A college education still easily beats the alternatives
Given a choice of five alternatives, ranging from trade school to apprenticeships to military service, large majorities think each is 'about the same as or better than a bachelor's degree in trying to achieve a successful livelihood,' in the words of education reporter Eric Kelderman.
Skepticism about the value of a college degree is growing, even though the earnings advantage associated with a college degree remains strong. Calls to offer more young people career and technical education are multiplying, even though such training does not offer many of the benefits of a college education.
For decades, increasing college attainment was seen as essential to individual and national prosperity. The 'college for all' movement sought to give every student, not just the most privileged, a shot at college.
College graduates on average earn 84 percent more over their lifetimes than those who only complete high school. In 2019, the median income for families with at least one college degree holder was 24 percent higher than it was in 1970, but only 4 percent higher for families without a college degree. By 2021, life expectancy for someone with a bachelo r 's degree was 83, but only 75 for someone with no degree. As Nobel laureate Angus Deaton put it, 'the bachelor's degree has increasingly become a passport not only to a good job … but also to good health, to longevity, and to a flourishing social life.'
But opposition to 'college for all' has intensified in recent years. Despite decades of effort and billions of dollars aimed at improving college readiness, less than 70 percent of high school graduates go to college, as Harvard's Graduate School of Education pointed out in 2011. Only 56 percent who start a four-year program graduate within six years; less than 30 percent who begin community college receive their associate's degree within three years. And only 30 percent of Black students and 20 percent of Latino students earn an associate's degree or higher by their mid-20s.
The Harvard report recommended offering K-12 students a range of 'high-quality pathways' in addition to college. Kathleen deLaski, one of the authors of that report, builds on its arguments in her new book, 'Who Needs College Anymore? Imagining a Future Where Degrees Won't Matter.' She contends that the degree's 'status as the scaffold to the American Dream is breaking down,' especially for 'new majority' learners, defined as 'anyone for whom college was not originally designed.' She looks for 'solutions through the eyes of the end user,' especially students who are unable or unwilling to complete college.
DeLaski envisions a world in which 'every skill you gain, likely starting in high school — on the soccer field, in the theater, at after-school-jobs — will be digitally documented,' assembled in a 'skills wallet' and used by employers to 'expand the talent pool' beyond the four-year degree and 'open more doors to meaningful careers.'
Recognizing that employers still prefer college graduates, deLaski argues that we need better non-degree programs and work experiences that provide the technical skills and credentials required to land good jobs. She offers helpful assessments of those alternatives, including bootcamps, industry certifications and apprenticeships.
Her argument reinforces our judgment, however, that none of the alternatives come close to offering the full benefits of a college education.
Coding bootcamps were an early attempt to 'unbundle the degree' by providing 'learners a more direct training path to high-paid professional jobs.' But 75 percent of their market turned out to be people 'already in the workforce.' As deLaski acknowledges, bootcamps 'struggled to scale' because students found them too expensive or, in the case of apprenticeships, too difficult to secure.
Because many students who enroll in college don't graduate, and many who graduate struggle to find their first job or are underemployed, deLaski (who glosses over hands-on project learning in higher education) thinks colleges should shift from 'lecture-based learning' to an 'experience-first' approach, providing 'skills mastery' and career-related 'validation services.' And even as she profiles competency-based degrees, certificate programs, 'micro-pathways' and co-op placements, she recognizes their limitations, including 'valid concerns that we should not let the pendulum swing too far from preparing scholars to preparing workers.'
Nonetheless, deLaski wants the pendulum to swing. When guidance counselors explain that the alternatives to college are 'unclear, underfunded, unproven, and mostly noncredit, meaning financial aid hasn't covered them,' she urges high schools to 'blend' career and technical education with college preparation; offer more hands-on learning, career sampling and industry certifications; and make alternative pathways to professional success more visible.
DeLaski acknowledges that 'staying current with different employers' skill needs is not for the faint-hearted,' and that, in a dynamic economy, a college degree 'may be the best antidote to becoming irrelevant.' Her approach, we believe, would also lead to a new form of tracking. As one of deLaski's interviewees put it, 'many times it is white people in power saying, 'Those kids can go to trade or vocational,' when they would never choose that for their own children.'
DeLaski lists several categories of students who 'need' college: those who want to move into the middle class or higher (a category at odds with her thesis); those who feel society 'won't take them seriously without a higher degree'; those who seek jobs requiring a degree; and those who want the community that colleges provide. Unfortunately, as she points out, most of these people 'can't afford or access the colleges best set up to help them.'
In discussing who needs college, deLaski focuses almost exclusively on career preparation. But education plays a crucial, often transformational role in developing human potential. College cultivates critical thinking, aesthetic appreciation, scientific literacy and intellectual curiosity. It teaches students how to conduct research, evaluate evidence, construct and critique an argument, work with others, appreciate different perspectives, communicate effectively and engage in their communities. College graduates pay more in taxes and make ' better decisions about health, marriage, and parenting.'
Ultimately, deLaski admits, 'if a learner is just starting out, and they have the money, of course, they should go to college.'
Nonetheless, she believes a 'Great College Reset' has begun and that college should become an 'umbrella for a variety of more specific market signals,' and just one of three paths to employment, along with 'a localized experiential journey' and a 'shorter residential experience.'
It is tempting to suggest instead that we double down on college for all — surely much can still be done to improve access and completion rates — but, alas, the past quarter-century shows the limits of that approach. Acknowledging those limits, however, is not the same as suggesting that other pathways are just as good. Perhaps this is so for some students, but college remains — and should remain — the gold standard for most.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
28 minutes ago
- Axios
Federal workers tell their DOGE stories in new audio series
A dozen current and former federal employees detail how DOGE gutted their workplaces in a new audio series released Wednesday morning. Why it matters: The testimonials are from folks who've worked inside agencies responsible for the health and safety of millions of Americans — including a scientist who studies hepatitis C at the CDC, an FAA employee who supports air traffic controllers and a VA worker who counsels veterans. They warn that mass firings will have devastating consequences for real people. Zoom in: The series is called " I Do Solemnly Swear," based on the oath that federal workers take to" support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." The 16 short audio clips were put together by Federal Workers Against DOGE, a group that now comprises about 2,000 current and former federal employees and their allies. It's grown quickly from its origins as a Signal thread, and especially as the federal government has ramped back up the pace of firing, says Aisha Coffey, the group's spokesperson, who was just fired on Monday from her job at HHS, along with thousands of her colleagues. Testimonials are anonymous, but Coffey says the group vetted each person and the background of all its members. The point here is not to highlight the personal impact of mass layoffs. "Layoffs happen everywhere," Coffey says. "The idea behind the series is to make people understand what services and protections they're losing." Between the lines: By firing thousands of devoted federal employees, the White House has created a burgeoning and passionate opposition group. What they're saying: An IRS employee says there will be less policing of tax cheats. "It sends a huge signal that it is going to be OK not to pay your taxes." The FAA employee: "If you asked me today if I would feel safe getting on a plane in this country, I would say, yes," she says. "Ask me that question again in six months, and I might give you a different answer." "The impact of this is going to be so detrimental to the American worker," says an employee at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, whose job it is to keep workers safe — from factory employees to firefighters and mine workers. "They're trying to bring more factory work back to the United States. And if you're removing the people who can help you set that up in a safe way, you're going to end up with a lot of really sick people." The other side: The White House has said repeatedly that it is making job cuts in the name of efficiency.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Why I'm Rooting for Harvard, Just This Once
I don't expect my grandkids to attend Harvard University. After all, I didn't get in when I applied a half-century ago. Even though I'm now president of an elite college myself, I've enjoyed making fun of the fancy school in Cambridge whenever possible. 'They think they're so great,' is an attitude I've shared with many Americans whether the 'they' referred to graduates of our nation's oldest university or some other privileged group to which we don't belong. But now, as America's president targets Harvard with relentless vindictiveness, I'm seeing the school in a different light. As the White House insists on loyalty and subservience from all sectors of civil society, I find myself rooting for Harvard — and so should you, even if you share conservative priorities on other matters. When I was growing up, 'Follow the leader' was just a children's game in which players would mimic whoever was in charge no matter what silliness they indulged in. When I was a little older, I remember watching old newsreels of German and Italian adults in the 1930s and 40s marching in step, but my parents assured me that that would never happen here. As an American, they told me, I would never have to follow the leader. I could love my country without being subservient to those in power. And that's what I want for my grandchildren: to thrive in America without having to express loyalty to oligarchs and government officials. The logic of the current administration is that since many schools receive federal funding, they too are now expected to march in step. But countless groups receive financial support from Washington — from soybean farmers to computer chip manufacturers, from rural hospital workers to coal miners — and that funding has not, until now, depended on conformity with the ideology of those in power. So why would the Trump administration now demand exactly that from universities like Harvard? The answer is that the federal government's current assault on higher education is meant to erode the independence of colleges and universities, even though the excellence of this sector depends on that very independence. Although the president claims he is attacking 'woke,' liberal values, he and his administration are attacking core conservative values as well. The government's specific accusations are absurd on their face. Jim Ryan, the president of the University of Virginia, led a school where the fastest growing subjects were Computer Science and Data science, but he was targeted for leading an institution that was dominated, according to the government, by a bunch of leftist lunatics. Northwestern University and Cornell University have had grants suspended mostly from the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education and Health and Human Services totaling more than $1.5 billion because of suspected civil rights violations. At Harvard, where the university president and several leading deans identify as Jews, the school is accused by the White House of deliberate indifference to victims of antisemitism. The funding threats to scientific research, especially in medicine, are astronomical. As an American Jew, I know that antisemitism is real, of course, and it has gotten worse in this country. But the administration's anti-antisemitism is a sham. The president and his minions have a long history of tolerating the most vile Jew hatred, whether being mealy mouthed about the extremists marching in Charlottesville or Nick Fuentes dining with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Elon Musk's Grok AI may have been praising Nazis last week, but this week the Department of Defense announced it was one of its bot-bros for government work. The truth is that the Trump administration's anti-antisemitism is a flimsy cover for their insistence on ideological conformity, particularly from institutions whose legitimacy has never depended in the past on expressions of loyalty to the leader. Another pretense Trump administration officials have used is enforcing the Supreme Court's decision last year to end race-conscious admissions. The White House does indeed have the authority to move away from programs that resemble affirmative action. Rejecting 'reverse discrimination,' the government can forbid attempts to deal with historical patterns of discrimination through preferences meant to counteract those patterns. Elections have consequences, and the new civil rights regime understands discrimination through a lens of individual fairness outside of a historical or social context. I don't agree with this approach, but I obey it as the current law of the land. The federal government also has the authority to insist that no one is discriminated against because of their political beliefs or protected speech. The political biases in some departments at some universities are real, and leaders of colleges and universities should be encouraged to do more to ensure that conservatives, for example, are not discriminated against in admissions or hiring decisions. But the recent moves against universities go far beyond reinterpretations of civil rights statutes. This White House wants to ensure that universities, like big law firms, media outlets and foundations, show their allegiance to those currently in charge. The mere independence of these organizations is seen as a threat to the concentration of power in the hands of the president. You don't have to be a progressive to worry about this assault on some of these key institutions of civil society. The president's supporters themselves rail against entrenched elites and a deep state that lords it over ordinary citizens. Indeed, at the core of modern conservative thought is the notion that a country needs 'countervailing forces' that push back against the centralization of state power. This was fundamental to Baron de Montesquieu writing about law in the first half of the 18th century, as it was for Edmund Burke writing about political culture in its second half. For the French philosopher, a healthy society depended on the freedoms that are preserved in local and regional traditions. Burke argued that we learned about freedom from what he called the 'little platoons' in our communities — those local associations that nurtured us without the intrusion of a central government. We learn about belonging as we develop allegiances to family, work associations, religious congregations. Schools are such associations, groups that come together for the purposes of learning and inquiry, communities that foster practices of freedom without being directed by a central power. Alexis de Tocqueville, another thinker beloved by many conservatives, underscored this dimension of American democracy when he wrote in the mid 1800s that 'without local institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got the spirit of liberty.' The spirit of freedom is built on the associations that develop without dictates from central government, and it guides educational institutions. 'The art of associating together must ... be learned,' Tocqueville wrote. 'In democratic countries the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made.' Colleges and universities in this country have long cultivated this subtle 'science of association,' and that's why it is so vital for all Americans to resist the current administration's efforts to force public and private schools to conform to the president's ideological preferences. It's not that the ecosystem of higher education is perfect — I know that firsthand. But neither are other institutions core to our nation's liberty, including churches and synagogues, scout troops and public libraries. Whatever the flaws of universities and other institutions, massive pressure from the executive branch cannot improve this vital part of our economy and culture; it can only impose conformity, something conservatives have long opposed. Nothing good will come from forcing schools as different as Hillsdale and Harvard, the University of Texas and the University of Virginia to conform to the president's image — any president's image — of what higher education should be. Chances are that when my little grandkids are old enough to go to college, if they apply to Harvard, they won't get in. (Even though I can assure you they are absolutely perfect!) That's okay, because if there are still great independent universities to apply to, that will mean that we were successful in fighting back against the tyrannical assault currently underway. It will mean that they can enjoy the freedoms that are my birthright and theirs.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Can Ketanji Brown Jackson save the Supreme Court from itself?
The supremely partisan Supreme Court is deeply divided. The justices pretend that their divisions are intellectual, not personal, but we know that their deep ideological divisions can often disguise personal animus. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson appointed Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme Court, making him the first Jewish justice. Brandeis had no prior judicial experience but was known as the 'people's lawyer' for his championing of individual liberties — a right to privacy, free speech and social justice. The Economist once called him 'a Robin Hood of the law.' Leading lawyers and elected officials opposed the Brandeis nomination. The American Bar Association and such luminaries as former President William Howard Taft, Elihu Root and Henry Cabot Lodge lined up against him. Brandeis ascended to the conservative Supreme Court after a four-month Senate confirmation hearing — the first time such a hearing was held. After he took the bench, his colleague, Justice James McReynolds of Tennessee, a hardened antisemite, would turn his back and refuse to speak with Brandeis as he entered the conference room. Brandeis needed time to find his place. 'So extraordinary an intellect as Brandeis said it took him four or five years to feel that he understood the jurisprudential problems of the court,' Justice Felix Frankfurter later wrote of him. Brandeis often crafted trenchant dissenting opinions, some of which later became the basis for landmark judgments of the court's majority. In many of his famous dissents, he was joined by the iconic Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. His opinions were some of the greatest legal defenses of free speech and the right to privacy ever written. Unlike Brandeis, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by Biden in 2022, has not waited 'four or five years' to become 'a Robin Hood of the law.' But the parallels with Brandeis are striking. Jackson is the first Black woman to serve on the court and, like Brandeis, she has become the great dissenter, sometimes siding with Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan and sometimes standing alone. Jackson has erupted volcanically, writing eloquently to speak her heart and mind in advocacy for human rights or against the steady accretion of executive power. And she has not been shy about accusing her right-wing colleagues of enabling President Trump as he slip-slides the country towards a dangerous autocracy. Also, like Brandeis, she has been the target of personal attacks coming from conservatives on and off the bench. On the Supreme Court's 'shadow docket,' where Trump this term won 19 of the 21 cases the court considered, Jackson dissented. In strong language, she criticized the majority opinion in the birthright citizenship case, which sharply limited the power of district court judges to block presidential orders nationwide, even if they are flagrantly unconstitutional. She called it 'an existential threat to the rule of law' that created 'a zone of lawlessness within which the executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes.' Her slashing critiques have provoked her colleagues' rancor, culminating in gratuitous rebuke from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which did not lack dismissiveness or condescension. Barrett scolded Jackson as though she were an eight-year-old schoolgirl in a classroom for abandoning her 'oath to follow the law.' 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition,' she chided. ''Everyone from the president on down is bound by law.' That goes for judges too.' Justice Barrett added: 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' And: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.' In the staid world of the federal judiciary, it doesn't get any closer or more personal than this. Trump's supporters were delighted by Barrett's criticism of Jackson. 'Sometimes feeling the heat helps people see the light,' Mike Davis, a right-wing legal activist allied with the Trump administration, told NBC News. Duke law professor Marin K. Levy said Jackson 'is trying to raise the alarm. Whether she is writing for the public or a future court, she is making a larger point about what she sees as not just the errors of the majority's position but the dangers of it as well.' Perhaps one day Jackson's views, like those of Brandeis, will become the law. Jackson has also been critical of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket — an increasingly expedient procedural device for the justices to deliver bargain-basement endorsements of Trump's agenda without explanation or legal rhyme or reason. 'This fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided,' Jackson wrote. 'It is also dangerous.' Last week, the court handed down a significant (if temporary) decision allowing Trump to move forward with firing thousands of federal workers. Jackson registered a solo dissent, writing, 'In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.' What Jackson criticizes has consequences in the real world. The court's repeated interventions in favor of Trump enable obvious illegality by the executive branch for a while, or possibly forever, as Trump continues to game the system. That it is only temporary is no answer. Over one million individuals may be losing their previous immigration status; countless migrants are being removed to third countries; federal employees are being fired wholesale, without congressional approval; statutorily created agencies are being downsized into insignificance; grants for scientific research have been throttled. And just wait for what will happen to law firms and universities. Jackson may not be 'so extraordinary an intellect as Brandeis,' but she is surely as principled. And like Brandeis, she is reviled on the right as Cassius was reviled by Julius Caesar: 'He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.' Conversations with Jim Zirin.
