[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.