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.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Perhaps. But a whole lot of them aren't entirely mature either. You should be well aware at this point that 19 and 20 year olds don't really handle long-term thinking very well most of the time. They're still largely convinced that they're invincible, the bad things won't happen to them, and that they don't really need to think about the consequences before they act.

And as I've repeatedly said: People can study whatever they want. I just don't think the public should be expected to foot the bill for all types of study, because not all of them have the same social benefit. Not all degrees are created equal when it comes to the common good.

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

There's a difference between choosing a child's interest and limiting what the child can choose.

If a 5 year old is interested in playing frogger across a busy street, I think it's the duty of adults to stop them. If a child's interest is to only eat chocolate and drink soda pop, I think it's the duty of adults to intervene. If a child's interest is drugs and alcohol, I think adults damned well better stop them.

If you think otherwise, I'm going to need an extremely compelling argument for why a 10 year old ought to be allowed to do whatever they want and adults can't say no. And I don't think you can make one.

 

[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.

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

Objectively, we don't have enough primary care doctors and nurses for our population. We have an overabundance of many specialists.

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

So we should incentivize the trades. I don't think we need to incentivize art.

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.

You seem to think I'm proposing that we disallow certain studies, or that we force people to study things they aren't interested in. But that isn't supported by anything I've said, and it definitely doesn't align with my actual views.

I really don't think I'm unclear about this. I don't think the communication gap is on my end.

Look, FHA offers better interest rates and lower down payments for first time homebuyers. You understand why, don't you? Because owning a home is the absolute best way to build financial security, and financial security is good for the individuals and the country as a whole. Nothing in that program suggests that selling your current home and buying a different one is bad, nor does it discourage doing so. Nothing in that program suggests that renting is bad and should be avoided. Those are still reasonable and appropriate options that are available for people. But the government has decided (and I agree) that encouraging and incentivizing people to buy their first home is a good thing. It's a worthwhile investment that has identifiable positive net outcomes. The other options aren't prohibited, they're not even discouraged... they just aren't incentivized.

I think education is a fine thing, and it should be available to anyone who can pass the entrance exams and maintain the required GPA. But I don't think that all fields of study are equally valuable for society as a whole... so I don't think that all fields should be incentivized. I think it's a prudent and responsible use of taxpayer money to incentivize fields that benefit all of society.

This doesn't seem controversial or radical to me. It just seems reasonable and responsible.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

If you can make the case that some fields produce such an enormous public good that they entirely offset the costs accrued and support those fields being perpetually supported by other people's money, go for it. Perhaps you'll convince me.

While you're at it, though, I'd like you to consider whether there are other types of loans that you think should be given to people who are highly unlikely to be able to pay them back, but which you think other taxpayers should be responsible for.

 

[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?

Objectively, we don't have enough primary care doctors and nurses for our population. We have an overabundance of many specialists.

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

So we should incentivize the trades. I don't think we need to incentivize art.

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.

You seem to think I'm proposing that we disallow certain studies, or that we force people to study things they aren't interested in. But that isn't supported by anything I've said, and it definitely doesn't align with my actual views.

I really don't think I'm unclear about this. I don't think the communication gap is on my end.

Look, FHA offers better interest rates and lower down payments for first time homebuyers. You understand why, don't you? Because owning a home is the absolute best way to build financial security, and financial security is good for the individuals and the country as a whole. Nothing in that program suggests that selling your current home and buying a different one is bad, nor does it discourage doing so. Nothing in that program suggests that renting is bad and should be avoided. Those are still reasonable and appropriate options that are available for people. But the government has decided (and I agree) that encouraging and incentivizing people to buy their first home is a good thing. It's a worthwhile investment that has identifiable positive net outcomes. The other options aren't prohibited, they're not even discouraged... they just aren't incentivized.

I think education is a fine thing, and it should be available to anyone who can pass the entrance exams and maintain the required GPA. But I don't think that all fields of study are equally valuable for society as a whole... so I don't think that all fields should be incentivized. I think it's a prudent and responsible use of taxpayer money to incentivize fields that benefit all of society.

This doesn't seem controversial or radical to me. It just seems reasonable and responsible.

I think that most people absolutely are injured to the impact art has on our lives. We need to encourage more art and more literature.

If you had to read what passes for writing of many university students, you’d really want to invest heavily in literature and writing degrees.

 

[Politesse]

Perhaps. But a whole lot of them aren't entirely mature either. You should be well aware at this point that 19 and 20 year olds don't really handle long-term thinking very well most of the time. They're still largely convinced that they're invincible, the bad things won't happen to them, and that they don't really need to think about the consequences before they act.

I know an incredibly large number of 19 to twenty year olds, yes. Meet hundreds of new ones every term. Though, you are also slightly mischaracterizing the age of college students. I teach at a two year college, and while my average student is 19, they can be anywhere from 16 to... well, there's no upper limit. Currently I have one student who is 71 and proud of it. Any attempt to manipulate what majors are available affects all students, not just those you regard as "children".

I also disagree with your characterization of college students. I do not see any evidence whatsoever that the student body is psychologically homogenous at all, people enroll in our classes for a staggeringly diverse array of reasons, but the most common impetus for going to school is economic in character. So, your argument strikes me as pretty absurd. Why would somone who "doesn't believe the bad can happen to them" be attending college at all? Most of my students are working multiple jobs and have dependents to support. They've lost people. Most of the students enrolled now were shaped by Covid and quarantining. They know they are mortal.

Quite frankly, I think you're projecting an idealized memory of your own past and background onto other people. Which is funny, because unless I have completely misread your personality, I have a hard time imagining a young adult Emily Lake reacting well to being told what she is "allowed" to major in, either.

 

[Politesse]

Look, FHA offers better interest rates and lower down payments for first time homebuyers. You understand why, don't you? Because owning a home is the absolute best way to build financial security, and financial security is good for the individuals and the country as a whole. Nothing in that program suggests that selling your current home and buying a different one is bad, nor does it discourage doing so. Nothing in that program suggests that renting is bad and should be avoided. Those are still reasonable and appropriate options that are available for people. But the government has decided (and I agree) that encouraging and incentivizing people to buy their first home is a good thing.

A policy commitment that, famously, resulted in extremely risky loans being offered, the sale of known risky debts as a tradable commodity, and directly caused a foreclosure crisis leading to the second most severe economic recession of the last century...

 

[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.

If you can make the case that some fields produce such an enormous public good that they entirely offset the costs accrued and support those fields being perpetually supported by other people's money, go for it. Perhaps you'll convince me.

As to loans, if student lians were treated like other loans (i.e dischargeable in bankruptcy), I’d have little problem with them.

I’m not trying to persuade you. Your view excludes the possible non-pecuniary benefits accruing to others from a more educated populace. IMO it is an extremely narrow viewpoint.

It’s been my limited experience that people holding narrow viewpoints are typically unwilling to widen them.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that most people absolutely are injured to the impact art has on our lives. We need to encourage more art and more literature.

Do you think we need more art at the expense of more plumbers?

If you had to read what passes for writing of many university students, you’d really want to invest heavily in literature and writing degrees.

I don't think degrees in literature is the solution for primary school failures to teach basics.

 

[Emily Lake]

Perhaps. But a whole lot of them aren't entirely mature either. You should be well aware at this point that 19 and 20 year olds don't really handle long-term thinking very well most of the time. They're still largely convinced that they're invincible, the bad things won't happen to them, and that they don't really need to think about the consequences before they act.

I know an incredibly large number of 19 to twenty year olds, yes. Meet hundreds of new ones every term. Though, you are also slightly mischaracterizing the age of college students. I teach at a two year college, and while my average student is 19, they can be anywhere from 16 to... well, there's no upper limit. Currently I have one student who is 71 and proud of it. Any attempt to manipulate what majors are available affects all students, not just those you regard as "children".

I haven't attempted to manipulate what majors are available. Only which are subsidized or backed by taxes.

I also disagree with your characterization of college students. I do not see any evidence whatsoever that the student body is psychologically homogenous at all, people enroll in our classes for a staggeringly diverse array of reasons, but the most common impetus for going to school is economic in character. So, your argument strikes me as pretty absurd. Why would somone who "doesn't believe the bad can happen to them" be attending college at all? Most of my students are working multiple jobs and have dependents to support. They've lost people. Most of the students enrolled now were shaped by Covid and quarantining. They know they are mortal.

Quite frankly, I think you're projecting an idealized memory of your own past and background onto other people. Which is funny, because unless I have completely misread your personality, I have a hard time imagining a young adult Emily Lake reacting well to being told what she is "allowed" to major in, either.

Again, at no point have I suggested that any majors should be disallowed.

 

[Emily Lake]

Look, FHA offers better interest rates and lower down payments for first time homebuyers. You understand why, don't you? Because owning a home is the absolute best way to build financial security, and financial security is good for the individuals and the country as a whole. Nothing in that program suggests that selling your current home and buying a different one is bad, nor does it discourage doing so. Nothing in that program suggests that renting is bad and should be avoided. Those are still reasonable and appropriate options that are available for people. But the government has decided (and I agree) that encouraging and incentivizing people to buy their first home is a good thing.

A policy commitment that, famously, resulted in extremely risky loans being offered, the sale of known risky debts as a tradable commodity, and directly caused a foreclosure crisis leading to the second most severe economic recession of the last century...

You know they still exist, right? They're just not as generous as they used to be.

But you raise an interesting connection point. Risky home loans led to risky debt which wasn't repaid and resulted in a recession. Seems like risky student loan have a similar exposure. Although I tend to think they've contributed to tuition being far too high and jobs requiring degrees for work that really doesn't need a degree - the combination of tuition inflation and degree inflation.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

If you can make the case that some fields produce such an enormous public good that they entirely offset the costs accrued and support those fields being perpetually supported by other people's money, go for it. Perhaps you'll convince me.

As to loans, if student lians were treated like other loans (i.e dischargeable in bankruptcy), I’d have little problem with them.

I’m not trying to persuade you. Your view excludes the possible non-pecuniary benefits accruing to others from a more educated populace. IMO it is an extremely narrow viewpoint.

It’s been my limited experience that people holding narrow viewpoints are typically unwilling to widen them.

I notice that you didn't bother to even try to make a case. All you've done is declare that my view is narrow... because I don't think all degrees are equally valuable to society as a whole, and I think we should only incentivize with tax money those that are needed.

Like I said... make your case. Or refrain from insinuating that I'm close minded because I don't think artists are as necessary for a well-functioning society as plumbers and doctors and nurses are.