Vo-tech U

The Economist took a look at the value of college degrees and found that something in the 25-30% range were, in essence, worthless or even worse than worthless. (Pile this on top of the degrees never completed and this gets really sad). This was measured in straight dollars and cents, and on that basis, it is hard to disagree. Increasingly, this is the way we have come to view college: it is to gain remunerative skills. And science might be part of the reason that we dismiss any other values of college education.

For many in the academy, this is sad news. We are here because we like to seek out knowledge, to gain different perspectives on the world, to broaden ourselves. We’d like to think that by sharing that love of learning, that we are making the lives of our students richer in a non-monetary way. And yet, if this study is to be believed, we are also impoverishing our students more literally.

It is tempting to argue with the studies cited. But let’s accept the premise for the moment that the goal is to advance your career.

Here’s the thing: vocational training generally requires you to know what you want to be trained in; GG doesn’t think there are typically breadth requirements to get vo-tech training. College, in general, demands some exploration. There are lots of career paths you don’t hear about in high school. Arguably the big advantage of going to college careerwise is that you can try on different careers and see what suits you. It isn’t just adding to your skillset for the career you already know you want; it is to find the career that both appeals to you and suits your personal strengths.

Note that this is different than the usual argument for a truly liberal arts education (as was recently advocated in the New York Times). That author argued that in fact those with a degree in several of the liberal arts are well employed, which would seem to challenge the assertion in The Economist. But the main argument there was that we all need some history, some literature, some philosophy to be better adults. The question many families face is, is it worth the price to gain that knowledge if in the end you are financially worse off?

So what of that 25-30% earning less money? Are they failures of this system, individuals steered by academics with unrealistic agendas into poverty? One study broke this down by major and found that those getting a degree in creative arts in Britain were likely to make less money than those of equal pre-college educational attainment. So college failed them, right? Hmm, well, maybe, but GG suspects a lot of arts majors know full well that the stereotype of a starving artist might well be in their future, and yet they choose that path. Is it fair to compare them to their high school peers who maybe had no idea there were careers in arts? Who went into car sales or opened a business or became influencers and got more money? If we surveyed these graduates, would they say that college misled them, or that college opened up horizons they felt compelled to explore? (Probably some research out there does this, but GG isn’t plugged into that).

With the increasing cost of higher education, it is fair to ask, is this really worth it? But efforts to put a lifetime paycheck onto that college education are misleading. We really are not Vo-tech U, and that is for the best as that period of exploration, along with meeting people from many different backgrounds, not only produces a more well-rounded individual capable of participating in society, but also provides the breadth of experience that helps students find their way forward professionally. Lesser pay might in the end be a happier outcome for artists or teachers or social workers. We can argue that these people deserve more pay, but that is an argument outside the ivory tower. If they found their passion, maybe that smaller bank account isn’t what they chose to value.