<p>After commencement, a growing number young people say they have no choice but to take low-skilled jobs, according to a survey released this week.</p>
<p>And while 63% of “Generation Y” workers — those age 18 to 29 — have a bachelor’s degree, the majority of the jobs taken by graduates don’t require one, according to an online survey of 500,000 young workers carried out between July 2011 and July 2012 by PayScale.com, a company that collects data on salaries.</p>
<hr>
<p>I favor reducing government subsidies to higher education, in favor of a system where students get private student loans with interest rates that can vary by student, depending on a student's academic record in high school, his college major and university, and his grades once he is enrolled. If a student cannot find anyone to fund his education, that will be a sign that his studies don't make economic sense.</p>
<p>When I was in college, I worked temp jobs during the summers. I met a lot of people while working these tedious clerical jobs who shared the same major as I-they were unable to find jobs in that field. </p>
<p>So a rich student who moves into a $2,500-per-month apartment to attend NYU gets lower-interest student loans than a poor student commuting to Cal State-Sacramento because one school has a “better name”? Are you kidding?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Meaning that students who pursue societally-important careers such as teaching, natural resources management, public health, counseling, etc. will be disadvantaged in higher education because their jobs tend to be paid less than hedge fund managers and accountants? Ridiculous.</p>
<p>Your world view is fundamentally broken. The job of higher education is not “to make money.” The job of higher education is to promote the development of a better society - measured in ways that go far beyond temporary material wealth.</p>
<p>I have two sons at California State-Sacramento. One is doing a double major in Geology and Physics while the other is double majoring in Physics and Computer Science. They will get better jobs than most of the graduates at NYU who are majoring in things like Communications, Drama, English literature and Psychology. When looking for a job NYU is certainly a far more prestigous name than Sac State but where it says major on the diploma I would much rather have Physics and Geology on a Sac State diploma than Women’s Studies on a NYU or even Harvard diploma.</p>
<p>While certain majors commonly have better or worse job and career prospects than others, economic and industry cycles can change “good” and “bad” majors over the course of four years. For example, computer science was great in 1998, very poor in 2002, ok in 2006, and great (in a relative sense compared to others) in 2010. It is likely that the flood of students into computer science in 1998 contributed to the oversupply in the downturn in 2002, while the lack of interest in computer science in 2002 and later years contributed to the undersupply in 2006 and later.</p>
<p>In addition, graduating during a general economic downturn tends to cause long term harm to one’s job and career prospects. Some students may make tactical decisions (e.g. deciding whether to go to a funded graduate degree program if able to get into one, depending on economic conditions at graduation), but not all are able to have such options with respect to “timing the (labor) market”.</p>
<p>What does the format for college funding have to do with grads working in positions not in their majors? I’m afraid I don’t see the relationship at all. Good for these grads who are willing to work at any job…instead of not working at all.</p>
<p>6.8% is a reasonable rate. The borrowers have no real income, and if the student is resorting to private loans, most of the time the co-signer would be levering up debt/income considerably. Add to that the lack of any easily liquidatable asset… Students are still borrowing at better rates than a lot of companies.</p>
<p>I can see a scale of rates based on GPA or other academic criteria (though unlikely, since this would promote rampant grade inflation and corruption). But not by school prestige.</p>
<p>A Bachelors Degree from Harvard with a major in Women’s Studies vs a Bachelors Degree from Cal State Sacramento with double majors in Physics and Geology…ah geez…</p>
<p>The TC is saying let the free market decide interest rates for individual students and get the government out of it. I would think the situation you describe is unlikely to happen unless that student going to Cal State-Sac is really awful and that NYU student is really great. Presumably the banks are smart enough to know where the smart investments are. Loaning 200K for a kid to go to NYU probably isn’t a smarter decision than loaning someone 30K to go to Cal State.</p>
<p>I feel sad when I see people who seem to have forgotten that the purpose of college is not just “get a job, get a job”, but also to educate. Should parents not send their son or daughter to college if they are “just” going to be a house-husband / house-wife?</p>
<p>Well, is that house-husband / house-wife going to vote? And are those votes going to effect which policies are put into place and which politicians are put into local, state, and federal governments? And would it possibly be beneficial for voters to have been taught critical thinking skills–even if they do end up bussing tables at a restaurant instead of being some high-powered banker? Could it be that the knowledge gained is actually worth something? On its own? Even if it doesn’t translate into $$$?</p>
<p>Hey, money is nice to have. But it is not the only way to judge if something is “worthy”, and sometimes it is simply a bad measure. Alaska’s economy soared after the Exxon-Valdez disaster thanks to an influx of workers and funding for the clean-up. Yet I have not noticed any coastal states purposely sinking oil tankers in their waters in order to replicate that “success”.</p>
<p>I can’t remember the exact publication where I saw it but there was a recent article that talked about how both parents and students ,with the current economy,are paying more attention to job outcome in looking at (and deciding on) colleges . More people asking about career fairs, job prospects, networking, etc.</p>
<p>Got to have the Plymouth Horizon coupe with the steering wheel lock, standard transmission, AM radio, and a University of Hard Knocks bumper sticker.</p>
<p>The reality is that people have their own reasons for going to college beyond what you or anyone else thinks their reasons should be, and usually they are for improving employment opportunities. And while it would be nice if everyone could just afford to go for the education, that’s not how it works. And if you’re going to finance education, opening it up to the free market it the best way we know how.</p>
<p>Which makes the OP’s premise even more “out there.” What happens to the kids that go to college and then marry and drop out of the workforce sometimes forever or those that work 3-5 years then drop out of the workforce…the STHMs and STHDs of the world. Or those that drop out of the paid workforce to do volunteer work? To attempt to equate cost to high school record or even to college is a disconnect to what actually happens to students post college. Let’s just say you go to college to better yourself and hopefully make some contribution to society post college in some way shape or form and to try to tie funding to some future event that may or may not occur makes no sense.</p>
<p>I know plenty of people who have taken jobs un-related to their majors. A friend of mine has a dual degree in secondary education with two concentrations. She decided too late that she didn’t like teaching… didn’t want to change her major and start all over… but used her college education to get a job and is now working for the liquor control board. It happens all the time.</p>
<p>I’d argue that the TC’s contention fails to adequately support those in that very very small portion of students. It’s better than failing the entire system by financing education through government loans surging the cost of college for everyone.</p>
<p>“Well, is that house-husband / house-wife going to vote? And are those votes going to effect which policies are put into place and which politicians are put into local, state, and federal governments? And would it possibly be beneficial for voters to have been taught critical thinking skills–even if they do end up bussing tables at a restaurant instead of being some high-powered banker? Could it be that the knowledge gained is actually worth something? On its own? Even if it doesn’t translate into $$$?”</p>
<p>the op’s concept does have merit! why should the government or bank fork out mega $$$ so somebody can do a basket weaving major? it should be a sound investment (all investments have risks) and if a rich kid can go to nyu and major in gender studies on daddies dime then so be it, just because a poor kid can not do the same is irrelevant. life is full of breaks and lack there of. life ain’t fair.</p>