Subj : Re: Y'all or Ya'll?
To : Arelor
From : Margaerynne
Date : Thu Jul 27 2023 10:36 pm
Re: Re: Y'all or Ya'll?
By: Arelor to Margaerynne on Wed Jul 26 2023 01:52 pm
> I'd argue that the education machine is a mean of production - since it
> produces professionals, at least in theory. Therefore any attempt from the
> Government or any authority structure to take over it using cohercitive
> means is a Socialist action.
I think that's an interesting argument, and a good one to consider.
I'm used to thinking of it as something like a public utility (which is also a critial resource that holds immense strategic value to its controller) but
viewing it through that lens is useful.
> When a Government becomes the primary source of funds for a corporation,
> that corporation becomes a branch of the Government. See Spanish examples
> such as ACS or Indra.
I'm thinking mostly about state schools, which are already explicitly the state's higher education arm.
Public universities are openly taxpayer-funded, so I'm not sure this one is a big shock.
> Now, the problem with forgiving loans or using tax money to fund education
> is that you massify education (which is bad), you overproduce professionals
> (whichis bad) and are sending the message that education may get as
> expensive as it
> wants to get, because the Government will cover for it (which is bad because
> you end up paying for it through the Government).
I think controlling (spiraling) tuition and bloated administration is also an important part of the problem, but I don't think either of those goals has to conflict with easing student loan debt. They can, especially if nothing is done to combat them after forgiving debt, but I hope there's someone out there smarter than Margaerynne Q. Nobody running the numbers.
> But I dare say the premise that formal education must be accesible to
> anybody at any cost is flawed, so the whole points above are moot.
>
> We don't need degreed people. We need qualified workers. Lots of jobs can be
> done by people who has never stepped into College and in fact they may make
> more money in a number of cases. I'd make the point that we need to stop
> promoting the need for getting a degree and start promoting the idea that
> people should be learning a trade. Spain is #1 example of a country that
> keeps overproducing degreed people, won't stop producing degreed people, and
> as a result has lots of degreed people working at places were no degree is
> needed.
You definitely need a balance, and "college = success = the only path to prosperity" seems to thankfully be dying down amongst teenagers.
But changing course doesn't require abandoning people who have been caught in the flaws of the college-at-all-costs mindset.
> And the argument gets better.
>
> Lots of what you learn through the University you could learn yourself. This
> isthe era of Internet and public libraries. People does not go to College to
> *learn*, they go to College to get a *paper* that says they passed some
> compliance test that makes them fit for certain role in Society. I am not
> symathetic to the idea that Joe the Gardener has to pay for some kid to get
> a paper which is only needed because we have artificially made that paper
> powerful.
That's also a good discussion, but I think it varies by degree.
You /can/ spend four years learning rigorous mathematics yourself, but why not
benefit from professionals who came before you?
> I reproduce a joke I once read in a web comic:
>
> [SMBC joke snipped]
I think this is another part of the problem. Certain majors do benefit from a university atmosphere, certain ones can be done in a smaller college (or normal school), or entirely through self-study or a bootcamp.
I'd definitely be open to discussing this more, though. I'm admittedly very biased on this.
