There are innumerable courses in college that are, for lack of a better word, useless. Even prestigious universities, where you’d expect the utmost academic rigor, offer courses ranging from “Invented Languages” at UT-Austin to “Getting Dressed” at Princeton.
Our university has its fair share of courses that provide nothing of substance to students. I speak from personal experience when I say that taking classes like “Greek and Roman Mythology” or the “Ancient World in the Cinema” is a waste of time.
Sure, it might be fun to learn about Zeus’ multiple affairs or how Circe turned heroes into pigs. But you can just as easily—and more cheaply—learn about these with a book bought on Amazon.
Thankfully, the university does offer elective courses with direct applications post-graduation, including ones in web design and development, business analytics and foreign languages. More broadly, you can take classes in public speaking, writing, basic accounting and entrepreneurship, all of which will serve you no matter your degree or career path.
Consider the difference in the benefit of, say, learning how to invest versus recognizing prominent figures in the Renaissance. Both might interest you and both make great conversation starters. Both classes are three credit hours and require roughly the same effort and commitment. Yet, wouldn’t you agree the payoff is quite different?
I’m not saying you can’t learn to invest on your own; I certainly did. But, likewise, you can learn about the Renaissance on your own. When presented with the option, wouldn’t you rather pick the one with the highest return, financially or otherwise?
Despite investing being the most powerful tool to create wealth and retire, roughly 55% of American adults aren’t actively investing in their future. Roughly 40% of them have no money in the market whatsoever.
According to Greg McBride, chief financial analyst for the consumer financial service company Bankrate, “people who aren’t investing predominantly say it’s because they don’t have the money available to invest, or they don’t understand stocks.” This latter reason, not understanding stocks, prevents 32% of those who don’t invest from doing so.
Let’s assume that learning how to invest solves this problem. Let’s further assume that, by taking such a course, you learned how to invest two years earlier than you would have otherwise—a conservative assumption.
If you were to invest only $50 a month over a two-year differential, this would amount to $1,200 in principal and $133.94 in interest at the average rate of return of the market. As you’d learn in class, and like Benjamin Franklin once said, “Money makes money. And that money that money makes, makes money.”
The mere $1,200 you put into the market during the initial two-year period compounds over your lifetime, being worth over $100,000 when you retire, assuming you make no further contributions to it. If you keep investing $50 a month throughout your career, your assets will be worth more than six times your initial investment—$644,024.48 over 45 years.
Of course, this calculation doesn’t account for inflation. Nevertheless, that’s how much, on nominal terms, you can get by simply being two years ahead of the game with only $50 every month.
Unless taking a class in German polka history can provide you with the direct financial benefit, you’re better off removing it from your schedule request for next semester.
Samuel Camacho is a 21-year-old economics junior from Maracaibo, Venezuela.
