I think you may have misread something. 11% is closer to the unemployment or underemployment rate for recent grads, not the employment rate.

There may have been a short window during the intense layoffs where you could have looked at a specific graduation cohort and found a low rate of job placement at time of graduation, but that’s a very different statistic. Many take time off after graduation, travel, choose to go to grad school, or just don’t start job searching in earnest until after graduation.

“… a site I read…” Lol

https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:...

That is, 7% are unemployed, and 19% aren't able to find comp sci jobs.

I suspect it's worse now, but probably not 11%?

That number makes me very skeptical, even in 2026. Maybe what you are saying is that the unemployment figure is 11%? That would be pretty bad compared to two years ago, but within the realm of plausible if we were seeing a major upset in the employment market.

E.g. 2024 data: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:...

Where that number is coming from, or what that time frame would be I'm not sure. But I do think it would be more interesting to see the amount of time recent grads spent unemployed or underemployed vs a presumptive snapshot of current employment state.

Sample size of <10, but a lot of my friends are at the age where their kids are graduating from undergrad recently, and pretty much zero of them are working in their field, and many are struggling to find anything at all, even retail or bartending.

Agreed, but wouldn't that be captured as 'under employment'? The stats are there for that, too, seems to be close to 20%.

I would find it believable, though not interesting, for only 11% of CS grads to have a local-median-pay, CS-related job locked in at graduation.

College either needs to be 1) way cheaper, 2) mainly for the state-subsidized exceptional and independently wealthy, or 3) move to a different model.

We have too many colleges LARPing as Harvard, and too few colleges even attempting to be affordable, practical, or actually deliver value to the ordinary person.

A couple of generations ago these were uncontroversial statements, now most people think you are crazy for suggesting such a thing. I think you can trace a lot of the problems in the western world back to this.

In some circles, it was popular to assume that academic degrees are supposed to be job training instead of education. And then that got interpreted narrowly as the skills you need in your first job after graduation. But a full career is 40+ years. Even when the job market was not changing as quickly as now, nobody could predict the skills you would need 20 years later. If you bought that viewpoint, you spent years preparing for the first few years of your career, which was obviously wasteful.

The actual value proposition was already stated 200+ years ago:

> There are undeniably certain kinds of knowledge that must be of a general nature and, more importantly, a certain cultivation of the mind and character that nobody can afford to be without. People obviously cannot be good craftworkers, merchants, soldiers or businessmen unless, regardless of their occupation, they are good, upstanding and – according to their condition – well-informed human beings and citizens. If this basis is laid through schooling, vocational skills are easily acquired later on, and a person is always free to move from one occupation to another, as so often happens in life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_ed...

Of course, colleges can be made more cost-effective by focusing more narrowly on education. For some reason, American higher education ended up being weirdly collectivist in an otherwise individualist culture. The ideal college experience became a separate stage of life between childhood and adulthood. You live on a campus outside the real world, and that campus is located in a place few people would otherwise move to. The incentives got weird, and colleges started prioritizing aspects of the college experience that are not directly related to education.

This is my sentiment. School counselors pushed everyone to colleges, but actively dissed trade schools. Forcing students to take classes in subjects they absolutely do not care about is a terrible idea for a secondary education track. If someone really just wants to learn a trade and have a nice life, there is nothing wrong with that.

Did CS course really just become coding boot camps? That seems like an insult to CS grads that came before. That's not a diss to boot camp attendees, but CS grad learns way more than how to code a specific language. However, if someone wants to just code, there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone is interested in knowing how a CPU works or how much L2 cache improves anything. There's plenty of code that can be written with GC languages so that the coder never even has to think about any of the underpinnings of the system. There's other code that'll never work like that and requires more lower level understanding. There's plenty of work to share

Specific example is medical school/residency. To "DMZ" this, they'd need to ignore anything students do during gap years, ignore research too unless it's an MD-PhD program. Everyone should be going straight through unless some personal challenge forces them to delay.

I don't look to CS as an example because it's an unusual bubble on top of all that. CS degrees also became super competitive and subsequently worthless around 2000.

I would not be confident in underemployment figures for 2025 published this early in the year. The New York Federal Reserve has published underemployment rates from 2024 only a couple months ago [1]. In it, computer science underemployment is lower than other majors, even in the mathematical and natural sciences. Aggregated new graduate underemployment has been higher in previous decades than the current level. Underemployment is the right metric to consider because it captures people who accepted lower-skill jobs in order to support themselves.

1. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:...

the parties, the co-eds, and the start of life from outside the direct supervision of parental units. Let's be honest, all of this education stuff is secondary to that.

The primary goal for attending college, as stated by both students and parents, is for preparation for entrance into the workforce and adult life.

One can go to the engineering or computer science building in almost any U.S. or Canadian university and observe a student population that doesn't party on a regular basis.

One example from 1985 onwards that i can think of is NSF funding of supercomputer centers. 40 years ago, SIMD / vector processors with boatloads of memory were not ubiquitous, nor were shared memory multicore / multiprocessors, a situation which differs with the reality today.

This NSF funding established the 5 supercomputing centers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation_Ne...

and then further downstream effects include popular access to creations from the supercomputer centers, such as Mosaic from NCSA, and an expansion of ideas outside the compuserve / aol paradigms.

I think similar situations apply for other engineering disciplines, mechanical and chemical and physics and so on. Probably true for the arts in various forms: people don't have personal pipe organs to learn Bach on, for a crazy example, but universities do.

For various industries, learning requires physical equipment too expensive for individuals, historically and still.

“ I don’t know about anyone else here, but college was not educating because I was at college. I did all of the reading and studying on my own. The classes weren’t very interesting, most of my TAs didn’t speak the native language well at all, nor did half the professors. I enjoyed my time, I made a lot of lifelong friends, and figured out how to live on my own. My buddies that enrolled in boot camp instead of college learned all those same skills, for free. Education won’t be ruined or blemished my LLMs, the whole thing was a joke to begin with. The bit that ruined college was unlimited student loans… and all of our best and brightest folks running the colleges raping students for money. It’s pathetic, evil, and somehow espoused.

I remember my calc teachers, married, last name gulick, university of maryland. The calc book was sold as the same book for calc 1/2/3. The couple, gulick were the authors. Every semester they released a new edition, the only thing that changed was the problem set numbers. So, if you took calc 1/2/3, you spent $200/semester for the same fucking book. Magical times.”

"democratization" doesn't mean more people have access to it. In voting, "more access" means "more governing power" (in principle), but in other things, it does not.

If you want to use "democratized" applied to higher-ed, it would mean more people are involved in the decision-making, leadership, or ownership.

> I just don't like it and think it is relatively new usage and a change in the older meaning of the word.

People have been using "democratize" to describe "more accessible to the masses" for a long time. Here's an example from 106 years ago in 1920 :

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Soviet_Russia/qflaAAAAM...

And 40 years ago a 1986 article of "microchip democratizing computing" : https://www.google.com/books/edition/Procom_s_1986_1987_Dent...

The additional meanings of democratize to describe "more accessible" are also documented in Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesaur...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic#:~:tex...

The people control, through voting by choosing where to attend, based on what is offered. So if someplace is not offering much that anybody wants, they don't get students, and go out of business.

The word 'democratize' is often used just for 'access' through purchasing power.

Not that I agree that money should control learning. I'd like to go back to more hardcore reading/writing/arithmetic/Compiler Design. But nobody digs that.

I guess I'm saying, yes, that is how it often used. I just don't like it and think it is relatively new usage and a change in the older meaning of the word.

In the 90's when Linux was taking off, did people say Torvalds has "democratized Unix"? (honest question - I'm not sure.)

Compare with the governing structures of public universities in (most of?) Germany where there is a "senate" composed of elected representatives of professors, students, and administrative and academic staff. Now that is approaching democratic control.

https://archive.is/wrDde

According to https://archive.is/Gyl7y the usual suspects do poorly, such as performance arts, but also things like criminal justice, environmental studies and many of the STEM majors are near or over the 50% mark as well.

People trot out the "college grads earn more" lines ad nauseum but the numbers haven't been looking good for that argument for years.

I am not seeing that? Computer Science, to use an easy example, is 19.1% underemployed. Bad, but not 50%. Even restricted to 'recent graduates' it does not look that grim? If I'm misreading the data, please correct me. I have kids approaching the age where they will be considering post-secondary choices so I am trying to keep an eye on things.

Original: Animal and plant sciences: 53%

Biochem: 42

Biology: 51

Chemistry: 42

Engineering technologies: 44

Medical technician: 47

Miscellaneous Biological Science: 47

Miscellaneous Technologies: 49

Those were the ones that caught my eye. I'm assuming the "miscellaneous" categories are for higher degrees in very niche or specific sub fields.

STEM covers all of science, math and tech outside of medicine/ health care, so the computer science and engineering tracks are okay. Even then, I'd be a little suspect, as I'd heard elsewhere that the number of graduates has increased by 110% but the market for jobs hasn't. The good old days of ZIRP and wildly too-small talent pool are likely over for good.

I've long been under the impression (might be quite wrong, of course) that a number of science fields suffer from a problem where bachelor's degrees have very little practical value because the career expectation in the field is a graduate degree.

This is probably bias on my part since my most direct exposure to the phenomenon is a couple of my extended family members who got degrees in biology but then exited higher education. They can't get jobs in biology, they are stuck working jobs that would have been just as attainable right out of high school.

So it's not that bad after all. At least you got the job, while somebody else didn't.

This is just me thinking. Never been to the US and I'm guessing that's what the discussion is about.

With that said, there's also a lot of jobs that list a college degree as a requirement that absolutely don't need one whatsoever. I suspect this is largely to cut down on the number of applicants.

Back when applications were done on paper, I recall turning one in to a prospective employer, who set it on a stack of paper around 15cm tall, which just so happened to be right next to a trash can. Now that you can apply to 50 jobs in an hour because job application sites basically pre-fill applications for you, it's insane what hiring is like in any city bigger than a small town.

Unpopular here, but I judge degree of development / maturity of societies on 2 major factors : 1) how it can take care of the vulnerable members in need - mostly heathcare, with som basic social support to help you bridge between jobs, plus obviously (mostly self-earned but managed by state) retirement; and 2) how well it invests into its future via education on all levels. Education aint luxury but empowering basic need. The question then is, how much does given country wants to empower potentially all its citizens.

It costs something, but doesnt have to be ridiculous. Apart from infrastructure and basic security & defense(since we have russia trying to conquer us all in Europe) the only really valuable investments.

The test of Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" is a pretty good way of cutting through the details and getting to what matters: if you had to be reborn as someone in any country (or, had to choose between two, if we wanted to e.g. rank them), and you couldn't control anything about the circumstances (race, social status, money, intelligence level, disabled or not, et c.) but were leaving it up to a die roll based on the demographics of the place—which would you choose? The ones you're more-inclined to choose are the better ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

And yeah, stuff like ensuring the worst-likely-case for a resident isn't that bad, and that you get a significant helping hand to improve your lot, helps a ton to make a country more appealing, in this sort of thought experiment. Far, far more than e.g. making sure the few very-best-off really run away with the prize (which improves the appeal of such a place basically not at all).

Being an engineer vs. being an engineer tech is a substantially life-quality difference.

But only if you choose to attend (I would not re-attend).

I would also suggest looking at the ABET certification interval for different campuses. It was a point of pride on our campus that we had a longer interval compared to the more established campus. We got the longer interval because ABET trusted our program to not need constant supervision.

But who is gonna pay for these? (half-/s)

Reality is, employers don't want to pay the bill for job training centers or for German-style apprenticeship education. Universities aka degree mills are what keeps most large employers afloat - depending on the system, it's either the talent themselves (US via student loans), the government itself (Germany) or a mixture of both paying the bills, while employers get fresh trained talent without paying a dime.

There is a substantial collection of things that share this need.

Universities need to do very much less that isn't directly related to research or teaching and stop pretending the lead administrator of a university is an important position. The president of a university should have the pay and prestige that goes along with administering the parking garage and cafeteria and have few responsibilities or accolades beyond that.

How will Disney get to profit off of selling college athletes as an entertainment product?

If college is accessible to even the poorest Americans, how will we maintain the claim that they are bastions of liberal brainwashing against millions of conservative people getting reasonable educations in basic things like "Political Science" that don't actually force them to become communists at all?

Who will ensure that only those who "Deserve" it can afford to get a degree through byzantine FAFSA workflows and departments? Who will ensure that being middle class means you have to pay out of pocket instead of getting a couple thousand dollars?!

There's disruption but not the good kind. The reckoning is cheating not demographics.

The article doesn't seem to mention foreigners - particularly Chinese. Are those numbers expected to grow or shrink?

Some do, some pay nothing: https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2023/05/31/minnesota...

Instead we're going to very expensive camp where most of the people flaunt laws for fun (there's no reason alcohol should be illegal for undergrads) and then grind to pass tests while not actually learning all that much OR becoming all that prepared for the world after university.

Particularly with how poorly academics are paid, it would be pretty damn easy to build a better university.

It's not at all surprising people are leaving, university degrees are becoming minimum quarter million dollar participation trophies.

The vast majority of college degrees are nowhere near that. Average in-state tuition in the US is something like $9,000.

Now, some people want a trophy from Stanford, but that's a separate topic.

Surely a large part of this problem that the article doesn't mention is that college is too fucking expensive. And an obvious solution to that is to tax rich people and use that to fund universities so that students don't have to go so far in debt in order to become productive members of society.

It's crazy how many problems today boil down to "a tiny fraction of elites are hoarding all the wealth" and yet we seem to assume the solution of "tax them and use that money to benefit others" is simply impossible.

By the way, this whole discussion completely ignores that the country is BROKE. Why are we contemplating building a new patio and switching to Whole Foods when we're not even on pace to pay off the house??

1: https://manhattan.institute/article/correcting-the-top-10-ta...

Ideally, you would want them to be intentionally educated to a specific type of manipulable gullibility, where they are receptive to your messages, but resistant to messages from other sources.

A congregation trained to say “amen” on cue.

If you care about voting, fix primary and secondary education. The universities aren't the main problem.

This is pretty silly. Any amount of new knowledge tends to make the brain more critical. The only real exception is rote memorization without application.

In the mid 90's, my affluent suburban high school was in panic mode, afraid that declining enrollment was an impending death spiral. My graduating class only had gasp 750+ students. Ten years after I graduated, entering the 2000's, enrollment had already surpassed 800 kids. The school had to build out an entire wing and completely remodel the athletic building to accomodate all the new students that were enrolling.

Likewise, attending college in North Dakota saw the same thing in the late 90's. Sheer panic the entire North Dakota college system was about to enter an enrollment desert. They wondered how can the Universities recruit more out-state students. Again, by early to mid aughts? Enrollment was off the charts. They had to buy buildings in the downtown area and convert them to a new "downtown campus" for several emerging and expanding majors. The campus saw a constant upgrade of facilities and buildings. It was completely the opposite. The entire system saw a massive transformation that continues to this day:

As of Fall 2025, the North Dakota University System (NDUS) reports a total headcount of 47,552 students, marking a 3.8% increase over 2024 and reaching its highest level since 2014. The University of North Dakota (UND) specifically achieved a record-breaking enrollment of 15,844 students in 2025, surpassing its previous 2012 record. Across the system, growth is driven by rising undergraduate numbers and an increase in high school students.

Over the past five or so years, there's been a small fluctuation, but overall the system has been surging as of late and is on solid ground for the next decade or so.

The North Dakota system is the very kind of system the article says is about to be greatly affected by the year 2040. That would require quite a drop off from where they currently are and the amount of growth they're having right now.

Again, I don't buy this since many of the people who are from out-state, many of them will settle down in North Dakota cities, get married and start families there. The cost of living is super low and its a very tax friendly state compared to many of its neighbors like Minnesota. Fargo, where NDSU (and by proxy Moorehead University and Concordia College) is located is still one of the fastest growing cities in the state, growing steadily at about a 2% pace annually. Which means the supply side of the equation isn't likely to die out any time either.

That seems more relevant to new CS grad unemployment than AI.