(This post is part of the series on postsecondary education.)
+ + +
Looking over Mark's post with its set of curves comparing the lifetime net earnings of one sibling who starts working with only a high school diploma and one who borrows money for college, I see one takeaway point from a Catholic perspective.
They are not very different.
Given the assumptions that Mark made, the college graduate catches up with the high school graduate eventually, fairly close to retirement. Plugging in a different set of assumptions yields different curves. Some college-graduate curves outperform some high-school curves. Some high-school curves outperform some college-graduate curves.
Mark may write about what he thinks parents (and prospective students) should take away from the calculations. I'll tell you what I think you should take away from it. And that's this:
An individual person's choice to go to a four-year college does not automatically mean that person will be financially more comfortable than he would if he had chosen another path.
I emphasize this because the opposite assumption appears to be rampant.
Why is this what matters when Catholic parents consider what is their duty to their offspring?
"Children should be so educated that as adults they can follow their vocation... with a mature sense of responsibility and can choose their state of life; if they marry, they can thereby establish their family in favorable moral, social, and economic conditions" [GS52]
"[Education] will also acquaint those concerned with correct methods for the education of children, and will assist them in gaining the basic requisites for well-ordered family life, such as stable work, sufficient financial resources, sensible administration, notions of housekeeping" [FC66]
The reason it matters: Parents might well ask whether, if they encourage open-mindedness to a path other than college, they might be putting their children in danger of living without "sufficient financial resources" or "stable work" or "favorable economic conditions" to raise a family.
I think the data shows that such fears are unfounded.
The data just isn't there tosuggest that it's college that tips you from unfavorable conditions to favorable conditions.
Therefore, parents may with a clear conscience encourage children to consider other kinds of post-high school training.
Financial stability is only one goal of education, of course. It's still an open question whether college is necessary, or preferred, to fulfill any of the many non-material essential components of an education. I hope to consider that later in the series.
A confession: I'm going to speak out here as a non-college grad who was making a 6-figure salary before children in the mid to late 1990's. My degree is a A.S. in Lasers and Fiber Optics. I was too impatient to start a real job to trudge through college. I loved learning, but was raised by two non-college educated people who make a good living without the piece of paper. In full admission, I did not make the 6 figure salary in my field of study. I am one of those examples of people who did find the right field and was able to be successful in the absence of a degree.
So, I just wanted to chime in that I am probably a bit of an anomaly. However, tech school was really good for me because I focused on those things I really wanted to learn and got a great job before I turned 20. I took out a very minimal student loan, which I had repaid within 2 years. I believe my entire tech school education cost, not including room and board, $6k. I took out the loan because there was no dorm or on-campus housing, so I needed a car, an apartment and all the things one needs to live alone. My savings went there and my loan paid for tuition.
For the record, I went back to school in the early 1990's and one semester of night school (at a Catholic College) cost me practically what it cost to get my tech school degree. I never did finish because I found that I didn't need "that piece of paper" to be successful.
Posted by: Cathie | 31 August 2012 at 11:37 AM