Wed August 21, 2013 4:12 pm
We're doing the worst thing people can do: lying to our young. Nobody, not even this president, who was swept to victory in large part by the raw enthusiasm of college kids, has the stones to tell the truth: that a lot of them will end up being pawns in a predatory con game designed to extract the equivalent of home-mortgage commitment from 17-year-olds dreaming of impossible careers as nautical archaeologists or orchestra conductors
Wed August 21, 2013 5:27 pm
Wed August 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Wed August 21, 2013 5:42 pm
How about the people who don't have the ability or desire to complete or use a degree that have racked up oodles of debt? That was at least my takeaway from Taibbi's article--that we've been suckering too many kids into college that either shouldn't have gone or weren't ready to go.stip wrote:the problem isn't college.* The problem is that we are failing to produce good jobs for people. The college degree is still the entry ticket into the better fields, but there aren't enough positions to go around.
* which is not to say that costs are not ridiculously high--some of that is because public funding is slashed but that can't account for everything and I'm not sure where it goes. Not to my salary.
I do think that you're right about this, for better or worse--and it fits in well to what I've mentioned before in the generations thread. The Millienials are taking the overwhelming brunt of student loans, and they're also starting their entrance into the political scene. What the solution is, of course, has yet to be seen.stip wrote:I've said this before, but student loans are going to be THE issue that will affect the next great alignment in politics. How the parties respond, and who has the courage to offer up debt forgiveness, percentage caps on debt, etc. That will win the votes of students and young people and their parents who want them to be independent.
Wed August 21, 2013 5:48 pm
stip wrote:the problem isn't college.* The problem is that we are failing to produce good jobs for people. The college degree is still the entry ticket into the better fields, but there aren't enough positions to go around.
* which is not to say that costs are not ridiculously high--some of that is because public funding is slashed but that can't account for everything and I'm not sure where it goes. Not to my salary.
Wed August 21, 2013 5:56 pm
Electromatic wrote:stip wrote:the problem isn't college.* The problem is that we are failing to produce good jobs for people. The college degree is still the entry ticket into the better fields, but there aren't enough positions to go around.
* which is not to say that costs are not ridiculously high--some of that is because public funding is slashed but that can't account for everything and I'm not sure where it goes. Not to my salary.
Worthwhile research might just be what all dollars are going for. I don't think professor salaries are likely to be the issue, I do expect overhead and facilities costs to be up there. Leaving the lights in the science building on all night costs a lot of money.
Wed August 21, 2013 6:04 pm
The O clearly stand for opulence.Electromatic wrote:There is a ton of debt in many athletic departments as well.
Thu August 22, 2013 12:55 am
Thu August 22, 2013 3:36 am
I don't understand this statement. Won't elites still have their elite schools for retrenchment and hoggishness?stip wrote:If you scale back on college access you'll end up further entrenching already existing elite hierarchies in this country
Thu August 22, 2013 3:37 am
Thu August 22, 2013 5:44 am
Green Habit wrote:I don't understand this statement. Won't elites still have their elite schools for retrenchment and hoggishness?stip wrote:If you scale back on college access you'll end up further entrenching already existing elite hierarchies in this country
I think a big factor in affordability has to be to encourage young adults to make wise decisions with further education that will be appropriate for them. If they don't know what they want to educate themselves in, or their dream just isn't feasible, they could be in for really rough shape on the affordability front if their investment goes belly up.
The romanticizing of the college experience also really needs to stop. Yes, you can have a hell of a lot of fun there, but is it fun that's worth spending a decade or so to pay off? Hopefully, with the Millennials taking it up the ass right now this fervor will die down a bit.
That's not to say the supply aspect that you're talking about shouldn't be addressed. Electro already mentioned trade schools, and I'd support more community colleges as well. (Thank goodness the Boise metro area finally got one!) I'd be very careful with increased financial aid and debt forgiveness, although I wouldn't completely take it off the table. Nonetheless, I think that any solution has to address the demand aspect as well.
Thu August 22, 2013 9:51 am
simple schoolboy wrote:Green Habit wrote:I don't understand this statement. Won't elites still have their elite schools for retrenchment and hoggishness?stip wrote:If you scale back on college access you'll end up further entrenching already existing elite hierarchies in this country
I think a big factor in affordability has to be to encourage young adults to make wise decisions with further education that will be appropriate for them. If they don't know what they want to educate themselves in, or their dream just isn't feasible, they could be in for really rough shape on the affordability front if their investment goes belly up.
I don't doubt that public schools have seen a nominal decrease in state support in recent years, but based on the current dollar cost in public education in the time my parents were in school versus today, it can't be everything. What were we doing in say the 70s in public education, and what are we doing today? Current students should be given an option when presented a choice between state of the art facilities with dozens of vice presidents of diversity and cost effective education with a reasonable chance of employment.
Thu August 22, 2013 9:55 am
Green Habit wrote:I don't understand this statement. Won't elites still have their elite schools for retrenchment and hoggishness?stip wrote:If you scale back on college access you'll end up further entrenching already existing elite hierarchies in this country
Thu August 22, 2013 9:57 am
Green Habit wrote:I think a big factor in affordability has to be to encourage young adults to make wise decisions with further education that will be appropriate for them. If they don't know what they want to educate themselves in, or their dream just isn't feasible, they could be in for really rough shape on the affordability front if their investment goes belly up.
The romanticizing of the college experience also really needs to stop. Yes, you can have a hell of a lot of fun there, but is it fun that's worth spending a decade or so to pay off? Hopefully, with the Millennials taking it up the ass right now this fervor will die down a bit.
Thu August 22, 2013 12:12 pm
stip wrote: but I believe statistically you are still economically considerably better off in your lifetime with the degree. Even today, when that's been severely truncated, you're still better off with than without. But the 'with' needs to be much better.
Thu August 22, 2013 12:17 pm
Thu August 22, 2013 12:44 pm
I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Lefties like Krugman always tell me that the apex of the American middle class was during the 1950s, a time where the middle class has less formal education than it does today. I think a degree is only one (often important) part of the recipe, not the thing that holds it together. Left wingers would probably also say that everyone deserves to make a good living, regardless of educational background.stip wrote:they will, and that's a problem, but the degrees conferred by the rest of them are the backbone of the middle class. The elite schools will always be there, and will always do well. Make it harder to get some kind of post high school education and you are just increasing the elite value of that degree.
I hope I haven't been giving the impression that I'm saying "let's not do it" as a general rule. If you are quite talented, and/or you're ready to make a commitment towards a reasonable career that you're passionate about, then by all means go to college if needed. I just think you have to take every person on a case by case basis--and in some cases, "don't go" may be the wiser decision.stip wrote:Again, while the issue with how much college costs is a huge one, the solution is not to say 'lets just not do it anymore.' that's like saying the solution to health care being too expensive is to not get sick. The real problems here are figuring out how to lower costs and, perhaps even more importantly, working to increase the number of jobs and opportunities that make the degree worthwhile.
I would agree, with a few caveats: 1) you actually get your degree, 2) you get a degree that has a good chance of being parlayed into a career, 3) you don't assume that a degree is all that you need to make a good living.stip wrote:I support not going to college right after high school in many cases so you can answer that question. But as far as the romanticization stuff goes, you are kinda right (or at least, I kinda agree) but I believe statistically you are still economically considerably better off in your lifetime with the degree. Even today, when that's been severely truncated, you're still better off with than without. But the 'with' needs to be much better.
Thu August 22, 2013 1:05 pm
1 Retail salespersons 4,340,000 3.33%
2 Cashiers 3,314,010 2.54%
3 Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food. 2,943,810 2.26%
4 Office clerks, general 2,808,100 2.16%
[b]5 Registered nurses 2,633,980 2.02%[/b]
6 Waiters and waitresses 2,332,020 1.79%
7 Customer service representatives 2,299,750 1.77%
8 Laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, hand. 2,143,940 1.65%
9 Janitors and cleaners, except maids and housekeeping cleaners 2,097,380 1.61%
10 Secretaries and administrative assistants, except legal, medical, and executive 2,085,680 1.60%
[b]11 General and operations managers 1,899,460 1.46%[/b]
12 Stock clerks and order fillers 1,806,310 1.39%
[b]13 Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks 1,606,260 1.23%[/b]
14 Heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers 1,556,510 1.19%
[b]15 Nursing assistants 1,420,020 1.09%
16 Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing, except technical and scientific products 1,414,030 1.09%
17 Elementary school teachers, except special education. 1,360,380 1.04%
18 First-line supervisors of office and administrative support workers 1,359,150 1.04%[/b]
19 Maintenance and repair workers, general. 1,230,270 0.94%
20 First-line supervisors of retail sales workers 1,214,170 0.93%
21 Teacher assistants 1,185,700 0.91%
[b]22 Accountants and auditors 1,129,340 0.87%[/b]
23 Security guards 1,046,420 0.80%
24 Team assemblers 1,006,980 0.77%
25 Cooks, restaurant 1,000,710 0.77%
26 Personal care aides 985,230 0.76%
27 Receptionists and information clerks 966,150 0.74%
[b]28 Secondary school teachers, except special and career/technical education. 959,770 0.74%
29 Business operations specialists, all other 931,010 0.71%[/b]
30 Maids and housekeeping cleaners 894,920 0.69%
31 Home health aides 839,930 0.64%
32 Landscaping and groundskeeping workers 830,640 0.64%
33 First-line supervisors of food preparation and serving workers 817,600 0.63%
34 Construction laborers 814,470 0.63%
35 Executive secretaries and executive administrative assistants 803,040 0.62%
36 Food preparation workers 785,370 0.60%
37 Light truck or delivery services drivers 769,010 0.59%
[b]38 Licensed practical and licensed vocational nurses 718,800 0.55%[/b]
39 Shipping, receiving, and traffic clerks 690,780 0.53%
40 Packers and packagers, hand 660,670 0.51%
Thu August 22, 2013 1:31 pm
stip wrote:i agree that pushing other options like trade schools is also important (in fact, I would probably like the pre-professional element phased away from colleges a bit), and college is absurdly expensive, but the issue here should be figuring out how to make college more affordable (and increase the help and resources available for kids who are not prepared for it), not encouraging fewer kids to go. If you scale back on college access you'll end up further entrenching already existing elite hierarchies in this country
Thu August 22, 2013 2:12 pm
4/5 wrote:stip wrote: but I believe statistically you are still economically considerably better off in your lifetime with the degree. Even today, when that's been severely truncated, you're still better off with than without. But the 'with' needs to be much better.
This is true from an average salary/total amount made in lifetime standpoint, but taking out massive student loans complicate the issue. That debt absolutely has to be considered to determine whether the person is actually better off. Additionally, what was the opportunity cost of spending X number of years in college?
I'm not against college by any means, but I do think that a lot of people who are not likely to ever graduate or use their degree (or unnecessarily choose to go to an expensive school) are wasting A LOT of time and money.