Hacker News Reader

Comment by BenElgar | Hacker News Reader

I think the idea of offering loans only for 'vocational' degrees is extremely damaging. It leads to people taking 'Software Engineering' degrees rather than computer science or maths or physics when really these less directed degrees generally allow people to explore what they are really most passionate about.

The idea of a university is not a place where one goes to get a piece of paper that certifies one as competent to perform a job - that should merely be a side effect - university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual. I acknowledge this is a rather idealistic view of our higher education institutes but I think it's one we should strive to make a reality.

View on HN

- university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual.

Sounds like a fun luxury good. Why should we subsidize such a luxury good and encourage 25-50% of the population to consume it?

Should we also subsidize luxury goods enjoyed by other subcultures, e.g. video games, muscle cars or strip clubs? If not, why not?

Educatuion is a public good. We all benefit when society is highly educated. The benefits might not be obtained at an individual level. That is, there will be some people whose education does not end up benefitting us all.

If you want to claim education has positive externalities, then make that case. But that's a little hard to square with BenElgar's idea that subsidizing some degrees more than others is "damaging". His comment argued nothing about externalities.

After all, if it turns out that the public external benefits of a physics degree exceed those of a women's studies degree, then the former should be subsidized but not the latter.

In any case, what do you believe the external benefits of education are?

If the public benefits of a physics degree exceed those of a women's studies degree then the former should be subsidized but not the latter? What if the former's benefit exceeds the latter's benefit by an epsilon amount? By your reasoning only the most beneficial degree should be subsidized but not any others. Perhaps you typed in haste and did not mean what you wrote in a strict sense.

I don't believe one can really quantize which degree has more public benefits. Some benefits are hidden, in the sense that their benefit isn't so readily recognizable. The benefits of an educated populace are manifest and, I believe, clearly worth the expense of public financial support.

To be more precise, what I meant is that both should only be subsidize to whatever degree they create external benefits. I.e., if a physics degree has $5k external benefit and a women's studies degree $5, then the physics degree deserves 1000x more subsidies.

And once you factor in the harms caused by signalling, it's far from clear it's even a net positive.

The benefits of an educated populace are manifest and, I believe, clearly worth the expense of public financial support.

The external benefits are far from clear.

If a person is educated and becomes a doctor, and then fixes my spine in return for money, the benefit is clear. But that benefit is fully captured by myself and the doctor, and he factored the cost of education into the price he charged me.

Can you name what the external benefit (i.e. benefits captured by third parties) is, for both medical education, physics education and women's studies?

The external benefits are quite clear to me. That they are not clear to you suggests to me that nothing I write or say will change your mind. So what's the point of asking me to list them? Are you merely trying to see if I understand the concept of a external benefits or genuinely trying know what possible external benefit there could be with someone being provided a subsidized education? I think you can think of some.

Are you merely trying to see if I understand the concept of a external benefits or genuinely trying know what possible external benefit there could be with someone being provided a subsidized education?

I'm trying to know what external benefits you think exist and why you think they are uniform across all fields of study, which is a much stronger claim that you made. I cannot think of any such benefits.

E.g., one might hypothesize that people in college develop useful skills that benefit others in a manner they cannot capture as wages. But it's a little crazy to suggest that a women's studies major develops those skills to the same degree as a nurse.

I've not made any claims of uniformity. I've not suggested such a thing.

>>Educatuion is a public good. We all benefit when society is highly educated.

Right. The point of contention is whether we should be paying $50-150k per person for this public good.

I mean, the benefits are clearly there, but the price has been skyrocketing and when the individual can't pay back their loans, we all suffer.

There is a big elephant in the room here - the terrible state of high school education in the US. In many (advanced) countries in the world you can be reasonably educated/knowledgeable with a high school diploma - Kant and Hegel (and Confucius and Buddha :-)) are discussed in classes.

It leads to people taking 'Software Engineering' degrees rather than computer science or maths or physics when really these less directed degrees generally allow people to explore what they are really most passionate about.

I share your concerns; on the other hand, is signing up for a 3-to-5 year course really the best way to help people discover their passion? As an exploratory path, it sound expensive both in resources and in time wasted for the student.

Around here, we have something called "summer university" wherein high-school students can spend a week or two getting an high level overview of the college course. It's extra-curricular, so few attend, but seems like a similar approach introduced into the regular HS calendar (say, the last two months), getting everyone to try a few courses of their choice, could provide even more exploration for much lower costs.

I can see how you thought I was advocating loans for only vocational degrees. Something like Computer Science I think would be fine as a job path is very clear and well paid. I can't speak for Maths of Physics because I don't know much about jobs paths from those. I was more talking about degrees that have no clear job path and which could don't need to be studied at an institution where you are largely paying for the name. If someone wants a loan to study history - fine, give them enough to study in-state or at a community college.

>> university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual

This is the problem. That all sounds great but it is not worth $100k and there are many other ways to have that experience that do not cost that much.

> it is not worth $100k and there are many other ways to have that experience that do not cost that much

You can get an excellent education at a state school for less than $6k per year.

The person who gets a degree in music theory, philosophy, or art history may not get a job that ties in to their major, but these people all leave college with skills in critical thinking, writing, the ability to meet deadlines, skills in communicating complex ideas to others, public speaking, etc. Most importantly, they leave with proof that they know how to learn and improve themselves. There are jobs for people with these skills, and they will likely be far more rewarding than gutting chickens on the line all day or waiting tables at the Cheesecake Factory.

what state does that exist in? No state school here in NJ is under 10k a year, and none of them are ranked decently except for maybe Rutgers, Stevens, and NJIT's architecture program.

The University of Texas has in state tuition for below 6k a year, and in some cases out of state tuition can come in at below 10k as well. [1] This is just tuition and administrative fees and doesn't include housing and textbooks.

[1] https://admissions.utexas.edu/tuition/cost-of-attendance

Edit: Sorry I misread. These stats are by semester, not year.

Right and also tuition doesn't mean cost of attendance where there are all kinds of additional fees, books, room and board, etc. Cost of attendance is easily double that of tuition. So it's actually in the vicinity of $25K per year for a state university.

State college and community college in particular can be a lot less, and it's possible to even split the difference and do 2 years community and then graduate from the university by transferring credits. Of course, you have to have your ducks in a row to pull that off.

room and board

You're paying for room and board regardless if you go to college or not. Or you can just live with your parents.

Most colleges require on-campus residence for at least 1 year (usually 2 years)

Seriously? I've never heard of this in the UK. How can a college require that? It's outrageous.

In reply to jazzyk, very few community colleges require that and even if you don't include those, most state schools will waive that requirement if you are over a certain age I.e. you went back to school.

Room and board is just a cost of life. You're paying it whether you go to college or not and it's easily affordable with a part-time bar job (obviously it'll be a crappy room and you won't be having steak for dinner but still not something you should need loans for).

Colorado you can do two years in community college for less than $6k per year and then two years at a state school for just over $6k per year if you don't count room and board which you'd have to pay anyway.

> university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual

As long as we continue to believe this, nothing will change.

Universities indoctrinate, lets not be naive. Most schools have little interest in widening the perspectives of students. They are on a mission to unify perspectives. Indeed I would say that universities are more responsible for our Idiocracy than television - graduates really believe they have become enlightened when in fact they have been programmed.

Looking at my daughter's textbook at a top-20 college in the US, I was stunned. She took a (core) class in philosophy/psychology. Very little time was spent on classics (ancient philosophers, Kant, Hegel, Freud, etc.) They were replaced by contemporary researchers (often from the same university), often with a VERY extreme, one-sided, politicized agenda (feminist, etc.). Pretty sad.

It's a shame that a well rounded education doesn't solely consist of studying entirely apolitical, classic European thinkers.

It's almost as if there is more to the world than Central and Mediterranean Europe.

And heaven forbid, students get exposed to radical ideas in their philosophy classes. We can't have any of that, here.

The author's criticism was about replacement of old ideas, not addition of new ideas

Those old ideas provide a very occicentric, and, by extension, biased framework for understanding the world.

There are plenty of old ideas that are excluded by what most universities define to be classical education - yet the complaints are about lack of coverage for Kant and Plato, rather then, say Confuscius, or Cornel West. (For examples both less, and more relevant to modern thought.)

The complaint was directed at a Philosophy education, not at a Western Philosophy education. If said top-20 college promised the latter, and ignored the classics, that would be reason to complain. Otherwise, it's like complaining that your History class didn't solely focus on America.

The other assumption that I call into question is that Freud, Kant, etc are 'apolitical' figures - whereas a feminist writer is 'political.' This is, quite plainly, nonsense.

What are the politics of Kant and Plato?

What are the politics of Karl Marx?

Plato's views on government, and condemnation of democracy are quite clearly laid out in the Republic.

Kant writings have plenty to say about freedom vis-a-vis government, state power, rights of property, revolutions, warfare.

None of these great minds existed in an apolitical, unbiased vacuum, where they could devote themselves to nothing but free thought.

When it comes to education, my impression is that people use the term 'apolitical' to describe political opinions that happen to align with their own. Hence, Hobbes and Locke are apolitical - whereas feminist philosophy so frequently is. Adam Smith? Apolitical. Karl Marx? Political.

> None of these great minds existed in an apolitical, unbiased vacuum, where they could devote themselves to nothing but free thought.

If that is the claim, then I agree that it is wrong. The most common criticism of Marx that I have heard is not that he is political, but that he is wrong (and perhaps incoherent). Similarly, I think that any curriculum that wants to replace the highly influential writings of Plato with another philosopher should make a case for why we should do this... an argument beyond the "inclusion" of additional points of view. I can sit at my desk and come up with a dozen different points of view. I don't think that each of those should be included in a philosophy class, in place of Plato.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder - I said ancient philosophers, the list of names was not meant to be exhaustive, just a few, to give the reader an idea. Of course one would include Confucius, Buddha, etc in that list. A short post cannot be as precise as a dissertation.

Students are already exposed to too many radical ideas (supported by current political interests), which REPLACED the basics/foundations - that was my point.

Many current political interests support the views of classic liberal philosophers. Just because the view is mainstream doesn't make it apolitical.

Can you think of a core class that would include Aristotle and Freud? It'd be a shitty survey class where people came out half-educated, using phrases like "begs the question" instead of "raises the question", which is ideally part of the problem philosophy core classes should solve. I don't think a survey of modern philosophers is any worse than this. Philosophy half-understood isn't very meaningful.

Also, modern philosophers have a lot to say. I still recommend de Beauvoir and Wittgenstein to anyone who cares to read.

How much did the textbook cost?

OK well there are all sorts of programming, and DNA is one of those, so is culture, so is family. We're programmed to say pledges to flags, desire an education, get married, buy houses, go into debt, have children, have more debt, etc. It's all programming. But what you're doing is putting a very broad value judgment on a particular variety of programming. I don't think it's terribly interesting to only criticize university doctrination without exploring the opportunity costs. Let's say all the kids want to go to Costa Rica and retire instead of going to college, oops, small problem. So I'm unclear on what your scalable alternative is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com