College is becoming less popular

What you ask for in the first sentence is def available from certain places. If institutions don't provide such data, consumers should seek to find out why. As for teaching financial literacy and planning, why should that be on the universities? It's likely that most colleges teach classes in finance, but if you're suggesting that colleges universally require such a course, that's a hard pass.
Colleges are motivated to steer students into degrees that populate. Period. It's not about needless debt, useful majors, or any of the nonsense that empty media peddle. In some schools that's engineering and in some schools it's graphic design. In some schools, it's finance or jazz studies. The Juilliard acting major might benefit from a financial literacy class, or they might benefit more from a content-specific experience that makes the difference in their career. Either might be true and with that, the finance classes should be optional.

 

What you describe is almost identical to the kid who thinks they can major in vocal performance and despite all the odds go and "make it." It's not all different either from college athletes who think they are all going to the "league." I's a very small percentage in all instances and there are powerful message being sent from multiple angles. One angle, though, is particularly enticing to the prospect and that's the "you can do it" angle. Athletes and artists in colleges are frequently manipulated to "follow their dream" by people who's professional existence depends upon them.

 

I'd stop right here. The value of a degree extends far beyond it's earning value. You might also be assuming something about financial literacy and neglecting the value of expertise in other areas.

 

Here I don't disagree, but understand that lib arts programs are all about electives. Your suggestion seems to eschew that. BTW - Liberal arts degrees may have core classes, but not liberal arts (i.e. gen ed) programs. By and large, degree programs in all disciplines have core classes and those are the content-specific courses. Lib eds are more peripheral.

 

Knowledge and education is a public good in and of itself.

 

Not necessarily true. Most degree programs are pretty transparent about the purpose, scope, and prospects associated with the degree. Some institutions advertise "transferable skills," a moniker I am not fond of.

Why should the art history major be denied the borrowing opportunity that other majors have? I hear what you are saying about Starbucks. It's why I referred to vocal performance above. OTOH there are museums, civic centers, historical sites, EPCOT, and other venues that employ people with skills in Art History.

 

While universities no doubt present programs as preparing students for careers in specific fields, they don't and can't of course guarantee employment in those fields. After all, they don't control the labor market or people's lives. Doesn't seem to me that it would be fair or wise to single out specific majors by telling students seeking these majors that they can't get loans unless they switch majors. This would be nothing more than a value judgment on what you or someone else might think is a worthy degree and it would impinge upon their freedom of choice.

*Above is leaving aside the student loan disaster and how to fund student's college education.

Plus, the effort to force students into specific majors other than the one they desire could easily backfire by spurring them to become disinterested in furthering their education, leading to higher college drop out rates. It could also lead to an even larger number of graduates not working in those fields since they didn't have any true interest in the field in first place (not different than the problem many parents face when their offspring don't want to pursue what parents believe are worthwhile careers). As it is, over 50% of college graduates don't work in the field in which they majored and many others who might, switching careers later on, or say, heading to graduate school in fields that are different than their undergraduate majors etc.

 

There are many entities, public & private, that try to collect and publish such data, including the federal government (DOE) and schools/systems themselves.But success isn't and can't only measured by job prospects that are dependent on labor market conditions and changing desires of graduates etc., but internally because the primary mission of any university is to educate.

FWIW, if a student wants to major in art history or dance etc., e.g., I would tell them go for it. Maybe their prospects for landing a job in their respective field might be fewer than majoring in a STEM field (I wouldn't hide that info), but that student is more likely to get greater intrinsic value out of their education pursuing what interests them, and the degree itself offers a greater probability of higher lifetime earnings compared to those w/o a college degree.

I can't touch student loan reforms right now in any great detail. Gets me too agitated

 

That may in large part because historically many conservatives were blue collar working class.
As the cost of college degrees skyrocket the ROI is debatable for many degrees.
Overall those with college degrees make more money than those without. But take out the high paying degree jobs(Doctors, Lawyers, IT)and I’m not certain it’s much different than skilled labor (auto workers, mechanics, welders etc).
When you can easily pull down 100k+ a year fixing cars that 50k a year social worker degree is not super attractive.

 

Welcome to capitalism. You have an unrealistic expectation here. Keep in mind that to some extent, this info is available if prospects seek it. Now let's apply a similar expectation to . . .

• Coca Cola - "98% of regular coke drinkers are obese and unhealthy!"
• Alcohol - "67% of unplanned births are due to alcohol and xxxx people were killed by drunk drivers in 2022!"
• Automobiles - "Our cars are more affordable, but also 57% more likely to break down!"
• Financial Planners - "You might make $ but we are going to get an unfair cut!"
• Restaurants - "Our food tastes great because the cooks use 92 lbs of butter each day!"

My point is that your expectation comes across as naive in the grand scheme of a capitalist society.

Loan reform, sure but based on employability is a non-starter. It's not the primary purpose of a higher education.

 

My Dad’s quote was “he puts his pants on every day the same way I do”. Blue collar AC repair man.

 

That’s where I started.

 

Easy just hire someone to manage your money for you. I know several successful people that are not the least but finance oriented who have hired financial advisors and are doing quite well.

Btw, you think finance classes are theoretical? As a former Finance major first I've heard that one. Economics is theoretical but Finance, not really.

 

Funny post. As a guy with 2 Finance degrees I think I know all that but carry on. Wasn't my point anyway.