Student loan forgiveness and free college are bad ideas.

[Giordano]

How about we rethink higher education all together? Why do we take four years to get undergrad degrees and the rest of the world takes three? Why do we tell lawyers they have to spend four years studying something unrelated to the law so they can apply to study law? The UK seems to put out fine legal minds without the BA/BS first.

Why don't we have diplomas of higher education (two year degrees highly specialized in a topic area)? The rest of the world does this faster and cheaper than we do and the only solution anyone can come up with is get someone else to pay.

I don’t deny the idea that technical specialties, such as medicine, law, etc., are essentially vocational in nature and can probably be successfully abbreviated in the USA as they are in some other countries. It’s not a trivial issue though how to do it. Don’t we want doctors to understand core biology, biochemistry, cell biology, etc? That’s what they learn in the 4 year undergrad programs before med school. Or do we train them just to recognize symptoms and prescribe treatments without knowing the stuff under the surface? Maybe helped by computers. It works in some other countries. Barefoot doctors are one extreme.

Same with law. Is knowing the technical aspects of the law enough? Or do we want our lawyers to also know history and sociology? Do we want them trained in technical fields that might impact on their skills in certain cases?

Perhaps we want different classes of these practitioners.

More broadly I think everyone should have 2 years or more of liberal arts education. And I don’t see higher education in general as only a feeder of trained workers into the vocational economy. It is a way of improving the quality of life of the students and the society.

 

[Giordano]

The current system with student debt not being dischargeable in bankruptcy is messed up. There needs to be an incentive to pay off debt, and there needs to be an incentive to not assume debt that's too risky to begin with, but if things go wrong and you just can't pay off the debt, then it should be dischargeable.

What I'd like to see is for universities to have to assume a portion of that debt if the student goes bankrupt. In other words, the universities should assume some of the risk of the student debt they're earning money from. This provides an incentive to both not take on students who won't succeed and to help make sure the students they do take on do succeed.

Do we expect a car dealership to assume part of the car loan if a buyer who looks to be a possibly imperfect driver crashes the auto after the purchase? Do we expect a dentist to assume some part of the debt if an unkempt patient takes a loan for dental work but then refuses to brush their teeth and they all rot out?

I think universities that actively encourage students to take out loans that they clearly cannot afford indeed do hold some responsibility (like a bar tender serving drinks to an already dangerously drunk person). Scam colleges do indeed do this frequently. But do legit colleges do this? Do they even have the knowledge, training, and the right to act as a veto power when the government student loan authority is doing the vetting now? I think the universities just pass on the paperwork and count on the Fed loan authority, banks, and the students to make the assessment of if the students can afford the loan. Why should the university? Do car dealerships question if a buyer can pay back a loan made with an external bank?

 

[Francesca R]

I think everyone should have 2 years or more of liberal arts education.

Why?

 

[Giordano]

One reason is it's a form of rent-seeking for the humanities departments. STEM majors have to take a bunch of non-STEM classes to fulfill breadth requirements. That funnels their tuition money into departments that would have to shrink if they couldn't depend on all these non-major required classes.

That may also be one of the motives behind Harvard and other schools' anti-Asian racism. Asian students are more likely to become STEM majors than non-Asian students, so if admissions criteria were applied in a race-neutral manner, humanities departments would probably have to shrink.

So much to unpack here!

I’ll just unwrap part one here. And I am in the very heart of STEM so my advocacy for liberal arts is not related to my ox being gored.

STEM majors actually have to take very few humanities courses at most universities, Maybe two or so total in their entire bachelors degree. It isn’t a funding mechanism. The administration could just as easily have the STEM students take two extra STEM classes and still fund the humanities. It is because colleges and universities worth calling themselves higher education see themselves as helping students gain at least the beginnings of a broader knowledge base. They are there to turn out better rounded and informed people. Humanities students in turn are required to take a few STEM classes for the same reason. I’ve been in the discussions. It is a fundamental motivation by the faculty who determine the requirements for the majors.

 

[Francesca R]

What I'd like to see is for universities to have to assume a portion of that debt if the student goes bankrupt.

Good idea if you’re looking for extra ways to keep American tertiary fees rising at well above inflation rates I suppose.

 

[Giordano]

Why?

I think the humanities are important facets of education for everyone because they make people into better souls and allow them to enjoy their own lives more. Learning about art, music, literature, history, etc. allows people to better appreciate the core of what makes us human and the best of what defines civilization. Having that better access and appreciation can enrich and fill their lives in many, many ways. And it makes them more informed citizens and neighbors.

Two provisos. One can certainly learn and appreciate the humanities without college courses or college at all. Many do. But college as a concept promises a true education and should include these essentials for students who might not recognize their value left to their own devices. And my own field is solid STEM so I am not being egotistical in this belief.

Conversely I think humanity students should learn basic science.

 

[Giordano]

A reminder: the schools do not themselves hold the loans. They don’t negotiate the terms, they don’t approval the loans, and they don’t get the interest income.

The student pays tuition. That is what the colleges get. Just like someone buying A diamond ring on a external bank loan. The retailer gets the money. It is not their responsibility to wonder if the bank and buyer correctly accessed the eligibility.

 

[Giordano]

Duplicate post.

 

[Arcade22]

Ah. I at last realise your fallacy with regard to "free" education.

See if Joe the Village idiot enrolls on a doctorate in Nuclear Physics in a free system, he does not automagically get that doctorate because it is free. He flunks out. Also for free. No charge for flunking. One just flunks. Sayonara. Academia is cruel that way.

Note that in the real world "free college" isn't completely "free" either. In Sweden, for example, the state pays for tuition but does not cover any other indirect costs such as living expenses. Students can seek a "study aid", that is free as long as they complete their courses, but this wouldn't be nearly enough to cover the living expenses of a full-time student.

Unless they can fund their studies some other way, they are expected to apply for a government funded student loan, which is cheaper than a normal private loan but still has to be paid back at some point.

 

[Giordano]

One reason is it's a form of rent-seeking for the humanities departments. STEM majors have to take a bunch of non-STEM classes to fulfill breadth requirements. That funnels their tuition money into departments that would have to shrink if they couldn't depend on all these non-major required classes.

That may also be one of the motives behind Harvard and other schools' anti-Asian racism. Asian students are more likely to become STEM majors than non-Asian students, so if admissions criteria were applied in a race-neutral manner, humanities departments would probably have to shrink.

OK, after some deep breaths I am ready to take on your paragraph two. First you appear to not know there are many Asians/Asian-Americans in humanity majors or who take humanities courses simply because they are interested in them. Even STEM students. Music most immediately comes to my mind but there are others as well. Good try, doesn’t match the facts.

More generally affirmative action is to try to offer opportunities more broadly throughout our society. It is not directly based on race, which is not legal, but typically tries to find other ways to do this. UC for example favors a bit applicants who are the first in their family to seek a higher degree. You may disagree with the premise. I kind of like it. But I think you know it is not an attempt to fund humanities.

Edit: I should have emphasized in particular “Asians” in classical music majors, university orchestras, etc. A significant presence.

 

[Delvo]

I don’t deny the idea that technical specialties, such as medicine, law, etc., are essentially vocational in nature and can probably be successfully abbreviated in the USA as they are in some other countries. It’s not a trivial issue though how to do it. Don’t we want doctors to understand core biology, biochemistry, cell biology, etc? That’s what they learn in the 4 year undergrad programs before med school...

Same with law. Is knowing the technical aspects of the law enough? Or do we want our lawyers to also know history and sociology?

A bachelor's degree doesn't just require classes in the actual subject like you're describing, though. It also requires classes in other completely unrelated subjects. The concept of a degree and a higher education was originally that it was supposed to represent becoming a well-educated person in general, not getting trained at a particular job while not learning anything else in particular. Following the modern concept of just training for a particular job without any attempt at "well-roundedness" or a "broad" base of knowledge, we could take a year or two off of most degree programs.

The simplest way for doctor & lawyer programs to do that would be to cut out the requirement for a bachelor's degree at all, and set up their own new programs that include both the conventionally post-graduate stuff and the relevant parts of the undergraduate stuff. For example, a high-school friend (sometimes friend & sometimes just... weird... but that's an unrelated story) of mine went from high school to a medical program at the University of Missouri in Kansas City which skips the Bachelor's degree and goes straight to becoming a physician in 6 years instead of the usual 8. That's 2 years cut out just by dropping the parts of a Bachelor's degree that aren't related to the target. The foundational-level biology & chemistry you'd normally associate with the Bachelor's degree is not cut out; it's still in there as roughly the first 2 years of this single direct program.

 

[Ziggurat]

OK, after some deep breaths I am ready to take on your paragraph two. First you appear to not know there are many Asians/Asian-Americans in humanity majors or who take humanities courses simply because they are interested in them. Even STEM students. Music most immediately comes to my mind but there are others as well. Good try, doesn’t match the facts.

You need to reread what I wrote, because I didn’t claim there weren’t a lot of Asian students in the humanities. Asians are under 6% of the US population, but they account for 17% of STEM job holders. They are disproportionately represented in STEM. I do not think this is a problem, but it is undeniably a fact.

More generally affirmative action is to try to offer opportunities more broadly throughout our society. It is not directly based on race, which is not legal, but typically tries to find other ways to do this.

Harvard’s admissions are based directly on race.

UC for example favors a bit applicants who are the first in their family to seek a higher degree.

The UC system can’t use race at all because voters in California made it illegal to even consider. But they used to, and still would if administrators had their way. And that prohibition is California-specific, it does not apply to most schools in the US.

 

[Francesca R]

I think the humanities are important facets of education for everyone because they make people into better souls and allow them to enjoy their own lives more. [ . . . ]

Perhaps that’s true but I don’t see why it should impose any mandatory diversification on tertiary education (where choosing to get the education in the first place is optional).

If students can decide whether or not to get their degree, what’s with telling them what they have to study?

 

[Francesca R]

A bachelor's degree doesn't just require classes in the actual subject like you're describing, though. It also requires classes in other completely unrelated subjects.

Not where I took mine. I spent three years studying chemistry and nothing else at all.

(I don't use it now)

 

[Meadmaker]

I am surprised there are posters here suggesting that somehow the number of certain majors to be supported should be limited to the “need” for the graduates once they graduate. The carrying capacity. Who should determine the numbers? A council of university elders? The government? Doesn’t this resemble too much the failed central planning concepts in communist countries? Isn’t this in essence assigning people certain limited career choices based not on what they want to do but on what big brother thinks they should do? Unless they are in the wealthy elite?

And how should the numbers be reliably determined? Things change. Just one example: in the early 1970s the number of PhD biochemistry openings was fairly limited. Then molecular cloning was discovered, the commercial start up companies grew exponentially, and suddenly in just two or three years the need for these PhDs doubled. Versus 8 to 10 years to train new ones. A board of experts in 1970 would have missed entirely the growth of this job market. I can name other examples, including those job markets that unexpectedly collapsed.

Central planning of job training: not freedom and not effective.

I think the humanities are important facets of education for everyone because they make people into better souls and allow them to enjoy their own lives more. Learning about art, music, literature, history, etc. allows people to better appreciate the core of what makes us human and the best of what defines civilization. Having that better access and appreciation can enrich and fill their lives in many, many ways. And it makes them more informed citizens and neighbors.

Two provisos. One can certainly learn and appreciate the humanities without college courses or college at all. Many do. But college as a concept promises a true education and should include these essentials for students who might not recognize their value left to their own devices. And my own field is solid STEM so I am not being egotistical in this belief.

Conversely I think humanity students should learn basic science.

So, deciding what people ought to major in is failed central planning, but once they decide on a major, it's ok to tell them what classes to take.

If the truth be told, I don't have a problem with that, but the juxtaposition of the ideas is interesting.

I also don't have strong feelings about the subject one way or another. There are lots of different sorts of educations, and the administration of the schools can decide if they think their engineering graduates will be better off if they have to study something that isn't so technical.


As for the earlier "central planning" response to my proposal that the government provide more subsidies for some majors than for others, that is just a question of who is paying the bills. If you are taking my money, via taxes, for your education, I should have some sort of influence, via my representatives in government, as to how that money is spent. It should be spent educating people with the skills needed by our society, not by what 18 year olds think they want. Yes, oboe playing is nice, but I'm only willing to support a few oboe players via taxes. I'll support more doctors and nurses.

 

[rdwight]

I got through page 1 and don't think I can dedicate time to read through every response since, so if this has been covered, sorry, but.. free college sounds nice in theory and is a terrible idea if implemented in the system we currently have going. Forgiving debt is a terrible idea beyond a certain level. Have lifetime earnings of college grads dropped to even with those that haven't gone? If not, we are forgiving debt to those most capable of paying for it to make things easier for them. Last stat I remember offhand is average is one million additional in lifetime earnings. Are we going to give an equal payment to those that didn't go to college..? Just no.

If you want to, make it incentive based. And step by step, so that each level of spend correlates to obtaining a certain level of education. Keep GPA high year in and year out to qualify for any cost reduction.

I don't see a reason why any moron should be allowed unlimited spend at the college they want in a location of their choice to be paid for by others just because. That is a terrible system. Are community colleges/2 year university's overwhelmed? Honest question. When I went to school I choose a community college because I knew my educational dedication was.. not great. The cost was affordable, the professors were literally mixed with the same ones from more prestigious schools and there were literally programs which allowed me to work through these lower cost classes and end up with a degree from a more prestigious school in the end. At a fraction of the cost obviously. Minus the amenities.

Make this avenue available to those that deserve it, for lower cost or free depending on the circumstance. As for everyone? No. I know enough people to know that is a terrible idea.

 

[Francesca R]

If you are taking my money, via taxes, for your education, I should have some sort of influence, via my representatives in government, as to how that money is spent. It should be spent educating people with the skills needed by our society, not by what 18 year olds think they want. Yes, oboe playing is nice, but I'm only willing to support a few oboe players via taxes. I'll support more doctors and nurses.

Aside from the egalitarian reason I already gave in favour of students footing much of their own tuition bill, this is another reason in favour.

Representative politicians deciding what degrees get studied for sounds like a bad bit of uselessness.

 

[Giordano]

So, deciding what people ought to major in is failed central planning, but once they decide on a major, it's ok to tell them what classes to take. If the truth be told, I don't have a problem with that, but the juxtaposition of the ideas is interesting.
I also don't have strong feelings about the subject one way or another. There are lots of different sorts of educations, and the administration of the schools can decide if they think their engineering graduates will be better off if they have to study something that isn't so technical.


As for the earlier "central planning" response to my proposal that the government provide more subsidies for some majors than for others, that is just a question of who is paying the bills. If you are taking my money, via taxes, for your education, I should have some sort of influence, via my representatives in government, as to how that money is spent. It should be spent educating people with the skills needed by our society, not by what 18 year olds think they want. Yes, oboe playing is nice, but I'm only willing to support a few oboe players via taxes. I'll support more doctors and nurses.

Students have a right to decide what they wish to learn about. They are then paying the university to use its experience and understanding to tell them what they need to know to do that. To become well educated people. Just as you posted.

Sure you have a right to tell the government what to use your tax dollars for. So do I. And I am trying to convince others here what I think is obvious to me: education in the humanities does greatly benefit our country and society in many ways. Beyond the number of humanity majors that can use it as a direct basis for a job. College is not exclusively a vocational school. I’ve listed the reasons upthread. I’ve much enjoyed the “excess” oboe majors I know who have never gotten a job in it but who have brought pleasurable music into my life. But even beyond this, I’ve documented that many humanity majors do have good job success.

But I guess I have not convinced you fully... yet. Okay. I may keep trying. Damn, I’m a cancer researcher and nerd who loves everything techie and scientific. I majored in biochemistry. If I learned to also see the humanities as crucial to everyone I may be able to spread the idea more widely.

BTW I strongly respect you and your posts in the threads they appear. I often disagree but I respect how you present your arguments.

 

[Giordano]

Aside from the egalitarian reason I already gave in favour of students footing much of their own tuition bill, this is another reason in favour.
Representative politicians deciding what degrees get studied for sounds like a bad bit of uselessness.

But why then should access to higher education, especially at tax supported state institutions, be restricted to the more wealthy among us?

 

[Roboramma]

As for the earlier "central planning" response to my proposal that the government provide more subsidies for some majors than for others, that is just a question of who is paying the bills. If you are taking my money, via taxes, for your education, I should have some sort of influence, via my representatives in government, as to how that money is spent. It should be spent educating people with the skills needed by our society, not by what 18 year olds think they want. Yes, oboe playing is nice, but I'm only willing to support a few oboe players via taxes. I'll support more doctors and nurses.

The question isn't whether or not you should have some influence (if it's useful, of course you should), but rather what's most efficient. Giodano's argument is that those 18 year olds (and their parents and other advisors who do have at least some impact on what and where they study) will more efficiently gauge the market than government bureaucrats will.

I think that's true with the caveat that those bureaucrats will be able to foresee some ways in the 18 year olds will be incentivized to make poor choices (at least from the tax payer's perspective of poor uses of public funds), and can incentivize choices in the other direction. Which seems to be what you're advocating for.

So, to Giordano now: yes, free markets are more efficient than central planning, but a regulated free market can be more efficient still.