[DjMojoRisin]

A University allows you to explore your interested in a nice structured manner, allowing you to get feedback from respected professionals and though leaders in different fields. It also gives you a chance to try out your hand at different fields, and figure out which ones you are good at, and where you can be successful in the future.

These are what make education important and essential....

However, if you know what you want, then you obviously don't need University to make you successful.

[tokenadult]

A University allows you to explore your interested in a nice structured manner, allowing you to get feedback from respected professionals and though leaders in different fields.

How much third-party subsidy should any one person get to enjoy those advantages? What criteria should be applied to deciding which persons get to enjoy subsidies for that advantage from funds paid by taxpayers, including poor taxpayers with no hope of attending college?

[mdda]

Maybe you're familiar with the trickle-down theory (whereby the rich are the wealth-creators, so they should be encouraged with low tax rates) : That line of thinking should have you advocating that people with high intelligence should be similarly encouraged to improve themselves, even if that means that others lose out - because those lucky few are better prepared to lead?

[DjMojoRisin]

Bringing in Taxpayers into the argument about people getting the opportunity to goto University is not cool. Education should be a choice, that all are allowed to make. It's an investment in the future of the country, and it should definitely not be a "passtime".

[tokenadult]

It's an investment in the future of the country, and it should definitely not be a "passtime".

Where is the proof of return on investment? (That is the point under discussion in the submitted article.) I am happy to spend my own money on education--I still do--and I am happy to spend family money on my children's education while my children are minors in my care. But why should some person poorer than I am pay for my children's education in their adult life if what my children are doing is exploring options to make up their mind what to do with their life? That's the kind of issue I was responding to in my response to your comment above. We all have teen years while still in high school "try out your hand at different fields, and figure out which ones you are good at, and where you can be successful in the future," if a high school is properly structured.

After edit: a friend on Facebook, a high-tech engineer, suggested this link today as a rationale for examining ALL the ways that colleges spend money now.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/14/stop-funding-college-s...

[DjMojoRisin]

By your argument, we should not have public schools then either? Since some taxpayer who is poorer than you is still paying for that? Also you can choose not to use this option; just go-to a private college?

I think that in the majority of cases, with the progressive system of taxation, and need-based aid in institutions, we avoid the scenario where my education is severely subsidized by those taxpayers that are poorer than I; also we pay a percentage of our incomes, so by definition the poorer people pay less and get the same services.

As for exploring options while in high school: I'm all for that, but I think that in most cases that's not possible; given that the level of education provided is quite basic in most cases.

[randomdata]

What I never understood is why college and success always come up in the same discussion. College is not an investment, it is a pastime.

Some people love music and so they start a band. If they are good at what they do, they might find financial success from their efforts. While the potential is there, you would be laughed at for calling a band an investment in your future.

And yet, college is no different. It is a place for people to exercise their passions and collaborate with others who share in the same. Just like the band, if you are good at what you do, you might find financial success by being in college. Or you might not. It doesn't matter – you are not there for that reason anyway.

College is an awesome place. People should go. But they should be going for the right reasons, not some made up idea that you can buy your way into success. You cannot and will not.

[tryitnow]

I absolutely agree and I would be willing to bet Thiel does too.

BUT, it's simply not cost-effective. So many of the benefits of college can be gotten outside of it without the ridiculous cost and without dealing with people who don't want to learn.

Now, what's really lacking is an integration of all these different opportunities (free online learning like Khan, the potential for social learning via FB, Meetup or other sites, the potential for direct access to top minds in the field (try emailing really cool academic authors with an intelligent observation or fact and you'll get a response!).

We have to remember Thiel lives with two feet in the future he's already envisioning college alternatives fully fleshed out, unfortunately, I think his futurism is so second nature he has a hard time articulating the potential. As a brilliant guy he may just forget it's not obvious to everyone.

[jmj42]

The statistics seem to disagree. The most recent report from the census bureau (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf) indicates the completion of a bachelors degree almost doubles the average earning.

Of course these are statistics, thus broad generalizations, but there is a strong correlation between education level and (monetary) success. Certainly there are exceptional individuals out there who will be able to achieve great success without the aid of a college education, the computer industry is full of examples, but for the average person, that just isn't the case.

I live and work on the campus of one of the top research universities in the U.S. (#19 in the list above), I have yet to meet a student who's here for the party. Sure, they have fun now-and-then, but they're here for the education. The vast majority of the undergrads would have a difficult time making it past a phone screen with companies like Google, Microsoft, my startup, etc. On the other hand, those who make it through UIUC's intense CS or ECE programs can compete with anyone with 5 years of experience.

I guess my point is, not only do the stats back up the claim that more education leads to more (financial) success, so does my individual experience.

[orangecat]

The most recent report from the census bureau (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf) indicates the completion of a bachelors degree almost doubles the average earning.

This can also be explained by a signalling effect (having a degree demonstrates to employers that you'll be a good employee) or a selection effect (smart/responsible people are much more likely to get a degree, but they'd be successful even if they didn't). In either of those cases, society would be collectively better off with less emphasis on formal education.

[jmj42]

That doesn't follow.

Your fist statement "having a degree demonstrates to employers that you'll be a good employee" indicates that there is value in obtaining a degree. That is, you are more likely to get a well paying job if you have one. As a side note, my experience (family members who are HR directors) is that this is very likely true. However, the effect that this has on the statistics is a real effect, and must be considered when determining the value of obtaining a degree.

Your second statement could certainly be a confounding factor when it comes to the stats, but really doesn't support the claim that society would be collectively better off with less emphasis on formal education. Further, it implies, what I believe to be, an unlikely claim. That is that the majority of graduates would have been successful without the university experience.

I should note here, that I do not, necessarily, support the status quo. I'm a big fan of programs like 20 under 20, YC, and other micro-funding type programs, and would love to see these types of programs expanded. The university systems of the world are in dire need of reformation, but that doesn't mean tossing the entire thing out.

Changing the way education works has always been a long, slow process, but changes are starting to happen. Advocating for a ripe-and-replace "solution" will only cause the current apparatus to close ranks and take a defensive posture. We need to work with the education systems, break through that resistance to change, and move to a system that better suits the needs of today's students, which do differ from students of the past.

[orangecat]

Your fist statement "having a degree demonstrates to employers that you'll be a good employee" indicates that there is value in obtaining a degree.

Yes, to the individual. But it creates an arms race scenario where everyone is induced to spend more resources than is socially optimal. Bryan Caplan addresses this in more detail at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/me_and_the_retu.....

[jmj42]

The problem with Caplan is that he fails to prove that signaling is socially detrimental. The signaling theory makes sense, and I accept that it could be at work, but I'm not convinced that signaling is inherently bad, nor that there isn't intrinsic value in higher education.

Further Caplan tends to focus on liberal arts education, and ignores hard science and engineering. This, of course, means that only part of the education equation is being considered.

I fear, (and this is at risk of completely throwing my argument off the rails with fallacy), that what may be at work (Caplan) is more a case of dogmatic adherence to libertarian ideology. With a lack of demonstrable social implications, signaling becomes largely irrelevant as an argument against the system, as it is.

[randomdata]

indicates the completion of a bachelors degree almost doubles the average earning.

What can we really make of that? Hard working people tend to make more money? That has been true since people started trading services, long before colleges.

It is definitely an interesting correlation, but correlations are just that. The stats show nothing to prove that college is the reason for success. It is much more likely that the people who go are successful people to begin with. When I was in high school, the people who went to college were really driven to go there and I assume continued with that drive into their careers. Those who did not go to college lacked that drive not only when it came to school, but in all aspects of life.

The chances of finding a million dollar record deal are much higher if you are in a band too. It doesn't mean joining a band only to become rich is a good idea. Your fortune could have been lying elsewhere all along. But as long as you love what you are doing, it doesn't matter.

[DjMojoRisin]

Anyone that things that going to College will make them successful is retarded. College can help you be successful, but it's what one makes of it; In the end a college degree is just a piece of paper; and no piece of paper can make you successful. If we as a society cannot comprehend that, then we are in a sorry state :/