• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College

iliveonramen said:
People have ridiculous amounts of college debt that makes you shake your head...if you go to a school that costs a **** ton on loans then yeah..you're going to have a **** ton of college debt.

I'm more sympathetic with the folks that go through state colleges and try to do things right and still end up with 50k or so...which is not easy to pay off.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I'm not feeling bad for her cost of an ivy league education and after graduation she's still stupid. It use to be that getting into a college like that (ivy league - top notch) meant you HAD what it took and earned your way in . . . money was not everything. But lately it seems that money is the only thing and your brains doesn't matter. Did she have a plan for herself after graduation? did she have a goal - what was it? Business, a career path? Doesn't sound like she thought much of anything beyond school and I think that's also part of the problem.

if someone goes to an Ivy League school I expect them to be running the world soon - not being a waitress. So I think that has to do with their standards slipping to begin with.

I don't remotely feel sorry for her 120K there - it costs me about $3 - 4K per semester (full time - 15 - 18 credit hours) to attend and that includes books. And I'm still not going in for a loan after this semester - I'm just bowing out.

Apparently I'm going ot be better off than she is. And here I am thinking I've made the wrong decision - but other people and their debt issues have made me see otherwise.
 
Last edited:
cmakaioz said:
Clearly, for most people, studying what may get you a decent job is rarely the same thing as studying what you're interested in.

However, if students are to be expected to go to college primarily for the sake of their future employers, then employers should be paying the tuition, not the students, as the employer is the primary beneficiary of state-and-student-subsidized vocational training.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any other context in which the student is expected to train and study primarily for the benefit of others...and yet the student is required to pay most of the costs of such training and study. At least if you're a monk or other kind of ascetic, some larger institution or community provides resources for you. Students (and their families), however, pay through the nose...and then they're supposed to ignore their own interests and cater their studies to what employers want on top of all that?!?

This actually isn't so hard to track: simply tax the hell out of any business which requires its job applicants to have college degrees, and earmark those taxes for supporting public colleges and universities. If they don't want to get hit with that tax, then maybe they might consider no longer listing a completely irrelevant degree requirement for a god damn entry level office position (I was unemployed for about eight months recently, and I regularly encountered such postings).

This could go either way, depending on one's values: we can drop the pretense and let the current system -- which is already overwhelmingly geared in favor of the interests of employers -- be openly identified as job training (in which case employers should pick up the tab)... or we could renew the classical notions of higher education as a real and substantive venue for exploration of the arts and sciences, incorporating it into a larger human drive to expand our knowledge and capabilities.
Click to expand...
You're getting beyond the brainwashing about this indentured-servitude "opportunity," but its advocates still have you trapped. The key error in this system is that college is work without pay. "Slavery with compensation" is a self-destructive choice. Sacrificing one's youth living miserably on part-time jobs is not worth it. After they cripple you, they give you a Golden Wheelchair. Graduates are bitter and addicted to making up for lost time. The Grind creates Greedheads.
 
PrometheusBound said:
It's not true that learning on your own means sticking to one textbook. Learning in the classroom does mean sticking to one professor's prejudices. The 6th Grade grammar of most college graduates proves* that they didn't have the ability to truly learn even such a basic subject.

The Diploma Dumboes would say "prove," as Law School graduate Sen. Trent Lott said, "My choice of words were unfortunate."
Click to expand...

Just what careers are you thinking of here - what degrees?

I think some are complete and total crap; like a Liberal Arts degree. Yes: if someone's willing to go and get a LIberal Arts degree there probably isn't much they couldn't have just learned by living a life and having a job and watching documentary tv shows. But other things - I wouldn't go to an accountant who didn't have the proper certification (etc) - you know. It depends on what it is and what the person plans to do with it.

It seems lately that people plan on getting the degree under the old 80's belief that it didn't matter what degree it was - as long as you had it - you'd be paid more.

So - some degrees are necessary and beneficial.
Others - not so much.
 
Last edited:
Arbo said:
Not to pick nits, but if the information is not in a book, but comes from some secret stash of info the professor has, where did the professor get that knowledge? Most professors I have ever had went straight from student to teaching, not out in the world where they get practical experience.
Click to expand...

That's why, in paid professional training, a requirement on society rather than on the students it depends on, we could have retirees teach what only they know is needed on the job.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Wow - Anthropology is one of the most applicable degrees. The field-work approaches you learn in anthropology go FAR in business - people just need ot learn how to identify their strengths and knowledge and apply it towards business.

I'd definitely hire someone who had an Anthropology degree into my business if I was considering someone to manage or take over the business completely - or even just to fix department issues.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a job offer.
 
However, if students are to be expected to go to college primarily for the sake of their future employers, then employers should be paying the tuition, not the students, as the employer is the primary beneficiary of state-and-student-subsidized vocational training.
Click to expand...

Where do you think the student gets the money to pay the loan back genius?
 
Well - on that note a lot of businesses do help (partially at least) fund education in some fashion . . . like work study programs, etc - where employment can go toward graduation credits or what have you.

I think the biggest issue, though, is the lack of desire to train new-hires in a field. Degrees for being a mechanic? Come on - is that necessary? Can't they just learn on the job like an apprentice?

The military educates most of it's people for the job required - and I'm not referring to the weaponry usage - but just general education required to do a job.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Just what careers are you thinking of here - what degrees?

I think some are complete and total crap; like a Liberal Arts degree. Yes: if someone's willing to go and get a LIberal Arts degree there probably isn't much they couldn't have just learned by living a life and having a job and watching documentary tv shows. But other things - I wouldn't go to an accountant who didn't have the proper certification (etc) - you know. It depends on what it is and what the person plans to do with it.

It seems lately that people plan on getting the degree under the old 80's belief that it didn't matter what degree it was - as long as you had it - you'd be paid more.

So - some degrees are necessary and beneficial.
Others - not so much.
Click to expand...
We should be allowed to take the CPA exam and all other qualification tests without school education but with self-education. As for Liberal Arts, that's a Leisure Class imposition. It proves only that the spoiled can afford to waste their time and have the power to force others to do so also. College means trying to live like a rich kid without his money. Liberal Arts also provides escapism for possibly dangerous intellectuals.
 
Mach said:
Where do you think the student gets the money to pay the loan back genius?
Click to expand...
Which amounts to paying his employers for his ability to make them money. A Paradise for Parasites.
 
PrometheusBound said:
We should be allowed to take the CPA exam and all other qualification tests without school education but with self-education. As for Liberal Arts, that's a Leisure Class imposition. It proves only that the spoiled can afford to waste their time and have the power to force others to do so also. College means trying to live like a rich kid without his money. Liberal Arts also provides escapism for possibly dangerous intellectuals.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I agree here. For some certification testing I don't think that a degree shoudl necessarily be required.

But - just to clarify my issue with Liberal Arts nd other such 'light weight' degrees . . . the problem is that they're not focused. You'll learn a lot - and some of the knowledge can be very useful, sure. . . but it doesn't prepare you for anything except to be a jack of all trades. http://ualr.edu/ba/liba/index.php/home/degree-requirements/

Looking at that - the degree requirements to get the degree at my university: it's like the core-cirriculum extended out over 4 years. It's not a degree - it's just being a 4-year freshman. . . this was designed to satisfy the belief that 'any degree is better than nothing'
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
Where do you think the student gets the money to pay the loan back genius?
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't get the basic point of the argument at hand. If students are expected to cater their curriculum to benefit their future employers, then the students shouldn't have to pay most of the college costs to begin with...their future employers should be footing most of the bill.

See -- get this -- one's salary is supposed to be in exchange for the work you do in that job, not what you did before or might do after leaving that job. If you're suggesting that one's salary should remain the source of funds for repayment of student loans, then the student still ends up paying (and paying heavily) for what is effectively of primary benefit to the employer (state- and student- funded job training).

Do you find this more comprehensible if phrased differently?:

If employers set the educational agenda, then employers should pay for the education.

If students shoulder most of the financial burden (on top of the doing the academic work itself), then students should retain primary say in their choice of curriculum.



Also, once again: the recommendation that students tailor their degree curricula to maximize job marketability is untenable, as degrees take from 4-9 years to obtain, and job markets swing all over the place in a fraction of that time. A field might be the hot thing to get into when you're a freshman, but a wasteland of un- and underemployment by the time you graduate. Should students just keep going back to college getting more degrees until one of the ones they happen to have lines up with a decent job?!? That's absurd.
 
cmakaioz said:
You clearly didn't get the basic point of the argument at hand. If students are expected to cater their curriculum to benefit their future employers, then the students shouldn't have to pay most of the college costs to begin with...their future employers should be footing most of the bill.

See -- get this -- one's salary is supposed to be in exchange for the work you do in that job, not what you did before or might do after leaving that job. If you're suggesting that one's salary should remain the source of funds for repayment of student loans, then the student still ends up paying (and paying heavily) for what is effectively of primary benefit to the employer (state- and student- funded job training).

Do you find this more comprehensible if phrased differently?:

If employers set the educational agenda, then employers should pay for the education.

If students shoulder most of the financial burden (on top of the doing the academic work itself), then students should retain primary say in their choice of curriculum.



Also, once again: the recommendation that students tailor their degree curricula to maximize job marketability is untenable, as degrees take from 4-9 years to obtain, and job markets swing all over the place in a fraction of that time. A field might be the hot thing to get into when you're a freshman, but a wasteland of un- and underemployment by the time you graduate. Should students just keep going back to college getting more degrees until one of the ones they happen to have lines up with a decent job?!? That's absurd.
Click to expand...

The problem that people run into when their employer is involved in cover the cost of their education for an agreement to be employed (etc) - is that they aren't as free as they should be to seek employment anywhere they want.

Especially if that career is a coponent in the structure, design and organization of the business like an upper tier of function.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You have a point. But I think putting anything tax-wise on businesses would just encourage them to skirt the issue. Not decide it's not necessary; but put it 'under the table' for a requirement.

Higher-education in general: I think it goes beyond that (or should I say - goes *earlier* than that). I think the issue starts with public schooling which is no longer sufficient for a reasonable job/career beyond highschool. It's set up poorly - 12 years . . . for what? Only to *have* to go onto college? Why? Is 16 / 17 years of of full-time education really necessary just to find employment these days to pay the bills? 12 years in school should be plenty for a job that really requires little 'working-skills and knowledge'

It use to be that a high-school diploma was adequate for a semi-reasonable career or employment path in life. If you wanted to do better - you chose to go to college. The cost of college is a different issue altogether.

In this day and age we have numerous peopel working mundane crap jobs *with* college degrees because their degrees are really just meaningless in the job-market - unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Cars also used to run on mechanical devices called carburators, that most handy men knew how to fix/tune, etc...now they are fuel injected, and require RATHER technical, detailed expertise to work with, not to mention equipment beyond a flat head screw driver and a basic socket wrench set.

Times have changed. Things aren't as simple anymore. As technology increases, so too does the demand for what employees are expected to deliver. This all points to more precise skill sets, and more specific educations. We are leaving behind the age of generalists, in favor of specialists. Highschool level education is exactly general education.

As for people doing crap jobs, who have diplomas for specific jobs...that's a sign of a couple of things, foremost of them, technology reducing the need for as many workers. Fewer employees are doing more. Forcing others to take work where ever they can find it.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Just what careers are you thinking of here - what degrees?

I think some are complete and total crap; like a Liberal Arts degree. Yes: if someone's willing to go and get a LIberal Arts degree there probably isn't much they couldn't have just learned by living a life and having a job and watching documentary tv shows. But other things - I wouldn't go to an accountant who didn't have the proper certification (etc) - you know. It depends on what it is and what the person plans to do with it.

It seems lately that people plan on getting the degree under the old 80's belief that it didn't matter what degree it was - as long as you had it - you'd be paid more.

So - some degrees are necessary and beneficial.
Others - not so much.
Click to expand...

I am exactly a product of that old 80's belief, LOL. THANKS Mom, Dad, and guidance councelor!

I have a BFA in Photography and Digital Imaging. There was nothing I learned at school that I could not have learned on my own...HOWEVER, everything I learned, I did so in 4 years. Probably would have taken me at least 10, in the real world, to get the same level of experiences. Issue is, no one cares about the experiences and skills I developed in college, only my professional career portfolio. That's strictly from a standpoint of trying to be a staff photographer, mind you. Most shooters make their money by starting their own business, not by signing on with Time, or National Geographic.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The problem that people run into when their employer is involved in cover the cost of their education for an agreement to be employed (etc) - is that they aren't as free as they should be to seek employment anywhere they want.
Click to expand...

Of course, but I'm referring to the normal case. The vast majority of college students (here, at least) don't receive any kind of employer-based education aid at all. When I worked for Apple, for example, people in my position were paid for about 4 hours/month out of what was effectively a 20-30 hour study requirement. Anything over the 4 hours was "voluntary", but if you didn't put in that kind of time and energy, you could pretty much guarantee that you won't see a promotion in your natural lifetime, nor could you maintain the curricular standards (this was for the "Creative" position when Apple still had one).

Aunt Spiker said:
Especially if that career is a coponent in the structure, design and organization of the business like an upper tier of function.
Click to expand...

Anything so deeply integrated into a business should be compensated accordingly. If such a role is of deep importance to the business at hand, then this importance should be reflected in compensation and provision of the relevant resources. This would likely include, but not be limited to, substantial additional pay (to cover lost opportunity costs). Some companies actually do this for high-level employees, but it remains the norm that most employers successfully rely upon the pressure from surplus labor and job competition to force employees (and applicants) to shoulder most of the cost of their own job training for mid- and upper-level positions. (The low positions are largely treated as interchangeable and expendable cogs).

A less-insane approach to paying for higher education (as an interim measure within the larger challenge of dealing with the present madness) would be to set a kind of education tax on employers anchored to the formal educational requirements posted as prerequisites for the positions they seek to fill, with a scaled exemption offered for those employers who offer to pay for or otherwise alleviate student loans of employees.

If we REALLY wanted to make education relevant and accessible, however, it would be set up so that financial cost was no longer a barrier to entry into college. Make it rigorous, meritocratic, and *financially* free to the student, and we'd end up with people who study things they're genuinely interested in (leading to more retention). Incentives to enter high-demand fields could still be arranged on other terms.
 
cmakaioz said:
Of course, but I'm referring to the normal case. The vast majority of college students (here, at least) don't receive any kind of employer-based education aid at all. When I worked for Apple, for example, people in my position were paid for about 4 hours/month out of what was effectively a 20-30 hour study requirement. Anything over the 4 hours was "voluntary", but if you didn't put in that kind of time and energy, you could pretty much guarantee that you won't see a promotion in your natural lifetime, nor could you maintain the curricular standards (this was for the "Creative" position when Apple still had one).



Anything so deeply integrated into a business should be compensated accordingly. If such a role is of deep importance to the business at hand, then this importance should be reflected in compensation and provision of the relevant resources. This would likely include, but not be limited to, substantial additional pay (to cover lost opportunity costs). Some companies actually do this for high-level employees, but it remains the norm that most employers successfully rely upon the pressure from surplus labor and job competition to force employees (and applicants) to shoulder most of the cost of their own job training for mid- and upper-level positions. (The low positions are largely treated as interchangeable and expendable cogs).

A less-insane approach to paying for higher education (as an interim measure within the larger challenge of dealing with the present madness) would be to set a kind of education tax on employers anchored to the formal educational requirements posted as prerequisites for the positions they seek to fill, with a scaled exemption offered for those employers who offer to pay for or otherwise alleviate student loans of employees.

If we REALLY wanted to make education relevant and accessible, however, it would be set up so that financial cost was no longer a barrier to entry into college. Make it rigorous, meritocratic, and *financially* free to the student, and we'd end up with people who study things they're genuinely interested in (leading to more retention). Incentives to enter high-demand fields could still be arranged on other terms.
Click to expand...

Now I know why you hate employers so much, LOL. (Joking) You worked for apple. I used to be one of their "geniuses"...which was code for the poor bastard that had to answer any number of idiotic questions over the phone...and yes, Apple was a horrible employer, demanded a LOT of personal time be spent on work related crap, like constantly learning new OS's, and new programs (ESPECIALLY when they went pentium), etc...with absolutely NO compensation for doing so, beyond the "Well....you get to keep your job..."...to which I answered, fine, fire me.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The problem that people run into when their employer is involved in cover the cost of their education for an agreement to be employed (etc) - is that they aren't as free as they should be to seek employment anywhere they want.

Especially if that career is a coponent in the structure, design and organization of the business like an upper tier of function.
Click to expand...

I think agreeing to work a few years to repay the cost of the education is a reasonable agreement. For example, service academies require a 6 year commitment to repay a 4 year degree. Of course, during that 6 years, you are being paid, well, and have no student loans. At the end of it, you come out a 27 year old O3/4 with good experience, a BS, and a work ethic. Win-win for everyone.
 
mac said:
I think agreeing to work a few years to repay the cost of the education is a reasonable agreement. For example, service academies require a 6 year commitment to repay a 4 year degree. Of course, during that 6 years, you are being paid, well, and have no student loans. At the end of it, you come out a 27 year old O3/4 with good experience, a BS, and a work ethic. Win-win for everyone.
Click to expand...

But the question I think Cmakoize is posing is, should this be an OPTION for the industry, or should there be some form of REQUIREMENT of them to help fund college educations, in exchange for services?
 
KevinKohler said:
Now I know why you hate employers so much, LOL. (Joking) You worked for apple. I used to be one of their "geniuses"...which was code for the poor bastard that had to answer any number of idiotic questions over the phone...and yes, Apple was a horrible employer, demanded a LOT of personal time be spent on work related crap, like constantly learning new OS's, and new programs (ESPECIALLY when they went pentium), etc...with absolutely NO compensation for doing so, beyond the "Well....you get to keep your job..."...to which I answered, fine, fire me.
Click to expand...

They legally cannot do that, if they require additional training, they have to pay you to do it. I'd be saying "fine, fire me and I'll see you in court". Class action lawsuits are a wonderful thing.
 
Cephus said:
They legally cannot do that, if they require additional training, they have to pay you to do it. I'd be saying "fine, fire me and I'll see you in court". Class action lawsuits are a wonderful thing.
Click to expand...

Not if it's part of the job. For instance, if you work in IT, but refuse to devote any time into keeping up with the ever evolving technology in the field, you're not gonna be very useful for long. I use IT as my example, because these are the sorts of fields where this is prevalent. It's a constantly changing, highly dynamic job, and the information you are required to know to be the most effective is as dynamic, and constantly changing. At the end of the day, I doubt they can fire you for NOT studying at home what you need to know to do the job...but they most certainly CAN fire you for incompetence, which would be the result of failing to do the former. Apple chose not to fire me, I quit a couple weeks later, so it was a non issue. But I'm quite sure that had I refuse to learn, say, Aperture, their new (at the time) crappy photo editing software, or refused to learn snow leapord, on my own time at home, they could not fire me...but when customers started to complain that I was not giving them good advice, or sound trouble shooting...I'd get canned quick.
 
Cephus said:
They legally cannot do that, if they require additional training, they have to pay you to do it. I'd be saying "fine, fire me and I'll see you in court". Class action lawsuits are a wonderful thing.
Click to expand...

Of course it's illegal...but with more money in the bank than many small countries, a world-class legal team advising Apple on how to stay technically within the letter of the law, it's not like any exec's are worried.
 
cmakaioz said:
Of course it's illegal...but with more money in the bank than many small countries, a world-class legal team advising Apple on how to stay technically within the letter of the law, it's not like any exec's are worried.
Click to expand...

If it's within the letter of the law, then it isn't illegal. I suppose it depends on how they work the system, they can require you to keep up existing external certifications and the like on your own time, but any internal Apple training, they must, by law, pay you for.
 
Cephus said:
If it's within the letter of the law, then it isn't illegal. I suppose it depends on how they work the system, they can require you to keep up existing external certifications and the like on your own time, but any internal Apple training, they must, by law, pay you for.
Click to expand...
Many things are technically illegal yet still common practice. Proving the law was violated is sometimes hard to do.

In this case, they probably don't outright require it, and as such technically remain within the law, but it is still "required" if you want to keep up and keep your job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom