I agree with him. If you want tax payers to pay for your higher education, in whole or part, they should expect some kind of measurable benefit to the state. Data shows poor benefits for the courses listed. You can still study those degrees. Just pay for it yourself. My taxes aren’t there for you to go on a personal journey of self exploration.
The problem, though, is that if you want to increase competent people entering certain fields and adding to the local workforce, the last thing you want is to incentivize those fields over others in college. That seems a bit of a contradiction at first glance. But these fields are lucrative for a reason, it takes a high level of understanding to do correctly. If you try and recruit more college students into STEM fields without increasing funding to STEM programs at lower levels, all you will do is drive mediocre students into the field who will have a hard time getting that high payday, even after graduation.
You can’t approach education as if you’re making a car or an iPhone, where you can simply redirect resources to build products that capture more market share. You are dealing with people, and their life choices. You need to capture their imaginations early in order to motivate them toward a particular field.
That’s a solved problem. Reputable universities only allow competent people to graduate. Ideally they only allow qualified candidates to enter the programs at all.
Yeah, people think of it too much like free money falling from the sky instead of the investment that it should be to justify the theft via taxation that’s paying for it.
Education is one of the best investments a country can make. It pays for itself many times over. Anybody complaining about education expenditure from a fiscal perspective is an idiot.
An educated populace is also key for a healthy democracy. Oh, maybe that’s why conservatives don’t like it…
Right, but while you were trying your damnedest to get your quip in you seem to have overlooked the fact that that’s literally what we’re talking about - investing in education and ensuring it’s not wasted on pointless pursuits.
What is a “pointless pursuit”? History and any marginalized population by the list. So apparently when the government makes a plan for how to invigorate an area, they don’t need to know anything about it’s culture and history? We don’t need people who understand things like that. Every citizen is the same obviously any thing the government demands is correct and will work out for all populations.
Also why does the state even fund PhDs? PhDs don’t enter industry and spin that economy baby, so that worthless. Doctors and lawyers can just take out more loans. It’s fine. Looking at that why fund programs for most master’s degrees? What companies require one anyway?
I’m being flippang here because even as a STEM major, I’ve gotten so much mileage out of the “useless” part of my degree. Being exposed to those “pointless pursuits” allowed me to build things that people actually needed and avoid the pitfalls before we exposed people to them.
When I was in school, I wondered why the state was forcing me to take these stupid humanities classes at an engineering university at that, but I see it now. Mine was a school where humanities students had to learn to code a bit, and engineers had to learn do media analysis and probably take more history than they wanted, but getting out into the world, I’ve found that the engineers who got that exposure are just better because they know there is a whole class of problem involving people and they know when it’s time to ask for help or when it’s time to do research.
I agree with him. If you want tax payers to pay for your higher education, in whole or part, they should expect some kind of measurable benefit to the state. Data shows poor benefits for the courses listed. You can still study those degrees. Just pay for it yourself. My taxes aren’t there for you to go on a personal journey of self exploration.
“Just pay for it yourself” means don’t do it unless you’re already well off yourself.
Sounds like “Fuck you got mine” talk to me.
The problem, though, is that if you want to increase competent people entering certain fields and adding to the local workforce, the last thing you want is to incentivize those fields over others in college. That seems a bit of a contradiction at first glance. But these fields are lucrative for a reason, it takes a high level of understanding to do correctly. If you try and recruit more college students into STEM fields without increasing funding to STEM programs at lower levels, all you will do is drive mediocre students into the field who will have a hard time getting that high payday, even after graduation.
You can’t approach education as if you’re making a car or an iPhone, where you can simply redirect resources to build products that capture more market share. You are dealing with people, and their life choices. You need to capture their imaginations early in order to motivate them toward a particular field.
That’s a solved problem. Reputable universities only allow competent people to graduate. Ideally they only allow qualified candidates to enter the programs at all.
deleted by creator
Yeah, people think of it too much like free money falling from the sky instead of the investment that it should be to justify the theft via taxation that’s paying for it.
Education is one of the best investments a country can make. It pays for itself many times over. Anybody complaining about education expenditure from a fiscal perspective is an idiot.
An educated populace is also key for a healthy democracy. Oh, maybe that’s why conservatives don’t like it…
Right, but while you were trying your damnedest to get your quip in you seem to have overlooked the fact that that’s literally what we’re talking about - investing in education and ensuring it’s not wasted on pointless pursuits.
You unironically said “theft via taxation” so you are just about the last person I want to hear from concerning education.
An educated populace is good. Yes, even in the fields that you personally don’t see value in.
What is a “pointless pursuit”? History and any marginalized population by the list. So apparently when the government makes a plan for how to invigorate an area, they don’t need to know anything about it’s culture and history? We don’t need people who understand things like that. Every citizen is the same obviously any thing the government demands is correct and will work out for all populations.
Also why does the state even fund PhDs? PhDs don’t enter industry and spin that economy baby, so that worthless. Doctors and lawyers can just take out more loans. It’s fine. Looking at that why fund programs for most master’s degrees? What companies require one anyway?
I’m being flippang here because even as a STEM major, I’ve gotten so much mileage out of the “useless” part of my degree. Being exposed to those “pointless pursuits” allowed me to build things that people actually needed and avoid the pitfalls before we exposed people to them.
When I was in school, I wondered why the state was forcing me to take these stupid humanities classes at an engineering university at that, but I see it now. Mine was a school where humanities students had to learn to code a bit, and engineers had to learn do media analysis and probably take more history than they wanted, but getting out into the world, I’ve found that the engineers who got that exposure are just better because they know there is a whole class of problem involving people and they know when it’s time to ask for help or when it’s time to do research.