Quote from: Winy on January 15, 2016, 10:14:07 PM

Quote from: DAS THE HALLS on January 15, 2016, 10:12:04 PM

Quote from: Winy on January 15, 2016, 10:09:04 PM

Quote

Employers will do so in a labour market of which is saturated with higher education.

That's a bad thing?

More jobs for everyone?

No, less jobs. Your BA becomes about as useful as a GED and now that corporate mid-level management gig you were gonna land requires a masters degree.

I don't see how the money plays into that, though. Wouldn't the more skilled individuals still come up on top, and be chosen for the position?

Right. Now we have even more people with useless degrees that can't get a job in their field.

So what do they do? Take unrelated base, entry level management positions away from the laborers already in that field who would actually understand how to manage their co-workers better than some fucking suit that corporate decided to hire because he's got a four year degree in Women's Studies and you just have a high a school diploma.

...That sounds like a bad idea on the employer's part. Why wouldn't they just choose the people with the best qualifications?

So do you guys not think that the levels of student dept some people have to deal with is stupidly high?

No. There's plenty of options and correct pathways to not completing your tertiary education witht an insurmountable debt to your name.

So do you guys not think that the levels of student dept some people have to deal with is stupidly high?

The entire rise in tuition costs has been driven over the past few decades of ham-fisted governmental reforms. Even if we agreed that student debt is too high, it doesn't follow that Bernie's proposals have any greater legitimacy over conservative policies in fighting high student debt.

Quote from: Winy on January 15, 2016, 10:09:04 PM

Quote

Employers will do so in a labour market of which is saturated with higher education.

That's a bad thing?

More jobs for everyone?

. . .

How do you take that from what I said?

An extremely poor understanding of this topic.

Then the problem is that people without the skills or qualifications then are the state of being and underclass.

Doesn't this sort of happen already?

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 15, 2016, 11:58:58 PM

Then the problem is that people without the skills or qualifications then are the state of being and underclass.

Doesn't this sort of happen already?

Yes.

I think you're selling yourself short when you say you have an extremely underdeveloped understanding of this subject--your continual asking of questions whenever you detect bullshit shows that you have the perspicacity not to just blindly accept everything that these people are telling you.

That said...

If almost everybody has a Bach degree, it certainly wouldn't be unusual for businesses to include it as a minimum requirement.

It already pretty much is, for any job worth having.

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 15, 2016, 11:58:58 PM

Then the problem is that people without the skills or qualifications then are the state of being and underclass.

Doesn't this sort of happen already?

Yeah, and it's going to get worse if we don't properly re-organise the education sector's organisation and operation. It's a process called skill-biased technical change, where those whose productivity is boosted via technology receive higher wages than those who have not had their productivity boosted (i.e. a lot of people without qualifications or many marketable skills).

Right, so think how fucking hard it will be to find a job when the labor market is flooded with BAs.

You're not wrong, but it already is absurdly difficult to find a job without a BA. Especially if you're like me, and you outright refuse to work certain jobs, because I have various moral quandaries with them (the food industry, the military, etc).

And they will likely pay even better to attract workers if need be. These jobs will always pay a lot because they are dangerous but need to be done.

I don't disagree--the work needs to be done, no doubt about that. But this just sounds like coercion to me.

So much for individual sovereignty. "Do your little job or die."

Military, which will fucking pay for college, being the most obvious.

Great, more coercion.

"Enlist yourself to our corrupt and authoritarian corporate death machine, or die."

No choices, no freedom.

Everybody can't be an accountant or nurse.

Not everybody's going to be an accountant or nurse--not even if college were free.

You later go on to state that we should instead focus on strengthening our K-12 education. I can't disagree with you there. However, you would also have to change how K-12 is structured, because right now, it's structured to hone only a handful of basic skills necessary to live in our society.

In other words, even if you have no interest in history by the time you reach high school, it doesn't matter--you have to take history. Even if your time would be much better spent taking a class you actually would have greater interest or passion in.

College, on the other hand, allows for specialization--something high school does not afford you.

That said, the liberal arts program is dogshit and it should be abolished.

but it already is absurdly difficult to find a job without a BA.

but it's not.

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 16, 2016, 11:06:15 AM

Quote from: Winy on January 16, 2016, 12:23:29 AM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 15, 2016, 11:58:58 PM

Then the problem is that people without the skills or qualifications then are the state of being and underclass.

Doesn't this sort of happen already?

Yeah, and it's going to get worse if we don't properly re-organise the education sector's organisation and operation. It's a process called skill-biased technical change, where those whose productivity is boosted via technology receive higher wages than those who have not had their productivity boosted (i.e. a lot of people without qualifications or many marketable skills).

So what's the alternative? What I mean is, what's the proper way to reorganize the education system to maximize outreach and still function adequately in a socioeconomic sense?

A lot of Americans don't appreciate their higher edcuation system relative to the rest of the world. There are no credit constraints on the poorest, the higher debt burden following tertiary education usually motivates people to look for employment in higher-paying fields and a lot of people don't recognise that miseducation (or, people getting too much of the 'wrong' degree) is harming the poorest in society by inflating the supply of credentials in an economy.

The solution is to reform primary and secondary education, and then talk about the best way to organise higher education, rather than reform the way universities operate and hope primary and secondary education will somehow be positively effected by this.

miseducation (or, people getting too much of the 'wrong' degree) is harming the poorest in society by inflating the supply of credentials in an economy.

Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean that in the sense of a degree without practical application?