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.

---
 þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

.