Anonymous wrote:The idea that one should invest a quarter of a million dollars they do not have to "develop as a person" is exactly what is wrong with higher education. Schools inflate grades, courses get easier, and a Bachelor's Degree has become relatively worthless. It would make much more sense to promote trade schools and have students learn crafts, make a Bachelor's degree more difficult to obtain by abolishing ridiculous grade inflation and tearing down party school atmospheres. College might be a time when we "grow" and "develop" in to our adult selves, but it should actually be about learning in the classroom and not learning in the frat house.

Now, before you get defensive, of course there are many students who do take advantage of their educational opportunities, but both schools and student populations need to change their attitudes about what college is really supposed to be about.

+1000

10:10 again. I just clicked through the list of schools with the lowest returns on investment.

First, a 7-8% ROI isn't bad in this market. Most bonds and many other investments are doing a lot worse. I think Bloomberg is actually asking, "could you do better at a different college?" The answer is clearly "yes," because the average for all colleges, which is their benchmark, is a 9% ROI. So if you're choosing between Brown and Skidmore, the answer's pretty obvious that your job prospects are going to be better coming from Brown.

But anyway, with a 7-8% ROI for even these lowest performing schools, you don't need to consider intangibles, like becoming a more well-rounded person, to your return measures to justify attending one of these colleges. Even at just 7-8% for the purely financial return, these are probably a decent return.

Second, a lot of these schools offer really generous financial aid to a kid with a decent GPA and scores. Philadelphia University (formerly the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, I think), which is on the low ROI list, sent DC a letter offering $15,000/year for four years - and DC hadn't even applied or sent an indication of interest to them. More FA means lower costs and higher ROI.

Anonymous wrote:

I think the expanding one's mind is part and parcel to why liberal arts grads from good colleges do as well as they do later in life both personally and professionally.

And no doubt it is a rich family's luxury to spend this kind of money, but these same schools offer up a boatload in scholarship money. I work for a non-profit and one of the student's who is part of this program is attending the same school as my kid for $2,000 per year - got the rest as a first generation college student. I know that one of the reason's we pay $60,000 per year is to enable others who can't afford it to also attend. And that is a good thing in the long run - for my kid and for the scholarship recipient.

And while there are those who can't afford it, and those who won't get tremendous scholarships, I think abandoning the brain trust of this country to the kinds of applied/vocational studies that result in quick job offers upon graduation would be short-sighted for our country in the long term. I think a strong country and the chances for a strong future require both avenues of study.

Intellectually I'm with you. I loved my own ivory tower experience, which I spent learning about the middle ages and great literature, neither of which I use professionally. I'm very happy we can send DC to a college that's always mentioned in the top 5 nationwide and, yes, costs 60K+.

But this is still a luxury that's not available to everyone. This is because, while a lot of top colleges do provide generous financial aid, a lot of this FA comes in the form of loans. It's true that some schools like Harvard, Columbia, and others provide grant-only FA for families with income lower than some threshold like $60,000 (that was Harvard's last time I checked).

For families with HHI above $60,000, which is pretty much the definition of "middle class," the FA package is going to include a significant amount of unsubsidized Stafford loans (the subsidized Stafford loans are for families with HHI less than $50K I believe) or even other types of loans offered by the college et cetera. For many kids, the result may end up being a huge amount of college debt. Thus, the need to focus on marketable skills.