Student loan forgiveness and free college are bad ideas.

[Meadmaker]

Art historians like Sister Wendy and Robert Hughes have educated, informed and given pleasure to millions of people. They have done so by explaining the context of the art, the social conditions which helped produce it, the influence of the art and its legacy.

You seem to put no value on people who enhance the enjoyment of art. I do. Art history is important to many. If it’s not to you, your loss.

Au Contraire.


If more people would have studied art history in college, would there have been more millions of people enjoying art than the ones Robert Hughes educated, informed, and gave pleasure to?

I'm all for art history, in limited quantities.

Kobe Bryant and Lebron James gave great pleasure to people who like to watch basketball, but I wouldn't give lots of people free college for four years to study basketball.

As an aside, neither Robert Hughes nor Sister Wendy actually studied art history in college.


And that goes for the ornamental horticulture students, too. I knew one in college. His career goal was to be a groundskeeper for golf courses. There are good jobs available that benefit society. We need some of them. We shouldn't let anyone who wants to study it for free at taxpayer expense for four years, though.

 

[lionking]

Au Contraire.


If more people would have studied art history in college, would there have been more millions of people enjoying art than the ones Robert Hughes educated, informed, and gave pleasure to?

I'm all for art history, in limited quantities.

Kobe Bryant and Lebron James gave great pleasure to people who like to watch basketball, but I wouldn't give lots of people free college for four years to study basketball.

As an aside, neither Robert Hughes nor Sister Wendy actually studied art history in college.

And that goes for the ornamental horticulture students, too. I knew one in college. His career goal was to be a groundskeeper for golf courses. There are good jobs available that benefit society. We need some of them. We shouldn't let anyone who wants to study it for free at taxpayer expense for four years, though.

A very lame aside as Art History degrees weren’t around when they went to university. Nevertheless they studied arts disciplines and became universally acknowledged as art historians.

 

[Delvo]

Your depiction of college students' lifestyles is false.

Your depiction of how much money they get apiece and for which kinds of degrees is false.

Your depiction of what hypothetical people who've already paid our loans off (or even partially done so) is false in more than one way. First, no, that's not actually how we look at it at all. And even if we did, you have no evidence of that, so you'd still have no basis for saying it anyway, so that would still be just as much of a bluff. Also, you'd be hiding behind us instead of admitting that your own idea is your own idea or admitting which talking head you're really parroting instead. (I suspect that that's because you're aware of how repugnant the accusation you're making is, so of course it has to be shunted off to your opponents, not left where it really belongs.) And on top of that, even if the accusation about what we think were accurate, feigning concern over how bothered somebody else would hypothetically be is still at best an argument about the idea's popularity, not one about how good or bad the idea is.

Your depiction of your own motivation, that it's just about how many get in or how easy it is to get in or what silly degrees they get in for, is also rather transparently false; if that were it to you, it would be what you talked about yourself in the first place, but it wasn't. You set yourself up against the idea of free college & debt forgiveness in general, not just against inadequate qualifications/regulations on it.

I am mostly against the proposals not as subsidies per se, but for who they are subsidizing. Writing off $50k of debt for a household making $100k seems like a poor use of resources. I favor small write offs for those who tried college, dropped out, and are saddled with some debt and no degree. Say a debt write off up to $5-10k with diminishing value after an income of $25k per year.

The problem is that this country is so thoroughly run by and for the rich that anything that primarily or exclusively benefits the non-rich is sure to get as damaged/crippled as possible. The only way to make something relatively politically safe in the current era is to make sure it benefits the rich too.

* * *

One non-false thing in the original post was that part of the idea of government assisting college students was that the economy would benefit from having some of its people be made more productive. Now that we're in the situation we're in, the equivalent issue or question is what would benefit the economy overall now, from where we're at now. And the answer is in: deleting student debt would help the economy by freeing people to participate in it who currently can't afford to.

 

[Meadmaker]

A very lame aside as Art History degrees weren’t around when they went to university. Nevertheless they studied arts disciplines and became universally acknowledged as art historians.

Well that's the point.

You don't need an art history degree to become an art historian, or to appreciate the history of art.

I would be perfectly willing to subsidize a small number of dedicated individuals to study the history of art in the hopes that they could find some way to spread that knowledge to lots of people who studied something else when they were in college. Sister Wendy and Robert Hughes managed to do that even without studying art history.

(For those who didn't look them up on Wikipedia, one of them studied arts, before switching to architecture and the other studied English literature.)

 

[Meadmaker]

Your depiction of college students' lifestyles is false.

Your depiction of how much money they get apiece and for which kinds of degrees is false.

Your depiction of what hypothetical people who've already paid our loans off (or even partially done so) is false in more than one way. First, no, that's not actually how we look at it at all. And even if we did, you have no evidence of that, so you'd still have no basis for saying it anyway, so that would still be just as much of a bluff. Also, you'd be hiding behind us instead of admitting that your own idea is your own idea or admitting which talking head you're really parroting instead. (I suspect that that's because you're aware of how repugnant the accusation you're making is, so of course it has to be shunted off to your opponents, not left where it really belongs.) And on top of that, even if the accusation about what we think were accurate, feigning concern over how bothered somebody else would hypothetically be is still at best an argument about the idea's popularity, not one about how good or bad the idea is.

Your depiction of your own motivation, that it's just about how many get in or how easy it is to get in or what silly degrees they get in for, is also rather transparently false; if that were it to you, it would be what you talked about yourself in the first place, but it wasn't. You set yourself up against the idea of free college & debt forgiveness in general, not just against inadequate qualifications/regulations on it.

The problem is that this country is so thoroughly run by and for the rich that anything that primarily or exclusively benefits the non-rich is sure to get as damaged/crippled as possible. The only way to make something relatively politically safe in the current era is to make sure it benefits the rich too.

* * *

One non-false thing in the original post was that part of the idea of government assisting college students was that the economy would benefit from having some of its people be made more productive. Now that we're in the situation we're in, the equivalent issue or question is what would benefit the economy overall now, from where we're at now. And the answer is in: deleting student debt would help the economy by freeing people to participate in it who currently can't afford to.

Why the personal insults? Why the smack talk? What's the deal with that?

Yes, I believe what I believe. Yes, so do others. I didn't have a student loan myself, but I've written checks to pay them, because my wife had them. They were mostly paid off when we got married, but when she got pregnant and stopped working, I paid the rest. Yes, an awful lot of people who took loans and paid them would resent paying off the loans of others who didn't pay them. Yes, a lot of people who chose not to go to college because of fear of those loans would resent paying off other people's loans.

Those people really exist. We aren't zombies parroting some talking heads.

Meanwhile, my "false" characterizations of how much money people get and for what degrees is a pretty hot topic. The news media has been filled with stories the last few years with variations on the theme of "Is college worth it?" and those stories are filled with examples of people racking up huge debts studying subjects that can't get them jobs. It's a hot topic not because a bunch of right wingers decided to gin up some outrage, but because there's a lot of people with huge debt that they can't pay, that will drag them down for years.

So take your personal insults elsewhere.

 

[Meadmaker]

And here's that bastion of right wing thought, the Washington Post, talking about rising student fees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-hidden-cost-of-college-rising-student-fees/

I don't think the author of this piece is a right wing talking head.


I don't make this crap up. Seriously. It's really happening.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It is a fundamental mistake to try to guess what degrees will be useful in the future and make it harder to get any other: at best, you flood the market with people with the same (albeit useful) skill-set, at worse you created workers for jobs that no longer exist.
Diversity of skills is more critical than ever, as is motivation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What if they are studying art history?

Do you not believe that the people with the following careers can contribute to society?

• Museum/Gallery Curator
• Art Conservation and Restoration
• Museum Marketing and Public Relations
• Art Law and Law Enforcement
• Art Consultant
• Artist Management and Representation
• Museum Fundraising and Development
• Museum facilities operation
• Special Events Planner for a Museum or Other Arts Organization
• Art and Estate Appraisal for an Auction House or Private Firm
• Exhibit Installer
• Antiquarian book dealer
• Antique dealer
• Art investment consultant
• Art museum website designer

And those are just assuming you want to go into a career with Art or historical items.

Seems to me that you have some blinkers on and only perceive things you like as important and everything else as silly.

 

[Meadmaker]

It is a fundamental mistake to try to guess what degrees will be useful in the future and make it harder to get any other: at best, you flood the market with people with the same (albeit useful) skill-set, at worse you created workers for jobs that no longer exist.
Diversity of skills is more critical than ever, as is motivation.

A "fundamental mistake"?

So we have some alternatives. We can try to use government subsidies to steer 18 year old students toward subjects of study that we think might be useful, or we can let the 18 year olds decide what they want to do, and pay for their choices.

I can't see how the second is any less of a fundamental mistake than the first.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you not believe that the people with the following careers can contribute to society?

• Museum/Gallery Curator
• Art Conservation and Restoration
• Museum Marketing and Public Relations
• Art Law and Law Enforcement
• Art Consultant
• Artist Management and Representation
• Museum Fundraising and Development
• Museum facilities operation
• Special Events Planner for a Museum or Other Arts Organization
• Art and Estate Appraisal for an Auction House or Private Firm
• Exhibit Installer
• Antiquarian book dealer
• Antique dealer
• Art investment consultant
• Art museum website designer

And those are just assuming you want to go into a career with Art or historical items.

Seems to me that you have some blinkers on and only perceive things you like as important and everything else as silly.

You left out waitress.

ETA: And I want to assure you that I do indeed value the contributions of waitresses toward society. I just don't think we ought to encourage young people to go heavily into debt in the course of getting to that career choice.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A "fundamental mistake"?

So we have some alternatives. We can try to use government subsidies to steer 18 year old students toward subjects of study that we think might be useful, or we can let the 18 year olds decide what they want to do, and pay for their choices.

I can't see how the second is any less of a fundamental mistake than the first.

who is more likely to know what will be useful in the future?
An 18-year old who grew up with the latest level of culture and technology, or a government bureaucracy stuffed with people two-to-three generations older?

 

[Meadmaker]

who is more likely to know what will be useful in the future?
An 18-year old who grew up with the latest level of culture and technology, or a government bureaucracy stuffed with people two-to-three generations older?

Government bureaucrat. They are paid to collect salary statistics, unemployment statistics, and surveys of job providers to see where there are shortfalls in the labor force.

On top of that, the 18 year old doesn't base his decision on what will be most useful in the future. They base their decision on what they want to do. One factor in that might be usefulness in the future.

 

[Roboramma]

Meadmaker isn't saying that no one should study Art History. He is saying that we are training more art historians than we actually need. The idea being, I imagine, that more people are interested in studying art history than there are jobs for art historians. Of course there are certainly other careers that might benefit from an education in art history (Giordano made this point), but they may also benefit more from an education in another subject, or just from four years of job experience.

How can we know? Well, one way would be to look at the employment rate among people who studied art history. Another might be to look at the rate at which they pay off their student loans. That seems to be the metric that Meadmaker thinks is particularly revealing, and while he hasn't suggesting looking specifically at that rate among students of art history, he has brought it up in relation to all students.

I'd suggest that if his position is valid, we'd see those with STEM degrees paying off their student loans at higher rates than those with degrees in the arts. That would suggest that there is an oversupply in training in those subjects (not that they aren't valuable).

As to why such an oversupply could arise? The basic view of education is that people will train in fields that they are good at, interested in, and can offer some competitive advantage in (so they have a good career outlook). There should be some free market forces that will drive students toward an optimum. If some field is under-enrolled, people will become aware of the demand, salaries for graduates will rise, and more will enter that field. In the reverse case people will see that many graduates are unable to find employment, and will look to study other subjects.

That all makes sense, and certainly is a factor. On the other hand not everyone actually looks at those details. They may be aware that a degree is useful without knowing the specifics of the degree that they are studying. They may simply be unrealistic about their situation, and being particularly interested in a less in demand subject simply choose to study it. There are some social pressures to get a degree at all, and so if one field is difficult they may choose to transfer to another that they can excel in even if the career prospects are limited, rather than simply dropping out.

So while I'd expect free market forces to help people to choose fields that are more in demand, there are other forces that could push them toward less in demand fields.

But these are just theory. The data, are do those with STEM degrees pay off student loans faster than those with degrees in the arts? should answer some of these questions.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm firmly in the camp of "let kids decide for themselves, help them as much as possible, be there to steer toward other alternatives if it doesn't work for them" camp.

I think a bunch of broke waitresses who are happy make a better world than a bunch of billionaire bankers who are all dreaming of jumping from a high window.

Maybe we should reconsider the premise that people who do very necessary jobs like serving tables or answering phones or taking tickets only deserve low wages? Maybe "waitress" should pay as much as "loan manager" or "carpenter"?

How might the world change if every person working -in any capacity- was earning a living wage?

 

[Bob001]

Government bureaucrat. They are paid to collect salary statistics, unemployment statistics, and surveys of job providers to see where there are shortfalls in the labor force.

On top of that, the 18 year old doesn't base his decision on what will be most useful in the future. They base their decision on what they want to do. One factor in that might be usefulness in the future.

What government bureaucrat 20 years ago would have predicted that Amazon and Google would dominate the world, or that brick-and-mortar retail would collapse? The point of education -- particularly a liberal arts education -- is to provide a foundation of broad knowledge that can be adapted and applied to changing circumstances. College is not and was never supposed to be a trade school.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm firmly in the camp of "let kids decide for themselves, help them as much as possible, be there to steer toward other alternatives if it doesn't work for them" camp.

On the one hand, you want them to be able to make the decisions. On the other hand, you recognize that they need "help", and they have to be "steered". As a general philosophy, I like it, but there must be limits. It's tempting to resort to hyperbolic illustrations of when letting them make their own decisions might be a really bad idea. However, there's no need for that. The specific case in question provides illustration enough.

We have a student debt problem. (I was tempted to say "crisis", but that word is so overused) It's a bad enough problem that politicians are proposing solutions. In other words, it isn't made up. It's not a right wing talking point. It isn't some bogeyman invented to scare people. It is a real problem affecting millions of people with significant negative consequences to their lives.

And what is the nature of the problem? Basically, a lot people can't pay their loans on the wages that they make, or doing so is a major burden for them. Put another way, the cost of their education is so high that it is higher than the economic value produced by that education, such that the economic standard of living for many educated people is lower than it would have been had they never sought higher education.

With me so far?

So the proposed solution by some politicians is to shift the cost away from the educated people onto the public at large.


That doesn't actually solve any problem at all. It just moves part of the problem to different segment of the population. The educated individuals still do not have a skill that they can use to make a living, but at least someone else is stuck with the bill for it.

I think a bunch of broke waitresses who are happy make a better world than a bunch of billionaire bankers who are all dreaming of jumping from a high window.

Maybe we should reconsider the premise that people who do very necessary jobs like serving tables or answering phones or taking tickets only deserve low wages? Maybe "waitress" should pay as much as "loan manager" or "carpenter"?

How might the world change if every person working -in any capacity- was earning a living wage?

I agree with all of this, but it doesn't have much to do with student loans.

My "waitress" comment wasn't to imply that being a waitress was something wrong. However, being a waitress with 50,000 dollars of debt which was accrued in the course of pursuing a bachelor's degree in philosophy is a problem.

The specific example that prompted the "waitress" comment was actually art history, but you could substitute any number of college majors that are unlikely to lead to economic reward. In the specific case of art history, there was a list of professions that one could pursue with the degree in art history, but that overlooked the fact that most people who get those degrees don't end up in those professions.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Universities are massively overpriced, and that is due to a massive inflation of completely unnecessary middle-management and administration.
Secondly, the top universities are Hedge Funds, with an institute of learning attached: it's a scandal that they get to charge their students anything at all, given that they are the reason they are receiving such massive endowments.

I wonder if it wouldn't be much better to have a system in which internship and acquiring a degree would run in parallel as a matter of course: companies would get employees trained exactly the way they need, and students would see much earlier what kind of work their degree leads to.

 

[Minoosh]

I wonder if it wouldn't be much better to have a system in which internship and acquiring a degree would run in parallel as a matter of course: companies would get employees trained exactly the way they need, and students would see much earlier what kind of work their degree leads to.

Sure would help in K-12 education. The courses aren't that helpful for the behavioral management and straight up child care involved. IMO they should make practicum the dominant component.

Also politically the message shouldn't be free or even low-cost college, but free or low-cost post-secondary education. As in getting certified in any number of higher-wage fields.

 

[Meadmaker]

Universities are massively overpriced, and that is due to a massive inflation of completely unnecessary middle-management and administration.

Agreed. Although, the sign on the door never says, "Office of Unnecessary Middle Management and Administration". It usually says, "Student Services", or some variation thereof.

I wonder if it wouldn't be much better to have a system in which internship and acquiring a degree would run in parallel as a matter of course: companies would get employees trained exactly the way they need, and students would see much earlier what kind of work their degree leads to.

I think so. The specifics might vary from one field of study to the next, but yes.

 

[theprestige]

Universities are massively overpriced, and that is due to a massive inflation of completely unnecessary middle-management and administration.

Where do you think the money to fund all those unnecessary positions comes from?

From tuition. And where does the money for tuition come from?

Student loans.

And where do student loans come from?

The government.