|
Paradoxish posted:Outside of the color of your skin and how much money your parents make, a college education is the single greatest factor in lifetime earning potential. So, yes, it would be bad to further restrict access to one of the few avenues of class mobility available to people in the US.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
twodot posted:This seems to assume there is some intrinsic quality about degrees that forces capitalists to pay people more, instead of some social quality at least partially driven by prevalence. As an example, I think you would find if you eliminated 80% of white people, color of your skin might have a much smaller impact on lifetime earning potential. It doesn't assume anything. If we're ever in danger of having a 100% college educated workforce (keeping in mind that college enrollment rates have been dropping for the past several years) then we could have a discussion about the value of degrees decreasing towards zero, but that's not really something we need to worry about now or anytime in the foreseeable future. As things are right now, any attempt to make college more exclusive is effectively a sucker punch to minorities and the poor. Will making college more readily have some kind of negative impact on the value of degrees? Yeah, probably, but it's also a net social gain if people who are already doing well end up making slightly less money in exchange for people on the margin being lifted up into the middle class. The alternative is taking the people with the biggest hill to climb and cutting them off from the best tool available for social mobility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It doesn't assume anything. If we're ever in danger of having a 100% college educated workforce (keeping in mind that college enrollment rates have been dropping for the past several years) then we could have a discussion about the value of degrees decreasing towards zero, but that's not really something we need to worry about now or anytime in the foreseeable future. As things are right now, any attempt to make college more exclusive is effectively a sucker punch to minorities and the poor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, I'm not suggesting degrees would increase or decrease in value, I'm suggesting degrees possess no value whatsoever, and that capitalists assign value to jobs regardless of the qualifications of the people who work them (see the fact that color of your skin strongly predicts life time earnings). Changing the amount of people with degrees doesn't change any actual economic factors. It's true that degrees are currently good predictors of lifetime earnings, but there is zero reason to believe that would remain true after any sort of significant change. High school degrees are strong economic factors despite the fact that you're basically required by law to get one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Outside of the color of your skin and how much money your parents make, a college education is the single greatest factor in lifetime earning potential. So, yes, it would be bad to further restrict access to one of the few avenues of class mobility available to people in the US. A large portion of people can't meet the standards needed to get a college degree. Attempts at lowering standards to graduate these people will generally cause the university issuing such degrees to become publicly known as a place for dumb people. If what you say is true, why not just offer free degrees online, with a little qualifier on the degree indicating it was earned online? Virtually anyone would be able to both take advantage of the learning materials, and get a credential, for FREE. Most larger state universities could be expanded to do this for free or a low marginal cost. If you are correct, it's the lowest-cost option to spark unprecedented class mobility. Next up on the cost/feasibility line is free community college that feeds into four year universities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:High school degrees are strong economic factors despite the fact that you're basically required by law to get one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
on the left posted:A large portion of people can't meet the standards needed to get a college degree. Attempts at lowering standards to graduate these people will generally cause the university issuing such degrees to become publicly known as a place for dumb people. Not if everyone does it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:In what sense is this a response to my post? You argued that degrees have no value outside of the value assigned them by employers. Which is still wrong, because besides the implied value, the knowledge necessary to get said degree makes you a more competent member of society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You argued that degrees have no value outside of the value assigned them by employers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:I argued that college degrees have no value in creating social mobility. The existence of college degrees isn't the thing that drives the creation of jobs that offer social mobility. Those jobs are created regardless of the number of college degrees offered in our society, while they are often handed out to people with degrees, increasing the number of degrees does not increase the number of jobs. You can at best skew who jobs are offered to. High school degrees are different as are any other form of certification or education you care to imagine. Bold claim, that undergraduate degrees alone are uniquely worthless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Bold claim, that undergraduate degrees alone are uniquely worthless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:Are you expecting me to make some sort of claim that is true for literally all forms of education? You're the one that quoted me, explain what you actually want. At least true for general classes of education. So far you've said "this one is bad but the other ones are good for nebulous reasons".
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:At least true for general classes of education. So far you've said "this one is bad but the other ones are good for nebulous reasons".
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, I haven't asserted anything is good here. twodot posted:I argued that college degrees have no value in creating social mobility. The existence of college degrees isn't the thing that drives the creation of jobs that offer social mobility. Unless you don't think social mobility is good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Unless you don't think social mobility is good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
In theory having a degree or certification means somebody said "this person demonstrated an ability to do *thing.*" this is why degrees increase what you earn. Many jobs require having a particular degree. You must have a medical degree to practice medicine. Just like a high school degree is supposed to indicate that you are capable of reading and doing basic math. College degrees also require some gen ed so in theory your typical college grad will be better at reasoning out solutions to problems. Jobs that don't necessarily require a degree will prefer the more educated person. Management positions come to mind; college educated people are targeted for middle management. The subject on your degree indicates what you focused on. Some subjects are...less useful than others in the job market. Still, you're generally better off with a degree than without. For profit schools looked at that and said "we can sell that." Public schools kind of did the same thing. Some of the details were different but that was the core of it. So instead of telling you think about your job prospects, plans, and what opportunities you'd get they just said "study whatever you want, get literally any degree at all, and you'll get an awesome job that pays a lot. Don't worry about loans, you'll make more than enough, guaranteed. " Meanwhile they were replacing tenured professors with lower paid adjuncts or grad students. The cost kept getting higher while the quality decreased. Then they massively lowered the requirements and focused on enrollment rather than outcomes. All that mattered was money. The students were money piñatas instead of people trying to get educated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:Are you a primary English speaker? Stating "Humans breathe oxygen" and "Cats (and indeed all non-humans) are different from humans" does not imply that cats do not breathe oxygen. Stating "Humans breathe oxygen, but cats and indeed all other non-humans do not" does imply that. Which is what you did. Just own up to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's an argument to improve early education, it's not an argument to restrict access to higher education. computer parts posted:That's an argument to improve early education, it's not an argument to restrict access to higher education. Unfortunately, many of the issues with secondary education are rooted in complex issues of class, geography, and limited resources, and since Full Utopia Now is unlikely to happen, those issues will persist for at least one if not more generations. Since the other option, "have unlimited money to spend on the educational system", also isn't going to happen, we need to find a fix for the issues with the college education system in the world as it exists now, which will inevitably involve figuring out how to ration finite educational resources and dealing with students who would like a four year degree for social mobility purposes but fundamentally lack the skills to achieve it in four years if ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Not if everyone does it! This is unlikely. Look at the existing market for colleges: wealthy educated families send their children to state flagships and other top 50 schools, while poor minorities without any familial knowledge of higher education get hoodwinked into attending poor-quality universities. Even if you made online education free, the wealthy/educated group would only seriously consider schools that are feeders to the kind of jobs they expect their children to have. Because of the way corporate recruiting works, you probably wouldn't see free online colleges on this list.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
as a mercenary adjunct i cannot wait to get called a scab by my academic betters when PA pays me to come teach 10 classes at bumfuck california of pennsylvania state university for a semester.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unfortunately, many of the issues with secondary education are rooted in complex issues of class, geography, and limited resources, and since Full Utopia Now is unlikely to happen, those issues will persist for at least one if not more generations. Since the other option, "have unlimited money to spend on the educational system", also isn't going to happen, we need to find a fix for the issues with the college education system in the world as it exists now, which will inevitably involve figuring out how to ration finite educational resources and dealing with students who would like a four year degree for social mobility purposes but fundamentally lack the skills to achieve it in four years if ever. This is a good argument for why we should defund high schools.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Kinda hosed up that salaries for university professors are trending down as price of a college education trends up. Where is the money going?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This is a good argument for why we should defund high schools. Not really sure what de-funding high schools has to do with controlling college costs and ensuring that poorly equipped students aren't taking on inadvisable debt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Not really sure what de-funding high schools has to do with controlling college costs and ensuring that poorly equipped students aren't taking on inadvisable debt. Why can we fund high schools and not colleges?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why can we fund high schools and not colleges? public k-12 schools are typically one of if not the largest dedicated expenditures of local jurisdictions. colleges or universities do not have that same level of local support, usually funded at a minimum on the state level. it would be extremely difficult politically to decouple local control over public education expenditure, because you'd have to tackle something like 13,000 school districts across the 50 states and you'd piss off voters in every single congressperson's district boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why can we fund high schools and not colleges? Ah yes, the always piercing question of, "why can't we just spend unlimited money on this problem?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Ah yes, the always piercing question of, "why can't we just spend unlimited money on this problem?" So why is funding high school not also "spending unlimited money". Hint: it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So why is funding high school not also "spending unlimited money". so you're just going to ignore my post where i explain k-12 education is traditionally controlled by local jurisdictions and funded by local money, where college/university is not?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so you're just going to ignore my post where i explain k-12 education is traditionally controlled by local jurisdictions and funded by local money, where college/university is not? Seems like the logical thing to do is to expand university enrollment then, so more people are invested in its success.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
i dont think you're seriously invested in this line of argument, computer parts
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i dont think you're seriously invested in this line of argument, computer parts Probably not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Seems like the logical thing to do is to expand university enrollment then, so more people are invested in its success.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Which, again, requires massive increases in funding from ???, or to devalue our existing educational system by cramming more and more students through the doors without considering their ability to pay or level of preparation. Why are you assuming that funding cannot increase at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Which, again, requires massive increases in funding from ???, or to devalue our existing educational system by cramming more and more students through the doors without considering their ability to pay or level of preparation. by forcing every school board in america to support the local community college, obviously. this will go over extremely well with people who will be forced to raise property taxes or cut expenditure per student as they end up funding more students
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why are you assuming that funding cannot increase at all? federal mandates on local property tax allocations is just about as much of a politically unfeasible move as pissing on the flag on live tv. your suggestions are far too unrealistic for anything but mockery. i'm suspicious you're trying some weird contrarian gimmick and i dont know if i want to explore your commentary any further
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:federal mandates on local property tax allocations is just about as much of a politically unfeasible move as pissing on the flag on live tv. I never mentioned that, but ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I never mentioned that, but ok. this is true, but really it was the only salvageable tangent from your sudden digression into how local school funding works. if you weren't at least thinking about trying to get some of that money shifted towards community colleges as per your questions about raising funding / "infinite money" then im not really sure what you were saying, probably nothing. i mean charitably you might not know how local school funding works i guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:this is true, but really it was the only salvageable tangent from your sudden digression into how local school funding works. if you weren't at least thinking about trying to get some of that money shifted towards community colleges as per your questions about raising funding / "infinite money" then im not really sure what you were saying, probably nothing My point as a whole is that funding for education (as a whole) is not available because certain people don't want to pay for it. This is true on many levels of education. For example, several people didn't want to give minorities money for education, so they moved to suburbs. The question I was (perhaps poorly) stating to Dead Reckoning is asking why current levels of funding are actually ideal, and the solution is to just restrict enrollment until things balance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:But that becomes a problem of price when the machine made IKEA garbage is relatively cheap and in wal-marts because they can charge the lowest with it. As good as humans can make something, regular carpenters and the like are going to go up against companies that can undercut them because their automated assembly spits out mediocre, yet functional goods quicker than regular human work can take. And this isn't even going into poo poo that uses loving prison or sweatshop slave labor. It will be like The Diamond Age where mass produced goods are common and inexpensive while handcrafted, flawed items made by actual people are considered treasures. Popular Thug Drink posted:the biggest problem with this argument is that there simply aren't enough jobs of any type, blue, white, or pink collar, to go around. same as with another favorite talking point, just join the army Don't recruitment quotas also depend on if the country is at wartime or not? If I remember correctly, during the height of the Iraq war, people were being enlisted just for having a pulse. Now that military operations have slowed down, it seems that the armed forces are pickier on who they enlist nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
twodot posted:No, I'm not suggesting degrees would increase or decrease in value, I'm suggesting degrees possess no value whatsoever, and that capitalists assign value to jobs regardless of the qualifications of the people who work them (see the fact that color of your skin strongly predicts life time earnings). Changing the amount of people with degrees doesn't change any actual economic factors. It's true that degrees are currently good predictors of lifetime earnings, but there is zero reason to believe that would remain true after any sort of significant change. I feel like you're just rephrasing my post and somehow saying that we disagree? Like, yeah, degrees only have value because employers assign value to them as a sorting mechanism for job candidates. That's trivially true, but it doesn't actually mean anything. The reason that value goes down as more people earn degrees is that it widens the field of potential candidates for higher paying jobs without, as you point out, changing any of the underlying economic factors that create those jobs. It's the same reason we can't just tell everyone who doesn't want to go to college to become a plumber or a welder. None of this changes the fact that restricting access to higher education right now will disproportionately affect minorities and the poor. Employers aren't going to suddenly stop looking for candidates with degrees, and making it harder to get one will lock out people who are already disadvantaged.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 23:20
|
|