Key points from the article that I think are worth specifically mentioning:
The college wage premium still remains high. College educated people earn a lot more money than those who don’t have degrees, on a per hour and per year basis.
The college wealth premium has shrunk significantly, in that paying tuition and delaying entrance into the workforce is a huge up-front cost that requires much more time in the workforce to recoup, compared to previous generations.
The variance in outcomes means that even if college is a good financial decision for a majority of students, doesn’t mean that there aren’t an increasing number of graduates for whom going to college sets them back financially. Key factors include school, major, actual out-of-pocket cost of attendance, and, well, parental wealth and socioeconomic status.
Still, college is still worth it if you can attend for cheap (lower-cost schools, financial aid, scholarships, outside tuition assistance, education funds that are tax advantaged if used for education, etc.), if you choose a high earning major, or have the socioeconomic background to take advantage of the additional credential. It’s a tougher bet if you choose a less lucrative major, attend a more expensive school, or might not finish on time. And, unfortunately, it’s a lower-odds bet if you’re not white or rich or both.
The other social and political issues are interesting, but I think it’s still worth maintaining an eye on the return on investment, and making sure that’s clear to everyone making the choice of whether to go to college or not (or whether to encourage kids to go or not).
My city has a few old golf courses, but they were literally built before the surrounding areas eventually got developed. I suspect a lot of the golf courses you’re talking about originally were on the outskirts of populated areas, until population expanded past them. At that point, they might not want to move.
Maintaining that much turf probably isn’t very environmentally friendly, either.
Maybe the better way forward is for other versions of the game to increase in popularity. Obviously there’s mini golf/putt putt, but there’s also stuff like Top Golf (digitized driving range with almost a bowling-like game options using those sensors), all sorts of indoor golf simulators. If VR/AR gets better, we might see some of these other types of games become more practical replacements or spinoffs from the traditional outdoor game.
I was envisioning something more like an alternative version of the sport that turns into its own thing for amateurs, rather than as a direct replacement for the top professional tiers.
Formula 1 exists, sure, but so does all sorts of other kinds of motorsport, with all sorts of different kinds of vehicles and budgets. Rather than migrate Formula 1 over to electric vehicles, for example, the FIA just created a separate Formula E series that doesn’t replace F1. Similarly, there are lots of non-FIA racing sports that have much, much smaller budgets, to make the sport more accessible to people, from go-karts to street legal cars to motorcycles to all sorts of other vehicles.
After all, a lot of us like to play sports recreationally with modified rules than what the very, very top tier professionals play. A 3-on-3 half court basketball game is still basketball, and basketball courts can be built that accommodate that without necessarily accommodating the full court necessary for the official professional rules.
Americans Are Losing Faith in the Value of College. Whose Fault Is That? ( www.nytimes.com )
Non-paywalled link...
Can golf cure its water addiction? ( wapo.st )
Drought is making it harder for golf lovers to justify the game’s copious use of water...