Even if the total amount increases that doesnt impact the relative advantage over an average.
An average that would most likely trend down from an influx of lower than average individuals
I’m unaware of this myself. Do you have anything to signify this? The concept of for profit schools closing at the same time that they’re full (supply decreasing while demand increases) seems bizarre.
Tbh I have always assumed that would still be left up to the college’s themselves?
Nothing but observation. At my university and the community college I went to, all most all of my classes were close to full. Maybe they could fit a few more in, but not that many more.
I get that you would likely be above average as compared to the people coming in, but that does not mean good pay. If more individuals are available, and willing to work for less due to competition, a company might hire 3 less experienced workers instead of 2 more experienced ones.
Were all the classrooms also full at the same time? I noticed similar at my college, but it was because before the start of each semester they’d consolidate classes depending on how many student enrolled.
It’s quite possible they were nowhere near Max capacity. Ignoring they could obviously hire more teachers if demand picked up permanently.
Sure it does. I work in the staffing business and we regularly benchmark high level positions for fortune 500 companies (meaning we tell them how much to pay quality talent).
Above average individuals have always earned at the higher end of the range. After locale of the applicant it’s the biggest deciding factor in where they fall on the pay range.
This is ignoring the many many business reasons you wouldn’t do that. Pay for have to drop DRASTICALLY to outweigh the increase in benefits/HR support/overhead/etc
Society has actually moved the polar opposite in recent years.
If it is up to the college and the tuition is “free”; i.e. paid for by the government, than it stands to reason that admissions standards would be lowered to allow for more influx of money from the government for “free students”.
Personally, I think if “free” college is to be offered, it should be in areas of critical need: teachers, engineers, scientists and doctors. US is currently getting its butt kicked by India and China on the amount of engineers and Doctors that are graduating every year. If we don’t turn that around, the US will lose a major advantage it has.
Some of my engineering friends have already traveled to other countries for work that are putting more funding in R&D.
The admissions and intake of future students would still be derived from success rates as students.
Nobody is going to attend a college, free or otherwise, if they have a history of their students not graduating, etc.
Supply and demand still effects these colleges
I agree, but now in this hypothetical situation say we have many more people who can do the job. Maybe not as well, but still able. How much does the absolute best burger flipper make? My point is being a top talent brings top dollar in a field in which workers are scarce, but not so much in a field with an abundance of workers.
Burger flipper? Probably still minimum wage. College degree jobs? You’re back to needing data on how many people are going to enter that field.
Top talent will always be on the higher end of the range for that job. That’s pretty universal.
Beyond that you’re back to needing to know how many extra people will graduate by major/industry, which we won’t be knowing
The colleges can than just lower the graduation standards to make it easier to achieve - it becomes a cyclic, self-deprecating, cycle.
We agree here. What I am suggesting, is if an abundance of workers enter a field, then the top pay range will go down. The top performers will still be at the top of the new lower range. Thus they make less money compared to before the abundance of new workers arrived, even though they look better in relation to the new workers.
I’m not sure boosting admissions is going to make college willing to water down their own education considering the number of fields that have accreditations from various agencies.
I could be wrong, ofc, I just can’t imagine why any college would make themselves less marketable.
Agreed. It’s just not possible to know which fields will see that effect
I think we are in agreement. Of course, we are assuming a bunch of stuff like average job growth which could be wrong. Could be that paying for STEM (engineering, technology, science, and math) degrees could create new industries and job growth in those fields could grow faster than the the new supply of workers with free tuition. If this were the case, then the top of the range would go up.
Lots of things we don’t know, but we have to make some assumptions to talk about complex ideas like these.
Agreed. External licensing and accreditation agencies will not allow some curriculum, like engineering, to fall. Plus… if anything I think the profs that act as gatekeepers to the profession will double down on weeding folks out.
To those who believe that taxpayer-funded higher education would necessarily be of low quality: the very large number of recipients of high-quality, heavily-subsidized higher education in Western Europe would like a word with you…
Are those women that are shown to not be likely to attend college if it’s not free?
Because what were really discussing here is specifically the EXTRA students that happen as a result of free college.
If someone was planning to go to college whether or not it’s free, we’re not talking about them
The GI Bill already exists. National Guardsmen can attend state colleges tuition free. Some states even include degrees beyond bachelor’s for free for Guardsmen.
The military doesn’t need more shammers who only want the benefits that come with service. You join the army because you want to be a soldier first.
I get what you’re saying in a lot of this but I think if we did it the numbers in many fields would not change a lot. We don’t have a lot of people who are getting great grades in high school, killing the act/sat that aren’t going to college. And I can’t think that we have people who would have been lawyers if college was free that work at Arby’s. At least not anything approaching a significant amount.
I’m not saying the number wouldn’t change I just think it would be much lower than some would estimate.
Another idea would potentially be have free college but make college entrance more difficult. Sure it’s hard to get into Yale but most state and community colleges are incredibly easy to get into. And you have a lot of kids who perform poor in high school and get in just to drop out in a year when they realize it’s harder than high school.
I agree with you. I’m not sure what I proposed would happen, just a possibility. If you had 1 percent compounding annually, that would be hard for the demand to keep up with, but it’s hard to say what the actual numbers would be.
The policy could also make the economy grow, and that could offset or more the additional supply of educated workers.
When you say this do you mean repeated growth at 1% annually?
Upon flipping a switch to make college free I can’t imagine a scenario where it scales linearly
Yes, obviously this is unsustainable for much more than a few years, but possible for a few years as the program gained popularity.
I could be wrong in how the program would ramp up. Might be linear for a short period, followed by a long mostly flat period.
Again, this is all hypothetical. I just proposed a possible downside to the program.
Ah gotcha.
Set your mind at ease though. It’s literally impossible for that to happen, with the exception of specific industries, due to sheer population numbers.
It’s furthermore impossible to sustain, regardless of the industry, for the same reason.