[k-mcgrady]

>> Part of the problem is that the last few generations have been told the same thing: blue collar jobs aren't "good" jobs. You need to go to college so you can get a "good" job sitting at a desk because those other jobs are below you. If you take one of those blue collar jobs then you've failed and aren't "achieving your potential".

I think another part of it is that even low level office jobs now require some sort of degree simply because everybody has one. It's no longer something unique to have on your CV hence why so many people seem to be going for Masters degrees too. I know so many people only getting out of education in their late 20's and many of them got a degree, struggled to find a job, so went back for the Masters to give them ad edge.

Another problem all this education causes is lack of experience. If you decide at 16 or 17 that you're going into a trade you can get an apprenticeship and build up experience. If you go to college 'because that's what people do' and struggle to find a job based on your degree when you come out it's hard to even get a job in retail or sales because you're 23 with no experience.

One solution might be to only offer loans for degrees that lead to a job (doctor, lawyer, architect etc.) and consider things like History or Music a luxury.

[BenElgar]

I think the idea of offering loans only for 'vocational' degrees is extremely damaging. It leads to people taking 'Software Engineering' degrees rather than computer science or maths or physics when really these less directed degrees generally allow people to explore what they are really most passionate about.

The idea of a university is not a place where one goes to get a piece of paper that certifies one as competent to perform a job - that should merely be a side effect - university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual. I acknowledge this is a rather idealistic view of our higher education institutes but I think it's one we should strive to make a reality.

[yummyfajitas]

- university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual.

Sounds like a fun luxury good. Why should we subsidize such a luxury good and encourage 25-50% of the population to consume it?

Should we also subsidize luxury goods enjoyed by other subcultures, e.g. video games, muscle cars or strip clubs? If not, why not?

[jazzyk]

There is a big elephant in the room here - the terrible state of high school education in the US. In many (advanced) countries in the world you can be reasonably educated/knowledgeable with a high school diploma - Kant and Hegel (and Confucius and Buddha :-)) are discussed in classes.

[yequalsx]

Educatuion is a public good. We all benefit when society is highly educated. The benefits might not be obtained at an individual level. That is, there will be some people whose education does not end up benefitting us all.

[yummyfajitas]

If you want to claim education has positive externalities, then make that case. But that's a little hard to square with BenElgar's idea that subsidizing some degrees more than others is "damaging". His comment argued nothing about externalities.

After all, if it turns out that the public external benefits of a physics degree exceed those of a women's studies degree, then the former should be subsidized but not the latter.

In any case, what do you believe the external benefits of education are?

[yequalsx]

If the public benefits of a physics degree exceed those of a women's studies degree then the former should be subsidized but not the latter? What if the former's benefit exceeds the latter's benefit by an epsilon amount? By your reasoning only the most beneficial degree should be subsidized but not any others. Perhaps you typed in haste and did not mean what you wrote in a strict sense.

I don't believe one can really quantize which degree has more public benefits. Some benefits are hidden, in the sense that their benefit isn't so readily recognizable. The benefits of an educated populace are manifest and, I believe, clearly worth the expense of public financial support.

[yummyfajitas]

To be more precise, what I meant is that both should only be subsidize to whatever degree they create external benefits. I.e., if a physics degree has $5k external benefit and a women's studies degree $5, then the physics degree deserves 1000x more subsidies.

And once you factor in the harms caused by signalling, it's far from clear it's even a net positive.

The benefits of an educated populace are manifest and, I believe, clearly worth the expense of public financial support.

The external benefits are far from clear.

If a person is educated and becomes a doctor, and then fixes my spine in return for money, the benefit is clear. But that benefit is fully captured by myself and the doctor, and he factored the cost of education into the price he charged me.

Can you name what the external benefit (i.e. benefits captured by third parties) is, for both medical education, physics education and women's studies?

[enraged_camel]

>>Educatuion is a public good. We all benefit when society is highly educated.

Right. The point of contention is whether we should be paying $50-150k per person for this public good.

I mean, the benefits are clearly there, but the price has been skyrocketing and when the individual can't pay back their loans, we all suffer.

[icebraining]

It leads to people taking 'Software Engineering' degrees rather than computer science or maths or physics when really these less directed degrees generally allow people to explore what they are really most passionate about.

I share your concerns; on the other hand, is signing up for a 3-to-5 year course really the best way to help people discover their passion? As an exploratory path, it sound expensive both in resources and in time wasted for the student.

Around here, we have something called "summer university" wherein high-school students can spend a week or two getting an high level overview of the college course. It's extra-curricular, so few attend, but seems like a similar approach introduced into the regular HS calendar (say, the last two months), getting everyone to try a few courses of their choice, could provide even more exploration for much lower costs.

[k-mcgrady]

I can see how you thought I was advocating loans for only vocational degrees. Something like Computer Science I think would be fine as a job path is very clear and well paid. I can't speak for Maths of Physics because I don't know much about jobs paths from those. I was more talking about degrees that have no clear job path and which could don't need to be studied at an institution where you are largely paying for the name. If someone wants a loan to study history - fine, give them enough to study in-state or at a community college.

>> university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual

This is the problem. That all sounds great but it is not worth $100k and there are many other ways to have that experience that do not cost that much.

[whyenot]

> it is not worth $100k and there are many other ways to have that experience that do not cost that much

You can get an excellent education at a state school for less than $6k per year.

The person who gets a degree in music theory, philosophy, or art history may not get a job that ties in to their major, but these people all leave college with skills in critical thinking, writing, the ability to meet deadlines, skills in communicating complex ideas to others, public speaking, etc. Most importantly, they leave with proof that they know how to learn and improve themselves. There are jobs for people with these skills, and they will likely be far more rewarding than gutting chickens on the line all day or waiting tables at the Cheesecake Factory.

[crush_xc]

what state does that exist in? No state school here in NJ is under 10k a year, and none of them are ranked decently except for maybe Rutgers, Stevens, and NJIT's architecture program.

[v64]

The University of Texas has in state tuition for below 6k a year, and in some cases out of state tuition can come in at below 10k as well. [1] This is just tuition and administrative fees and doesn't include housing and textbooks.

[1] https://admissions.utexas.edu/tuition/cost-of-attendance

Edit: Sorry I misread. These stats are by semester, not year.

[cmurf]

Right and also tuition doesn't mean cost of attendance where there are all kinds of additional fees, books, room and board, etc. Cost of attendance is easily double that of tuition. So it's actually in the vicinity of $25K per year for a state university.

State college and community college in particular can be a lot less, and it's possible to even split the difference and do 2 years community and then graduate from the university by transferring credits. Of course, you have to have your ducks in a row to pull that off.

[pilom]

Colorado you can do two years in community college for less than $6k per year and then two years at a state school for just over $6k per year if you don't count room and board which you'd have to pay anyway.

[karma_vaccum123]

> university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual

As long as we continue to believe this, nothing will change.

Universities indoctrinate, lets not be naive. Most schools have little interest in widening the perspectives of students. They are on a mission to unify perspectives. Indeed I would say that universities are more responsible for our Idiocracy than television - graduates really believe they have become enlightened when in fact they have been programmed.

[jazzyk]

Looking at my daughter's textbook at a top-20 college in the US, I was stunned. She took a (core) class in philosophy/psychology. Very little time was spent on classics (ancient philosophers, Kant, Hegel, Freud, etc.) They were replaced by contemporary researchers (often from the same university), often with a VERY extreme, one-sided, politicized agenda (feminist, etc.). Pretty sad.

[vkou]

It's a shame that a well rounded education doesn't solely consist of studying entirely apolitical, classic European thinkers.

It's almost as if there is more to the world than Central and Mediterranean Europe.

And heaven forbid, students get exposed to radical ideas in their philosophy classes. We can't have any of that, here.

[jazzyk]

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder - I said ancient philosophers, the list of names was not meant to be exhaustive, just a few, to give the reader an idea. Of course one would include Confucius, Buddha, etc in that list. A short post cannot be as precise as a dissertation.

Students are already exposed to too many radical ideas (supported by current political interests), which REPLACED the basics/foundations - that was my point.

[vkou]

Many current political interests support the views of classic liberal philosophers. Just because the view is mainstream doesn't make it apolitical.

[FT_intern]

The author's criticism was about replacement of old ideas, not addition of new ideas

[vkou]

Those old ideas provide a very occicentric, and, by extension, biased framework for understanding the world.

There are plenty of old ideas that are excluded by what most universities define to be classical education - yet the complaints are about lack of coverage for Kant and Plato, rather then, say Confuscius, or Cornel West. (For examples both less, and more relevant to modern thought.)

The complaint was directed at a Philosophy education, not at a Western Philosophy education. If said top-20 college promised the latter, and ignored the classics, that would be reason to complain. Otherwise, it's like complaining that your History class didn't solely focus on America.

The other assumption that I call into question is that Freud, Kant, etc are 'apolitical' figures - whereas a feminist writer is 'political.' This is, quite plainly, nonsense.

[duaneb]

Can you think of a core class that would include Aristotle and Freud? It'd be a shitty survey class where people came out half-educated, using phrases like "begs the question" instead of "raises the question", which is ideally part of the problem philosophy core classes should solve. I don't think a survey of modern philosophers is any worse than this. Philosophy half-understood isn't very meaningful.

Also, modern philosophers have a lot to say. I still recommend de Beauvoir and Wittgenstein to anyone who cares to read.

[gm-conspiracy]

How much did the textbook cost?

[cmurf]

OK well there are all sorts of programming, and DNA is one of those, so is culture, so is family. We're programmed to say pledges to flags, desire an education, get married, buy houses, go into debt, have children, have more debt, etc. It's all programming. But what you're doing is putting a very broad value judgment on a particular variety of programming. I don't think it's terribly interesting to only criticize university doctrination without exploring the opportunity costs. Let's say all the kids want to go to Costa Rica and retire instead of going to college, oops, small problem. So I'm unclear on what your scalable alternative is.

[jinfiesto]

I'm skeptical of not allowing loans for degrees that don't lead to jobs. The fact that a statistical argument can be made, like "Only 30% of music majors have jobs out of school" totally obscures the fact that there are causal factors that determine career success out of school. I don't think the issue is degrees that don't lead to jobs. I think much of the issue is people beginning degrees that they have no business beginning. I suppose this is probably related to to many people going to college in the first place?

I majored in music. It's pretty easy to tell who will have a reasonable career after college. The people who are well prepared succeed. The people who aren't usually flounder and subsequently go on to flounder after school.

Should we be telling people who are likely to succeed in their field that they can't get loans to study something they will probably do well at because of all the asshats that apply to these programs with little preparation?

[k-mcgrady]

I can see your point. Let's take music for example seeing as you majored in it and I am also quite invested in it. I can't think of too many music jobs that require a degree. It tends to be an industry where you work hard, from the bottom and learn as you go or you teach yourself. There are legitimate reasons to study it as a degree but are you really getting $60-100k of value from it? Some people might but even a lot of the people prepared to succeed are not going to get that amount of value out of it and likely could have got the information they need for their future through an online course, on the job training, or a community college course.

My main point is that a lot of people are doing degrees when they can get the information they need elsewhere, much cheaper, and they are not getting value for money. Unless we can convince people college isn't something they have to do being more specific about which degree paths get loans is the only way I can see to prevent those people taking out loans they will never be able to pay back.

[jinfiesto]

Continuing the example, I'd say that at the non top-tier level it's pretty important to have a degree if you want to make more than 60k a year. It's really hard to justify charging more than 20$ an hour to parents of prospective students if you don't have some sort of degree. I'm assuming that most music majors will go on to teach. Granted, this isn't the only thing you need to be successful, but it's a pretty important component. I doubt that anyone who is going to succeed at an instrument could get the information they need from a community college. It sounds elitist, but pedigree is very important in music. The community is not particularly open about sharing information, so very few people (relatively speaking) really know what they're doing. And they tend to keep it to themselves/students.

Additionally, music is pretty unique in that very few people study music in college without having already studied it seriously for 10+ years prior. Typically, if you've been playing that long, you've applied to specific schools with specific teachers in mind. I don't think anyone that plans on being successful in the field will be able to get much from whatever clown is teaching at the local community college.

Further, teaching can be surprisingly lucrative. Teachers that consistently put out competition winners at the state+ level can charge upwards of 100 dollars an hour. Top tier teachers in the LA area charge 300+. The most expensive I've ever seen was 700 /hr. (This is true for piano, which is my frame of reference. I'm not sure what music teachers in other instruments make.)

Continuing some of the above points, basically every really good pianist in the US comes from one of two "lineages" of pianists. Either they can trace their teachers back to Schnabel, or back to Josef and Rosina Lhevinne. I would be very surprised to hear of any 2nd generation student of Schnabel's or 1st generation student of the Lhevinne's teaching at a community college, much less online. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's really not possible for the students who would succeed to get the information they need in a cheaper form.

But back to the initial point, I'm not convinced that cutting off entire paths of degrees from receiving support in the form of loans won't represent some sort of massive loss to society. Consider all of the potentially lost art/literature/music? At any rate, I feel like either college should just be subsidized by the state, or let people just be personally responsible for what they choose to study (which is what we already do.) I'm heavily in favor of the former.

[k-mcgrady]

Interesting points. I agree that having a degree is going to help you be able to charge a higher rate if you are teaching. I disagree with a few points though:

> Consider all of the potentially lost art/literature/music?

I don't think that would happen. Music degree != creativity. You could argue that the people not creating teach others who do create but I think the majority of people who go on to create great art are going to do that whether they get a degree or not.

> The community is not particularly open about sharing information

Maybe it's because we're talking about music in such abstract terms but this is certainly not my experience. I've been working towards a career in mixing for the last few years and there is an abundance of great teachers and communities online for a small monthly fee. Everybody is incredibly supportive, helpful, and even share work when certain people have more than they can handle. From another angle I've always found musicians more than helpful teaching each other new things (e.g. I see someone playing with a technique I don't know and ask them to show me how it's done).

> At any rate, I feel like either college should just be subsidized by the state

I agree with you here. I live in the UK and the most anyone pays for tuition is £9k per year. I actually looked into going to the US for college and the costs were incredible. However a lot of that is because students choose to go out of state and go to well known schools. Maybe that's where the change needs to happen. Big subsidies for studying in state.

[ThrustVectoring]

>I think another part of it is that even low level office jobs now require some sort of degree simply because everybody has one.

This is the key problem - education is often positional good, since not every job seeker can be better educated than the others.

>One solution might be to only offer loans for degrees that lead to a job (doctor, lawyer, architect etc.) and consider things like History or Music a luxury.

Better is to make asking about and providing your college background illegal, with some exceptions for doctors/lawyers/engineers/etc.

[pwthornton]

Education is not job training. And a good education should prepare you to switch careers.

Comparing higher education to job training is especially damaging in a fast paced economy with new fields and jobs popping up all the time.