Poll of the Day > How to fix the student debt crisis - something I think most would agree on

(+) Yeah! (+)

We really ought to eliminate gen ed requirements for people who know exactly what they want to go into.

I'm a computer programmer, and this well rounded bullshit the education "industry" keeps feeding us is ridiculous. If it's a class like communications in a field that requires you to speak a lot, that's different. Biology, political science, linguistics, a P.E. class, and high school part 2 classes are not helping me excel at what I do, and like many others I am paying dearly for it. So is my wife.

In a world of capitalistic economics and Bernie Sanders philosophers who believe schooling should be free (controversial wording here, I am over-generalizing)-- I think we could find some decent middle ground in eliminating unneeded classes.

It means the difference between getting out of high school and graduating college at 20 (with a Bachelor's knowledge equivalent; not an Associate's) versus 22 AND without the potentially crippling debt.
---

It'll eventually fix itself by the flooding of unneeded degrees for jobs.
People are already realizing it isn't the only way to have a career and it isn't the only option. Still, it's completely unfair and stupid how costly things have gotten.

Trade schools. There need to be more trade schools.
---

Perhaps eliminate any majors that have zero chance of leading into a career? That ought to cut things down, though it might also lead to the end of every humanities program in the country.
---

I know, how about more jobs that don't require advanced degrees
---

Lokarin posted...

I know, how about more jobs that don't require advanced degrees

There are a crapload of good jobs that don't require degrees and have a huge lack of people to hire. Machinists, electricians, all sorts of high paying blue collar work. Work that is necessary for our society. It's a huge shame.

Trade schools would help.
---

Moonjay posted...

Trade schools. There need to be more trade schools.

Thank you-- meant to include this point in my original post

I_Abibde posted...

Perhaps eliminate any majors that have zero chance of leading into a career? That ought to cut things down, though it might also lead to the end of every humanities program in the country.

As much as I agree with this statement, it would lead to an uproar of controversy from every angle. Way too much subjectivity.
---

Supposedly gen eds also exist to provide added funding to less successful departments. At any rate, it's kind of a holdover from back when education was a loftier ideal rather than just a means to better financial security. (And, amusingly, I've met Europeans who thought our schools *were* focused solely on practicalities to the exclusion of more general education when, if anything, the reverse almost seems true.)

Plus you'd really want to cut more than just gen eds in a 100% government-funded system. Entire majors should really go. And over-priced administrators -- many of whom make more than the average CEO -- would need their salaries cut. Government jobs shouldn't be paying top dollar when they're fucking with tax money.
---

Moonjay posted...

Lokarin posted...

I know, how about more jobs that don't require advanced degrees

There are a crapload of good jobs that don't require degrees and have a huge lack of people to hire. Machinists, electricians, all sorts of high paying blue collar work. Work that is necessary for our society. It's a huge shame.

Trade schools would help.

I agree - as an aside, I have a huge respect for tradesmen. Probably 'cuz ma dads an electrician.
---

I disagree. University is meant to provide you with a broad education to help you think critically, write proficiently and have an expansive understanding of the world we live in. If university has become little more than meeting future job requirements we may as well do away with them altogether. If you don't enjoy the process of educating yourself why attend university in the first place?
---

Also a lot of curriculum issues wouldn't go towards fixing the debt problem, which is largely driven by the loan industry because it's allowed schools to expand unsustainably.

Joelypoely posted...

I disagree. University is meant to provide you with a broad education to help you think critically, write proficiently and have an expansive understanding of the world we live in. If university has become little more than meeting future job requirements we may as well do away with them altogether. If you don't enjoy the process of educating yourself why attend university in the first place?

The problem with that idea is that the previous 12 years of schooling exist to *literally* do that same thing. It makes either one or the other redundant. And, given that there's a slant in education, it's not really encouraging critical thought.
---

Joelypoely posted...

University is meant to provide you with a broad education to help you think critically, write proficiently and have an expansive understanding of the world we live in.

As good as it sounds, it does not pay the bills, I am afraid. And I say that as a university graduate.
---

I_Abibde posted...

Joelypoely posted...

University is meant to provide you with a broad education to help you think critically, write proficiently and have an expansive understanding of the world we live in.

As good as it sounds, it does not pay the bills, I am afraid. And I say that as a university graduate.

They hand degrees out like candy to people who can't think critically at all.
---

Zeus posted...

Supposedly gen eds also exist to provide added funding to less successful departments.

Bingo. And just help fund the school in general, but primarily to fund departments that wouldn't survive otherwise. If it was just to fund the school in general, it would be "Take 10 electives of your choice".

Joelypoely posted...

I disagree. University is meant to provide you with a broad education to help you think critically, write proficiently and have an expansive understanding of the world we live in. If university has become little more than meeting future job requirements we may as well do away with them altogether. If you don't enjoy the process of educating yourself why attend university in the first place?

If that's the purpose, it's doing a really poor job of it.

I had one friend who had to take a "Humanities Elective" in his final year. He chose Sociology, went to the first class, and saw the syllabus. He decided that that class looked like entirely too much work for a "bullshit class" and immediately walked out and dropped it. Then signed up for something else that would require less work. How did that help him "think critically" or "expand the world we live in"? People just flock to whatever classes they can do the best in for the least amount of effort. Talk to any of the people with more structured schedules (CS, engineering, sciences, etc) and ask the students there which electives they took. 90% of them will give you the same answer - because they knew that specific class was easiest.

Forcing people doesn't help. If people wanted to take those classes to expand their horizons, they still could. Well, actually no, they probably couldn't, as most of them would shut down due to lack of funding.

And to top it off, I literally couldn't tell you a damn thing about the psychology class I took. Not a single thing. English I still could, but that's because I enjoy reading and I chose an English class that was literally "here's 3 books. Read them, write an essay on each. That's it."
---

I should note that "education for the sake of education" is great. I'm entirely in favour of people going to school to learn, even if the education won't necessarily lead to a related job.

But having others choose what you're going to learn? No. We're not children. Let us decide what is relevant or interesting to us.
---

Dynalo posted...

Talk to any of the people with more structured schedules (CS, engineering, sciences, etc) and ask the students there which electives they took. 90% of them will give you the same answer - because they knew that specific class was easiest.

And then there's me, who took a few higher-level organic chemistry classes as electives >.>
---

adjl posted...

Dynalo posted...

Talk to any of the people with more structured schedules (CS, engineering, sciences, etc) and ask the students there which electives they took. 90% of them will give you the same answer - because they knew that specific class was easiest.

And then there's me, who took a few higher-level organic chemistry classes as electives >.>

Yeah just because people are colluding the purpose of a university with its ability to get you a job doesnt mean thats how a university should work. Youre SUPPOSED to go to a university for intellectual pursuits not for cush jobs.
---

adjl posted...

Dynalo posted...

Talk to any of the people with more structured schedules (CS, engineering, sciences, etc) and ask the students there which electives they took. 90% of them will give you the same answer - because they knew that specific class was easiest.

And then there's me, who took a few higher-level organic chemistry classes as electives >.>

The problem for me was... that wasn't an option.

I had to take it from a predetermined list that included things like Psychology, Sociology, English (or other languages), Communication, etc. If I wanted to take another science class because it interested me, it would provide no benefit to my degree and would only increase how long it took to graduate. I had no open electives in my program.
---

Dynalo posted...

I should note that "education for the sake of education" is great. I'm entirely in favour of people going to school to learn, even if the education won't necessarily lead to a related job.

But having others choose what you're going to learn? No. We're not children. Let us decide what is relevant or interesting to us.

This is something I think about a lot.

Like, looking back at high school, there is so much that they taught us that is completely inapplicable to every day life. Why dont they teach more practical and useful skills? I really dont understand it.

As for college, Ive always found it to be, frankly, unacceptable how high the costs for it are. Im not saying it should be completely free... but theres no excuse for putting people in crippling debt just for trying to better themselves.

Hell, the main reason I never went to college was because I cant afford it. Sure, I may be stuck at a shitty job and making way less money than should be acceptable... but you know what I keep telling myself? At least Im not in debt. I hate stuff like that hanging over me.
---

Once again Japan comes to the rescue.

The Japanese constitution makes education available to all who can get accepted, this means fees are manageable by anybody (in fact I could afford to study there on a part time job with no loan if I cut costs).

They also allow students to go to trade school instead of high-school at 15 if University isn't in their interest.
---

rexcrk posted...

Why dont they teach more practical and useful skills?

Namely, accounting and cooking. Especially practically-oriented cooking, with a focus on meal planning and capitalizing on grocery store sales (e.g. "Here's five recipes you can use when ground beef is on sale"), plus cooking principles instead of just recipes. There's an argument to be made that the lack of such education is one of the biggest culprits behind the obesity epidemic, since people just don't know how to cook healthy meals under time and/or budget constraints, resulting in them turning to cheap fast food or premade stuff.
---

adjl posted...

rexcrk posted...

Why dont they teach more practical and useful skills?

Namely, accounting and cooking. Especially practically-oriented cooking, with a focus on meal planning and capitalizing on grocery store sales (e.g. "Here's five recipes you can use when ground beef is on sale"), plus cooking principles instead of just recipes. There's an argument to be made that the lack of such education is one of the biggest culprits behind the obesity epidemic, since people just don't know how to cook healthy meals under time and/or budget constraints, resulting in them turning to cheap fast food or premade stuff.

Capitalising on store sales feels like a practical maths example rather than requiring dedicated classes, and everybody knows how to pan fry, people just need a list of beneficial and detrimental foods with hard stats so they can plan intake on hard numbers.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

and everybody knows how to pan fry

But does everyone know how to plan out and cook healthy meals a week at a time? Guessing by most of the people I know... that answer is no. Eventually you'll get tired of packing sandwiches for lunch and will start going out to eat more often just to get some variety.

That, and people are woefully misinformed when it comes to the cost of cooking. The number of times I've heard "Yeah, but it's more expensive to make it than to just buy it" is mind boggling. People tend to look at a recipe, add up the cost of ingredients and go "That's $30! I might as well just go out to eat.", not realizing that 90% of the ingredients on the list are staples that will last you forever. Flour, baking powder, corn starch, spices (so many spices...), olive oil, vinegar, brown sugar, etc etc etc. These are all things that countless recipes call for, cost a couple of bucks each, and look very expensive if you buy it all at once. But everything on that list will last months or years. Except olive oil. I use that for basically everything.
---

I can say very definitely that no, not everyone knows how to pan fry. I've known people who don't know how to boil water.
---

TC how dare you express such a moderate and reasonable opinion I am extremely offended
---

Dynalo posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

and everybody knows how to pan fry

But does everyone know how to plan out and cook healthy meals a week at a time? Guessing by most of the people I know... that answer is no. Eventually you'll get tired of packing sandwiches for lunch and will start going out to eat more often just to get some variety.

That, and people are woefully misinformed when it comes to the cost of cooking. The number of times I've heard "Yeah, but it's more expensive to make it than to just buy it" is mind boggling. People tend to look at a recipe, add up the cost of ingredients and go "That's $30! I might as well just go out to eat.", not realizing that 90% of the ingredients on the list are staples that will last you forever. Flour, baking powder, corn starch, spices (so many spices...), olive oil, vinegar, brown sugar, etc etc etc. These are all things that countless recipes call for, cost a couple of bucks each, and look very expensive if you buy it all at once. But everything on that list will last months or years. Except olive oil. I use that for basically everything.

I like that you didn't quote the subsequent text that covered your rant.
---

Stop having college the place everybody is set up to go after high school. It's a scam at this point.

College is not for everybody.

There should be job training courses people can easily sign up for after high school as well.
---

College/University was never meant for the masses. But eventually became mandatory in order to attain the degrees, without which employers will discriminate against you.

High school education is also problematic. They only focus on preparing you for college, but not preparing you for the next step in your life: adulthood. e.g. job hunting, professionalism, finances, etc.
---

Amuseum posted...

College/University was never meant for the masses. But eventually became mandatory in order to attain the degrees, without which employers will discriminate against you.

High school education is also problematic. They only focus on preparing you for college, but not preparing you for the next step in your life: adulthood. e.g. job hunting, professionalism, finances, etc.

This isn't even actually true. Most employers care far more that you have job experience than if you have a degree, a degree is just a plus. Job training courses in a specific field would be more desirable than a college degree on a broad subject.

Agree with everything else though.
---

TigerTycoon posted...

Amuseum posted...

College/University was never meant for the masses. But eventually became mandatory in order to attain the degrees, without which employers will discriminate against you.

High school education is also problematic. They only focus on preparing you for college, but not preparing you for the next step in your life: adulthood. e.g. job hunting, professionalism, finances, etc.

This isn't even actually true. Most employers care far more that you have job experience than if you have a degree, a degree is just a plus. Job training courses in a specific field would be more desirable than a college degree on a broad subject.

Agree with everything else though.

As a generalization, it's accurate. In between college graduation and finding the dream job I eventually landed, I cannot begin to tell anyone how many online job applications automatically stop you from proceeding if your education isn't the "preferred level" of education the job requires-- a Bachelor. It's ridiculous.

My dad eventually worked his way up to damn near 6 figures in 40 years from minimum wage factory work at 20. He doesn't do anything businessy. He doesn't even have an Associate's. He got his foot in the door when he was getting kicked out of an interview-- he said "Surely if I were a graduate, you'd have some sort of test for me to take, right? May I please take the test anyway?" It was an editing position. My dad loves to read. He aced that test and was told he was overqualified.

Those days can still happen for some, but it's rare. You need an "in." Connections. Even then there's no guarantee. Getting a degree doesn't mean you're smart. You proved you have perserverence.
---

let's just get rid of money and then everything will be free.

Dynalo posted...

Zeus posted...

Supposedly gen eds also exist to provide added funding to less successful departments.

Bingo. And just help fund the school in general, but primarily to fund departments that wouldn't survive otherwise. If it was just to fund the school in general, it would be "Take 10 electives of your choice".

Joelypoely posted...

I disagree. University is meant to provide you with a broad education to help you think critically, write proficiently and have an expansive understanding of the world we live in. If university has become little more than meeting future job requirements we may as well do away with them altogether. If you don't enjoy the process of educating yourself why attend university in the first place?

If that's the purpose, it's doing a really poor job of it.

I had one friend who had to take a "Humanities Elective" in his final year. He chose Sociology, went to the first class, and saw the syllabus. He decided that that class looked like entirely too much work for a "bullshit class" and immediately walked out and dropped it. Then signed up for something else that would require less work. How did that help him "think critically" or "expand the world we live in"? People just flock to whatever classes they can do the best in for the least amount of effort. Talk to any of the people with more structured schedules (CS, engineering, sciences, etc) and ask the students there which electives they took. 90% of them will give you the same answer - because they knew that specific class was easiest.

Well, since you asked...while it's true I took theater as an art elective b/c I suck at art and theater was stupidly easy, for the most part I did choose gen ed electives that interested me, including Japanese (foreign language), several Philosophy classes (somehow managed to cover Letters *and* communication gen ed requirements just w/ them, plus an Engineering Ethics class on top of all that), hell I think even my Human Sexuality class counted towards some gen ed...
Loved my gen eds, they were a lot of fun, plus unlike engineering classes...there were girls. It was funny too, had a few friends who were Philosophy majors and I'd consistently get better grades than them in their own major. :D

I agree it's good to present a broad education to college students and not just make them pure job mills where you learn a specific skill set and nothing else. How dull. And damn, if I had to take NOTHING but math, physics, and engineering classes for my entire bachelor's degree, that'd truly have been awful.

Dynalo posted...

Talk to any of the people with more structured schedules (CS, engineering, sciences, etc) and ask the students there which electives they took. 90% of them will give you the same answer - because they knew that specific class was easiest.

Mine was CS. Hated every class that wasn't CS because it was a waste of my time. Took me 5 yes to graduate, should have only taken me 2. Had to work tons of extra shitty hours at shot jobs for the sole reason of paying for shit classes. I'm still paying for those classes and will be for a long while.

I don't regret paying for my CS classes because money represents a service. No such thing as a free lunch. Just hate paying for shit I know I'll never use
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Dynalo posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

and everybody knows how to pan fry

But does everyone know how to plan out and cook healthy meals a week at a time? Guessing by most of the people I know... that answer is no. Eventually you'll get tired of packing sandwiches for lunch and will start going out to eat more often just to get some variety.

That, and people are woefully misinformed when it comes to the cost of cooking. The number of times I've heard "Yeah, but it's more expensive to make it than to just buy it" is mind boggling. People tend to look at a recipe, add up the cost of ingredients and go "That's $30! I might as well just go out to eat.", not realizing that 90% of the ingredients on the list are staples that will last you forever. Flour, baking powder, corn starch, spices (so many spices...), olive oil, vinegar, brown sugar, etc etc etc. These are all things that countless recipes call for, cost a couple of bucks each, and look very expensive if you buy it all at once. But everything on that list will last months or years. Except olive oil. I use that for basically everything.

I like that you didn't quote the subsequent text that covered your rant.

I can cover it if you like, because it wasn't really all that relevant to what I said.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Capitalising on store sales feels like a practical maths example rather than requiring dedicated classes

Sure. But this doesn't help people when it comes to actually cooking. It's great to realize that I should be buying ground beef when it's on sale, as per my fancy math calculations... but if you don't know what to do with the ground beef, it's a pointless exercise.

The most practical route would be to have it as part of the cooking class. Have a set budget, determine what you should buy on that budget, and then learn to cook something delicious and healthy with what you bought - and then plan out how to cook in advance using those ingredients.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

people just need a list of beneficial and detrimental foods with hard stats so they can plan intake on hard numbers.

People already do know this. I've never met a single person who doesn't know how to read the nutrition label. That doesn't know that vegetables are good for you, processed food and chips/chocolate are bad for you. Convenience outweighs the "hard stats".

How many people do you think are going to McDonalds because it's healthy? Do you honestly believe presenting them with the "hard stats" will change anything? Fast food restaurants are literally doing this. Go into any McDonalds these days and it straight up tells you how many Calories you're ingesting. People don't care. We don't need "hard stats", we have those. I'd argue that people in this day and age are better informed on what they're eating than we've ever been in all of history... but we still have the obesity problem. We need to actually teach people how to prepare proper meals, as that seems to be what has been lost over the years.
---

TigerTycoon posted...

There should be job training courses people can easily sign up for after high school as well.

There are. Those are called Trade Schools.

They've gotten better (at least around here) of presenting all the options to high school students. Back when I was in high school... which jesus christ, was nearly 10 years ago, it was just starting to get better, but still heavily leaned to sending people to university/college.

Now, according to my teacher friends, they actually have presenters come in from Sask Polytechnic to show off their programs, which include:

Electrician certification
Fabricator/Welder
Dental Hygienist
Machinist
Computer Networking

and dozens of other programs. As well as the Sask Trades and Skills school which will also go over plumbing and other trades.

On top of all that, teachers are beginning to feel more comfortable telling students to pursue something in the trades if it interests them. They still won't straight up tell a kid not to go to University, but one of my friends has told several of his students to "think carefully" if university is what they want to do. Problem is the pressure is still coming from parents who want their kids to go to university.

TigerTycoon posted...

This isn't even actually true. Most employers care far more that you have job experience than if you have a degree, a degree is just a plus. Job training courses in a specific field would be more desirable than a college degree on a broad subject.

Ah, now here's the catch on something like this. What if neither applicant has experience?

You're trying to decide between two potential candidates. One has no experience, no degree. One has no experience and a degree in a related field (even if that degree didn't specifically cover the work they'd be doing). It's obvious who they're going to choose assuming all else equal.

It's become a big problem in administrative positions. Pretty much any half decent admin position these days seems to require a degree to get. Doesn't even matter what the degree is in. My grandmother was conducting interviews for her position before she retired as the admin assistant at a doctors office, and she said she only looked at applicants with a degree. She had that luxury because there were enough applicants - it was an easy way to quickly weed out a bunch of people.

streamofthesky posted...

How dull. And damn, if I had to take NOTHING but math, physics, and engineering classes for my entire bachelor's degree, that'd truly have been awful.

There are two different ways to look at it.

1) The way TC is proposing. These are the list of classes you need for your degree. Take them and you're done.

2) Doing away with gen eds and replacing them strictly with open electives. This doesn't fix TC's main concern of making it cheaper (as you'll still have to take the same number of classes), but will get away from the feeling of having to take "useless" classes. Any "useless" class you took would be your own choice - and yes, most people will still gravitate towards taking the easiest classes. But if I don't want to take an art elective, I wouldn't have to. I could take literally anything else instead. If they don't want to cut the number of classes for budgetary reasons, I'd much prefer this system.
---