Whether college education is worth it depends on the discipline

The argument

Supporters of this position argue that the question cannot be answered in general, because the thing being valued is not uniform. A university education is not one good with one price and one return; it is a set of very different goods, and assessing its value depends on both the end goal a student holds and the field of study through which they pursue it. Assessed that way, proponents hold, the answer necessarily varies by discipline. The case is made through a contrast between two kinds of degree. Consider someone who wants to work in a hotel or become a tour guide and goes to university to study tourism. Here the costs may outweigh the benefits, for two reasons that compound each other. The degree is not necessary to get a job in the hotel or tourism sector, so the student is paying for a qualification the intended career does not require; and the field of study is not transferable to many other careers, so it offers little protection should the plan change. What is bought is narrow and, for its own purpose, largely redundant. Set against that is a student who goes to university to study a STEM subject — science, technology, engineering or mathematics. Proponents point to the expectation that such graduates can expect to earn around three times more in their lifetime than their non-STEM graduate peers: a return that is not marginal but multiple, and one set against much the same tuition cost. Where the earnings difference is of that order, they argue, the calculation resolves itself. Because the same institution, the same fees and broadly the same number of years can produce either outcome, supporters conclude that no single verdict on university is available. Some fields of study are worth the cost of a university education while others may not be, which is precisely why whether college education is worth it depends on the discipline.

Context

Different fields of study provide different returns on investment. Therefore, the value of a college education depends on the field of study.

Premises

Counter-arguments

That the value of a degree depends partly on the field is reasonable, but the argument reduces a many-sided question to a single variable and rests its case on a misleading statistic. 'Worth' is not only financial: university can carry civic, intellectual and personal value that a lifetime-earnings comparison by subject leaves out entirely. And the headline figure — that STEM graduates earn around three times more than non-STEM peers — conflates correlation with causation: fields that lead to high pay also select for students who are, on average, more academically able and motivated and who might have earned well by other routes, so the degree's own causal contribution to the gap is smaller than the raw number implies. The within-field variation is enormous, too: many non-STEM graduates out-earn many STEM graduates depending on the institution, the individual and the labour market they enter, which means discipline is one factor among several — cost, institution, personal aptitude, local economy — rather than the master variable the position makes it. The tourism example also overlooks that plenty of vocational and applied fields deliver good outcomes. So 'it depends on the discipline' is true but too narrow: it captures one of the things 'it depends' on while presenting it as the whole answer.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The 'STEM earns three times more' figure conflates correlation with causation — high-earning fields select for abler, more motivated students who might earn well anyway — so the degree's causal contribution is smaller than the raw gap. [Rejecting P1] Worth is not only financial and varies enormously within a field by institution, individual and labour market, so discipline is one factor among several, not the sole determinant of whether college is worth it.