Maybe colleges should index their degreed program’s costs to typical salaries in that field.
Liberals FREAK OUT Over Trump GARNISHING Their WAGES After He TERMINATES Biden's BAIL OUT Program!
- Thread starter BOP
- Start date
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
There use to be someone high up in NAVAIR that tried to block any promotion to GS-13 for anyone without a degree. He made a friend of mine do an interview with him to prove he should be promoted.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
That could be keeping poor people from getting useful degrees
BOP
Well-Known Member
Not in NAVAIR, you don't. The only way a 14 or 15 gets there is if they're direct-hired from the military. I knew several retired Marines who could not be considered for 14 because they had no college degree.
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
glhs837
Power with Control
That and employment opportunities. If there are 5,000 openings a year for HR Diversity specialists, maybe we don't give out 50,000 loans for people to get degrees in that field.
The calculation would be based on the future job, not the current one, I think.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
From what I've seen I'd also estimate half of college students don't actually get through college.
What do you do about someone who gets a loan takes all their general requirements and then changes majors?
glhs837
Power with Control
You don't get a four year loan. You get one year at a time. That way you dont rack up 70-80 in debt and end up with not degree
And if you decide to switch from chemical engineering to basket weaving, your next year loan reflects the amount you could expect a basket weaver to make. Or they simply dont give a loan because they have already loaned out for the 250 basket weaving loans they can make for this year.
There really needs to be limits. The banks don't generally give 20 year olds 30K credit limit credit cards for a reason. Its a poor risk. That same sort of thinking doesnt happen regarding college loans because Uncle Sugar been's standing behind them.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
I know I took out student loans to get my degree.
Most of the issue is also private loans, the banks allow much larger loans than the federal loans.
Honestly it wouldn't be that hard to stay a chemical engineering major for a while while getting covertly working toward another degree.
glhs837
Power with Control
You got yours in a field where the odds of you making enough to pay them back, and that required enough self discipline to graduate that the odds were good you would have the self discipline to pay them off.
Seems that fed loans default at a much higher rate.
National Student Loan Default Rate [2024]: Delinquency Data
An analysis of student loan default rates along with financial consequences and solutions for students with loans in default.
- Private vs. Federal:
Private student loans, which are not backed by the government, have a lower default rate than federal loans. As of 2024 Q1, 1.61% of private student loans were in default, compared to 4.86% of federal student loans.
Those sort of loans are not really the problem. 180K in loans to be a teacher, even a college professor? That's insane.
And if you want to pretend to be taking a lucrative path, while secretly majoring in Mesopotamian potsherds, that's just what it is.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
I was thinking about the interest rate and amounts private loans have, their interest rates can be quite high compared to fed loans. My loans were paid off within five years, even so the interest rate on them was very low compared to the private loan literature I was getting when I was in grad school.You got yours in a field where the odds of you making enough to pay them back, and that required enough self discipline to graduate that the odds were good you would have the self discipline to pay them off.
Seems that fed loans default at a much higher rate.
National Student Loan Default Rate [2024]: Delinquency Data
An analysis of student loan default rates along with financial consequences and solutions for students with loans in default.educationdata.org
- Private vs. Federal:
Private student loans, which are not backed by the government, have a lower default rate than federal loans. As of 2024 Q1, 1.61% of private student loans were in default, compared to 4.86% of federal student loans.
Those sort of loans are not really the problem. 180K in loans to be a teacher, even a college professor? That's insane.
And if you want to pretend to be taking a lucrative path, while secretly majoring in Mesopotamian potsherds, that's just what it is.
glhs837
Power with Control
Are we on the hook for defaulted private loans? If not, I'm not worked about it.
Still bothered that the EIC gets to shill college as the Only Way to kids.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Depends how many default I suppose.Are we on the hook for defaulted private loans? If not, I'm not worked about it.
Still bothered that the EIC gets to shill college as the Only Way to kids.
I guess what bothers - concerns me - is that - I can't come CLOSE to bankrolling my children's college - not at all - and that job prospects for even the simplest jobs typically warrant a degree. Unless the job requires very specific knowledge, I'm fairly certain my middle child could handle just about anything given a chance.
But the other is - college degree programs have far too wide a base of required credits that 1) REALLY have nothing to do with the degree they're pursuing and 2) Probably cover parts of their field they are still never likely to encounter.
As part of my basic engineering degree, I covered everything from antenna design, lasers and steam tables - none of which ever proved useful. Like - ever. And that doesn't begin to cover the waste of time spent in programs utterly unrelated to my degree.
This is because we are locked into an antiquated idea of educating a well rounded person in college - when colleges taught things like Latin as a matter of habit but frankly have zero practical use (and yeah I took Latin in high school and it has helped me with vocabulary - but really). Time was when college was just for rich kids to enter into their dad's world of rich elites and business - IF you were lucky, maybe college was for graduate research - but four years of study where half your credits are outside your field - that's stupid.
What do you NEED - to be a good - botanist? Or journalist? Why not JUST STUDY THAT? Why pad the colleges profits with stuff that is NEVER going to enhance your career, and let's face it, college is career prep - it is NOT "to get an education".
But the other is - college degree programs have far too wide a base of required credits that 1) REALLY have nothing to do with the degree they're pursuing and 2) Probably cover parts of their field they are still never likely to encounter.
As part of my basic engineering degree, I covered everything from antenna design, lasers and steam tables - none of which ever proved useful. Like - ever. And that doesn't begin to cover the waste of time spent in programs utterly unrelated to my degree.
This is because we are locked into an antiquated idea of educating a well rounded person in college - when colleges taught things like Latin as a matter of habit but frankly have zero practical use (and yeah I took Latin in high school and it has helped me with vocabulary - but really). Time was when college was just for rich kids to enter into their dad's world of rich elites and business - IF you were lucky, maybe college was for graduate research - but four years of study where half your credits are outside your field - that's stupid.
What do you NEED - to be a good - botanist? Or journalist? Why not JUST STUDY THAT? Why pad the colleges profits with stuff that is NEVER going to enhance your career, and let's face it, college is career prep - it is NOT "to get an education".
I was studying marine science/bio, but had to have an athletic elective. I chose skeet shooting.
glhs837
Power with Control
Exactly, this bloat is silly, and driven solely by the desires of the colleges to increase tuition income. You should be offered "I want to get to WORK!!!!" or "I want to spend a full four years screwing off on my parents money"
When I spent my first two years at an engineering college - we generally referred to any non-science, non-engineering, non-math course as "my bullsht class". Because engineering is SO PACKED with requirements, these kinds of classes just made everything harder. I for one have an extreme love of history - so it was a fun diversion - but I still would have preferred to just not take it and graduate earlier.
BUT on a similar note - I went to U of MD for the balance of my college experience - and the professors THERE are/were heavily researching things like wave guides, antennas, power transmission, microwaves and so forth. While fascinating stuff - it's not the bulk of the work most electrical engineers are likely to do, and when I was there - VERY WEAK on things like circuit design. Which was needed on my very first job.
I studied an enormous amount of material - for the degree - which I have never seen since, and engineers I have spoken with - since - will look at me as if I had three heads when I bring it up.
NOW -
After working for many years - I ran into many people WITHOUT degrees who were able to receive certiification - some of it intense - for things like computer security and network design. Yeah I guess that's comp sci and not strictly engineering but still - these guys were smart - and didn't spend their entire income for the next ten years to receive accreditation - because the curricula required was JUST THE STUFF THEY NEEDED for the job.
I mean, at one point, my sister was going to send her daughter to an art school - where every single course was focused on art. I'd never seen such a thing outside of grad school. Why wasn't science and engineering - like that? You could be done in two years - and not four.
Exactly. All those basics were supposed to be done in high school; college is where you learn for a specific career field.
Been doing a little reading about the history of colleges, specifically in the United States but in a large part - throughout history.
By and large - they were usually founded by either well-heeled aristocrats - or the government - to train people to MEET A NEED.
Ag schools were created - to make better farmers - historically black colleges were generally created - to make teachers.
Harvard and most of the earliest American institutions were built exclusively for training ministers, who at one time were considered VITAL to the expansion of the colonies.
We didn't - right away - have medical colleges and law schools - rich kids went to Europe for that.
In ancient times - colleges were to train future government administrators, religious leaders, and so forth. There was never this grandiose idea of creating some kind of Renaissance, well rounded education, And then, there were institutions for graduate study - which was often the sole reason for the college in the first place. Higher learning was - to meet a NEED.
The concept of "everyone should go to college" is a recent, 20th century, post WW2 concept. Prior to that - rich elites went. They became doctors and lawyers and scientists.
We need to return to the idea of teaching people in a career - not as a pointless churning of wealth to universities. In truth - most colleges gain enough money from other sources of funding that - at least for undergraduates - tuition could be free. Big schools like Harvard don't need the money from undergraduates at all.
By and large - they were usually founded by either well-heeled aristocrats - or the government - to train people to MEET A NEED.
Ag schools were created - to make better farmers - historically black colleges were generally created - to make teachers.
Harvard and most of the earliest American institutions were built exclusively for training ministers, who at one time were considered VITAL to the expansion of the colonies.
We didn't - right away - have medical colleges and law schools - rich kids went to Europe for that.
In ancient times - colleges were to train future government administrators, religious leaders, and so forth. There was never this grandiose idea of creating some kind of Renaissance, well rounded education, And then, there were institutions for graduate study - which was often the sole reason for the college in the first place. Higher learning was - to meet a NEED.
The concept of "everyone should go to college" is a recent, 20th century, post WW2 concept. Prior to that - rich elites went. They became doctors and lawyers and scientists.
We need to return to the idea of teaching people in a career - not as a pointless churning of wealth to universities. In truth - most colleges gain enough money from other sources of funding that - at least for undergraduates - tuition could be free. Big schools like Harvard don't need the money from undergraduates at all.