The student debt crisis, and why overhauling higher education should be important. - General

I'm sure everybody that is a university student is familiar with how ludicrously high some colleges tuition charges are becoming. What I don't understand is why the entire university system (At least in the United States) hasn't been subject to radical overhaul. Point in case - Typically, you spend a minimum of[B] 4 years earning a degree.[/B] In the space of that time, you accumulate thousands of dollars in debt through the price of tuition, boarding, meals, books, gas, and other living expenses. After spending the money that you will likely spend the next 5 to 10 years of your life paying it off, you are now done with college with a degree that might not get you a job in today's horrid market. How many years would you actually need to spend at a college if you were only required to take classes related to your desired major, probably two or even less depending on how many classes you'd be willing to take on per semester. As interesting as it is to dabble in different fields of study, the requirement to delve into topics like art classes, philosophy, and other areas irrelevant to any real life application is effectively dollars flushed down the toilet because you are [B]required [/B]to study them, regardless of what college you go to. Science classes for people who are aiming for a degree in art, Art classes for people for are aiming for a bio-chem major, and more or less everything in between. Rather than Unis making it a priority for students to get in and out with their degree and related training, they burden on thousands of dollars to your bills every year in the name of a "well balanced education", despite the fact that a semester of an art class that costs you hundreds of dollars does nothing for you if you are working on a degree in physiology. Do we have the luxury to in-debt ourselves for years to come (Not even counting the bills you are going to be paying if/when you get a home, have a car, and have the bills) When the entire world is trying to deal with the very real debt crisis that we are ALL inheriting? I say no. You want to fix student debt? Cut the mandatory bullshit and let students who still want additional curriculum to pursue it in their own time. We can't afford to spend years in university when only a fraction of our time spent is relative to what we will be doing for the rest of our working lives. There needs to be a real investigation conducted on the fact that universities are chock full of money draining resources and requirements that do not benefit their students at all in any real way.

The facts book companies can get away with making mild changes to their books each year which in turn doesnt allow us to sell back our book for full price needs to be dealt with.

I can get a BA and JD at the highest ranked university in Australia for $45,000 worth of tuition. Of course, our undergraduate degrees are only three years. How many subjects are necessary to complete your degree in the American system? I think that it can definitely provider a broader perspective, and is worthwhile [B]as long as[/B] it is not a significant financial detriment, as it tends to be in the US. A semester studying animal physiology has certainly been interesting and enlightening, while I'm doing my Arts course. I think you're completely missing the real issues here. You spend years in a university doing subjects that are related to your degree anyhow. Even if you wiped of 25% of subjects, the costs still tend to be obscene from what I've heard of the American system. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] Also, saying that classes like philosophy have no real life applications show a pretty poor understanding of philosophy and how it relates to the world. I'd agree if you said African Drum Music, though.

I have no idea how much US tuition costs but I do agree with the hours you spend, I pay £3000~ tuition as well as rent and food etc for 12 hours of lessons a week. Considering I had 18 hours a week at sixth form and 30 at secondary school which were both state funded it's weird you get less when you have to pay for it yourself. Luckily over here your courses only contain the infomation you need for your course there's no general classes so I can't compare that to the american system.

[QUOTE=Contag;32994152]I can get a BA and JD at the highest ranked university in Australia for $45,000 worth of tuition. Of course, our undergraduate degrees are only three years. How many subjects are necessary to complete your degree in the American system? I think that it can definitely provider a broader perspective, and is worthwhile [B]as long as[/B] it is not a significant financial detriment, as it tends to be in the US. A semester studying animal physiology has certainly been interesting and enlightening, while I'm doing my Arts course. I think you're completely missing the real issues here. You spend years in a university doing subjects that are related to your degree anyhow. Even if you wiped of 25% of subjects, the costs still tend to be obscene from what I've heard of the American system. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] Also, saying that classes like philosophy have no real life applications show a pretty poor understanding of philosophy and how it relates to the world. I'd agree if you said African Drum Music, though.[/QUOTE] First of all, great post. Second of all, yea picking out philosophy was a bad topic to use as an example.

Art and philosophy is required in college even if you are doing science or something? What? Is that an american thing or something?

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;32994595]Art and philosophy is required in college even if you are doing science or something? What? Is that an american thing or something?[/QUOTE] For your general education requirements (the first two years of college), you have to pick subjects from a large variety of courses. I'm majoring in English and Comp Sci and I'm not even taking a single one of any of those courses 'cause I'm getting my sciences and humanities classes out of the way.

[QUOTE=StormHammer;32993988] Rather than Unis making it a priority for students to get in and out with their degree and related training, they burden on thousands of dollars to your bills every year in the name of a "well balanced education", despite the fact that a semester of an art class that costs you hundreds of dollars does nothing for you if you are working on a degree in physiology. [/QUOTE]I don't think electives are what's causing high tuition...

In america they force you to take unrelated and irrelevant classes. Sure they make you "a better person" but who gives a fuck if you're paying an arm and a leg for a degree that doesn't guarantee you anything in this economy. And then they create services and give out free money for "poor" people and first time college attenders which has nothing to do with how smart you are but what kind of family you're born into so us middle classers get screwed and end up having to pay more tuition for services and scholarships we don't even benefit from when we too are struggling with debut and jobs.

I really don't see the point in paying so much for an education that you could get for free if you were passionate enough about it. I taught myself higher level Mathematics as well as some Physics for free by going to the library/downloading lectures for free. I'm still in High School, which costs my family $10,000 per year for what I've demonstrated that I can get for free. Go figure. Autodidact-ism really should be embraced more, but I suppose that won't be the case until you no longer need a piece of paper to speak for your intelligence.

[QUOTE=PopLot;33005074]I really don't see the point in paying so much for an education that you could get for free if you were passionate enough about it. I taught myself higher level Mathematics as well as some Physics for free by going to the library/downloading lectures for free. I'm still in High School, which costs my family $10,000 per year for what I've demonstrated that I can get for free. Go figure. Autodidact-ism really should be embraced more, but I suppose that won't be the case until you no longer need a piece of paper to speak for your intelligence.[/QUOTE] Because a lot of employers want you to have a fancy piece of paper.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;32996821]For your general education requirements (the first two years of college), you have to pick subjects from a large variety of courses. I'm majoring in English and Comp Sci and I'm not even taking a single one of any of those courses 'cause I'm getting my sciences and humanities classes out of the way.[/QUOTE]That's weird, we don't have any of that shit here. We finish the general education in highschool and uni/college is all about what you're majoring in. Note it's still 4 years of college, just no additional junk.

Gotta love being Scottish Free tuition

we get interest free student loans from the goverment over here, so its not that bad. Also payments just get automatically taken off what you get paid when you do have a job.

[QUOTE=o DefcoN o;33005841]Gotta love being Scottish Free tuition[/QUOTE] Couldn't agree more. I'm actually gaining money rather than losing it. I'm £230 up on what I left home with; and I haven't touched my loan at all.

[QUOTE=StormHammer;32993988]philosophy, and other areas irrelevant to any real life application is effectively dollars flushed down the toilet because you are [B]required [/B]to study them, regardless of what college you go to.[/QUOTE] die Nah but seriously I'm studying philosophy and saying flat out that it's useless is disgustingly naive. Employers are actually really keen on philosophy.

[QUOTE=StormHammer;32993988]I'm sure everybody that is a university student is familiar with how ludicrously high some colleges tuition charges are becoming. What I don't understand is why the entire university system (At least in the United States) hasn't been subject to radical overhaul. Point in case - Typically, you spend a minimum of[B] 4 years earning a degree.[/B] In the space of that time, you accumulate thousands of dollars in debt through the price of tuition, boarding, meals, books, gas, and other living expenses. After spending the money that you will likely spend the next 5 to 10 years of your life paying it off, you are now done with college with a degree that might not get you a job in today's horrid market. How many years would you actually need to spend at a college if you were only required to take classes related to your desired major, probably two or even less depending on how many classes you'd be willing to take on per semester. As interesting as it is to dabble in different fields of study, the requirement to delve into topics like art classes, philosophy, and other areas irrelevant to any real life application is effectively dollars flushed down the toilet because you are [B]required [/B]to study them, regardless of what college you go to. Science classes for people who are aiming for a degree in art, Art classes for people for are aiming for a bio-chem major, and more or less everything in between. Rather than Unis making it a priority for students to get in and out with their degree and related training, they burden on thousands of dollars to your bills every year in the name of a "well balanced education", despite the fact that a semester of an art class that costs you hundreds of dollars does nothing for you if you are working on a degree in physiology. Do we have the luxury to in-debt ourselves for years to come (Not even counting the bills you are going to be paying if/when you get a home, have a car, and have the bills) When the entire world is trying to deal with the very real debt crisis that we are ALL inheriting? I say no. You want to fix student debt? Cut the mandatory bullshit and let students who still want additional curriculum to pursue it in their own time. We can't afford to spend years in university when only a fraction of our time spent is relative to what we will be doing for the rest of our working lives. There needs to be a real investigation conducted on the fact that universities are chock full of money draining resources and requirements that do not benefit their students at all in any real way.[/QUOTE] Umm how are art and philosophy classes non-applicable to a scientist again? Scientists and engineers require a lot of creativity in designing experiments and designing new methods and technologies. Art and philosophy classes help teach your mind to think in a creative way. You can't learn about the world without first thinking creatively about it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33046980]Umm how are art and philosophy classes non-applicable to a scientist again? Scientists and engineers require a lot of creativity in designing experiments and designing new methods and technologies. Art and philosophy classes help teach your mind to think in a creative way. You can't learn about the world without first thinking creatively about it.[/QUOTE] you don't need to take an entire subject in order to learn how to think creatively

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33059783]you don't need to take an entire subject in order to learn how to think creatively[/QUOTE] Yea, you do. It's only for like...a few months. All this really does is gets them started. If you wanted to be really anal about teaching students to think creatively it would be like a year or 2 of philosophy before they are ready.

[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;33005496]Because a lot of employers want you to have a fancy piece of paper.[/QUOTE] it's more than just a fancy piece of paper. it's proof you've spent a great deal of time devoted to studying a subject. if you teach yourself there's no proof that you've done so unless they test you or you have a portfolio of work(which only works in some fields. my brother's had a lot of success getting web development jobs because of his experience).

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33046980]Umm how are art and philosophy classes non-applicable to a scientist again? Scientists and engineers require a lot of creativity in designing experiments and designing new methods and technologies. Art and philosophy classes help teach your mind to think in a creative way. You can't learn about the world without first thinking creatively about it.[/QUOTE] That's a stupid argument. Any time spent learning about art for a physics degree is wasted when it could be used for relevant material.

[QUOTE=Sh33p;33112604]That's a stupid argument. Any time spent learning about art for a physics degree is wasted when it could be used for relevant material.[/QUOTE] what an insightful post "what a stupid argument! <insert non-refutation and baseless claim here>"

[QUOTE=Sh33p;33112604]Any time spent learning about art for a physics degree is wasted when it could be used for relevant material.[/QUOTE] Not true. Employers don't want you to be hyperfocused, utterly incapable and uneducated in any topic beyond your specific degree. It makes you overspecialized, and if your job is ever forced to change or reprioritize, or god forbid if your job requires knowledge from other disciplines, you'll have to be replaced. General education requirements exist so that you can demonstrate that you are educated as a well-rounded, capable individual, and therefore someone a company will want to keep around. But more importantly, they show that you are capable of learning outside your specific field of interest, and can therefore adapt to the job itself. You're unlikely to ever have a job that perfectly matches what you studied at university, and so employers look for candidates who show signs of being flexible and adaptable, who won't just say 'wat do' when presented with a task that isn't the same as what they studied for. College isn't about learning a specific skill and nothing else, it's about becoming a more educated individual as a whole, and then concentrating on a specific discipline. If all you want are technical skills, you can learn them yourself on your own time, maybe through an understudy or apprenticeship, or just trade school, and then go look for a job. Getting a job won't be as easy as if you had a 4-year degree, but that just reflects what employers want.

[QUOTE=Lazor;33112510]it's more than just a fancy piece of paper. it's proof you've spent a great deal of time devoted to studying a subject. if you teach yourself there's no proof that you've done so unless they test you or you have a portfolio of work(which only works in some fields. my brother's had a lot of success getting web development jobs because of his experience).[/QUOTE] I'm not understating the importance and relevance of a certificate proving that you have passed how many years of tertiary education on a topic, but in many ways, that's all it is. A degree or even a grade point average is not a particularly good guage of someone's interest/devotion to an area.

[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;33114232]A degree or even a grade point average is not a particularly good guage of someone's interest/devotion to an area.[/QUOTE] It shows that they're willing and able to do the work, and that's all that matters.

[QUOTE=PopLot;33005074]I really don't see the point in paying so much for an education that you could get for free if you were passionate enough about it. I taught myself higher level Mathematics as well as some Physics for free by going to the library/downloading lectures for free. I'm still in High School, which costs my family $10,000 per year for what I've demonstrated that I can get for free. Go figure. Autodidact-ism really should be embraced more, but I suppose that won't be the case until you no longer need a piece of paper to speak for your intelligence.[/QUOTE] You can't prove to an employer that you understand all required higher level mathematics necessary for a job without them giving you some kind of test. It's easier for them that you go to university and take those tests so that they can read a piece of paper that says you are competent at all of the things they require of you. [QUOTE=Contag;32994152] Also, saying that classes like philosophy have no real life applications show a pretty poor understanding of philosophy and how it relates to the world. I'd agree if you said African Drum Music, though.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about Melbourne Uni has very important breadth subjects, my degree would be incomplete without Wines of the World!

[QUOTE=Sh33p;33112604]That's a stupid argument. Any time spent learning about art for a physics degree is wasted when it could be used for relevant material.[/QUOTE] how can you not see the impact art has on science and science on art

[QUOTE=catbarf;33113116]Not true. Employers don't want you to be hyperfocused, utterly incapable and uneducated in any topic beyond your specific degree. It makes you overspecialized, and if your job is ever forced to change or reprioritize, or god forbid if your job requires knowledge from other disciplines, you'll have to be replaced. General education requirements exist so that you can demonstrate that you are educated as a well-rounded, capable individual, and therefore someone a company will want to keep around. But more importantly, they show that you are capable of learning outside your specific field of interest, and can therefore adapt to the job itself. You're unlikely to ever have a job that perfectly matches what you studied at university, and so employers look for candidates who show signs of being flexible and adaptable, who won't just say 'wat do' when presented with a task that isn't the same as what they studied for. College isn't about learning a specific skill and nothing else, it's about becoming a more educated individual as a whole, and then concentrating on a specific discipline. If all you want are technical skills, you can learn them yourself on your own time, maybe through an understudy or apprenticeship, or just trade school, and then go look for a job. Getting a job won't be as easy as if you had a 4-year degree, but that just reflects what employers want.[/QUOTE] But degrees aren't as hyperfocused as you seem to think they are. The entire point of doing a science heavy degree is that it trains you to think analyticly and fluidly and have an excellent ability to solve problems in interesting and creative ways, and write about these in a clear and concise way, it's not just about the actual material you learn. If an employer wants to employ a physicist he wants to employ someone who's an excellent critical thinker, has great skills of analysis and has a strong technical writing style. Sure science has an impact on the arts, but that's not something I'd be willing to pay for in a degree course. It's something that isn't challenging so I can learn about it in my own time if I'm interested.

[QUOTE=Sh33p;33117094]But degrees aren't as hyperfocused as you seem to think they are. The entire point of doing a science heavy degree is that it trains you to think analyticly and fluidly and have an excellent ability to solve problems in interesting and creative ways, and write about these in a clear and concise way, it's not just about the actual material you learn. If an employer wants to employ a physicist he wants to employ someone who's an excellent critical thinker, has great skills of analysis and has a strong technical writing style.[/QUOTE] Learning critical thinking and technical writing may be doable through the directly science-focused classes, but you could learn so much more from a causal logic or writing class respectively. General education classes are there to provide that more diverse background. I can't speak for all degrees, but within my major all of my classes have been focused, technical skills. It's through my gen ed classes that I've developed the ancillary skills that landed me a co-op. But more importantly, you're not paying for just the skills you absolutely require for your work. You're also paying for proof that you can learn new skills, and for becoming an educated, cultured individual instead of a skilled laborer.

I think that cooking studies go well with art studies, as you really can't flip burgers with only art studies. Unless you are a sandwich artist.