4 ms·

> I think the root of the problem is the student loan system. I think if you'd solve this problem, you find there are other problems. I don't think loans are t

by avmich 6y ago

> I think the root of the problem is the student loan system. I think if you'd solve this problem, you find there are other problems. I don't think loans are the root of the problems, but just one of them. One can try solving problems one by one, or approach them together; I think a more complex review is helpful.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
If you based student loan lending on the “creditworthiness” of the degree the loan was going to pay for, then you’d at least get rid of a lot of the problems that are caused by the student loan system. I guess my hypothesis is that the problems with the very expensive and economically worthless degrees are in fact created by that system. I have a lot of issues with the more economically valuable degrees too, but they do at least leave their victims with a highly increased earning potential. So I’d say the system is still mostly working as intended in that case.
- avmich 6y ago
  > but they do at least leave their victims with a highly increased earning potential. So I’d say the system is still mostly working as intended in that case. Do you think increasing earning potential is the goal of education?
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    I think it’s the goal of the student loan system, which, as stated above, I have always understood to be a mechanism intended to improve social mobility. I think I can see what you’re getting at, and I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to my points on student loans. But I’ll ask you a couple of questions. Do you think the study of humanities topics requires the modern university humanities departments? Do you think it requires student loans? Do you think our society even derives any cultural benefit at all from churning out thousands of highly indebted humanities graduates every year, most of which never go on to put their education to any form of productive use?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Earning potential is a proxy for usefulness, which is in turn a guide for resource allocation. If you rule it out as a criteria then you're basically arguing to fund lots of useless stuff, which is a pretty common academic argument, but hard to justify when people have to get into life-long debt to fund it.
    - avmich 6y ago
      > Earning potential is a proxy for usefulness, which is in turn a guide for resource allocation. Ah, if only Warren Buffet was as useful as a handful of nurses. IOW, it's not a universally accepted opinion, by a long shot.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        No, it basically is: "can we get rid of prices and still have a great economy" was the 20th century's fight. It was resolved conclusively in favour of no - not even the Chinese try to argue for non-market economies these days. The only people who still argue about whether prices and earning potential is a good proxy for usefulness are people who are ideologically blinded to the lessons of history. Warren Buffet is in fact a lot more useful than a handful of nurses: not in the same context obviously. If you need a nurse you need a nurse. But measured coldly and rationally, in terms of number of lives affected and amount of value created for sheer number of people, it's hard to beat the Sage. If a random nurse quits their job tomorrow nobody will notice. If Buffet dies, the world will notice.
        staticman2 6y ago
        Earning money is a proxy for how good you are at earning money. It has nothing to do with usefulness: you can earn money at things that hurt society.

by avmich 6y ago

AmericanChopper 6y ago

If you based student loan lending on the “creditworthiness” of the degree the loan was going to pay for, then you’d at least get rid of a lot of the problems that are caused by the student loan system. I guess my hypothesis is that the problems with the very expensive and economically worthless degrees are in fact created by that system. I have a lot of issues with the more economically valuable degrees too, but they do at least leave their victims with a highly increased earning potential. So I’d say the system is still mostly working as intended in that case.

avmich 6y ago
> but they do at least leave their victims with a highly increased earning potential. So I’d say the system is still mostly working as intended in that case. Do you think increasing earning potential is the goal of education?
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  I think it’s the goal of the student loan system, which, as stated above, I have always understood to be a mechanism intended to improve social mobility. I think I can see what you’re getting at, and I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to my points on student loans. But I’ll ask you a couple of questions. Do you think the study of humanities topics requires the modern university humanities departments? Do you think it requires student loans? Do you think our society even derives any cultural benefit at all from churning out thousands of highly indebted humanities graduates every year, most of which never go on to put their education to any form of productive use?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- thu2111 6y ago
  Earning potential is a proxy for usefulness, which is in turn a guide for resource allocation. If you rule it out as a criteria then you're basically arguing to fund lots of useless stuff, which is a pretty common academic argument, but hard to justify when people have to get into life-long debt to fund it.
  - avmich 6y ago
    > Earning potential is a proxy for usefulness, which is in turn a guide for resource allocation. Ah, if only Warren Buffet was as useful as a handful of nurses. IOW, it's not a universally accepted opinion, by a long shot.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      No, it basically is: "can we get rid of prices and still have a great economy" was the 20th century's fight. It was resolved conclusively in favour of no - not even the Chinese try to argue for non-market economies these days. The only people who still argue about whether prices and earning potential is a good proxy for usefulness are people who are ideologically blinded to the lessons of history. Warren Buffet is in fact a lot more useful than a handful of nurses: not in the same context obviously. If you need a nurse you need a nurse. But measured coldly and rationally, in terms of number of lives affected and amount of value created for sheer number of people, it's hard to beat the Sage. If a random nurse quits their job tomorrow nobody will notice. If Buffet dies, the world will notice.
      - staticman2 6y ago
        Earning money is a proxy for how good you are at earning money. It has nothing to do with usefulness: you can earn money at things that hurt society.