461–470 of 565 posts
The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job... but the purpose of a college LOAN is 100% a job, and it's very important to differentiate between the two. The whole point of the loan is to buy time; you don't want to wait for when you have savings to purchase the degree, you want to do it now . If you are not doing it for the job, then why the loan, what's the rush? If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then…
The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job... but the purpose of a college LOAN is 100% a job, and it's very important to differentiate between the two. The whole point of the loan is to buy time; you don't want to wait for when you have savings to purchase the degree, you want to do it now . If you are not doing it for the job, then why the loan, what's the rush? If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then…
> The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job... but the purpose of a college LOAN is 100% a job, and it's very important to differentiate between the two. No, the purpose of a college loan is to enable a student to pay for college with future earnings. It can be perfectly rational even if the loan/degree doesn't improve job prospects (and even more especially so if it doesn’t “improve” them in a purely financial se…
The previous poster is arguing that the underlying rules that block student loans being discharged under bankruptcy, generally speaking, mean that the loan is about a job, and not just about borrowing for education.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your point is simply wrong. Especially in underserved rural areas you'll often see primary care doctors delivering cardiology and nephrology treatments even though they lack board certification in those specialties. There are no certified specialists available so they make do. You guys need to expand your horizons a bit.
“Practicing” and providing maintenance care of a condition are two completely different concepts, and the point you replied to stands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But also the taxpayers and dollar holders have a right to ask for good management of their taxes and savings
Individually-scoped education is objectively a good national investment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having people highly educated in the arts and humanities is a good investment, albeit not a financial one.
I don't know. There seem to be a large number of people in the arts and humanities who are communists. Which I consider a terrible investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There aren't any practicing cardiology or nephrology which is the GP's point and my point.
Your point is simply wrong. Especially in underserved rural areas you'll often see primary care doctors delivering cardiology and nephrology treatments even though they lack board certification in those specialties. There are no certified specialists available so they make do. You guys need to expand your horizons a bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's really a counterpoint. My point was that I get the impression that even those in the humanities seem to be losing familiarity with liberal ideas. So it's even worse now (or we've just lied to ourselves as we pretend to expand access to higher education).
Where do you get this impression from? Faculty? Published research? My observation is that people working in the humanities have a deeper and wider reading list than at any point in prior history. If you are complaining about students then I don't see what the problem is with not having read these particular texts. The humanities is so incredibly wide and it is good that we have widened curricula to not just focus ev…
If we're talking about some intangible benefit to society for having lots of educated people, I would interpret that as being in service to civic contributions, so yes I would expect that means a liberal arts education should teach Western canon, and certainly it should not undermine it. If not in service to economic utility or propagating our values and traditions, then why exactly would we support a large portion of the population to do nothing but pursue hobby study in something no one else wants for years? Actually it's not even clear that the students even want to do that study either, given the apparent mass cheating or AI usage. So who is it for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the wide variety of charter schools which were set up, I'm surprised it wasn't tried --- I would really like to see this educational mechanism revisited and re-tried --- seems like a good fit for remote learning (remote classes are academic and done at ability level, in-person classes are social and done by age level w/ peers.
Yeah, good point, especially at the higher levels. Our public high school offered differential equations as the level after calc only because they randomly had a really exceptionally capable math teacher who was a teacher as a passion project after he'd made his money elsewhere, but most schools don't have access to that sort of capability. Remote learning could offer that sort of headroom in every subject. I guess l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because its usually tax payer money that is used to fund these loans. If people started declaring bankruptcy tax payers would mandate that federal student loans stop existing as a matter of principle. People hold the value that its good to help students as long as they pay back at least what was given to them (adjusted for inflation).
We could also just decide to provide people higher level of education as a right. And, put some Medicare level pricing in place for colleges and universities to get cost in check. I personally would want to see it with greater student participation/testing. The US education has been watered down to be so easy specifically because failing reduces LTV of a student. They want to just crank out degrees to as many people…