Perhaps student debt feels good for employers because desperate graduates will accept any kind of treatment?
Please correct me if I'm beside the mark.
Please correct me if I'm beside the mark.
“College graduates are just more career-oriented,” said Adam Slipakoff, the firm’s managing partner. “Going to college means they are making a real commitment to their futures."
From the comments: "This "degree inflation" seems like a new system of debt peonage. The individual borrows a fortune simply to get the "credentials" for a low-paying job and spends the rest of his life trying to pay off his student loans. That's almost a guarantee that the citizen will not get politically active or in any way threaten the status quo."
A workforce that is deeply in debt to non-dischargeable loans is a workforce that has limited options, is more docile, and more easily manipulated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/college-degree-re...;
This is the reason why I would hire educated (Academic education that is) people over people who are more practical. When you have had an academic education you also (should) learn to think critically about your sources, the way you reason and alternative strategies.
The main difference I have noticed around me between people of applied sciences degrees and academic degrees (a difference that contrasted much more in my country) is that the former will accept any source; Wikipedia, any newspaper, some guy's blog, a comment on some thread from a conspiracy theorist. The latter, the academic, will (should) only use proper sources i.e. academic research or, in the case of less important things (like HN), at least some form of respectable medium.
When reading up on important subjects, something that isn't researched and then published through reputable scientific journals, simply does not exist. Otherwise we'd waste time discussing whether we went to the moon, etc.
Or when a reputable mathematical journal accepted a nonsense paper generated by Mathgen: http://boingboing.net/2012/10/19/math-journal-accepts-comput...
Don't get me wrong, I have certainly noticed becoming more critical of sources in the 5 years of going through an academic university (despite not quite finishing), but even scientific papers can often be proven silly by just a quick look at some common sense.
Also, wikipedia is a magnificent source on most topics. Very good overview/introductory material and a way to look for "proper" sources.
I am also still of the firm opinion that wikipedia gets more peer review than the average peer reviewed paper.
As for Wikipedia; yes I a agree. Wikipedia is great, I have donated several times to the organisation. That does not mean however that it is academically useful beyond the point of exploring a subject on a very high level. For day to day things there is nothing that can beat it. Apart from Stack Overflow for us programmers that is.
The trustworthiness of opinions comes into play again with the last thing you say. It is like with Homeopathic medicine, as soon as it is scientifically proven to be true/working, it becomes 'real' medicine. Also, even if it were true, does 'more' peer review mean 'better' peer review. Also, with some subjects I would think that 'peer' is somewhat far fetched; conspiracy theorists are not the peers of astronomers.
It seems you're relating Pre-conventional to high school education, and Conventional to college education, when it would seem that your arguments related to the value of 'reputable scientific journals' would exclude you from post-conventional moral reasoning, as you're stuck at stage 4 of conventional reasoning with the logic of conforming to the authority of 'reputable scientific journals'.
The idea that powerful people are mostly bad (clearly true) and pursue their interests through indirect means is not a "conspiracy theory". It's how the world actually works.
Small-c conspiracies exist. People are naturally conspiratorial. They form in-crowds for specific, often socially unacceptable, purposes and attempt to pursue their goals in secret and through indirect means.
There isn't one Conspiracy to rule them all-- the idea that you can "blow up the room where they all meet" and liberate humanity is clearly a fantasy-- and elites will compete with each other as often as they collude. The reason why traditional "conspiracy theories" are so ridiculous is because they fail to account for in-fighting and discord within the world's elite, a set of people that, while deeply evil, is far from homogeneous. If you believe that Arab oil sheikhs give a damn about American college tuition, then you're probably a "conspiracy theorist" and you're wrong. If you believe that powerful people will often work together to pursue corrupt goals both in secret and through substantial indirection, then you're going to be right some of the time.
What's being discussed here, however, isn't even a conspiracy. It's what happens when people in authority pursue their own interests. No coordination or clandestine meetings are needed.
Just because you're in debt, it doesn't mean you can't change jobs. You're not inherently more likely to stay in the same crappy job because you have debt, you're just more likely to not drop out of the rat race, go live off the land, do a startup or lifestyle business or whatever "non-system" lifestyle that doesn't provide the financially stability your debt requires.
I'll accept evil employers acting for their own goals, but that they should selflessly (non-college-grads are likely to be a great deal cheaper) help the goals of "the system" assumes a collective long-term concern for the greater "good" that is not exactly founded in evidence.
China, who semi-openly talk about the hell that will break loose if the middle classes have to suffer a recession.
The French revolution, for which a major short term cause was food prices.
The current unrest in Greece.
If I didn't have the debt I'd be able to work for much less than I currently do and still have the same quality of life.