Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

Canadians like Bernie.

[youtube]MjcD4ZBagZA[/youtube]

[froot loops]

You will struggle far less with a college degree than without one.

[Mike]

Hack:

C/B. "Free" education increases a workforce segment that is already struggling to find work. I think we need fewer college students, not more. I think we need far better counseling re college and the C/B associated therewith starting with expected income for a major.

The "problem" of student debt is a result of poor decisions in a pure C/B sense. Period. I see no reason for society to incentivize decisions which, by defintion, don't pay for themselves. I mean, if they did there wouldn't be an issue.

Absolutely correct. Both the quality of education most students receive and the benefit of the degree after graduation have been greatly devalued. Even reputable schools have too many bullshit programs that don't prepare people for the 21st century economy and only serve as revenue generators for the university. If they were consumer products they would have been out of business a long time ago due to product returns.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I agree on fewer college students. The swelling of the college ranks (besides being encouraged by the schools themselves) is a natural outcome of eliminating all decent-paying jobs that a HS degree alone can win for you. Or requiring college degrees for work where a HS degree would easily suffice. If you're going to start encouraging more people to forget about college, there has to be SOMETHING for them to fall back on. I don't think skilled trades can absorb them all.

Do 18-year-olds take on foolish debt with delusional visions of a corner office and a Ferrari right out of school? Sure, but they do so with encouragement from guidance counselors, big universities, and employers, all of whom bear greater responsibility and ought to know better.

[hack]

I don't think there's any easy answer to that. Obviously the price of college is insane. Then again, one of the reasons America surged to global economic power in the first place was the pioneering idea that education shouldn't just be for elites. Investing in education is a prerequisite to economic growth, and always has been.

Many moving parts here, overall, and no simple answers. But equating free education to free housing seems like a comically gross oversimplification.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ame]https://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/status/717504101337186305[/ame]

[iam416]

There are a plethora of issues with higher education.

First, it's inefficient. There ought to be a serious reconsideration of the value of a "liberal" education. Is there a reason why a mechanical engineer needs to take a psychology class to meet some requirement? I think you can eliminate a year of schooling and it's attendant cost by focusing the curriculum.

Second, there needs to be more two-year programs and alternative training options. For the latter, Cleveland has a place "Tech Elevator" that is doing 8-week IT training, assisting with your job search and refunding something like 90% of your tuition if you're not employed within a year. Anyone who has listened to me on this issue knows how much I love two-years and alternative programs as a massively effective way to cost-effective training for middle class jobs.

Third, we have to deal with community expectations. This one isn't governmental or institutional, but it's critical. In certain communities (like mine), University is the expectation and anything else is stigmatized. That varies from community to community, but it would be nice if we could somehow turn the Titanic a bit toward acknowledging the value of non-University institutions.

Fourth, and this is considerably outside the box, but Universities could consider major-based tuition. Universities could be required to disclose average earnings for each major and market them ala carte. Low-value majors are cheaper (and faculty take a hit) and high-value majors are more expensive. We already do this in a way via grad schools, but would it make it sense to extend it throughout? This point is pretty much extemporaneous so I could easily flip flop on this a dozen times!

The other points I feel strongly about. As some of you know, I spend a lot of time in the area of workforce development and trying to think of ways the State can help. I interact with a plethora of different players in the area.

DSL is correct in that if we're going to "downsize" Universities then we need viable alternatives. I think we can both lower University cost and create those alternatives.

Finally, I'm half inclined to leave private schools to their own devices -- no student loans, no nothing. If you want to go spend $50,000 at Kenyon, more power to you. But there ought to be no way on earth we subsidize that decision.

Alternatively, the student loan process could be like a real loan process where your resume and choice of major are assessed and your loan risk is determined. If you're a C student wanting to major in Art History, ok -- you're approved for $5000 per year. This is a little to interventionalist for me -- I'd rather let them make bad decisions and deal with the consequences.

Anyway, there are gads of different ways to deal with Education in the US including ways to make education less costly. But I don't think making it free ought to be an option. Ever. It's a position that is ALMOST a per se no-vote for me. IMO, it reflects almost no serious thinking on the matter.

As always, just my thoughts.

[iam416]

But equating free education to free housing seems like a comically gross oversimplification.

I didn't make that equation, but I did point out how Bernie's daft rationale could do that. Seriously..."we ought to reward them, not penalize them." Fucking seriously. They purchased something using borrowed money. He is directly saying that we ought not penalize the purchasers by making them repay the borrowed money! Even though they've received what they paid for!

Applying that rationale to buying a house illustrates how fucking stupid it is -- it's a close analogy -- a house is something most of us buy with borrowed money -- and I could make the case a house is very important to middle class (or better) stability, so it furthers the same goals of education.

[iam416]

It'd be nice if someone reported the Mississippi law correctly.

As I understand it, the law doesn't allow folks to not serve gay folks. It simply prevents "forced expression" against one's religious beliefs. The dreaded christian baker still has to make cakes for gay weddings, but isn't required to write on the cake "gay marriage is moral."

But, seeing as how a law that says women use women's rooms and men use men's rooms has been labeled as anti-gay and bigoted and horrible, I have no doubt that twitter "hot takes" on Mississippi will offer all the substance I've come to expect from a generation raised on insight of Jon Stewart.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to shower in the women's lockerroom at Lifetime Fitness.

[hack]

Even though they've received what they paid for!
Not a very simple equation. My wife has a master's from Michigan. But in no way did she get what we thought we were paying for, and we're far from alone. But, overall, the point is that you rarely get broad-based and sustainable economic growth without a public investment in education. Not so with housing.

[hack]

There ought to be a serious reconsideration of the value of a "liberal" education. Is there a reason why a mechanical engineer needs to take a psychology class to meet some requirement? I think you can eliminate a year of schooling and it's attendant cost by focusing the curriculum.

Part of the executive-class bitching about millenials these days is that they are box tickers who can't think for themselves. The notion is out there that maybe a classic liberal arts education, turning out rounded people who can use their heads, isn't so useless after all. The Big Four are churning out their think pieces on this lately.

[iam416]

But, overall, the point is that you rarely get broad-based and sustainable economic growth without a public investment in education. Not so with housing.

Housing is an important enough good that we subsidize the shit out of it for poor folks. But if the analogy is so troubling to you, then I'll say it without the analogy so I don't spend any more time discussing the nonessential thought in my post -- The essential point is that Bernie's reasoning strikes me as daft fucking pandering at its worst.

But in no way did she get what we thought we were paying for, and we're far from alone.

I can't speak to what you and your wife thought you were paying for, but I'm fairly certain that if she received a masters degree you received what you were paying for me.

In any event, I don't consider FREE!!!!! a real solution or even part of a real solution. You apparently do. We just disagree. In my case, I disagree profoundly, but ain't no thing.

[froot loops]

If you are competing in a global arena, you'll need more college graduates not less.

[Wild Hoss]

Sweatin' To The Oldies Nite in Columbus!

Good thoughts on higher ed Talent. The concept should be cheaper, more efficient, and more exclusive, not free. Big fan of reinventing the Associates Degree concept too.

But alas...its all about the Benji's now.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[iam416]

If you are competing in a global arena, you'll need more college graduates not less.

Then there should be no crisis of repaying student loans. If the market demands more college grads, then there shouldn't be college grads bitching and moaning about the repercussions of their own decisions.