4 ms·

One of Bernie Sanders major platforms was tuition free education. Politicians can talk about 'jobs' all they want, but the real key is education. Because jobs

One of Bernie Sanders major platforms was tuition free education. Politicians can talk about 'jobs' all they want, but the real key is education. Because jobs of the future will ALL require some highly technical skill.

user5994461 9y ago
Free education: People get a longer education => Jobs get more selective about education and require longer studies => People have to get a longer education to get a job => Jobs get even more selective => etc... Cheaper education will create more educated people, unfortunately that doesn't create new job prospects.
- eveningcoffee 9y ago
  Free education does not mean that you get paid while studding. You still have to find means to clothe and feed yourself and find a roof above your head during the nights.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  Well that's the way the knowledge economy works! It's based on your knowledge. So obvs people with more knowledge have better opportunities. It's how it works today except lots of people are left out. The difference is, with everyone educated, now you have a highly knowledgeable populace who are capable of solving harder problems, starting business to solve these problems, etc. I would rather have 1000 people working on Cancer research than at the DMV pushing paper or laying brick. Things machines can do. We would have a net improvement in people's lives and the human race. It's like a win win for everyone.
vkou 9y ago
Either that, or they will consist of housekeeping and gardening for the 1%.
eigenman 9y ago
Although tuition free education is a good answer, it won't work for everyone. There is a distribution of intelligence and skill; not everyone will be able to perform the remaining highly technical jobs. What should our society do with these people? Leave them on the streets? Provide welfare/basic income? This is a critical question because more education will not scale to 100% of the population.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I wouldn't really cast it that way. Companies would like to tell themselves different but they don't really select for nothing except intelligence. There are a lot of unwritten rules which end up favoring candidates who have the "right" background over those who don't.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  I disagree and I don't think there's any sociological evidence that anyone can't succeed in almost any profession. There also community colleges and other lower technical tracks that people could do for the less motivated. The point is the option is still available which benefits,the individual, our economy and the human race. It's like a no brainer win win situation for everyone.
Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
Repost of one of my old comments: I think it's worth pointing out that higher education is mostly a filtering mechanism not an enrichment mechanism, and a terribly inefficient one at that. After basic maths and literacy are learned, it imparts little on the average student. A collage degree is a proxy for a reasonable IQ and moderately high conscientiousness. Thinking of education as an inefficient filtering mechanism helps illustrate why our frenzy for more education is misguided. Certainly more efficient filtering mechanisms (like a test-based credentialism where instruction and assessment are separated) would be very useful but they will not increase the amount of people with the mental characteristics (high intelligence and conscientiousness) that are becoming increasingly valuable in the modern economy, nor will it decrease the portion that lack these things. Panning does not create gold.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment.. by saying that education is a "filtering mechanism" you essentially claim that educated people have some inherent ability that uneducated people don't have. And you don't base your Rayndian claims on any sociological studies The fact that high school graduation rates went from 6% at the beginning of the century to almost 80% at the end, means that humans are capable of learning a wide variety subjects ..inherent ability is overrated. EVEN if it were the case that college is a filtering mechanism my point still stands because tuition free education increases the availablity of education to those with the ability. And we won't waste our countries intellectual capital. This improves the individuals lives and the economy as a whole Education is absolutely an "enrichment mechanism". With the exception of upper level math or particle physics is attainable by anyone.
  - scj 9y ago
    I would be interested in the experiences of STEM majors/graduates in nations where tuition is free.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
    >EVEN if it were the case that college is a filtering mechanism my point still stands because tuition free education increases the availablity of education to those with the ability. This is not the case. If my thesis is correct, which I think it is, you could replace college for the vast majority of people with 1 standardized test for thousands of times less cost. Don't you think its odd that the college boom started just after IQ tests for employment became illegal? When IQ tests were outlawed for use in employment, with the exception of the military and universities (a hilarious irony), it became uneconomical for employers who needed well-above-average people to train their own employees, as they could not filter for intelligence first. Before Griggs vs Duke Power it was common for an uneducated person to score well on an IQ test, get promoted, learn on the job and work their way up to the top. Now that same person is forced to go to college, waste thousands of dollars and years of wages to do the same thing, giving a cut to the professors and the administrators (most of whom have conveniently propounded IQ denialism until just recently when the science has become so blatant that it is embarrassing to do so). This system vastly decreases the probability of someone improving their lot. Maybe it would be nice if everyone were equally intelligent. Maybe it would be nice if everyone were equally tall. But this isn't the case, and if you base policy on the supposition you get the waste and rent seeking that is emblematic of the education system at all levels.
emodendroket 9y ago
I think free education is valuable public good but I'm not convinced that machines are replacing home health aides anytime soon. At least at present the economy seems to be creating a lot of really low-paying jobs.

user5994461 9y ago

Free education: People get a longer education => Jobs get more selective about education and require longer studies => People have to get a longer education to get a job => Jobs get even more selective => etc... Cheaper education will create more educated people, unfortunately that doesn't create new job prospects.

eveningcoffee 9y ago
Free education does not mean that you get paid while studding. You still have to find means to clothe and feed yourself and find a roof above your head during the nights.
nickthemagicman 9y ago
Well that's the way the knowledge economy works! It's based on your knowledge. So obvs people with more knowledge have better opportunities. It's how it works today except lots of people are left out. The difference is, with everyone educated, now you have a highly knowledgeable populace who are capable of solving harder problems, starting business to solve these problems, etc. I would rather have 1000 people working on Cancer research than at the DMV pushing paper or laying brick. Things machines can do. We would have a net improvement in people's lives and the human race. It's like a win win for everyone.

vkou 9y ago

Either that, or they will consist of housekeeping and gardening for the 1%.

eigenman 9y ago

Although tuition free education is a good answer, it won't work for everyone. There is a distribution of intelligence and skill; not everyone will be able to perform the remaining highly technical jobs. What should our society do with these people? Leave them on the streets? Provide welfare/basic income? This is a critical question because more education will not scale to 100% of the population.

emodendroket 9y ago
I wouldn't really cast it that way. Companies would like to tell themselves different but they don't really select for nothing except intelligence. There are a lot of unwritten rules which end up favoring candidates who have the "right" background over those who don't.
nickthemagicman 9y ago
I disagree and I don't think there's any sociological evidence that anyone can't succeed in almost any profession. There also community colleges and other lower technical tracks that people could do for the less motivated. The point is the option is still available which benefits,the individual, our economy and the human race. It's like a no brainer win win situation for everyone.

Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago

Repost of one of my old comments: I think it's worth pointing out that higher education is mostly a filtering mechanism not an enrichment mechanism, and a terribly inefficient one at that. After basic maths and literacy are learned, it imparts little on the average student. A collage degree is a proxy for a reasonable IQ and moderately high conscientiousness. Thinking of education as an inefficient filtering mechanism helps illustrate why our frenzy for more education is misguided. Certainly more efficient filtering mechanisms (like a test-based credentialism where instruction and assessment are separated) would be very useful but they will not increase the amount of people with the mental characteristics (high intelligence and conscientiousness) that are becoming increasingly valuable in the modern economy, nor will it decrease the portion that lack these things. Panning does not create gold.

nickthemagicman 9y ago
Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment.. by saying that education is a "filtering mechanism" you essentially claim that educated people have some inherent ability that uneducated people don't have. And you don't base your Rayndian claims on any sociological studies The fact that high school graduation rates went from 6% at the beginning of the century to almost 80% at the end, means that humans are capable of learning a wide variety subjects ..inherent ability is overrated. EVEN if it were the case that college is a filtering mechanism my point still stands because tuition free education increases the availablity of education to those with the ability. And we won't waste our countries intellectual capital. This improves the individuals lives and the economy as a whole Education is absolutely an "enrichment mechanism". With the exception of upper level math or particle physics is attainable by anyone.
- scj 9y ago
  I would be interested in the experiences of STEM majors/graduates in nations where tuition is free.
- Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
  >EVEN if it were the case that college is a filtering mechanism my point still stands because tuition free education increases the availablity of education to those with the ability. This is not the case. If my thesis is correct, which I think it is, you could replace college for the vast majority of people with 1 standardized test for thousands of times less cost. Don't you think its odd that the college boom started just after IQ tests for employment became illegal? When IQ tests were outlawed for use in employment, with the exception of the military and universities (a hilarious irony), it became uneconomical for employers who needed well-above-average people to train their own employees, as they could not filter for intelligence first. Before Griggs vs Duke Power it was common for an uneducated person to score well on an IQ test, get promoted, learn on the job and work their way up to the top. Now that same person is forced to go to college, waste thousands of dollars and years of wages to do the same thing, giving a cut to the professors and the administrators (most of whom have conveniently propounded IQ denialism until just recently when the science has become so blatant that it is embarrassing to do so). This system vastly decreases the probability of someone improving their lot. Maybe it would be nice if everyone were equally intelligent. Maybe it would be nice if everyone were equally tall. But this isn't the case, and if you base policy on the supposition you get the waste and rent seeking that is emblematic of the education system at all levels.

emodendroket 9y ago

I think free education is valuable public good but I'm not convinced that machines are replacing home health aides anytime soon. At least at present the economy seems to be creating a lot of really low-paying jobs.