Well said. I would add two further observations.

First, the requirement of (useless but expensive) college degrees for jobs is a de facto class system, since it rewards applicants of wealthier parents. Thus the progressive cry of college-for-all has become a mechanism for reducing upward mobility.

Second, I would try to draw the sharpest possible distinction between science and engineering degrees, which provide obvious prerequisites for real jobs (and which are not in oversupply); and the vast majority of "fuzzy" degrees. (Yes, economists will not like this.) Social measures which increase the technical skill of the populace, like subsidizing technical degrees, are more likely to pay off.

Wow, an Oxalanche!

Two anecdotes on the subject: The Dancer, who runs her own dance studio and gets by just fine, has decided to go back as a part-time student to finish her college degree. She's getting a BA in philosophy, because it doesn't matter one bit what the degree is *in*, and a college degree has no practical use for a ballet instructor, but she's found that the existence of a degree would help in all sort of ways, from real estate searches to finding prospective students.

Second: within the field of academia, what OxBlog hypothesizes about a drive for everyone to go to grad school is already taking place. I'm applying to teach at all sorts of nicer private schools (private, because I don't have a teaching certificate; nicer, because a Hindu boyfriend wouldn't put me in good standing at the super-Christian schools, which do have lower academic standards for teachers). My MA will be useful, but a lot of their teachers, especially in the humanities, have doctorates (or are in the process of slowly dissertating). This speaks to the "vast majority of 'fuzzy' degrees" above. A PhD is so common that it's edging out lesser postgraduate degrees at the grade-school level!

Incidentally, at least within the humanities, the first point Sammler makes doesn't hold in graduate school. By then, most people are on their own, and, at least at Harvard and the University of Texas, most humanities grad students are getting paid to go to school, rather than the other way around. And perhaps it's that Harvard is need-blind in admissions, while a lot of other schools are (for quite logical financial reasons) more likely to accept applicants of wealthier families, but most of my classmates were on some sort of non-loan financial aid, and those with poorer families were work-study and had also taken out student loans. So, Harvard (and other need-blind schools) does not "reward applicants of wealthier parents," except insofar as parents with more wherewithal are more likely to have spent the personal attention and money to provide their children with a high-quality and well-rounded pre-college education -- which, it seems to me, would be something that would help them in later life, whether they went to college or not. So, taking that idea and running with it, if there were no college, the requirement of high school degrees for jobs would be a de facto class system, since it would reward applicants of wealthier parents.

Incidentally, I don't approve of state schools such as my own providing large fellowships for students such as myself studying for "'fuzzy' degrees." (Not that I'm going to refuse it when offered, though.) Silly things like Sanskrit should probably go back into the field of "gentlemen of independent means," like those who studied it under Daniel Ingalls. But, if the more useful degrees, such as medicine, are not as heavily subsidized, any economist could point out that the students are taking out student loans against their future income, which would not be as good an idea for a Sanskritist! So yes, stop subsidizing the silly stuff (which would lead to far fewer grad students and professors in those departments, but such is the invisible hand), but do something better with taxpayer money than subsidizing things that don't need it.

Sammler,

Requiring college degrees does reward wealthier kids to be sure, though so does our society as a whole. Giving preference for those with college degrees does make a degree (no pun intended) of sense. If someone graduated college, you know that they were able to study and take exams (in whatever) and write papers and that they demonstrated the ability to learn. That's not a small thing, though I do have to question whether or not it is a good idea to take someone out of the economy for four years and spend tens of thousands of dollars that could be allocated elsewhere just to give someone a bunch of hoops that they can jump through (from an employers perspective).

As for technical versus fuzzy degrees, I'm inclined to agree - except that I have a technical degree and so do a lot of people that are in jobs that don't need to require them. So I dunno.

Adrianne,

Teching is a special case - and don't get me started on the onerous requirements to get into a field with a consistent shortage of personnel.

I try not to be as dismissive of Sammler's classist argument. It's enormously easier for someone to get a degree if you come from a family that can put you through. If you have to work while you go, your chances of getting through start diminishing and a lack of funds very often leads to "taking a break" which itself often leads to dropping out altogether.

I agree with you on what state colleges should and should not bankroll, but last time I posted on the subject a lot of people made good points in contradiction. It didn't change my view, though.

I'm sure an actual economist could do this better justice than I, but it seems to me that any advanced education for Americans is better for America. Investing in the human capital of our population is the best possible investment we can make. You state :

"I do have to question whether or not it is a good idea to take someone out of the economy for four years and spend tens of thousands of dollars that could be allocated elsewhere just to give someone a bunch of hoops that they can jump through"

My answer to that question would be that it is far better to teach a man how to fish than give him some fish. If you take someone out of the economy after high school, then we deprive the economy of a young, unskilled worker with no experience for four years, and deliver a roundly educated worker with study skills and interpersonal skills with a broad range of knowledge and problem solving abilities, "fuzzy" degree or not. If the cost of that is a few thousand dollars, and you get a worker who will contribute to the economy as a skilled worker for the rest of her life, I say that's money incredibly well spent, both for that individual and for the economy.

Ask any business owner, I'm sure they will tell you that they would love to have a higher educated workforce to recruit from. It is not simply specific domain knowledge that is useful, it is the ability to find and apply information, to draw conclusions, to work on problems with other people, and to think creatively. Engineers are important, but they would be useless to the economy without historians, artists, marketers and writers to work with.

The point of college is not simply to train you for one job, it is to make you a flexible, intelligent employee. It is not the point to make you perfect for one job, but able to do any of several jobs, which also makes the inevitable process of creative destruction an easier transistion, both for you and for the economy, when it is neccesary.

Yes, if there are more college graduates, some jobs may have more competition, but overall we will be much better off. We may get college graduates working at Starbucks, but what are the chances that some of them apply their education to find a way to produce the drinks faster, or arrange the tables fit more people, or find the type of music that makes customers stay longer, or improves the overall efficiency in any other way. They will be promoted, or maybe they will get discouraged because Starbucks makes them stop, so they open their own coffee chain, or ergonomic consultancy firm, etc. The point is that a more educated workforce, no matter where they are working, is better for the economy, and is better for their own prosperity.

To think that educating future generations is somehow harmful to existing graduates is completely missing the point. Education will always cause economic growth, which in turn will employ more people, making it both easier to get a job and to make more money. Everybody wins when more people are educated.

I will admit to ambivalence here, being a college student.

On the one hand, I find some of my classes enormously useful.

On the other hand, I'm disabled, with physical disabilities, emotional issues, and learning disabiliies. Spare me the sympathy, that's the way it is.

So I push myself through hell to get to college...Let alone stay in.

And what do I find?

My college degree is pointless. As a political science major, I'll basically be forced to go to grad school if I want a job.

And I have no guarantee of surviving to get a Masters.

Right now, I feel had. I'm a human, not a`hamster, dammit!

Scott,

Thank you for your very thoughtful response. I plan to write a follow-up post where I will address the points that you and David made.

Penta,

Yeah, you gotta be careful when picking a major. I would have most prefered to major in creative writing or political science, but my folks impressed in me the importance of an immediately employable major. I was lucky in that respect because even if I'd planned to go through to a PhD level, I was suffering some serious burnout by the time I graduated.

Scott Chacon's post contains several assertions with which I cannot agree.

1) He begs the question of whether college education, in itself, will "deliver a roundly educated worker with study skills and interpersonal skills with a broad range of knowledge and problem solving abilities"; as well as the more pointed question of whether it will do so better than four or five years spent working after high school would.

2) He notes (correctly, I assume) that any employer would love to have a more educated workforce; but it is not clear that more college for more people is actually delivering such a workforce. Extending college education downward, to a less and less interested and able set of the population, is not guaranteed to provide the workforce employers seek.

3) I roundly disagree with the assumption that college-educated workers at (e.g.) Starbucks will be "applying their education" if they innovate. They will be applying their native intelligence (which college changes minimally) and their understanding of what customers want (which work, not college, will teach them).

Scott's points are not necessarily wrong, but his presentation of them begs all of the really important questions.

Sammler,
I believe that oftenly college will, in fact, deliver what Scott argues that it will. I'd also argue that college can, and often does, improve problem-solving skills. It depends on the nature of the person as well as what they learned in school. As far as "native intelligence" goes, college may change that minimally, but the right courses do help people learn how to utilize the intelligence that they have.

My question is, however, whether or not the gains made in those areas justify removal from the economy for four years as well as tens of thousands of dollars of investment. In many cases I believe it does, but it would be counterproductive to use college education as a one-size-fits-all answer to employment issues.

Oh, and I couldn't agree more that pushing college on the less and less enthusiastic could be extremely problematic. One of the biggest problems in high school today are the students that don't want to be there. Of course most kids don't want to go to school, but there's a difference between those that realize that it's what they need to do and those that go because they are forced to.

People forget that one of the things that make a college degree have some degree of value is that over 50% of those who start college (at all four year universities) never finish. In addition, another benefit of certain degrees is that there are few of them. Even if you look at selective universities, the top majors of graduates is usually limited to economics, political science, psychology, and management. As more students switch out of hard sciences and engineering, the value of those degrees goes up.