5 ms·

To dumb to go to uni is horrible assumption to make of anyone. You should be free to follow your passion/whims and study whatever they want, love it, hate it,

by fungi 10y ago

To dumb to go to uni is horrible assumption to make of anyone. You should be free to follow your passion/whims and study whatever they want, love it, hate it, fuck it up, drop out, and try something else. Even more so when you are young inexperienced and finding your way in the world. > and the only result was them racking up tens of thousands in debt That's the problem America needs to solve.

aianus 10y ago
I don't agree that the taxpayer should pick up the tab for some 18-year-old to have fun for four years. Do whatever you want, but don't expect others to pay for you.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  I would disagree here. If you look at this solely from the perspective of someone screwing around in the public dollar sure, it's easy to say screw that. If however you instead look at it like: "This person tried this, really didn't like it, is not good at it, and probably shouldn't do it", why should we then force them into a field they can't generate value in -or- damn them to a lifetime of wage slavery to pay for the schooling they can't use? In my mind, college exists to prepare a pupil for a given field and if said pupil for any number of reasons cannot do that upon exiting that institution, why should they pay for it?
  - pliny 10y ago
    >In my mind, college exists to prepare a pupil for a given field and if said pupil for any number of reasons cannot do that upon exiting that institution, why should they pay for it? Because that was the agreement they made with the institution. Either way someone is paying for it, it can be the person who got the (partial) education, or it can be someone\s that happens to live in the same state as the person who got the education. Even if it doesn't make sense to you that people who fail their studies should pay their debts to their schools, it makes even less sense that you would transfer that debt from the pupil to someone who was neither partner to the decision to undertake studies nor a beneficiary of pupil's studies.
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
Why is it the job of the taxpayers to subsidize an 18 year olds passions/whims? I get providing aid to colleges, especially for research and to ensure an adequate number of people go into engineering, science, math, etc. But I see no reason that we should subsidize someone getting a literature degree or just fucking around.
- ionised 10y ago
  It's not for you to determine what is or isn't a worthless endeavour in someone else's life.
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    No, it's not. It's also not up to society at large to fund someone's questionably worthless endeavour.
    - ionised 10y ago
      Society does it all the time.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    Which is exactly why he suggests that there should not be a subsidy. Subsidies exist precisely to determine for others what is or isn't worthless through monetary incentive. You cannot reasonably tell someone that only they can choose what or is not worthwhile, while dangling a huge carrot in front of them. That you feel it is necessary to dangle that carrot says that you've already decided for them.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by fungi 10y ago

aianus 10y ago

I don't agree that the taxpayer should pick up the tab for some 18-year-old to have fun for four years. Do whatever you want, but don't expect others to pay for you.

FussyZeus 10y ago
I would disagree here. If you look at this solely from the perspective of someone screwing around in the public dollar sure, it's easy to say screw that. If however you instead look at it like: "This person tried this, really didn't like it, is not good at it, and probably shouldn't do it", why should we then force them into a field they can't generate value in -or- damn them to a lifetime of wage slavery to pay for the schooling they can't use? In my mind, college exists to prepare a pupil for a given field and if said pupil for any number of reasons cannot do that upon exiting that institution, why should they pay for it?
- pliny 10y ago
  >In my mind, college exists to prepare a pupil for a given field and if said pupil for any number of reasons cannot do that upon exiting that institution, why should they pay for it? Because that was the agreement they made with the institution. Either way someone is paying for it, it can be the person who got the (partial) education, or it can be someone\s that happens to live in the same state as the person who got the education. Even if it doesn't make sense to you that people who fail their studies should pay their debts to their schools, it makes even less sense that you would transfer that debt from the pupil to someone who was neither partner to the decision to undertake studies nor a beneficiary of pupil's studies.

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago

Why is it the job of the taxpayers to subsidize an 18 year olds passions/whims? I get providing aid to colleges, especially for research and to ensure an adequate number of people go into engineering, science, math, etc. But I see no reason that we should subsidize someone getting a literature degree or just fucking around.

ionised 10y ago
It's not for you to determine what is or isn't a worthless endeavour in someone else's life.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  No, it's not. It's also not up to society at large to fund someone's questionably worthless endeavour.
  - ionised 10y ago
    Society does it all the time.
- randomdata 10y ago
  Which is exactly why he suggests that there should not be a subsidy. Subsidies exist precisely to determine for others what is or isn't worthless through monetary incentive. You cannot reasonably tell someone that only they can choose what or is not worthwhile, while dangling a huge carrot in front of them. That you feel it is necessary to dangle that carrot says that you've already decided for them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]