dud
Diamond Member
It is worth it only if you want to do something that you enjoy and make more money than if you had not gone. I was able to complete all of my degrees without getting into too much debt.
It was worth it for me.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
College: Is it Worth it?
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It is worth it only if you want to do something that you enjoy and make more money than if you had not gone. I was able to complete all of my degrees without getting into too much debt.
It was worth it for me.
Bignate603
Lifer
Why is student loan debt being greater than credit card debt a bad thing? At least with student loan debt you're really getting something valuable back in return. I'd rather have more of our debt load in student loans and less in normal consumer debt like credit cards.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
The answer is right in front of you.
College is only worth it in any other country other than the U.S.?
What country are you going to move to?
Slew Foot
Lifer
Its definitely worth it as long as you dont go to some shit school and get some shit humanities degree.
Although i must say that in the last ten years tuition costs have skyrocketed, I started med school in 2000 and tuition was 6k/yr, now its 24k/yr at the same school. Absolutely ridiculous.
Although i must say that in the last ten years tuition costs have skyrocketed, I started med school in 2000 and tuition was 6k/yr, now its 24k/yr at the same school. Absolutely ridiculous.
Farmer
Diamond Member
I would definitely disagree with that.
1.) If you value college for the job prospects, the reason is obvious. You needn't have achieved anything to go to community college. Your competition in community college in general is not that great. You will need to work your ass off to even have the slightest chance of getting into a Harvard, and your competition there is far greater. Thus an employer will learn a great deal about your capabilities and past experiences just by looking at where you earned your degree.
2.) If you value college for the education, the reason is very similar. If you goto these premier places, your professors will be immensely qualified (if you look at the CVs of people who teach at these places, you will be in awe). You will be surrounded by peers who seem smarter and more capable than you. Essentially, there will be more to learn. Sure, you might cover similar things in a class on high school algebra (I assume this is what you're talking about), but your community college probably does not have anyone who can teach differential topology. You might not even be aware such an idea exists. This was definitely my impression of college, as in, there is so much stuff I hadn't the slightest clue existed before.
It obviously is not for everyone. There are certainly many people who will be adequately challenged at a community college. Like someone said earlier, YMMV. The important thing is to find a place where you feel you are actually learning, but don't feel like everyone else is leaving you behind.
Having said that, there's a huge difference between "state school" and "community college." I would agree that there are many big state schools whose undergraduate academic rigor is similar to or greater than the better private schools (Berkeley is practically a public Ivy, but a lot of the UCs, Michigan, UIUC, Maryland, Wisconsin, and many many more, especially if you also include their graduate programs), especially if the subject is in science or engineering. Again, the reason is their faculty are pretty much just as qualified as those who teach at the Ivy League schools, perhaps just not as lucky.
Also, talking about "Ivy League requirements" is a broad stroke. Grade inflation at Harvard is fairly notorious, but the opposite is true at Cornell, being a more technical and quantitatively-focused school. I don't think tech schools like MIT should be grouped in at all.
Not in response to your post, but there is a huge difference in going to college to learn, and going to college to find a job. For instance one of the most profitable majors right now is petroleum engineering. An argument you would probably have with yourself is, should I major in petroleum engineering even though I have absolutely no interest in this seemingly dull subject, or should I do it anyway because I'll find a high paying job? That all depends on your end goal.
4 years of college @ $20k a year = -$80k
Estimated salary = $40k a year
Estimated salary w/o college degree = $30k a year + 4 years work experience
Answer: Depends on the degree and what kind of work you're interested in doing.
Most jobs will have career salary caps of $50k-$60k, which one could achieve without a college degree. (but you might be able to get there with less effort with a college degree vs the non-traditional route)
From my perspective, it was worth it:
4 years of full scholarship -> degree in CS -> ~$56k/year job in a field that caps out at $100k-$120k (after sufficient experience), and I probably put in less effort than it would take without a college degree to get to the same salary level. (Especially as I advance in my career)
Estimated salary = $40k a year
Estimated salary w/o college degree = $30k a year + 4 years work experience
Answer: Depends on the degree and what kind of work you're interested in doing.
Most jobs will have career salary caps of $50k-$60k, which one could achieve without a college degree. (but you might be able to get there with less effort with a college degree vs the non-traditional route)
From my perspective, it was worth it:
4 years of full scholarship -> degree in CS -> ~$56k/year job in a field that caps out at $100k-$120k (after sufficient experience), and I probably put in less effort than it would take without a college degree to get to the same salary level. (Especially as I advance in my career)
Last edited:
PrinceofWands
Lifer
If you read the first part of my post you'll see that I fully discount college as having any relation to work whatsoever. I realize it's necessary in certain professional paths (doctor, lawyer, etc) but in general education has no relation to employment for me.
You seem to judge 'competitiveness' as having value, while I consider it counter to positivity. I see no reason why anyone should ever compete with anyone over anything. There's no benefit to it, and a ton of negatives. Individuality matters, and cooperation matters. Competition is a BAD thing in almost all cases.
No one can control what an employer thinks. If they're so stupid, or so terrible, that they would judge someone based on how much they spent at their school then I'm far too good of a human being to be in any way associated with them anyway.
I disagree. I don't find their resumes much better than any other professor at any other school. How much someone knows, or how good of a teacher they are, or anything else bears little correlation to what they do for a living or where they do it. Some of the smartest, best people I've ever known have been homeless, and some of the worst pieces of filth ever to pollute the planet have been world leaders and heads of corporations.
People at Ivy Leagues aren't smarter than me on average (except maybe MIT, but even then it's more likely going to be a dead heat at best). They usually buy into society lines more, and are usually more driven, but that's all. In most cases I'm still smarter and know at least as much. I also score at least as well on assignments.
Just because Harvard is an Ivy League doesn't mean it will have the most options in any given field since schools often somewhat specialize (the difference between MIT and Yale for instance). Obviously if you want to focus on cutting edge, extremely narrow niches you need to attend a school that does it. However, 90% of the classes taken at college (even up to PhD levels) are NOT those classes. They're general crap that's exactly the same no matter where you take it. Early American history is early American history. Calculus is calculus. Literature is literature. You get the idea.
I've done some of the open courseware at MIT. It was no different than the syllabus at WSU or Lower Columbia Community College. In fact, my history courses at WSU were more demanding than anywhere else I've ever looked. I've audited a class at Reed. It was definitely among the more challenging I'd encountered, but not out of line with the tougher courses at other schools I've attended. Again, the knowledge was the knowledge, and nothing more.
The only REAL differences between top schools and community colleges are how much you pay, what you have to do to get in, what type of people/environment you're going to exist in, and what networking options you'll develop for later.
Without question a Lawyer who wants to work at a major firm should look Ivy League. They won't be any better of a lawyer than someone taking night classes from Podunk College because the knowledge is all exactly the same. They will, however, be more likely to get a job with people who think that it matters where you went to school, instead of what you can do.
mattpegher
Platinum Member
This is a complex issue
1. Tuition - There is no denying that tuitions have increased at a rate that is much greater than inflation. The first question is what can you afford. If your rich daddy is going to pay, then maybe you can attend an expensive private college but if you are going to have to borrow or earn the tuition (and living expenses) then you may have to stick with the cheaper state schools.
2. Borrow on a reasonable expectation of income. If the average income for the profession that you can get with that degree is low compared to the cost of the degree then it is a bad business choice. I am sure the numbers of acceptable debt will differ for many but I recommend that borrowing more than 50% of expected income (maybe 100% of first year) for the education is risky. ie expect to make 100k/year then borrowing more than 50K for school will be hard to pay back. (some may accept up to 100k, but thats pushing it)
I borrowed 140K for med school and after 15 years am still paying it back.
3. Borrowing that kind of money without a reasonable plan on what you are going to do with the education is foolish. Sure it can be a flexible plan, but seeing college as some right that your parents or society owes you is very nieve.
1. Tuition - There is no denying that tuitions have increased at a rate that is much greater than inflation. The first question is what can you afford. If your rich daddy is going to pay, then maybe you can attend an expensive private college but if you are going to have to borrow or earn the tuition (and living expenses) then you may have to stick with the cheaper state schools.
2. Borrow on a reasonable expectation of income. If the average income for the profession that you can get with that degree is low compared to the cost of the degree then it is a bad business choice. I am sure the numbers of acceptable debt will differ for many but I recommend that borrowing more than 50% of expected income (maybe 100% of first year) for the education is risky. ie expect to make 100k/year then borrowing more than 50K for school will be hard to pay back. (some may accept up to 100k, but thats pushing it)
I borrowed 140K for med school and after 15 years am still paying it back.
3. Borrowing that kind of money without a reasonable plan on what you are going to do with the education is foolish. Sure it can be a flexible plan, but seeing college as some right that your parents or society owes you is very nieve.
child of wonder
Diamond Member
Depends on the person, their drive and work ethic, the degree, and some luck.
My AAS degree cost me $14,000 and has me earning a hair under six figures.
Overall I would say college is a great investment if the field you study is something you're truly interested in and a demand for workers exists in that field. Otherwise it's just a gamble.
My AAS degree cost me $14,000 and has me earning a hair under six figures.
Overall I would say college is a great investment if the field you study is something you're truly interested in and a demand for workers exists in that field. Otherwise it's just a gamble.
Engineer
Elite Member
:hmm:
I wonder if the old adage that a college graduate will make over $1,000,000 more than a non college graduate over his/her working life makes it worth it? I wonder what the "median" amount over those with high school (or less) is?
Bignate603
Lifer
Patranus
Diamond Member
Thats what happens when you have government guarantee student loans.
Banks can make retarded student loans knowing that the federal government is there to back them up with tax dollars.
Same shit that happened in the housing market with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Farmer
Diamond Member
Education has no relation to employment for you? What? So what you're saying is your job does not require anything you learned in college, and hence you could probably perform equally well had you just come out of high school? For one, you don't know how you would perform right out of high school. I don't know what field you're in, but I suppose I can understand your opinion that all colleges are equivalent if that is the first statement you make.
I don't see how competition is a bad thing. Cooperation is certainly critical and necessary, but competition occurs just as frequently as cooperation in life. The hot girl in your algebra class, the job search, the promotion, the graduate or professional school entrance application, the selection process for a professorship are all competitive and selective. By virtue of the meaning, anything that is worth obtaining will involve competition. It is something that you need to learn how to deal with. If anything, it promotes individuality because it forces you to think about what it is about you that separates you from other candidates. At the very least, applying to schools that are difficult to get into indicates to us that the individual is confident about his abilities and isn't afraid to demonstrate what he is capable of in his application. Again, your pre-college record may not be that relevant once you have graduated college and are looking for a job, but a student who is motivated to do well during high school and is capable of getting into a prestigious school should not be simply binned away as having gone to an "expensive school." Believe it or not, for the majority of students at the better private schools, their parents are not donors, and their admission is based on merit.
Your assumption that a brand name school equals $200K in the hole is false. Of course, there is a great percentage of these students who paid the full price, however that is definitely not everyone. I attended one of the schools that you mentioned. I paid very little, less than I would've paid for in state tuition discounting scholarship. I knew many individuals whose parents were blue collared workers or otherwise not privately wealthy. These were smart individuals with great accomplishments, and many of them did not pay a cent for their college degree.
If you are instead commenting on the value proposition for, say a student from a middle-upper class family who was admitted to Harvard, where he must pay full tuition, or to his state university where he can get significant tuition discount, then I certainly agree he will have to consider his options. YMMV, and you cannot make any broad sweeping statements like "all colleges are the same" or "college is worthless you can learn by yourself."
Ultimately a person's capability certainly should not be determined by where they got their degree. Many a genius will not attend college, many a moron will goto Harvard, but everything is statistical: If they got their degree from an extremely selective college, you can say with greater certainty that they are more capable due purely to greater mean quality of graduates.
You're right. Employers are not stupid. They like to hire CalTech graduates because all the previous CalTech graduates they or anyone else hired did a lot better in their jobs than Podunk Community College graduates. So eventually they just stopped hiring from Podunk Community College and started to hire only CalTech graduates. Sure, CalTech happens to have a much higher MSRP, but that's not the only difference, and certainly not the reason why employers use what college you graduated from as an indicator of your worth.
First of all, I agree that the curriculum at WSU (or even at your community college) may not differ very much from that at a highly ranked private school. I completely agree that a professor's research ability, the primary reason they are at prestigious research university instead of community college, has little to do with his teaching ability. I also certainly agree that an individual's position in society has only in part to do with their intellectual capabilities.
There may be minute differences in the qualifications of your WSU professor and a Harvard professor, but there will be a much larger difference between your average community college professor and your average Harvard professor.
There are certainly terrible lecturers at MIT, and I'm sure there are world class lecturers at Lower Columbia Community College. I can' t speak of certainties because you are sure to point out an outlier, but it is more probable to find a good lecturer on any subject at MIT than it is at a random community college.
Another point of argument is that the performance of your peers has as much to do with the intellectual process as the performance of the instructor. If you are in an environment where you are the most intelligent person in the classroom, there is very little room for you to grow inside the classroom aside from listening to lecture, a lecture that is most likely being catered to the lowest common denominator. Though the intellectual ability of a college entrant is hard to quantify (like, I don't want to just say, look at the SAT scores), the variance in the capabilities of the students in an selective admissions college classroom is far lower than that in a state university, and the mean much higher. I am again speaking statistically because there are geniuses and dimwits everywhere. As an example, suppose you become fascinated with the subject of quantum physics. At community college, perhaps the only individual with whom you can have meaningful conversation on the subject will be the one or two professors familiar with the subject and the homeless man on the corner. And you may believe yourself to have profound understanding as no other student seems to. On the other hand, were you taking a course in a well established physics department, the insights you get from conversing with your equally interested and talented peers along will force you to deeper understanding, and more importantly, make you aware of what is known but you don't understand.
I've addressed the differences in the amount you have to pay. You seem to believe the quality of education is totally decoupled from the environment and believe that it is equally likely to find a good teacher at community college as it is at a highly ranked college. Even if you pretend these assumptions are true, the reasons you listed are enough for many to go to $50K a year Stanford instead of community college, as tough as you make that decision seem.
Last edited:
FoBoT
No Lifer
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
FTFY
The pace of our society and the speed of changes in our quality of life have increased to the point where many think that unless they have a new car, house and, savings plan for retirement by 26, they're falling behind and unlikely to "succeed." This is reinforced by educators themselves, media and, especially the corporations. All the focus is on doing anything like school, jumping through hoops for corporations or, putting up with draconian bosses to finally reach retirement so they can begin "living." Not only does modern society view this as the "best way," it views it as the "only way."
Imp
Lifer
Going to agree with most of this. When I first got out of college (4 year) and started at my job (geared towards graduates of a technical college, 3 year program), I though the same: hey, these 3-year techies know the same stuff I do and more, why'd I do a 4 year program?
After a few months, the differences became very apparent. We may have been taught very similar technical skills, but many of these people could not have survived my program, were lacking critical thinking and analytical skills. I'm generalizing here, but I have yet to find many that break the mould. Having said that, I'm not saying they're "dumb", but the different school programs probably emphasized different things, teaching styles were different, attracted different types of people with different strengths, etc. Of course, there are flunkies and stars in either program (mines and theirs).
I'm doing graduate school now and you really start learning to appreciate a good school with good teachers at this point - I'm in one of the world's "top 20 ranked" universities. It's harder to tough it out like in undergrad since I already have my bachelors, so less than good professors are intolerable, and you ask a lot more questions; I went through undergrad and only 1 professor knew me by name.
As for people letting a school or where you went to it define you, I work in an office (building actually) full of engineers. Lot of people who went to my school and lots of who went to ones supposedly "worse" than mine. There are f*cktards all around... Hell, I got passed over for an entry-level position by a classmate that had a low-C average, and can't even get accepted to grad school.
too stupid to flunk!
silverpig
Lifer
Depends on the person. If you are talented and need it to open a door, then yes. If you are relying on the MBA to polish a turd, then no.
It paid off for me and quite a few people I know, but then again it didn't for others.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
You misunderstand. I'm saying that education has no relation to the concept of employment itself. I didn't go to college to get a job. I went to college to get an education. I went to learn about a subject, but also to increase my overall ability to learn and process information, and to be exposed to a wide variety of information.
40% of graduates work at a job that doesn't require ANY college, never mind in their major. Only 25-35% of graduates overall end up working at a job related to their major. Then there's the fact that people will end up changing jobs numerous times (11 for graduates right now, but increasing), quite often out of their major or field even if they were one of the few that started there. The idea of 'a career for life' is essentially dead for almost all people. The point is that the specific education you receive is unlikely to relate to your work. What matters is just having an education, and the broad concepts that imparts. It should therefore be viewed wholly separate from the idea of work.
Again, there are exceptions. But they are just that, and exceptions shouldn't be the basis of policy or society.
Competition is only real if you empower it to be. While you can have some impact on where you compare to others, it's extremely limited and other factors beyond your control matter more in the end. For instance, I was born smart. It's just genetics. Then I had a good fitting early childhood, allowing me to flourish within my environment. I didn't 'do' anything, that's just how chance set me on the path. At that point 99.9999% of the planet can't compete with me in intellectual pursuits. It doesn't matter if I drink and fuck all day every day, and they work 20 hours a day with the best tutors money can buy. I'm just smarter. Period. I could learn more in 4 hours on my own than most could get in a semester at the best schools.
When I entered programs for exceptionally intelligent kids I found people that were smarter than me, but usually not significantly so. What's more, I found out that even when they WERE smarter, they weren't better. Yet they spent their time trying to compete with everyone and get even smarter. In the end, they scored a few percent higher than others, but I had a good time and learned to do random things and improve my physical shape. To add insult to injury no matter how much they did there was ALWAYS someone better out there. Even if you're the absolute undisputed best at something, it's temporary (and probably not important anyway).
To look at it another way, I had the second highest SATs in my high school, and the lowest GPA. I only passed one class in five years, yet I went on to get into every college I applied to, and even lectured at schools that those other kids couldn't even get accepted to as students. The people with the highest GPAs killed themselves to get there, and then kept doing it at college and again at their work. Almost none of them are so successful now as to make a large difference between our lifestyles. Meanwhile, I had a great time, made lifelong friends, and learned a lot of ancillary stuff that is paying big benefits now that they'll never know.
It's no different with jobs or women or anything else. For 99.9999% of the people, it's all going to be about the same, no matter what. For that .0001%, it has more to do with things completely beyond our control. If we fight against that we end up wasting our lives in futility, and miss the point of living along the way. Competition is an illusion, and a harmful one.
I never said anything about that. Think you're confusing me with another poster.
I won't even go that far. I will go so far as to say that a person who tries to fit within a given niche cares more about that niche, and will work harder and/or smarter to stay within it. If that's something that matters, then by all means judge based upon it. People who get into big schools are better at doing the things big schools look for, but they don't look for intelligence or ability. They look for drive, discipline, desire, etc. If you're a super-genius who disagrees with the schools basic ideological principles then you're not going. Similarly people with certain jobs (like CEO) are better at getting or keeping jobs that make them a CEO. Doesn't make them smarter, more moral, harder working in general, or anything else. Just better at that one particular role.
As to ability, it generally proves nothing more than their ability to be slightly above average. Except in very limited instances (MIT, theoretical quantum physicist, etc) we're only talking about 1, or at most 2, SDs outside of average...which is not that elite with 7,000,000,000 people on the planet.
They hire CalTech because people that bother to get into CalTech has a personality and ideology that more closely matches theirs. See my previous points.
Similarly I'm much more likely to want to hire or work or associate with Reed or Evergreen graduates because they're going to be out-of-the-box, anti-establishment thinkers.
I 'almost' agree. I think you are right that you're 'more likely', but you also have to control for the fact that the bigger schools want both ideological matching, AND money. If the professor is likely to make them money (by doing things that make money, rather than teaching, or being right), then they'll take them. Remember that at the major universities there's FAR less actual 'teaching' by the professors than at a smaller school. Assistants grade the papers, stand-in lecturers, etc. At that position they're about research and money-making, not education.
Ok, now THIS I totally agree with. However, you're still stuck in the idea that the people at 'better' schools are somehow inherently significantly more intelligent. They're really not, at least not beyond about 1SD past average, and even that's only an average. People are far better off seeking peers in peer groups, rather than at the cattle call of colleges.
Again, there are exceptions (MIT doesn't sit many average minds).
I really do believe that. I think the reason so many don't agree is that their warrants match those of the schools and society in general. I come from an opposing set of desires and beliefs, so I'm looking for outcomes contrary to those of the general public.
Don't get me wrong. If someone wanted to toss me a year at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Reed, etc I'd happily accept it so I had first hand experience to compare with. I just don't think they're special enough to rate even a large portion of their costs. Moreover, I think they foster damaging and negative social concepts.
brianmanahan
Lifer
wall of words crits you for 9001 damage
dan4patriots
Senior member
if you dont want to pay for college then enlist in the military and serve first or whatever you choose
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
Or, realize that many paths don't involve college.
depends on the person, but i think there are a lot of mcdonalds that don't need college graduates manning the fryer
the inflation rate of college tuition is some sort of conspiracy or scam or tragedy
Part of the reason is because higher tuition costs help US News rankings - private schools in particular have no incentive to NOT increase tuition by 8%-10% a year.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
