AssetBuilder Inc, - Registered Invesment Advisor - Simple Investing Smart Future
in

Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived

Does It Pay to Go to College?

by Scott Burns 

Does it pay to go to college?
   
    That’s a rude question, of course. It’s a question parents don’t want to ask if they’ve just written the big checks. Nor do students want to ask it if they’ve just borrowed the money for their next semester.

    If you check www.collegeboard.com, you’ll find a reassuring study showing that education really does pay. Without considering the intangibles, the study shows that each additional level of education draws a higher lifetime income. While the median high school graduate age 25 and older earns $26,300, the median college graduate age 25 and older earns $42,200. That’s an annual income premium of $15,500, or 59 percent.

    Not bad, particularly when you consider that the difference also allows you to escape doing heavy lifting. 

    Yes, the college grad will spend years paying off her loans.  But eventually her earnings net of loan payments will pull ahead of the high school graduate’s. So, case closed. It may hurt to write the checks, or borrow, but college pays. 

Well, maybe not.

    According to the College Board, it takes 14 long years before the college grad’s income, net of loan payments, starts to beat what the high school grad earns.  During all those 14 years, college doesn’t pay.  High school pays.

    The real question is not which choice pays on an annual basis, but which choice pays on a lifetime basis?  Which choice permits a higher lifetime living standard – a question the board conveniently doesn’t ask or answer.

    The answer depends on the costs of borrowing and the amount you need to cover.  Today’s student loan rates are really high if you need to cover the full ride.  And the price tag for attending college is astronomical.  Over the last 50 years, for instance, the cost of going to MIT has increased about 20 fold. That calculates to an annual compound increase of about 6.2 percent, which, in turn, is about 2 percentage points a year higher than the 4.1 percent inflation rate over the same period.

That’s a big difference when you compound it out for 50 years.

    While you need $2,000 today to buy the amount of primo education that cost $100 only  50 years ago, you need just $745 today to buy the amount of consumer stuff that $100 bought 50 years ago. That’s quite a difference--- $2,000 versus $745. More important, few workers enjoy lifetime earnings increases that are 2 percent greater than inflation for their entire working lives. Most workers can consider themselves fortunate if their earnings rise 1 percent a year faster than inflation in the early years of their working careers.

    Don’t think, by the way, that MIT is a special case. It isn’t. The cost of going there has risen pretty much in line with the cost of attending most private colleges and universities. You can’t get a better education. My only regret about MIT is that I wish I had been mature enough to spend more time on campus learning and less time in places that dissolute Bostonians will remember fondly--- the long-gone Palace, Golden Nugget and Jerome’s in the Combat Zone.

    That said, the College Board approach to evaluating the economic value of a college education may overstate the benefits. If you take a consumption-smoothing approach, which you can do with financial planning software like ESPlanner, you can see how the cost of higher education interacts with factors like your lifetime taxes, Social Security benefits at retirement, loan repayments, etc. And you can do it all in dollars of constant purchasing power.


    Economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff at Boston University, the prime mover behind the consumption-smoothing software, examined the cost of borrowing to attend a private college. He found a number of factors reduce the actual economic benefit:

  • When you earn more money, you pay more taxes and you pay at higher rates. One consequence is that the cost of repaying college loans rises because you have to pay more taxes to net enough cash to repay a dollar of original borrowing.

  • When you earn more money, you’ll also get less bang for your buck from Social Security. Lower-income workers receive a much higher benefit as a percentage of their earnings than higher-income workers because Social Security benefits are more progressive than the income tax.

  • When you are eligible for Medicare, you’ll be hit with the same progressivity. Starting this year, Medicare premiums are keyed to household income. So you’ll pay more for the same benefits if you earn more by getting a college education.

  • Forgoing four years of earning power while in college on borrowed money nearly evens the playing field.


Using a combination of ESPlanner (the software he developed) and earnings figures used in the College Board study, professor Kotlikoff found that an 18-year-old who had to borrow her way through a private college would still benefit, but not by a whole lot.

    Specifically, he found that an 18-year-old who elected to borrow about $40,000 a year for college would have a lifetime consumption standard of $21,033 a year. If the same 18-year-old decided to go straight to work from high school, her lifetime consumption standard was about 10 percent lower, $19,068. This standard is the amount of money available for spending after all taxes, savings, and fixed commitments such as college loans--- calculated not for 10 or 15 years but throughout life.

    So, ignoring risk issues, college, even an expensive private college, pays--- but the lifetime living standard gain is more like 10 percent than 59 percent. (You can, of course, improve things by attending a lower-cost public college or avoiding loans if your parents or grandparents pay the bill.)

The hard part is the risk factor.

    If college pays for the median-income worker, it may not pay as well for graduates who aren’t so fortunate. Worse, if you earn less than the median, the burden of your college loans will weigh very heavily. They could, in fact, exceed your earnings gain.
Bottom line: College, particularly an expensive private college, is a high-risk investment, which, for many, won’t pay.

On the web:

Education pays chart and comments:


Education pays, full study PDF:


Economic Security Planner website:
 

Earlier columns on consumption smoothing:

 

Comments

 

DrMcGarvey said:

I think the analysis should be extended to the relative advantages ostensibly associated with graduate training -- particularly with regard to academic (as opposed to professional) advanced degrees.  My suspicion is that the results might profitably discourage many from wasting time and assets.

September 23, 2007 7:23 AM
 

Barney said:

I'm sure there are many factors not discussed in the article that may ultimately affect whether education has a positive effect on a net lifetime income. One of those factors may be the choice to achieve a Master's or Doctoral Degree. On average, how do these 2 graduate degrees affect net lifetime income? Thank you.
September 23, 2007 6:11 PM
 

Restonham said:

This analysis doesn't seem to make any sense at all. To get actual benefits of college, you need to break down the figures by what the major was and what the grad becomes in life. I don't see how overall averages can be used here. Engineers, scientists, business majors and many others earn lots more than high school grads. Plus a high school diploma won't even get you entry into many professions today. Maybe history and other soft discipline majors who end up teaching in public schools may not end up earning a lot more than high school grads, but who would teach then and how would we ever progress? I do not not see a logical point to this article.
September 23, 2007 11:28 PM
 

Andrew said:

The proper analysis would be to examine what the average MIT grad earns versus the average high school graduate. I would imagine that the average MIT bachelor degree holder significantly out earns the average college graduate who out earns the average high school grad. If you ran the numbers that way, it would probably show you that it makes sense to go to a well respected private college even if you had to finance the entire cost of attendance, but that it doesn't make sense to go to a no-name private college if you are seeking to maximizing your return on investment. That might also explain why people are so interested in college rankings and why most good private colleges give out few if any merit scholarships relative to no-name private colleges that hand them out to anyone with an SAT score better than 1,000.
September 24, 2007 3:22 PM
 

Bruceg said:

See discussion on forum at

assetbuilder.com/.../1582.aspx

October 4, 2007 2:13 PM
 

kindly4real said:

Do what you love and the money will follow. I heard that all my life. At most, I do what I love and I’m grateful for that. Well, come to think of it, I make a lot of money too. I'll get around to collage someday, maybe.
October 9, 2007 12:02 PM
 

thadea said:

Restonham: I have my degree in accounting, yet there are people in drywall finishing that make twice as much money as I do and are the same age as me. I am surprised at how much trades are making as opposed to people with college degrees. I feel like I got ripped off, lost 4 years, and I'm now in debt. The whole "you need a college degree" thing is pure BS

May 27, 2008 2:15 PM

About scottb

Scott Burns has covered the changing world of personal finance and investments for nearly 40 years. Today, he ranks as one of the five most widely read personal finance writers in the country. Scott began his career as a newspaper columnist at the Boston Herald in 1977 where he was also the financial editor. Nationally syndicated in 1981 and now distributed by Universal Press, the column appears in newspapers from Boston to Seattle. In 1985 he joined the staff of the Dallas Morning News where his column quickly became one of the most widely read features in the paper. He left the Dallas Morning News in 2006 to become one of the founders of AssetBuilder and its Chief Investment Strategist. Burns is a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1962). He has written four books, including "The Coming Generational Storm" (MIT Press, 2004) coauthored with economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff. His fourth book, also coauthored with Kotlikoff, will be published this spring by Simon & Schuster. "Spend Til' the End" uses consumption smoothing to demonstrate the errors of conventional financial planning. His business experience includes working as a staffer for a major consulting company and service as a director and audit chairman of a NASDAQ listed manufacturing company. He and his wife divide their time between Dallas and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Copyright © 2007 - 2008, AssetBuilder Inc - DFA Advisor. All Rights Reserved. View our Terms & Disclaimers.