|
In response to
"I'm probably in the minority on this. I do think some of it is the universities."
by
Strongbad
|
I don't think that's as big an issue as universities charging the maximum for a degree, based on the student's future earnings in an uncertain jobs
Posted by
Roger More (aka RogerMore)
Dec 17 '20, 11:46
|
market, and then having it financed on a for-profit basis. It's like saying "tort reform" is the solution for healthcare.
To give an example of how it works in Australia, government pays for 75% of university fees (almost all universities are public) and the student pays for the other 25%, but can access gov't-backed financing for it. The student pays back the debt with interest set at the rate of inflation as part of their tax bill - and they only pay in years where they earn above the average salary. This isn't something that can be copy-and-pasted to America, it's just an example of how things could happen to reduce the burden on students and graduates.
Saying "not used in the marketplace" is simplifying too much - plenty of important jobs really don't have a free market because of who hires those graduates. The market for law and accounting graduates is a lot freer than, say, the market for teachers and social workers.
Plus, university is not just about expanding knowledge, it's about expanding skills. A student who gets a degree in history or literature or anthropology isn't just expanding their knowledge in those subjects - they are expanding skills such as critical thinking, communication, working in a team, seeing things from different perspectives - etc. Graduates need those skills to succeed in the jobs market, not just subject matter expertise.
|