Morici: Why Johnny can't pay
Young people face a cruel irony. Most can't land a decent job without a college education, yet many graduates are locked into poorly paying positions that don't permit repayment of student loans.
For two generations, college price tags have risen much faster than inflation and families' ability to pay. More importantly, costs have leaped faster than what graduates can earn over working lifetimes, and many diplomas do not offer a positive return on investment as measured by graduates' ability to service their debt.
Many never get out of debt. About 17 percent of delinquent student loans are owed by folks over the age of 50, and Americans over 60 still owe $36 billion in unpaid loans. Frequently, Social Security checks are garnisheed and debt collectors are harassing borrowers in their 80s.
Employers may be partially to blame. It was commonplace in the 1950s and '60s for jobs as diverse as retail store buyers and managers, insurance adjustors and laboratory technicians to have only a high school education and some employer training.
Now, despite the fact that employers must often still train new hires, they require some college or even a diploma. Requiring higher education may be an easy way of screening an applicant's native intelligence, but many jobs simply don't pay enough for students to repay six-figure debts in a decade or so.
K-12 public education is partially to blame. During the late 1960s, a sense emerged that the performance of high schools had declined. A few years of college became a proxy for employers that young applicants had what a decent high school diploma should guarantee but no longer did.
With half of the population headed to college, universities churned out graduates with little more than a general education. Most college majors don't prepare graduates for much.
In recent decades, states cut aid to higher education when tax revenues dipped but did not adequately restore those when times got better. Consequently, community colleges and some universities cut more-expensive programs in engineering, nursing and the like. Too many students are herded into liberal studies.
What students do in college really matters. A worker with a bachelor's degree in petroleum engineering earns about $120,000, while a degree in counseling psychology fetches just $29,000. Even business degrees differ dramatically in value -- finance, accounting and supply chain majors are worth a lot more than general business and human resources management graduates.
Sadly, many students often don't want to take the tough majors -- engineering programs are stuffed with foreign students -- but that problem goes back to the high schools.
In the New York State public schools -- back before the discovery of the computer chip -- I studied Iroquois culture, early 20th century child labor problems and Gov. Al Smith's reforms, but we also wrote essays about Thomas Edison and the Wright brothers. Now, students read Maya Angelou, get a steady portion of liberal theology about the exploitive history of white European culture, and are encouraged to find themselves, instead of learning something useful.
No surprise that many students come to universities only to enjoy intellectually pleasing but practically useless programs, and end up lost in poorly paying jobs and adrift in a sea of debt.
Peter Morici is a professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.