Why even bother with college these days?

I was using janitor as a representative of the people who do the actual work in society, most of whom pay taxes. Why should those people have to help pay for the schooling of the people who will work fewer years yet make far more money?
Let the super-able pay their own way.

 

The "super-able" will probably end up making much-appreciated contributions to the janitor's retirement. It's not a one-way street.

 

Then they should have no problem paying their own bills.

 

but do they contribute more? i know that's subjective as shit, but still... i guess that depends on your end result again, and a micro view vs. a macro view...

on a micro level, not having shit and diapers and rotting food everywhere on the streets is probably real valuable. on a macro level who cares, none of that shit advances humanity or collective knowledge to be shared thru the ages.

 

on a macro level, the shit thinkers would not have time to think if they had to do the work of the shit collectors. It is better not to live in shit IS part of humanity's collective knowledge.

 

we learned that lesson thousands of years ago. hence halal and kosher and the invention of sewer systems and learning where to draw your drinking and bathing water from in regards to your town's location and your fresh water source, and washing your hands with soap. the janitor is not doing anything insightful or groundbreaking. now you're just trying to prove a non-existent point on purpose.

 

No. The only reason civilization advances (not all agree that it is advancement) at an increasing pace is that division of labor (and application of technology) allows humankind to spend more time on intellectual pursuits. Without the janitor or shit collector, those involved in "insightful and groundbreaking" activities would be expending their efforts on more mundane things.

 

Let's not forget that the benefit to society is pretty easy to quantify on a day to day basis for the janitor.
Not so much for many members of "the educated class".

 

symptom of the times? email, text, FB, cell phones, everything now now now? you see that in politics, you see it in company directives based on quarterly results, you see it in college grads and job expectations... people only notice HUGE sweeping change, or daily affects of change. things that are big, but happen slowly get backdoor'd as far as attention (environment, surveillance, income disparity, etc...).

yes/no/maybe so?

i mean... you're honestly trying to compare picking up garbage to the invention of the wheel? or farm cultivation? or the combustion engine? computer? internet? nuclear power? flight? that's what i mean.

 

No, I'm saying any one of the "I need the janitor's help to pay my way" crowd would have a tough time proving that they, as an individual, have contributed equally to the life of the janitor.
There is just no excuse to make those who don't attend college or benefit from it to pay for it to the benefit of those who will work fewer years to make more money at an easy job, and live longer and collect more retirement benefits (which is statistically the case).

 

Most of the people I have met that throw around they have an MBA end up being morons that couldn't find their way out of a paper bag if you left them a rope to follow and a food crumb trail.

 

Obviously you haven't dealt with common core math problems yet.....I helped my 6 year old daughter do her math homework and it was labeled wrong even though the final answer was right because the work shown is not what they are taught now.

 

I wish college would teach this younger generation some people skills, like how to talk to someone face to face. In my profession if you don't have people skills and cannot talk to someone, you are probably going to have a very bad day. I do kind of get a kick watching these new kids that come in and think they know it all but really know nothing.

 

so that's the divide though... which ties into things like universal healthcare too which i guess is the subjective point of disagreement here. if something makes society better or makes its global position stronger, and you live in a society, is it right for you to be burdened (within reason) to aid in generating those increases and benefit, even if you yourself don't plan on taking part? that's the difference between the micro and macro view here.

if everyone was individualistic in its most truest form, and it was every man for himself (i guess a libertarian utopia, or Somalia or something), then the answer would of course be no, fuck the scholar, get your own shit. that's where our split is occurring. i personally think its in the country's/our children's future's best interest to see the US be the healthiest and most educated it can possibly be. healthier work forces produce more. more educated work forces produce more. those are pretty much accepted universal fact, diminishing returns aside and all that for simplicity's sake. even if you personally don't ever use the doctor or ER, that's still the case. even if you decide to never have children, its still the case that better schooling and education benefits our society. even if you don't drive a car ever and live in a big city, better infrastructure still helps the economy and public safety. so then it all would seem to boil down to how big you're acceptable sphere is. do you only care about yourself and complete maximization of self interest? do you only care about your family? your neighborhood? your town, state, country? those are real core questions that i think most people flip flop between depending on what benefits them at the time in a selfish manner. but they're real questions that should be given more thought. if we as a society want our country to be stronger with a net benefit to all in the end, then we should be willing to give a little to get for the collective. i'm willing to give some, but everyone else has their own threshold.


side note... interesting article from this morning's commute that's relevant here:

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/15/more_bad_news_for_millennials_college_is_actually_making_inequality_worse/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

Sweaty - I don't disagree with your thought process. However, I think the difference comes down to the outcome. You believe it would benefit society. Many don't. How hard do you work for something that's free? Going to college isn't a "right" nor should it be a "need". That said, I don't believe it should be a burden on society to provide it for free. I also don't believe it will be a benefit. If it's free, more people will go. More students will require more professors. In order to hire more, standards will have to shift, and I fully believe college will have to be dumbed down because of it. Therefore diminishing the return to society. Should society still foot the bill for near no return??

It was brought up earlier that there will still be admittance standards. History should tell us that if we don't allow everyone the opportunity to take advantage of this now free education, people will revolt in some way/shape/form. Discrimination claims will likely be one of the avenues utilized. Uncle Sam will be forced to intervene to adjust the standards. Again, leading to the dumbing down of college.

I'm against it b/c I fully believe the way society is approaching most all of these social topics will lead to greater costs with no actual return when all is said and done.

 

valid points for sure. like i said... the root cause would seem to be a psychological preference type thing of the individual, which is why its so hard.

if college was free, yes, more people would probably try and go. that doesn't mean they CAN go. that just means they might try. more demand and steady supply means more competition, no? wouldn't you want people competing and being more knowledgable? seems like a + to me??? more demand might also lead to more school creation yes, but nothing bernie or anyone else has said, went beyond public state colleges and universities. what if he proposed that no more state schools could be created, and state schools had to be constrained to an annual budget which did not allow a free-for-all for enrollment or professor hiring or expansion? then MAYBE this creates more student demand that private industry would try and fill. but then these wouldn't be free. so the student's choice is... study hard and obtain free, or pay for private, or THEN miss out. harvard and yale would still be harvard and yale. they aren't and wouldn't be free. but U of Michigan or U of MD would be. that doesn't work for you?

the 2nd part is speculation, i can't say one way or another about that.

the inefficiencies that may arise in your last point is also valid. always the possibility for that. i'd still think the benefit would outweigh the cost, but again... to each their own, all about how big your sphere is. leaving it alone would seem to have a multiplier effect on the income disparity, if you vibe with the last thing i posted... would you rather do nothing and produce MORE desperate people who are falling behind that may be prone to crimes that could affect you? or would you rather something that may potentially aid in shoring up the middle class and closing the gap? just a harmless hypothetical...

 

Honestly, I don't really care about the income gap. But that being said, I also don't think more people having what I believe will be diminished college degrees is going to significantly shift the gap, either. Especially if you're going to inflate the value of the Harvard/Yale degree as you used in your example. There will still be the have's & have-not's. You'll merely have more people running around with a de-valued piece of paper.

I do believe that college costs have run wild and need to be reigned in somehow, but I still believe the students need to have *some* skin in the game to truly care about getting the most out of it. I also believe that those that want to go to college for the purposes of a legit career can still find a way easily enough. But even with a degree, you need to have enough high paying jobs on the back end for any of it to even have a chance at making a difference. Quite frankly, I sure as hell don't see Bernie's plans having a positive impact on that front.

Ultimately, it's all speculation on any of it.

 

Given the current cost and demand for college, it will be interesting to see how that industry is disrupted in the coming years as it seems to be ripe for some type of structural disruption.