This is a shocking study for liberal minded morons across the land. If you pay $30,000 per year to a shitty college for a shitty degree in arts, education or social work, you will end up with a shitty job, shitty pay and a massive debt that you can never pay off because you have a shitty job with shitty pay. But guess what? Obama and his minions are doling out hundreds of billions of YOUR TAX DOLLARS to these clueless morons so they can get worthless college degrees from terrible schools every year. Even though these morons are virtually unemployable, they don’t show up as unemployed in the government statistics while they’re getting their worthless degrees with your money. There are millions of idiots occupying classroom space at worthless institutions across the land. It’s a scam and you are paying the bill.
Via The Atlantic
These U.S. Colleges and Majors Are the Biggest Waste of Money
This morning we published a review of recent research by PayScale on the most valuable colleges and majors in America, based on self-reported earnings by individuals who graduated from hundreds of schools.
Some of you asked: What about the least valuable colleges and majors in America? What a mischievous question! So we looked into that, too.
Here are the eleven schools in PayScale’s data with a 20-year net return worse than negative-$30,000. In other words: these are the schools where PayScale determined that not going to college is at least $30,000 more valuable than taking the time to pay for and graduate from one of these schools.
It gets worse. The self-reported earnings of art majors from Murray State are so low that after two decades, a typical high school grad will have out-earned them by nearly $200,000. Here are the degrees (i.e.: specific majors at specific schools) with the lowest 20-year net return, according to PayScale. They are all public schools: Bold names are for in-state students.
The same caveats that applied to our first article apply to this one. First, these estimates come from self-reported income. Self-reported income tends to skew up, because humans are a proud species, and we care more about our feelings than strict honesty with anonymous pollsters.
Second, PayScale calculates the next 20 years in earnings by inferring from the last 20 years. Sounds reasonable. But like any assumption, this carries risks. The “most coveted major” changes from time to time. If biomedical engineering becomes the next big VC category, scientists in California will be in higher demand than software engineers, whose earnings forecast might fall. PayScale can’t predict that future. Moreover, if a school dramatically expanded a high-value program (like engineering) in the last five years, it might raise the financial value of its students in a way that PayScale doesn’t full account for, since this research looks back two decades. In short, like most studies of this kind, the findings are fascinating and worth remembering and quoting—but also worth contextualizing.
Finally, as Jordan Weissmann notes, PayScale can tell us which colleges graduate the richest students. But it can’t tell us which colleges make the biggest delta in student outcomes, which might be a more important question for college counselors and families. For that, you would need to study a huge group of similar kids, some of whom went to great colleges, some to middling colleges, and some to bad ones, and measure the difference. When we measure lifetime earnings of students graduating from elite (and poor) colleges, we’re measuring both the quality of the college and the earnings potential of the student attending that college before they stepped foot on campus.