[quote name='J-dog' timestamp='1328258922' post='4909064']
As Bill Watterson said in his excellent speech to college graduates, it's not all about climbing the "imaginary ladder of success". College is what you make of it, and learning to learn - learning to think - is the REAL value of an education.

Who is to decide how valuable a given degree is? So I have friends who studied accounting but never used their degrees because they hated it. I have friends who studied art and are doing really well for themselves - and that's a cultural contribution, no? And what about the sciences? Many of them are not profitable careers at all, but the potential contributions to the body of knowledge are more than significant.

It's what people do with their studies that counts. As far as the US is concerned, I think you guys have far bigger problems than this. Putting money into education, I think, is always money well spent.

I agree that putting money in to education is money well spent but the money is not being used efficiently. For example Occupy Wall Street largely consists of graduates who after graduation find there are simply no jobs for their degree and they have a huge mountain of student loans which must be paid back. This is hurting our economy and the students. In some fields there simply are not enough trained professionals to go around. This causes our economy to become stagnate.
[/quote]

Well, I think the question of loans is something that is another topic altogether and a serious problem in the USA... all this "imaginary money" is something that needs to be handled with extreme caution. It isn't. I think that your country has some of the worst spending habits in the entire world, but isn't limited to education.

You have a point in that many college students are downright wasteful, but you cannot really stop something like that from happening. And you know, it's OK to be a little bit stupid and make mistakes, because you usually cannot afford such luxuries in working life anyway.

Compare the US to Sweden, for example. Their national literacy rate is far higher than yours is, and citizens don't even pay for education there, regardless of what they choose to study. Does it work better? Well, I don't know, but what I'm getting at is that when it comes to ambition, pursuit of knowledge and so on, your social values are the huge driving factor. Basically, I think you're putting far too much emphasis on money, and I think the system you're suggesting is wide open to corruption too. Government can be full of it, but corporations can be downright evil sometimes.

[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1328265990' post='4909088']
Your class shouldnt have anything to do with it. As long as there is a functioning market in student loans, its just a matter of how much it will cost, and how much human capital is created. Class doesnt enter anywhere into the equation.

The only place where class enters into the equation is in the segment of negative-ROI fun students. If your rich daddy is willing to pay for your expensive hobbies, then sure that option remains. But that should not at all hinder the class mobility of others.

Less people would go to university overall, and something resembling price competition would emerge. Those interested in getting a serious degree would find it easier to do so; less distraction from the hordes of partying savages, and less competition with them for limited resources such as living expenses. Not to mention their reduced tax burden would make their ROI calculations a lot more fun.

Though the government's ROI would be far better and the quality of education would be improved I still think this would be a bad idea. In my mind I see a future in which riots become common place due to the huge gap between the upper and lower classes. Your solution is only widening that gap and will likely result in undesirable consequences.
[/quote]
Been reading the latest charles murray?

So, college to you is an end in itself; everybody should go to college as a form of social engineering (to give everybody the illusion they got a shot?), but im not sure that goal is very compatible with your other stated goal of building human capital. If building human capital was actually the core business of a university, rather than signalling elite status, most people wouldnt know how quickly to get out of it.

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1328267793' post='4909100']
[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1328265990' post='4909088']
Your class shouldnt have anything to do with it. As long as there is a functioning market in student loans, its just a matter of how much it will cost, and how much human capital is created. Class doesnt enter anywhere into the equation.

The only place where class enters into the equation is in the segment of negative-ROI fun students. If your rich daddy is willing to pay for your expensive hobbies, then sure that option remains. But that should not at all hinder the class mobility of others.

Less people would go to university overall, and something resembling price competition would emerge. Those interested in getting a serious degree would find it easier to do so; less distraction from the hordes of partying savages, and less competition with them for limited resources such as living expenses. Not to mention their reduced tax burden would make their ROI calculations a lot more fun.

Though the government's ROI would be far better and the quality of education would be improved I still think this would be a bad idea. In my mind I see a future in which riots become common place due to the huge gap between the upper and lower classes. Your solution is only widening that gap and will likely result in undesirable consequences.
[/quote]
Been reading the latest charles murray?

So, college to you is an end in itself; everybody should go to college as a form of social engineering (to give everybody the illusion they got a shot?), but im not sure that goal is very compatible with your other stated goal of building human capital. If building human capital was actually the core business of a university, rather than signalling elite status, most people wouldnt know how quickly to get out of it.
[/quote]

Not to give them the illusion that they have got a shot but to actually give them a shot. I want to see every able mind put to it's full potential, but sadly most people may have the metal power but lack the drive. My idea is to give them an immediate incentive to stay on the path to being skilled and productive. Honestly, I'm finding it hard myself to stay on that path and I'm a pretty determined guy. I perfectly understand why so many people drop out of college or pursue degrees which are just for fun instead of real degrees.

Dropping Pell Grants altogether and using different interest rates for student loans based on the likelihood someone could pay the loans back with the degree they are pursuing would greatly reduce waste but it would remove any incentive for the lower class to seek higher education.

I'm aware that you completely ignored most of my post earlier, but why would removing federal financial aid making education less accessible to everyone (specifically the lower class that can't afford it) be any better than just lowering the tuition of public education?

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/08/31/historical-trends-in-college-tuition/

My idea is to give them an immediate incentive to stay on the path to being skilled and productive[/quote]

Good new then - Foxconn is hiring. They are looking for skilled people (need to be good with hands) and productive (must be able to work 16/6) people. And they have no end to applicants. You'll work on Apple and Microsoft products and even have subsidized meals and housing. And they don't even require a degree.

I want to see every able mind put to it's full potential, but sadly most people may have the metal power but lack the drive. My idea is to give them an immediate incentive to stay on the path to being skilled and productive.

What makes you think that being 'skilled and productive' has anything to do with your mind being 'at it's full potential'? My experience would indicate that the two often verge on polar opposites...

Take computer science as an example: you may be the smartest computer scientist in the world, and the fastest programmer in the world, but if that's the extent of your knowledge, your mind is far from open. The subjects that you do not value at all are the most important to opening your mind.

Any civilisation can build shit in an industrious fashion, but that's not what matters in the end. Art, music, philosophy - these are the expressions of an enlightened civilisation.

Clearly, throwing more government at the problem is the answer.

SMH

Clearly, throwing more government at ALL the problems is the answer.

Clearly, throwing more government at the problem is the answer.

SMH

Yes, I do. However, I think most of the world's governments are corrupt. For anything to actually improve we need a government for the people by the people. Such a government cannot exist in a true sense due to the restrictions of paper ballots and the inclusion of money in our democracies. What we need is an internet democracy where all individuals have a hand in shaping their future.

Yes, I do. However, I think most of the world's governments are corrupt. For anything to actually improve we need a government for the people by the people. Such a government cannot exist in a true sense due to the restrictions of paper ballots and the inclusion of money in our democracies. What we need is an internet democracy where all individuals have a hand in shaping their future.

Because those people cannot be bought?

"Vote for Censorship Law and get 3 free DVDs of your choice"