GrogHeads Forum

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/the-college-graduate-as-collateral.html?_r=1&hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/the-college-graduate-as-collateral.html?_r=1&hp)


Dumbass academic wants to sell everyone into even more slavery. Its like the matrix, everyone is someone else's money "battery".


What is wrong with these people?

Can we knock it off with the "these people" comments, Mr. B. This is one academic, and I can assure you that many of us would not agree with this method.

I think Mr. Zingales has very little perspective here. What I happening as a result of his idea is the death of the humanities. Why would a venture capitalist "invest" in an English or History major? The potential for profit is there, but not nearly as much as it would be for Engineering, Bio-medical Science, and Business majors. That isn't to say that English, History, etc. don't make money - they do (recent studies show that these majors make decent average salaries) but nothing in comparison to those other fields.

I believe in the intrinsic social value of preserving the humanities. No, I don't think that EVERYONE should major in History (I do believe everyone should take history courses).

We already have too much corporate influence over our lives, we don't need a venture capitalist making access to higher ed contingent upon future profit.

How about this: reduce the costs of tuition across the board.

I didn't mean to imply other academics think like him, it was a frustration comment.


Lowering the price is the answer, i agree. Increasing subsidies is not. There should be cheap DVD based lectures in any topic at any bookstore. The same $10 per 2 hrs as a movie. Or a course pack for $20 just like the TV season DVDs. You buy the books, you have the lectures. The universities should be pay per service. You buy a lab experiment. You buy a tutorial. They should have to scramble to earn their money. Not this give us $40k per year we will tell you what to do. The student has to be active not passive in their learning.


I do value the humanities but people have to understand many traditional programs are out of touch with what employers need. Its the same for science. Learn what is interesting to you through your whole life. Learn how to solve employer's problems to earn your way in the world. Learn entrepreneurship to be a real free person rather than a corporate slave.

Remember, the government stripped Graduate Degree Stafford loans of their subsidies. It was, in my opinion, a 100% politically motivated move (because the academy tends to be more liberal than not). Also, it was ineffectual for dealing with budget issues andonly hurt people training for higher professional degrees.

If they work PT through school they wouldn't need the entitlement. They would also leave with little or no debt. Imagine that. ;)

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 15, 2012, 07:56:09 PM
If they work PT through school they wouldn't need the entitlement. They would also leave with little or no debt. Imagine that. ;)

Maybe if they worked for a High Class Escort Service  ;). Working part time at Jiffy Lube or tutoring kids in Dark Age Shipbuilding probably won't put much of a dent in the cost of Higher Education. Still, the extra pocket cash will buy a tastlier brand of Raman Noodle, if nothing else.

Construction? Farming? Hotel service? Cooks? Everyone imagines they walk out of high-school to a big desk ordering everyone around. ::)
If they can cover rent plus part of their schooling for 4 years, then full time for a few years before grad school they are far ahead. Nobody takes a young kid seriously anyway. It's not as if they have to rush through undergrad for the big job at the end. They will probably get career table scraps until their 30s.

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 15, 2012, 07:56:09 PM
If they work PT through school they wouldn't need the entitlement. They would also leave with little or no debt. Imagine that. ;)

Yeah... cause working part time really syncs well with those 40+ hour weeks of reading, classes, teaching (as a TA), and grading.  ::)

Or, if you are in certain fields, lab work or practicums.

Or were you only talking about Undegrads? I was actually forbidden to work outside of the university during my grad training or I would lose my Fellowship.

Prior to grad school.

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 16, 2012, 02:42:21 AM
Prior to grad school.

So what's the solution to the removal of subsidy on Stafford loans?

I don't see the point. The budget savings was miniscule and it just adds money that higher trained professionals will lose to big named financial institutions. That money would be better off going into the economy.

I know I'm a heretic for saying this, but I think Student Loan Forgiveness would provide a huge boost.

Because other people should work to make your life easy. [Breaks out the torches]
Bring the implements. Assume the position.

Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 16, 2012, 10:45:59 AM
...


I know I'm a heretic for saying this, but I think Student Loan Forgiveness would provide a huge boost.

People pay back their student loans?!? I paid mine but according to the government here I was one of only about 10% that did! Hence the government no longer backs strident loans.

Quote from: Barthheart on June 16, 2012, 01:50:29 PM

Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 16, 2012, 10:45:59 AM
...


I know I'm a heretic for saying this, but I think Student Loan Forgiveness would provide a huge boost.

People pay back their student loans?!? I paid mine but according to the government here I was one of only about 10% that did! Hence the government no longer backs strident loans.

No, they don't - and that is the problem. Instead they live under crippling debt accrued for the promise of jobs that didn't exist four or more years later, when they graduated. And no, they aren't all 19th century feminist literature majors.  ;)

The US Congress "helped" matters by making it so that you can't even get rid of your student loans by declaring bankruptcy.

As for the idea of student loan forgiveness - the GI Bill was a massive success.

Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 16, 2012, 08:51:52 PM

Quote from: Barthheart on June 16, 2012, 01:50:29 PM

Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 16, 2012, 10:45:59 AM
...


I know I'm a heretic for saying this, but I think Student Loan Forgiveness would provide a huge boost.

People pay back their student loans?!? I paid mine but according to the government here I was one of only about 10% that did! Hence the government no longer backs strident loans.

No, they don't - and that is the problem. Instead they live under crippling debt accrued for the promise of jobs that didn't exist four or more years later, when they graduated. And no, they aren't all 19th century feminist literature majors.  ;)

The US Congress "helped" matters by making it so that you can't even get rid of your student loans by declaring bankruptcy.

As for the idea of student loan forgiveness - the GI Bill was a massive success.

That is not the problem. Why are all these people getting debt to learn subjects nobody gives a damn about? They should never have gone to college. They are being assisted in their bad decisions. Simple F'ing supply and demand.

Why assume they are learning subjects that "nobody gives a damn about?" Jobs are hard to find for any skill-set. While I do believe many people got overly enchanted with the idea of following one's passion because "life's too short to be in a job you hate all your life, like your parents," the idea that college was the next logical step was one that was expected by many people in society and sold to parents, teachers, and students alike.

So why punish these people with life-altering levels of debt for following a social expectation foisted upon them? Besides, things changed quickly in the economy. When I started grad school, academic jobs were a bit hard to find but much more plentiful. Today, things have changed. Even a 4-year degree can be problematic.

And what other options were there for high school grads? Sorry, a college diploma is quickly becoming a "rite of passage" into certain parts of the job market. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is what it is.

I don't get the idea that benefiting from a subsidy is "entitlement." In a world where one political party spent $35 million (and both parties combined over $50 million) to campaign for one man to keep his position in office, the denial of helping people living under debt to be contributors to the economy as "helping people make bad decisions" rings fairly hollow.

You should have studied economics. When I took econ It was to help a friend who was struggling in the business program. We would be study partners in a course many were failing. I needed an arts elective for my science degree. He passed, I got a good mark, I quickly realized i was wasting my time in science "because it was interesting". I switched to a top business program that was a bit sciency.


Its not punishment it is your reward! What do you mean you don't like the life you chose? You did choose it. Buyer beware and all that. Besides, as a medievalist surely you know what Shakespeare was all about. Life is a tragedy. "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

^If that's what you take away from Shakespeare, you took the wrong classes.  ;)

Then that will be my tragedy.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FSmilies%2Fthank_you_2.gif&hash=318ccc836b5d46a0eb5aed5c307ffee9fde1a3ab)

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 16, 2012, 10:52:44 PM
You should have studied economics. When I took econ It was to help a friend who was struggling in the business program. We would be study partners in a course many were failing. I needed an arts elective for my science degree. He passed, I got a good mark, I quickly realized i was wasting my time in science "because it was interesting". I switched to a top business program that was a bit sciency.


Its not punishment it is your reward! What do you mean you don't like the life you chose? You did choose it. Buyer beware and all that. Besides, as a medievalist surely you know what Shakespeare was all about. Life is a tragedy. "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

I do study economics, but historical it-actually-happened economics, not that theoretical crap they spout off on TV and in business schools.  :P

I love the life I picked. And I'll do just fine because I interview well, write well, and teach well. But telling students they should major in business because it is the best way to get a job (and it isn't, they are doing poorly getting decent jobs too) seems a little on the edge of assigning people their roles in life.

That being said, I counsel all my students against majoring in Philosophy. I mean really...  :P

What they recorded? Accounting. Adam Smith didn't start until about 1750. His invisible hand guides, it does not assign. Struggles against it are like against quicksand.

I disagree. Smith is neither infallible nor inviolate.

Nobody said it was.

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 18, 2012, 05:33:38 PM
Nobody said it was.

And modern day America is not really a good reflection of Smith's economics.

Also remember that Smith advocated regulation of bankers from doing exactly what has been done in the case of student loans.

Quote from: Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsTo restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them; or, to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law, not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed. (Wealth 353)

A pretty clear support of government intervention in case of society wide damage.

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 18, 2012, 12:03:59 AM
Then that will be my tragedy.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FSmilies%2Fthank_you_2.gif&hash=318ccc836b5d46a0eb5aed5c307ffee9fde1a3ab)

But no one with such a handle as yours deserves tragedy!

Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 18, 2012, 07:49:22 PM

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 18, 2012, 05:33:38 PM
Nobody said it was.

And modern day America is not really a good reflection of Smith's economics.

Also remember that Smith advocated regulation of bankers from doing exactly what has been done in the case of student loans.

Quote from: Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsTo restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them; or, to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law, not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed. (Wealth 353)

A pretty clear support of government intervention in case of society wide damage.

LOL. You must have a different version than me. My Palgrave is boxed away. My version from online is different. What book, what chapter? Its mostly price levels for various things in gold or silver from 330-380 to me.


In any event people can enter agreements with a banker without the backing of government underwriting. Whatever came after that snippet, i doubt it said that industries should be able to take whatever risks with the backing of tax money should they default. Industries that would damage a nation by their failure should be torn apart so that no one actor has such power over the nation. Im talking banks not universities.


Anyone going for a government loan just because it is easier to secure than a private loan should be paying a premium. They are stopping the government from investing in other pursuits of the nation. So for example if a bank offers a student with no credit history prime plus 3% (lets say prime is 6%), they should not be able to say well the taxpayer will back you so its Prime only. No it should be If the taxpayer has to back you it is Prime plus 5%. The 5% goes to general revenue! How many will then think carefully about how that education will lead to a career? If party kid is burning daddy's money that is between them.

You might like this section. Wow the 1700s sound just like today!


"The progress of the enormous debts which at
present oppress, and will in the long-run
probably ruin, all the great nations of Europe,
has been pretty uniform. Nations, like private
men, have generally begun to borrow upon
what may be called personal credit, without
assigning or mortgaging any particular fund for
the payment of the debt; and when this
resource has failed them, they have gone on to
borrow upon assignments or mortgages of
particular funds.
..."
p1599

The idea that national debt is a new thing is vastly incorrect, right? People always forget that the American Revolution and the French Revolution were sparked by enormous debts in Britain and France. Which is why I always worry about the return of some sort of radical revolutionary mentality in the wake of national debt. Also, and I have been criticized for saying this, why I worry about movements like the Tea Party - who pretend to be the lower-middle class (the Sans-Culottes) but are being influenced by upper class puppet masters (Jacobin Club) and have a rhetoric of "protecting" the "patriotic" (and they define who is patriotic and who is a traitor) even if it calls for bloodshed.

What a good quote there, really reinforces the cyclical nature of history.

As to the page number, I got the quote from another website. I don't have a copy of WoN handy.

http://political-economy.com/wealth-of-nations.zip (http://political-economy.com/wealth-of-nations.zip)