For those who want increased knowledge let them go. Learning is never wasted IMHO.
The three major events in my life were getting sober, earning a college degree and marrying my current wife.
College isn't for everyone but it is getting to be that the best jobs will go to the well to do who can afford higher education.
The future as I see it is one where millions and millions of unskilled people will be fighting each other for the crumbs that fall off the banquet tables of the 1% while the kids of the 1% get higher education and better incomes and life styles.

is the economic benefit of education. This is not only sad, but inevitable considering the cost of a college degree these days. If you can't market it, it has no value. What of the humanities, what of the concept of a liberal education? I don't blame anyone for not wanting to saddle themselves with a huge debt and an unmarketable education, but I also deplore being in a society that doesn't value a broad, general education rather than just narrow vocational skills. The unGodly cost of education today is in itself one of the destructive forces at work, eating at the fabric of our cultural wisdom.

of society at large. Where is the motivation for them to change?

Colleges no longer have a monopoly on "broad, general education" so what they are selling seems to be mostly a Brand name to put on yourself (hence the multi-million dollar high profile football programs).

I believe, have always believed, and will always believe, that education should be free from preschool through whatever levels one's interests and capabilities might take them. An educated populace is a social good.

My wife & I did our undergrad work in the 60's and our graduate work in the 70's, and have often discussed how much the character of the university has changed across those years. We were both from families of modest means, and were assisted by merit scholarships, assistantships, etc. Tuition at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was not very high in those days--something like $200 per semester in 1962 dollars, and in any case we both had tuition remission scholarships. Wisconsin traditionally placed a high value on education, and was willing to pay for it for its children. We had no idea back then how fortunate we were to live in such a place and time.

a line on a resume that (hopefully) gives you an advantage over someone without one.

Many, many college graduates are taking jobs that absolutely do not require one. (And they feel damn lucky to get those jobs.)

Learning more things is never a waste. But in terms of the overall economy, most of what goes on in our universities is superfluous. Four years of time, and thousands of dollars of tuition, is a lot to spend just to have a competitive advantage over the other guy applying for the same job as you at Starbucks.

in online or less "traditional" methods education? Or in what percentage of the overall total of students are made up of the U Phoenix, SNHU, etc. Phoenix brands the Cardinals Stadium - a role more reserved for corporate sponsorships

I can't seem to find any, and here is why I am asking. I would be very interested to know what percentage (historically and currently) the newer methods of education make up of the current student debt situation.

Yes - the rise in cost of traditional education (sit in class, physically go to a school) is outpacing earnings growth.

But add to the mix what some people have called "diploma mills". Are the dropout rates higher? How much of current student debt is saddled to folks who tried and never completed their education?

There has been an explosion of options available. Has the percentage of US college attendance risen? In the effort to more highly educate, have we in fact "nominalized" the value of a diploma?

If I am reading this right - online education has roughly tripled in enrollment over the last decade, and now is a third of higher education.

The numbers of students who have started and not finished courses, at least from some of the highlights here, are very large.

Yet "academic leaders" - 77% find online equal to or superior to an in person education. This is the number that worries me the most.

If the goal is to make higher education available to everyone, they are achieving success. Just maybe not successful higher education.

I would be very interested to see what percentage of student debt the online participants hold and if the numbers are proportional to the rise in enrollment.

That's the brick and mortar number.

I don't think there is anything magical about in-person college. It is up to the student to engage with the material. Perhaps taking courses online sets the expectations appropriately -- 'no one is going to watch you, check on you, read to you. You have to do those things.'

There are many ways to get an education and many of them are free (reading, interning, online courses, library). What costs money is accreditation, eg. the degree, and the college's brand and reputation.

But first - back to your original question. Don't want to derail your original point.

My guess is that white college educated males are the lowest in your survey because they have seen the "benefit" of college reduced. As more and more non-whites and women with degrees enter the workforce, no longer is "white college educated male" a guarantee of success. Well, that's life. You now have fairer competition.

My point about online was two fold. The 56% number is not relevant (if that has been a historical relatively constant number) to the question I was asking, or trying to see if the numbers exist somewhere.

Over the last decade, we have seen student loan debt skyrocket. Over that same time, have seen online enrollment go up to 1/3 of college enrollment. Over the same time, the U of Phoenix can now fund a football stadium. Call me skeptical.

I'll disagree on the in person learning. Online may be good, but I do not think it equal or better than in person.

"Perhaps taking courses online sets the expectations appropriately -- 'no one is going to watch you, check on you, read to you. You have to do those things.' "

I think that is a dangerous assumption given what's coming out of high school these days. The type of student you are talking about doesn't "become" that way in an online college environment. That happens earlier

Having taught college I can vouch for that. Many are just grudgingly jumping through a hoop which they have been told they need to get through.

So nice too, that this article included the bullsh*t about white male privilege in it.

College is usually the place you go to learn crap like that.

I wonder if there are any stats about the people who do things backwards. I guess I only know of two cases, and that's hardly a universal trend, but if I have seen two then there could easily be tens of thousands of cases.

The backward way is that some people first get a "good" job and then they goto college. The job they get says it requires a college degree, but HR decides to hire somebody who does NOT have one, with the stipulation that they will work to get one.

Another thing that bugs me about this article is this whole notion of "successful".

I once had a good paying job with the military industrial complex. Is it a "success" to be part of the war machine? Is it a "success" to be a big executive at Bank of America or JP Morgan? My brother-in-law knows a guy who has made a ton of money in payday loans. What a success he is, he got rich by exploiting people with usury. That's the American Dream.

In a multivariate clustering we could expect that removing females from the "college white" group would drop the number (because females are pulling the avg up to that 44). Similarly, filtering down to just 'male, college white' and 'republican' would produce the lowest number of all, somewhere below the 40 avg (that includes non-college and female).

"One big factor for this is men are less willing to go into debt to get the degree than women are. In other words, men are more likely than women to think they can get to a decent job without a degree."

There are lots of reasons that men aren't going to college and this analysis is as absurdly reductionist as attributing it to men's higher math test scores; e.g. "The value of a series of (4) annual $25,000 payments, if invested at 10% interest is roughly $250,000 after 10 years, neglecting the value of lost earnings during those years".

There are only so many "decent" jobs. Everyone going to college is in a bidding war for one of those jobs. It's not an investment, it's the price workers pay for a job inside, sitting down.

I concede that those two phrases are not exactly the same but the question asked in the survey is specific -- can one be successful without a 4 yr degree? White males place a lower value on the degree and are therefore less willing to pay.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/education/why-minorities-are-more-optimistic-about-the-value-of-college-20131107

you think a college degree is worthless.

I would actually side with the majority of republicans on this. Not because I want to discredit college like many republicans do. I'm actually going for a Masters myself. Its just that a 4 year degree isn't for everyone, and some people are better off going for something more hands on at a community college.

on getting out and having a job waiting for you. I learned my trade when I was a teenager. However, having a degree by a well known college has helped my career immeasurably.

You knew without seeing the chart. Who are all the low information voters who vote against their own interest? Since the uneducated are more likely to fall for all the propaganda Rush et al spew... they probably don't even want their flocks to be educated...especially when college might undermine their false beliefs with some truth.