Busniesses should pay for higher education

[Bronzeage]

ksen 101

Not quite the same as using Econ 101

I actually took Econ 101(econ 1001 at my school) and earned an A for the course. Most people who throw the term Econ 101 around, are discussing things not in the syllabus.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I mean they're the ones requiring college diplomas for nearly evey job that has a decent chance of paying more than minimum wage.

So let them foot the bill.

They do--those with degrees get paid more.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem we face today with paying for higher education is that we pay for a misplaced education. There simply is not a need for the huge number of Liberal Arts graduates as we produce. There was a time when a person who went to a university was not looking for a ticket to his future. Colleges were created to educate clergymen. They had to learn Latin and Greek and how to recognise Lucifer, when he appeared. All critical stuff. Soon, room was made in the classrooms for the sons of rich people. They weren't going to be priests. They just needed enough education to not be ignorant savages.

Today, we let people choose their course of education with little thought of its utility. How many English majors do we need? How many will actually get a job and use the unique qualities of a BA in English Lit?

The real question is not who will pay for higher education, but why are we paying for something we don't need?

Yup, so many people are getting degrees for which there is little demand. Of course they ask if you want fries with that?

Furthermore, in some areas the primary use for the degree is to teach the field. What actual good does society get out of that?!?!

 

[ksen]

Furthermore, in some areas the primary use for the degree is to teach the field. What actual good does society get out of that?!?!

You mean besides better educated and more well rounded citizens?

 

[laughing dog]

Furthermore, in some areas the primary use for the degree is to teach the field. What actual good does society get out of that?!?!

You mean besides better educated and more well rounded citizens?

Some of these threads are pretty good rebuttals to extent to which that is true.

 

[Bronzeage]

Furthermore, in some areas the primary use for the degree is to teach the field. What actual good does society get out of that?!?!

You mean besides better educated and more well rounded citizens?

Is that what we are getting? I like the idea of a better educated and well rounded citizenry, but is an unmarketable college degree the best way to do this?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Furthermore, in some areas the primary use for the degree is to teach the field. What actual good does society get out of that?!?!

You mean besides better educated and more well rounded citizens?

But what use is a field that exists only to perpetuate itself?

 

[bleubird]

For every job corporations send off shore,they should pay to educate a person.

 

[Jayjay]

I mean they're the ones requiring college diplomas for nearly evey job that has a decent chance of paying more than minimum wage.

So let them foot the bill.

You want to tax companies that hire college-educated people and pay higher than minimum wage? As a corollary, that would mean tax breaks for companies like Walmart that hire minimum wage workers.

 

[SimpleDon]

The problem we face today with paying for higher education is that we pay for a misplaced education. There simply is not a need for the huge number of Liberal Arts graduates as we produce. There was a time when a person who went to a university was not looking for a ticket to his future. Colleges were created to educate clergymen. They had to learn Latin and Greek and how to recognise Lucifer, when he appeared. All critical stuff. Soon, room was made in the classrooms for the sons of rich people. They weren't going to be priests. They just needed enough education to not be ignorant savages.

Today, we let people choose their course of education with little thought of its utility. How many English majors do we need? How many will actually get a job and use the unique qualities of a BA in English Lit?

The real question is not who will pay for higher education, but why are we paying for something we don't need?

Yup, so many people are getting degrees for which there is little demand. Of course they ask if you want fries with that?

Furthermore, in some areas the primary use for the degree is to teach the field. What actual good does society get out of that?!?!

I don't have a serious objection to liberal arts as a college education. There is a lot to be said for a general education as opposed to a narrow technical one. And this is from a person who has only technical and business degrees.

In other threads people cower, metaphorically, before the specter of automation taking all of our jobs in production. This is one of the answers for the question of, what will all of us do then? We will have more people working in the arts. We will have more people who study our history, who preserve more of our history. We will have more people who study our society and who concentrate on how to make it work better for all of society.

Broken down to fundamentals college has only two purposes, and neither is to learn an occupation. For the vast majority of students it teaches them how to learn and how to communicate with others. There is no way that college can teach each of the thousands of occupations that will be available when students graduate. Much less the occupations that don't yet exist but which their students will see in their lifetimes.

And for the very, very few it finds those extraordinary people who will do the research to extend the boundaries of our collective knowledge. This is a willowing process of going through the hundreds to find one or two. This, Loren, is the good that society gets out of education.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yup, so many people are getting degrees for which there is little demand. Of course they ask if you want fries with that?

Furthermore, in some areas the primary use for the degree is to teach the field. What actual good does society get out of that?!?!

I don't have a serious objection to liberal arts as a college education. There is a lot to be said for a general education as opposed to a narrow technical one. And this is from a person who has only technical and business degrees.

In other threads people cower, metaphorically, before the specter of automation taking all of our jobs in production. This is one of the answers for the question of, what will all of us do then? We will have more people working in the arts. We will have more people who study our history, who preserve more of our history. We will have more people who study our society and who concentrate on how to make it work better for all of society.

Broken down to fundamentals college has only two purposes, and neither is to learn an occupation. For the vast majority of students it teaches them how to learn and how to communicate with others. There is no way that college can teach each of the thousands of occupations that will be available when students graduate. Much less the occupations that don't yet exist but which their students will see in their lifetimes.

And for the very, very few it finds those extraordinary people who will do the research to extend the boundaries of our collective knowledge. This is a willowing process of going through the hundreds to find one or two. This, Loren, is the good that society gets out of education.

Knowledge is good and more knowledge is better. That is not the point in dispute.

If a person wants to pursue a degree in art or literature, there's nothing wrong with that and certainly much to be said in its favor. The problem becomes one of finances. Unless one is a member of a wealthy family and an income is provided, the years between ages 18 and 22 might be better spent either working at a job which will lead to a better life, or obtaining an education which prepares one for such a job.

 

[fromderinside]

Broken down to fundamentals college has only two purposes, and neither is to learn an occupation. For the vast majority of students it teaches them how to learn and how to communicate with others. There is no way that college can teach each of the thousands of occupations that will be available when students graduate. Much less the occupations that don't yet exist but which their students will see in their lifetimes.

And for the very, very few it finds those extraordinary people who will do the research to extend the boundaries of our collective knowledge. This is a willowing process of going through the hundreds to find one or two. This, Loren, is the good that society gets out of education.

Most colleges are structured for the purposes you propose.

How is a student in a lecture hall along with 400 other bright shiny freshman physics 'majors' going to learn to communicate with others when there is little monitoring or individual interaction permitted, for instance. Universities don't find people. People find missions. The only school I know of that actually is a liberal arts school which mentors individual students on the process of learning using its 7 to one teacher student ratio and mission to produce students who learn and function explicitly is Reed. The don't use grades. They use results from mentoring in the classic tradition of Socratic education producing product developers and makers. They also have the highest rate of generating post graduate fellowship students in the US.

I've tasted a bit of Yale, Harvard, Cal Tech, and UCLA. they have great faculty, many awards, but their success rates tend to match their criteria for entry and the populations from which they select these people.

 

[SimpleDon]

If we turn the job of education over to business we will turn colleges into trade schools. The narrow interests of business will win out forcing everyone into the marketable degrees, creating an oversupply in these areas. This will produce what business needs, the very best people competing for the relatively few positions, driving wages down. And the people with marketable degrees who can't find a job will be asking, do you want fries with that?

And somehow people believe that this would be better?

 

[Bronzeage]

If we turn the job of education over to business we will turn colleges into trade schools. The narrow interests of business will win out forcing everyone into the marketable degrees, creating an oversupply in these areas. This will produce what business needs, the very best people competing for the relatively few positions, driving wages down. And the people with marketable degrees who can't find a job will be asking, do you want fries with that?

And somehow people believe that this would be better?

How is this different than what we have now?

 

[laughing dog]

You mean besides better educated and more well rounded citizens?

But what use is a field that exists only to perpetuate itself?

What "fields" exist only to perpetuate themselves?

 

[ronburgundy]

You mean besides better educated and more well rounded citizens?

But what use is a field that exists only to perpetuate itself?

Ksen, you just completely refuted your entire OP by pointing to societal benefits of college beyond satisfying employer requirements.

Loren, specify exact what fields you think should not be taught. Second, the vast majority of knowledge is not profitable. Thus, by your criteria, society should not invest seek to gain or disseminate most knowledge, only the small subset on which their is a clear-cut profitable application.

 

[Bronzeage]

But what use is a field that exists only to perpetuate itself?

What "fields" exist only to perpetuate themselves?

Graduate degrees in Philosophy. You either get a job teaching philosophy, or you ask, "Why do you want fries with that?"

 

[laughing dog]

What "fields" exist only to perpetuate themselves?

Graduate degrees in Philosophy. You either get a job teaching philosophy, or you ask, "Why do you want fries with that?"

Or you can go work for businesses in a variety of settings. Of course, graduate degrees in _____ is not a field, ____ is the field.

 

[ronburgundy]

What "fields" exist only to perpetuate themselves?

Graduate degrees in Philosophy. You either get a job teaching philosophy, or you ask, "Why do you want fries with that?"

They don't just teach Philosophy, they do Philosophy. Philosophy is responsible for science, and for the Enlightenment and thus secularism, constitutional democracy, capitalism, etc.. There was no "market" for such ideas and zero profit to be made by those who developed and disseminated them. Yet all of humanity has greatly benefited from them and most profits owe a debt to them.

There might be a lot of nonsense in philosophy, but when people are pushing the boundaries of assumptions and thought, you have to accept that as a byproduct.

 

[SimpleDon]

Broken down to fundamentals college has only two purposes, and neither is to learn an occupation. For the vast majority of students it teaches them how to learn and how to communicate with others. There is no way that college can teach each of the thousands of occupations that will be available when students graduate. Much less the occupations that don't yet exist but which their students will see in their lifetimes.

And for the very, very few it finds those extraordinary people who will do the research to extend the boundaries of our collective knowledge. This is a willowing process of going through the hundreds to find one or two. This, Loren, is the good that society gets out of education.

Most colleges are structured for the purposes you propose.

How is a student in a lecture hall along with 400 other bright shiny freshman physics 'majors' going to learn to communicate with others when there is little monitoring or individual interaction permitted, for instance. Universities don't find people. People find missions. The only school I know of that actually is a liberal arts school which mentors individual students on the process of learning using its 7 to one teacher student ratio and mission to produce students who learn and function explicitly is Reed. The don't use grades. They use results from mentoring in the classic tradition of Socratic education producing product developers and makers. They also have the highest rate of generating post graduate fellowship students in the US.

I've tasted a bit of Yale, Harvard, Cal Tech, and UCLA. they have great faculty, many awards, but their success rates tend to match their criteria for entry and the populations from which they select these people.

I agree that colleges are losing their way. But this is primarily a result of the decreased resources that we as a society are devoting to education.

Yes, it is better to have a 7 to 1 ratio of students to teachers than a 400 to 1 ratio. The success rate goes up with more personal attention.

But you see the problem in this thread. A large number of people believe, against any logic or experience that I can see, that education is only an individual good. That society as a whole and business in particular have no interest in education. Therefore the costs of education should be shifted to the individual and off of society in general.

As I see it there are once again two reasons for this. One is an unexplainable compulsion to be wrong about everything that presents itself as a problem in society. And two, the equally strong compulsion to remake the government with the sole goal of maximizing the incomes of the very rich by lowering the incomes of everyone else. In this case by shifting the costs of higher education from society, through taxes paid largely by the rich, to the individual.

The idea that the society as a whole gains little or nothing from the higher education of the individuals in the society should be rejected out of hand. It shouldn't even be voiced without many people pointing out how ridiculous it is.

The liberal arts graduates of historical anthropology tell us that the human intellectual capacity hasn't increased in about two hundred and fifty thousand years. This means that absolute geniuses like Einstein and Newton have come and gone fairly frequently over the centuries, before these two were able to change the world through the knowledge that they added to it. Why didn't the geniuses that came before them invent calculus, the thorities of motion or special and general relativity?

Because of communication, provided by society. New knowledge is built on the foundation of prior accumulated knowledge passed down through education. The primary beneficiary of education is society as a whole, especially, future generations and future societies. The accumulated knowledge and the benefits that result from it outlives the individuals who came to it.

I can't even believe that I have to present this argument, it is so obvious.

And of course, formderinside I realize that this isn't an argument that you are making here. I have just wandered off yet again.

I just got a text, my daughter in law is in labor, another grandchild is on his way. Yes, we know that it is a boy.

The very best days of anyone's life. My wife and I are going to get my 3 year old granddaughter who is if everything goes well about to become a big sister.

Excuse the spelling and grammer errors. My mind is elsewhere.