Do too Many People get Degrees?

[GCMG]

"Too Many People Go To University" is an idea that one encounters floating around a lot but I don't think too many people bother to provide graphs for it. I have two! Both break down what school leavers do... the first is for the US and only looks an enrolments at university and the second is from NZ and is more detailed in the sense it looks at other tertiary options too... but it's neither as easy to read as the American one nor as chronologically comprehensive.

Percentage of high school completers who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges by the October immediately following high school completion, by level of institution: 2000 through 2016.

.

School leavers by tertiary education level1 one year after leaving school (2012-2017)

Now, there are some further points about the two graphics that limit the comparability. Since they're contextual but not necessary, into a spoiler they go..

Firstly, in NZ there is no such thing as an Associate's degree and I believe that's mostly what's studied at community colleges which, therefore, means the green chunk is probably comparable just to the "four year colleges" line. Secondly, the Associate's degree is probably just the pink section in the NZ graphic (by reference to this and where European countries with Associate's Degrees place them on the EQF. Thirdly, the Americans stupidly use just graduates as a baseline: "high school completers are individuals ages 16 to 24 who graduated from high school or completed a GED or other high school equivalency credential prior to October of the calendar year" whereas NZ uses School Leavers. Graduation rates in the US are probably something like 84%. So, if we multiply the graph by .84 that means more do still go on to "college" in the USA than go to university but by not as much as it first appears.

The reason why I have figures from two countries is because the idea that I see attached to "too many people go to uni" is that "we [meaning we Americans almost invariably] need to tell high schoolers they don't have to go to college". Here's an example which I found online by searching "do too many people go to college"... it's the only explicit example in six links I either read or skimmed (also there was a video I abandoned and two pay walls) but some of the others got close:

Over and over and over, students are bombarded with college advertisements posted in the hallways, in the counselor's office, and even on the outside of their teacher's door. Schools systematically program kids to feel that college is the only way. There is rarely trade school talk or entrepreneurship classes. It's either college or you're a failure in the eyes of the public education system.

(One of the links was more about the sort of person who asks this question... and I would say it's a largely rightwing concern.)

This is a sentiment I feel like I sometimes see NZers putting about but I disagree that it's relevant here. Maybe it's because I went to the kind of school that has Gateway but generally just asks pupils interested in Scholarship to fend for themselves or perhaps with some number of lunchtime meetings on the subject (Scholarship isn't really about university but it is an academic competition with monetary rewards... that can be very substantial... and some schools operate very formal programmes with this in mind). More to the point, I think the figures in the graph demonstrate this belief because I say they show people treat university as just one kind of tertiary education option. Of course, most high schoolers in NZ's colleges study NCEA which is a qualification programme that was specifically designed to treat woodwork, cooking and PE exactly the same as physics, economics or English (and also music, painting and drama), although not necessarily when it comes to University Entrance (a particular award). The point is, if you're trying to comment on the American system and want to see a different kind of outcome, I think the NZ experience is something you can use to demonstrate your solution (which is usually "encourage vocational schooling") but it is, at the same time, tied to ideas that would be very scary to Americans and after nearly 20 years are still extremely controversial in NZ.

The vocational option as the solution shouldn't surprise because I would break down the arguments for "too many people at university" as follows (again, mostly drawing from American centred conversations):

• credential bubble... jobs that don't need degrees still require applicants to have degrees
• low graduation rates (e.g. under 60% or even noticeably under 50% depending what exactly is being looked at)
• people are accumulating debts they don't need and will never be able to afford because they go to university simply because they haven't got a better idea of what to do
• degrees aren't even all that relevant to what people do in their jobs (with a few exceptions, e.g. medicine)

If that list seems somewhat hollow or insincere that's because I actually disagree with the narrative. Well, in NZ anyway. I don't think it's relevant (as per my figures) but to the extent that these critiques touch on issues present in NZ they're easily criticised:

• since this is also a symptom as well as a cause that means it could be a very good idea to get a degree but ignoring this point it's still learning... there is a value to the knowledge even if technically possessing it makes one underemployed.
• frankly, it's important to consider the specific figure being thrown around because there are lots of explanations for why a figure looks the way it is. That being said, a low graduation rate is concerning and does demonstrate, er, mismatch (but not the racist kind)... but it's still not necessarily compelling due to the value of knowledge, the argument from Steve Jobs about drop ins and the point that this becomes a major concern in the US because of the point discussed below.
• the solution here is more student loan regulation and control since this criticism presupposes that the students shouldn't have taken on the debt, i.e. it is circular... let's put it this way, getting shot in the head for answering a trivia question incorrectly makes you look like an idiot but if you were going to get shot anyway your choice looks very different.
• it is the task of the student to find their knowledge for their job, not the university to shape its curriculum for jobs... it is not ideal to have zoologists writing financial policies for countries but it's not inherently wrong (yes, even if they failed economics courses)

In general, I'm of the mind that (a) not everyone should go to university and (b) university isn't for everyone assuming (c) you see these as two different statements. Given the crazy institutional factors informing choices in the US... such as the student loan situation, this credential bubble I keep hearing about and this "uni is the only path" narrative that I'm really poorly placed to evaluate... I am willing to believe that maybe too many people jump into the uni boat. However, I don't think encouraging vocational options is the way forwards... I think it would require far more fundamental changes to the way education works in the US that are simply politically impossible because even a president who could probably do it isn't going to break the states. (Trump, for instance, probably could... the environment in the US is such that Republicans need to stay on board the train even if they disagree and the sort of reforms I envision probably don't turn Democrats off... the real question is whether or not Republican voters would baulk at the federal government being used to ensure national consistency and therefore credibility just because Trump was behind it. Trump is not interested in this kind of machinery of state and I doubt anyone who would be could ever manage to be in a situation where they could even dream of doing so.)

So what do you think NSG? Are too many people studying at universities? Whether you're thinking of the US where it's true a lot of people do go on to university (including and excluding community college) or your own country doesn't really matter...

[Cetacea]

I think that in many Western Nations inordinate prestige has been given to University education which has lead to a situation that more school leavers focus on getting a University education even when that is not necessarily their best option.
The NZ graph shows that there are more enrolled in University Study than Certificate and Non-Degree courses which in NZ case would tend to include Trade Certificates, Apprenticeships and similar.

For an analysis of the question to be meaningful the data breakdown would need an indication of the subject too as Id suspect anecdotally that their is a huge shortage of trades and similar STEAM professionals and an over abundance of BA, Humanities and Law School graduates

[NERVUN]

Does everyone NEED to? No.

Fact remains that on average, a BA/BS degree will increase your earning potential. It's not a given of course, but on average...

Also... those with degrees seem to be more flexible than those with trades (I am talking in general here of course). I'm not saying that the average auto worker isn't highly skilled, but part of the problem we're seeing with the working class is their skills are based on one industry and one way of doing something. If that job gets automated... they have a hard time transferring to something else. While degrees may be 'mismatched', they also allow a wider range of working options. So no, I don't think there's too many people getting them and nothing wrong with informing students of the above. There is something very wrong with talking down trade schools though and I highly disagree with that. But I would suggest that we shouldn't talk them up too much either.

[Luziyca]

I think that in many Western Nations inordinate prestige has been given to University education which has lead to a situation that more school leavers focus on getting a University education even when that is not necessarily their best option.

Pretty much this.

Like, society has basically said that unless you want to work at a demeaning low-end job with no prospects of ever advancing, you need to go to university.

But to answer the question of the OP... I don't know if too many people get degrees, but I feel that too many people have drank that particular Kool-Aid, so to speak.

[New haven america]

Does everyone NEED to? No.

Fact remains that on average, a BA/BS degree will increase your earning potential. It's not a given of course, but on average...

Also... those with degrees seem to be more flexible than those with trades (I am talking in general here of course). I'm not saying that the average auto worker isn't highly skilled, but part of the problem we're seeing with the working class is their skills are based on one industry and one way of doing something. If that job gets automated... they have a hard time transferring to something else. While degrees may be 'mismatched', they also allow a wider range of working options. So no, I don't think there's too many people getting them and nothing wrong with informing students of the above. There is something very wrong with talking down trade schools though and I highly disagree with that. But I would suggest that we shouldn't talk them up too much either.

Most developed nations are actually going through a trade labor shortage, generally due to the fact that people have started figuring out that those jobs are actually very important and can't really be automated, while schools on the other hand, just keep pushing the idea that you need to go to college to do anything with your life.

Hell, if I was any good with that kind of stuff I'd probably become an electrician or welder, because where I live those jobs can net you $60,000-$120,000 minimum a year.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm of the opinion we've reached, or close to reaching, "peak university", where the value of university is such that there's absolutely no need to waste the time and expenses in getting university degrees, especially when you've got, at most, two decades of stable employment before automation renders 60% of the workforce redundant.

[Izaakia]

I think too many people do pointless degrees. Like art, or media studies. I’m not sure we should subsidise those degeees,

[New haven america]

I think too many people do pointless degrees. Like art, or media studies. I’m not sure we should subsidise those degeees,

Found someone who has no idea what those degrees are or can do.

[Frievolk]

I personally feel like it's less "too many people get degrees" and more "Too many people get degrees [without having the qualifications]" that is the problem.

[GCMG]

I personally feel like it's less "too many people get degrees" and more "Too many people get degrees [without having the qualifications]" that is the problem.

Is this a point about grade inflation? I don't think I understand what you mean.

[Frievolk]

I personally feel like it's less "too many people get degrees" and more "Too many people get degrees [without having the qualifications]" that is the problem.

Is this a point about grade inflation? I don't think I understand what you mean.

It's more about people only achieving academically and not being able to use said achievements outside of the pre-established academic situations. For example, graduating College/University with a degree in engineering/architecture/etc. but sucking at your job. Or graduating with an analytic Humanities major (political science, etc.) but not being able to use that knowledge you gained outside of dropping trivia "TIL" informative tidbits.
Graduating, but not being qualified in the fields you've been educated in.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

The US needs to bring back skilled trades and fund them even as highschool classes. Education is never a bad thing however I do agree it is silly that you need a 2 year degree to do menial jobs these days.

[Bienenhalde]

Considering that there are so many "students" who go to college and spend most of the time drinking and partying instead of actually learning or studying, I would say that there are too many people going in college who do not really need to be there. While it is true that grade inflation and dumbing down of the curriculum allows some of those people to get degrees, it is also important to consider the people who drop out without receiving a degree.

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

I think too many people do pointless degrees. Like art, or media studies. I’m not sure we should subsidise those degeees,

Yeah I can agree with that conclusion.

[The Archregimancy]

It's a problem across the Western world, or at least the English-speaking world.

University degrees are held to have a certain prestige, and to enhance a student's career prospects. It's therefore understandable that both parents and governments want to increase the opportunities for young people to attain degrees.

But if too many people are earning degrees, then you lower the prestige of the degrees as well as decrease the likelihood that they enhance career prospects. On balance, you're likely still better off with the degree than without on a long-term basis; but your prospects will be a lot more uncertain than they were when I was studying for my undergraduate degree some 30 years ago.

Students at top universities will still likely be fine - the Oxbridges, the Ivy Leagues, the Melbourne/Sydney/ANU axis, etc. - regardless of subject; but if you've earned a degree in Urban Dance from East London University, or a philosophy degree from some tiny Midwestern liberal arts college with 2500 students that no one outside of Wisconsin has ever heard of, you might find that your prospects are a little bit bleaker. And I can't say I'd have a huge amount of sympathy.

But the problem isn't just with undergraduate degrees; in a lot of countries we're churning out far too many postgraduates. Focusing on just the fields I'm most familiar with, it's become virtually impossible to get a permanent lower-rung job in a heritage field without an MA degree. Museum studies, archiving, and archaeology MA programmes are churning out MA students faster than the job market can absorb them. And PhDs.... While not all PhD students expect to work in academia, many of them aspire to academic positions; but the overwhelming majority are going to be disappointed, especially if they haven't followed the very narrow career path that's increasingly expected of aspiring lecturing/research staff. Archaeologists don't too badly; they have transferable skills across the heritage sector (so long as they've been sensible and not over-specialised), and most English-speaking countries have a surprisingly robust commercial archaeology sector. But Museum Studies, History, or Archiving? There aren't a lot of options if you have PhD in those subjects and can't find a permanent academic position. There I have a bit more sympathy since securing an academic position (and this is true of any discipline) can be an almighty pot-luck scramble rather as often as it is a genuine reward for the capable and deserving.


And for what it's worth I have a PhD and used to lecture at university.

[GCMG]

I think that in many Western Nations inordinate prestige has been given to University education which has lead to a situation that more school leavers focus on getting a University education even when that is not necessarily their best option.
The NZ graph shows that there are more enrolled in University Study than Certificate and Non-Degree courses which in NZ case would tend to include Trade Certificates, Apprenticeships and similar.

For an analysis of the question to be meaningful the data breakdown would need an indication of the subject too as Id suspect anecdotally that their is a huge shortage of trades and similar STEAM professionals and an over abundance of BA, Humanities and Law School graduates

Did you mean STEAM because you seem to be talking more about STEM than STEAM? In any case... I can't actually remember where I got this data (somewhere in Education Counts) from now (due to a problem with alphabetising and also watching several hours of television) but it does go some way to the bold. Both graphs are basically the same. Also, to clarify, it's NZ data.

We have to be very careful when reading this graph because these are percentages of students who studied courses. So, for example, when I was a first year at university I took papers that counted for NatSci (maths and statistics), MgmtComm (business courses) and SocCult (history and economics)... and I think Infosys counted as IT in the narrow field breakdown so if so also IT... and therefore would have been counted in all of these categories for the purposes of this graph (were I a university first year in 2017, which I was not). Basically this means adding these percentages together is pretty much meaningless but it does show how popular and/or generically relevant Social Sciences and Humanities studies are. I imagine PstGrd shows a jump up for Engineering because of Auckland University's making everyone enrol in Honours but it could easily be something else going on there.

Also note the mixed category basically exists because the kinds of agencies that gather these kinds of statistics are conservative and don't want to call a course NatSci if they've got reservations about what exactly it is. Interestingly Tourism counts in MgmtComm not Hospitality. The Creative Arts are more popular than I imagined at degree levels.

EDIT: sex effects

Where the graph cuts out that's because there's a 0% somewhere along the line. Figures derived from Female % / Male % from same underlying dataset above.

[Pope Joan]

We have been told for years that a college degree will help us make more money.

I think this is merely a correlation.

a century ago most college students were children of privilege; they had many advantages before they went to college. My family let us choose books to buy every month. We had an encyclopedia, and I had a telescope, microscope, weather station, musical instruments, and parents who read aloud to us. We had a short wave radio and listened to world news, in the 1960s. They took us to museums. We toured historic sites. I knew how to read two years before I started first grade.

Of course I had an advantage, and I made the most of it.

I would be that in a blind test, taking away those supports, the result of higher income after college would not be so common

[GCMG]

Considering that there are so many "students" who go to college and spend most of the time drinking and partying instead of actually learning or studying, I would say that there are too many people going in college who do not really need to be there. While it is true that grade inflation and dumbing down of the curriculum allows some of those people to get degrees, it is also important to consider the people who drop out without receiving a degree.

The same could be said about school. The difference is that everyone knows school is compulsory whereas you haven't established whether or not university is. I mean, yes, obviously it's not legally mandated but what if it's reached a point where university study should be legally mandated and no-one's noticed? It's not like decisions to make school study to the age of 16 or whatever come out of thin air: those numbers are reactions to social conditions.

[GCMG]

I think that in many Western Nations inordinate prestige has been given to University education which has lead to a situation that more school leavers focus on getting a University education even when that is not necessarily their best option.
The NZ graph shows that there are more enrolled in University Study than Certificate and Non-Degree courses which in NZ case would tend to include Trade Certificates, Apprenticeships and similar.

For an analysis of the question to be meaningful the data breakdown would need an indication of the subject too as Id suspect anecdotally that their is a huge shortage of trades and similar STEAM professionals and an over abundance of BA, Humanities and Law School graduates

Did you mean STEAM because you seem to be talking more about STEM than STEAM? In any case... I can't actually remember where I got this data (somewhere in Education Counts) from now (due to a problem with alphabetising and also watching several hours of television) but it does go some way to the bold.

On a similar note consider this graph:

Initially I thought it solved the basic problem with the earlier ones but that's because I didn't pay proper attention to how it deals with predominant areas... i.e. students can have two no worries. It's more than a little stupid because the method they use is not necessarily guaranteed to create no more than two major predominant fields of study (i.e. why not also provide a version where the arbitrary limit is 1?) but it's the best that I've managed to find. Again it's from Education Counts and because I'd got quite a way through this exercise before I noticed my stupidity I really don't feel like tracking down the tab I got it from.

Anyway, the point is that... well, you'd need to stick some numbers on to say what should be happening because it's a right mix of things in here. Social Sciences and Humanities (e.g. Law, History, Economics) do very well in their SocCult category across all levels and the natural sciences (NatSci) perk up a bit later. The various health fields (Hlth) are pretty consistent and Engineering (Eng) again displays that PstGrd bump which I attributed previously to the University of Auckland. For the most part it does look like what we would call STEM fields doesn't do all that well... but the question remains: how well should it be doing?

Now, bearing mind that in practice these almost sum to 100% which to my mind indicates that there probably aren't that many students whom the Ministry attributes multiple fields of study, we'll be naughty and add the fields together to get a crude impression of the STEM specialisation rates. I used four different ways of deciding which fields to count.

• There's Hard STEM, which is NatSci, IT, Eng and Hlth (without public health).
• There's Soft STEM, which is as above but I also included ArchBuild and AgrEnv because let's be real... T is ambiguous.
• There's Arts STEM or STEAM, which is Hard STEM but with CreArts.
• There's Full STEAM, which is Soft STEM but with CreArts.

This first plot shows the full HSAF combination rates. The second the mean of those.

Basically it shows the STEM rate gets closer to 50% as the level of education increases. That's maybe not really surprising. What definitely doesn't surprise is that the S-STEM and F-STEM rates are typically higher but all four rates converge in the Grad, PstGrd and Doc categories which indicates that the fields involved are having different contributions. If you look at the first more meaningful (but still in need of careful interpretation) graph you can see that ArchBuild and AgrEnv don't get much relative representation for these three levels of education.

It's probably easier to see what's going on here but that may not be a good thing when you remember we shouldn't find too much meaning in these crude rates due to the nature of the data.

tl;dr -- we have some idea of STEM Rates but what should they be?

[Thermodolia]

We have been told for years that a college degree will help us make more money.

I think this is merely a correlation.

a century ago most college students were children of privilege; they had many advantages before they went to college. My family let us choose books to buy every month. We had an encyclopedia, and I had a telescope, microscope, weather station, musical instruments, and parents who read aloud to us. We had a short wave radio and listened to world news, in the 1960s. They took us to museums. We toured historic sites. I knew how to read two years before I started first grade.

Of course I had an advantage, and I made the most of it.

I would be that in a blind test, taking away those supports, the result of higher income after college would not be so common

I agree with your assessment.

On my end my family isn’t exactly well off. We never bought books, we went to the library. We didn’t have an encyclopedia, telescope, microscope or anything else like that. While my mom did try to read aloud to us it wasn’t very often. We rarely went out and if we did it was somewhere close, cheap or free.

School for me and my siblings was hard to say the least

[Bienenhalde]

The same could be said about school. The difference is that everyone knows school is compulsory whereas you haven't established whether or not university is. I mean, yes, obviously it's not legally mandated but what if it's reached a point where university study should be legally mandated and no-one's noticed? It's not like decisions to make school study to the age of 16 or whatever come out of thin air: those numbers are reactions to social conditions.

Why should university be mandated, though? Perhaps we should have universities for aristocrats and intellectuals and trade schools for ordinary folk?

[Northwest Slobovia]

a century ago most college students were children of privilege

Sources, please.

I spot checked this claim for three state systems I happen to know things about. The University of Maryland is bit over a century old, but only became a public university (as opposed to a college) in 1920 (but I'm not sure how significant the change was). U. Wisconsin dates to 1848; U. Illinois, 1867. I'm not gonna check all fifty state university systems, but I'm three for three on "randomly" chosen ones: they're more than a century old (with quibbles about UMd), and are much larger than the Ivies. There were probably as many people in state schools as fancy-ass private ones even a century ago.

[The Emerald Legion]

Does everyone NEED to? No.

Fact remains that on average, a BA/BS degree will increase your earning potential. It's not a given of course, but on average...

Also... those with degrees seem to be more flexible than those with trades (I am talking in general here of course). I'm not saying that the average auto worker isn't highly skilled, but part of the problem we're seeing with the working class is their skills are based on one industry and one way of doing something. If that job gets automated... they have a hard time transferring to something else. While degrees may be 'mismatched', they also allow a wider range of working options. So no, I don't think there's too many people getting them and nothing wrong with informing students of the above. There is something very wrong with talking down trade schools though and I highly disagree with that. But I would suggest that we shouldn't talk them up too much either.

Except this is only true if you're not competing with ten other people with the exact same degree.

Yes, at the start when there are relatively few people trained in X. People with a Degree in X are valuable. But after three decades of funneling people towards degrees those degrees aren't completely worthless, but they are worth much less. Well. SOME degrees aren't completely worthless.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Hey I don’t have a degree and look at me now
On a more serious note I like more jobs need to find ways to look for skill and talent. Education is a good indicator but you’re gonna have people who know the theory very well and passed class but have little idea in practice, and you’ll always have people who have a great knowledge but for various reasons never got a degree
Note that I claim to be neither, I’m actually just an idiot

[US-SSR]

No.

Too many state governments, controlled by and large by Republicans, starve their public universities so that students from less-privileged backgrounds (including minorities as noted in the poll) are less able to afford four-year degrees. As long as the whelps of the One Percent get their legacy scholarships to the Ivies, they'll be perfectly content for the rest to stand in line for their two-year community college certificates qualifying them for low-wage, low-benefit, nonunion, fire-at-will jobs where they will learn to be good proles content with their lot in life, looking for the crumbs that trickle down from the top table like obedient lapdogs.