Time to end the academic arms race

STOOPID IS AS STOOPID DOES

I too was once a mere mortal, but made the effort to obtain a post-secondary degree. It changed my life compared to others who graduated from the same high-school as I did.

That story can be repeated a multitude of times across the nation. Where there is a will, there's a way. Where there is no will, there's a lot of poverty.

We, as a nation, are not as smart as we should be. And the culprit is post-secondary education that costs an arm-and-a-leg thus prohibiting more than half our youth from accessing it.

Bernie and Hillary had the right idea: Subsidizing tertiary education (vocational, 2- or 4-years or more) at public post-secondary schools for families earning less than $100K a year - meaning two parents each earning below $50K a year, which is below the national average of $54K annually.

But no, stoopid is as stoopid does - we voted Donald Dork into the White House.

What a colossal mistake for our children ...

 

liberals survive by always offering yet another worthless welfare program with which to buy votes. This one is especially wasteful since education is now free online.

 

I also funded my own university education. I worked full time and studied at night. For many years. Not sure what your point is there.

And then you proceed to contradict yourself. First you say 'where there's a will, there's a way', then follow it immediately with 'half our youth are prohibited via cost'. Which is it?

Finally, I agree that tertiary education should be free. BUT, only for courses which guarantee an immediate and well paid job. Absolutely NO arts/humanities/BAs etc ... ever. They are 'vanity' degrees, and therefore should never be tax payer funded. If you want to spend 3 or 4 years musing on Gender roles or French Poetry, do it on your own dime. Tax payers should only be responsible for producing people who can support themselves and their families adequately - for life.

 

Obviously that's proof it's really all about credentialism or the screening hypothesis, not actual education.

 

Tut tut, the strong screening hypothesis was rejected yonks ago.

 

SELF-MADE MAN

Tertiary-education at state-schools need not be expensive, and made affordable to that very large population (about 40%) of our kids who ARE NOT obtaining the necessary credentials to advance their careers.

Just when are you, the self-made man, going to understand that YOUR EXPERIENCE is not suitable for the rest of America's high-school graduates? When, huh? When ... ?

PS: Besides, we are WASTING 54% of the National Discretionary Budget on the DoD. Which attracts our kids because, if they don't get killed, they can get a post-secondary school subsidy when they exit! Aside from Israel, there is no other developed country on earth that does that!

 

this is true there is new book out called, The Case against higher Education"by Caplan. He says it is about signaling and no evidence that it is accurate signaling.

 

Its a shame the fake lefty confuses secondary and tertiary education here!

 

its good to get economic lessons that encourage us to do what France does given that France has the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state.

 

The strong signalling hypothesis was empirically rejected yonkd ago. Where the heck have you been?

 

there is new book out called, The Case against higher Education"by Caplan. He says it is about signaling and no evidence that it is accurate signaling.

 

I'm referring to the scholarly research. The strong signalling hypothesis has been rejected for yonks. That's the reality.

 

there is new book out called, The Case against higher Education"by Caplan Ph.D. economics. He says it is about signaling and no good evidence that it is accurate signaling

 

You do demand repetition. The screening hypothesis is nothing new. Its been about since the early days of economics of asymmetric information. It is just factual to note that the 'strong screening hypothesis' has been rejected. We're therefore left with something bleedin obvious: higher education is both about signaling (e.g. I've known employers who simply bin all applications without a degree) and human capital investment. Shock, horror! That's actually quite similar to the Marxist approach, but that brings onboard also inefficient hierarchy.

 

so you lost debate are trying to change subject once again?? You said you wanted an academic. I gave you one and you promptly changed the subject. Sad !!

 

You continue to bore me by your inability to construct rational comment. You're the one that brought up screening. I didn't. I simply know more about it and have rejected your guff.

 

you said you wanted academic. I embarrassed you once again and gave you one. Then you tried to change the subject. Welcome to the new world!!

 

You continue to make no sense. I've merely informed you of the reality: the strong screening hypothesis has been rejected for yonks. Sorry that you know so little.

 

Not quite sure how americans expect to be competitive with other societies that invest in a healthy and educated population while we turn our young into debt peons and prey economically upon all for access to healthcare, but sure, go ahead, see if that dead horse will get up and run.

We don't pay for defense, we don't do defense; we pay for empire, global militarist occupation, and hegemony. And you make the mistake of buying into this notion that anyone is serious about jobs coming back. It's all about extraction now.

 

you said you wanted academic. I embarrassed you once again and gave you one. Then you tried to change the subject. Welcome to the new world!!

 

if true why is the silly Marxist so afraid to give us his best example??

 

If you can find one, ask him? You know already. Hell your healthcare system trails every other nation in the advanced post-industrial world in outcomes while leading in cost and inefficiency.

Fweedumb.

 

You referred to the screening hypothesis. I know the evidence. The hypothesis is rejected. Sorry and all that. I'm sure you hoped to make sense. No dice.

 

Only to the Rabid Right, who are mostly an uneducated lot.

It aint ridiculous here in Europe. I sent my kids to a public-university for a total cost of $1000 a year (tuition excluding room 'n board). In the US, that same degree in a state-school costs today on average $12K.

Nobody is disputing this fact. Except that more and more the vocational schools are teaching abilities that the economy no longer needs.

Try to find a vocational school teaching sophisticated programming languages free, gratis and for nothing. Just try. Which is why American companies go to India to find the talent.

Asinine comment typical of the Rabid Right.

There is no way you can justify this idiocy quoted with factual information.

More asinine commentary.

What the EU need not do is not defend the world. The combined Defense budget of Europe is less than that of Russia's because he wants his country to have a International Presence. Of course, his people pay the cost, because Defense Expenditures could be better spent elsewhere.

Defense budget map of the world (percent GDP):

Europe spends marginally less than either Russia or the US on Defense. Which is why I could send my kids to university for next to no-cost.

The expenditures of a country are a manner of expression of its public-necessity. For some idiotic reason, Americans think that 54% of the entire Discretionary Budget is not "TOO MUCH" for the DoD:

 

Neat summary! Its a disgrace how they combine amenable mortality with such extreme inefficiencies. Its even a bigger disgrace that they haven't had the good sense to seek a combination of efficiency and equity gain.