4 ms·

It's easy to criticize federal student loan programs, but there's an even bigger problem: people are choosing majors that aren't valuable in the market, and are

It's easy to criticize federal student loan programs, but there's an even bigger problem: people are choosing majors that aren't valuable in the market, and are later somehow surprised they are worse off than when they started. Weird.

meko 8y ago
most of those majors would have been fine choices 10+ years ago.
- mac01021 8y ago
  Do you have an example?
Fomite 8y ago
We're also bad at predicting what's valuable in the market, and lots of just-so stories aren't true (i.e. not all STEM majors are viable or better than some humanities degrees).
kakarot 8y ago
Disney Channel told us we could be anything we wanted when we grew up.
- mac01021 8y ago
  If you never grow up, then the statement is vacuously true.
brandonmenc 8y ago
> people are choosing majors that aren't valuable in the market, and are later somehow surprised they are worse off than when they started It's not "people," it's children. Children who are told by every single successful adult they trust that they need to go to college and that it doesn't matter what they get the degree in, just that they have one.
devwastaken 8y ago
There's another big problem: People who choose valuable majors end up with classes that don't matter with professors that don't care, with a university that puts more effort and money into advertising than quality of life. The fact that you have to spend 4 years to get a bachelors in something is complete BS. Padded time. Universities really don't pander to the 'market', they are their own market and you being prepared for the workforce is an afterthought based upon how much your instructor cares about it. The only times these becomes exceptions is in Engineering, Law, and Medicine. Things that have dedicated schoolings for them. It's still padded but they have an explicit direction that feeds into a market.
- burfog 8y ago
  It's stuck this way because accreditation creates a cartel. To issue an accreditation degree, time-wasting requirements must be satisfied. Accreditation requirements are effectively controlled by the customers, which are the universities that are already accredited. Those universities don't want competition to be able to offer students a better deal, with a cheaper degree or with a more-focused degree full of classes that are expensive to operate. For example, consider a 4-year BS in Computer Science. It contains about 1 year of Computer Science, 1 year of vaguely-related things (physics, calculus, etc.) and 2 years of cheap filler nonsense that makes you less-educated than when you started. Accreditation blocks any attempt to offer a full 4 years of actual value.
knieveltech 8y ago
Letting "the market" decide what is and isn't valuable in terms of human knowledge seems dubious at best. We are talking about a system that prioritizes extraction of non-renewable resources to produce dumb shit like bluetooth toothbrushes.
- mac01021 8y ago
  "Value" is subjective - you or I might value a type of knowledge differently from the way the market does. However, to the extent that a student is pursuing an education as a means to achieve employment and income, the value of a piece of knowledge to the student _is_ its value to the market.
  - knieveltech 8y ago
    That an education should be pursued primarily or solely as a means to achieve employment is even more dubious. Unless, of course, you're trying to claim that having a highly educated populace isn't, in and of itself, a Social Good?
    - mac01021 8y ago
      I'm not claiming that, or making any value proposition at all. I'm saying IF your main or only goal is career advancement, THEN the value of a college education to you is the same as the value of that education to the market. If you have other goals then by all means major in Theater, Filipino Literature, Marine Biology, or whatever major best suits your goals. The GP's point, in the post you replied to above, is that you should not expect, having done that, to be able to easily repay a $100k loan. Maybe your point is that we should, as a society, revise our scheme for funding people's educations, so that the pursuit of degrees in less lucrative fields is not such a burden. And if so, maybe you're right. The fact is, though, a lot of college students have no clear goals. Maybe they want a job after they get out but don't know what. Or maybe their parents just expect them to get a degree but haven't given them much guidance in choosing a major. If such a student chooses "Communications" or English Lit just because it seems easier or somewhat more interesting than a more technical field, and they just have vague expectations of being better able to find employment having finished their degree, I don't think it qualifies as much of a social good for the student to get that education. I certainly don't want to pay for it in my tax dollars.

meko 8y ago

most of those majors would have been fine choices 10+ years ago.

mac01021 8y ago
Do you have an example?

Fomite 8y ago

We're also bad at predicting what's valuable in the market, and lots of just-so stories aren't true (i.e. not all STEM majors are viable or better than some humanities degrees).

kakarot 8y ago

Disney Channel told us we could be anything we wanted when we grew up.

mac01021 8y ago
If you never grow up, then the statement is vacuously true.

brandonmenc 8y ago

> people are choosing majors that aren't valuable in the market, and are later somehow surprised they are worse off than when they started It's not "people," it's children. Children who are told by every single successful adult they trust that they need to go to college and that it doesn't matter what they get the degree in, just that they have one.

devwastaken 8y ago

There's another big problem: People who choose valuable majors end up with classes that don't matter with professors that don't care, with a university that puts more effort and money into advertising than quality of life. The fact that you have to spend 4 years to get a bachelors in something is complete BS. Padded time. Universities really don't pander to the 'market', they are their own market and you being prepared for the workforce is an afterthought based upon how much your instructor cares about it. The only times these becomes exceptions is in Engineering, Law, and Medicine. Things that have dedicated schoolings for them. It's still padded but they have an explicit direction that feeds into a market.

burfog 8y ago
It's stuck this way because accreditation creates a cartel. To issue an accreditation degree, time-wasting requirements must be satisfied. Accreditation requirements are effectively controlled by the customers, which are the universities that are already accredited. Those universities don't want competition to be able to offer students a better deal, with a cheaper degree or with a more-focused degree full of classes that are expensive to operate. For example, consider a 4-year BS in Computer Science. It contains about 1 year of Computer Science, 1 year of vaguely-related things (physics, calculus, etc.) and 2 years of cheap filler nonsense that makes you less-educated than when you started. Accreditation blocks any attempt to offer a full 4 years of actual value.

knieveltech 8y ago

Letting "the market" decide what is and isn't valuable in terms of human knowledge seems dubious at best. We are talking about a system that prioritizes extraction of non-renewable resources to produce dumb shit like bluetooth toothbrushes.

mac01021 8y ago
"Value" is subjective - you or I might value a type of knowledge differently from the way the market does. However, to the extent that a student is pursuing an education as a means to achieve employment and income, the value of a piece of knowledge to the student _is_ its value to the market.
- knieveltech 8y ago
  That an education should be pursued primarily or solely as a means to achieve employment is even more dubious. Unless, of course, you're trying to claim that having a highly educated populace isn't, in and of itself, a Social Good?
  - mac01021 8y ago
    I'm not claiming that, or making any value proposition at all. I'm saying IF your main or only goal is career advancement, THEN the value of a college education to you is the same as the value of that education to the market. If you have other goals then by all means major in Theater, Filipino Literature, Marine Biology, or whatever major best suits your goals. The GP's point, in the post you replied to above, is that you should not expect, having done that, to be able to easily repay a $100k loan. Maybe your point is that we should, as a society, revise our scheme for funding people's educations, so that the pursuit of degrees in less lucrative fields is not such a burden. And if so, maybe you're right. The fact is, though, a lot of college students have no clear goals. Maybe they want a job after they get out but don't know what. Or maybe their parents just expect them to get a degree but haven't given them much guidance in choosing a major. If such a student chooses "Communications" or English Lit just because it seems easier or somewhat more interesting than a more technical field, and they just have vague expectations of being better able to find employment having finished their degree, I don't think it qualifies as much of a social good for the student to get that education. I certainly don't want to pay for it in my tax dollars.