you would get in College against nothing and then decide that College is better than nothing. You should compare it against all the other things people could be doing with that time and money. The opportunity cost.

> The opportunity cost. With respect to the original article, yes absolutely. I was responding to the parent comment who described people 'no better off' for knowing versus not knowing.

Post by emodendroket » Wed, May 04, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #165

JackFr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That all depends on how you measure better off. Knowledge, understanding, wisdom are goods unto themselves. No doubt, we need to eat, but I'd rather know Latin, Norse mythology, Anselm's ontological proof, the Platonic solids, and the major players in the Glorious…

>>I'd rather know Latin, Norse mythology, Anselm's ontological proof, the Platonic solids, and the major players in the Glorious Revolution than not. Sure. But expecting some body to pay you just because you know all of that is tad bit too much to ask. The right question to ask here is after all that, how employable are you?