Donald Trump

"

NeroNoah wrote:

About Sanders: I think it makes a disservice to talk about free college and universal healthcare as "free things"

I agree with universal healthcare (to some extent), but free college is the stupidest idea USA can implement.

Not all people need to go to college, because there aren't that many jobs of that type, for everyone. In EU you have people who "study" for 4 - 5 years (even longer, through various extensions of your "student" status), then possibly drop out, and end up doing some job that can be done with high school / middle school education.

In the current SJW leftist climate and pushing for "diversity", you know you'll end up with a ton of people in college, who aren't exactly fit for it.

Free college = big waste of taxpayer money + slowdown of economy.

I'd agree with free college, only if there were very rigorous admission tests, without any so called "positive" discrimination involved. And only for tech colleges (science, IT, etc.), not for various useless "social studies" that every idiot can do.

"

morbo wrote:

I'd agree with free college, only if there were very rigorous admission tests, without any so called "positive" discrimination involved. And only for tech colleges (science, IT, etc.), not for various useless "social studies" that every idiot can do.

While I do agree about the rigurous testing part, I think the social study part is more questionable. People that study philosophy or something like that may not generate money, but they sometimes make work that contributes to civilization. People talk shit about liberal art majors, but what comes next? Scientists? "I don't want you studying black holes with MY money!".

There are too many, but they are still needed. It would be more saner to limit how many do that. Also, sometimes people just choose their careers incorrectly, and a debt burden can cost more to society indirectly.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

While I do agree about the rigurous testing part, I think the social study part is more questionable. People that study philosophy or something like that may not generate money, but they sometimes make work that contributes to civilization. People talk shit about liberal art majors, but what comes next? Scientists? "I don't want you studying black holes with MY money!".

They can already study that - on their own money. The purpose of free college education should be to give an opportunity to talented and smart people, who cannot currently afford education in technology and science.

Social studies are easy and don't need subventions, imo. Average people can do social studies. You don't need to be talented or very smart person to study history, philosophy or "gender studies". You need to be talented to MAKE art (and you don't need a degree for that), but not really to study it.

The difference between these and people who research "useless" science, is that the latter are required to be very smart. You know you aren't funding jackasses, even tho you might not understand what's going on in the LHC in Geneva.

The problem is, a lot of that stuff may be easy (by comparison, if you are doing it right, it's actually hard), but it's not a really safe path to take (not a great pay, not a lot of jobs either). That's the only reason one would justify covering the costs (imagine what would happen if a lot of that stuff was in completely privated hands). A society that doesn't pay that probably ends forgetting history, and it's unable to find their own flaws (I'm pretty sure those social scientists were part of the reason that the western world is what it is rather than a victorian, die in the factory shithole that used to be). I remember having read about sociologists writing about stuff like child labor in the XIX century, for example. Without that, it would have gone ignored, or people would have been cool with that even knowing it. A world without someone, like, let's say, Kinsey, would be a shithole.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

The problem is, a lot of that stuff may be easy (by comparison, if you are doing it right, it's actually hard), but it's not a really safe path to take.

Sadly that's exactly the thing I see. People studying bullshit "sciences" that are easy, but for which jobs don't actually exist (in my country). These students end up on welfare or doing some random job anyone with middle school can do it. The taxpayers paid for an useless education, that has no returns.

Meanwhile there is huge demand for IT jobs & other technical stuff. Jobs that require a good grasp on math, physics and computers. (= naturally smart people)

I mean, how many sociologists, philosophisers and anthropologists a country really needs? Anyone who is highly motivated in this subject will find the money to study it. Meanwhile the state should help (more) those who are naturally smart and talented.

Both systems "you should pay for everything" vs "everything should be free for everyone" are bad. A good system is something in between, and prioritizes intelligence, talent, benefit and end result.

That's the reason I say the numbers should be limited, but given the risks and the utility (there is a valuable end result that is not economical), it makes sense to keep covering the costs. I'm not sure of why do you think people talented at it will find the money for that stuff. There is not a lot of profit to be made (unless your "science" helps to justify some rich guy scheme; social studies used to be a branch of the catholic church or a noble passtime).

The problem for IT is more a shortage of actually capable people. It pays a lot, but you cannot increase the number of quality students easily. A lot of people dislike stuff like math with all their soul (better for us that love it, xD).

"

NeroNoah wrote:

That's the reason I say the numbers should be limited, but given the risks and the utility (there is a valuable end result that is not economical), it makes sense to keep covering the costs.

Having a tuition fee is a way to limit those positions. Another would be the state deciding each year how many philosophers we need, but I believe in free society & market. Let the market regulate itself, not corrupt politicians.

By having a free college for everyone, you have a risk-free situation. Since it's free (or cheap) lots of people change their mind & colleges during studies. Resulting in people "studying" on taxpayer money until 27, 28, 29... There is no penalty. You can't afford to be this ineffective in a system where studying has a cost attached.

A society doesn't need everyone to be college educated. It shouldn't be free for everyone.

"

morbo wrote:

Having a tuition fee is a way to limit those positions. Another would be the state deciding each year how many philosophers we need, but I believe in free society & market. Let the market regulate itself, not corrupt politicians.

Well, generally, what happens is that young people make stupid financial decisions, they get indebted, and the whole thing doesn't really stop people from going and making stupid decisions in first place, because there is an information asimmetry problem there (people offering courses are more informed than the people wanting the courses, so it has a scam like behavior). Society can end paying the cost indirectly (indebted people are a drag on the economy). Personally, I didn't have a grasp of the labor market until the end of college, but I was lucky to study something that is actually needed.

Also, why would you let corrupt politicians (generally it's more like college staff) choose people for IT jobs and not for other type of jobs?

I agree college is not for everyone, but I'm not really sure of how effective is the (completely) free market solution (although I admit there is a lot of space for debate at that point, you could be right).

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Well, generally, what happens is that young people make stupid financial decisions, they get indebted, and the whole thing doesn't really stop people from going and making stupid decisions in first place, because there is an information asimmetry problem there

That's a problem indeed, but the solution is not to go in the opposite direction, with free college for everyone. There needs to be mechanisms to prevent abuse on both sides.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Also, why would you let corrupt politicians (generally it's more like college staff) choose people for IT jobs and not for other type of jobs?

There are at least two things you can measure with profit-oriented science/tech studies and related jobs:

1.) market demand
2.) student aptitude (talent, iq, etc..)

Corrupt functionaries have less manoeuvring space, than with "social studies" which are a lot more fuzzy and difficult to evaluate / estimate.

"

morbo wrote:

There are at least two things you can measure with profit-oriented science/tech studies and related jobs:

1.) market demand
2.) student aptitude (talent, iq, etc..)

Corrupt functionaries have less manoeuvring space, than with "social studies" which are a lot more fuzzy and difficulty to evaluate / estimate.

I think the first one is estimable (at least if you make the assumption that the government and in parallel some philantropists are creating the jobs; the problem there would be how many jobs should be created, and if it's wasteful or not).

About the second one...well, you are right that is harder to measure, but at least in things like sociology, there are actual scientific standards to follow.

I insist, when I mean free, I don't say free for everyone (although I don't agree with you about who deserves it, but it's not as big of a disagreement). In my country, it's free, but you are tested, there is a parallel, private system to ensure some competition, and there is not an oversupply of social scientists that I know of (cultural thing, maybe).