Slashdot Mirror
Eric Schmidt On Why College Is Still Worth It
An anonymous reader writes "The wisdom of getting a college degree and saddling yourself with a huge amount of debt has been called into question recently, but not by Eric Schmidt. The Google Chairman says it's still worth it, noting that: 'The economic return to higher education over a lifetime produces significant compound greater earnings.' From the article: 'When asked about the difficulty in paying for college, Schmidt was adamant: "I appreciate it's expensive and we need to fix that," he said, but "figure out a way to do it." One potential problem with Schmidt's statement is that it was an argument for the average student. It may be more advantageous for students at the bottom and top quartiles of the talent distribution to go straight into the workforce (or get vocational training). Case in point, Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college, and I don't think anybody would say he made a mistake.'"
With hindsight Zuckerberg made no mistake. But for every Zuckerberg who drops out and makes Billions anyway, there many more with equally good ideas that tried a similar path, and through worse luck ended up going bust. Anecdotes are not data.
And not every drop-out is going to build a Facebook/Apple/Microsoft.
They are the exception, so for most people, the best advice is to "stay in school".
'The economic return to higher education over a lifetime produces significant compound greater earnings.'
That has been true in the past.
And, let's take the bottom line: let's say it IS true and you have "significant compound greater earnings." - if you are straddled with obscene student debt while working at a shitty retail job, your net is going to be less than if you worked as a plumber let's say.
And let's stop this crap about how all unemployed college graduates majored in English or some other liberal or fine arts. EVERY major is having issues with employment in this economy.
If you go to the schools we like, major in what we like and are good enough to work for a company like us, it's still worth it. However, if you are John Smith Liberal Arts major at Typical State University, you've just guaranteed that four to five years of partying will result in at least a decade of misery assuming you can even make enough to pay it off.
there many more with equally good ideas that tried a similar path, and through worse luck ended up going bust.
But they at least had the experience of running a business. There are PLENTY more people that finished college, amassed crippling debt, and ALSO went bust - only they ended up with a degree that had no value for getting a job, and debt that is impossible to discharge. At least the dropout who failed had a debt that could be shed in bankruptcy, if they even amassed debt to run a business!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The reason even the top quartile needs to stay in school... is because even the top quartile person writing the lead doesn't understand that top quartile and top whatever Zuckerberg would be aren't the same. And not that Zuckerberg isn't smart, but he got insanely lucky with something that dozens or hundreds of other companies tried, but failed to do.... dropping out after you've already had your low probability event is an easy call. Doing it prior isn't supported by any analysis.
And let's stop this crap about how all unemployed college graduates majored in English or some other liberal or fine arts. EVERY major is having issues with employment in this economy.
From what I can tell that simply is not true. CS majors are not having issues finding jobs. It doesn't seem like engineering majors are either. If you learn a valuable skill you can still find a job.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The best college students are also self educating students. In order to make best use of college training a few students have great histories of forcing all kinds of self education upon themselves. The great scholars can not be stopped. A kid who is a born scholar who is isolated in a tiny village with poor schools will still somehow find a way to learn. These are the personalities that we need the most as a nation.
The entire article is stupid. And the Zuckerberg example was just the worst stupidity in it.
Those two statements have ZERO correlation with each other.
Going into debt for college is EASY. There's no need to "figure out a way to do it". You sign the loan papers and take the classes.
The problem is paying off that loan AFTER you leave college. Whether via graduation or because you cannot get anyone to give you any more debt to finish.
Again, wrong. Talent only applies to the top percentage. And even then it is VERY risky.
If you don't have the talent then you don't have the talent. That has nothing to do with skipping college.
FUNDING is the reason to skip college and hit votech. If your family cannot afford to pay for college then votech might be your best option. Why start this generation with massive debt that you might not be able to pay off? Start saving for your child's education.
Billionaire says "figure out a way to" pay for it. Meanwhile, he will be figuring out ways to collude with other companies to keep your salary low and to bring in thousands of people from Asia to compete with you for jobs.
" Case in point, Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college, and I don't think anybody would say he made a mistake.'"
This would imply that Facebook is not a mistake...
Even though I am in a technical position I decided to major in business. I now know the mindset of accountants, finance, and management. I can speak and understand the language. If I want to progress my small business I know what an asset and a liability is and how to setup books.
For my electives in computer science I learned what object oriented programming truly is outside what I read on slashdot and books. I know what algorithms are and real time means. I may not even have that much as a real computer science major but I recieved an education.
When the economy tanked after I graduated no one would hire me except for one temp contract job. It required a degree and that is how I got it. Without that I would be substitute teaching and working fast food at night to make up for my crappy wages.
Those who argue I DO NOT NEED A DEGREE got in in 1999 when you didn't need one. If you are one of these try being born 15 years later and getting a job today? ... no degree? How does $12/hr aka 20,000 a year sound? Great! Here is a set of headphones and go read this script at the techexpo call center etc. Make sure you mommy reminds you not to be late since we do not pay you enough to move out etc. That my friends is what the economic reality is today regardless of skillsets if you have no experience or education. Programming wont mean shit as HR will throw out your resume if it is not work related somehow.
Point is the degree is required in 2014 to get your foot in the door unless you feel working at techexpo call center can get a you a programming job as that and GeekSquad is all you are going to get.
http://saveie6.com/
Also, one can't look at the lifetime earnings of people in their 40s or 50s to do this analysis. the question facing the high school graduate today is a looking forward one, not "what was the effect of choosing college or not in 1970-1980". In 1970 the job market was very different today. Manufacturing and similar jobs which did not require a degree were still a large part of the market. Today, there's many fewer non-degree jobs beyond the "would you like fries with that". (Not that a degree is required for most of those degree required jobs, but it's a easy discriminant for which resumes/applications to throw in the trash).
There is also a HUGE effect on life time earnings from what you made in your very first job, which in turn is very much affected by the overall economy. Be unlucky enough to graduate in a recession when pay is low and you are literally cursed for life. Most companies ignore issues of "internal equity" and pay wages for new hires based on what it costs to get someone today, and do not readjust wages of employees already working there as the market goes up and down. This has the advantage that it tends to damp out wild fluctuations, but it also means that employees aren't really paid "market rate" at any given time. There is also a significant cost for an employee to change employers: that is, if you're doing "ok" at your current employer, you require a substantial increase in pay to change jobs to make up for the overall inconvenience and financial penalty in changing jobs. (Unless you're unlucky enough to change jobs because of a spouse or moving, etc.)
Upshot is that statistics like "college graduates make X million more in their life" are very, very suspect when predicting future market behavior.
Increasing the supply of trained workers lowers the cost - economics 101.
Of course tech companies always more workers, even if they are looking to offshore as much as they can, and replace the rest with visa workers. But, just in case, doesn't hurt to lower the cost of domestic workers.
Forget the situation today, look towards the future. There is no way for western workers to compete with third world wages.
nobody can sort through the entire cumulative body of knowledge built up by human civilization and find what's significant and what isn't.
You don't need to, because you can find out what other people have already discovered about this subject with a minimal amount of research. Information doesn't exist in a vacuum. As a self-educated individual who learned many subjects on his own, don't tell *me* what I can or can't do. If you're lazy, then fine, but don't assume everyone is the same.
This "Everybody needs to go to college!" nonsense just makes colleges lower their standards, puts people into unnecessary debt, and wastes the time of people who don't need or want formal education. I'm tired of this silly elitism some people have, where they act superior to people who chose to go down a different path, no matter how educated they are.
The article seem to imply, that real and best enterpreneaurs only make software companies. But actual innovation takes place in many other filelds. My point is that what makes the difference and is precursor to success is knoledge and ingenuity. While you can argue that the latter does not require formal education, for knowledge that might not be true. For a software company once you actually master the tools required, education is probably not always needed (although, it won't hurt or actually may be beneficial, see Jeff Bezos). The "kid coder" prototype is what made Zuckerberg and the likes. Other fields are much much different. How can you run a biotech company based on your own non formal education? Or a nanotech company? All of the companies where knowledge cannot be acquired simply by having a computer at your disposal, require some form of formal education. Look at any biotech management to see what I mean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...
Germany Backtracks on Tuition
By CHRISTOPHER F. SCHUETZE
Published: August 25, 2013
(German colleges are now free again, like the Scandinavian countries. Under the German constitution, the 16 state governments control finance and education. A 2005 federal court decision allowed them to charge tuition. 8 states, in former West Germany, did, but it was unpopular and they reversed their policy. Lower Saxony charged €1,000 ($1,300)/year. An economist estimated that tuition caused 20,000 potential students (6.8% of all students) to forgo enrollment in 2007. Denmark, Norway and Sweden have free tuition, although Germany, with 2.5 million students, is the largest. Britain raised its tuition caps to £9,000 ($14,000). In France, most public universities charge a few hundred euros per year, though the grandes écoles are more expensive.)
Bill Gates himself even says that he's a dumb example of a college dropout. Not only because the odds of following his trajectory are small, but because he was basically at the point of graduating when Microsoft blew up. Had Microsoft gotten its big break 6 months later, he would've graduated, but it got big and he ran with it. He didn't drop out and then roll the dice.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The world is basically starting to overflow with way more people than positions. As a result, it's dividing into societies with vast gaps between the very few people who control the money, and everyone else just looking for a chance to serve (or be employed). Some societies are further down this line than others, but you can look at China as an example of what the end-game will be like for the rest of the world within the next 100 years. All the nice things in life will become scarce enough that only the wealthiest can afford them. The rest of us will simply work to make them happy. Upward mobility will become as unlikely as jumping across the Grand Canyon, without the middle-class as a bridge.
These weird educational issues are just symptoms of it happening here in America. We're pushing everyone to "go to college" while the businesses here continue to eliminate employment opportunities due to outsourcing and automation. Even the outsourcing strategy is starting to backfire, due to companies realizing that when they aren't employing people in America, then they can't sell stuff to the people in America. It's why most companies right now are looking at China as the next (and final) phase. The "1%" in China is still a huge number of people, so that will work for a while.
I'd be surprised if we don't have an "Arab Spring" or "French Revolution" happening in this country within the next 20 years. The average white conservative male has been able to blame the misfortunes of minorities on rap music, or skin color, or laziness, or whatever, but now that they are starting to share demographics with such "undesirables" shit is going to hit the fan.
1. Go into debt to obtain college degree ...
2.
3. Profit!
So, all this time, step (2) was "figure out a way to do it"!
This article needs to distinguish between education and college.
Education is worthwhile. But is college still the best way to get an education? I'm not too sure, not with the ever greater swing in thinking towards profiteering and monetizing. Was bad enough being vicitmized by the occasional parking ticket over a cheap technicality (your front bumper was hanging 1 cm over the line of the deliberately too short parking spot, etc.), taken for hundreds by textbook publishers, and finally, if you graduate, hounded for donations to help out your poor, poor alma mater. But now I hear tuition has rocketed up far faster than inflation, and many professors are the new victims of the relentless push to turn every job into a temporary position with no benefits and no security, and their research is being patented and locked behind paywalls more than ever.
College should be free, just like high school. Students pay for room and board, but not tuition or books. I'm hopeful that copylefted MOOCs and ebooks will break 2 of these rackets. For those who think students should pay tuition, should all things of value be paid for? Sunlight and air are quite valuable, should people pay for that?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I've experienced the same frustration. There are certain technical circles in which I am well known, yet when I decided to get an 8-5 I had a heck of a time because I left college to run my business. I eventually took a job making half as much as someone with my experience would normally make.*
Not long ago, my boss ask me to look over some resumes for an opening we have. Most of the resumes looked pretty similar. It's one page, after all, and they are all applying for the same position. Those that were different had positives and negatives, so they all "scored" about the same. How to decide who to call first? It felt like forensic science, trying to find some clue of who might be better among the pile of nearly identical resumes. A typo MIGHT hint that the person isn't as careful with their work. That seems silly, but those were the kind of clues we had to go on.
We interviewed a couple of people and it was similarly "tied" - both seemed like they would be a decent fit. Without actually knowing either of the candidates, we had to choose one based on the tiny bits of information we had. Compared to the tiny clues we were looking for, a degree vs. no degree would have been huge. It's not a great indicator, but it sure is better than any of the other differences between two otherwise good resumes.
To look at it another way, suppose you have ten resumes that look okay, ten that made it past the "obviously no" filter. You have to find some way to narrow it down by eliminating nine of the ten candidates. Four years of study and carrying a four year project to successful completion obviously helps narrow it down.
It's now time for me to get off Slashdot and get back to my studies. With 17 years of experience I don't want to be narrowed down for lack of a degree, so I'm getting my degree from WGU. The "final exam" for most courses is an industry-recognized certification exam, so I'll end up with a degree and about a dozen certifications.
* The "low paying" job turned out to be a blessing, due to working with wonderful people.
As long as the great majority of common workers believe that if they just work hard enough, so that they too can one day earn a piece of the pie, then they will work like slaves for peanuts. Occasionally people in charge will throw out a little scrap to keep workers motivated. A perk here, a small promotion for the best worker there, a 'performance' bonus for everyone, whatever token gesture keeps people working hard. Workers starting to demand too much? Just make a few people redundant to remind the others how lucky they are to have peanuts. Don't want to train your own workforce? Just pay educated workers a small education premium until all applicants get an education.
Who benefits from all this? Not the workers. It doesn't matter how hard you study, or how many hours you put in on the job, your chances of making it to the top are unbelievably small. In fact, if you are a good worker, then the people in charge want you to stay exactly where you are, because you make them richer. Is a CEO worth as much as 500 average workers? Hell no! But as long as everyone is too busy fighting amongst themselves for scraps they won't even notice the slice out of their paycheck.
People started to wake up during the last financial crisis. Nothing reminds you that capitalism isn't working for the workers like losing your job, your house, your marriage, and moving in with your parents. That’s why governments take such extraordinary measures to stabilise their economies. Now everything is back to normal, so people can go back to sleep. There will be no revolution here for now.
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence