I've been thinking a lot lately about class division within the united states. Everyone who is in the lower income bracket simply lacks an education or has a degree in a low demand field such as art, photography, theater, music, and other low demand high supply fields. The fact of the matter is our education system and especially our financial aid system does not make any sense. Why does the government pay the same amount of financial aid for an individual seeking an art degree as one seeking a degree in computer science or engineering? Why do we have a system where individuals must attend college for X about of years for a generalized degree and then they must be retrained for years to be proficient at their job? Why would someone need to work in a fast food joint while attending college in order to keep a roof over their head and food in their mouths?

I think the government should subsidize an individual's education based on the economic benefit of said career. Give the money to the companies to pay for their future employee's education. Higher demand careers can use the left over money they get from the government to pay students salaries in order to give them an immediate incentive to stick with that career. This would allow an individual to immediately start working in their desired field and if they pursue a career which is in high demand they can actually make a living off it. This would also provide a major boost to our economy and would ensure all citizens can secure employment. Think about the possibilities this would unlock for the advancement in technology and the human race as a whole?

Nope. Free market.

Nope. Free market.

Can you elaborate? My point is exactly that! Where there is a high demand the government helps fill that void with talented workers there by providing more jobs to citizens and advancing that field by lowering the cost of needed employees. This would mean instead of having people sitting on their asses collecting unemployment they could be out working in high demand jobs.

You know, learning takes time. What happens if the government subsidizes a field that isn't needed 4 years later? What happens when everyone starts studying those high profile, subsidized courses and you have 4 times as many applicants as there are jobs later?

You know, learning takes time. What happens if the government subsidizes a field that isn't needed 4 years later? What happens when everyone starts studying those high profile, subsidized courses and you have 4 times as many applicants as there are jobs later?

The government will know how many people are trying to enter a field and can adjust subsidizes based on projections. You're looking at this as if the subsidizes will be static but my point is that they will be dynamic. What we have right now is a static subsidization of education which results in the large class division and it is a huge contributor to our economic deficient.

[...] which results in the large class division and it is a huge contributor to our economic deficient.

You have sources for that?

I agree with the OP's stance. Interest rates on government loans for high-demand education should be lower than those for low-demand education. Not the total amount of aid, but the interest rate. An Art History degree is a significantly riskier investment (in terms of being able to pay back the loan) than a Chemical Engineering degree. Rates should reflect that.

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1328219792' post='4908868']
[...] which results in the large class division and it is a huge contributor to our economic deficient.

You have sources for that?
[/quote]

In 2009 the government spent 180 billion dollars on financial aid for postsecondary education. Most of which was on high supply low demand degrees.

I agree with the OP's stance. Interest rates on government loans for high-demand education should be lower than those for low-demand education. Not the total amount of aid, but the interest rate. An Art History degree is a significantly riskier investment (in terms of being able to pay back the loan) than a Chemical Engineering degree. Rates should reflect that.

Interest rates should also be based on demand but that is not where the government is losing the most money. Pell grants are a near 100% loss if and individual pursues a low demand degree.

[quote name='Madhed' timestamp='1328219216' post='4908865']
You know, learning takes time. What happens if the government subsidizes a field that isn't needed 4 years later? What happens when everyone starts studying those high profile, subsidized courses and you have 4 times as many applicants as there are jobs later?

The government will know how many people are trying to enter a field and can adjust subsidizes based on projections. You're looking at this as if the subsidizes will be static but my point is that they will be dynamic. What we have right now is a static subsidization of education which results in the large class division and it is a huge contributor to our economic deficient.
[/quote]
As with your previous policy suggestions, they revolve around a rather silly view of government.

Does any democratic government have any incentive to implement any such policy? What does it mean to their bottom line? The buying of votes that is?

One would imagine free cash handouts are the more potent instrument there, rather than gizmos such as good long term governance. No amount of proselytizing is going to change that.

If there is such a thing as a solution to the broken incentives in education, it is to get the government out of it altogether. Giving it more knobs to tweak is only going to make matters worse.