This is why millennials will never grow up

Cephus · Aug 2, 2016

Celebrity said:
I'm glad we had this little chat. Millenials aren't "bitching," they're just not taking on more debt than they can manage to pay back. Which is why the delinquency rate is 11% and not an entire spectrum of homeowners from around the country.

Oh and, I'm not saying we should let the government run real estate, but let's publicly fund education through college. Like we publicly funded high school decades ago. If you're not growing you're _________.

Yes they are! They are signing those loan documents of their own free will, then complaining that they actually have to honor their promises. That's called responsibility and it's something that a lot of millennials have no clue about because they were raised by idiot liberal parents who didn't bother to teach them how to be responsible.

blaxshep · Aug 2, 2016

Cephus said:
Yes they are! They are signing those loan documents of their own free will, then complaining that they actually have to honor their promises. That's called responsibility and it's something that a lot of millennials have no clue about because they were raised by idiot liberal parents who didn't bother to teach them how to be responsible.

I think there is a lot of predatory lending going on and far too many people making far too much profit off of them, but yes in the end they need to make better choices, both on which colleges they can realistically afford and what professions are likely to be lucrative for them when they graduate.

Cephus · Aug 2, 2016

blaxshep said:
I think there is a lot of predatory lending going on and far too many people making far too much profit off of them, but yes in the end they need to make better choices, both on which colleges they can realistically afford and what professions are likely to be lucrative for them when they graduate.

There's no such thing as too much profit. That's how the free market works. People are welcome to make as much profit as they can, so long as they don't operate in a monopolistic fashion or break the law. That there are a lot of gullible people who don't know to walk away from a bad deal isn't the fault of the businesses.

Fiddytree · Aug 2, 2016

blaxshep said:
I think there is a lot of predatory lending going on and far too many people making far too much profit off of them, but yes in the end they need to make better choices, both on which colleges they can realistically afford and what professions are likely to be lucrative for them when they graduate.

Oh Please. Even if you live in the same town as your local community college, your tuition prices can skyrocket in less than a decade. Further, the older generation has understandably held on to their jobs for dear life instead of retiring.

Before I went into school, the job prospects were great and we're looking even better with a generation of workers retiring over "the next several years." I get out of school and guess what happened. The economy tanked, No jobs, few jobs trickling in because those same folks weren't retiring.

Visbek · Aug 2, 2016

Cephus said:
But that is exactly what a lot of them want to do. That's a large part of what the occupy movement was, wanting to default completely on their loans.

I haven't seen too many people advocate for that, it seems like bigger subsidies are more common.

That said, we should note that student loans are just about the only debt that cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy -- and declaring bankruptcy is hardly the same thing as "defaulting on a whim."

Nobody makes these students go there. Nobody holds a gun to their heads. If they don't do any kind of research, if they just mindlessly fall for scams, whose fault is that? Hint: not the school.

So students are to blame for... wanting an education? Who knew?

No one is literally forcing anyone to attend college, but there's little use denying that many employers prefer to hire college grads. Without that credential, your job prospects are curtailed, and your lifetime earnings will be much lower.

Plus, if the school is falsely representing itself, and exploiting loopholes, and lobbying to avoid regulations, that's the school's fault.

You're just trying to blame everyone except for the person responsible for making the choice, aren't you?

I'm not breaking out the pitchforks and demanding we round up the deans. I'm trying to locate and correct the primary sources of the problem.

And a lot of that is not about blaming. It's about recognizing that the more serious issue around student loans are older students who are already under financial strain, and often get saddled with debts for an education that didn't provide a tangible career benefit.

Rates are based on risk and clearly, there's a lot of risk involved. If these students had any kind of decent credit scores, they could go get a regular loan. Whose fault is that?

The risks are actually exceptionally low, because students can only discharge their debts by paying them off. Those debts cannot be wiped away in a bankruptcy; they must be paid. Other than buying T-bills, it is as close as a lender can get to a risk-free loan.

They are the ones screwing themselves. This is an adult decision, made by adults who ought to be able to weigh the risks and rewards and decide what to do rationally. That's what's expected of adults. These are not children. Stop treating them like it.

I think you coming into the middle of the discussion is distorting your understanding of my position.

I'm reacting to Howler63 making a categorical claim that "anyone who borrows for secondary education is financially irresponsible."

There is no doubt that some students are causing their own problems. For many, shorter vocation problems may be a better option. Some aren't good candidates for secondary education. At the same time, they're basically getting into trouble because they are trying to improve their career prospects.

Some of them attend decent for-profit schools that are worth the investment. However, some are dealing with a largely unregulated industry that has a pattern of deceiving students. Fraud does not stop being fraud because it's perpetrated on adults.

And they should have known better too. It's not that hard to see a scam if you actually try.

Oh, really? Why, what measures do you have available to rate the value of the for-profit colleges in your area?

How would someone in, say, Green Bay WI know which local for-profit schools offer a decent education? How should that prospective student know, years in advance, whether they can afford to complete a 2-year degree?

You do know that schools generally do not provide hard figures on graduate placement and employment, yes? It's not like there are a lot of objective measures for the quality of those schools.

It isn't my job to protect people from their own stupidity. It isn't yours either....

Your concern for your fellow American citizens is touching.

People need to know that if they fail, they are going to be held accountable for their failures. That's the only way people learn.

There are PLENTY of ways to learn without getting saddled with thousands of dollars in debts, that can never be discharged in a bankruptcy, for half an education that doesn't provide the skills you need to be gainfully employed.

Lots of people DON'T have the requisite skills to judge whether a school whose motivation is to get bodies into classes purely for profit, is worth the cost. In part because the schools aren't held accountable for the quality of the education they provide.

Ultimately, this isn't about individual responsibility. It's about producing better outcomes, for students and the society as a whole. Punishing people because they are trying to improve their education and job prospects does not achieve that goal.

Cephus · Aug 2, 2016

Visbek said:
I haven't seen too many people advocate for that, it seems like bigger subsidies are more common.

That's exactly what a lot were demanding. Go back and watch some of the videos from back then, people were demanding that their student debt be forgiven.

That said, we should note that student loans are just about the only debt that cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy -- and declaring bankruptcy is hardly the same thing as "defaulting on a whim."

It's the same thing as tax debt, which can't be discharged in bankruptcy. And unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who think they can just declare bankruptcy every seven years to get a new start.

So students are to blame for... wanting an education? Who knew?

Nothing wrong with wanting. Thinking the world owes you one though, that's a different thing. College is not the same as high school. College is for adults. High school is for children.

No one is literally forcing anyone to attend college, but there's little use denying that many employers prefer to hire college grads. Without that credential, your job prospects are curtailed, and your lifetime earnings will be much lower.

Do you want to know why they do? Because everyone is going to college. And because college is the new norm, it become part of the base expectations. That's another thing that government paying for college has screwed up for everyone.

Plus, if the school is falsely representing itself, and exploiting loopholes, and lobbying to avoid regulations, that's the school's fault.

Then they are held legally accountable and shut down.

I'm not breaking out the pitchforks and demanding we round up the deans. I'm trying to locate and correct the primary sources of the problem.

No, that's the regressive morons on college who want everything for free and safe spaces to boot. These aren't people acting like adults, these are idiots wanting an extended childhood.

continued...

Cephus · Aug 2, 2016

And a lot of that is not about blaming. It's about recognizing that the more serious issue around student loans are older students who are already under financial strain, and often get saddled with debts for an education that didn't provide a tangible career benefit.

It would have if they had finished their degree, but they didn't, for whatever reason. Whose fault is that?

The risks are actually exceptionally low, because students can only discharge their debts by paying them off. Those debts cannot be wiped away in a bankruptcy; they must be paid. Other than buying T-bills, it is as close as a lender can get to a risk-free loan.

Risk is based on the ability to repay and the value of the collateral. If you buy a house and stop paying for it, they can take it back. If you stop paying your student loans, what can they repossess? Your brain?

I'm reacting to Howler63 making a categorical claim that "anyone who borrows for secondary education is financially irresponsible."

That's only the case if they try to get out of repaying their debt, and that goes for any debt regardless of what it is.

There is no doubt that some students are causing their own problems. For many, shorter vocation problems may be a better option. Some aren't good candidates for secondary education. At the same time, they're basically getting into trouble because they are trying to improve their career prospects.

But they are still responsible, even if they completely fail. Again, this isn't high school where mommy and daddy are there to rescue you if you screw up. These people are adults that are still acting like children and demanding that someone come along and save their bacon, from situations they knowingly put themselves into in the first place. I don't care what they're trying to do. I care what they are actually accomplishing. When they sign those loan documents, they are guaranteeing they will pay back the money. Nowhere in the documents does it say "if I happen to feel like it".

continued...

Cephus · Aug 2, 2016

Visbek said:
Some of them attend decent for-profit schools that are worth the investment. However, some are dealing with a largely unregulated industry that has a pattern of deceiving students. Fraud does not stop being fraud because it's perpetrated on adults.

And who didn't do their research? Anyone can perform a simple Google search and find out what people are saying about any school. But like I said, if it is actual fraud, that's a different matter, that's a crime and is handled by the courts. But when all of someone's wishes and dreams didn't come true because they wished really hard and fell for a "scam", that's still their fault.

Oh, really? Why, what measures do you have available to rate the value of the for-profit colleges in your area?

I just did a simple Google search for "evaluating for-profit colleges" and came up with tons of guides and advice.

How would someone in, say, Green Bay WI know which local for-profit schools offer a decent education? How should that prospective student know, years in advance, whether they can afford to complete a 2-year degree?

Research is your friend. Google "for-profit college rankings". Or ask your high school counselor, I'm sure they have data too.

Visbek said:
You do know that schools generally do not provide hard figures on graduate placement and employment, yes? It's not like there are a lot of objective measures for the quality of those schools.

There's no guarantee on employment, you know. You can certainly look at the rankings, look at the reviews, but what you need to be paying attention to more than the school is the outlook for your career field, which a lot of people just pay no attention to.

Your concern for your fellow American citizens is touching.

This is about reality and people's responsibilities. These people are no longer children, stop coddling them like children.

There are PLENTY of ways to learn without getting saddled with thousands of dollars in debts, that can never be discharged in a bankruptcy, for half an education that doesn't provide the skills you need to be gainfully employed.

That's fine. Use one of those. Who is stopping you?

Lots of people DON'T have the requisite skills to judge whether a school whose motivation is to get bodies into classes purely for profit, is worth the cost. In part because the schools aren't held accountable for the quality of the education they provide.

That's their problem. Who failed them? Parents? Teachers? Ultimately none of that matters because once they turn 18, it's all on them.

Ultimately, this isn't about individual responsibility. It's about producing better outcomes, for students and the society as a whole. Punishing people because they are trying to improve their education and job prospects does not achieve that goal.

No, it is about individual responsibility. If you make bad life choices and do stupid things, the one who is going to suffer for it is you. That's how reality works. The more that we remove consequences from stupidity, the less stupidity hurts and the less people learn from their mistakes. That just makes more stupid people. Apparently, you want a society of irresponsible idiots. I don't.

Visbek · Aug 3, 2016

Cephus said:
That's exactly what a lot were demanding. Go back and watch some of the videos from back then, people were demanding that their student debt be forgiven.

What which videos, and from back when?

It's the same thing as tax debt, which can't be discharged in bankruptcy. And unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who think they can just declare bankruptcy every seven years to get a new start.

...yes, the point is that there are very few debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

And no, there aren't a lot of people who constantly declare bankruptcy, nor is it a trivial measure.

Nothing wrong with wanting. Thinking the world owes you one though, that's a different thing.

I see no problem whatsoever with offering more financial assistance to people who want secondary educations (college or vocational) -- as long as the schools are reasonably well regulated. Many societies do very well, and have high incomes, when they offer universal secondary education.

Do you want to know why they do? Because everyone is going to college. And because college is the new norm, it become part of the base expectations. That's another thing that government paying for college has screwed up for everyone.

You've got it completely backwards.

Government funding for secondary education has gone DOWN per student, even as the number and percentage of people attending college has gone UP. That is why the cost of college has outpaced inflation, and students are leaving school with more loans than ever.

Further, college is not an empty credential. We are in transition from a manufacturing to a service economy, and most of those service jobs -- and today, many of those highly automated manufacturing jobs -- require more education than a high school degree can provide.

Or is a college degree like a Swatch, where its value declines because everyone has one. Secondary and vocational educations have intrinsic merits based on what you learn.

Then they are held legally accountable and shut down.

Sometimes that happens, but not that often. In many cases, the damage is already done, and students stuck with tremendous debts, before the school is held accountable.

Visbek · Aug 3, 2016

Cephus said:
It would have if they had finished their degree, but they didn't, for whatever reason. Whose fault is that?

There is no one single villain here. Sometimes it's because the student isn't responsible enough to finish. Sometimes, the student will have family responsibilities or a lack of funds to finish. Sometimes, the school isn't doing its job.

Like I said: This is not about blame. It's about solving problems.

Risk is based on the ability to repay and the value of the collateral. If you buy a house and stop paying for it, they can take it back. If you stop paying your student loans, what can they repossess? Your brain?

Risk is based on how likely the lender is to receive the funds. If the student loan borrower can only discharge the loan by paying it off, it should be screamingly obvious that the level of risk is very low.

But they are still responsible, even if they completely fail. Again, this isn't high school where mommy and daddy are there to rescue you if you screw up. These people are adults that are still acting like children and demanding that someone come along and save their bacon....

You do realize that you're basically writing off millions of Americans, right?

If they can't get better educations, they can't get better jobs, and will be mired in low-paying jobs perhaps for the rest of their careers. And then you get to blame them for the rest of their lives for being poor. :roll:

Yes, sometimes people are causing their own issues. But in the same way that it doesn't make sense to completely ignore individual responsibility, it is equally unjustified to ignore any and all structural issues -- including schools that are acting in bad faith, or how a for-profit motive may not always be the best fit for an educational institution.

And no, I don't see secondary education as being all that much different than high school anymore. It is no longer 1955, when a high school graduate can get a job at the nearby factory, and earn a good middle-class wage and a pension for the next 50 years of work. We live in a service economy now, and ultimately everyone benefits from having a better educated populace.

blaxshep · Aug 3, 2016

Cephus said:
There's no such thing as too much profit. That's how the free market works. People are welcome to make as much profit as they can, so long as they don't operate in a monopolistic fashion or break the law. That there are a lot of gullible people who don't know to walk away from a bad deal isn't the fault of the businesses.

There is a **** load of profit being made that could be eliminated. Just text books alone. Eliminate Books, have them download the PDF version and eliminate the profit overhead of the book store, the delivery people, the paper manufactures, the procurement process the list goes on and on. The only one that needs to be paid is the owners of the intellectual property itself. Stop forcing student to take classes that don't pertain to their degree. I couldn't care less if my accountant never took Eastern Humanities or a second language that no one in the office speaks. The college is not a country club, there is no need for huge landscaped campuses, in fact there is almost no need for a campus at all with the internet today.

Visbek · Aug 3, 2016

Cephus said:
And who didn't do their research? Anyone can perform a simple Google search and find out what people are saying about any school.

lol

"State Polytechnic got 4 stars on Yelp, so I guess it's OK"

You do realize that people are using those resources already, and it doesn't guarantee positive outcomes?

If you make bad life choices and do stupid things, the one who is going to suffer for it is you. That's how reality works.

Yeah, not so much.

Let's say Joe grows up in Michigan, a state that has gotten devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Like most people, Joe's parents cannot pick up and move without serious negative consequences, such as the significant resource expenditure in moving, losing significant equity in their home, not finding work in the place they want to move, or facing higher costs of living in areas that might have work, or losing social networks (very important for job hunting btw). And of course, Joe is going to have a very tough time getting a decent job -- no matter how hard he works.

Joe decides to go to college, and borrows to do it. 3/4 of the way through his Freshman year, his father gets seriously ill, and has to quit his job. (If this was before the ACA kicked in, Joe's father would also likely lose his health insurance quickly, depending on how long he could pay for COBRA, thus compounding the crisis.) Joe is back to working low-paying jobs, while his family's bills pile up. And now, things are worse because he's got a bunch of loans for a partial education that does not improve his prospects.

Or: Jane was a mediocre student, at a school in a lower-income area. Since most school funding is local, the school lacks a lot of resources, and doesn't have a good reputation. Jane realizes that without a college degree, her options are very limited. She gets to a halfway decent school, but is unprepared for the workload, and drops out after 3 semesters.

It's rather difficult to see how these outcomes are exclusively Joe's or Jane's or Josephine's fault, primarily because they are over 18.

And yes, these are fairly common scenarios. Students often have to quit because of family responsibilities, financial pressures, poor primary educations, and because they are pushed into colleges rather than vocational schools.

Other nations, which fully subsidize colleges and offer better vocational options, don't have these kinds of issues and produce better outcomes. People in France or Denmark don't go to college "just because" -- instead, they are likely to get the education they need to be productive members of society. College degrees are not worthless in Finland or Germany just because they are subsidized.

The more that we remove consequences from stupidity, the less stupidity hurts and the less people learn from their mistakes. That just makes more stupid people. Apparently, you want a society of irresponsible idiots. I don't.

I don't even know where to begin with such a ludicrous claim.

Again, the goal here is not to coddle anyone. It's to produce better outcomes. This can mean options as varied as:

• Offering programs better tailored to fill the skill gaps
• Modifying expectations, so that students don't feel compelled to get more education than they need to enhance their skills and prospects
• Providing non-traditional students with better support when at the school
• Subsidizing secondary education in a more efficient manner
• Make loan terms and responsibilities more clear to prospective borrowers
• Recognize that for-profit schools do not necessarily have the proper incentives or oversight to improve outcomes for students

Note that "wipe out debts at the drop of a hat and with no consequences whatsoever" is not on that list.

And again: Punishing people with $15,000 in debts because they took out a loan, and for various reasons were unable to complete their education, doesn't make sense.

It doesn't teach anyone anything -- it certainly doesn't teach them a lesson worth $15,000. What it does is make an already bad situation even worse, not just for the borrower but for the entire society. We have fewer people who can do higher-paying work. We have more debt, held by the lowest earners in society, which prevents them from ever getting ahead.

The viciousness of your comments make it obvious that you're not interested in finding solutions and improving outcomes. Kinda sad, really.

Cephus · Aug 3, 2016

Visbek said:
What which videos, and from back when?

I'm not going to go digging through old YouTube videos, but it was a common demand.

...yes, the point is that there are very few debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

All of the ones you get from the government are non-dischargeable so far as I know. The government has just extended that protection to private companies offering student loans, which frankly I don't agree with.

And no, there aren't a lot of people who constantly declare bankruptcy, nor is it a trivial measure.

You haven't dealt with people who try to do that constantly. I have. In fact, I've been involved in a considerable number of bankruptcy court cases as a creditor where the person goes bankrupt every 7-10 years.

I see no problem whatsoever with offering more financial assistance to people who want secondary educations (college or vocational) -- as long as the schools are reasonably well regulated. Many societies do very well, and have high incomes, when they offer universal secondary education.

Sure, but those are largely socialist societies that tax the crap out of their citizens. If you want to live in one of those societies, move. This isn't one.

Government funding for secondary education has gone DOWN per student, even as the number and percentage of people attending college has gone UP. That is why the cost of college has outpaced inflation, and students are leaving school with more loans than ever.

That's only true of state funding, federal funding has skyrocketed and is estimated to be more than $170 billion over the next 10 years.

Further, college is not an empty credential. We are in transition from a manufacturing to a service economy, and most of those service jobs -- and today, many of those highly automated manufacturing jobs -- require more education than a high school degree can provide.

And I'm not arguing that. Of course, we've sent all of our lower educational jobs overseas, which is another problem.

Or is a college degree like a Swatch, where its value declines because everyone has one. Secondary and vocational educations have intrinsic merits based on what you learn.

The problem is, people think that having a degree somehow makes them magically employable, but that's only part of the solution. The other part is actual work experience, which a lot of these people are coming out of college without.

Sometimes that happens, but not that often. In many cases, the damage is already done, and students stuck with tremendous debts, before the school is held accountable.

But you're making it sound like the whole problem are shifty for-profit colleges, when the vast majority of students with loans are going to either government or private non-profit universities.

Cephus · Aug 3, 2016

Visbek said:
There is no one single villain here. Sometimes it's because the student isn't responsible enough to finish. Sometimes, the student will have family responsibilities or a lack of funds to finish. Sometimes, the school isn't doing its job.

Like I said: This is not about blame. It's about solving problems.

And I'm good with solving problems, so long as we don't ignore the student's responsibility in the solution. Ultimately, the student is the one making a legal agreement to repay a loan. It isn't contingent on them finishing a degree, they are given money, they have to give it back. These people need to read their loan documents and understand what they are agreeing to. You can no more say "I don't want to pay" than you can buy a car, refuse to pay off the loan and think you get to keep the car.

Risk is based on how likely the lender is to receive the funds. If the student loan borrower can only discharge the loan by paying it off, it should be screamingly obvious that the level of risk is very low.

Or they can simply refuse to pay., which a lot of people are doing. The only real recourse is to wait until they die and take it out of their property.

You do realize that you're basically writing off millions of Americans, right?

I'm not writing off anyone, I'm insisting that all Americans be responsible and follow the agreements that they have willingly made.

If they can't get better educations, they can't get better jobs, and will be mired in low-paying jobs perhaps for the rest of their careers. And then you get to blame them for the rest of their lives for being poor. :roll:

The money is only to get them into a classroom. What they do with that opportunity is their own problem. And even if they get the education, there's no guarantee that a job will be waiting for them. That's why they have to weight the risk vs. possible reward carefully. It's a basic part of being an adult.

Yes, sometimes people are causing their own issues. But in the same way that it doesn't make sense to completely ignore individual responsibility, it is equally unjustified to ignore any and all structural issues -- including schools that are acting in bad faith, or how a for-profit motive may not always be the best fit for an educational institution.

I've never said we should do that. Fix all of the structural issues you can fix. But it seems like you're just looking for things to point at and never at the students themselves. We need to stop treating these people like they're children.

And no, I don't see secondary education as being all that much different than high school anymore. It is no longer 1955, when a high school graduate can get a job at the nearby factory, and earn a good middle-class wage and a pension for the next 50 years of work. We live in a service economy now, and ultimately everyone benefits from having a better educated populace.

But you have to. Children go to high school. They have no choice. It's all paid for them by the state, at least for public schools. Adults make a choice to go to college. Adults have to find a way to pay for college, it is not free. Adults are personally responsible for their decisions, children, for the most part, are not. These are not equivalent situations and you need to stop treating them like they are.

Cephus · Aug 3, 2016

blaxshep said:
There is a **** load of profit being made that could be eliminated. Just text books alone. Eliminate Books, have them download the PDF version and eliminate the profit overhead of the book store, the delivery people, the paper manufactures, the procurement process the list goes on and on. The only one that needs to be paid is the owners of the intellectual property itself. Stop forcing student to take classes that don't pertain to their degree. I couldn't care less if my accountant never took Eastern Humanities or a second language that no one in the office speaks. The college is not a country club, there is no need for huge landscaped campuses, in fact there is almost no need for a campus at all with the internet today.

A lot of that goes into copyright though, textbook manufacturers don't want to go ebook because ebooks are easily pirated. As it is right now, students can order their books from anywhere they want, at the best prices they can get. My daughter orders books used off Amazon. And while I agree that the school shouldn't be a country club, they absolutely are because they're courting all of that sweet, sweet government money, trying to attract students for the perks, not the education.

Cephus · Aug 3, 2016

Visbek said:
lol

"State Polytechnic got 4 stars on Yelp, so I guess it's OK"

You do realize that people are using those resources already, and it doesn't guarantee positive outcomes?

There are no guarantees in life. Welcome to reality. The sooner some people learn that lesson, the better.

And you're specifically picking sob stories when most people who drop out of college do so because they simply don't perform well or simply decide not to go. Studies have been done on this and your sob story example doesn't even rank as a likely cause. So color me not impressed.

Celebrity · Aug 3, 2016

Visbek said:
Again, the goal here is not to coddle anyone. It's to produce better outcomes. This can mean options as varied as:

• Offering programs better tailored to fill the skill gaps
• Modifying expectations, so that students don't feel compelled to get more education than they need to enhance their skills and prospects
• Providing non-traditional students with better support when at the school
• Subsidizing secondary education in a more efficient manner
• Make loan terms and responsibilities more clear to prospective borrowers
• Recognize that for-profit schools do not necessarily have the proper incentives or oversight to improve outcomes for students.

Why is it that the free market hasn't done this on a larger scale? Because increasing one's customer base is more profitable in the short term, I think. Private universities are businesses, plain and simple.

I was educated in public schools from grade school through high school. From what I understand about the education system based on my own experience, yes, there is room for improvement. However, not everyone who graduates is illiterate. I can think of several people in my class who were not as well educated as I was, part of that comes from what they put into their education. Some of my peers went to tech school and didn't take advanced English classes. But none of us had to take out a loan to go to public school.

Were there times when resources were scarce? Yes, there were times when the budget was tight, but we managed to get by. I'm proud of my high school classmates, and it's not because there was an economic incentive for success. Some of the successful students came from affluent families and some came from families who had to struggle to put their family members through college. The reason why they succeeded in high school was because they had ambition, and that is also the reason why they succeeded in college. One was publicly funded, while the other was not.

HK.227 · Aug 4, 2016

Visbek said:
Other nations, which fully subsidize colleges and offer better vocational options, don't have these kinds of issues and produce better outcomes. People in France or Denmark don't go to college "just because" -- instead, they are likely to get the education they need to be productive members of society. College degrees are not worthless in Finland or Germany just because they are subsidized.

Just gonna butt in here for a second.

Unfortunately, you are not quite right. European countries have their own problems. Education is usually subsidized based on some sort of metering system. That means that universities (and other institutions) don't get paid according to the number of useful graduates they producee, but simply the number of graduates. Therefore the European educational systems tend to create just as many worthless degrees as the American one does, if not more. Furthermore, the students don't have the risk of not being able to pay back their student oans (Kinda. It's a bit more complicated than that.) so they have less incentive to choose a path that guarantees gainful employment.

This is very evident on a number of University campuses. When you compare "hard" vs "soft" academia (I dislike the term, but it is useful. For instance electro-engineering vs social studies), you will often find that the majority of both students and teachers are Eastern European or Asian in hard academia, whereas soft academia tends to be dominated by natives who are more concerned about being comfortable than gainful employment. Even those concerned with money and power will usually choose some degree that will land them a cushy job in government rather than something that creates value for society. And that is understandable enough. It is much easier to work in a bureaucracy than with particle physics, and in Europe the bureaucrat will likely make more money anyway. It is simple enough to see that this is caused by a pronounced difference in motivation, but unfortunately determining the cause and how to fix it are two very different things.

From what I can see, America and Europe are opposite sides of the same coin, when it comes to problems in our educational outcomes.
It is difficult to see a solution, but I have noticed Europeans tend to want to make our systems more like the American one, and you guys want to make your system more European. Just giving my 0.02€ input on the grass not always being greener.

This is why millennials will never grow up

Cephus

blaxshep

Cephus

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Cephus

Cephus

Cephus

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

blaxshep

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Cephus

Cephus

Cephus

Cephus

Celebrity

HK.227