It seems like every year, when the graduation fanfare has subsided and the confetti has reached the floor, graduates turn their eyes to the piece of paper standing in for four years of trial and tuition and ask a rather pressing question: "What did I just put myself through?"
It's inevitable even in good times, much less a recession. Did we just make a bunch of people waste their money and time?
Granted, some skills you learn in college are directly applicable to specific fields. If you want to be an accountant, studying accounting is really the only way. The criticism usually focuses on people who choose more esoteric liberal arts majors. In place of financial expertise, the job market tends to see the choice of personal fulfillment as a handicap.
When liberal arts graduates enter the job market, they give their college degree as more of a symbol than a qualification. Graduating college means you are trainable, capable of seeing something through to the end and presumably smarter than you were before. But none of that can necessarily be traced back to college, especially by potential employers. Maybe you were already smart enough for the job in question before you went to school; maybe you were always committed; and maybe studying art history won't actually help you sell real estate or insurance.
Meanwhile, universities, responding to a greater demand from high school graduates who want to stay competitive for the best jobs, opened up more campuses and created more paths to a college degree. The problem is that the best students took to going to graduate school in greater numbers. The momentary advantage given by a more equal disbursement of college diplomas was simply nullified by those who were always more academically inclined or intelligent - or wealthy.
College is still, as it was 50 years ago, extremely expensive and extremely time-consuming. The difference is that it's also now necessary for jobs that, 50 years ago, could have been taken by high school graduates. But those who couldn't attend college - either because the money or the grades weren't there - are now excluded from an opportunity they were not unsuitable for.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
All this has a very polarizing effect. The uppermost get the jobs they were always going to get; the middle get the jobs they had before; but the least fortunate suddenly find that they cannot afford to pursue opportunities they used to have.
And, yes, the general population is left better-educated. It is also poorer and has less choice. Especially in these times, is that a burden we want to impose on our citizens?
Jacob Levin is a columnist at the Indiana Daily Student in Bloomington, Ind.
