What’s that degree really worth?
Students considering Virginia colleges have a new tool to find out before they take out loans.
High school juniors and seniors hedge their bets with college applications. Most pick a safety school, a few schools likely to admit them and one or two dream schools. Even if they win admittance to the dream school, there’s still a decision to make with a lot of factors to consider. Cost, quality, reputation and family ties all matter.
The calculation just got more complicated, but in a good way. New information will better inform the decision.
October 10, 2012 - 6:18 AM
“…weak state funding” should not lead to higher tuition costs, but it may lead to more out of pocket expenses for the students. In other words, the good being offered doesn’t cost more to produce; the student may have to pay more because the expense to him (the student) is not subsidized as much.
If a university chooses not to hire a professor because of lower state spending, there should be no increase in the production cost (because the money was not spent); conversely, a university that chooses to hire a professor because the state spending is there should not have to raise tuition because that’s what the state spending is for. It should be a zero-sum game from the university’s standpoint. The cost for the university to provide that degree has NOT increased.
The biggest drivers on tuition comes from increased demand (driven in large part by the glut of guaranteed student loans) and overall inflation, driven by loose monetary policy.
I’ve been laid off since May. I’ve scrolled through numerous jobs that I have full qualifications for and years of work experience in. However, they are requiring you to have a bachelors degree which I don’t have because I was too busy working 50hrs a week. The ads also ask for one year to no experience with that degree. On the Virginia State Jobs website my experience means nothing because if the job required a degree and I answer no degree in the supplementary questions, it kicks my application back as no qualified. Education is great but so is hands on experience. Frankly if I were an employer Id hired experience over degree because I may even learn something from the employee who has been doing the job for years.
Link please.
You can start here, Tass.
Thanks Luanne R. but I would like a link from the RT to the tool they’re referring to that lists “aggregate salary data about recent graduates with degrees from Virginia schools.”
You will need to go to the link provided and click on the “Post completion wages of graduates.” That will bring up another page with lots of options to play with.
Maybe this will help: bit.ly/VaGrads
#2 – Well said, Diana.
It’s amazing how an employer will hire someone right out of school with a worthless degree over someone with years of experience.
A college degree is worth zero, nada, if you can’t find a job!
More than half (53%) of America’s recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn’t require a bachelor’s degree.
So regardless of your education, during the Obama non-recovery, it is a terrible time to be young and hunting for work, even with a college degree. Thanks Obama!
Unfortunately, it seems to be increasingly the case that college (undergrad) is the new high school; degrees are now necessary, but not sufficient, to find a decent job.
@9 John R…
I’m sorry John R but that’s got to be one of the most ill informed posts I’ve read of yours in a long time!
Before castigating Obama, why don’t you do a little research as th what type of degree these kids are coming out of school with today?
Take a read: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37
“Of the 1,650,000 bachelor’s degrees conferred in 2009–10, the greatest numbers of degrees were conferred in the fields of business (358,000); social sciences and history (173,000); health professions and related programs (130,000); and education (101,000). At the master’s degree level, the greatest numbers of degrees were conferred in the fields of education (182,000) and business (178,000). At the doctor’s degree level, the greatest number of degrees were conferred in the fields of health professions and related programs (57,700); legal professions and studies (44,600); education (9,200); engineering (7,700); biological and biomedical sciences (7,700); psychology (5,500); and physical sciences and science technologies (5,100)”
I’ve been constantly reading about the number of jobs that are open and unfilled because of a lack of trained and skilled workers. Perhaps it’s not Obama’s fault that these kids are coming out of school with degrees for which there is no market.
When I was in school a long time ago, my parents and I discussed job opportunities in various fields and talked about degree programs in those area that had the greatest employment potential.
Maybe that’s a discussion that’s missing from the kitchen table today.
@2 Diana…
I understand the frustration. That is a particular problem with on-line job application programs. There is no human interaction and the loss of good talent as a result is telling in many sectors of the workforce today.
Sometimes, you may need just to bust the door down, so to speak and push to see someone live.
#9 – “So regardless of your education, during the Obama non-recovery, it is a terrible time to be young and hunting for work, even with a college degree.”
Obama’s economic plan and college grads have one thing in common…neither are working.
Perhaps there needs to be a study of why college is so expensive – tuition is increasing at double the rate of increase in medical costs. Financial aid is awarded based on college costs, so there is no incentive for colleges to be frugal. Go on an admission tour with a high school student. You will see very expensive recreation facilities, exercise rooms, student centers, etc. The additional money from tuition increases is not going to faculty salaries (I know because I am a professor at an elite school). The money is directed to facilities and to support staff(counselors, entertainment coordinators, deans of fun, coaches.) If government aid was based on the cost of EDUCATION alone, and did not factor in entertainment, social activities, weight rooms, etc. we would see a sharp drop in tuition.
#13, the same could be said for the Republican-controlled House and the GOP/New Fascist Right’s ideology in general; neither are working.
Alan…
I’ve often wondered. I live adjacent to Auburn University’s Montgomery campus. They’ve just spent millions of dollars on a new Wellness Center that doesn’t seem to be getting much use as I drive by it.
Yet, there are few if any empty seats for a college football game in this state and the salaries that are commanded by these coaches seem to be staggering in my estimation. Perhaps some of those sacred cows could be sacrificed
@13… Michael
See post 11 above and post 9 in Wednesday’s Open Thread.
Nuff said.
Here is an interesting related bit of analysis:
Forget Class-Warfare; It’s Age-Warfare We Should Worry About
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-10/forget-class-warfare-its-age-warfare-we-should-worry-about
Employment-to-population ratios among older individuals have gone up in recent years, in contrast to the so-called prime-aged 25-54 cohort, where employment-to-population is much lower than earlier. It seems the real divide in this nation is not between rich and poor but old and young – as the 55-plus (and even more 65-plus) are forced to stay in the workplace as retirement remains a dream…
The article doesn’t discuss, but I would guess that another reason the prime-aged cohort numbers are down is because more decide to remain in (or return to) school, which takes them out of the workforce (another factor driving employment numbers up?). Offsetting, that, possibly, could be that within that same cohort are a number of recent college grads who have not found work, and who are willing to work for less than they think their degree warrants them.
Obviously there is nothing wrong that is not Obama’s fault. Does it occur to you that such a POV will not be helpful to Romney should he become President? No, I guess not. His “Day 1″ will rival God. Good luck with that.
Diana, I have been in your shoes and you need to get creative. Knowing I with only my experience and wits to save me, offered in my introduction letter to work for free for a set amount of time with no harm-no foul if I did not work out. He did not take me up on the offer, but I have been here 16 years in a matter of days. Good luck to you.
It is hard when people have been “sold” on the idea that a degree means more than experience. It does not for many, many jobs. It is also true that some of the esoteric degrees kids come out of college with border on ridiculous in the job market. Parents just want better for their child, and guidance/admittance counselors have turned into sales people IMO. Too many kids are not getting the education they need for success in a field and in such cases the diploma does lose value.
Education is the great leveler and an opportunity not to be sneered at or missed if you can afford it, but it is like any other decision, it needs to be assessed correctly and with the eye on the end game. Too often it is not.
#15 – Same with the Democrat controlled Senate, E.
How many days has it been since they passed a budget? You know…the one they are required to do?
Good points 89Hoo. Not for nothing and I truly do not mean to throw off on all young grads because I know that they are not a monolith, but many are not remotely prepared to put in the effort, hours, and devotion that the older workers have. I have kissed a lot of frogs in the employment rodeo and a degree can instill an arrogance that does not serve them well. Also attention to detail and “sweating the small stuff”, the drudgery etc, is still important and not to be ignored as many young folks are want to do.
14 – Alan, tuition is increasing primarily because of the two reasons I mentioned in the first post: increased demand (driven in large part by the glut of guaranteed student loans) and overall inflation, driven by loose monetary policy.
The amount of financial aid is based on the cost of the tuition, yes, but the qualifications have been loosened so much in recent years that demand has skyrocketed. And with Uncle guaranteeing that universities will get their money (in addition to a crappy job market), they have no incentive to control costs.
The extra-educational things – fancy gyms, etc. – are reflective of competition. If UVa cannot offer perks at least as attractive as Tech, they lose students. And with higher demand, universities have to put on better shows.
To #14 (Alan) and #22 (89Hoo): Yep. The federal government is willing to throw pretty much unlimited money at universities. Federal student loans are pretty much granted to any student with a pulse. These loans are limited in size, but the federal loans given to their parents (through the Parent Plus program) are not: http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/07/14246378-student-loans-backed-by-government-crush-many-families?lite
To #19 (Sandi): Here’s a question for you: What bad things out there are Obama’s fault?
#20, stop the presses! So we agree that Democrats and the GOP/New Fascist Right are not doing their jobs. Wonderful. Now, let’s do as our Founding Fathers did and work out some (gasp) compromises to fix this great nation and move FORWARD.
@ #24 Brian, after long deliberation and massive internet searches, I am going with the “bad things” that he specifically created and the “bad things” he and the Dems were totally unwilling to work on.
Brian #23, is it your position that uncle nanny should never offer anyone help because some are too ___________(whatever your point was) to not take more than they can handle or repay?
To #27 (Sandi): Nope. I just think that the government needs to apply real lending standards. For students, this means looking at grades, quality of school, size of loan vs. expected earnings of major, etc. For parents, this means looking at credit scores, size of loan vs. current earnings and current debt obligations, etc. Just like a bank would. And given current default rates, such standards would mean saying “NO” at least 20% of the time.
Feeling brave enough to answer my question in #24?
To #27 (Sandi): Followup to my #28: I should say, though, that if the government cannot bring itself to run the student loans programs in a competent manner then the programs should be ended. Today, there are literally millions of people out there who have had their credit scores trashed or are living severely cramped lives because the government lent them too much money. Even the smallest of actuarial analyses would have revealed that these loans were too big, but as a matter of policy, the Department of Education does not run them today.
Student loans made in the private sector have never caused this much carnage. I’ve always thought a primary function of government was to protect its citizenry from abuses in the market. Not seize the market away and then abuse citizens worse.
To #26 (Sandi): That’s an astoundingly non-specific “list”.
So you’re willing to admit that Obama and other Democrats have erred, but only in the abstract. When it comes down to specifics, you’re not willing to list a single specific item. Heck, it appears that even admitting errors in the abstract pains you so much that you have to put “bad things” in quotes.
How are we supposed to treat your posts as objective when you essentially never criticize Obama or other Democrats?
@Michael and Will, I know, really? I’m highly skilled in a trade I’ve worked at for years and have even trained Managers. I do have some College credits and classes I’ve taken but not a degree. The job I had did not require one for it and the chances at one time of losing that job were slim, then the economy went downhill and corporate eliminated several positions including mine. However, since searching and applying for work for several months I’m finding that what I know proficiently is not worth anything because I lack the proper degree. Even jobs that are paying 20,000yr are asking for degrees!
VEC doesn’t have a clue what unemployed people are up against either. I tried talking to them about the barriers I’m running into and I was looked at like, huh?? I just cannot afford to take the first job at 9.00hr that comes up. I don’t have many bills at all but that pay wouldn’t even cover my monthly mortgage and light bill. They don’t seem to understand that. Sad but true.
@Sandi, good suggestion I’ll have to try that.
#32 – I think the VEC does know what people are up against, Diana, but think they are overwhelmed by the number of people looking for their help.
I will add, though, that their website is a nightmare to navigate…which doesn’t help. Even one of the VEC employees told me that he has a hard time finding his way on it.
And now we hear 200 more folks are fixin’ to get the boot from ITT.
As if there weren’t enough people to compete with already..
I am not sure I have ever asked anyone to treat my posts any particular way. I have admitted repeatedly that I am partisan, and that I am a hypocrite on several issues. I see no need to bash Obama or the Dems when that is virtually all that the right wingers here do. There is no point in it. And FYI, I am not interested in anyone seeing me as “objective” if objective means bashing my party or my President because you asked me to.
I tell the truth as I see it, have found it and experience it. If that does not deserve respect, so be it. I have no interest in finding faults with Obama or the Dems to post for you and others to feel good about me. If someone makes a point I agree with, I say so.
There is no up side to finding common ground with strangers by bashing Obama.
Somehow I doubt conservatives here will be interested in finding common ground with me on bashing Romney either.
Brian, unless my reading comprehension is failing me, it appears that a whole hell of a lot of the student loan debt was amassed under the system of “indirect” student loans administered by banks and lending institutions (but of course guaranteed by the government) who should have had exactly the standards you claim they now need. Much like the housing bubble and faux mortgages they also “fudged” their duty on.
Are you seriously arguing that the massive debt we are talking about has all come about since 2008?
“By 2007, new volume in the direct loan program had reached the lowest share of total federal student loan volume since it began in the 1990s. This trend, however, reversed in 2008. Widespread credit market disruptions in 2008 and 2009 threatened the ability of many private lenders to make loans under the federal guaranteed student loan program, and numerous private lenders discontinued participation in the program. In response, schools that previously participated in the guarantee program switched to the direct loan program, and direct loan program volume, as share of total loan volume, began to increase in 2008.”
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/federal-student-loan-programs-history
I think the bad actors here were some of the very people who should have known better. It appears a government backed loan or contract is like a red cape to a crazed bull. Making student loans as hard to get as all other loans are now will result in education for the wealthy and those of means alone. That is not the direction we need this program to go in.
Legislation that makes bad actors culpable (even criminally) and ending guidance/enrollment/career counselors as loan sales people would be the best start we could make IMO. Limiting those who can get an education does not help us in the long run.
To #36 (Sandi): In both the housing bubble and the student loan bubble, there were tons of people “who should have known better“. Literally millions of borrowers, and many thousands of lenders.
However, this has been true throughout history. There have always been people who will borrow too much if given the opportunity. And there have always been people/organizations who are willing to “work the system” (in terms of government loan guarantees) to make an extra buck at the taxpayers’ expense. A responsible student loan program would have specific rules to keep both forms of these “crazed bulls” away.
I suppose one could point at counselors and insist they give better advice (which would probably help), but ultimately, it is the responsibility of the lending organization (or the loan-guaranteeing organization, if it’s separate) to implement lending standards to keep people from over-borrowing. Every one else in the chain bears less risk and has an intrinsic conflict-of-interest. And in the case of student loans (85% of which are made directly by the US Department of Education), that responsibility rests with the US government.
And yes, I know that the Dept of Education didn’t issue all of the student loan debt out there. However, if you look at default rates, this is what you’ll find:
Loans issued by bank, bank carries risk = LOW default rate
Loans issued by bank, government carries risk = MEDIUM default rate
Loans issued by government, government carries risk = HIGH default rate
This is a direct consequence of the Department of Education neglecting the need for lending standards. Students and taxpayers have both suffered as a consequence.
I understand your concern about students being unable to afford college, but is it really worth this level of harm to young people and their parents?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/concerns-raised-about-student-loan-defaults/2012/09/28/99ba45b8-099d-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_story.html
http://www.studentloanborrowerassistance.org/2012/10/08/so-much-for-open-debate-chronicle-of-higher-education-student-loan-default-rate-event-is-bought-and-paid-for-by-industry/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-28/next-subprime-crisis-here-over-120-billion-federal-student-loans-default
So what ratio would you like to see, if viewed from the standpoint of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation? “Better ten graduates go into default than one student be denied a student loan” 3-to-1? 10-to-1? 100-to-1? Right now the ratio is several million to none.
And to your #35: It’s a shame that you’re unable to see the benefits of being open about where Obama and other Democrats have gone astray. When you put on your partisan blinders and look only for flaws on the other side, you give the impression that you’re letting the Democratic party do your thinking for you, with no independent thought to be found.
Now I’ve bashed Romney and the GOP a fair amount. 89Hoo has done so even more. Because of this, you can know that we’re not partisan hacks who let the GOP think for us. Even though we’re both conservative, we bash Romney and the GOP because we’ve thought things through and disagree with them. And likewise, we bash Obama and the Democrats because we’ve thought things through and disagree with them.
I’ve seen you exhibit independent thought on non-partisan issues, so I know you’re capable of it. It’s hard to see it, though, when you wear the partisan blinders. It results in too much of an “us versus them” mindset.
Not for nothing here Brian, but neither 89Hoo, nor yourself have EVER presented as either “TEA Party”, Republican Party or Democratic Party supporter per se, so you and 89Hoo being somewhat honest about Romney’s faults is hardly the same as John R, Jim Lucas, or some of the other actual TP/R party apologists here. It is easy to bash both sides when you are not truly on either. Yippee for you!
Again, if you do not find my points, posts and information credible, valid or worthy of response. Then don’t. I am not asking for your approval or “friendship”. Do you introduce your children, and to gain respect, start listing their faults or weaknesses? Do you even understand what partisan means? I am not, to my knowledge, and certainly never deliberately, dishonest in my defense or explanations. I am not some anonymous blogger no one can find or know. I offer links to show where I have drawn my information from. I have my personal credibility on the line with every post, in my own hometown, so I do not say anything here lightly. Being partisan does not make anyone dishonest, or wrong; being dishonest and wrong is what makes someone dishonest and wrong.
As to the Student Loan system, this is not about ratios, this is about a fair, equitable system. I support that in as much as it has to account for the importance of a good education for those kids who are worthy of one. Period. I am not much interested in HOW we get there, certainly I do not have the expertise to lay out a system and insert the checks and balances that our banking and loan systems have not and still do not have. In essence I agree with you, but in substance, your plan seems to leave a lot of worthy kids out of an education that will literally change their lives and I cannot in good conscience sanction that.
38 = …somewhat honest…”
Geez, Sandi, you can’t even begrudgingly acknowledge a point without being snarky. Okay then, “somewhat honest” implies at least somewhat dishonest, which is an insult. How have I been dishonest, somewhat or otherwise?
To #39 (Sandi): I must disagree. It absolutely is about ratios. There are two types of errors a student loan program might make:
[1] Denying a loan to a student who is actually creditworthy, which means an educational opportunity denied.
[2] Extending a loan to a student who will be unable to pay it back, which means a trashed credit score and years (a lifetime?) of being hounded by debt collection agencies.
In statistics, these are called Type I and Type II errors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors. A good loan program would try to keep both of these types of errors to a minimum.
It’s also necessary to ask: “How much harm does each type of error cause?” Based on the Department of Educations actions, they believe that “denying a loan” is infinitely worse than a “loan going into default”. This is clearly erroneous, as they both cause harm.
If making a bad loan is twice as harmful as denying a loan, then lending standards should be tuned to make bad loans half as likely as denied loans. If making a bad loan is half as harmful as denying a loan, then lending standards should be tuned to make denied loans half as likely as bad loans. It may seem “cold-heartedly mathematical”, but there’s nothing cold-hearted about it. It’s the best way to minimize harm. It’s the best way of treating students “fair and equitably”. You may not be “interested in HOW we get there”, but this type of analysis is exactly the proper way to do it.
Alas, as of today there are no lending standards at all for federal student loans. And the resulting excess of Type II errors is crushing a generation of young people with excess debt.
And on the subject of being a partisan… The Democrats are not children. They do not need to be protected and shielded like a child should be. If they have faults and weaknesses, they those problems need to be dealt with. Not swept under the rug or hidden for fear of embarrassment. They’re supposed to be leaders, not immature youth who need to be given time to grow up.