Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:But... I know too many people with essentially worthless degrees to wring my hands about how not enough people go to college.

Or, in my case, met so many people who had no interest at all in education while in college.

I was one of them. And ended up with a pretty worthless degree!

It was only later that I got a useful education in law school.

My brother makes a great living with his paramedic's license. he never even finished the associates degree. Dude hate's school.

Our poblem right now isn't that not enough people have access to higher education. It's that few students wisely choose their course of study, and too many simply drift through.

My undergraduate degrees are in history and East Asian studies. I don't know how worthwhile most employers consider that. Like you, my job is premised on my JD/bar membership. I find that most of my ability to reflect upon and appreciate my life, however, comes from having taken my undergraduate education very seriously. (And law school would certainly have been impossible without some kind of undergraduate degree.) By contrast, law school was just a hope and a prayer that I might one day pay the bills.

Well I'd also proffer those that don't go to college face craptacular vocational training opportunities.

I'm not familiar with what's out there for people looking to enter a trade. Does the military still do a lot of that? With no chance of going to college, my own father joined the Marine Corps and learned a bit about electronics vis a vis teletype communications repair. It was a start, at least. Most of the training he's had over the years has been provided by employers.

Manchu wrote:I'm not familiar with what's out there for people looking to enter a trade. Does the military still do a lot of that? With no chance of going to college, my own father joined the Marine Corps and learned a bit about electronics vis a vis teletype communications repair. It was a start, at least. Most of the training he's had over the years has been provided by employers.

Unless you can do a six mile log run, the military's probably not interested in you at the moment. Trimming personnel with the drawing down of Afghanistan and Iraq and all that.

Doesnt ricky have a law degree? Was that from a correspondence program or did he attend a (gasp) school to get it?

None of his kids will attend college?

Wouldn't that make hm an elitist snob or a sheeple that was "progrrammed" as well?

Also despite what he says, he did NOT see the devil hanging out in America, unless he has a video on youtube that I missed.

This guy is doing little to disprove the theory that he and his supporters are 100% bat-gak crazy...

Actually, I think his argument seesm to be that Obama wants everybody to go to college so they can be brainwashed into the liberal ideology, or soemthing like that.

I'm sure he'll say that his point was that he was trying to tell working class people that there is nothing wrong with trade work. He just did so in a way that plays on fears of the liberal ivory tower.

Polonius wrote:Actually, I think his argument seesm to be that Obama wants everybody to go to college so they can be brainwashed into the liberal ideology, or soemthing like that.

I'm sure he'll say that his point was that he was trying to tell working class people that there is nothing wrong with trade work. He just did so in a way that plays on fears of the liberal ivory tower.

i think his point is:

" Hey fellow zealots/nut-cases/racists/homophobes: Keep your kids isolated and stupid so they don't realize what a horrible life you have created around them".

He is a disgusting human being.

I think painting him, and his followers, with that broad of a brush makes you guilty of the same sins you accuse him of.

Polonius wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know my sister might be going to harvard when i asked about how she wil pay for it she said
"They will Help me if i get in"
"Ahh, Y'know they mea 'Direct you to the loan office' right"
My dad still think they will pay for it all.
College is expensive. Here at comminty college it can cost 1000$ a semester in fees. FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE!!!!
And i still can speel right.

A harvard degree doesn't cost that much more than any other private school degree, and is incredibly more marketable.

If you can't spell in college, than while I agree you could use more education, I'm not sure it needs to be at the collegiate level.

Which of course is part of the problem: our eagerness to send everybody to college means students that had trouble at the high school level basically spend years and thousands of dollars learning what they should have learned prior to graduating.

We live in cali, a country away. It wll be alot more then tuition they have to pay.
And the Joke about Spelling was a joke.
But yeah, I learned this. College isnt for everyone. Everyone should have the opprotunity. But its not for everyone. Unless you are willing to sacrifice alot for college you wont make it through much.

Polonius wrote:I think painting him, and his followers, with that broad of a brush makes you guilty of the same sins you accuse him of.

?

He makes regular public statements steeped in homophobia, racist overtones, fear mongering, and various forms of tinfoil hat worthy conspiracey theories.

Then people he is speaking to clap amd high five, etc.

It is all part of the public record.

Some how am I painting him with a broad brush exactly?

hotsauceman1 wrote:We live in cali, a country away. It wll be alot more then tuition they have to pay.
And the Joke about Spelling was a joke.
But yeah, I learned this. College isnt for everyone. Everyone should have the opprotunity. But its not for everyone. Unless you are willing to sacrifice alot for college you wont make it through much.

Harvard provides free tuition for students whose families make under a certain income level. $60,000/year or something like that. They've got a huge endowment, they're quite generous.

Lots of people get told that they should go to college, or non-college careers are disparaged, so people go to college, rack up lots of debt, and end up with nothing to show for it.

Maybe this. We have a more flexible HS system that can allow more students to find their interests rather then letting College be that time. Rather then crank out the same student after student that HS does now.
Also im trying to make a downside to going there. IT makes me feel better about my "Choices"

CT GAMER wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think painting him, and his followers, with that broad of a brush makes you guilty of the same sins you accuse him of.

?

He makes regular public statements steeped in homophobia, racist overtones, fear mongering, and various forms of tinfoil hat worthy conspiracey theories.

Then people he is speaking to clap amd high five, etc.

It is all part of the public record.

Some how am I painting him with a broad brush exactly?

I don't know enough about his record to debate particulars, but I know that he's the first viable, truly "values" based conservative since the elder Bush. Not everybody that supports a candidate supports every decision. Obama has kept open Gitmo, making him arguably a war criminal. I support him, and plan on voting for him.

Not all people that are values voters are the raving bigots they are made out to be.

And attacking him, and his supporters, based on the most salacious and nastiest stuff is to almost concede the debate that, well, they're wrong on most of their values.

biccat wrote:Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges. It makes the already high expense of college even higher while reducing the value of a college degree.

The state shouldn't recognise the benefit to society as a whole of skilled, professional persons? And after recognising that externality, provide some funding to increase numbers over and above what a pure user pays system might deliver?

And the cost of tertiary education in the US is completely mad despite it being almost completely private. Over here, where around 2/3 of funding is direct Federal Government funding, and only a portion of the rest comes from the students themselves, we still have costs per student around half of yours, for the same standard of education.

Bear in mind, up until Christmas last year I was a management accountant for a university, and I've never seen a place more openly hostile to efficiency and cost saving. The idea that universities in the US cost twice as much per student blows my mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I figure when I went to school at least 50% of the students had no business being there. You don't need a college degree to design websites, program, or work in human resources. Yet college degrees are a prerequisite for these and many other occupations.

I agree with you here completely. This idea has crept in that more university educated people means a better economy, which is a worthwhile idea but only up to a point. Keep expanding and you quickly get people into university who have no place being there, and what's worse is that to get them there you have to offer courses that are much better off taught through vocational schools.

University should be for high end degrees. And then the focus should be on making sure that it is the very best who attend, and not the children of the sufficiently rich.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Colleges are expensive. Passing the bill to the taxpayer government doesn't mean they suddenly have fewer expenses.

Sure, but it changes who can attend. Instead of being the smartest among those with parents who are rich enough to help their kids attend, it becomes simply the absolute smartest kids who attend.

If you want a meritocratic society, that's nothing but a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:A very simple question: does something get cheaper when someone else pays for it?

The college has an operating expense. That expense will be met either by government money or by student tuition payments.

Obviously having government pay for it doesn't mean it becomes free, it just changes who pays for it.

The very simple and obvious point is that it is often better to change who pays for something. In this case it opens up education to talented people from all backgrounds. It means that the next generation of doctors, lawyers and engineers are chosen from among the brightest minds in society, not just the brightest minds who had parents who could afford college for their kid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I'll just leave it that, although I think ther'es waste and abuse in college on a level equivalent to military spending

Absolutely.

every American citizen should have the opportunity to go to university if they have the intellectual ability.

Absolutely.

In addition to agreeing with your post, I'd just like to point out how much the first point is tied to the second. A major part of making college accessible to everyone who is good enough is to bring the costs down. And the cost of college education in the US is completely out of whack with international standards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I generally agree. But given that college is a very valuable commodity people who get it should be asked to pay for it themselves. If the value of a college degree over an individuals working lifetime is $1 million and the true cost of the education is $100k, shouldn't the recipient be asked to pay for a substantial portion of that initial outlay?

Sure, the guy who completes his engineering degree can expect significant personal benefits. But then society also benefits from having a skilled and capable engineer. So it becomes a case of each party paying some portion of the cost.

But more importantly, outside of medicine and engineering doctorates, the average cost of a college degree should be nowhere near $100,000.

The "intellectual ability" argument is a tricky part. Obtaining a college degree in underwater basket weaving takes far less intellectual firepower than obtaining a degree in electrical engineering or physics. You might be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't have the intellectual ability to get some college degree.. Even assuming we subside college as a public good, I don't see why someone aspiring to get a degree in puppetry is as equally deserving as someone who wants a degree in organic chemistry.

Which is the other issue, stopping the expansion of college degrees for things that really don't need college facilities to teach. Basically, if the course doesn't rely on lecturers who are also active researchers in their field, then it almost certainly doesn't need to be taught at university.

So nursing, marketing, administration... all these things can really be taught as well, for less, at vocational schools.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges. It makes the already high expense of college even higher while reducing the value of a college degree.

And after recognising that externality, provide some funding to increase numbers over and above what a pure user pays system might deliver?

Nope.

Think that pretty much covers it.

To bring the issue back on to Santorum, is anyone else having fun watching the Dutch reaction to Santorum's completely stupid lies about euthenasia in the Netherlands? Faced with completely ridiculous claims from Santorum that euthanasia accounted for 5% of all deaths in the Netherlands (it's 2%), and that old old people wearing 'please don't euthanise me bracelets' (there are no provisions at all for forced euthanasia - that is as illegal in the Netherlands as it is in the US), the reactions have varied, from detailed rebuttal, to anger that someone is telling lies about their country to puzzlement that anyone would claim something so stupid.

Having not followed US politics, I can see the Dutch just don't get it. They don't understand this is what movement conservativism is, and that no matter how clear and how forceful they refute Santorum's claims, the lies won't die. People want to believe there is an evil, secular world out there that kills off the elderly, and so they will believe it, reality be damned.

biccat wrote:Nope.

Think that pretty much covers it.

So you just choose to ignore economics. Okay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Our poblem right now isn't that not enough people have access to higher education. It's that few students wisely choose their course of study, and too many simply drift through.

I think the default, of having kids go straight from secondary to tertiary education, with maybe a year off to feth around overseas, causes a lot of that. People have been getting told information for 12 years already, they're over it. Let people go out, work for a while, and come back to university when they're ready.

In some cases I think some work experience should be needed before taking on certain courses. You can spend three years learning to be a nurse, and after all that time you go out and find out that all the stuff about drug dosages and the like takes a second fiddle to cleaning bedpans. So you quit, and there's three years wasted.

Polonius wrote:

Not all people that are values voters are the raving bigots they are made out to be.

If you stand in a room and cheer for a guy and vote for a guy and give money to a guy that is an out and out hate mongering, lying, racist, homophobe, tinfoil hat wearing nutbag, then YES in effect you are , because you are helping to perpetuate his relevance and validating his disgusting behavior.


I question anybody who can ignore or give a pass to such qualities in any person, much less endorse them...

biccat wrote:
And of course you know that the "minimum" Federal loan payment is calculated on a 10 year basis.

Its variable. By default its calculated on a 10 year basis, but its fairly easy to modify your payment plan.

biccat wrote:
Lots of people get told that they should go to college, or non-college careers are disparaged, so people go to college, rack up lots of debt, and end up with nothing to show for it.

Additionally, many careers that don't necessarily require a college degree, often require a college degree.

And, ultimately, this goes beyond college and extends into higher education in general. Certifications are just as guilty.

We, as a society, love our rubber stamps.

Polonius wrote:
Our poblem right now isn't that not enough people have access to higher education. It's that few students wisely choose their course of study, and too many simply drift through.

And, further, that we place to great an emphasis on an education, and less of an emphasis on the abilities of an individual.

I've probably spent more time in the academy than most, and I'll be the first to say that whatever qualification you might hold has next to no bearing on your ability to do anything.

I'm actually a big fan of the idea of employers using some kind of competency test in the course of hiring, rather than looking at academic credentials; sort of like the ASVAB.

biccat wrote:Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges. It makes the already high expense of college even higher while reducing the value of a college degree.

I'm not sure I see how. Granting funds to any given institution doesn't necessarily impact the impetus for that institution to control costs or, as I assume you're primarily concerned with state funded scholarships and loans, change the nature of admissions process.

If a massive, private entity started giving out scholarships and loans in the manner of the state, would you claim it was increasing the cost of higher education.




Anyway, on to more Santorum:

While Santorum did say he’s not sure if his statistic about 62 percent of young people attending college still holds true, TPM notes that studies have consistently found his assertion to be incorrect:

A study published 2007 in the journal Social Forces — which PBS reports that Santorum’s claim is based on, although his spokesman didn’t respond to TPM’s request for confirmation — finds that Americans who don’t go to college experience a steeper decline in their religiosity than those who do.
“Contrary to our own and others’ expectations, however, young adults who never enrolled in college are presently the least religious young Americans,” the journal concluded, noting that “64 percent of those currently enrolled in a traditional four-year institution have curbed their attendance habits. Yet, 76 percent of those who never enrolled in college report a decline in religious service attendance.”

Of course, as the article points out, this isn't definitive evidence that Santorum is wrong to claim, broadly, that higher education reduces the tendency to believe in God. It does, however, demonstrate that to nail down a specific percentage of people that lose faith in the course of attending a university is very difficult, and that, perhaps, using statistics regarding church attendance is not the way to go.

That said, I suspect a survey of Christian students who believe in God prior to college would serve Rick's purposes. Time for me to go looking for one.

It's possible his claims and that survery are consistent, especially (if as I expect), there is data showing that those who never enroll in college have very low religious habits.

At this point, who isn't enrolling in college at all?

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Nope.

Think that pretty much covers it.

So you just choose to ignore economics. Okay.

Apparently you're using a different version of economics than I am.

I think that an oversupply is a problem. You, apparently, consider it a positive, so much so that the government should encourage an oversupply.

That's not economics.

Polonius wrote:It's possible his claims and that survery are consistent, especially (if as I expect), there is data showing that those who never enroll in college have very low religious habits.

At this point, who isn't enrolling in college at all?

Well, the essence of the point, as I understand it, is that enrolling in college causes a loss of faith; and that the loss of faith requires faith in order to be lost.

My point is twofold:

1) The distinction between those who have faith, and do not have faith is fairly difficult to determine. Its easy to say "Yeah, I believe in God." without committing to any explicit religion. Its also easy to say only people who do X believe in God.

2) If his point is that university attendance causes "crises of faith", then one would expect people who do not attend university to have fewer "crises of faith"; where "crises of faith" is related to service attendance (a terrible metric).

Given the available data, education does not seem to terribly influence the young, rather it seems that young people simply don't like going to church, and that education (past a BA/BS) tends to dissuade people from believing in God.

biccat wrote:
I think that an oversupply is a problem.

An oversupply would dictate a decrease in price.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:It's possible his claims and that survery are consistent, especially (if as I expect), there is data showing that those who never enroll in college have very low religious habits.

At this point, who isn't enrolling in college at all?

Well, the essence of the point, as I understand it, is that enrolling in college causes a loss of faith; and that the loss of faith requires faith in order to be lost.

My point is twofold:

1) The distinction between those who have faith, and do not have faith is fairly difficult to determine. Its easy to say "Yeah, I believe in God." without committing to any explicit religion. Its also easy to say only people who do X believe in God.

2) If his point is that university attendance causes "crises of faith", then one would expect people who do not attend university to have fewer "crises of faith"; where "crises of faith" is related to service attendance (a terrible metric).

Given the available data, education does not seem to terribly influence the young, rather it seems that young people simply don't like going to church, and that education (past a BA/BS) tends to dissuade people from believing in God.

I'd agree with those. I was trying to say that its likely that religiousity is correlated to socio economic status, with the very poor having surprisingly little faith. So, those that go to college start with more faith than those who don't. I don't know if college hurts faith. I'd doubt it's due to the horrible secular influence of professors, but I doubt that helps. I'm having a similar discussion on my facebook, and my current theory aligns with yours: young people don't like going to church, and like having casual sex. These two things make active faith tough.

I also wonder, with regards to ideology changing, if that's related to how concrete your values are? I mean, if you are raised with one, set, specific form of religion and values, nearly any different message challenges those. But if you have a more nuanced and ecumenical sense, it's easier to reject and work with new viewpoints.

And, as always, the more one believes the Bible to be literally true, the more conflict one will have with opposing views.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I think that an oversupply is a problem.

An oversupply would dictate a decrease in price.

If the oversupply is in educated people, I think we've seen that.

the earning power of a BA/BA is similar to a high school diploma from 50 years ago.

Polonius wrote:I'm having a similar discussion on my facebook, and my current theory aligns with yours: young people don't like going to church, and like having casual sex. These two things make active faith tough.

At least Christian faith. I know many people that enjoy the communal spirituality of religion, but don't want to be accosted for their bar hookups.

That's part of why some Protestant denominations (UCC, UCDC, etc.) have softened their stances on premarital sex.

Polonius wrote:
I also wonder, with regards to ideology changing, if that's related to how concrete your values are? I mean, if you are raised with one, set, specific form of religion and values, nearly any different message challenges those. But if you have a more nuanced and ecumenical sense, it's easier to reject and work with new viewpoints.

From personal experience, at least, that follows. My old man is UCC, and his education of me regarding religion included classics, Augustine, the Qur'an, etc.

It was always "Believe what you want." not "This is true."

Polonius wrote:
If the oversupply is in educated people, I think we've seen that.

the earning power of a BA/BA is similar to a high school diploma from 50 years ago.

True, I admittedly did not read biccat's post in that way.

But, then we're faced with two problems:

1) Deliberately leaving many people uneducated.

2) Simply having a BA/BS does not mean you have a relevant version of either.

Does the English BA pull down the earning potential of the CS BS?

sebster wrote:To bring the issue back on to Santorum, is anyone else having fun watching the Dutch reaction to Santorum's completely stupid lies about euthenasia in the Netherlands? Faced with completely ridiculous claims from Santorum that euthanasia accounted for 5% of all deaths in the Netherlands (it's 2%), and that old old people wearing 'please don't euthanise me bracelets' (there are no provisions at all for forced euthanasia - that is as illegal in the Netherlands as it is in the US), the reactions have varied, from detailed rebuttal, to anger that someone is telling lies about their country to puzzlement that anyone would claim something so stupid.

Having not followed US politics, I can see the Dutch just don't get it. They don't understand this is what movement conservativism is, and that no matter how clear and how forceful they refute Santorum's claims, the lies won't die. People want to believe there is an evil, secular world out there that kills off the elderly, and so they will believe it, reality be damned.

biccat wrote:Nope.

Think that pretty much covers it.

So you just choose to ignore economics. Okay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Our poblem right now isn't that not enough people have access to higher education. It's that few students wisely choose their course of study, and too many simply drift through.

I think the default, of having kids go straight from secondary to tertiary education, with maybe a year off to feth around overseas, causes a lot of that. People have been getting told information for 12 years already, they're over it. Let people go out, work for a while, and come back to university when they're ready.

In some cases I think some work experience should be needed before taking on certain courses. You can spend three years learning to be a nurse, and after all that time you go out and find out that all the stuff about drug dosages and the like takes a second fiddle to cleaning bedpans. So you quit, and there's three years wasted.

I am sure the Dutch give a gak about Santorum. Inversely I am sure Santorum gives a gak about the Dutch.

The two degrees have different value, to the student, the potential employee, potential employers, and the economy/nation as a whole. The only entity to whom it has the same value is the institution! (and sometimes parents)

Which is why I'd not oppose restricting government aid to those programs which include valuable skills. Or at least general aid.

Maybe offer "gifted" aid, where students that show aptitude in arts, literature, whatever can borrow to follow their dreams. Restrict general aid (available to all) to programs that offer at least some vocational value.

A classical education is great, and prepares a mind for many things. But not everybody needs that kind of preperation.

Polonius wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I think that an oversupply is a problem.

An oversupply would dictate a decrease in price.

If the oversupply is in educated people, I think we've seen that.

the earning power of a BA/BA is similar to a high school diploma from 50 years ago.

Yes, this.

It seemed pretty clear when I posted it, I suppose you could see it another way.

dogma wrote:But, then we're faced with two problems:

1) Deliberately leaving many people uneducated.

2) Simply having a BA/BS does not mean you have a relevant version of either.

Does the English BA pull down the earning potential of the CS BS?

1a) Isn't the purpose of primary education (K-12) supposed to satisfy the requirement of educating people?
1b) Is education for its own sake valuable?
1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?

2) I'm not sure how that follows, or what point you're trying to make. If you're suggesting that the increased prevalance of BA/BS degrees devalues an individual degree, then I agree.

biccat wrote:
1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?

In a complex society, there is a niche education need to teach others how to play an instrument, and hell, someone research to see if orchestras and bands require a person to have a college degree in some musical field before they are even allowed to apply for a job within said musical band.

WarOne wrote:

biccat wrote:
1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?

In a complex society, there is a niche education need to teach others how to play an instrument, and hell, someone research to see if orchestras and bands require a person to have a college degree in some musical field before they are even allowed to apply for a job within said musical band.

There's nothing wrong, IMO, with a person studying music, or even music theory.

The question is, should the government subsidize that education? And what is the effect on both students and colleges when money is freely available for students to engage in studies that they might have little chance of using professionally?

Reducing the barrier to education increases demand. Increased demand will result in increased supply, especially when it's relativley simple to expand/add institutions. The net result is increased supply of educated people.

However, the educations recieved respond, not always to market pressures of what's valuable, but irrational (in a technical sense) matters of taste.

Fundamentally, I think we can all agree that giving 18 year olds a blank check and telling them to study what they want might not be the wisest use of money.

50 years ago, schools had a stake in precluding students that could not succeed. Now, the job is to fill seats and cash government checks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe I'm hypocritical. While I went to undergrad on scholarship, I paid for law school on government loans, which I've since consolidated with the department of education.

Of course, I now work for the Federal Government, so hopefully my education is valuable to them...

Polonius wrote:There's nothing wrong, IMO, with a person studying music, or even music theory.

The question is, should the government subsidize that education?

Depends on how socialized the government is. If they feel there are need for jazz teachers and jazz musicians, they'll go out of their way to fund their education. Public opinion I guess will lean across political and cultural lines on that one.

Polonius wrote:And what is the effect on both students and colleges when money is freely available for students to engage in studies that they might have little chance of using professionally?

As we've see, increasing the amount of money is akin to the current crisis in overinflating the cost of healthcare- a government backed system has led to overcharging and created a system wherein the payer suffers while the organization that collects the money benefits. As for professional use of a diploma, it becomes necessary to assess the society and see where the strongest needs are and whether a college degree is needed. Fundamentally, we don't look at societal needs like that, and ergo many students are going to find themselves in a frustrating conundrum where they have a degree, but nowhere to go and a large debt they are forced to pay off because they cannot discharge that debt. It will lead to frustration and a realization that their dream job would never materialize. As for colleges, they get richer but become the focal point for anger at their increasing tuition costs.

Polonius wrote:Reducing the barrier to education increases demand. Increased demand will result in increased supply, especially when it's relativley simple to expand/add institutions. The net result is increased supply of educated people.

However, the educations received respond, not always to market pressures of what's valuable, but irrational (in a technical sense) matters of taste.

In our society, I completely agree. Of course, we're not a socialist communist society that tells an 18 year old commune worker to go to Moscow to get an electrical engineering degree because we told you to. And in our society (again using that term). we'll probably never realize that we need to funnel our citizens into productive fields of work that we need rather than what we want. Of course, we have most of our needs met anyway, and I think the incompatible educations for the modern world are only going to increase.

Polonius wrote:Fundamentally, I think we can all agree that giving 18 year olds a blank check and telling them to study what they want might not be the wisest use of money.

50 years ago, schools had a stake in precluding students that could not succeed. Now, the job is to fill seats and cash government checks.

50 years ago, we precluded students for other reasons as well.

But institutions have become a money making venture in the last several decades, so that is hardly a surprise either.