MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Toni]

No, we just fundamentally disagree.

I see education as a public good, just as police and fire departments and hospitals and highways and streets and the maintenance of such. Not just public good but a public necessity.

As such, I support funding education much better than we do currently.

I’m all for higher taxes ( not just property taxes, in fact, probably NOT increasing most property taxes on primary residences) and yeah, that would hit me in my bank account.

As for student loans: I’d like to see them become less necessary and interest free.

I’m ok with disagreeing with you.

I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think we do. It's a matter of degree (pun intended ).

Education as a nebulous concept is certainly a public good. But not all fields of study are useful to the same degree. We need police and firefighters and doctors and nurses and computers and infrastructure and food and shelter - 100% agree. We need MORE of those. Art is nice, I like art - I married an artist! But we don't need art, not in the same way and not to the same extent.

Humor me for a moment Think about elementary kids. Imagine that they got to choose what classes they wanted to study. What portion of kids in elementary school would choose to study PE and Band and Art and would decline to study Math and Spelling?

What do you think would happen if kids got to choose what they wanted to study from elementary all the way through college degrees? What mix of graduates do you think we'd end up with, and do you think that mix will meet the needs of society?

When we're using public funds - which I don't object to - I think there's an obligation on the government to ensure that we get a return on our investments. I'd be just fine if the government decided to incentivize schools to turn out more doctors - I literally just voted to provide tax funding to community colleges in my state with a focus on skilled trades, building, nursing, and pre-med classes. I don't think there's a need to incentivize more artists. That doesn't mean artists aren't valuable, it doesn't mean people should be prohibited from becoming artists. It just means that maybe that's not the best place to invest if the objective is to benefit all of society.

How do you measure "benefit all of society"? If you are only including monetized returns, then the definition of "benefit all of society" is rather restrictive. And how do you factor in non-monetized benefits?

I'm going to need you to elaborate on this question. Unless I've magically inferred what you're after, but I don't have a lot of confidence that I'm understanding you.

My only consideration from a monetary perspective is whether or not the student's field of study is likely to result in them being able to pay back their student loan.

The benefit to society isn't necessarily making money for everyone else, or even making a lot of money for themselves. The benefit to society from my perspective is access to needed skills as a minimum, then expansion to "nice to have" things. I don't claim to have a perfect hierarchy of everything, but I've got some broad categories. So farmers fall into the "need to have" category. That doesn't mean we all need lobsters and imported dragonfruit, but we need to not starve to death, right? At the other end, actors are "nice to have" - our lives are nice because we have TV shows and movies and such, but if hollywood were Thanosed off the planet entirely, we'd all get by. We might be bored, but nobody's going to die.

Consider it more or less in line with Maslow's hierarchy. We have to have shelter and food and basic security, we want to have some additional things, but nobody actually *needs* soda pop, right?

Why not just bypass the loan part and let people figure out what kind of job they get?

Honestly: Why should the public not fully fund higher education?

They’re is a great need for people to take jobs that don’t necessarily pay well but provide a vital service. I’m thinking if social workers and preschool teachers off the top of my head.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why not just bypass the loan part and let people figure out what kind of job they get?

Honestly: Why should the public not fully fund higher education?

They’re is a great need for people to take jobs that don’t necessarily pay well but provide a vital service. I’m thinking if social workers and preschool teachers off the top of my head.

I'm fine with something other than loans. That's just what we have right now. I'd love for college to cost less, I just don't think it should be completely taxpayer funded. Not because I don't value education and want it available... but because I understand people. And while art is great, we don't need 50% of graduates to be artists. There are some fields that are absolute necessities as a society, some that are useful all around, and some that are nice to haves but we could do without.

I'm not a necessity. I'm useful, with how things work right now... and I think I could be useful in other contexts. But my field really isn't a necessity to keep us all alive. In the grand scheme of things, you're more vital than I am.

So I think we need some sort of strings attached. I'm sure there are many ways we could solve the issue, to incentivize study of fields we really deeply need, while also being fiscally responsible with taxpayer money for fields that we only need a little of, or which are nice-to-haves.

ETA:

Humor me for a moment Think about elementary kids. Imagine that they got to choose what classes they wanted to study. What portion of kids in elementary school would choose to study PE and Band and Art and would decline to study Math and Spelling?

What do you think would happen if kids got to choose what they wanted to study from elementary all the way through college degrees? What mix of graduates do you think we'd end up with, and do you think that mix will meet the needs of society?

When we're using public funds - which I don't object to - I think there's an obligation on the government to ensure that we get a return on our investments. I'd be just fine if the government decided to incentivize schools to turn out more doctors - I literally just voted to provide tax funding to community colleges in my state with a focus on skilled trades, building, nursing, and pre-med classes. I don't think there's a need to incentivize more artists. That doesn't mean artists aren't valuable, it doesn't mean people should be prohibited from becoming artists. It just means that maybe that's not the best place to invest if the objective is to benefit all of society.

 

[Toni]

Why not just bypass the loan part and let people figure out what kind of job they get?

Honestly: Why should the public not fully fund higher education?

They’re is a great need for people to take jobs that don’t necessarily pay well but provide a vital service. I’m thinking if social workers and preschool teachers off the top of my head.

I'm fine with something other than loans. That's just what we have right now. I'd love for college to cost less, I just don't think it should be completely taxpayer funded. Not because I don't value education and want it available... but because I understand people. And while art is great, we don't need 50% of graduates to be artists. There are some fields that are absolute necessities as a society, some that are useful all around, and some that are nice to haves but we could do without.

I'm not a necessity. I'm useful, with how things work right now... and I think I could be useful in other contexts. But my field really isn't a necessity to keep us all alive. In the grand scheme of things, you're more vital than I am.

So I think we need some sort of strings attached. I'm sure there are many ways we could solve the issue, to incentivize study of fields we really deeply need, while also being fiscally responsible with taxpayer money for fields that we only need a little of, or which are nice-to-haves.

ETA:

Humor me for a moment Think about elementary kids. Imagine that they got to choose what classes they wanted to study. What portion of kids in elementary school would choose to study PE and Band and Art and would decline to study Math and Spelling?

What do you think would happen if kids got to choose what they wanted to study from elementary all the way through college degrees? What mix of graduates do you think we'd end up with, and do you think that mix will meet the needs of society?

When we're using public funds - which I don't object to - I think there's an obligation on the government to ensure that we get a return on our investments. I'd be just fine if the government decided to incentivize schools to turn out more doctors - I literally just voted to provide tax funding to community colleges in my state with a focus on skilled trades, building, nursing, and pre-med classes. I don't think there's a need to incentivize more artists. That doesn't mean artists aren't valuable, it doesn't mean people should be prohibited from becoming artists. It just means that maybe that's not the best place to invest if the objective is to benefit all of society.

Sigh. What we do not need is the state or its proxies ( or other people) deciding first 18 year olds what they can and cannot study. Most college kids place quite enough pressure on themselves to follow a field of study that will lead to a lucrative career and not disappoint their parents ts and force them to move back home. Even the kids who seem sooo cool.

I don’t see why we shouldn’t have more artists. But I will say that for most universities, their art programs are not doing that great—or hadn’t you heard that the arts are no longer seen as valuable by those who control purse strings. I mentioned before that I had wanted to take some art classes but found it impossible. Most university art departments insist that their art classes are only open to art majors or, if you are lucky, minors. Pursuing a career in art requires a lot of courage and a high tolerance for poverty. Those who truly want to pursue art careers are as focused and determined as any pre-med student. But there are far fewer would be professional artists than premed students.

I think the ‘return on our investment’ is kind of a circular loop. Public funds are used to fund services fur the benefit of the public. Surely students are members of the public and most have been working jobs and paying taxes. Certainly their parents have been.

If students choose to pursue a career that is less remunerative, let them. The government t has no business and little to no expertise in knowing what fields of study will result in higher paying careers. Kids get enough pressure from their parents along those lines. Who do you think advises their kids to major in business? Parents who don’t know any better.

 

[Emily Lake]

Sigh. What we do not need is the state or its proxies ( or other people) deciding first 18 year olds what they can and cannot study.

I'm not suggesting that the state or its proxies decide what 18 year olds can and cannot study.

I am suggesting that the state or its proxies decide which studies chosen by 18 year olds will be paid for with other people's money.

 

[Toni]

Sigh. What we do not need is the state or its proxies ( or other people) deciding first 18 year olds what they can and cannot study.

I'm not suggesting that the state or its proxies decide what 18 year olds can and cannot study.

I am suggesting that the state or its proxies decide which studies chosen by 18 year olds will be paid for with other people's money.

Well what magical formula do you personally endures to separate out which dollars that you pay in taxes are allocated to pay for what thing?

Most college kids are tax payers. It’s their dollars as much as it is yours or mine.

Unless you think that those who pay more in taxes get more rights?

 

[Emily Lake]

Well what magical formula do you personally endures to separate out which dollars that you pay in taxes are allocated to pay for what thing?

Most college kids are tax payers. It’s their dollars as much as it is yours or mine.

Unless you think that those who pay more in taxes get more rights?

Okay, you win. Let's all pay for everyone's college of all types, no matter what they want to study. Who needs doctors or teachers or plumbers? What could possibly go wrong?

Honestly, I kind of think it's like letting the kindergarteners set the school lunch menu. The kids might all really, really like it... but it's gonna be light on nutrition.

 

[Politesse]

Honestly, I kind of think it's like letting the kindergarteners set the school lunch menu. The kids might all really, really like it... but it's gonna be light on nutrition.

College students aren't children. And I don't care for adults who try to choose children's interests for them, either.

 

[Toni]

Well what magical formula do you personally endures to separate out which dollars that you pay in taxes are allocated to pay for what thing?

Most college kids are tax payers. It’s their dollars as much as it is yours or mine.

Unless you think that those who pay more in taxes get more rights?

Okay, you win. Let's all pay for everyone's college of all types, no matter what they want to study. Who needs doctors or teachers or plumbers? What could possibly go wrong?

Honestly, I kind of think it's like letting the kindergarteners set the school lunch menu. The kids might all really, really like it... but it's gonna be light on nutrition.

So you think that there are not enough people who want to be doctors?

We’ve steered kids into business degrees for too long and need to do more to encourage people to go into the trades.

But the last thing we need to do is to push people into career paths that don’t interest them and that they have no actual talent for.

FFS, I don’t pick my granddaughter’s interests—and she’s two!

The best thing parents can do—and trust me, I know that it’s one of the hardest things to do is to look your kid in the eye and tell them that you know they’ll figure it out and that you trust them. That is something they actually need to hear. Mostly they step up to the expectations.

I’ve seen kids do some pretty silly stuff to avoid following the path their parents ordained first them when they were toddlers.

I’ve also seen a bunch of kids nearly paralyzed with fear that they would make a mistake and never get a good job or worse: disappoint mom and dad.

Not one of my adult kids has chosen a path I would have chosen for them or that I would have predicted. They are all living independently, managing their own lives. God knows I did not do what my parents ts wanted.

Parents are not necessarily good at knowing what their kids will want in their adult lives. We make guesses and sometimes we are right and sometimes not.

I certainly do not like the governent’s skill or talent at deciding what career paths are worth pursuing first other people.

Talk about overreach.

 

[laughing dog]

My only consideration from a monetary perspective is whether or not the student's field of study is likely to result in them being able to pay back their student loan.

Then you exclude any positive externality or pubic good from education in your analysis.