4 ms·

This article needs to explicitly state: 1) education is valuable 2) education has become too expensive (implicitly stated) 3) the "hoax" is that of how our c

by fiaz 18y ago

This article needs to explicitly state: 1) education is valuable 2) education has become too expensive (implicitly stated) 3) the "hoax" is that of how our credit/debt system works, not about the collegiate system Already people on this thread are jumping the gun and stating that college sucks and you don't need it. But this is a subjective view and should be taken as such. The only fact that I can get from this article is that college is becoming a financial burden - not that the education obtained is worthless. There needs to be a way to make education accessible to all. Instead, the cost of getting an education is becoming yet another factor in further dividing the wealthy from the debt-laden.

swombat 18y ago
I think the problem is with those 18% loans (covered by your 3rd point, I think). What the hell? Who pays that kind of interest rate? The article states: A correlation between B.A.s and incomes is not proof of cause and effect. It may reflect nothing more than the fact that the economy rewards smart people and smart people are likely to go to college. I would say that there is likely to be a strong correlation between being foolish enough to take an 18% student loan and getting a low-paid job later (taking on that kind of loan shows a staggering lack of common sense). Seems to me that that's the only problem there. People should not be allowed to turn that kind of profit on student loans of all things. If there's one kind of loan that should be government-sponsored, this is it. For the record, in the UK, student loans come in at about 2.5%.
- BigZaphod 18y ago
  Most student loans backed by the government have pretty decent interest rates in the US, too. However some people either can't get enough in government-backed loans or fail to qualify or are stupid.. or something.. and so they hit up the private lenders which prey on them something terrible. I never went private so I'm not really sure, but I suppose another reason to go with private loans is so you can spend the money on things much more disconnected from your education costs - like a car. I seem to remember the government loans being pretty tightly tied to the school and thus it wasn't like I could borrow more than the cost of school without going outside the government-backed loans. (But I could be wrong.)
- fiaz 18y ago
  Your quote from the article highlights yet another fallacy - that if you are educated you will make more money. This is marketing at its worst. It's because of this reasoning I'm surrounded by people who studied CS as a major and learned Java because it was projected to pay well (hint hint about the age level of developers I'm working with lately). The result is that I fix the mistakes of people who possess coding skills that I wouldn't even qualify as AP high school level. My point here is to highlight the idea of choosing an education that compels you to develop yourself into a "somebody" instead of being an "anybody". Education is polish for the mind. It's best used towards developing yourself as an individual. Unfortunately it has devolved into a tool to charm money out of the system.
- acgourley 18y ago
  My girlfriend has some student loans that made me inhale sharply through my teeth when she described them to me. Her and her family are not good at finance or math, and they got swept into the popular way of looking at college in America: Get into school, take loans, finish school, pay off loans. That was all true for a long time, but interest rates have risen sharply for loans in the last 5 years, and the value of a degree (especially a liberal arts degree) has fallen. I'm not making excuses for them, I'm just offering a data point. My feeling is that we're about to see a shift in the popular view of college, but these views always lag the reality. Because of this lag, newly graduating students are going to have it worst of all.
BigZaphod 18y ago
I would argue that, to some degree (har har), it is still accessible to "most." Maybe not "all," but I think of college as a luxury item. The formal education (in the US) that is guaranteed to everyone ends with high school. Why should it extend indefinitely? And why must college be considered a possibility immediately after high school? IMO, we need to insert a cultural cue that hints that it is okay to graduation high school, work a bit, save up some money, and then hit up college in a couple years when you can pay for it. It'd be a decent compromise and might make the ones who take the leap appreciate it even more.
- swombat 18y ago
  It should extend to all because we all benefit from a more educated population. Better educated people less likely to elect another Bush, for one, but they're also more likely to end up doing high value jobs, rather than working in a McJob (which, while an honourable duty, isn't exactly on the same level as working for a start-up or a biotechnology firm). Allowing people the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter where they started from, adds value to our society. Intelligence matters a lot in how far you can go, but, for most people, so does education.
  - BigZaphod 18y ago
    ..but someone has to end up working at McDonald's - and I think it'd probably be better if that person hadn't wasted $80k getting a degree they will never use in a subject they may not even like or really understand and have almost no hope of paying back the loan. We can't have exclusively high paying jobs and expect the economy to survive. Not everyone is cut out for intellectual work that requires a degree nor does everyone see the economic advantage. For instance, today I had to get a quote from a plumber. I doubt he went to college but he's making a damn good living doing something he's good at and providing a service I (and the rest of society) need, want, and will pay for.
    - swombat 18y ago
      You said: I think of college as a luxury item. The formal education (in the US) that is guaranteed to everyone ends with high school. Why should it extend indefinitely? I said: It should extend to all because we all benefit from a more educated population. Now you say: but someone has to end up working at McDonald's - and I think it'd probably be better if that person hadn't wasted $80k getting a degree they will never use in a subject they may not even like or really understand and have almost no hope of paying back the loan. I think you're arguing against a strawman. I didn't say people should be shoved into university whether they want it or not. I said people should all have the opportunity to go there, and in a way that won't bankrupt them. College costs should not be the device by which we filter university admissions. University entrance exams and interviews are a much better tool for that job.

by fiaz 18y ago

swombat 18y ago

I think the problem is with those 18% loans (covered by your 3rd point, I think). What the hell? Who pays that kind of interest rate? The article states: A correlation between B.A.s and incomes is not proof of cause and effect. It may reflect nothing more than the fact that the economy rewards smart people and smart people are likely to go to college. I would say that there is likely to be a strong correlation between being foolish enough to take an 18% student loan and getting a low-paid job later (taking on that kind of loan shows a staggering lack of common sense). Seems to me that that's the only problem there. People should not be allowed to turn that kind of profit on student loans of all things. If there's one kind of loan that should be government-sponsored, this is it. For the record, in the UK, student loans come in at about 2.5%.

BigZaphod 18y ago
Most student loans backed by the government have pretty decent interest rates in the US, too. However some people either can't get enough in government-backed loans or fail to qualify or are stupid.. or something.. and so they hit up the private lenders which prey on them something terrible. I never went private so I'm not really sure, but I suppose another reason to go with private loans is so you can spend the money on things much more disconnected from your education costs - like a car. I seem to remember the government loans being pretty tightly tied to the school and thus it wasn't like I could borrow more than the cost of school without going outside the government-backed loans. (But I could be wrong.)
fiaz 18y ago
Your quote from the article highlights yet another fallacy - that if you are educated you will make more money. This is marketing at its worst. It's because of this reasoning I'm surrounded by people who studied CS as a major and learned Java because it was projected to pay well (hint hint about the age level of developers I'm working with lately). The result is that I fix the mistakes of people who possess coding skills that I wouldn't even qualify as AP high school level. My point here is to highlight the idea of choosing an education that compels you to develop yourself into a "somebody" instead of being an "anybody". Education is polish for the mind. It's best used towards developing yourself as an individual. Unfortunately it has devolved into a tool to charm money out of the system.
acgourley 18y ago
My girlfriend has some student loans that made me inhale sharply through my teeth when she described them to me. Her and her family are not good at finance or math, and they got swept into the popular way of looking at college in America: Get into school, take loans, finish school, pay off loans. That was all true for a long time, but interest rates have risen sharply for loans in the last 5 years, and the value of a degree (especially a liberal arts degree) has fallen. I'm not making excuses for them, I'm just offering a data point. My feeling is that we're about to see a shift in the popular view of college, but these views always lag the reality. Because of this lag, newly graduating students are going to have it worst of all.

BigZaphod 18y ago

I would argue that, to some degree (har har), it is still accessible to "most." Maybe not "all," but I think of college as a luxury item. The formal education (in the US) that is guaranteed to everyone ends with high school. Why should it extend indefinitely? And why must college be considered a possibility immediately after high school? IMO, we need to insert a cultural cue that hints that it is okay to graduation high school, work a bit, save up some money, and then hit up college in a couple years when you can pay for it. It'd be a decent compromise and might make the ones who take the leap appreciate it even more.

swombat 18y ago
It should extend to all because we all benefit from a more educated population. Better educated people less likely to elect another Bush, for one, but they're also more likely to end up doing high value jobs, rather than working in a McJob (which, while an honourable duty, isn't exactly on the same level as working for a start-up or a biotechnology firm). Allowing people the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter where they started from, adds value to our society. Intelligence matters a lot in how far you can go, but, for most people, so does education.
- BigZaphod 18y ago
  ..but someone has to end up working at McDonald's - and I think it'd probably be better if that person hadn't wasted $80k getting a degree they will never use in a subject they may not even like or really understand and have almost no hope of paying back the loan. We can't have exclusively high paying jobs and expect the economy to survive. Not everyone is cut out for intellectual work that requires a degree nor does everyone see the economic advantage. For instance, today I had to get a quote from a plumber. I doubt he went to college but he's making a damn good living doing something he's good at and providing a service I (and the rest of society) need, want, and will pay for.
  - swombat 18y ago
    You said: I think of college as a luxury item. The formal education (in the US) that is guaranteed to everyone ends with high school. Why should it extend indefinitely? I said: It should extend to all because we all benefit from a more educated population. Now you say: but someone has to end up working at McDonald's - and I think it'd probably be better if that person hadn't wasted $80k getting a degree they will never use in a subject they may not even like or really understand and have almost no hope of paying back the loan. I think you're arguing against a strawman. I didn't say people should be shoved into university whether they want it or not. I said people should all have the opportunity to go there, and in a way that won't bankrupt them. College costs should not be the device by which we filter university admissions. University entrance exams and interviews are a much better tool for that job.