US student loans grotesquely high

[Loren Pechtel]

2. Make student loan debt immediately interest free. Most of the problem here is not about the principle, it’s about the interest.

Australia does not charge interest on student debt, but it does index the balance of debt by inflation each year. That means the real value of the debt is not inflated away by not repaying it over years.

It waddles and quacks, that's interest.

 

[Toni]

People of my generation could pay for state universities on summer wages and after school jobs with maybe a little work study and small student loans thrown in. We paid my husband’s small student loan with ease, even while still in grad school. Now, a student loan payment is more than a car payment, and can rival a months rent or mortgage payment. Not many jobs right out of college will cover two months’ rent plus other living expenses.

The increased cost is because the government is contributing a lot less towards education.

Do you not want people to become teachers? Librarians? Social workers? Nurses?

What will happen to their wages if everyone gets a degree in engineering?

We need a well educated population. Employers can do their own damn job training.

If the state feels certain professions need help then it should help with those professions, not student loans in general.

You're correct: most state universities and colleges receive less government support now from government sources and must rely more heavily on tuition. This is a large reason that the cost of tuition has greatly outpaced inflation.

I think that the nation profits by having a well educated population, period. Those benefits are not confined only to those who attain higher levels of education but to society as a whole, at every level. Because society benefits, then society should bear the cost of education. The US has long touted itself as a meritocracy. Why not let it become one, and make all levels of education available to any and all who want it and who can achieve it by their own talents and hard work. The US is very fond of touting its famous leaders who started life in poverty and made it to become whatever they wanted to be. Why not make it more generally true? I can tell you for certain that intellectual talent and creativity reside within the offspring of factory workers and bartenders and cashiers as often as within the offspring of doctors and lawyers. It's just much harder to become a doctor if you've grown up in a household where it is uncertain that you will have electricity on a daily basis in part because you cannot count on any help, or even advice from your family and also because you know how much your family needs your help as soon as you are able to provide any at all.

Education is the tide that raises all boats. We all benefit. We all need to chip in.

 

[Toni]

My car is 16 years old. I could afford to replace it but I also have no compelling reason to replace it.

People would be a lot better off if they lived this way. I've only gotten rid of one car that wasn't ready for the wreckers and that was because I no longer trusted it. Otherwise it's been drive it until the repair estimate isn't worth it.

That's the way that a lot of people, including my family live. I only bought my newer car several years ago because my kid's vehicle died beyond repair and they had just purchased a home and so were very cash poor. So, because I was driving many more miles/day than they were, I purchased a new car (which is likely the last car I will own) and turned over my old vehicle with 300K miles on it. They fully intend to continue driving it until it simply is beyond repair. It's been 5 years now and the car is still going strong at age...18.

 

[Metaphor]

2. Make student loan debt immediately interest free. Most of the problem here is not about the principle, it’s about the interest.

Australia does not charge interest on student debt, but it does index the balance of debt by inflation each year. That means the real value of the debt is not inflated away by not repaying it over years.

It waddles and quacks, that's interest.

No. Indexation is not interest. If you have other debts with the Australian Tax Office, those debts actually do accrue real interest.

 

[Toni]

What educated people give back to society is the momentum education adds to the society, plain and simple.

Education is it's own reward through the progress it brings.

Educated in what, precisely? I'd take 1 engineer over 20 grievance studies graduate for almost anything.

Really?

Take them where, exactly? To the prom?

 

[Jarhyn]

There are already programs for loan forgiveness in limited career paths: some areas of medicine, some areas of teaching and some areas of law. If you are willing to practice medicine or teach or serve as a public defender for 10 years (at sub market wages), and if you continue to pay the interest on your student loans, your loans are generally forgiven.

The question is, why should somebody who goes into ortho or plastics or derm at a big city clinic and is making big bucks get student loan forgiveness? Or somebody going into corporate law? The forgiveness is there to serve as an incentive for people to go into rural family medicine so not all doctors there are DOs who could not get any better residency during the Match. Or go be public defenders so not everybody at the PD office got their degree from the University of American Samoa Law School.

Go Land Crabs!

General student loan cancellation would make these incentives meaningless.
Also there is another option for cancellation currently - if you do not make that much compared to your loan payments, you can go on an income-driven repayment plan. If you stick with those for 20-25 years, your remaining balance gets forgiven.

Note: During the Trump administration, he wanted to remove even this limited loan forgiveness. Currently, I know someone who is working as a public defender in a mostly rural county in flyover country who was just relating to me that within his office, among all of them, they knew exactly one person, ever, who managed to stick it out to get loan forgiveness.

What did the rest do? Took well-paying lawyer jobs so they can easily repay their loans anyway?

So, suppose you are one of the lucky kids who graduate from college with minimal student debt (say, only $50K) and an 8 year old car.

$50k is hardly "minimal student debt" for just undergraduate. And an 8 year old car is barely broken in.

You'd really like to go to grad school or law school or med school (pick one) but doing so will mean that you incur at a minimum $100K in additional debt. So, at age 25 or 26, you have a 12 year old car and (minimum) $150K in student debt as you enter the labor market. If you take a job in an underserved area, you will be making under $60K/year, out of which you must pay rent and hope that your car lasts another few years.

Well, sure, during residency. But after a few years of that even rural family medicine pays six figures.

Doctors and lawyers are some of the most handsomely compensated professions. They definitely do not need a blanket student debt forgiveness!

If you are a woman, the earliest you could hope to be able to afford to have a child is your mid-30's. If you are lucky. Or marry/partner up with someone with a more lucrative career or who inherited a big wad of cash.

And if you are a man, you can magically afford a kid at a younger age?

It doesn't take a lot of imagination or high level math skills to see that this will lead to a generation with the well educated adults opting out of childrearing altogether. And it has. Which means that most of the children are being raised by people with less education--and their kids will have the choice of either choosing to be less educated and raise a family or repeat the same cycle as the generation that pursues higher educational/professional levels and... opts out of raising a family because of student debt.

So you are saying we should cancel student debt for extremely well-paid professionals because they might decide to have kids a few years earlier then? With all due respect, that's the silliest arguments for student loan cancellation I have heard since the last time AOC opened her pretty mouth on the issue.

Of course, another path would be to pursue trades: become a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter, etc. Those are fairly lucrative careers but your body is pretty beat up by the time you hit 60.

Trades indeed would be a good option for many. You know, instead of incurring a $50k for an art history degree or something similarly useless.

Do you realize that fewer and fewer people are going into family practice, largely because it is difficult to be able to purchase a home and drive a decent car (not a Benz or a Tesla) AND pay off student loans? Do you realize that to become an orthopedist or a dermatologist or neurologist or any other specialty, one must earn a bachelors, pass medical school, serve a 4 year residency (which, if you are lucky, will cover your rent and let you keep your car) and another year or two fellowship. So 12-14 years of schooling, during which time, you will make very little money and incur a great deal of debt. Which you will have to pay off, no matter what. It's one of the things that is driving more and more people into higher paid specialties than peds or general practice. Sneer all you want at dermatologists and orthopedists but when you need reconstructive surgery because your face was smashed or burned or you need your knee or hip replaced, you'll be extremely grateful for their years of study and their willingness to incur a great deal of debt.

Men can safely postpone fathering a child than a woman can safely postpone becoming pregnant and carrying a child. After 35, becoming pregnant often means expensive medical interventions--another drain on finances, not to mention additional stress on an already stressed person, and without any guarantees of a safe and healthy pregnancy.

What I'm saying is that cancelling student debt might help a lot of educated people better afford and more willing to consider having children during their peak reproductive years, meaning that they are more likely to have healthy (and less expensive) children. If you're concerned that people in well paid professions requiring years of education are getting off too easily, just increase the income tax rate on those of any profession earning higher incomes. That's what we should do anyway. But if we're not going to do that, then we need to make student debt tax deductible at 100%. Which means that a bunch of newly fledged doctors would be getting more money back than they paid in taxes in the first place. I think you'd object to that as well.

Seriously, we need to re-think how education is funded and how expensive it is and how to put it in reach of every person. If the last 4-5 years have taught us nothing, it should be that we really, really need a well educated population.

What educated people give back to society is the momentum education adds to the society, plain and simple.

Education is it's own reward through the progress it brings.

Educated in what, precisely? I'd take 1 engineer over 20 grievance studies graduate for almost anything.

Really?

Take them where, exactly? To the prom?

Maybe

I never used the term DEI or DIE. If you think I have, please find the quote where I did so

My apologies. That was Trausti.

It is very well and good to say that HR persons are eager to hire people with those majors, but as someone outside HR I have never found that to be the case. HR managers are a rather timid lot, and operate by a "does it check the boxes" system with regards to filling positions. I have been working in engineering for over 2 decades, and even now with all that experience the fact that my degree is in math makes them reluctant to consider me. It doesn't fit the checkbox.

I’m not in HR. I’ve been working in Engineering for over 3 decades. (Beyond that I’ve also worked in banking and municipal government.) I didn’t say I was in HR, I said I was a “hiring manager”. Meaning I manage an engineering team, and I hire people. Engineers mostly, but occasionally math people, physics or chemists. And I don’t let HR force me to “check boxes.” I hire based on value to the team.

Sure, upper executives like to make announcements about how a wide range of degrees are good for business, the HR managers all mouth agreement while also hoping that the other HR managers will be the one to take the risk leaving them free to not take the risk. Checklists to preapprove even looking at the resume is the safest policy. Even if the safest policy is to use racist terms such as "white grievance" to describe people who see through the BS.

Since I’m not in HR, I’m not timid, and I’m not an upper executive, your comments are not reality based. Just grievance.

My post is about the value of DEI in universities to help supply me with high quality workforce. They do work that helps me. I value it and I make money off it (for my company).

Moreover, I was not talking only about non-STEM degrees, I was talking about what DEI does for me for STEM-degreed people.

So, as a hiring manager myself, I've been struggling to fill a few positions, and I'm going to look this up when I get back to work on Monday. Thanks for the tip!

Sadly, I also need to find another "wizard" to fill my seat, and I can't get that from a fresh grad.

Do you know any DEI type programs for more seasoned professionals in STEM mayhap? Because I have no problem scanning candidates overlooked on account of their race or other background for this position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that the nation profits by having a well educated population, period. Those benefits are not confined only to those who attain higher levels of education but to society as a whole, at every level. Because society benefits, then society should bear the cost of education. The US has long touted itself as a meritocracy. Why not let it become one, and make all levels of education available to any and all who want it and who can achieve it by their own talents and hard work. The US is very fond of touting its famous leaders who started life in poverty and made it to become whatever they wanted to be. Why not make it more generally true? I can tell you for certain that intellectual talent and creativity reside within the offspring of factory workers and bartenders and cashiers as often as within the offspring of doctors and lawyers. It's just much harder to become a doctor if you've grown up in a household where it is uncertain that you will have electricity on a daily basis in part because you cannot count on any help, or even advice from your family and also because you know how much your family needs your help as soon as you are able to provide any at all.

Education is the tide that raises all boats. We all benefit. We all need to chip in.

I think it's time to rethink education. How about a very different approach:

Put complete course material online for all courses for which that is meaningful works. Subdivide them considerably more than current classes, you would have a lot of little topics. There are discussion forums for each class but no teachers or the like.

Then require all universities to permit testing out of any subject that it is reasonable to test out of, and limit the cost to say 10% of the normal cost of taking the class. There are also online versions of prior tests so you can see if you are likely to pass without spending anything.

 

[laughing dog]

I think it's time to rethink education. How about a very different approach:

Put complete course material online for all courses for which that is meaningful works. Subdivide them considerably more than current classes, you would have a lot of little topics. There are discussion forums for each class but no teachers or the like.

First, you are asking professors or business to put their intellectual property online for free.

Second, what is the point of discussions among people who don't know the material ?

Then require all universities to permit testing out of any subject that it is reasonable to test out of, and limit the cost to say 10% of the normal cost of taking the class. There are also online versions of prior tests so you can see if you are likely to pass without spending anything.

Why not also have online answers to the prior tests?

 

[Toni]

I think that the nation profits by having a well educated population, period. Those benefits are not confined only to those who attain higher levels of education but to society as a whole, at every level. Because society benefits, then society should bear the cost of education. The US has long touted itself as a meritocracy. Why not let it become one, and make all levels of education available to any and all who want it and who can achieve it by their own talents and hard work. The US is very fond of touting its famous leaders who started life in poverty and made it to become whatever they wanted to be. Why not make it more generally true? I can tell you for certain that intellectual talent and creativity reside within the offspring of factory workers and bartenders and cashiers as often as within the offspring of doctors and lawyers. It's just much harder to become a doctor if you've grown up in a household where it is uncertain that you will have electricity on a daily basis in part because you cannot count on any help, or even advice from your family and also because you know how much your family needs your help as soon as you are able to provide any at all.

Education is the tide that raises all boats. We all benefit. We all need to chip in.

I think it's time to rethink education. How about a very different approach:

Put complete course material online for all courses for which that is meaningful works. Subdivide them considerably more than current classes, you would have a lot of little topics. There are discussion forums for each class but no teachers or the like.

Then require all universities to permit testing out of any subject that it is reasonable to test out of, and limit the cost to say 10% of the normal cost of taking the class. There are also online versions of prior tests so you can see if you are likely to pass without spending anything.

I don’t know how much online learning of new material—not the typical professional CEs many professions require. Some people can learn some material that way but it’s not at all the same as learning from someone who deeply knows and understands the material. Of course that’s without considering that many fields of study require laboratory work—equipment and materials and space that is expensive to provide. And in person instruction that is vital, not only for learning but to ensure safety.

You may or may not know much about the learning that took place—and did not take place last year and sometimes this year during the pandemic. Almost universally, students and teachers at all levels have disliked the zoom classes and the online ‘learning’ because it’s just not nearly as effective.

Yes, it is possible to learn from solo study/books/online. I did a lot of solo reading all of my life. I picked up a lot of information and discovered areas of further interest, meriting further inquiry. I’m sure it’s the same with you and most of the people reading this.

It’s not the same as systemic guided learning under expert guidance. It’s not the same as having someone there who can read the audience and tell if students understand or are hopelessly lost or have further questions.

I may be completely wrong but I get the feeling that you’ve never taught before.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it's time to rethink education. How about a very different approach:

Put complete course material online for all courses for which that is meaningful works. Subdivide them considerably more than current classes, you would have a lot of little topics. There are discussion forums for each class but no teachers or the like.

First, you are asking professors or business to put their intellectual property online for free.

No, I'm thinking the government should pay to create the material.

Second, what is the point of discussions among people who don't know the material ?

It does help. Some people don't understand A but understand B, some understand B but not A.

Then require all universities to permit testing out of any subject that it is reasonable to test out of, and limit the cost to say 10% of the normal cost of taking the class. There are also online versions of prior tests so you can see if you are likely to pass without spending anything.

Why not also have online answers to the prior tests?

Yeah, that would be part of it--you can take prior tests to see how you do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don’t know how much online learning of new material—not the typical professional CEs many professions require. Some people can learn some material that way but it’s not at all the same as learning from someone who deeply knows and understands the material. Of course that’s without considering that many fields of study require laboratory work—equipment and materials and space that is expensive to provide. And in person instruction that is vital, not only for learning but to ensure safety.

Yeah, labs still have to be in person with actual teachers.

The point is to minimize the cost, there's no way to eliminate it.

You may or may not know much about the learning that took place—and did not take place last year and sometimes this year during the pandemic. Almost universally, students and teachers at all levels have disliked the zoom classes and the online ‘learning’ because it’s just not nearly as effective.

Because the teacher can't stop students from goofing off.

Yes, it is possible to learn from solo study/books/online. I did a lot of solo reading all of my life. I picked up a lot of information and discovered areas of further interest, meriting further inquiry. I’m sure it’s the same with you and most of the people reading this.

It’s not the same as systemic guided learning under expert guidance. It’s not the same as having someone there who can read the audience and tell if students understand or are hopelessly lost or have further questions.

I may be completely wrong but I get the feeling that you’ve never taught before.

Of course it's not, although if you use textbooks you have a pretty good guide of what to learn. There's no way to make school cheap, but people can learn as much as they can before they start paying those costs.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don’t know how much online learning of new material—not the typical professional CEs many professions require. Some people can learn some material that way but it’s not at all the same as learning from someone who deeply knows and understands the material. Of course that’s without considering that many fields of study require laboratory work—equipment and materials and space that is expensive to provide. And in person instruction that is vital, not only for learning but to ensure safety.

Yeah, labs still have to be in person with actual teachers.

The point is to minimize the cost, there's no way to eliminate it.

You may or may not know much about the learning that took place—and did not take place last year and sometimes this year during the pandemic. Almost universally, students and teachers at all levels have disliked the zoom classes and the online ‘learning’ because it’s just not nearly as effective.

Because the teacher can't stop students from goofing off.

Yes, it is possible to learn from solo study/books/online. I did a lot of solo reading all of my life. I picked up a lot of information and discovered areas of further interest, meriting further inquiry. I’m sure it’s the same with you and most of the people reading this.

It’s not the same as systemic guided learning under expert guidance. It’s not the same as having someone there who can read the audience and tell if students understand or are hopelessly lost or have further questions.

I may be completely wrong but I get the feeling that you’ve never taught before.

Of course it's not, although if you use textbooks you have a pretty good guide of what to learn. There's no way to make school cheap, but people can learn as much as they can before they start paying those costs.

Well, I think the easiest way to make school a lot cheaper, especially higher education, is to make education more accessible. Because unless I am missing something, more educated people mean more teachers, and more people producing better educational materials for lower cost.

A more educated population makes it easier and cheaper to educate.

 

[Trausti]

Well, I think the easiest way to make school a lot cheaper, especially higher education, is to make education more accessible. Because unless I am missing something, more educated people mean more teachers, and more people producing better educational materials for lower cost.

A more educated population makes it easier and cheaper to educate.

We certainly can do this without universities exploiting students' use of crippling loans. If you cut half the university administration and other bureaucrats there's no reason higher education can't be affordable. Yet, demanding universities be more efficient and focus on education seems a conversation no one wants to have.

 

[Toni]

I don’t know how much online learning of new material—not the typical professional CEs many professions require. Some people can learn some material that way but it’s not at all the same as learning from someone who deeply knows and understands the material. Of course that’s without considering that many fields of study require laboratory work—equipment and materials and space that is expensive to provide. And in person instruction that is vital, not only for learning but to ensure safety.

Yeah, labs still have to be in person with actual teachers.

The point is to minimize the cost, there's no way to eliminate it.

You may or may not know much about the learning that took place—and did not take place last year and sometimes this year during the pandemic. Almost universally, students and teachers at all levels have disliked the zoom classes and the online ‘learning’ because it’s just not nearly as effective.

Because the teacher can't stop students from goofing off.

Yes, it is possible to learn from solo study/books/online. I did a lot of solo reading all of my life. I picked up a lot of information and discovered areas of further interest, meriting further inquiry. I’m sure it’s the same with you and most of the people reading this.

It’s not the same as systemic guided learning under expert guidance. It’s not the same as having someone there who can read the audience and tell if students understand or are hopelessly lost or have further questions.

I may be completely wrong but I get the feeling that you’ve never taught before.

Of course it's not, although if you use textbooks you have a pretty good guide of what to learn. There's no way to make school cheap, but people can learn as much as they can before they start paying those costs.

Well, I think the easiest way to make school a lot cheaper, especially higher education, is to make education more accessible. Because unless I am missing something, more educated people mean more teachers, and more people producing better educational materials for lower cost.

A more educated population makes it easier and cheaper to educate.

I don’t think that it follows that more education leads to lower costs.

Unlike Loren, I don’t believe that educational effort is best focused in creating ‘educational materials.’ Indeed, educational ‘materials’ whatever they may be, tend to be more specialized as one acquires a deeper level of knowledge and skill. Teaching a basic high school biology or chemistry class requires much less expensive materials and equipment ( and text books) and much less qualifications—and different qualifications compared with teaching, say, an undergraduate course in biochemistry which requires far less expense in terms of qualifications of instructors and materials in graduate and post graduate studies and research. Indeed, research often involves developing new instruments and technology which is expensive compared with most general lab equipment.

When course instructors choose what materials they will use to help students learn and master the skills and knowledge base encompassed in the course, they carefully evaluate texts, and other materials. Some write their own materials, compile collections of relevant articles and other research materials and so forth. They don’t merely present previously determined facts and skills but set the stage for students to take the next steps to furthering our knowledge and as important, our understanding and to allow students to move far beyond the limits of the classroom or lab or course or major or field of study.

I think it is also a mistake to keep learning isolated to specialties. Every discipline benefits from some connection and some sharing with other related abs even disparate disciplines.
But stepping back from this: how many people here have spent the last year or two relegated to online meetings or teaching or learning: How’s that going for you? Because what I’m hearing from people I know in real life is that basically, it sucks. It’s not as effective and it’s much harder for instructors to see whether the class is following or confused or bored or????

Like it or not, we’re corporeal human beings abs we rely very heavily on non-verbal communication.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, I think the easiest way to make school a lot cheaper, especially higher education, is to make education more accessible. Because unless I am missing something, more educated people mean more teachers, and more people producing better educational materials for lower cost.

A more educated population makes it easier and cheaper to educate.

We certainly can do this without universities exploiting students' use of crippling loans. If you cut half the university administration and other bureaucrats there's no reason higher education can't be affordable.

You keep promoting that ideal but you have provided no actual data to substantiate your claim. The lack of data and your hand-waved conclusion suggest you really have no clue what you are on about.

 

[laughing dog]

Loren - "There's no way to make school cheap, but people can learn as much as they can before they start paying those costs."

Of course, people have the ability to learn before they incur explicit expenses. But for some reason, most don't.

Using your reasoning, mandatory K-12 education is unnecessary - children can learn without taxpayers footing the bill. We can just put all of it online and leave it up to the children and their guardians.

But we know there is a very good chance that won't work well in most cases. Why/ Because we know that most people either don't have the discipline or motivation to learn on their own.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don’t know how much online learning of new material—not the typical professional CEs many professions require. Some people can learn some material that way but it’s not at all the same as learning from someone who deeply knows and understands the material. Of course that’s without considering that many fields of study require laboratory work—equipment and materials and space that is expensive to provide. And in person instruction that is vital, not only for learning but to ensure safety.

Yeah, labs still have to be in person with actual teachers.

The point is to minimize the cost, there's no way to eliminate it.

You may or may not know much about the learning that took place—and did not take place last year and sometimes this year during the pandemic. Almost universally, students and teachers at all levels have disliked the zoom classes and the online ‘learning’ because it’s just not nearly as effective.

Because the teacher can't stop students from goofing off.

Yes, it is possible to learn from solo study/books/online. I did a lot of solo reading all of my life. I picked up a lot of information and discovered areas of further interest, meriting further inquiry. I’m sure it’s the same with you and most of the people reading this.

It’s not the same as systemic guided learning under expert guidance. It’s not the same as having someone there who can read the audience and tell if students understand or are hopelessly lost or have further questions.

I may be completely wrong but I get the feeling that you’ve never taught before.

Of course it's not, although if you use textbooks you have a pretty good guide of what to learn. There's no way to make school cheap, but people can learn as much as they can before they start paying those costs.

Well, I think the easiest way to make school a lot cheaper, especially higher education, is to make education more accessible. Because unless I am missing something, more educated people mean more teachers, and more people producing better educational materials for lower cost.

A more educated population makes it easier and cheaper to educate.

I don’t think that it follows that more education leads to lower costs.

Unlike Loren, I don’t believe that educational effort is best focused in creating ‘educational materials.’ Indeed, educational ‘materials’ whatever they may be, tend to be more specialized as one acquires a deeper level of knowledge and skill. Teaching a basic high school biology or chemistry class requires much less expensive materials and equipment ( and text books) and much less qualifications—and different qualifications compared with teaching, say, an undergraduate course in biochemistry which requires far less expense in terms of qualifications of instructors and materials in graduate and post graduate studies and research. Indeed, research often involves developing new instruments and technology which is expensive compared with most general lab equipment.

When course instructors choose what materials they will use to help students learn and master the skills and knowledge base encompassed in the course, they carefully evaluate texts, and other materials. Some write their own materials, compile collections of relevant articles and other research materials and so forth. They don’t merely present previously determined facts and skills but set the stage for students to take the next steps to furthering our knowledge and as important, our understanding and to allow students to move far beyond the limits of the classroom or lab or course or major or field of study.

I think it is also a mistake to keep learning isolated to specialties. Every discipline benefits from some connection and some sharing with other related abs even disparate disciplines.
But stepping back from this: how many people here have spent the last year or two relegated to online meetings or teaching or learning: How’s that going for you? Because what I’m hearing from people I know in real life is that basically, it sucks. It’s not as effective and it’s much harder for instructors to see whether the class is following or confused or bored or????

Like it or not, we’re corporeal human beings abs we rely very heavily on non-verbal communication.

I really do have to disagree, not with how much it costs to learn new things specifically, but rather with the cost per head: more knowledge means better knowledge at distributing knowledge, and attacked inefficiencies in the human learning process. A wider variety of educated people means people more

Well, I think the easiest way to make school a lot cheaper, especially higher education, is to make education more accessible. Because unless I am missing something, more educated people mean more teachers, and more people producing better educational materials for lower cost.

A more educated population makes it easier and cheaper to educate.

We certainly can do this without universities exploiting students' use of crippling loans. If you cut half the university administration and other bureaucrats there's no reason higher education can't be affordable.

You keep promoting that ideal but you have provided no actual data to substantiate your claim. The lack of data and your hand-waved conclusion suggest you really have no clue what you are on about.

I grew up the child of someone in university administration. There was an office for registrations activities, a single billing office, a fairly lightweight library and technical services admin, a number of students service offices...

I saw an entire university from the office side, and there was not any of this bloat Trausti seems to think exists. Everyone was doing a job from the secretaries to the folks working Bills Payable.

 

[Toni]

Not everyone who knows something, or even a lot about something, is able to teach it effectively. Not every good teacher/instructor is good at teaching every kind of student.

One can learn something, do well on any abs every test on the subject yet not have as full or deep an understanding as needed or as will come to you, not only by reading something ( or doing the lab work or whatever) as can be gained by learning from an instructor who is talented at not only conveying infuriation and imparting skills but also in synthesizing the connections between other disciplines or areas within a discipline abs who knows how to point students in the right direction —and encourages them to discover new connections, information, new abs deeper understanding. A good instructor teaches students how to learn independently—but one still needs a framework and the skill set to know where to look, how to find out what others have learned and how to convey questions as well as answers.

And let’s face it: a lot of people are not good writers. Even very smart, very knowledgeable people.

 

[Politesse]

think it is also a mistake to keep learning isolated to specialties. Every discipline benefits from some connection and some sharing with other related abs even disparate disciplines.
But stepping back from this: how many people here have spent the last year or two relegated to online meetings or teaching or learning: How’s that going for you? Because what I’m hearing from people I know in real life is that basically, it sucks. It’s not as effective and it’s much harder for instructors to see whether the class is following or confused or bored

I've taught in a mix of mediums, both before and after the pandemic. There are as you might imagine pros and cons to every teaching modality. The current situation is a disaster, partly because enrollment has tanked - all else aside, only a small subset of the student body is comfortable in an online-heavy environment. Most of them don't have PCs in their home, and while a majority do have access to the internet through their phones, try writing an essay on a phone sometime! Or even attending a ZOOM lecture. I've upped the font size on all my powerpoints but still- a phone screen is not the equivalent of a whiteboard or mounted display.

On the other hand, some students really appreciate that more classes are available in tte online format. It's now possible to graduate with most of our degree programs without ever having met a professor, librarian, advisor, or anyone else on campus. For busy parents, students with disabilities, traumatized soldiers, and just strong introverts, this seems great.

As an online instructor, there are some things I like and have always liked about online courses. I can force them to do group work and participate in class discussions, in a way that isn't possible face-to-face with a class of 75. The assignments in general are a lot harder online, and more numerous. Since the Carnegie unit is the same either way, we have to require equivalent work-hours of homework to substitute for the absent classroom hours. This is harder for the students, and the drop rate is much higher for online students. But, for those who persist, they've done a LOT more reading, writing, and research for their three units than face-to-face students would have. I'm able to be more creative with the homework in online courses as well, more "fun". Content and comprehension, these suffer greatly. You just can't cover all he same subjects, and it is realistic to expect that students will complete every reading you assign, whereas class attendees are a captive audience. I've had students bomb out of the whole class because they didn't understand the instructions for the term project, something that was never a problem when I was there to explain them in person.

And some topics adjust better than others. As an anthropologist, the thought of graduating students with "degrees" in anthropology without having ever picked up a human bone, without ever having done a chemical test on an artifact, without ever having conducted any field research at all in the form of an excavation or ethnography, is ridiculous. Almost offensive. If we keep sending the professional job market new hires with "college degrees" but no practical experience in field science, those degrees are swiftly going to become about as valuable as a high school diploma. No one wants to pay more money to hire someone they're going to have to redo all the training of anyway. If the jobs aren't 100% digital, instruction shouldn't be either. But, we cannot choose our times.

I'm ok with online courses being part of the system in other words. But it's not the best option for all students or all classes, and it cannot sustainably be the only option, especially if we want to remain competitive with degree programs in mainland Europe and East Asia that engage in no such folly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, I think the easiest way to make school a lot cheaper, especially higher education, is to make education more accessible. Because unless I am missing something, more educated people mean more teachers, and more people producing better educational materials for lower cost.

A more educated population makes it easier and cheaper to educate.

Teacher-student education isn't subject to much economy of scale. That's why I want to replace as much as practical of it with computer-student education.