Per the Chron, so behind their paywall (although this can occasionally be defeated via judicious use of the ESC key as the article paints on your screen). Is this a harbinger of things to come? As funding from the state and feds declines, and students/parents push back on fee hikes, colleges are not going to risk their very existence just so athletes can play a sport.
Sonoma St to Cut Entire Athletic Department
2,800 Views |
36 Replies |
Last: 6 days ago by Bobodeluxe
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
In that same time period, Cal Poly Humboldt went from 8,500 to its current 6,000.BearBoarBlarney said:
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
People are having fewer kids.
Tiny colleges are also closing. Holy Names here and Mills merged with northeastern.
One would hope education would not be jeopardized to play games but it often seems we prefer entertainment to meatier matters. I suspect a lot of fringe players will curtail or totally eliminate costly athletic programs as the 50-60 full on professional programs evolve.HearstMining said:
Per the Chron, so behind their paywall (although this can occasionally be defeated via judicious use of the ESC key as the article paints on your screen). Is this a harbinger of things to come? As funding from the state and feds declines, and students/parents push back on fee hikes, colleges are not going to risk their very existence just so athletes can play a sport.
In the D3 world, football teams and sports in general are seen as recruitment tools. With the imbalance between men and women at most colleges, football and its +100 players is thought to help balance out the ratios of men to women.
59bear said:One would hope education would not be jeopardized to play games but it often seems we prefer entertainment to meatier matters. I suspect a lot of fringe players will curtail or totally eliminate costly athletic programs as the 50-60 full on professional programs evolve.HearstMining said:
Per the Chron, so behind their paywall (although this can occasionally be defeated via judicious use of the ESC key as the article paints on your screen). Is this a harbinger of things to come? As funding from the state and feds declines, and students/parents push back on fee hikes, colleges are not going to risk their very existence just so athletes can play a sport.
It seems like we like to pretend schools should stay open when they don't have a reason to be open.
Enrollment is way down, maybe we need 20% less capacity? Naw... Sports that have been around as long as the school is the problem.
Oakland is about to go bankrupt in part on refusal to close some underused elementary schools. It's asinine.
And Notre Dame in Belmont - I believe Stanford bought the campus.Chabbear said:
Tiny colleges are also closing. Holy Names here and Mills merged with northeastern.
Once upon a time, smaller universities got some visibility and local support by fielding sports teams. The visibility came from local newspapers reporting on the teams, and locals might have attended games in person back when there were very few college sporting events on TV.
Smaller local newspapers are all but dead, and even with larger papers and local TV stations, coverage of college sports is a tiny percentage of what it once was.
So there is little or no incentive for a school like Sonoma State to fund an athletic department today. And this is especially true for smaller public universities. A smaller private college might use D-III athletics to lure students whose families will pay half or more of the hefty tuition (and r&b) of a private school, but that's not a business for public colleges to be in.
Smaller local newspapers are all but dead, and even with larger papers and local TV stations, coverage of college sports is a tiny percentage of what it once was.
So there is little or no incentive for a school like Sonoma State to fund an athletic department today. And this is especially true for smaller public universities. A smaller private college might use D-III athletics to lure students whose families will pay half or more of the hefty tuition (and r&b) of a private school, but that's not a business for public colleges to be in.
75bear said:In that same time period, Cal Poly Humboldt went from 8,500 to its current 6,000.BearBoarBlarney said:
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
People are having fewer kids.
Or, kids see the scam of paying for a worthless degree and are choosing trade schools.
If you are going to college solely to increase your earning potential then yes, there are often better returns on investment. That goes doubly for many majors.Bear70 said:75bear said:In that same time period, Cal Poly Humboldt went from 8,500 to its current 6,000.BearBoarBlarney said:
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
People are having fewer kids.
Or, kids see the scam of paying for a worthless degree and are choosing trade schools.
My experience at Berkeley was worth a hell of a lot more than just extra earning potential.
OUSD has a $95 million deficit. Closing schools will only save around $5 million. Almost all the cuts are going to have to come from non-closure places.LunchTime said:59bear said:One would hope education would not be jeopardized to play games but it often seems we prefer entertainment to meatier matters. I suspect a lot of fringe players will curtail or totally eliminate costly athletic programs as the 50-60 full on professional programs evolve.HearstMining said:
Per the Chron, so behind their paywall (although this can occasionally be defeated via judicious use of the ESC key as the article paints on your screen). Is this a harbinger of things to come? As funding from the state and feds declines, and students/parents push back on fee hikes, colleges are not going to risk their very existence just so athletes can play a sport.
It seems like we like to pretend schools should stay open when they don't have a reason to be open.
Enrollment is way down, maybe we need 20% less capacity? Naw... Sports that have been around as long as the school is the problem.
Oakland is about to go bankrupt in part on refusal to close some underused elementary schools. It's asinine.
Focus should be on their construction management major and related trades. Everyone would get a job.
Reductions are occuring not just at the university level but with K-12 schools in Red states. I'm not sure that private and charter schools will be able to offer athletic programs to prepare football and basketball athletes to play at the college level.
Donate to Cal's NIL at https://calegends.com/donation/
I'm all for high school sports and understand that this can motivate some kids to focus on doing well in school, but is the core purpose of high school (private or public) to prepare football and basketball athletes to play at the college level?BearoutEast67 said:
Reductions are occuring not just at the university level but with K-12 schools in Red states. I'm not sure that private and charter schools will be able to offer athletic programs to prepare football and basketball athletes to play at the college level.
Bear70 said:75bear said:In that same time period, Cal Poly Humboldt went from 8,500 to its current 6,000.BearBoarBlarney said:
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
People are having fewer kids.
Or, kids see the scam of paying for a worthless degree and are choosing trade schools.
Yes, demand for college seems to be elastic - higher tuition, lower demand.
I do remember that around 1999, we figured we could easily pay for Cal/CSU educations for our two boys, even as fees had increased from the $212.50/quarter that I had paid at Cal in the 1970s. But by the time, the oldest started in 2006, and certainly when the two overlapped in college for a year, we were selling some stock to make it work.
75bear said:In that same time period, Cal Poly Humboldt went from 8,500 to its current 6,000.BearBoarBlarney said:
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
People are having fewer kids.
Oakland has its own set of problems including a totally incompetent leadership starting with the Mayor (who can't even bother to file a timely application to get millions in State aid for its police)
However Oakland's educational system is in part suffering the same problems that the entire US is suffering- declining enrollment. The Baby Boom was an aberration.
There are different start dates for the Baby Boom. Some have set the date as early as 1943/44 when couples started marrying earlier some have set it at 1945. Currently most have set it at 1946. But by the late 1960's the birth rates were falling precipitously
For over twenty years the US benefited from exponential growth
But throughout most of US history the US benefited from massive amounts of immigrants (documented and undocumented). Contrary to what some politicians say. Those immigrants and their children provided the human resources and drive that made America great.
Those immigrants and their children provided the students who filled up American elementary schools high schools and later colleges.
With the Baby Boom generation. The US did not have a great need for massive immigration.
Now that the Baby Boom generation is aging out. The reality of our need for immigrants is Becoming more obvious. Who will provide the Human Resources to keep our status of living (including our colleges and our college
Football teams) going.
Granted the foregoing explanation is a generalization. And people can try to criticize and pick it apart. But the general trends cannot be ignored.
My two cents from the Insider thread on the topic, as modified for brevity:GivemTheAxe said:75bear said:In that same time period, Cal Poly Humboldt went from 8,500 to its current 6,000.BearBoarBlarney said:
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
People are having fewer kids.
Oakland has its own set of problems including a totally incompetent leadership starting with the Mayor (who can't even bother to file a timely application to get millions in State aid for its police)
However Oakland's educational system is in part suffering the same problems that the entire US is suffering- declining enrollment. The Baby Boom was an aberration.
There are different start dates for the Baby Boom. Some have set the date as early as 1944 when couples started marrying earlier some. Have set it at 1945. Currently most have set it at 1946. But by the late 1960's the birth rates were falling precipitously
For over twenty years the US benefited from exponential growth
But throughout most of US history the US benefited from massive amounts of immigrants (documented and undocumented). Contrary to what some politicians say. Those immigrants and their children provided the human resources and drive that made America great.
Those immigrants and their children provided the students who filled up American elementary schools high schools and later colleges.
With the Baby Boom generation. The US did not have a great need for massive immigration.
Now that the Baby Boom generation is aging out. The reality of our need for immigrants is Becoming more obvious. Who will provide the Human Resources to keep our status of living (including our colleges and our college
Football teams) going.
Granted the foregoing explanation is a generalization. And people can try to criticize and pick it apart. But the general trends cannot be ignored.
College in the US (including at Cal) are very expensive compared to in other countries, due to the high level of student amenities, activities, entertainment and technology costs).
American schools invest in attractive facilities and student services, which can increase costs that are passed on to students. We build way more expensive, high maintenance buildings in comparison to other countries. American schools have way more expensive administrators, a fair amount of which is for compliance with governmental mandates to be eligible for federal and state money. Americans tend to view college partly as a fun time to "try out" adult hood, so competing colleges respond with ever nicer services, programs, athletics and other activities for students to enjoy, and American parents in the past seem willing to underwrite these costs. Higher college costs in the US prices tend to be followed by ever more generous government supported financial aid; thus, raising prices tends to be a bit of a race between schools to capture more of the government aide pie. This doesn't help students who don't qualify for aide, and one would expect, as certain degrees may be less value relative to college costs, parents are reconsidering the value of the American college education.
Specifically to athletics, American college athletics is on an astronomically different scale where events often are well attended, athletes may receive scholarships, preference in admissions, NIL, media attention, and training for professional or Olympic aspirations, which generally is not the case outside the US.
College campus housing and recreation centers are the modern equivalent of the Cold War arms race. At every campus, they were a featured part of the tour and all were new and gorgeous. When we did the California campus tour routine with our oldest son, the only school where the student guide didn't even mention the rec center was Berkeley. My favorite line, however, was at Cal Poly where a parent asked about the difficulty of graduating in four years due to impacted classes and the student guide suavely replied, "Well, we like to say that graduating in four years at Cal Poly is like leaving the party at 9PM". In spite of this, our two sons went there, had a great time, and did graduate in four years.wifeisafurd said:My two cents from the Insider thread on the topic, as modified for brevity:GivemTheAxe said:75bear said:In that same time period, Cal Poly Humboldt went from 8,500 to its current 6,000.BearBoarBlarney said:
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
People are having fewer kids.
Oakland has its own set of problems including a totally incompetent leadership starting with the Mayor (who can't even bother to file a timely application to get millions in State aid for its police)
However Oakland's educational system is in part suffering the same problems that the entire US is suffering- declining enrollment. The Baby Boom was an aberration.
There are different start dates for the Baby Boom. Some have set the date as early as 1944 when couples started marrying earlier some. Have set it at 1945. Currently most have set it at 1946. But by the late 1960's the birth rates were falling precipitously
For over twenty years the US benefited from exponential growth
But throughout most of US history the US benefited from massive amounts of immigrants (documented and undocumented). Contrary to what some politicians say. Those immigrants and their children provided the human resources and drive that made America great.
Those immigrants and their children provided the students who filled up American elementary schools high schools and later colleges.
With the Baby Boom generation. The US did not have a great need for massive immigration.
Now that the Baby Boom generation is aging out. The reality of our need for immigrants is Becoming more obvious. Who will provide the Human Resources to keep our status of living (including our colleges and our college
Football teams) going.
Granted the foregoing explanation is a generalization. And people can try to criticize and pick it apart. But the general trends cannot be ignored.
College in the US (including at Cal) are very expensive compared to in other countries, due to the high level of student amenities, activities, entertainment and technology costs).
American schools invest in attractive facilities and student services, which can increase costs that are passed on to students. We build way more expensive, high maintenance buildings in comparison to other countries. American schools have way more expensive administrators, a fair amount of which is for compliance with governmental mandates to be eligible for federal and state money. Americans tend to view college partly as a fun time to "try out" adult hood, so competing colleges respond with ever nicer services, programs, athletics and other activities for students to enjoy, and American parents in the past seem willing to underwrite these costs. Higher college costs in the US prices tend to be followed by ever more generous government supported financial aid; thus, raising prices tends to be a bit of a race between schools to capture more of the government aide pie. This doesn't help students who don't qualify for aide, and one would expect, as certain degrees may be less value relative to college costs, parents are reconsidering the value of the American college education.
Specifically to athletics, American college athletics is on an astronomically different scale where events often are well attended, athletes may receive scholarships, preference in admissions, NIL, media attention, and training for professional or Olympic aspirations, which generally is not the case outside the US.
I agree that the recreation and food service that my son enjoyed are leap years ahead of what I got. However, there must have been free architectural dorm plans in the 1950s because when I dropped my son off at his New York up state college, the dorm was identical to my California college dorm. The only change was that the showers had curtains which they did not in the 1970s!
Title IX has been a slow poison to many collegiate athletic programs, including Cal.
I'm not claiming that. Are you?HearstMining said:I'm all for high school sports and understand that this can motivate some kids to focus on doing well in school, but is the core purpose of high school (private or public) to prepare football and basketball athletes to play at the college level?BearoutEast67 said:
Reductions are occuring not just at the university level but with K-12 schools in Red states. I'm not sure that private and charter schools will be able to offer athletic programs to prepare football and basketball athletes to play at the college level.
Donate to Cal's NIL at https://calegends.com/donation/
HearstMining said:College campus housing and recreation centers are the modern equivalent of the Cold War arms race. At every campus, they were a featured part of the tour and all were new and gorgeous. When we did the California campus tour routine with our oldest son, the only school where the student guide didn't even mention the rec center was Berkeley. My favorite line, however, was at Cal Poly where a parent asked about the difficulty of graduating in four years due to impacted classes and the student guide suavely replied, "Well, we like to say that graduating in four years at Cal Poly is like leaving the party at 9PM". In spite of this, our two sons went there, had a great time, and did graduate in four years.wifeisafurd said:My two cents from the Insider thread on the topic, as modified for brevity:GivemTheAxe said:75bear said:In that same time period, Cal Poly Humboldt went from 8,500 to its current 6,000.BearBoarBlarney said:
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
People are having fewer kids.
Oakland has its own set of problems including a totally incompetent leadership starting with the Mayor (who can't even bother to file a timely application to get millions in State aid for its police)
However Oakland's educational system is in part suffering the same problems that the entire US is suffering- declining enrollment. The Baby Boom was an aberration.
There are different start dates for the Baby Boom. Some have set the date as early as 1944 when couples started marrying earlier some. Have set it at 1945. Currently most have set it at 1946. But by the late 1960's the birth rates were falling precipitously
For over twenty years the US benefited from exponential growth
But throughout most of US history the US benefited from massive amounts of immigrants (documented and undocumented). Contrary to what some politicians say. Those immigrants and their children provided the human resources and drive that made America great.
Those immigrants and their children provided the students who filled up American elementary schools high schools and later colleges.
With the Baby Boom generation. The US did not have a great need for massive immigration.
Now that the Baby Boom generation is aging out. The reality of our need for immigrants is Becoming more obvious. Who will provide the Human Resources to keep our status of living (including our colleges and our college
Football teams) going.
Granted the foregoing explanation is a generalization. And people can try to criticize and pick it apart. But the general trends cannot be ignored.
College in the US (including at Cal) are very expensive compared to in other countries, due to the high level of student amenities, activities, entertainment and technology costs).
American schools invest in attractive facilities and student services, which can increase costs that are passed on to students. We build way more expensive, high maintenance buildings in comparison to other countries. American schools have way more expensive administrators, a fair amount of which is for compliance with governmental mandates to be eligible for federal and state money. Americans tend to view college partly as a fun time to "try out" adult hood, so competing colleges respond with ever nicer services, programs, athletics and other activities for students to enjoy, and American parents in the past seem willing to underwrite these costs. Higher college costs in the US prices tend to be followed by ever more generous government supported financial aid; thus, raising prices tends to be a bit of a race between schools to capture more of the government aide pie. This doesn't help students who don't qualify for aide, and one would expect, as certain degrees may be less value relative to college costs, parents are reconsidering the value of the American college education.
Specifically to athletics, American college athletics is on an astronomically different scale where events often are well attended, athletes may receive scholarships, preference in admissions, NIL, media attention, and training for professional or Olympic aspirations, which generally is not the case outside the US.
I agree with some of the things in many of the foregoing posts.
But we must realize
1. The difficulties mentioned are there for a large number of US colleges (and junior colleges) not just the high priced colleges that pamper students
2. many non-third world countries are having similar difficulties to those in the US with declining student populations
3. Maybe the reason that some US colleges are spending so much money trying to impress and attract students is that there are so fewer students to attract.
In analyzing the problem We must ask ourselves: What factor is the cause? And what factor is the effect?
peterprescott said:
Focus should be on their construction management major and related trades. Everyone would get a job.
I have been a lawyer for 49 years and have lived through five recessions. In each of those recessions the construction industry suffered massive layoffs which continued for several years. Then followed by periods of resurgence that started slowly (meaning: re- hiring started slowly)
Yes many people (not everyone) could get jobs if they studied construction management (or many other trade skills that are related to construction) but those who do should put aside a sizable rainy day fund to carry them through the recessions that happened on average every 10 years.
The recent run of prosperity was predicted to crash in 2021. It was staved off by huge government spending that had the negative effect of spiking inflation.
But we shouldn't count of perpetual prosperity in the construction (or many/most other) field (s)
Sonoma State and Cal Poly Humboldt might be feeling the "demographic time bomb" more than most other Cal State campuses because the coastal counties north of SF have a significantly lower percentage of residents under 21 than the counties where most other Cal State campuses are located.75bear said:In that same time period, Cal Poly Humboldt went from 8,500 to its current 6,000.BearBoarBlarney said:
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
People are having fewer kids.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment about private and charter schools not being able to offer high-level football/basketball. Maybe you were being sarcastic in lamenting this and if so, I missed it and I apologize for that. I wish the site had a special font or something for sarcasm. Personally, I think high school sports are great, but I don't care if they prepare a kid to play the sport in college. So, I think you and I may be on the same page, here.BearoutEast67 said:I'm not claiming that. Are you?HearstMining said:I'm all for high school sports and understand that this can motivate some kids to focus on doing well in school, but is the core purpose of high school (private or public) to prepare football and basketball athletes to play at the college level?BearoutEast67 said:
Reductions are occuring not just at the university level but with K-12 schools in Red states. I'm not sure that private and charter schools will be able to offer athletic programs to prepare football and basketball athletes to play at the college level.
i believe that on the exterior walls of Harmon Gym there were/are the quote "sound body, sound mind" is actually translated from the Latin phrase "mens sana in corpore sano," which means "a sound mind in a sound body.". This phrase is attributed to the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Thales, highlighting the connection between physical health and mental well-being.HearstMining said:Maybe I misunderstood your comment about private and charter schools not being able to offer high-level football/basketball. Maybe you were being sarcastic in lamenting this and if so, I missed it and I apologize for that. I wish the site had a special font or something for sarcasm. Personally, I think high school sports are great, but I don't care if they prepare a kid to play the sport in college. So, I think you and I may be on the same page, here.BearoutEast67 said:I'm not claiming that. Are you?HearstMining said:I'm all for high school sports and understand that this can motivate some kids to focus on doing well in school, but is the core purpose of high school (private or public) to prepare football and basketball athletes to play at the college level?BearoutEast67 said:
Reductions are occuring not just at the university level but with K-12 schools in Red states. I'm not sure that private and charter schools will be able to offer athletic programs to prepare football and basketball athletes to play at the college level.
Meaning: It signifies the idea that taking care of your physical body contributes to a healthy mind, and vice versa.
Unfortunately that phrase came into common usage long before TV revenue and the drive to find who is Number 1 corrupted college athletics.
The coming cuts in federal largesse to research universities will have an undermined effect on UC's.
On another topic mentioned in this thread, Cal Poly in four years, TWICE? Not bad.
On another topic mentioned in this thread, Cal Poly in four years, TWICE? Not bad.
Anecdotal but nearly all the parents I know from high school, college, or work are sending their kids out of state. Generally their kids aren't getting into UCs or CSUs, or at least the "desirable" ones. Many are attending schools in lower cost eastern and southern states. Seeing them regularly playing football has made these kids much more aware of those schools.
It almost seems like California is exporting its kids to other states.
It almost seems like California is exporting its kids to other states.
Have been for the past 20 years.... Lots of kids from both our daughter and sons high school classes went out of state. Not sure where you live but seeing a lot go to west coast schools and Colorado/Utah etc... only know of 2 who went south .. one to Bama and a couple from one family to Ole Miss...ninetyfourbear said:
Anecdotal but nearly all the parents I know from high school, college, or work are sending their kids out of state. Generally their kids aren't getting into UCs or CSUs, or at least the "desirable" ones. Many are attending schools in lower cost eastern and southern states. Seeing them regularly playing football has made these kids much more aware of those schools.
It almost seems like California is exporting its kids to other states.
I believe Cal Poly Humboldt is in better shape. It received significant state funding for its polytechnic transformation, including $458 million in a one-time investment a couple of years ago and $25 million in ongoing support.BearSD said:Sonoma State and Cal Poly Humboldt might be feeling the "demographic time bomb" more than most other Cal State campuses because the coastal counties north of SF have a significantly lower percentage of residents under 21 than the counties where most other Cal State campuses are located.75bear said:In that same time period, Cal Poly Humboldt went from 8,500 to its current 6,000.BearBoarBlarney said:
I was stunned to read that Sonoma State University's enrollment has dropped by 38% since its high in 2015.
I know folks talk about the coming enrollment cliff in higher education, but I didn't realize that some CSU system campuses were feeling it to this extent.
People are having fewer kids.
It did drop its football program a few years ago. I met the previous Humboldt president and asked if football would be coming back, but he said no.
I don't know where Humboldt attracts its current students, but in the '70's, the largest percentage were from southern California. It also had the lowest acceptance rate of the state universities back then. I ran into someone who was not accepted there, so he went to UCSD instead.
1. I keep hearing an argument that college is not financially worth it. This just flat out goes against all statistical evidence regarding the lifetime earnings of college graduates vs some college vs. high school graduates. The question is not close. It is also not close that college graduates are significantly more insulated from increases in unemployment rates.HearstMining said:
Per the Chron, so behind their paywall (although this can occasionally be defeated via judicious use of the ESC key as the article paints on your screen). Is this a harbinger of things to come? As funding from the state and feds declines, and students/parents push back on fee hikes, colleges are not going to risk their very existence just so athletes can play a sport.
2. Even more common is the argument that "certain majors" aren't worth it. This also flat out goes against statistical evidence which shows those with degrees in "certain majors" have high lifetime earnings, comparable or higher than other majors people associate with high income potential. As an example, the dean of students at one of my kids' university orientations cited a statistic that those in the 55th percentile of earners among Art History majors (so slightly above average), are on par with those in the 45th percentile of earners among biology majors (so slightly below average). Their point being that doing something that you are passionate and good at and succeeding is far more valuable than doing something you are not passionate about and not good at because you perceive it to be a more lucrative field.
What is definitely true is that engineers kick butt in terms of career earnings. However, time after time, statistics show career earnings in many "certain majors" eclipse those of more accepted fields like business majors over a lifetime. It is certainly true that it will be more difficult to get your first job. It is true that you will struggle more early in your career. But many fields of study that do not lead to an instant career path teach skills that are often overlooked and undervalued that lead people to overtake their counterparts later in their career. The statistics on this have been pretty consistent over decades.
What I would argue to anyone is that we live in a world that changes quickly and you cannot count on any one skill sustaining you through a 40-50 year working career. You better be able to adapt. Whether it is college, trade school, or some other path, you need to separate yourself from others. If 1000 other people can do what you do, the market will ultimately catch up with you and you will be screwed.
3. Obviously costs of college education have been soaring. The fact that it is still an excellent investment doesn't mean it is an investment everyone can afford. Over a lifetime, buying stocks is pretty much always a good investment, but that doesn't mean everyone can throw a couple hundred grand into stocks. No one asks why most Americans don't buy substantial amounts of stocks and then blames the ROI on stocks for the issue. We acknowledge that most people can't afford to invest heavily in the stock market. College is a huge outlay that takes years to recoup. The opportunity cost is also tremendous. Many people just can't do that. Many people could but prefer short term rewards to long term gains. It is pretty much obvious Econ 1 stuff that as costs skyrocket, demand goes down.
4. Millennials were the next spike in population corresponding with the boomer spike and they are no longer of college age. Our birthrate is in steady decline and is at its lowest point. Colleges that saw dramatically escalating enrollment are finding they are on the other side of the hump. But beware those who bundle 2 year and 4 year institutions together statistically. The percentage of young people enrolling in 2 year institutions has fallen precipitously, but the percentage enrolled in 4 year institutions has actually increased over the past 10 years.
5. I don't know if this has an actual impact on the numbers (actually, I doubt it), but going to most Cal State universities as a freshman or sophomore is just plain a bad financial value unless you place an exorbitant value on campus experience. JC's in California cost virtually nothing. If you are an above average student at all, you have an extremely, extremely good chance of getting into a UC out of JC. You are all but assured of getting into a Cal State. In the specific example of Sonoma State, tuition alone ins $8600 more than going to a JC. Hard to see the value proposition of going to Sonoma State for 4 years vs. going to JC for 2 and Sonoma State for 2. (not to mention that you are much more likely to get into a better school after 2 years at JC). There are notable exceptions to this dynamic in the Cal State system - schools that are more highly sought after - but this is the current situation for the rank and file Cal states.
6. All of that said, doing something you are not interested in because you think it will make you more money is a bad bet, and that includes college. You will get out of college what you put into it. If you don't appreciate the skills you can learn there or if you don't make use of them when you leave, you are just wasting an investment. If you view it as doing 4 years time and then you come out with a piece of paper and someone will give you a high paying job - that isn't the way things work anymore. If that is your feeling, do yourself a favor and skip it and start searching for your niche in the workforce and start earning and gaining experience.
A problem for both Sonoma State and Humbolt is also a significant move toward staying closer to home (and indeed often living at home). The chart above reflected CSU tuition which still is something of a bargain in higher ed land. What is KILLER is paying 2-3-4K a month in living expenses. Meanwhile Mom and Dad still likely have the house and are not renting out your room (though I am considering ;-) So if you are iin area with flat (or in the case of Humboldt declining) population you are seriously screwed.
But some CSU saw record applications. SDSU is highly competitive. Ditto SLO. Long Beach is also competitive for many majors. The problem is that the system is built with the idea of more residential college going which has declined over time.
(BTW this isn't the ONLY reason - CSUEB and SF state are also under enrollment pressures but it is a contributing factor - and I would point out the dearth of college age kids in SF proper).
But some CSU saw record applications. SDSU is highly competitive. Ditto SLO. Long Beach is also competitive for many majors. The problem is that the system is built with the idea of more residential college going which has declined over time.
(BTW this isn't the ONLY reason - CSUEB and SF state are also under enrollment pressures but it is a contributing factor - and I would point out the dearth of college age kids in SF proper).
Take care of your Chicken
Great post. I would add one thing to the cost discussion. Believe it or not, the true cost of college is actually decreasing, not increasing. There is data from the College Board showing net cost has actually decreased for both public and private schools over the last decade. While the "sticker price" of private universities have significantly increased, data from the National Association of College and University Business Officers shows that through grants undergraduates are discounted nearly 52% of the tuition costs. In 2023-2024, 90% of first-time undergraduates received aid from the universities covering an average of 62% of published tuition and fees. Those who can afford it are paying the full cost, but that is not true for most of the undergraduates. In effect, higher income students are helping to subsidize lower income students.BearlyCareAnymore said:1. I keep hearing an argument that college is not financially worth it. This just flat out goes against all statistical evidence regarding the lifetime earnings of college graduates vs some college vs. high school graduates. The question is not close. It is also not close that college graduates are significantly more insulated from increases in unemployment rates.HearstMining said:
Per the Chron, so behind their paywall (although this can occasionally be defeated via judicious use of the ESC key as the article paints on your screen). Is this a harbinger of things to come? As funding from the state and feds declines, and students/parents push back on fee hikes, colleges are not going to risk their very existence just so athletes can play a sport.
2. Even more common is the argument that "certain majors" aren't worth it. This also flat out goes against statistical evidence which shows those with degrees in "certain majors" have high lifetime earnings, comparable or higher than other majors people associate with high income potential. As an example, the dean of students at one of my kids' university orientations cited a statistic that those in the 55th percentile of earners among Art History majors (so slightly above average), are on par with those in the 45th percentile of earners among biology majors (so slightly below average). Their point being that doing something that you are passionate and good at and succeeding is far more valuable than doing something you are not passionate about and not good at because you perceive it to be a more lucrative field.
What is definitely true is that engineers kick butt in terms of career earnings. However, time after time, statistics show career earnings in many "certain majors" eclipse those of more accepted fields like business majors over a lifetime. It is certainly true that it will be more difficult to get your first job. It is true that you will struggle more early in your career. But many fields of study that do not lead to an instant career path teach skills that are often overlooked and undervalued that lead people to overtake their counterparts later in their career. The statistics on this have been pretty consistent over decades.
What I would argue to anyone is that we live in a world that changes quickly and you cannot count on any one skill sustaining you through a 40-50 year working career. You better be able to adapt. Whether it is college, trade school, or some other path, you need to separate yourself from others. If 1000 other people can do what you do, the market will ultimately catch up with you and you will be screwed.
3. Obviously costs of college education have been soaring. The fact that it is still an excellent investment doesn't mean it is an investment everyone can afford. Over a lifetime, buying stocks is pretty much always a good investment, but that doesn't mean everyone can throw a couple hundred grand into stocks. No one asks why most Americans don't buy substantial amounts of stocks and then blames the ROI on stocks for the issue. We acknowledge that most people can't afford to invest heavily in the stock market. College is a huge outlay that takes years to recoup. The opportunity cost is also tremendous. Many people just can't do that. Many people could but prefer short term rewards to long term gains. It is pretty much obvious Econ 1 stuff that as costs skyrocket, demand goes down.
4. Millennials were the next spike in population corresponding with the boomer spike and they are no longer of college age. Our birthrate is in steady decline and is at its lowest point. Colleges that saw dramatically escalating enrollment are finding they are on the other side of the hump. But beware those who bundle 2 year and 4 year institutions together statistically. The percentage of young people enrolling in 2 year institutions has fallen precipitously, but the percentage enrolled in 4 year institutions has actually increased over the past 10 years.
5. I don't know if this has an actual impact on the numbers (actually, I doubt it), but going to most Cal State universities as a freshman or sophomore is just plain a bad financial value unless you place an exorbitant value on campus experience. JC's in California cost virtually nothing. If you are an above average student at all, you have an extremely, extremely good chance of getting into a UC out of JC. You are all but assured of getting into a Cal State. In the specific example of Sonoma State, tuition alone ins $8600 more than going to a JC. Hard to see the value proposition of going to Sonoma State for 4 years vs. going to JC for 2 and Sonoma State for 2. (not to mention that you are much more likely to get into a better school after 2 years at JC). There are notable exceptions to this dynamic in the Cal State system - schools that are more highly sought after - but this is the current situation for the rank and file Cal states.
6. All of that said, doing something you are not interested in because you think it will make you more money is a bad bet, and that includes college. You will get out of college what you put into it. If you don't appreciate the skills you can learn there or if you don't make use of them when you leave, you are just wasting an investment. If you view it as doing 4 years time and then you come out with a piece of paper and someone will give you a high paying job - that isn't the way things work anymore. If that is your feeling, do yourself a favor and skip it and start searching for your niche in the workforce and start earning and gaining experience.
Featured Stories
See All
Cal To Honor Al Grigsby With Pete Newell Award
by Cal Athletics
Bears Crush Panthers 84-53 to Close Out Homestand
by Jim McGill
Bears Stumble Against Syracuse
by Cal Athletics
2024 vs 2025 Program Overview - The Coaching Staff
by Bear Insider
Bears Have Big Group on Tap For Junior Day This Weekend
by Jim McGill