I looked up my W&M tuition 1984-1988. My parents paid my way - a sacrifice given a single income and dad was a college prof (read, not rolling in money). I vowed to do the same for my kids. My parents did that for two of us. My 3 boys I saved every month from the day they were born. When we got in the mid-teens I could not figure out why I was nowhere close to current costs. I went back and did the math. School was present value 2x more expensive that what my parents paid to put me through. In parent money, I was having to save 6 kids worth of college costs at the rate my parents paid. I don't buy the "Atlantic facts" above because frankly I think they are arbitrary in terms of where info (in time) was cherry picked. I doubt my situation is unique.

I always ask what the agenda of someone discouraging college (or trade school) is. I’ve seen some clear propaganda in the anti-college sector.

I have three adult children and four left to graduate high school. We educate them to be ready for college but we talk about what they want to do upon high school graduation and determine if college is the path they need to take. My oldest (now a college grad) did not really want to go to college but he did not really have another sustainable plan other than “be an author”. So, with a full tuition scholarship, he went to college and got a degree. Having the degree would open doors. We would not have recommended him to do this if it had not been free. I think much of the perception of college being a waste is people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on degrees that offer no sustainable income opportunities. They walk away with huge debt and a degree in an obscure field that offers very little chance of gainful employment. Beyond that, college as a “right of passage” has led to the acceptance of the party atmosphere where the perceived image is drunk coeds dressed in skimpy dresses and obnoxious frat boys pounding beers and hazing freshman. Attending college is just four years of putting off adulthood and too many do it with loans. Then there is the subpar, ridiculous intro classes like Comp I where a good percentage of the class does not even know how to write an essay and yet they graduated high school with honors so even the good professors are teaching to the lowest common denominator in the room. And most of the time (I have had four students take comp I at four different schools and I took it back in the day) the teacher is really just subpar themself. Regardless of that, I do think that for most careers college is important. But heading off to four years of “financial aid” that involves a good amount of loans needs to be weighed and measured against what the long term implications of carrying that dept into your post education life.

" ... because of financial aid, only the wealthiest families, less than 20 percent of all college-goers, actually pay it." Dumb question, but does "financial aid" include loans?

This: "the best question is not whether college is worth it, but under what circumstances." In discussions I've had with friends (we've all got kids either leaving home already or soon to launch), the issue is that we want to wisely evaluate whether college is a good fit on an individual basis, rather than buying the idea that it is *always* the right choice (the general message we received when we came of age in the early 2000s).

I think folks are absolutely wise to weigh the cost and return on investment of a college degree, and whether it suits their child. I am, however, suspicious of the way the narrative about college is being pushed out there (it doesn’t feel organic but like an organized push). It really feels like opportunity hoarding so that only some kids can be prepared for specific opportunities. Like how is one going to (for example) go to med school if they didn’t first go to undergrad?

Have you read Climbing Parnassus by Simmons?

People who can easily afford to send their kids to college almost always do. I think that says a great deal about the value of college. By which I certainly don’t mean to suggest that people should be taking on enormous amounts of debt for college, but as the article said, when someone says that not everybody should go to college — ask them where they’re sending their kids.

My husband and I come from a working class background. We were both first generation college graduates and neither of our siblings nor their spouses have college degrees. We are both oldest children and the only ones with college degrees and the only ones to move away from our hometown. Fast forward to our children and both of our children have advanced degrees. We saved for them to go to college but both received academic and band scholarships at a state school that covered tuition and all fees and expenses for undergrad. They made the choice to go to a state school on scholarship and use the money we saved for them to pay for grad school. My daughter has a masters degree in genetic counseling and she is a genetic counselor and an assistant professor at a college of medicine in Houston. Her masters degree tuition was covered by scholarship as well and she used the money we saved for her to pay for her apt in grad school. My son majored in International Studies, Public Policy and Arabic for undergrad and lived in Jordan for a year, where he got interested in water policy and water scarcity. He applied to a Water Science, Policy and Govt masters program at Oxford University in the UK and got in. He used the money we had saved for him to pay for that degree (which was surprisingly affordable compared to a degree at an elite college in the US). He was in the UK when Covid happened and got sent home to finish his masters program online for the final 2 months. Because the Covid Pandemic was raging when he finished his masters degree in the spring of 2020, he wasn't sure how to move forward. He applied for a number of things including jobs and law school. He ended up being offered a full scholarship to law school to major in environmental law. He lives and works as an attorney in Arizona, where water scarcity is a big issue. Neither of my kids started working life with any college debt, which I and they are extremely grateful for. None of my nieces and nephews, all in mid to late 20s, attended college for more than a semester. There is a large difference in education levels and earnings amongst the cousins. In my husband's family, that's not a problem. In my family, it is. My family has a lot of insecurity regarding educational attainment and they are outspoken about it. 🙂

"Ask them where they are sending their kids"

My kids are homeschooled, so have a comparatively weak high school diploma in the eyes of employers. We made the decision many years ago to homeschool our advanced learner in lieu of private education (which costs as much as college, but lasts 12 years instead of 4). We put that money saved into his college fund (429 plan). He’ll complete his senior year of highschool with about 60 college credits from dual enrollment at the community college, and is only considering schools which will accept those (or most of those) credits. However, he is convinced (at this point) that he wants the full 4-year college experience. That is his choice, and as a homeschool student I do think it’s the right choice to experience that social environment and build his independence. It is not the economical choice. He plans to double major. He will not be eligible for any financial aid or waved tuition based on parental/family income/credits. We’re part of that 20% subsidizing everyone else’s college experience. The cost of college for him is pretty staggering even with all of our planning. I often wonder if our planning and financial conservatism has backfired for us. Maybe we should have bought a bigger house so we’d still be paying a mortgage. Maybe we shouldn’t have saved for college. Maybe we shouldn’t have focused on building our retirement funds all these years. Maybe we should have chosen to retire early (we may do that for our second child, currently aged 11). As such, my son is not even considering top tier Ivy League schools despite being a National merit scholarship semi-finalist. We simply can’t afford it. We’ve told our kids to focus on middle tier private schools (with scholarships) or state schools (without scholarships) for undergrad, and to focus on those institutions that have research opportunities for freshman. If they feel they really need the name of top tier school on their resume then they can pursue that for grad school on their dime. This provides incentive for scholarships to stretch that college fund. Our goal is for our kids to graduate undergrad with no debt. That seems more important for starting out their adult lives than an Ivy League name. Would that assessment change if they qualified for fee-waved college expenses? Absolutely. I’m not complaining; leveling the playing field is important. I’m just explaining that the assumption that the wealthy can afford Ivy League is not always accurate. And I’m explaining our thought process. But college was never considered to be optional in our household.

Often, graduate earnings are seen as evidence that college creates economically valuable skills, when in fact its value may lie primarily in signaling to employers a person’s intelligence, persistence, conformity, and work habits. A degree may be financially valuable to the individual while being extraordinarily socially inefficient.

I don’t think college is necessarily a bad choice, but I think people are rightly looking at not just alternatives but alternative paths toward education. My oldest son attends Williamson College of the Trades. It is free, and he will graduate with high value skills as a machinist. He will also have clear paths available for turning that degree into a traditional 4 year degree. He graduates in the Spring and pursue a degree in manufacturing engineering, which will require approximately 3 semesters worth of classes. He also had a very productive gap year where he gained valuable work experience and was able to discern a better choice for him than the traditional “go get a degree in math or engineering.” My second son is enlisted in the USCG. He is currently working in engineering on a cutter while waiting for A school to become a flight mechanic, a high value skills outside the military. He also has plans to start college using the GI bill to pursue a degree in Psychology to possibly eventually become a counselor specializing in PTSD. I homeschool with the goal of producing liberally educated students. I also emphasize a college ready transcript even if my child isn’t sure they want to go to college. I want them to have options. I think people rightly question the university model where it is automatically expected that you go out of high school and extensive debt is acquired with no clear path for paying it off. We need to be rethinking the 4 year degree as the gold standard. A lot of jobs requiring a 4 year degree really shouldn’t, and vocational education has been shoe-horned into the liberal arts model, which isn’t efficient and has made the true liberal arts degree a rare commodity. We’ve gentrified a lot of jobs that used to be blue collar or learned in an apprenticeship but now require 4 years of debt even though it is not an efficient way of preparing to do that job. Its a disservice to both people who desire a traditional liberal arts degree and people who would not otherwise pursue it if the alternate path existed. We also ought to be asking why the high school diploma’s value has plummeted. There is no reason a college degree should be a filtering tool for, say, working retail. But it is, and that’s ridiculous. And if that is a measure of its “value,” then that is evidence of a broken system, not proof that college is for everyone.

In my mind the goal isn’t college, but growing up and being able to support yourself while not taking on student loans as much as possible. That has meant a winding road through college for my adult children. So far, the path has looked different for each, and so far, still no loans. Community college, military, and trade school have been developmental steps that led to university, bachelor degrees, internships, scholarships, and steps beyond.

But what is meant by financial aid? My perception is that an overwhelming amount of financial aid is in the form of loans which is only kicking the can down the road. I'd love to know I'm wrong, but personally it doesn't feel that way.

It also doesn't help that as this article points out that only the wealthiest families pay the full sticker price which means the rest of the world has no idea how much tuition actually is without going through the entire process. College tuition and medical bills are similar in the lack of transparency (despite a law saying medical costs are supposed to be readily available.)

In Michigan, sadly, the college going rate HAS dropped: “About 54.6% of Michigan's public high school graduates from the class of 2025 enrolled in college within six months, down from 56.8% the previous year and 64.7% a decade prior.” Source: bridgemi.com/talent-education/michigan-college-enrollment-rate-slips-despite-1b-in-state-scholars...

My issue is that even at state schools, you could leave with $40k + in debt. My daughter was looking to transfer to our state college after getting her associate’s. But, she would still have over $20k in debt with a teacher degree and we all know how well teachers are paid.

It’s definitely not mirage. Have you seen the cost of college? Almost six figures….a YEAR. I don’t want my child saddled with bankruptcy proof debt for the majority of their adult life. Wealth inequality will continue to grow exponentially if we continue to assume college is the default. PS My husband and I paid off 90k in college debt…from degrees we got twenty years ago.

Very Interesting.

For what it’s worth, I write best when my thinking is the most clear. Writing is often viewed as a process of pulling assorted (and often torturous) thoughts from the brain and wrangling them onto paper. For me it has always been about wrangling them within my brain into cohesive and coherent mental form and then committing them to paper (or screen). Anything else is putting the cart before the horse and feels contrived and unnatural. I don’t know how closely this hews to your theory of writing. But when I first read your philosophy of writing instruction in the intro to Writing With Skill, I nearly wept — it made perfect sense.

In college lit courses I always found that I discovered what I thought during the course of writing. Just as Britton hypothesized. I always thought it was fascinating that it took pen to paper to find out what was really in my mind. So perhaps if it is not well born out by studies since then it is because it is a personal thing and many others do not experience this phenomenon. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Writing clearly stretches both mind and soul. I agree that we need more dialogue, if it’s focused and meaningful. And though I do think there is beneficial research potential for AI application, I believe we lose part of what it can mean to be human when we outsource everything or speed up everything instead of wrestling through thoughts and organizing ideas ourselves.

I have moved to prioritizing oral recitation in my own learning and studies. If I can give an extempore explanation in lay language of the academic ideas and language being used to discuss education theories, I know I've understood my class!

I think there are different types of thinkers. Some people need to work out their ideas verbally in interaction with others to be able to write, and some people need to work out their thoughts on paper in order to be prepared to talk about them.

Well, I AM curious about the push that’s out now to return to pen and paper in elementary and middle schools since the tablet-led learning popular in recent years was in most opinions a failure.

I’ve believed in the power of discussion since my Honors 101 class with Dr. Michael Harrington at Ole Miss many years ago. It was the first time anyone had asked me to think instead of regurgitate. It changed the way I learned and, years later, shaped the way I teach.

At this point I welcome all new ideas about how to work through this rather than insisting students return to times of the past. The cat is out of the bag!

It's clearly time for everyone to re-read Socrates's dialogue with Phaedrus, touching on the differences between discourse and rhetoric! (Or something similar to that; it's been a while, and clearly the practice of reading and writing has dulled my memory and thus my mind!)

I value and enjoy writing and have a lot of qualms about AI taking over written words with slop, but I also can see that at least one of my kids can't be bribed or threatened to write more than 3 sentences, but could have a detailed and interactive conversation (or narrate) about wolves being reintroduced to Yellowstone, the benefits of a base 60 math system, or the challenges of Elgar's cello concerto. He certainly does a lot of thinking without a lot of writing.

This is an intriguing thought. I can imagine that having a robust debate or even just a well worded defense of our position would be a wonderful test.

I had to talk it through in order to write. I love the idea that both are essential skills but different, and this is how I intuitively taught my homeschoolers. I definitely think making little kids who can barely do the mechanics of writing letters on paper, who are actively still learning to decode words in reading and haven’t encountered enough words to have a very complete grasp of spelling, who don’t know conventions of English grammar and punctuation plus making them come up with stories was way too much. We broke these into hopefully enjoyable separate things with no pressure for many years and focused on reading, and listen while mom read. I loved our discussions, all though high school. I actually think this is true. I like it. But I love cultivating good writing too….

Thank you for posting this! I recently started teaching a writing, speech, and argumentation course for homeschooled high school students and these are the exact waters I’m surfing right now. We have to have better answers than just a brake pedal (though we need that too!) Resonating MAJORLY with the idea that essays do not equal engagement with content. My students are eager to debate and to learn the principles of good communication skills - and they want to do it in real time. I’m assigning them writing to help them organize their thoughts, but not as a final measure of critical thinking. This gives me a lot to think about, thanks!

When I taught an online honors course based on your book, "The Story of Western Science," I relied heavily upon live online interaction. I led the discussions of the first few chapters, to model my expectations; after that, for the rest of the book, the students led 85% of the class time, each one signing up for a few chapters. The lead student would do some additional background reading, and develop discussion questions (presentations optional). I might help wrap up, depending on how needful it felt, and then I'd make a brief introduction to the next chapter and do a bit of tying the threads together. The students also maintained a group interactive timeline, which they loved. We did also have interactive discussion boards for the time between classes, where they helped each other with concepts and questions, but again those were not a significant part of the grading scheme. While I did require a *short* 1-3 page reflection essay at the end of each unit, the heart of the course-- and most of the grading-- depended on those discussion sections. I loved teaching it, the students were engaged enough in the material that they didn't shy away from the public speaking and leadership, and I had minimal worries about AI or other forms of cheating. I did use a rubric for the discussion leading and participation, to ensure some measure of objectivity, but in the end most of the students did well, and those that didn't, often admitted as much to me even before grades were assigned; it was a class where students developed a good sense of whether they were putting in their best effort or not. I think the model has its pros and cons just like any other plan, but as far as the students and I were concerned, it was pretty effective at getting them to engage with the material at more than a superficial level, and they couldn't just cram together an essay ten minutes before class to get a grade.

This is the thing that is and will shut my 2e kids out of academia and other fields. Which is sad for them, but also a loss for those fields because -not just mom pride- their unique ways of processing and challenging mean you don’t ever get the expected response. When quizzed orally, or able to present, etc they have never failed to make an impression. But when even math requires writing, and that’s the thing your brain can’t process, what can be done? They both feel like failures or question their documented abilities. I know why written work came into play, it reduced stress on poor test takers, provided data, etc. but it also bypassed those who weren’t able to spit out a reflection paper to prove they read the chapter in six classes, or explain how they got the answer in math class. As we now homeschool, we use a mastery approach, but I don’t know where that will help at the college level. Sadly, my philosopher will not easily be able to access any course of study that starts with an essay for entry. He might just be an audit for personal development student for life while trying to find work to support that.

I found this very interesting. The small college that I work at is trying to be proactive with regards to how we handle AI in the classroom, but it has certainly been a struggle, this semester in particular.

Marti Eads you came to mind when reading this. Somehow I remember you helping us to both write AND think in your college classes 😃

I'm disposed to care about reading and conversation as methods toward thinking (and particularly communal ones!), but I found this essay difficult to take seriously after its ridiculous oversimplification: "Most college professors I know believe that students learn to think — critically, creatively, reflectively, tenaciously — only by writing." It's hard for me to believe that any of those known professors would believe themselves justly characterized by that sentence. It's really fun to generalize about colleges and college professors these days, apparently.

The reason we chose a classical education for our homeschool - we taught our kids how to think, evaluate and learn by asking good questions, and then how to write persuasively from what they discovered.

So basically a seminar. Well, duh! But both discussions and writing should be part of a good education. 

“Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write." ~John Adams Is Adams identifying a hierarchy here?