5 ms·

> So at 17 or 18, with little life experience, students are supposed to make a financed Well a good start might be simply avoiding majors that you know will go

by gist 10y ago

> So at 17 or 18, with little life experience, students are supposed to make a financed Well a good start might be simply avoiding majors that you know will go nowhere, don't you think? Like music, art and certain liberal arts. Even when I went to school it was known to be hard to get a job in those fields. But yet people still choose them and tried to "follow their passion". My passion was to learn something where I could earn a living. And I am having plenty of fun doing that. Of course you can't predict the future. But you can certainly improve your chances by giving some thought to what is not a good choice and hasn't ever really been.

dv_dt 10y ago
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying here. Sometimes I think the same. But ultimately I think it's premature optimization for society to directly build in economic earning value onto the cost of education. Maybe every major should show prospective students the typical earnings of that major as an indirect influence - but I don't think building that correlation into direct budgeting is a good thing to do in the long term. It would do far more good to first get tuition costs under control and then maybe use the direct funding path as a way where influence on public universities could be had. However, I think society ends up stronger if there's something of a firewall preventing politicians from putting too many specific policy requirements attached to that funding.
legutierr 10y ago
If some music, art or writing program is a top program, we want the best, most passionate people capable doing that work to be there, regardless of how much money their parents had. We all benefit if our most talented artists, musicians, writers and filmmakers are able to work in their chosen field. It's how culture moves forward, and it makes all our lives better. What you seem to be saying is that only the rich and well-off should pursue those fields, while the poor and middle class keep their heads down to "earn a living." Can't you see how that policy will impact your life negatively? I would hate to live in that world. Wouldn't you?
- rayiner 10y ago
  False premise: education is necessary for society to develop musicians, artists, and writers. Hemingway was a "mere" high school graduate.
  - legutierr 10y ago
    I did not mean to imply that a formal arts education is necessary to train a great artist. But you seem to be saying that great artists don't need any education or training at all! Hemingway did not spring to life a great writer. He might have only completed high school, but high school was enough to get him a reporting job at age 18, and it was a reporting job that sent him to Paris, where he found Gertrude Stein, Ezra Pound, James Joyce, F Scott Fitzgerald. I would call that an education. The original point I tried to make was this: by expecting all poor and middle-class kids to spend their formative years preparing for practical, low-risk careers -- at the expense of their artistic "passions" -- we are depriving ourselves of their creative output. Things were different 100 years ago. If Hemingway didn't go to college, it was because he didn't need to. He was lucky enough to live at a time when you could work as a journalist at age 18 having no greater qualifications than a high school diploma and a few articles published in the school newspaper. What would Hemingway do today? Following gist's advice, he would go to college and study computer science or biomedical engineering. Or maybe he would substitute San Fransisco for Paris, and instead of A Farewell To Arms we would have another social-some-shit to add to the cannon of timeless iPhone apps. But study journalism or English literature with a view towards becoming a reporter or (gasp) a fiction writer? Out of the question. You know those majors won't go anywhere. You need to earn a living.
radarsat1 10y ago
So is your answer that people who choose "music, art and certain liberal arts" deserve the problems they get from college debt? Does that imply that you are fine with a society where these career paths effectively do not exist?
- tptacek 10y ago
  I don't think the word "deserve" has to factor into it, but there's an ROI function not only for your major, but for the college you choose to pursue that major at.
  - radarsat1 10y ago
    Agreed, but that's a problem. Or at least, as long as we decide that "music, art and liberal arts" are things we want people to be able to do. If we decide those are not good things for people to do, then sure, make it difficult for them, but at least let's put the cards on the table. Otherwise I find that this train of thought has a "blaming the victim" element to it that I find distasteful.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      You've evaded my point. I'm saying, you can get a music degree without paying to do it at a top tier university. With remunerative degrees, you can at least make the argument that selective schools gate selective employers, and so expensive colleges can be a necessity. But it's harder to make that argument for music or art. The question isn't whether you should study art. It's how much of a premium you should pay to study it at an elite school.
      - radarsat1 10y ago
        That's a fair point. I guess we should ask then why people do it. Is it because they are stupid? (Maybe, sometimes.) Or is there something about elite schools that are attractive for musicians, despite the risk of not getting a remunerative career out of it? Should we be doing something about that? In any case, you seem to be narrowing the domain more and more here, from "education is difficult for people to afford", to "education is difficult for artists to afford", to "education is difficult for artists who went to elite schools to afford." The article, on the other hand, is saying that even if you do make enough to get by, it's still hard to pay for school.

by gist 10y ago

dv_dt 10y ago

I'm sympathetic to what you're saying here. Sometimes I think the same. But ultimately I think it's premature optimization for society to directly build in economic earning value onto the cost of education. Maybe every major should show prospective students the typical earnings of that major as an indirect influence - but I don't think building that correlation into direct budgeting is a good thing to do in the long term. It would do far more good to first get tuition costs under control and then maybe use the direct funding path as a way where influence on public universities could be had. However, I think society ends up stronger if there's something of a firewall preventing politicians from putting too many specific policy requirements attached to that funding.

legutierr 10y ago

If some music, art or writing program is a top program, we want the best, most passionate people capable doing that work to be there, regardless of how much money their parents had. We all benefit if our most talented artists, musicians, writers and filmmakers are able to work in their chosen field. It's how culture moves forward, and it makes all our lives better. What you seem to be saying is that only the rich and well-off should pursue those fields, while the poor and middle class keep their heads down to "earn a living." Can't you see how that policy will impact your life negatively? I would hate to live in that world. Wouldn't you?

rayiner 10y ago
False premise: education is necessary for society to develop musicians, artists, and writers. Hemingway was a "mere" high school graduate.
- legutierr 10y ago
  I did not mean to imply that a formal arts education is necessary to train a great artist. But you seem to be saying that great artists don't need any education or training at all! Hemingway did not spring to life a great writer. He might have only completed high school, but high school was enough to get him a reporting job at age 18, and it was a reporting job that sent him to Paris, where he found Gertrude Stein, Ezra Pound, James Joyce, F Scott Fitzgerald. I would call that an education. The original point I tried to make was this: by expecting all poor and middle-class kids to spend their formative years preparing for practical, low-risk careers -- at the expense of their artistic "passions" -- we are depriving ourselves of their creative output. Things were different 100 years ago. If Hemingway didn't go to college, it was because he didn't need to. He was lucky enough to live at a time when you could work as a journalist at age 18 having no greater qualifications than a high school diploma and a few articles published in the school newspaper. What would Hemingway do today? Following gist's advice, he would go to college and study computer science or biomedical engineering. Or maybe he would substitute San Fransisco for Paris, and instead of A Farewell To Arms we would have another social-some-shit to add to the cannon of timeless iPhone apps. But study journalism or English literature with a view towards becoming a reporter or (gasp) a fiction writer? Out of the question. You know those majors won't go anywhere. You need to earn a living.

radarsat1 10y ago

So is your answer that people who choose "music, art and certain liberal arts" deserve the problems they get from college debt? Does that imply that you are fine with a society where these career paths effectively do not exist?

tptacek 10y ago
I don't think the word "deserve" has to factor into it, but there's an ROI function not only for your major, but for the college you choose to pursue that major at.
- radarsat1 10y ago
  Agreed, but that's a problem. Or at least, as long as we decide that "music, art and liberal arts" are things we want people to be able to do. If we decide those are not good things for people to do, then sure, make it difficult for them, but at least let's put the cards on the table. Otherwise I find that this train of thought has a "blaming the victim" element to it that I find distasteful.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You've evaded my point. I'm saying, you can get a music degree without paying to do it at a top tier university. With remunerative degrees, you can at least make the argument that selective schools gate selective employers, and so expensive colleges can be a necessity. But it's harder to make that argument for music or art. The question isn't whether you should study art. It's how much of a premium you should pay to study it at an elite school.
    - radarsat1 10y ago
      That's a fair point. I guess we should ask then why people do it. Is it because they are stupid? (Maybe, sometimes.) Or is there something about elite schools that are attractive for musicians, despite the risk of not getting a remunerative career out of it? Should we be doing something about that? In any case, you seem to be narrowing the domain more and more here, from "education is difficult for people to afford", to "education is difficult for artists to afford", to "education is difficult for artists who went to elite schools to afford." The article, on the other hand, is saying that even if you do make enough to get by, it's still hard to pay for school.