8 ms·

Or we could make public college free, just like we did with high school.

by frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

gbrown 9y ago
That's far too direct and obvious, we prefer expensive, obfuscated "solutions" here.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
krapp 9y ago
You need to remember what country "we" are discussing, and adjust your expectations accordingly.
KekDemaga 9y ago
And when public college becomes the new high school continue to add layers of education as needed.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Nah, we just realize that we're demanding an excessive amount of education for most jobs because employers can demand it with no cost to themselves, forcing an entire generation to take on a debt burden their parents did not have to because the cost of education had not become overly inflated yet. The fix for this can be realized with a tax that funds education; if you need someone with a bachelors, you pay X as a tax. If you need someone with a masters, you pay 2X. A PhD? 4X. If the position doesn't require a degree and you train them, you pay no tax (ie journeyman or apprenticeship).
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Are you arguing against public high schools? I don't understand.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    Not at all, I'm just pointing out that many jobs that only required a high school degree now require a college degree without the job fundamentally changing all that much. More people attending college would likely worsen that trend to the point where "College 2" (whatever it would be called) would then be required to stand out.
    - wfo 9y ago
      And we would have educated our citizenry and let millions of people learn about the world and the expanses of human knowledge instead of just the rich for nothing, since those citizens wouldn't be able to generate extra wealth for their bosses. What a nightmare.
      - KekDemaga 9y ago
        Your view comes from a very simplistic model of the world without an understanding of the limited resources we are working with. The internet empowered individuals to engage in self directed learning that was impossible a generation ago, virtually anything you wish to know or understand is a google search away. If you personally require someone in a sweater vest to stand in front of you and speak in order to learn it is not my job to subsidise that activity or his salary.
        wfo 9y ago
        Resources are not limited at all, we have more resources today in the US than any group has ever had in all of human history. We just choose to allocate them on things that are bad, like bombing hospitals or buying tanks for police departments or jailing millions for nothing or corporate welfare, and not things that are good, like learning or healthcare. In the golden age of prosperity for the US, the highest tax bracket was 94%. We tax nothing and demand nothing because we have been trained to think we deserve nothing; through no fault of your own, you have been tricked into accepting this status quo as 'necessary' when it is anything but, it is explicitly contrived and enforced by wealth to keep wealth in the hands of the wealthy at the expensive of the lives and livelihood of everyone else. Self-directed learning is great, but if you've ever been a teacher or a student in a genuinely difficult subject you know autodidactism is VERY limited and works for a tiny few on a tiny number of subjects. Autodidacts generally have an oversimplified understanding of a subject they think they know because they lack the social engagement in the topic and deep understanding that comes from engaging with true expertise. They think they know far more than they do, nearly every single time in my experience interacting with them. Which is not bad, as a teacher this is an excellent place to have your students start because you can quickly disabuse them of this notion and they become eager to learn more.
T2_t2 9y ago
So... generic and not leading to a job? The problem is the proliferation of degrees, and thinking that hasn't caught up with the new reality (e.g. "getting a degree is good" -> "getting the RIGHT degree is good"). Not sure it gets better in a global world, where the vast majority of high IQ people live outside the west, and intelligent jobs not based on local legislation (like lawyers) can move easily internationally.
binarymax 9y ago
"Free" is covered by taxes already paid. So making university "free" would be an additional tax. But instead of the attendees paying for them directly, the pay would be spread out. Also, it would change the dynamic of which school you could attend. High School is covered based on taxes in the town paid for by property owners. Some university programs are subsidized by state taxes (like SUNY for New York) and are discounted for residents of the state. This would likely just extend these kinds of programs with a higher state tax.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  We just spent $80bil on the military. Free college is estimated at $65-75bil, so we just take that money, and move it over here and blammo. Free public university for everyone. (:
  - binarymax 9y ago
    One can only dream!
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    With that amount of money, can't you just end poverty directly? Why do so many people treat college like a terminal, intrinsic good?
    - freeflight 9y ago
      How would you propose to "end poverty"? Paying all the debt of the poor? But that wouldn't solve the actual problem, only a symptom. Some view better education as a potential solution because poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education.
      - orangecat 9y ago
        To quote Dave Barry, from 1982 but still relevant: "Now the problem poor people have is obvious: they don't have enough money. They can't afford food, housing, or medical care. The simple, obvious, efficient way for the government to help them is to give them money so they can buy these things. So that is not how the government does it." This is basically the libertarian argument for a basic income: if we're going to have an expensive welfare state, it should be efficient and it should actually accomplish its stated goals. poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education. It's even more directly correlated with the level of money.
13of40 9y ago
Maybe the real problem is that we've developed this caste system over the last 50 years where people who don't get college degrees are excluded from careers that can sustain a middle class lifestyle. What if free college just moves the goal post and in a couple more decades nearly everyone has a Master's degree and you need a PhD to earn a decent living? What happens if the most talented segment of our work force ends up spending their most creative years trying to achieve meaningless credentials instead of actually contributing to the GDP? (Preemptive Edit: I know they have free college in some European countries, but maybe they have the same problem.)
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Interesting, if you think that education is a race to the bottom in credentialling though, what is your solution? If you were running a business wouldn't you prefer a PhD to a MS to a BS holding everything else equal?
  - 13of40 9y ago
    I think it really depends on the job. I've managed people who were in entry level software jobs who had PhDs, and having the higher degree didn't translate into better performance.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Yeah but that's what I'm saying, once you've hired them then you might find out different but purely within the hiring process a PhD is preferrable to a BS. And the predicament may be tough but if there is no solution to it, why even take it into consideration? That's why I asked what you would do about it.
      - 13of40 9y ago
        "All things being equal" is a very contrived situation. I think a better question is whether you'd pick a PhD candidate over a BS who, for example, could code a little bit better. (And for me the answer is I'd probably pick the BS, but I'd have to justify it to the people above me, which could be a challenge.)
gozur88 9y ago
Why would we?

Or we could make public college free, just like we did with high school.

gbrown 9y ago

That's far too direct and obvious, we prefer expensive, obfuscated "solutions" here.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

krapp 9y ago

You need to remember what country "we" are discussing, and adjust your expectations accordingly.

KekDemaga 9y ago

And when public college becomes the new high school continue to add layers of education as needed.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Nah, we just realize that we're demanding an excessive amount of education for most jobs because employers can demand it with no cost to themselves, forcing an entire generation to take on a debt burden their parents did not have to because the cost of education had not become overly inflated yet. The fix for this can be realized with a tax that funds education; if you need someone with a bachelors, you pay X as a tax. If you need someone with a masters, you pay 2X. A PhD? 4X. If the position doesn't require a degree and you train them, you pay no tax (ie journeyman or apprenticeship).
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Are you arguing against public high schools? I don't understand.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  Not at all, I'm just pointing out that many jobs that only required a high school degree now require a college degree without the job fundamentally changing all that much. More people attending college would likely worsen that trend to the point where "College 2" (whatever it would be called) would then be required to stand out.
  - wfo 9y ago
    And we would have educated our citizenry and let millions of people learn about the world and the expanses of human knowledge instead of just the rich for nothing, since those citizens wouldn't be able to generate extra wealth for their bosses. What a nightmare.
    - KekDemaga 9y ago
      Your view comes from a very simplistic model of the world without an understanding of the limited resources we are working with. The internet empowered individuals to engage in self directed learning that was impossible a generation ago, virtually anything you wish to know or understand is a google search away. If you personally require someone in a sweater vest to stand in front of you and speak in order to learn it is not my job to subsidise that activity or his salary.
      - wfo 9y ago
        Resources are not limited at all, we have more resources today in the US than any group has ever had in all of human history. We just choose to allocate them on things that are bad, like bombing hospitals or buying tanks for police departments or jailing millions for nothing or corporate welfare, and not things that are good, like learning or healthcare. In the golden age of prosperity for the US, the highest tax bracket was 94%. We tax nothing and demand nothing because we have been trained to think we deserve nothing; through no fault of your own, you have been tricked into accepting this status quo as 'necessary' when it is anything but, it is explicitly contrived and enforced by wealth to keep wealth in the hands of the wealthy at the expensive of the lives and livelihood of everyone else. Self-directed learning is great, but if you've ever been a teacher or a student in a genuinely difficult subject you know autodidactism is VERY limited and works for a tiny few on a tiny number of subjects. Autodidacts generally have an oversimplified understanding of a subject they think they know because they lack the social engagement in the topic and deep understanding that comes from engaging with true expertise. They think they know far more than they do, nearly every single time in my experience interacting with them. Which is not bad, as a teacher this is an excellent place to have your students start because you can quickly disabuse them of this notion and they become eager to learn more.

T2_t2 9y ago

So... generic and not leading to a job? The problem is the proliferation of degrees, and thinking that hasn't caught up with the new reality (e.g. "getting a degree is good" -> "getting the RIGHT degree is good"). Not sure it gets better in a global world, where the vast majority of high IQ people live outside the west, and intelligent jobs not based on local legislation (like lawyers) can move easily internationally.

binarymax 9y ago

"Free" is covered by taxes already paid. So making university "free" would be an additional tax. But instead of the attendees paying for them directly, the pay would be spread out. Also, it would change the dynamic of which school you could attend. High School is covered based on taxes in the town paid for by property owners. Some university programs are subsidized by state taxes (like SUNY for New York) and are discounted for residents of the state. This would likely just extend these kinds of programs with a higher state tax.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
We just spent $80bil on the military. Free college is estimated at $65-75bil, so we just take that money, and move it over here and blammo. Free public university for everyone. (:
- binarymax 9y ago
  One can only dream!
- saint_fiasco 9y ago
  With that amount of money, can't you just end poverty directly? Why do so many people treat college like a terminal, intrinsic good?
  - freeflight 9y ago
    How would you propose to "end poverty"? Paying all the debt of the poor? But that wouldn't solve the actual problem, only a symptom. Some view better education as a potential solution because poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education.
    - orangecat 9y ago
      To quote Dave Barry, from 1982 but still relevant: "Now the problem poor people have is obvious: they don't have enough money. They can't afford food, housing, or medical care. The simple, obvious, efficient way for the government to help them is to give them money so they can buy these things. So that is not how the government does it." This is basically the libertarian argument for a basic income: if we're going to have an expensive welfare state, it should be efficient and it should actually accomplish its stated goals. poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education. It's even more directly correlated with the level of money.

13of40 9y ago

Maybe the real problem is that we've developed this caste system over the last 50 years where people who don't get college degrees are excluded from careers that can sustain a middle class lifestyle. What if free college just moves the goal post and in a couple more decades nearly everyone has a Master's degree and you need a PhD to earn a decent living? What happens if the most talented segment of our work force ends up spending their most creative years trying to achieve meaningless credentials instead of actually contributing to the GDP? (Preemptive Edit: I know they have free college in some European countries, but maybe they have the same problem.)

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Interesting, if you think that education is a race to the bottom in credentialling though, what is your solution? If you were running a business wouldn't you prefer a PhD to a MS to a BS holding everything else equal?
- 13of40 9y ago
  I think it really depends on the job. I've managed people who were in entry level software jobs who had PhDs, and having the higher degree didn't translate into better performance.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Yeah but that's what I'm saying, once you've hired them then you might find out different but purely within the hiring process a PhD is preferrable to a BS. And the predicament may be tough but if there is no solution to it, why even take it into consideration? That's why I asked what you would do about it.
    - 13of40 9y ago
      "All things being equal" is a very contrived situation. I think a better question is whether you'd pick a PhD candidate over a BS who, for example, could code a little bit better. (And for me the answer is I'd probably pick the BS, but I'd have to justify it to the people above me, which could be a challenge.)

gozur88 9y ago

Why would we?