6 ms·

> Why? Because education is not a luxury service that can be postponed or outright skipped, like lifestyle-tailored tourism, and education costs in the US have

> Why? Because education is not a luxury service that can be postponed or outright skipped, like lifestyle-tailored tourism, and education costs in the US have become a major societal and economical problem. > In fact, with almost every purchase that involves a loan, the company offering the loan is different than the company offering the product / service. That's a tautology, and entirely misses the point. The point is that student loans are a colossal problem for the US, not only economical but also societal, and the problem is caused by the disconnection between the vicious cycle that leads to hikes in cost and the consequences of complying with the requirements to have an education. Complaining that universities should not feel any consequence for the need to take massive loans they force onto their student body is like complaining that petrochemical companies should not feel any consequence for the need to decontaminate the environment.

ponsin 7y ago
"Education" is necessary up to a certain point. In America, up to highschool education is free and for the most part required. Why draw the line at a bachelors degree? Should Masters and PhDs be free and partially required? Based on how I framed the question I assume that you can tell that I draw the line at highschool education. I can however see the argument for raising it to bachelor's. However I would expect the government to do much more than just give free money. Rather they would regulate it like they do to highschool. For example, required courses in English literature, American history, PE, and science. Mandatory attendance. Nationwide standardized tests. And others ... I personally am glad that I finish all of that in highschool and I now have the freedom to choose what and how I study. But to respond to your point directly, degrees such as gender studies, art history, and English literature are certainly a luxury service that can be postponed or outright skipped.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  > Based on how I framed the question I assume that you can tell that I draw the line at highschool education. I'm asking out of curiosity and not trying to make a point or win any argument: Why do you draw your line there? I wouldn't combine "free" and "partially required" though, as I don't see the need to conflate them. Where I live Masters and PhDs are free, but your required education is completed at age 15. Everything after that is completely optional, but free. as in no tuition, but there are some administrative fees and books you need to buy, etc.
  - ponsin 7y ago
    I draw my line there because I know of many people who would have a very fulfilling career doing things that only require a high school education (such as cashiers, customer service representatives, and construction workers). I assume that those people also would not gain much from college since having knowing them in highschool, they do not gain that much from formal education (lack of motivation to study, lack of intelligence to understand basic topics, lack of interest is those subjects). I guess I shouldn't have assumed that government would necessarily regulate college like they do high school. Some European countries are examples of that. However in those countries there are a lack of people who are qualified to work in highly educated fields and a surplus of blue collar workers. In the US the situation is reversed. There is not enough work for many liberal arts majors, but a lack of workers for blue collar jobs. Spending tax dollars educating people from jobs that lack workers to jobs that have a surplus is not good usage of the money. Furthermore, a person who is not fit for even free college (probably has a lower income) now has to pay taxes for college students (who probably will have a higher income [unless they can't find a job]) while not benefiting from it.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      There are a lot of assumptions in there that I don't think are necessarily founded. Is knowing someone enough for you to make assumptions about whether they will gain much from higher education? That seems awfully judgmental to me. I'll also add that this: "However in those countries there are a lack of people who are qualified to work in highly educated fields and a surplus of blue collar workers." is absolutely not the case in the European country where I live. When you talk about the state of "those countries", what countries are you talking about and what are you basing that statement on?
      - ponsin 7y ago
        > Is knowing someone enough for you to make assumptions about whether they will gain much from higher education? Yes, I make assumptions based on what I hear and who I see. I don't have the time to make a doctorate thesis on of my assumptions. Had I spent years researching how to identify people who college would help, and people who it would not help then I would use a stronger word than "assumption". With regard to countries offering free college education there are countries such as Germany, France and Brazil that offer free college education. They also have very low rates of attendance. Image how much lower it would be if the students had to pay for it.
- int_19h 7y ago
  A better approach would be to draw the line at the actual skills and knowledge that we believe everybody in the society must possess, and then figure out how to structure the educational system around that - i.e. what does it even mean to "have a degree", what kinds there are, what's the difference between college and trade school etc. It's quite likely that the existing structure is not at all optimal.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
Then taxpayers should pay for education itself. No reason for taxpayers to become lenders. The real problem is voters want lower taxes, and some genius figured out a way to tout lower taxes and tax payer assistance to students, hence student loan debt. And, inevitably, like all times that society is enabled to pass the buck onto future generations or ignore externalities, society will take and consume all it can until the breaking point. Same story with defined benefit pensions, student loans, environmental damage. We are simply starting to see the effects of pushing the costs into the future, now that the future is here.
- rsj_hn 7y ago
  > The real problem is voters want lower taxes, and some genius figured out a way to tout lower taxes and tax payer assistance to students, hence student loan debt. The facts don't support this claim. U.S. government spending on tertiary education is 0.91% of GDP compared to Germany's 1.0% and Japan's 0.45% (source: https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-education.htm#indicator-chart https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-educati...) Rather, university education in the U.S., like healthcare, is insanely expensive compared to other countries. Why is that? 1. Non-selective. We admit 70% of high school graduates to University whereas in Germany they admit 1/3. 2. Too long/unfocused. University education can last 5-6 years in the US for a bachelors, whereas in Germany it is limited to 3 years. You don't get to drift around as "undecided" and change your major, you apply to the school with a specific major. You don't get a lot of choice as to your electives and follow a pre-planned course of study (for the most part). 3. Too many frills. European schools don't have massive sports stadiums, athletic departments, or other amenities similar to US universities. 4. Too much staff. Our universities are massively overstaffed with everything from diversity officers to football coaches to teams of counselors. Put this all together, and you have a very expensive, inefficient, gold-plated system focused on catering to student whims rather than to taxpayer efficiency. Of course tax payers don't want to pay for it -- why should they? If you want European style funding of universities, you need European-style spending levels and rigor. If you want an experience that is half as selective, takes twice as long, and offers absurd amenities that have nothing to do with university education, then you are going to have to pay for that out of your own pocket rather than asking for taxpayers to provide this experience for you. The good news is that you can find relatively inexpensive higher education in the U.S. if you are a good student and are willing to attend community college for the first two years and a local state school for the rest. If you are good enough to be admitted to University in Europe, then in the U.S. you should be able to get a scholarship. Of course most US university students would never be admitted to University in Europe in the first place -- so having an option to pay a lot to go might be better than not having an option at all. But I suspect that we would be better off adopting a German style trade school system to absorb 50% of high school graduates as well as a more rigorous high school system, but that would require adoption of tracking and letting most students know that they are not going to be on the university track. In that type of environment, sure, taxpayers would be willing to fund the enterprise since they would only be spending 10% more than they are spending now to match German-level of tertiary education spending.

ponsin 7y ago

"Education" is necessary up to a certain point. In America, up to highschool education is free and for the most part required. Why draw the line at a bachelors degree? Should Masters and PhDs be free and partially required? Based on how I framed the question I assume that you can tell that I draw the line at highschool education. I can however see the argument for raising it to bachelor's. However I would expect the government to do much more than just give free money. Rather they would regulate it like they do to highschool. For example, required courses in English literature, American history, PE, and science. Mandatory attendance. Nationwide standardized tests. And others ... I personally am glad that I finish all of that in highschool and I now have the freedom to choose what and how I study. But to respond to your point directly, degrees such as gender studies, art history, and English literature are certainly a luxury service that can be postponed or outright skipped.

CathedralBorrow 7y ago
> Based on how I framed the question I assume that you can tell that I draw the line at highschool education. I'm asking out of curiosity and not trying to make a point or win any argument: Why do you draw your line there? I wouldn't combine "free" and "partially required" though, as I don't see the need to conflate them. Where I live Masters and PhDs are free, but your required education is completed at age 15. Everything after that is completely optional, but free. as in no tuition, but there are some administrative fees and books you need to buy, etc.
- ponsin 7y ago
  I draw my line there because I know of many people who would have a very fulfilling career doing things that only require a high school education (such as cashiers, customer service representatives, and construction workers). I assume that those people also would not gain much from college since having knowing them in highschool, they do not gain that much from formal education (lack of motivation to study, lack of intelligence to understand basic topics, lack of interest is those subjects). I guess I shouldn't have assumed that government would necessarily regulate college like they do high school. Some European countries are examples of that. However in those countries there are a lack of people who are qualified to work in highly educated fields and a surplus of blue collar workers. In the US the situation is reversed. There is not enough work for many liberal arts majors, but a lack of workers for blue collar jobs. Spending tax dollars educating people from jobs that lack workers to jobs that have a surplus is not good usage of the money. Furthermore, a person who is not fit for even free college (probably has a lower income) now has to pay taxes for college students (who probably will have a higher income [unless they can't find a job]) while not benefiting from it.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    There are a lot of assumptions in there that I don't think are necessarily founded. Is knowing someone enough for you to make assumptions about whether they will gain much from higher education? That seems awfully judgmental to me. I'll also add that this: "However in those countries there are a lack of people who are qualified to work in highly educated fields and a surplus of blue collar workers." is absolutely not the case in the European country where I live. When you talk about the state of "those countries", what countries are you talking about and what are you basing that statement on?
    - ponsin 7y ago
      > Is knowing someone enough for you to make assumptions about whether they will gain much from higher education? Yes, I make assumptions based on what I hear and who I see. I don't have the time to make a doctorate thesis on of my assumptions. Had I spent years researching how to identify people who college would help, and people who it would not help then I would use a stronger word than "assumption". With regard to countries offering free college education there are countries such as Germany, France and Brazil that offer free college education. They also have very low rates of attendance. Image how much lower it would be if the students had to pay for it.
int_19h 7y ago
A better approach would be to draw the line at the actual skills and knowledge that we believe everybody in the society must possess, and then figure out how to structure the educational system around that - i.e. what does it even mean to "have a degree", what kinds there are, what's the difference between college and trade school etc. It's quite likely that the existing structure is not at all optimal.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Then taxpayers should pay for education itself. No reason for taxpayers to become lenders. The real problem is voters want lower taxes, and some genius figured out a way to tout lower taxes and tax payer assistance to students, hence student loan debt. And, inevitably, like all times that society is enabled to pass the buck onto future generations or ignore externalities, society will take and consume all it can until the breaking point. Same story with defined benefit pensions, student loans, environmental damage. We are simply starting to see the effects of pushing the costs into the future, now that the future is here.

rsj_hn 7y ago
> The real problem is voters want lower taxes, and some genius figured out a way to tout lower taxes and tax payer assistance to students, hence student loan debt. The facts don't support this claim. U.S. government spending on tertiary education is 0.91% of GDP compared to Germany's 1.0% and Japan's 0.45% (source: https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-education.htm#indicator-chart https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-educati...) Rather, university education in the U.S., like healthcare, is insanely expensive compared to other countries. Why is that? 1. Non-selective. We admit 70% of high school graduates to University whereas in Germany they admit 1/3. 2. Too long/unfocused. University education can last 5-6 years in the US for a bachelors, whereas in Germany it is limited to 3 years. You don't get to drift around as "undecided" and change your major, you apply to the school with a specific major. You don't get a lot of choice as to your electives and follow a pre-planned course of study (for the most part). 3. Too many frills. European schools don't have massive sports stadiums, athletic departments, or other amenities similar to US universities. 4. Too much staff. Our universities are massively overstaffed with everything from diversity officers to football coaches to teams of counselors. Put this all together, and you have a very expensive, inefficient, gold-plated system focused on catering to student whims rather than to taxpayer efficiency. Of course tax payers don't want to pay for it -- why should they? If you want European style funding of universities, you need European-style spending levels and rigor. If you want an experience that is half as selective, takes twice as long, and offers absurd amenities that have nothing to do with university education, then you are going to have to pay for that out of your own pocket rather than asking for taxpayers to provide this experience for you. The good news is that you can find relatively inexpensive higher education in the U.S. if you are a good student and are willing to attend community college for the first two years and a local state school for the rest. If you are good enough to be admitted to University in Europe, then in the U.S. you should be able to get a scholarship. Of course most US university students would never be admitted to University in Europe in the first place -- so having an option to pay a lot to go might be better than not having an option at all. But I suspect that we would be better off adopting a German style trade school system to absorb 50% of high school graduates as well as a more rigorous high school system, but that would require adoption of tracking and letting most students know that they are not going to be on the university track. In that type of environment, sure, taxpayers would be willing to fund the enterprise since they would only be spending 10% more than they are spending now to match German-level of tertiary education spending.