441–450 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in Ontario, Canada the schools cannot raise tuition without asking the government for permission.
Does that work?
Note that at the same school, Arts programs are much cheaper than STEM (maybe $5,000 a year), in large part because they have much lower perceived economic value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of it is just a shift in mentality. When we viewed education as a net benefit to society that society was willing to pay for, there was a natural downward pressure on the cost of education since the public was shouldering most of the burden to educate people. Once we shifted to the mindset where an education was valued based on how much extra money the recipient could make during his/her lifetime, that downward…
I agree of course - a society with at least some understanding of statistics, logic, anthropology (of media), etc is essential to a healthy democracy. It would be great to see political/cultural literacy taken more seriously, but the trend as you point out has been in the opposite direction (and has been/will be for some time). Being burdened with debt and not having the choice to pursue further education are the rea…
Thomas Jefferson said something similar:
An ignorant people can never remain a free people.
There's an excellent video [1] of former Supreme Court Justice David Souter (if only we could get judicial nominations of this quality these days from either party, let alone Republicans) where he makes the point that lack of civics education is the largest problem in America today. I think he'd argue that one's primary value to society is being an informed citizen who votes and properly holds the government to account, which doesn't mean simply voting for the opposite party every 8 years because you're dissatisfied with life.
Especially after an election where it's so clear that many people are not being responsible citizens, either not voting or voting ignorantly, I with you in wondering why more people in this thread can't understand the value to society of a well-educated populace, regardless of how that education provides an economic benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Going to college poor (actually poor) is nearly impossible. This is not true. If you are poor (actually poor), there are so many government grants and scholarships for low income students that it's much easier financially than if you are middle class. If you are middle class, your parents frequently have to give up half a year's salary to help pay. Good luck going to college if you're not a top tier student and your…
Reality doesnt match your expectation. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/college-enro... And note there are more low-income people than high-income people demographically.
Im glad I got someone with the shock value. Its clear you have a very unique perspective that I appreciate you sharing. Female in lower income bracket - I believe this. I think this is a rather heartbreaking reality so I am a ok not going into this. What I do know is that Ive met a few peoples whos moms work 16 hour days as much as possible. - chronically ill - the college educated are competing with the chronically…
Perhaps your intent was sincere, but the effect you had on the thread is indistinguishable from trolling. Please don't do this on HN.
Im glad I got someone with the shock value. Its clear you have a very unique perspective that I appreciate you sharing. Female in lower income bracket - I believe this. I think this is a rather heartbreaking reality so I am a ok not going into this. What I do know is that Ive met a few peoples whos moms work 16 hour days as much as possible. - chronically ill - the college educated are competing with the chronically…
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13009587 and marked it off-topic. Perhaps your intent was sincere, but the effect you had on the thread is indistinguishable from trolling. Please don't do this on HN.
Has there been extensive research or trials of corporate sponsorship (or are there any startups exploring this idea)? There are probably some principal/agent issues but by and large why can't Google sponsor some CS students and they sign a 4 year deal with them in return (somewhat similar to sports?). In some fields, big corporations already compete for talent, why not start the competition a level earlier (internshi…
General Assembly is a boot camp that does this. ROTC does this for the military. >Google sponsor some CS students and they sign a 4 year deal with them in return (somewhat similar to sports? They would probably try to get fired so they can get hired elsewhere for more money leaving Google holding the bag or be lazy as fucks. Non compete agreements are difficult to enforce....you cant create a wage slave and expect it…
The apprenticeship model also works decently well...at least I'm not consciously aware of many carpenters, bakers etc. job hopping once their education is complete.
But like I said the more optimistic view is that employees might actually like your company and that the principle of reciprocality works in this setting. There's going to be a subset of people who are going to be pretty happy that you cared about them and financed their education (and there should certainly be strong mentoring on the side not just "here's your money, call us when you graduate"). If someone just hops away...well that's expensive but might be less expensive than having such a person at your company. Fail early etc.
And I mean noone is forcing you to sign such a deal. If you want to argue evil employers and "wage slaves" (a term I personally think is fairly ridiculous, especially if applied in the context of IT jobs, but Chomsky gonna Chomsky) and say that starting your life with huge college debt isn't exactly going to set the workforce free either. You're pretty exploitable if you need to get rid of crippling debt.
There seems to be a strong sentiment in this thread that the only value provided by education is the contribution to career (e.g. that loans should only be provided for financially viable courses, that studying arts is as useful to one's career as studying finger painting, etc). This just seems so wrong. Optimising for vocational training means you're effectively tuning out the abstract arts and sciences and... oh, t…
You really don't need to pay tuition to gain a rich education in art and humanities and sciences if you want one. There are resources aplenty - buy a book! I'd even go so far as to say the majority of college grads learned almost nothing during college, and the few who did would, after a few years of maturity, pick up a book of their own free will and enrich themselves. I think the costs of university (huge amounts o…
Go pick up a graduate mathematics textbook (or even an undergraduate one, I'll be generous) of your choice and try to learn from it without help from an instructor. I'll wait. Best case scenario, you will believe you understand it until you come into contact with someone who actually does and be horribly embarrassed. Or perhaps so self-satisfied with your ability to surpass everyone in the universe at understanding mathematics quickly and without help or discussion that you won't be able to even grasp the fact that you don't understand it. I've seen both first hand.
English and Philosophy (especially Philosophy) are exactly the same. You cannot learn philosophy from only reading textbooks. It's where you start, not where you finish. It's the bare minimum. It's what you should have done before you even show up to the class, at which point you begin learning nearly everything there is to learn about the subject.
Almost everyone learns a GREAT deal in college. Some people do learn so little they aren't even capable of understanding what it is they were /supposed/ to learn, and post on tech message boards about how college is a waste of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we have basic income, why do we need to be educated at all? Just stay home and live minimally.
Because self-actualization is a human need and for a lot of people education is a means for that. Because some of us enjoy creating things that are of value to others. Because life is more than survival, basically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the reason poor people make great art is that they are not part of the elitist orthodoxy. If they go to an expensive art school they would lose that advantage.
the elite buy art so art caters to the orthodoxy