Should university education be subsidized by the government?

[cots]

Once upon a time people took high level education to learn how to learn, and do stuff at such levels. Though this was many years ago so eh maybe.

How do you propose to handle fuzzy edges? Any number of interesting things come from the collision of slightly different fields, and while learning to learn might not be as much of a thing I would expect many physics types to do well at maths, do well at computers and do well at engineering. Back on the many years ago thing do you know where all those early computer peeps came from? Maths and physics usually.

How do we determine what is legitimate field as well? I am self employed and can call my business whatever I like. If I have a 10 hours a month job somewhere in my field does that count? As it stands as a workaround for the "need years of experience" I knew a few people to set up companies, employ each other in each other's company as a salaried employee for a few years and go out into the world with non self employed type experience for said years as far as anybody was concerned. It would then be trivial to make it work in that scenario, and do a whole bunch of busy work if needs be (what do you think you need in your portfolio? Oh what a coincidence my company needs someone to do just that? Oh wow and your company needs what I can do and charge the same rates?).

The tax payers were similarly not free to decide about what they would rather do when they funded education up to the ages of 18. What changes with tertiary education?

Does specialisation count? High end astrophysics is probably still enough physics and maths to make a dent outside it. I know someone once that did biomedical materials engineering (whole bunch of medical stuff) but at the same time did just fine in the high level engineering classes and could hang there and never had to contemplate making a better bandage again if they did not want, doubt any of the others could have done their biomedical stuff though just from walking around knowledge/what else they knew though.

While I said I learned computers as part of it the amount of computer training I had was actually rather limited. Technically enough to say I did (real programming languages, loops and whatnot) but at the same time you could muddle through that in the first year (which counted for nothing in the final grade and was usually deemed a levelling year to get everybody on the same level -- you rock up with maths, physics and chemistry and it might be a bit different to someone that rocks up with physics, computers and biology) and never have to do any of it again. Computers are also pretty ubiquitous as well -- the finance people don't pay people to sit around twiddling their thumbs but actually do very high end modelling and very in depth programming (prior to bitcoin it was finance people gobbling up every higher end FPGA they could to run their high frequency trading platforms), all of which would be totally familiar to people that had previously spent time modelling atoms or whatever in all but the narrowest strokes.

Basically, if you're going to take my rights away and make me pay for education then you're going have to get used to me telling you what you can do with money. That's how it usually works to begin with. You can't take out a student loan and use it to buy a lawn mower with and then not use it to pay for your classes. The more rights you give up the more restrictions you're going to run into. Maybe the restrictions don't personally bother you, but they may bother someone else.

I don't have all the answers or want to discuss hypotheticals, but it's basically like this. You pick what you want to be your major, say computer science and then when you graduate you have to get a job in that field. That means if you're a Liberal Arts major you get a job in that field. I know some jobs don't produce the same income levels, but who is to say that an artist doesn't contribute to society or that a restaurant worker isn't valued.

The main point is that if you're going to tax and force others to pay for your education you're going to have to deal with them telling you what you have to do,basically your're no longer free to do what you want to do when you give up your rights. Maybe what they tell you have to do is agreeable with you or not, but that wouldn't matter anymore because you involved everyone else when you started using their money to pay for your education. Like, it would nt be any different than other current government welfare agreements. You do realize how restrictive they are, don't you? If not look up the contracts you have to agree to when you sign up for food stamps or section 8 and get back to me.

Stuff like Random house searches or having your bank accounts monitored and risk going to jail if you violate any rules and those are some of the least restrictive stuff. Look it up. When you use government money expect to give up a shit town of rights and forget privacy.

Also if you break the rules you have to pay the money back. So I wouldn't expect free education, which isn't free because everyone else is paying for it, to be any different.

 

[FAST6191]

This "take my rights away" argument strikes me as similar to the "I pay your salary" quip that police often hear -- in some abstract sense then sure but as far as personal results you can expect from it... yeah. I can understand not wanting to fund it and instead getting a tax cut, or the for the taxes to go somewhere else but I am not sure what benefits restricting people in such a manner is supposed to achieve.

As far as lawn mowers then curious. UK wise then I could -- I picked between three times a year (start of each term) or single lump sum at the start of the year for the student loan company (by some technical definitions not a government entity but for most intents and purposes and understandings from the public at large a government entity) dumped into my private bank account. Some tuition was handled separately but was my money to do with as I pleased like any other loan. The expectation being that you are a fully functioning adult (what with you being 18 and all that) and can handle your own business -- you don't strike me as a person that puts much stock in the "young unformed minds" argument that seems to be trotted out by many US universities these days when teaching "controversial" concepts (or indeed electing not to).

I am not intimately familiar with section 8 and food stamps though I reckon I know enough. Personally I find the whole idea of food stamps in generally horribly demeaning. Here, much like the student loans, it is again money dumped into a private bank account at set intervals, and assistance in setting up said bank account if people need that, with the expectation you can handle your shit, and help for those that might be mentally incapable of that. Few subtle differences for some housing benefits, council houses and such in some cases but still a lot of private involvement in it all.

 

[cots]

This "take my rights away" argument strikes me as similar to the "I pay your salary" quip that police often hear -- in some abstract sense then sure but as far as personal results you can expect from it... yeah. I can understand not wanting to fund it and instead getting a tax cut, or the for the taxes to go somewhere else but I am not sure what benefits restricting people in such a manner is supposed to achieve.

As far as lawn mowers then curious. UK wise then I could -- I picked between three times a year (start of each term) or single lump sum at the start of the year for the student loan company (by some technical definitions not a government entity but for most intents and purposes and understandings from the public at large a government entity) dumped into my private bank account. Some tuition was handled separately but was my money to do with as I pleased like any other loan. The expectation being that you are a fully functioning adult (what with you being 18 and all that) and can handle your own business -- you don't strike me as a person that puts much stock in the "young unformed minds" argument that seems to be trotted out by many US universities these days when teaching "controversial" concepts (or indeed electing not to).

I am not intimately familiar with section 8 and food stamps though I reckon I know enough. Personally I find the whole idea of food stamps in generally horribly demeaning. Here, much like the student loans, it is again money dumped into a private bank account at set intervals, and assistance in setting up said bank account if people need that, with the expectation you can handle your shit, and help for those that might be mentally incapable of that. Few subtle differences for some housing benefits, council houses and such in some cases but still a lot of private involvement in it all.

Current student loans never involve you personally getting most of the money. You sign up agree to pay it back and the government pays the college directly. You can request a small percentage of the money for food and housing costs, around $400 per semester that they will give you, but if you don't spend it on living expenses (that doesn't include beer, weed, video games, movie tickets, etc ...) you can have your loans cancelled and/or to to jail and have to still pay it all back. $400 is piss when your loan is going to be $40,000.

Food stamps come on a credit card and the computers that handle the transaction won't include anything that isn't food kn the total bill. Cash is never involved. If you illegally trade your food stamps for tobacco or beer you can lose them and have to pay the amount you received back and/or go to jail.

Section 8 is really restrictive and you're also never involved with the money. The Government pays your landlord directly. You've got random searches of where you're living and don't expect to live in a middle class or rich neighborhood. Section 8 is an optional program that landlords have to opt-into. Meaning, most of the places you'll find that take Section 8 will be in crime ridden poor neighborhoods as the middle class and rich people don't want to be living with poor people taking Government handouts (our leaders don't want anything to do with us)

Social Security Disability monitors your bank account. If you use the money they give you (it's government money, not yours) to say, go to a casino they'll know and you'll go to Jail and have to pay it back when you get out. This one you actually get the money to spend, but don't get caught abusing it.

Then we gave Obamacare, which of course you'd supposedly get to keep your current doctors and health care provides you spent years building relations with (which wasn't the case), but now your care is determined by insurance companies that are in the governments pockets and a lot of your old rights like deciding were you want care from has been taken away from you. Say you want a doctor that has a great record with heart surgery, you know, so you don't die, good luck with that. Under Obamacare you'll get the cheapest doctor, who might have a record of having his patients die under his care. Why the cheapest? Well, the Government doesn't use all of the money they're taking from your paycheck for health care, you, they have "personal expenses" that need addressing and who the hell is going to pay for them to see the more experienced doctor? You are!

So excuse me when I'm realistic about how shitty the bullshit "free" education (it's not free) will probably end up being.

Might I add that the leaders aka the government officials spend the least most possible on these programs so they can live off the difference. They fly in jets, can choose any doctor they want, you know the more experienced ones that have a good track record and don't live in ghettos (good luck finding housing that accepts section 8 rent in a good or even moderately middle class neighborhood) and eat wherever they want and then send their kids to elite colleges. These fuckers usually make 5-10 times what a normal person makes and then lives in huge houses and drive nice cars. They don't belong to the system they're creating. They are better than us and don't have to follow the rules we follow. It's bullshit and anyone that supports these assholes with their not-free handouts is fucking insane to support their own demise. What sort of idiot wants to and votes to be poor?

Lastly, forget about the 1%,what about the 0.25% that are responsible for creating the 1% that dictates our way of life and then don't have to live by their own rules. Fuck the ruling class. We need to get rid of them - all of them.

 

[FAST6191]

I imagine such a model would be being followed if the US did go down that path, however the unpleasantness of it speaks more to the US approach to such matters than the question at the heart of the thread.

That said I look at many other places in the world where people would care to live and have such things. They tend not to be on fire, getting quality results that stack up on the world stage and their people in general enjoy probably a better quality of life than that which I see when running around the US (or at least the lowest of the low are still doing OK, and I am not routinely witnessing some things many would consider absolutely abhorrent -- some of the medical conditions I saw people living with at points in the US... I am having to go to eastern Europe 20 years ago or some third world hole to compare, but different thread there). More amusingly is a lot of the time the net input from governments into such systems is also probably less than the US ends up doing.

Back on the fuzzy edges thing I forgot to mention last time that during the "there to learn how to learn" days there was, and still remains, a discipline called natural sciences (the contrast being social sciences) which is a combination of all the sciences. Going back to the world I just watched a video remembering the due who basically ran Ford US and then ran Chrysler, doing exceptionally well at both -- dude had a hardcore engineering background but seems like he was a top notch businessman and sales guy instead (as in following him wandering into Chrysler the turnaround was from losses of billions to net income of billions in very short order)... to pigeonhole people (much less for decisions made while they are 16-17) seems odd.

 

[cots]

I imagine such a model would be being followed if the US did go down that path, however the unpleasantness of it speaks more to the US approach to such matters than the question at the heart of the thread.

That said I look at many other places in the world where people would care to live and have such things. They tend not to be on fire, getting quality results that stack up on the world stage and their people in general enjoy probably a better quality of life than that which I see when running around the US (or at least the lowest of the low are still doing OK, and I am not routinely witnessing some things many would consider absolutely abhorrent -- some of the medical conditions I saw people living with at points in the US... I am having to go to eastern Europe 20 years ago or some third world hole to compare, but different thread there). More amusingly is a lot of the time the net input from governments into such systems is also probably less than the US ends up doing.

Back on the fuzzy edges thing I forgot to mention last time that during the "there to learn how to learn" days there was, and still remains, a discipline called natural sciences (the contrast being social sciences) which is a combination of all the sciences. Going back to the world I just watched a video remembering the due who basically ran Ford US and then ran Chrysler, doing exceptionally well at both -- dude had a hardcore engineering background but seems like he was a top notch businessman and sales guy instead (as in following him wandering into Chrysler the turnaround was from losses of billions to net income of billions in very short order)... to pigeonhole people (much less for decisions made while they are 16-17) seems odd.

A lot of shit tied to what happens when you involve the Government in your life seems "odd", but that's my stipulation. If I'm paying for you to go to school to learn XYZ then you get a job doing XYZ. I don't care if you can't understand that, but you're not the one who will be having their paycheck reduced by $100 every month (from $500 to $400 (hypothetical amount to provide context)) so someone can spend 8 years in college and then decide not to work or work in a field they aren't going to be good at.

If you have any other questions regarding how detrimental current Government handouts are to the way of life in the USA I'd be welcome to provide more examples, but I've stated my stipulation and stand by it, nor need to justify it to you or anyone else, as if you're taking my money to pay for something, then I have the right to stipulate whatever I want, with or without having to explain myself. That's just how things work, like it or not, doesn't change the fact that's how they work. Don't like it? Then don't pass an universal free (not-free) college program!

 

[PityOnU]

This is something that seems to be coming up heavily among the Democratic candidates this time around. I don't follow politics at all, but still I have heard that at least a few of the candidates are proposing forgiveness of student loans.

I think it'd be great to reduce/eliminate the cost of University education here in the States, especially for state schools. The problem is, Universities here aren't exactly slim, lithe institutions. Increased (and essentially mandatory) pursuance of secondary education here has done that whole supply vs. demand thing, meaning that Universities can (and have) been charging pretty much whatever they want for a long time. They have also begun to cater heavily to a more moneyed target demographic, investing a ton of capital in services that aren't necessarily beneficial to education (think really fancy gyms, crazy IT infrastructure, ornate buildings and classrooms, etc.).

There's a really good video about it somewhere I will try to find...

 

[cots]

This is something that seems to be coming up heavily among the Democratic candidates this time around. I don't follow politics at all, but still I have heard that at least a few of the candidates are proposing forgiveness of student loans.

I think it'd be great to reduce/eliminate the cost of University education here in the States, especially for state schools. The problem is, Universities here aren't exactly slim, lithe institutions. Increased (and essentially mandatory) pursuance of secondary education here has done that whole supply vs. demand thing, meaning that Universities can (and have) been charging pretty much whatever they want for a long time. They have also begun to cater heavily to a more moneyed target demographic, investing a ton of capital in services that aren't necessarily beneficial to education (think really fancy gyms, crazy IT infrastructure, ornate buildings and classrooms, etc.).

There's a really good video about it somewhere I will try to find...

I'd be all for the Government to pay for my student loan debt. Let's start by reducing the current Government politicians paychecks to pay for it, starting with the salaries from Congress and while they're at it get rid of any ruling class laws that would make them (the political figures and Government officials) exempt from having to follow the laws and regulations that they create. They need to set an example. I don't see any reason why I'm going to follow any laws they pass if they don't follow them themselves and I'm sure as hell not going to pay more taxes if they don't first show us how it's done by taxing themselves. Lets start by taxing the 0.25% that's responsible for creating the 1%. After we take their money we can move down the line to the %1, but only after the main most responsible people pay up first.

 

[PityOnU]

I'd be all for the Government to pay for my student loan debt. Let's start by reducing the current Government politicians paychecks to pay for it, starting with the salaries from Congress and while they're at it get rid of any ruling class laws that would make them (the political figures and Government officials) exempt from having to follow the laws and regulations that they create. They need to set an example. I don't see any reason why I'm going to follow any laws they pass if they don't follow them themselves and I'm sure as hell not going to pay more taxes if they don't first show us how it's done by taxing themselves. Lets start by taxing the 0.25% that's responsible for creating the 1%. After we take their money we can move down the line to the %1, but only after the main most responsible people pay up first.

Okay... Well... I mean... Okay? You seem very angry at authority and not too interested in discussing the current education system.

I mean, fair enough man, rage against the machine, but damn... We get it.

 

[cots]

Okay... Well... I mean... Okay? You seem very angry at authority and not too interested in discussing the current education system.

I mean, fair enough man, rage against the machine, but damn... We get it.

I am discussing the current proposal to fund the education system, specifically with my reply to you, who should have to pay for it. The machine is broken because of the main people running it, which isn't the general public, but the elite ruling class. They should pay for the laws they pass before the general public does, as if they won't pay to fund them, then why should we?

I'll take some student loan debt relief, but I rather have the people who are making the laws start by setting an example and giving up their money and status up first before the general public. Specifically, I'd like for The President, Congress and the Senate members to use their own personal money to pay for my debt. I'm already starting to write them an invoice. Got their addresses handy?

 

[PityOnU]

I am discussing the current proposal to fund the education system, specifically with my reply to you, who should have to pay for it. The machine is broken because of the main people running it, which isn't the general public, but the elite ruling class. They should pay for the laws they pass before the general public does, as if they won't pay to fund them, then why should we?

I'll take some student loan debt relief, but I rather have the people who are making the laws start by setting an example and giving up their money and status first before the general public. Specifically, I'd like for The President, Congress and the Senate members to use their own personal money to pay for my debt. I'm already starting to write them an invoice. Got their addresses handy?

I think the President's salary is like $400K or something like that. Congressmen/women get somewhere between $175-225K. That's really not that much compared to the cost of a four year degree (the President himself could pay for, like, 4 people, give or take). I know quite a few people that make more than that.

But w/e. The most likely source of capital would be cuts to military spending, at least in the US of A. Many Americans join the military specifically so they can have their education paid for. As you said in some of your prior posts, they get their degree paid for as long as they serve their time (giving up freedoms) in the forces post-graduation. Just paying for somebody's education would cut out the middle man.

 

[cots]

I think the President's salary is like $400K or something like that. Congressmen/women get somewhere between $175-225K. That's really not that much compared to the cost of a four year degree (the President himself could pay for, like, 4 people, give or take). I know quite a few people that make more than that.

But w/e. The most likely source of capital would be cuts to military spending, at least in the US of A. Many Americans join the military specifically so they can have their education paid for. As you said in some of your prior posts, they get their degree paid for as long as they serve their time (giving up freedoms) in the forces post-graduation. Just paying for somebody's education would cut out the middle man.

My loan debt is around $50k. After they personally pay off my debt to show the general public "that's how it's done" they can move onto taxing the rest of us. Your example of of how it works currently under the military is a spot on example of what I was referring to. There's no such thing as "free education", someone has to pay for it one way or the other and you're going to have to jump through whatever hoops they require whether you like and/or agree with them or not. Otherwise, you're not going to college using their money.

 

[FAST6191]

A lot of shit tied to what happens when you involve the Government in your life seems "odd", but that's my stipulation. If I'm paying for you to go to school to learn XYZ then you get a job doing XYZ. I don't care if you can't understand that, but you're not the one who will be having their paycheck reduced by $100 every month (from $500 to $400 (hypothetical amount to provide context)) so someone can spend 8 years in college and then decide not to work or work in a field they aren't going to be good at.

If you have any other questions regarding how detrimental current Government handouts are to the way of life in the USA I'd be welcome to provide more examples, but I've stated my stipulation and stand by it, nor need to justify it to you or anyone else, as if you're taking my money to pay for something, then I have the right to stipulate whatever I want, with or without having to explain myself. That's just how things work, like it or not, doesn't change the fact that's how they work. Don't like it? Then don't pass an universal free (not-free) college program!

Relatively speaking $100 out of $500 is a lot. 15 cents rather less so. That plays into this, or at least I would like to believe it a sum you would not likely stop walking to pick up being able to make a real difference. Also how am I not one that will be having my wages tapped to fund such fun and games? I exist. I apparently pay taxes from time to time, and live in a place if not funded then augmented by said taxes, as well as having a vested interest in both having people available and good people available to do business with and achieving good results from that is also in my interest.

Similarly "as if you're taking my money to pay for something, then I have the right to stipulate whatever I want"
No. You have the right to a vote on what is done with it, or possibly a vote for a set of politicos which then make the call depending upon what setup your locale cares to go in for (the election with 500 numbers and adverts saying yay or nay is not terribly common around the world).
While I would like your vote to the the result of a somewhat selfless risk assessment of the matter the nature of it all means it could be your reading of the phone book and some dice in the end.

We still have not settled the what is xyz relative to xyz in the real world and the fuzzy edges problem either. Job markets in the real world don't fit a nice academic line, and indeed academics used to at least take great pains to realise this and prepare people for it. I might have great issues with the financial sector but I can't see how my physics friend manipulating massive seemingly random data sets covering economics is of any real difference to manipulating massive random data sets for space debris or fluid dynamics (the people paying them hundreds of thousands and paying recruiters just as much to source them sure don't see a difference, and for the most part trying to extract lunch money from a financial institution usually requires 500 trees, possibly also a goat, be sacrificed to do the paperwork). Why you seem so bent on trying to ram people down those paths I don't know or can't see what value you reckon there is in that.

 

[cots]

Relatively speaking $100 out of $500 is a lot. 15 cents rather less so. That plays into this, or at least I would like to believe it a sum you would not likely stop walking to pick up being able to make a real difference. Also how am I not one that will be having my wages tapped to fund such fun and games? I exist. I apparently pay taxes from time to time, and live in a place if not funded then augmented by said taxes, as well as having a vested interest in both having people available and good people available to do business with and achieving good results from that is also in my interest.

Yes, the actual tax will be less than 1/5th of your paycheck. I was trying to outline the fact that it's coming out of your paycheck so you're paying for it. Some people like to argue that taking money out of your personal paycheck isn't taking your money. I'm not sure what sort of drugs they are taking or how many times their mothers dropped them, but they can't seem to interpret reality that well. I'm not saying you did this, but generally speaking I put an 1/5th example due to these types of people and their illogical thought processes.

Similarly "as if you're taking my money to pay for something, then I have the right to stipulate whatever I want"
No. You have the right to a vote on what is done with it, or possibly a vote for a set of politicos which then make the call depending upon what setup your locale cares to go in for (the election with 500 numbers and adverts saying yay or nay is not terribly common around the world).
While I would like your vote to the the result of a somewhat selfless risk assessment of the matter the nature of it all means it could be your reading of the phone book and some dice in the end.

Exactly, I'd vote. For starters, I'd vote against it or any politicians that supported it and then if it still passed I would vote for how it's spent and then not vote for any politicians who didn't agree with me. Unless I was one of the actual people the politicians assigned who will oversee the program and basically implement whatever they are told to I couldn't directly dictate the terms, but they sure as hell could.

So if they dictate terms you don't agree with, then tough shit, you can either (1) legally agree with them OR (2) not go to college. So you're going to lose freedoms and have more restrictions in place than the current system and you may or may not agree with them, but after that point it would be too late. So go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot. I'm just not going to vote for it.

 

[FAST6191]

Yes, the actual tax will be less than 1/5th of your paycheck. I was trying to outline the fact that it's coming out of your paycheck so you're paying for it. Some people like to argue that taking money out of your personal paycheck isn't taking your money. I'm not sure what sort of drugs they are taking or how many times their mothers dropped them, but they can't seem to interpret reality that well. I'm not saying you did this, but generally speaking I put an 1/5th example due to these types of people and their illogical thought processes.



Exactly, I'd vote. For starters, I'd vote against it or any politicians that supported it and then if it still passed I would vote for how it's spent and then not vote for any politicians who didn't agree with me. Unless I was one of the actual people the politicians assigned who will oversee the program and basically implement whatever they are told to I couldn't directly dictate the terms, but they sure as hell could.

So if they dictate terms you don't agree with, then tough shit, you can either (1) legally agree with them OR (2) not go to college. So you're going to lose freedoms and have more restrictions in place than the current system and you may or may not agree with them, but after that point it would be too late. So go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot. I'm just not going to vote for it.

The taxes did not suddenly appear and I doubt (or at least can't predict) you will find some natural resource to be exploited, or be able to do the Monaco thing. Your salary or billing will likely be designed to reflect the taxes that go out of it. To that end considering it an additional imposition or extravagant imposition would be hard. Ignoring what percentages are required for it also seems like a step too far into abstraction.
Why do you think forcing people into their degree fields (seemingly quite narrowly at that) is a good idea? What problem would it solve either inherently or abstractly/consequentially*?

*at a guess I imagine you are thinking that the underwater basket weaving, or maybe feminist dance theory, set will find themselves between a rock and a hard place and only then the immediately financially viable fields will rise up, though I would again refer back to my physics in finance and emergence of fields (computing for one) examples, as well as the likes of natural sciences (natural as in contrast to social) as that is not uncommon at all to find. Or going another way just like when automation was invented for farming and allowed most of the population to no longer be concerned with that is it not a sign of a rich population that you an afford to have your people learning about fun stuff? In general research there is also the blue sky research concept -- having people fiddle with things that have no immediate financial or practical use when you can afford such things is not only good but in 20 years when a use is suddenly found for it (the history of GPS is a good one here) you already have the groundwork sorted.
Similarly if my guess was heading in the right direction why have people gamble when you instead have the Hungary approach wherein only the fields they care to promote are funded?

 

[notimp]

There are two ways this argument usually goes.

First of - I like the egalitarianism.

1. So - if you make it free, you also subsidize "more affluent families" who could have paid for it. So its very much a cost factor for public spending. Paying tuition for your childs higher education usually is something that can be sold to people very easily. They dont think of it as another 'useless tax'.

2. There are many negatives you get from having people pay for higher education as well though.

They are:

- Less social mobility. Because people from less affluent Backgrounds have to think twice, if they want to begin a higher education - when its both a cost factor, and prevents you from earning "easier" normal wage.

Easier in quotes, because - yes you can work to finance your studies - but the jobs you can do that in - usually arent great, and it adds much more financial pressure to anything you do in an academic sense. Also - if fate strikes, and f.e. you loose your job, or have the reconvene - everything is much harder. This has an effect on people from less situated social backgrounds trending in the direction of not trying it - which is exactly what you dont want as societies.

There are study grants to compensate. They dont work. (Structurally.)

You also can make higher education tuition free, for the minimum time the education would take - which produces draw effects, that arent great either.

- Higher commercialization of higher education. In Europe we know that as "the bologna process" and everything about it is bad. People start to study not to get proficient in a field, but "for the requirements", and they are functionally less educated as a result. Private enterprises pressured for it though - because it allowed them to have access to a pool of more "partly higher educated people" earlier, which were less costly to them, could be "molded" into their structures better - and were more disposable at the end of it. You now all know it as "lifelong learning" (but different stuff, as needed), and a devaluation of "higher education" in general.

Turns out if people are only surface educated - they are worse at driving forward their fields as well. Not good.

- Higher concentration on "brand" on part of Universities, which have now become for profit enterprises. Just subscribe to the edX newsletter, and you get it pretty fast. Also - proactive censorship issues, that werent there in the past. Also the dehumanization of education. (Online courses!)

Some people tell you that its now much more accessible and egalitarian and self empowering though. Because you pick it like a Mac job / Gigeconomy education.

- It also leads to closer ties between corporations and institutions of higher educations, which offer pros and cons as well. (I like to focus on the cons there.. )


Thats basically the pros and cons for and against it.

You can only have it for free if your state is very well off. (edit: or Cuba) If you do - there are many benefits. They might not be in the best interest of your economy though. Short term.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Yes.

These days, finishing high school isn't gonna net you a long term job that doesn't risk being automated away. Most jobs these days that are middle/upper middle class need degrees. Universities are horrifically expensive, and not everyone can afford them.

For reference: Entering university over here costs 10k$ a year. I'm sort of lucky in the fact that I a. have a government that offers to pay part of it (although I don't have to make use of it outside of not having to pay transport fares, since my parents cover it) and b. my uni specifically allows paying this off on a 1k$ a month basis.

A university (or community college) education is as important as primary and high school are these days to be a functioning member in our society. We already fund high school/primary education because it's universally agreed upon that people need it, and university is the logical next step for it.

Removing subsidizing or turning it into a loan (which is what my countries government does if you don't finish your study in 10 years, although it's a very generous loan you can pay off over decades) is gonna basically end up ensuring that those who don't have the money needed to enter university can't enter university, regardless of their skills.

 

[FAST6191]

These days, finishing high school isn't gonna net you a long term job that doesn't risk being automated away. Most jobs these days that are middle/upper middle class need degrees. Universities are horrifically expensive, and not everyone can afford them.

While I am not going to say a university education is never going to help, or indeed can not be readily selected to be able to help here, then there are several alternatives and alternative routes.

The big one for many is trades. You can still just about learn these on the job or with day release which means you are working (if poor) during that. Automation of these is probably not going to happen until we get serious robots, mind takeover similar to computer takeover, or matrix style "I know kung-fu" but plumbing instead. Go self employed in those after a few years and you can earn pretty well; most 50 something trades I know drive fancy cars, have fancy houses (helps if you know people to fix them up cheap, or can do it yourself), do decent holidays, have golf club memberships (or similar). If pure self employed is not your thing then for a minor cap on maximum then there are plenty of property management firms that do things well. Go the other way and put together, or buy into, a small firm (though this is a different set of skills, one many that work with their hands don't necessarily have) and things can really start to shoot up.

Between trades and traditional higher education there are some routes there for various fields. Such people might not reach the heights or research and design (poor them)* but I have met several people that went the btech route in the UK that I would not face off against lightly. If we are talking about the US then it seems the colleges/universities/whatever they are called there gobbled quite a few of those up and now call them degrees -- the time I heard someone has a degree in hotel management... yeah. What goes for the more specialist things I am also not sure about -- Dell quite famously pushed some of their local universities to offer courses on assembling their gear and not much else, and having seen what is happening to the mechanics trade in the US and to a lesser extent the UK with people seemingly being manufacturer specialists and not much else has me slightly worried, and that is before the lack of machining/tool skills for/among younger mechanics I saw in the US and almost assembly line fixing processes.

*and of those that are reaching for the heights of design and research then any company with any sense would pair them up with someone from said more practical background, similar to how new doctors are usually given a time tested nurse or new military officers a battle tested grunt, and anybody still on the shop floor overseeing it all is probably going to be said practical background type.

For finance people then I have met quite a few without a degree or without a degree in any kind of finance/maths/computing (and said degree is probably something they did with distance learning for fun). The cost of the exams in this field is fucking obscene (thousands of pounds is just a start, and some go north of 10 grand -- all for a few study materials that I could print for £50 as a one off, except there are thousands of people doing it per session, and a room in an exam hall with all the other peeps doing other exams at various points over the year) and takes a while to get all the way there (3 years for a normal bachelors in the UK, sometimes 7 or 8 for the finance people to get to something considered broadly equivalent).

Computer training has also started to take on a few characteristics like these in recent years as well and people that look like they can handle it can take on things.

Medical stuff used to be this way, however a lot of that has dropped off -- nursing these days seems to want some form of degree and seems a bit light on practical stuff during that compared to the old school approaches. Though at the same time there are plenty of less traditional routes; I knew some people that did OTA -- operating theatre assistant and after getting sent to the private sector did fairly well.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

While I am not going to say a university education is never going to help, or indeed can not be readily selected to be able to help here, then there are several alternatives and alternative routes.

Of course, alternatives do exist, but most of the time, getting hired without a degree is often seen as a gamble. Yes you can find a job, and if you're young, probably pretty easy too, but the person hiring you is taking a risk if he accepts you, which a lot of recruiters often aren't willing to do.

A degree is essentially guaranteeing to the person hiring you "yes, I've studied and learned extensively about this specific subject, so you are not gonna make a mistake by hiring me", something which particularly when you get older will become more useful (since "I picked up on this over time" is less solid than "I have these and these skills and I am certified as having these skills").

 

[FAST6191]

Of course, alternatives do exist, but most of the time, getting hired without a degree is often seen as a gamble. Yes you can find a job, and if you're young, probably pretty easy too, but the person hiring you is taking a risk if he accepts you, which a lot of recruiters often aren't willing to do.

A degree is essentially guaranteeing to the person hiring you "yes, I've studied and learned extensively about this specific subject, so you are not gonna make a mistake by hiring me", something which particularly when you get older will become more useful (since "I picked up on this over time" is less solid than "I have these and these skills and I am certified as having these skills").

That is the theory. The practical reality though is often a bit different as degrees themselves have become somewhat devalued, especially in the places where it kind of went "pay us lots of money for a bit of paper" (which is very much the US at this point, China not much better, the UK is heading that way very quickly and a few others are doing that too). If you are doing more local to then you probably know it as a whole better than I do but those I times I did knock around with Dutch universities then they were still very very good with rather stringent requirements, and their technical stuff was even better still (to say nothing of that farming stuff which was world class).