Student loans and the economy

[Duke87 1,070]

An intriguing thing I happened across.

I've known for a while, as many people have, that something is messed up with the tuition rates in this country, and I've even heard it said before that government student loans are feeding the beast. But this casts the matter in a bit of a different and perhaps more somber light... and I can't help but feel that the guy is right. Too many people owe too much money for it to be healthy.

[Meg 368]

A very intriguing article. and, as you say, I can't help but feel the guy is right.

I'm all in favor of education. In my ideal world, everyone would have a chance at reaching their potential in whatever field they have talents and aptitudes.

We've known for a while that the traditional education system isn't cutting it in terms of results. But this guy has an excellent point about how the current system is affecting the economy.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

That is one reason why I go to community college and use my college fund (no loan) to pay for it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, in the U.S. there are lots of state funded post secondary institutions, so there really is no reason to borrow to go to an Ivy League school if you don't get a scholarship that carries most of the freight. I am afraid in some cases it is a matter of prestige, and no argument will change that attitude.

Here in Canada, all major Universities are private and the community colleges are mostly trade schools and not degree granting although some offer transfer credits to degree granting schools. Our system is quite different from the U.S.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Well, in the U.S. there are lots of state funded post secondary institutions, so there really is no reason to borrow to go to an Ivy League school if you don't get a scholarship that carries most of the freight. I am afraid in some cases it is a matter of prestige, and no argument will change that attitude.

Here in Canada, all major Universities are private and the community colleges are mostly trade schools and not degree granting although some offer transfer credits to degree granting schools. Our system is quite different from the U.S.

Even the state funded schools have jacked their tuition rates. you don't have to go to Harvard to spend 30K+ a year for school

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, in the U.S. there are lots of state funded post secondary institutions, so there really is no reason to borrow to go to an Ivy League school if you don't get a scholarship that carries most of the freight. I am afraid in some cases it is a matter of prestige, and no argument will change that attitude.

Here in Canada, all major Universities are private and the community colleges are mostly trade schools and not degree granting although some offer transfer credits to degree granting schools. Our system is quite different from the U.S.

Even the state funded schools have jacked their tuition rates. you don't have to go to Harvard to spend 30K+ a year for school

The tuition is jacked to cover the short-fall from grants. There is nothing like cutting off your future by limiting education opportunities for the young. Perhaps a more rigorous entrance requirement would keep the party crowd out of the big schools, and make more places (with scholarships and bursaries if necessary) for the poor but deserving.

[Beren Erchamion 12]

A big part of the problem is that higher education is being promoted as instrumental rather than something of worth in its own right. As education is seen as a ticket to a job rather than learning for its own sake, it becomes more and more appealing to people who don't actually belong there. The rapid growth of the undergraduate business major (which is morally and academically bankrupt) and the diversion of funding to business and engineering programs, as well as the cultural depreciation of actual valid academic fields such as the fine and liberal arts and humanities, is all a symptom of that one basic illness.

[Duke87 1,070]

Indeed, degree inflation.

I'm going to have to disagree with you though on what is or isn't a waste or a diversion. Engineering is a valid course of study, and so is business to some degree. Both of these degrees have a career path attached to them that cannot be gone down without the degree. Obviously, you cannot be an engineer if you have not been schooled in engineering. And good luck finding your way into an office as a professional without a college degree of some sort.

The issue is more the people who go to college and get a degree which then really doesn't get them anywhere. Majors like English or History are pretty much worthless unless you intend to get a PhD or become a high school teacher. These are the people that graduate college and then become receptionists, customer service reps, Starbucks baristas, nannies, etc... the degree doesn't do anything for you except that demonstrate that you were capable of graduating from college - which does give you a leg up on the competition without a degree looking for the same job, but it doesn't necessarily make them pay you more.

And not having a college degree isn't the end of the world. Bill Gates doesn't have one. Neither does Mark Zuckerberg.

The thing of it is, college these days is as much if not more about the social experience as it is about the education. Who wants to miss out on the dorm life, the parties, the sex, drugs, and rock n' roll? Culturally, we expect to have a few years to get the wildness out of our systems before we have to start being responsible. Not going to college is a part of life missed out on, and a sign of being *gasp* working class! Nobody wants that!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In my day if you wanted a "social" experience you took a year off between high-school and college and traveled around Europe or some other foreign place. Some people liked their experience so much that they stayed there and perhaps continued education there as well.

Some time off between high-school to settle down is good. It gives you a chance to see what the real world is like outside of the academic grind and your home environment. Strongly recommended.

[sneakeypete 16]

It seems to me that most of the degrees here in Australia are useful for useful jobs. Pharmacy, science, architecture, economics, accounting, nursing etc. are what the majority of degrees are. Things like an english degree are much less common, but still do exist (or, i haven't met the huge amount of people doing them, but that seems unlikely). Even in the USA i'd be interested on seeing the stats on how many people actually use their degrees, does anyone know of any off the top of their head?

[Meg 368]

A co-worker, who graduated from Harvard, once told that he was educated while I was merely trained. Whatever.

My degree in Information System Management served me well. Back then, it was a new major that most people had never heard of.

When they asked what it was, I would say "management of information systems". For some reason that made more sense to people.

[Duke87 1,070]

My degree in Information System Management served me well. Back then, it was a new major that most people had never heard of.

When they asked what it was, I would say "management of information systems". For some reason that made more sense to people.

Heh. Sounds like my style of smartass answer that I love to give to our sales guys when they ask me to explain what something is. "What's a hot water loop?" "It's a loop of pipe containing hot water." This is the thing about engineering terminology: we don't speak in code. Names are descriptive and most things are exactly what they sound like. But apparently it takes a college education in engineering to understand that.

  Edited May 17, 2012 by Duke87  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Engineering, pharmacy, medicine, and other professional degrees usually lead to a high visibility of the graduates for the public. Quite often the more abstract areas such as physics, language and philosophy are seen as "egg head" things beyond common understanding. Common understanding deserves to have a boot rear bush in its front yard.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

My school once got mighty Columbia censured at a Model UN conference for acting out of character, so I take no guff from the Ivy League.

Along more serious lines, I think it is a crime what our parents' (well, MY parents') generation did to us regarding education. They stigmatized the trades (plumbing, carpentry, other working-with-hands type things that don't require a 4-year degree from a university), stigmatized customer service (fast food in particular) and made it nearly impossible to get a decent job that does not require a BA or BS or equivalent. There are large numbers of people who simply are not cut out for college and the office-type work environment after that. There is nothing wrong with that, same as there is nothing wrong with people not being cut out for labor-intensive work. A good example would be my brother and I. He is athletic, loves working with his hands, hates studying, and avoids books like they were made of spiders that are lit on fire and spit acid at people. I am not so good at sports and using tools, but quite good at studying, bookwork, and all that other nerdy garbage. Expecting us to follow the same path through college is ridiculous, and you can see the wrong people everyday at campuses across the country (the world?) trying to hack it who simply cannot. This works both ways, you cannot count on me for the kind of labor and home-improvement style work he does, same as you would not want to ask him to teach English to a bunch of Japanese students.

I do understand why they did it, and a few years ago I would have argued that any clean, safe office job would be vastly superior to working outside or in a factory all day long. But I was wrong, and now this is happening, and I have no doubt that it will continue to worsen as people seek education while the economy continues its non-hiring slump (Entry level positions! 1-3 years experience required). I'm not especially optimistic...

[Meg 368]

Along more serious lines, I think it is a crime what our parents' (well, MY parents') generation did to us regarding education. They stigmatized the trades (plumbing, carpentry, other working-with-hands type things that don't require a 4-year degree from a university), stigmatized customer service (fast food in particular) and made it nearly impossible to get a decent job that does not require a BA or BS or equivalent. There are large numbers of people who simply are not cut out for college and the office-type work environment after that.

As John Gardner says:

"We must learn to honor excellence in every socially accepted human activity, however humble the activity, and to scorn shoddiness, however exalted the activity. An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society that scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."

Quotes aside, you're correct: somewhere along the blue collar work was stigmatized. Which is ridiculous because we will always need skilled labor. Many jobs involving plumbing, carpentry, electrical work, etc, can not be outsourced overseas. If the problem is in your house, you need the skilled worker in your house.

I know where some of it comes from: parents wanting their children to have a better life. My grandfather was a coal miner. I asked my dad why he didn't follow his father into the mines. His response "Because he told me if I did, he would break my legs." (Instead, my dad worked on some of the earliest computer systems. Turned out he had a knack for it, which I fortunately inherited.)

Generally speaking most blue collar jobs are more dangerous than sitting in an office. I can see how people might want their children to have a less hazardous job.

But the dirty jobs are necessary and should not be looked down on. Any time you use something metal, you can thank a miner. Any time you turn on a light, you can thank the various people in the various unsafe conditions that were needed to power that light.

If everyone stopped working tomorrow, who would you miss first? I'm going to guess the garbage collector.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

In Britain we don't now have Grants, we have Loans instead which have to be paid back when you earn over £21,000pa albeit at a reduced interest rate. The previous government wanted to get 50% of the population into university. When I went to school it was probably about 10%. There were many more apprenticeships. We have lost most of our manufacturing to China and others. We need to have a manufacturing base to make money and employ the people for whom academia is not the right choice. Service industries just move money around, manufacturing creates money. One problem we have is that "bankers" now encourage entrepreneurs to manufacture elsewhere because it's cheaper and they make more profit, although it's worse for the economy.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"Vell, some of us has to push wind through the tuba. Ve cannot all conduct the orchestra." I forget who said that, but I think it was someone in the early part of the 20th century. Being in the chorus is often the role that suits one better than trying to sing a solo.

Some people simply lack the creative urge that makes an individual contributor. The education system has been ignoring this now for about two generations (30 years each, I don't hold with stylish generations). Why do you think we have all these undirected people in the "occupy" movements? Lost sheep who need a sheep dog and can't find one.

[Meg 368]

Some people simply lack the creative urge that makes an individual contributor. The education system has been ignoring this now for about two generations (30 years each, I don't hold with stylish generations). Why do you think we have all these undirected people in the "occupy" movements? Lost sheep who need a sheep dog and can't find one.

Well, that seems rather snotty. Exactly the type of stigmatization that Spidey was talking about.

[raja_indy14 8]

Blaming widespread social unrest and anger at the political-economic system among the populace on the fact that many lack a 'creative urge' ignores the very real economic hardships that have been imposed on people. The real source of anger appears to be a growing understanding of the inequality of the system and how the government acts to protect the well being of the richest at the expense of the most vulnerable - which is effectively what tax cuts for the wealthy, bailouts of financial institutions, and then 'austerity' entail. That 'democratic' governments have appeared unwilling to address, and indeed have often exacerbated, these pressing concerns means that there is really no other recourse but public protest. Given the complexity of the problem (at the very least one has to consider how emerging markets are beginning to have negative externalities for developed economies, that much Western prosperity in the last two decades has been built on unsustainable levels of debt, that financialization has become a cornerstone of major Western economies, and that governments are unwilling to countenance any solutions that may involve a radical redistribution of wealth downwards even though this might go a long way to resolving some of the deep-seated structural problems in mature Western economies, not to mention the ongoing demographic shift) it makes perfect sense that protesters will vent their anger and frustration at a clearly dysfunctional political-economic system, without necessarily clearly understanding it or having a viable solution.

Government policies that force poorer (and increasingly this includes the middle class) families/students to take on sizable loans to attend University preferentially favours those students that come from high income families, exacerbating growing income inequalities. Financialization allows the lower/middle classes with their stagnant wages to continue to increase consumption and pay more (in real prices) for services and simultaneously allows the increasingly wealthy elites to find an outlet for ever greater accumulations of largely unproductive finance capital. Battles over tuition fees, and particularly as they are framed in terms of student debt loads such as the protests in Quebec, are a symptom of this trend.

[krbe 193]

Engineering, pharmacy, medicine, and other professional degrees usually lead to a high visibility of the graduates for the public. Quite often the more abstract areas such as physics, language and philosophy are seen as "egg head" things beyond common understanding. Common understanding deserves to have a boot rear bush in its front yard.

I would love doing physics if I actually knew what I could use it as, but I didn't when I had to choose; and the physics students I've met have convinced me I'm right ('What I'll do? Hmm, I think I might be doing some high school teaching.' Had I gone through physics it'd be because I'd want to do some CERN stuff...). Language studies could have been far more useful than they actually are (English at my local university is the 'easiest' course in the country apparently); media, the intelligence services, businesses, government services; all of these need people with a more thorough understanding than language and culture, but current courses seem more to be aimed at churning out yet more high school teachers.

How philosophy courses ever got to have the number of students they do today, is beyond me though. What does a philosopher do, professionally?

My school once got mighty Columbia censured at a Model UN conference for acting out of character, so I take no guff from the Ivy League.

Along more serious lines, I think it is a crime what our parents' (well, MY parents') generation did to us regarding education. They stigmatized the trades (plumbing, carpentry, other working-with-hands type things that don't require a 4-year degree from a university), stigmatized customer service (fast food in particular) and made it nearly impossible to get a decent job that does not require a BA or BS or equivalent.

My public, no-tuition school recently tied with Harvard in the Vis Moot competition (international law school competition), beaten by Nalsar University (India) and UCL.

I can only agree with you on the perceived need for education. I honestly wouldn't have minded leaving school for a life on board when I was 15; but that's just not how the world works any longer.

[Cantona_21 3]

In Britain we don't now have Grants, we have Loans instead which have to be paid back when you earn over £21,000pa albeit at a reduced interest rate. The previous government wanted to get 50% of the population into university. When I went to school it was probably about 10%. There were many more apprenticeships. We have lost most of our manufacturing to China and others. We need to have a manufacturing base to make money and employ the people for whom academia is not the right choice. Service industries just move money around, manufacturing creates money. One problem we have is that "bankers" now encourage entrepreneurs to manufacture elsewhere because it's cheaper and they make more profit, although it's worse for the economy.

I think having so many people going to university has devalued degrees too. Im graduating this summer and since I wont be getting a 1st class I feel Ill need a masters to bump me up. £9000 a year? Not likely. Going to try my luck at Eastern Europe.

[hym 358]

Engineering, pharmacy, medicine, and other professional degrees usually lead to a high visibility of the graduates for the public. Quite often the more abstract areas such as physics, language and philosophy are seen as "egg head" things beyond common understanding. Common understanding deserves to have a boot rear bush in its front yard.

That's true for some professional degrees, but engineering is certainly not one of them. Research on teenager's perception of the engineering field reveals two things:

1. Most aren't even aware of what the field is or that such a field exists in the first place.
   
2. Most of the ones that are aware of the field report that the world "engineer" conjures up images of an "old, fat, white guy."
   

I know where some of it comes from: parents wanting their children to have a better life.

I suspect that this is largely impacted by the type of work that you're doing. I've worked with quite a few individuals who work in dangerous environments, and many of them are some of the happiest individuals you could ever ask to meet.

But the dirty jobs are necessary and should not be looked down on. Any time you use something metal, you can thank a miner. Any time you turn on a light, you can thank the various people in the various unsafe conditions that were needed to power that light.

This wasn't in any way influenced by the stories I've told, was it?

"Vell, some of us has to push wind through the tuba. Ve cannot all conduct the orchestra." I forget who said that, but I think it was someone in the early part of the 20th century. Being in the chorus is often the role that suits one better than trying to sing a solo.

Some people simply lack the creative urge that makes an individual contributor. The education system has been ignoring this now for about two generations (30 years each, I don't hold with stylish generations). Why do you think we have all these undirected people in the "occupy" movements? Lost sheep who need a sheep dog and can't find one.

The problem with this mindset is that, while it recognizes the fact that not everyone can be a leader and most people won't be leaders, it dismisses the followers as mindless sheep in need of a shepherd. The world's greatest orchestra conductor can instantly turn into the world's greatest failure if the orchestra can't or won't play. There are quite a few people who "officially" don't have the qualifications for the job who can do the job better than the "officially" qualified person, and will sink that person faster than the Titanic if the qualified person doesn't do the job right.

---

Now that I've said everything above, I'm going to throw out a few extra thoughts I've had.

While it is well and good to acknowledge that the blue collar jobs are a necessary part of society, it is also important to recognize that such an attitude can be taken too far. If you're a middle-aged adult and working as an electrician, that's totally fine. If you've reached middle age and you've been pushing carts at Walmart for the past 30 years, that's probably a sign that you made some bad choices in life.

The academic world has a grossly distorted view of what constitutes success. Some of the stuff that the academic world celebrates is absolutely meaningless. In the academic world, obtaining a masters degree is seen as a sign of great achievement. How much did you really achieve when you spend several years and several thousand dollars getting that degree, and the dude in the control room who can't speak proper English and never finished high school can do your job better than you ever will? How much have you really achieved when, after 8 years in a university setting, you graduate with your PhD and the dude next to you gets out in 4 years and starts off making more money than you will ever get paid? How much have you really achieved when you spend your whole life fixing a highly complicated problem that no one but the academic community cares about, when another person spent an entire career fixing simple problems that impact people everywhere?

Another problem of the academic world is the idea that everyone must attend college and if we can just get everyone a college education, things will start turning around because everyone will be better educated. There is currently a lot of discussion about the growing misbalance between university attendance rates for men and women. The argument has been made, and with a certain amount of force, that there is a larger percentage of men choosing career paths that don't require a college education, such as carpentry. Instead of accepting this fact, or doing something logical like focusing effort on encouraging more would-be carpenters to pursue career paths that require more education, many in the academic world seriously proposed that the government make it illegal for carpenters to build a house without a 4 year university degree and accompanying certification.

Another major problem is the idea that a college degree is necessary for a good salary and that a good salary comes from a college degree. You can spend $120,000 getting a degree and be forced to accept a minimum wage job, while a guy that didn't finish high school can start his career making $50,000. There are countless college graduates that spend 4 years getting a degree can have to accept a job for $30,000, and there are plenty of people who graduate high school, spend 2 years getting trained to operate a refinery unit, and drive to work every day in a pickup truck that costs almost twice what the college graduate makes in a year.

[Duke87 1,070]

What all this demonstrates is that higher education is an industry like any other that has its marketers and lobbyists which make sure policy and perception skews towards getting them more business. It's also the same reason why colleges are loathe to accept AP or transfer credits, and why they insist you take classes outside of your major. They say the former is because they can't vouch for the quality of the class taken elsewhere and the latter is because they want people to be "well-rounded.. Hogwash. It's so they can get more money out of you.

As for the situation in Quebec, I can't help but find the whole idea absurdly amusing. The province refuses to raise tuition for decades, thus keeping them artificially low, and then when they finally realize they're broke and try to raise them, everyone goes nuts and wants the ridiculous subsidy to continue. Let's also nevermind that tuition in Quebec is a tenth of what it is in the US. So, even if they double it, it's still cheap.

[Meg 368]

Blaming widespread social unrest and anger at the political-economic system among the populace on the fact that many lack a 'creative urge' ignores the very real economic hardships that have been imposed on people. The real source of anger appears to be a growing understanding of the inequality of the system and how the government acts to protect the well being of the richest at the expense of the most vulnerable - which is effectively what tax cuts for the wealthy, bailouts of financial institutions, and then 'austerity' entail. That 'democratic' governments have appeared unwilling to address, and indeed have often exacerbated, these pressing concerns means that there is really no other recourse but public protest. Given the complexity of the problem (at the very least one has to consider how emerging markets are beginning to have negative externalities for developed economies, that much Western prosperity in the last two decades has been built on unsustainable levels of debt, that financialization has become a cornerstone of major Western economies, and that governments are unwilling to countenance any solutions that may involve a radical redistribution of wealth downwards even though this might go a long way to resolving some of the deep-seated structural problems in mature Western economies, not to mention the ongoing demographic shift) it makes perfect sense that protesters will vent their anger and frustration at a clearly dysfunctional political-economic system, without necessarily clearly understanding it or having a viable solution.

Government policies that force poorer (and increasingly this includes the middle class) families/students to take on sizable loans to attend University preferentially favours those students that come from high income families, exacerbating growing income inequalities. Financialization allows the lower/middle classes with their stagnant wages to continue to increase consumption and pay more (in real prices) for services and simultaneously allows the increasingly wealthy elites to find an outlet for ever greater accumulations of largely unproductive finance capital. Battles over tuition fees, and particularly as they are framed in terms of student debt loads such as the protests in Quebec, are a symptom of this trend.

I'm sorry but I’m having problems reading that. Maybe it’s my aging eyeballs or maybe it’s because I was taught to avoid run-on sentences. I’m going to reformat. Tell me if I get it right.

Blaming widespread social unrest and anger at the political-economic system among the populace on the fact that many lack a 'creative urge' ignores the very real economic hardships that have been imposed on people.

The real source of anger appears to be a growing understanding of the inequality of the system and how the government acts to protect the well being of the richest at the expense of the most vulnerable - which is effectively what tax cuts for the wealthy, bailouts of financial institutions, and then 'austerity' entail.

That 'democratic' governments have appeared unwilling to address, and indeed have often exacerbated, these pressing concerns means that there is really no other recourse but public protest.

Given the complexity of the problem, one must consider several issues:

Emerging markets are beginning to have negative externalities for developed economies,

Much Western prosperity in the last two decades has been built on unsustainable levels of debt,

Financialization has become a cornerstone of major Western economies, and

Governments are unwilling to countenance any solutions that may involve a radical redistribution of wealth downwards (even though this might go a long way to resolving some of the deep-seated structural problems in mature Western economies, not to mention the ongoing demographic shift)

It makes perfect sense that protesters will vent their anger and frustration at a clearly dysfunctional political-economic system, without necessarily clearly understanding it or having a viable solution.

Government policies that force poorer (and increasingly this includes the middle class) families/students to take on sizable loans to attend University preferentially favours those students that come from high income families, exacerbating growing income inequalities.

Financialization allows the lower/middle classes with their stagnant wages to continue to increase consumption and pay more (in real prices) for services and simultaneously allows the increasingly wealthy elites to find an outlet for ever greater accumulations of largely unproductive finance capital. Battles over tuition fees, and particularly as they are framed in terms of student debt loads such as the protests in Quebec, are a symptom of this trend.

I was not trying to change what you were saying. I believe you raise some interesting points. I just couldn't read it before.

But the dirty jobs are necessary and should not be looked down on. Any time you use something metal, you can thank a miner. Any time you turn on a light, you can thank the various people in the various unsafe conditions that were needed to power that light.

This wasn't in any way influenced by the stories I've told, was it?

Not at all.

While it is well and good to acknowledge that the blue collar jobs are a necessary part of society, it is also important to recognize that such an attitude can be taken too far. If you're a middle-aged adult and working as an electrician, that's totally fine. If you've reached middle age and you've been pushing carts at Walmart for the past 30 years, that's probably a sign that you made some bad choices in life.

Usually but not always. I know a man who is over 30 who still pushes carts at grocery stores. He has also taken the Maryland driver’s license exam over 20 times and still can not pass it. They tried to promote him into the produce department but he was deemed unable to use a knife safely.

I believe the term is “borderline IQ”. But he gets up every morning, rides his bike to work and does the best job that he can.

The academic world has a grossly distorted view of what constitutes success.

Success, like most things, depends greatly upon our own point of view. Your examples all involve making money. That is not the only measure of success.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being in a trade. Some tradesmen make more money that a college full of academics simply because they are becoming few and far between. In addition, if a trade is worth its salt, it has a full "train your successor" program with apprenticeships leading to journeymen leading to mastery.

A master electrician, certified by the government authority in that rank, is worth a small fortune to any contractor with integrity who is interested in producing a qualify product (houses, for example). It takes a team of trades, engineers and an architect or so to really build anything. The number of trades needed to build an ordinary residential bungalow is quite large.

[hym 358]

Not at all.

Well, I do tend to bring it up when it's applicable. However, I bring it up for educational purposes, as most individuals are completely unaware of what it goes to make the stuff they take for granted. Industrial fertilizers are needed to produce the quantities of food necessary to feed the US, but virtually no one outside the chemical industry knows that the people that work in these facilities run the risk of cyanide poisoning every day so everyone else can eat. Many people were supportive of efforts to make diesel fuel more environmentally friendly by subjecting it to the same sulfur standards as gasoline, not realizing that they were also making diesel refining more dangerous and raising the risk that some unfortunate technician could wind up getting killed by a hydrogen sulfide leak because he had to go fix something in the sulfur recovery unit. Many people support government efforts to make cars more fuel efficient. Achieving significant increases in fuel efficiency requires reducing weight, which means more plastic to lighten the vehicle. This means more plastic production to meet increased demand, which means producing more BPA and phosgene to help produce the plastic. BPA contains phenol, and the response plan for phenol exposure involves stripping the victim totally naked, safety baths, and coworkers frantically spraying the victim down in chemicals most individuals have never heard of. As for phosgene, it's other application is chemical warfare. When the thunderstorm knocks out the power and you're complaining about how long it takes the power company to get the power back on, there is a good possibility that a team of people are donning flash suits so when they open up the gear, they have some measure of protection in case they get greeted with an arc flash to the face. (Incidentally, research has shown that arc flashes carry a higher chance of inducing debilitating PTSD in the victim than warfare has for giving a soldier PTSD, and in warfare, the other side really is trying to kill you.)

The point is that the modern world relies heavily on individuals being willing to risk very bad personal outcomes to make possible the conveniences most everyone takes for granted.

Usually but not always. I know a man who is over 30 who still pushes carts at grocery stores. He has also taken the Maryland driver’s license exam over 20 times and still can not pass it. They tried to promote him into the produce department but he was deemed unable to use a knife safely.

I believe the term is “borderline IQ”. But he gets up every morning, rides his bike to work and does the best job that he can.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, that is all some people will ever have to look forward to. However, for the vast majority of us, entry level jobs are not something that we should spend our lives working in, even if they are necessary for the general functioning of the system.

Success, like most things, depends greatly upon our own point of view. Your examples all involve making money. That is not the only measure of success.

Yes, success does depend on personal viewpoints, but for most of us, one of the chief measures of success is money. However, money isn't the only measure of success I mentioned.

People can go to school for advanced training beyond what is considered normal and/or necessary for a position, and graduate more incompetent than an individual who never got the extra training. In a university setting, anyone without a PhD is likely to be treated as a second class citizen, even if that individual is a better educator than the individual with the PhD. Individuals get denied acceptance for positions they are clearly qualified to hold simply because it has been ingrained in culture that a person has to have a degree to hold a position of that level.

We have people spending tens of thousands to get education and not getting anything out of it, while people who have the skills are denied the position simply because they don't have a piece of paper. How is this helping us?

[Ocram's Razr 963]

It is not helping us. The current economic system is completely unsustainable and needs to be heavily modified soon or else it will permanently collapse this century.

[Meg 368]

The point is that the modern world relies heavily on individuals being willing to risk very bad personal outcomes to make possible the conveniences most everyone takes for granted.

and most people are totally unaware of that.

In some cases, yes, they are aware. Mining, gas explosions, refinery fires, etc are known to be dangerous. But most people are not aware of the existence of the dangerous chemicals you are talking about.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, that is all some people will ever have to look forward to. However, for the vast majority of us, entry level jobs are not something that we should spend our lives working in, even if they are necessary for the general functioning of the system.

True. Staying in an entry level job is not ideal. Ideally, everyone would have an opportunity to develop their potential but, clearly, the educational system is failing.

Yes, success does depend on personal viewpoints, but for most of us, one of the chief measures of success is money.

I'm going to go little-old-lady on you here and say that other forms of success count too. For example, successful parenting.

A few years ago, my aunt asked my mother "Isn't it a shame that Cousin A is a failure?" My mom took umbrage at this statement. While it is true that Cousin A stumbled along from one not-so-great job to another, he and his wife raised 3 of the nicest guys I know. When asked the secret of their parenting, they say that they just went to whatever it was the kids were interested in: school plays, soccer games, chess matches, whatever it was, they were there.

Compare that to Cousin B. Cousin B is very successful in terms of money. Literally a self-made millionaire. (Having a handful of patents can do that.) His family life is another story. I won't go into details but it's taken some effort to keep one of his kids out of jail.

So which one is more successful? The one who can be proud of what his kids are doing or the one who spends his days swearing about his kid's latest legal problems?

People can go to school for advanced training beyond what is considered normal and/or necessary for a position, and graduate more incompetent than an individual who never got the extra training. In a university setting, anyone without a PhD is likely to be treated as a second class citizen, even if that individual is a better educator than the individual with the PhD. Individuals get denied acceptance for positions they are clearly qualified to hold simply because it has been ingrained in culture that a person has to have a degree to hold a position of that level.

Can't argue with you there.

We have people spending tens of thousands to get education and not getting anything out of it, while people who have the skills are denied the position simply because they don't have a piece of paper. How is this helping us?

It is not helping us. The system clearly needs to improve.

[zahrul3 471]

Back here in Indonesia(economy is good, etc) only a certain few(smart people of course ) could get into a state-funded university, the rest either go to low-quality(but affordable) colleges and some go to really expensive universities(they give good education though), just like the rest of the educational system. Student loans are not a common thing here, as Indonesia doesn't have governmental student loans and tuition fees in state-funded universities are affordable, for the middle class that is.

The Indonesian goverment also has vocational high schools intended for those who need vocational training(cooks, photographers, cameramen, assistants, etc.) and those who can't afford university and need to get a job straight after high school. Currently I'm crossing my fingers and hope that my effort to get to a good, state-funded high school is fulfilled, which means I need to get an average of 90 or above and pass another test, in English.

In my opinion, it is not education that matters, its the skills. The American Dream(correct me) of sending kids to college is more prestige than necessity, especially when you have low-achieving students whose scores hover around the passing mark and don't really have much future(eg. liberal arts major, etc.) due to the major being unneeded by companies.

[raja_indy14 8]

As for the situation in Quebec, I can't help but find the whole idea absurdly amusing. The province refuses to raise tuition for decades, thus keeping them artificially low, and then when they finally realize they're broke and try to raise them, everyone goes nuts and wants the ridiculous subsidy to continue. Let's also nevermind that tuition in Quebec is a tenth of what it is in the US. So, even if they double it, it's still cheap.

This was my initial reaction as well. However, part of the reason that the government is broke is because they've been cutting taxes (particularly for the wealthiest income brackets and corporations) in recent years while making cuts to social services (the same old story). Arguably, exchanging the lost revenue from tax cuts for debt repayment would have been a more prudent fiscal policy. The subsidy is only ridiculous by North American standards, by European ones (on which the Quebec public funding system is based) it is not. In any event, just because the United States has increasingly unattainable University in the absence of massive student debt does not mean this is a model to emulate. After all, social mobility in the United States is currently half the rate of that of Canada. So much for the American Dream.