Skip to main content
gamedev.net
🔒 Locked

College is stupid!

Started by JackOfAllTrades Feb 2, 2012 at 9:19 PM 86 replies 10k views
Original Post
JackOfAllTrades
JackOfAllTrades
I've been thinking a lot lately about class division within the united states. Everyone who is in the lower income bracket simply lacks an education or has a degree in a low demand field such as art, photography, theater, music, and other low demand high supply fields. The fact of the matter is our education system and especially our financial aid system does not make any sense. Why does the government pay the same amount of financial aid for an individual seeking an art degree as one seeking a degree in computer science or engineering? Why do we have a system where individuals must attend college for X about of years for a generalized degree and then they must be retrained for years to be proficient at their job? Why would someone need to work in a fast food joint while attending college in order to keep a roof over their head and food in their mouths?

I think the government should subsidize an individual's education based on the economic benefit of said career. Give the money to the companies to pay for their future employee's education. Higher demand careers can use the left over money they get from the government to pay students salaries in order to give them an immediate incentive to stick with that career. This would allow an individual to immediately start working in their desired field and if they pursue a career which is in high demand they can actually make a living off it. This would also provide a major boost to our economy and would ensure all citizens can secure employment. Think about the possibilities this would unlock for the advancement in technology and the human race as a whole?
Promit
Promit
Nope. Free market.
SlimDX | Ventspace Blog | Twitter | Diverse teams make better games. I am currently hiring capable C++ engine developers in Baltimore, MD.
JackOfAllTrades
JackOfAllTrades

Nope. Free market.


Can you elaborate? My point is exactly that! Where there is a high demand the government helps fill that void with talented workers there by providing more jobs to citizens and advancing that field by lowering the cost of needed employees. This would mean instead of having people sitting on their asses collecting unemployment they could be out working in high demand jobs.
Madhed
Madhed
You know, learning takes time. What happens if the government subsidizes a field that isn't needed 4 years later? What happens when everyone starts studying those high profile, subsidized courses and you have 4 times as many applicants as there are jobs later?
JackOfAllTrades
JackOfAllTrades

You know, learning takes time. What happens if the government subsidizes a field that isn't needed 4 years later? What happens when everyone starts studying those high profile, subsidized courses and you have 4 times as many applicants as there are jobs later?


The government will know how many people are trying to enter a field and can adjust subsidizes based on projections. You're looking at this as if the subsidizes will be static but my point is that they will be dynamic. What we have right now is a static subsidization of education which results in the large class division and it is a huge contributor to our economic deficient.
Madhed
Madhed

[...] which results in the large class division and it is a huge contributor to our economic deficient.


You have sources for that?
CadetUmfer
CadetUmfer
I agree with the OP's stance. Interest rates on government loans for high-demand education should be lower than those for low-demand education. Not the total amount of aid, but the interest rate. An Art History degree is a significantly riskier investment (in terms of being able to pay back the loan) than a Chemical Engineering degree. Rates should reflect that.
Anthony Umfer
JackOfAllTrades
JackOfAllTrades

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1328219792' post='4908868']
[...] which results in the large class division and it is a huge contributor to our economic deficient.


You have sources for that?
[/quote]

In 2009 the government spent 180 billion dollars on financial aid for postsecondary education. Most of which was on high supply low demand degrees.
JackOfAllTrades
JackOfAllTrades

I agree with the OP's stance. Interest rates on government loans for high-demand education should be lower than those for low-demand education. Not the total amount of aid, but the interest rate. An Art History degree is a significantly riskier investment (in terms of being able to pay back the loan) than a Chemical Engineering degree. Rates should reflect that.


Interest rates should also be based on demand but that is not where the government is losing the most money. Pell grants are a near 100% loss if and individual pursues a low demand degree.
Eelco
Eelco

[quote name='Madhed' timestamp='1328219216' post='4908865']
You know, learning takes time. What happens if the government subsidizes a field that isn't needed 4 years later? What happens when everyone starts studying those high profile, subsidized courses and you have 4 times as many applicants as there are jobs later?


The government will know how many people are trying to enter a field and can adjust subsidizes based on projections. You're looking at this as if the subsidizes will be static but my point is that they will be dynamic. What we have right now is a static subsidization of education which results in the large class division and it is a huge contributor to our economic deficient.
[/quote]
As with your previous policy suggestions, they revolve around a rather silly view of government.

Does any democratic government have any incentive to implement any such policy? What does it mean to their bottom line? The buying of votes that is?

One would imagine free cash handouts are the more potent instrument there, rather than gizmos such as good long term governance. No amount of proselytizing is going to change that.

If there is such a thing as a solution to the broken incentives in education, it is to get the government out of it altogether. Giving it more knobs to tweak is only going to make matters worse.
JackOfAllTrades
JackOfAllTrades

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1328219792' post='4908868']
[quote name='Madhed' timestamp='1328219216' post='4908865']
You know, learning takes time. What happens if the government subsidizes a field that isn't needed 4 years later? What happens when everyone starts studying those high profile, subsidized courses and you have 4 times as many applicants as there are jobs later?


The government will know how many people are trying to enter a field and can adjust subsidizes based on projections. You're looking at this as if the subsidizes will be static but my point is that they will be dynamic. What we have right now is a static subsidization of education which results in the large class division and it is a huge contributor to our economic deficient.
[/quote]
As with your previous policy suggestions, they revolve around a rather silly view of government.

Does any democratic government have any incentive to implement any such policy? What does it mean to their bottom line? The buying of votes that is?

One would imagine free cash handouts are the more potent instrument there, rather than gizmos such as good long term governance. No amount of proselytizing is going to change that.

If there is such a thing as a solution to the broken incentives in education, it is to get the government out of it altogether. Giving it more knobs to tweak is only going to make matters worse.
[/quote]

Demolishing institutionalized education would work toward the same goal. Cooperations would then be forced to educate their own employees. However, it would put the US at an economic disadvantage since other nations will be training their employees for free. So really it's impractical to simply remove the government from education.
Eelco
Eelco

Demolishing institutionalized education would work toward the same goal. Cooperations would then be forced to educate their own employees. However, it would put the US at an economic disadvantage since other nations will be training their employees for free. So really it's impractical to simply remove the government from education.

For free? As in beer? Id like to see that nation that accomplishes that. Did they sell their souls to santaclaus or something?
JackOfAllTrades
JackOfAllTrades

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1328225127' post='4908899']
Demolishing institutionalized education would work toward the same goal. Cooperations would then be forced to educate their own employees. However, it would put the US at an economic disadvantage since other nations will be training their employees for free. So really it's impractical to simply remove the government from education.

For free? As in beer? Id like to see that nation that accomplishes that. Did they sell their souls to santaclaus or something?
[/quote]

I mean free to the cooperations. Technically not free since cooperations have to pay taxes but a huge majority of the cost is off boarded to the masses.
samoth
samoth
In 2009 the government spent 180 billion dollars on financial aid for postsecondary education.
Typing "US military budget" into Google brings up an Wikipedia article that claims your government spent 663 billion dollars in 2010 on "overseas contingency operations"

I'm not an expert in military euphemisms, but "overseas contingency operations" reads to me as "war in far away countries that the majority of US citizens won't find on the map".

The same page gives a figure of 46.9 billion for "homeland security" and 2.7 billion for FBI counter-terrorism. Now again, I'm no expert on governmental euphemisms, but the former sounds a lot like "breaking innocent people's civil rights every day" (this includes, among minor things like eavesdropping personal communications, things such as keeping people who have never done anything wrong on a no-fly list and hijacking innocent people at their breakfast table to waterboard them for some months).
The latter sounds much like "building a fake bomb, and convincing a below-average-intelligence young man with muslim-sounding name that exploding a bomb in a city in Oregon is a good idea, and helping him press the trigger". A cynic would add "... and without ever catching as much as one real terrorist".
Antheus
Antheus
one seeking a degree in computer science or engineering[/quote]

These are not in demand, nor are they profitable.

MSc./PhD from elite school will earn ~100k + 30k bonus at a handful of companies (for tech/engineering work). Typical programmer entry-level salary is less or comparable to any other industry. Life-time programmer salary, on average, is probably under minimum wage, due to short length of career.

A ObGyn salary starts at $400k. Anastesiology at $250k-550k. These are the fields in demand. Why? If one were to take all the med students today and put them into these jobs - there aren't enough. That is how bad the shortage is. If they go out looking for these people they cannot find them since there aren't.

In IT? Throw a stone and you'll hit 50.

Look at numbers again - Google alone gets 2 million resumes per year and they hire a few thousand. That is oversupply.
JackOfAllTrades
JackOfAllTrades

one seeking a degree in computer science or engineering


These are not in demand, nor are they profitable.

MSc./PhD from elite school will earn ~100k + 30k bonus at a handful of companies (for tech/engineering work). Typical programmer entry-level salary is less or comparable to any other industry. Life-time programmer salary, on average, is probably under minimum wage, due to short length of career.

A ObGyn salary starts at $400k. Anastesiology at $250k-550k. These are the fields in demand. Why? If one were to take all the med students today and put them into these jobs - there aren't enough. That is how bad the shortage is. If they go out looking for these people they cannot find them since there aren't.

In IT? Throw a stone and you'll hit 50.

Look at numbers again - Google alone gets 2 million resumes per year and they hire a few thousand. That is oversupply.
[/quote]

An Ob Gyn salary starts at 150k... Besides that your argument only serves to prove why the system I suggested would be a huge improvement over our current system. Some careers are in dire need of trained professionals but they simply don't appeal to many people.
way2lazy2care
way2lazy2care
I honestly can't take your opinion seriously if you think the problem is what you say it is.

The problem is rising education costs across the board, not education specific. I also think your analysis is ludicrous. Do you have any friends who are artists? How many of them are from the lower class? They might end up down there because it's a high risk career, but how many do you know that start in the lower class vs otherwise?
Antheus
Antheus
An Ob Gyn salary starts at 150k...[/quote]

And in IT, salary starts at $1/hour.

Still - in engineering, $150k is the top you'll see if you get lucky.


Besides that your argument only serves to prove why the system I suggested would be a huge improvement over our current system. Some careers are in dire need of trained professionals but they simply don't appeal to many people.


It's not appeal. There simply aren't enough people. The only way to increase number of doctors would be to lower the standards.

Medicine is the most glamorous profession just about anywhere in the planet. Yet there aren't enough people capable of going through the studies or being able to work in the field afterwards due to demands.
JackOfAllTrades
JackOfAllTrades

An Ob Gyn salary starts at 150k...


And in IT, salary starts at $1/hour.

Still - in engineering, $150k is the top you'll see if you get lucky.


Besides that your argument only serves to prove why the system I suggested would be a huge improvement over our current system. Some careers are in dire need of trained professionals but they simply don't appeal to many people.


It's not appeal. There simply aren't enough people. The only way to increase number of doctors would be to lower the standards.

Medicine is the most glamorous profession just about anywhere in the planet. Yet there aren't enough people capable of going through the studies or being able to work in the field afterwards due to demands.
[/quote]

I'm just going to ignore you now. I swear to god every time you reply to one of my post you are trolling. Your figures are always inaccurate or over exaggerated, and your opinions are always illogical.
JackOfAllTrades
JackOfAllTrades

I honestly can't take your opinion seriously if you think the problem is what you say it is.

The problem is rising education costs across the board, not education specific. I also think your analysis is ludicrous. Do you have any friends who are artists? How many of them are from the lower class? They might end up down there because it's a high risk career, but how many do you know that start in the lower class vs otherwise?


Yes, I have many friends who are artist. All of them are unemployed or working in completely non-related jobs.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.

Sign in to reply to this topic.