Monetizing a Tertiary Education

Stimulus spending in 2009 is currently driving the deficit in 2018.

Any gain from stimulus in times of recession are paid 2 or 3 times over in times prosperity.

 

Your ignorance is showing. "Defense return" from what!?!? Who is attacking Americans in the US?!? (Sick people with automatic guns, that's who!)

A perpetual war in Afghanistan (up to 2017) has cost Uncle Sam $714 billion. (See estimate from here.) Had that money been employed to send kids to a post-secondary education in the US, it would have allowed about 60 million students to graduate with at least an Associate's Degree* in that same period-of-time (15 years)!

If a tertiary education in the US is to be provided it is evident that the national government must subsidize it. That is not the case today - so of course that element is not accounted for in the infographic given.

We, as a people, get NO DIRECT RETURN FROM THE DOD! Those who do either work for the DoD or subcontractors. They are a distinctly minor percentage of the entire population.

The DoD need not police the world, and it is time we stopped such efforts regardless of where they exist. We no longer substantiate funding the DoD because of a supposed threat from Communist Russia, so now we have another bone for the DoD-dog to chew in the Middle-east!?! Which has been and still is wasted money that could be better employed at home educating our youth ... !

*Which costs in the US about $12K per student in the US - see here.

 

The statistic for post-secondary schooling linked in the post above looks like this:

Is the cost of 12K-a-year per student* too much to send our kids into necessary post-secondary schooling that will guaranty a higher level of income upon graduation?

Methinks not! Neither is the $48K necessary for a Bachelor's degree in a state-school.

In fact, both educational subsidies are damn-fine investments in the nation's future ... !

*Offered to those whose families earn less than the Poverty Threshold income ($25K for a family of four). And diminishing accordingly at higher levels of family income.

 

Based on what economic study or did you pluck that out of thin air?

 

Please do not take any of this as a personal slight; but you mentioned earlier that you did not finish high school. It does you great personal credit that you 'do much better than average', and I congratulate you for that.

However, some of your expressed views seem to be informed by a certain attitude towards formal education - which is not to say those views are necessarily incorrect - but they are perhaps a touch predictable. I have encountered the 'full of book learning, but no common sense' attitudes heretofore, and in relation to myself.

I am in my second year of reading for a double degree in Laws, Jurisprudence, and International Affairs, and as each semester progresses, become increasingly aware of how little I know - not just of the law, but of life itself.

My primary and secondary schooling was as a boarder in one of the most prestigious and expensive English Public Schools - but all that ensured was exposure to competent and highly academically qualified teachers, and excellent facilities. It did not give me the exposure to the varied echelons of society, and differing points of view, which a university campus affords.

But basically, my opposing views concern your claim that "many graduates realize little to no benefit for the effort." I expect that, in certain cases, that claim could be substantiated depending upon if one's personal values devolve about wealth and income.

My family have always given me to understand that the purpose of higher education is to allow one to develop personally, to enable one to fulfil his/her potential as a human being and as a member of society, and to enjoy all that life and society have to offer. To know that philosophy, literature, music and the arts, exist outside the pabulum of popular culture, and to avail oneself of them. We do not need to be wealthy to understand that there is more to life than work, the telly of an evening, a jar with the lads, and one's favourite football team on the weekends.

So it really matters somewhat less if a tertiary education does not result in a larger pay packet, if it has enriched one's life in so many other ways.

 

CRETIN

Bollocks, all of it. You are in self-denial.

Economically, people live a better life if they are educated able to access higher salary levels.

Also, an education does not only lead to higher personal incomes but more well-rounded individuals who have had access to thoughts and ideas that have largely created the world in which we live.

Anyone believing that life is like what they see on American TV is a certifiable cretin. They really need to get out and around to see the reality of living and how the world-works by learning from one another ...

 

Isn't the problem here widening participation? Given cultural capital of the middle classes, they have the resources to go to university 'just for the experience'. The working classes don't have that luxury. They already have to invest in education at higher interest rates (No family gifts for them). They also have reduced opportunities from education. They lack the social capital that opens up careers. Montgomery may have got a degree in Fine Arts, but Uncle Hugo knows a man in the city...

 

What you state is absolutely correct, which is why I maintain that a tertiary education is a sine qua non (or more correctly, a condicio sine qua non) of any civilised society. When a university education is free at the point of service (as with health care,) it is only academic prowess, or a lack thereof, which will disadvantage individuals. It will not matter who Uncle Hugo knows, or how much money a family has.

I am not ashamed of the fact, but I am very much aware that my family is 'comfortable' (my father enjoyed a minor title and my family home is an 18th century manor on generous grounds), and that my late father left a trust which will take care of my education to any level of which I am capable. I take no pride in any of this, as none of it is down to my efforts, but I suffer a certain subliminal guilt when I see what others have to do to obtain the education I am given. So yes indeed, the problem is one of participation, or more accurately, availability.

And you are also correct about social capital - a phenomenon very much extant in my society. Just my old school tie will open doors, which will remain discreetly barred to the greengrocer's son, in the city - and that is not a situation I might consider healthy. These are matters which few mention when examining the question of higher education, but while they hold sway, we will never be a truly democratic or egalitarian society.

 

School ties work in any country. Britain apparently better than elsewhere, but only because elsewhere is copycatting Britain.

Unfortunately, such societal mechanisms are no replacement for a bonafide CV with provable success-stories. They work in the British Government well enough - but any government function does not have quite the same objectives of corporations. Measurements of success are harder. In the latter, profits are everything ... and nothing. That is, if you as a CEO cannot make a suitable profit (regardless of the circumstances) you lose your job.

I suppose therefore that there is some "sense of justice" in the present system as regards very high ranking positions. But, the fact of the matter is that no profits at all are being made if the entire business-model is not performing well. And for it to perform well, from the top to the bottom of the ladder, everyone should be rewarded.

Not all rewarded equally, but all equitably - which is (I think) the best form of an egalitarian market-economy. And if that means stock-options for the floor-sweepers then so be it.

Once upon a time this actually happened in a country. Called Yugoslavia. It's a shame that the practice died after the country was broken apart.

Ronald-the-Raygun was pickled-tink that it did - which simply means that good ideas take a great deal of time for adoption generally ...

 

The DoD is the largest direct employer in the world. Depending on how you want to estimate it between 6-12 million Americans are employed by, or a direct result of, military spending.

The defense budget sends millions to college, purchase a home, and produces upstanding citizens.

 

When do you expect the Federal government to pay off the debt incurred in financing the 2009 stimulus?

My grandfather always said the greatest compliment he could receive was that he was common, so I don't find it a slight that you think I'm predictable.

The difference between the British and Americans is that John Adams(one of our Founding Fathers if you're unfamiliar) wrote a letter to his wife while on a diplomatic mission to France. He went to length describing his burning desire to take in the incredible cultural achievements of a great nation, but resolved himself to the purpose of his visit.

"I must study politics and war so that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy".

Culture might be great, and I'm glad those who care about it are able to truly enjoy the great works of men who could make beautiful things, but I lack the privilege and idleness to enjoy them.

If we're being perfectly honest, I'd pick Pizza Hut pizza over 3 Michelin Stars 6 days out of the week. Some fancy edgumacation ain't going to change that.

If only higher levels of education led to greater reading comprehension.

Personal enrichment has absolutely zero economic value. None. At all.

Nobody cares if you're well rounded or have read the classics.

 

So it was out of thin air!

 

Bollocks!

The world can protect itself. There is only a need for it in a time of war.

We are way beyond that point in terms of possible conflicts that would trigger a war.

The people of the world want peace. The present danger is NOT a war necessitating advanced military techniques or devices (that cost an arm and a leg).

Our Prime Necessity is to educate our nation such that more than 90% have at least a post-secondary level degree with which to obtain a decent job supporting one's family!

Which is why I have suggested that DoD-funding be cut and the money employed to send all our children on to a tertiary level education FREE, GRATIS & FOR NOTHING ....

 

I didn't say you were predictable - to come to that conclusion would necessitate my knowing you much better than is possible under the present circumstances. What I implied was that some of the attitudes you exhibit in relation to tertiary education might, given your formal educational experiences, be predictable. Yours are not the first such opinions I have encountered, but I assure you no slight was intended - we all judge others, and the world, via a combination of personal experience and study.

I understand the point he was making, but I am unsure as to precisely to what differences (if any) this was alluding.

'Culture' is a very wide and all-encompassing word - it can refer as easily to the ancient rock paintings of Aboriginal Australia, as to the pictorial art of Caravaggio, or to the symphonic works of Gustav Mahler. All of which are of value - according to one's taste - but the appreciation of which requires neither privilege nor idleness.

E.g: being a full time student, and as impecunious as most, I cycle a lot to get about. During which activity I listen to my favourite music - which happens to be a combination of symphonic and operatic music, interspersed by various concerti. As I have already established - I am not particularly privileged, and I am not being idle in so doing. I am studying music (amongst other things) and these bicycling 'concerts' help me in my appreciation of the various forms.

Lol, that is a matter of taste - in both the literal and metaphorical sense. I too, have simple tastes when it comes to food - which is as well, as I do not have the wherewithal with which to indulge more sophisticated culinary tastes. I like little better than a pork pie and a half of Guinness!

I realise that this retort was not necessarily direct at me, but I think it worthy of a response.

Depending upon the discipline - higher levels of education can indeed lead to greater comprehension of the written word. Even disciplines seemingly unrelated to the English language require extensive comprehension to understand the subject matter.

And while I am unsure as to the accuracy of your point regarding personal enrichment and economic value; I must point out that economic return is not the only arbiter of human endeavour. Furthermore, it has been my experience that a great many people, including those closest to me, care a great deal that I am well rounded and obtain a classical education.

 

I have an idea instead of a degree if employers do need skills and that is a sound demand why not toss out the college goal for micro-credentials you could start with in High School where education is largely free and paid for heavily by the government using taxes. An example say an employer in the area needs qualified construction workers why not offer a certification taking a year of classes in High School or outside after that level of education in one area of construction enough to get a basic job then one could do a higher level one with work experience maybe Carpentry Tier 2 or something.

And this can work easily for computer coding, home health care which could lead to nursing and well say you like being eclectic in your work it would be better in my view to have thirty certifications in several areas it would show employers you meet certain skills and could even carry one card with all of them listed so employers can check with a putting in of a number or swiping it or whatever.

If you go to college aren't you locking yourself in largely to one thing and some areas of work have small numbers needed over the number of people getting degrees.

 

Standard amortization, but essentially thin air.

 

Using accountancy when you have to track economic costs and benefits? Stop wearing great suits before its too late!

 

We currently spend about $350 billion on public universities throughout the United States. So to make college free would require a 50% reduction in defense spending, which would lead to about 5% of the US labor force becoming unemployed.

If you want knowledge it's incredibly easy to seek it out, and if 90% of the population has post secondary education, that means higher education becomes as relevant as a high school diploma.

 

My culinary tastes are well developed, and Thomas Keller is an absolute genius, but a pork pie sounds delicious. Your taste in beer, however, needs to be elevated to a more civilized palate. Unless you just really like drinking liquid bread.

To clarify my comment about idleness, I was referring to not actively engaged in a form of industry. I took a vacation to Italy, and was busy at every moment of the trip, but was largely idle outside of my many vineyard tours(as my goal is to operate a vineyard someday, so it was technically work).

To loop into my argument that education for the sake of education has no economic value, you, your family, and everyone around you might really believe that's important, but your study and interest of the great works of music, unless that's your profession, is not something that will generally elevate your economic position. I am particularly fond of colonial history, yet so far the Anglo Boer Wars have never come up in a job interview or during the course of my work.

 

So what? No pain, no gain!

In a presently booming economy they will find "real jobs" in the private sector rather than DoD boondoggles.

For your edification: The 8 biggest military boondoggles of 2015

Excerpt:

Knowledge is a universal quality and it is priceless. It is the precious grease to a fluid market-economy and suitable/smart governance thereof. The US needs both. We need to become a smarter-country generally.

The country does not need a bloated DoD sucking off precious income-taxation just to show American might around the world. Let's leave that to Hollywood.

My Point - When higher education becomes as prevalent as a high-school diploma, then:
*We will finally (after 6 long decades) start diminishing our Poverty Threshold population (which consists of about 14% of all Americans at present). Meaning quite simply that kids born into families below the Threshold will finally have a way out to a higher-standard of education from which they will have the opportunity at "real jobs" and decent lives.
*And also look forward to a drastically diminished incarcerated population as young adults find gainful employment rather than crime to earn money.

Sixty percent of all inmates in the US do not have a high-school degree. See Crime Rate report here - excerpt:

 

First off, may I take this opportunity to thank you for an interesting discussion, and secondly to ask how Thomas Keller (of whom I had never heretofore heard,) entered this discussion. And Guinness is a stout which, while technically a beer, is not generally regarded as such.

Also, I make no claims to an elevated palate, and my student finances tend to preclude vintage Dom Perignon or Châteauneuf-du-Pape.

My study and interest in the great works of music (and musical theory) are peripheral to my reading Laws and Jurisprudence, at one of the world's leading universities. Such studies may not be considered education for the sake of education, but depending upon how I utilise that double degree, they could be treated as such.

I shall very likely engage in the legal profession as a means of economic sustenance, and I am unsure whether that might qualify as what you term 'actively engaged in a form of industry'. So while I take your point, I do not consider that the primary aim of my tertiary education. Necessity can be the master of us all; but I consider further education to be so much more than the means of earning a decent income, and I am concerned to hear that others do not value education in that way. A wider education improves all society, irrespective of earning capacity.

Would you not consider that it might be pleasant to be able to discuss the Kindertotenlieder of Franz Schubert, or the philosophies of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, with the man who comes to mend your dishwasher, or the plumber?

 

Thomas Keller is regarded as one of the greatest culinary minds in the United States. If he's curating, then I can easily forget where I came from.

And while I enjoy a well educated waiter, I'm a plumber, and know nothing about either of those men.

 

So you think that spending more money on higher education will magically increase high school graduation rates? End systemic racism and poverty?

College is where rich people go to mingle with other rich people, which is why successful people tend to be college educated. It has nothing to do with the education, and everything to do with the networking.

If everyone went to college, people would still work at McDonalds, and those people would still be poor.

 

Not where I live, where you live.

I sent my two kids to university over here in France for "next to nada"! Tuition fee was around a kilo-buck (in euros) per year, and they studied from home. Otherwise, they'd pay rental/room 'n board fees of about $500 à month (for 9 months).

You simply do not want kids* to obtain a tertiary-level education (free) and wallow in the misery of a low-income job - probably preparing your BigMacs for next to barely livable wage.

Either that, or you live in a cave totally disconnected from reality ...

Pathetic nonsense derived from pathetic ignorance. You go on Ignore ...

 

So if college is free, who will make the poor people food?

I've never seen you do anything beyond restate your same ridiculous points over and over again, refusing to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary