Nerd Pride Radio

Yep, that's kind of how I feel about that. Do you want to make the world a worse place? Go ahead, close down most of the universities. If anyone wants to defend this view feel free to try. Please don't start with the recent Atlantic article because it's one of the dumbest and worst-supported takes on this subject yet.

I think the idea of BRICK AND MORTAR universities will become more and more a thing of the past. I also think the idea of EVERYONE needing a 4 years of schooling after high school to be false.

What if high school was restructured and most people came out of it with skills that would get them jobs?

That would be great, but there's not a standardized test for that. Which mean there's no way for government to collect data, which means it's automatically inferior.

I don't care about closing universities. I would like to see post-secondary education be primarily focused on actually educating students in something in the sense that the majority of attendees are actually there to learn something. I feel that for many, it is just a hurdle to pass in order to say they are qualified for X. It's not so much about learning as about saying that you've completed it. And it needs to be affordable for all. A person should be able to gain the skills they need/want while working enough to support themselves and come out the other side relatively debt-free. The answer is not to just have government pay for it. The answer is to bring costs back down to a reasonable level AND have ways to assist those who need it.

Even at our local community college... if it was just tuition, it would be almost manageable. It's the cheapest tuition per hour in the state. BUT... the publishers of books and curricula have a racket going. You have to buy the books, which are sometimes looseleaf and intended to be put into binder (which aren't included) AND they come with a one semester subscription to the online companion material, which includes labs and tests and such. So there's no such thing as a used book for some of these classes. One semester was about $1500 tuition, but then required $800 in books and supplemental materials that cannot be resold for cash at the end of the semester and can't be rented or purchased used.

This is in opposition to our nearby state college which has equivalent tuition (roughly), but if you shop around you can get all your books for an average of $150 per semester. Sometimes it was more. Sometimes less. But reasonable. Professors actually put thought into selecting books that will be effective and affordable. Good on them.

Totally agreed that we should radically reform the way we're educating people, including university-level ed. I'd like to see us start public education at about age 3 or 4 and prepare students to begin more sophisticated training in career paths at a much younger age than the 18-19 starting point we have now. Nor is it necessary for all people to attend a 4 year university to obtain a 4 year degree. It depends what you're trying to do, what kinds of jobs exist, how your society is organized. Well over 2/5 of all college students are being served by community colleges. Many of those (a third?) go on to a 4 year degree. Many of them are hungry and homeless. The costs of tuition and debt can be absurdly high. A long list of problems like these could be created. However, it's not clear why any of that means we should close down most universities. What alternative do we have in mind instead? Should we maybe reform the problems rather than throwing out the entire baby, water, and bathtub?

This is a public service reminder: don’t play along with Phoebe.

Lol, this is like a trolling demonstration in progress. And not by me, obviously.

Can somebody explain the closing 3/4 part of this? I'm unclear on the core idea here. There's too many schools? That many are doing their job poorly? I'm just looking for the original angle here, before I can figure out whether I've got another ongoing Suicide Squad joke on my hands here.

The main idea is that lots of people got degrees in what is not that useful for the rest of life, and perhaps not properly trained for reality and workforces. My tack is replacing a lot of these with actual trade schools where a lot of people could learn vital basic skills that keeps the country running.

Note that there are a lot of trades that actually pays very well, like electrician, plumbing, and so on. Also, those with that skills can help rebuilding quickly after a disaster.

Any consideration for eliminating or heavily curtailing student loans? I think the rise of debt financed college has contributed to the rise in tuition and the willingness of people to pursue degrees with insufficient consideration of what they will do with them.* People tend to treat physical cash more carefully than payment via debit card, and when we think we're sticking the cost onto Future Homer all bets are off.

Ditto on trade schools.

* There may be a tertiary effect in the rise of some kinds of internet nonsense. People intending to be academics finding that the normal job market for that is smaller than they thought, then turning to blogging to pay the rent, followed by outrageous clickbait arguments.

My main issue with current views of education is people think that just throwing more MONEY at things will help when third world countries kick our ASS in almost every categorical measurement of school success.

I don't think that's really true when you compare apples to apples. But regardless, mindless money throwing is bad. Ramping up early childhood education is good, and of course it costs money. But one of the most dramatic results occurs when kids have an excellent education in preschool. We need to seize that opportunity we are missing now.

Here's the thing I never understand about that type of argument: are there no useless people in other jobs? Does the private sector somehow escape unscathed from this problem because of the magic of markets and capitalism? (And I'm for those things, btw - just not seeing how outcomes are so different in this instance.) Can anyone honestly say they've worked in an industry that was in no way populated by people who were poor at their jobs or unwilling to do better, where nepotism and preferential treatment played no role in advancing people beyond their merits, or keeping others devalued? If I had to guess, I'd say an employment area where people knowingly choose jobs that have crap pay, despite being intelligent enough in many cases to do otherwise, means even more are motivated by passion and dedication to their work than usual. There is evidence about this very thing, actually, but I'm not going to bother finding it because that's how I troll. I leave it as an exercise for the reader. It's a service I do so humbly. But seriously, it's because I need to sleep, and because there really is a lot of evidence about this to which I now handwave.