There are two basic fallacy’s in this article. One, all colleges cost 200k, and second the assumption that most degrees are equivalent. In many ways a college education is much like a car because a Honda civic will get you around the country but a Bugatti Vayron can get you there much faster. So it comes down to how much a more prestigious education is worth? If you are going down the street or becoming a social worker then Harvard is probably a waste of time.
PS: I have a BS from small and inexpensive college and at 28 I got promoted to the same job as the 27 year old with a BS and MS from MIT I sit next to. Now we both went to college, but if you compare the sticker price of his education he got a much worse deal then I did. Granted, 10 years from now he will probably make more than I will because he works ridiculously harder than I do.
I went to a huge land-grant university in the south and my ex-girlfriend went to a private college in the mid-atlantic. She left school with $8000 of loans and mine was double that.
How is that possible? The state backloaded the additional costs into university "fees". And my scholarships, though easier to get, were much smaller (public schools are misers about the grant money). Her school had 3 itemized things: tuition, housing, meal plan. Tuition was $40,000 and the school paid for 90% of it, Pell, Stafford, and workstudy covered the rest. Since the majority of her fellow students came from rich, mid-atlantic families they were generous with the endowments.
The point is if you ask your colleague from MIT how much he paid he might have even paid less than you. Those that can get into those schools have no problem affording them. I believe for Harvard any family making <$70,000 are fully covered. It's probably a similar scheme for MIT.
This is a really important point. My wife attended one of the Seven Sisters. While we're still paying college loans, we owe much less than if she'd gone to any of the state schools in her area.
His parents are somewhat loaded so he/they paid over 300k which is ~3x what I paid. Plus he did not work for 2 extra years so toss another 100+k in lost wages and interest over time period.
I didn't go to college. I didn't finish highschool. All of my colleagues have and spent thousands doing so. We all make the exact same salary and have the same expectations in our workplace. I have been employed for over 7 years. I am an accomplished web developer and designer, working on small and large brands.
What do you want to achieve in life is basically what this all boils down to. You didn't go to collage / university but some want to understand calculus, organic chemistry, etc. Learning by yourself is completely impossible in higher levels of education as buying million dollar machinery isn't really in the grasp of a single person.
A valid point. I'm just not so sure that higher levels of education are providing state-of-the-art machinery. Often outdated - at least in my admittingly vary narrow perspective.
Nevertheless, access to equipment shouldn't be the defining element in an education framework.
This, but in a more subtle way. People seem obsessed with the economics of having a university degree: how much money you make, the cost of it all. But we're putting an economic microscope on something which is inherently hard to value in dollars.
How much are your friendships worth? Your outlook on life? Your confidence and optimism in human nature? Your expectations of what is achievable?
These are all things that college will mold and shape, yet are impossible to value from raw dollars. Yeah, so maybe if you were just looking at pay, getting a Harvard degree isn't the best investment. But having a few years to indulge in the best faculty, stunning facilities, and intimidatingly intelligent peers changes things for a person at a very core level. Maybe it's worth the debt.
Degrees are not commodities, even in some instances they are treated as such. Your education is not a financial investment, even if some people people will treat it as such. If you're worried about the payback on schooling, you're doing it wrong. And that comes from a guy with a significant amount of it.
PS: I have a BS from small and inexpensive college and at 28 I got promoted to the same job as the 27 year old with a BS and MS from MIT I sit next to. Now we both went to college, but if you compare the sticker price of his education he got a much worse deal then I did. Granted, 10 years from now he will probably make more than I will because he works ridiculously harder than I do.
You assume that because you have the same job and sit next to each other that you make the same amount of money. In my experience that is a very unsafe assumption. Unless you know what he makes, you don't know that. (In most US companies, talking about what you make to co-workers is a fireable offense for a reason.)
Quick note: in California wage secrecy is illegal.
Section 232 of The California Labor Code prohibits employers from:
* requiring as a condition of employment that any employee refrain from disclosing the amount of their wages [Section 232(a)];
* requiring an employee to sign a waiver of their right to disclose their wages [§232(b)]; or
* discharging, formally disciplining, or otherwise discriminating against an employee who discloses the amount of their wages [§232(c)].
However California is an at will state, you don't have to disclose why you fired someone. And I've been verbally informed at all of my jobs in California that I shouldn't disclose what I make. So in practice it seems that people are strongly encouraged to keep what they make secret.
Furthermore when I worked in New York I was informed that it was a legal requirement that I not disclose. And I have no reason to doubt that that was the law there.
You have a right to know why you're fired. You can't be fired for legally protected reasons. If you're fired for revealing your wage, your employer is in a lot of trouble.
Yes, you cannot be fired for legally protected reasons. Well, the company that fired you also knows that. So they come up with a reason that is not protected( "Does not fit well with the company culture"). The burden of proof is upon the ex-employee to show that they were let go for a protected reason(It is a very high burden).
You know, I was going to point that out, but figured it was too petty and didn't add to the conversation. However now that I see you pointing it out, it does seem ironic given the topic. What is more important? Making a solid point in a debate with horrible spelling or spelling things correctly without much to say? Sort of summarizes the arguments for/against education. Some would argue that education values form over function, while others would argue that good form is needed to fully understand the function.
Yeah, I had the same internal dialog. His point was about the equivalence of the cheap degree to the MIT grad, but he undermines his own point by correctly stating that the MIT grad will far surpass him in the years to come.
The reason I ultimately decided to post the correction was that the reason the MIT guy will win is probably the "collage" vs "college" thing -- the MIT guy is polished, and credentialed. I'd rather hire a "college graduate" than a "collage graduate" regardless of what school he attended, but I think that maybe MIT produces more "college" than "collage." Does that make sense?
It's not a question of A = B, rather it's a question how useful the differences are for your goals. I have zero desire to climb the corporate ladder. So for me, the relative value of his education vs. mine is fairly similar.
People try and Min Max life like it’s some sort of MMO where you need to beat an end game boss. I know way to many unhappy rich people to think that’s an end goal worth sacrificing your life for. And other than money, why should you care about your job’s status? If you just want to boss a lot of people around join the military you can be 30 and have 700 people under you.
PS: As to spelling that’s always been an issue for me and MIT would not have fixed the issue.
PS: I have a BS from small and inexpensive college and at 28 I got promoted to the same job as the 27 year old with a BS and MS from MIT I sit next to. Now we both went to college, but if you compare the sticker price of his education he got a much worse deal then I did. Granted, 10 years from now he will probably make more than I will because he works ridiculously harder than I do.