4 ms·

You should realize that primary and secondary school are already provided "free" to anyone, and the reasons that works are just as valid for college. There's n

You should realize that primary and secondary school are already provided "free" to anyone, and the reasons that works are just as valid for college. There's nothing magically impossible about using taxpayer money to provide 16 years of education instead of 12.

vorpalhex 7y ago
It benefits us as a country to have an electorate who can read and write and have a basic understanding of civics and history. It doesn't necessarily appear to benefit us the same way to have a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees to make mom and dad happy. There are a lot of benefits to college, but a lot of those benefits go away when college stops becoming a choice and starts becoming mandated state education.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  How about if a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees because sophisticated communication is a critical skill when your entire economy is based on information? It's really striking to me how the arguments against college for all today mirror the arguments against secondary school for all 120 years ago. Hopefully the parallel continues and our great grandkids can take their advanced education for granted the way we take secondary school for granted today.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    We don't live in a world where "sophisticated communication" alone gets you hired unfortunately. Primary/secondary education is meant to build reasonably well rounded individuals who meet the basic skills to function well in society. Paying significant amounts of money to do that for an additional four years with no return on investment, whether it's the individual or the taxpayers at large, is silly.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    > How about if a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees because sophisticated communication is a critical skill when your entire economy is based on information? This is an argument for teaching Communications or Rhetoric. It fails completely as an argument for English, which is mostly an exercise in poorly imitating literary analysis in some style from the 50’s or later. Even if we did want better communicators a year of focused effort on communications/rhetoric would be enough rather than spending four. > Hopefully the parallel continues and our great grandkids can take their advanced education for granted the way we take secondary school for granted today. If tertiary education is expanded massively it will only be by the same mechanism as secondary education was, dramatic lowering of standards.
- bonoboTP 7y ago
  You don't have to speculate, this is reality in Europe. An important part of these systems are the limits on the number of students admitted to most programs. For example in Hungary there are centralized final exams at the end of secondary school (age 18-19) and you get a score at the end. You can apply to several universities at the same time, in a preferential order. Then, each year, an algorithm goes down the list of all students ordered by their score and allocates them to their topmost choice where there's still room. (Also there's no "soft" and subjective bullshit, like essays about your motivation and proofs of "well-roundedness".) This way the state can focus the subsidy to educational fields that will benefit the economy more, while still subsidizing a certain number of places everywhere. (Of course if you don't have enough points, there are further, paid places as well.)
- aspaceman 7y ago
  Why the criticism of an English degree? It's an important, critical and incredibly useful subject. Especially in our increasingly connected and writing-centric world. You get an advanced workforce by making it advanced in all aspects, not just the ones that you arbitrarily value.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    There's nothing wrong with an English degree if you intend to use it and have a career path with it in mind. Unfortunately I have no shortage of friends who went with college because they were expected to, got an English degree because it was easy, and now work dead end jobs they dislike. While I'm picking on English degrees because it's easy pickings, it's not unique. Take any degree, throw enough people at it and you'll end up with a lot of degree holders not having career paths open to them.
slowhand09 7y ago
"the reasons that works" is debatable. Now kids in the us frequently start in pre-pre-Kindergarten. And yet we can't teach cursive writing/reading because its too hard. Baltimore City spends more per capita than any other region in the state of MD, yet nobody reads at grade level. There are many factors in play. Throwing money at free college because the 1st 12 nee 14 were free doesn't mean it works. Wanna go to college? Take a test, show you've not frittered away your 1st 12yrs. My employer paid for my MS degree courses and books. If I didn't present a =>3.0 GPA, they didn't reimburse. That provided motivation. But... there was a study in recent years showing some for-profit private colleges that relied heavily on gov't paid students had "watered down" their requirements to achieve the grades necessary to continue on a tax-payer funded basis. So there's that to deal with. Evidently Higher Ed is willing to compromise it scruples when money is involved.
jimbob45 7y ago
That's different though. High school educations are entirely uniform across the board.

vorpalhex 7y ago

It benefits us as a country to have an electorate who can read and write and have a basic understanding of civics and history. It doesn't necessarily appear to benefit us the same way to have a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees to make mom and dad happy. There are a lot of benefits to college, but a lot of those benefits go away when college stops becoming a choice and starts becoming mandated state education.

snowwrestler 7y ago
How about if a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees because sophisticated communication is a critical skill when your entire economy is based on information? It's really striking to me how the arguments against college for all today mirror the arguments against secondary school for all 120 years ago. Hopefully the parallel continues and our great grandkids can take their advanced education for granted the way we take secondary school for granted today.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  We don't live in a world where "sophisticated communication" alone gets you hired unfortunately. Primary/secondary education is meant to build reasonably well rounded individuals who meet the basic skills to function well in society. Paying significant amounts of money to do that for an additional four years with no return on investment, whether it's the individual or the taxpayers at large, is silly.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > How about if a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees because sophisticated communication is a critical skill when your entire economy is based on information? This is an argument for teaching Communications or Rhetoric. It fails completely as an argument for English, which is mostly an exercise in poorly imitating literary analysis in some style from the 50’s or later. Even if we did want better communicators a year of focused effort on communications/rhetoric would be enough rather than spending four. > Hopefully the parallel continues and our great grandkids can take their advanced education for granted the way we take secondary school for granted today. If tertiary education is expanded massively it will only be by the same mechanism as secondary education was, dramatic lowering of standards.
bonoboTP 7y ago
You don't have to speculate, this is reality in Europe. An important part of these systems are the limits on the number of students admitted to most programs. For example in Hungary there are centralized final exams at the end of secondary school (age 18-19) and you get a score at the end. You can apply to several universities at the same time, in a preferential order. Then, each year, an algorithm goes down the list of all students ordered by their score and allocates them to their topmost choice where there's still room. (Also there's no "soft" and subjective bullshit, like essays about your motivation and proofs of "well-roundedness".) This way the state can focus the subsidy to educational fields that will benefit the economy more, while still subsidizing a certain number of places everywhere. (Of course if you don't have enough points, there are further, paid places as well.)
aspaceman 7y ago
Why the criticism of an English degree? It's an important, critical and incredibly useful subject. Especially in our increasingly connected and writing-centric world. You get an advanced workforce by making it advanced in all aspects, not just the ones that you arbitrarily value.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  There's nothing wrong with an English degree if you intend to use it and have a career path with it in mind. Unfortunately I have no shortage of friends who went with college because they were expected to, got an English degree because it was easy, and now work dead end jobs they dislike. While I'm picking on English degrees because it's easy pickings, it's not unique. Take any degree, throw enough people at it and you'll end up with a lot of degree holders not having career paths open to them.

slowhand09 7y ago

"the reasons that works" is debatable. Now kids in the us frequently start in pre-pre-Kindergarten. And yet we can't teach cursive writing/reading because its too hard. Baltimore City spends more per capita than any other region in the state of MD, yet nobody reads at grade level. There are many factors in play. Throwing money at free college because the 1st 12 nee 14 were free doesn't mean it works. Wanna go to college? Take a test, show you've not frittered away your 1st 12yrs. My employer paid for my MS degree courses and books. If I didn't present a =>3.0 GPA, they didn't reimburse. That provided motivation. But... there was a study in recent years showing some for-profit private colleges that relied heavily on gov't paid students had "watered down" their requirements to achieve the grades necessary to continue on a tax-payer funded basis. So there's that to deal with. Evidently Higher Ed is willing to compromise it scruples when money is involved.

jimbob45 7y ago

That's different though. High school educations are entirely uniform across the board.