First - public education isn’t exactly capitalism. Second - in true capitalism the government doesn’t loan you money, especially with no regard to risk and return on investment.
When I was in college, the legal drinking age was 18 and getting laid was a lot easier. No wonder it's less popular now.
The article in the OP is paywalled. If college is becoming less popular with young people, that's a bad thing, if we're not seeing greater gains in trade schools than what colleges are losing. Having an educated workforce is extremely important. That's without even getting into all the benefits of having an educated populace. I don't consider college to just be a jobs program. There's a social good in people learning to be critical thinkers, getting a well-rounded education, and having their beliefs challenged. Plus, the social aspect of college is often transformative. It was for me. We as a society need to make a decision of how much we value higher education. If we value it highly (and we should), we should make it far more affordable.
I agree with all of this but would also say we need to consider why college is not as popular? Is it the structure/format? Is it ideology? Is it perceived liberalism?Conservatism? What has changed?
Worth noting that Care to guess what the most popular majors are among US citizens? Nonresident students overwhelmingly pick real majors like engineering or business which offer a high enough ROI to mask the dismal numbers of the majority of resident students.
Unrecoverable but not due to majors but to economic conditions. I can't see how tying loans to specific majors would be a solution given the greater than 50% likelihood (and maybe be as high as 75%) that a college grad won't even work in his/her major field? Or even that working in the field in which they majored should even factor in given that people are free to change their minds and pursue what they want in and outside of college.
If a grad doesn’t work in his major field, then what is the purpose of giving him/her federally subsidized loans to get a degree in that field?
Interesting and somewhat on point Student Loan Debt by Major [2023]: Highest + Lowest Average Debt Kind of intuitive. what I can’t figure out is some of the large balances for associates degrees? How does that happen?
To further education of the public beyond high school and earn a degree. Keep in mind that the vast majority of public Us in the US were founded upon a liberal arts ethos or adopted that ethos despite being founded for specialized reasons (e.g. ag & tech/poly). In a liberal arts approach, major specific curricula typically comprise less than 50% and often closer to 1/3rd of an undergraduate education.
It is an admirable goal but the current cost of doing so is too high. If there is value in funding it, it should be through state directly or direct subsidies through the federal government, where they compete with other priorities for taxpayer dollars. Doing it through subsidized loans is just stupid.
Agree that funding tuition through students loans is stupid (now). It's epic disaster stupid. Same time, it seems to me that the program in line with how our economic system has long operated. If I disagree it's in pointing to some majors as being the culprit. I'd add this too, majoring in and making a decent salary in fields that pay more doesn't necessarily protect one against negative effects of student loan debt.
Do you think there are courses one would take as part of their major that might prepare them to work in other fields? Could taking those courses help them find that different path?
I agree but assuming getting a degree (certain degrees especially) means you have knowledge or even a true education is often a mistake.
I’ll answer it this way - do you think it is appropriate to federally fund art history majors, at the expense of priorities such as healthcare for the poor, or other similar priorities? If you say “we should do both”, fine, but most of the population does not agree with you and we run $1 trillion plus budget deficits in a peacetime strong economy. In my mind federal subsidizing degrees that have little economic value and limited social value is a lower priority. To the extent certain liberals arts majors, that may advance valuable scientific or medical research, regardless of whether they economically benefit the graduate, at least have societal value. Also teachers have societal value. Subsidizing the likes of lawyers and MBAs is more problematic to me. Doctors and health care fields is a different story.
I read an article recently (but I can't find it) from a young author who speculates that getting a four-year degree "costs" an average of $500,000. The average cost of tuition, books, fees, and living expenses is only $110k or so, but she justified the other costs by explaining that they lose 4 years of their working life, along with all of the interest on that income. What were you thinking a typical salary is for a kid coming out of high school? $75,000/yr? Let's see: college costs include living expenses, but non-college working life has no expenses? The college option has a dorm room and, most likely, a meal plan. Is the working class person exempt from paying for rent and food? What about transportation? College person can get by with a bicycle--how about working person? Deduct car insurance, maintenance, fuel, etc. Most young working people with no degree have trouble saving money, much less getting interest from it. I saw another article that the average lifetime benefit of having a college degree is $500,000. That makes sense. Having said that, I agree that: 1) college costs too much and 2) college is not for everyone
We push far too many kids to college. Some are not ready socially, some are not ready academically, and some will never be ready. We as a nation have pushed aside the idea of being a tradesman, of working with our hands .2We foster the idea ( from elementary school on up) that to be successful one must attend and graduate from college.. and then push it further with graduate school. Many kids are just going deep in debt and coming out with no logical career path, no clue what to do.
This is a false dilemma. We are more than capable of funding higher education and providing healthcare to the poor. Who determines which degrees have value? Should we create a Department of College Education and have them handle the central planning of what degrees are valuable and what degrees aren't? Do I get to determine which degrees and programs add societal or economic value? And let's be clear, you didn't answer my questions at all.
I agree with you, in general terms. However, the worst way to try to make it more affordable is to throw money at it (oddly enough). And that's how politicians like to solve problems--throw money at them. We've been throwing money at higher education for decades, and all the universities do is raise their prices and rake more money in. They spend money on the latest accessories for dorm living and compete with each other based on which places has the nicest swimming pools and most luxurious dorms (to attract the students). They bid on the most well-known professors and highest ranked students, even though this provides little benefit to the average student (to improve ratings to attract the parents). The government has made it easier and easier to get massive loans, and people buy into the hype and take out those loans. Inflation has pushed up salaries in the last 35 years by a factor of 2 or 3; but university presidents have seen their salaries increase by a factor of about 10 in the same time frame. Also, if you make something too affordable, the consumer will not VALUE it. If college is cheap (or free), then there is little incentive to get it right the first time, and students may view it as a license to party, since they can always apply somewhere else and start over if they flunk out. College students are certainly not the most mature people in a society. At that point, you are wasting the professors' time and diluting the education of those who do want to learn.
