• 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

The more of that work that is done by Americans, the better off America will be.

No, that is absolutely false. The more high end jobs Americans have, the better off we are. The more of us that are stuck in low end jobs, the worse off we are.
 
This is illiterate bull****. Arguing in favor of spreading the cost of a general social benefit over a larger portion of the population does absolutely nothing to remove personal responsibility. If anything, making college education free or near-free to the student would pave the way towards much stronger meritocratic academic standards. When students are allowed to focus on studying instead of constantly running a week or a month ahead of bills working low-wage jobs, colleges would be freed up to base admission and advancement restrictions upon performance. As things stand now, it's rarely clear if a student's grades, attendance, and general engagement with subjects is reflective of their true potential, or is more an artifact of the artificially difficult demands upon their time and energy outside of class.

What a mangled up web you have woven. First, you are running with the idea that the public paying for everyone to get a degree is a benefit to society. It has been shown again and again, society does not support a 'higher paying job' for every single person if they had a degree. So the cost to value does not work out as a positive, to those people or society.

Then you throw in that this would somehow change admission standards.... um, what does who is paying have to do with that? Shouldn't they have performance based standards for admission anyway? And don't most, in fact, already have such things?

Some people have to work while going to college? Oh my, somebody call the whhaaaambulance. Live is tough, you rarely get to concentrate on one thing at a time, deal with it.
 
You can move the goal posts to wherever you want, it doesn't change the fact that you said it is absurd to charge people for education. Meaning you obviously support free education. Meaning you want others to take care of the 'needs' of others (when in reality a college education is not a 'need'). Once again removing personal responsibility and the drive to 'work for what you want in life' from the equation. Like I said, a socialist fantasy world.

Nothing is free.
Things that benefit us all need to be paid for by us all. Such things as parks, schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and street lights are a benefit to us all, and so should be paid for collectively.

Clothes, cars, TVs, computers are a benefit to the purchaser, and so need to be paid for by the user.

We all benefit from having an educated populace.
 
If say 30% of workers have a degree, and you give the other 70% a degree, how does that change the need of employers? It doesn't. The composition of what is needed in the workforce doesn't change.

No, that's not true at all. For two main reasons. First, the US isn't the whole world. We can take more high end jobs from other countries. We currently import lots of educated people to fill in high end jobs in just the companies we currently have. As we get a more educated work force, not only can we start filling more of those jobs with Americans, but we can also out compete other countries for those high end companies. Secondly because educated people generate higher end jobs. The more people we have that are educated enough to make iphones the more consumers there are making enough money to want to buy iphones. It spirals up.
 
We're at a point where running a successful landscaping business or whatever is probably more of a drain on the economy than a boost. It pulls down our average.

The heart of the matter exposed.
 
No, that's not true at all. For two main reasons. First, the US isn't the whole world. We can take more high end jobs from other countries. We currently import lots of educated people to fill in high end jobs in just the companies we currently have. As we get a more educated work force, not only can we start filling more of those jobs with Americans, but we can also out compete other countries for those high end companies. Secondly because educated people generate higher end jobs. The more people we have that are educated enough to make iphones the more consumers there are making enough money to want to buy iphones. It spirals up.

You are not thinking in a manner that jibes with the real world. Sending every person in this country to college does not mean suddenly hundreds of millions of higher paying jobs will exist.
 
Nothing is free.
Things that benefit us all need to be paid for by us all. Such things as parks, schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and street lights are a benefit to us all, and so should be paid for collectively.

Clothes, cars, TVs, computers are a benefit to the purchaser, and so need to be paid for by the user.

We all benefit from having an educated populace.

It is easy to believe the last line, but the reality is that it is not necessarily the truth. Some might say not anywhere near the truth. Basic education, yes, I'd agree, but a higher level? No, not really the case.
 
The reality is that in the modern information economy most people can't really do anything at all to advance the economy without at least a college degree. We're at a point where running a successful landscaping business or whatever is probably more of a drain on the economy than a boost. It pulls down our average. The opportunity costs need to be considered. Every person doing manual labor means one less person doing a job that might generate 10 times, or even 100 times, as much GDP. So, while definitely it is possible that somebody gets a degree and makes nothing of it, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that people who don't have a degree will make something of themselves.

Are you serious? Someone has a job and they're a drain on the economy because they have a job?

Where does that thought even come from? People provide a service - or a product - people buy it if they need it. :shrug: That's not a drain: that is the basics of how things work.

Geesh - those of us who are closer to the bottom of the ladder need to just commit suicide and free up food and fuel for those who are better off, then. I mean really: that's how you're coming across.
 
You are not thinking in a manner that jibes with the real world. Sending every person in this country to college does not mean suddenly hundreds of millions of higher paying jobs will exist.

Well of course not. What it means is that we'll generate high end jobs 5% faster than we would have otherwise next year or that the productivity of those workers that got educations will go up 15% and whatnot. And then we'll nudge it up again a bit faster the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that. That's how progress happens- a little bit at a time. But why is that an argument against it?
 
It is easy to believe the last line, but the reality is that it is not necessarily the truth. Some might say not anywhere near the truth. Basic education, yes, I'd agree, but a higher level? No, not really the case.

How would you define "basic"? Should free public education end after the third grade? The sixth grade? where?

You do bring up a good point, though. there is no point in training more sociologists and English majors than there are jobs. Free higher education needs to be tied to actual needs. Maybe then, we wouldn't have so many out of work college graduates.
 
Geesh - those of us who are closer to the bottom of the ladder need to just commit suicide and free up food and fuel for those who are better off, then. I mean really: that's how you're coming across.

+1

Well of course not. What it means is that we'll generate high end jobs 5% faster than we would have otherwise next year or that the productivity of those workers that got educations will go up 15% and whatnot. And then we'll nudge it up again a bit faster the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that. That's how progress happens- a little bit at a time. But why is that an argument against it?

Having an education does not make one 'more productive'. Nor does it mean more 'high end' jobs will be created. What is it you do not understand about jobs not being created out of thin air? They are created out of the need of the market... there is a need, the market creates jobs to fill that need. No company in existence is is going to see everyone now has a degree and think "oh gee, more smart and hard working people, let's create some new positions just because there are people to fill them!"
 
Are you serious? Someone has a job and they're a drain on the economy because they have a job?

Where does that thought even come from? People provide a service - or a product - people buy it if they need it. :shrug: That's not a drain: that is the basics of how things work.

No, no. Somebody who isn't living up to their potential is a drain. If you take a person who could have been generating $250,000/year in GDP as a software engineer had they been educated and instead you have them generating $25,000/year in GDP mowing lawns, then their failure to get an education costs $225,000/year.

Geesh - those of us who are closer to the bottom of the ladder need to just commit suicide and free up food and fuel for those who are better off, then. I mean really: that's how you're coming across.

No of course not. Exactly the opposite- many people who are closer to the bottom of the ladder education wise needs to buck up and get back in school to do their part and everybody needs to be making sure that their kids stay in school as long as they can hack it.
 
"No one told me that."

Then blame yourself, your parents, and your high school advisors. You "knew a private school would cost a lot of money" but yet somehow didn't decide it relevant to determine how much.

You chose the school you wanted to go to, you decided not to "obsess on the sticker price", and then after the fact want to bitch about what you willingly entered into.

Live within your means, or deal with the consequences when you choose to gamble above those means.
 
How would you define "basic"? Should free public education end after the third grade? The sixth grade? where?

You do bring up a good point, though. there is no point in training more sociologists and English majors than there are jobs. Free higher education needs to be tied to actual needs. Maybe then, we wouldn't have so many out of work college graduates.

The standard k-12 is what I would consider 'basic'. Even though, in some places, and on some subjects, that is a bit lacking in my book. But the 'fix' for that isn't sending everyone to a higher level of education for free. It's fix the lower level stuff, where it has issues.
 
Then blame yourself, your parents, and your high school advisors. You "knew a private school would cost a lot of money" but yet somehow didn't decide it relevant to determine how much.

You chose the school you wanted to go to, you decided not to "obsess on the sticker price", and then after the fact want to bitch about what you willingly entered into.

Live within your means, or deal with the consequences when you choose to gamble above those means.

Ah, you were confused by my quoting the article? I wasn't talking about me, it was the idiot the article mentioned.
 
Having an education does not make one 'more productive'.

What? Of course it does... Not sure what you mean there... Obviously an education makes an employee more productive... Why do you think employers pay so much more for more educated people?

Nor does it mean more 'high end' jobs will be created. What is it you do not understand about jobs not being created out of thin air? They are created out of the need of the market... there is a need, the market creates jobs to fill that need. No company in existence is is going to see everyone now has a degree and think "oh gee, more smart and hard working people, let's create some new positions just because there are people to fill them!"

I already addressed this. First off, it means we are more competitive relative to other countries, so we get more of the high end jobs here. Second, it means increased demand. More educated people make more money, they buy more products, that creates more high end jobs, those employees buy more products, etc... On top of that, more educated people means more inventions, more new industries, more new ways to make a living, etc. The US's economy has always been primarily driven by being out front of the newest boom- computers, pharmaceuticals, even steel and oil and cars back in the day. But as time goes on and they aren't as new, other countries catch up and we start to lose those jobs. We either replace them with, newer, more sophisticated, higher tech, jobs from the next big boom and stay ahead, or we fade back into the pack.

I mean, think about it. If your notion that the available pool of jobs was somehow fixed in time were true why aren't we all still farmers?
 
Oh....students are to blame for the costs of college.

Thanks guys, problem solved.

Nice strawman.

People weren't blaming the student for the "Cost of College". They were blaming the student for not having the forethought to actually identify what that cost would be, and for choosing a college without taking that into account, and then taking out numerous loans without seemingly taking notice of how much they were taking, and then only after they've finished school and looking at the total going "OMG No one told me it was this much".

If a person was driving in an unsafe car and got injured, I wouldn't blame the person for the car being unsafe. I would however blame them, if the information was readily and easily available prior to them purchasing and they even knew it was an unsafe car, for not researching the problems with the cars, looking into alternatives, and actually purchasing the car if they started complaining after the accident that "no one told them" that the specific problem with the car could result in them being injured.

The student's not responsable for the rising cost of college.

The student is responsable however for choosing the college she chose, knowing it would be expensive and having the cost readily available to her, and getting the debt that she chose to take on.
 
My generation being sacked with what is essentially mortgage level debt in our mid-20's without the benefit of actually owning property is worrisome.

I think a huge part of this, honestly, is the transition in the public mind of College into simply "High School+". It's not somewhere to go for higher learning or to prepare for your future job or to exchange ideas and better knowledge of the world....it's that thing you do after high school so that you can get some job (whatever it may be) and is a great place to continue to socialize and party away from your parents but without fully having to be on your own. It's became just an accepted understanding that you're supposed to go to college, regardless if you necessarily need it or will benefit tangably from it, and society moving to a point where a basic college degree is viewed similar to how a high school degree used to be as almost mandatory for anything above a menial job. Eveyrone wanted their children to have it "better then they did" and that's great and all, but it's essentially transformed college from a form of volunatary high education and transition to adulthood into just the next step in adolescense.
 
Ah, you were confused by my quoting the article? I wasn't talking about me, it was the idiot the article mentioned.

I know, but since you quoted the key quote of her's that I cared about I just stripped down to her comment...that's why I left the " "'s around it to make it clear (failed at that) I was talking about her statement, not your view
 
And :roll: at the comments in here that have nonsense to say about private and "Ivy League" type colleges. It's just as bad as people having a problem with higher education in general. This board is the only place in my life where I've seen people refer to higher education and high quality higher education as "crap" and the like. Such nonsense.

I can agree here. They aren't crap and they're good schools. The issue though is that simply going there to go there, the benefits of it MAY not outstrip the cost of going. If you can afford to go, through a variety of means, and the education you gain there is one you reasonably expect to pay off in terms of a job that pays in such a way to justify that expenditure...then it's a great idea.

However, if you have no clue what you want to do after college or know you're going into a low wage profession, don't have much money, and aren't doing the work to try and get a good bit of scholarships or work the off season and part time during school to off-set your loans, then the cost of it probably outweighs the benefit.

There's nothing crappy about the Ivy league as far as education goes, and I applaud those that can go there and are in a place where going there makes sense...but I just don't have a ton of sympathy for those who are smart enough to get into a place like that but not smart enough to make the reasonable determination of its worth
 
I think it's a shared fault.

Fault of parents who cosign loans and encourage their children to overlook common sense (cost being one such thing)
Fault of students who want to attend high cost schools and are making might adult decisions without handling it maturely
Fault of schools for treating potential students as customers and not students.

Agree completely. The parents in this mistify me. I understand you don't want to, and shouldn't, just shatter your kids dreams but you have to talk to them in an adult manner and let them know the realities of the situation at the very least first.
 
What a mangled up web you have woven. First, you are running with the idea that the public paying for everyone to get a degree

Again, with the illiteracy. I never said everyone should get a degree. Rather, that college education should be free to the student. Note: free to the student doesn't mean free...it means the expenses are not billed to the student. Students would still pay indirectly (through taxes and other contributions) before and after their time as students in their capacities in other roles.

is a benefit to society. It has been shown again and again, society does not support a 'higher paying job' for every single person if they had a degree.

If it was up to me, almost no one would have jobs...and that would be a good thing...but that's another topic, and clearly beyond what you're prepared to conceive of right now. In any case, I never said that society would support a higher paying job for everyone, nor did I say or expect that everyone would go to college. Rather, those who do should be able to pursue their education according to their interests and abilities, instead of their personal finances.

So the cost to value does not work out as a positive, to those people or society.

If you base your assessment upon narrow consumerist criteria AND presume continuation of the current arrangement of work roles AND you take no account of benefits personally and societally ignored by measures like GDP, then sure. If you don't make those completely unwarranted presumptions, then universal access (everyone being ABLE to go to college, which is not the same thing as everyone going to college) indeed might be a net loss.

Then you throw in that this would somehow change admission standards.... um, what does who is paying have to do with that?

If you don't understand the impact that financial strain has on performance -- as students or in any role -- then I'm not sure you're qualified to have a reasonable conversation about this topic.

Shouldn't they have performance based standards for admission anyway?

I'd love to see performance based standards. Instead, what we have is compliance- and finance-based standards: those with high grades (high compliance, not necessarily high performance) and better finances (those who can afford the luxury of dedicating years primarily or exclusively to focused study) are undeservedly favored. Genuine meritocratic admission requires -- at minimum -- an approximate leveling of the playing field (leveling UP...such that practical tests of ability reflect ability instead of who could afford to practice all week vs. who pulled a 60-hour workweek to make rent). We don't have anything close to that right now. Currently, students, teachers, administrators, and admissions officials alike all get together and engage in a make-believe game where they pretend that non-parallel grading systems from non-parallel school systems with non-parallel resources and opportunities for wildly disparately prepared students are actually the same one standard measure, and only superficial countenance (if any) is allotted to considering financial hardship, political or social disadvantage, health challenges, and a host of other things which have a heavy impact on performance.

And don't most, in fact, already have such things?

No. Right now, students are admitted or not based upon grades (institutional compliance, not performance) and money (comparably rated students with more money simply have dramatically better opportunities).

Some people have to work while going to college? Oh my, somebody call the whhaaaambulance.

As usual, you completely miss the point. Of course people deal with having to work. The point is that lumping together students who didn't wash a dish until they were 21 with others who have been working part or full-time since 15 is not meritocracy.

Live is tough, you rarely get to concentrate on one thing at a time, deal with it.

Ahh, I see...so you actually DON'T want a meritocracy after all...because you're perfectly OK with preserving artificial barriers to performance and pretending away the obstacles presented by several major demands on the time, energy, and opportunity of students.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. If everyone has a degree, there will be no one to dig the ditches. There's no way that can be good for the economy, nor for our society as a whole.

I have to argue that as the US is moving from an industrial to a knowledge economy, thus if most people have degrees, it will be better for the economy as a whole.
 
I can agree here. They aren't crap and they're good schools. The issue though is that simply going there to go there, the benefits of it MAY not outstrip the cost of going. If you can afford to go, through a variety of means, and the education you gain there is one you reasonably expect to pay off in terms of a job that pays in such a way to justify that expenditure...then it's a great idea.

However, if you have no clue what you want to do after college or know you're going into a low wage profession, don't have much money, and aren't doing the work to try and get a good bit of scholarships or work the off season and part time during school to off-set your loans, then the cost of it probably outweighs the benefit.

There's nothing crappy about the Ivy league as far as education goes, and I applaud those that can go there and are in a place where going there makes sense...but I just don't have a ton of sympathy for those who are smart enough to get into a place like that but not smart enough to make the reasonable determination of its worth

I think that an Ivy League education is probably a very good investment even if someone doesn't necessarily know what they plan to do afterwards. No matter what someone decides to do later, that degree will open doors. There's also the networking aspect which is not insignificant.
 
Back
Top Bottom