Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Further thoughts on the higher education bubble
By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Sunday Reflection Contributor
August 8, 2010
Examiner contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds blogs at Instapundit.com and hosts "Instavision" on PJTV. He teaches law at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.
Back at the beginning of the summer, I had a column in this space in which I predicted that higher education is in a bubble, one soon to burst with considerable consequences for students, faculty, employers, and society at large.
My reasoning was simple enough: Something that cant go on forever, wont. And the past decades history of tuition growing much faster than the rate of inflation, with students and parents making up the difference via easy credit, is something that cant go on forever. Thus my prediction that it wont.
But then what? Assume that Im right, and that higher education - both undergraduate and graduate, and including professional education like the law schools in which I teach - is heading for a major correction. What will that mean? What should people do?
Well, advice number one - good for pretty much all bubbles, in fact - is this: Dont go into debt. In bubbles, people borrow heavily because they expect the value of what theyre borrowing against to increase...
But a college degree is an expensive way to get an entry-level credential. New approaches to credentialing, approaches that inform employers more reliably, while costing less than a college degree, are likely to become increasingly appealing over the coming decade...
Good read. I am happy I pay cash for my tuition. (Yes, I earned it myself.)
However, it's become the norm for nearly everyone to pick up after high school and that just doesn't seem to be working out for those coming out. 
y undertaking some straight-forward analysis of the factors that come into play I hope to spur future generations of potential law school attendees to think about the question rationally, as one of making an investment. If your law school education were a stock or a bond, offered in the marketplace, would you buy it? Should you buy it? Why or why not
My methodology is as follows. First, I identify the costs of attending law school. These are two: the opportunity cost of not entering the workforce immediately after graduation from college, and the out-of-pocket costs, primarily tuition, fees and books, inherent in attending law school. Based on these costs, I calculate the annuity-like return that must be achieved to recover the costs. This process is more complicated that it might seem, as it importantly requires isolation of the true benefits in terms of compensation offered by a law degree and the identification of an appropriate discount rate for converting such incremental compensation to net present value. ...
Suppose we convince ourselves that 17% is the appropriate discount rate for the incremental earnings generated by a law degree. Then Solid Performer would need to expect to earn, on average, $33,121 more in his first year of legal employment than he would have earned had he not gone to law school. Given that his hurdle compensation is $80,035, it follows that he must expect to earn $113,156 in his first year. Moreover, the $33,121 wage differential would need to be maintained, and indeed increased at a rate of 3.5% per annum, throughout the remainder of his career. ...
For the Class of 2008, the last year for which statistics were available, the median salary of a fledgling lawyer was $72,000. That salary obviously does not stack up very well against the required salaries set forth in my table. But that median salary tells a hopelessly deceptive story. The distribution of salaries was in fact bi-modal, with fully 42% of salaries falling between $40,000 and $65,000, and a smaller but still very significant number clustered at the elite Biglaw starting salary of $160,000. ...
With the tiniest bit of twenty-twenty hindsight, it is possible to identify, already in the third year of law school, some of the students who have made what has turned out to be not only an ex ante bad investment but an ex post losing investment. Thus, consider the 50% of hypothetical Solid Performers who do not end up with a job offer from a Biglaw firm. They begin their legal careers at a salary that is no higher, indeed is actually lower, than the one they could have obtained without having gone to law school. They are unlikely ever to dig themselves out of that hole.
Good read. I am happy I pay cash for my tuition. (Yes, I earned it myself.)
I'm very much pro-university studies, I've spent more time in advanced studies than required schooling.
We bemoan the lack of classes for the gifted and academically challenged, yet on some level seem to have bought into the idea that all are academically qualified to go to university. Is it any surprise that university education has been dummied down?
On the other hand, how many kids that were naturally talented in trade type skills, were made to feel wrong if they weren't so keen on going to college? How well were they going to do in those required courses of British Lit? Probably as well as the average liberal arts student was in the required Trig courses, but that was one or two course out of two years required.
Actually today's economy is for the first time in my lifetime that parents are listening to kids who say they want to try something else, before going onto college. Nearly everyone knows of someone under 25 who has a university degree but can't find an entry level job with benefits, at least one they consider entry level. Young people are trying to gain skills in what are traditionally the 'trades', though the unions aren't really hiring apprentices. The kids are picking them up off the union track. Electrical, plumbing, roofing, brick laying, all are skills and services needed. Car repairs is another. These are not jobs that China or India can be outsourced to.
I'm guessing in a few years there will be major uproars in a state like IL, that requires union workers and wages for all work. Lots of things are changing, it will be interesting indeed to see where it all goes.
In part the answer to the question in the OP depends, of course, on what it is you want to do, in which case it may not be a simple dollars and cents analysis. I agree that not everyone may be cut out for university-level study and certainly not everyone requires a liberal arts education. But I wouldn't take that to suggest that someone should become a plumber simply to avoid taking out a student loan, even if the job in the field they want to enter ends up paying a salary comparable to what a plumber would make.
Having a degree doesn't guarantee you an entry level job when you graduate but there's no denying that a great many entry-level jobs use credentials as a sorting mechanism by requiring that applicants have a BA. So is it worth taking on debt to get a degree? Depends on what you want to do, what's important to you (just money?), and if you're looking for an intellectual experience like that. There's no reason to push everyone into university-level studies but I'm also not comfortable with pushing otherwise qualified and enthusiastic candidates away from that simply for financial reasons.
I have 3 Family members that have graduated over the past 2 years with nearly $100K student loan debt each. Not one of them has a full time job paying $9 per hour or more.
I have 3 Family members that have graduated over the past 2 years with nearly $100K student loan debt each. Not one of them has a full time job paying $9 per hour or more.
there's nothing learned in university in that realm that one cannot learn through self-study, especially if you publish and accept criticism.
College is not for all.
Technical educations are all many desire or can handle. And we need those people keeping things running for those with college degrees.
Everyone who works makes a contribution to our society and country and should not be belittled.
I have 3 Family members that have graduated over the past 2 years with nearly $100K student loan debt each. Not one of them has a full time job paying $9 per hour or more.
Two of my 3 have graduated within the past 3 years. My daughter is making over $50k, and is paying back substantial loans. She was a music ed major. It took her more years than normal though to complete, she has significant learning disabilities. However, with a music and teaching degree she is now employed by a university and is working on her master's.
My son graduated with high honors a year ago last spring. He had a full time job, without benefits for 8 months, since then has only been able to find part time work. He's returning for a master's in January. Middle child has returned to university, dropped the English major and is now in accounting program.
I'll admit, none of my kids were naturally inclined towards hands on work. Problem with parents that also weren't. Their father has a BA, BS, MS, Phd. I've 3 BA and MS.
As US Citizen said earlier, anyone who works contributes and should not be put down. The one thing I know as a liberal arts specialist,
The value of education is not measured by income.
The value of education is not measured by income.
and the level of education does not necessarily reflect knowledge. Worse yet, it no longer necessarily even represents the quality of persistence.
The value of education is not measured by income.
and the level of education does not necessarily reflect knowledge. Worse yet, it no longer necessarily even represents the quality of persistence.
"Quality of Persistence?".....seems to be a very subjective measure.
Most employers realise that a degree and a GPA doesn't tell the "whole story."
