Obviously, this was a significant milestone for me. So, I took this opportunity to reflect on my journey so far. How I even came to owe that much money, how I overcame this obstacle, and what it all means to me.
That's not what the blog post says at all. The author talked about a bunch of bad choices.
> You spent $200k on a degree which awarded you a job that allowed you (with some expected struggle) to pay it off.
That's not what happened. In short, here is the series of events, that happened over a number of years:
1. Graduated with a double major in economics and environmental studies, plus $150K debt
2. Got a job pulling weeds at the Chicago Botanic Gardens for $12/hour
3. Got a job as an economic researcher at Arity for $50K/year
4. Taught himself data science and machine learning
5. Got a job in data science for >$100K/year
It was only 5 that allowed him to pay off his student loan debt. The undergrad degree did not directly lead to a well-paying job.
I am in position where I would be able to pay that amount down (averaged over 10y) with the same QoL; however I do not have a degree and I live in Europe which pays significantly under what the US does.
People keep forgetting that we (and OP) got obscenely lucky in our industry. We are very well compensated compared to our contemporaries; but if anything it's proof that you don't need a degree, and that shouldn't be the litmus for getting a decently paid job.
A degree in of itself should not be held to such vocational standards, it has significant merit but has very little bearing on job performance- We should be working to make college/university affordable because a better educated population helps society.
However, it is far from a great indicator of earning potential.
The largest factors in earning potential remain to be: historical wealth and IQ; degrees, when controlled for familial wealth have shockingly low correlation to lifetime earning potential.
Bully for you! You are an outlier. Your employer may also be an outlier. That's wonderful for you, but it is irresponsible to recommend to any young person that they bet their futures on being able to 1) find 2) when they are hiring 3) and click with the hiring manager an outlier firm like yours.
> it's proof that you don't need a degree.
To do the job, no. To get the job, frequently yes. Obviously a lot of us were shipping production code in high school. Doesn't matter to most employers. For better or worse, having a degree is a required/recommended credential at a lot of jobs. Recruiters will often use it as a filter if they get a ton of resumes. Worse -- not having a degree is also a prohibition to some promotions at some employers so there are potentially follow-on effects of not getting the diploma.
Having been in the industry a while, I can say that the last 10 years or so are aberrant in that recruiters have been less selective than at other times. One definitely didn't want to be in tech in 2001 with no degree and a mortgage.
And speaking of 2001, one of the other benefits of having a degree is you're not as locked into a given career. When the dot.com bust hit tech, I saw folks use the flexibility afforded by their degrees to go into other fields: teaching, law school, etc.
I think you're suffering a bit from sunk cost fallacy and a little bit of "got mine", there's absolutely no reason to continue this.
I (and practically all of my friends) may be outliers, but if nothing else it's proof that you can do highly specialised jobs with vocational education.
As mentioned, higher education has massive value to society, but if it is product that forces you into a considerably unfavourable economic position from the beginning of your career, and certainly not as a gate for establishing yourself to employers -- that it has been used that way does not mean that it's a good idea.
There are many stupid things we do as a society, like changing our clocks backwards and forwards every year; the only reason it continues is inertia and our stubbornness to change.
I get what you're saying and I agree it's absurdly expensive for what you get. But even for the current college bubble, $200k is above the median students pay for college. The school's tuition currently is $51k, and for reference, MIT is 55k. Apparently the median is still absurdly high ($44k, what the actual hell?), but there are a lot of cheaper options, as well as community college, to help bring those costs down.
No, the youth I typically advise are from the types of backgrounds that need every advantage to get the good jobs. They don't "pattern match" the other staff, so they have to compensate by looking better on paper. I have 100% seen people walk into jobs without any credentials; I have not seen anyone do it who doesn't look like management.
> if you have to pay $200k to get your foot in the door then the system is rigged in favour of the elite (again).
Should have added that this number is also an outlier. OP possibly works on a team with people who were all-in for $60k over 4 years (in-state tuition, living at home). The giant public university in my city has an average cost after aid of under $20k annually (including room & board). Living at home, a student could make a dent in that working at an amusement park over the summer.
Some people choose a luxury experience, which is fine. But most students don't go to those colleges.
But yes, college is too expensive. We should resume amply funding state universities.
The data don't bear this out. Over a career, people with college degrees earn more than those without. Until and unless this changes, people are making the right choice going to college.
Caveats: it does need to be more widely communicated that getting into a college that costs $50k/year is a luxury good that not everyone will be able to afford. And the corollary: we need to resume amply funding our public institutions.
So, for instance, how does a tradesman compare? The median income for somebody with a BS, employed full time, is $69k [1]. The median income for a plumber is $60k. [2] That's already pretty close, especially once you factor in 4 years of extra earnings vs 6 figures of debt. The BS may overcome the hole relatively late in their career, but again - it's close. However, there's a big catch: those numbers included STEM degrees. Remove STEM degrees and this isn't even close anymore.
I'm not arguing everybody should be a plumber, or anything of the sort. I am saying that college is a decision that should not be taken lightly, especially if somebody is not going to pursue STEM.
[1] - https://www.bls.gov/emp/chart-unemployment-earnings-educatio...
[2] - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/plumbers...
I know you're not arguing for everyone to become a plumber, so you should state that the chart you cite shows that high school diploma holders have a median income of $42k, or $27k less annually than those with a BS. Your data is showing why people go to college.
(All of this is before one accounts for the ability of BS-holders to move up to the higher rungs on the chart; most professional degrees require an undergraduate degree. If a 28-year-old has a BS and gets tired of his profession, he can go to e.g. law school or whatever and potentially earn more as well.)
Oh neat thing on the law school comment. You don't actually need to go to law school, or school at all, to become a lawyer in some states, including California! In California one "just" needs to go through a legal apprenticeship program, and then pass the Bar. Just is in quotes there for good reason, but I think the world, particularly in education, is changing far more rapidly than we realize. Especially given the era of the internet, costly accreditation as opposed to skill tests (ideally with some apprenticeship component), just doesn't make any sense anymore.
And let me just state the obvious: it appears that you are good with words. And the ability to clearly communicate complex topics in writing is a lot less common than you might think. My pet theory is that that's why working remotely didn't turn out well for so many people.
The system works.