Thread: Cost of High School Dropouts Draining US Taxpayer

From CNBC:

High school dropouts on average receive $1,500 a year more from government than they pay in taxes because they are more likely to get benefits or to be in prison, according to a U.S. study released on Wednesday.
"Dropping out of high school before receiving a high school diploma places a substantial fiscal burden on the rest of society," wrote Andrew Sum of Northeastern University, an author of a study of Illinois and Chicago residents done on behalf of the Chicago Urban League and some education groups.

News Headlines

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

From CNBC:



News Headlines

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

Not sure I have seen where college has been de-emphasized as a topic. I have seen threads on how it should be paid was discussed. Thought most people agree that if you don't have a higher education degreee, then the person should have a "trade" education (mechanic school for example, tech schools).

As far as people with not even a high school income. It is common sense that most would be in the lower income bracket and try and use many of the social benifits that are available.

It makes common sense that those who have higher education will end up in higher paying jobs. American will allways need mechanics, construction, etc. College is not for everyone. Some of my friends never went to college, but did go to trade school. They make what is considered middle class income.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

The crux of that argument takes the form of hyperbolizing the study of the arts. Some will claim that it is theater/poetry majors taking 100k loans that does harm to our society. But i disagree. The real problem arises from students (from all fields of study) taking out college loans and not finishing their degrees.

Here is an interesting article:

Conclusion

Students who start college but do not graduate
incur large personal expenses. They pay thousands
of dollars in tuition, they likely take out loans, they
change their lives, but they fail in one of the most
important goals they have ever set for themselves.
In the meantime, taxpayers pay billions of dollars
in grants and state appropriations to support
these students as they pursue degrees they will
never earn.
In this report, we have documented yet another
cost of the nation’s low college graduation rate. As
a nation, we incur hundreds of millions of dollars in
lost income each year. These losses translate into
millions of dollars in lost income taxes.
President Obama’s call for the United States to
regain the lead as the nation in the world with the
highest concentration of college and university
degrees has a fiscal underpinning that is beyond
question: Low college graduation rates are costly
for students, for their families, and for taxpayers in
each state and the nation as a whole.

Can't disagree. "The real problem arises from students (from all fields of study) taking out college loans and not finishing their degrees."
It is a shame that so many of are young adults make such life decisions. There may be good reasons for it, but I think the lack of parental guidance as the kid was growing up may have a lot to do with it. Its the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

With the entitlement attitude today, guess some think the govt. will provide and I don't need to do a thing.

Though not all that common, one can drop out of high school and still obtain a college degree.

I read the story twice and I did not read anywhere that it noted that those who did not attend college cost society anything. So I must ask.....

What does this have to do with the article?

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

Originally Posted by 1Perry

I read the story twice and I did not read anywhere that it noted that those who did not attend college cost society anything. So I must ask.....

What does this have to do with the article?

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

Reading it 4 times will not help; you need to "read between the lines".

Originally Posted by mike2810

Not sure I have seen where college has been de-emphasized as a topic.

One such piece can be found at: Down with the Four-Year College Degree! | Charles Murray | Cato Unbound

The reality is that in a world where college degree attainment in the U.S. is slipping relative to the United States' OECD peers and select developing countries poses a long-term competitivess threat in a world where knowledge/critical thinking/information literacy/technology literacy demands are growing increasingly demanding. A smaller pool of talent will lead to less growth in today's and tomorrow's rapid growth sophisticated economies. As a society, those foregone opportunities will not only have an impact on underutilization of one's capacities/underemployment, it will also translate in fewer jobs being created for all persons (lower income than would otherwise be attainable means less consumption spending and also less saving). Lower aggregate demand from foregone consumption translates into less need for production, less demand for supplies/capital equiment, less need for labor, etc. Reduced saving and investment leads to fewer startups, a higher cost of capital, and foregone R&D, all of which can damage consumer welfare (reduced competition/reduced choice/reduced economies of scale, learning effects, experience effects) and undermine competitiveness.

If one examines the nation's employment data (Table A-4 shows the unemployment rate based on educational attainment and Table B-1 shows which industries are adding jobs), the clear conclusion is that it is more important for Americans to obtain a college degree than in the past. The numbers speak for themselves.

Note, I'm not talking about 100% college degree attainment. There will always be certain trades where a degree might be unnecessary. But those generally are not high-growth (employment positions and incomes) areas.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

One such piece can be found at: Down with the Four-Year College Degree! | Charles Murray | Cato Unbound

The article DOES NOT come out against a college degree. It does the exact opposite.

I am not complaining that too many people are getting education after high school. On the contrary, I am in favor of education after high school for almost all young people.

You really need to get your arguement straight here.

Originally Posted by 1Perry

The article DOES NOT come out against a college degree. It does the exact opposite.

He's advocating alternatives to the four-year college degree. He states, "Getting rid of the BA and replacing it with evidence of competence–treating post-secondary education as apprenticeships..." Alternatives already exist. The economic statistics e.g., employment data, argue strongly against those alternatives. Greater emphasis on assuring that students complete their four-year college education rather than start but never complete it or pursue faddish alternatives would serve students and society best. One cannot ignore the growing importance of knowledge-centered professions and also relative gains being made in higher educational attainment abroad.

The intellectually lazy approach is for U.S. policy makers or pundits to wring their hands, run up the surrender flag, and argue to do away with higher education. The better approach would be to address the issues that are responsible for subpar attainment of college degrees, even if that means rigorous reform of the primary and secondary education system to assure that students are truly prepared for the rigors of higher education.