What is the value of a University education? To the individual, and to society as a whole?

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Gorn said:

You may not like it, but this is how capitalism works. Even if you view university education as purely job training (which I don't), it makes no sense for employers not to ask for a university degree from their hires, and those who don't will be punished by the market.

Sure but what I'm getting at is the reason that employers are asking for university degrees from their hires is not because their hires need them, but because employers have very little other way of judging candidate quality as secondary grades have been elevated well beyond the point of being a useful indicator of quality. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

My wife did a degree in TV production, she works in TV production in a  relatively high level role. She is adamant she could teach someone more in 3 months than she learned in 3 years at uni. She said she hasn't used a single thing she learnt and the only reason to do it is you struggle to get a low level job/for in the door without it, that's not a good reason for 50 grand debt. 

She has discussed if/when she starts her own company she will have paid interns for a year to avoid them getting saddled with debt for no reason. 

My cousin says the same thing about young lawyers his firm brings on. But he also knows they need the education and to go through the tough experience. They rewire everyone after.

My poli sci degree didn't do much to teach me how to canvass people, but at least I knew far more than basically everyone I spoke with while I did it.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Gorn]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Sure but what I'm getting at is the reason that employers are asking for university degrees from their hires is not because their hires need them, but because employers have very little other way of judging candidate quality as secondary grades have been elevated well beyond the point of being a useful indicator of quality. 

It's not just about selecting the brightest candidate, it's about the extra education that university provides and that secondary education doesn't, which in turn reduces the time and resources their employer spends on tutoring them.

The extra couple of years in the education system also help people grow and mature. A 23-year old is less likely to do stupid shit in the workplace than an 18-year old.

[BigFatCoward]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My cousin says the same thing about young lawyers his firm brings on. But he also knows they need the education and to go through the tough experience. They rewire everyone afterword. 

Well lawyers have to learn the law so I'm not sure that would be true. 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Gorn said:

It's not just about selecting the brightest candidate, it's about the extra education that university provides and that secondary education doesn't, which in turn reduces the time and resources their employer spends on tutoring them.

The extra couple of years in the education system also help people grow and mature. A 23-year old is less likely to do stupid shit in the workplace than an 18-year old.

Hmmm well that is just a comment on not hiring young people at all if you think they are just going to do stupid shit.

Is a 23 year old who spent 5 years in the workplace more likely to do something stupid than someone straight out of uni with zero workplace experience? I’d suggest it’s the exact opposite.
 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Well lawyers have to learn the law so I'm not sure that would be true. 

Some schools teach you how to be a trial lawyer out the gate, others teach you theory. He likes the latter because he can then teach them how to be trial lawyers if that's the role they need to fill.

[RhaenysBee]

Well… that entirely depends on the field, the time, the location of the university education. Some university educations in the world will get your a $500 hourly income. Others will get you a $10 hourly income. Some will get you knowledge, understanding, scientific method, critical thinking, applied skill, sophistication. Others will get you a piece of paper. Some will get you social respectability and status and power. Others will get you McDonald’s job offers and snarky opinions and absolute doormat treatment from society. Some will make you happy, others will burn you out. What is the value of higher education even measured in? 

I went to university because it was never even a real option for me not to. It’s the done thing. It’s a class thing. I can tell you that my labor market economics class lied: postponed employment and the sacrificing of present income for future larger income is not necessarily and always an investment that financially returns. My parents also lied: my market compatible university education didn’t set me up with financial comfort and/or success . I could do the same job and earn the same income with a different degree, and I could have three to ten times my income with the same degree and a differnt personality. Motivational leaflets and education fairs also lied: my university education wasn’t an enjoyable or fulfilling experience and I did not find the meaning of life in my field.
So what did my university education give me? I’d like to believe that it gave me structured and methodical and critical thinking, a sense of nuance, relativity and openmindedness, a respect and appreciation for knowledge and the scientific method, but also for varying opinions, the ability and drive and look at everything from a 360 degree angle, communication skills and the ability to write or speak infinite amount of meaningless bullshit about virtually anything in the world.  Did my secondary school also lay the foundations for that? 100%. Did my upbringing also lay the foundation for that? 100%. Did I enjoy university education? Not really. Would I have rather worked a full time job for those 5 years? God no. Would I do it all over again? 100%. Why? Because regardless of external indicators and measurements of value, the things listed above are valuable to me and make me value myself as a person. 

Would I do another degree with higher market value to be in a better paying field? No way in hell. Would I do another degree out of interest and desire for knowledge regardless of its market value as a hobby alongside my full time job? Still no. Would I do another degree out of interest and desire for knowledge if I could retain my current living standard via passive income rather than my full time job? 100% yes. Yes, I know, I’m a spoiled and entitled millennial, who is unaware of her privilege and managed to make the OG question about herself.  

 

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

This goes back to my earlier point. We've pushed the ceiling for qualifications far above where it needs to be. Getting secondary education now is not sufficient to even get a job answering phones in an office and making the tea. That is probably a byproduct of decades of elevated results where the numbers of kids getting top grades keeps going up and up. 
 

The ceiling for qualifications keeps going up because the 'wrong' people keep getting in to those positions. People like Bush jr. and Boris Johnson, who go to all the right schools, and get all the right qualifications, would be out on their ass and  dumpster diving for sustenance in a real meritocracy. Boris continually shits his bed and suffers no real consequences because he has the right schooling and is part of the elite. Bush jr. has managed to go bankrupt more times than Trump but because he went to the right school, he skates on to the next fiasco. He must go to bed every night thanking Trump, as he is no longer the worst president ever.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Hmmm well that is just a comment on not hiring young people at all if you think they are just going to do stupid shit.

Is a 23 year old who spent 5 years in the workplace more likely to do something stupid than someone straight out of uni with zero workplace experience? I’d suggest it’s the exact opposite.
 

In what workplace, though?

And the important thing is - who is hiring that 18 year old in the first place and how much stupid shit are they doing then? Because if you're suggesting that workplaces spend 5 years making people vaguely productive and useful and unlikely to do dumb shit, that is a MASSIVE expenditure of time and resources on that training for potentially no benefit to that employer. 

For me getting a graduate from a university tells me essentially one thing: that they have the resources, ability, and determination to finish to get their degree. That implies a certain kind of person - someone who does some things that may not immediately be directly apparent to give them value, who can deal with adversity, who has the ability to network and work within systems, who can work by themselves independently and with others. The actual skills that are taught in university is almost never that valuable - and I work in tech, which if anything has in theory more value there than anywhere else! But the training that most uni grads get in comp sci has almost nothing to do with day-to-day software engineering, especially at a large company. 

What I am looking for is someone who can learn. And one of the best indicators of that? Successfully getting a degree.

But that's just the employer side. The value of getting a degree to the person getting it can go far beyond how employable you are. You tend to make a lot of core friendships and relationships. You can get mentorships that last a long time. You can find what you are truly passionate about. You can experience life outside of your guardian's view and learn personal responsibility. You learn time management and personal care. You get a much broader and deeper way of learning that many have never experienced. Is that worth how much money you have to spend? Right now in the US definitely not - uni is super overpriced. But it does actually have value beyond how employable you are. 

[DMC]

I really think law schools and/or most graduate schools should be distinguished from undergrad, at least here in the states.  It's true that in the latter the standards have went down from what they used to be in terms of academic rigor.  As others have mentioned, a lot of the value in undergrad is qualitative - being exposed to different people and perspectives you probably aren't going to if you take an entry level job at 18.  In addition, networking is a big part of it.  Is that worth 100 grand in debt?  No.  Go to a state school.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

I really think law schools and/or most graduate schools should be distinguished from undergrad, at least here in the states.  It's true that in the latter the standards have went down from what they used to be in terms of academic rigor.  As others have mentioned, a lot of the value in undergrad is qualitative - being exposed to different people and perspectives you probably aren't going to if you take an entry level job at 18.  In addition, networking is a big part of it.  Is that worth 100 grand in debt?  No.  Go to a state school.

True, though at this point, plenty of Masters programs are glorified degree mills as well. Pay your money, do the time, don't completely fuck up, get your degree, put in on your resume. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

True, though at this point, plenty of Masters programs are glorified degree mills as well. Pay your money, do the time, don't completely fuck up, get your degree, put in on your resume. 

I mean, sure, there are some that are like that, but at least in regards to the social sciences if you get into a quality program the school is paying you, not the other way around.

[mormont]

It's interesting to me that although I made the point about diversity a page ago, people have continued to discuss pretty much exclusively the value of full-time undergraduate courses taken by school leavers in Western countries and no other form of university education.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

On 5/17/2023 at 4:54 PM, DMC said:

I mean, sure, there are some that are like that, but at least in regards to the social sciences if you get into a quality program the school is paying you, not the other way around.

For sure, the programs where the students are seen as investments are better off. I'll leave my anti-exploitation hat in the drawer for now, as it's a separate matter.

 

EDIT: Although, thinking about it more, the publish or perish model for academic success has diminished the quality of research overall, and the intellectual value of any one study or article. Beyond revised processes for data sharing, standards for statistical methods, and the rigor of peer review, it would behoove the leaders of scientific and academic research to try to curb the excesses of this model (as well as the aforementioned exploitation of its work force), as it's a big part of what's driving the various problems that reformed review processes are intended to address. Of course, this problem extends to everyone involved in the academic research world, not just students, so it's a bit tangential to the OP. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[SeanF]

I did my first degree, in law, in 1988.  Did it help me?  Honestly, not that much.  I think I learned much more, that was useful, during the course of my career, than at uni.

I’ve just finished a Masters’ in military history.  That degree was far more useful, I think, in developing critical skills, learning how to research unpublished primary sources, and how to advance a detailed argument at length.

[baxus]

18 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Firstly there is a risk with every single hire, especially young people with no on the job experience. Companies will always need to train inexperienced staff, it’s an investment.

Why spend 3-4 years learning to be self sufficient in a uni when you can do it whilst getting paid and also learning relevant on the job skills. Seems to me to be a far better investment to get someone in early and train them in a more relevant way. 

While I do agree that for the company it would be better to get someone and train them perfectly for the company's needs, I feel the need to point out that you are ignoring the benefit of university education for the person. University education (or an equivalent) allows the person to switch jobs when they get an opportunity or just plain feel like it. If you think it's better to create perfect drones for company's beehive, then we'll have to disagree on that.

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Sure but what I'm getting at is the reason that employers are asking for university degrees from their hires is not because their hires need them, but because employers have very little other way of judging candidate quality as secondary grades have been elevated well beyond the point of being a useful indicator of quality. 

You are aware that the sum of all human knowledge has increased significantly over time? Nowadays, for pretty much every single job you need some "basic" computer skills that would be considered witchcraft mere hundred years ago.

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Is a 23 year old who spent 5 years in the workplace more likely to do something stupid than someone straight out of uni with zero workplace experience? I’d suggest it’s the exact opposite.
 

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The real question is whether an 18 year old with zero workplace experience is more or less likely to do something stupid than a 23 year old straight out of uni? Starting age is irrelevant for the company, it just considers time an employee is spending at the company, not what he/she does before and after.

17 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Some schools teach you how to be a trial lawyer out the gate, others teach you theory. He likes the latter because he can then teach them how to be trial lawyers if that's the role they need to fill.

Systems in other countries probably differ more or less, but in Serbia you need a 4 years university education (where you do mostly theory) plus 2 years apprenticeship at a law company or court (where you are supposed to learn how to be a trial lawyer) plus passing the bar exam which is basically 7 exams taken within a space of a couple of days, a week max. One of my best friends is a lawyer so I've seen what he's had to go through.

Definitely not something that can be covered in 3 months, as someone said earlier.

13 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

The actual skills that are taught in university is almost never that valuable - and I work in tech, which if anything has in theory more value there than anywhere else! But the training that most uni grads get in comp sci has almost nothing to do with day-to-day software engineering, especially at a large company. 

What I am looking for is someone who can learn. And one of the best indicators of that? Successfully getting a degree.

This is exactly my experience.

Sure, I've learnt a lot in university, having known very little about comp sci after graduating from high school, and that knowledge allowed me the flexibility to adapt to new things I've encountered once I started working.

12 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

True, though at this point, plenty of Masters programs are glorified degree mills as well. Pay your money, do the time, don't completely fuck up, get your degree, put in on your resume. 

This is exactly the reason why I haven't enrolled Masters program at my college. It had some courses that were interesting to me, but they haven't been held in years since there haven't been enough people interested in taking them. I would have to take some stupid courses that I had no interest in and that would have no positive effect on my knowledge and career. Basically, it would come down to me just grinding out a few courses and getting a piece of paper with some fancy lettering. Decided to start working as soon as possible and haven't looked back since.

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, baxus said:

University education (or an equivalent) allows the person to switch jobs when they get an opportunity or just plain feel like it. If you think it's better to create perfect drones for company's beehive, then we'll have to disagree on that.

Does it? How so? Again you are alluding to some vaguely defined set of skills that can only be provided by university education that allows candidates to move between jobs. Are those skills not able to be picked up whilst doing a job? If I worked in an office since I was 18 are there not a set of skills I would have picked up that might mean I am even more flexible in my ability to move, compared to someone who has spent 3 years writing essays.
 

15 minutes ago, baxus said:

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The real question is whether an 18 year old with zero workplace experience is more or less likely to do something stupid than a 23 year old straight out of uni? Starting age is irrelevant for the company, it just considers time an employee is spending at the company, not what he/she does before and after.

I'd say comparing an 18 year old to a 23 year old is the real Apples and Orange scenario and pretty unfair. Of course someone who is 5 years older would be more likely to be more mature and do less 'stupid shit'. 

The question is comparing 2 people who are both 23. One spent years in a university learning how to be in a university, and the other spent years in office jobs, no matter how menial, learning how to work in a professional environment. The assumption being made by Gorn in this case was that the uni student would be far better prepared and less likely to do stupid shit, but I honestly cannot see how that could be true and it's a very weak assumption.

 

15 minutes ago, baxus said:

You are aware that the sum of all human knowledge has increased significantly over time? Nowadays, for pretty much every single job you need some "basic" computer skills that would be considered witchcraft mere hundred years ago.

Not sure I understand how this explains why grades have continued to rise over time to the point where getting a degree is the only way to differentiate between even average candidates for mid level jobs.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Heartofice

[Toth]

Well, not going to dive too much into this topic. But I also consider the OP question and the question about the increasing qualification demands of employers to be entirely different topics. For the first one, I went to university to get my Master because my job necessitates it. Will I ever use all of the knowledge I learned there as a teacher? Likely not, though I do appreciate the more in-depth knowledge on the subjects I am passionate about regardless. And of course the skills to acquire more knowledge. But with that I probably sound like a broken record since pretty much everyone here seems to have made the same experience. I guess it was also a great time being surrounded by people with very similar interests, though unfortunately I was still really bad at connecting and too busy getting my degrees as fast as possible.

To the second topic... well, it is something I have noticed as well. Employers demanding work experience even for trainee jobs is a very common theme, showing that they don't want to bother training themselves. At the same time both my parents don't have high school degrees and still got jobs a long time ago that nowadays they very likely wouldn't have gotten. For me it shows firstly a willingness of companies in the past to invest in them and finance their job education. A willingness... that is still there, Germany is much better at that than most other countries, but even there the companies still want proof that applicants will not turn out unwilling to work for their needed skills and end up a waste of money. Therefore the high qualification standards even for that. My father forced me to write applications for dual studies when I was doing my high school finals and I was pretty much laughed into the face at every interview. They REALLY expected you to have more experience than a puny high school degree to even get a foot in. So... I do understand why it turned out like this, though find it quite sad at the same time. I must also say, as a teacher... even though it's quite damning an observation, but it sadly is the case that we are giving high school degrees to students who can barely read and write. That's not much of a secret, but also the result of the massive stresses put especially upon primary schools and the low budgets they have to deal with while having to educate kids with precarious home situations and zero knowledge of the German language. We as a society really need to re-think how much education in general is worth it and how we want to invest to ensure that everyone, no matter their financial and parental background, is getting all the tools they need to have a fair chance. Because right now, that's not happening and that's the other big main reason why education is treated as a sorting algorithm.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Not sure I understand how this explains why grades have continued to rise over time to the point where getting a degree is the only way to differentiate between even average candidates for mid level jobs.

This is an exaggeration of grade inflation - there still is usually a clear distribution (at least here in the states, I of course don't know nearly as much irt other countries).  What you could say is a lot of employers only care whether or not you earned a degree and aren't worried about your GPA, but I'm not sure how that's the schools' fault 

[Ormond]

15 hours ago, mormont said:

It's interesting to me that although I made the point about diversity a page ago, people have continued to discuss pretty much exclusively the value of full-time undergraduate courses taken by school leavers in Western countries and no other form of university education.

I've been very busy the last few days and haven't had time to read this thread in detail.

However, if by "school leavers" you mean what we in the USA call "traditional age students", I don't think they are the only ones who benefit from the broadening of perspective and development of critical thinking skills a college education provides. 

It's common for people who went the "full time traditional" route to say they think they learned as much or more outside of the classroom from their interactions with other students and other activities provided in a "traditional" setting. But as someone who taught at a university where we always had a very high percentage of part time students older than 25, I think a lot of the changes that happen to those traditional age students outside of the classroom are normal maturational changes that happen for almost everyone between the ages of 18 and 22.  I think much more of the broadening of perspective and development of critical thinking skills does happen in the classroom than many people realize. I certainly saw changes in this direction in my older students, and had some of them comment that their education had given them a broader perspective and a realization that most important problems in life don't have easy simple answers. So I think a lot of the general value of a college education for both individuals and society as a whole happens with part-time older students as well.