6 ms·

I see little difference between using scarce university resources to produce human capital that will not be used and art. I'm sure the author enjoyed it, but i

I see little difference between using scarce university resources to produce human capital that will not be used and art. I'm sure the author enjoyed it, but it, but it doesn't seem that she will use her new educational skills at all. To the extent that her professors could have done something else, she sucked up a lot of resources that could have been used lot productively. This will become a bigger issue going forward....

Rochus 6y ago
Well, then we should start thinking about focusing on the study areas which indeed produce human capital. There are still far too many academic studies today that bring little or no benefit to the economy, where graduates hardly find jobs and instead increase social costs. As long as we don't do that, it doesn't matter if someone is still studying and doing a doctorate at 66. At least then they will already have an old-age pension and will not have to draw unemployment benefit or social assistance.
- bananamerica 6y ago
  YSK that there are numerous ways to contribute to society beyond formal work to acquire fungible currency.
  - Rochus 6y ago
    If you want to make a contribution to the development of vaccines or remedies, or to medical care, then you simply need to study accordingly. I agree with you that it is an undesirable development that nowadays everybody wants to study, no matter what, or preferably something where you can get a bachelor's degree with little effort. On the other hand, there is an increasing lack of qualified, experienced professionals, such as those needed in nursing or in the construction industry. If I need someone to repair my heating system today, I have to wait a long time and pay a lot. And through my taxes I pay at the same time to the many unemployed historians and social scientists.
    - bananamerica 6y ago
      I doubt very much that there’s causation between senior citizens getting degrees and a lack of specialized professionals. Things rarely work that way. I’d be glad to pay for unemployed historians and social scientists, they enrich our intelectual culture and help shape my country. I’d be even happier if they got jobs of course.
      - Rochus 6y ago
        Go up to the comment of gbronner to which I responded. If people are bothered by the fact that retirees study and do their doctorates, they should ask themselves the questions I have asked. I think it's good if pensioners keep themselves busy in a meaningful way, as long as it doesn't put an additional burden on society. Imagine how much society benefits when pensioners use their time to study cell metabolism and use the vast amount of data available to discover connections and mechanisms that lead to new antibiotics or other useful drugs instead of being bored and spending the rest of their lives in front of the television. And unlike you, I don't think it makes any sense at all to let people study stuff that primarily costs society, both for the study and for the subsequent maintenance of these people. Enrichting the intelectual culture is good, but for this we do not need the legions of historians, publicists, media scientists or philosophers, or other fields of study whose sole purpose seems to be to create offspring of their own kind.
        bananamerica 6y ago
        > whose sole purpose seems to be to create offspring of their own kind That’s absolutely not their sole purpose.
        Rochus 6y ago
        The graduates of the above mentioned studies I know of work at the academy of their field, or in the administration and help expand the state administration and bureaucracy.
        6y ago
- coldcode 6y ago
  If economic benefit is all that matters to educational resources, you can eliminate most physicists and mathematicians, who rarely produce anything useful in the same generation. Yet what they do might bring massive new technologies or other improvements to society decades later. You can make the same argument about lots of degrees. Value to society is rarely obvious. Steve Jobs audited a class in calligraphy which seems utterly useless, let it lead to the Mac and the importance of fonts and graphics in computers in general.
  - Rochus 6y ago
    > Value to society is rarely obvious It's rather obvious. There are even offices that collect the relevant statistical data. > you can eliminate most physicists and mathematicians No. Both disciplines are required by a lot of companies today. If you have a look at www.indeed.com there are currently 3.5k jobs for physicists. There are subjects where there might be a dozen jobs per year per thousand graduates. But engineers are missing everywhere.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    There's lots of mathematical and physics research with clear near or mid-term applications - a good example is DARPA grants, which are motivated by specific government needs, and which "feed" many mathematicians and physicists.
- gbronner 6y ago
  My comment was independent of study area. A 66 year old woman has a life expectancy of perhaps 18 years, but an expected labor force participation of only a few years. It is difficult to start a PhD worthy job in a new field at 66, as there's still a lot of domain specific learning (in the private sector), and most companies don't want to commit to making that investment in someone likely to voluntary retire, or quit due to health issues. So, instead of working for 6 years, she got a very expensive degree that society is unlikely to benefit from, as there's often no way to apply these skills in the economy
  - Rochus 6y ago
    > My comment was independent of study area Sure. But you complain that resources are wasted when retirees go to college and get their doctorates. I replied that resources are already being wasted on a large scale when there are academic studies that generate more economic costs than benefits. I have clarified my position in my further comments if you are interested.
dntbnmpls 6y ago
Agreed. There are a fixed number of PhD spots. What sense is there to give that spot to a 66 year old senior rather than someone younger who will actually do something productive with the expertise and credentials? I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?
- bananamerica 6y ago
  Are we in an alternate reality where 67 year olds immediately drop dead? Is this an episode of Twilight Zone?
  - dntbnmpls 6y ago
    No. We are in a world where people don't bother reading comments rationally and jump to conclusions and get upset over nothing. > Are we in an alternate reality where 67 year olds immediately drop dead? This is called a straw man. Where did I say this? Reread my comment calmly and rationally and you'll see I never wrote that. "I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?" I'm all for old people living their best lives except when it directly and negatively affects young people for no reason other than pure vanity.
    - bananamerica 6y ago
      Irony is not conducive to good conversations.
- bloodorange 6y ago
  Mate, most people live to grow old. What fulfillment in life would one have if many productive and/or desierable tasks were reserved for the young? Wouldn't it make the later years even harder for them?
  - dntbnmpls 6y ago
    > What fulfillment in life would one have if many productive and/or desierable tasks were reserved for the young? What productive activity is she going to do with her PhD at the age of 66? It's a selfish egotistical vanity project. > Wouldn't it make the later years even harder for them? "Mate" did you read what I wrote? "I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?" I'm all for the elderly learning and doing what they want. My problem is when their vanity project hurts younger people. A person with a PhD at 26 has a lot more to contribute than an old person with a PhD at 66. Not only that, the old person getting the PhD at 66 is taking a spot from a 26 year old. That is all. I know the average age here is like 70, so I'm sure people will get upset about it. But from a practical and fairness perspective, I think it's better to let a 26 year old get the PhD and not the 66 year old. Let the 66 year old learn in an "off-credentialed" basis. How about this, you have one slot open in your PhD program. You have equally qualified 26 and 66 year old. Which do you give that spot to? Most sane people would give it to the 26 year old.
bananamerica 6y ago
Last time I checked most people in developed countries live a lot longer than 66 years.
jmull 6y ago
> could have been used [more] productively Ah, that's the thing though. Who gets to determine what is a worthwhile use of time and resources, and what isn't? You? Or the faculty, administration and the student herself? I think you have trust them to know their business. Who better? Anyway, is counting widgets produced (or software released, or academic papers published) really the best way to measure value?
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Assuming facts not in evidence? With all those career changes and job skills, why assume the OP author will never teach nor publish? Opportunities to do so will only increase with a PhD.

Rochus 6y ago

Well, then we should start thinking about focusing on the study areas which indeed produce human capital. There are still far too many academic studies today that bring little or no benefit to the economy, where graduates hardly find jobs and instead increase social costs. As long as we don't do that, it doesn't matter if someone is still studying and doing a doctorate at 66. At least then they will already have an old-age pension and will not have to draw unemployment benefit or social assistance.

bananamerica 6y ago
YSK that there are numerous ways to contribute to society beyond formal work to acquire fungible currency.
- Rochus 6y ago
  If you want to make a contribution to the development of vaccines or remedies, or to medical care, then you simply need to study accordingly. I agree with you that it is an undesirable development that nowadays everybody wants to study, no matter what, or preferably something where you can get a bachelor's degree with little effort. On the other hand, there is an increasing lack of qualified, experienced professionals, such as those needed in nursing or in the construction industry. If I need someone to repair my heating system today, I have to wait a long time and pay a lot. And through my taxes I pay at the same time to the many unemployed historians and social scientists.
  - bananamerica 6y ago
    I doubt very much that there’s causation between senior citizens getting degrees and a lack of specialized professionals. Things rarely work that way. I’d be glad to pay for unemployed historians and social scientists, they enrich our intelectual culture and help shape my country. I’d be even happier if they got jobs of course.
    - Rochus 6y ago
      Go up to the comment of gbronner to which I responded. If people are bothered by the fact that retirees study and do their doctorates, they should ask themselves the questions I have asked. I think it's good if pensioners keep themselves busy in a meaningful way, as long as it doesn't put an additional burden on society. Imagine how much society benefits when pensioners use their time to study cell metabolism and use the vast amount of data available to discover connections and mechanisms that lead to new antibiotics or other useful drugs instead of being bored and spending the rest of their lives in front of the television. And unlike you, I don't think it makes any sense at all to let people study stuff that primarily costs society, both for the study and for the subsequent maintenance of these people. Enrichting the intelectual culture is good, but for this we do not need the legions of historians, publicists, media scientists or philosophers, or other fields of study whose sole purpose seems to be to create offspring of their own kind.
      - bananamerica 6y ago
        > whose sole purpose seems to be to create offspring of their own kind That’s absolutely not their sole purpose.
        Rochus 6y ago
        The graduates of the above mentioned studies I know of work at the academy of their field, or in the administration and help expand the state administration and bureaucracy.
        6y ago
coldcode 6y ago
If economic benefit is all that matters to educational resources, you can eliminate most physicists and mathematicians, who rarely produce anything useful in the same generation. Yet what they do might bring massive new technologies or other improvements to society decades later. You can make the same argument about lots of degrees. Value to society is rarely obvious. Steve Jobs audited a class in calligraphy which seems utterly useless, let it lead to the Mac and the importance of fonts and graphics in computers in general.
- Rochus 6y ago
  > Value to society is rarely obvious It's rather obvious. There are even offices that collect the relevant statistical data. > you can eliminate most physicists and mathematicians No. Both disciplines are required by a lot of companies today. If you have a look at www.indeed.com there are currently 3.5k jobs for physicists. There are subjects where there might be a dozen jobs per year per thousand graduates. But engineers are missing everywhere.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  There's lots of mathematical and physics research with clear near or mid-term applications - a good example is DARPA grants, which are motivated by specific government needs, and which "feed" many mathematicians and physicists.
gbronner 6y ago
My comment was independent of study area. A 66 year old woman has a life expectancy of perhaps 18 years, but an expected labor force participation of only a few years. It is difficult to start a PhD worthy job in a new field at 66, as there's still a lot of domain specific learning (in the private sector), and most companies don't want to commit to making that investment in someone likely to voluntary retire, or quit due to health issues. So, instead of working for 6 years, she got a very expensive degree that society is unlikely to benefit from, as there's often no way to apply these skills in the economy
- Rochus 6y ago
  > My comment was independent of study area Sure. But you complain that resources are wasted when retirees go to college and get their doctorates. I replied that resources are already being wasted on a large scale when there are academic studies that generate more economic costs than benefits. I have clarified my position in my further comments if you are interested.

dntbnmpls 6y ago

Agreed. There are a fixed number of PhD spots. What sense is there to give that spot to a 66 year old senior rather than someone younger who will actually do something productive with the expertise and credentials? I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?

bananamerica 6y ago
Are we in an alternate reality where 67 year olds immediately drop dead? Is this an episode of Twilight Zone?
- dntbnmpls 6y ago
  No. We are in a world where people don't bother reading comments rationally and jump to conclusions and get upset over nothing. > Are we in an alternate reality where 67 year olds immediately drop dead? This is called a straw man. Where did I say this? Reread my comment calmly and rationally and you'll see I never wrote that. "I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?" I'm all for old people living their best lives except when it directly and negatively affects young people for no reason other than pure vanity.
  - bananamerica 6y ago
    Irony is not conducive to good conversations.
bloodorange 6y ago
Mate, most people live to grow old. What fulfillment in life would one have if many productive and/or desierable tasks were reserved for the young? Wouldn't it make the later years even harder for them?
- dntbnmpls 6y ago
  > What fulfillment in life would one have if many productive and/or desierable tasks were reserved for the young? What productive activity is she going to do with her PhD at the age of 66? It's a selfish egotistical vanity project. > Wouldn't it make the later years even harder for them? "Mate" did you read what I wrote? "I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?" I'm all for the elderly learning and doing what they want. My problem is when their vanity project hurts younger people. A person with a PhD at 26 has a lot more to contribute than an old person with a PhD at 66. Not only that, the old person getting the PhD at 66 is taking a spot from a 26 year old. That is all. I know the average age here is like 70, so I'm sure people will get upset about it. But from a practical and fairness perspective, I think it's better to let a 26 year old get the PhD and not the 66 year old. Let the 66 year old learn in an "off-credentialed" basis. How about this, you have one slot open in your PhD program. You have equally qualified 26 and 66 year old. Which do you give that spot to? Most sane people would give it to the 26 year old.

bananamerica 6y ago

Last time I checked most people in developed countries live a lot longer than 66 years.

jmull 6y ago

> could have been used [more] productively Ah, that's the thing though. Who gets to determine what is a worthwhile use of time and resources, and what isn't? You? Or the faculty, administration and the student herself? I think you have trust them to know their business. Who better? Anyway, is counting widgets produced (or software released, or academic papers published) really the best way to measure value?

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Assuming facts not in evidence? With all those career changes and job skills, why assume the OP author will never teach nor publish? Opportunities to do so will only increase with a PhD.