5 ms·

> If they don't suffer the consequences of buying a useless degree, why wouldn't they keep doing it? So when you are young and still have no degree nor experie

by kartan 10y ago

> If they don't suffer the consequences of buying a useless degree, why wouldn't they keep doing it? So when you are young and still have no degree nor experience in life you should be punished if you choose wrong. Unless you are rich, then if you choose wrong you have a second opportunity. Shouldn't some of the burden be on the institutions offering the degrees? They have the money, they have the knowledge, they have resources, they should suffer a good part of the consequences of offering bad degrees. Aren't the students with a degree that doesn't offer financial stability already punished? Aren't their dreams of having a career already broken? Isn't adding the burden of debt over that just cruelty for the benefit of for-profit education institutions?

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
The deeper problem is that we link education with employment and leave it at that. Vocational and apprenticeship programs are excellent ways for people to learn useful skills while remaining gainfully employed.
- kartan 10y ago
  > Vocational and apprenticeship programs are excellent ways for people to learn useful skills while remaining gainfully employed. And the other way around is also true. There is value in people educated on arts or science even if they don't get a job directly related to it. You are right that the link education-employment is in fact is wrong, I will say it is quite elitist. It presumes that people in jobs that don't require especial skills should not get a high education and at the same time that only people with a degree should have skilled jobs. And that's not true.
  - scarface74 10y ago
    There might be a "value" in it but why shouldn't they pay for it?
    - kartan 10y ago
      > There might be a "value" in it but why shouldn't they pay for it? It is called an investment. Society invests in an individual education because in the long run that individual is going to be able to contribute more positively to society, returning a greater value than the initial investment. A better educated society takes better decisions, is more creative, adapts faster to change... Why shouldn't countries invest in its own future? If citizens have to pay for that education maybe they are not going to be able to afford it, or just are not going to do that investment because they lack the education to understand the benefits. The situation becomes a loss for the individuals, but also for the country. To treat education as an expense is a mistake. That same happens with, for example, infrastructure. If you treat it just as an expense, why do the government build roads? The reality is that a country without infrastructure is as badly prepared as one without educated citizens.
      - scarface74 10y ago
        It is called an investment. Society invests in an individual education because in the long run that individual is going to be able to contribute more positively to society My CS education at an unknown state college costed 10-25% of what a liberal arts degree costs from a "prestigious" private college. So why should I pay for people who want a liberal arts degree that is not as valued by society? If we made large student loans harder to get, colleges would have to adjust. Maybe even to the point of making a liberal arts degree cost less than a computer science degree.
        kartan 10y ago
        > If we made large student loans harder to get That's a different discussion. The problems is that the White House is removing protections for the people that already have that big loans. Easy to get loans and harsh penalties for defaulting is the worst of the combinations. Making student loans harder to get is a good solution to reduce the burden of debt and even to reduce prices. But at the same time it makes education to become a privilege of the wealthy. So it has an important downside. > So why should I pay for people who want a liberal arts degree that is not as valued by society? Is not as valued by society or is not as valued in the job market? This are two different things. I can earn more than a doctor thanks to my long experience as software engineer, but I will not jump to the conclusion that I'm more valuable to society than a doctor (or a janitor for example). I have meet too much people with high salaries that do more damage than good to companies to believe that "salary" is a measure of "been valuable".

by kartan 10y ago

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

The deeper problem is that we link education with employment and leave it at that. Vocational and apprenticeship programs are excellent ways for people to learn useful skills while remaining gainfully employed.

kartan 10y ago
> Vocational and apprenticeship programs are excellent ways for people to learn useful skills while remaining gainfully employed. And the other way around is also true. There is value in people educated on arts or science even if they don't get a job directly related to it. You are right that the link education-employment is in fact is wrong, I will say it is quite elitist. It presumes that people in jobs that don't require especial skills should not get a high education and at the same time that only people with a degree should have skilled jobs. And that's not true.
- scarface74 10y ago
  There might be a "value" in it but why shouldn't they pay for it?
  - kartan 10y ago
    > There might be a "value" in it but why shouldn't they pay for it? It is called an investment. Society invests in an individual education because in the long run that individual is going to be able to contribute more positively to society, returning a greater value than the initial investment. A better educated society takes better decisions, is more creative, adapts faster to change... Why shouldn't countries invest in its own future? If citizens have to pay for that education maybe they are not going to be able to afford it, or just are not going to do that investment because they lack the education to understand the benefits. The situation becomes a loss for the individuals, but also for the country. To treat education as an expense is a mistake. That same happens with, for example, infrastructure. If you treat it just as an expense, why do the government build roads? The reality is that a country without infrastructure is as badly prepared as one without educated citizens.
    - scarface74 10y ago
      It is called an investment. Society invests in an individual education because in the long run that individual is going to be able to contribute more positively to society My CS education at an unknown state college costed 10-25% of what a liberal arts degree costs from a "prestigious" private college. So why should I pay for people who want a liberal arts degree that is not as valued by society? If we made large student loans harder to get, colleges would have to adjust. Maybe even to the point of making a liberal arts degree cost less than a computer science degree.
      - kartan 10y ago
        > If we made large student loans harder to get That's a different discussion. The problems is that the White House is removing protections for the people that already have that big loans. Easy to get loans and harsh penalties for defaulting is the worst of the combinations. Making student loans harder to get is a good solution to reduce the burden of debt and even to reduce prices. But at the same time it makes education to become a privilege of the wealthy. So it has an important downside. > So why should I pay for people who want a liberal arts degree that is not as valued by society? Is not as valued by society or is not as valued in the job market? This are two different things. I can earn more than a doctor thanks to my long experience as software engineer, but I will not jump to the conclusion that I'm more valuable to society than a doctor (or a janitor for example). I have meet too much people with high salaries that do more damage than good to companies to believe that "salary" is a measure of "been valuable".