The U.S. economy doesn’t need many more college graduates, concludes Paul Barton, writing in Carnegie’s Change Magazine. Seventy percent of the jobs in the top 10 occupations with the largest job growth don’t require college, he points out, citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He sees a gradual rise in the need for college credentials from 29 percent of jobs in 2004 to 31 percent by 2014.
Already some college graduates are underemployed.
The absolute demand for college graduates is also overstated when whatever percentage of the workforce that has gone to college is equated with the percentage of jobs that require college-level learning — or when the assumption is made that the knowledge gained in college is required to perform that job. For example, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), in a committee hearing in March 2007, said that when he graduated from school, just 15 percent of jobs needed some postsecondary training, but “today the number is over 60 percent and rising rapidly.” But while over 60 percent of people in existing jobs have “some college” or a postsecondary credential, according to the BLS only about 3 in 10 jobs require a postsecondary certification of some sort.
. . . In each decade, an increasing percentage of waiters and waitresses have had “some college” or bachelor’s degrees: In 2004 at ages 25 to 44, 54 percent had an educational level of high school or less, 32 percent had some college, and 15 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher.
On average, college graduates earn considerably more than adults with “some college” and those with high school diplomas or less. But male college graduates’ wages are slipping, a sign of oversupply, Barton writes.
I suspect the college pay-off depends on the rigor of the degree earned.
Via Education Gadfly, which reminds us: “A quality higher education (no small qualification there) can open worlds of learning to students that will enhance their enjoyment of life and enable greater contributions as democratic citizens.”
Update: Women are now the first sex when it comes to education, points out Jonathan Rauch.
Actually, it’s almost inversely related to the rigor of the degree earned. That’s why undergraduates who major in Business can easily find work, but folks with doctorates in tough academic subjects can’t.
The market wants what the market wants, and academic rigor isn’t high on its list.
I don’t disagree with the conclusions, but this strikes me as a strange piece of analysis. The educational requirement for a particular job is not a Platonic Form, it is often a function of trendiness among those doing the hiring.
are the fastest-growing BLS occupations jobs that are desirable or well-paying? and what are their long-term prospects? i would think that the fastest-growing fields are in technology, which generally do require an advanced degree.
“I suspect the college pay-off depends on the rigor of the degree earned.”
Partially.
Chemical Engineers, on average, get paid a lot more than sociology majors.
But I suspect that PhD Classicists, on average, get paid less than BA economics majors (partially because a lot of the economics majors go on to become accountants).
Rigor (which often means “amount of math required”) combined with business usefulness probably explains a lot.
-Mark Roulo
“But while over 60 percent of people in existing jobs have ’some college’ or a postsecondary credential, according to the BLS only about 3 in 10 jobs require a postsecondary certification of some sort.”
The job may not require the college degree, but the hiring managers frequently do. My guess (and this is all that it is) is that the hiring managers are using the college degree as a proxy for something else (intelligence, diligence, something …).
As long as the hiring managers require the degrees, the people looking for jobs are going to keep getting them.
-Mark Roulo
“I suspect the college pay-off depends on the rigor of the degree earned.”
An MBA is probably the exception that proves the rule.
I had to chuckle at Mark Roulo’s comment because I am one of those economics majors that became an accountant.
My observation has been that people coming out of college with “hard” skills are more readily employed and earn more. For example, an accounting vs. economics major, chemical engineering vs. biology, geologist vs. environmental studies, and so on.
Isn’t the basic premise wrong? Back in the paleolithic age – when I was in school – you went to college to broaden your horizons and learn to enjoy a broader world, from literature and art history to economics and physics. More educated citizens, it was also argued, were also essential to the democratic process.
Now that the only reason we get educated is so we can make more money, it’s hardly surprising that kids aren’t as motivated as they used to be… especially after their early education has concentrated on teaching them the evils of capitalism.
“Back in the paleolithic age – when I was in school – you went to college to broaden your horizons and learn to enjoy a broader world…”
Maybe 150 years ago this was true, but I don’t think of most math/engineering/science majors as being in school to “learn to enjoy a broader world.” I’m not claiming that learning math/science/engineering doesn’t broaden one’s horizons, but this is a very different broadening than taking classical Greek, and then going over the Iliad one line at a time with a professor.
More … many universities are *expensive* and a lot of kids can’t afford to go to school simply to broaden their horizons. It simply costs too much to do so, both in terms of forgone income and in tuition. Would *you*, for example, spend $200K and skip 4 years of income to go to Harvard for a BA in Classics if you had to come up with the money yourself? Most people won’t.
Sometime in the late 1800s or early 1900s, universities started becoming more trade-schoolish. I don’t see this as inherently evil … we need more math/science/engineers than we were getting back in those days.
I’d suggest than many (most?) students at a university have put some though into the economic benefit of the degree. Of those that don’t, I suspect that many (most?) regret this within a few years after graduating.
When a few percent of the country, mainly the wealthy, went to university, it could be what you said. With 50%+ now attending, it can’t.
-Mark Roulo
Regarding “hard” and “soft” fields of study, here are some interesting and contrarian thoughts from renowned management consultant Michael Hammer.
The reason employers require a college education is because they have no reason to believe a high school diploma means anything.
The problem is, of course, that a college diploma is slowly becoming the new high school.
The best way to address this is to require subject tests and rankings in high school.
No way do bank tellers need a college degree, provided that they can demonstrate that in high school, they passed trig, english, and history with demonstrated competence. We could even use the SAT subject tests as a metric.
“Regarding ‘hard’ and ’soft’ fields of study, here are some interesting and contrarian thoughts from renowned management consultant Michael Hammer.”
I have seen this article before and agree with it.
But … note that you can learn Latin along with an engineering degree, or even minor in Classics, but you can’t pick up much engineering part-time (although the 2-year freshman/sophomore physics track would probably work just as well as a minor).
Still, I suspect that an engineer with a minor in Classics gets paid more on average than a Classics major with a minor in physics.
Most students at university, however, aren’t willing to work hard enough to get either degree …
-Mark R.
“The reason employers require a college education is because they have no reason to believe a high school diploma means anything.”
Yep. Because the high school diploma *doesn’t* mean much. The employers are correct.
I don’t see this changing any time soon.
-Mark R.
“Update: Women are now the first sex when it comes to education, points out Jonathan Rauch.”
Amazing! Mr. Rauch can see far into the future, to several decimal points.
A civililization requires that garbage be collected, sewage disposed of, and the bad guys removed. In the desert surrounding my humble cottage, the people who are buying and developing large homes with all of latest shiny accouterments, are career cement mixers, auto mechanics, electricians, law enforcement officers and car salesmen.
I am a career military enlisted man who decided to go to college and become a high school teacher. I currently teach math in a small town in Idaho. The work’s challenging, most of the kids still respect their parents, and the gangsta wannabees have to be off the streets by eleven; but I’m looking across the street at a 5 acre property with a 3000 square foot home with a detached garge built to shelter the 10-wheel mobile home.
If I had to do it all over again, I’d have been a plumber.
“I don’t see this changing any time soon.”
Oh, it will change. If a high school diploma doesn’t regain some value, then the college degree will continue to lose value. One way or the other, it’s going to change.
I wish I remembered the source (a British writer, I think) for this. Making the case that college isn’t for everybody, he said something like, “… and so almost everybody went to college, depriving our society of many fine bakers, plumbers, craftsmen …”.
The devalued high-school diploma is another topic. Here in California, a few years back, they seriously considered having two separate diplomas, one for those who learned the material, and another for those who were just still around after 12th grade. The idea, of course, is that the dropouts mustn’t feel bad.