5 ms·

I like the idea of withholding tuition from future earnings. That way we can get rid of all the "underwater basketweaving" courses that are so popular today, an

I like the idea of withholding tuition from future earnings. That way we can get rid of all the "underwater basketweaving" courses that are so popular today, and focus on the ones that the economy actually needs (as in, is willing to pay top dollar for). There's one "but" however: this does absolutely nothing to improve affordability, so some mechanism needs to be devised to reduce overhead costs, and put a cap on profits. I would prefer if that mechanism were market-based as well.

perfmode 8y ago
education is about more than the economy
GeneralMayhem 8y ago
I very heartily disagree with letting the market decide education priorities, for two reasons. First, education is chock full of positive externalities, which will never be realized correctly. While "the economy" doesn't need underwater basket weaving - or art history, or literature - society still does. Even if people don't work in their field, the world is better for the increase in knowledge. Man does not live on engineering alone. Second, the invisible hand can only do its work in a world where the effects of decisions are predictable. Given the long lead time on a choice of major affecting your income - at least four years, arguably more if you factor in choice of AP classes on high school - that's never going to be the case. Say this system had been in place in the 90s, and say you're okay with underwater basket weaving students getting the short end of the stick because, well, they signed up for it. Fine. But what do you say to the computer science class of 2001?
- h4b4n3r0 8y ago
  >> society still does That's just, like, your opinion, man. Society certainly does not need so many graduates in English Literature: there are only so many open positions at McDonalds, and they as a rule do not require a degree. If there's market demand, society can pay real cash money for it. It used to be that most writers, painters, historians, etc, etc, had to also have an useful day job. _Albert Einstein_ had a day job up to a point. There's nothing wrong with that if the market can't support full-time work in a certain profession. The second part of your argument I do agree with: there are a lot of details to flesh out. Maybe it will compel the colleges to teach broader sets of skills, since if they teach a narrow profession that's not useful they don't get paid.
  - lazerwalker 8y ago
    > That's just, like, your opinion, man. Society certainly does not need so many graduates in English Literature: there are only so many open positions at McDonalds, and they as a rule do not require a degree. This strikes me as a deeply sad view of the world. As an individual, a well-rounded education is a life-enriching thing, even if it doesn't directly tie into your professional career. As an overall society, having a more highly-educated populace is a net positive for everyone. > It used to be that most writers, painters, historians, etc, etc, had to also have an useful day job. And if you look even farther back in time, most artists were supported by a rich patron who believed in the value of art.
    - h4b4n3r0 8y ago
      >> This strikes me as a deeply sad view of the world. That's not a "view of the world", that's _objective reality_. There aren't enough jobs for those folks to take, so they end up at proverbial McDonalds. Those that do get jobs often don't get a wage that a degree that's in higher demand would command. That's the world that already exists, you can't will it away no matter how you finance people's education.
      - Jacqued 8y ago
        >> That's not a "view of the world", that's _objective reality_. That's just, like, your opinion, man. Setting aside arguments as to the mere existence of "objective reality". You're essentially saying "the way I see it is the only way to see it", which does not help convince someone who sees it differently.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - woah 8y ago
      In Germany, college is free, but there are a smaller number of slots available for majors which are not in demand. Is this also a “sad view of the world”?
- hajile 8y ago
  "culture" may be good, but at what price? If the price for that degree were 10 million dollars, you wouldn't be insisting we get lots of those degrees. Everything has its price based on how much value it offers. The problem with every economic system is information -- though that is far less of a problem in a capitalistic society with constitutional freedom of speech (capitalism helping to prevent the black box that forms around centralized economies like socialism, communism, or crony capitalism/fascism). This problem is on full display with those liberal arts degrees. Students leave high school knowing practically nothing about society or how money works (the fault of our education system removing most practical courses from the curriculum). What they have been taught from an early age though, is that getting a degree is the path to success. They hear about making X thousands of dollars more per year if they get one (without the nuance that a select few degrees making a lot more than average offset the entire liberal arts division) and they want to be successful so the go without any real-world knowledge to provide balance. Instead of getting directed to a degree that will ensure their livelihood, they are told to "follow their heart" and "do what makes you happy". Unfortunately, the definition of a job is "something you wouldn't do for free" and people work jobs to get money to do the things they want so much they'll pay for them. The simple fact is that most kids aren't cut out for college. They are much more suited for technical schools where they can learn the trades that keep the world turning (and they could leave making far more than a liberal arts degree with practically no debt). But they aren't told about that and instead wash out of the hardest degrees into meaningless degrees that offer a kind of debt slavery without any reward whatsoever. If they had gone to technical school, they could work less, make more, and spend that excess to culture themselves however they like.
pfisch 8y ago
This whole idea of taxing future earnings is like one step away from indentured servitude.
- h4b4n3r0 8y ago
  But you're in indentured servitude either way, except it's debt servitude, and there's no accountability on the part of the college for teaching you anything that's actually useful. Under the proposed setup, the college is directly incentivized for maximizing your earning potential. I like that a lot. Think of it as a tax that you'd pay in e.g. Germany anyway in order to get "free" education, except the amount you pay directly depends on the quality of education and people who chose to get vocational degrees don't have to pay for you. The whole thing entirely bypasses the government, so that's at least 30% savings right there.

perfmode 8y ago

education is about more than the economy

GeneralMayhem 8y ago

I very heartily disagree with letting the market decide education priorities, for two reasons. First, education is chock full of positive externalities, which will never be realized correctly. While "the economy" doesn't need underwater basket weaving - or art history, or literature - society still does. Even if people don't work in their field, the world is better for the increase in knowledge. Man does not live on engineering alone. Second, the invisible hand can only do its work in a world where the effects of decisions are predictable. Given the long lead time on a choice of major affecting your income - at least four years, arguably more if you factor in choice of AP classes on high school - that's never going to be the case. Say this system had been in place in the 90s, and say you're okay with underwater basket weaving students getting the short end of the stick because, well, they signed up for it. Fine. But what do you say to the computer science class of 2001?

h4b4n3r0 8y ago
>> society still does That's just, like, your opinion, man. Society certainly does not need so many graduates in English Literature: there are only so many open positions at McDonalds, and they as a rule do not require a degree. If there's market demand, society can pay real cash money for it. It used to be that most writers, painters, historians, etc, etc, had to also have an useful day job. _Albert Einstein_ had a day job up to a point. There's nothing wrong with that if the market can't support full-time work in a certain profession. The second part of your argument I do agree with: there are a lot of details to flesh out. Maybe it will compel the colleges to teach broader sets of skills, since if they teach a narrow profession that's not useful they don't get paid.
- lazerwalker 8y ago
  > That's just, like, your opinion, man. Society certainly does not need so many graduates in English Literature: there are only so many open positions at McDonalds, and they as a rule do not require a degree. This strikes me as a deeply sad view of the world. As an individual, a well-rounded education is a life-enriching thing, even if it doesn't directly tie into your professional career. As an overall society, having a more highly-educated populace is a net positive for everyone. > It used to be that most writers, painters, historians, etc, etc, had to also have an useful day job. And if you look even farther back in time, most artists were supported by a rich patron who believed in the value of art.
  - h4b4n3r0 8y ago
    >> This strikes me as a deeply sad view of the world. That's not a "view of the world", that's _objective reality_. There aren't enough jobs for those folks to take, so they end up at proverbial McDonalds. Those that do get jobs often don't get a wage that a degree that's in higher demand would command. That's the world that already exists, you can't will it away no matter how you finance people's education.
    - Jacqued 8y ago
      >> That's not a "view of the world", that's _objective reality_. That's just, like, your opinion, man. Setting aside arguments as to the mere existence of "objective reality". You're essentially saying "the way I see it is the only way to see it", which does not help convince someone who sees it differently.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - woah 8y ago
    In Germany, college is free, but there are a smaller number of slots available for majors which are not in demand. Is this also a “sad view of the world”?
hajile 8y ago
"culture" may be good, but at what price? If the price for that degree were 10 million dollars, you wouldn't be insisting we get lots of those degrees. Everything has its price based on how much value it offers. The problem with every economic system is information -- though that is far less of a problem in a capitalistic society with constitutional freedom of speech (capitalism helping to prevent the black box that forms around centralized economies like socialism, communism, or crony capitalism/fascism). This problem is on full display with those liberal arts degrees. Students leave high school knowing practically nothing about society or how money works (the fault of our education system removing most practical courses from the curriculum). What they have been taught from an early age though, is that getting a degree is the path to success. They hear about making X thousands of dollars more per year if they get one (without the nuance that a select few degrees making a lot more than average offset the entire liberal arts division) and they want to be successful so the go without any real-world knowledge to provide balance. Instead of getting directed to a degree that will ensure their livelihood, they are told to "follow their heart" and "do what makes you happy". Unfortunately, the definition of a job is "something you wouldn't do for free" and people work jobs to get money to do the things they want so much they'll pay for them. The simple fact is that most kids aren't cut out for college. They are much more suited for technical schools where they can learn the trades that keep the world turning (and they could leave making far more than a liberal arts degree with practically no debt). But they aren't told about that and instead wash out of the hardest degrees into meaningless degrees that offer a kind of debt slavery without any reward whatsoever. If they had gone to technical school, they could work less, make more, and spend that excess to culture themselves however they like.

pfisch 8y ago

This whole idea of taxing future earnings is like one step away from indentured servitude.

h4b4n3r0 8y ago
But you're in indentured servitude either way, except it's debt servitude, and there's no accountability on the part of the college for teaching you anything that's actually useful. Under the proposed setup, the college is directly incentivized for maximizing your earning potential. I like that a lot. Think of it as a tax that you'd pay in e.g. Germany anyway in order to get "free" education, except the amount you pay directly depends on the quality of education and people who chose to get vocational degrees don't have to pay for you. The whole thing entirely bypasses the government, so that's at least 30% savings right there.