4 ms·

Or we could just not make getting such an education financially burdensome and we can go forward as a universally highly educated and thoughtful society?

jlmorton 7y ago
That's a pretty tall order.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
abfan1127 7y ago
many people don't want to be highly educated.
- drdeadringer 7y ago
  To be fair, I like to learn new things and see no need for me to get a Master or PhD degree. I have no idea why I would want or need an alphabet after my name, be that for an extra half dollar per hour or feeling smug enough to not talk to the janitorial staff.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    Ha! That's not the point at all. People go to graduate school to learn new things and, specifically, to learn to discover new things. A PhD is essentially an apprenticeship for researchers. You spend very little time in the classroom, maybe a half dozen classes or so over as many years. If you go for the title or for the money, you're going to be very disappointed, very quickly.
EpicEng 7y ago
This sounds great if you buy into the ridiculous notion that everyone is basically equal and would thrive in college. This is not at all the case.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  Not my point at all. Not everyone needs to go to Princeton but everyone who wants a degree and is willing to do the requisite learning should be given the opportunity at a solid degree. Further, outside of some niche circumstances, most of the people who wouldn't "thrive" would be much more able if the earlier systems hadn't failed them so spectacularly.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    I tend to agree, but look what happened; supply went through the roof, and the four year degree is today's equivalent of a 1960 high school diploma. It's not like all of the people going to college are getting much out of it. It's just a thing you are told you have to do now. Most of my friends spent more time drinking than studying and got very little out of it. They would have been far better off learning a trade. >most of the people who wouldn't "thrive" would be much more able if the earlier systems hadn't failed them so spectacularly. Most? Maybe, maybe not. Some amount of them absolutely, but that's once again a different problem to solve, not something to band-aid over later.
    - AWildC182 7y ago
      The issue with education is that it's not just about the jobs. There are lots of other positive externalities that aren't as easy to account for. Things like financial literacy, political literacy, economic mobility, and a whole slew of intellectual tools that can help them later in life regardless of job. Personally, I'm totally ok with making college just as mandatory as high school as long as it doesn't place an undue burden on individuals. Some food for thought: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/education-gap-explains-american-politics/575113/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/educat... Also, we know that education rates skew heavily with SES. It's much more an issue of availability and quality of education than it is some kids being dumb or something...
  - 8note 7y ago
    yeah, going to Princeton is to tell your employees that your family is rich, nothing about your competence or knowledge learned
moduspol 7y ago
Even if it were free, the idea that it would take someone with an existing career four years as a full-time student to pursue a different career is too much. We need to start questioning bad assumptions about education. Shuffling money around isn't going to do it.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  You're talking about career changes as opposed to initial schooling but I'll bite, what assumptions do you think need to change?
  - moduspol 7y ago
    > You're talking about career changes as opposed to initial schooling Yes, but it's the same question. Initial schooling is implicitly accepting a working age adult contributing no income for four years. We're just accustomed to it. > what assumptions do you think need to change? * 18 year olds are capable of making decisions about what career they will want for the rest of their lives * Leaving (or pushing back entering) the work force for four years in pursuit of a degree is a nigh-universal good * Taking four years of time / 120 credit hours is a reasonable and good target around which to structure degrees, regardless of what amount of knowledge must / should be imparted * Training on the job cannot replace any meaningful amount of what four year degrees can offer * Anyone can get a degree, and should be encouraged to do so regardless of whether or not they actually can or will I mean, there are more, but that's a good start.

jlmorton 7y ago

That's a pretty tall order.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

abfan1127 7y ago

many people don't want to be highly educated.

drdeadringer 7y ago
To be fair, I like to learn new things and see no need for me to get a Master or PhD degree. I have no idea why I would want or need an alphabet after my name, be that for an extra half dollar per hour or feeling smug enough to not talk to the janitorial staff.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  Ha! That's not the point at all. People go to graduate school to learn new things and, specifically, to learn to discover new things. A PhD is essentially an apprenticeship for researchers. You spend very little time in the classroom, maybe a half dozen classes or so over as many years. If you go for the title or for the money, you're going to be very disappointed, very quickly.

EpicEng 7y ago

This sounds great if you buy into the ridiculous notion that everyone is basically equal and would thrive in college. This is not at all the case.

AWildC182 7y ago
Not my point at all. Not everyone needs to go to Princeton but everyone who wants a degree and is willing to do the requisite learning should be given the opportunity at a solid degree. Further, outside of some niche circumstances, most of the people who wouldn't "thrive" would be much more able if the earlier systems hadn't failed them so spectacularly.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  I tend to agree, but look what happened; supply went through the roof, and the four year degree is today's equivalent of a 1960 high school diploma. It's not like all of the people going to college are getting much out of it. It's just a thing you are told you have to do now. Most of my friends spent more time drinking than studying and got very little out of it. They would have been far better off learning a trade. >most of the people who wouldn't "thrive" would be much more able if the earlier systems hadn't failed them so spectacularly. Most? Maybe, maybe not. Some amount of them absolutely, but that's once again a different problem to solve, not something to band-aid over later.
  - AWildC182 7y ago
    The issue with education is that it's not just about the jobs. There are lots of other positive externalities that aren't as easy to account for. Things like financial literacy, political literacy, economic mobility, and a whole slew of intellectual tools that can help them later in life regardless of job. Personally, I'm totally ok with making college just as mandatory as high school as long as it doesn't place an undue burden on individuals. Some food for thought: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/education-gap-explains-american-politics/575113/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/educat... Also, we know that education rates skew heavily with SES. It's much more an issue of availability and quality of education than it is some kids being dumb or something...
- 8note 7y ago
  yeah, going to Princeton is to tell your employees that your family is rich, nothing about your competence or knowledge learned

moduspol 7y ago

Even if it were free, the idea that it would take someone with an existing career four years as a full-time student to pursue a different career is too much. We need to start questioning bad assumptions about education. Shuffling money around isn't going to do it.

AWildC182 7y ago
You're talking about career changes as opposed to initial schooling but I'll bite, what assumptions do you think need to change?
- moduspol 7y ago
  > You're talking about career changes as opposed to initial schooling Yes, but it's the same question. Initial schooling is implicitly accepting a working age adult contributing no income for four years. We're just accustomed to it. > what assumptions do you think need to change? * 18 year olds are capable of making decisions about what career they will want for the rest of their lives * Leaving (or pushing back entering) the work force for four years in pursuit of a degree is a nigh-universal good * Taking four years of time / 120 credit hours is a reasonable and good target around which to structure degrees, regardless of what amount of knowledge must / should be imparted * Training on the job cannot replace any meaningful amount of what four year degrees can offer * Anyone can get a degree, and should be encouraged to do so regardless of whether or not they actually can or will I mean, there are more, but that's a good start.