5 ms·

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 fi

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.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        "Stupid" is not the word I would use, but I have no trouble believing that status signaling which might be genuinely important for law schools (for a career as a corp lawyer, go to a top-tier school or don't bother at all) might routinely be improperly applied to other fields. Put yourself in the mind of a 16 year old (I'm a parent to one, so I might have an easier or a harder time doing that). Kids mostly have no idea at all what their career is, but they're all attuned to the admissions/status game. I'm not narrowing the argument, so much as I'm trying to support the argument that fewer kids should take on large debt (and stress!) getting into elite colleges; more should go to lower-tier or even community colleges until they have a better idea what they want to do, and then transfer to the Right School when they can make an informed decision. Again, I might have an idiosyncratic view of this, since I didn't really go to college at all (I went for a single summer semester when I was 19).

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.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      "Stupid" is not the word I would use, but I have no trouble believing that status signaling which might be genuinely important for law schools (for a career as a corp lawyer, go to a top-tier school or don't bother at all) might routinely be improperly applied to other fields. Put yourself in the mind of a 16 year old (I'm a parent to one, so I might have an easier or a harder time doing that). Kids mostly have no idea at all what their career is, but they're all attuned to the admissions/status game. I'm not narrowing the argument, so much as I'm trying to support the argument that fewer kids should take on large debt (and stress!) getting into elite colleges; more should go to lower-tier or even community colleges until they have a better idea what they want to do, and then transfer to the Right School when they can make an informed decision. Again, I might have an idiosyncratic view of this, since I didn't really go to college at all (I went for a single summer semester when I was 19).