Jump to content

Menu

Has anyone seen this article on the higher-ed bubble?


Recommended Posts

Yes and I agree with it completely since I have been saying the same thing for at least 5 years. These prices are completely unaffordable, particularly for those with a few or more children. There is a reason that so many colleges are turning to merit aid instead of just need aid. The EFCs are unaffordable for most people with anything close to average income in their area. OUr EFC is around 33% of our income. How many people can take a hit like that on their income? ANd yes, we will be saving for child number three since we won't be paying for child 2 so we will put aside the amount we would have been paying for her in our mind (1.2K a month which is not what the colleges would have us pay).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the more people decide that it's just not worth the money, the faster the bubble will pop. If the economy continues in a slump for the next several years, and if online classes continue to increase in popularity at a quick rate, we'll be seeing it pop before my oldest graduates. That's my hope anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire thing seems rather obvious to me. :confused: I want our kids to have a good education, but ultimately, I want them to have a marketable skill that gets them a job so that they can pursue the family/lifestyle that they want.

 

I read the article about the young lady when it was first published and I guess I am one of the callous ones. I didn't feel sorry for her at all. In no way shape or form would I let my kids go to a school where the debt they would incur would far outweigh their potential career. Only someone really disconnected with fiscal reality would pay for an ivy league education and plan on a school teacher's salary. I would suspect women's studies is probably an even worse career goal.

 

We have had the discussion before on the forum as to what our goals are for our kids when it comes to higher education. While I want my kids to have an education that helps form them holistically, the reality of the fiscal limitations of educating 8 kids (one of whom we will probably have to financially support his entire life) means that employment is the number one goal.

 

We are lucky in some respects b/c all our older children (except our Aspie) are all very math/science oriented. Choosing majors that lead into specific fields of study are easier from this direction. (fields of interest range from.....chemical engineering, forensic science, and astrophysics (or some sort of physics))

 

I have no idea what our younger children will end up pursuing, but I do know that employment has to be a goal! Our oldest has been co-oping for almost a yr after doing summer research last year. Co-oping is definitely encouraged by us b/c it means work experience and job offers.

 

Honestly, I would feel more guilt than I already do as my children's guidance counselor if I didn't help them focus on reducing the financial burden of their education and aiming for a highly marketable skill. I think that somewhere along the line, common sense is thrown out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was a great article (but I am an Instapundit reader so I may be biased!).

 

I did wonder about something, though. He did not mention jobs like teaching. It is not as technical as his #1 category, but does not fit into one of the others either. In NY, teachers need very specific undergrad courses to prepare them for certification exams. Then they are required to get a masters - a lot of school and a lot of tuition! But there is no other way to become a teacher here (maybe other states do not require Masters Degrees for public school teachers?), so the only way to keep costs down is to choose the least expensive college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire thing seems rather obvious to me. :confused: I want our kids to have a good education, but ultimately, I want them to have a marketable skill that gets them a job so that they can pursue the family/lifestyle that they want.

 

I read the article about the young lady when it was first published and I guess I am one of the callous ones. I didn't feel sorry for her at all. In no way shape or form would I let my kids go to a school where the debt they would incur would far outweigh their potential career. Only someone really disconnected with fiscal reality would pay for an ivy league education and plan on a school teacher's salary. I would suspect women's studies is probably an even worse career goal.

 

 

I've said this before, so I won't argue it again, but I don't believe in uni as a place for job training; I view it as a place for learning how to think at a higher level. With that skill set, a person can then DO just about any job with minimal instruction.

 

HOWEVER.

 

When did such things as "gender studies" and "comic book art" leave the realm of an elective course and move into actual "Majors"?

 

Money.

 

It's all about money. How else does one explain Ivy League colleges using Harry Potter to sell themselves to new applicants?

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said this before, so I won't argue it again, but I don't believe in uni as a place for job training; I view it as a place for learning how to think at a higher level.

 

Yes, I agree in large part. That is why I find it completely ironic that someone with a COLLEGE DEGREE would claim *ignorance* in basic money managment skills -- i.e. potential income to debt ratio.

 

Lisa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire thing seems rather obvious to me. :confused: I want our kids to have a good education, but ultimately, I want them to have a marketable skill that gets them a job so that they can pursue the family/lifestyle that they want.

 

I read the article about the young lady when it was first published and I guess I am one of the callous ones. I didn't feel sorry for her at all. In no way shape or form would I let my kids go to a school where the debt they would incur would far outweigh their potential career. Only someone really disconnected with fiscal reality would pay for an ivy league education and plan on a school teacher's salary. I would suspect women's studies is probably an even worse career goal.

 

 

 

I agree with it all. My boys are going to college for the education, the experience, and to prepare them for a potential career. Granted they will get job experience mostly afterward (except for an internship), but I want them prepared to start. AND we will not let them go anywhere where they will incur massive debt as there are other options out there. Too many people pay for brand name when they don't need brand name - then we are supposed to feel sorry for them. I don't. Too many people pay for an education (womens studies or otherwise) without looking down the road to see how it's being paid for in future earnings of some sort. I don't feel sorry for them either.

 

I feel like it's the same with those who bought oodles of stuff on credit card, then suddenly realize the bill is due and want/expect relief. I wish they couldn't get relief via bankruptcy. (I feel totally different when there's a medical issue or something "real" other than pure consumerism.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire thing seems rather obvious to me. :confused: I want our kids to have a good education, but ultimately, I want them to have a marketable skill that gets them a job so that they can pursue the family/lifestyle that they want.

 

I read the article about the young lady when it was first published and I guess I am one of the callous ones. I didn't feel sorry for her at all. In no way shape or form would I let my kids go to a school where the debt they would incur would far outweigh their potential career. Only someone really disconnected with fiscal reality would pay for an ivy league education and plan on a school teacher's salary. I would suspect women's studies is probably an even worse career goal.

 

We have had the discussion before on the forum as to what our goals are for our kids when it comes to higher education. While I want my kids to have an education that helps form them holistically, the reality of the fiscal limitations of educating 8 kids (one of whom we will probably have to financially support his entire life) means that employment is the number one goal.

 

We are lucky in some respects b/c all our older children (except our Aspie) are all very math/science oriented. Choosing majors that lead into specific fields of study are easier from this direction. (fields of interest range from.....chemical engineering, forensic science, and astrophysics (or some sort of physics))

 

I have no idea what our younger children will end up pursuing, but I do know that employment has to be a goal! Our oldest has been co-oping for almost a yr after doing summer research last year. Co-oping is definitely encouraged by us b/c it means work experience and job offers.

 

Honestly, I would feel more guilt than I already do as my children's guidance counselor if I didn't help them focus on reducing the financial burden of their education and aiming for a highly marketable skill. I think that somewhere along the line, common sense is thrown out the window.

 

I have to agree. Back when *I* was in college my mom was complaining about teachers at the school where she worked not being all that...ummm...let's say motivated. I told her, "how do you expect them to be super-motivated? Half of them are working extra jobs to pay off their college. It's a career-field that requires a high-level of education but doesn't pay like you have a high level of education compared to other career fields."

 

I thought this was a great article (but I am an Instapundit reader so I may be biased!).

 

I did wonder about something, though. He did not mention jobs like teaching. It is not as technical as his #1 category, but does not fit into one of the others either. In NY, teachers need very specific undergrad courses to prepare them for certification exams. Then they are required to get a masters - a lot of school and a lot of tuition! But there is no other way to become a teacher here (maybe other states do not require Masters Degrees for public school teachers?), so the only way to keep costs down is to choose the least expensive college.

 

Ah yes, this is what I was saying.

 

I've said this before, so I won't argue it again, but I don't believe in uni as a place for job training; I view it as a place for learning how to think at a higher level. With that skill set, a person can then DO just about any job with minimal instruction.

 

HOWEVER.

 

When did such things as "gender studies" and "comic book art" leave the realm of an elective course and move into actual "Majors"?

 

Money.

 

It's all about money. How else does one explain Ivy League colleges using Harry Potter to sell themselves to new applicants?

 

 

a

 

ITA. Too many universities are putting out academics and there aren't enough of those jobs to go around. That's why you have so many underemployed people with advanced degrees. My cousin works at Target with her theology degree. They *really* need better career counseling.

 

eta: I also agree with creekland. The brand name thing is tough. They really need to look at what they really want to do with their life, not just their career field. Yes, Harvard Law is great, but if you're not planning on going into corporate or entertainment law and devoting your heat and soul to a law firm, you don't need to spend the money. I have a friend who cries herself to sleep every night because she hates her corporate law firm, but she can't practice the kind of law she wants and pay her loans.

Edited by Mrs Mungo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was a great article (but I am an Instapundit reader so I may be biased!).

 

I did wonder about something, though. He did not mention jobs like teaching. It is not as technical as his #1 category, but does not fit into one of the others either. In NY, teachers need very specific undergrad courses to prepare them for certification exams. Then they are required to get a masters - a lot of school and a lot of tuition! But there is no other way to become a teacher here (maybe other states do not require Masters Degrees for public school teachers?), so the only way to keep costs down is to choose the least expensive college.

 

I am hoping that with the increasing costs of college education maybe states and local school districts will begin relaxing some of these education requirements for some teachers, and focus on hiring teachers who maybe come from the pool of retired folks and others who have experience in the field they would be teaching. I think this would be particularly helpful at the middle school and high school levels for specific maths and sciences. I would think that training some one in education who is already competent in a particular area would not involve the kind of time or $ it takes to get a masters degree.

 

Mary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the bubble is already cracking; "bubble," though, is not quite the right image. I don't tend to agree with the author about, well, much of anything except that things are changing. As I mentioned in another thread, students at the school where I work have lost drastic amounts of their financial aid packages, in part because Washington State has slashed the budget for work-study programs. Need-based aid is just not there. One college that I've heard about actually slashed their tuition by 54% this year to draw in students. They know this is not sustainable, but they are desperate.

 

Concerning to me is the fact that higher education will probably become what it was before WWII, something that only the very elite will be able to afford, and the gap between those with and without an education will widen. However, before WWII, you could get a pretty decent education in public schools, and we didn't live in a throw-away society -- people had things repaired instead of replacing them, so skills were needed and valued. Also concerning is the idea that online programs are a good solution. In my admittedly limited experience, they just cannot begin to compare with a real, living classroom.

 

Honestly, to look at college as simply a means to greater economic prosperity does not sit well with me, and seems to miss the whole point of what higher education is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am hoping that with the increasing costs of college education maybe states and local school districts will begin relaxing some of these education requirements for some teachers, and focus on hiring teachers who maybe come from the pool of retired folks and others who have experience in the field they would be teaching. I think this would be particularly helpful at the middle school and high school levels for specific maths and sciences. I would think that training some one in education who is already competent in a particular area would not involve the kind of time or $ it takes to get a masters degree.

 

Mary

I know NYC has a program like this - but it is very competitive! My brother was in finance (MBA, worked for Merrill Lynch) but got out two years ago. He wanted to teach economics and accounting but he did not get in to the program....but I was excited to find that the city even did such a thing! I think it is good for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about parts of this. I think higher education is broadening out to include many types of higher ed and this is a good thing. I think much of this is adjustment is due to technology. As a homeschool family, I firmly believe that parts of higher ed can happen in a more individualized, self-directed, flexible way, especially with access to the internet and computers, and that the whole system is changing to accommodate this. (I also believe that parts need to happen in a more social way.) I see the value of putting a batch of young people together to live and learn closely together for a number of years, but this is not what many people want; many people just want the advantages that a college education has traditionally given. And the system is accommodating those people. Our society began to value people with a college degree much more than those without, so more and more people wanted that piece of paper. There are now many ways to get that piece of paper without having the traditional four-year experience. I think people are now using name-brand to distinguish between the two types of papers, rather than just to distinguish social class, and that is making competition fierce for places in the name-brand colleges (and driving prices up as colleges add more amenedies). Society began saying it was unfair of name-brand colleges to admit people based on class, and this contributed to the situation, as well. I think when we have gone farther down this path, we will be back to the pre-WWII situation of not having everyone want the traditional college experience and having plenty of other viable options. I think the situation is rather bizarre at the moment just because we are mid-change. Employers and others tried to push society in the direction of giving everyone a traditional college education, but all society doesn't want that (or can't afford that) and has had to be rather creative to avoid it. Society in general has refused to pick up the cost, as anyone who has filled out a fafsa form knows. Eventually, after some pully-hauly, a compromise will be reached where-by some of society will have the traditional college experience (and have to pay for it) and others will have some higher education other ways. I think the reason employers want employees with college degrees is that there are parallels to this in high school education. We are trying to give everyone a high school but not everyone wants one and as a society, we are not willing to devote enough resources to do this.

 

I happen to come from a family that was college educated before WWII and we weren't rich or elite. Well off, yes, but far, far from rich. And not with an elite Harvard tradition. I think it is more a matter of some of the well-off families having a tradition of putting their children in college, and others not having that tradition. If your definition of elite is college-educated, then yes, we were (and are) elite, but I've talked to my grandparents (educated before WWII) about this and they point-blank told me that they did not consider themselves to be among the elite. They said they were upper-middle-class, hard-working, can manage a house and a few children (and their college educations) and do-it-yourself (not hotel) vacations and a little bit of travel and some retirement, but not anything else. "Well-educated" was the term they used. It didn't mean rich. It didn't mean famous. It didn't mean elite (as in Harvard). It just meant being like everybody else on the street except with a tradition of going to college. The reason I had the conversation is that they were trying to ensure that I valued and continued that tradition. And I am trying to GRIN. I just happened to be the unlucky generation that got stuck with going to college while the price was so high.

 

This isn't very well-written because I am in a hurry to go canoeing. I hope everyone has a lovely, sunny day enjoying the outdoors, not matter what they have for educational aspirations.

 

-Nan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of points in the article that I would like to address.

 

First -- as with the housing bubble -- cheap and readily available credit has let people borrow to finance education. They're willing to do so because of (1) consumer ignorance, as students (and, often, their parents) don't fully grasp just how harsh the impact of student loan payments will be after graduation; and (2) a belief that, whatever the cost, a college education is a necessary ticket to future prosperity.

 

 

 

I do believe that consumer ignorance is a huge problem. There are those who say that the fault lies completely with the consumer for signing on the dotted line. But student loans were not the only easy credit available in the past ten years or so.

 

The second point is one with which I fundamentally disagree. I do not equate education with prosperity although I understand that there is a statistical correlation. Many believe in education for more than job training. Some of us believe that there is more to life than financial success. Money is not the end goal for me.

 

The author addresses this prosperity issue in greater depth. One things he mentions is:

t (a college degree) may provide a credential that employers want, not because it represents actual skills, but because it's a weeding tool that doesn't produce civil-rights suits as, say, IQ tests might.

 

 

I am offended by this statement. Indeed, degrees are sometimes required in certain positions where experience may be a better measure. There is a cultural bias that has developed, but a degree does say something to me beyond the fact that a potential employee will "show up on time and perform as instructed". In particular, I acknowledge that those pursuing a liberal arts degree have hopefully developed the ability to think, write, understand their place in history, perhaps be able to communicate in another language or two. As a former mathematics instructor to future engineers, I have witnessed students undergo a rigorous technical and scientific training. The innovative among them do not just follow procedures. They create new methods, alert their industries to safety concerns, see new purposes for old technologies or have the ability to streamline old methods in favor of new ones involving new materials. The author seems to suggest that employees are robots. Robots do not think or innovate (yet).

 

Then there is the college experience. Some idiots may just party, but I have known so many college students who have done amazing things. Within the last few days, I heard presentations from some graduating seniors at the college which my son will attend. One summarized her undergraduate research for us, noting that she had presented her findings at a regional professional association meeting, had been invited to another as well as a national meeting. Her work has been cited by other professionals in the field. Did this girl have time to party? Maybe some, but I think that her research must have consumed her life. College students who undertake projects in developing nations are often the best ambassadors for our country. Call me naive--but most of the student whom I have known have not killed their brain cells with alcohol or drugs.

 

I agree that borrowing large sums for education is irresponsible. But so is borrowing money for an expensive car that one cannot afford.

 

Paying for an education is not necessarily a bad thing if it is something that is valued by the individual who is being educated. Sometimes there is broad brush that condemns those who value ideas over materialism. I don't buy a lot of stuff--but I will pay for educational pursuits.

 

Something is bugging me about this article. Please--comment on the above. I would love to continue the conversation.

 

Jane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Something is bugging me about this article. Please--comment on the above. I would love to continue the conversation.

 

Jane

 

Me, too! The two pieces that you quoted really stood out for me, too. I am required in the kitchen, but wanted to thank you for your thoughtful response. I will think about this to see if I can come up with something more coherent than my previous response.

 

Nicole

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane, and I say this with respect, one of the reasons money may not be everything to you in life is because you already have some. You have the cushion that allows you to simply enjoy intellectual pursuits regardless of any kind of payback. But not everyone is in that position. And some people will pursue academics anyway, just because they love it, even though they may never be able to pay off their loans. And some people who don't need to watch every dollar will, and will only go for practical degrees. It's a wide world out there.

 

I hear you about some engineers being thinkers and innovators, and others just showing up and doing 9 hours work a day. Dh is an engineer, and he is the former, but some working for him are the latter.

 

Nan, I hear you on college being something that your family has always valued, but to have been able to afford a college education before WWII meant that they had some kind of financial cushion, right? It was an affordable luxury, I think you said. People with a financial cushion may be more likely to pause a moment and reflect before deciding how to procede. I'm not sure people without that cushion are able, or even accustomed, to pausing and reflecting. Of course, I may certainly be wrong about this.

 

And Nicole, I worry, too, about college becoming once again a privilege of only wealthy people. I am really concerned about the direction our country is taking, and has been for a while, with people voting against their own interests, and not having a clue they are doing that. And, selfishly, I am not sure I would be so concerned about people's being financially and politically masochistic, except that it affects me, too, when a slim majority elects people who make unwise choices that my family has to help pay for. That's what really gets me.

 

I like the idea of learning for learning's sake, but it needs to be a society-wide value, actively supported by society, for more than just wealthy people to be able to do it.

 

I'm wondering if it takes a certain amount of money to be able to consider more than just survival. Maybe morality and intellectual fulfillment and contribution come after a certain amount of financial cushion.

Edited by jld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't you think that all these new options show that college, despite skyrocketing costs way, way beyond anything my family has ever had to pay before for being well-educated, is becoming less and less only for the wealthy, what with all the new options? And I assure you that it wasn't just for the wealthy before WWII. My family, as I keep saying, was just well-off-ish. My great grandfather, who put my grandmother and her three brothers through college, was a public high school shop teacher. My grandfather on the other side grew up poor on a ranch in Calif. Maybe I am naive, but I think that the traditional option will exist alongside many other higher educational options. Not ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world. Free higher education exists in some countries and it is restricted. At least here, more people have a chance. I'm not explaining this at all well. sorry.

-Nan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, Nan. The other options that are becoming available are changing how we think about education, but I don't think they make for a fine education in the way that I define it. I think we'll see a shift from "student" being 18 - 22 years old, and that education will continue throughout our lifetimes, as these other options become more accessible, and maybe that's good. I just don't know.

 

My grandmother was a math major at U of Michigan, class of 1932, and taught mathematics for 30 years. She was an ordinary gal, slightly feisty in that she refused to major in a field that was "for women" but was never wealthy. She valued education; many families of modest means did. But there is a strong and growing anti-intellectual force at work in this country, and I find that disturbing. (Did you read the NYT article where a man with umpteen degrees was spouting about how folks really don't need higher education anymore?) If persons with education and power pooh pooh education, if critical thinking is pooh poohed, we're in some serious trouble. That is partly what concerns me about a growing gap between those who can afford and education and those who can't. I'm not sure if I'm clear about this.

 

As far as tuition is concerned, the institution where I work is facing under-enrollment this year. The admission office and the administration refused to lower their standards and accept students who they felt were not qualified (though I cast an eye of doubt on this, but that's another topic altogether) so they accepted fewer students for the incoming First Year class, and not enough of those students decided to attend. I think we are going to need to reconsider entrance standards in order to simply stay afloat. But that would compromise both the standing of the school and potentially the quality of the education that we can offer. Many colleges are in this same situation. Another tangential topic is that we have a larger and larger population of medicated 18-year-olds with emotional and behavioral issues. Our campus seems to sell itself as a place where your student will be "safe." We'll take care of your child. So while these kids may be super bright, they are also draining resources as we have to deal with more problems. So while some institutions may begin to draw more heavily on their endowments to stay afloat, others, like the one where I work, are tuition-driven and will have to come up with some solutions in a rapidly changing economy and society.

 

I think what I'm trying to get across is that the whole situation is very volatile right now, very complicated. The attitude of the author of that original article seemed almost flip, like this bubble business has a simple fix, and I don't agree. (Did I say that already? Sorry if I'm rambling.) The idea that education is simply a commodity also offends me.

 

I think Jane is on to something here:

 

I agree that borrowing large sums for education is irresponsible. But so is borrowing money for an expensive car that one cannot afford.
I feel we are approaching a crisis with consumption, and how that shakes down with our sense of identity as well as the economy and the environment will be fascinating and probably very painful. My values are very similar to Jane's, and we live rather hand-to-mouth here. We don't think money is everything, and we hardly have enough. So I think it is possible to say "no" to a consumer-driven lifestyle.

 

But concerning prestige.... I'm not going to pretend that I don't feel some satisfaction when I am able to tell people that the college my son will attend is on the list of the forty colleges that change lives. I feel vindicated and proud. I'm not above that. I did feel a certain... really inappropriate word coming to mind here... @#$% you behind the words when I ran into one of the admission counselors where I work and told him about E's plans for the Fall. (The admission staff seemed to have a "don't help but don't hinder" attitude toward my son during his whole admission process; I think this is because he as a dependent of staff would not be paying tuition. I was annoyed beyond belief by the treatment we received.) I get it now, that parents want to be able to say, I'm sending my child to X fine institution. As long as institutions do have prestige to sell, there will be buyers. Just like we line up for nice cars, some of us, there will always be folks willing to pay / borrow the big bucks for a piece of paper from a school with a name.

 

I should stop now, because I'm not convinced I'm saying anything useful. Where's the wan smile emoticon?

Edited by Nicole M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicole, I'm about at the wan smile stage, too. I guess it is easier for me to be optimistic because I'm not in the trenches, as you are. I'm glad you posted again. I agree with your whole last post. I guess all I'm trying to say is that just as it was uncomfortable when the housing market readjusted itself, I think we are at the beginning of an uncomfortable readjustment of the college market (grrrr - as reluctant as I am to use the word market next to the word college, it seems to be appropriate here). When gas prices went sky high, people began to be creative about how to aquire transportation, also. I am excited about the new options and the opportunity to continue education throughout one's life so very easily, with everything from youtube videos to MIT open courseware to interlibrary loan to easily available CC classes and uni continuing ed. I spent too much time wanting to know things that I had no way of learning as a child, I guess GRIN. I don't think it will be the end of either the prestigious college education or the more ordinary college education, because there are plenty of rich people who can pay easily for the first, and plenty of people like us who place the traditional college education high on their priority lists. I just think it isn't for everyone, and some of the alternative choices may be a better solution than encouraging everyone to do the traditional four-year thing. I may be optimistic about the long-term results of the adjustment, but I agree with you about how alarming some of the steps in the middle seem to be. We watched BU build a huge new gym complex and thought about how much tuition would have to go up to pay for it. And we just spent a year watching how our middle son's freshman experience was impacted by the college deciding to admit more students without having adequate facilities for them. It was easy to compare because our oldest had been a freshman at the same college the previous year. I've been through the whole prestige/ego thing. There is nothing like having your oldest decide not to go to college at all for making you readjust your ego. Sigh. And I agree that the whole consumer borrowing culture is very, very bad. I usually stay out of these conversations because I either get frustrated with how little the traditional college experience is being valued, or get frustrated because people seem to be shocked when they discover that the government/institution doesn't provide them with one, or get frustrated because people are mad at the banks for stepping in and offering to fill the gap. What were they thinking? I think some of it is lack of self-control, but a lot of it is lack of education in what is reasonable and what is not. I guess all the griping, is a good thing from that point of view, but it is too bad it isn't taking place on the curriculum board, where people can be reeducated in time enough to do something about it. I also don't feel entitled to take part, usually, because we have managed to avoid the debt trap, and I come from the tradition you and Jane come from, the one where college is normal, and we can manage to come up with the resources to pay for part of it, and the loans for the rest aren't as worrisome as they might be because our children have chosen career-type majors, and my parents tried hard to make sure we all had a plan for supporting ourselves. I didn't grow up with the stigma of being from the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak, or with the worry of wondering whether I could buy groceries next week, so I am reluctant to judge those who want their car to be nice. Now I'm meandering. Nicole, I think we probably just differ by how optimistic we are about the future in general, not in what we think of the state of the world as it is today : ) I really appreciate your posts because you see things the rest of us don't. You are much more qualified to make observations about colleges than I am. And Jane is much more qualified to discuss the economy than I am. If you both are alarmed, then there must be something to be alarmed about. Which I find alarming.

 

How very frustrating about the admission staff!

 

-Nan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane, and I say this with respect, one of the reasons money may not be everything to you in life is because you already have some. You have the cushion that allows you to simply enjoy intellectual pursuits regardless of any kind of payback. But not everyone is in that position. And some people will pursue academics anyway, just because they love it, even though they may never be able to pay off their loans. And some people who don't need to watch every dollar will, and will only go for practical degrees. It's a wide world out there.

 

<snip>

 

I like the idea of learning for learning's sake, but it needs to be a society-wide value, actively supported by society, for more than just wealthy people to be able to do it.

 

I'm wondering if it takes a certain amount of money to be able to consider more than just survival. Maybe morality and intellectual fulfillment and contribution come after a certain amount of financial cushion.

 

Is it privilege or is it philosophy?

 

My husband and I were talking about this thread. He commented on two of his good buddies from high school--all smart guys in the chess club. My husband did the traditional college route. Another friend eventually attended college, but first joined the military and worked for the post office. The third became a plumber. But that does not mean he stopped learning. One does what one has to do to put food on the table.

 

Yet, here in the States, one wonders why people have time for television, video games or the Internet (guilty! :blush:) and yet do not have time to read or learn hands on skills. I'm not saying everyone should attend college necessarily. I would just like to see more respect for knowledge and art, intellectuals, artists and artisans.

 

As usual, jld, you give me food for thought.

 

Best,

Jane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane, and I say this with respect, one of the reasons money may not be everything to you in life is because you already have some. You have the cushion that allows you to simply enjoy intellectual pursuits regardless of any kind of payback. But not everyone is in that position. And some people will pursue academics anyway, just because they love it, even though they may never be able to pay off their loans. And some people who don't need to watch every dollar will, and will only go for practical degrees. It's a wide world out there.

 

I hear you about some engineers being thinkers and innovators, and others just showing up and doing 9 hours work a day. Dh is an engineer, and he is the former, but some working for him are the latter.

 

Nan, I hear you on college being something that your family has always valued, but to have been able to afford a college education before WWII meant that they had some kind of financial cushion, right? It was an affordable luxury, I think you said. People with a financial cushion may be more likely to pause a moment and reflect before deciding how to procede. I'm not sure people without that cushion are able, or even accustomed, to pausing and reflecting. Of course, I may certainly be wrong about this.

 

And Nicole, I worry, too, about college becoming once again a privilege of only wealthy people. I am really concerned about the direction our country is taking, and has been for a while, with people voting against their own interests, and not having a clue they are doing that. And, selfishly, I am not sure I would be so concerned about people's being financially and politically masochistic, except that it affects me, too, when a slim majority elects people who make unwise choices that my family has to help pay for. That's what really gets me.

 

I like the idea of learning for learning's sake, but it needs to be a society-wide value, actively supported by society, for more than just wealthy people to be able to do it.

 

I'm wondering if it takes a certain amount of money to be able to consider more than just survival. Maybe morality and intellectual fulfillment and contribution come after a certain amount of financial cushion.

 

(I get upset at the idea of having to pay for other people's folly, too.)

 

I think you are right about many people are just plain too worn down from the struggle to survive to be interested in anything but not expending any more energy than possilble. There are plenty of others, though, who have managed to summon up the energy to step sideways. They have no money whatsoever. And yet, they read and educate themselves and are trying to save the world. It isn't money that is the problem, it is energy. If you have no energy to spare, you get too tired to think. If you can find some way of getting untired enough to think, you can step sideways and look for a way of being that has nothing to do with how many material possessions you have aquired. I know many people whose contribution to the world is so great that other people gladly pay their way. And I know people who pay for their necessities with things that are priceless but worthless, if you know what I mean. It is rather a precarious existance, but I think our sense of safety, that cushion you speak of, is an illusion, anyway, a nice one I wouldn't want to do without, but an illusion. It is indeed possible to value education without owning anything but the clothes on your back. And it isn't something done only now. What about the starving artist steriotype? What about Gandhi? What about Buddha? Or Jesus's lilies of the fields? Isn't this what they tried to say? What is that saying about buying books instead of food? I agree that a book isn't much good if you don't live to read it, but people do find ways. When I was growing up, my church rented a container for a homeless person to store the recyclable bottles and cans she was collecting to send her son to college. This is an extreme case, i agree, and not one I want to do, but it shows that there are people with no money who value education.

-Nan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dh and dd and I were discussing this thread today, and both of them pointed out to me, as Nan and Jane have, that there is probably more to the value side of this than the money side. Nan and Nicole come from families that have always valued education, probably the way my family valued religion. Even when my parents really didn't have any extra money, they sacrificed to give to the Catholic Church. In another family, that money may have gone to a college fund.

 

I agree with you, Jane, that our country is not making wise choices with how we spend our time (or our money). America could do so much better.

 

I am somewhat of a bleeding heart, because I do think life can just be awfully unfair. I assume that people make the decisions they do because they don't have any other choices, or any extra money, or any accurate information, without considering that they may make those choices based on values that really do not serve their long-term interests. I am reluctant to hold people responsible for these choices, but maybe I'm wrong to see things this way. Maybe taking hold of one's life and facing facts is the only way to really change and make better choices.

 

Ladies, thank you for making me think, too.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Jane, that our country is not making wise choices with how we spend our time (or our money). America could do so much better.

 

I am somewhat of a bleeding heart, because I do think life can just be awfully unfair. I assume that people make the decisions they do because they don't have any other choices, or any extra money, or any accurate information, without considering that they may make those choices based on values that really do not serve their long-term interests. I am reluctant to hold people responsible for these choices, but maybe I'm wrong to see things this way. Maybe taking hold of one's life and facing facts is the only way to really change and make better choices.

 

Ladies, thank you for making me think, too.:)

 

I got minimal support from my own family during college, certainly no tuition assistance. My husband also had some support from his family, and he had scholarships. We were married in college and had two children. We managed to get through using student loans. He has a degree in engineering, I have a degree in teaching. Many others might have dropped out when they had kids and not finished. While we hated being broke, we knew our lives would be better in the long run if we stayed in school.

 

So, working part time and going to school with two young children was really, really hard. We were broke, we didn't have cell phones and video games and other things that others our age were spending their money on. We were busy, but we made it through and even with our pile of studen loans our lives are so much better now than they would have been had my husband dropped out and gotten a full time job instead of finishing his engineering degree. I'm not special, if I can do it anyone can, but many people don't. Many people simply live off of the government, or work jobs with no future so they can have the material comforts they think they need, without thinking about the long term and the needs of their family down the line.

 

I'm NOT saying you have to go to college to have a bright future, but you do need to gain some sort of skill and use that skill to work hard and get ahead. Plumbers, electricians, managers, they all have certain skill sets. You aren't going to gain that type of skill working as a pizza delivery guy, or a bartendar. Those are what I mean by dead end jobs. They should be temporary as you work your way to something better. I think many people in our society could find the means to make their lives better, they are simply too lazy to better themselves.

 

BTW, my husband and I went to one of the most affordable public four year universities in the country. We weren't going to pay extra to have a prestigious institution's name on our diplomas, as we were paying for it ourselves and financing most of it. We still ended up with over $100,000 debt between the two of us, and that was at a "cheap" school! We probably won't be able to help out our own kids with tuition, after all we will still be paying of our own loans!

Edited by MyFourSons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...