Questions regarding the value of a college education have spiked recently, highlighted by high-profile media coverage. Beyond the hype, three substantive attacks have been levied: (1) the college wage premium is illusory, (2) the lifetime wealth premium that college graduates receive is disappearing, and (3) the risk associated with a college investment has increased. Is college really not worth it?
That overarching question, however, is misguided. There certainly are problems in the higher-education system that need to be dealt with. Among other things, cost is an important problem. College is perceived as being more expensive than it really is. Yet many students, particularly those from lower- and middle-income families, are prevented from attending college because the cost is often still too high. Among those who do enroll, high costs can prevent them from completing their degree. That needs to be fixed. But broadly speaking, college is still worth it.
Going to college is an investment decision. It comes with benefits and costs. They do not need to be monetary, but it can be easier to think about it that way. Just like any investment decision, there are risks involved. College is worth it if the benefits are typically greater than the costs and the investment is not associated with extensive risk. If so, it may not be right for everyone, but in general it should be considered “worth it.”
The benefits of college tend to be large. Evidence clearly documents that the wages of college-educated workers are considerably higher than that of workers with only a high-school diploma.
“Yes, College is ‘Worth It’. It’s time to retire skepticism around the value of a degree,” By Phillip Levine and Luke Pardue MAY 16, 2024. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
******
Monetary arguments do defend the value of a higher education, but the argument of the monetary value misses the clear thinking (ideas entanglement untangled) when it “can be easier to think about it that way.” It is lazy thinking. Phillip Levine and Luke Pardue are correct on the value of the degree but not on the clearest and precise argument. The key question has to be “outside-of-the-box.” Does a person really want, at the end of life, to have achieved all material things but remain ignorant of the world outside of their specialist knowledge and skills?
In the mid-century the higher education curriculum moved towards comprehension, even in courses of technical and basic questions. There was a capacity to scope out, to scope in, and to scope out again. Not today! Political decision-makers have failed in higher education.
The confusion for Phillip Levine and Luke Pardue and many others is that the problem is not old skeptical arguments — although that is related — it is the old, outdated, cynical arguments which, in truth, is arguing not to care for higher education at all.
—
Kind regards,
Dr Neville Buch
Historian,
Professional Historians Australia (Queensland)
Australian and New Zealand History of Education Society (ANZHES)
Convenor, Sociology of Education Thematic Group, The Australian Sociological Association (TASA).
President, Southern Brisbane Suburban Forum (SBSF).
Director, Brisbane Southside History Network (BSHN).
MPHA (Qld), Ph.D. (History) UQ., Grad. Dip. Arts (Philosophy) Melb., Grad. Dip. (Education) UQ.
Call: 0416 046 429
ABN: 86703686642
Featured Image: The Australian Greens Higher Education Campaign.
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- J. D. Vance’s Insult to America is to Propagandize American Modernism - July 26, 2024
- Why both the two majority Australian political parties get it wrong, and why Australia is following the United States into ‘Higher Education’ idiocy - July 23, 2024
- Populist Nationalism Will Not Deliver; We have been Here Before, many times… - July 20, 2024