The Daily: Is College Worth It?

OroRing is the world's most trusted smart ring that gives you accurate 24-7 data on your health,

from sleep to activity to recovery and more. Light weight, stylish and comfortable,

OroRing is your personal health guide that lives on your finger and seamlessly fits into any lifestyle.

The OroMembership gives your body a voice with personalized insights and recommendations

so that you can make your health and wellness a daily practice.

To learn more and shop OroRing, head to ororing.com slash daily.

From New York Times, I'm Michael Bilbaro. This is A Daily.

New research and polling show that more and more Americans

now doubt a once unquestioned fact of American life that going to college is worth it.

Today, Times Magazine contributor Paul Tuff

on why so many high school students and their parents

are souring on higher education and what that will mean for the country's future.

It's Wednesday, September 20th.

Paul, we have spent a lot of time over the past year talking about higher education

on the daily first because the Supreme Court ended affirmative action in college admissions

and second because of new data showing just how much college perpetuates basically financial

privilege by very much favoring the rich in the admissions process. But you come at the subject

with reporting on something that feels in a way bigger and even more foundational to the

question of higher education, you're finding that fewer and fewer Americans even believe

in the idea of college. So just walk us through those findings.

Yeah. So about a decade ago, I think Americans were feeling pretty positively about higher

education and you could see that in all kinds of public opinion polls. No matter how you asked

the question, people would say college was worth it. Parents would say I want my kids to go to

college. Graduates would say this was worth it, this experience. And then at some point in the

last 10 years, that really started to shift. And now when you look at public opinion polls,

the answers are all going in the opposite direction. People are much more skeptical

of college as an institution. They don't trust it. Parents aren't sure they want to send their kids.

Young people aren't convinced that they need a degree to do well. And all of that shift has

happened just in the last decade. Just how much more skeptical? I wonder if you can give us

some of the data points. The number that really stuck out to me in the public opinion polls

is that about a decade ago, like 98% of parents said that they expected their kids to attend

college. I think at the time it was just this accepted truth. Right. That's basically universal.

Exactly. That everyone was going to go to college. And now when you look at public opinion polls,

it's about half of American parents say they don't want their kids to go to a four-year college.

So that's the shift in public opinion that's not just on the margins. It's a shift in how we think

about this institution. And that shift in public opinion was mirrored by a shift in who was actually

showing up on college campuses. So in the fall of 2010, there were more than 18 million undergraduates

on American college campuses. In 2021, that figure dipped to 15.5 million. So that's 2.5 million

young people who disappeared from American college campuses.

Wow. So Americans aren't just losing faith in the idea of college. They're losing

enthusiasm to attend college. Exactly. And what you're laying out is a really significant

change kind of in any time frame, but it's especially big within the period of just a decade.

And it's especially big given that college has for so long felt like a pillar of American society.

Right. I think of it alongside home ownership. It has been held up as a central component

of the American dream with proven longstanding financial upsides. And even as colleges become

extremely expensive, that image of financial upside has endured that ultimately it's just

worth it. So help us understand what exactly has changed here.

Probably what's interesting is what hasn't changed. So there is this number that economists call the

college wage premium, which is how much more a typical college graduate is going to earn

than a typical high school graduate. That hit a boost of about 60, 65 percent way back in 2000.

And it's stayed at the same level ever since. College graduates are still on average making

a whole lot more than high school graduates. Which is why so many people have believed you're

supposed to go to college. Right. On that level, the financial benefit is real. And so the idea

that I think people always had that college was the way to achieve a comfortable, affluent life

is quite valid. The problem that I think families and economists are now coming to understand

inherent in the college wage premium is that it measures your income, but it doesn't measure

how much you paid for college and it doesn't measure how much debt you have. And so that

shortcoming is what has pushed a variety of economists to come up with new ways of capturing

what I think a lot of American families are feeling, how worth it is a college degree

over the long term when you factor in how much you're spending and how much you owe.

And this one set of economists in St. Louis came up with this

calculation they call the college wealth premium. So unlike the college wage premium,

which just measures how much a college grad earns compared to a high school grad,

this measures how much wealth you accumulate your assets minus your debts over the course

of your lifetime. And the picture they found of how well college grads are doing was much

different than when you just look at the college income premium on its own.

Well, just explain that. What does the college wealth premium find that better reflects reality

than the college wage premium that we have relied on so long and that has put college at

the center of so many people's aspirations? What finds that it has really shifted over time

when you were born, what generation you're a part of makes a huge difference. So for

people born in the 40s and 50s and 60s, the college wealth premium is functioning exactly

the way it's supposed to. So the college grads are amassing two or three times as much wealth

over their lifetime than high school grads. But when they looked at young people who were born

after 1980 in the 1980s and 1990s, their wealth benefit was much smaller. And for certain cohorts

for black and Latino headed families, that college wealth premium had disappeared altogether. So

a college grad wasn't amassing any more wealth over their lifetime than a high school grad.

So walk us through that. I mean, clearly the financial math

of attending college isn't working any longer. I think we can guess why, but just explain

the mechanics of that math and why a college degree isn't creating the kind of wealth

that it used to even if it still guarantees higher wages.

Well, I think it has a lot to do with debt and what people are paying for college.

If you've got lots of debt, your household wealth is going to go down.

There's lots of these college graduates who are on paper earning quite a bit of money,

but their debt has become so high that they can't really accumulate the kind of wealth that earlier

generations were able to do. But even for those people who aren't going into a lot of debt,

the amount of money that they're spending on college is still subtracted from their assets.

So one of the things that these economists found is that even if you leave college without any debt,

if your family has had to plow a big percentage of their assets into your college education,

that makes a big difference. That is money that can't go towards a down payment on a first home

or a nest egg to start a family or a way to start a small business. And especially in young

adulthood, those are the sorts of things that really start to accumulate wealth. So that's

a huge part of it. But the costs of college hurt wealth accumulation for almost everybody.

And thus the incentive to attend college becomes, for some, virtually non-existent.

Yeah. I mean, if you're looking at that number, if you're looking at how much wealth am I going

to have over my lifetime, it is harder to make the case, especially for younger people,

that a college degree is going to really pay off.

I'm curious, Paul, whether the existence or the absence of the wealth premium for those who attend

college versus those who don't is dependent on some of the decisions people make about colleges,

attending a public college, for example, versus a potentially much more expensive private college,

or what you major in and therefore how lucrative your career is as a result.

Yes. This is another big finding that economists have made over the last

few years that helps explain, I think, this shift in public opinion, which is that there's much more

risk, there's much more uncertainty in going to college. It really does depend on who you are,

on what you major in, on where you go. So some of the numbers that really stand out to me is that

if you can guarantee that you are going to graduate from college in four years, and if

college is absolutely free, then in this amazingly hypothetical world, you have a 96% chance

of having college pay off over your lifetime. But once those sort of imaginary ideas start to fade,

your chance of coming out ahead is much less. So if you have a normal risk of dropping out about

40% of people who start college drop out before they finish, suddenly you only have a three and

four chance of earning more than a high school graduate. Once you start increasing the amount

that you spend, spending $25,000, spending $50,000, your chance of winning the college gamble

becomes less and less, comes down to close to 50%. And it really also matters what your major is.

If you major in science, technology, engineering, math, field, then your chances bump up once again

and you're likely to win the bet. But if you're taking anything else, if you're studying arts,

humanities, a social science degree, your chance of coming out ahead, if you're spending even $25,000

a year on college is no better than a coin flip. In other words, there are a lot of well-trodden,

widely taken routes to college that are ensuring that you will not have a college wealth premium

over someone who didn't attend college. Well, they're not quite ensuring it,

but they are putting it at risk. And that's, I think, what really changes. It's just much more

of a gamble than it used to be. I mean, one way of thinking about it is that going to college used

to be like investing in a treasury bill. It was a very solid, boring, responsible thing to do.

Now it's much more like going to a casino. You might come out ahead. You might win big,

but you also might lose your shirt. You might lose everything. And that, I think, is what has really

changed and what young people especially are responding to. They feel this sense of risk

in going to college that didn't used to be there. And I think, understandably, just makes them and

their families feel much more anxious about this investment. So when we remove the college wealth

premium, then we have clearly taken away what I think many would argue is the single biggest

incentive to attend college in the first place, which helps explain why millions of people are

opting not to go to college. But the polling you cited at the beginning of our conversation

makes me wonder if there's more to this than just bad economic outcomes of attending college.

You said that an increasing number of Americans just have a dim view of college itself,

which feels a little bit separate and apart from just money. And I wonder what you think

is going on there. I think you're right. I think there is more going on than just economics.

I think there is a cultural shift and significantly a political shift that is happening at the same

time where certain Americans, especially those on the conservative side of the political spectrum

of Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party, they are the ones who have

turned against college most vehemently over the last decade or so. It's amazing when you look at

the public opinion polling. So up to about 2015, Republicans and Democrats were answering questions

about college in more or less the same way. They were both mostly on board with the college idea.

And then beginning in 2015, Republican public opinion about college just fell off a cliff.

It just nosedived no matter how you asked the question. For some reason or other,

Republicans were just becoming much more skeptical about college, and that has continued to today.

I'm curious what your reporting leads you to conclude is the cause of that. This is pre-Trump.

This is pre-pandemic. What is it about college in the 2015 era that becomes partisan?

Well, I talked to a lot of conservative education analysts for this story,

and they gave slightly different answers. But this was a moment in the middle of that decade

where cultural politics were really shifting in some way. That was what Trump was reflecting

when he started his campaign. And there was this sense, I think, among a lot of conservatives

that college campuses had become these hotbeds of protests where these spoiled rich kids were

screaming and yelling and interrupting their classes. And I think for a lot of folks who

were looking at that, especially from a conservative perspective, it just undermined their sense that

college was something that they wanted to be a part of. Got it. In other words, culturally speaking,

college was a place seen as increasingly hostile to conservative viewpoints. Thus,

among conservatives, the view of colleges became less and less appealing.

Yeah, and there was also data that was coming out in this era to support that. So,

for the first time, we were able to see that on college campuses, there really were a whole lot

more students who identified as liberal than students who identified as conservatives. So,

about three times as many liberals as conservatives, a separate survey of college faculty found that

there'd been this shift from about a two-to-one ratio in favor of liberals to about a five-to-one

ratio. And all of this, I think, was happening at the same time. And so, whether Republicans were

looking at those numbers or not, they were getting this sense that their ideas and their children

were not really welcome on these campuses. So, on top of college being less and less profitable

and lucrative as an economic proposition, which you've already described, it's also becoming less

and less culturally welcoming as a proposition for many on the right. And as a result, you have two

very large factors weighing on people's desire to go to college. Yeah, and I think in many parts of

the country, those two things really come together into one sort of cultural sense that college is

not a good idea. In the fall of 2016, I was doing a lot of reporting in a rural county of western

North Carolina that had just gone for President Trump by huge margins. And when I was talking

to young people there, what I found was that a lot of them had had really negative experiences

in college. They had dropped out. They owed a ton of money. They didn't feel good about themselves.

And a lot of family members were discouraging their younger kids from going on to college.

I think if you're just looking at it through an economic lens, it doesn't feel good to just say,

you know, we can't afford this or you're not smart enough to go to college. But when you're able to

turn that into sort of a culture war and say, we're not going to college because, you know,

that's the enemy camp, those aren't people like us, I think in some ways it feels much more palatable.

Hmm. So the big question I'm left with, Paul, is how much ultimately does this really

matter? Let me explain. College is too expensive, so I don't attend. College is too liberal,

so I don't attend. Problem solved a little bit, right?

No. I mean, for individual young people, you can argue that it might make sense not to attend

college. But when you look at the country as a whole, millions of young people opting out of

college, it's a disaster. It is not going to work at all. Our economy is just not set up to lose

millions of college graduates. We'll be right back.

Where do world changing ideas get their start? At Intel, it starts with real solutions,

and real solutions start with exceptional engineering. Empowering those with disabilities

starts with assistive AI and discovering new galaxies starts with supercomputing.

The intelligent factory starts with edge analytics, while the sustainable supply chain

starts with open manufacturing. And that's just the start. The quantum computing revolution,

the next generation of AI experts, the renewable energy grid, liquid cooling data centers,

early diagnosis for cancer, water restoration, farmland protection, they all start with Intel.

The examples are countless. The impacts are endless. But the foundation is always the same.

It starts with Intel. Learn more at intel.com slash stories.

Hello, daily listeners. This is Ira Glass, the host of This American Life.

Maybe you know our show. Maybe you don't. It's a radio show and a podcast where we apply the

tools of journalism to stories that are super personal, often stories that unfold good little

movies. We like it when they have emotional moments, funny moments, and surprising plot twists.

Even when we take on subjects that are in the news, it's with stories like that.

And the reason that I'm here today doing an ad on the daily is just this, to invite you to check

out our show. Again, or for the first time in this American life, you can find new episodes

wherever you get your podcasts. And our entire archive of more than 700 episodes is free for

you to listen to in your next long drive or while you cook or exercise or whatever at thisamericanlife.org.

Paul, before the break, you said that our economy just isn't really set up for a large

number of people to opt out of college. What exactly do you mean by that?

When you talk to economists about what this economy is going to need over the next decade,

what they tell you is that we need more BAs. There's one specific economic report that says

there's going to be 8.5 million missing American BA holders by the end of this decade.

Well, 8.5 million college graduates of the economy simply does not have.

Exactly.

Okay, so many of those jobs might not be filled with college graduates, but what about the people

without college degrees? Aren't there still plenty of good jobs for Americans who might look at

college and say, it's too expensive. That is too much debt. So I'm going to be a plumber. I'm going

to be a mechanic. I'm going to have a good paying job that doesn't require a college degree.

That's really the problem with these financial calculations, just because a college degree

often doesn't pay off, it doesn't mean that there's lots of opportunity for high school

graduates. So yes, there are some jobs in the skilled trades and in plumbing and welding

that can pay a decent middle class wage, but there aren't that many of them.

And the reality is that for most people who just have a high school diploma as their highest

educational credential, the opportunities are really limited. The Bureau of Labor Statistics

calculated what are the fastest growing jobs over the next decade for folks who don't have

anything more than a high school degree. And it's mostly home health aides, food service workers,

cooks, warehouse workers, and all of these jobs pay a median salary of less than $31,000 a year.

In other words, for those who don't have a college degree, getting a middle class job

is going to be increasingly difficult because this idea that there are tons of great high paying,

for example, plumbing jobs all over the country, which is something you hear,

that turns out to be a mythology. Yeah, I mean, there are some of them, but there aren't enough.

And if we have a whole lot of people who only have a high school diploma,

their opportunities are going to get worse and worse. So this is a very complicated little conundrum

that you're outlining here, because if it's now going to be almost impossible to enter the middle

class with only a high school education, there's a kind of damned if you do damned if you don't

quality to this decision around whether to go to college. If you're looking at college and thinking

that's just too much debt, then it doesn't make sense to go. But without that college degree,

you are permanently consigned to a low paying job. Those are two pretty rough options.

Yeah, and I think this has a lot to do with why so many Americans are angry at higher education.

It's partly that sense that they're really on the horns of this dilemma.

Would you explain that? Why would all this frustration be channeled at college?

I think higher education is embedded in a sort of national economy that is increasingly unfair.

People look at higher education and they see that it is unfair as well, that there are this limited

number of high quality institutions that have a lot more rich kids attending them than poor kids.

And they see lots of other institutions where people are coming out without a lot of opportunities

and with a lot of debt. And that just makes them understandably mad and understandably anxious.

In other words, college is another element of a rigged system.

Yeah, and it's actually a very central element of a rigged system. I mean, if like the cost of

cars or the cost of houses feels really unfair, that's not a thing that gives you opportunity

in the world. It's not a thing that you need in order to have a middle class life.

And so I think part of the anger about higher education comes from this idea that here is

this thing that we've been told, arguably correctly, is an essential element of creating

opportunity for yourself, for your children. And yet we've created a system in which it is

increasingly unavailable to lots of middle class people.

So this anger you're describing and the entire economic mismatch between the need for college

graduates and so many financial reasons not to go to college that exists now, it feels like the

kind of question that would be pretty urgent for policymakers in Washington to think about and

to come up with pretty bold solutions for. And we know that some of those solutions are out there,

right? Senator Bernie Sanders has a free college for all plan. President Biden has a plan that he's

tried to put into place to reduce loan debt for college graduates. This is not a problem that

hasn't been pretty well thought through. But we also know how quickly, and you kind of hinted at

this earlier, we know how quickly these proposals have become politicized because of this reality

that Republicans view college very differently than Democrats. So there isn't really a consensus

right now in the country that this is an institution in American life worth promoting

and protecting access to. So how should we think about all of that and the likelihood

that any real fix is in the offing? Yeah, I mean, I think it is the real danger in this shift in

public opinion. I mean, you know, share a lot of the anxiety and the anger that I think goes into

these public opinion polls, people saying, you know, they don't have confidence in college,

they don't think it's fair, they aren't sure that it's worth it. But the problem is that that has

turned people away from wanting to try to fix it. I think that's especially true on the Republican

side of the aisle. But I think it's true for a lot of Democrats as well, who also feel a lot of

anger at college, people trying to pay off student loans, people trying to get into the right kind

of college. Because we've created a higher education system that is so competitive, that is so

unequal. I don't think there's a real constituency for improving it, for fixing it. So I think any

political solution has to be accompanied by a kind of cultural shift as well, where we think

about higher education as a different sort of thing, as something that is a public good,

and not just a consumer good. Especially that distinction. Sure. So mostly, for instance,

we think about public education, right? We think about high school, we think about the

education of 18 year olds as a public good. And then one year later, we want to put all of these

same kids into this incredibly competitive, confusing system, where they have to figure out

how to get to the right college, where it's extremely risky, there isn't enough information

for them to make good decisions. And the cost is something that we've decided that they and their

families need to bear on their own. It doesn't make any sense. There's not actually a big difference

between an 18 year old and a 19 year old. But we've created a system where an 18 year old gets a

free public education and a 19 year old has to negotiate this incredibly complex and expensive

system. Now that you mentioned it, that does feel like a pretty arbitrary cutoff for when

we ensure someone's education is publicly funded to when we basically throw them to the wolves.

Yeah. I mean, when I think about it, I think about this earlier moment in American history,

about 100 years ago, when it's this period called the high school movement. So in about 1910,

only about 10% of young Americans were graduating from high school. And then there was this shift

in the economy where suddenly there weren't so many jobs on farms and in simple factories and

people needed more education. And the way that communities in the country as a whole responded

to that shift in the economy was by saying, all right, sixth grade education isn't enough.

We need to create these institutions in our towns, in our cities that will educate people up to

age 18. And we're going to build them together. We're going to pay for them together. We're going

to raise our taxes in order to do this. And what was created was this incredibly well educated,

for the time, American middle class that became the most powerful economy in the world. And now

the country is getting the same sorts of signals where actually 100 years later, no surprise,

education up to 18 is no longer enough. You do need more education in order to succeed in this

technological economy. And instead of saying, okay, let's get together and create a free

public education system that's going to get people another few years of education so that

they can compete in this economy, we have decided to just, as you put it, throw young people to

the wolves and say, it's up to you to figure out how you're going to get to the right kind of education

and how you're going to pay for it. So, Paul, based on your reporting here, I wonder who you

ultimately conclude is responsible for fixing this the most. Is it the colleges themselves

who have allowed their tuition to balloon so much? Or is the responsibility with elected officials who

hold the purse strings that could pump so much more money into these colleges and alleviate the

debt that's at the heart of why college is so unattractive right now? Well, I think it's a big

enough problem that it is going to take lots of different actors to solve. But in the end,

I do think it is really a political problem. I mean, it's certainly true that we have these

big political divisions, but in the end, this should be a nonpartisan issue. The economic

problems of turning away from college like we are as a nation, those are going to affect

Democrats and Republicans equally. And so getting past that kind of political divide, turning college

from this thing where it becomes part of your identity and part of your ideology to just something

that is an economic fact, is something that young people really should do and have opportunities to

do when they finish high school, shifting that kind of cultural idea, I think would be the first step

towards solving the political problem. Well, Paul, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you.

We'll be right back.

Where do world changing ideas get their start? At Intel, it starts with real solutions,

and real solutions start with exceptional engineering. Empowering those with disabilities

starts with assistive AI, and discovering new galaxies starts with supercomputing.

The intelligent factory starts with edge analytics, while the sustainable supply chain

starts with open manufacturing. And that's just the start. The quantum computing revolution,

the next generation of AI experts, the renewable energy grid, liquid cooling data centers,

early diagnosis for cancer, water restoration, farmland protection, they all start with Intel.

The examples are countless. The impacts are endless. But the foundation is always the same.

It starts with Intel. Learn more at intel.com slash stories.

Here's what else you need to know today. For the second year in a row, this gathering

dedicated to peaceful resolution and conflicts is darkened by the shadow of war.

In a speech before the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, President Biden sought to

rally the world to stick with Ukraine in its 18-month long war against Russia,

warning that appeasing Russia in any way would reward its aggression and encourage it to use

further force to redraw the international map. Russia believes that the world will grow weary

and allow it to brutalize Ukraine without consequence. I'll ask you this.

If we abandon the core principles of the United States to appease an aggressor,

can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected? If we allow Ukraine to

be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure? I'd respectfully suggest the answer is no.

In his own speech before the Assembly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky

picked up where Biden left off, warning the nations of the UN that should Ukraine fall,

they could be next. Many seats in the General Assembly Hall may become empty.

Empty if Russia succeeds with its treachery and aggression.

Today's episode was produced by Michael Simon-Johnson,

Summer Tamad and Carlos Prieto. It was edited by Devin Taylor and Lisa Chow,

contains original music by Will Reed and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Chris Wood.

Our theme music is by Jim Runberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderland.

That's it for the Daily. I'm Michael Moral. See you tomorrow.

It's an uncertain time in fixed income right now. No matter what happens,

Vanguard's active bond funds are able to take advantage of today's higher yields.

Vanguard practices smart risk taking, which allows its active managers to help seize the

right opportunities to outperform at the right time. That's the value of ownership.

Learn more at vanguard.com slash vanguardactive. Visit vanguard.com to obtain a fund prospectus

or summary prospectus containing investment objectives, risk charges, expenses, and other

information. Read and consider carefully before investing. All investing is subject to risk.

Investments in bonds are subject to interest rate, credit, and inflation risk. Fund

shareholders own the funds that own Vanguard. Vanguard Marketing Corporation distributor.

Machine-generated transcript that may contain inaccuracies.