I agree fully with your first point but not at all that the students paying for an education are lazy. Most students I know are working PT while going into debt for school FT. The intensity leaves them unable to take full advantage of what they're learning. By the time they graduate and find there's no jobs, they're burnt out and never want to see a book again. Unless they go into internships where they work like dogs for free so they can get into another school and more debt.
Everything you're talking about could be put into curricula, that are developed by teachers outside of the Carnegie-oligarchical system and recognized by employers and mentors in community economies that don't serve the oligarchy. It could include small inexpensive classes / learning groups that provide community (and potential sex partners, let's be real about what college is for ;-) and an international network of 'sibling cities' for lifelong edu-travel and edu-tourism.
It shouldn't have to be one or the other--corporate profit-driven university or taking on all the risk and isolation of uncredentialed, self-driven, self-organized, self-authorized learning. At least that's what I'd want if I was starting out.
Perhaps lazy was a bit bombastic, perhaps better to say they didn't investigate any alternatives. My sons have avoided student loans, taught themselves and are doing fine. As an engineer I have to study everyday, if I don't stay up to date with the latest studys I become dated and irrelevant. Saying they are burnt out after school is an excuse.
Like I said there are fully accredited on line colleges that provide a BA/BS level education for free they are just unaccredited. In the technical industry I work in we don't really look at transcripts, don't really care about your college. Almost exclusively we look at real time in person performance of the duties. Can you do the job ? Can you do the job while a group of your peers is watching ? If you succeed or fail at doing the job, where you went to school is truly irrelevant.
School should be free, the best way to make that happen is online. The barrier to a totally free accredited online bachelors degree is government accreditation not being granted to solutions outside the university system. Once again the problem is government not for profit industry.
Hi, notBob. My daughters have also managed to graduate without debt and succeed, so I don't have a personal pony in this race. But I don't take their success as a sign the system is working. As a former high tech Dir of HR, I know every technical position I advertised needed a BA/BS. These days degree checks are routine and automated. How does an uncredentialed person get that first technical job?
I'm guessing that you haven't read my Reinventing Education episode when you say the problem isn't for-profit 'industry' (have to put that word in quotes since it implies actual work being done other than raking in) but is gov't. I go into some depth but also just scratch the surface on how for-profit industry drives the degree factories we call college. They don't call it the Carnegie Curriculum because they like the alliteration.
I think it's a false dichotomy, however, between 'we and our kids did it so anyone who can't, it's their own fault' and Biden's blanket transfer of $20K in debt to taxpayers. I'd like to see a more nuanced discussion of the problem in the context of changing the economy from serving profits to serving people.
Let me try to understand your logic here: Government owns and operates many universities around the nation. Government controls the accreditation of which schools are valid and which are not. Government pays the salaries of the staff and administration of those schools. 75% of all university students attend a government run university. Government either guarantees or directly lends to students in the vast majority of cases.
Your claim is that the government is guiltless is the desecration of these schools and it is all the fault of the capitalist driven model of education ?
By government, do you mean specific people, specific roles, or the system itself?
If the system, I have plenty of criticism to go around for that, which I focus on in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-convention-coup. It explains how our system was designed to serve bankers and merchants, now called corporations, by the framers of the Constitution.
If you mean specific roles, the Regents control the UC system here in California. My education episode goes into how they profit from construction loans, student loans and high tuition.
I would never claim that the system of gov't is guiltless because I'm all about changing systems. But your claim is that students who can't afford college just shouldn't go. Is that right?
I agree fully with your first point but not at all that the students paying for an education are lazy. Most students I know are working PT while going into debt for school FT. The intensity leaves them unable to take full advantage of what they're learning. By the time they graduate and find there's no jobs, they're burnt out and never want to see a book again. Unless they go into internships where they work like dogs for free so they can get into another school and more debt.
Everything you're talking about could be put into curricula, that are developed by teachers outside of the Carnegie-oligarchical system and recognized by employers and mentors in community economies that don't serve the oligarchy. It could include small inexpensive classes / learning groups that provide community (and potential sex partners, let's be real about what college is for ;-) and an international network of 'sibling cities' for lifelong edu-travel and edu-tourism.
It shouldn't have to be one or the other--corporate profit-driven university or taking on all the risk and isolation of uncredentialed, self-driven, self-organized, self-authorized learning. At least that's what I'd want if I was starting out.
Perhaps lazy was a bit bombastic, perhaps better to say they didn't investigate any alternatives. My sons have avoided student loans, taught themselves and are doing fine. As an engineer I have to study everyday, if I don't stay up to date with the latest studys I become dated and irrelevant. Saying they are burnt out after school is an excuse.
Like I said there are fully accredited on line colleges that provide a BA/BS level education for free they are just unaccredited. In the technical industry I work in we don't really look at transcripts, don't really care about your college. Almost exclusively we look at real time in person performance of the duties. Can you do the job ? Can you do the job while a group of your peers is watching ? If you succeed or fail at doing the job, where you went to school is truly irrelevant.
School should be free, the best way to make that happen is online. The barrier to a totally free accredited online bachelors degree is government accreditation not being granted to solutions outside the university system. Once again the problem is government not for profit industry.
Hi, notBob. My daughters have also managed to graduate without debt and succeed, so I don't have a personal pony in this race. But I don't take their success as a sign the system is working. As a former high tech Dir of HR, I know every technical position I advertised needed a BA/BS. These days degree checks are routine and automated. How does an uncredentialed person get that first technical job?
I'm guessing that you haven't read my Reinventing Education episode when you say the problem isn't for-profit 'industry' (have to put that word in quotes since it implies actual work being done other than raking in) but is gov't. I go into some depth but also just scratch the surface on how for-profit industry drives the degree factories we call college. They don't call it the Carnegie Curriculum because they like the alliteration.
I think it's a false dichotomy, however, between 'we and our kids did it so anyone who can't, it's their own fault' and Biden's blanket transfer of $20K in debt to taxpayers. I'd like to see a more nuanced discussion of the problem in the context of changing the economy from serving profits to serving people.
Let me try to understand your logic here: Government owns and operates many universities around the nation. Government controls the accreditation of which schools are valid and which are not. Government pays the salaries of the staff and administration of those schools. 75% of all university students attend a government run university. Government either guarantees or directly lends to students in the vast majority of cases.
Your claim is that the government is guiltless is the desecration of these schools and it is all the fault of the capitalist driven model of education ?
By government, do you mean specific people, specific roles, or the system itself?
If the system, I have plenty of criticism to go around for that, which I focus on in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-convention-coup. It explains how our system was designed to serve bankers and merchants, now called corporations, by the framers of the Constitution.
If you mean specific roles, the Regents control the UC system here in California. My education episode goes into how they profit from construction loans, student loans and high tuition.
I would never claim that the system of gov't is guiltless because I'm all about changing systems. But your claim is that students who can't afford college just shouldn't go. Is that right?