Mayor Bloomberg: Skip college, become a plumber

I will say this: out of the people I've hired for help the college grads have needed the most oversight.

Why? Because they think they know and don't want to ask.

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

$47000 before taxes is higher than my salary with a PhD and 6 years experience.

jimkabrhel

Chemistry. I'm a professor at a 2-year college in the midwest.

What's the cost of living like in your area? It's usually cheaper than in the cities or more crowded areas.

I mean, I agree with the sentiment that college isn't for everyone.  People also shouldn't go to college unless they're either prepared for the debt or willing to work hard regardless of what they're majoring in.  Going to college and graduating with a 2.2 GPA isn't necessarily a good course of action.

Anyway, ultimately for me while plumber or any sort of trade is probably a goodjob, it's not something I want to do, and I also don't want a career that maxes out at $80,000-90,000 a year.

Being hard to automate IS NOT a good thing.

The career growth potential isn't there. Sure out of school you won't make as much as a plumber, but after 10 years experience you will make as much and after 20 years experience you will make much more than a plumber.DaBrainz

Being hard to automate IS NOT a good thing.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]The career growth potential isn't there. Sure out of school you won't make as much as a plumber, but after 10 years experience you will make as much and after 20 years experience you will make much more than a plumber.WhiteKnight77

especially if you save the princess

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]The career growth potential isn't there. Sure out of school you won't make as much as a plumber, but after 10 years experience you will make as much and after 20 years experience you will make much more than a plumber.WhiteKnight77

Or students can start going to in-state universities instead of ivy league and private institutions where prices are ridiculously high. They could also work their way through college. I have little pity on someone who graduates with 100k+ in debt because they chose to go to an expensive school. There are few exceptions however, such as med school.

God forbid anyone study what they enjoy rather than what will make them the most money. Yes, there are many college goers who probably don't belong there, but for anyone who actually puts in an effort, has done some basic research on job prospects and has realistic expectations, college is great. Besides, if suddenly everyone decided to take up a trade rather than get a degree, the tradesmen would become what degree holders are now. To be honest, I wouldn't want to work in a trade. Sure, you can make a lot of money, but often times work is inconsistant, your hours can be all over the place, and you can run into plenty of legal trouble if your work is not up to standard or your customer is not satisfied with your work.

Or students can start going to in-state universities instead of ivy league and private institutions where prices are ridiculously high. They could also work their way through college. I have little pity on someone who graduates with 100k+ in debt because they chose to go to an expensive school. There are few exceptions however, such as med school.

Ghost_702

It's still extremely expensive.  If you go to community college for two years it's about two grand a year, and if you go to a state school it's still going to be over ten grand a year.  That's twenty four grand for four years, that's an assload of money.  Compare that to somewhere like France where it's something like six or seven hundred dollars a year, even if we had four year community colleges they would still be more expensive than that.  France also has close to one hundred percent of their high school graduates going to college, although not all of them finish.  So even if you're going to make the "college isn't for everyone" argument, at least under that sort of system everyone gets the opportunity to find out.  Like I said in the last thread like this, the problem isn't that people shouldn't be going to college or getting certain degrees, the problem is that the cost of college in this country is extremely inflated and looking to continue in that direction.

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]I don't know about becoming a plumber. $47,000 isn't that much money. But I do agree that more people should learn a trade rather then go to college. I would recommend people avoid college unless you are focused on a specific career that both pays well and you need college training for.

 

Not to mention some people just weren't meant for college. I know a girl, isn't very smart (thats putting it lightly). She is trying to earn a degree and is paying for it by stripping and nude modeling on the side. She hates her job but desperately wants to get a degree. But I know for a fact that she isn't cut out for college, she barely got through high school. She keeps failing her classes and will end up staying in some form of the erotic entertainment industry because its easy money, if you can keep your looks. For someone like her she would be better off pursuing a trade, saving the expense, and quitting the job she hates. But she is trying so hard, I haven't the heart to tell her.jimkabrhel

$47000 before taxes is higher than my salary with a PhD and 6 years experience.

[QUOTE="Ghost_702"]

Or students can start going to in-state universities instead of ivy league and private institutions where prices are ridiculously high. They could also work their way through college. I have little pity on someone who graduates with 100k+ in debt because they chose to go to an expensive school. There are few exceptions however, such as med school.

theone86

It's still extremely expensive.  If you go to community college for two years it's about two grand a year, and if you go to a state school it's still going to be over ten grand a year.  That's twenty four grand for four years, that's an assload of money.  Compare that to somewhere like France where it's something like six or seven hundred dollars a year, even if we had four year community colleges they would still be more expensive than that.  France also has close to one hundred percent of their high school graduates going to college, although not all of them finish.  So even if you're going to make the "college isn't for everyone" argument, at least under that sort of system everyone gets the opportunity to find out.  Like I said in the last thread like this, the problem isn't that people shouldn't be going to college or getting certain degrees, the problem is that the cost of college in this country is extremely inflated and looking to continue in that direction.

Eh, twenty four grand seems like a fair price for a quality education, IMO. Doesn't seem particularly inflated. It's elsewhere that serious, life-crippling financial problems arise.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]I don't know about becoming a plumber. $47,000 isn't that much money. But I do agree that more people should learn a trade rather then go to college. I would recommend people avoid college unless you are focused on a specific career that both pays well and you need college training for.

 

Not to mention some people just weren't meant for college. I know a girl, isn't very smart (thats putting it lightly). She is trying to earn a degree and is paying for it by stripping and nude modeling on the side. She hates her job but desperately wants to get a degree. But I know for a fact that she isn't cut out for college, she barely got through high school. She keeps failing her classes and will end up staying in some form of the erotic entertainment industry because its easy money, if you can keep your looks. For someone like her she would be better off pursuing a trade, saving the expense, and quitting the job she hates. But she is trying so hard, I haven't the heart to tell her.cain006

$47000 before taxes is higher than my salary with a PhD and 6 years experience.

That's academia for you. I could make two to three times what I'm making now in industry, or if I was talented enough in research to go to a big school and do international-level research.

I do complain a little, especially since my salary has been frozen or cut since I began, but I love what I do, and I love where I work. If I could get paid more? Great, but I'm not going to leave my school for just a better salary.

I hear that the pay sucks if you don't do research, and I'd imagine the amount of time working would prob be hideous if you did.

I hear that the pay sucks if you don't do research, and I'd imagine the amount of time working would prob be hideous if you did.

coolbeans90

I work 60+ hours a week just as a teacher. Adding research would be 90+.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I hear that the pay sucks if you don't do research, and I'd imagine the amount of time working would prob be hideous if you did.

jimkabrhel

I work 60+ hours a week just as a teacher. Adding research would be 90+.

Damn.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I hear that the pay sucks if you don't do research, and I'd imagine the amount of time working would prob be hideous if you did.

coolbeans90

I work 60+ hours a week just as a teacher. Adding research would be 90+.

Damn.

Indeed. And I'm still called lazy, being a teacher. Just because I have the summer off. Unpaid. And most teacher you'll speak with still do some work in the summer. I have to.

I hear that the pay sucks if you don't do research, and I'd imagine the amount of time working would prob be hideous if you did.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Being hard to automate IS NOT a good thing.

WhiteKnight77

Technocracy only requires the automation of the means of production.

the service industry in a real world would require people.

nice straw man.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Being hard to automate IS NOT a good thing.

frannkzappa

Technocracy only requires the automation of the means of production.

the service industry in a real world would require people.

nice straw man.

The elimination of scarcity requires a hell of a lot more than automation, as automated processes still have bottlenecks, so this is all rather lulzy.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"] So you expect a robot to come to your house and find where the clog is or replace the tub in your bathroom? Automation is good for assembly line type work, but as far as building a house, repairing cars, fixing the leak under your sink, humans will always be needed to do such things. So much for your much ballyhooed technocracy.coolbeans90

Technocracy only requires the automation of the means of production.

the service industry in a real world would require people.

nice straw man.

The elimination of scarcity requires a hell of a lot more than automation, as automated processes still have bottlenecks, so this is all rather lulzy.

automation is not the be all end all. it also comes down efficient management and allocation of resources (which are more than abundant enough for a population of 300 million) which can only be done by a technocratic government.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Technocracy only requires the automation of the means of production.

 

the service industry in a real world would require people.

 

nice straw man.

frannkzappa

The elimination of scarcity requires a hell of a lot more than automation, as automated processes still have bottlenecks, so this is all rather lulzy.

automation is not the be all end all. it also comes down efficient management and allocation of resources (which are more than abundant enough for a population of 300 million) which can only be done by a technocratic government.

Governments have done a pretty bad job at allocating resources in entire economies efficiently, even when delegated to experts.  Are you familiar at all with how price systems work, or am I going to have to disregard your entire theory as just another dream with no concrete basis in reality?  I've argued with enough Lai's to not care to waste my time on 'em.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Being hard to automate IS NOT a good thing.

frannkzappa

Technocracy only requires the automation of the means of production.

the service industry in a real world would require people.

nice straw man.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"] So you expect a robot to come to your house and find where the clog is or replace the tub in your bathroom? Automation is good for assembly line type work, but as far as building a house, repairing cars, fixing the leak under your sink, humans will always be needed to do such things. So much for your much ballyhooed technocracy.Aljosa23

Technocracy only requires the automation of the means of production.

the service industry in a real world would require people.

nice straw man.

To be specific i advocate a platonic influenced meritocratic technocracy with an abundance based economic system . Technocracy is much shorter to type.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The elimination of scarcity requires a hell of a lot more than automation, as automated processes still have bottlenecks, so this is all rather lulzy.

coolbeans90

automation is not the be all end all. it also comes down efficient management and allocation of resources (which are more than abundant enough for a population of 300 million) which can only be done by a technocratic government.

Governments have done a pretty bad job at allocating resources in entire economies efficiently, even when delegated to experts. Are you familiar at all with how price systems work, or am I going to have to disregard your entire theory as just another dream with no concrete basis in reality? I've argued with enough Lai's to not care to waste my time on 'em.

Governments up to this point have been run by tyrants, oligarchs and incompetents, not technocracies (i mean the literal definition, hit up wikipedia if you don't know what that is)

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

automation is not the be all end all. it also comes down efficient management and allocation of resources (which are more than abundant enough for a population of 300 million) which can only be done by a technocratic government.

frannkzappa

Governments have done a pretty bad job at allocating resources in entire economies efficiently, even when delegated to experts. Are you familiar at all with how price systems work, or am I going to have to disregard your entire theory as just another dream with no concrete basis in reality? I've argued with enough Lai's to not care to waste my time on 'em.

Governments up to this point have been run by tyrants, oligarchs and incompetents, not technocracies (i mean the literal definition, hit up wikipedia if you don't know what that is)

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

automation is not the be all end all. it also comes down efficient management and allocation of resources (which are more than abundant enough for a population of 300 million) which can only be done by a technocratic government.

frannkzappa

Governments have done a pretty bad job at allocating resources in entire economies efficiently, even when delegated to experts. Are you familiar at all with how price systems work, or am I going to have to disregard your entire theory as just another dream with no concrete basis in reality? I've argued with enough Lai's to not care to waste my time on 'em.

Governments up to this point have been run by tyrants, oligarchs and incompetents, not technocracies (i mean the literal definition, hit up wikipedia if you don't know what that is)

There have been numerous attempts to manage resources, and that has typically fallen to experts (technocrats).  Due to the lack of feedback mechanisms like the price system, shortages and surpluses occur. While inequities occur under market systems, governments can deal with that.  Now, because unrestrained centralized power holders don't have inherent incentives to not fvck sh!t up, the path to oligarchy is pretty straightforward.  This is all pretty simple.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Governments have done a pretty bad job at allocating resources in entire economies efficiently, even when delegated to experts. Are you familiar at all with how price systems work, or am I going to have to disregard your entire theory as just another dream with no concrete basis in reality? I've argued with enough Lai's to not care to waste my time on 'em.

coolbeans90

Governments up to this point have been run by tyrants, oligarchs and incompetents, not technocracies (i mean the literal definition, hit up wikipedia if you don't know what that is)

There have been numerous attempts to manage resources, and that has typically fallen to experts (technocrats). Due to the lack of feedback mechanisms like the price system, shortages and surpluses occur. While inequities occur under market systems, governments can deal with that. Now, because unrestrained centralized power holders don't have inherent incentives to not fvck sh!t up, the path to oligarchy is pretty straightforward. This is all pretty simple.

That is an assumption, non price based economics (outside of communism) has not been attempted.

Competence is rewarded in this system, not fVking things up is the fastest and easiest way to get what you want. I suggest you read Platos "The Republic" if you want to know what kind of man is the ideal for government.

Or students can start going to in-state universities instead of ivy league and private institutions where prices are ridiculously high. They could also work their way through college. I have little pity on someone who graduates with 100k+ in debt because they chose to go to an expensive school. There are few exceptions however, such as med school.

Ghost_702

I don't really understand where this viewpoint comes from.  Any Ivy League or elite private college is going to cover most people's expenses pretty damn well.  I'll be attending a University that would cost $240,000 over the four years, for less debt than I would incur going to any of my state universities.  Most really good private colleges, and all Ivy Leagues will cover your expenses if you're in a lower income bracket.

Plus "start going to in-state instead of ivy league and private institutions" is a load of bull since the vast majority of kids already and always will go to public universities.  It is a definite minority that goes to private schools, and a tiny tiny amount that goes to Ivy Leagues.  I believe the number is 16% of undergrads who attend private schools and 0.4% for undergrads attending Ivy League schools.

Now if someone is earning $250k-300k+a year then going to a public school would be much cheaper because they won't be getting any aid, but at that point they can probably afford any private college anyway.

I'll be the outsider here and just say that is absolutely horrible advice to give. Learning a trade is only good if that trade is going to continue to be valuable into the future. I agree that the job market is becoming saturated with college graduates ,but societal expectations and employers are entirely to blame. Nobody goes to school wanting to be a plumber because its hard to make a career doing a trade anymore. If the demand for that trade disappears you're screwed.

I'll be the outsider here and just say that is absolutely horrible advice to give. Learning a trade is only good if that trade is going to continue to be valuable into the future. I agree that the job market is becoming saturated with college graduates ,but societal expectations and employers are entirely to blame. Nobody goes to school wanting to be a plumber because its hard to make a career doing a trade anymore. If the demand for that trade disappears you're screwed.

UnknownSniper65

The demand for plumbers isn't going to go away anytime soon.

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

I'll be the outsider here and just say that is absolutely horrible advice to give. Learning a trade is only good if that trade is going to continue to be valuable into the future. I agree that the job market is becoming saturated with college graduates ,but societal expectations and employers are entirely to blame. Nobody goes to school wanting to be a plumber because its hard to make a career doing a trade anymore. If the demand for that trade disappears you're screwed.

worlock77

The demand for plumbers isn't going to go away anytime soon.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"] It's one thing to go to college, it's another to major in something that does not pay dividends for the time spent in school.WhiteKnight77

An office job would be amazing. 

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

I'll be the outsider here and just say that is absolutely horrible advice to give. Learning a trade is only good if that trade is going to continue to be valuable into the future. I agree that the job market is becoming saturated with college graduates ,but societal expectations and employers are entirely to blame. Nobody goes to school wanting to be a plumber because its hard to make a career doing a trade anymore. If the demand for that trade disappears you're screwed.

Yusuke420

The demand for plumbers isn't going to go away anytime soon.

Yeah many plumbing jobs are easy, but most? Not quite. At any rate demand isn't going to drop because people aren't going to start DIY'ing shit like that. Many people don't have the know-how, or don't want to get dirty, or just plain feel more assured it letting a professional handle it than attempting it themselves. There's many reasons why people would choose to hire a plumber. The demand for plumbers is not going to go away.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Ghost_702"]

Or students can start going to in-state universities instead of ivy league and private institutions where prices are ridiculously high. They could also work their way through college. I have little pity on someone who graduates with 100k+ in debt because they chose to go to an expensive school. There are few exceptions however, such as med school.

coolbeans90

It's still extremely expensive.  If you go to community college for two years it's about two grand a year, and if you go to a state school it's still going to be over ten grand a year.  That's twenty four grand for four years, that's an assload of money.  Compare that to somewhere like France where it's something like six or seven hundred dollars a year, even if we had four year community colleges they would still be more expensive than that.  France also has close to one hundred percent of their high school graduates going to college, although not all of them finish.  So even if you're going to make the "college isn't for everyone" argument, at least under that sort of system everyone gets the opportunity to find out.  Like I said in the last thread like this, the problem isn't that people shouldn't be going to college or getting certain degrees, the problem is that the cost of college in this country is extremely inflated and looking to continue in that direction.

Eh, twenty four grand seems like a fair price for a quality education, IMO. Doesn't seem particularly inflated. It's elsewhere that serious, life-crippling financial problems arise.

If we're comparing it to other countries then that's an extremely inflated price.  Compare France's price to state colleges and it's over ten times cheaper, compare it to community colleges and it's still about half the price.  That's a first-world country, their education is the same quality as ours (perhaps better), and over the same four year period American colleges are almost ten times the cost.  

I will grant that American colleges spend more on facilities and the like, but that brings up other problems.  What about students who don't use certain facilities but still pay for them?  Is all the money these collges are spending being used wisely?  At my university they're doing tons of renovations and construction, year after year something is getting torn down or built, and we're still hemmoraging money (in fact, our credit rating was recently downgraded).  So at the same time as you're seeing annual construction academic programs, which are supposed to be the focus of a university, are getting cut back.  

We can look at this in regards to sporting programs as well.  Colleges are spending boatloads of money on sports programs.  In fact, in almost every state except for a few exceptions (and I literally mean a few, maybe half a dozen at most) the highest-paid public employee is a college coach.  The argument gets made that this brings in money for the school, but if you actually look at it only the most lucrative athletics programs are generating money for their universities.  College athletics programs are actually losing money on average when you're only counting the revenue they generate on their own apart from student fees.  

So what does this all add up to?  We're paying for buildings and services we may never use, we're paying for renovations that administrators greenlight because they think it will spike applications, we're paying for sports teams that are actually probably costing the university, and our academic options are being scaled back, and for all of this our cost is TEN TIMES greater than a comprable European college system.  That in no way sounds fair to me.

Also, you have to consider that although quality of community colleges is and has been on the rise, there are still some out there that are considered sub-par.  For people who see less opportunity at their local community college and decide to go to a four-year school for four years you're going to have to add an extra sixteen grand on to the final sticker price.  These are also some low-ball numbers and you have to consider that there is a large segment of people paying significantly more.  Also, many people choose their college according to program.  I go to a state school because it's good for my major, but if I was in a program where the school frankly sucked, and I have seen programs like that, then I'm stuck between paying a lot more money for a school that has a better program or not getting the proper resources as part of my education.

Also, think about how much money this is.  Twenty four grand is not just a new car, but a nice new car.  I know people that have gone twenty years without being able to afford a new car that costs less than that, and cars last for a decade.  We're talking about buying a brand new car every single year for four years in a row, and some families have to do that with multiple children.  Frankly, that is just an insane cost for most Americans, I don't see how that's fair.  I also don't see how it's fair that tuition costs keep rising while the economy is contracting.

Yes most, name something that is so hard you need a hardcore pro to get it done! From uncloging a toliet to installing a water softener, I can do it all with just a couple years experience in a retail plumbing environment. You're right though people would rather pay money out the ass then get wet. 

Yes most, name something that is so hard you need a hardcore pro to get it done! From uncloging a toliet to installing a water softener, I can do it all with just a couple years experience in a retail plumbing environment. You're right though people would rather pay money out the ass then get wet. 

Yusuke420

Sure you can. I can as well. Many people can't however and it's not even necessarily because they don't want to get wet, but simply because they didn't have the benefit of working in a retail environment or having a dad that taught them this shit.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

It's still extremely expensive.  If you go to community college for two years it's about two grand a year, and if you go to a state school it's still going to be over ten grand a year.  That's twenty four grand for four years, that's an assload of money.  Compare that to somewhere like France where it's something like six or seven hundred dollars a year, even if we had four year community colleges they would still be more expensive than that.  France also has close to one hundred percent of their high school graduates going to college, although not all of them finish.  So even if you're going to make the "college isn't for everyone" argument, at least under that sort of system everyone gets the opportunity to find out.  Like I said in the last thread like this, the problem isn't that people shouldn't be going to college or getting certain degrees, the problem is that the cost of college in this country is extremely inflated and looking to continue in that direction.

theone86

Eh, twenty four grand seems like a fair price for a quality education, IMO. Doesn't seem particularly inflated. It's elsewhere that serious, life-crippling financial problems arise.

If we're comparing it to other countries then that's an extremely inflated price.  Compare France's price to state colleges and it's over ten times cheaper, compare it to community colleges and it's still about half the price.  That's a first-world country, their education is the same quality as ours (perhaps better), and over the same four year period American colleges are almost ten times the cost.  

I will grant that American colleges spend more on facilities and the like, but that brings up other problems.  What about students who don't use certain facilities but still pay for them?  Is all the money these collges are spending being used wisely?  At my university they're doing tons of renovations and construction, year after year something is getting torn down or built, and we're still hemmoraging money (in fact, our credit rating was recently downgraded).  So at the same time as you're seeing annual construction academic programs, which are supposed to be the focus of a university, are getting cut back.  

We can look at this in regards to sporting programs as well.  Colleges are spending boatloads of money on sports programs.  In fact, in almost every state except for a few exceptions (and I literally mean a few, maybe half a dozen at most) the highest-paid public employee is a college coach.  The argument gets made that this brings in money for the school, but if you actually look at it only the most lucrative athletics programs are generating money for their universities.  College athletics programs are actually losing money on average when you're only counting the revenue they generate on their own apart from student fees.  

So what does this all add up to?  We're paying for buildings and services we may never use, we're paying for renovations that administrators greenlight because they think it will spike applications, we're paying for sports teams that are actually probably costing the university, and our academic options are being scaled back, and for all of this our cost is TEN TIMES greater than a comprable European college system.  That in no way sounds fair to me.

Well, I don't really have an argument to make, I will say that on the world stage American Universities are generally considered better than French ones, so while that doesn't necessarily account for any or all of the price difference, it is worth noting the respect our top colleges receive all around the world not just here in the States.

I mean public universities receive money from the government, that's why they're public, but it's clearly not enough.  So I don't know how you can really suggest that there's any way to actually lower tuition except through increased government funding.  I'm assuming that is why France's schools are so much lower in cost.  From where I'm standing that seems to be the only real solution.

As for paying for services that aren't used, that's tricky, how are you supposed to determine ahead of time what you will and won't use?

Oh, and college athletics: I completely agree with what you're saying.  I'm a big college sports fan, but sports programs don't help the academic department at school's at all.  Even big time school's where the sports programs make tons of money and profit, none of the academic departments ever see any of that money.  That money is simply funneled back into the athletic department to fund less popular sports.  For example at big state schools the Football program might pay for 20 or 30 sports.

And, I'll say it again.  For people in low income brackets, a private college education can be cheaper, even when compared to a cheap public college education, yet so many people remain woefully unaware of this.

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The demand for plumbers isn't going to go away anytime soon.

worlock77

Yeah many plumbing jobs are easy, but most? Not quite. At any rate demand isn't going to drop because people aren't going to start DIY'ing shit like that. Many people don't have the know-how, or don't want to get dirty, or just plain feel more assured it letting a professional handle it than attempting it themselves. There's many reasons why people would choose to hire a plumber. The demand for plumbers is not going to go away.

Frankly, I see that as a bit of a problem.  There are tons of people who just buy things and have no knowledge of how they work and no knowledge of proper maintenance.  I honestly think that there are a lot of basic skills that people should have in a wide variety of different areas, and in reality most people have zero comprehension in these areas.  There are people who literally don't know how to turn a wrench, how does that happen?  You have people who literally don't know how to cook a single meal, how does that happen?  I'm not saying that everyone has to be a four-star chef or master plumber, but I really think everyone should have some basic understanding in these areas, especially homeowners.  Not that I'm completely taking Yusuke's side, but as I've said in ohter threads I don't think economic demand should necessarily justify something.

People that come in the Home Depot have trouble using the automated checkout system, I'm sure their DYI projects are quite a sight to behold as they end up making two and three trips back to us. 

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh, twenty four grand seems like a fair price for a quality education, IMO. Doesn't seem particularly inflated. It's elsewhere that serious, life-crippling financial problems arise.

TacticalDesire

If we're comparing it to other countries then that's an extremely inflated price.  Compare France's price to state colleges and it's over ten times cheaper, compare it to community colleges and it's still about half the price.  That's a first-world country, their education is the same quality as ours (perhaps better), and over the same four year period American colleges are almost ten times the cost.  

I will grant that American colleges spend more on facilities and the like, but that brings up other problems.  What about students who don't use certain facilities but still pay for them?  Is all the money these collges are spending being used wisely?  At my university they're doing tons of renovations and construction, year after year something is getting torn down or built, and we're still hemmoraging money (in fact, our credit rating was recently downgraded).  So at the same time as you're seeing annual construction academic programs, which are supposed to be the focus of a university, are getting cut back.  

We can look at this in regards to sporting programs as well.  Colleges are spending boatloads of money on sports programs.  In fact, in almost every state except for a few exceptions (and I literally mean a few, maybe half a dozen at most) the highest-paid public employee is a college coach.  The argument gets made that this brings in money for the school, but if you actually look at it only the most lucrative athletics programs are generating money for their universities.  College athletics programs are actually losing money on average when you're only counting the revenue they generate on their own apart from student fees.  

So what does this all add up to?  We're paying for buildings and services we may never use, we're paying for renovations that administrators greenlight because they think it will spike applications, we're paying for sports teams that are actually probably costing the university, and our academic options are being scaled back, and for all of this our cost is TEN TIMES greater than a comprable European college system.  That in no way sounds fair to me.

Well, I don't really have an argument to make, I will say that on the world stage American Universities are generally considered better than French ones, so while that doesn't necessarily account for any or all of the price difference, it is worth noting the respect our top colleges receive all around the world not just here in the States.

I mean public universities receive money from the government, that's why they're public, but it's clearly not enough.  So I don't know how you can really suggest that there's any way to actually lower tuition except through increased government funding.  I'm assuming that is why France's schools are so much lower in cost.  From where I'm standing that seems to be the only real solution.

As for paying for services that aren't used, that's tricky, how are you supposed to determine ahead of time what you will and won't use?

Oh, and college athletics: I completely agree with what you're saying.  I'm a big college sports fan, but sports programs don't help the academic department at school's at all.  Even big time school's where the sports programs make tons of money and profit, none of the academic departments ever see any of that money.  That money is simply funneled back into the athletic department to fund less popular sports.  For example at big state schools the Football program might pay for 20 or 30 sports.

And, I'll say it again.  For people in low income brackets, a private college education can be cheaper, even when compared to a cheap public college education, yet so many people remain woefully unaware of this.

That's a really vague statement, how are you measuring this?  Are you saying American universities across the board are better than French universities, are you saying on average, are you saying our best are better than their best, our worst are better than their best, what?  To me, claims like this have always seemed to be along the lines of there are a select few American universities that are among the best in the world, but when you get outside of that select group it's a different story.  I will also say that there are a lot of American universities that are very prestigious, but that don't live all the way up to that prestige.  There are actually a lot of subjects where public universities are actually running better programs than some of the more traditionally acclaimed universities, mostly because those universities are focusing more on high-paying majors.  So if you're just talking prestige that might be true, but the quality of education doesn't always measure up.  Not saying it's bad, just that it doesn't live up to the hype.

Granted, there is a lot of public money funneled into French universities, but their campuses are also much smaller.  You're not seeing all the spending on facilities there, in fact you really don't have many facilities outside of educational facilities there, take that how you will.

In my experience, private universities have a lot of incentive-based scholarships.  If you're a poor student who also is just average as far as college students go then public universities might be the cheaper option (or you might be out of luck).

Also, I can understand a price discrepancy, but ten times cheaper?  It seems to me like this sort of discrepancy is far too large.  This also ties in with tuition going up as the economy gets worse.

One last thing I will say about French universities, their quality of student coming out of high school is generally higher.  If we actually made an investment in our public education system at the pre-college level then I might not be as adverse to people skipping out on college as I am.  I really think there's no reason anyone in this country shouldn't have a basic knowledge of most collegiate subjects.  Whether that knowledge comes from getting an associate's degree or from a better secondary education system, or both, doesn't matter to me.

People that come in the Home Depot have trouble using the automated checkout system, I'm sure their DYI projects are quite a sight to behold as they end up making two and three trips back to us. 

Yusuke420

I will say that I don't think that's the best analogy, but yeah, some of these DYI projects are probably pretty scary.  Sometimes that's to be expected, but I think that if you own something you should have some basic knowledge of how it works and how to repair it.  If you own a car you should be able to change the oil, if you own a guitar you should be able to change the strings, if you own a bike you should be able to oil the chain, and if you own a house you should be able to do some basic maintenance and repair.  The fact that for most people the only solution to a problem is to call someone to fix it for you is a sad indicator of where our society is at.

I'll also say that I think being able to appreciate learning for its own sake can be part of counteracting this.  People who are interested in, say, the physics of how something like a car works but not interested in it as a profession should be encouraged to acquire diverse knowledge, not discouraged because it doesn't make economic sense.

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

People that come in the Home Depot have trouble using the automated checkout system, I'm sure their DYI projects are quite a sight to behold as they end up making two and three trips back to us. 

theone86

I will say that I don't think that's the best analogy, but yeah, some of these DYI projects are probably pretty scary.  Sometimes that's to be expected, but I think that if you own something you should have some basic knowledge of how it works and how to repair it.  If you own a car you should be able to change the oil, if you own a guitar you should be able to change the strings, if you own a bike you should be able to oil the chain, and if you own a house you should be able to do some basic maintenance and repair.  The fact that for most people the only solution to a problem is to call someone to fix it for you is a sad indicator of where our society is at.