NYTimes: The College Graduate as Collateral

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

"

ACADEMIC economists like to make fun of businesspeople: they want competition when they enter a new market but are quick to lobby for subsidies and barriers to competitors once they get in. Yet scholars like me are no better. We work in the least competitive and most subsidized industry of all: higher education."

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?

[son_of_montfort]

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.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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.

[son_of_montfort]

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.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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

[Staggerwing]

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.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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.

[son_of_montfort]

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.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Prior to grad school.

[son_of_montfort]

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.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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

[Barthheart]

...


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.

[son_of_montfort]

...


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.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

...


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.

[son_of_montfort]

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.