Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-12-2020, 01:57 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Why wouldn't we just get rid of those bonehead studies?

Bonehead english is actually necessary for far too many students.
  #52  
Old 05-12-2020, 02:03 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
First $20,000: Not dischargeable
- Next $20,000: Dischargeable after 15 years
- Next $20,000: Dischargeable after 13 years
- Next $20,000: Dischargeable after 11 years
I like this. It accomplishes a lot of good policy goals.

It puts downward pressure on tuition because larger tuition will be less likely to be paid back.

It keeps people from being forever burdened by student debt when something goes very wrong in their lives and they are just never able to make headway.

It's a long enough time to bankruptcy that it would eliminate the "strategic bankruptcy" right after graduation. No one who's capable of making good money is going to waste a decade+ to discharge the loans this way.
  #53  
Old 05-12-2020, 02:20 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Nobody is saying that women's studies majors are "useless pieces of crap." What I did say (and you sort of proved my point) is that any discussion on how to improve this is riddled with land mines.

But your cites do illustrate my point. Why would a person invest $30k to $40k for a degree which gets you an average salary of $39k per year? Would you advise your kid or your niece or nephew to take that deal? I wouldn't. And it has nothing to do with the political aspect of it, so just imagine that the degree is something else.

If it was anything else in society, people would be outraged at the return on such an investment and would likely want to prevent the university from taking peoples' money for such a thing, let alone subsidizing it themselves. But for some reason, we can't even start there or start anywhere, even though there is universal agreement that the system is broken and has been that way for a long time.

Another issue is the "degree bloat." A hundred years ago a high school degree was a nice accomplishment. Fifty years ago the same with a bachelor's degree. Anymore a bachelor's is just a stepping stone to a graduate degree. Is there any real need for a middle class office worker to have a total of 16 to 18 years of schooling? Why not condense it in a sort of job training?

I know the whole thing about having a "well rounded education" and being able to talk about history or literature or statistics when the topic comes up, but is it really worth it to a person when everything is taken into account? Would you rather not be $50k in debt yet not be able to talk about Shakespeare? Further, it seems that if a topic interests you, you learn on your own. I've learned far more about history, for example, because of my own interest in it and not from classroom learning.

It just seems to me that there is way too much inertia in this. Someone decided that if we loan everyone money for college that everyone would go to college and everyone would have good jobs and make a lot of money. Of course that is silly and its time for a massive change I think.
I'm not sure why you want to continue to hijack your own thread, since this seems to have nothing to do with making student loans dischargeable.

Anyway, my cite showed that women's studies majors earn more than mechanical engineers. Now, maybe the had some continuing education, but it looks like their undergraduate major encouraged them to get that extra education so they can educate our children or join our judicial system. Mechanical engineers are apparently slackers who don't continue to educate themselves and their salaries stagnate after starting higher. Or, at least that's the impression I would get from my cites and YamatoTwinkie's response.

Regarding becoming well-rounded, it's not just that you have to study Shakespeare to become an engineer, but too many engineering students, for example, don't write well, haven't read any history, no nothing about finance, etc. That said, in the UK, students only take classes for their major -- maybe their high schools are better or something.
  #54  
Old 05-12-2020, 02:53 PM
Ace309 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Why wouldn't we just get rid of those bonehead studies?
I teach at a community college. A lot of people seem to think most of the general education requirements in colleges are unnecessary. I think that opinion is underpinned by a bias toward your own experience, as well as your own recollection - "I didn't learn anything in freshman comp, so it was unnecessary! [presuming that your recollection of not learning anything in freshman comp is accurate]"

While I'm sure you and everyone important in your life came to college an excellent writer who was both knowledgeable on philosophy and poised to interact with coworkers of many different cultures in a pluralistic society, I assure you that many - in my estimation, most - students have holes in their background that mean they aren't. I don't teach freshman comp, but my students have to be able to clearly express themselves in writing for me to accurately assess their subject matter knowledge. I don't teach cultural anthropology, but my students need to understand how culture influences preferences to understand how and why trade between different nations occurs. And, not to put too fine a point on it, I don't teach American Pluralism, but my students need to treat each other respectfully in class. They don't come to college with these skills, and they need to learn them to function in a college, and work, environment.

If you're unmoved by that, I'd also like to throw out there that college is not synonymous with job training; even if some subjects aren't practical for some students, that impracticality doesn't mean the subjects aren't worth studying for their own sake.
  #55  
Old 05-12-2020, 04:05 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But your cites do illustrate my point. Why would a person invest $30k to $40k for a degree which gets you an average salary of $39k per year? Would you advise your kid or your niece or nephew to take that deal? I wouldn't. And it has nothing to do with the political aspect of it, so just imagine that the degree is something else.
Bolding mine. You left out "entry level". I was making less than that until eight years post-BA, but it took much less time to triple it. My degree cost a lot more, but hell yes it was a good deal. Would it have been a good deal for a marginal student who was iffy on even graduating? Maybe not.


Someone immediately working full time out of high school probably gets paid more than the engineering student while she's in school, but that, like your point, is similarly low-relevance.
  #56  
Old 05-12-2020, 04:11 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Regarding becoming well-rounded, it's not just that you have to study Shakespeare to become an engineer, but too many engineering students, for example, don't write well, haven't read any history, no nothing about finance, etc.
Yep. You better be able to communicate well (written, oral) to both specialists and others, and have some sense of economics and finance to join my team. I've found it's not a standard set of skills. Although the US engineering programs IME are increasingly doing a better job on the $ side of things.
  #57  
Old 05-12-2020, 05:00 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
for example, don't write well, haven't read any history, no nothing about finance, etc.
...or grammar for that matter.
  #58  
Old 05-12-2020, 07:47 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
...or grammar for that matter.
Wow! I cannot believe I did that.

See? Edumacation is important!
  #59  
Old 05-12-2020, 08:03 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
...or grammar for that matter.
That's not grammar.
  #60  
Old 05-13-2020, 08:30 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Bonehead english is actually necessary for far too many students.
Which begs another question: Are public education institutions failing? If so, why?

Because bonehead English classes should not really be necessary in college.
  #61  
Old 05-13-2020, 09:40 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Which begs another question: Are public education institutions failing? If so, why?

Because bonehead English classes should not really be necessary in college.
I wouldn't say that a high school diploma necessarily means college-ready. But I'm not sure that taking remedial classes in an expensive college setting is the solution for making someone college-ready.
  #62  
Old 05-13-2020, 09:47 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Which begs another question: Are public education institutions failing? If so, why?

Because bonehead English classes should not really be necessary in college.
Nitpick: Raises the question. Maybe you went to a public education institution? I did, which is why I don't know "no" from "know"

I guess we'll go down another hijack. I'll assume you have a cite that public schools are significantly worse than private schools when it comes to English proficiency, and go with that for the sake of argument.

Public schools are required to take everyone who lives in a certain area, whereas private schools are not, so you'll have some difference there. Then, private schools will have, on average, wealthier students, who can also afford tutors and other educational resources. Further, the parents of private school kids are, by definition, more involved with their kids' education on average than public school parents, since they made the effort to research private schools, get the kids to take whatever tests necessary, enroll the students into the private school, and pay thousands or tens of thousands more per year for their kids' educations. I don't have a cite, but I have to believe parental involvement has a big effect on a student's academic success.

So, rather than further punish students from poor households with two working parents by having them fall even further behind in college, I guess colleges have decided to level the playing field by making sure all of their students are at least proficient in the basics.

Make sense?
  #63  
Old 05-13-2020, 10:25 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 7,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I don't know why you have to drop this partisan bomb into your own thread, but just picking the first two cites for gender studies salary and mechanical engineer salary, I get this:

$75k/year for gender studies: https://datausa.io/profile/cip/050207/

$70k/year for mechanical engineering: https://www.payscale.com/research/US...ngineer/Salary

Since I had an approved major of electrical engineering I can do math, and I find that MEs seem to make less, on average, than gender studies majors according to those cites. I can't vouch for either one, I just picked the first one that showed up in a search for gender studies salary and mechanical engineering salary.

On the gender studies site, it says:



I know, I know, those who can, do, and those who can't, teach, and screw the next generation, but whoa, what's that? They become lawyers and judges, etc., too!! Why, I think you might be a lawyer.
You are comparing the starting salary of the mechanical engineering majors with the average salary of the gender studies majors. Also comparing across two sites which appear to be using different methodologies.

According to the first site Mechanical Engineering majors average a salary of $111,636 a year, and Women Studies majors average a salary of $75,373 a year.

According to the second site Mechanical Engineering majors average a salary of $66,800 a year early career and $110,600 mid career, and Gender Studies majors average a salary of $42,300 a year early career, and $57,100 mid career.

It turns out people in useful majors make more, This means that they are better risks for loaning them money.
  #64  
Old 05-13-2020, 10:57 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
It turns out people in useful majors make more, This means that they are better risks for loaning them money.
No. The default rate is what matters. While the default rate for LA is greater than for STEM, the difference is smaller than the difference in default rate between selective and less selective institutions. As we've been over already.

Also, it's incorrect to exclude a major from the "useful" lable if employer's are still willing to pay a premium for that diploma.
  #65  
Old 05-13-2020, 11:59 AM
Dallas Jones is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Orygun forest
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Anymore a bachelor's is just a stepping stone to a graduate degree. Is there any real need for a middle class office worker to have a total of 16 to 18 years of schooling?
Bob Dylan had it all figured out years ago:

Twenty years of schoolin'
And they put you on the day shift
Look out kid
They keep it all hid

Subterranean Homesick Blues
  #66  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:09 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
You are comparing the starting salary of the mechanical engineering majors with the average salary of the gender studies majors. Also comparing across two sites which appear to be using different methodologies.

According to the first site Mechanical Engineering majors average a salary of $111,636 a year, and Women Studies majors average a salary of $75,373 a year.

According to the second site Mechanical Engineering majors average a salary of $66,800 a year early career and $110,600 mid career, and Gender Studies majors average a salary of $42,300 a year early career, and $57,100 mid career.

It turns out people in useful majors make more, This means that they are better risks for loaning them money.
What matters is whether or not they make more than someone without a degree at all.

Is gender studies useful, if it means that you make an average of 75k a year, rather than 30ish?

Just because you *could* have made more with a different degree doesn't make it useless, not at all.
  #67  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:16 PM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
No. The default rate is what matters. While the default rate for LA is greater than for STEM, the difference is smaller than the difference in default rate between selective and less selective institutions. As we've been over already.

Also, it's incorrect to exclude a major from the "useful" lable if employer's are still willing to pay a premium for that diploma.
All that data about loan defaults should be easily quantifiable to come up with a formula for credit worthiness. It seems like banks could take into account things like major, course load, grades, extra curricular activities, and employment history to evaluate the risk in lending to each student. It would be similar to how credit history is used, where people with good credit can get more loans at a better rate than someone with bad credit. Students who are on a trajectory which indicates they will be able to pay back the loan would be able to get more money at a better rate since the banks would be more certain the loans would not be overly burdensome and they could get paid back
  #68  
Old 05-13-2020, 01:20 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
All that data about loan defaults should be easily quantifiable to come up with a formula for credit worthiness. It seems like banks could take into account things like major, course load, grades, extra curricular activities, and employment history to evaluate the risk in lending to each student. It would be similar to how credit history is used, where people with good credit can get more loans at a better rate than someone with bad credit. Students who are on a trajectory which indicates they will be able to pay back the loan would be able to get more money at a better rate since the banks would be more certain the loans would not be overly burdensome and they could get paid back
A complication here is that some of the larger risk factors are selectivity of the school, age of the borrower, family income, 2-year vs 4-year. So there's a risk of making college less accessible for people that some of us would like it to be more accessible to. As creditworthiness isn't necessarily binary; money just costs more or less depending on it.

And pushing somebody better suited for poetry into engineering may not actually improve repayment prospects. Not completing the degree program is strong associated with default.

I realize I'm being rather contrary about everything without offering any good alternative solutions. Sorry. I'm just trying to puzzle all this out.
  #69  
Old 05-13-2020, 04:18 PM
bengangmo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,825
Instead of having the govt guarantee the loan, why not have them issue the loan?
Repayments are then made out of federal income tax, interest rate is (for the sake of the argument) inflation +1.5%, interest is waived if your income is below a certain level, payments only start if your income is about a mandated floor.
  #70  
Old 05-13-2020, 04:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengangmo View Post
Instead of having the govt guarantee the loan, why not have them issue the loan?
Repayments are then made out of federal income tax, interest rate is (for the sake of the argument) inflation +1.5%, interest is waived if your income is below a certain level, payments only start if your income is about a mandated floor.
Not bad, but only for not for profit institutions.
  #71  
Old 05-14-2020, 10:10 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 7,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
No. The default rate is what matters. While the default rate for LA is greater than for STEM, the difference is smaller than the difference in default rate between selective and less selective institutions. As we've been over already.

Also, it's incorrect to exclude a major from the "useful" lable if employer's are still willing to pay a premium for that diploma.
Given the difference in default rates, people who are going to a Harvard or equivalent should be able to get a loan easier than someone going to a Vassar or equivalent. If that means poor quality colleges have to shut down, that would be a good thing.
  #72  
Old 05-14-2020, 10:14 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 7,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What matters is whether or not they make more than someone without a degree at all.

Is gender studies useful, if it means that you make an average of 75k a year, rather than 30ish?

Just because you *could* have made more with a different degree doesn't make it useless, not at all.
In terms of loaning huge amounts of money, people who aren't going to college are worse risks, people who major in useless things are better risks, and people who major in useful things are the best risks. The amount they are charged to borrow money should reflect that.
  #73  
Old 05-14-2020, 10:21 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Given the difference in default rates, people who are going to a Harvard or equivalent should be able to get a loan easier than someone going to a Vassar or equivalent. If that means poor quality colleges have to shut down, that would be a good thing.
Less selective doesn't mean poor quality. You're effectively equating the incoming students with the quality of the institution and the education it is providing. The end result is to make college more expensive and less accessible for students who can't get into Harvard.

Last edited by Ruken; 05-14-2020 at 10:24 AM.
  #74  
Old 05-14-2020, 10:27 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
people who major in useless things are better risks
As has already been explained to you, employers are willing to pay a premium for people with these degrees. Thus your choice to then use the word "useless"
even after you've been shown why it's incorrect does nothing to to further your argument and merely reveals your qualifications to even be participating in this thread.

Last edited by Ruken; 05-14-2020 at 10:29 AM.
  #75  
Old 05-14-2020, 11:07 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Nitpick: Raises the question. Maybe you went to a public education institution? I did, which is why I don't know "no" from "know"

I guess we'll go down another hijack. I'll assume you have a cite that public schools are significantly worse than private schools when it comes to English proficiency, and go with that for the sake of argument.

Public schools are required to take everyone who lives in a certain area, whereas private schools are not, so you'll have some difference there. Then, private schools will have, on average, wealthier students, who can also afford tutors and other educational resources. Further, the parents of private school kids are, by definition, more involved with their kids' education on average than public school parents, since they made the effort to research private schools, get the kids to take whatever tests necessary, enroll the students into the private school, and pay thousands or tens of thousands more per year for their kids' educations. I don't have a cite, but I have to believe parental involvement has a big effect on a student's academic success.

So, rather than further punish students from poor households with two working parents by having them fall even further behind in college, I guess colleges have decided to level the playing field by making sure all of their students are at least proficient in the basics.

Make sense?
Sure, it makes sense. About as much sense as asking kids to pay for private education that can't afford it. Which is exactly what they are doing in college.

I agree with you that parental involvement is probably the PRIMARY driver to having good grades in school. What do you do with the kids that have parents that don't give 2 shits?
  #76  
Old 05-14-2020, 11:09 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
I wouldn't say that a high school diploma necessarily means college-ready. But I'm not sure that taking remedial classes in an expensive college setting is the solution for making someone college-ready.
Agreed. So then what? Junior College to get prepared what you already should have learned a year or two before , FOR FREE (granted it isn't free to all but the costs are certainly hidden from the student)
  #77  
Old 05-14-2020, 11:49 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Sure, it makes sense. About as much sense as asking kids to pay for private education that can't afford it. Which is exactly what they are doing in college.

I agree with you that parental involvement is probably the PRIMARY driver to having good grades in school. What do you do with the kids that have parents that don't give 2 shits?
Is this yet another branch of the hijack? I'm having problems keeping track. I was only addressing your claim that private school kids have better English proficiency on average than public school kids. I'm not asking kids who can't afford private education to pay for it, so I have no idea where that came from.

If you can help me get back on track here, I'm happy to address whatever issue you had with my post. We are really getting off the subject of this thread, though.
  #78  
Old 05-14-2020, 12:12 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
In terms of loaning huge amounts of money, people who aren't going to college are worse risks, people who major in useless things are better risks, and people who major in useful things are the best risks. The amount they are charged to borrow money should reflect that.
What's a "useless" degree? People have said that underwater basket weaving is a useless degree, but I'm having trouble finding that in any of my local universities' programs.

If a degree gets you a job that you otherwise would not be able to get, then I don't see it as useless at all.

Just because it is something that does not interest me in particular does not make it useless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Agreed. So then what? Junior College to get prepared what you already should have learned a year or two before , FOR FREE (granted it isn't free to all but the costs are certainly hidden from the student)
That's really the solution, really, is to make community college free and have it offer 4 year programs.

The whole point of public education is to create a workforce that is prepared for the jobs that are available. If there is a demand for better educated workers, then it is on society to provide that workforce. In exchange, the companies and the owners who benefit from having an educated workforce can pay taxes towards it.

And, just as you can send your kid to a private school rather than public for any grades k-12, you should have the option of paying a premium to send your kid to a private school for post secondary education as well.
  #79  
Old 05-14-2020, 12:13 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Is this yet another branch of the hijack? I'm having problems keeping track. I was only addressing your claim that private school kids have better English proficiency on average than public school kids. I'm not asking kids who can't afford private education to pay for it, so I have no idea where that came from.

If you can help me get back on track here, I'm happy to address whatever issue you had with my post. We are really getting off the subject of this thread, though.
I didn't claim that though, maybe someone else. You quoted my post and added all that other stuff.
I asked if public education was failing, and if so why?
  #80  
Old 05-14-2020, 12:17 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What's a "useless" degree? People have said that underwater basket weaving is a useless degree, but I'm having trouble finding that in any of my local universities' programs.

If a degree gets you a job that you otherwise would not be able to get, then I don't see it as useless at all.

Just because it is something that does not interest me in particular does not make it useless.



That's really the solution, really, is to make community college free and have it offer 4 year programs.

The whole point of public education is to create a workforce that is prepared for the jobs that are available. If there is a demand for better educated workers, then it is on society to provide that workforce. In exchange, the companies and the owners who benefit from having an educated workforce can pay taxes towards it.

And, just as you can send your kid to a private school rather than public for any grades k-12, you should have the option of paying a premium to send your kid to a private school for post secondary education as well.
Again, agreed BUT:

What is going to make the student NOW prepared to learn the stuff they should have learned a year or two before? The parental involvement didn't change, did the student?
  #81  
Old 05-14-2020, 12:26 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
I guess at the end of the day, I see all these proposal to better the kids coming up. I SEE that, I really do but I also see that unless the kid takes some agency on his/her own (or is pushed, usually by their parents) then it doesn't matter what you offer for free. They will likely still fail.
Public education has turned into free baby sitting and we expect educators to not only educate, but parent, give them a moral (political compass) and teach things above and beyond reading, writing, and rithmetic.

It has long been my stance that until something is done by and for(about) parent's who either do not or cannot help their children.

As is most things wrong with this country, it's all about poverty and the lack of personal agency.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 05-14-2020 at 12:27 PM.
  #82  
Old 05-14-2020, 12:38 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Again, agreed BUT:

What is going to make the student NOW prepared to learn the stuff they should have learned a year or two before? The parental involvement didn't change, did the student?
This isn't to do with preparation, this has to do with having access.

The reason that I did not learn differential calculus in High School is because it was not offered. Colleges do offer things that are not offered in lower schools.

Otherwise, why do we need anyone to go to college, if you think that they should have learned everything that colleges teach while they were in high school?
  #83  
Old 05-14-2020, 12:41 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I guess at the end of the day, I see all these proposal to better the kids coming up. I SEE that, I really do but I also see that unless the kid takes some agency on his/her own (or is pushed, usually by their parents) then it doesn't matter what you offer for free. They will likely still fail.
Public education has turned into free baby sitting and we expect educators to not only educate, but parent, give them a moral (political compass) and teach things above and beyond reading, writing, and rithmetic.

It has long been my stance that until something is done by and for(about) parent's who either do not or cannot help their children.

As is most things wrong with this country, it's all about poverty and the lack of personal agency.
Writing off children of parents who do not help their children academically is contributing to the cycle of generational poverty. There needs to be an intervention somewhere and somehow, or else the children of these kids that you have written off will be in the same situation.

And it is not only the children of uneducated parents who would benefit from being able to attain a degree without incurring lifelong crushing debt.
  #84  
Old 05-14-2020, 12:50 PM
aruvqan is offline
Embracing the Suck
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 17,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
For one obvious thing, there are certainly plenty of lower-income (i.e. not able to pay out-of-hand for a liberal arts education) people who might be terrific English literature professors, music professors, artists, archaeologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc...

Why should some half-assed student get a loan to go study computer science or some other tech field, and a good student gets told to pound sand because they want to study political science? It's entirely possible that the cs student may drop out and end up a cable monkey or help desk tech, and the political science student might end up a tenured professor.

I mean, it's fine and dandy for the wealthy to fund whatever they want for their children's educations, but it's not fair to expect non-wealthy people's children to only get help if they want to do what would amount to a sort of trade school.
And what the hell is wrong with trade school? We also need plumbers, electricians, carpenters, printers and estheticians ... [When I went to NY BOCES we had those trades available, as well as I believe locksmithing and a few others]

We have an overabundance of white collar workers because all the blue collar workers of the first three quarters of the 20th century were bound and determined to send their kids to college for a degree so they wouldn't have to be white collar workers. It became *dirty* to work with your hands .... "your kid is a plumber, ewwww, I couldn't stand it if little Murgatroyd had to get his hands dirty" While not even stopping to thing we need service industry workers too. Someone needs to wait tables, cook and clean up in the kitchens, maid service and desk clerks at motels, sell us groceries ...

It is not college educations we need, or even trade schools, we need all jobs to provide at least a living income. If that means housing costs need to be capped and literally every single rental treated like Section 8 housing [sliding pay scale] then utility costs and single payer insurance/Obamacare/WTF you want to call it and every other social program needs to be working and functional.
__________________
"Rammstein might not be the most sophisticated band there is, but who doesn't like the smell of napalm in the evening air"
  #85  
Old 05-14-2020, 02:53 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
This isn't to do with preparation, this has to do with having access.

The reason that I did not learn differential calculus in High School is because it was not offered. Colleges do offer things that are not offered in lower schools.

Otherwise, why do we need anyone to go to college, if you think that they should have learned everything that colleges teach while they were in high school?
Wrong on almost every single counterpoint.
The reason that you learned differential equations (diffy calc isn't a class that I've heard of) is because YOU wanted to. Quite possibly one reason you didn't learn it in high school was because it wasn't offered. But that says nothing about remedial English or Algebra I. And high schoolers all over are graduating without a rudimentary skill in either of those. You want them to then go to College (PAY to go to College, taking out student loans that they will be on the hook forever for) because it offers them opportunity to take those same classes AGAIN.
That simply isn't smart.

They had opportunity in HS, wasted it. What makes College more likely for them to not waste it?


I don't want to write the kids off, I want to FIX what's wrong but further empowering them to go into debt, failing at higher education ain't helping them one bit.
  #86  
Old 05-14-2020, 02:55 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
And what the hell is wrong with trade school? We also need plumbers, electricians, carpenters, printers and estheticians ... [When I went to NY BOCES we had those trades available, as well as I believe locksmithing and a few others]

We have an overabundance of white collar workers because all the blue collar workers of the first three quarters of the 20th century were bound and determined to send their kids to college for a degree so they wouldn't have to be white collar workers. It became *dirty* to work with your hands .... "your kid is a plumber, ewwww, I couldn't stand it if little Murgatroyd had to get his hands dirty" While not even stopping to thing we need service industry workers too. Someone needs to wait tables, cook and clean up in the kitchens, maid service and desk clerks at motels, sell us groceries ...

It is not college educations we need, or even trade schools, we need all jobs to provide at least a living income. If that means housing costs need to be capped and literally every single rental treated like Section 8 housing [sliding pay scale] then utility costs and single payer insurance/Obamacare/WTF you want to call it and every other social program needs to be working and functional.
Sounds like a something something, according to their need

Or in laymans terms, socialism.
  #87  
Old 05-14-2020, 03:27 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Wrong on almost every single counterpoint.
The reason that you learned differential equations (diffy calc isn't a class that I've heard of) is because YOU wanted to. Quite possibly one reason you didn't learn it in high school was because it wasn't offered. But that says nothing about remedial English or Algebra I. And high schoolers all over are graduating without a rudimentary skill in either of those. You want them to then go to College (PAY to go to College, taking out student loans that they will be on the hook forever for) because it offers them opportunity to take those same classes AGAIN.
That simply isn't smart.

They had opportunity in HS, wasted it. What makes College more likely for them to not waste it?
Are you trying to make the argument that the only people that would benefit from affordable or free post secondary education are the ones who would need remedial classes to make up for what they missed in high school?

I'll accept gladly the argument that we need to work on our public schools, as they are failing to ensure that as many people as possible have the greatest education possible, but I will not accept the argument that until every problem has been ironed out of public schools, we should not look into making a college education accessible to all who want it.
Quote:

I don't want to write the kids off, I want to FIX what's wrong but further empowering them to go into debt, failing at higher education ain't helping them one bit.
Which is why my argument is that they shouldn't have to go into debt, and that there should be options for free or very affordable college available.

(and why all the hate on English classes? Being able to effectively communicate your thoughts and ideas is a good thing, isn't it?)


Full Disclosure: I am still paying off my own student loans, from a degree I was not able to complete, as it turned out to be rather difficult to hold down a full time job as well as a full time class schedule. The fact that financial aid is tied to your parent's income is also a problem, as that means that if your parents can but will not pay, then you are in a worse position than if you were impoverished. But, even not having finished my degree, what I did learn while I was there was actually useful and enriching to my life.
  #88  
Old 05-14-2020, 03:48 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Are you trying to make the argument that the only people that would benefit from affordable or free post secondary education are the ones who would need remedial classes to make up for what they missed in high school?

I'll accept gladly the argument that we need to work on our public schools, as they are failing to ensure that as many people as possible have the greatest education possible, but I will not accept the argument that until every problem has been ironed out of public schools, we should not look into making a college education accessible to all who want it.


Which is why my argument is that they shouldn't have to go into debt, and that there should be options for free or very affordable college available.

(and why all the hate on English classes? Being able to effectively communicate your thoughts and ideas is a good thing, isn't it?)


Full Disclosure: I am still paying off my own student loans, from a degree I was not able to complete, as it turned out to be rather difficult to hold down a full time job as well as a full time class schedule. The fact that financial aid is tied to your parent's income is also a problem, as that means that if your parents can but will not pay, then you are in a worse position than if you were impoverished. But, even not having finished my degree, what I did learn while I was there was actually useful and enriching to my life.
Oh I see where the tracks came off. You jumped in the middle of the conversation. No worries.
The conversation started talking about why remedial classes are even a requirement in a 4 yr degree
  #89  
Old 05-14-2020, 04:04 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Oh I see where the tracks came off. You jumped in the middle of the conversation. No worries.
The conversation started talking about why remedial classes are even a requirement in a 4 yr degree
I guess, something like that. Maybe my reply to puddlegum was conflated, in any case...

But on that topic, I do think that remedial classes should continue to be offered at community colleges. I do think that just because your school and parents failed you doesn't mean that you shouldn't ever get the chance to learn them. It may be that just getting out of a toxic environment allows a student to become far more productive academically. Being around other students that are motivated to learn may inspire one to become motivated themselves. I can think of a number of reasons that an adult would take their education more seriously than they did as a kid.

If someone takes these classes and gets their GED or equivalent, that's a good thing. At that point, maybe they can consider moving on to some level of higher education as well. Personally, I would not admit them into a 4 year degree program until they have met these requirements.

I also do not think there should be any age limit for community college. I've met some non-traditional students who drastically improved their lives, livelihoods, and their communities by going back to school in their 30s and 40s.
  #90  
Old 05-15-2020, 06:36 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I also do not think there should be any age limit for community college.
Is this even a thing? Or did I miss where another poster proposed it?

Age of borrower is highly correlated with default FWIW.
  #91  
Old 05-15-2020, 06:51 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Agreed. So then what? Junior College to get prepared what you already should have learned a year or two before , FOR FREE (granted it isn't free to all but the costs are certainly hidden from the student)
Sometimes far more them a year or two. Maybe students should be allowed to delay high school graduation (to a point) if they need extra time.

A private school teacher told me they usually have a handful of of students who come there to effectively repeat 12th grade, or they start there in 9th grade after having completed 9th grade elsewhere. Now granted their parents are paying big money. But the concept of needing extra time in high school isn't completely weird.
  #92  
Old 05-15-2020, 07:15 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Is this even a thing? Or did I miss where another poster proposed it?

Age of borrower is highly correlated with default FWIW.
No, there isn't. But there is also not widespread free community college.

What I was saying is that we should have free community college, and that anyone, of any age, can attend.

Currently, in Ohio, if you are under 21, then you get a free High School education. Once you turn 21, it gets much more complicated, but if you get to attend then you generally have to pay something towards your tuition. My concern is that if we were to make community college free as well, it would be proposed to have an age limit on it.

There are a few states, I believe, that do offer community college for free. Do they have an age cut off?

You said age is correlated with default, is that a positive or negative correlation?
  #93  
Old 05-15-2020, 08:17 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, there isn't. But there is also not widespread free community college.

What I was saying is that we should have free community college, and that anyone, of any age, can attend.

Currently, in Ohio, if you are under 21, then you get a free High School education. Once you turn 21, it gets much more complicated, but if you get to attend then you generally have to pay something towards your tuition. My concern is that if we were to make community college free as well, it would be proposed to have an age limit on it.

There are a few states, I believe, that do offer community college for free. Do they have an age cut off?

You said age is correlated with default, is that a positive or negative correlation?
It's a positive correlation, but I also don't want to increase barriers for older potential students. There are so many success stories* there, but it's hard enough to do. This of course becomes a non-issue if loans aren't needed. Although they still might need to be for living expenses, unless we're talking stipends.

I'm more amenable to free or very cheap (it's highly subsidized most places I've lived but YMMV) CC than I am for free 4-year. But I'm also not thrilled about the prospects of a permastudent eating up resources ad infinitum. But I'm also very much on the record stating that a few people misusing or taking advantage of a program isn't a good reason for not doing it.

But yes if we were to have free CC I am in full agreement there shouldn't be an age limit.


*This might make a nice feel-good thread in IMHO.
  #94  
Old 05-15-2020, 08:27 AM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,021
Putting limits on loans based on a student's likelyhood to pay them back wouldn't mean less fortunate kids couldn't go to college. What it would mean is students would have to be more judicious and reasonable about how much to invest in their education. A HS kid who takes easy classes and has a C- should not have access to the same amount of loans as a kid who takes advanced classes and has an A+. Allowing both of those students to have the same access to $100k or more in loans will not have the same outcome. I'm sure there are some C- students who find their passion in college and go on to make millions, but chances are that student will also struggle in college and then struggle to pay back a large debt load. If instead that student had to be more budget conscious, they would have to consider cheaper options that would incur a debt more in line with their expected ability to pay it back.
  #95  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:18 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Sometimes far more them a year or two. Maybe students should be allowed to delay high school graduation (to a point) if they need extra time.

A private school teacher told me they usually have a handful of of students who come there to effectively repeat 12th grade, or they start there in 9th grade after having completed 9th grade elsewhere. Now granted their parents are paying big money. But the concept of needing extra time in high school isn't completely weird.
No problem with that whatsoever.

I do have problems with k9befrienders default stance that the failure of the student is to be blamed solely on the school , teacher, and parents.

If those same students, who have no idea how to study, put forth effort and allot time efficiently, then you are paying for free college for those same students who failed miserably in high school to fail again in college.

All simply because you need to grant them opportunity to higher learning. They didn't learn or put forth the effort to learn the lower learning, why do they need higher learning, especially paid for by others?

Ultimately the student, and the student alone becomes the sole advocate of and for the student.
There is a reason why default rates closely correlate to age. A lot of kids aren't ready to be an adult at the age of 18. Maybe allow free community college at the age of 25 or something?
  #96  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:22 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
There is a reason why default rates closely correlate to age. A lot of kids aren't ready to be an adult at the age of 18. Maybe allow free community college at the age of 25 or something?
Older borrowers are more likely to default. I'll grab the data at some point today. Maybe I misread something.
  #97  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:27 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Older borrowers are more likely to default. I'll grab the data at some point today. Maybe I misread something.
https://libertystreeteconomics.typep...a7f8970d-500wi
  #98  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:28 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
I think I did misread that, as it's not the age when they borrow the money.
  #99  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:31 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
I think I did misread that, as it's not the age when they borrow the money.
Thanks for the cite and the clarification. I was having a mind blown moment because it flew in the face of all logic.
  #100  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:33 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
But now I really want to find data about post-traditional-age students. You'd think they'd more have their shit together, but also maybe more likely to be dealing with other hindering obligations.

Last edited by Ruken; 05-15-2020 at 09:34 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017