Why Are Recent College Graduates Underemployed? - "• About 48 percent of employed U.S. college graduates are in jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggests requires less than a four-year college education. Eleven percent of employed college graduates are in occupations requiring more than a high-school diploma but less than a bachelor’s, and 37 percent
are in occupations requiring no more than a high-school diploma;
• The proportion of overeducated workers in occupations appears to have grown substantially; in 1970, fewer than one percent of taxi drivers and two percent of firefighters had college degrees, while now more than 15 percent do in both jobs
• About five million college graduates are in jobs the BLS says require less than a high-school education;
• Comparing average college and high-school earnings is highly misleading as a guide for vocational success, given high college-dropout rates and the fact that overproduction of college graduates lowers recent graduate earnings relative to those graduating earlier...
• Not all majors are equal: Engineering and economics graduates, for example, typically earn almost double what social work and education graduates receive by mid-career...
The claim that “college is worth it” because there are high economic returns asso- ciated with possession of a college degree often ignores the role other factors play in determining employment and wages... Frederic Pryor and David Schaffer, in their book, Who’s Not Working and Why, observed that the solution to the apparent paradox of rising underemployment of college graduates coupled with an increasing educational payoff through the mid-1990s is that “economic returns to cognitive skills, independent of education, have increased... the college-related component of our human capital stock is a distinct minority of the total, and that learning by doing is particularly underrated in the contribution it makes to raising the productivity of American workers. That fact mainly explains why experienced 50-year-old workers make vastly more on average than workers half that age with precisely the same level of educational attainment... public policy actions taken in this country several decades ago severely limit the ability of employers to learn much about their potential employees. In particular, the Griggs v. Duke Power decision by the U.S. Supreme Court and subsequent related court cases or legislative action have made employers extremely cautious about using testing as a means of measuring potential competence. Bryan O’Keefe and the senior author have argued this court decision and related legislation was a factor in the rising college/high-school earnings differential after the mid-1970s... From the employer’s perspective, the best thing about relying on diplomas to help narrow the pool of job applicants is that the potential employee bears the bulk of the search-related costs—he or she pays for the college training... Proponents of “college for all” fail to mention, in general, that the signaling value of a bachelor’s degree declines as a larger proportion of the population achieves it... That plausibly explains the “arms race” with regards to college admissions... For a large portion of the college-going population, attendance is only partly motivated by human capital investment criteria, namely a desire to ultimately obtain a good job and a ticket to a relatively affluent middle class (or better) life. Those students go to college also to have fun—to meet new friends, to use top-of- the-line exercise machines to relax, to party, to get drunk, and have sex... Some of the socialization dimensions of college do have a broader “educational” purpose... From a public policy perspective, however, the socialization dimension of college raises questions: Why should taxpayers in general, many of whom are relatively poor, subsidize the partying and “fun” of kids from mostly moderately affluent families?... While people will become increasingly aware that a bachelor’s degree is no longer a very assured ticket to success, more and more people will try to get a competitive edge in the labor market by obtain- ing master’s or even doctoral degrees to demonstrate competence. We jokingly predict that colleges will offer a master’s degree in Janitorial Studies within a decade or two and anyone seeking employment as a janitor will discover no one will hire unless proof of possession of such a degree is presented... Credential inflation is pervasive. And, as Hernstein and Murray noted nearly two decades ago, one by-product of this phenomenon is a dumbing down of the college curriculum; as they put it “credentialism… is part of the problem, not the solution.”... Can we afford to expend $100,000 or more in resources giving kids a college degree, only to see them take taxi driver jobs for which the college education added hardly a scintilla of employment skill? Can we afford to lose the labor services of 18-to-22 year olds going to college for little employment advantages, persons who could start driving a taxi or working as a bank teller at 18 instead of 22? In an era where the worker-to-dependent ratio is rapidly falling, the underemployed college graduate is an expensive luxury we can ill afford as a nation... as Paul Barton observes, despite the handwringing in the past about an emerging shortage of highly educated workers in the U.S., “since 1995, productivity has accelerated, with no demonstrable improvement in workforce skills or acceleration in job requirements during the period.”... All of this calls into question the wisdom of the “college for all” movement... As the number of years of education of work- ers rises in virtually all non-professional and technical jobs, is the reason ultimately that really it takes, say, 14 or 15 years of schooling to offer the same learning that previously was accomplished in 12 years? Is the deterioration in the quality of our primary and secondary education a contributing factor in the credential inflation obvious at the postsecondary level? That suggests there may be two major economic issues facing higher education. First, it is too costly, too inefficient, too shielded from the useful market forces of “creative destruction.” Second, because of massive overinvestment reflecting indifference to labor-market realities, we are vastly wasting scarce resources, both public and private... public policies such as massive federal loan subsidies often distort outcomes and prevent a stable and econom- ically effective equilibrium position from being reached. As someone once joked, “when we see light at the end of the tunnel, the government adds more tunnel.”... Economists for generations have long accepted the law of diminishing returns—when one adds more and more resources, at some point the marginal contribution to output falls. The law applies to education as to almost everything in life"
Clearly, education makes society better so the government needs to push everyone to go to college and pay for it, and the resentment of college graduates in jobs which don't need degrees is good, because they will push the left wing agenda
Stop Pushing College for All - "Support for socialism and for figures like Mamdani primarily comes from young people who feel priced out of the American dream—owning a home, securing a stable job, and starting a family. Many first confront the gap between expectation and reality when they enter college and take on substantial debt, a stark contrast with the youthful freedom that older Americans often associate with their own college years... Many flawed policy ideas gain traction because of misconceptions about both college prices and student debt. In recent years, the net cost of college has fallen modestly but remains far too high, compared with previous decades. The average cost of an undergraduate education has more than doubled since 1985—and yes, those numbers are inflation-adjusted. Explanations abound. Higher-education leaders often cite state disinvestment, but they overstate how much lost state funding can account for higher prices. My analysis of 26 public universities between 1980 and 2018, for example, found that tuition revenue growth was three times the reduction in state funding—meaning that the loss of state support is insufficient to explain the surge in tuition. Another popular explanation is administrative bloat... if anything, administrative spending is more likely a consequence of higher tuition than a cause of it. Colleges hire more administrators because increased tuition revenue gives them the means to do so. And even if they trimmed unnecessary administrative roles, most institutions would have little incentive to lower tuition now that they know the market will bear current prices. That brings us to the Bennett Hypothesis, named after Ronald Reagan’s second education secretary, William Bennett, who argued that federal subsidies incentivize colleges to raise prices. Early research in the 1990s and 2000s showed mixed results, but later work has found stronger evidence for the theory. A 2017 New York Federal Reserve study suggested that for every dollar a college received in student loans and Pell grants, it increased tuition by 58 cents and 38 cents, respectively. Identifying the causes of tuition growth matters because it shapes the policy response. If a major factor is federal subsidies, then reforming them should be a priority. Understanding what drives up costs can help explain why student debt has swelled and how it affects some borrowers more than others. Today, student debt has hit $1.65 trillion, held by 43 million borrowers. The median borrower owes $20,000–$25,000. The median debt is lower than the average debt because 8.4 percent of borrowers who attend graduate school owe more than $100,000. It takes borrowers 20 years, on average, to repay their debts. A common misconception is that borrowers with six-figure debts struggle the most. The data suggest the opposite. Those with the highest balances often attend medical school, law school, or other professional programs, and they have the lowest default risk. By contrast, borrowers with smaller debt are likelier to struggle with repayments. They often attend for-profit or open-access public colleges and drop out, failing to reap the vocational benefits that a college degree can provide. This distinction—who struggles and why—is crucial. The case for debt forgiveness rests on the claim that it would help many struggling young people, and it has been a staple of the Democratic platform for years. But broad-based debt forgiveness is regressive, benefiting the relatively well-off far more than those truly in need. Loan forgiveness lost momentum after the Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration’s mass cancellation plan in 2023. Supporters have since shifted to reducing and eliminating interest rates on federal loans, which even some Republicans have entertained. But slashing interest rates is simply another form of debt forgiveness. Lending is costly for any institution, including the government, so lowering rates means that Washington can’t recoup its full lending costs in real terms, even when students pay back the full loan amount. And the same regressivity problem applies: borrowers with the largest loan balances benefit the most from interest-rate reductions, and they’re also the borrowers most likely to have high incomes. It also matters that the borrowers most prone to struggle don’t attend the elite institutions. Elite universities have plenty of problems, but the economic benefits they offer their working- and middle-class students are not among them. Attacking elite endowments doesn’t address affordability at the broader set of universities where most students enroll, and it doesn’t help the schools whose students struggle most with repayment. Most young voters are not drowning in unmanageable six-figure debt, despite the impression sometimes created by media and activist groups. Their concern—well-founded—is that college has become an increasingly expensive pathway to success... The deeper problem in higher education, often overlooked, is that too many people who aren’t ready for college attend anyway. Universities are admitting students who struggle with middle-school math. The dropout data underscore this point: students often describe leaving school in financial terms because that is the pressure they feel most immediately, but the strongest predictors of dropping out are inadequate academic preparation and poor early college performance. If the system draws unprepared students into expensive programs that they are unlikely to complete, then policies focused solely on easing repayment or subsidizing access will not address the root problem... Democrats and Republicans tend to make the same strategic error: they focus on reducing student debt rather than the price of college... It’s worth remembering that many college degrees provide positive returns on investment. Students run into trouble when they enroll in schools or programs that don’t. That’s why federal funds should be disbursed more strategically. Banks don’t lend to people they doubt can repay a loan; similarly, federal student loans should take into account whether a student is likely to succeed in college-level work, using indicators such as academic records, standardized test scores, and the program a student intends to pursue. Students should be encouraged to enter in-demand fields, but academic readiness matters, too... Tightening loan eligibility at the margins would likely reduce the college-going population, easing demand and putting downward pressure on prices. Paired with stronger workforce-training and credential programs, such a system could help steer students into the pathways best suited to their abilities and goals. Messaging matters, too. Young voters should hear a clear distinction: price is a public-policy responsibility, but debt is your responsibility... Families should look first at colleges that meet 100 percent of demonstrated financial need. In-state public universities are usually far cheaper than out-of-state alternatives. And many students can begin at community colleges, which often provide more individualized academic support than four-year schools. These are only a few examples, but the broader point stands: students have more practical, affordable pathways than they sometimes realize."
So much for left wingers blaming the loss of state subsidies for high college tuition
‘Financially Hobbled for Life’: The Elite Master’s Degrees That Don’t Pay Off - WSJ - "Recent film program graduates of Columbia University who took out federal student loans had a median debt of $181,000. Yet two years after earning their master’s degrees, half of the borrowers were making less than $30,000 a year. The Columbia program offers the most extreme example of how elite universities in recent years have awarded thousands of master’s degrees that don’t provide graduates enough early career earnings to begin paying down their federal student loans, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Education Department data... Taxpayers will be on the hook for whatever is left unpaid. Lured by the aura of degrees from top-flight institutions, many master’s students at universities across the U.S. took on debt beyond what their pay would support, the Journal analysis of federal data on borrowers found. At Columbia, such students graduated from programs including history, social work and architecture... Undergraduate students for years have faced ballooning loan balances. But now it is graduate students who are accruing the most onerous debt loads. Unlike undergraduate loans, the federal Grad Plus loan program has no fixed limit on how much grad students can borrow—money that can be used for tuition, fees and living expenses... Highly selective universities have benefited from free-flowing federal loan money, and with demand for spots far exceeding supply, the schools have been able to raise tuition largely unchecked. The power of legacy branding lets prestigious universities say, in effect, that their degrees are worth whatever they charge... Columbia grad students who borrowed money typically held loans that exceeded annual earnings two years after graduation in 14 of the school’s 32 master’s degree programs tracked by the Education Department, the Journal found. In about a dozen Columbia master’s programs, the majority of recent graduates weren’t repaying the principal on their loans or took forbearance, according to data released for the first time this year... Debt counselors recommend students not borrow more than they will earn right out of school. Yet about 38% of master’s programs at top-tier private universities in the U.S. failed that test, according to the Journal’s analysis of salary data for graduates from the 2015 and 2016 classes, the latest available. At for-profit schools, a common target of regulators for high student debt and poor job prospects, 30% failed to meet the debt counselors’ advice... At least 43% of the people who recently took out loans for master’s degrees at elite private universities hadn’t paid down any of their original debt or were behind on payments roughly two years after graduation, the available data show. Universities, which receive their tuition up front, have an economic incentive to expand graduate degree programs and face no consequences if students can’t afford to pay the federal loans after they leave. “They’re not really held accountable for the myth they’re selling to students,” said Ozan Jaquette, an associate professor of higher education at the University of California, Los Angeles’s Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. His doctoral dissertation was on the growth of master’s programs. “We should not be giving federal-aid dollars to these programs that systematically saddle students with high debt,” he said... “We were told by the establishment our whole lives this was the way to jump social classes,” he said of an Ivy League education. Instead, he said he feels such goals as marriage, children and owning a home are out of reach. During a car ride last year with three friends from the film program, Mr. Black said, they calculated they collectively owed $1.5 million in loans to the federal government. “Financially hobbled for life,” he said. “That’s the joke.”... Although the school created an emergency fund for international students, Americans “were just told to go and take more loans,” said Paul Carpenter, a 2018 film MFA graduate who joined the petition. Columbia said it also offset some student fees... “There’s a virtual army of young people, most of whom may be naive about the financial obligations they’re undertaking,” said James Bundy, dean at Yale University’s drama school, which in June announced it would eliminate tuition. “I think there are some schools with debt loads that are indefensible.”... The university said recent increases in grad-student aid weren’t reflected in the federal data the Journal analyzed. For example, the School of Social Work increased the number of full-tuition awards for new master’s students to 12 from two a few years ago. The fall 2020 entering class had around 560 students."
Clearly the solution is for the taxpayer to pay for everything including a stipend because education always benefits society and only philistines who hate education would disagree, and ban for-profit schools, because profit is evil
Nearly 2 in 5 of American college graduates regret their majors - The Washington Post - "The regretters include a healthy population of liberal arts majors... nearly half of humanities and arts majors have studier’s remorse as of 2021. Engineering majors have the fewest regrets: Just 24 percent wish they’d chosen something different... As a rule, those who studied STEM subjects — science, technology, engineering and mathematics — are much more likely to believe they made the right choice, while those in social sciences or vocational courses second-guess themselves. There doesn’t seem to be much relationship between loans, gender, race or school selectivity and your regrets. Though, as you may have guessed, our analysis of Fed data shows that the higher your income is today, the less you regret the major you chose back in college. Regrets have remained relatively steady since 2016, the earliest year for which we have consistent data. The most notable exception, education, went from below-average regrets before the pandemic to above-average regrets in 2021. Life sciences, on the other hand, have seen a steady and substantial decline in regret... Regardless of major, half of those who went to private, for-profit schools regret their decision, perhaps because students at for-profit schools are much more likely to struggle to repay their student debt. Similar regrets plague only 21 percent of those who went to public colleges and universities and 30 percent of those who attended private nonprofits. A substantial majority of vocational and technical students (60 percent) wish they’d gone for more schooling, while less than 40 percent of law, life science and engineering students believe the same. The burgeoning regret among humanities and arts majors may help explain why humanities graduates are a dying breed. “There’s a pretty significant change underway,” historian and digital humanist Ben Schmidt said. “The numbers have dropped by 50 percent, and there’s no sign that they’re going to rebound.” By 2021, disciplines such as history, English and religion graduated less than half as many students as they did in their early 2000s heyday, relative to the overall size of the graduating student body... the Great Recession sparked the beginning of a downward spiral in humanities such as history, art, philosophy, English and foreign languages... In the decade since our national pivot to STEM, the number of people graduating with computer science degrees has doubled. Every STEM field notched significant gains. Nursing, exercise science, medicine, environment, engineering, and math and statistics are all up by at least 50 percent. Among the humanities, only two increased: cultural, ethnic and gender studies, and linguistics... Over their lifetime, a typical history or journalism major can expect to earn about $3.4 million, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data from 2014 to 2018 by economist Douglas Webber, who is now with the Federal Reserve. A typical economics, biological sciences or chemistry major can expect to make $4.6 million over that same time, adjusted for inflation. But those typical earnings hide that who you are matters just as much as what you study. Many of the highest-earning humanities majors earn more than the lowest-earning STEM majors, Webber’s research shows. For example, the top quarter of history majors earn $4.2 million over their career. That puts them above the bottom quarter of earners from even the highest-paying majors, such chemical and aerospace engineering. Humanities specialists argue that these majors open up higher-earning opportunities later in life because they don’t lock students into a narrow programming language, certification or career path. The critical thinking taught in humanities courses allows students to adapt to jobs that may not have existed when they enrolled in college. “Having training to ask hard questions is pretty significant, and that applies across all kinds of different career situations,” said Quinn Dombrowski, an academic technology specialist at Stanford University... “When we work with undergraduates on digital humanities projects,” Dombrowski said, “it’s often easier to take a humanities undergrad and teach them just enough coding to do what they need to do rather than taking some of the CS majors who can do the coding in their sleep but don’t really think about the questions in the nuanced ways that we need them to.”... But Dombrowski said she understands undergraduates’ desire to walk into a highly paid tech career immediately out of college rather than roll the dice on a humanities degree and trust that opportunities will arise. “It’s fine to tell people that this sets them up for brighter prospects in the longer term for their career,” Dombrowski said. “But students — especially [those] who’ve taken on substantial student debt — have immediate needs for paying rent and then paying those loans back.”"
