[thomascgalvin]

The market might not be fit to decide what education is worthwhile, but it will certainly figure out what degrees are lucrative.

It would be nice if we could all go to college to chase our childhood dreams, but the reality is that most of us need to prepare to support ourselves and, someday, a family. That's why I'm a software engineer and not a novelist, and that's why I got a CS degree and not a BFA in English.

Are the humanities "worthwhile?" Certainly. But should the average person drop $100,000 on a humanities degree? Absolutely not. And the fact that we're willing to bury children under that kind of debt so that they can get a Master's in French Opera or whatever is a crime.

[s73v3r_]

"The market might not be fit to decide what education is worthwhile, but it will certainly figure out what degrees are lucrative."

And those are completely separate things, and should not be conflated. Basically, you're saying that only the rich should be able to study non-STEM stuff.

[thomascgalvin]

> Basically, you're saying that only the rich should be able to study non-STEM stuff.

I'm saying that only rich people are able to study non-STEM stuff. I mean sure, a disadvantaged person can study literature or interpretive dance or whatever, but that choice will make them a debt slave with no significantly increased earning potential.

You don't need to go to college to improve yourself as a human being. You can be well-read and appreciative of the arts without paying $100,000. And for the vast majority of people, that is the only sensible course of action.

[bmelton]

Grants, partial and full-ride scholarships, community colleges, etc. will all still exist, but while it will definitely limit the number of people taking out expensive loans to get advanced degrees for low-paying jobs, it probably would not exclude those who either had existing money, or who could keep the loan amounts to within repayable limits, by getting a cheaper undergrad, or what have you.