The report[0] this article reference has some puzzling exclusions to its data set. For example, why is Harvey Mudd included, but its next door neighbor Claremont McKenna College not? Some other notable liberal arts exclusions are Amherst College, Swarthmore, Bowdoin and Davidson.
ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where
171–180 of 195 posts
Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time demands. It sounds like the program is a lot of work and I don't think having school crowd out everything else is necessarily healthy.
I'm a slacker and I did fine in IB. She will have to work more than the average high school student (that is to say, more than basically zero) but it's completely possible to have other hobbies and activities.
That's good to hear. Thanks.
Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see. I think maybe the difference is enthusiasm? If someone is going into it thinking "It would be really helpful for my work or business to learn Japanese" versus "Japanese is cool. I would really like to immerse myself in this language and learn how to talk to Japanese people" would merit different results. The business-focused person would be more inclined to trod those traditional routes of instructorship and c…
I too have studied several languages, both in high school and in college, as well as some dabbling on my own. The classes alone are not enough, no. But they are a tremendous resource and make it much easier to get where you want to go. You might be able to reach similar levels of language proficiency without the courses but the biggest problems are 1) finding hours and hours a day to drill writing characters and othe…
But are you fluent in those languages? Sorry I am not trying to come off a presumptuous, I am just trying to emphasize the distinction because I think it is important to bear in mind. If the goal is fluency, do you think that traditional education has succeeded for you?
Also how long have you been studying languages? I ask because I am curious if you think that the web, and later, apps, like Duolingo for example, can make a huge difference versus the pre-web era of language learning. Pre-web, I would agree with anyone that yes it would be extremely difficult to learn a language on your own unless you had traditional schooling. But today there is nothing a traditional course in German could give me that I couldn't get from Deutsche Welle, for example (but I also realize there isn't a 'Deutsche Welle' for every language).
Sorry if this is going further than you wanted, I am just trying to get different perspectives and it seems like you have a good grasp.
Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and it is odious that "value" is measured based on ROI from getting the degree. Do STEM degrees yield more ROI? Perhaps, but if the article is attempting to help an individual student frame their thinking about what to major in, it is very bad advice. People should follow their aptitudes. Study what compels them and what they're talented in, regardless of statistical ROI's that apply NOT to individuals but to a…
> People should follow their aptitudes. This is posed in too absolute terms. People should, among their aptitudes, pick some activity that has the prospect of a fulfilling professional life. Aptitude and personal preference represent one aspect of such fulfillment. Market fit is, however, most definitely relevant towards professional success.
A "fulfilling" professional life is rather hard to define but the economist article seems to take the very narrow view that "fulfilling" means to maximize the ROI for time/money spent in education by optimizing one's selection of major.
The fact is people do just fine majoring in things such as studio arts and literature. It could very well mean that they don't end up working professionally in those fields, but that is OK. Some of these people end up working in the same companies as their peers, some end up in menial jobs after college, some become your boss (and some do all or none of these).
And I am not even mentioning the fact that at age 18, many many students have yet to find themselves and settle on a major, let alone a career path.
Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where
#175Earlier 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.
As a teenager in India, most people took Arts, Humanities and commerce(No economics, but accounting) because it was widely believed to 'light fluff', course work easy to get through. And you could get a 'Bachelors' title next your name without much work.
Among science people these subjects was what we believed losers took, because they couldn't study anything better. Which was to some extent true. I studied Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Biology. I would typically get to sleep 5 hours a day. Apart from the main exams, we had to study hard for engineering entrance exams. Compare this to some one who studied history or accounting. You can't exactly compete with someone working 3 times more harder than you, in a area which is vastly more economically valuable.
Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
The point of view you speak for -- that education is an end in itself -- is a privilege of the rich and reflects their historical attitudes towards education. Back in the day, liberal education was for the children of the rich, and it gave them culture, polish, and perspective that was hard to attain elsewhere. Those are the non-economic benefits of studying the humanities. They're certainly real, and valuable. I'd definitely prefer that people in positions of power and authority have studied philosophy, history, and literature.
However, to argue that a young person of modest means should study the humanities is just cruel. If your family and connections aren't going to set you up as a company vice president or send you to the legislature, your job prospects are dismal.
Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree slightly. Mostly because you can find dozens of commentaries and critical analyses of great works of fiction to complement your reading. These are essentially transmitting the same info a knowledgeable teacher/group of classmates would. The resources for math and science are also vast, but often require access to specialized laborites/equipment at the upper levels.
Uhh... no they're not "essentially the same." The value of being in the same room as knowledgeable people is interacting with them. If there's something that is unclear or that you want to delve into, you have an interactive way to do so. This whole "self-learning is just as good!" is ridiculous. If it was, it would already rule the world. People trust accreditation for a reason.
At the same time, I can interact with the web.
I can google questions, I can read discussions that take place between other people, I can chime in, I can be replied to.
I would probably find it more useful to be able to read all the TOP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS from all the Roman History 101 discussions around the world, than just whatever came up in my class. Being able to sort by global best as opposed to local loudest sounds very useful.
Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>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?
Why is that "the right question?" Why can't you say just the same thing about, say, teaching people to read? Fifth-grade literacy is probably enough to do many jobs, so maybe we should toss out high school too.
>>Why is that "the right question?"
Because you need skills to be employed. The ridiculousness of the situation is such a plumber is probably spending their time more valuably than say who studied Norse Mythology. Note I'm talking more in economic terms only. Sure the person who studied Norse Mythology knows more than a plumber, but you need a plumber more often than you need some one who knows Norse Mythology.
>>Why can't you say just the same thing about, say, teaching people to read?
That sets the basic platform for other stuff. You build on top of it.
>>Fifth-grade literacy is probably enough to do many jobs, so maybe we should toss out high school too.
If I was spending $X00,000 on a degree and expect a job in return which some one with fifth-grade literacy can do. I'd be seriously worried about my choices and decision making skills in life.
Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that "the right question?" Why can't you say just the same thing about, say, teaching people to read? Fifth-grade literacy is probably enough to do many jobs, so maybe we should toss out high school too.
>>Why is that "the right question?" Because you need skills to be employed. The ridiculousness of the situation is such a plumber is probably spending their time more valuably than say who studied Norse Mythology. Note I'm talking more in economic terms only. Sure the person who studied Norse Mythology knows more than a plumber, but you need a plumber more often than you need some one who knows Norse Mythology. >>Why…
It's less than self-evident that the main purpose of education is or should be providing training to do jobs at taxpayer or personal expense.
Re: ROI on a college degree depends what you study, not where
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They dislike him because they have different values than he holds Right. I believe in the Golden Rule and Trump thinks it's not a big deal. https://youtu.be/PX9reO3QnUA?t=17
The list is a mile long. Is free trade bad? Clinton supporters don't oppose Trump for that because they took macroeconomics and he didn't. They do it because Trump's position comes from a place of unilateralism and "America first" which are values they find odious.
Policy questions are different than making fun of someone's handicap or insinuating that a woman must be having her period. This is Kindergarten-level ethics here.