2 ms·
I think this implies that degrees in history or philosophy and such are always worth very little and a degree in eg mathematics is always worth a decent amount.
by dan-robertson 8y ago
I think this implies that degrees in history or philosophy and such are always worth very little and a degree in eg mathematics is always worth a decent amount.
For one thing there are plenty of people with such “low value” degrees who would be quite capable of repaying student loans.
There is also the American system where many valuable degrees (eg Law, MBA) require an undergraduate degree as prerequisite, and these are typically in humanities subjects so it seems that to get the opportunity to have these degrees (where loans will likely be repaid), one must first do a low value degree (where a typical loan might be less likely to be repaid).
Also as I understand it, in the German system the state basically sets the fees whereas in America the universities set the fees and the government has to somehow back loans for them. I think part of the problem is a follow-the-leader one: Harvard can set high fees (although poorer students wouldn’t have to pay them) and teach history or philosophy (where such a degree would likely be reasonably valuable, or rather those people who are accepted would be able to make a good living afterwards), and then many other universities will also want to set high fees (without being able to cut them much for poorer students), and want to teach philosophy or history (even though their students will likely not gain financially from the degree or achieve financially despite it).
Perhaps the universities could be made to take on more of the risk of student loans not being repaid (eg student loans would have to be given out by organisations wholly owned by universities). But I’m not sure I really like the idea of universities having to only do things that will make money for their students. Then again, perhaps this is just the leftover of the idea of universities being somewhere that the wealthy sent their children to enrich their character rather than places where choose people go to to improve their earning prospects.
- mschuster91 8y agoI think this implies that degrees in history or philosophy and such are always worth very little and a degree in eg mathematics is always worth a decent amount. In terms of the money the students earn in their later life, this is definitely correct. Society simply does not fund jobs not "contributing" to the economy in a sustainable way - for example, caregivers for both young and old people, teachers or social workers are paid shit, while a total dumbass can earn tons of money as a "consultant"...
- dan-robertson 8y agoI think the key word is “always.” It is probably true that an average humanities graduate earns less than an average mathematics graduate (I chose this instead of engineering where there might be professional qualifications involved). However it is less clear that an average law or mba graduate would earn less than an average mmath graduate. And for those degrees an undergraduate in humanities is required so surely that degree must be considered worthwhile. There are also good government jobs which are full of people with humanities degrees, and plenty of people with mathematics degrees which they gain little from. I suppose the point I want to make is that if American universities all stopped offering courses in the humanities then there would likely be complaints from government departments or industry about not being able to find sufficiently educated candidates. I suspect that if half of universities stopped offering those courses the effect would be much smaller.