• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rates

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rates

Rubric:
There is strong evidence that raising the level of attainment of higher educationdegrees has historically yielded long-run economic and social benefits in theUnited States. Yet investing in greater educational success is costly, becauseit involves sending more students to college for longer periods of time, andbecause further investment may be needed to improve attainment rates. In thisreport, we present a simple model of the long-run economic costs and benefitsof improving attainment by increasing completion rates.

Given the assumptions of our model, costs exceed benefits over a numberof years, but economic returns later begin to kick in and eventually the programof investment yields a positive net economic return....

....The significant returns to education mean that if the costs of increasing completioncan be kept in check, the benefits are likely to exceed the costs in the longrun. At an individual level, David Autor estimates that after accounting for theeffects on higher wages and the costs of a degree, the net lifetime gain from collegefor a man is currently $590,000 and for a woman $390,000.19 However, thegains from education accrue over a lifetime of working. Initially, increasing collegecompletion leads to higher fiscal spending and lower employment. For this reason,the fiscal costs of improving the college attainment rate of the population willexceed the fiscal benefits for the first decade under the most plausible assumptions.
-- The Economic Impact of Increasing College Completion


Despite thetremendous heterogeneity across potential college students, we conclude that the investment appearsto payoff for both the average and marginal student. During the past three decades in particular, theearnings premium associated with a college education has risen substantially. Beyond the pecuniarybenefits of higher education, we suggest that there also may exist non-pecuniary benefits.
-- Literature Review of Research on the Returns to Higher Education


Based on the findings of the above referenced study and meta-analysis, I think that insofar as economic returns to higher education remain high and provide a pathway forindividual economic mobility, the U .S. should revise its discretionary spending priorities to avail the citizenry of free post-secondary education, at least up to the baccalaureate level.
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

Rubric:
There is strong evidence that raising the level of attainment of higher educationdegrees has historically yielded long-run economic and social benefits in theUnited States. Yet investing in greater educational success is costly, becauseit involves sending more students to college for longer periods of time, andbecause further investment may be needed to improve attainment rates. In thisreport, we present a simple model of the long-run economic costs and benefitsof improving attainment by increasing completion rates.

Given the assumptions of our model, costs exceed benefits over a numberof years, but economic returns later begin to kick in and eventually the programof investment yields a positive net economic return....

....The significant returns to education mean that if the costs of increasing completioncan be kept in check, the benefits are likely to exceed the costs in the longrun. At an individual level, David Autor estimates that after accounting for theeffects on higher wages and the costs of a degree, the net lifetime gain from collegefor a man is currently $590,000 and for a woman $390,000.19 However, thegains from education accrue over a lifetime of working. Initially, increasing collegecompletion leads to higher fiscal spending and lower employment. For this reason,the fiscal costs of improving the college attainment rate of the population willexceed the fiscal benefits for the first decade under the most plausible assumptions.
-- The Economic Impact of Increasing College Completion


Despite thetremendous heterogeneity across potential college students, we conclude that the investment appearsto payoff for both the average and marginal student. During the past three decades in particular, theearnings premium associated with a college education has risen substantially. Beyond the pecuniarybenefits of higher education, we suggest that there also may exist non-pecuniary benefits.
-- Literature Review of Research on the Returns to Higher Education


Based on the findings of the above referenced study and meta-analysis, I think that insofar as economic returns to higher education remain high and provide a pathway forindividual economic mobility, the U .S. should revise its discretionary spending priorities to avail the citizenry of free post-secondary education, at least up to the baccalaureate level.

I agree. The benefits of a well-educated populace can't be expressed in terms that uneducated and/or anti-education people will understand. It needs a government with such a secure majority and a committment to what's good for the country instead of what's good for the party that they'll apply tax revenue to the greater good instead of re-election. Might be awhile before those things line up.
However, post-secondary education is free or nearly so in so many countries that it needs to be asked- why is it so expensive in North America?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

I agree. The benefits of a well-educated populace can't be expressed in terms that uneducated and/or anti-education people will understand. It needs a government with such a secure majority and a committment to what's good for the country instead of what's good for the party that they'll apply tax revenue to the greater good instead of re-election. Might be awhile before those things line up.
However, post-secondary education is free or nearly so in so many countries that it needs to be asked- why is it so expensive in North America?

Before sharing what I below will, let me be clear: I don't cotton to and won't argue a point based entirely or partially on the notion of Party A doing anything because Party B did/does it. That's as so for ideas I favor as it is for those of which I disapprove. Ideas have their own sets of merits and demerits. The merits/demerits and uncertainties -- qualitative and quantitative -- of funding post-secondary education are found in the documents I linked in my OP.

As a matter only of observation, as of November 2017, several countries offer free post-secondary education to international students: Brazil, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Germany and Panama. A baccalaureate degree isn't free to foreigners in France; however, the tuition fees are super low, costing about the cost of a nice meal for two.

Were I choosing among the above noted nations, I'd pick Luxembourg, Germany, or France. The thing that crosses my mind, however, if that one has the smarts to obtain admission to a school in any of the noted EU states, one must nonetheless pay out-of-pocket for housing, food, transportation, etc. If one has the coin to do that in the EU, then one has the coin to attend a school in the U.S., including elite private schools like Williams or Dartmouth, although attending one's flagship in-state public university would far less dear.


The last observation above alludes to a material element of the beefing about the cost of a baccalaureate degree which I'll describe by way of an anecdote.

One of my colleagues and I were chatting about the cost of college, "Betty." She was remarking that her son had gotten admitted to Duke, UVa, and Cornell. "Betty" and her husband earn a decent middle-income living -- I don't know precisely how much but I imagine they have a gross household income around $160K or so -- has put away enough to afford UVa because they live in VA. Duke and Cornell would put them or their son in "big debt." They've explained the financial factors to the boy, but he's going to be an adult, so they can't stop him from enrolling where he wants to. Her son wants to go out of state, partly to get away from home and he prefers Cornell because, well, it's out of state and it's Cornell. "Betty" and her son are, I think, in a situation similar to thousands of other matriculating undergraduates who insist on going to a school because of its name and prestige, and they mistakenly think the added prestige will benefit them.

"Betty" asked me to speak with her son. I did.

I told him the truth: there are literally a handful of schools where the prestige associated with the network one develops there can literally make a material difference, and none of them are the three schools he's considering. Moreover, at the bachelor's degree level, with the exception of a small handful of professional degrees -- one's associated with professions where a B.S. is essentially and professionally speaking the terminal degree -- whatever top state institution one attends is quite a fine place from which to obtain one's degree. I also explained how my firm's recruiting programs work.

I guess that did the trick because he decided to go to UVa. Why folks insist on matriculating to a school that costs more than a perfectly good alternative that equally available and affordable (or less debt-producing) to them is beyond me, but people do it.

It's worth noting that while few schools have merit scholarships for incoming freshmen, some do have them for transfers from community colleges. Why more kids don't avail themselves of community college to take the "core" freshman classes is also beyond me. Precalculus and calculus, for instance, are the same no matter where one takes them. If one isn't going to be history major, what difference does it make where one takes a general education history course? None. Another thing about community colleges: because they are not research institutions, their instructors focus more on teaching than do graduate assistants and professors at four-year institutions, both of whom consider teaching little more than a "necessary evil."
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

Based on the findings of the above referenced study and meta-analysis, I think that insofar as economic returns to higher education remain high and provide a pathway forindividual economic mobility, the U .S. should revise its discretionary spending priorities to avail the citizenry of free post-secondary education, at least up to the baccalaureate level.


cool!! that way much of the burden of paying for college falls to those not qualified for college. You want the poor to support the college rich or soon to be college rich?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

cool!! that way much of the burden of paying for college falls to those not qualified for college. You want the poor to support the college rich or soon to be college rich?

What?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat


you want free college, and who does that screw? The people who don't go to college since they get to pay for it but don't get to go to college. Now do you understand?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

you want free college, and who does that screw? The people who don't go to college since they get to pay for it but don't get to go to college. Now do you understand?

I do now understand what your point is. TY for the clarification.
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

I do now understand what your point is. TY for the clarification.

and do you still like the idea of the non college types paying for college types to get a good education and job?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

and do you still like the idea of the non college types paying for college types to get a good education and job?

I haven't articulated any emotional position with regard to "the idea of the non college types paying for college types to get a good education and job." You declared that I have such a stance.

What I have said is, "Based on the findings [in the studies cited in the OP], I think that insofar as economic returns to higher education remain high and provide a pathway for individual economic mobility, the U .S. should revise its discretionary spending priorities to avail the citizenry of free post-secondary education, at least up to the baccalaureate level." That statement is succinct and very specific. It hasn't anything to do with liking or disliking something, and it has nothing to do with what individuals (or genre thereof) opt to avail themselves of free post-secondary education, were their tuition paid-for by the government.

By all means, feel free to differ with my normative assertion; however, if you're of a mind to challenge the merit of that assertion, please share, by way of methodological reference to any specific finding element, the objections you have with study(s) that support it. If what you're of mind to share is an abducted normative stance, that's, I suppose, okay too, but don't expect me to respond to it with a defense of my own stance. The defense for the normative position I articulated is in the studies I referenced. Indeed, the very reason I referred to the content I did (one empirical study and a scholarly literature review that summarizes additional empirical studies) is because it's more efficient to do so than it is for me to do so by presenting the same empirical analysis found in them; there's no point in my reinventing the wheel, as it were.

The preceding notwithstanding, regardless of whether I remark upon whatever stance you attest to having, what I'm not going to do is answer your questions that ask me how I "still" feel about something of which I never expressed any feeling.

And what on Earth is a "college type" and a "non-college type." From where I sit, there are people who matriculate to college and there are people who do not. Whether one does or does not is one's decision to make. Hell, doing so doesn't even depend on whether one performed academically well in high school.
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

I haven't articulated any emotional position with regard to "the idea of the non college types paying for college types to get a good education and job." You declared that I have such a stance.
you said you wanted free college education. That's a good deal for college types since they get a free education and a ticket to higher incomes, but a bad deal for the lower class non college types who have to pay for it but don't get the free education.

do you support other programs wherein the lower class support the upper class?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

and do you still like the idea of the non college types paying for college types to get a good education and job?
I haven't articulated any emotional position with regard to "the idea of the non college types paying for college types to get a good education and job." You declared that I have such a stance.
you said you wanted free college education. That's a good deal for college types since they get a free education and a ticket to higher incomes, but a bad deal for the lower class non college types who have to pay for it but don't get the free education.

do you support other programs wherein the lower class support the upper class?

Asked and responded to. Read beyond the first paragraph of post 9.
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

Asked and responded to. Read beyond the first paragraph of post 9.

for second time:do you support other programs wherein the lower class support the upper class? Afraid to try?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

for second time:do you support other programs wherein the lower class support the upper class? Afraid to try?
I am a U.S. citizen who routinely pays his income taxes. As a result, I necessarily support all sorts of programs. Some of those programs provides differing degrees of benefit to people in a wide range of socioeconomic positions. For example:
I don't spend my time examining what each and every program performed by the federal, state, county or city governments managing the political jurisdictions with which I have some long-term or short-term connection, but insofar as I pay my tax liabilities to those governments, I know I'm necessarily to some extent supporting the programs those governments run. Some of those programs benefit wealthy folks more so than non-wealthy folks and others benefit non-wealthy folks more so than wealthy folks. That is what it is and it doesn't bother me that programs of both natures exist.

It's implicit in your recrimination of the conclusion at which I, in my OP, arrived that the philosophical focus of your analysis of government programs is on whether governmental programs provide equanimity among outcomes more so than equanimity of opportunity. You are entitled to have that be your focus and concomitant bar, but I do not have it as mine for the notion of equality of outcome is not a philosophy/principle for which which I have any approbation or esteem.


 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

I am a U.S. citizen who routinely pays his income taxes. As a result, I necessarily support all sorts of programs. Some of those programs provides differing degrees of benefit to people in a wide range of socioeconomic positions. For example:
I don't spend my time examining what each and every program performed by the federal, state, county or city governments managing the political jurisdictions with which I have some long-term or short-term connection, but insofar as I pay my tax liabilities to those governments, I know I'm necessarily to some extent supporting the programs those governments run. Some of those programs benefit wealthy folks more so than non-wealthy folks and others benefit non-wealthy folks more so than wealthy folks. That is what it is and it doesn't bother me that programs of both natures exist.

It's implicit in your recrimination of the conclusion at which I, in my OP, arrived that the philosophical focus of your analysis of government programs is on whether governmental programs provide equanimity among outcomes more so than equanimity of opportunity. You are entitled to have that be your focus and concomitant bar, but I do not have it as mine for the notion of equality of outcome is not a philosophy/principle for which which I have any approbation or esteem.





for 3rd time :do you support other programs wherein the lower class support the upper class? Afraid to try?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

for 3rd time :do you support other programs wherein the lower class support the upper class? Afraid to try?

I don't know what programs I am keen on because, as I noted earlier, "I don't spend my time examining what each and every program performed by the federal, state, county or city governments managing the political jurisdictions with which I have some long-term or short-term connection."

If you identify a specific program, I can look into what it does, how it does it, what impacts it has, and tell you whether I am keen on its existence. Beyond that, as I indicated earlier, I am well aware that as a taxpayer, I, like every other U.S. taxpayer, necessarily provide financial support for every program the federal government undertakes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

I don't know what programs I am keen on

sure you do. you are keen on free college much of which would be paid for by those who don't go to college and don't earn as much as those who do.
Is the liberal keen on other programs wherein the lower classes support the upper classes? You're sort of a reverse Marxist
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

sure you do. you are keen on free college much of which would be paid for by those who don't go to college and don't earn as much as those who do.
Is the liberal keen on other programs wherein the lower classes support the upper classes? You're sort of a reverse Marxist

You're not the first to do it, but you get the same treatment I give to others who do it....I don't at all appreciate others assigning labels to me, particularly when I know the person being nothing other than presumptuous. Doing that is dehumanizing, stupid, puerile and ignorant. I don't let people treat me like that and continue to interact with them. Ciao.
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

Rubric:
There is strong evidence that raising the level of attainment of higher educationdegrees has historically yielded long-run economic and social benefits in theUnited States. Yet investing in greater educational success is costly, becauseit involves sending more students to college for longer periods of time, andbecause further investment may be needed to improve attainment rates. In thisreport, we present a simple model of the long-run economic costs and benefitsof improving attainment by increasing completion rates.

Given the assumptions of our model, costs exceed benefits over a numberof years, but economic returns later begin to kick in and eventually the programof investment yields a positive net economic return....

....The significant returns to education mean that if the costs of increasing completioncan be kept in check, the benefits are likely to exceed the costs in the longrun. At an individual level, David Autor estimates that after accounting for theeffects on higher wages and the costs of a degree, the net lifetime gain from collegefor a man is currently $590,000 and for a woman $390,000.19 However, thegains from education accrue over a lifetime of working. Initially, increasing collegecompletion leads to higher fiscal spending and lower employment. For this reason,the fiscal costs of improving the college attainment rate of the population willexceed the fiscal benefits for the first decade under the most plausible assumptions.
-- The Economic Impact of Increasing College Completion


Despite thetremendous heterogeneity across potential college students, we conclude that the investment appearsto payoff for both the average and marginal student. During the past three decades in particular, theearnings premium associated with a college education has risen substantially. Beyond the pecuniarybenefits of higher education, we suggest that there also may exist non-pecuniary benefits.
-- Literature Review of Research on the Returns to Higher Education


Based on the findings of the above referenced study and meta-analysis, I think that insofar as economic returns to higher education remain high and provide a pathway forindividual economic mobility, the U .S. should revise its discretionary spending priorities to avail the citizenry of free post-secondary education, at least up to the baccalaureate level.

There is evidence that suggest raising educational attainment has historically yield a long-run economic benefit for many individuals and the society as a whole. However, one can not deny the problems of recent initiatives to make college more accessible to everyone; as well as the issues relating to what people choose to study in school.

Labor Market for Recent College Graduates

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York tracks the employment/unemployment status of many Americans. Not only does it track the employed status, but it also tracks the quality of jobs and the wages earned from that level of employment, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Department of Labor. Often what we find is that 42% of recent college graduates are underemployed; underemployment (according to my understanding of how the FRBNY classifies it) as the mismatch between either a job a recent college graduate as obtained and their field of study. Around 30% of college graduates are also underemployed.

The statistics are more revealing when we consider the employment outcomes by major. According to this survey, the unemployment rate for someone who majored in criminal justice or psychology is somewhere around 4.6 - 4.9%, while the unemployment rate for Finance and Business Analytics is somewhere around 3.2 - 3.7%. Interestingly enough, the unemployment rate among people with Mathematics and Engineering Backgrounds is around 5%
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

...one can not deny the problems of recent initiatives to make college more accessible to everyone; as well as the issues relating to what people choose to study in school.

Labor Market for Recent College Graduates

The [FRBNY tracking reveals] ... that 42% of recent college graduates are underemployed; underemployment (according to my understanding of how the FRBNY classifies it) as the mismatch between either a job a recent college graduate as obtained and their field of study. Around 30% of college graduates are also underemployed.
  • What "recent initiatives to make college more accessible to everyone" have you in mind with regard to problems you call undeniable? Also, what specifically are the undeniable problems?
  • I don't know what point you're attempting to make by presenting the above remarks.

    The returns to higher education are confirmed by simply looking at the data which is in the NACE's salary annual surveys, one of the few sources, dating to 1960, for new college graduate salary data that allows one to view salaries for new college graduates over time. A variety of factors affected the flux in new grads' starting salaries over the past half century; however, in real terms, BS/BA degree level salaries have risen 5.9% since 1960. (Source)

    The data in the surveys depict the verity of the returns to higher education and this thread's rubric quantify the returns' impact. Assuming a "lifetime of working" is 40 years, those returns are ~$10-$15K/year. At what income level is an average of $10-$15K/year qualitatively (vis-a-vis one's lifestyle) inconsequential? What share of non-degreed workers have earnings that high? (The rubric's quantitative analysis figures align with my own experience of having a 1981 $25K/yer auditor's job. The U.S. median wage was ~$13K/yr.)

    As I wrote, I don't know the point of your remarks. I'm not refuting or accepting the veracity of the positive assertions in your comments because I don't know why you've presented them. You've presented no conclusion that relies on them.

"Underemployment":
  • Quantitatively: "Underemployment is defined as a situation where people are working fewer hours than they wish; e.g. you would like to work 40 hours a week, but the firm only gives you 30 hours."
  • Qualitatively: "Underemployment may also refer to the fact workers accept jobs that don’t utilise their skills. (e.g. graduate working in McDonald’s may be considered to be ‘under-employed’)"
In considering the qualitative context of underemployment, one must note that the individuals, for whatever reason, elected to accept jobs that underuse their abilities; thus they lost the contest for positions that fully utilize their abilities. In the labor market, competition exists for whatever be the quantity of positions requiring the specific knowledge and skills of XYZ types of recent graduates. That not everyone those skills gets a job offer that utilizes them indicates that more people have those skills than there are jobs requiring them, or it indicates that the nature and/or extent of the skills a those folks have do not comport with what employers demand.

By person, I cannot say which of the above specific reasons explain their not receiving a "fully utilizing" offer. What I can say is that, according to the FRBNY, the share of share of "underemployed" (low wage) college graduates has held roughly constant since 1990, and the share of recent college graduates accepting low-wage jobs has increased by about five percent since 1990. The former metric's consistency and the latter's small increase suggests that recent college grads who accept low-wage jobs hold those positions slightly longer than did recent college graduates 30 years ago.

Underemployment rates among college grads or specific genres of them notwithstanding, it remains so that college grads earn materially more than do non-college grads. That a college grad (recent or otherwise) might for a time have to acquiesce to taking a job that under utilizes their skills does not outweigh the overall economic value of one's having a college degree. Given that, it makes sense to minimize the quantity of qualified individuals who, due to lack of funds, do not obtain a college degree.
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

(continued from post 19)

The statistics are more revealing when we consider the employment outcomes by major. According to this survey, the unemployment rate for someone who majored in criminal justice or psychology is somewhere around 4.6 - 4.9%, while the unemployment rate for Finance and Business Analytics is somewhere around 3.2 - 3.7%. Interestingly enough, the unemployment rate among people with Mathematics and Engineering Backgrounds is around 5%
What point did you aim to make by noting the above? Of course, employment outcomes vary by major. Who thinks they should not or would not?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

(continued from post 19)


What point did you aim to make by noting the above? Of course, employment outcomes vary by major. Who thinks they should not or would not?

Why would they be?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

  • What "recent initiatives to make college more accessible to everyone" have you in mind with regard to problems you call undeniable? Also, what specifically are the undeniable problems?


  • Individual states have elected to make college free for residents, provided that students are eligible and have met a certain criteria. Initiatives to make community college free for everyone, a very popular campaign promise promoted by many presidential candidates. The government also provides government guaranteed student loans.


    [*]I don't know what point you're attempting to make by presenting the above remarks.

    On average, college graduates earn higher incomes than non-graduates. However, not all college graduates earn higher incomes.

    "Underemployment":
    • Quantitatively: "Underemployment is defined as a situation where people are working fewer hours than they wish; e.g. you would like to work 40 hours a week, but the firm only gives you 30 hours."
    • Qualitatively: "Underemployment may also refer to the fact workers accept jobs that don’t utilise their skills. (e.g. graduate working in McDonald’s may be considered to be ‘under-employed’)"
    In considering the qualitative context of underemployment, one must note that the individuals, for whatever reason, elected to accept jobs that underuse their abilities; thus they lost the contest for positions that fully utilize their abilities. In the labor market, competition exists for whatever be the quantity of positions requiring the specific knowledge and skills of XYZ types of recent graduates. That not everyone those skills gets a job offer that utilizes them indicates that more people have those skills than there are jobs requiring them, or it indicates that the nature and/or extent of the skills a those folks have do not comport with what employers demand.

    No one debates that; however, I do see a rudimentary problem when society incentivizes (or pressures) an individual to attend a college for a long-term which no greater job prospective or earning potential than before said person did not attend university.

    By person, I cannot say which of the above specific reasons explain their not receiving a "fully utilizing" offer. What I can say is that, according to the FRBNY, the share of share of "underemployed" (low wage) college graduates has held roughly constant since 1990, and the share of recent college graduates accepting low-wage jobs has increased by about five percent since 1990. The former metric's consistency and the latter's small increase suggests that recent college grads who accept low-wage jobs hold those positions slightly longer than did recent college graduates 30 years ago.

    Underemployment rates among college grads or specific genres of them notwithstanding, it remains so that college grads earn materially more than do non-college grads. That a college grad (recent or otherwise) might for a time have to acquiesce to taking a job that under utilizes their skills does not outweigh the overall economic value of one's having a college degree. Given that, it makes sense to minimize the quantity of qualified individuals who, due to lack of funds, do not obtain a college degree.

    Most individuals use education as a way of escaping a terrible labor market while hoping to find some form of employment once the economy improves. However, that doesn't appear to be happening in some cases. The share of non-college jobs that are occupied by recent college graduates has remained relatively stable since the end of the credit crunch in 2009. Again, no one disputes that college graduates are better off than non-graduates; however, in a large number of cases, the difference appears to be marginally.
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

Rubric:
There is strong evidence that raising the level of attainment of higher educationdegrees has historically yielded long-run economic and social benefits in theUnited States. Yet investing in greater educational success is costly, becauseit involves sending more students to college for longer periods of time, andbecause further investment may be needed to improve attainment rates. In thisreport, we present a simple model of the long-run economic costs and benefitsof improving attainment by increasing completion rates.

Given the assumptions of our model, costs exceed benefits over a numberof years, but economic returns later begin to kick in and eventually the programof investment yields a positive net economic return....

....The significant returns to education mean that if the costs of increasing completioncan be kept in check, the benefits are likely to exceed the costs in the longrun. At an individual level, David Autor estimates that after accounting for theeffects on higher wages and the costs of a degree, the net lifetime gain from collegefor a man is currently $590,000 and for a woman $390,000.19 However, thegains from education accrue over a lifetime of working. Initially, increasing collegecompletion leads to higher fiscal spending and lower employment. For this reason,the fiscal costs of improving the college attainment rate of the population willexceed the fiscal benefits for the first decade under the most plausible assumptions.
-- The Economic Impact of Increasing College Completion


Despite thetremendous heterogeneity across potential college students, we conclude that the investment appearsto payoff for both the average and marginal student. During the past three decades in particular, theearnings premium associated with a college education has risen substantially. Beyond the pecuniarybenefits of higher education, we suggest that there also may exist non-pecuniary benefits.
-- Literature Review of Research on the Returns to Higher Education


Based on the findings of the above referenced study and meta-analysis, I think that insofar as economic returns to higher education remain high and provide a pathway forindividual economic mobility, the U .S. should revise its discretionary spending priorities to avail the citizenry of free post-secondary education, at least up to the baccalaureate level.

Every year, over 1.2 million students drop out of high school in the United States alone. That’s a student every 26 seconds – or 7,000 a day.

now, you want to provide free secondary education?

when you provide valuable things for free, they lose their value....

a college education is NOT a requirement to success....skills are....and skills can be acquired in a lot of ways

giving away free crap is not the answer...and having kids graduate from State U with 100k in student debt with a sociology degree isnt the answer either

kids have to be smart with their educational choices....and with their willingness to take on thousands of dollars of debt

i just talked my niece into staying at home for 2 more years, completing her core courses at the community college, working part time, and saving herself 35k for the first 2 years

it made financial sense....but someone had to lay it all out for her

i think kids just need better guidance, and parents need to get a lot more involved
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

(continued from post 19)


What point did you aim to make by noting the above? Of course, employment outcomes vary by major. Who thinks they should not or would not?
Why would they be?

I don't know what you're asking?
 
Re: Modeling long-run economic costs & benefits of improving attainment by increasing completion rat

Individual states have elected to make college free for residents, provided that students are eligible and have met a certain criteria. Initiatives to make community college free for everyone, a very popular campaign promise promoted by many presidential candidates. The government also provides government guaranteed student loans.

On average, college graduates earn higher incomes than non-graduates. However, not all college graduates earn higher incomes.

No one debates that; however, I do see a rudimentary problem when society incentivizes (or pressures) an individual to attend a college for a long-term which no greater job prospective or earning potential than before said person did not attend university.

Most individuals use education as a way of escaping a terrible labor market while hoping to find some form of employment once the economy improves. However, that doesn't appear to be happening in some cases. The share of non-college jobs that are occupied by recent college graduates has remained relatively stable since the end of the credit crunch in 2009. Again, no one disputes that college graduates are better off than non-graduates; however, in a large number of cases, the difference appears to be marginally.

Let me be clear: I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation with you on this topic and I welcome the opportunity to do so. That said, I'm not going to continue to engage with you on this matter if you refrain from providing credible support -- comparable to the support I've been providing -- for your assertions (be they positive or normative). I accept the verity of your above remarks in blue. The red remarks, however, are unsubstantiated; thus I do not accept them as either existential or as an accurate/sound inference, depending, respectively, on whether the statement is a positive or normative one. For example:
  • Your statement that "an individual to attend a college for a long-term [with] no greater job prospective or earning potential than before said person did not attend university" directly refutes the quantified evidence found in the first paper referenced in the OP. Two of the key facts established in that paper is that people who obtain degrees not only have better job prospects, but that they also have (not "have the potential to have," indeed realize) materially higher earnings over the course of their careers....And you have the audacity to expect readers to accept that assertion on nothing other than your having made it. Notwithstanding the fact that very high quality research such as that to which I linked in my OP shows your assertion is not accurate, even "mass consumption" grade information indicates it is inaccurate.


    The-Cave.jpg

It doesn't irk me that you have abducted conclusions, but your presenting such in response to my remarks that are absolutely not abducted (reading the linked content will show you that they are not abducted) does. It does because presenting abducted conclusions/assertions as retorts to analysis (not just mine; that of the researchers to whose work I've linked) is trifling. I'm not going argy-bargy with you when all you're offering is gut-garnered perceptions that are in fact inconsistent with preponderant reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom