4 ms·

"It would be better to have a mix: free education slots for students who pass (tough-ish) entrance exams and slots that university can add at market price for s

"It would be better to have a mix: free education slots for students who pass (tough-ish) entrance exams and slots that university can add at market price for students who do not meet the bar." We already have this on a small scale and in niches. Scholarships are essentially giving free or reduced cost slots to performance graded people. Then we have other free (or later forgiven) slots based on service, such as GI bill and teach for America, etc. There are all sorts of ways to get free/reduced/forgiven tuition if it's important enough to someone. The bigger problem is the marketing and credentialing. Companies want credentials, schools want students, and so it's sold from multiple angles as the necessary thing to do for a good job. We end up with people getting junk degrees to work gate-kept jobs for low wages. Or they can't even get a job in their field. Clearly the market is broken, but free tuition isn't going to fix the problems either.

jack_h 2y ago
I don't think the market is broken, I do think it has been heavily distorted by government intervention though. I think you are correct that credentialism is a problem here. For those who suggest free tuition for everyone (government funded), I would ask how that would solve this particular problem. It seems like it would worsen this problem and probably lead to an even larger shortage of people going in the trades.
- giantg2 2y ago
  I would consider distortion at this magnitude to be broken. It's pretty much stuck in a vicious cycle of number of degrees increasing from accessibility, businesses increasing demand for credentials because there are more of them, demand for easy loans increasing, etc. It would take a monumental shift to fix this from multiple areas of society.
ptero 2y ago
The problem with scholarships is that the criteria is not clear and selection is (at least seen as being) at a whim of whoever is in charge at the moment. Merit slots, given via clear exams, give everyone a good idea of whether they are likely to get in or not, for example by doing practice tests and looking at passing scores from previous years.
- giantg2 2y ago
  If those merit slots are limited (just due to the facility and staff limits they would need to be), then you will run into the same scenario. It will become competitive without a strict standard required. We see this with the specialty public schools at the primary and secondary levels already.
  - ptero 2y ago
    > [merit slots] will become competitive without a strict standard required Yes, and I see this as a good thing. If someone wants free tuition at a top university, they have to be very good, way above average. Free tuition at a good, but not top school would be a lot less competitive, but still require ability and work. And we should also get away from the current state where everyone feels compelled to spend 4-5 years on higher education after school. That's a fad of the last 30 years and it is not a healthy one for the society. My 2c.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      "Yes, and I see this as a good thing. If someone wants free tuition at a top university, they have to be very good, way above average. Free tuition at a good, but not top school would be a lot less competitive, but still require ability and work." This is basically how scholarships work.
      - ptero 2y ago
        In what country? For example in the US today, scholarships are competitive (as any free money is), but the selection criteria has little to do with merit. Even top universities (MIT, Stanford, Harvard) specifically do not provide merit-based financial aid. There are some exceptions with private scholarships, but those are few. The majority of scholarships and grants are federal or federal+school, where the state puts a lot of specific requirements on the students, mostly based on need with some social mobility mixed in. The result is that students go through a rigmarole that has very little to do with proving merit for the chosen field to the grant-givers who are themselves far removed from teaching or research in that field. What I am talking about is a clear set of entrance exams given (or agreed to) by the university itself. No intermediaries, pure merit. This is very far from how the scholarships work in the US today.

jack_h 2y ago

I don't think the market is broken, I do think it has been heavily distorted by government intervention though. I think you are correct that credentialism is a problem here. For those who suggest free tuition for everyone (government funded), I would ask how that would solve this particular problem. It seems like it would worsen this problem and probably lead to an even larger shortage of people going in the trades.

giantg2 2y ago
I would consider distortion at this magnitude to be broken. It's pretty much stuck in a vicious cycle of number of degrees increasing from accessibility, businesses increasing demand for credentials because there are more of them, demand for easy loans increasing, etc. It would take a monumental shift to fix this from multiple areas of society.

ptero 2y ago

The problem with scholarships is that the criteria is not clear and selection is (at least seen as being) at a whim of whoever is in charge at the moment. Merit slots, given via clear exams, give everyone a good idea of whether they are likely to get in or not, for example by doing practice tests and looking at passing scores from previous years.

giantg2 2y ago
If those merit slots are limited (just due to the facility and staff limits they would need to be), then you will run into the same scenario. It will become competitive without a strict standard required. We see this with the specialty public schools at the primary and secondary levels already.
- ptero 2y ago
  > [merit slots] will become competitive without a strict standard required Yes, and I see this as a good thing. If someone wants free tuition at a top university, they have to be very good, way above average. Free tuition at a good, but not top school would be a lot less competitive, but still require ability and work. And we should also get away from the current state where everyone feels compelled to spend 4-5 years on higher education after school. That's a fad of the last 30 years and it is not a healthy one for the society. My 2c.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    "Yes, and I see this as a good thing. If someone wants free tuition at a top university, they have to be very good, way above average. Free tuition at a good, but not top school would be a lot less competitive, but still require ability and work." This is basically how scholarships work.
    - ptero 2y ago
      In what country? For example in the US today, scholarships are competitive (as any free money is), but the selection criteria has little to do with merit. Even top universities (MIT, Stanford, Harvard) specifically do not provide merit-based financial aid. There are some exceptions with private scholarships, but those are few. The majority of scholarships and grants are federal or federal+school, where the state puts a lot of specific requirements on the students, mostly based on need with some social mobility mixed in. The result is that students go through a rigmarole that has very little to do with proving merit for the chosen field to the grant-givers who are themselves far removed from teaching or research in that field. What I am talking about is a clear set of entrance exams given (or agreed to) by the university itself. No intermediaries, pure merit. This is very far from how the scholarships work in the US today.