4 ms·

A presumption of this article, and many like it, is a backwards-looking and somewhat elitist view of the economy and the workforce. Consider these quotes: * "

A presumption of this article, and many like it, is a backwards-looking and somewhat elitist view of the economy and the workforce. Consider these quotes: * "What if we regarded code not as a high-stakes, sexy affair, but the equivalent of skilled work at a Chrysler plant?" * "teachers and businesses would spend less time urging kids to do expensive four-year computer-science degrees and instead introduce more code at the vocational level in high school. You could learn how to do it at a community college" The problem is that manufacturing jobs, or their equivalent, is going backwards. We want to go forwards, improve opportunity, income and quality of life for each generation. We want higher-paying, higher-skill jobs. Rather than find ways to not go to college, what if we continued the trend of each generation being more educated than the last? What if we sent people to college? Sanders proposed college for all, arguing that high school was sufficient a century ago but now college is needed. Clinton proposed something similar, free college for families making <$125K/yr (IIRC the details); she got the majority of votes (which doesn't qualify her for President, but does say something about the popularity of her ideas). The idea that 'college isn't for everyone' is elitist. It really means that 'college isn't for the children of the working class, only those of the wealthy'. Think about it: Will the children of Senators go to college? I think so. The children of most people reading this? Of SV millionaires? Of Apple and GM executives? Do they tell their kids, 'college isn't for everyone; learn a trade at community college'? Somehow college is for all their kids (with few exceptions), so the evidence seems strong that with the proper resources, it's for everyone.

thehardsphere 10y ago
> Sanders proposed college for all, arguing that high school was sufficient a century ago but now college is needed. Clinton proposed something similar, free college for families making <$125K/yr (IIRC the details); she got the majority of votes (which doesn't qualify her for President, but does say something about the popularity of her ideas). I would be careful here drawing conclusions like this. Voting for a candidate or party is an extremely imprecise way of determining public support for any one policy, because they're effectively an aggregation of various policy ideas and other issues. Those other things are usually not easily deconvolved from each other. It's like going to a supermarket and only being able to pick from two baskets that were loaded for you by the staff, that you can't rifle through to find out exactly what the quality of the food is. Are you buying the cart on the left because it has sweet ice cream or because the one on the right smells like it's got rotten milk in it?
- hackuser 10y ago
  Agreed; I didn't mean to imply otherwise but I wasn't being very precise about it.
thehardsphere 10y ago
>The idea that 'college isn't for everyone' is elitist. It really means that 'college isn't for the children of the working class, only those of the wealthy'. I actually think you're right that it's elitist, but I don't think this "college is not for everyone" attitude is about money, but about intelligence and personality characteristics. These things happen to also correlate with "wealthy," for values of wealthy above "working class." Some people just aren't going to be able to make it through college no matter how many resources you give them. And college as we do it now is not right for everyone either. For evidence of this, go to your local state run university and observe how many students are failing out of school because they prefer to smoke weed every day to studying. I think something like 70% of people I met in my freshman year failed out of school in this particular way. Free college wouldn't have helped them.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > this "college is not for everyone" attitude is about money, but about intelligence and personality characteristics. These things happen to also correlate with "wealthy," You're claim is that children born into wealthy families are naturally more intelligent? And that 70% of people in state universities flunk out, and they flunk out due to marijuana usage? Hmmm .... I think we'd need to see some basis for these theories.
  - thehardsphere 10y ago
    No, I'm claiming that intelligent, conscientious people are more likely to be wealthy. There are many studies that support this. I'm also sharing an anecdote that many people who have the opportunity and resources to go to college, waste it. That's an anecdote from my own experience of going to a state university. The point of sharing it wasn't to tar everybody who goes to state universities, but to point out that there are people who will waste opportunities that they're given.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > intelligent, conscientious people are more likely to be wealthy We're talking about kids; their access to wealth depends almost entirely on their parents, not the child's own intelligence and conscientiousness.
tropo 10y ago
College is for the elite because it is an arms race. We use college for class signaling. If a degree is free, then employers will demand a master's degree. (already starting) If we make that free, employers will demand a doctorate. If we make that free, employers will demand post-doctoral work. Meanwhile, the actual education obtained for any given level declines. This is a race to the bottom because the customers demand it. Colleges are now teaching things that were once required for entering high school, particularly writing. For an individual, it is usually beneficial to participate in the arms race. College expenses rise to take much of the benefit, but there is some benefit left for the student. For society, anything that encourages the arms race is harmful. An increasingly large portion of a person's life is spent being unproductive.

thehardsphere 10y ago

> Sanders proposed college for all, arguing that high school was sufficient a century ago but now college is needed. Clinton proposed something similar, free college for families making <$125K/yr (IIRC the details); she got the majority of votes (which doesn't qualify her for President, but does say something about the popularity of her ideas). I would be careful here drawing conclusions like this. Voting for a candidate or party is an extremely imprecise way of determining public support for any one policy, because they're effectively an aggregation of various policy ideas and other issues. Those other things are usually not easily deconvolved from each other. It's like going to a supermarket and only being able to pick from two baskets that were loaded for you by the staff, that you can't rifle through to find out exactly what the quality of the food is. Are you buying the cart on the left because it has sweet ice cream or because the one on the right smells like it's got rotten milk in it?

hackuser 10y ago
Agreed; I didn't mean to imply otherwise but I wasn't being very precise about it.

thehardsphere 10y ago

>The idea that 'college isn't for everyone' is elitist. It really means that 'college isn't for the children of the working class, only those of the wealthy'. I actually think you're right that it's elitist, but I don't think this "college is not for everyone" attitude is about money, but about intelligence and personality characteristics. These things happen to also correlate with "wealthy," for values of wealthy above "working class." Some people just aren't going to be able to make it through college no matter how many resources you give them. And college as we do it now is not right for everyone either. For evidence of this, go to your local state run university and observe how many students are failing out of school because they prefer to smoke weed every day to studying. I think something like 70% of people I met in my freshman year failed out of school in this particular way. Free college wouldn't have helped them.

hackuser 10y ago
> this "college is not for everyone" attitude is about money, but about intelligence and personality characteristics. These things happen to also correlate with "wealthy," You're claim is that children born into wealthy families are naturally more intelligent? And that 70% of people in state universities flunk out, and they flunk out due to marijuana usage? Hmmm .... I think we'd need to see some basis for these theories.
- thehardsphere 10y ago
  No, I'm claiming that intelligent, conscientious people are more likely to be wealthy. There are many studies that support this. I'm also sharing an anecdote that many people who have the opportunity and resources to go to college, waste it. That's an anecdote from my own experience of going to a state university. The point of sharing it wasn't to tar everybody who goes to state universities, but to point out that there are people who will waste opportunities that they're given.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > intelligent, conscientious people are more likely to be wealthy We're talking about kids; their access to wealth depends almost entirely on their parents, not the child's own intelligence and conscientiousness.

tropo 10y ago

College is for the elite because it is an arms race. We use college for class signaling. If a degree is free, then employers will demand a master's degree. (already starting) If we make that free, employers will demand a doctorate. If we make that free, employers will demand post-doctoral work. Meanwhile, the actual education obtained for any given level declines. This is a race to the bottom because the customers demand it. Colleges are now teaching things that were once required for entering high school, particularly writing. For an individual, it is usually beneficial to participate in the arms race. College expenses rise to take much of the benefit, but there is some benefit left for the student. For society, anything that encourages the arms race is harmful. An increasingly large portion of a person's life is spent being unproductive.