7 ms·

Sorry, but all of those sound like things that are going to help people who were already going to be successful to be even more successful. College debt, for e

Sorry, but all of those sound like things that are going to help people who were already going to be successful to be even more successful. College debt, for example, is a problem for those who were successful enough to get into college into the first place, and who, simply by getting into college, are already increasing their lifetime earnings by millions of dollars. Technological services for K-12 ed is pushing a string. The largest predictor of a student's performance is the educational level and socioeconomic status of their parents, not any in-school factor. Classroom technology offers the most benefit to the students best equipped to make use of it, which is again the privileged and better-prepared students. Increased political engagement helps those who already have enough leisure and status to spend time following and engaging politics. Poverty is a more basic problem.

tptacek 11y ago
I'm not a big believer in minimizing college debt. I'm a believer in minimizing college. People who grow up in wealthy families naturally find themselves on a college track that seamlessly routes them to elite schools when they're 18 years old. People who grow up in poverty aren't on that track and might not even have much agency (due to their circumstances, requirements to work young, entanglements with the law) until they're in their 20s. The fastest growing stable white collar jobs all require a 4-year degree. Even if college were free, people of reduced means wouldn't have equal access to it, because taking 4 years off the workforce isn't an option for most people. Meanwhile: a 4-year degree has actually not much value in predicting one's ability to perform as e.g. an HR director. So what I'm suggesting is the startup that finds a way to turn smart, enterprising 24 year olds working in retail jobs into HR directors, credibly enough that they'll be competitive with Russian Lit majors. (I'm not picking on Russian Lit; it's just, that's the undergrad degree my sister got at UChicago before becoming a lawyer, so it's the first one that pops into my head).
- fijal 11y ago
  College in Poland is free and there are options for very limited stipends which can sustain you (albeit on a poverty level). That did lift me from a poor, but educated, family into the world of computer software and a relatively successful career it seems. As it did for countless of my peers. Please don't discount free education as "not changing much", in the US I would be probably working at Mc Donalds or dealing crack and in jail.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I'm not opposed to free education. I'm certain free education is better than $150k education. But gating stable employment on 4-year degrees is problematic for reasons other than tuition costs, and, equally important to this thread, startups probably can't make college free, but they might be able to replace college for a pretty big set of white collar jobs.
    - fijal 11y ago
      sorry, misunderstood you, apologies.
    - fscherer 11y ago
      I think colleges should educate people and not only train them for a job. This is only really viable with free education and much harder to do with the alternatives which are discussed right now.
      - waterlesscloud 11y ago
        Sure, but training them for an economically viable life is certainly higher priority than a so-called well-rounded education.
        jacobush 11y ago
        I agree, otherwise the proles might become too uppity.
        samcodes 11y ago
        Thank you so much for teaching me the term "proles."
        jacobush 11y ago
        Haha, it's so useful. :)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 11y ago
  One concern is that, especially during the transition, job descriptions requiring "4-year college degree" would become a de-facto (and legal) means of discriminating by class or social status, assuming that the rich would overwhelmingly continue to send their kids to college.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    My concern is that they already are that.
  - everly 11y ago
    They almost certainly have already become that.
- Joeri 11y ago
  Maybe the trick is to view college not as a service you must buy, but as a service you must perform. An educated populace is a productive one. Maybe we should pay people a living wage to go to college. I can think of far worse ways to spend taxpayer money.
- jtcond13 11y ago
  It would be helpful if white-collar employers were more willing to hiring eighteen-year-olds. Many of my twenty-something (and older) peers at $Megacorp actually started this way, with some earning a bachelor's degree part-time.
- andrewjl 11y ago
  I have a theory that making education free and universally accessible, meaning anyone who is willing to put in the time can get a bachelor's degree in any major they want, would remove the majority of the signaling effect that a 4 year degree has. There would still be some signaling from holders of elite college degrees, but I argue that it is a separate problem. I do agree with you in principle about the HR director thing. College is treated too much like a white collar vocational school.
  - ollifi 11y ago
    Coming from a place with free university education I don't think that is right. More accessible university education, more people get university education, this raises the bar in all fields. HR still prefers somebody who went through the trouble of getting the paper as it signals putting the effort in. Now many jobs that previosly didn't need university education have such applicants and it becomes more mandatory to get one in order to compete. And why would you not, it is free after all. In the end more people get higher education. it won't necessary help you getting a better job but I think it is good for society anyway. For many others this "useless over education" is one of the reasons to introduce fees to schools. To make vocational studies worth more again and force people to think education more like an investment.
    - baddox 11y ago
      The signaling from a college degree comes directly and only from the fact that getting that degree is difficult. If you make getting the degree easier, you reduce the efficacy of the signal (assuming all the relevant people are aware of the change in difficulty). Of course, employers could start looking at other things, like grades or other academic achievements, to use as new signals.
      - ollifi 11y ago
        Yes that's true. I meant making education more accesible in terms of making it free not making it less difficult. It becomes cheaper for people to give it a shot and more people end up graduating. It's true that this devalues the achievement and nobody really can hire you just because you graduated. On the other hand in a society where most of your peers have (devalued) university education you won't even get to job interview without one.
- DrScump 11y ago
  <People who grow up in poverty aren't on that track and might not even have much agency (due to their circumstances, requirements to work young, entanglements with the law)> Why do you equate poverty with inevitable entanglements with the law? In my experience, those of us who had to work (formally employed) young are less likely to have entanglements with the law, as one natural result of spending time working is having less idle time in which to get into trouble.
mc32 11y ago
I think you're right it doesn't help those who don't have a culture of education. I.e. people who "are first in the family to attend college/uni" of which many are minorities but also a great many are poor whites. But.... It does help a lot of kids who find it hard to afford college/uni while also having other responsibilities. Those people who sell a pint here and there to afford gas to get to class, etc. It's not an insignificant amount of people. So chip at this first, then chip away at the abjectly poor or who simply don't think they have a chance at college/uni. Of course there is always the danger of human nature wanting to claim, I went to uni as told but still can't get a job. That is it's not just a rite of passage, you have to show personal progress.
millermp12 11y ago
eugenics?

tptacek 11y ago

I'm not a big believer in minimizing college debt. I'm a believer in minimizing college. People who grow up in wealthy families naturally find themselves on a college track that seamlessly routes them to elite schools when they're 18 years old. People who grow up in poverty aren't on that track and might not even have much agency (due to their circumstances, requirements to work young, entanglements with the law) until they're in their 20s. The fastest growing stable white collar jobs all require a 4-year degree. Even if college were free, people of reduced means wouldn't have equal access to it, because taking 4 years off the workforce isn't an option for most people. Meanwhile: a 4-year degree has actually not much value in predicting one's ability to perform as e.g. an HR director. So what I'm suggesting is the startup that finds a way to turn smart, enterprising 24 year olds working in retail jobs into HR directors, credibly enough that they'll be competitive with Russian Lit majors. (I'm not picking on Russian Lit; it's just, that's the undergrad degree my sister got at UChicago before becoming a lawyer, so it's the first one that pops into my head).

fijal 11y ago
College in Poland is free and there are options for very limited stipends which can sustain you (albeit on a poverty level). That did lift me from a poor, but educated, family into the world of computer software and a relatively successful career it seems. As it did for countless of my peers. Please don't discount free education as "not changing much", in the US I would be probably working at Mc Donalds or dealing crack and in jail.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I'm not opposed to free education. I'm certain free education is better than $150k education. But gating stable employment on 4-year degrees is problematic for reasons other than tuition costs, and, equally important to this thread, startups probably can't make college free, but they might be able to replace college for a pretty big set of white collar jobs.
  - fijal 11y ago
    sorry, misunderstood you, apologies.
  - fscherer 11y ago
    I think colleges should educate people and not only train them for a job. This is only really viable with free education and much harder to do with the alternatives which are discussed right now.
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago
      Sure, but training them for an economically viable life is certainly higher priority than a so-called well-rounded education.
      - jacobush 11y ago
        I agree, otherwise the proles might become too uppity.
        samcodes 11y ago
        Thank you so much for teaching me the term "proles."
        jacobush 11y ago
        Haha, it's so useful. :)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sokoloff 11y ago
One concern is that, especially during the transition, job descriptions requiring "4-year college degree" would become a de-facto (and legal) means of discriminating by class or social status, assuming that the rich would overwhelmingly continue to send their kids to college.
- tptacek 11y ago
  My concern is that they already are that.
- everly 11y ago
  They almost certainly have already become that.
Joeri 11y ago
Maybe the trick is to view college not as a service you must buy, but as a service you must perform. An educated populace is a productive one. Maybe we should pay people a living wage to go to college. I can think of far worse ways to spend taxpayer money.
jtcond13 11y ago
It would be helpful if white-collar employers were more willing to hiring eighteen-year-olds. Many of my twenty-something (and older) peers at $Megacorp actually started this way, with some earning a bachelor's degree part-time.
andrewjl 11y ago
I have a theory that making education free and universally accessible, meaning anyone who is willing to put in the time can get a bachelor's degree in any major they want, would remove the majority of the signaling effect that a 4 year degree has. There would still be some signaling from holders of elite college degrees, but I argue that it is a separate problem. I do agree with you in principle about the HR director thing. College is treated too much like a white collar vocational school.
- ollifi 11y ago
  Coming from a place with free university education I don't think that is right. More accessible university education, more people get university education, this raises the bar in all fields. HR still prefers somebody who went through the trouble of getting the paper as it signals putting the effort in. Now many jobs that previosly didn't need university education have such applicants and it becomes more mandatory to get one in order to compete. And why would you not, it is free after all. In the end more people get higher education. it won't necessary help you getting a better job but I think it is good for society anyway. For many others this "useless over education" is one of the reasons to introduce fees to schools. To make vocational studies worth more again and force people to think education more like an investment.
  - baddox 11y ago
    The signaling from a college degree comes directly and only from the fact that getting that degree is difficult. If you make getting the degree easier, you reduce the efficacy of the signal (assuming all the relevant people are aware of the change in difficulty). Of course, employers could start looking at other things, like grades or other academic achievements, to use as new signals.
    - ollifi 11y ago
      Yes that's true. I meant making education more accesible in terms of making it free not making it less difficult. It becomes cheaper for people to give it a shot and more people end up graduating. It's true that this devalues the achievement and nobody really can hire you just because you graduated. On the other hand in a society where most of your peers have (devalued) university education you won't even get to job interview without one.
DrScump 11y ago
<People who grow up in poverty aren't on that track and might not even have much agency (due to their circumstances, requirements to work young, entanglements with the law)> Why do you equate poverty with inevitable entanglements with the law? In my experience, those of us who had to work (formally employed) young are less likely to have entanglements with the law, as one natural result of spending time working is having less idle time in which to get into trouble.

mc32 11y ago

I think you're right it doesn't help those who don't have a culture of education. I.e. people who "are first in the family to attend college/uni" of which many are minorities but also a great many are poor whites. But.... It does help a lot of kids who find it hard to afford college/uni while also having other responsibilities. Those people who sell a pint here and there to afford gas to get to class, etc. It's not an insignificant amount of people. So chip at this first, then chip away at the abjectly poor or who simply don't think they have a chance at college/uni. Of course there is always the danger of human nature wanting to claim, I went to uni as told but still can't get a job. That is it's not just a rite of passage, you have to show personal progress.

millermp12 11y ago

eugenics?