4 ms·

Just 1.5 generations ago, University was for those who could afford it. Many grad student programs today are in that category. This category of people competing

by jariel 7y ago

Just 1.5 generations ago, University was for those who could afford it. Many grad student programs today are in that category. This category of people competing for jobs otherwise filled by individuals with wealth will always exist, there's no 'solution' to this problem. I think it's best to not take those jobs and to find a cost-efficient way to get through grad school. If people did this, the system would change. There are many ways to access less expensive education, you don't need to be on the coast of California. It's obviously 'too expensive' and that's a real and fundamental issue in life.

Melting_Harps 7y ago
> Just 1.5 generations ago, University was for those who could afford it. Not the UC/CSU systems, which is what this topic is about; they were primarily little to no cost universities 1.5 generation ago--depending on your residence. It wasn't until the administration bloat and race to capture as much foreign students/funding became the name of the game that it has become this cesspool. Hell, in my freshman and sophomore year as an in-state student costs were sub 10k a year, it wasn't until the bubble got so big in 2007 (just before the financial crisis) that it became the sordid bacchanal, cash grab you see now. It mirrored the Banking Industry so well in my opinion, and just like banking it never corrected and just doubled down and it too has created a Trillion+ bubble and perpetual servitude and permanent underclass(es) ripe for exploitation. And just so its clear, the CSU/UC system is only the most affordable in the US if you are not from CA; if you are, especially if you are multi-generational, because of the high tax levels in CA its probably on-par with some Ivy leagues and upper level tech schools. I won't dispute your analysis on University as whole, as I have much more to say on the matter, but I agree with your conclusion. For most University (on ROI at least), especially if not in a lucartive field of STEM, it's just not worth it if you're technically inclined and have an disciplined autodidactic streak. But many seem to be looking for an 'experience' more than they are an actual useful education in a chosen discipline, which is why these predatory practices not only proceed to this day, but excel as they do, hence why so many are willing to accept such awful loans to do so--I can't help but think of the way many hapless souls got suckered into sub-prime mortgages.
athriren 7y ago
1.5 generations ago the UC system was nearly free to attend.
- jariel 7y ago
  1.5 generations ago in 1950, about %8 of people went to College. I don't think that 'free' in relative terms is quite accurate as it was clearly still out of reach of most people it'd seem.
  - asdff 7y ago
    People didn't go to college back then because it was out of reach, they didn't go because they didn't need to. In 1920 you could get into UCLA with a slip of paper signed by your principle certifying you did 4 years of high school; 100% of the people who produced this scrap of paper got into the school. In the 50s, this requirement was stepped up to a $5 application fee and you needed to average a B (1). It wasn't until the late 60s and early 70s that UC schools started to put limits on enrollment, and even in the 1980s UCLA's admission rate was 50%. Perhaps the only people where college was out of reach back then were those whose transcripts and paperwork were held up by bigoted people, either on the side of the high school or the college itself. https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/03/23/81849/hey-uc-grads-could-you-get-into-your-alma-mater-to/ https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/03/23/81849/hey-uc-grads-coul...
    - blix 7y ago
      In 1920, less than 20% of Americans completed 4 years of high school. How do you think the average economic status of that group compared to the whole country? As old limits cease to be sufficiently exlusive, new ones are introduced.
      - asdff 7y ago
        If you didn't complete high school that means you joined the labor force instead. You are right that of those who went to college, it perhaps wasn't those with connections to the working class economy and readily available local blue collar job opportunities. That being said, if you didn't want to work with Dad on the factory line at 16, then you just hit the books, graduated, and were virtually guaranteed college admission if you simply completed high school. People weren't completing high school back then because it was a difficult or a privileged thing to do, they didn't complete high school because they didn't need to complete high school in order to land a job paying a living wage and start a family. For decades, a year of college was something you could pay for with a summertime of part time work, it was not reserved for the rich and elite, but those who simply wanted to go to college. Now we've structured our economy such that if you want a living wage or a career you can grow, you do need to go to college, and not just any college but a good one, and sometimes more school afterwards. The economic incentives are not the same. For instance, the GI bill was invented to reintegrate returning veterans right back into their life plans when they returned from WWII with little difficulty. Today, the GI bill is used by many as a way to pay for college in the first place, not as a restitution payment for being conscripted to military service like it was after WWII. College is so necessary these days that people are willing to risk a deployment to a warzone to get this scrap of paper, but this wasn't always the case.

by jariel 7y ago

Melting_Harps 7y ago

> Just 1.5 generations ago, University was for those who could afford it. Not the UC/CSU systems, which is what this topic is about; they were primarily little to no cost universities 1.5 generation ago--depending on your residence. It wasn't until the administration bloat and race to capture as much foreign students/funding became the name of the game that it has become this cesspool. Hell, in my freshman and sophomore year as an in-state student costs were sub 10k a year, it wasn't until the bubble got so big in 2007 (just before the financial crisis) that it became the sordid bacchanal, cash grab you see now. It mirrored the Banking Industry so well in my opinion, and just like banking it never corrected and just doubled down and it too has created a Trillion+ bubble and perpetual servitude and permanent underclass(es) ripe for exploitation. And just so its clear, the CSU/UC system is only the most affordable in the US if you are not from CA; if you are, especially if you are multi-generational, because of the high tax levels in CA its probably on-par with some Ivy leagues and upper level tech schools. I won't dispute your analysis on University as whole, as I have much more to say on the matter, but I agree with your conclusion. For most University (on ROI at least), especially if not in a lucartive field of STEM, it's just not worth it if you're technically inclined and have an disciplined autodidactic streak. But many seem to be looking for an 'experience' more than they are an actual useful education in a chosen discipline, which is why these predatory practices not only proceed to this day, but excel as they do, hence why so many are willing to accept such awful loans to do so--I can't help but think of the way many hapless souls got suckered into sub-prime mortgages.

athriren 7y ago

1.5 generations ago the UC system was nearly free to attend.

jariel 7y ago
1.5 generations ago in 1950, about %8 of people went to College. I don't think that 'free' in relative terms is quite accurate as it was clearly still out of reach of most people it'd seem.
- asdff 7y ago
  People didn't go to college back then because it was out of reach, they didn't go because they didn't need to. In 1920 you could get into UCLA with a slip of paper signed by your principle certifying you did 4 years of high school; 100% of the people who produced this scrap of paper got into the school. In the 50s, this requirement was stepped up to a $5 application fee and you needed to average a B (1). It wasn't until the late 60s and early 70s that UC schools started to put limits on enrollment, and even in the 1980s UCLA's admission rate was 50%. Perhaps the only people where college was out of reach back then were those whose transcripts and paperwork were held up by bigoted people, either on the side of the high school or the college itself. https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/03/23/81849/hey-uc-grads-could-you-get-into-your-alma-mater-to/ https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/03/23/81849/hey-uc-grads-coul...
  - blix 7y ago
    In 1920, less than 20% of Americans completed 4 years of high school. How do you think the average economic status of that group compared to the whole country? As old limits cease to be sufficiently exlusive, new ones are introduced.
    - asdff 7y ago
      If you didn't complete high school that means you joined the labor force instead. You are right that of those who went to college, it perhaps wasn't those with connections to the working class economy and readily available local blue collar job opportunities. That being said, if you didn't want to work with Dad on the factory line at 16, then you just hit the books, graduated, and were virtually guaranteed college admission if you simply completed high school. People weren't completing high school back then because it was a difficult or a privileged thing to do, they didn't complete high school because they didn't need to complete high school in order to land a job paying a living wage and start a family. For decades, a year of college was something you could pay for with a summertime of part time work, it was not reserved for the rich and elite, but those who simply wanted to go to college. Now we've structured our economy such that if you want a living wage or a career you can grow, you do need to go to college, and not just any college but a good one, and sometimes more school afterwards. The economic incentives are not the same. For instance, the GI bill was invented to reintegrate returning veterans right back into their life plans when they returned from WWII with little difficulty. Today, the GI bill is used by many as a way to pay for college in the first place, not as a restitution payment for being conscripted to military service like it was after WWII. College is so necessary these days that people are willing to risk a deployment to a warzone to get this scrap of paper, but this wasn't always the case.