The obvious solution to me seems to be going the exact opposite way, which is to say providing cheap, public education opportunities on par with those of private unis in terms of educational value/“respect” for the degree/confidence that boasting such degrees means you know (some of) your shit.
Of course, that would in effect amount to socializing college tuitions and involve tax hikes. Tax hikes to fund ungodly science and “impractical”, “worthless” liberal arts, too. I can smell the collective shitting of Fox bricks at the mere suggestion from here. But then again, maybe not - after all, the current government-sponsored student loans have to be financed already, somehow.
Still being done, and they still need lots of computer power. I had a professor turn up his nose at our donated machines because our floating point performance wasn’t good enough.
Ever fill out a FAFSA form? The US is hardly handing out unlimited loans.
State schools are a lot more expensive now as the state has moved support from the taxpayer to the student. Still better than private universities, but not cheap.
The person paying it back.
If tuition was only going up at the rate of inflation, there would be a lot fewer complaints. It is going up a lot faster. Inflation makes it better. I had some student loans which got deferred until I got out of grad school. Thanks to the high inflation of the early 1980s they became trivial to pay off.
Here is what the EEOC says about tests
“If the selection procedure has a disparate impact based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, can the employer show that the selection procedure is job-related and consistent with business necessity? An employer can meet this standard by showing that it is necessary to the safe and efficient performance of the job. The challenged policy or practice should therefore be associated with the skills needed to perform the job successfully. In contrast to a general measurement of applicants’ or employees’ skills, the challenged policy or practice must evaluate an individual’s skills as related to the particular job in question.”
This means that either the test not have a disparate impact, which seems to be impossible, or that the business has to prove the test measures solely job performance and is necessary.
Any intelligence test that is still being administered by prospective employers is only being done because it has not been challenged in court yet.
Tests such as the Dish one would be legal since the test is on statistics and the job involves doing statistics. Giving an intelligence test to find out who could be trained to do the job would be illegal. Since the context of this is replacing college and eighteen year old generally do not have alot of jobs skills, it is therefore illegal to use intelligence tests as a substitute for a college degree.
I don’t think this is true, but I’m curious to find out. Do you have a cite for this - loan forgiveness if the college closes?
I’m not sure this is a fully fleshed out idea, but I think of this similar to raising the minimum wage to a million dollars to make everyone rich. It just doesn’t work that way.
I 'unno, public education seems to work pretty well when you bother funding it and it’s not being administered by complete muppets :). Finland for example is consistently rated in the worldwide top 10 wrt education, yet according to wiki their public colleges have no tuition fees whatsoever and private schools are exceedingly rare.
Huh. Interesting. Was that an exception made solely for UofC for whatever reason, or did the State also cover other universities ?
Because if it’s the former, that reeks of Wrong IMO. It’d be the textbook definition of privilege (i.e. specific private entities enjoy special laws and status, for Reasons), and also fit the more pop-culture understanding of the word, that is to say “these are the most select, privileged young people in the nation… and we’re going to make it even easier for them !”
Either Corinthian is a bit of jargon I’m not familiar with, or this is some speech-to-text flubbery I can’t parse. Could you elucidamate, please ?
I believe the entire CA public education system, including community colleges, the mid-tier California State University system, and the top-tier University of California system were at one time fully subsidized. Even when I was a child, fees for community college were entirely nominal.
The idea, of course, was that a better educated populace pays for itself with a vibrant economy. And looking at California history, it seems like it worked. It’s baffling to me why we tore down one of the things that made us great.
Let’s also keep this in perspective. Being a Stanford guy, it pains me to sing the praises of Berkeley, but it’s hard to argue that the two are not, academically, in the same league. Still, Berkeley tuition is 1/3 that of Stanford. Link.
Although most Stanford students aren’t paying that full tuition. If I understand the labels in this table correctly (and I may not, so check it yourselves), only a third haven’t received “aid toward cost.” While we know that students from households with income below $125k are not expected to have any parental contribution, that 2/3rd receiving aid also includes the guy who got a $100 scholarship, so it’s not the most useful number.
And even the full-pay students have the total cost of their attendance subsidized by income from the endowment. I’ve not seen good numbers for how to break that down.
A smaller percent of Stanford students graduate with debt than UC Berkeley students, but that debt is, on average, similar but slightly greater.