3 ms·

If by "drift", we mean "get drunk and go to football games" then I am right there with you, not something I want my kid to focus on. But if by "drift" we mean e

by glesica 13y ago

If by "drift", we mean "get drunk and go to football games" then I am right there with you, not something I want my kid to focus on. But if by "drift" we mean explore the world and think about what it means to live in it, then I can't disagree with you more. That kind of drifting IS an investment. It may not make one wealthy, but it will likely go a long way toward making one happy, and it can improve society immeasurably. The social implications of college seem to get lost in the debate on HN, and really everywhere to some extent. We don't send our kids to college simply for their own good, we do it also for the good of society, which is why, in the past, people saw fit for society to cover most of the cost. > But these romantic notions of college strike me as increasingly antiquated. They're luxurious fantasies that many of us can't afford to nurse. But why? As a nation we are "wealthier" than we have ever been, and productivity has skyrocketed in the last 100 years. Why is it, then, that we are actually losing ground and every day we hear that we can no longer "afford" things that we, presumably, could once afford? The retirement age is being pushed ever higher while, at the same time, students are under pressure to enter the work force sooner. This is not the economy we signed up for.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
VLM 13y ago
"every day we hear that we can no longer "afford" things that we, presumably, could once afford?" Look at the hyper conformity of the average consumer. I'd pay anything for health (insurance co exec and hospital exec smile) I'd pay anything for my kids to get a good job, and rich peoples kids used to get great jobs, and also used to get an education, therefore education must be required for great jobs, so I'll pay anything for my kids vocational educational training (university execs rub hands together in glee at idea of multigenerational 10% annual tuition increases) I'd pay anything to live in a nice safe location (sellers and commissioned real estate agents and commissioned mortgage brokers/bankers jump up and down with excitement at a new sucker) There are a couple things in common. Suckers who see the expenditure as a universal, unarguable good, and entrenched players doing the ogliopoly thing by purchasing .gov regulations to prevent a free / competitive market. Any time you hear some well trained little consumer drone claim they would pay anything for some trite object, we just hear an idiot, but a businessman hears a cash register bell... Pay anything you said? Well... that can certainly be arranged...
- theorique 13y ago
  claim they would pay anything for some trite object Education for your kids, health insurance to finance treatment for deadly illness, and personal safety are hardly "trite objects". If a person would not spend highly on these things, what would he be willing to spend on as a higher priority?
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Food? Shelter? Granted these are typically less expensive than the services you mention, but they're certainly not less important. Rather, they're sold in functioning, normal markets of private firms.
  - VLM 13y ago
    Exactly what I meant. Now imagine a horde of crooked businessmen (and bad money always chases out good...) purchasing .gov assistance in eliminating a free market in those areas as they start to pick your pocket. After all, you'd pay anything for those topic, so they'll logically take everything. Their purchase of .gov means there will not be any competition to keep prices down. Finally another key to the puzzle is its perception that sells not the product. If you think your insurance company will stand by you to help you thru an illness, they would never try to screw you and your heirs as much as possible, well, I've got a bridge to sell you. "The system" is crooked enough that if someone is selling you safety you can pretty much assume they're just screwing you over; kind of like any argument in politics involving "its for the children".
jimbokun 13y ago
"We don't send our kids to college simply for their own good, we do it also for the good of society, which is why, in the past, people saw fit for society to cover most of the cost." When was that?
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Up until the 70s, many public colleges and universities did not charge tuition for students.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    But it isn't as though they were educating the general public. Most people back then never applied to college. Since we decided that everyone without severe head trauma should have a diploma, that's no longer sustainable.
- glesica 13y ago
  College in California, for example, used to be tuition-free. The citizens of the state saw it as economic development and it seems to have paid off.
MAGZine 13y ago
I think that this comment touches on something that a lot of people overlook when it comes to education: it's not just about getting a job, it's about LEARNING, expanding your world view and maye even getting to that 'well adjusted' point that so many distinguished professors are known to be at. This doesn't happen by chance: you need a strong community of learned people. I'm immensely grateful for my time at University to explore not just a variety of topics, but to explore myself and my interests.
samolang 13y ago
> But why? As a nation we are "wealthier" than we have ever been But look at the wealth of the median college student. College is no longer a privilege of the 1%, but a requirement for the masses.

by glesica 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

VLM 13y ago

"every day we hear that we can no longer "afford" things that we, presumably, could once afford?" Look at the hyper conformity of the average consumer. I'd pay anything for health (insurance co exec and hospital exec smile) I'd pay anything for my kids to get a good job, and rich peoples kids used to get great jobs, and also used to get an education, therefore education must be required for great jobs, so I'll pay anything for my kids vocational educational training (university execs rub hands together in glee at idea of multigenerational 10% annual tuition increases) I'd pay anything to live in a nice safe location (sellers and commissioned real estate agents and commissioned mortgage brokers/bankers jump up and down with excitement at a new sucker) There are a couple things in common. Suckers who see the expenditure as a universal, unarguable good, and entrenched players doing the ogliopoly thing by purchasing .gov regulations to prevent a free / competitive market. Any time you hear some well trained little consumer drone claim they would pay anything for some trite object, we just hear an idiot, but a businessman hears a cash register bell... Pay anything you said? Well... that can certainly be arranged...

theorique 13y ago
claim they would pay anything for some trite object Education for your kids, health insurance to finance treatment for deadly illness, and personal safety are hardly "trite objects". If a person would not spend highly on these things, what would he be willing to spend on as a higher priority?
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Food? Shelter? Granted these are typically less expensive than the services you mention, but they're certainly not less important. Rather, they're sold in functioning, normal markets of private firms.
- VLM 13y ago
  Exactly what I meant. Now imagine a horde of crooked businessmen (and bad money always chases out good...) purchasing .gov assistance in eliminating a free market in those areas as they start to pick your pocket. After all, you'd pay anything for those topic, so they'll logically take everything. Their purchase of .gov means there will not be any competition to keep prices down. Finally another key to the puzzle is its perception that sells not the product. If you think your insurance company will stand by you to help you thru an illness, they would never try to screw you and your heirs as much as possible, well, I've got a bridge to sell you. "The system" is crooked enough that if someone is selling you safety you can pretty much assume they're just screwing you over; kind of like any argument in politics involving "its for the children".

jimbokun 13y ago

"We don't send our kids to college simply for their own good, we do it also for the good of society, which is why, in the past, people saw fit for society to cover most of the cost." When was that?

wavefunction 13y ago
Up until the 70s, many public colleges and universities did not charge tuition for students.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  But it isn't as though they were educating the general public. Most people back then never applied to college. Since we decided that everyone without severe head trauma should have a diploma, that's no longer sustainable.
glesica 13y ago
College in California, for example, used to be tuition-free. The citizens of the state saw it as economic development and it seems to have paid off.

MAGZine 13y ago

I think that this comment touches on something that a lot of people overlook when it comes to education: it's not just about getting a job, it's about LEARNING, expanding your world view and maye even getting to that 'well adjusted' point that so many distinguished professors are known to be at. This doesn't happen by chance: you need a strong community of learned people. I'm immensely grateful for my time at University to explore not just a variety of topics, but to explore myself and my interests.

samolang 13y ago

> But why? As a nation we are "wealthier" than we have ever been But look at the wealth of the median college student. College is no longer a privilege of the 1%, but a requirement for the masses.