Heaven forfend the richest country in the world provide room and board to people working on their college degree. What next? Free lunch in high school?
idk, they seem about the same. Lunch for 4 years, meals and housing forever, the math checks out.
That's nonsense and you know it. Do it like the GI Bill. Cover college tuition, provide a stipend for food and housing, require a minimal requirement for attendance and grades or they're on the hook for whatever semester they fail. If it's good enough for the military, and goodness knows we're all about scamming the system, it should be good enough for everyone else.
The military won't let you stay in school indefinitely and to be fair there are other requirements that naturally limit opportunity. The core might work, with restrictions. What restrictions should we place?
The military will 100% pay for me to go to school up to a doctorate. The only time they don't pay is if I fail classes. Which is about all the limit I'd consider necessary.
Military also limits by expecting you to serve. The plans have no similar commitment. And they I assume won't let you get three BAs. Are we going to draw the line at one free degree?
I really don't care whether people serve or not. I've stated before that the benefits I have should be extended to literally everyone in America.
Meanwhile I said treat it like a GI bill, which doesn't allow for going for multiple degrees at the same tier, but does allow for one to change their major repeatedly.
Heaven forfend the richest country in the world provide room and board to people working on their college degree. What next? Free lunch in high school?
idk, they seem about the same. Lunch for 4 years, meals and housing forever, the math checks out.
That's nonsense and you know it. Do it like the GI Bill. Cover college tuition, provide a stipend for food and housing, require a minimal requirement for attendance and grades or they're on the hook for whatever semester they fail. If it's good enough for the military, and goodness knows we're all about scamming the system, it should be good enough for everyone else.
The military won't let you stay in school indefinitely and to be fair there are other requirements that naturally limit opportunity. The core might work, with restrictions. What restrictions should we place?
The military will 100% pay for me to go to school up to a doctorate. The only time they don't pay is if I fail classes. Which is about all the limit I'd consider necessary.
Military also limits by expecting you to serve. The plans have no similar commitment. And they I assume won't let you get three BAs. Are we going to draw the line at one free degree?
I really don't care whether people serve or not. I've stated before that the benefits I have should be extended to literally everyone in America.
Meanwhile I said treat it like a GI bill, which doesn't allow for going for multiple degrees at the same tier, but does allow for one to change their major repeatedly.
Ok. So how does One Free Degree square with the idea of education as an inherent moral good that must be provided? And why is a single BA rather than two or three good enough to satisfy the moral imperative?
Heaven forfend the richest country in the world provide room and board to people working on their college degree. What next? Free lunch in high school?
idk, they seem about the same. Lunch for 4 years, meals and housing forever, the math checks out.
That's nonsense and you know it. Do it like the GI Bill. Cover college tuition, provide a stipend for food and housing, require a minimal requirement for attendance and grades or they're on the hook for whatever semester they fail. If it's good enough for the military, and goodness knows we're all about scamming the system, it should be good enough for everyone else.
The military won't let you stay in school indefinitely and to be fair there are other requirements that naturally limit opportunity. The core might work, with restrictions. What restrictions should we place?
The military will 100% pay for me to go to school up to a doctorate. The only time they don't pay is if I fail classes. Which is about all the limit I'd consider necessary.
Military also limits by expecting you to serve. The plans have no similar commitment. And they I assume won't let you get three BAs. Are we going to draw the line at one free degree?
Denmark, where my wife and her kids are from is 100% paying for her son to get his doctorate in medicine. He has told me that he could pursue a different degree afterwards but what would be the point? Denmark already has one of the best social security programs in the world, so there is no need to game the system.
The failing of education in this manner in the US is due to capitalism which says work, be rich, or die in a ditch. It is so ingrained in some that they cannot imagine anything more.
Heaven forfend the richest country in the world provide room and board to people working on their college degree. What next? Free lunch in high school?
idk, they seem about the same. Lunch for 4 years, meals and housing forever, the math checks out.
That's nonsense and you know it. Do it like the GI Bill. Cover college tuition, provide a stipend for food and housing, require a minimal requirement for attendance and grades or they're on the hook for whatever semester they fail. If it's good enough for the military, and goodness knows we're all about scamming the system, it should be good enough for everyone else.
The military won't let you stay in school indefinitely and to be fair there are other requirements that naturally limit opportunity. The core might work, with restrictions. What restrictions should we place?
The military will 100% pay for me to go to school up to a doctorate. The only time they don't pay is if I fail classes. Which is about all the limit I'd consider necessary.
Military also limits by expecting you to serve. The plans have no similar commitment. And they I assume won't let you get three BAs. Are we going to draw the line at one free degree?
I really don't care whether people serve or not. I've stated before that the benefits I have should be extended to literally everyone in America.
Meanwhile I said treat it like a GI bill, which doesn't allow for going for multiple degrees at the same tier, but does allow for one to change their major repeatedly.
Ok. So how does One Free Degree square with the idea of education as an inherent moral good that must be provided? And why is a single BA rather than two or three good enough to satisfy the moral imperative?
Dunno spool, why is one single high school diploma enough? How does everyone deserving an education through high school square with the existence of high school drop outs?
Seriously man, your concerns are literally identical to people that argued against high school becoming the norm.
As I said in the primary thread, this idea that there will be a massive explosion of people with degrees and jobs demanding them is entirely dependent on the assumption that there is, right now, a massive amount of people who are undereducated because of their financial means. And the larger you think the problem would be, the larger you must be assuming that other problem is right now.
Not so - you could think that 4 (8? 12? Forever?) years of free room and board would be an attractive prospect for many.
That there are, right now, many countries where everyone has the right to higher education (such as my own). There has not been an explosion in employers demanding degrees for menial jobs, nor are there people staying students forever for the benefits.
But, clearly, something similar is 100% impossible in the US.
American exceptionalism is that things that are possible in other, less rich, countries is impossible in the US.
Again
1) it already happens here, I don't have to prove that a trend will continue .
2) other countries gate off or deny college for portions of the population. How does your country manage that?
2) Anyone can apply. Applications are handled by the central government.
Some study programs have a max number of students. Those with the highest gpas get the spots. But there are other programs that take in as many as apply and are qualified (eg some programs require certain electives taken in highschool).
Study programs are 2, 3 or 5 years, and then you're done. (If you fail classes you can take longer, but there's an upper limit.)
Tuition is free, but you have to buy books, food and housing (there's no on-campus housing). The government does provide a loan that's interest free while you're at university, and if you pass some of it is converted to a stipend. Interest is low and if you go bankrupt you don't have to pay back. Some people work part-time on the side.
You can get as many degrees as you like.
The only exception is PhD (a 3 year program). Here you're not guaranteed a spot. Still no tuition, but no loan. But the government pays you a good salary.
Is there any actual evidence that somehow we're going to a statistically significant number of folks becoming eternal college students the moment that public colleges and universities become free at point of access?
Cause I can't think of any reason you'd actually want to do that, and it feels like its an attempt to make a completely reasonable thing that we have the resources for (just not currently deployed as such) out to be a catastrophic social nightmare because it changes the status quo of higher education and might raise taxes.
Heaven forfend the richest country in the world provide room and board to people working on their college degree. What next? Free lunch in high school?
idk, they seem about the same. Lunch for 4 years, meals and housing forever, the math checks out.
That's nonsense and you know it. Do it like the GI Bill. Cover college tuition, provide a stipend for food and housing, require a minimal requirement for attendance and grades or they're on the hook for whatever semester they fail. If it's good enough for the military, and goodness knows we're all about scamming the system, it should be good enough for everyone else.
The military won't let you stay in school indefinitely and to be fair there are other requirements that naturally limit opportunity. The core might work, with restrictions. What restrictions should we place?
The military will 100% pay for me to go to school up to a doctorate. The only time they don't pay is if I fail classes. Which is about all the limit I'd consider necessary.
The Chapter 33 GI Bill would not. It is time limited to 36 pro-rated months. And TA has a dollar per credit hour limit and annual cap.
Heaven forfend the richest country in the world provide room and board to people working on their college degree. What next? Free lunch in high school?
idk, they seem about the same. Lunch for 4 years, meals and housing forever, the math checks out.
That's nonsense and you know it. Do it like the GI Bill. Cover college tuition, provide a stipend for food and housing, require a minimal requirement for attendance and grades or they're on the hook for whatever semester they fail. If it's good enough for the military, and goodness knows we're all about scamming the system, it should be good enough for everyone else.
The military won't let you stay in school indefinitely and to be fair there are other requirements that naturally limit opportunity. The core might work, with restrictions. What restrictions should we place?
The military will 100% pay for me to go to school up to a doctorate. The only time they don't pay is if I fail classes. Which is about all the limit I'd consider necessary.
Military also limits by expecting you to serve. The plans have no similar commitment. And they I assume won't let you get three BAs. Are we going to draw the line at one free degree?
I really don't care whether people serve or not. I've stated before that the benefits I have should be extended to literally everyone in America.
Meanwhile I said treat it like a GI bill, which doesn't allow for going for multiple degrees at the same tier, but does allow for one to change their major repeatedly.
Ok. So how does One Free Degree square with the idea of education as an inherent moral good that must be provided? And why is a single BA rather than two or three good enough to satisfy the moral imperative?
Dunno spool, why is one single high school diploma enough? How does everyone deserving an education through high school square with the existence of high school drop outs?
Seriously man, your concerns are literally identical to people that argued against high school becoming the norm.
One highschool diploma doesn't need to satisfy a moral imperative because there isn't one. Education is a social good, not a moral imperative, and we're free to limit it however we wish. The argument for Free College needs to be one that explains why offering a BA for free is a social good, and that argument needs to consider issues like degree inflation. "It's the same as old anti-highschool arguments" doesn't speak to this, because college isn't the same as highschool - the education on offer is obviously different. As for why one is enough, it's sadly not anymore because of the degree inflation problem! Continuing to feed the inflationary system by just pouring more dollars into it without addressing the underlying issue of the worthlessness of a highschool diploma is counterproductive.
If we're failing to prepare people to function in the modern world after 13 years of school, another 4 isn't the solution. If we're going to argue that Free College is a social good, reasons need to be found other than "you can't get a good job without a degree", and we need to decide what the limits are, whether we're going to freeze people out with quotas and circumstance like some countries, and generally how we go about deciding who gets the government funded leg up. Because right now, with generational poverty and racism depressing the chances for kids to qualify, we're just hardening the underclass and raising the bar to entry in the workforce by offering free college.
I'm being a bit sarcastic here but nobody has yet committed to there being a point at which we stop paying for more education, and I understand why - doing so requires there be an Enough, which opens the argument about whether that line should be Highschool.
Never. We never stop paying for it.
If you wanna learn forever I'm fine with that, about the only stipulation I could think of would be that you need to hand over your arcane knowledge to others who are similarly motivated. We absolutely need these people to exist so we don't lose esoteric knowledge.
This feels like the argument against universal basic income that goes, "But if we pay people enough to live, they'll just sit around and play videogames all day!" To which my response is always, good! If a person hates work so much that they'd rather live on basic income than get a job, then I don't want them taking up oxygen in my workplace. It would be better for everyone if people didn't have to work jobs they hate.
This feels like the argument against universal basic income that goes, "But if we pay people enough to live, they'll just sit around and play videogames all day!" To which my response is always, good! If a person hates work so much that they'd rather live on basic income than get a job, then I don't want them taking up oxygen in my workplace. It would be better for everyone if people didn't have to work jobs they hate.
If you can still collect UBI and work the retail and fast food jobs for the extra cash then Ok
I hated my job at wal mart and working under toxic managers made it even worse but if UBI was real at the time I would have just put up with it and not stuck with it for 12 years
This feels like the argument against universal basic income that goes, "But if we pay people enough to live, they'll just sit around and play videogames all day!" To which my response is always, good! If a person hates work so much that they'd rather live on basic income than get a job, then I don't want them taking up oxygen in my workplace. It would be better for everyone if people didn't have to work jobs they hate.
Have you met any humans? A lot of people tend to get stuck in a sort of doldrums in early adulthood where they don’t have the confidence or will to really pick a career but get a job because their parents give them an ultimatum - get a job or get out. And they often find it’s the kick up the pants they need to become independent people.
I have known a LOT of people like this. And those whose parents do let them live in their house forever (if they don’t have any disability or mental illness) tend to become unhappy people, easy prey for the alt-right or substance issues.
Man, most of America you say "person living on the dole" and your average white person is going to conjure an image of a shifty looking black dude because that's what they're conditioned to respond with.
Reframe it to someone going to school for free and apparently the new villains are entomologists never leaving school and biologists fleeing to Canada.
(This post is clearly made in jest because Arch and his brood are already an enemy of humanity)
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Heaven forfend the richest country in the world provide room and board to people working on their college degree. What next? Free lunch in high school?
idk, they seem about the same. Lunch for 4 years, meals and housing forever, the math checks out.
That's nonsense and you know it. Do it like the GI Bill. Cover college tuition, provide a stipend for food and housing, require a minimal requirement for attendance and grades or they're on the hook for whatever semester they fail. If it's good enough for the military, and goodness knows we're all about scamming the system, it should be good enough for everyone else.
The military won't let you stay in school indefinitely and to be fair there are other requirements that naturally limit opportunity. The core might work, with restrictions. What restrictions should we place?
The military will 100% pay for me to go to school up to a doctorate. The only time they don't pay is if I fail classes. Which is about all the limit I'd consider necessary.
Military also limits by expecting you to serve. The plans have no similar commitment. And they I assume won't let you get three BAs. Are we going to draw the line at one free degree?
I really don't care whether people serve or not. I've stated before that the benefits I have should be extended to literally everyone in America.
Meanwhile I said treat it like a GI bill, which doesn't allow for going for multiple degrees at the same tier, but does allow for one to change their major repeatedly.
Ok. So how does One Free Degree square with the idea of education as an inherent moral good that must be provided? And why is a single BA rather than two or three good enough to satisfy the moral imperative?
Dunno spool, why is one single high school diploma enough? How does everyone deserving an education through high school square with the existence of high school drop outs?
Seriously man, your concerns are literally identical to people that argued against high school becoming the norm.
One highschool diploma doesn't need to satisfy a moral imperative because there isn't one. Education is a social good, not a moral imperative, and we're free to limit it however we wish. The argument for Free College needs to be one that explains why offering a BA for free is a social good, and that argument needs to consider issues like degree inflation. "It's the same as old anti-highschool arguments" doesn't speak to this, because college isn't the same as highschool - the education on offer is obviously different. As for why one is enough, it's sadly not anymore because of the degree inflation problem! Continuing to feed the inflationary system by just pouring more dollars into it without addressing the underlying issue of the worthlessness of a highschool diploma is counterproductive.
If we're failing to prepare people to function in the modern world after 13 years of school, another 4 isn't the solution. If we're going to argue that Free College is a social good, reasons need to be found other than "you can't get a good job without a degree", and we need to decide what the limits are, whether we're going to freeze people out with quotas and circumstance like some countries, and generally how we go about deciding who gets the government funded leg up. Because right now, with generational poverty and racism depressing the chances for kids to qualify, we're just hardening the underclass and raising the bar to entry in the workforce by offering free college.
Firstly, education is a moral imperative and thus a moral good. Purposefully keeping people in ignorance is a moral evil, therefore you can see education is a moral good. There is a reason why there is a direct link between the party that generally leads and the quality of that states education.
Secondly, there is no causal relationship between free education and a hardening of the underclass. In fact, historically speaking offering free education greatly uplifted the living standards of the lower class as evidenced with grade school and high school.
There is a causal relationship between increasing educational requirements for jobs and hardening of the underclass. Especially in a system where you have to pay for that education. So instead attack frivolous degree requirements for employment.
This feels like the argument against universal basic income that goes, "But if we pay people enough to live, they'll just sit around and play videogames all day!" To which my response is always, good! If a person hates work so much that they'd rather live on basic income than get a job, then I don't want them taking up oxygen in my workplace. It would be better for everyone if people didn't have to work jobs they hate.
Have you met any humans? A lot of people tend to get stuck in a sort of doldrums in early adulthood where they don’t have the confidence or will to really pick a career but get a job because their parents give them an ultimatum - get a job or get out. And they often find it’s the kick up the pants they need to become independent people.
I have known a LOT of people like this. And those whose parents do let them live in their house forever (if they don’t have any disability or mental illness) tend to become unhappy people, easy prey for the alt-right or substance issues.
IMO a lot of that is due to unrealistic expectations that the education system-cum-society puts on people. The whole "get a job and you'll be happy" mentality that most higher ed aims towards. While UBI isn't going to be a panacea it would put a floor under people who have to take a swing or three before they find that vocation they can put up with. The trick would be to 1) Reset educational expectations and 2) Comprehensive job placement office of some kind or another. The second is probably far easier to achieve than the former. But personally, I think we should be aiming at that one to begin with. Especially in the US. Too much is made of the job == wealth == happiness mode of consumerism society.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
This feels like the argument against universal basic income that goes, "But if we pay people enough to live, they'll just sit around and play videogames all day!" To which my response is always, good! If a person hates work so much that they'd rather live on basic income than get a job, then I don't want them taking up oxygen in my workplace. It would be better for everyone if people didn't have to work jobs they hate.
From a pure economic standpoint, what's the cost comparison between this and UBI?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Heaven forfend the richest country in the world provide room and board to people working on their college degree. What next? Free lunch in high school?
idk, they seem about the same. Lunch for 4 years, meals and housing forever, the math checks out.
That's nonsense and you know it. Do it like the GI Bill. Cover college tuition, provide a stipend for food and housing, require a minimal requirement for attendance and grades or they're on the hook for whatever semester they fail. If it's good enough for the military, and goodness knows we're all about scamming the system, it should be good enough for everyone else.
The military won't let you stay in school indefinitely and to be fair there are other requirements that naturally limit opportunity. The core might work, with restrictions. What restrictions should we place?
The military will 100% pay for me to go to school up to a doctorate. The only time they don't pay is if I fail classes. Which is about all the limit I'd consider necessary.
Military also limits by expecting you to serve. The plans have no similar commitment. And they I assume won't let you get three BAs. Are we going to draw the line at one free degree?
I really don't care whether people serve or not. I've stated before that the benefits I have should be extended to literally everyone in America.
Meanwhile I said treat it like a GI bill, which doesn't allow for going for multiple degrees at the same tier, but does allow for one to change their major repeatedly.
Ok. So how does One Free Degree square with the idea of education as an inherent moral good that must be provided? And why is a single BA rather than two or three good enough to satisfy the moral imperative?
Dunno spool, why is one single high school diploma enough? How does everyone deserving an education through high school square with the existence of high school drop outs?
Seriously man, your concerns are literally identical to people that argued against high school becoming the norm.
One highschool diploma doesn't need to satisfy a moral imperative because there isn't one. Education is a social good, not a moral imperative, and we're free to limit it however we wish. The argument for Free College needs to be one that explains why offering a BA for free is a social good, and that argument needs to consider issues like degree inflation. "It's the same as old anti-highschool arguments" doesn't speak to this, because college isn't the same as highschool - the education on offer is obviously different. As for why one is enough, it's sadly not anymore because of the degree inflation problem! Continuing to feed the inflationary system by just pouring more dollars into it without addressing the underlying issue of the worthlessness of a highschool diploma is counterproductive.
If we're failing to prepare people to function in the modern world after 13 years of school, another 4 isn't the solution. If we're going to argue that Free College is a social good, reasons need to be found other than "you can't get a good job without a degree", and we need to decide what the limits are, whether we're going to freeze people out with quotas and circumstance like some countries, and generally how we go about deciding who gets the government funded leg up. Because right now, with generational poverty and racism depressing the chances for kids to qualify, we're just hardening the underclass and raising the bar to entry in the workforce by offering free college.
"If we're failing to prepare people for the world after six years of school, another six isn't the solution."
Dude, seriously. You're arguing for a less educated society for no reason. People learning more and becoming better is both a social good and a moral imperative.
I think there is an argument for making college mandatory and increasing the number of colleges to satisfy that mandate. Also making it really hard to expel college students
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think there is an argument for making college mandatory and increasing the number of colleges to satisfy that mandate. Also making it really hard to expel college students
That sounds absolutely miserable for people who are practical rather than academic.
If education is going to be made mandatory, then there need to be far more trade schools and non-academic options like apprenticeships
I agree! To point to the GI Bill again, it applies for pretty much any educational course. Traditional college, trade schools, even tests for licensing and certification.
Eh.
I went to university because I could and didn't know what I wanted to do or how to get there.
I wound up spending five years there, with another three looking for work, having gained nothing much from the degree except the piece of paper.
Everything useful that I learned there could have been better learned in a job placement program of some sort, and a good two thirds of the stuff I was taught has not been useful to me and has no practical application in my life, even though I have looked for any job that might use it.
I don't mind making university free, but I don't think going to university is some universal social good.
It can too easily become knowledge for knowledge's sake, and leave you suited for nothing but academia at the other end.
I think there is an argument for making college mandatory and increasing the number of colleges to satisfy that mandate. Also making it really hard to expel college students
That sounds absolutely miserable for people who are practical rather than academic.
Everyone is different.
I'd want to somehow provide an equivalent amount of financial assistance to people that do not go to college but train elsewhere.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think there is an argument for making college mandatory and increasing the number of colleges to satisfy that mandate. Also making it really hard to expel college students
That sounds absolutely miserable for people who are practical rather than academic.
Everyone is different.
I'd want to somehow provide an equivalent amount of financial assistance to people that do not go to college but train elsewhere.
Some people don't want to train at all. They want to launch into a job and learn while doing it. They want to drive a truck rather than spend 3 years at truck-driver's school.
This feels like the argument against universal basic income that goes, "But if we pay people enough to live, they'll just sit around and play videogames all day!" To which my response is always, good! If a person hates work so much that they'd rather live on basic income than get a job, then I don't want them taking up oxygen in my workplace. It would be better for everyone if people didn't have to work jobs they hate.
Puritanical "suffering is a virtue" paired with late stage capitalism "everything is a zero sum game" makes for some virulent societal evils.
I think there is an argument for making college mandatory and increasing the number of colleges to satisfy that mandate. Also making it really hard to expel college students
That sounds absolutely miserable for people who are practical rather than academic.
Everyone is different.
I'd want to somehow provide an equivalent amount of financial assistance to people that do not go to college but train elsewhere.
Some people don't want to train at all. They want to launch into a job and learn while doing it. They want to drive a truck rather than spend 3 years at truck-driver's school.
In addition to whatever starting salary, they should get a benefit commensurate with a college education value
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Private colleges still exist. And they are as fancy as always.
Not everybody, not even most actually go to college, since, for starters, you still have to be able to afford food and rent, specially if you have the additional burden of going to a college outside your State (which is why state-only rules are silly).
There will be a great upheaval? Yes. But hey, Capitalism is fine with Darwinism anyways, so if some can't make it, oh well.
It is a known, provable thing that employers have increased educational requirements beyond what is reasonable at least partly in response to more people having post secondary education. This is Not Good.
What are the reasons this would not happen if post secondary education was made "free"? Would the overall benefits outweigh this specific negative?
It is a known, provable thing that employers have increased educational requirements at least partly in response to more people having post secondary education. This is Not Good.
What are the reasons this would not happen if post secondary education was made "free"? Would the overall benefits outweigh this specific negative?
You can't fix employment educational requirements by making education more expensive and difficult to obtain. And the reverse is also true.
You fix employment educational requirements by addressing frivolous requirements.
It is a known, provable thing that employers have increased educational requirements at least partly in response to more people having post secondary education. This is Not Good.
What are the reasons this would not happen if post secondary education was made "free"? Would the overall benefits outweigh this specific negative?
You can't fix employment educational requirements by making education more expensive and difficult to obtain. And the reverse is also true.
You fix employment educational requirements by addressing frivolous requirements.
I've thought about that problem but I havent thought of any great solutions. I did like someone's idea of putting a cost on jobs where they post a degree requirement, but that seems too hard to enforce (really, the issue with any legal solution here)
Also I would like to see evidence of a causal relationship between education levels and education requirements for employment. Because I think much more likely root causes are lazy HR and increases in technology that make it easier to submit many resumes.
It is a known, provable thing that employers have increased educational requirements beyond what is reasonable at least partly in response to more people having post secondary education. This is Not Good.
What are the reasons this would not happen if post secondary education was made "free"? Would the overall benefits outweigh this specific negative?
The percentage of people getting a degree wouldn't increase as much as you might expect.
But even if it did: Yes. Lack of upward social mobility and the crippling economic effects of having generations on debt are incredibly volatile factors. Do you understand that Chile has had protests about it since 2006?
Also I would like to see evidence of a causal relationship between education levels and education requirements for employment. Because I think much more likely root causes are lazy HR and increases in technology that make it easier to submit many resumes.
Yeah, I do think that there is at best correlation here. The root of the problem is that it's an easy way to filter applicants that isn't illegal and makes superficial enough sense that everybody starred doing it.
The internet has resulted in people spamming companies with their resume, so companies need a simple automatic way to cut down the number of applicants. Adding an automatic check for "degree" cuts out the illiterate, and the underclass without too much trouble.
I think this is why companies make you fill out an online application form. Not only is it easier to filter, but it also shows you are serious enough to spend 20 minutes of your life transcribing your resume into little boxes. This suggests that you are a real person who is prepared to come to a job interview if called.
It is a known, provable thing that employers have increased educational requirements at least partly in response to more people having post secondary education. This is Not Good.
What are the reasons this would not happen if post secondary education was made "free"? Would the overall benefits outweigh this specific negative?
You can't fix employment educational requirements by making education more expensive and difficult to obtain. And the reverse is also true.
You fix employment educational requirements by addressing frivolous requirements.
I've thought about that problem but I havent thought of any great solutions. I did like someone's idea of putting a cost on jobs where they post a degree requirement, but that seems too hard to enforce (really, the issue with any legal solution here)
The solution is we need more unions and worker representation because business side solutions aren't working. The reason you see job postings that pay $13.70 and require a degree is because people with degrees are willing to work for this pay.
It is a known, provable thing that employers have increased educational requirements at least partly in response to more people having post secondary education. This is Not Good.
What are the reasons this would not happen if post secondary education was made "free"? Would the overall benefits outweigh this specific negative?
You can't fix employment educational requirements by making education more expensive and difficult to obtain. And the reverse is also true.
You fix employment educational requirements by addressing frivolous requirements.
I've thought about that problem but I havent thought of any great solutions. I did like someone's idea of putting a cost on jobs where they post a degree requirement, but that seems too hard to enforce (really, the issue with any legal solution here)
The solution is we need more unions and worker representation because business side solutions aren't working. The reason you see job postings that pay $13.70 and require a degree is because people with degrees are willing to work for this pay.
Uhh I'm not entirely sure it's only willing people; in fact, I'm sure the majority aren't. When you got mouths to feed and bills to pay, $13.70/hour is still better than $7.25/hour or even $0/hour. And unions would absolutely do a lot to shift circumstances more in the workers favor.
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
I think there is an argument for making college mandatory and increasing the number of colleges to satisfy that mandate. Also making it really hard to expel college students
That sounds absolutely miserable for people who are practical rather than academic.
Everyone is different.
I'd want to somehow provide an equivalent amount of financial assistance to people that do not go to college but train elsewhere.
Some people don't want to train at all. They want to launch into a job and learn while doing it. They want to drive a truck rather than spend 3 years at truck-driver's school.
In addition to whatever starting salary, they should get a benefit commensurate with a college education value
What? No. The idea of free college is that people need the education in order to secure employment, not just that we need to give everyone $X worth of stuff. If you don't need college to do the thing you want to do for a living, cool, we can spend that money on other stuff that benefits society.
It's not like if someone needs a quarter million in cancer treatment under a single payer system, we need to cut everyone else a quarter million dollar check so everything balances out.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think there is an argument for making college mandatory and increasing the number of colleges to satisfy that mandate. Also making it really hard to expel college students
That sounds absolutely miserable for people who are practical rather than academic.
Everyone is different.
I'd want to somehow provide an equivalent amount of financial assistance to people that do not go to college but train elsewhere.
Some people don't want to train at all. They want to launch into a job and learn while doing it. They want to drive a truck rather than spend 3 years at truck-driver's school.
In addition to whatever starting salary, they should get a benefit commensurate with a college education value
What? No. The idea of free college is that people need the education in order to secure employment, not just that we need to give everyone $X worth of stuff. If you don't need college to do the thing you want to do for a living, cool, we can spend that money on other stuff that benefits society.
It's not like if someone needs a quarter million in cancer treatment under a single payer system, we need to cut everyone else a quarter million dollar check so everything balances out.
If the problem is that people need the education, free college helps. That is not the problem though.
The problem is that people need the sheepskin. Free college does not solve this problem.
I think there is an argument for making college mandatory and increasing the number of colleges to satisfy that mandate. Also making it really hard to expel college students
That sounds absolutely miserable for people who are practical rather than academic.
Everyone is different.
I'd want to somehow provide an equivalent amount of financial assistance to people that do not go to college but train elsewhere.
Some people don't want to train at all. They want to launch into a job and learn while doing it. They want to drive a truck rather than spend 3 years at truck-driver's school.
In addition to whatever starting salary, they should get a benefit commensurate with a college education value
What? No. The idea of free college is that people need the education in order to secure employment, not just that we need to give everyone $X worth of stuff. If you don't need college to do the thing you want to do for a living, cool, we can spend that money on other stuff that benefits society.
It's not like if someone needs a quarter million in cancer treatment under a single payer system, we need to cut everyone else a quarter million dollar check so everything balances out.
If the problem is that people need the education, free college helps. That is not the problem though.
The problem is that people need the sheepskin. Free college does not solve this problem.
They need... condoms...?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It is a known, provable thing that employers have increased educational requirements at least partly in response to more people having post secondary education. This is Not Good.
What are the reasons this would not happen if post secondary education was made "free"? Would the overall benefits outweigh this specific negative?
You can't fix employment educational requirements by making education more expensive and difficult to obtain. And the reverse is also true.
You fix employment educational requirements by addressing frivolous requirements.
I've thought about that problem but I havent thought of any great solutions. I did like someone's idea of putting a cost on jobs where they post a degree requirement, but that seems too hard to enforce (really, the issue with any legal solution here)
The solution is we need more unions and worker representation because business side solutions aren't working. The reason you see job postings that pay $13.70 and require a degree is because people with degrees are willing to work for this pay.
Uhh I'm not entirely sure it's only willing people; in fact, I'm sure the majority aren't. When you got mouths to feed and bills to pay, $13.70/hour is still better than $7.25/hour or even $0/hour. And unions would absolutely do a lot to shift circumstances more in the workers favor.
In this context, "willing" also covers "...because if I don't, I'll starve."
Posts
I really don't care whether people serve or not. I've stated before that the benefits I have should be extended to literally everyone in America.
Meanwhile I said treat it like a GI bill, which doesn't allow for going for multiple degrees at the same tier, but does allow for one to change their major repeatedly.
Ok. So how does One Free Degree square with the idea of education as an inherent moral good that must be provided? And why is a single BA rather than two or three good enough to satisfy the moral imperative?
Denmark, where my wife and her kids are from is 100% paying for her son to get his doctorate in medicine. He has told me that he could pursue a different degree afterwards but what would be the point? Denmark already has one of the best social security programs in the world, so there is no need to game the system.
The failing of education in this manner in the US is due to capitalism which says work, be rich, or die in a ditch. It is so ingrained in some that they cannot imagine anything more.
Dunno spool, why is one single high school diploma enough? How does everyone deserving an education through high school square with the existence of high school drop outs?
Seriously man, your concerns are literally identical to people that argued against high school becoming the norm.
2) Anyone can apply. Applications are handled by the central government.
Some study programs have a max number of students. Those with the highest gpas get the spots. But there are other programs that take in as many as apply and are qualified (eg some programs require certain electives taken in highschool).
Study programs are 2, 3 or 5 years, and then you're done. (If you fail classes you can take longer, but there's an upper limit.)
Tuition is free, but you have to buy books, food and housing (there's no on-campus housing). The government does provide a loan that's interest free while you're at university, and if you pass some of it is converted to a stipend. Interest is low and if you go bankrupt you don't have to pay back. Some people work part-time on the side.
You can get as many degrees as you like.
The only exception is PhD (a 3 year program). Here you're not guaranteed a spot. Still no tuition, but no loan. But the government pays you a good salary.
Cause I can't think of any reason you'd actually want to do that, and it feels like its an attempt to make a completely reasonable thing that we have the resources for (just not currently deployed as such) out to be a catastrophic social nightmare because it changes the status quo of higher education and might raise taxes.
The Chapter 33 GI Bill would not. It is time limited to 36 pro-rated months. And TA has a dollar per credit hour limit and annual cap.
One highschool diploma doesn't need to satisfy a moral imperative because there isn't one. Education is a social good, not a moral imperative, and we're free to limit it however we wish. The argument for Free College needs to be one that explains why offering a BA for free is a social good, and that argument needs to consider issues like degree inflation. "It's the same as old anti-highschool arguments" doesn't speak to this, because college isn't the same as highschool - the education on offer is obviously different. As for why one is enough, it's sadly not anymore because of the degree inflation problem! Continuing to feed the inflationary system by just pouring more dollars into it without addressing the underlying issue of the worthlessness of a highschool diploma is counterproductive.
If we're failing to prepare people to function in the modern world after 13 years of school, another 4 isn't the solution. If we're going to argue that Free College is a social good, reasons need to be found other than "you can't get a good job without a degree", and we need to decide what the limits are, whether we're going to freeze people out with quotas and circumstance like some countries, and generally how we go about deciding who gets the government funded leg up. Because right now, with generational poverty and racism depressing the chances for kids to qualify, we're just hardening the underclass and raising the bar to entry in the workforce by offering free college.
Never. We never stop paying for it.
If you wanna learn forever I'm fine with that, about the only stipulation I could think of would be that you need to hand over your arcane knowledge to others who are similarly motivated. We absolutely need these people to exist so we don't lose esoteric knowledge.
If you can still collect UBI and work the retail and fast food jobs for the extra cash then Ok
I hated my job at wal mart and working under toxic managers made it even worse but if UBI was real at the time I would have just put up with it and not stuck with it for 12 years
Have you met any humans? A lot of people tend to get stuck in a sort of doldrums in early adulthood where they don’t have the confidence or will to really pick a career but get a job because their parents give them an ultimatum - get a job or get out. And they often find it’s the kick up the pants they need to become independent people.
I have known a LOT of people like this. And those whose parents do let them live in their house forever (if they don’t have any disability or mental illness) tend to become unhappy people, easy prey for the alt-right or substance issues.
Reframe it to someone going to school for free and apparently the new villains are entomologists never leaving school and biologists fleeing to Canada.
(This post is clearly made in jest because Arch and his brood are already an enemy of humanity)
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Firstly, education is a moral imperative and thus a moral good. Purposefully keeping people in ignorance is a moral evil, therefore you can see education is a moral good. There is a reason why there is a direct link between the party that generally leads and the quality of that states education.
Secondly, there is no causal relationship between free education and a hardening of the underclass. In fact, historically speaking offering free education greatly uplifted the living standards of the lower class as evidenced with grade school and high school.
There is a causal relationship between increasing educational requirements for jobs and hardening of the underclass. Especially in a system where you have to pay for that education. So instead attack frivolous degree requirements for employment.
IMO a lot of that is due to unrealistic expectations that the education system-cum-society puts on people. The whole "get a job and you'll be happy" mentality that most higher ed aims towards. While UBI isn't going to be a panacea it would put a floor under people who have to take a swing or three before they find that vocation they can put up with. The trick would be to 1) Reset educational expectations and 2) Comprehensive job placement office of some kind or another. The second is probably far easier to achieve than the former. But personally, I think we should be aiming at that one to begin with. Especially in the US. Too much is made of the job == wealth == happiness mode of consumerism society.
From a pure economic standpoint, what's the cost comparison between this and UBI?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"If we're failing to prepare people for the world after six years of school, another six isn't the solution."
Dude, seriously. You're arguing for a less educated society for no reason. People learning more and becoming better is both a social good and a moral imperative.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That sounds absolutely miserable for people who are practical rather than academic.
Everyone is different.
I agree! To point to the GI Bill again, it applies for pretty much any educational course. Traditional college, trade schools, even tests for licensing and certification.
Give my benefits to every American.
I went to university because I could and didn't know what I wanted to do or how to get there.
I wound up spending five years there, with another three looking for work, having gained nothing much from the degree except the piece of paper.
Everything useful that I learned there could have been better learned in a job placement program of some sort, and a good two thirds of the stuff I was taught has not been useful to me and has no practical application in my life, even though I have looked for any job that might use it.
I don't mind making university free, but I don't think going to university is some universal social good.
It can too easily become knowledge for knowledge's sake, and leave you suited for nothing but academia at the other end.
I'd want to somehow provide an equivalent amount of financial assistance to people that do not go to college but train elsewhere.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Some people don't want to train at all. They want to launch into a job and learn while doing it. They want to drive a truck rather than spend 3 years at truck-driver's school.
Puritanical "suffering is a virtue" paired with late stage capitalism "everything is a zero sum game" makes for some virulent societal evils.
In addition to whatever starting salary, they should get a benefit commensurate with a college education value
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There will be a great upheaval? Yes. But hey, Capitalism is fine with Darwinism anyways, so if some can't make it, oh well.
What are the reasons this would not happen if post secondary education was made "free"? Would the overall benefits outweigh this specific negative?
You can't fix employment educational requirements by making education more expensive and difficult to obtain. And the reverse is also true.
You fix employment educational requirements by addressing frivolous requirements.
I've thought about that problem but I havent thought of any great solutions. I did like someone's idea of putting a cost on jobs where they post a degree requirement, but that seems too hard to enforce (really, the issue with any legal solution here)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The percentage of people getting a degree wouldn't increase as much as you might expect.
But even if it did: Yes. Lack of upward social mobility and the crippling economic effects of having generations on debt are incredibly volatile factors. Do you understand that Chile has had protests about it since 2006?
Yeah, I do think that there is at best correlation here. The root of the problem is that it's an easy way to filter applicants that isn't illegal and makes superficial enough sense that everybody starred doing it.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I think this is why companies make you fill out an online application form. Not only is it easier to filter, but it also shows you are serious enough to spend 20 minutes of your life transcribing your resume into little boxes. This suggests that you are a real person who is prepared to come to a job interview if called.
The solution is we need more unions and worker representation because business side solutions aren't working. The reason you see job postings that pay $13.70 and require a degree is because people with degrees are willing to work for this pay.
Uhh I'm not entirely sure it's only willing people; in fact, I'm sure the majority aren't. When you got mouths to feed and bills to pay, $13.70/hour is still better than $7.25/hour or even $0/hour. And unions would absolutely do a lot to shift circumstances more in the workers favor.
What? No. The idea of free college is that people need the education in order to secure employment, not just that we need to give everyone $X worth of stuff. If you don't need college to do the thing you want to do for a living, cool, we can spend that money on other stuff that benefits society.
It's not like if someone needs a quarter million in cancer treatment under a single payer system, we need to cut everyone else a quarter million dollar check so everything balances out.
If the problem is that people need the education, free college helps. That is not the problem though.
The problem is that people need the sheepskin. Free college does not solve this problem.
They need... condoms...?
In this context, "willing" also covers "...because if I don't, I'll starve."