4 ms·

>If everyone has a degree, it offers no advantage. No advantage? Everyone would have a much broader education including a specialty. Even if they don't direct

by mrlala 7y ago

>If everyone has a degree, it offers no advantage. No advantage? Everyone would have a much broader education including a specialty. Even if they don't directly use that specialty it in their future career, it's still useful. >The lower performers just end up with more debt. Hmm if only there was a way to solve something like that....

gameswithgo 7y ago
>Everyone would have a much broader education including a specialty No, there is a large set of people who go to college to get the paper they need, and do not end up with any more broad of an education at all, or no more broad, possibly less, than work experience would have given them.
peterlk 7y ago
This is only true in theory, not in practice. For example see the "education" that many student athletes obtain. As demand for college increases, and subsidies from the government continue, the incentive for colleges to offer a good education decreases. Going to college does not ensure broad knowledge or a quality education.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  Student athletes are such a narrow subset of the overall population of a college, that using them as an example doesn't really make any kind of case about whether subsidies help or hurt. Going to college doesn't ensure broad knowledge or a quality education, but it sure is a prerequisite to those things in this day and age. And we should try to give that opportunity to as many smart, motivated people as we can find in our country, irrespective of their ability to pay. The alternative is a return to deep class stratification. There's no guarantee that anyone will receive a quality education even at a quality school. Demanding that as a prerequisite to subsidies is like demanding that farmers not lose crops as a prerequisite to subsidizing corn.
TrackerFF 7y ago
The intellectual gain is there, but sadly it is wasted on job tasks which are nor intellectually challenging, or even require the knowledge learned during college - EVEN if your education and job is in the same field. For example, a lot of regular/consumer banking jobs today require a college degree, but did not 15-20 years ago. The job has not changed; The people that work there still mainly help people with savings accounts, mortgages, loans, etc. But since there are so many applicants for these positions, you now need a Bachelors degree in Economics, Business Administration, or similar. I've seen job ads for bank greeters and receptionists that required a bachelors.
- hellisothers 7y ago
  Man that is crazy but I guess it makes sense if the employer can be picky. It does go to show that college has become a signaling mechanism in addition to or instead of credentialing.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jeffdavis 7y ago
> Everyone would have a much broader education including a specialty. No. People inclined towards that kind of thing would go to college anyway. Compelling others to also go to college won't have those positive results unless the high school already failed them, in which case college is just a "sorry four years of your life were wasted, let's have a do-over". But it seems like the better answer is to fix broken high schools.

by mrlala 7y ago

gameswithgo 7y ago

>Everyone would have a much broader education including a specialty No, there is a large set of people who go to college to get the paper they need, and do not end up with any more broad of an education at all, or no more broad, possibly less, than work experience would have given them.

peterlk 7y ago

This is only true in theory, not in practice. For example see the "education" that many student athletes obtain. As demand for college increases, and subsidies from the government continue, the incentive for colleges to offer a good education decreases. Going to college does not ensure broad knowledge or a quality education.

jschwartzi 7y ago
Student athletes are such a narrow subset of the overall population of a college, that using them as an example doesn't really make any kind of case about whether subsidies help or hurt. Going to college doesn't ensure broad knowledge or a quality education, but it sure is a prerequisite to those things in this day and age. And we should try to give that opportunity to as many smart, motivated people as we can find in our country, irrespective of their ability to pay. The alternative is a return to deep class stratification. There's no guarantee that anyone will receive a quality education even at a quality school. Demanding that as a prerequisite to subsidies is like demanding that farmers not lose crops as a prerequisite to subsidizing corn.

TrackerFF 7y ago

The intellectual gain is there, but sadly it is wasted on job tasks which are nor intellectually challenging, or even require the knowledge learned during college - EVEN if your education and job is in the same field. For example, a lot of regular/consumer banking jobs today require a college degree, but did not 15-20 years ago. The job has not changed; The people that work there still mainly help people with savings accounts, mortgages, loans, etc. But since there are so many applicants for these positions, you now need a Bachelors degree in Economics, Business Administration, or similar. I've seen job ads for bank greeters and receptionists that required a bachelors.

hellisothers 7y ago
Man that is crazy but I guess it makes sense if the employer can be picky. It does go to show that college has become a signaling mechanism in addition to or instead of credentialing.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jeffdavis 7y ago

> Everyone would have a much broader education including a specialty. No. People inclined towards that kind of thing would go to college anyway. Compelling others to also go to college won't have those positive results unless the high school already failed them, in which case college is just a "sorry four years of your life were wasted, let's have a do-over". But it seems like the better answer is to fix broken high schools.