Subprime loans for college hiding in plain sight(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Subprime loans for college hiding in plain sight
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/your-money/parent-plus-loans.html
451 comments
I would qualify this type of online comment as infohazard.
If you have ambition and have the potential to get into a nice school, then going to community college is ackin to shooting yourself in the foot. Sure, you can still have a nice career afterwards, but you're cutting yourself from many more opportunities you would have had otherwise.
"excellent instructors" depends purely on luck wherever you end up to, and pretending they are automatically better in CC is deception. Most importantly, how bright are your classmates is the #1 thing that drives higher achievement in my experience, as the learning material is all over the internet anyway.
I would like to add that in the sort of signalling game that higher education is, making "rational" bets such as "taking a year to get partying out of your system" is very much inferior to just doing what is deemed socially acceptable (which is partying while in college).
If you have ambition and have the potential to get into a nice school, then going to community college is ackin to shooting yourself in the foot. Sure, you can still have a nice career afterwards, but you're cutting yourself from many more opportunities you would have had otherwise.
"excellent instructors" depends purely on luck wherever you end up to, and pretending they are automatically better in CC is deception. Most importantly, how bright are your classmates is the #1 thing that drives higher achievement in my experience, as the learning material is all over the internet anyway.
I would like to add that in the sort of signalling game that higher education is, making "rational" bets such as "taking a year to get partying out of your system" is very much inferior to just doing what is deemed socially acceptable (which is partying while in college).
This comment is completely unfounded imo. I did 2 years at community college before 2 years at Harvard. It's possible to transfer to "high-tier" university if you perform at CC.
Further, some states in the US have great CC -> 4 year programs. California comes to mind. Graduate from a Cal CC and you're guaranteed admission to UC. A lot of kids in the bay go to Berkeley to finish their 4 year.
The excellent instructor thing isn't a joke either. You really don't need a top PhD student to teach you Calc 1 + 2 (assuming you're doing a STEM track). It's really just about getting the reps in. You're going to be a bit weak on proofs + theory, but you'll be solid on the basics.
The bright classmates thing is a bit real, but you have to find your motivation anywhere.
Further, some states in the US have great CC -> 4 year programs. California comes to mind. Graduate from a Cal CC and you're guaranteed admission to UC. A lot of kids in the bay go to Berkeley to finish their 4 year.
The excellent instructor thing isn't a joke either. You really don't need a top PhD student to teach you Calc 1 + 2 (assuming you're doing a STEM track). It's really just about getting the reps in. You're going to be a bit weak on proofs + theory, but you'll be solid on the basics.
The bright classmates thing is a bit real, but you have to find your motivation anywhere.
When in the world was that? Harvard doesnt take transfers (any more?). If you've been to college 20/30 years ago, well, the scene has changed a bit.
If you come from a low income household and get accepted to an Ivy+, odds are you'll get a full ride (my own case), so calling OP's post "completely unfounded" is completely unfounded.
If you come from a low income household and get accepted to an Ivy+, odds are you'll get a full ride (my own case), so calling OP's post "completely unfounded" is completely unfounded.
https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/apply/transfer-applic...
They're super picky about who they take, but they do take a few transfer students each year.
They're super picky about who they take, but they do take a few transfer students each year.
I had a friend who went from CC->Berkeley(BS)->Stanford(JD). If you are really looking for credentials, you can spend 5-6 years and get amazing credentials by starting off at CC (this guy completed a lot of CC credits during high school and the summer so he completed his JD in 6 years).
I know, for example, many employers aren't exclusively looking for Ivys or even higher-end universities either.
I know, for example, many employers aren't exclusively looking for Ivys or even higher-end universities either.
In reality, though, a Stanford grad can skip the L+1 promo process at many tech companies and get in on a higher pay-scale.
I explicitly said it wouldn’t necessarily harm your career.
I just said that going this unconventional path was more than often strictly inferior (in the sense: if you were able to transfer to Harvard you would have had also good opportunities anyway) than going the mainstream way.
I just said that going this unconventional path was more than often strictly inferior (in the sense: if you were able to transfer to Harvard you would have had also good opportunities anyway) than going the mainstream way.
This is such an excellent point. In my 4 year degree, the younger less experienced profs were the best. The highest tenured profs with the most papers, funding, and citations sucked at teaching.
Very few people are going to be able to follow in your path, which is why looking at statistical outcomes is a much better way to analyze features of a choice.
I think you've misunderstood the suggestion. "excellent instructors at the most critical time of higher education" is a reference to the two years you would spend at a full university after knocking out a bunch of credits at a community college. This would allow you to save around half the cost, while still having a name-brand degree and top professors for your higher-level classes.
Some of my best instructors were at community college. Being a Ph.D. does not automatically make someone a good teacher, in some ways it's detrimental. Having good instruction in foundational classes (math and physics if your going engineering) is important. I would do it that way again and not just for the cost savings. OTOH it did delay my graduation by at least a year, but that's mostly because I took my time.
[deleted]
jschveibinz's post doesn't actually say you should transfer to a full university.
Perhaps we can guess they meant to - but it ain't what they said.
Perhaps we can guess they meant to - but it ain't what they said.
To the contrary, quoting the relevant remarks:
> You will end up saving half of not more of the tuition and boarding expenses compared to spending all four years at a major university...
> And you STILL end up with a diploma from a Major university.
> You will end up saving half of not more of the tuition and boarding expenses compared to spending all four years at a major university...
> And you STILL end up with a diploma from a Major university.
Not explicitly, but can you come up with any other plausible explanation for you could "STILL end up with a diploma from a Major university"? That seems quite clear.
I disagree with your comment. I went to one of those high-tier universities and wish I had spent the first two years at community college. Low-level classes at big universities tend to be poorly taught, large classes, and I question their value - doubly so for general education requirements. There are tons of distractions, like partying, football, etc. Having bright classmates was also a non-factor; in many classes, and particularly STEM classes, you barely interact with classmates. I would have had a much better academic career if I'd started at a community college - I needed an environment where I could focus and mature more.
Big universities (and the above) oversell the importance of connections made at school. Yes, connections matter, but how often do the connections from freshman or sophomore year matter? Many students don't even know what major they will graduate with during that time, and the best connections are those within your field.
Big universities (and the above) oversell the importance of connections made at school. Yes, connections matter, but how often do the connections from freshman or sophomore year matter? Many students don't even know what major they will graduate with during that time, and the best connections are those within your field.
You may disagree but there is no counter factual in your personal experience.
Wherever you ended up to, how do you know it would have been better going to a community college?
The data is obviously highly biaised but when you look at top researchers, what % went to CC vs what % to top undergraduate programs?
PS: I say this because I personally know people who went to top institutions lamenting that they should have went another way for some of the reasons you mentioned, and yet they all have landed nice positions wherever they wanted to go.
Wherever you ended up to, how do you know it would have been better going to a community college?
The data is obviously highly biaised but when you look at top researchers, what % went to CC vs what % to top undergraduate programs?
PS: I say this because I personally know people who went to top institutions lamenting that they should have went another way for some of the reasons you mentioned, and yet they all have landed nice positions wherever they wanted to go.
> The data is obviously highly biased but when you look at top researchers, what % went to CC vs what % to top undergraduate programs?
Right, it is biased. You need a control - two similar people with similar backgrounds. People going to CC are usually not doing so by choice.
I think that ultimately, some people are going to be successful regardless of the path they take. Universities attempt to capture the recognition for where their attendees end up, but I think that has more to do with the attendees than the universities.
Right, it is biased. You need a control - two similar people with similar backgrounds. People going to CC are usually not doing so by choice.
I think that ultimately, some people are going to be successful regardless of the path they take. Universities attempt to capture the recognition for where their attendees end up, but I think that has more to do with the attendees than the universities.
> Having bright classmates was also a non-factor; in many classes, and particularly STEM classes, you barely interact with classmates.
I, on the other hand, had loads of group projects in my freshman and sophomore years; and as most of us were used to being the top of our class and having to "carry" other team members who weren't invested, we all had a refreshing realization that, "Hey cool -- everyone here is both smart and motivated!"
Don't know how different that would have been at community college, but I certainly benefitted from having smart and motivated classmates my first two years of university.
> Yes, connections matter, but how often do the connections from freshman or sophomore year matter?
The people I met in my hall at the dorm freshman year constituted the core of my friendship group throughout the rest of university; and I'm still in contact with a large number of them. I'd say a larger than average number of that group went on to advanced degrees like PhD or law degrees. Influence matters.
Would I have gotten a PhD myself if I had started at community college? Maybe, maybe not: hard to tell. But I am glad that I went all four years. (That said, I only graduated with a single four-digit student loan; those two years would certainly not have been worth a six-digit loan.)
I, on the other hand, had loads of group projects in my freshman and sophomore years; and as most of us were used to being the top of our class and having to "carry" other team members who weren't invested, we all had a refreshing realization that, "Hey cool -- everyone here is both smart and motivated!"
Don't know how different that would have been at community college, but I certainly benefitted from having smart and motivated classmates my first two years of university.
> Yes, connections matter, but how often do the connections from freshman or sophomore year matter?
The people I met in my hall at the dorm freshman year constituted the core of my friendship group throughout the rest of university; and I'm still in contact with a large number of them. I'd say a larger than average number of that group went on to advanced degrees like PhD or law degrees. Influence matters.
Would I have gotten a PhD myself if I had started at community college? Maybe, maybe not: hard to tell. But I am glad that I went all four years. (That said, I only graduated with a single four-digit student loan; those two years would certainly not have been worth a six-digit loan.)
"I would qualify this type of online comment as infohazard."
That's a very strange way to say "I disagree with this advise."
That's a very strange way to say "I disagree with this advise."
No, it’s a way to react to the tone of the advice.
There is a whole genre of « internet advice » (such that: don’t go to college, study a trade, community college is better than regular college) that are repeated by people for many reasons (such as personal cope, political agenda) that don’t include what’s best for the listener.
There is a whole genre of « internet advice » (such that: don’t go to college, study a trade, community college is better than regular college) that are repeated by people for many reasons (such as personal cope, political agenda) that don’t include what’s best for the listener.
> There is a whole genre of « internet advice » that don’t include what’s best for the listener.
That's just called "advice". The internet just makes bad advice globally addressable.
That's just called "advice". The internet just makes bad advice globally addressable.
The term "infohazard", as I've seen it used, implies something where the information is true but harmful. If John tells me the bus is scheduled to come at 3:00 pm but the bus actually is scheduled to come at 2:55, that is incorrect in a way which harms me, but it is not an infohazard.
To be clear, I was just commenting on your use of the word "infohazard". The fact that you used that neologism distracted me from the point you were trying to make because I was wondering what your use of this neologism signaled about you.
I consider this type of comment as biased dogma.
I dropped out of school during middle school. I didn't like school.
Google raised me, the internet raised me, I found education my own way by just looking for examples to mimic. Books, internet, and people to talk to. I retired at 30.
Where there is a will, there is a way. The modern academic system is just a factory.
When I screened resumes, I didn't look at where someone went to school, I looked at what projects they had under their belt and what they had 'obsessions' about.
If you put time in, you will become skillful.
If you put time in, and you don't like what you're doing, you'll probably have a less than good time doing it.
If you put time in, and you like what you are doing to the extent you are obsessed about it, you'll probably not even realize you're working or getting paid.
I dropped out of school during middle school. I didn't like school.
Google raised me, the internet raised me, I found education my own way by just looking for examples to mimic. Books, internet, and people to talk to. I retired at 30.
Where there is a will, there is a way. The modern academic system is just a factory.
When I screened resumes, I didn't look at where someone went to school, I looked at what projects they had under their belt and what they had 'obsessions' about.
If you put time in, you will become skillful.
If you put time in, and you don't like what you're doing, you'll probably have a less than good time doing it.
If you put time in, and you like what you are doing to the extent you are obsessed about it, you'll probably not even realize you're working or getting paid.
The only opportunities being missed — in my humble opinion — is more exposure to undergraduate research for those who are so inclined. But even that — I’m sure a CC student will find a filling advisor.
CC is a great way to skip the BS and get straight to the point.
CC is a great way to skip the BS and get straight to the point.
> CC is a great way to skip the BS and get straight to the point.
If you enroll in a 4-year school after CC you can get the BS. ;-)
If you enroll in a 4-year school after CC you can get the BS. ;-)
What if you rephrase it to "I took a gap year to find myself" or something more woo? idk, I don't believe it's an employer's business what I do or have done with myself.
There is no ROI for a 4 year $200k bachelors degree unless you're getting into a very small number of fields. Tuition costs are inflated. Yes, you will meet like-minded bright people, but is it worth that kind of debt before even beginning to enter the workforce? No.
How would anyone know you took a year to party?
Actual uncle here with an addendum:
Don't go to college before you have a sense of what you are interested in learning.
This may not apply to many HN readers, but a lot of young people show up at college quite aimless, and this is not a great way to spend valuable tuition.
You don't need to have your life course charted out, but you will likely be at a disadvantage if you aren't intensely curious about some things and eager to learn more about them when you start buying credits.
I agree that community college is worth considering, but it's unlikely that community college will give you much direction you aren't developing yourself.
The advice I give is a modification of the 'luck surface area' analogy: the more exposure you get to people who are engaged in professional disciplines, the greater the chance you will encounter traits and circumstances that interest and/or inspire you and open figurative and literal doors to your future.
Don't go to college before you have a sense of what you are interested in learning.
This may not apply to many HN readers, but a lot of young people show up at college quite aimless, and this is not a great way to spend valuable tuition.
You don't need to have your life course charted out, but you will likely be at a disadvantage if you aren't intensely curious about some things and eager to learn more about them when you start buying credits.
I agree that community college is worth considering, but it's unlikely that community college will give you much direction you aren't developing yourself.
The advice I give is a modification of the 'luck surface area' analogy: the more exposure you get to people who are engaged in professional disciplines, the greater the chance you will encounter traits and circumstances that interest and/or inspire you and open figurative and literal doors to your future.
> Don't go to college before you have a sense of what you are interested in learning.
I live in a country where college is paid by the taxpers, and college students get a bunch of advantages (student work, food coupons, cheap stuff, access to student resources, gyms etc.).
We have a bunch of students who have to decide on what to study at age 18, and a bunch of them are just "i'm bad at math, what doesn't have a lot of math?" and totally disregard other factors (mostly, employment opportunities), so after ~5 years, they get their masters in ancient greek and philosphy and then complain that there are no jobs for "educated young people".
On one hand, they knew that there were no jobs in that field when they filled out the application forms, on the other hand, the taxpayers paid for 5 years of a useless college, then they learned something that has zero added value in their eventual workplace, and then they still complain.
TLDR: "interested in learning" sure, but with consideration of "are there jobs in that field?"
I live in a country where college is paid by the taxpers, and college students get a bunch of advantages (student work, food coupons, cheap stuff, access to student resources, gyms etc.).
We have a bunch of students who have to decide on what to study at age 18, and a bunch of them are just "i'm bad at math, what doesn't have a lot of math?" and totally disregard other factors (mostly, employment opportunities), so after ~5 years, they get their masters in ancient greek and philosphy and then complain that there are no jobs for "educated young people".
On one hand, they knew that there were no jobs in that field when they filled out the application forms, on the other hand, the taxpayers paid for 5 years of a useless college, then they learned something that has zero added value in their eventual workplace, and then they still complain.
TLDR: "interested in learning" sure, but with consideration of "are there jobs in that field?"
This is what Americans are afraid of in terms of universal education or whatever it’s called. I think it probably still has some net positive effects on society as a whole, even if that person has a useless degree they are educated and that foundation remains through their life regardless of whatever job they end up in. In the US, we have such a disparity of education. It’s likely fueling some of our other problems. Just like income inequality, healthcare, etc.
This is essentially the "elite overproduction" hypothesis. We have artificially priced some forms of education below the market rate. Graduates with useless degrees have poor career prospects, leading to social instability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction
>I live in a country where college is paid by the taxpers,
May I ask which country? Whenever I look at education stats for a taxpayer college funded system versus the US, there are tradeoffs made, such as less of the population getting college degrees through stricter (taxpayer desired) requirements. I'm curious if your country has a solution that's better on some Pareto frontier of education funding methods.
May I ask which country? Whenever I look at education stats for a taxpayer college funded system versus the US, there are tradeoffs made, such as less of the population getting college degrees through stricter (taxpayer desired) requirements. I'm curious if your country has a solution that's better on some Pareto frontier of education funding methods.
Slovenia
agreed, that's why my practical advice is less about college prep and more about meeting a lot of people who do a lot of different things for a living and letting those observations inform your direction and plans.
fwiw my nieces ignored my advice and are liberal arts majors at private colleges in the US but at least they have close to full-ride scholarships.
fwiw my nieces ignored my advice and are liberal arts majors at private colleges in the US but at least they have close to full-ride scholarships.
> Don't go to college before you have a sense of what you are interested in learning.
It sucks that kids have to choose a major right out of high school now (if not before). I have an AA in undecided. When I went to community college (90's) I took art, computer programming, music production, and scuba diving. It was awesome. And it made deciding on a major for my BA much easier.
It sucks that kids have to choose a major right out of high school now (if not before). I have an AA in undecided. When I went to community college (90's) I took art, computer programming, music production, and scuba diving. It was awesome. And it made deciding on a major for my BA much easier.
Its more a of a culture thats forced on kids out of high school really. People don’t have to go to college immediately after high school, but its… a norm, isn’t it? It would be much better if that changed…
There’s a ton of core curriculum stuff to work on though. So you have some time to figure it out if you’re knocking out the core AND realize you need to decide on something in a year or 2. Use that time wisely to explore. And talk to other peoples a couple steps ahead of you.
If you think you know find out what, if any, the “weed out” classes are. I thought I wanted to be a dentist but organic chemistry kicked my ass (ok, took more effort than I cared to give it at the time). It was a wake up that if I didn’t have the grit to get through that, I probably was setting myself up for failure.
If you think you know find out what, if any, the “weed out” classes are. I thought I wanted to be a dentist but organic chemistry kicked my ass (ok, took more effort than I cared to give it at the time). It was a wake up that if I didn’t have the grit to get through that, I probably was setting myself up for failure.
It is significantly easier to make friends being an incoming freshmen in the dorms, as everyone else in your cohort also has no friends and is always around. If you're outgoing, this isn't much of a problem, but as a sophomore transfer student who never lived on campus, I struggled with this pretty heavily. It's probably not worth >$10k between tuition / room and board to be able to make friends easily, but there is a downside.
(I transferred from another university, not from community college, so I do have a point of comparison.)
(I transferred from another university, not from community college, so I do have a point of comparison.)
Taking a year off to party seems like bad advice. You need to be able to party and meet obligations too, because that's real life. College is supposed to introduce you to that. One year of partying is like dipping a pinky toe in. Most of the best partying seems to be from about 25-35. You have better money, good experience, and a huge friend group. It's trivial to get 40-50 people together for a party and walking into the bar and already knowing lots of people without scheduling ahead is reality. Then more and more people start filtering out as they have kids. So, about 20 years of solid partying seems pretty normal from my friend group and observations. Then once you have solid money and kids it turns to weekend warrior types. Only partying on the weekends and doing more costly things like boating or taking short trips with friends. The only big parties are on the coveted 3 day weekends and the food becomes as important as the drugs and alcohol. Then, not from experience yet but observations seems like a little more partying once the kids are older late 50s early 60s but probably being in bed by midnight in most cases.
> Taking a year off to party seems like bad advice.
A year off "to party" is iffy advice, but "a year off to get high school out of your system," i.e. a "gap year," is really good advice.
I walked out of high school a depressed mess, and instead of slowing down and dealing with that, I let my parents pressure me into rolling that straight into college. Five years later, still pointlessly studying anything that sounded interesting, no degree in sight, sinking deeper into depression… it wasn't until I finally flamed out and put my life back together that I could even think about career. I wasn't even aware that the disciplines I would eventually find interesting even existed until after college.
I still rank going straight into college as the biggest mistake of my life.
A year off "to party" is iffy advice, but "a year off to get high school out of your system," i.e. a "gap year," is really good advice.
I walked out of high school a depressed mess, and instead of slowing down and dealing with that, I let my parents pressure me into rolling that straight into college. Five years later, still pointlessly studying anything that sounded interesting, no degree in sight, sinking deeper into depression… it wasn't until I finally flamed out and put my life back together that I could even think about career. I wasn't even aware that the disciplines I would eventually find interesting even existed until after college.
I still rank going straight into college as the biggest mistake of my life.
Taking off a year to party may not be worthwhile but taking off a year to travel (if you have money) probably is.
Also I disagree about partying better later on in life. Getting shitfaced with your friends at 20 any day of the week, hardly sleeping, and then not feeling a thing the next day and going to class is an experience you cannot replicate later in life. The last thing I want to do at 30 is have more than 2-3 drinks and get less than 8 hours of sleep when I have work the next day. The party atmosphere changes - the experiences get nicer and the food is better, but that raw youthful naivety and energy cannot be replicated, when you don't really care about anything but just having a good time and the environment/peripherals don't matter at all
Also I disagree about partying better later on in life. Getting shitfaced with your friends at 20 any day of the week, hardly sleeping, and then not feeling a thing the next day and going to class is an experience you cannot replicate later in life. The last thing I want to do at 30 is have more than 2-3 drinks and get less than 8 hours of sleep when I have work the next day. The party atmosphere changes - the experiences get nicer and the food is better, but that raw youthful naivety and energy cannot be replicated, when you don't really care about anything but just having a good time and the environment/peripherals don't matter at all
I don't think the spirit of OP's comment was 'take a year off to party'. It was, if you are going to pay a bunch of tuition because you want to party...don't.
Teaching aside, what about the social benefits of starting out with a freshman cohort? My wife transferred from an out-of-state school to a school close to home, following a death in the family. She never made many friends at the new school, on account of having been housed on a freshman floor as a junior.
She probably has as many friends from her original college, which she attended for just one year — the crucial freshman year.
I'm not saying it's worth tens of thousands of dollars to network with other students, but if this is where lifelong friendships then it's worth considering the specifics.
Also, many students qualify for significant need/merit financial aid. For me, attending the #1 rated liberal arts college was only modestly more expensive than attending a UC, with in-state tuition. And need-based scholarships have only gotten more generous in the last couple decades, since I went to school. IIRC all the top schools cover your full costs if your family income is below $125k or so.
She probably has as many friends from her original college, which she attended for just one year — the crucial freshman year.
I'm not saying it's worth tens of thousands of dollars to network with other students, but if this is where lifelong friendships then it's worth considering the specifics.
Also, many students qualify for significant need/merit financial aid. For me, attending the #1 rated liberal arts college was only modestly more expensive than attending a UC, with in-state tuition. And need-based scholarships have only gotten more generous in the last couple decades, since I went to school. IIRC all the top schools cover your full costs if your family income is below $125k or so.
This may be adequate advice for ill-prepared students, but is it universally good advice?
First, many students have a home life not conductive to study, or outright hostile. Traditional four year college provides a place where most things taken care of so you can focus on your studies. There are often enormous opportunities to find new friends that are much closer to your mental capabilities and career aspirations.
Second, universities have a wealth of opportunities that a community college simply lacks. For those who are motivated, there is research in all fields, which a student can help with. There are all sorts of work study programs, etc. If you're after work experience relevant to one's career, or a way to explore various careers, a university is really hard to beat. However, just because there is opportunity, does not mean every student is prepared. Professors want prepared students.
Third, most state universities have smaller class sizes for their honor students. If you are not honors student, it still is not hard to find out which paths are less full. For example, a 100 level socioscience survey that fulfills one's core requisite for computer science might also be filled with a 200 level class (having no prereq) in a more specialized class, such as pre-hispanic mesoamérica. You may have to work harder, but you'll also learn more.
Finally, doors of most professors are open. You just have to step though it. This personalized attention and direction are crucial to education. Most students simply do not know to do this, and hence miss the most important aspect of the process. Professors love to help when they meet a student who is driven to learn. By the time you graduate, you should have a half dozen professors who know you well enough that they will write a letter of recommendation. Those personalizes letters are the ticket that open doors, to grants, further study, or to their professional colleagues in industry.
First, many students have a home life not conductive to study, or outright hostile. Traditional four year college provides a place where most things taken care of so you can focus on your studies. There are often enormous opportunities to find new friends that are much closer to your mental capabilities and career aspirations.
Second, universities have a wealth of opportunities that a community college simply lacks. For those who are motivated, there is research in all fields, which a student can help with. There are all sorts of work study programs, etc. If you're after work experience relevant to one's career, or a way to explore various careers, a university is really hard to beat. However, just because there is opportunity, does not mean every student is prepared. Professors want prepared students.
Third, most state universities have smaller class sizes for their honor students. If you are not honors student, it still is not hard to find out which paths are less full. For example, a 100 level socioscience survey that fulfills one's core requisite for computer science might also be filled with a 200 level class (having no prereq) in a more specialized class, such as pre-hispanic mesoamérica. You may have to work harder, but you'll also learn more.
Finally, doors of most professors are open. You just have to step though it. This personalized attention and direction are crucial to education. Most students simply do not know to do this, and hence miss the most important aspect of the process. Professors love to help when they meet a student who is driven to learn. By the time you graduate, you should have a half dozen professors who know you well enough that they will write a letter of recommendation. Those personalizes letters are the ticket that open doors, to grants, further study, or to their professional colleagues in industry.
You can’t just take a year off and magically find huge social groups and parties. Being in a college facilitates that.
You also don’t seem to mention anything about networking. The best friends I’ve had come from freshman year in college when everyone is in the same boat and more willing to make friends. 2 years in, it’s a lot harder to break into established groups.
At the end of the day, if all you want is a degree and need to save money, the two years at community college followed by two years as a university is definitely the way to go but it’s not optimal imo.
You also don’t seem to mention anything about networking. The best friends I’ve had come from freshman year in college when everyone is in the same boat and more willing to make friends. 2 years in, it’s a lot harder to break into established groups.
At the end of the day, if all you want is a degree and need to save money, the two years at community college followed by two years as a university is definitely the way to go but it’s not optimal imo.
[deleted]
The way I look at it, is if you can’t get through community college, you can’t make it through university.
Community college requires more discipline. There’s isn’t as much fun extra cuticular activities, you’re often paying out of pocket and you’re home so there’s lots of distractions.
If you can make it through that, you’ll do well at a university.
Community college requires more discipline. There’s isn’t as much fun extra cuticular activities, you’re often paying out of pocket and you’re home so there’s lots of distractions.
If you can make it through that, you’ll do well at a university.
This. Also bootcamps are good enough to get a job. 6 months is plenty of training. You don't need to be an academic in the history of Roman aqueducts to be a carpenter, and the vast majority of CS degrees cover useless topics in the field. Find a small, good enough, cheap program, and do an internship.
The federal government needs to get out of the college loan business. The government needs to either pay for college (like they do for K-12) or GTFO out.
The problem with college is it's too expensive. The government has done nothing to make it cheaper. Their backing and forgiveness of student loans only makes it more expensive.
It's infuriating. All the government needs to do is literally nothing. Just get out of the way!
The problem with college is it's too expensive. The government has done nothing to make it cheaper. Their backing and forgiveness of student loans only makes it more expensive.
It's infuriating. All the government needs to do is literally nothing. Just get out of the way!
The federal government doesn't generally pay for education. That's state and local dollars, mostly.
The states do pay for education, but during and after the 08 recession (and generally during the 70s-90s too), they have cut funding for higher ed, to put more into k-12 and tax cuts:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-m...
Cuts in state support are balanced by tuition increases; expenses on a per-student basis are not up anywhere near what tuition has increased by.
The states do pay for education, but during and after the 08 recession (and generally during the 70s-90s too), they have cut funding for higher ed, to put more into k-12 and tax cuts:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-m...
Cuts in state support are balanced by tuition increases; expenses on a per-student basis are not up anywhere near what tuition has increased by.
The 538 article is six years old, it’d be interesting to see an update. It does call out the decreased funding isn’t why private colleges have also grown in cost.
Agreed. I would like to see an update. The private colleges have increased their tuition on an inflation adjusted level at a pretty linear rate (See Figure CP-3 on #1). It's the public Four Year institutions that made the big increases, both correlated with the 01-03 recession, and the 08-09 recession. Since 2014, nameplate public institution tuition has been largely flat (same figure).
Additionally, net tuition at 4-year publics actually paid by students has been almost flat or down over the last 15 years (see Figure CP-9 in #10), with net tuition plus room/board up slightly, due to increases in rent not fully controlled by colleges (same figure).
The same applies at private non-profits, flat to negative net tuition, and a moderate increase in tuition+room/board (Figure CP-10 in #1).
The answer is very clear. When states cut funding per FTE student, tuition rises to compensate. When state funding is flat or slightly up, tuition stays level (Figure CP-11A in #1).
All citations from #1, the best data source I know of for college tuition pricing data: https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-college-p...
If you want to look at it on the expenditures side, which should balance with revenue for non-profits, that data is here, and also shows moderate increases in spending: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_334.10.a...
Additionally, net tuition at 4-year publics actually paid by students has been almost flat or down over the last 15 years (see Figure CP-9 in #10), with net tuition plus room/board up slightly, due to increases in rent not fully controlled by colleges (same figure).
The same applies at private non-profits, flat to negative net tuition, and a moderate increase in tuition+room/board (Figure CP-10 in #1).
The answer is very clear. When states cut funding per FTE student, tuition rises to compensate. When state funding is flat or slightly up, tuition stays level (Figure CP-11A in #1).
All citations from #1, the best data source I know of for college tuition pricing data: https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-college-p...
If you want to look at it on the expenditures side, which should balance with revenue for non-profits, that data is here, and also shows moderate increases in spending: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_334.10.a...
> All the government needs to do is literally nothing. Just get out of the way!
If the government gets out of the way everywhere, the class system and caste system will be back withing 3 months
People think free market capitalism is the natural - thats just propaganda. Feudalism is natural, thats why it existed for 10 thousand years.
If the government gets out of the way everywhere, the class system and caste system will be back withing 3 months
People think free market capitalism is the natural - thats just propaganda. Feudalism is natural, thats why it existed for 10 thousand years.
> If the government gets out of the way everywhere, the class system and caste system will be back withing 3 months
The class system is already there. Not everybody can go to Harvard or all the elite colleges. So what are you talking about exactly? If the government wants poor people to go to college, then the government needs to give scholarships to these people, not loans that can't be done away through bankruptcy, let's the banks take all the risks, that's their job.
The class system is already there. Not everybody can go to Harvard or all the elite colleges. So what are you talking about exactly? If the government wants poor people to go to college, then the government needs to give scholarships to these people, not loans that can't be done away through bankruptcy, let's the banks take all the risks, that's their job.
It's a good thing I didn't propose they get out of the way everywhere. I also suggested the government could simply pay for college directly. The loan model is the worst of both worlds.
> I also suggested the government could simply pay for college directly.
It's just the best investment we could make. We wouldn't have to worry that anyone's potential got wasted if everyone could easily go to college, and people could switch careers more easily. It would just raise the general competence level of the population and probably instantly start lowering crime. Skilled people without crippling debt. We should do socialized healthcare and make them healthy, too.
It's just the best investment we could make. We wouldn't have to worry that anyone's potential got wasted if everyone could easily go to college, and people could switch careers more easily. It would just raise the general competence level of the population and probably instantly start lowering crime. Skilled people without crippling debt. We should do socialized healthcare and make them healthy, too.
The first part of your argument is true, but the 2nd hyperbolic one is factually false and detracts from the first.
Consider phrasing it differently.
Consider phrasing it differently.
I am sorry, I don't understand whas is it you believe - if you agree part 1 is true, and class system will be back, how can you disbelieve that Feudalism will be back?
A class system is the defining feature of feudalism - if you are born into a class and may never escape, and if higher classes have more legal priviliges than you do, thats no longer capitalism we know and love/hate/tolerate.
A class system is the defining feature of feudalism - if you are born into a class and may never escape, and if higher classes have more legal priviliges than you do, thats no longer capitalism we know and love/hate/tolerate.
Feudalism, to the extent that it's a coherent concept at all, refers to a particular form of social organization prominent in medieval Europe. It is not a catch-all for all premodern societies.
[deleted]
[deleted]
100% Agreed. The whole government backed collage loan system is the very thing that made the price of college education go out of control. The government either needs to stay away from that system or just give plain scholarships for students from modest economic backgrounds.
The problem with doing nothing is that college defaults to a system where it is simply not affordable for a significant section of the population. The system in the US is for sure flawed, but doing nothing and letting the market decide will not solve the social equity problem either.
The solution given is to create cheap public universities, not do nothing. It would bring prices down instead of up... which is what doling out pallets of money does.
Seems to me that intermediation is the problem, though I'm not sure if I understand the US system very well.
Imagine if you couldn't get a loan from a third party, where the university lets you owe it the fees, but you cannot borrow the money from some student loans company or the government.
Then the university would figure out which people it thought would be likely to pay back the money, and which are perhaps worthwhile to fund without monetary reward. And the uni would be well placed to make such decisions.
If the money comes from a third party, the uni gets the money regardless and doesn't need to care. The lender can't be defaulted on, and so they don't care either.
Imagine if you couldn't get a loan from a third party, where the university lets you owe it the fees, but you cannot borrow the money from some student loans company or the government.
Then the university would figure out which people it thought would be likely to pay back the money, and which are perhaps worthwhile to fund without monetary reward. And the uni would be well placed to make such decisions.
If the money comes from a third party, the uni gets the money regardless and doesn't need to care. The lender can't be defaulted on, and so they don't care either.
>> If the money comes from a third party, the uni gets the money regardless and doesn't need to care. The lender can't be defaulted on, and so they don't care either.
This is exactly the problem. The government guarantees "student loans" made by 3rd parties. Tuition costs have seen huge inflation over the last 25 years, second only to medical costs in the U.S.
I also don't think students realize simple things like... Since money is fungible, that $5 coffee is also being paid for by the loan. They're really borrowing to pay for their lifestyle as well and don't think about that.
This is exactly the problem. The government guarantees "student loans" made by 3rd parties. Tuition costs have seen huge inflation over the last 25 years, second only to medical costs in the U.S.
I also don't think students realize simple things like... Since money is fungible, that $5 coffee is also being paid for by the loan. They're really borrowing to pay for their lifestyle as well and don't think about that.
> The government guarantees "student loans" made by 3rd parties.
Not since 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reco...
Not since 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reco...
My understanding is that the new income driven repayment rules include parent plus loans via the double consolidation loophole.
https://www.studentloanplanner.com/parent-plus-double-consol...
https://www.studentloanplanner.com/parent-plus-double-consol...
When baby boomers were getting these same degrees they mostly led to well-paying middle management careers. There was a transition stretching across Gen X and Millennials where degrees like "social work" steadily lost value as supply of these degrees gradually outpaced demand, and wages slowly stagnated.
Gen Z seems to be much, much more aware of this issue and as a result the number of STEM majors in colleges have exploded. Although it does also seem like the rigor has gone down acutely.
I'm getting my second bachelors in Computer Science now, my first was in Chemical Engineering 12 years earlier. The amount of rampant cheating and seeming inability for the schools to "fail" a student is completely foreign to me compared to my first degree, which took me 8 years to achieve across three schools, so I definitely got a somewhat decent sample of school cultures.
Gen Z seems to be much, much more aware of this issue and as a result the number of STEM majors in colleges have exploded. Although it does also seem like the rigor has gone down acutely.
I'm getting my second bachelors in Computer Science now, my first was in Chemical Engineering 12 years earlier. The amount of rampant cheating and seeming inability for the schools to "fail" a student is completely foreign to me compared to my first degree, which took me 8 years to achieve across three schools, so I definitely got a somewhat decent sample of school cultures.
> There was a transition stretching across Gen X and Millennials where degrees like "social work" steadily lost value as supply of these degrees gradually outpaced demand, and wages slowly stagnated.
Isn’t the US in the middle of multiple drug crises (opioids, meth) and a mental health crisis?
Isn’t the US in the middle of multiple drug crises (opioids, meth) and a mental health crisis?
My father worked in addictions counseling and basically it pays nothing, is rampant with corruption, power tripping and general toxicity. So while the US does have these problems, unless you find it to be your calling to help folks like my father did in the second half of his career, the majority of competent people will steer well clear of these types of fields. It leaves a particular set of people behind, abusers and people who will be abused. My father is a good man and generally fell into that second category so as soon as he hit retirement age he got out.
I guess when I say "lost value" I meant in terms of the degree recipient being able to capture the value they can provide.
I agree there's a lot of value which could be provided -- but someone still needs to employ those talented individuals and provide them with the infrastructure necessary to facilitate them doing "their job".
I agree there's a lot of value which could be provided -- but someone still needs to employ those talented individuals and provide them with the infrastructure necessary to facilitate them doing "their job".
unfortunately demand isnt driven by the crisis, its driven by the states' willingness to pay
this is true, and in theory will only drive up the cost of college, as there will be continued demand as the repayment will be dissociated from the amount of the original loan
IMO the better solution would be some limited forgiveness for current borrowers, then shoring up/restoring funding for state/public universities, undercutting pricing at privates
IMO the better solution would be some limited forgiveness for current borrowers, then shoring up/restoring funding for state/public universities, undercutting pricing at privates
If we are going to have federal loans at all, they should be capped at something like the 70th percentile public school tuition. If schools want to charge more than that they can lend to students or parents themselves.
Extending $100k to an 18 year old in general ought to be rethought.
Allow bankruptcy for college loans. Don’t use tax payer money for loans.
Colleges will become affordable again.
Colleges will become affordable again.
Don't know if it'll make Colleges more affordable, but it'll definitely deter lenders from giving out loans to applicants that aren't as academically inclined or going into majors that have a low earnings potential.
The idea of banks having a risk free loans never really made sense to me...
The idea of banks having a risk free loans never really made sense to me...
Right now a college can offer useless easy degrees and charge anything they want, because 18 year olds have easy access to huge sums of money (government backed loans) and also tend to make poor financial sessions.
> The idea of banks having a risk free loans never really made sense to me...
They do not since 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reco...
> Ending the process of the federal government giving subsidies to private banks to give out federally insured loans. Instead loans will be administered directly by the Department of Education.[23]
They do not since 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reco...
> Ending the process of the federal government giving subsidies to private banks to give out federally insured loans. Instead loans will be administered directly by the Department of Education.[23]
>Allow bankruptcy for college loans.
Making loans higher interest to handle increased risk, making it even harder for someone to pay for college.
Making loans higher interest to handle increased risk, making it even harder for someone to pay for college.
vs the current situation?
the pricing of degrees in the US should be re-evaluated too, if I may. There is no way the cost of knowledge transfer cannot be optimized.
Private universities might have no incentive for change for obvious reasons left as an exercise to the reader, but it would in the interest of the government to support innovation in this area, instead of try to patch a loan mechanism that is only feeding the beast.
Private universities might have no incentive for change for obvious reasons left as an exercise to the reader, but it would in the interest of the government to support innovation in this area, instead of try to patch a loan mechanism that is only feeding the beast.
One does not need $100k to get a higher education unless going to a "Destination College." I was able to get a computer science degree using community colleges and finishing at a state school for far far less than that.
If you’re not working during school borrowing 25k a year seems a bit low tbh. Most in state tuition is at least in the teens and the room and board are too, not super easy to spend less than 25k. Sure you could live at home and go to community college, but not doing that is hardly a “destination” college.
The article is about parent loans.
Extending a 400k mortgage to a 27 year old should also be rethought.
Jesus people, if you’re argument is that “but mortgages have collateral” then at least address why 20% of someone’s discretionary income over 20 years for federal loans or your lifetime income via non-dischargeability for private loans doesn’t count.
I don’t give two shits about the financial solvency of the lender, if you have to repo the house the system has failed. Throwing a massive amount of money to someone who’s probably on their second big boy job ever betting 15/30 years of income stability to pay it off is insane.
Jesus people, if you’re argument is that “but mortgages have collateral” then at least address why 20% of someone’s discretionary income over 20 years for federal loans or your lifetime income via non-dischargeability for private loans doesn’t count.
I don’t give two shits about the financial solvency of the lender, if you have to repo the house the system has failed. Throwing a massive amount of money to someone who’s probably on their second big boy job ever betting 15/30 years of income stability to pay it off is insane.
Extending a mortgage isn't that crazy, because you're going off the home value in addition to the repayment ability of the borrower. With student loans there's no collateral so everything rests with the borrowers ability to repay.
Student loans are a wild financial product when you stop to think about it, a loan with no collateral, given to someone who often times has no credit, and enforced through it not being dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Student loans are a wild financial product when you stop to think about it, a loan with no collateral, given to someone who often times has no credit, and enforced through it not being dischargeable in bankruptcy.
If you think the house will appreciate and you have the money, I think it’s fine to extent the loan as long as you’re willing to take the risk on the appreciation you don’t really even need to risk assess the 27 year old.
Right - this is fundamentally different than the education argument - the house is a tangible asset that can be repossessed. The education is not.
[deleted]
Transaction costs offset significant appreciation in the short term. This makes such loans surprisingly risky even if homes are appreciating.
So if, for you, the thing that makes a loan safe is the lender feeling reasonably confident in the value of the collateral then what makes 10% of a persons discretionary income for 20 years feel more risky?
The ability to collect 10% and the size of their income.
But I’m from Scandinavia so I do think 10% of income is a great way to pay for college. Have the government collect it and cut out the bank!
But I’m from Scandinavia so I do think 10% of income is a great way to pay for college. Have the government collect it and cut out the bank!
Not as long as there is a house that can be repossessed on the other end of the loan...
Secured vs Unsecured credit
Mortgages should not be allowed longer than 15 years, maybe 10.
This comment displays (almost) all the worst of HN - 1) Fringe opinion (15 year mortgage cap) presented as undeniable fact; 2) Even more fringe opinion (10 year cap) used to intentionally, or perhaps subconsciously, make the fringe opinion appear less insane; 3) Wildly outside the commenter's area of competency.
Two other common ones not true of this comment are using a very young but non-throwaway account with very low karma, and are not responding to any criticism in the replies - true at the time of my comment but I suspect that will change.
Two other common ones not true of this comment are using a very young but non-throwaway account with very low karma, and are not responding to any criticism in the replies - true at the time of my comment but I suspect that will change.
>> 1) Fringe opinion
Yes, but so what? That doesn't make it wrong.
2) I tend to push for extremes, so the base point seems more reasonable, but yes that was not needed or good to put in.
>> 3) Wildly outside the commenter's area of competency.
That stings a little, but you're not wrong. That doesn't make my reasoning wrong - see some of my replies to others, and feel free to argue against the reasoning.
Yes, but so what? That doesn't make it wrong.
2) I tend to push for extremes, so the base point seems more reasonable, but yes that was not needed or good to put in.
>> 3) Wildly outside the commenter's area of competency.
That stings a little, but you're not wrong. That doesn't make my reasoning wrong - see some of my replies to others, and feel free to argue against the reasoning.
Why? Any time limits are purely arbitrary. In principle there's no reason we couldn't have the mortgage equivalent of consol bonds, which are perpetual (infinite maturity date). The borrower can choose to just keep paying interest forever, or they can also choose to pay off the principal at any time and retire the debt.
In principle there's no reason we couldn't have the mortgage equivalent of consol bonds, which are perpetual (infinite maturity date).
In Sweden, once your mortgage is below 50% of the of the purchasing price you don't have to pay it off and you're free to just pay the interest in perpetuity.
In Sweden, once your mortgage is below 50% of the of the purchasing price you don't have to pay it off and you're free to just pay the interest in perpetuity.
This would kill the housing market overnight.
>> This would kill the housing market overnight.
So does raising interest rates - see 2008. Look at the fed funds rate spike which set it off (not to say there weren't other problems to make it worse). Also look watch the housing market right now.
Housing as a percent of income has been fairly constant for 50 years (there was a recent HN link on this). Lower interest rates mean you can borrow more dollars at the same monthly payment. This combined with an overall decrease in rates since 1980 have fueled the housing market.
Long terms loans just mean building equity takes a long time, and people who sell within 5 years really don't have any (it will maybe cover moving costs). The problems with interest rates changing and putting people under water are really a problem of people not having equity in their home. Reducing the length of the loans will reduce that problem significantly.
So does raising interest rates - see 2008. Look at the fed funds rate spike which set it off (not to say there weren't other problems to make it worse). Also look watch the housing market right now.
Housing as a percent of income has been fairly constant for 50 years (there was a recent HN link on this). Lower interest rates mean you can borrow more dollars at the same monthly payment. This combined with an overall decrease in rates since 1980 have fueled the housing market.
Long terms loans just mean building equity takes a long time, and people who sell within 5 years really don't have any (it will maybe cover moving costs). The problems with interest rates changing and putting people under water are really a problem of people not having equity in their home. Reducing the length of the loans will reduce that problem significantly.
Mortgate rates went from ~2.5% in 2021 to over 6% right now for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and the housing market is doing just fine. When rates go up, people lower prices, but not by a lot.
Ultimately the price of housing is determined by supply, not interest rates, and supply is still historically low.
Ultimately the price of housing is determined by supply, not interest rates, and supply is still historically low.
Generally speaking I think people are aware that any significant change that drives housing prices down would destroy the market, collapse our economy, and all of western civilization would become as Mad Max.
We can still think of what we wish the rules had been in the begging or what to do after unsustainable housing price increases cause Mad Max anyway.
We can still think of what we wish the rules had been in the begging or what to do after unsustainable housing price increases cause Mad Max anyway.
Not sure this would significantly bring housing prices down, it may simply bring homeownership down (in favor of rental), because only investors would be able to buy.
The housing market being a core component of the US economy is a bug, not a feature.
It is an intentional feature that has been pursued as such by government policy for decades.
Making the loans shorter will make monthly payments scale up, making mortgages less affordable for people.
>> Making the loans shorter will make monthly payments scale up, making mortgages less affordable for people.
Pay attention when you get a mortgage. It goes like this:
1) what is your monthly income?
2) what are your monthly expenses?
3) calculate: this is how much we think you can afford to pay per month
4) back calculate: this is how much we will approve you to borrow.
5) Typical money available determines house prices.
The key here is that #4 means housing prices are hugely influenced by interest rates, and also the length of the loan. Housing as a percent of income is actually fairly constant because they'll everyone wants to get you for as much as they can, but the bank balances that against risk of default so there is a limit.
That's my rant. Reducing the length will cause people to build equity faster and will reduce volatility and the dangers of things like interest rate hikes.
Pay attention when you get a mortgage. It goes like this:
1) what is your monthly income?
2) what are your monthly expenses?
3) calculate: this is how much we think you can afford to pay per month
4) back calculate: this is how much we will approve you to borrow.
5) Typical money available determines house prices.
The key here is that #4 means housing prices are hugely influenced by interest rates, and also the length of the loan. Housing as a percent of income is actually fairly constant because they'll everyone wants to get you for as much as they can, but the bank balances that against risk of default so there is a limit.
That's my rant. Reducing the length will cause people to build equity faster and will reduce volatility and the dangers of things like interest rate hikes.
>Pay attention when you get a mortgage.
I've done quite a bit of modeling for predictive house pricing and investment questions, so I am very aware of how mortgages, math, and housing markets worth. As far back as around 2001 I was writing pricing algorithms for companies that needed it (look at my resume), and I've done a lot since then. So I'm pretty clear on how they work.
>5) Typical money available determines house prices.
No, house prices are indifferent to what one buyer can afford; they are determined by the entire market of buyers AND sellers. If a seller doesn't want to sell at price X, they will not. If a buyer doesn't want to pay Y, they will not. If a buyer cannot afford price Z, they cannot buy that house.
After your step 4, the buyer knows how much they can afford, and looks at houses already at that price.
>Reducing the length will cause people to build equity faster and will reduce volatility and the dangers of things like interest rate hikes
Over 85% of mortgages are fixed interest rates, so interest rate hikes are not that much of a problem. People can use them to their advantage if they understand the pros and cons, but the vast majority will never be affected.
People have a fixed amount of monthly income they can use to pay a mortgage, so the amount they can borrow is completely predicated on that - their ability to make payments. If they are forced to get short loans, they will only be able to buy lower priced houses, and will miss out on traditional housing stock growth. A 100k investment returns half what a 200k investment does.
Also, many people will be priced out of mortgages completely since cutting loan lengths in half roughly cuts affordable house prices in half.
Finally, even if one can afford monthly payments on a 15 year mortgage, it's still better economically to get a 30 year mortgage and make the payments as if you had a 15 year, except only pay the minimal amount on the actual mortgage and pay the rest into an investment. After 15 years, you will be better off in almost all cases (check the math, last time I poked at it I would be $60k on a $300k house doing this).
As to reducing volatility, if you can just afford a 15 year mortgage for a given house, then you are at more risk since you're not saving cash (as investments) for problems. If you instead turn that into a 30 year, cutting your payments down, and save the excess, you will have cash you can use in case of problems. So this is another benefit to getting a longer loan - you can truly make yourself more resistant to problems and volatility.
A third factor is fixed rate mortgages means the cost of your mortgage goes down over the length of time due to inflation: your income goes up, your mortgage goes down. Inflation gives benefits to borrowers (mortgage holders included) at the cost to lenders (banks).
So, if you check the math, buying a bigger house (up to the limit of what you can spend) and getting a longer term loan historically has resulted in more, not less equity. Model it out and check the math yourself.
I've done quite a bit of modeling for predictive house pricing and investment questions, so I am very aware of how mortgages, math, and housing markets worth. As far back as around 2001 I was writing pricing algorithms for companies that needed it (look at my resume), and I've done a lot since then. So I'm pretty clear on how they work.
>5) Typical money available determines house prices.
No, house prices are indifferent to what one buyer can afford; they are determined by the entire market of buyers AND sellers. If a seller doesn't want to sell at price X, they will not. If a buyer doesn't want to pay Y, they will not. If a buyer cannot afford price Z, they cannot buy that house.
After your step 4, the buyer knows how much they can afford, and looks at houses already at that price.
>Reducing the length will cause people to build equity faster and will reduce volatility and the dangers of things like interest rate hikes
Over 85% of mortgages are fixed interest rates, so interest rate hikes are not that much of a problem. People can use them to their advantage if they understand the pros and cons, but the vast majority will never be affected.
People have a fixed amount of monthly income they can use to pay a mortgage, so the amount they can borrow is completely predicated on that - their ability to make payments. If they are forced to get short loans, they will only be able to buy lower priced houses, and will miss out on traditional housing stock growth. A 100k investment returns half what a 200k investment does.
Also, many people will be priced out of mortgages completely since cutting loan lengths in half roughly cuts affordable house prices in half.
Finally, even if one can afford monthly payments on a 15 year mortgage, it's still better economically to get a 30 year mortgage and make the payments as if you had a 15 year, except only pay the minimal amount on the actual mortgage and pay the rest into an investment. After 15 years, you will be better off in almost all cases (check the math, last time I poked at it I would be $60k on a $300k house doing this).
As to reducing volatility, if you can just afford a 15 year mortgage for a given house, then you are at more risk since you're not saving cash (as investments) for problems. If you instead turn that into a 30 year, cutting your payments down, and save the excess, you will have cash you can use in case of problems. So this is another benefit to getting a longer loan - you can truly make yourself more resistant to problems and volatility.
A third factor is fixed rate mortgages means the cost of your mortgage goes down over the length of time due to inflation: your income goes up, your mortgage goes down. Inflation gives benefits to borrowers (mortgage holders included) at the cost to lenders (banks).
So, if you check the math, buying a bigger house (up to the limit of what you can spend) and getting a longer term loan historically has resulted in more, not less equity. Model it out and check the math yourself.
main issue with education is that the cost of education is not commiserate with the income potential. for those looking just to learn for learnings sake, there's community college.
for the majority who do it for income reasons, ideally it would be designed to not take you more than say, 8 years to pay off, given the median income for the major and area.
this alone would resolve most of the issues. there is value in someone majoring in English. issue is the median English major, given their inclinations are unlikely to make as much as the median, say, Economics major, in a given area.
these disparities would ideally and should be reflected in the cost.
the result would be:
1. when you apply to college you should apply to a major and that should be part of your application
2. different majors should cost different amounts of money
3. acceptance rates should differ based on major
4. classes of different types should cost different amounts of money beyond some gratuity (say, 8 classes).
for the majority who do it for income reasons, ideally it would be designed to not take you more than say, 8 years to pay off, given the median income for the major and area.
this alone would resolve most of the issues. there is value in someone majoring in English. issue is the median English major, given their inclinations are unlikely to make as much as the median, say, Economics major, in a given area.
these disparities would ideally and should be reflected in the cost.
the result would be:
1. when you apply to college you should apply to a major and that should be part of your application
2. different majors should cost different amounts of money
3. acceptance rates should differ based on major
4. classes of different types should cost different amounts of money beyond some gratuity (say, 8 classes).
There are already separate acceptance requirements for STEM majors based on things like the math prerequisites and minimum GPA requirements. At the university near my house, you need at least a "B" average on your freshman transcript to be accepted into the College of Engineering. Many of the engineering and medical courses have extra fees on top of tuition. Also, the parents of these kids have already paid more by living in school districts with high property valuations, that can provide the necessary preparatory coursework.
A not insignificant number of college students have no hope of majoring in STEM even if all of the economics are screaming at them, which they are.
A not insignificant number of college students have no hope of majoring in STEM even if all of the economics are screaming at them, which they are.
The fees you’re describing are not really proportional with the median pay difference, which is more or less my point.
The acceptance difference isn’t really that great, either. Not sure what property valuations have to do with anything.
For example at all of the ivy leagues there’s no significant difference in tuition for major nor is there really a substantial difference in acceptance rate. Some, like Columbia have different schools, but even within them majors, and prospects, differ.
The acceptance difference isn’t really that great, either. Not sure what property valuations have to do with anything.
For example at all of the ivy leagues there’s no significant difference in tuition for major nor is there really a substantial difference in acceptance rate. Some, like Columbia have different schools, but even within them majors, and prospects, differ.
Higher property taxes pay for kids to study in schools where they have a chance of preparing for entry into a competitive STEM program.
I taught at a university where students were given a math placement exam before being assigned their freshman courses. Getting into Calculus and passing it with a good grade was a sorting hat for what major you could study.
Fees proportional to pay sounds like an income tax.
I taught at a university where students were given a math placement exam before being assigned their freshman courses. Getting into Calculus and passing it with a good grade was a sorting hat for what major you could study.
Fees proportional to pay sounds like an income tax.
Again what is the connection between higher property taxes and this competitiveness you’re referring to?
California for example has proposition 13 which fixes the tax. Are kids in California less prepared? New Hampshire has higher property tax rates than Massachusetts- are they doing better? Etc.
Even if it were true, the most expensive schools are private and so property taxes still would have little relevance to the discussion at hand.
California for example has proposition 13 which fixes the tax. Are kids in California less prepared? New Hampshire has higher property tax rates than Massachusetts- are they doing better? Etc.
Even if it were true, the most expensive schools are private and so property taxes still would have little relevance to the discussion at hand.
>ideally it would be designed to not take you more than say, 8 years to pay off
Making minimum payments always increases the length. How do you define your pay off?
For the record [1], in recent years around 58% of bachelor's degree holders incurred debt, with the median at $23,000. If you want to pay over 8 years this is around $3k per year, which should be completely doable for anyone with a bachelors degree over an 8 year span (over 8 years the average person will make far more per year than starting wages).
[1] https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/average-student-loan-d...
Making minimum payments always increases the length. How do you define your pay off?
For the record [1], in recent years around 58% of bachelor's degree holders incurred debt, with the median at $23,000. If you want to pay over 8 years this is around $3k per year, which should be completely doable for anyone with a bachelors degree over an 8 year span (over 8 years the average person will make far more per year than starting wages).
[1] https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/average-student-loan-d...
why should it took 8 years to pay off? Hosting online text and videos and a gamified social graph would give the knowledge most degree provide. The whole system is over priced. If the goal was really to deliver people with the learning experience they need to go on with a life and career, it could be done at a fraction of the cost it is done today.
(this sounds like undergraduate university programs in australia…)
English majors have much better preparation for Law School in the US (as do Philosophy majors) and high acceptance and success rates than Economics or Business or STEM graduates - Lawyers make more money in most fields than any of the professions you mentioned.
So why would somebody pursue a limiting career in servant worker degrees of any type? Computer Science isn’t entrepreneur lessons - it’s vocational school with a higher price tag and we all know it. Pretending a BS in CS is harder to get than a BA in Philosophy is laughably sus.
So why would somebody pursue a limiting career in servant worker degrees of any type? Computer Science isn’t entrepreneur lessons - it’s vocational school with a higher price tag and we all know it. Pretending a BS in CS is harder to get than a BA in Philosophy is laughably sus.
I'm not sure the "truism" that law is well paid in most plaes is true any more.
In the UK for example criminal barristers have been striking due to low pay (sometimes effectively under minimum wage)
Then in the US we have evidence of declining salaries https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/median-us-lawyer... and over supply of lawyers https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_firm_leaders_rep...
It's not really a surprise if you tell people that profession x pays universally well long enough, more people will go there than are required, unless the demand for the profession keeps expanding.
In the UK for example criminal barristers have been striking due to low pay (sometimes effectively under minimum wage)
Then in the US we have evidence of declining salaries https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/median-us-lawyer... and over supply of lawyers https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_firm_leaders_rep...
It's not really a surprise if you tell people that profession x pays universally well long enough, more people will go there than are required, unless the demand for the profession keeps expanding.
US lawyer pay is weirdly bimodal. First year associates at top firms can make 2-5x more than partners at the median firm. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground in pay, either.
A humanities degree can be a great pre-law option for those who want to pursue a legal career. But students need to be realistic about their career prospects. Attorney compensation has a bimodal distribution. The students who graduate from top-10 law schools with good grades and internship experience stand to do very well financially (although the partner track can be brutal on associates). But students who end up at the "third-tier toilet" law schools are setting themselves up for a lifetime of poverty including a serious risk of student loan default.
"If you default, the federal government helps itself to a chunk of your Social Security check."
This, to me, is the buried lede. This is worse than payday lending, and it's being perpetrated by our government upon desperate parents.
This, to me, is the buried lede. This is worse than payday lending, and it's being perpetrated by our government upon desperate parents.
I don’t know, given that social security will likely be totally bankrupt and unable to make payments in the future, this seems like a smart move to default early. Government won’t be able to take a chunk out of $0.
Under current laws of social security “defaults” it will still pay out something like 70-80% of authorized benefits. There is no reason to believe it will ever be 0% as the benefits are paid out of taxes that are continually collected from current workers.
The only reason to believe it will still exist in the future is because people believe it should exist and should pay out from the government pocket even if it technically doesn't have the money.
The problem is many millennials and Gen Z have already given up on social security, do not believe in it in the future, and will not vote to keep a dead or dieing SS program alive when they themselves had abandoned it long ago. And once they hit critical mass the SS can actually die without voters to backup it up and along with it all the terrible old precedences of that program will disappear. That will leave a huge hole for retirement funds, but it also means a new program can be implimented into its place, something like a basic income that has become more popular or just another social security model that has different specifics and rules.
Current social security is relying heavily on population rising or at the least not falling, but even that is very questionable at this point and could end up being the nails in its coffin.
The problem is many millennials and Gen Z have already given up on social security, do not believe in it in the future, and will not vote to keep a dead or dieing SS program alive when they themselves had abandoned it long ago. And once they hit critical mass the SS can actually die without voters to backup it up and along with it all the terrible old precedences of that program will disappear. That will leave a huge hole for retirement funds, but it also means a new program can be implimented into its place, something like a basic income that has become more popular or just another social security model that has different specifics and rules.
Current social security is relying heavily on population rising or at the least not falling, but even that is very questionable at this point and could end up being the nails in its coffin.
The only way it is disappearing is if millennials, when they are eligible to receive benefits, decide not to receive them. As of 2019, there 69.1 million people received benefits from programs administered by the Social Security Administration ( https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2020/f... ). Those people are not going to vote against Social Security, no way. And the people that care about those people will not vote against it either, for many reasons (for instance: they don't want to see those people suffer or die, or even they don't want to take care of them themselves).
Once Millennials are the majority getting the benefits, they should feel free to refuse them and shut down the program.
Once Millennials are the majority getting the benefits, they should feel free to refuse them and shut down the program.
> The problem is many millennials and Gen Z have already given up on social security, do not believe in it in the future, and will not vote to keep a dead or dieing SS program alive when they themselves had abandoned it long ago.
Good.
Let's be brutally honest and ask who's really to blame for this.
Good.
Let's be brutally honest and ask who's really to blame for this.
All the people who say that Social Security is in danger usually then elaborately explain that it's in danger because they themselves are going to try their best to dismantle and defund it.
I don't think Gen Z is against SS.
I think Gen Z is against a government riddled with incompetent clowns that mismanage SS. Until all of those idiots are gone, Gen Z doesn't care.
I think Gen Z is against a government riddled with incompetent clowns that mismanage SS. Until all of those idiots are gone, Gen Z doesn't care.
I'm a part of gen Z and am against SS. Being forced to give old people a percentage of my income is literally slavery and is extremely unethical.
> is literally slavery
I recommend a refresher on “literal slavery.”
I recommend a refresher on “literal slavery.”
> Let's be brutally honest and ask who's really to blame for this.
The people who designed SS to be funded out of payroll taxes instead of corporate taxes, buybacks, and dividends. No seriously, hear me out.
As the economy became more efficient, fewer and fewer highly-paid workers are needed to work in it. This leads to overall lower SS tax per head being collected as the economy becomes more productive. What you really want is for the growth of the economy to be captured in supporting seniors - so tax the indicators of that growth.
Unfortunately they had real, political reasons for setting it up that way. Funding it with payroll taxes was the only way to get the bill passed, and ensure it wouldn't be gutted. (I'm paraphrasing from books I've read). And the people who paid into the program would feel morally entitled to receive benefits, and thus would always support the program.
The people who designed SS to be funded out of payroll taxes instead of corporate taxes, buybacks, and dividends. No seriously, hear me out.
As the economy became more efficient, fewer and fewer highly-paid workers are needed to work in it. This leads to overall lower SS tax per head being collected as the economy becomes more productive. What you really want is for the growth of the economy to be captured in supporting seniors - so tax the indicators of that growth.
Unfortunately they had real, political reasons for setting it up that way. Funding it with payroll taxes was the only way to get the bill passed, and ensure it wouldn't be gutted. (I'm paraphrasing from books I've read). And the people who paid into the program would feel morally entitled to receive benefits, and thus would always support the program.
Even without millennials and Gen Z, there are a lot of Gen X-ers who are skeptical of SS despite being only 10-20 years from receiving it. Even when they do get money from it, many of them will likely still believe that it is unjust given how much they paid for it.
Everyone but the boomers has had a 401k for most of their working lives, and comparing 401k payout to social security, the "trust fund" looks like it has a terrible ROI.
Everyone but the boomers has had a 401k for most of their working lives, and comparing 401k payout to social security, the "trust fund" looks like it has a terrible ROI.
Could you explain the mechanism by which social security would go bankrupt, given that it is just an institution of USG? And why does such a mechanism not apply to other large institutions such as the military?
Social security, unlike all the rest of the US Government welfare programs, draws from a separate trust. It currently has roughly $3 trillion in the trust. When you pay income tax, there’s a portion (usually noted on the paystub) that goes directly to the trust. If they continue current payments, the income of everyone stays the same, and the tax percentage stays the same, then it will run out of funds after a while (currently predicted to be 2035).
However, I would bet pretty strongly that one of those constraints won’t hold - probably the amount paid out to each person will be lowered, although the tax percentage could also increase.
However, I would bet pretty strongly that one of those constraints won’t hold - probably the amount paid out to each person will be lowered, although the tax percentage could also increase.
Because the military doesn't have any assets to speak of. It's a government program funded each year by taxes.
The social security program is separate from the federal budget [0], and that's why you see it as a separate tax on your paycheck (if you're American). Every dollar you pay into it, goes into a trust fund, whose sole asset is US Government bonds.
Social security can go bankrupt if the US defaults on it's debt, which although almost unthinkable (see Russia as a recent example of paying bonds despite being under heavy sanctions, and having to pay them in another currency) comes up every few years [1].
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-miller-socialsecur... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/16/biden-signs-debt-ceiling-inc...
The social security program is separate from the federal budget [0], and that's why you see it as a separate tax on your paycheck (if you're American). Every dollar you pay into it, goes into a trust fund, whose sole asset is US Government bonds.
Social security can go bankrupt if the US defaults on it's debt, which although almost unthinkable (see Russia as a recent example of paying bonds despite being under heavy sanctions, and having to pay them in another currency) comes up every few years [1].
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-miller-socialsecur... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/16/biden-signs-debt-ceiling-inc...
It’s an old right wing trope. Fewer babies, fewer people paying into the system, eventual bankruptcy. Completely ignoring that we can just increase the tax.
I wouldn't call it a trope if the "solution" is "just increase the tax". That's exactly what many many people want to avoid. Just because you don't see an issue with raising taxes, doesn't mean people aren't justified in wanting to avoid it.
There are many knobs we can turn. Increasing taxes on everybody is the "easy" one. We can reduce benefit payments. We can increase retirement age. We can remove the income max (income over $137k isn't taxed). We can import labor. Thee point is, SS only runs out of money if we allow it to do so. There is no law of nature that requires SS to become insolvent any time within our lives.
The typical conservative plan is to abolish SS and replace it with private savings. We tried that. It didn't work. Low income earners don't always have the capacity to save at the levels required to avoid destitution in old age or disability.
The typical conservative plan is to abolish SS and replace it with private savings. We tried that. It didn't work. Low income earners don't always have the capacity to save at the levels required to avoid destitution in old age or disability.
Why is it the government's responsibility to ensure an individual wont be destitute in old age?
We are the government/society. It does what we want. We decided in the 1930s that a minimum level disability and retirement income should be available. Watching granny starve in the gutter wasn't a pleasant sight.
Not everybody will be able to retiree on their personal savings. Many of those people will get that way through no fault of their own. Some people just have bad luck. They get injured and disabled. They have extenuating family circumstances. They might just be stuck in a dead-end, minimum wage job.
Not everybody will be able to retiree on their personal savings. Many of those people will get that way through no fault of their own. Some people just have bad luck. They get injured and disabled. They have extenuating family circumstances. They might just be stuck in a dead-end, minimum wage job.
Also ignoring that social security payments as a percentage of GDP is not hitting some limit it has not over the past eight decades. The US was able to pay out social security in 1942 with a much smaller economy, there is no reason it should be unable to in the future. Some groups have been complaining about social security for eighty years - probably because it is the one benefit the average worker gets back from the federal government.
Social security expenditures will grow from 4% of gdp to 6% of gdp from 2000-2035. By 2035 Medicare will grow to 8% of GDP. So in a bit over a decade, one out of every six dollars produced in the economy will be going to take care of retired people.
Social security was a higher percentage of gdp in the early 1980s than it is now. Even if it goes back up it is to a level it was at before. People can come to different estimates about what future gdp growth rates will be and have different estimated.
All health care costs in the US are going up. The US government has to pay HMO corporation profits, Americans have to pay higher drug prices unlike other countries. The government can continue paying current Medicare rates, or it can hand more money to health companies if it wants to. As the government is still handing extra money to health companies apparently no one thinks it is a problem as of yet.
All health care costs in the US are going up. The US government has to pay HMO corporation profits, Americans have to pay higher drug prices unlike other countries. The government can continue paying current Medicare rates, or it can hand more money to health companies if it wants to. As the government is still handing extra money to health companies apparently no one thinks it is a problem as of yet.
Ahh yes, just yoke and impoverish tomorrow's youth. Those kids'll be wishing for another covid- clear out some of the leeches.
Or, increase retirement age.
Or, tax income over $130k.
Or, reduce payments.
Like I said, the plan only goes bankrupt if we allow it.
Or, tax income over $130k.
Or, reduce payments.
Like I said, the plan only goes bankrupt if we allow it.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-income-tax-...
Income over $130k is heavily taxed at 24%. Retirement age can only be increased so many times before retirement is effectively gone for the lower class - I think I've heard the statistic that the majority of Americans will only ever collect on three social security checks.
Income over $130k is heavily taxed at 24%. Retirement age can only be increased so many times before retirement is effectively gone for the lower class - I think I've heard the statistic that the majority of Americans will only ever collect on three social security checks.
You do realize SS tax is a different line item on your taxes, right? Over $137k does not pay into the SS system.
You heard wrong. Full Social Security retirement age is 67. US life expectancy is 79. Social Security benefits are paid monthly. Do the math.
The dwindling ratio of workers per retiree (from 16 to 1 in 1950 to under 3 to 1 today) is a real thing. The right wing runs with it because it plays into their politics, for the same reason the left runs with climate change. But that doesn’t make it a manufactured problem.
Working young people have to take care of non-working old people. That’s true in a Bangladeshi village and that’s true in America. There’s no policy knob you can turn to make that fundamental dynamic go away.
Working young people have to take care of non-working old people. That’s true in a Bangladeshi village and that’s true in America. There’s no policy knob you can turn to make that fundamental dynamic go away.
Policy knobs can be used to determine how resources are allocated and, perhaps most importantly, the kind of resources.
There's a lot of elder-care that is fundamentally non-scalable and non-automatable. But there's also a lot that is. Policy can both incentivize development of / investment in the latter and paying people competitive wage and benefits to step up and work the former.
Meanwhile, with productivity per person higher than it's ever been thanks to general industrial and service automation, there should be more GDP than ever free to invest in such social programs.
There's a lot of elder-care that is fundamentally non-scalable and non-automatable. But there's also a lot that is. Policy can both incentivize development of / investment in the latter and paying people competitive wage and benefits to step up and work the former.
Meanwhile, with productivity per person higher than it's ever been thanks to general industrial and service automation, there should be more GDP than ever free to invest in such social programs.
> Working young people have to take care of non-working old people
> There’s no policy knob you can turn to make that fundamental dynamic go away.
Are all the productivity increases in the past century completely meaningless?
To take the most facile, direct example possible, if all the fast food jobs are automated, can't we train those people to take care of the elderly? Not medically, but as orderlies and other employees in nursing homes?
> There’s no policy knob you can turn to make that fundamental dynamic go away.
Are all the productivity increases in the past century completely meaningless?
To take the most facile, direct example possible, if all the fast food jobs are automated, can't we train those people to take care of the elderly? Not medically, but as orderlies and other employees in nursing homes?
> Are all the productivity increases in the past century completely meaningless?
Based on the change in prices for long term care and skilled nursing facilities, the productivity increases due to automation/outsourcing have not offset supply and demand in labor for elder/disabled care.
It is highly undesirable work, plus medical advances keep people alive longer and longer who need assistance to live. Even during my life, the past 30+ years, these jobs were almost always done by immigrants because they were willing to accept low wages. It is not something an American with options is going to opt for without higher pay.
Based on the change in prices for long term care and skilled nursing facilities, the productivity increases due to automation/outsourcing have not offset supply and demand in labor for elder/disabled care.
It is highly undesirable work, plus medical advances keep people alive longer and longer who need assistance to live. Even during my life, the past 30+ years, these jobs were almost always done by immigrants because they were willing to accept low wages. It is not something an American with options is going to opt for without higher pay.
It'll have to be some combination of wages going up and other options shrinking for workers.
Of course people can be trained as nursing home workers. The problem is who is going to pay for all the nursing homes as our population ages? Most nursing homes charge more per month than the maximum Social Security benefit. And many elderly people have minimal other retirement income or assets. So nursing homes constantly squeeze their workers on pay, especially in HCOL areas. There doesn't seem to be any politically acceptable way of closing this gap.
> who is going to pay for all the nursing homes as our population ages?
The increased productivity from the economy. The money is there. It's obvious it's there because we produce way more than ever before with far fewer workers.
The increased productivity from the economy. The money is there. It's obvious it's there because we produce way more than ever before with far fewer workers.
Just stating that the money is somewhere out there in the economy is rather facile. It's not as if there's some big vault full of cash that we can draw from to pay for nursing homes. That money is currently being spent on or invested in other things. Consumers are already tapped out. On the government side, there is no political will to drastically cut other spending or raise taxes to pay more nursing home workers. The industry is also not very amenable to automation.
> It's not as if there's some big vault full of cash that we can draw from to pay for nursing homes.
I'm talking about productive capacity in the economy, not cash in a vault. It exists. Instead of battering workers with higher taxes, try taxing companies more directly. They're the ones benefiting the most from productivity increases. Tax land value, since real estate prices also benefit from productivity increases in rich metro areas.
> That money is currently being spent on or invested in other things
If you pay care workers more money, they will also spend or invest it. It's not just stacks of dollar bills going into a furnace.
I'm talking about productive capacity in the economy, not cash in a vault. It exists. Instead of battering workers with higher taxes, try taxing companies more directly. They're the ones benefiting the most from productivity increases. Tax land value, since real estate prices also benefit from productivity increases in rich metro areas.
> That money is currently being spent on or invested in other things
If you pay care workers more money, they will also spend or invest it. It's not just stacks of dollar bills going into a furnace.
It's not as if there's some big vault full of cash that we can draw from to pay for...
The money is out there. The wealth generated by all that increased productivity is just being captured by a small group of ultra-wealthy.
We could "easily" tax those massive accumulations of wealth to fund societal needs. We only need to convince all the temporarily embarrassed millionaires that doing so is in their own best interest.
The money is out there. The wealth generated by all that increased productivity is just being captured by a small group of ultra-wealthy.
We could "easily" tax those massive accumulations of wealth to fund societal needs. We only need to convince all the temporarily embarrassed millionaires that doing so is in their own best interest.
It's unpleasant but there is a policy "knob" you can turn, which is to just let people die when they can't support themselves in the society we've built. We already do it for large sections of the population and there's no reason to suppose we won't do it to grandma and grandpa when the SSA coffers are empty. It's much harder to do this in a village society, where you literally see people starving as you have your lunch, but in an industrialized, atomized western society it is extremely easy because you never even have to think about it.
It’s math. Imagine you are the SSA. There is tax revenue, and there are payouts.
Both are controlled by policies enshrined into law by congress.
One of the things that can and has been done to control expenses is raising the retirement age.
Both are controlled by policies enshrined into law by congress.
One of the things that can and has been done to control expenses is raising the retirement age.
You are completely ignoring the fact that you can't always "just increase the tax". Tax increases have their negative consequences, at some point they can kill the entire economy.
Or, increase retirement age.
Or, tax income over $130k.
Or, reduce payments.
Like I said, the plan only goes bankrupt if we allow it.
Or, tax income over $130k.
Or, reduce payments.
Like I said, the plan only goes bankrupt if we allow it.
You’re saying old people could vote themselves more money? Sure, in theory.
Bankruptcy doesn't always mean complete dissolution. Typically the obligations are altered to ensure continued existence, especially when there is continued revenue coming in.
If they modify the COLA, they can let inflation take care of the social security bomb. I'm guessing they will adjust this next year, due to the elections this year.
No mention of regulating public universities. Infinite divisive racial rhetoric and handwringing. Shocking.
The federal government should use the power of the purse. A public school can only receive public funds if tuition and fees for US residents is $5,000 per year or less for 30 credit hours. Additionally, private schools should not be eligible for public funds at all. Or, if people are just way too upset about this, private schools are eligible for a max of $5,000 per student per year.
There, I’ve solved the actual problem of infinite runaway costs.
The federal government should use the power of the purse. A public school can only receive public funds if tuition and fees for US residents is $5,000 per year or less for 30 credit hours. Additionally, private schools should not be eligible for public funds at all. Or, if people are just way too upset about this, private schools are eligible for a max of $5,000 per student per year.
There, I’ve solved the actual problem of infinite runaway costs.
The flip side is that these loans exist because the constituency wanted poor students to be able to go to any school they wanted.
That's fine. With caps on public university tuition and fees poor students would be able to attend any public school they wanted. There is no need to even consider whether private schools are affordable. The public should not directly fund private schools in any way at all.
I always wonder why it is so hard in US to make high education free by default. Or at least very small fee like other countries in EU. The US government and states are paying for universities (directly or indirectly) and it might be even cheaper to just make it free/subsidized. Correct me if my assumption is wrong
It would be cheaper long term across the whole tax base, but it is cheaper in the short term to give out loans.
If you proposed funding colleges with taxpayer funds and reducing tuition costs, it gets reflected in the budget today, and you get attacked for causing higher taxes.
If you proposed giving out loans, then you can even sell it as lowering taxes because the government now owns an asset that will earn a return.
Same story with deferred compensation like pensions and retire healthcare for government employees. Reduce cash expense now, fudge the numbers for future expenses to make it seem less expensive, promise lower taxes, and win elections. The current voters will mostly only care about today’s costs.
If you proposed funding colleges with taxpayer funds and reducing tuition costs, it gets reflected in the budget today, and you get attacked for causing higher taxes.
If you proposed giving out loans, then you can even sell it as lowering taxes because the government now owns an asset that will earn a return.
Same story with deferred compensation like pensions and retire healthcare for government employees. Reduce cash expense now, fudge the numbers for future expenses to make it seem less expensive, promise lower taxes, and win elections. The current voters will mostly only care about today’s costs.
We have community college. It’s just a different set of tradeoffs. Having attended both, I found EU schools aren’t directly comparable to US schools.
Loans are a terrible way to fund education. They combine all the worst elements including:
* Massive Inflation
* Misappropriation of funds and miss selling of the overall product
* Regressive taxation
* Short termism
* High costs to the state and students, low funding for institutions
It's just a huge mess and a terrible system for everyone.
* Massive Inflation
* Misappropriation of funds and miss selling of the overall product
* Regressive taxation
* Short termism
* High costs to the state and students, low funding for institutions
It's just a huge mess and a terrible system for everyone.
The article ignores the recent Biden admin student loan forgiveness plan
You only have to pay 5% of your disposable income to your student debt. These parents with parent plus loans are going to be fine with that
In fact that’s a loophole that some are talking about that by will make college very cheap for middle class parents at the right life stage. Parents take out a big loan for their kids and then retire so their income becomes very low and the 5% payment becomes almost nothing and then after 10-20 years the remaining balance is totally forgiven
You only have to pay 5% of your disposable income to your student debt. These parents with parent plus loans are going to be fine with that
In fact that’s a loophole that some are talking about that by will make college very cheap for middle class parents at the right life stage. Parents take out a big loan for their kids and then retire so their income becomes very low and the 5% payment becomes almost nothing and then after 10-20 years the remaining balance is totally forgiven
What happens when a different administration rolls back this new rule?
Student Loans in the US are but another generational wealth transfer where the Baby Boomers spent more than they had, mortgaged their present and future, then decided to make the next generations financially indentured servants.
Nobody under 40 came up with this godforsaken system.
Nobody under 40 came up with this godforsaken system.
Student loans are a good example of second-order effects. The way the system is constructed, you are almost guaranteed a bubble-like ratcheting of prices even though that wasn’t the direct goal of the responsible policies.
The defaulted loans are not for STEM careers, that have little trouble paying back, the problem is in humanities, arts, etc. colleges offered useless degrees to people that do not need them except for vanity, without any plan about how to pay for them. This is one of the biggest scams in history.
Please let's not rehash tedious generic flamewars here. Science vs. humanities is a classic of the type—extremely worn and predictable. It's up there with cyclists vs. drivers and cats vs. dogs. This kind of thing just gets people riled up to repeat the same old points more angrily than before*.
Edit: as an example, we got from your comment to "you're an insufferable cunt" in 3 hops—and you contributed 2 of them. Obviously that comment was completely beyond the pale, but the more important thing is not to go into such flamewar territories in the first place.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Edit: as an example, we got from your comment to "you're an insufferable cunt" in 3 hops—and you contributed 2 of them. Obviously that comment was completely beyond the pale, but the more important thing is not to go into such flamewar territories in the first place.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
>but the more important thing is not to go into such flamewar territories in the first place.
It may be more important to you, but I don't care. For me, truth is important, and I wrote the truth.
It may be more important to you, but I don't care. For me, truth is important, and I wrote the truth.
It's important to the forum, given what we're trying to optimize for.
People often use the word "truth" (or "facts") as if it were a sort of trump card, but if you think about it, being true is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for a good comment - I wrote about this recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697044.
There are infinitely many truths—they don't select themselves. People have to do that, and the selection process has to do with their own motivations, not truth.
Once you've selected a truth, there are infinitely many ways to express it—including how/whether you're going to take other people into account, how to encode your emotions in the expression, and so on. These also don't select themselves—you choose them, and again that has to do with your own motivations, not truth.
There is also the question of how perfect your access to the truth is, or to what extent you might be mistaken. Other people have very different ideas about the truth than you do (I don't mean you personally, of course). How lightly or tightly you hold that possibility is super important for conversation and again, has nothing to do with truth per se.
People often use the word "truth" (or "facts") as if it were a sort of trump card, but if you think about it, being true is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for a good comment - I wrote about this recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697044.
There are infinitely many truths—they don't select themselves. People have to do that, and the selection process has to do with their own motivations, not truth.
Once you've selected a truth, there are infinitely many ways to express it—including how/whether you're going to take other people into account, how to encode your emotions in the expression, and so on. These also don't select themselves—you choose them, and again that has to do with your own motivations, not truth.
There is also the question of how perfect your access to the truth is, or to what extent you might be mistaken. Other people have very different ideas about the truth than you do (I don't mean you personally, of course). How lightly or tightly you hold that possibility is super important for conversation and again, has nothing to do with truth per se.
It's possible for a piece of advice to be commonly repeated, vehemently hated, and absolutely correct...
Indeed, but it's still off topic here. The high-order bit is how repetitive something is. That's what we want to avoid:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
This follows from the organizing principle of the site:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
In fact, tediously and/or angrily repeating correct things (or things one feels to be correct—a distinction without a difference for internet purposes) is the thing commenters should most avoid on HN. It's the root evil, relative to the mandate of the site.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
This follows from the organizing principle of the site:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
In fact, tediously and/or angrily repeating correct things (or things one feels to be correct—a distinction without a difference for internet purposes) is the thing commenters should most avoid on HN. It's the root evil, relative to the mandate of the site.
This is the point where people run in to say, "College is MORE than just career prep! It's about producing well-rounded citizens!"
Which is a fine sentiment; the problem is that it makes no sense for people to be going deeply into debt to become well-rounded citizens. If you're gonna end up with tens of thousands of dollars in the hole at the end of an education, at the start of your adult life, then yes, it's reasonable to need that education to reliably produce economic dividends.
Like, just think of all the other things that can help people become more well-rounded or better citizens, like community service, or international travel. Once you have the list in your head, think to yourself: how many of these would you recommend that young adults spend years of full-time labor in, and go into major debt to pursue?
Which is a fine sentiment; the problem is that it makes no sense for people to be going deeply into debt to become well-rounded citizens. If you're gonna end up with tens of thousands of dollars in the hole at the end of an education, at the start of your adult life, then yes, it's reasonable to need that education to reliably produce economic dividends.
Like, just think of all the other things that can help people become more well-rounded or better citizens, like community service, or international travel. Once you have the list in your head, think to yourself: how many of these would you recommend that young adults spend years of full-time labor in, and go into major debt to pursue?
> Which is a fine sentiment; the problem is that it makes no sense for people to be going deeply into debt to become well-rounded citizens. If you're gonna end up with tens of thousands of dollars in the hole at the end of an education, at the start of your adult life, then yes, it's reasonable to need that education to reliably produce economic dividends.
I'll turn this around on its head: if we recognize the civic and social benefits of having a well-rounded population, then we ought to treat the current rash of students who knowingly go into debt for their degrees as performing a remarkably selfless act.
Like so many problems in the US, this one is entirely self-inflicted: you can get a liberal arts degree for virtually nothing in much of the rest of the developed world. This hasn't caused crises anywhere else, and hasn't caused students to flock away from technical programs (which are also civically necessary). None of this has to be the way that it is.
I'll turn this around on its head: if we recognize the civic and social benefits of having a well-rounded population, then we ought to treat the current rash of students who knowingly go into debt for their degrees as performing a remarkably selfless act.
Like so many problems in the US, this one is entirely self-inflicted: you can get a liberal arts degree for virtually nothing in much of the rest of the developed world. This hasn't caused crises anywhere else, and hasn't caused students to flock away from technical programs (which are also civically necessary). None of this has to be the way that it is.
Agreed, from a systemic perspective, shit is broken in the US and needs to be fixed. The government should be paying more, and also controlling costs better (US universities spend a lot more than universities in other countries). Bare minimum, loans that are protected in bankruptcy should have a limit to how much can be taken out based on the median earnings of those who earn that degree, and this should be annualized such that you can't suddenly hit a limit halfway into your degree.
From an individual perspective, people should not be willingly going into large debt for poor or relatively uncertain financial prospects.
From an individual perspective, people should not be willingly going into large debt for poor or relatively uncertain financial prospects.
> From an individual perspective, people should not be willingly going into large debt for poor or relatively uncertain financial prospects.
I don't disagree, but I want to highlight some factors that (IMO) at least partially absolve people who do take that route:
* We do a really pitiful job of teaching financial literacy in the US, especially below the undergraduate level. I suspect that many people see 30K debt after college and think that they can subtract that directly from their salary over a course of years, without factoring in taxes, interest above the principal, etc.
* At a societal level, we avoid crushing peoples' dreams: we all know that we can't each be this century's defining investigative journalist, art critic, &c., and yet we (socially) also understand that we can't get those successes unless lots of people strive towards those goals. Maybe this points to a fundamental error in how we value labor, but that's probably an even harder problem to solve for Americans than restructuring college tuition.
I don't disagree, but I want to highlight some factors that (IMO) at least partially absolve people who do take that route:
* We do a really pitiful job of teaching financial literacy in the US, especially below the undergraduate level. I suspect that many people see 30K debt after college and think that they can subtract that directly from their salary over a course of years, without factoring in taxes, interest above the principal, etc.
* At a societal level, we avoid crushing peoples' dreams: we all know that we can't each be this century's defining investigative journalist, art critic, &c., and yet we (socially) also understand that we can't get those successes unless lots of people strive towards those goals. Maybe this points to a fundamental error in how we value labor, but that's probably an even harder problem to solve for Americans than restructuring college tuition.
College loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy until Clinton changed it. Biden can have that repealed, but that would upset the bankerster gravy train and could jeopardize political donations by the banksters.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/28362...
Since politicians don't want to repeal the Clinton-era law, the logical choices for many students will be to skip college or to leave USA for college overseas. We are really harming our children with this debt.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/28362...
Since politicians don't want to repeal the Clinton-era law, the logical choices for many students will be to skip college or to leave USA for college overseas. We are really harming our children with this debt.
Biden helped negotiate that bill.
As far as I can tell this was a bill written and negotiated in the GOP-controlled House, by the Education and the Workforce committee.
At the time Biden served in the (GOP-controlled) Senate, and not on the relevant committees there.
Do you have evidence that Biden specifically was involved in negotiating about this? Or do you just mean that, insofar as he was a member of the Senate, he “helped” by voting for a ~250 page bill that passed 96–1?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/6
At the time Biden served in the (GOP-controlled) Senate, and not on the relevant committees there.
Do you have evidence that Biden specifically was involved in negotiating about this? Or do you just mean that, insofar as he was a member of the Senate, he “helped” by voting for a ~250 page bill that passed 96–1?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/6
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/02/joe-biden-st...
"it is indisputable that Biden was an avid supporter of the 2005 bill as a whole and of its overall thrust of tightening up the bankruptcy code largely to the benefit of lenders at the expense of distressed families who would find it harder to file for bankruptcy."
"he used his leadership role to limit the ability of other Democrats who had concerns and who wanted the bill softened"
"Senator Biden supports legislation that will fall hardest on women,” she wrote. “Why? The answer will have to come from him … He is a zealous advocate on behalf of one of his biggest contributors – the financial services industry.” -- E Warren in 2005
"he used his leadership role to limit the ability of other Democrats who had concerns and who wanted the bill softened"
"Senator Biden supports legislation that will fall hardest on women,” she wrote. “Why? The answer will have to come from him … He is a zealous advocate on behalf of one of his biggest contributors – the financial services industry.” -- E Warren in 2005
The other commenter was talking about a different bill. This one is from a GOP-controlled congress during the Bush administration, which would be even more absurd to blame on Bill Clinton!
This 2005 bill would have passed with or without Biden. If you want someone to blame, this ~200 page bill was written by Chuck Grassley (R) and sponsored by 10 GOP senators and two Democratic senators (Biden is not on that list). The House version was written by Rep. Sensenbrenner (R) and sponsored by 80 GOP members and 8 Democratic members. Then it was signed by George W. Bush (R). This is exactly the kind of bill you can expect when the GOP gets unified control of the congress and presidency. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/256
It’s fair to criticize Biden for voting for this bill, especially in the context of the Democratic primary – Elizabeth Warren is much more aggressively pro-borrower, and in this case Biden was actually on the Judiciary Committee where this bill was debated so could have conceivably have spent his political capital making a big stink and trying (unsuccessfully) to sink it – but even then this article is pretty exaggerated / out of context: 2019 clickbait trying to attract views by speculatively scaremongering about intra-party differences.
This 2005 bill would have passed with or without Biden. If you want someone to blame, this ~200 page bill was written by Chuck Grassley (R) and sponsored by 10 GOP senators and two Democratic senators (Biden is not on that list). The House version was written by Rep. Sensenbrenner (R) and sponsored by 80 GOP members and 8 Democratic members. Then it was signed by George W. Bush (R). This is exactly the kind of bill you can expect when the GOP gets unified control of the congress and presidency. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/256
It’s fair to criticize Biden for voting for this bill, especially in the context of the Democratic primary – Elizabeth Warren is much more aggressively pro-borrower, and in this case Biden was actually on the Judiciary Committee where this bill was debated so could have conceivably have spent his political capital making a big stink and trying (unsuccessfully) to sink it – but even then this article is pretty exaggerated / out of context: 2019 clickbait trying to attract views by speculatively scaremongering about intra-party differences.
That appears to be a bill passed by Congress and signed by Clinton, not simply an executive order or a policy decision by Clinton. I don't think Biden can have that repealed, there would need to be a new bill passed by Congress and signed by Biden. Unless there's something I'm missing. Per the article you linked to, it does imply that Congress needs to take action to change this.
Yes, this was a ~250-page bill proposed by GOP congresspeople and passed by a GOP-majority Senate and a GOP-majority House. The Democrats in those bodies negotiated what they could, and then the bill passed with veto-proof majorities.
It is ridiculous to say “Clinton changed this”.
Edit to add: If someone wants to see this changed, make sure the Democratic party maintains control of the House in the upcoming midterm elections and then start lobbying GOP Senators. Getting to 60 votes on a bill to help “woke college grads” is going to be an uphill fight in the current political climate.
It is ridiculous to say “Clinton changed this”.
Edit to add: If someone wants to see this changed, make sure the Democratic party maintains control of the House in the upcoming midterm elections and then start lobbying GOP Senators. Getting to 60 votes on a bill to help “woke college grads” is going to be an uphill fight in the current political climate.
The thing is, they aren't doing it as a selfless act. If I want to get a liberal arts education I can go onto open courseware and get a free education. I know so many people getting degrees to get a job that shouldn't need them. I know many that went from a stem degree to a throw away degree because they felt stem was too hard for them and interfered with their social life.
A real fix for the student loan crisis would be to make a national competency test instead of using a bachelor's degree gauge competence. Then get rid of government backed student loans.
My time in college could have been halved if I could have not taken a bunch of the classes that added no value to my education. Honestly, it's shameful how bad those Gen Ed classes are. They exist to check a box.
And I'd be pretty upset to pay for someone else to get a liberal arts degree, especially when it doesn't contribute anything and could have been gotten for free if the person took some initiative.
A real fix for the student loan crisis would be to make a national competency test instead of using a bachelor's degree gauge competence. Then get rid of government backed student loans.
My time in college could have been halved if I could have not taken a bunch of the classes that added no value to my education. Honestly, it's shameful how bad those Gen Ed classes are. They exist to check a box.
And I'd be pretty upset to pay for someone else to get a liberal arts degree, especially when it doesn't contribute anything and could have been gotten for free if the person took some initiative.
This boils down to the “welfare freeloaders” polemic, turned onto people who are pursuing higher education. The fact that you can’t see what they contribute (or more accurately, can’t appreciate it because you’ve been consistently failed by the educational system) doesn’t make it worthless.
When I talk to people with STEM degrees who are around my age, it frequently comes out that their “gen ed” classes were pathetically easy. They generally feel some kind of mild resentment around this, since they’re (1) paying for a degree, and (2) generally intelligent people who can handle a more challenging class.
But there’s a reason it’s that way, one that I experienced firsthand when CS students popped into my philosophy courses thinking they’d be easy: they frequently performed miserably and were suddenly at risk of having their CS progression slowed by a non-major requirement.
In other words: many schools have thrown up their hands and (tacitly) admitted defeat on STEM students, funneling them through no-fail liberal arts requirements rather than actually challenging them (where they might fail, slow down their STEM degree, and complain about all the irrelevant coursework they have to do even more). And that hasn’t worked so well either: instead of keeping STEM students happy, it’s produced a generation of undergraduates who think their kid-glove treatment is what liberal arts is actually like.
When I talk to people with STEM degrees who are around my age, it frequently comes out that their “gen ed” classes were pathetically easy. They generally feel some kind of mild resentment around this, since they’re (1) paying for a degree, and (2) generally intelligent people who can handle a more challenging class.
But there’s a reason it’s that way, one that I experienced firsthand when CS students popped into my philosophy courses thinking they’d be easy: they frequently performed miserably and were suddenly at risk of having their CS progression slowed by a non-major requirement.
In other words: many schools have thrown up their hands and (tacitly) admitted defeat on STEM students, funneling them through no-fail liberal arts requirements rather than actually challenging them (where they might fail, slow down their STEM degree, and complain about all the irrelevant coursework they have to do even more). And that hasn’t worked so well either: instead of keeping STEM students happy, it’s produced a generation of undergraduates who think their kid-glove treatment is what liberal arts is actually like.
One of the reasons for “gen ed ” classes is to give you exposure to different fields at a time when many students don’t know what they want to do in life. Not everyone goes into college 100% sure they want a CS degree and to be a software engineer or whatever.
One of the reasons they are easy is because they are intro courses at the doorway of an entire field of study that is not lacking in depth or complexity. Intro to CS is also very easy (this is a variable, this is an if statement, this is a while loop), but that doesn’t mean the 400 level OS or AI course is a walk in the park. The same goes for philosophy, physics, biology, chemistry, history, or any other subject you perhaps thought was a joke. The ease of the 100 level course is so it doesn’t scare you away entirely, not because the field is intrinsically easy.
Many students will take that gen ed course and then switch into that major because they found the topic fascinating. You took it and found it dull, which actually did add value to your education because it reaffirmed your choice of your major. Some people aren’t so lucky and pick a career they hate, only to find something they love much later in life.
Anyway, this idea that opencourseware is equivalent to a university education is not true in my experience. From my perspective, learning is a multiplayer activity. My students learn best when they are helping each other, doing group projects, teaching eachother things they’ve just learned, and going through the college experience as a cohort. University isn’t just about the facts in the book or the curriculum. I think if that were true, the University system would have been obviated long ago by open courseware. But that has t happened and it won’t because open courseware is just a projection of a university education, not the full thing.
One of the reasons they are easy is because they are intro courses at the doorway of an entire field of study that is not lacking in depth or complexity. Intro to CS is also very easy (this is a variable, this is an if statement, this is a while loop), but that doesn’t mean the 400 level OS or AI course is a walk in the park. The same goes for philosophy, physics, biology, chemistry, history, or any other subject you perhaps thought was a joke. The ease of the 100 level course is so it doesn’t scare you away entirely, not because the field is intrinsically easy.
Many students will take that gen ed course and then switch into that major because they found the topic fascinating. You took it and found it dull, which actually did add value to your education because it reaffirmed your choice of your major. Some people aren’t so lucky and pick a career they hate, only to find something they love much later in life.
Anyway, this idea that opencourseware is equivalent to a university education is not true in my experience. From my perspective, learning is a multiplayer activity. My students learn best when they are helping each other, doing group projects, teaching eachother things they’ve just learned, and going through the college experience as a cohort. University isn’t just about the facts in the book or the curriculum. I think if that were true, the University system would have been obviated long ago by open courseware. But that has t happened and it won’t because open courseware is just a projection of a university education, not the full thing.
> Like so many problems in the US, this one is entirely self-inflicted: you can get a liberal arts degree for virtually nothing in much of the rest of the developed world.
Degree attainment is much lower than the U.S. for much of the rest of the world[1] (usually from more restrictive admissions, from my understanding). Also, from talking to people in other countries, universities over there are often much simpler and don't resemble the 4-year summer camp that schools in the U.S. do (studying in a lot of other countries is probably closer to studying in American night school). I'd say it's a good model to consider, but many would oppose it because it's so different from the typical American college experience.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_...
Degree attainment is much lower than the U.S. for much of the rest of the world[1] (usually from more restrictive admissions, from my understanding). Also, from talking to people in other countries, universities over there are often much simpler and don't resemble the 4-year summer camp that schools in the U.S. do (studying in a lot of other countries is probably closer to studying in American night school). I'd say it's a good model to consider, but many would oppose it because it's so different from the typical American college experience.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_...
The Onion headline:
“‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens”
applies to so many things in the US.
Americans’ absolute refusal to even attempt to learn anything from comparable countries abroad is pathological at this point.
“‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens”
applies to so many things in the US.
Americans’ absolute refusal to even attempt to learn anything from comparable countries abroad is pathological at this point.
Technically Math, Physics, Biological sciences and many segments of Stem are "liberal arts".
Or we assume they were afraid of mathematics.
Well, our life expectancy is so high by now that I think the purpose of young people (and I include people in their 20s here) is to become well-rounded people and citizens. Going travelling for a year or two, working odd jobs, taking chances in a low probability career or opportunity, and yes, also studying for the purpose of pure education are all things young people should be encouraged to do.
I do however completely agree that going into deep debt to do just that is a bad idea, but that's more of a societal problem in the US. Most rich countries heavily subsidize young people's education, including travel and service.
Luxembourg is an example of doing this incredibly well: most young people I met there were really well adjusted, broadly educated, and also quite happy.
I do however completely agree that going into deep debt to do just that is a bad idea, but that's more of a societal problem in the US. Most rich countries heavily subsidize young people's education, including travel and service.
Luxembourg is an example of doing this incredibly well: most young people I met there were really well adjusted, broadly educated, and also quite happy.
Luxembourg is a ridiculous example...
I'm from Europe as well, mid 30s, so my friends/peers have no significant college debt. Somehow I grew up with people who all went to art school (mom pushed me in that direction early on) - and all my childhood friends that went to art school are now in entry level/low paid jobs with low job ambitions, limited options in life because of income, no long term relationships, no children.
Subjectively I'm not seeing the "complete people" produced by this system. Compared to my friends that only finished high school they may have more complex opinions, but the reality is they are still in dead end situations - I would not call them any more "complete" personalities. Both end up wasting time on "moms couch" and smoking weed, just discussing different topics.
Life expectancy may have extended (although that's average so it's kind of a moot point I'd argue), but prime age for having children has not.
Having children later on in life not only increases pregnancy risks but also gives you more childbirth defects. Objectively the modern "waste 20s to jump around and party" and "spend your 20s/30s building a career" is leading to a societal collapse.
I'm from Europe as well, mid 30s, so my friends/peers have no significant college debt. Somehow I grew up with people who all went to art school (mom pushed me in that direction early on) - and all my childhood friends that went to art school are now in entry level/low paid jobs with low job ambitions, limited options in life because of income, no long term relationships, no children.
Subjectively I'm not seeing the "complete people" produced by this system. Compared to my friends that only finished high school they may have more complex opinions, but the reality is they are still in dead end situations - I would not call them any more "complete" personalities. Both end up wasting time on "moms couch" and smoking weed, just discussing different topics.
Life expectancy may have extended (although that's average so it's kind of a moot point I'd argue), but prime age for having children has not.
Having children later on in life not only increases pregnancy risks but also gives you more childbirth defects. Objectively the modern "waste 20s to jump around and party" and "spend your 20s/30s building a career" is leading to a societal collapse.
[deleted]
IMO big countries should not be taking policy/lifestyle queues from a country with 700,000 people with an economy made up of EU transfer pricing schemes/tax haven machinations.
Cues. But I would t take their queues, either.
>>>>Most rich countries heavily subsidize young people's education, including travel and service.
That's partially true. The reality is that most rich countries (That we are talking about) purposefully make young kids stay out of the workforce, unemployable, until their very late 20s pursuing "well rounded people" education that is not useful and leads nowhere but extended unemployment. They have even culturally codified some of this (see: erasmus) This is how they keep unemployment stats low, said countries classified every u-26 as out of the workforce and not looking for work.
In contrast, the US is at least minting some U-21's that end up becoming millionaires, plus by the time most american grads hit their 30's , the majority have a very upward career trajectory, even bought 1-2 large assets.
Meanwhile, their economic peers outside of the US are still at their first job, trying to make ends meet. They could only dream of buying an apt, let alone a house.
You can have differing opinions on what this extended education model provides, whether its more/less useful vs USA, and what it means for social cohesion and peace (by keeping a very large contingent of young kids hooked education freebies). However, it is not up for debate that the limited economic opportunities connected to extended education are severely diminishing the economic prospects of those young kids
That's partially true. The reality is that most rich countries (That we are talking about) purposefully make young kids stay out of the workforce, unemployable, until their very late 20s pursuing "well rounded people" education that is not useful and leads nowhere but extended unemployment. They have even culturally codified some of this (see: erasmus) This is how they keep unemployment stats low, said countries classified every u-26 as out of the workforce and not looking for work.
In contrast, the US is at least minting some U-21's that end up becoming millionaires, plus by the time most american grads hit their 30's , the majority have a very upward career trajectory, even bought 1-2 large assets.
Meanwhile, their economic peers outside of the US are still at their first job, trying to make ends meet. They could only dream of buying an apt, let alone a house.
You can have differing opinions on what this extended education model provides, whether its more/less useful vs USA, and what it means for social cohesion and peace (by keeping a very large contingent of young kids hooked education freebies). However, it is not up for debate that the limited economic opportunities connected to extended education are severely diminishing the economic prospects of those young kids
Luxembourg's GDP per capita is close to twice that of the United States. I don't think the comparison the fair given how rich they are.
Luxembourg is a strange example but there are a lot of countries in Europe that invest in education. Germany has essentially free college and university education for everyone.
'Everyone'?
Perhaps if the US was Germany levels of selective in University admittance and Germany levels of efficient in the administration of the various degree paths, costs in the US would look more like Germany.
There are more options in the US, all those choices have costs that make the US more expensive.
Perhaps if the US was Germany levels of selective in University admittance and Germany levels of efficient in the administration of the various degree paths, costs in the US would look more like Germany.
There are more options in the US, all those choices have costs that make the US more expensive.
>if the US was Germany levels of selective in University admittance
I only ever seen people bring up the cost of university in Europe such as Germany's free system but never the other differences. I'm beginning to think most people only know about the cost difference and don't realize there are many other differences, and by the time someone points out those differences (and how they relate to cost) the person has already formed an opinion which disagrees with the new information and thus choose to ignore it.
I only ever seen people bring up the cost of university in Europe such as Germany's free system but never the other differences. I'm beginning to think most people only know about the cost difference and don't realize there are many other differences, and by the time someone points out those differences (and how they relate to cost) the person has already formed an opinion which disagrees with the new information and thus choose to ignore it.
What are the differences then? I literally went to university in Germany and don't know what these significant differences are.
How were you selected for admittance? How many of your cohort had to complete remedial math and German before being able to perform the math and German for their degree program? How much support was provided for those struggling academicly? What's the administrator/faculty ratio at your university? How many of the administrators have diversity, equity or inclusion or similar in their title? How many different courses could you use to fulfill the same requirement of your degree program?
How long was the leisure river constructed in the shape of the University's initials? This one is kind of egregious, but most will have an expensive stupid something.
Human capital is a big difference between Germany and the US. My wife attended medical school in Germany. Her year, veterinary was more competitive due to higher demand. If you select for the top n% and demand excellence lots of things are easier and cheaper.
What was the dropout rate from your program?
Lots of money is flushed down the toilet in the US, but the university already got paid so there's not much incentive. Much of the noise around affordability still ensures the university gets paid.
How long was the leisure river constructed in the shape of the University's initials? This one is kind of egregious, but most will have an expensive stupid something.
Human capital is a big difference between Germany and the US. My wife attended medical school in Germany. Her year, veterinary was more competitive due to higher demand. If you select for the top n% and demand excellence lots of things are easier and cheaper.
What was the dropout rate from your program?
Lots of money is flushed down the toilet in the US, but the university already got paid so there's not much incentive. Much of the noise around affordability still ensures the university gets paid.
Maybe just because it was a competitive STEM program, but nothing you mentioned differed from American university programs, with the possible exception of diversity requirements which I was privileged enough to not notice. The application was more straightforward than for American schools, and because it was a competitive applied math degree, no remedial math was given. I also don't think much help would much have been given if I had say failed quals in an American university. Requirements were a little obnoxious but they're being improved and the year after me has a much easier time.
No idea what a leisure river is.
No idea what a leisure river is.
There are different programs in the US as well, including competitive ones which will cover the full cost of college (some do have income limits, but they are generally quite high). Generally when we are talking college costs we aren't talking about the subset of competitive programs in the US that don't have a cost.
For example of the difference, look at the per capital rate of school students going to university in both countries. It can be a bit messy to compare because you need to break down different routes. University not being the same as trade school which is not the same as apprenticing, though sometimes these will be lumped together in different ways. Last time I looked it up the acceptance criteria to get into university in Germany was stricter than the US. Not necessarily if you are looking at the really good schools, but those often have scholarships that work on a combination of academics and need based, but for a degree in general.
There is also the issue of in state vs out of state in the US, where an out of state can be double or more the price compared to instate. Rarely is out of state a requirement, it is a personal preference and one that costs greatly if the difference isn't covered by a scholarship.
For example of the difference, look at the per capital rate of school students going to university in both countries. It can be a bit messy to compare because you need to break down different routes. University not being the same as trade school which is not the same as apprenticing, though sometimes these will be lumped together in different ways. Last time I looked it up the acceptance criteria to get into university in Germany was stricter than the US. Not necessarily if you are looking at the really good schools, but those often have scholarships that work on a combination of academics and need based, but for a degree in general.
There is also the issue of in state vs out of state in the US, where an out of state can be double or more the price compared to instate. Rarely is out of state a requirement, it is a personal preference and one that costs greatly if the difference isn't covered by a scholarship.
When talking about 'free' university in Germany, they're competitive in an academic meritocratic sense. Spaces are limited and access to programs is competitive based on demand. Applicants are excluded based on their performance.
I suspect if the US followed a similar path, we woukd see similar results. I've not heard calls to make US admission more selective or academicly rigorous.
I suspect if the US followed a similar path, we woukd see similar results. I've not heard calls to make US admission more selective or academicly rigorous.
https://www.wbrz.com/news/lsu-promotes-newly-opened-leisure-...
Remedial math (algebra) is often required even for the cohort getting useless degrees. Which program / university would admit this cohort in Germany? In the US everyone who applies will be admitted somewhere. Pushing this cohort through their program adds costs that everyone bears.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureau...
Remedial math (algebra) is often required even for the cohort getting useless degrees. Which program / university would admit this cohort in Germany? In the US everyone who applies will be admitted somewhere. Pushing this cohort through their program adds costs that everyone bears.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureau...
germany's admission system would be quite impossible in america's civil rights law.
Can you explain? I don't know much about their admission system.
Germany basically only requires a high school degree for most University degrees.
Physics? Just sign up.
Computer Science? Just sign up.
History ? Just sign up.
Medicine, Psychology and the like have hard requirements on grades. Sometimes these requirements are so absurd that they are considered unconstitutional. But most things are both for free and easy to get into.
Medicine, Psychology and the like have hard requirements on grades. Sometimes these requirements are so absurd that they are considered unconstitutional. But most things are both for free and easy to get into.
I would rather use my long life expectancy to build a passive income through investments and retire for several decades. Something about having a longer life expectancy requiring a longer time in the workforce rubs me the wrong way.
> Luxembourg
> really well adjusted, broadly educated, and also quite happy
Being obscenely rich helps.
> really well adjusted, broadly educated, and also quite happy
Being obscenely rich helps.
Interesting. Universities produce well-rounded people. But their admissions process attempts to find well-rounded applicants. Perhaps the whole point of university is to take well-rounded people and smash them into other well-rounded people without damaging their roundedness. Eventually, the perfectly spherical student enters, experiences perfectly elastic collisions with other spherical student with no shape deformation and the perfectly spherical graduate leaves.
Society then profits through the resulting efficiency of spherical person transport, with highways replaced by high speed rollways.
The apotheosis of universities achieved, the almost-well-rounded college administrator - rounded enough to round the next batch of students but not round enough to use a rollway himself - celebrates this random process of collisions.
He names the motion of students through this process after his university where it is first developed: the famous Brown University.
Society then profits through the resulting efficiency of spherical person transport, with highways replaced by high speed rollways.
The apotheosis of universities achieved, the almost-well-rounded college administrator - rounded enough to round the next batch of students but not round enough to use a rollway himself - celebrates this random process of collisions.
He names the motion of students through this process after his university where it is first developed: the famous Brown University.
How much does it actually cost a university to produce liberal arts majors compared to STEM majors and what would their tuition look like if they only paid for what they used and what directly benefited their education?
In Denmark the state pays the full amount that the student pays in USA.
Humanities/sociologies: $4400 to $6200 depending on subject.
STEM: $6200 to $9200
Above rates are for Danish students. Universities gets paid more for exchange students.
source: https://ufm.dk/uddannelse/institutioner-og-drift/okonomi/til...
Humanities/sociologies: $4400 to $6200 depending on subject.
STEM: $6200 to $9200
Above rates are for Danish students. Universities gets paid more for exchange students.
source: https://ufm.dk/uddannelse/institutioner-og-drift/okonomi/til...
self-reply: There are a couple of main differences between universities in USA and Denmark that drives the high cost:
a) Universities in Denmark have no sports teams, facilities or similar. Sport is something you do in your spare time in facilities that the city provides and you do sport with people doing all kinds of other education.
b) Universities have no dorms (there is a single exception to this). Dorms are independent "self-owned companies" which houses students from many different schools/unis.
c) No real prestige in impressive buildings. Students don't choose uni by how impressive buildings etc are.
As the state pays for the education, it has a huge incentive to keep costs low.
a) Universities in Denmark have no sports teams, facilities or similar. Sport is something you do in your spare time in facilities that the city provides and you do sport with people doing all kinds of other education.
b) Universities have no dorms (there is a single exception to this). Dorms are independent "self-owned companies" which houses students from many different schools/unis.
c) No real prestige in impressive buildings. Students don't choose uni by how impressive buildings etc are.
As the state pays for the education, it has a huge incentive to keep costs low.
Canadian universities have all of these. The state pays a big component of their cost with students paying tuition about on par with the numbers quoted above. This seems reasonable; I don't think anyone regardless of program should get it for free.
My guess is...slightly less? I'm guessing that the cost of instructors, administrative staff, and general facilities dominates the cost of specialized equipment.
Would be interesting to see data on though.
Would be interesting to see data on though.
If you ballpark it, generally for a given course, one student's fees could pay the lecturer, a second could pay the rest of the teaching staff, and a third could pay for the facilities that are actually needed. The rest is essentially glorified marketing and multi million dollar salaries for political positions.
Kinda like a microcosm for society.
Kinda like a microcosm for society.
What are some political positions in a university that command multi-million salaries? Just curious.
Investment managers and the administrators who manage them, mostly. Senior school administrators often make high 6 - low 7 figures, but 2+ million is quite rare.
Yeah, it's hard to find that data, as any search is swamped by tuition-focused content.
My anecdotal sense is that STEM is significantly more expensive. Here are some factors:
1) Salaries for STEM faculty are higher than non-STEM, due to competition from the private sector.
2) STEM education often requires additional lab courses, with their own dedicated staff, space, and equipment.
3) Non-Stem additional instruction (discussion sections, etc.) is taught by non-STEM grad students, who are much less expensive than even STEM grads.
Also STEM classes are much larger, with many state school having more than 50% of their students declare a STEM major of some form.
My anecdotal sense is that STEM is significantly more expensive. Here are some factors:
1) Salaries for STEM faculty are higher than non-STEM, due to competition from the private sector.
2) STEM education often requires additional lab courses, with their own dedicated staff, space, and equipment.
3) Non-Stem additional instruction (discussion sections, etc.) is taught by non-STEM grad students, who are much less expensive than even STEM grads.
Also STEM classes are much larger, with many state school having more than 50% of their students declare a STEM major of some form.
I mean there's STEM, and there's the reality that Computer Science is the tent pole discipline that people mean when they say STEM. And Computer Science doesn't actually need much more than English in terms of infrastructure
My cs department had a lot of fairly expensive computing clusters that got updated fairly rapidly. Lots of embedded boards that got updated less rapidly except that they got fried by students often enough. EE had a lot more expensive lab equipment to be sure. But their profs probably get paid less, not competing with CS jobs. It is still kind of strange toe that EE gets paid so much less. It is so much harder. But we just don't need as many EE I guess?
I'd be surprised if math isn't one of the cheapest disciplines to educate.
Cheapness to educate doesn't seem to be really a factor in anyway. Just look at price of law degrees... A field where the laws or previous decisions don't change that much. Specially when you are going over the generic stuff.
Be sure to include the cost of hiring graduates as part of the administration or government into the cost.
Are people who go to college for those degrees actually well rounded or better citizens as opposed to those of equivalent socio economic background who didn't? On what metrics? As measured by whom?
Besides I think they’d be more well rounded working a well paying trade for example than going tens to hundreds of thousands in debt hanging out in echo chambers and coming out with no marketable skills.
At least that's what current society shows us. If the humanities graduates were actually a mass of well-rounded people that contributed to society, and happened to also have debt as a result, we'd be having a better conversation right now.
The current reality is that that many (not all) humanities majors are societal annoyances with little to show for their education and also have a ton of det.
The current reality is that that many (not all) humanities majors are societal annoyances with little to show for their education and also have a ton of det.
> College is MORE than just career prep! It's about producing well-rounded citizens
This sentiment was true maybe 50-60 years ago but today, college today is purely for career prep. What drives me nuts is seeing jobs where a degree is necessary but required by the company. I took a peek a "non-STEM" jobs on some job board a while back, I basically wanted to answer the question: "what are my career prospects if I majored in PolSci instead of CS".
What drove me crazy is the number of "humanities of other associated major" requirements when the job was something that clearly did not require you knowing any of that, it was just a blanket "need a degree" requirement, what that degree actually entailed be damned.
One thing I noticed is these jobs seemed to ask for degrees more often than tech jobs. Some tech jobs want to see a 4yr degree but I would say the majority are pure merit based (needs X years in this, Y years in that, some experience with Z tech).
TBH that's the root of the problem we have with education. The reason we see so many useless degrees is that they are literally useless, the only purpose is to full-fill a line item on some job applications. Makes me wonder how much more competitive those jobs would be with stem if they didn't require a degree.
You might make less working in a non-STEM field, but your "edge" is that you didn't have to go to college and take on debt. A software engineer may make way more, but they have student loans to pay down. Getting a degree just to show that you have one seems to be a massive waste of time for everyone but those that collect tuition checks.
This sentiment was true maybe 50-60 years ago but today, college today is purely for career prep. What drives me nuts is seeing jobs where a degree is necessary but required by the company. I took a peek a "non-STEM" jobs on some job board a while back, I basically wanted to answer the question: "what are my career prospects if I majored in PolSci instead of CS".
What drove me crazy is the number of "humanities of other associated major" requirements when the job was something that clearly did not require you knowing any of that, it was just a blanket "need a degree" requirement, what that degree actually entailed be damned.
One thing I noticed is these jobs seemed to ask for degrees more often than tech jobs. Some tech jobs want to see a 4yr degree but I would say the majority are pure merit based (needs X years in this, Y years in that, some experience with Z tech).
TBH that's the root of the problem we have with education. The reason we see so many useless degrees is that they are literally useless, the only purpose is to full-fill a line item on some job applications. Makes me wonder how much more competitive those jobs would be with stem if they didn't require a degree.
You might make less working in a non-STEM field, but your "edge" is that you didn't have to go to college and take on debt. A software engineer may make way more, but they have student loans to pay down. Getting a degree just to show that you have one seems to be a massive waste of time for everyone but those that collect tuition checks.
[deleted]
Also: well-rounded citizens are able to contribute their labor to the social cohesion and physical infrastructure of their communities. Careers are part of civic participation.
If people can take out a loan to buy a Tesla or a Birkin bag, having no money to pay it back, because they think it makes them cool - they should be allowed to take out a loan to get an arts history degree. If anything, it will bring less harm to the environment.
There's no way to forbid people to be stupid without sacrificing both market economy, and democracy.
And the creditor should be to deny them based on insufficient ability to repay, and it should be dischargeable in bankruptcy, and the government should in no circumstances pay it back for them.
This is the difference. The government backs educational loans and sets different rules that mean the creditor is almost guaranteed never to lose money. If there was no government guarantee, creditors would offer fewer loans to people they didn't expect to be able to pay them back.
>"College is MORE than just career prep! It's about producing well-rounded citizens!"
Which can be done through online resources, MOOCs, libraries, and using free resources that colleges from such as access to the college library and ability to sit in on guest lectures (the ones that aren't tied to a specific class, they tend to be open to anyone who wants to attend). One will have to miss out on the college experience, especially the parties, but that shouldn't be an issue because it is all about becoming a well rounded citizen, right?
Dropping the sarcasm for a moment, one of the reasons colleges cost so much is because they are investing so heavily in the student experience. How many admins do they pay that aren't related to education (and who make so much more than the professors actually teaching, especially the non-tenured ones). Revamping if not rebuilding buildings that are perfectly fine because they have a dated look. Adding numerous amenities that aren't related to education. Some young adults save quite a lot of money by skipping out on these colleges, at least for the first two years, and going to cheaper ones more focused on just education. Sadly, at least in my experience, there is a correlation between having all the extra experiences and having a higher ranked degree program.
Which can be done through online resources, MOOCs, libraries, and using free resources that colleges from such as access to the college library and ability to sit in on guest lectures (the ones that aren't tied to a specific class, they tend to be open to anyone who wants to attend). One will have to miss out on the college experience, especially the parties, but that shouldn't be an issue because it is all about becoming a well rounded citizen, right?
Dropping the sarcasm for a moment, one of the reasons colleges cost so much is because they are investing so heavily in the student experience. How many admins do they pay that aren't related to education (and who make so much more than the professors actually teaching, especially the non-tenured ones). Revamping if not rebuilding buildings that are perfectly fine because they have a dated look. Adding numerous amenities that aren't related to education. Some young adults save quite a lot of money by skipping out on these colleges, at least for the first two years, and going to cheaper ones more focused on just education. Sadly, at least in my experience, there is a correlation between having all the extra experiences and having a higher ranked degree program.
This is such an American-like comment, perhaps instead of asking people why they try to take on debt for humanities, you should ask why your Government doesn't pay for studies, like we do in most European countries
> College is MORE than just career prep! It's about producing well-rounded citizens!
Doesn't/shouldn't this already happen in public school? That sounds like something shilled by higher ed.
Doesn't/shouldn't this already happen in public school? That sounds like something shilled by higher ed.
I've been hearing the "college teaches you how to think" trope less often lately. Can't imagine why.
> colleges offered useless degrees
This is such a weird perspective. Look at any modern business. A lot of employees will have studied something in humanities. There are valuable skills (particularly writing and communication) that are learned in these degrees that might not be seen as valuable by your average techie.
The problem is not "useless degrees" (they're all useful, regardless of what you may think of them), the problem is insane cost of education.
This is such a weird perspective. Look at any modern business. A lot of employees will have studied something in humanities. There are valuable skills (particularly writing and communication) that are learned in these degrees that might not be seen as valuable by your average techie.
The problem is not "useless degrees" (they're all useful, regardless of what you may think of them), the problem is insane cost of education.
> Look at any modern business. A lot of employees will have studied something in humanities.
And if businesses didn't require 4 year degrees for jobs that don't need them, they wouldn't.
We literally gatekeep careers based on your ability to finish a 4+ year $10k+ degree program, and then you actually get the job and essentially nothing you learned was useful.
The number of coworkers i've met with degrees outside their career is basically the majority (as i work outside of STEM), and their skills mostly correlate to how well they were trained on the job. There's PLENTY that never needed college, or that college didnt change jack about their poor skill set (in fact reinforced it).
The people I know who are making the most are doctors/lawyers (and thats a whole OTHER story), and then right after that are the trades (mostly union workers) who never went to college.
I'd much rather see a proper focus on the public education we already have (and varies WILDLY in quality depending on where you are) than basically saying "well we're going to require you to go to school until you're 18, and then we're going to say that no matter how well you excelled there you're only worth minimum wage unless you force yourself through college, and then get a job where you're useless until they finish the on the job training."
A large majority of the economy is based on jobs that just do not require a 4 year degree (MAYBE 2, but even then it should just be a credit requirement). I'm all for better educating the populace, but accomplishing this by just kneecapping those with life circumstances that make a 4 year degree difficult isn't helping.
And if businesses didn't require 4 year degrees for jobs that don't need them, they wouldn't.
We literally gatekeep careers based on your ability to finish a 4+ year $10k+ degree program, and then you actually get the job and essentially nothing you learned was useful.
The number of coworkers i've met with degrees outside their career is basically the majority (as i work outside of STEM), and their skills mostly correlate to how well they were trained on the job. There's PLENTY that never needed college, or that college didnt change jack about their poor skill set (in fact reinforced it).
The people I know who are making the most are doctors/lawyers (and thats a whole OTHER story), and then right after that are the trades (mostly union workers) who never went to college.
I'd much rather see a proper focus on the public education we already have (and varies WILDLY in quality depending on where you are) than basically saying "well we're going to require you to go to school until you're 18, and then we're going to say that no matter how well you excelled there you're only worth minimum wage unless you force yourself through college, and then get a job where you're useless until they finish the on the job training."
A large majority of the economy is based on jobs that just do not require a 4 year degree (MAYBE 2, but even then it should just be a credit requirement). I'm all for better educating the populace, but accomplishing this by just kneecapping those with life circumstances that make a 4 year degree difficult isn't helping.
Credential inflation is desirable for governments because being enrolled in some kind of tertiary program suppresses the unemployment numbers. If you can learn a skill that makes getting hired easier, all the better!
We won't see widespread de-escalation of credentials until there are labor shortages, at which point it's no longer in anyone's interest to keep potential workers sidelined in school.
We won't see widespread de-escalation of credentials until there are labor shortages, at which point it's no longer in anyone's interest to keep potential workers sidelined in school.
Moreover, not only you’re not counted as “unemployed” while attaining a degree — after you get your degree, you’re left with a hefty debt: a pretty nice incentive to not stay unemployed!
I think the 4 year degree requirement is more of a proxy for ability to learn and adapt
It's hard to shake off the bias that a post-secondary graduate would be more likely to be a quick learner than a high school graduate even if in reality they're effectively the same
It's hard to shake off the bias that a post-secondary graduate would be more likely to be a quick learner than a high school graduate even if in reality they're effectively the same
It is probably most effective as a proxy for social class.
It it took me years of clawing out of my poor choice to get into tech. No one would grant me an interview when they saw Psychology as my major. Would I recommend other new students trying the same? No. If you’re going to stay in humanities, then go for it. No one is going to think, “cool, they’re going to thrive with us because of their unique background.”
I was hoping that DEI would be more about inclusivity toward majors and not merely about one’s genealogical expressivity.
I was hoping that DEI would be more about inclusivity toward majors and not merely about one’s genealogical expressivity.
How long have you been working in tech? My degree (French literature) was also a hindrance for my first few jobs, but nowadays the responses are heavily weighted toward the "cool, they’re going to thrive with us because of their unique background" side of the spectrum.
> I was hoping that DEI would be more about inclusivity toward majors and not merely about one’s genealogical expressivity.
Just like nearly any corporate initiative, DEI is about what corporations can do to appease their critics, and right now that largely means gender and ethnic background.
Other forms of diversity, based on career path, religion, ideology, or even nationality, are not considered priorities.
Just like nearly any corporate initiative, DEI is about what corporations can do to appease their critics, and right now that largely means gender and ethnic background.
Other forms of diversity, based on career path, religion, ideology, or even nationality, are not considered priorities.
Maybe if you had gone into psychology instead of tech, the degree wouldn’t be useless.
Psychology is one of those things where it really pretty much is useless unless you to the doctorate level.
You can't "go into psychology" really with just a bachelor's.
Funny. The first thing you have to learn when working at any company is to unlearn everything you were taught about writing in college.
In terms of learning “critical thinking”, it’s just selection bias.
Most smart people go to college and people misattribute the intelligence as somehow being a product of the college. No, it’s not.
In terms of learning “critical thinking”, it’s just selection bias.
Most smart people go to college and people misattribute the intelligence as somehow being a product of the college. No, it’s not.
I would call it critical reading rather than critical thinking. Terms like critical thinking and intelligence are often too pretentious to be useful.
Critical reading is a skill you can practice. The specifics depend on the field, but there are many common features such as analyzing and comparing texts, interpreting them from various points of view, and putting things in context. In order to practice critical reading, you must learn something deep enough that you start understanding the nuances of the arguments the experts in the field make.
Fresh STEM graduates tend to have worse critical reading skills than arts/humanities graduates, because they never had the chance to practice it. On the other hand, advancing to true senior positions often requires similar skills, and many learn them later in the life.
Critical reading is a skill you can practice. The specifics depend on the field, but there are many common features such as analyzing and comparing texts, interpreting them from various points of view, and putting things in context. In order to practice critical reading, you must learn something deep enough that you start understanding the nuances of the arguments the experts in the field make.
Fresh STEM graduates tend to have worse critical reading skills than arts/humanities graduates, because they never had the chance to practice it. On the other hand, advancing to true senior positions often requires similar skills, and many learn them later in the life.
Going by LSAT scores, which provide a measure of critical reading skills, I don't see a strong trend by major. Math majors score highest [0]. Of course, this is a self selected sample.
I'd be curious to see evidence that STEM majors actually have worse critical reading skills. Or is it a subjective ranking you've derived?
[0] https://magoosh.com/lsat/average-lsat-scores-by-major/
I'd be curious to see evidence that STEM majors actually have worse critical reading skills. Or is it a subjective ranking you've derived?
[0] https://magoosh.com/lsat/average-lsat-scores-by-major/
There is a stark difference between the critical thinking abilities of my freshman and senior students. It seems to me we're doing something to them over their 4 years with us.
How do you even define “critical thinking”.
Obviously students will learn how to game the system and pass all the essays/tests over their 4 years.
That doesn’t imply that they’re more useful for society or better placed for their futures.
It just means that they know what words/phrases to use to get an A on their paper.
Obviously students will learn how to game the system and pass all the essays/tests over their 4 years.
That doesn’t imply that they’re more useful for society or better placed for their futures.
It just means that they know what words/phrases to use to get an A on their paper.
If by "game the system" you mean, "learn the necessary knowledge and skills taught in the curriculum to graduate", then yeah, they are gaming the system.
But to you point, I define critical thinking as the ability to analyze and synthesize disparate data in order to form thoughts and opinions which are well founded. When they come to me out of high school, this ability is often completely lacking. When they leave after 4 years, they are being sought after by top companies, forming their own companies, and entering into public service well equipped to meet the demands of their new careers.
No one is graduating from our programs by regurgitating words/phrases. I don't know where you got that perception. That would be descriptive of high school, not a top-ranked university.
But to you point, I define critical thinking as the ability to analyze and synthesize disparate data in order to form thoughts and opinions which are well founded. When they come to me out of high school, this ability is often completely lacking. When they leave after 4 years, they are being sought after by top companies, forming their own companies, and entering into public service well equipped to meet the demands of their new careers.
No one is graduating from our programs by regurgitating words/phrases. I don't know where you got that perception. That would be descriptive of high school, not a top-ranked university.
mate, they just got older. there's a stark difference in critical thinking skill between 22 year olds and 18 year olds, regardless of what degree they get (or whether they get one at all).
So you’re telling me that 4 years of continuous and rigorous study on a skill has absolutely 0 effect on one’s abilities regarding that skill? They could have done nothing whatsoever wand would have gotten the same result?
That’s quite a take if that’s what you’re saying, and also disproven by the fact that students absolutely differ in ability depending on how much they apply themselves (studying vs partying). Also disproven by the fact our non-traditional students also improve in their abilities in the same way the 18 year olds do, despite being much older.
What you’re saying here essentially is that the entire institution of education, something developed societies universally recognized as a cornerstone of civilization, is entirely without merit. Maybe you should rethink that position?
That’s quite a take if that’s what you’re saying, and also disproven by the fact that students absolutely differ in ability depending on how much they apply themselves (studying vs partying). Also disproven by the fact our non-traditional students also improve in their abilities in the same way the 18 year olds do, despite being much older.
What you’re saying here essentially is that the entire institution of education, something developed societies universally recognized as a cornerstone of civilization, is entirely without merit. Maybe you should rethink that position?
>There are valuable skills
Depends on the business and the degree. They may be valuable, but they are not 500k usd valuable.
>(particularly writing and communication)
You should learn that in grade school.
Depends on the business and the degree. They may be valuable, but they are not 500k usd valuable.
>(particularly writing and communication)
You should learn that in grade school.
Apparently very useful degrees lead to the highly satisfying career of barely living wages as a post-doc with limited job security and work life balance, but do preach on about how useful the existing system is because $500k jobs are in finance and oil and gas, not STEM.
Nobody learns professional level writing and communication in grade school. There is a huge margin between "can convey information in writing" and "is skilled at conveying information efficiently in writing".
Minimum page requirements for essays and papers dont reinforce brevity in writing. They do the opposite, a way to be flower-y and add cruft.
Minimum page requirements are often the bulk of your grade in non stem. If you wrote the minimum pages, followed the style guide given to you, used mostly correct English, and followed citation guides. You will get a passing grade. It encourages finding a bunch of sources that back up your point ad nauseam, and paraphrase them repeatedly.
Minimum page requirements are often the bulk of your grade in non stem. If you wrote the minimum pages, followed the style guide given to you, used mostly correct English, and followed citation guides. You will get a passing grade. It encourages finding a bunch of sources that back up your point ad nauseam, and paraphrase them repeatedly.
Do you have a source for this? Because, anecdotally, I know a lot of teachers and professors and none of them grade that way.
My source is "going to college" and "seeing what my peers wrote" when they asked me to help them proof read, and me seeing my paper get a 100, and their paper getting 70 despite being nonsense. (because the grading rubric rewards heavily following the process)
I am sure that you have watched a teacher grade 50+ 10 page papers in the span of a week and heard their rational behind each grade though. Having graded some of those papers when being a TA, its all about the rubric, not the content, and most of the rubric is stuff like "Did they follow formatting rules? Did they hit page requirement? Did they have correct citations? Did they follow citation format?" Because not having a space in the wrong place during their works cited page is super important, but writing utter nonsense? Eh. Stuff like "the content" is sometimes low as 10 points on the paper. Usually about 20.
I am sure that you have watched a teacher grade 50+ 10 page papers in the span of a week and heard their rational behind each grade though. Having graded some of those papers when being a TA, its all about the rubric, not the content, and most of the rubric is stuff like "Did they follow formatting rules? Did they hit page requirement? Did they have correct citations? Did they follow citation format?" Because not having a space in the wrong place during their works cited page is super important, but writing utter nonsense? Eh. Stuff like "the content" is sometimes low as 10 points on the paper. Usually about 20.
I think a vanishingly small fraction of liberal arts undergraduates are paying 500K USD for their degrees (even after you factor in all external costs), much less taking on that much in debt.
(The rest of the comment is ridiculous -- it should be obvious that there is much more to learn about writing or communication than just what can be taught in grade school.)
(The rest of the comment is ridiculous -- it should be obvious that there is much more to learn about writing or communication than just what can be taught in grade school.)
> it should be obvious that there is much more to learn about writing or communication
Are those skills valuable enough to warrant a 500k usd loan? clearly not, or else they should have no problem repaying it.
Are those skills valuable enough to warrant a 500k usd loan? clearly not, or else they should have no problem repaying it.
You still haven't substantiated that number.
With regards to value: do you actually want to live in a society where the sole metric for human worth is one's predicted salary? That sounds miserable.
With regards to value: do you actually want to live in a society where the sole metric for human worth is one's predicted salary? That sounds miserable.
Last time I looked average student loan debt was around 30k. Not 500k. Yet we still hear all the time about how that is crippling. So much so that we need the taxpayer to come in and pay off all these loans for college graduates. So even at 30k it sounds like these degrees are not even adequate to pay off those loans.
I wish we'd normalize furthering your education later in life after establishing a career and having more funds to do so. It should be less about advancing your career and more about improving and expanding oneself anytime in adulthood.
I wish we'd normalize furthering your education later in life after establishing a career and having more funds to do so. It should be less about advancing your career and more about improving and expanding oneself anytime in adulthood.
Thank you for responding with the actual number.
Yes: even 30k in debt can be crippling, and there is a complex of macroeconomic pressures (like liberal arts jobs concentrating in HCOL areas) that make getting out from under that debt much more difficult than it otherwise would be.
That being said, the solution is not to disincentivize people from getting liberal arts degrees. It's to just make college cheaper, the way every other developed nation does, and to ensure ample non-undergraduate career paths for anybody who is merely going to college because they're told "it's the thing to do."
> I wish we'd normalize furthering your education later in life after establishing a career and having more funds to do so.
I agree completely!
Yes: even 30k in debt can be crippling, and there is a complex of macroeconomic pressures (like liberal arts jobs concentrating in HCOL areas) that make getting out from under that debt much more difficult than it otherwise would be.
That being said, the solution is not to disincentivize people from getting liberal arts degrees. It's to just make college cheaper, the way every other developed nation does, and to ensure ample non-undergraduate career paths for anybody who is merely going to college because they're told "it's the thing to do."
> I wish we'd normalize furthering your education later in life after establishing a career and having more funds to do so.
I agree completely!
I have heard of six figure student debt, but only in the context of recent graduates of MD, JD, and MBA programs (all of which are very expensive and generally lead to lucrative careers).
Have you ever actually heard of someone who amassed $500K in student debt to get an undergraduate degree?
Have you ever actually heard of someone who amassed $500K in student debt to get an undergraduate degree?
> You should learn that in grade school.
Do you really think it’s reasonable to expect eleven year olds to write and communicate at the same level as a fully grown adult?
Do you really think it’s reasonable to expect eleven year olds to write and communicate at the same level as a fully grown adult?
which schools cost $500K USD?
Columbia is $85k/ year. Do 4 years undergrad plus a 2 year masters and you are past $500k.
I’m sure people get in to that much debt, but it’s going to be rare. The largest number I’ve known of personally is $320k from undergrad, law school, and an MIS.
I’m sure people get in to that much debt, but it’s going to be rare. The largest number I’ve known of personally is $320k from undergrad, law school, and an MIS.
$85K is the sticker price at Columbia. Very few people actually pay that much, let alone take out loans for 500K.
Sad how fake info is the top thread at HN. In particular Columbia will never make you take out loans: https://cc-seas.financialaid.columbia.edu/how/aid/works.
The kind of people who would get zero aid from Columbia would be very unlikely to be taking out loans to begin with.
Sad how fake info is the top thread at HN. In particular Columbia will never make you take out loans: https://cc-seas.financialaid.columbia.edu/how/aid/works.
The kind of people who would get zero aid from Columbia would be very unlikely to be taking out loans to begin with.
Sakos(1)
>The problem is not "useless degrees" (they're all useful, regardless of what you may think of them), the problem is insane cost of education.
STEM degrees are essential for modern society, humanities degrees are pure luxury that could be replaced by just reading the course syllabus for free and discussing online or with local groups
As for the cost of education, that could be fixed overnight by allowing loans to be discharged. Colleges would instantly stop providing most humanities courses because they know the students won't be able to repay them because they provide no real world value
STEM degrees are essential for modern society, humanities degrees are pure luxury that could be replaced by just reading the course syllabus for free and discussing online or with local groups
As for the cost of education, that could be fixed overnight by allowing loans to be discharged. Colleges would instantly stop providing most humanities courses because they know the students won't be able to repay them because they provide no real world value
This is a reprehensible way to look at the world, one that is self-consuming: should we close scientific research labs because they're cost centers? Should we forbid exploratory work because it lacks a clear road to shareholder value?
And that's before we consider the intangible nature of "real world value." Very few of us want to live in a world where value is a pure function of expected production.
And that's before we consider the intangible nature of "real world value." Very few of us want to live in a world where value is a pure function of expected production.
>should we close scientific research labs because they're cost centers? Should we forbid exploratory work because it lacks a clear road to shareholder value?
closing implies the government does it by force, my point is that things that provide value- whether economic or more abstract, will be fine without government subsidizing it. Research labs have proven ROI and benefits for society, humanity majors no so much. If humanities majors had so much value companies would be paying for them or other nations governments would be recruiting these debt ridden students and poaching them to benefit their own country
Like I said, people can learn anything humanities related by reading free resources online. No need to rack up massive amounts of debt to do that
The fact you have to make a value judgement of it being "reprehensible" and act like without humanities majors we'll be "a world where value is a pure function of expected production" is a sign of a weak argument. It's a very common argument style I see of people stuck in the past with rose-tinted views of what college is about
closing implies the government does it by force, my point is that things that provide value- whether economic or more abstract, will be fine without government subsidizing it. Research labs have proven ROI and benefits for society, humanity majors no so much. If humanities majors had so much value companies would be paying for them or other nations governments would be recruiting these debt ridden students and poaching them to benefit their own country
Like I said, people can learn anything humanities related by reading free resources online. No need to rack up massive amounts of debt to do that
The fact you have to make a value judgement of it being "reprehensible" and act like without humanities majors we'll be "a world where value is a pure function of expected production" is a sign of a weak argument. It's a very common argument style I see of people stuck in the past with rose-tinted views of what college is about
> If humanities majors had so much value companies would be paying for them or other nations governments would be recruiting these debt ridden students and poaching them to benefit their own country
They do, all the time: as journalists, economists, political dissidents and, most saliently in this context, programmers. It turns out that obtaining a well-rounded education means that those who can program (or perform other technical roles) do so better than their purely technical counterparts!
You can learn anything online, with enough effort, discipline, and engagement from others. Lots of people try to learn programming (not Computer Science, just the technical aspect of programming) online each year, and I'd wager that the overwhelming majority fair. It turns out that the classroom environment is conducive to learning in ways that self-directed online learning is not!
Yes, it is a value judgment. It is one I stand by: it is reprehensible to eliminate sources of value in our society just because we don't have an instrument capable of measuring them. One wonders how many fewer adolescents and young adults would be inspired to study aerospace should Tom Wolfe have been told to study it instead of writing The Right Stuff; one also wonders whether we'd even be having this conversation over the Internet were it not for a bunch of "worthless" philosophizing in Viennese cafes over the nature of mathematical structure.
They do, all the time: as journalists, economists, political dissidents and, most saliently in this context, programmers. It turns out that obtaining a well-rounded education means that those who can program (or perform other technical roles) do so better than their purely technical counterparts!
You can learn anything online, with enough effort, discipline, and engagement from others. Lots of people try to learn programming (not Computer Science, just the technical aspect of programming) online each year, and I'd wager that the overwhelming majority fair. It turns out that the classroom environment is conducive to learning in ways that self-directed online learning is not!
Yes, it is a value judgment. It is one I stand by: it is reprehensible to eliminate sources of value in our society just because we don't have an instrument capable of measuring them. One wonders how many fewer adolescents and young adults would be inspired to study aerospace should Tom Wolfe have been told to study it instead of writing The Right Stuff; one also wonders whether we'd even be having this conversation over the Internet were it not for a bunch of "worthless" philosophizing in Viennese cafes over the nature of mathematical structure.
These analogies don't make sense. Scientific research and exploratory work have insane ROI, just look at DARPA. I can not say the same for a humanities degree.
Going into debt for a humanities degree is akin to consumer credit. The individual is free to take on that debt, but it is by no means an investment.
I do not think people should weight the intangible value of the degree that they are going 50k in debt for. Doing so will lead to the current student debt crisis.
Going into debt for a humanities degree is akin to consumer credit. The individual is free to take on that debt, but it is by no means an investment.
I do not think people should weight the intangible value of the degree that they are going 50k in debt for. Doing so will lead to the current student debt crisis.
> These analogies don't make sense. Scientific research and exploratory work have insane ROI,
Humanities teach you that life isn't a ROI thing.
Humanities teach you that life isn't a ROI thing.
"Humanities teach you that life isn't a ROI thing."
One could possibly acquire that particular knowledge for free.
Also, life may not be a ROI thing, but being heavily indebted is still misery. Do the teachers whose salaries depend on their students being heavily indebted teach that, or do they prefer not to talk about this issue? Or the administrators?
I would call it a material (and painful) lesson on conflicts of interest.
One could possibly acquire that particular knowledge for free.
Also, life may not be a ROI thing, but being heavily indebted is still misery. Do the teachers whose salaries depend on their students being heavily indebted teach that, or do they prefer not to talk about this issue? Or the administrators?
I would call it a material (and painful) lesson on conflicts of interest.
Then there is no student debt crisis. Good work on solving that one. We can continue paying schools with non forgivable loans and empowering them to charge a flat tuition no matter what the expected earnings of a degree are.
The world is perfect. Those students and society are getting their monies worth in intangible benefits.
The world is perfect. Those students and society are getting their monies worth in intangible benefits.
Ok, now introduce negative interest rates on cash to allow that to happen.
funny how I managed to learn that without a humanities degree
The death of universities cannot happen soon enough. If only to force them to genuinely re-evaluate all of their stupid decisions over the last 50 years so that future generations can avoid the same fate.
What "stupid decisions" are you identifying with the last 50 years? I can't think of a unifying theme in that timespan.
Whether or not the thing we call "universities" continues to exist into the indefinite future is not of particular concern to me.
The primary thing I'm concerning myself with in this conversation is the recurrent and myopic belief among the HN commentariat that everything, especially anything that isn't STEM, needs to fit into the bottom line of some profit structure to be worth any of society's time and effort.
Whether or not the thing we call "universities" continues to exist into the indefinite future is not of particular concern to me.
The primary thing I'm concerning myself with in this conversation is the recurrent and myopic belief among the HN commentariat that everything, especially anything that isn't STEM, needs to fit into the bottom line of some profit structure to be worth any of society's time and effort.
A college degree is a financial decision that has a benefit which should outweigh its cost. If it does not outweigh its cost (both in time and money spent), then you should be doing something else. All college degrees are not equal, whether or not they cost the same. Their cost being the same is the only reason you think these degrees have some level of equality; it seems hypocritical to judge others for their analysis of things based on dollar value when you ascribe value based on price.
> What "stupid decisions" are you identifying with the last 50 years? I can't think of a unifying theme in that timespan.
How about a severe and widening disconnect between the people paying for the loans, the people guaranteeing the loans, and the measurable value received by the recipient?
How about a severe and widening disconnect between the people paying for the loans, the people guaranteeing the loans, and the measurable value received by the recipient?
>profit structure
we are talking way more fundamental things here. If all of society suddenly had a ton of humanity major knowledge but no farming knowledge, society dies.
The government is only able to subsidize a luxury like humanities majors because all the other basic needs are taken care of by the miracles of technology created by engineers and physicists. Otherwise, everybody would still be doing subsistence farming to survive and wouldn't have time for the humanities anyway. You can't fake productivity and economic output, it all comes down to technology
we are talking way more fundamental things here. If all of society suddenly had a ton of humanity major knowledge but no farming knowledge, society dies.
The government is only able to subsidize a luxury like humanities majors because all the other basic needs are taken care of by the miracles of technology created by engineers and physicists. Otherwise, everybody would still be doing subsistence farming to survive and wouldn't have time for the humanities anyway. You can't fake productivity and economic output, it all comes down to technology
If those labs finance themselves via debt rather than research grants then yes.
Well, STEM degrees could also be replaced by just reading the course syllabus... It's just a lot harder, just like with humanities degrees.
>This is such a weird perspective. Look at any modern business. A lot of employees will have studied something in humanities. There are valuable skills (particularly writing and communication) that are learned in these degrees that might not be seen as valuable by your average techie.
they use it as an IQ filter, nothing more.
they use it as an IQ filter, nothing more.
Of course we have a more accurate IQ filter that costs basically nothing and takes hours, not years, but then poor people might pass the filter, and rich people might not, so we can't have that.
> A lot of employees will have studied something in humanities. There are valuable skills (particularly writing and communication) that are learned in these degrees that might not be seen as valuable by your average techie.
In my experience tech people value communication and clarity as much and maybe even more than your average person. Try to write code that would be unintelligible to your colleagues. You are not going to get praised for that.
> The problem is not "useless degrees" (they're all useful, regardless of what you may think of them), the problem is insane cost of education.
Absolutely useless. It is ridiculous to think that it should require 14+ years of schooling to learn to communicate.
In my experience tech people value communication and clarity as much and maybe even more than your average person. Try to write code that would be unintelligible to your colleagues. You are not going to get praised for that.
> The problem is not "useless degrees" (they're all useful, regardless of what you may think of them), the problem is insane cost of education.
Absolutely useless. It is ridiculous to think that it should require 14+ years of schooling to learn to communicate.
>There are valuable skills (particularly writing and communication) that are learned in these degrees that might not be seen as valuable by your average techie.
That's true, as someone working in tech I admit, I am illiterate. I cannot read or write. My communication is very poor. I normally just scream until someone from HR brings me more snackies.
That's true, as someone working in tech I admit, I am illiterate. I cannot read or write. My communication is very poor. I normally just scream until someone from HR brings me more snackies.
Well, you can't punctuate.
The writing and communication skills needed for business are taught in school (at least they should be)
If you need to spend 4 years learning how to write and communicate effectively you probably shouldn't be going to university in the first place.
Interesting post on HN yesterday,
"Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32889072
suggests that effective writing could be a social good, and that apparently it does not come naturally.
suggests that effective writing could be a social good, and that apparently it does not come naturally.
sure. Then do you also agree that if you need to spend 4 years learning how to write effective software you probably shouldn't go to university either?
Your basic point is that education is worthless. What do you propose as a substitute? And please explain also why it is better at the scale of a society?
Given your view on the ease of effective writing, it is fair to expect that your answer is well structured at the level of the entire essay, the paragraph, and the sentence. Your reply should also include appropriate historical references demonstrating your points.
If you cannot meet that standard, then by your own argument you have proved yourself wrong.
Your basic point is that education is worthless. What do you propose as a substitute? And please explain also why it is better at the scale of a society?
Given your view on the ease of effective writing, it is fair to expect that your answer is well structured at the level of the entire essay, the paragraph, and the sentence. Your reply should also include appropriate historical references demonstrating your points.
If you cannot meet that standard, then by your own argument you have proved yourself wrong.
> Then do you also agree that if you need to spend 4 years learning how to write effective software you probably shouldn't go to university either?
The scope of writing for effective communication and writing software are very different, but I do also agree with this. SE and CS degrees aren't for writing software though.
I think specialized education has far fewer benefits than most people think. Basic language and mathematical skills are a good baseline, but expecting to teach the whole population advanced algebra for instance, does not seem productive. It's why people question what they were taught in school.
> If you cannot meet that standard, then by your own argument you have proved yourself wrong
Funny you say that, since I have always had good English without trying and my communication skills have been commented on by a number of different people I've worked with so my perspective on this is somewhat biased.
The scope of writing for effective communication and writing software are very different, but I do also agree with this. SE and CS degrees aren't for writing software though.
I think specialized education has far fewer benefits than most people think. Basic language and mathematical skills are a good baseline, but expecting to teach the whole population advanced algebra for instance, does not seem productive. It's why people question what they were taught in school.
> If you cannot meet that standard, then by your own argument you have proved yourself wrong
Funny you say that, since I have always had good English without trying and my communication skills have been commented on by a number of different people I've worked with so my perspective on this is somewhat biased.
> my communication skills have been commented on by a number of different people I've worked with so my perspective on this is somewhat biased.
I want to first give you full credit for an honest and thoughtful debate, in the true spirit of HN. You have my respect.
Second, I fully believe that you have exceptional talent in communication.
That bias, however, is the issue. You do it naturally. You also point out that this is exceptional. What do we do with the 90% of the population who are not exceptionally gifted? Maybe they would benefit from a structured approach which trains them on the skills which come to you naturally?
Same for many other things. The best programmers I've known all were really good without the Uni education. And the structured education of a good masters program brought them to a new level.
Danger! sports analogy. You can't play in the majors without a great deal of natural talent. But the people with talent ANSD specialized training ("intentional practice", "good coaching", or however else you want to phrase "education") are going to dominate.
I want to first give you full credit for an honest and thoughtful debate, in the true spirit of HN. You have my respect.
Second, I fully believe that you have exceptional talent in communication.
That bias, however, is the issue. You do it naturally. You also point out that this is exceptional. What do we do with the 90% of the population who are not exceptionally gifted? Maybe they would benefit from a structured approach which trains them on the skills which come to you naturally?
Same for many other things. The best programmers I've known all were really good without the Uni education. And the structured education of a good masters program brought them to a new level.
Danger! sports analogy. You can't play in the majors without a great deal of natural talent. But the people with talent ANSD specialized training ("intentional practice", "good coaching", or however else you want to phrase "education") are going to dominate.
> It's why people question what they were taught in school.
Respectfully, there has also been a multi-decade large scale concerted attack by big business and the US Republican party with the explicit aim of getting people to question education and teachers.
And please make the distinction between what was taught and what was learned. If you go back and look at what the teachers had on the curriculum you might be surprised.
Respectfully, there has also been a multi-decade large scale concerted attack by big business and the US Republican party with the explicit aim of getting people to question education and teachers.
And please make the distinction between what was taught and what was learned. If you go back and look at what the teachers had on the curriculum you might be surprised.
Can you imagine a degree that would be useless? Any degree?
>This is one of the biggest scams in history.
What's the deception here? Was the government going around saying how much money you could earn from a humanities degree? Statistics about earning potential degrees of degrees were available for decades. Caveat emptor.
What's the deception here? Was the government going around saying how much money you could earn from a humanities degree? Statistics about earning potential degrees of degrees were available for decades. Caveat emptor.
> Was the government going around saying how much money you could earn from a humanities degree?
Obama 2015:
"the single most important way to get ahead is not just to get a high school education, you’ve got to get some higher education. That’s why all of you are here."
"But you’re also here, now more than ever, because a college degree is the surest ticket to the middle class. It is the key to getting a good job that pays a good income -- and to provide you the security where even if you don't have the same job for 30 years, you're so adaptable and you have a skill set and the capacity to learn new skills, it ensures you're always employable."
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...
Obama 2015:
"the single most important way to get ahead is not just to get a high school education, you’ve got to get some higher education. That’s why all of you are here."
"But you’re also here, now more than ever, because a college degree is the surest ticket to the middle class. It is the key to getting a good job that pays a good income -- and to provide you the security where even if you don't have the same job for 30 years, you're so adaptable and you have a skill set and the capacity to learn new skills, it ensures you're always employable."
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...
Isn't this mostly true? The net present value of a college degree is estimated to be around half a million dollars. He also stops short of saying that you get the aforementioned benefits with any degree.
> The net present value of a college degree is estimated to be around half a million dollars.
Then why do people with college degrees need bailing out?
Then why do people with college degrees need bailing out?
Because net and annual are different measurements. It's entirely possible to have an added net production of half a million dollars from a college degree and be swimming in immediately due debt from that degree.
Then restructure the debt. There's no need to provide further subsidies to citizens who are already half a million dollars ahead of other Americans.
It’s not the ones with crushing long term debt that are half a million dollars ahead. Further the creditors are much wealthier than the debtors. Disadvantaging middle-upper class people in their fight against the upper class isn’t necessarily going to mean equality.
Just allow the debt to be discharged conditionally. That’s in my mind the cleanest and fairest way to deal with this issue.
Just allow the debt to be discharged conditionally. That’s in my mind the cleanest and fairest way to deal with this issue.
The creditors is the American public via the may's.
No, it is not clean and fair to allow someone who spent 4 years getting a degree that will put them ahead of the non-degree-citizens and then force the non-degree-citizens to subsidize it.
It is nothing more than theft.
No, it is not clean and fair to allow someone who spent 4 years getting a degree that will put them ahead of the non-degree-citizens and then force the non-degree-citizens to subsidize it.
It is nothing more than theft.
He should have said, "caveat, if you major in STEM."
Which would eliminate about 93% of his audience
https://hbr.org/2019/10/americans-need-to-get-over-their-fea....
Which would eliminate about 93% of his audience
https://hbr.org/2019/10/americans-need-to-get-over-their-fea....
I don't know what you consider government, but the public schools I attended constantly told students that you had to go to college to be successful, no matter what degree you got.
>but the public schools I attended constantly told students that you had to go to college to be successful, no matter what degree you got.
I'm not sure what the exact messaging your school told, but I imagine it's something to the effect of "degree holders earn x% more than non-degree holders on average", which is a true statement. The "on average" part might not been stressed, but anyone with rudimentary knowledge of how the labor market works (ie. some jobs pay more than other jobs) should be able to figure out that earning potential by degree varies.
I'm not sure what the exact messaging your school told, but I imagine it's something to the effect of "degree holders earn x% more than non-degree holders on average", which is a true statement. The "on average" part might not been stressed, but anyone with rudimentary knowledge of how the labor market works (ie. some jobs pay more than other jobs) should be able to figure out that earning potential by degree varies.
> I'm not sure what the exact messaging your school told
It's been a long time, but if I recall correctly, funding and rankings were partially determined by the number of high school graduates continuing on to college. There was constant pressure to take the right classes and participate in the right activities to meet college admissions requirements. The messaging came from administrators, teachers and counselors.
It's been a long time, but if I recall correctly, funding and rankings were partially determined by the number of high school graduates continuing on to college. There was constant pressure to take the right classes and participate in the right activities to meet college admissions requirements. The messaging came from administrators, teachers and counselors.
The rudimentary knowledge in question (and the cognitive tools to work through the implications) are supposed to be provided by the very institutions deceiving students.
The educational system utterly fails at equipping every graduate with the knowledge and skills to succeed in the modern economy in the 14 years they have already. Why are we giving them four more years of everyone’s life and hundreds of billions of dollars more money?
The educational system utterly fails at equipping every graduate with the knowledge and skills to succeed in the modern economy in the 14 years they have already. Why are we giving them four more years of everyone’s life and hundreds of billions of dollars more money?
[deleted]
To a certain degree that's revealed itself to be true (if self-fulfilling). Many jobs that don't require a college degree hire college grads because they can get them and these days not having a college degree is, similar to not having a job currently, a red-flag.
> Many jobs that don't require a college degree hire college grads because they can get them
Exactly, that's the scam. Requiring a 'Tax' that you pay the college that is nothing but a useless piece of paper, that makes you lose years and enslave you in debt.
Exactly, that's the scam. Requiring a 'Tax' that you pay the college that is nothing but a useless piece of paper, that makes you lose years and enslave you in debt.
I think it all depends on whether you expect the deception to involve some degree of malice. While there are certainly malicious individual actors and institutions that we can point to and blame, this is on a systematic level in which the system itself is the scam, and with little distinction between the deceivers and the deceived; perpetuated by belief, and strengthened by competition and demand. It favors only the very few who either lucked out, e.g. by choosing a profitable degree, or those who figured out how to game the system, the opportunists; neither of whom designed the scam nor run it. In fact, it was never designed to be a scam. It's simply an aged system that now must be run as one in order to stay relevant and survive.
The deception is in the belief itself, and the government has a tremendous power to shatter it, yet they choose not to.
The deception is in the belief itself, and the government has a tremendous power to shatter it, yet they choose not to.
I really like your wording and simplicity of response; I might abstract and repurpose it for my own use.
Thank you! Do with it whatever you like. :)
The deception is the government guaranteeing these loans and then the students defaulting on them, which results in the taxpayers paying. Furthermore, the colleges continuously raise prices because they know they will get the money, regardless, if the student defaults. This is why college is so expensive in America.
>The deception is the government guaranteeing these loans and then the students defaulting on them, which results in the taxpayers paying
Who got deceived here? If you were told that the government would be guaranteeing loans, then it follows that they're potentially on the hook if the loan goes bad. That's not something that's hidden, it's literally part of the definition of what guaranteeing loans mean.
>Furthermore, the colleges continuously raise prices because they know they will get the money, regardless, if the student defaults.
That sounds more like unintended consequences than deception.
Who got deceived here? If you were told that the government would be guaranteeing loans, then it follows that they're potentially on the hook if the loan goes bad. That's not something that's hidden, it's literally part of the definition of what guaranteeing loans mean.
>Furthermore, the colleges continuously raise prices because they know they will get the money, regardless, if the student defaults.
That sounds more like unintended consequences than deception.
My government school did have messaging to that effect. I knew it was bullshit, but lots of people believed them.
Were they imploring people to get degrees with poor career prospects, or just degrees in general?
They said something to the effect of "any" degree is valuable and can get you a good job.
This can only be a failure of the student though. It doesn’t take much common sense or computer skills to Google which degrees can actually aid in getting you a job. You could say some blame is on parenting as well, which is true. However, the colleges can and should be able to charge whatever prices they want for whatever services they provide.
The only standard the college should be held to us complying with false advertising rules and laws. They shouldn’t be allowed to market a degree that can’t get you a job as one that can.
The only standard the college should be held to us complying with false advertising rules and laws. They shouldn’t be allowed to market a degree that can’t get you a job as one that can.
Did they fix the inability to discharge student loans via bankruptcy? Obviously as long as colleges have a special exemption from normal market forces, they shouldn't be allowed to charge as much as they want.
Why should students be able to get loans for degrees with poor economic outlook? I don't think that's a good investment for the government.
The colleges are responsible for knowing which students will have which income prospects for which degrees? How would you possibly enforce that?
I'm surprised this top comment has basically nothing backing it up. There are plenty of people with degrees in things like Geology, Psychology, Biology, and Architecture (all 'STEM') with a ton of loans. These degrees tend not to be that lucrative without further higher education.
When most people say STEM, they mean T, namely compsci, and they mostly mean a job at Google.
S/E/M aren't as appreciated.
S/E/M aren't as appreciated.
> and they mostly mean a job at Google.
I don't wish ill on anyone, but hopefully the incoming recession will re-balance the incentives once more, it's crazy to see all this hate addressed at humanities on a website/forum set-up by a guy made "famous" (among the geek "elites") for writing a book called "Hackers and Painters". Must be those crazy high comps, they now allow them to ignore almost anything in life that's related to "painters".
I don't wish ill on anyone, but hopefully the incoming recession will re-balance the incentives once more, it's crazy to see all this hate addressed at humanities on a website/forum set-up by a guy made "famous" (among the geek "elites") for writing a book called "Hackers and Painters". Must be those crazy high comps, they now allow them to ignore almost anything in life that's related to "painters".
Psychology as STEM is a stretch.
How is psychology not science?
Psychology is a pseudo science because it doesn't not make testable predictions.
It does tho lol.
Yes, look at those broke-ass losers like... Checks notes Peter Thiel, who studied philosophy, or Jack Ma, who studied English. Bill Gates was pre-law until he dropped out.
This is not true. There is an oversaturation of stem degrees as well. Over 90% of stem majors do not find a job in their field or STEM.
Source for this data? 90% of STEM majors do not find a job in their field or STEM? That sounds very high.
Stem includes physics, chemistry, biology, and math. I don’t know much about chem and bio, but I know firsthand there aren’t a lot of jobs for undergraduate math and physics majors. The biggest employer of physics majors at my school was the uspto.
In my experience, the majority of the education time for STEM degrees is useless as well. Hell, a good chunk of the time isn't even spent on STEM (IE, you'll have required humanities and art classes as part of your STEM degree). But even much of the STEM classes are often a waste, focusing on things that students never use again and quickly forget (not just my own experience, but based on taking with classmates the next semester and people who had gotten their degree several years before).
Since some STEM fields are well paying, people think argue they aren't as much of a waste of money. But they still suffer from excessive cost (both monetary and time) and the bloat of useless classes that other degrees do.
Since some STEM fields are well paying, people think argue they aren't as much of a waste of money. But they still suffer from excessive cost (both monetary and time) and the bloat of useless classes that other degrees do.
> the problem is in humanities, arts, etc.
Not even, really. Average student loan debt for new graduates (Bachelors) with loans last year was $28K. Even for someone with a humanities degree, that's far from an insurmountable debt to pay over 10 years. It's obviously higher for people getting graduate degrees, law degrees, medical school, etc., but so is their compensation. The stories you hear about people racking up $200K in debt to get a Bachelors in Art History range from extreme outliers to basically memes. I support reform, but there's so much misinformation in this space it's ridiculous. A one time debt forgiveness isn't even "reform" IMO, as we're going to be right back where we started in a few years.
Not even, really. Average student loan debt for new graduates (Bachelors) with loans last year was $28K. Even for someone with a humanities degree, that's far from an insurmountable debt to pay over 10 years. It's obviously higher for people getting graduate degrees, law degrees, medical school, etc., but so is their compensation. The stories you hear about people racking up $200K in debt to get a Bachelors in Art History range from extreme outliers to basically memes. I support reform, but there's so much misinformation in this space it's ridiculous. A one time debt forgiveness isn't even "reform" IMO, as we're going to be right back where we started in a few years.
Yet, we shouldn't abandon humanities education.
I don't think we should abandon it, but if you want to pay 500k usd for you degree on french poetry in the 17th century, you should pay for it yourself.
You keep bringing up these 500K degrees, but I'm not aware of any schools that charge anything close to that for a degree. The most expensive college I could find wouldn't come close to that after 4 years, and that's a hyperspecialized school for people with disabilities[1].
Having come from a liberal arts program: excellence there is a strong predictor for general workforce competence, including in technical fields (like I am now). I studied 18th century German philosophy, and now I work on compilers. But even this shouldn't be a necessary justification: developing our understanding of history, society, and the human condition is sufficient in itself.
[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-expensive-colle...
Having come from a liberal arts program: excellence there is a strong predictor for general workforce competence, including in technical fields (like I am now). I studied 18th century German philosophy, and now I work on compilers. But even this shouldn't be a necessary justification: developing our understanding of history, society, and the human condition is sufficient in itself.
[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-expensive-colle...
Tuition in many colleges is over 80k usd/year.
No, it isn't. The article I directly linked to has the most expensive colleges in the US, and none are over 80k a year. And that's the vanishingly small minority; the largest colleges in the US are in-state schools with large populations paying (generally) under ~10k/year. For my state (NY, an expensive one), it's almost exactly 10k[1]. Even for out-of-state, it's well under half of 80k (with everything included, not just tuition).
[1]: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/stony-brook-suny-2838/p...
[1]: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/stony-brook-suny-2838/p...
Why not the opposite?
Me getting a STEM education will pay me back quickly. Thus I can afford to pay for it.
Society probably need someone to do those other things as well, which don't pay as much. So therefore we should pay for it.
Me getting a STEM education will pay me back quickly. Thus I can afford to pay for it.
Society probably need someone to do those other things as well, which don't pay as much. So therefore we should pay for it.
Can you point me to an example of a $500k USD degree on French poetry in the 17th century? Or anything similar?
Yes, it seemed so, and thus not helpful for the discussion. But, you can see in the other branch of the thread, that commenter seemed to believe the hyperbole as fact.
Horrifying take. Typical of /hn/ when it comes to stuff like this, unfortunately.
Suppose someone wants to spend the posited $500K on that degree. If not them, who should pay for it?
The premise here doesn't match reality: nobody wants to (much less is, to a rounding error) paying $500k for a degree.
Nobody should pay for it directly. It should be virtually free to go to college, the way it is everywhere else in the developed world. It should be that way because it's single most obvious investment and high-returning investment any country can make in its future.
Nobody should pay for it directly. It should be virtually free to go to college, the way it is everywhere else in the developed world. It should be that way because it's single most obvious investment and high-returning investment any country can make in its future.
>It should be virtually free to go to college
If you are going to invest into something, it should be good investment that gives returns. An Useless degree clearly do not give enough returns not even to pay for itself.
If you are going to invest into something, it should be good investment that gives returns. An Useless degree clearly do not give enough returns not even to pay for itself.
"Nothing is free" is an aphorism. Read the comment again: the direct cost of attending university in most developed countries is close to $0. In other words: it's free for the attending individuals, because the country understands that investing in education is in its own self interest.
Whatever your particular country's failures are might be unfortunate, but they don't counteract the track record of success here. It might be worth considering whether both of our countries would do well to change, rather than presuming that your country's failure will also be mine's.
Whatever your particular country's failures are might be unfortunate, but they don't counteract the track record of success here. It might be worth considering whether both of our countries would do well to change, rather than presuming that your country's failure will also be mine's.
> If you are going to invest into something, it should be good investment that gives returns. An Useless degree clearly do not give enough returns not even to pay for itself.
You're assuming that individuals capture the entirety of the value they generate for society (and that they do so exclusively in the form of income), which is essentially never the case.
You're assuming that individuals capture the entirety of the value they generate for society (and that they do so exclusively in the form of income), which is essentially never the case.
You are disingenuous, I have seen plenty of comments on HN that say you should take on $100k/year degrees and be allowed to go in that much debt even if you are poor and have no prospects of ever paying it back. There are actually people on this planet who think this is normal and should be encouraged. I'm not one of them.
I'm not compelled to defend random HN comments, especially ones that don't have any particular basis in reality. The overwhelming majority of US undergraduates pay a tiny fraction of that for their entire undergraduate career.
Is there any amount of money or any study-able topic that you would acknowledge is, perhaps, not the single most obvious and high-returning investment a country can make?
If so, we're already agreeing in principle and just disagreeing where the line is.
If so, we're already agreeing in principle and just disagreeing where the line is.
I'm not sure I understand the "horrifying" part - is paying for your own loan it?
No.
We don’t have to abandon it. But we don’t need to subsidize it with public funding.
Choosing which degrees to support faces all of the problems of central planning. One problem is that if colleges are told to create more STEM degrees than the number of students who are already capable of studying for those degrees, it will encourage the creation of empty "STEM" degrees like "bachelor of arts in information studies" that are even more useless than an English major because everybody will know why those degree were created.
It also creates boom-and-bust cycles. I graduated with a degree in physics, just as the Cold War collapsed and mandatory retirement for professors was outlawed. There was an absolute glut of physicists all looking for jobs at once.
It also creates boom-and-bust cycles. I graduated with a degree in physics, just as the Cold War collapsed and mandatory retirement for professors was outlawed. There was an absolute glut of physicists all looking for jobs at once.
When you’re talking about public subsidization, you have to engage in central planning.
Or at least should engage in central planning. If you're spending billions of dollars, maybe a little planning is a good thing, even if it's centralized.
We should subsidize it at community colleges with large cohort sizes and commensurate lower marginal costs.
We should not subsidize it at schools trying to play the rankings game with artificially small cohort sizes and commensurate high costs to the taxpayer for no additional payoff.
Why should we subsidize it at all? Because it's a public good.
We should not subsidize it at schools trying to play the rankings game with artificially small cohort sizes and commensurate high costs to the taxpayer for no additional payoff.
Why should we subsidize it at all? Because it's a public good.
Calling things “public goods” is hand waving to gloss over value judgments. Why is teaching humanities a public good?
It's a public good because of non-excludable positive externalities on our polity, and that's not reflected in the market price due to market failure. The positive externalities are having voters that understand history, sociology, political science and economics. This is good because it prevents populism and because it creates voters who are able to critically evaluate public policy.
> This is good because it prevents populism and because it creates voters who are able to critically evaluate public policy.
I certainly do not believe in the slightest that humanities graduates can “critically evaluate public policy” any better than, say, STEM graduates. In fact, they’re probably worse. They were the ones pushing Marxism on Americans back in the day and similar insanities today, like eg. demonizing and defunding the police. I believe that it makes them negative externality.
Now, you may of course disagree. But the point is that there is no agreement that they are a public good.
I certainly do not believe in the slightest that humanities graduates can “critically evaluate public policy” any better than, say, STEM graduates. In fact, they’re probably worse. They were the ones pushing Marxism on Americans back in the day and similar insanities today, like eg. demonizing and defunding the police. I believe that it makes them negative externality.
Now, you may of course disagree. But the point is that there is no agreement that they are a public good.
> I certainly do not believe in the slightest that humanities graduates can “critically evaluate public policy” any better than, say, STEM graduates.
They are better at evaluating certain types of policies than STEM graduates.
I've met a lot of engineers who are incapable of understanding what a social construct is, or the societal consequences of hate speech, or who don't know what market failure is, or who are totally ignorant of the history of slavery and the indigenous genocide, who don't know anything about international relations, or various other things which are just child's play for humanities graduates which all have deep relevance to certain policies. This shows me that a polity with just STEM graduates and tradespeople is a polity that can't function properly. Without humanities education (whether self-education or otherwise), the only response to Biden talking about "white supremacy" in his speech is pitchforks and fascism, because voters miss the reasons why Biden would make such an utterance. The only response to a carbon tax is pitchforks, because they don't even understand what a market failure is. The only response to transgender protection is pitchforks, because they don't even know what a social construct is. STEM graduates don't know what they don't know, and they label their blind spots as negative externalities out of a combination of supreme arrogance (primarily), ignorance and confusion.
Policy evaluation isn't really the main point. The antidote to populism is the point.
> demonizing and defunding the police.
The topic of police demonstrates my point. It's only people from a humanities background that showed an interest in critiquing the police, and they were the ones running the studies on policing going back decades. The STEM folks had zero interest. They'd rather ignore the situation rather than study and address it. That's why society can't function with just STEM graduates. They don't know what they don't know.
> But the point is that there is no agreement that they are a public good.
I understand that fascists and nationalists and right-wingers are against humanities education because it provides an antidote to their toxic ideology. And that's about 30% of the population against it by default. Argumentum ad populum. That doesn't detract from the correctness of what I'm saying.
They are better at evaluating certain types of policies than STEM graduates.
I've met a lot of engineers who are incapable of understanding what a social construct is, or the societal consequences of hate speech, or who don't know what market failure is, or who are totally ignorant of the history of slavery and the indigenous genocide, who don't know anything about international relations, or various other things which are just child's play for humanities graduates which all have deep relevance to certain policies. This shows me that a polity with just STEM graduates and tradespeople is a polity that can't function properly. Without humanities education (whether self-education or otherwise), the only response to Biden talking about "white supremacy" in his speech is pitchforks and fascism, because voters miss the reasons why Biden would make such an utterance. The only response to a carbon tax is pitchforks, because they don't even understand what a market failure is. The only response to transgender protection is pitchforks, because they don't even know what a social construct is. STEM graduates don't know what they don't know, and they label their blind spots as negative externalities out of a combination of supreme arrogance (primarily), ignorance and confusion.
Policy evaluation isn't really the main point. The antidote to populism is the point.
> demonizing and defunding the police.
The topic of police demonstrates my point. It's only people from a humanities background that showed an interest in critiquing the police, and they were the ones running the studies on policing going back decades. The STEM folks had zero interest. They'd rather ignore the situation rather than study and address it. That's why society can't function with just STEM graduates. They don't know what they don't know.
> But the point is that there is no agreement that they are a public good.
I understand that fascists and nationalists and right-wingers are against humanities education because it provides an antidote to their toxic ideology. And that's about 30% of the population against it by default. Argumentum ad populum. That doesn't detract from the correctness of what I'm saying.
> This shows me that a polity with just STEM graduates and tradespeople is a polity that can't function properly.
The word “properly” does a lot of work here. In context of the previous sentences, it most straightforwardly means “it cannot function according to the left-wing likings”. And I very much agree with this: if humanities department (as they currently exists) were actually calling the shots, the society would indeed “function properly”, i.e. it would be left wing in all its policies. However, nobody then should be surprised that the right wingers most certainly do not consider funding humanities departments to be public goods: they believe that what these departments promote is in fact the opposite of good.
The rest of your comment is some sort of weird attempt to convince me that the society ran only by STEM grads would actually not be good, which is not the view I ever espoused: note how I added “say, STEM graduates”, which clearly implies that they are just an example. I hope that you do not actually have a humanities degree, otherwise you should ask them for you money back!
> I understand that fascists and nationalists and right-wingers are against humanities education because it provides an antidote to their toxic ideology.
I guess it’s easy to assume that your opponents are just wrong and “toxic” in everything they say, but if you make them understand that a reasoned discussion with you is impossible, given how you dismiss it all a priori, they might come to a conclusion that the only way to achieve their goals is, as Clausewitz said, politics by other means. This is an extremely dangerous way to proceed, and I think you should not be so convinced about your side’s invincibility. The society is negotiated peace, and you’d better work to make future negotiations possible.
The word “properly” does a lot of work here. In context of the previous sentences, it most straightforwardly means “it cannot function according to the left-wing likings”. And I very much agree with this: if humanities department (as they currently exists) were actually calling the shots, the society would indeed “function properly”, i.e. it would be left wing in all its policies. However, nobody then should be surprised that the right wingers most certainly do not consider funding humanities departments to be public goods: they believe that what these departments promote is in fact the opposite of good.
The rest of your comment is some sort of weird attempt to convince me that the society ran only by STEM grads would actually not be good, which is not the view I ever espoused: note how I added “say, STEM graduates”, which clearly implies that they are just an example. I hope that you do not actually have a humanities degree, otherwise you should ask them for you money back!
> I understand that fascists and nationalists and right-wingers are against humanities education because it provides an antidote to their toxic ideology.
I guess it’s easy to assume that your opponents are just wrong and “toxic” in everything they say, but if you make them understand that a reasoned discussion with you is impossible, given how you dismiss it all a priori, they might come to a conclusion that the only way to achieve their goals is, as Clausewitz said, politics by other means. This is an extremely dangerous way to proceed, and I think you should not be so convinced about your side’s invincibility. The society is negotiated peace, and you’d better work to make future negotiations possible.
You seem to strangely think that the liberal arts uniquely boosts left-wing policy as if that's not true for knowledge and education generally. The glimmer of fact you've observed is that useful domains inform change, and change happens to be advocated for by the left most of the time. Medical sciences, part of traditional STEM, informed the covid response, and surprise, the reactionaries were against that. Climatology, same story. Transgender treatment, which is psychiatry and peadiatrics, same story. So it's not liberal arts per se. It's just facts of the world that justify change, and reactionaries who are opposed to any change (unless it points in the direction of allowing negative externalities such as pollution to persist or right-wing authoritarianism) regardless of the discipline it's informed by, STEM or liberal arts.
Further, neoclassical economics is typically considered a centre-right or at least neoliberal paradigm and is taught to all econ students. The way of addressing market failure that I mentioned (e.g carbon tax) is actually a right wing preferred response to climate change. It's only the hard right which doesn't understand this and opposes a carbon tax. Perfect example of the need for liberal arts. The educated old-school fiscal conservatives know better. Because they are educated in these topics.
International relations which can inform non-pacifist intervention is taught by the liberal arts. At least this domain is not tied to the left-right spectrum in any way. It's simply informing foreign policy. It's pretty valuable to have voters who know foreign policy, left or right!
The solution, going by your opinion that no left-wing boosting thing should be funded, is clearly not to defund climatology, medicine, sociology, history, economics and international relations. You don't stop agitation for change. You just get uninformed agitation like the Bolsheviks. A smart left that is capable of picking and choosing what to change is a necessity, because their moral impulse to drive needed change in the face of perceived unfairness isn't going away by removing their education.
I consider myself to be center-right economically, in favor of lower taxes and lean regulation and smaller entitlements, so my comment is about the anti-intellectual reactionary right. I can see eye to eye with non-science denying anti-authoritarians individualists (which is to mean non-nationalists, for example, because nationalism is a collectivist morality) on both the left and the right.
Further, neoclassical economics is typically considered a centre-right or at least neoliberal paradigm and is taught to all econ students. The way of addressing market failure that I mentioned (e.g carbon tax) is actually a right wing preferred response to climate change. It's only the hard right which doesn't understand this and opposes a carbon tax. Perfect example of the need for liberal arts. The educated old-school fiscal conservatives know better. Because they are educated in these topics.
International relations which can inform non-pacifist intervention is taught by the liberal arts. At least this domain is not tied to the left-right spectrum in any way. It's simply informing foreign policy. It's pretty valuable to have voters who know foreign policy, left or right!
The solution, going by your opinion that no left-wing boosting thing should be funded, is clearly not to defund climatology, medicine, sociology, history, economics and international relations. You don't stop agitation for change. You just get uninformed agitation like the Bolsheviks. A smart left that is capable of picking and choosing what to change is a necessity, because their moral impulse to drive needed change in the face of perceived unfairness isn't going away by removing their education.
"I guess it’s easy to assume that your opponents are just wrong and “toxic” in everything they say"
I consider myself to be center-right economically, in favor of lower taxes and lean regulation and smaller entitlements, so my comment is about the anti-intellectual reactionary right. I can see eye to eye with non-science denying anti-authoritarians individualists (which is to mean non-nationalists, for example, because nationalism is a collectivist morality) on both the left and the right.
> You seem to strangely think that the liberal arts uniquely boosts left-wing policy as if that's not true for knowledge and education generally.
Why then education and knowledge boosted right wing policy as recently as 15 years ago? As recently as 20 years ago, college graduates were something like 50% more likely to identify as republican than democrat. How could that be?
> change happens to be advocated for by the left most of the time
Yes, and that change is often very much a bad thing, and the “experts” advocating for it are very much wrong. Consider, for example, the transgender issue you brought up. In UK and Sweden, for example, “experts” on transgender care for past few years have advocated similar policies to the ones advocated for by “experts” in US today. In past few months, however, “experts” in both countries had a big turnaround there, and now very much advocate against policies promoted in US (eg. against puberty blockers, surgeries for minors etc). Regardless of which “experts” are right, the others are wrong. If ours are wrong, they are doing indeed criminal damage to children. Who will oppose them? Same point can be made about COVID “experts”, or, to a lesser degree, climate change policy.
That’s the problem with experts: if people notice they are full of shit (and you often don’t even need a lot of expertise for that, when policy proposals are completely incoherent, like “keep churches closed but strip clubs open”), the whole notion that education is a public good really stops being so convincing, and for good reason too.
> You don't stop agitation for change. You just get uninformed agitation like the Bolsheviks.
So I should keep funding humanities, otherwise they’ll start murderous revolution? I, uh, remain unconvinced.
In all, the fact of the matter is that trust in institutions and in media is steadily falling down, and this makes me happy, because I don’t believe they deserved much of this for last 30 years or so, and what trust their predecessors have earned, they are working very hard at squandering. On their carcasses, new life will grow once again.
Why then education and knowledge boosted right wing policy as recently as 15 years ago? As recently as 20 years ago, college graduates were something like 50% more likely to identify as republican than democrat. How could that be?
> change happens to be advocated for by the left most of the time
Yes, and that change is often very much a bad thing, and the “experts” advocating for it are very much wrong. Consider, for example, the transgender issue you brought up. In UK and Sweden, for example, “experts” on transgender care for past few years have advocated similar policies to the ones advocated for by “experts” in US today. In past few months, however, “experts” in both countries had a big turnaround there, and now very much advocate against policies promoted in US (eg. against puberty blockers, surgeries for minors etc). Regardless of which “experts” are right, the others are wrong. If ours are wrong, they are doing indeed criminal damage to children. Who will oppose them? Same point can be made about COVID “experts”, or, to a lesser degree, climate change policy.
That’s the problem with experts: if people notice they are full of shit (and you often don’t even need a lot of expertise for that, when policy proposals are completely incoherent, like “keep churches closed but strip clubs open”), the whole notion that education is a public good really stops being so convincing, and for good reason too.
> You don't stop agitation for change. You just get uninformed agitation like the Bolsheviks.
So I should keep funding humanities, otherwise they’ll start murderous revolution? I, uh, remain unconvinced.
In all, the fact of the matter is that trust in institutions and in media is steadily falling down, and this makes me happy, because I don’t believe they deserved much of this for last 30 years or so, and what trust their predecessors have earned, they are working very hard at squandering. On their carcasses, new life will grow once again.
I've already outlined the dichotomy between educated old-school free trade fiscal conservatives (basically, me), a dying breed, which is a position informed by an understanding of economics (comparative advantage and so on) and the modern reactionary conservatives who reject economics (along with all other liberal arts and sciences) in favor of their populist agenda. The emergence of the latter is all the more reason in support of a liberal arts education. The last 15 years has seen the polity fracture along educational lines, and the consequences that are on display. It used to be along wealth lines.
The trans treatment issue and covid response issue is just like any other intersection of academic study and public policy. You balance the pros and cons based on the empirical evidence. Sometimes policy makers may get that balance wrong one way or the other. Treatment may lead to life-destroying outcomes X percent of the time, but lack of treatment can lead to life destroying outcomes (e.g empirically increased chance of suicide) Y percent of the time. Lockdowns are a trade off between your freedom of movement and the freedom of old people to not die. It's not an easy issue, because you've got the incomplete and evolving science on the one hand, and public morality on the other, combined with a dash of administrative incompetence. So you shouldn't presume that getting the balance wrong in one direction is criminality but getting it wrong in the other (thereby increasing suicides) isn't, or that there's any better alternative that involves uneducated people making such decisions.
The trans treatment issue and covid response issue is just like any other intersection of academic study and public policy. You balance the pros and cons based on the empirical evidence. Sometimes policy makers may get that balance wrong one way or the other. Treatment may lead to life-destroying outcomes X percent of the time, but lack of treatment can lead to life destroying outcomes (e.g empirically increased chance of suicide) Y percent of the time. Lockdowns are a trade off between your freedom of movement and the freedom of old people to not die. It's not an easy issue, because you've got the incomplete and evolving science on the one hand, and public morality on the other, combined with a dash of administrative incompetence. So you shouldn't presume that getting the balance wrong in one direction is criminality but getting it wrong in the other (thereby increasing suicides) isn't, or that there's any better alternative that involves uneducated people making such decisions.
"So I should keep funding humanities, otherwise they’ll start murderous revolution?"
> It's a public good because of non-excludable positive externalities on our polity, and that's not reflected in the market price due to market failure. The positive externalities are having voters that understand history, sociology, political science and economics.
That's nice positive externalities to have, but not once have I seen any evidence that the average humanities graduate possesses those qualities you claim they have.
IOW, it's a nice thing to have, but what makes you think that it comes from a humanities degree?
That's nice positive externalities to have, but not once have I seen any evidence that the average humanities graduate possesses those qualities you claim they have.
IOW, it's a nice thing to have, but what makes you think that it comes from a humanities degree?
Why not go the other way and restrict the franchise to those who have obtained themselves an education?
Who suggested that? Even if you think that humanities education should be publicly subsidized, giving out student loans to anyone who applies (ie. without regard to academic performance or career prospects) is a terrible way of funding it. The lack of selectively ensures that the people who do the best (ie. can get a good paying job afterwards) receive the least aid because they have to pay back the loan, whereas people who do the worst get the most.
Merit based scholarships and/or government grants for university humanities departments is a far better way of ensuring we get the most bang per dollar subsidized.
Merit based scholarships and/or government grants for university humanities departments is a far better way of ensuring we get the most bang per dollar subsidized.
[deleted]
Humanities is reading and writing. There’s no need to pay $100k/year to read and write.
Humanities is not "reading and writing".
It's largely the process of developing and practicing critical analysis and how to effectively communicate it.
Yes, most humanities degrees involve a lot of writing about things written, but it's wrong (and patronizing) to say that the takeaway from the degree is merely the ability to read and write.
Effective communication is a thing a lot of STEM students have a deficit in, to boot. It's not a coincidence that they're the ones often brandishing the humanities as wasted effort.
It's largely the process of developing and practicing critical analysis and how to effectively communicate it.
Yes, most humanities degrees involve a lot of writing about things written, but it's wrong (and patronizing) to say that the takeaway from the degree is merely the ability to read and write.
Effective communication is a thing a lot of STEM students have a deficit in, to boot. It's not a coincidence that they're the ones often brandishing the humanities as wasted effort.
I guess programming is just pressing buttons then? No need to pay $100k a year to press buttons.
So reductionist, lol. Which desk jobs aren't fundamentally reading and writing?
so just like coding?
> The defaulted loans are not for STEM careers, that have little trouble paying back [..]
Right, if you are going to take on tonnes of debt, it should probably before for a degree that has a reasonable chance of repaying the debt.
> colleges offered useless degrees to people that do not need them except for vanity [..]
Not useless, but it is difficult to get a profitable career in this subject areas.
> This is one of the biggest scams in history.
Not even remotely close, unfortunately. Tax is way worse. Your employer gets tax, you then get tax, anything your buy is taxed, if you don't spend it before you die you get taxed, if you try to leave it to somebody you get taxed, if you try to save money the government uses inflation to slowly tax it away from you.
The next biggest scams are likely debt traps (checkout who owns the largest amount of debt of poorer nations right now and how they got there), followed by crypto (which is a glorified pyramid scheme - prove me wrong).
Right, if you are going to take on tonnes of debt, it should probably before for a degree that has a reasonable chance of repaying the debt.
> colleges offered useless degrees to people that do not need them except for vanity [..]
Not useless, but it is difficult to get a profitable career in this subject areas.
> This is one of the biggest scams in history.
Not even remotely close, unfortunately. Tax is way worse. Your employer gets tax, you then get tax, anything your buy is taxed, if you don't spend it before you die you get taxed, if you try to leave it to somebody you get taxed, if you try to save money the government uses inflation to slowly tax it away from you.
The next biggest scams are likely debt traps (checkout who owns the largest amount of debt of poorer nations right now and how they got there), followed by crypto (which is a glorified pyramid scheme - prove me wrong).
> followed by crypto (which is a glorified pyramid scheme - prove me wrong).
It is not wrong, but as long as it replaces the far, far worse pyramid scheme that is Fiat, I'm fine with it. But we digress :)
It is not wrong, but as long as it replaces the far, far worse pyramid scheme that is Fiat, I'm fine with it. But we digress :)
Liberal arts educations are not and never have been vocational in nature. The point is merely academics. The misconception that every academic discipline has a thriving job market is the issue.
STEM majors are scams too. Just because you can manage to pay back a $200k CS bachelors in ten years doesn’t mean it was a good decision. It’s definitely not good for humanity.
it depends - $200k for a 4 yr education is too expensive ($50k a year?!).
But if this figure includes a dorm, food and utilities, then it makes sense. Otherwise, it's absurd a cost.
But if this figure includes a dorm, food and utilities, then it makes sense. Otherwise, it's absurd a cost.
I wonder what's the thinking behind signing up for these courses and get into life long debt with no expectations of how to pay it back
ahem, try again with FACTS as I defaulted on loans for a STEM degree.
Community college is the answer regardless of what your degree aspirations are.
You will end up saving half of not more of the tuition and boarding expenses compared to spending all four years at a major university, and you get excellent instructors at the most critical time of higher education.
Instructors at major universities for 100-200 classes are usually assistants, not professionals. And you STILL end up with a diploma from a Major university.
You like football games? Put on team colors and pay for a ticket. Most big schools make you pay now, anyway.
You want to go to parties? Then take a year off and have a blast. Get it out of your system. Then go to school.
Here is a link to the list of community colleges in the US:
http://www.applyingtoschool.com/forms/ComCol-State.aspx