This is why I refuse to support college loan bailouts, despite generally supporting welfare. Instead let’s give a bunch of money to kids who forwent an expensive art or social sciences degree to get a solid, practical job.
I agree with you, though you should consider means-tested loan bailouts targeting working class people, victims of for-profit colleges, and particularly people with relatively low (compared to NYU grads) burdens that didn't graduate. The median college debt burden is surprisingly low; the problem is that the media is preoccupied by the plights of people like those who work in the media --- high-earning-potential vanity-university graduates.
Relief for NYU students though seems pretty far-fetched.
Fair point, particularly people who didn’t graduate. There’s a lot of people being pushed into college that aren’t ready for it and won’t really benefit.
Oh nice, looks like we finally figured out the meaning of life, the universe, why we’re here, etc:
> a solid, practical job.
ffs
Edit to be a bit less flippant: As a holder of a “solid, practical job” for over a decade I definitely feel there should be more to life and don’t fault those who aspired for more than just practicality at the age of 17/18.
There is more to life than a solid, practical job, but there isn't much more to what the government should subsidize, for the same reason the government shouldn't provide universal free yacht moorings ("don't you understand that the journey", proponents would argue, "is about so much more than the destination!").
> there isn't much more to what the government should subsidize, for the same reason the government shouldn't provide universal free yacht moorings
Let's be aware of our bias toward our own knowledge and work.
Knowledge of humanities and social sciences is not a luxury; it addresses almost all the critical issues in society - freedom, peace, war, prosperity, politics, economics, human nature through which it all happens, communication, conflict, power, democracy, capitalism, communism, etc. etc. All things more important than whatever most of us do.
A post-secondary 4-year education in the humanities is a luxury almost by definition, since it is not available to a substantial portion of the population (including many who attend 4-year college!), and wouldn't be even if tuition were free. The arts are important too, but owning a Renoir is still a luxury.
I reject the argument that taking 4 years of courses on "communication, conflict, power, democracy, capitalism, communism, etc" is "more important" than "whatever most of us do", and I reject it for a bunch of reasons, not just the obvious one that taking a class on power is not the same thing is engaging with power.
Which is why lawyers and media operators run the country. While you're rejecting the argument, they're using it against you.
And you're being persuaded by them. Successfully. While still being convinced that the status quo isn't just the best of all possible worlds, everything you believe about it is your own idea.
Perhaps cutting to the chase: I'm aware that it's popular to discount those issues and education in those areas, but I think that just a little critical thought shows that the situation is quite the opposite, and on a very serious, urgent level: The issues are tearing apart our society and world, and it doesn't hold any water to say that we do not need to study these very difficult issues (we can see how human society has performed through most of history) and that we won't benefit from all the prior and contemporary knowledge in humanity. Why wouldn't you study what the ancient Greeks, Enlightenment thinkers, etc. have to say about it, and study it now, urgently?
Addressing some details, in case the paragraph above misunderstands you, thought I think these are a bit too much in the weeds:
> A post-secondary 4-year education in the humanities is a luxury almost by definition, since it is not available to a substantial portion of the population (including many who attend 4-year college!)
Availability doesn't define luxury. When food is unavailable to most of the population, it still isn't a luxury. But we're not here to define words; I think the core issue is that, IMHO, such issues in the liberal arts are critical to the individuals and to our society.
> 4 years of courses on "communication, conflict, power, democracy, capitalism, communism, etc"
Reducing essential knowledge on these issues to just "courses" is like reducing knowledge about food supply to 'courses'. It's not 'courses', obviously, any more than nuclear weapons nonproliferation agreements are 'paper'. The idea that you know without studying is hard to fathom (beyond the popular trend) - how does the knowledge get into your head? Should we all rediscover through personal experience the most brilliant in human history have discoverd over billions of lifetimes? It seems a bit unlikley and inefficient.
The premise of your response is that these challenges we face in our culture and politics are best addressed by a 4-year liberal arts education. I reject this argument as well, and again for a multiplicity of reasons, not least that it implies that only a subset of people who hold degrees are qualified to engage with society.
I don't think you mean to belittle the skilled trades (which, ultimately, the industry most of us work in is destined to join) the way you're doing here. But it might be worth reflecting on how what you're saying might be coming across.
> I don't think you mean to belittle the skilled trades (which, ultimately, the industry most of us work in is destined to join) the way you're doing here. But it might be worth reflecting on how what you're saying might be coming across.
I'm in the same trade, if that helps. What I do isn't the most important thing in the world. It's fine. I do my best, which is what I can do; that is my standard and it makes me very satisfied and gives me joy.
(I once read someone call that point of view the core of the Enlightenment, the discovery by Copernicus that we are not the center of the universe, implying that 'I' am not the center either.)
> The premise of your response is that these challenges we face in our culture and politics are best addressed by a 4-year liberal arts education.
> it implies that only a subset of people who hold degrees are qualified to engage with society.
It can be matters of degree, not extreme claims. Liberal arts can be significant help for some things in life without being required. Analogously, certain IT education can be significant help, but not required. (Corporate HR being the exception, absurd enough to require them!) And yes, there are people who are judgmental and 'require' them to pass muster in their eyes; I completely reject their point of view; that's not what I'm advocating.
Maybe this is closer to your concern: Does it suck to be at a 'disadvantage' to someone who has studied those things for four years in college? I guess it could be seen that way, but it's not an insult (and it doesn't define an outcome, just an input - people learn the same things without the advantage of liberal arts educations, they are just at a disadvantage in time and resources). We all have advantages and disadvantages; we can't know even a fraction of everything; we all make choices and take forks in life. Some learn computer science, some history; if they are both serious and work at it for four years, they will of course each know much more about their chosen field of study than the other person does. How could they not? The same goes for going to college and doing something else; each has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages, better for some things (for that unique person in that unique situation), and yes, worse for others.
Let's not kid ourselves that people don't miss something by not studying liberal arts; let's not respond with sour grapes - it cuts us off from the everything outside our experience. It's life, we each do something else than X for almost all X, and we are each on different paths - must yours/mine be the best, most important X for the entire universe of life? For one thing, we can still learn and there are incredible things to learn. One upside to 'we can't know even a fraction of everything' - and forgoing sour grapes - is that we'll never run out of new, incredible learning when we want it. With online learning (thank you IT people), we could take a liberal arts class now.
It's not the idea that one might miss out on something important by not reading the great books or engaging with philosophy that I find off-putting, but rather the idea that not attending a 4-year liberal arts college deprives me of it. Nor is it sour grapes; I'm just repelled by the illogic of it.
At any rate: attendance at a 4-year university immediately after high school to pursue a liberal arts degree? A luxury, plain and simple.
This feely bullshit thinking is what got these dumb kids into the problem in the first place. There is more to life than a job? Sure maybe there is, maybe there isn't either. The point is that people that make dumb decisions cuz feels and passion don't get bailed out by people that make practical and rational decisions. Live with your feels in massive debt, not my problem.
Yea, let’s punish the 18 year olds who hoped they might be able to follow their passion instead of getting a business degree and sitting behind a desk for 40 years.
Are their decisions good ones? No, not really. But at 18 I can’t really fault someone for not understanding the decades long implications of interest payments and job market dynamics.
Should we bail out 18 year olds making other bad decisions. Let say entering some type of illegal business. Or maybe just maxing out credit-cards, payday loans and so on and gambling all that money?
It shouldn't be possible to take out so much debt on such bad terms that you fuck up your life. Bankruptcy should be available for these cases, and lenders should be responsible for checking that an applicant is capable of paying back a loan.
> Are their decisions good ones? No, not really. But at 18 I can’t really fault someone for not understanding the decades long implications of interest payments and job market dynamics.
Funny thing I’ve noticed. 18 year olds are either fully developed adults with full complete knowledge of their choices and the nuances around them, or complete idiots who wouldn’t be trusted to to make big decisions depending on what issues you’re discussing.
Entirely depends on who you ask and in what situation I'm sure. Most of my opinions are based on the world being too complicated for anyone to make optimal decisions regarding safety/finance/etc.
We should make the boomers who told kids to “follow their passion” co-liable on the debt. Barbara Walters have this speech about “follow your bliss” to my brother’s graduating class at Yale: https://speakola.com/grad/barbara-walters-bliss-yale-2012
Yalies know this is just something upper class people say but don’t mean. Half the kids in this audience are now in banking, tech, or management consulting. Because of course they are—doing that was in their 10 year plan that they sketched out at 15. It’s the proles that are duped by the message and get themselves into trouble.
Flagship state universities are an expensive luxury product. Means-tested relief is worth pursuing, but "state school graduates" writ large are not an especially sympathetic cohort.
