How old is "too old" to go to grad school?

[dps]

"Anti-intellectual" is, ironically, a label applied without a great deal of critical thought.  It's not "anti-intellectual" to demand that supply of humanities-degree holders (indeed, all degree holders) be constrained to meet demand, so that the student debt crisis be ameliorated.

Your position may not be "anti-intellectual," but it's sure as fuck anti-human.

So your argument is that some people be deliberately left uneducated or under-educated for the economic benefit of others who will be allowed to get a higher education?  And who, exactly, do you propose be "constrained" from getting degrees?  Blacks?  Jews?  Women?  Gays?  All of the above?  And then you have the nerve to call Seedy's take on the issue "anti-human"?

[Josquius]

No option for "you're always too old for it" ? :p

I've never seen a job advert askinhr for a masters. I just did it as my bachelors was so monumentally crap and I wanted to actually learn something from university. Plus added adventure in life and all that.

[garbon]

I've never seen a job advert askinhr for a masters.

[Ed Anger]

I've never seen a job advert askinhr for a masters.

Coal mining doesn't require it.

[sbr]

I have never seen it askinhred for either.

Though the last time I was looking in the classified ads was when I really needed a minimum wage job when I was 19.

[Ideologue]

"Anti-intellectual" is, ironically, a label applied without a great deal of critical thought.  It's not "anti-intellectual" to demand that supply of humanities-degree holders (indeed, all degree holders) be constrained to meet demand, so that the student debt crisis be ameliorated.

Your position may not be "anti-intellectual," but it's sure as fuck anti-human.

So your argument is that some people be deliberately left uneducated or under-educated for the economic benefit of others who will be allowed to get a higher education?  And who, exactly, do you propose be "constrained" from getting degrees?  Blacks?  Jews?  Women?  Gays?  All of the above?  And then you have the nerve to call Seedy's take on the issue "anti-human"?

Do you have a lot of money in SLABs or something?  Your framing of the issue is ridiculously emotional and obscurantist.  As long as the purpose of post-secondary education is to prepare students for careers, it is incumbent upon the government and the schools to not generate an oversupply of graduates in any field, destroying the value of the degrees that they're selling to people.  There is a duty of good faith and fair dealing in any contractual arrangement; and colleges are service providers who take money in exchange for an education.  (Whether they actually provide it or not is a related but distinct issue.)

Your implicit argument is that post-secondary education should have a purpose of enriching the lives of students and generating good citizens.  In that case, it becomes four more years of high school--universally considered a public good that the public pays for.  And I'd agree with you, if I lived in a magical fantasy land where the American public were willing to offer universal free college to everybody.

Since graduates are expected to pay for their own education, your conception of education as a public good must recede in favor of a conception of education as an investment.  And good investments have good returns.  Since people are taking on personal, nondischargeable debt in order to finance this investment, it is absolutely essential that they be given the best possible chance of paying it back and realizing a financial return--which is, we can all agree, largely synonymous with a shot at a good life.

If colleges are going to shit out graduates whose degrees qualify them for the same jobs as high school students--or worse, if there are so many people with degrees that high school diplomas are devalued--and obviously I describe the status quo--then you are looking at an utter disaster, an effective waste of literally trillions of dollars, and the destruction of a generation.

[garbon]

Cry me a river.

[Ideologue]

Cry me a river.

Fuck you, Stanford.  You're a special case.

[garbon]

I've yet to see evidence that our generation has been destroyed. I have seen a lot of evidence of whiny individuals though.

[Ideologue]

How many whiny individuals does it take?  ~30% enough for you?

[garbon]

Maybe we should define terms first. What do you think should count as "destroyed"?

[Ideologue]

I'll back off "destroyed."  How about "severely damaged", which would include any of the following: unable to pay off their loans with relative facility; putting off life milestones like marriage and children; living with their parents; long stretches of unemployment or underemployment.

IBR rates would be a pretty good proxy for "severely damaged," since that's the number of graduates in soft default, and it's a pretty massive number.

[garbon]

Well I don't disagree with that as much, though perhaps the modified "severely"...and I'm not convinced that the 2nd bit is super important (on the marriage side).

However, I don't see why restricting the humanities (presumably only to those for whom college won't pose an undo financial burden) is the solution. In fact, I'd say some of my best courses (both in undergrad and those I've taken sense) fell in the realm of humanities.

Seems like the problem is more structural in that we require people to have a degree as signifier of suitability for many non-service sector career roles but then have a high price tag attached to many of our institutions. I'd think those would be two places to look at reforms.

Of course is college debt the worst debt? We've long had people crushing themselves with housing debt they can't afford - as well as credit card debt, etc.

[DGuller]

You can't charge off the education debt in bankruptcy, so yes, it is a worse kind of debt.

[garbon]

So it is the worst debt because you can't get rid of it when you decide that your financial decision wasn't wise?