3 ms·

> Are you willing to go up to 40 middle class families and demand that each of them pay $1000 to have a more refined waiter who vaguely remembers some Proust af

by Niten 16y ago

> Are you willing to go up to 40 middle class families and demand that each of them pay $1000 to have a more refined waiter who vaguely remembers some Proust after partying for 4 years? This is a foolish comment, even beyond your arbitrary splitting up the cost of a degree between 40 "middle class families", or the insinuation that one can actually earn a degree by simply "partying for 4 years." The value of education goes beyond landing one a job. Simply having well-educated citizens is of value to society -- especially in a representative democracy, where our level of education has a direct impact on how wisely we choose our own leaders. In fact, that education for its own sake is of great value to society is the core assumption behind public education. Besides which, how exactly would you propose to "fix" the "problem" of well-educated people choosing overqualified jobs? With a state-controlled labor market, dictating what kind of people are allowed to work what kind of jobs?

mcosta 16y ago
Right, but a country can get well-educated citizens in high-school, and spend promoting lecture and arts. This last benefits all society, not just students and professors.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Any particular way of bringing aggregate costs down to the individual level is arbitrary. I chose a method which illustrates the cost in simple human terms. The fact is, a $10k/year subsidy for college (note: this is roughly the subsidy for Rutgers, which I chose since I attended) is expensive. To give that subsidy to one person, a median worker must work 2500 hours. As for earning a degree by partying for 4 years, I stand by that claim. College isn't that hard and plenty of idiots pass while learning very little. Believe me, I passed quite a few. The fix: end subsidies for college. I don't care if you waste your money on a worthless degree, I only care if you waste mine.
- dbingham 16y ago
  The numbers you are coming up with are utterly arbitrary. I could come up with similar numbers via anal extraction and have them be just as relevant to the question at hand. That is not at all. As for partying for 4 years and passing - Yes, there are some who party for four years, learn nothing and pass college. There are even some who do it on scholarship or government grants. But those are the exception, not the rule. In my experience the ones who partied like crazy and learned nothing were the ones there on their parent's dime. The ones who were there on government dime rarely left the library, worked their butts off and came away with an excellent education. It's true, your mileage may vary, but if you ask me it is of great benefit to society that everyone gets the best level of education they can handle as determined by the quality of their mind and determination, not the quality of their parent's bank account. After all when you're of the age to be applying to college you haven't had the chance to begin being a productive member of society or make any money of your own. The whole point of education is to make people productive members of society. So what determines whether you can pay your own way in college is whether or not your parents were productive members of society -- and no one should be limited by their parents. We'd lose a lot of very bright people that way. That's what government subsidies are for. They are an investment by all of society in our future. And in the people of our future. Think of it like venture capital investment. Not every investment works out. But if even a few really do succeed, then the investment in all those who don't is worth it. Of course the place where the analogy fails is that unlike with venture capital where only a few will succeed, with college subsidies only a few will fail.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Are you saying that you consider the subsidy for your attendance at Rutgers was a waste of taxpayer's money as well? Also, I'm not sure whether you passed out idiot students who attended Rutgers by being smarter/working harder, or that you have given idiots who learned very little a passing grade in the classes you teach. I don't necessarily disagree with you about ending subsidies, but it seems as if you are trying to have your cake and eat it. Maybe I've misunderstood your position. If they were abolished, would you expect college to get cheaper and academics to tolerate a pay cut, or students to make up the shortfall by borrowing higher sums?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Are you saying that you consider the subsidy for your attendance at Rutgers was a waste of taxpayer's money as well? It probably was. It's not as clear cut as the case of the waiter, but I don't think my current work creates a benefit for the taxpayer as large as the subsidy I received. When I was still an academic, I created a larger external benefit [1], but it's far from clear that it was positive. If subsidies were abolished, I expect college would become cheaper and more efficient, most academics would find new employment, and most marginal students would not attend college. [1] Currently I work as a trader, and most of the benefits I provide are captured by myself and my company. None of my academic research projects have resulted in anything useful yet, though admittedly the jury is still out (people are still exploring some of the lines of inquiry I created).
    - sesqu 16y ago
      What about your next job? As long as education is done at the start of one's life, we can't look at its manifested usefulness for "young" people. You can maybe make preliminary tallies at 45-50, at which point I would expect the course of their life is better defined and the contribution of various periods can start being evaluated.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      Thanks for the clarification.
- jrockway 16y ago
  How about we get rid of the military first, then we can whine about how expensive higher education is for the taxpayers.
gilesbowkett 16y ago
The value of education goes beyond landing one a job. Simply having well-educated citizens is of value to society -- especially in a representative democracy, where our level of education has a direct impact on how wisely we choose our own leaders. I would happily pay triple my current taxes to live in a country where President Palin was not even a remote possibility.

by Niten 16y ago

mcosta 16y ago

Right, but a country can get well-educated citizens in high-school, and spend promoting lecture and arts. This last benefits all society, not just students and professors.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Any particular way of bringing aggregate costs down to the individual level is arbitrary. I chose a method which illustrates the cost in simple human terms. The fact is, a $10k/year subsidy for college (note: this is roughly the subsidy for Rutgers, which I chose since I attended) is expensive. To give that subsidy to one person, a median worker must work 2500 hours. As for earning a degree by partying for 4 years, I stand by that claim. College isn't that hard and plenty of idiots pass while learning very little. Believe me, I passed quite a few. The fix: end subsidies for college. I don't care if you waste your money on a worthless degree, I only care if you waste mine.

dbingham 16y ago
The numbers you are coming up with are utterly arbitrary. I could come up with similar numbers via anal extraction and have them be just as relevant to the question at hand. That is not at all. As for partying for 4 years and passing - Yes, there are some who party for four years, learn nothing and pass college. There are even some who do it on scholarship or government grants. But those are the exception, not the rule. In my experience the ones who partied like crazy and learned nothing were the ones there on their parent's dime. The ones who were there on government dime rarely left the library, worked their butts off and came away with an excellent education. It's true, your mileage may vary, but if you ask me it is of great benefit to society that everyone gets the best level of education they can handle as determined by the quality of their mind and determination, not the quality of their parent's bank account. After all when you're of the age to be applying to college you haven't had the chance to begin being a productive member of society or make any money of your own. The whole point of education is to make people productive members of society. So what determines whether you can pay your own way in college is whether or not your parents were productive members of society -- and no one should be limited by their parents. We'd lose a lot of very bright people that way. That's what government subsidies are for. They are an investment by all of society in our future. And in the people of our future. Think of it like venture capital investment. Not every investment works out. But if even a few really do succeed, then the investment in all those who don't is worth it. Of course the place where the analogy fails is that unlike with venture capital where only a few will succeed, with college subsidies only a few will fail.
anigbrowl 16y ago
Are you saying that you consider the subsidy for your attendance at Rutgers was a waste of taxpayer's money as well? Also, I'm not sure whether you passed out idiot students who attended Rutgers by being smarter/working harder, or that you have given idiots who learned very little a passing grade in the classes you teach. I don't necessarily disagree with you about ending subsidies, but it seems as if you are trying to have your cake and eat it. Maybe I've misunderstood your position. If they were abolished, would you expect college to get cheaper and academics to tolerate a pay cut, or students to make up the shortfall by borrowing higher sums?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Are you saying that you consider the subsidy for your attendance at Rutgers was a waste of taxpayer's money as well? It probably was. It's not as clear cut as the case of the waiter, but I don't think my current work creates a benefit for the taxpayer as large as the subsidy I received. When I was still an academic, I created a larger external benefit [1], but it's far from clear that it was positive. If subsidies were abolished, I expect college would become cheaper and more efficient, most academics would find new employment, and most marginal students would not attend college. [1] Currently I work as a trader, and most of the benefits I provide are captured by myself and my company. None of my academic research projects have resulted in anything useful yet, though admittedly the jury is still out (people are still exploring some of the lines of inquiry I created).
  - sesqu 16y ago
    What about your next job? As long as education is done at the start of one's life, we can't look at its manifested usefulness for "young" people. You can maybe make preliminary tallies at 45-50, at which point I would expect the course of their life is better defined and the contribution of various periods can start being evaluated.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Thanks for the clarification.
jrockway 16y ago
How about we get rid of the military first, then we can whine about how expensive higher education is for the taxpayers.

gilesbowkett 16y ago

The value of education goes beyond landing one a job. Simply having well-educated citizens is of value to society -- especially in a representative democracy, where our level of education has a direct impact on how wisely we choose our own leaders. I would happily pay triple my current taxes to live in a country where President Palin was not even a remote possibility.