Showing posts with label investing in education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label investing in education. Show all posts

Why College Isn't for Everyone


By  on April 09, 2012



A person who compares the annual earnings of college and high school graduates would no doubt conclude that higher education is a good investment—the present value of the college earnings premium (the better part of $1 million) seemingly far outdistances college costs, yielding a high rate of return. But for many, attending college is unequivocally not the right decision on purely economic grounds.

First of all, college graduates on average are smarter and have better work habits than high school graduates. Those who graduated from college were better students in high school, for example. Thus, at least a portion of the earnings premium associated with college has nothing to do with college per se, but rather with other traits.

Second, a goodly proportion (more than 40 percent) of those attending four-year colleges full-time fail to graduate, even within six years. At some colleges, the dropout rate is strikingly higher. While college students sometimes still gain marketable skills from partial attendance, others end up taking jobs that are often given to high school graduates, making little more money but having college debts and some lost earnings accrued while unsuccessfully pursing a degree.

Third, not everyone is average. A non-swimmer trying to cross a stream that on average is three feet deep might drown because part of the stream is seven feet in depth. The same kind of thing sometimes happens to college graduates too entranced by statistics on averages. Earnings vary considerably between the graduates of different schools, and within schools, earnings differ a great deal between majors. Accounting, computer science, and engineering majors, for example, almost always make more than those majoring in education, social work, or ethnic studies.

Fourth, the number of new college graduates far exceeds the growth in the number of technical, managerial, and professional jobs where graduates traditionally have gravitated. As a consequence, we have a new phenomenon: underemployed college graduates doing jobs historically performed by those with much less education. We have, for example, more than 100,000 janitors with college degrees, and 16,000 degree-holding parking lot attendants.

Does this mean no one should go to college? Of course not. First of all, college is more than training for a career, and many might benefit from the social and non-purely academic aspects of advanced schooling, even if the rate of return on college as a financial investment is low. Second, high school students with certain attributes are far less likely to drop out of school, and are likely to equal or excel the average statistics.

Students who do well in high school and on college entrance exams are much more likely to graduate. Those going to private schools may pay more in tuition, but they also have lower dropout rates. Those majoring in some subjects, such as education or one of the humanities, can sometimes improve their job situation by double majoring or earning a minor in, say, economics.

As a general rule, I would say graduates in the top quarter of their class at a high-quality high school should go on to a four-year degree program, while those in the bottom quarter of their class at a high school with a mediocre educational reputation should not (opting instead for alternative methods of credentialing and training).

Those in between should consider perhaps doing a two-year program and then transferring to a four-year school. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but it is important for us to keep in mind that college is not for everyone.


Richard Vedder directs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity and teaches economic at Ohio University

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-09/why-college-isnt-for-everyone

Why not start a portfolio for your child, like Simple Soul does for his daughter, Nora?


[quote author=soulsimple link=topic=27804.msg735122#msg735122 date=1328783721]
http://www.investlah.com/forum/index.php/topic,27804.0.html
goals for her portfolio.
after she was borned i started a little portfolio for her. hope that it grows well till she is 20. simple goal of 15% returns yearly. hope to add funds yearly into it(on top of dividends received) n might diversify into diff assets as time n opportunity permits.
how she is faring ok(i guess). pls feel free to share your opinions.
 :)
[/quote]


Nora was born on 8.9.2011.  Her father, Simple Soul started a portfolio for her.  Here is her portfolio.
http://www.investlah.com/forum/index.php/topic,27804.msg735140.html#msg735140

                 Avg. Price         9.3.2012           % Gain
Dlady............RM 19.8 ......RM.29.9............ 51.01%
GuanChg......... 2.183...........2.61...........19.56%
LPI..................12.29..........13.62..........10.82%
Nestle..............47.46..........56.24..........18.50%
Padini.............. 0.998..........1.52............52.30%
PetDag.............16.02..........18.36.........14.61%
UtdPlt.............. 17.36...........25............. 44.01%

Let's have a good look.  It is a portfolio of 7 stocks that are highly selected, that is, a concentrated portfolio.  5 of these stocks are from the consumer sector (Dlady, GuanChg, Nestle, Padini and PetDag), 1 from the insurance sector and 1 from the plantation sector.

All these companies are growing their revenues and earnings year on year.  Their businesses also throw up a lot of free cash flows.  All give dividends.  Another feature common to all these companies is they are growth companies, growing at various rates.  

What about their durable competitive advantage and economic moats?  Yes, these businesses, except UtdPlt do have these qualities.  UtdPlt is a well run plantation company and presently enjoy the good returns due to the high price from the crude palm oil.  CPO prices can be cyclical and CPO is traded like a commodity with its price determined by supply and demand.

By buying these companies at a time when the market was down in September 2011 and last quarter of 2011, Simple Soul has managed to buy these wonderful companies at fair or bargain prices.  The market is often volatile and in the short run, psychological factors drive stock prices.  However, over the long term, the stock prices are driven by fundamental factors.  By staying with wonderful companies with durable competitive advantage and economic moat, this portfolio is well constructed to protect against any downside risk and with a promise of a fairly good return.

Let's study the gains of the individual companies in this portfolio over this short period since its inception in September.  For the smart and shrewd investor, the like of Simple Soul, it is comforting to know that he can find bargains in September when everyone was leaving the market in disgust.  But this isn't surprising for someone who practises value investing.  Another point of note is to realise that it is not uncommon to see a stock price going up 50% or down the equivalent 30% within a short period of 1 year.  3 stocks in this portfolio have gone up about 50%.  The gains in the other 4 stocks are in the teens.  Who said that you have to invest in "lousy" penny stocks to seek such gains?  

However, the long term performance of this fairly concentrated portfolio will track the earnings growth of the individual stocks.  For this, Simple Soul has certainly selected his stocks well.

This is a story of a caring father who is investing for his daughter Nora.  Warren Buffett started his investing at the age of 13 years, and seriously so in his early 20s.  As Nora has a good 20 years headstart in her investing career and knowing the power of compounding, I shudder to project her networth when she too reaches her age of 80s. :-)

Well, Nora will realise someday how lucky she is having a caring father who has such a foresight.  Happy Investing to Simple Soul,