College Gainful Employment Rule
-
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves. We're already working hard to get back to a landed gentry, might as well add this to the list.
-
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves. We're already working hard to get back to a landed gentry, might as well add this to the list.
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
EDIT
Nahh I'll just amend to say I think you're very wrong about this. -
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
Apply that argument to learning a musical instrument and see where it leaves you.
I was only joking
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
-
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years.
You're saying gender studies can wait until after age 8, is that it?
I believe most democrats would disagree.
@Copper said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years.
You're saying gender studies can wait until after age 8, is that it?
Gender studies can wait, but alas some aspects of biological sex need to be confronted as soon as one starts “toilet training,” for the urination system is inextricably intertwined with a primary sexual organ for most people. :man-shrugging:
That said, some aspects of gender studies are usually addressed very early in most families. Fairy tales and Biblical bed time stories commonly read at bedtimes to young children often have built-in elements of gender studies, with gender neutrality generally being an exception rather than the norm.
-
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
Apply that argument to learning a musical instrument and see where it leaves you.
@Doctor-Phibes said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Apply that argument to learning a musical instrument and see where it leaves you.
Much fewer people will attain proficiencies with musical instruments. If a society wants more people to attain proficiencies with musical instruments, increase tax payer funding to subsidize lessons for musical instruments for the children.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Apply that argument to learning a musical instrument and see where it leaves you.
Much fewer people will attain proficiencies with musical instruments. If a society wants more people to attain proficiencies with musical instruments, increase tax payer funding to subsidize lessons for musical instruments for the children.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Much fewer people will attain proficiencies with musical instruments. If a society wants more people to attain proficiencies with musical instruments, increase tax payer funding to subsidize lessons for musical instruments for the children.
Alternatively, wait until they're gainfully employed as accountants, and then they can start paying for themselves to learn an instrument. Because that will work, right?
-
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Much fewer people will attain proficiencies with musical instruments. If a society wants more people to attain proficiencies with musical instruments, increase tax payer funding to subsidize lessons for musical instruments for the children.
Alternatively, wait until they're gainfully employed as accountants, and then they can start paying for themselves to learn an instrument. Because that will work, right?
@Doctor-Phibes said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Alternatively, wait until they're gainfully employed as accountants, and then they can start paying for themselves to learn an instrument. Because that will work, right?
Either the poor kids wait until they can afford it to learn an instrument, or the tax payers subsidize their lessons. Take your pick.
Private charities won't be able to subsidize them all.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Alternatively, wait until they're gainfully employed as accountants, and then they can start paying for themselves to learn an instrument. Because that will work, right?
Either the poor kids wait until they can afford it to learn an instrument, or the tax payers subsidize their lessons. Take your pick.
Private charities won't be able to subsidize them all.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Either the poor kids wait until they can afford it to learn an instrument, or the tax payers subsidize their lessons. Take your pick.
The second one.
-
Of all the things my tax dollars potentially fund, giving little Johnny a chance to play the trumpet isn't one I particularly worry about.
-
You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.
@Copper said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.
One: Don't do that.
-
Last I checked, math majors score higher on language parts of the GRE than humanities majors. I’m not a huge believer in formal education in any subject not directly tied to marketable skills. Informal education for personal enrichment on the other hand? Extremely important.
Education is extremely important.
-
Last I checked, math majors score higher on language parts of the GRE than humanities majors. I’m not a huge believer in formal education in any subject not directly tied to marketable skills. Informal education for personal enrichment on the other hand? Extremely important.
@Horace said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Last I checked, math majors score higher on language parts of the GRE than humanities majors.
Incorrect
English majors do pretty well compared to STEM, in the areas they're supposed to do well in. I am surprised at where comp sci is on the list. That's where the dumbest people with language congregate? Communications is funny. Well known softball degree. Lots of college football players with that beside their names. Business is funny.
Too bad there aren't any -studies majors listed there. I guess one of the things -studies majors will study, is why tests and scores are inequitable and need to be done away with.
