3 ms·

Is "make more money" the best criterion we can find for determining what educational paths should be encouraged and supported? It's bad enough that students ar

by jfk13 8y ago

Is "make more money" the best criterion we can find for determining what educational paths should be encouraged and supported? It's bad enough that students are likely to be naturally drawn towards certain career choices - such as advertising technology - because of the generous pay to be found in that sector, rather than because they see an opportunity to make the world a better place. Let's not give educational institutions an added financial incentive to promote the most lucrative courses and careers rather than the most beneficial ones.

SkyBelow 8y ago
>Is "make more money" the best criterion we can find for determining what educational paths should be encouraged and supported? First, that is quite a different question than the one I was answering. When someone is asked what is the best way to eat an elephant and tries to give an answer, mentioning that people shouldn't eat elephants is a comment better directed at the person asking the original question and not the one answering. Second, no, but we also have scholarships and such which reduce cost for those deemed having potential that isn't restricted just to making money. It would be unwise to overlook the increase in earning potential being the reason so many college students justify taking on their degree, and it would also be unwise to insist that the college experience is the path for those who want a general purpose education without a specific purpose. Third, that figuring out how to trick more people into buying something is a more lucrative career than something that advances human society is an indictment of humanity at large. Is colleges promoting beneficial courses (based on what ever definition you go with) over lucrative ones really benefiting society when it leaves the student without the ability to earn money in a society that runs on money?
- tracker1 8y ago
  Well, is investing in a field of study that graduates 5000 students a year, but only has about 50 new jobs in that field available make any sense? Yes, you should have to be able to make a living at something to convince someone to loan you the money, even on ISA terms.

by jfk13 8y ago

SkyBelow 8y ago

>Is "make more money" the best criterion we can find for determining what educational paths should be encouraged and supported? First, that is quite a different question than the one I was answering. When someone is asked what is the best way to eat an elephant and tries to give an answer, mentioning that people shouldn't eat elephants is a comment better directed at the person asking the original question and not the one answering. Second, no, but we also have scholarships and such which reduce cost for those deemed having potential that isn't restricted just to making money. It would be unwise to overlook the increase in earning potential being the reason so many college students justify taking on their degree, and it would also be unwise to insist that the college experience is the path for those who want a general purpose education without a specific purpose. Third, that figuring out how to trick more people into buying something is a more lucrative career than something that advances human society is an indictment of humanity at large. Is colleges promoting beneficial courses (based on what ever definition you go with) over lucrative ones really benefiting society when it leaves the student without the ability to earn money in a society that runs on money?

tracker1 8y ago
Well, is investing in a field of study that graduates 5000 students a year, but only has about 50 new jobs in that field available make any sense? Yes, you should have to be able to make a living at something to convince someone to loan you the money, even on ISA terms.