Graduate school - a luxury?

[shadowclaw]

Someone I went to high school with whom I'm friends with on Facebook is very anti-Bernie Sanders. She likes to post a lot of stuff about how Bernie Sanders supporters are freeloaders who want everyone else to pay for their free benefits like education, healthcare, etc. So I engaged her in some conversation about it (which was quite civil), and someone else jumped in and said that low-wage workers get great state-funded health insurance that's better than the insurance he gets at his good job. So I brought up the point that while doing my masters, I was eligible for state-funded health insurance but the state didn't have the funding available to give it to me so I was without insurance for two years and many of my friends were in similar situations (and thus, not everybody making low wages has health insurance). So the woman I initiated the conversation with said that getting a graduate degree is a luxury and she shouldn't have to pay higher taxes so someone could pursue a higher education (and that's pretty much a direct quote).

So what do you all think? Is a graduate degree a luxury? What makes an undergraduate degree not a luxury? I haven't asked her yet why she doesn't mind that her existing taxes go towards the stipends and health insurance of many graduate students (though indirectly). But any thoughts?

[sjoh197]

It's a luxury because she doesn't have one. lol

To be fair... her taxes would pay for my mother's pension and part of her health insurance policy, if she was a resident of her state.. since my mom is a state employee. And the last time I checked, my mother's job was not a luxury. 

[ilovelab]

Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't Bernie's proposal cover undergrad only? I don't every hear him mention graduate school. Getting a graduate degree isn't a luxury. Most people go into quite a bit of debt to get one, especially in the humanities where they don't have a lot of funding. Considering a college degree now is what  high school degree was 30 years ago I wouldn't call getting a BS/BA a luxury either. 

[Need Coffee in an IV]

I don't know if I would classify it as a luxury, I think of it as an added certification so someone can be more knowledgeable in their chosen profession. Then again I think an educated population, learning a trade, going to undergrad/grad school, taking certified exams, is necessary if we want to maintain a thriving society. I'm very fortunate because my parents have been able to help pay for my schooling. I'm not religious but I believe in helping people because its the right thing to do. I like some states' model on education, if you have a certain gpa, the state will help pay for you to go to school. If that means I have to pay extra in taxes, so be it.

[eternallyephemeral]

I think I'm very fortunate to be able to go to graduate school, because I don't have to support my family and I have the ability to put off working so I can become more educated, for example. When I saw your title, I thought you meant that graduate school was a luxury as in it is not a necessity, which I definitely agree with.

Is graduate school a luxury in the way this woman means it? Not exactly, in my opinion, because you are still contributing to society and you should be, at the very least, helped by the government through basic necessities like healthcare.

But I'm from Canada, and in some situations we are more to the left of Bernie Sanders. I'm very happy for my taxes (when I will eventually make enough to pay taxes) to support people who need it, to pay for our healthcare, social services, maternity leave, investments in infrastructure, and funding for grad students and researchers.

In fact, in my province, the government will be covering the average cost of undergraduate tuition for students whose families make under 50k a year, and providing partial funding for undergraduate students whose families make less than 85k a year. I think it is a great idea and it is supported by our taxes, so that students who otherwise wouldn't choose a degree due to the cost will be able to. I think this will help make education less of a luxury, though it already is much more affordable in Canada than in the US.

[PizzaCat93]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who gets absolutely no government assistance for graduate school (or undergrad, for that matter). If you go to a public school, you're benefitting from government funds, especially if you're a funded student. Loans are subsidized by the government, as well as health insurance, as previously mentioned. All sorts of grants are federally-funded, like NSF, NIH, DAAD, Boren, Fulbright, etc. The government funds things that it wants to incentivize. This does not mean that such things are a luxury. Private planes and large diamonds are luxuries, not graduate school, imho. 

I think the public as a whole, especially those who are not highly educated, are fairly anti-intellectual, so it's not surprising that this woman feels this way. However, I must say, it's nearly impossible to not be opposed to at least one thing that our tax money goes towards. I could make quite a long list myself. It doesn't mean those things are not worthy or not in the country's best interests necessarily... just that I personally am opposed to them. This is what it means to live in a democracy. In short, I don't at all agree with her sentiment, but it's fine that she feels that way. One woman's opinions are not going to end government funding of academia...

[sjoh197]

2 minutes ago, PizzaCat93 said:

 . However, I must say, it's nearly impossible to not be opposed to at least one thing that our tax money goes towards. I could make quite a long list myself. It doesn't mean those things are not worthy or not in the country's best interests necessarily... just that I personally am opposed to them. This is what it means to live in a democracy. 

This.

My partner doesn't drive... and his taxes fund the roads and public transportation equally (well proportionally) despite the fact that he only uses one. That doesn't make driving on roads a luxury. 

We don't have children... and don't plan to. But our taxes help fund children's education. That doesn't make basic education a luxury.

Neither of us has ever to my knowledge been a small 4 legged furry child... but our tax dollars pay for the shelters in our city (which they should - poor kitties). Doesn't make helping defenseless animals a luxury. 

Just like grad school... none of these things are necessary to survive and are perks of living in a developed country. But that doesn't make them luxuries. 

[Cheshire_Cat]

Economically, an education is worth more to society than it is to the individual, which is why it is subsidized.  Personally, I am a big fan of programs that pay for education, as long as the students are held to a GPA standard and scholastic rigor is not deminished. (AKA no grade inflation )  However, instead of paying for *everyone* to go to post-secondary school, we should improve the quality of a K-12 education. Currently our workforce is overeducated, but lack the real world skills to be productive members of society.  People are having to spend more time in school for ever diminishing returns for doing so. 

I do think that some undergrad degrees should be considered a luxury instead of a necessity.  I think that people should consider their economic future before they get to self actualize in some philosophy program somewhere.

(The real problem with Bernie is that his plan increases the supply of college educated students, while placing hiring pressures on the employers (in the form of mandatory healthcare provision), which reduces the demand for said students.   I wouldnt mind paying for it if I thought it would help, but it is a recipe for disaster. Also, I personally am a fan of universal healthcare, but that we should remove the burden from companies and have the government itself provide the healthcare coverage.)

[shadowclaw]

2 hours ago, sjoh197 said:

It's a luxury because she doesn't have one. lol

Well, to be fair, she actually does a masters degree, but she earned it part time while working full time and I believe her employer paid for part of it.

2 hours ago, ilovelab said:

Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't Bernie's proposal cover undergrad only? I don't every hear him mention graduate school. Getting a graduate degree isn't a luxury. Most people go into quite a bit of debt to get one, especially in the humanities where they don't have a lot of funding. Considering a college degree now is what  high school degree was 30 years ago I wouldn't call getting a BS/BA a luxury either. 

Yes, Bernie's proposal is limited to undergrad as far as I know... she is against that part of Bernie's plan, too, but in this context she was really just referring to people who work full-time towards a graduate degree who need some form of government assistance while they do so (and she is opposed to paying taxes for this). Her rationale is that after you get your undergraduate degree, you should immediately get a job (which in theory comes with benefits like health insurance) and if you choose to get a graduate degree, it is a luxury so you aren't entitled to any sort of government assistance like publicly-funded healthcare.

1 hour ago, Need Coffee in an IV said:

I don't know if I would classify it as a luxury, I think of it as an added certification so someone can be more knowledgeable in their chosen profession. Then again I think an educated population, learning a trade, going to undergrad/grad school, taking certified exams, is necessary if we want to maintain a thriving society. I'm very fortunate because my parents have been able to help pay for my schooling. I'm not religious but I believe in helping people because its the right thing to do. I like some states' model on education, if you have a certain gpa, the state will help pay for you to go to school. If that means I have to pay extra in taxes, so be it.

 

1 hour ago, eternallyephemeral said:

Is graduate school a luxury in the way this woman means it? Not exactly, in my opinion, because you are still contributing to society and you should be, at the very least, helped by the government through basic necessities like healthcare.

But I'm from Canada, and in some situations we are more to the left of Bernie Sanders. I'm very happy for my taxes (when I will eventually make enough to pay taxes) to support people who need it, to pay for our healthcare, social services, maternity leave, investments in infrastructure, and funding for grad students and researchers.

I'm on board with both of you. While a graduate degree (or even an undergraduate degree) is not a necessity, it improves the lives of the individuals pursuing it and more education generally equates to a better society. Plus I don't think receiving training that will increase your earning potential can legitimately be considered a luxury even if that wasn't true. Perhaps if someone was working in the medical field and decided to get a masters degree in philosophy or Russian literature for their personal enrichment, then we could call it a luxury. However, most people get graduate degrees in their field (or a field they would like to switch to), which makes them better qualified for better-paying positions, and that is not a luxury situation. I also would be quite happy to pay taxes once I get into my career - I'm all for using tax money for social programs.

1 hour ago, PizzaCat93 said:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who gets absolutely no government assistance for graduate school (or undergrad, for that matter). If you go to a public school, you're benefitting from government funds, especially if you're a funded student. Loans are subsidized by the government, as well as health insurance, as previously mentioned. All sorts of grants are federally-funded, like NSF, NIH, DAAD, Boren, Fulbright, etc. The government funds things that it wants to incentivize. This does not mean that such things are a luxury. Private planes and large diamonds are luxuries, not graduate school, imho. 

I think the public as a whole, especially those who are not highly educated, are fairly anti-intellectual, so it's not surprising that this woman feels this way. However, I must say, it's nearly impossible to not be opposed to at least one thing that our tax money goes towards. I could make quite a long list myself. It doesn't mean those things are not worthy or not in the country's best interests necessarily... just that I personally am opposed to them. This is what it means to live in a democracy. In short, I don't at all agree with her sentiment, but it's fine that she feels that way. One woman's opinions are not going to end government funding of academia...

I think the real motivation behind this particular woman's opinions doesn't have to do with anti-intellectual feelings (although I agree that many people are opposed to education funding for that very reason). We went to a surprisingly good public high school, and she's been through graduate school herself. However, I think her actual motivations reflect a certain segment of society - people who come from wealthier families and earn a decent amount of money and don't want that money taken away, especially to benefit the lower rungs of society. The town I grew up in was populated primarily by doctors, dentists, tenured professors, architects - basically people with high-earning professions and big houses. A lot of my classmates got free rides to college - either through scholarships or more commonly because their parents had the money to pay for their education. So now these people have careers, families, and little to no student loan debt - and they have no idea what it means to be burdened by student loans, having to work to pay their way through college, or even just having to stay sick because you can't afford to go to the doctor.  The woman in question is living a pretty privileged life - her husband makes over $100k, she just had a baby and has become a stay at home mom, they don't have any major bills beyond their mortgage... and she's openly said that she feels like her lifestyle would be at risk with Bernie's tax plan.

It's true, though, one person's opinion will not end government funding of academia. I do, however, find it worrisome that so many people that I encounter are so strongly opposed to a tax plan that will go towards a lot of fantastic public programs like paid family and medical leave, healthcare, education, social security expansion, etc.  And of course there's the original topic - calling a graduate school a luxury and suggesting those who pursue it shouldn't get public assistance.

[Need Coffee in an IV]

@shadowclaw Ah while I don't agree with that woman's opinion, it makes sense. My family has similar opinions to her. My parents grew up poor, but it seems like social mobility was easier when school was actually affordable. My mom openly admits she got lucky while my dad is more inclined to think everyone can earn 100,000 a year if they just work/are smart. My family and I avoid these topics since we are in firmly different camps. My father says that I'll change my mind when I become "older and wiser".

[emmm]

Most graduate students who get funding are expected to work for it. I teach at local community colleges and I have TA'd, and it's a lot of work! Grad students are also cheap lab workers, so even though having an RA can help move the student's work forward (as opposed to having a TA, which doesn't), it's still labor provided in return for funding.

[shadowclaw]

@Cheshire_Cat I've heard the argument from several people that free undergraduate education will flood the job market with college graduates. However, I'm not sure that's the case. I haven't look too deeply at the specifics of Bernie's education plan (because I think congress is unlikely to work with him on that if he is elected), but I am under the impression that only public schools would be free. So that cuts out all of the private schools off the bat. Across the board (public or private), there are more applicants than spaces in undergraduate programs (although I'm sure there are some programs that are an exception to this). That won't change if education becomes free. What will change is the competitiveness of programs since now those people who would not have applied due to lack of financial resources would be able to apply. I suppose this could change the overall profile of undergraduate students and thus also the typical profile of a graduate since schools will have a larger pool to select from, but the number of graduates shouldn't increase anymore than it would have without free public education, unless for some reason it also leads to a higher retention rate.

@Need Coffee in an IV Like your family, my parents also grew up on the poor side. My mom wasn't really poor exactly, but her family was by no means wealthy. My dad, on the other hand, was legitimately poor (he occasionally tells people about how they should be grateful for what they have, because he had to poop in a bucket as a kid). My dad has pretty much exemplified the concept that hard work will get you somewhere... between him and my mom, they make about $100k right now, but only because he works 70+ hours per week (usually 20 - 30 hours of overtime, plus two side jobs cleaning a couple times per week). So yeah, you can make lots of money with just a high school diploma if you want to spend almost every waking hour working. But yeah, I understand how people with certain life experiences can have specific viewpoints, and I can certainly understand the desire to hold onto the money you've been lucky enough to earn. 

[Need Coffee in an IV]

@shadowclaw Yeah my parents worked a lot too, they would often be gone 2-3 weeks at a time. They would leave us money for pizza but told us not to tell anyone we were alone . Our household was often a one parent household since the other one worked in a different city/state or were deployed. I like to think my parents are the exception not the rule. I'm proud of them but I can openly admit a majority of people are unable to produce the same results. I like to think that as a society we should strive to level the playing field so to speak. I mean not all of us can receive a small loan of a few million dollars

[Concordia]

A lot depends on how you define 'luxury', and this seems not to have been done at the start.

You could say that because it is expensive, i.e., unaffordable to most people without some financial arrangements, and is often used to denote status, it's on the way there.  To make it a real luxury, however, you'd also have to say that there is no positive return on investment.  Like peacock feathers on hats.

That could be looked at from the student's point of view, and from society's.  On the student side, there are quite a few threads about liberal arts PhDs causing financial misery.  So you might include that.  Business degrees, less so.  Occasionally, magazines will try to rank programs by ROI.  Law school graduates are seeing a real crunch, as lawyers are even more plentiful than people in some neighborhoods.  Science/engineering?  Probably a more sensible return for the student there, although I'm sure there are misallocations.

On the other side (society's), is there some value to having an academy run the way it is, so that you could justify the expense of subsidizing just about everything one way or another?  I hope so, although that is harder to prove.  That would make the knowledge generated by the academy a public good-- like fresh air or roads that work properly.  Everyone, on average, benefits, even if nobody wants to pay for the piece that benefits them most.

 

 

[NoirFemme]

Do people who complain about Sanders' college education plan realize that a little less than 40% of Americans have a two- or four-year degrees?

Most people drop out because they can't afford to put in full time units in order to get out within 4-5 years; they need to work.

It's the height of selfishness (and is ironically quite elitist) to begrudge the thought of free undergraduate education.

****

"Nearly 40 percent of working-aged Americans now hold a college degree, according to a new report from the Lumina Foundation.

In 2012, 39.4 percent of Americans between 25 and 64 had at least a two-year college degree. That was up from 38.7 percent in 2011, the largest single year gain since 2008. But Lumina is promoting a college degree attainment goal of 60 percent by 2025 and the current upward trend isn’t happening fast enough to get us there.

Who gets a college degree is still starkly divided by race – 27.6 percent of blacks, 23.4 percent of Native Americans and 19.8 percent of Latinos hold at least a two-year degree, compared to 43.9 percent of whites and 59.4 percent of Asians. There are signs this gap could narrow in the future. The percent of black and Latino enrolling college saw big increases between 2011 and 2012. In 2012, 67.1 percent of recent black high school grads enrolled in college, compared to 62 percent in 2011. Meanwhile, college enrollment for recent Latino high school grads went from 59.7 to 66.6 percent.

With more Americans headed to college, the findings of a new Gallup poll may be unsurprising. Paying for college expenses is themost common financial challenge facing those between the ages of 18 and 49."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/percentage-americans-college-degrees-rises-paying-degrees-tops-financial-challenges/

Edited April 13, 2016 by NoirFemme

[Cheshire_Cat]

@shadowclaw I think that schools will expand if they are given the opportunity to do so by free education.  Unless the number of students was capped, they would just keep expanding.  And,  since the government is paying for it, they won't want to pay for students who fail out, so there will be pressure on faculty to pass people who don't deserve it.   Maybe money shouldn’t be the determinate of who gets a college degree, but I don’t think it is for everyone and making it free has so many unintended consequences. 

 

@NoirFemme  On the other hand...

http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/presidential-candidates-promising-affordable-college-tuition/?xid=simplereach&sr_source=lift_facebook

"In a 2014 study, two economists affiliated with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that since 1990 at least 30% of all workers (aged 22 to 65) with college degrees have been consistently employed in jobs that do not require a college degree for the required tasks, even 10 years after graduation."

[Oshawott]

16 minutes ago, Cheshire_Cat said:

@shadowclaw I think that schools will expand if they are given the opportunity to do so by free education.  Unless the number of students was capped, they would just keep expanding.  And,  since the government is paying for it, they won't want to pay for students who fail out, so there will be pressure on faculty to pass people who don't deserve it.   Maybe money shouldn’t be the determinate of who gets a college degree, but I don’t think it is for everyone and making it free has so many unintended consequences. 

My undergrad institution already has a few 1,500 student classes (and yes, they have put all 1,500 students in a single lecture hall) for its core first year classes in the Life Sciences. It's a massive school. Short of building another satellite campus, I find it hard to believe that they'll expand given their location, but we'll see. I'm from the same province as @eternallyephemeral (at least I assume so given the context) so I guess we'll see in a few years how this works out

Of course, this free tuition for Ontario schools (why be purposefully vague since its easily googled) would function differently from free tuition for the United States. As I understand it, no new tax dollars are being redirected towards post-secondary education--instead the Ontario government is reworking its current support to provide free tuition to the least fortunate rather than "sort of helping, but not really helping" a large number of people.

Regarding Graduate School:

At least with my experience, I think its a luxury. Yes, I have to do TA work, but the amount of financial support that goes into my education and research, compared to the amount of effort I have to put in to receiving that funding (i.e., my 10 hour TAship) isn't comparable. Of course, I think my definition of luxury isn't really what most people consider luxurious.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Oshawott

[Danger_Zone]

Apart from the fact that it is required for certain careers, grad school is definitely not viewed as a necessity like a high school or even college degree is now. Even being accepted into a graduate school is a lot of hard work and I do not think that grad students should be expected to have to work alongside graduate work (apart from TAing) as it is already very time-consuming and demanding. Therefore, despite maybe being a luxury in the sense that it isn't a requirement, I do not think financial constraints should prevent a person from pursuing a Master's or PhD if that is something truly desirable (and attainable) to them.

On the other hand, despite the fact that not even half of Americans have university degrees, I think it has become the norm to assume that you "need" to go to college in order to get a decent job. So in contrast to the graduate degree, a lot of people go to college because it's simply what most people do. Of course we all know the students who just barely make it by in school (not counting those who struggle through school by no fault of their own), and who barely made it by in high school but who are now studying alongside those who worked really hard to get into university. Again, I do not think that people should be prevented from pursuing an education because they can't afford it, but if post-secondary education is to be made free I think the admissions requirements need to be much stricter.

I don't know if this is the case in US schools, but high school grades in Ontario are incredibly inflated and do not by any means match up to the kind of grading system you see at universities. This not only makes high school students very unequipped for university (I think schools do a poor job of preparing kids for university, but that's another rant!) but really sets the bar low for who gets admitted. I think if this weren't the case then perhaps those who actually wanted to be at school would be there, and those who would do well getting a job right after graduation would not feel pressured to continue their education. Because I can see the unfairness in having to pay for somebody's education when they do not take it seriously.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Danger_Zone

[rising_star]

1 hour ago, Cheshire_Cat said:

@shadowclaw I think that schools will expand if they are given the opportunity to do so by free education.  Unless the number of students was capped, they would just keep expanding. 

In terms of physical buildings, this is unlikely for most schools unless they have a large endowment. Buildings are expensive, especially for the sciences. I could see schools expanding their online offerings or trying to put classrooms into nontraditional spaces, like strip malls or office buildings, where they wouldn't have to pay for construction costs. 

Also, for reasons related to student-to-faculty ratio and how that affects what type of institution you are, many small(er) colleges (I'm thinking enrollment under 3K) would probably not expand unless it was clear they could afford to make the same expansion in the faculty.

[Oshawott]

2 hours ago, Danger_Zone said:

I don't know if this is the case in US schools, but high school grades in Ontario are incredibly inflated and do not by any means match up to the kind of grading system you see at universities. This not only makes high school students very unequipped for university (I think schools do a poor job of preparing kids for university, but that's another rant!) but really sets the bar low for who gets admitted. I think if this weren't the case then perhaps those who actually wanted to be at school would be there, and those who would do well getting a job right after graduation would not feel pressured to continue their education. Because I can see the unfairness in having to pay for somebody's education when they do not take it seriously.

Are high schools really the only ones to blame though? The University of Toronto, despite being a globally well ranked school and reputation for grade deflation lets people graduate with a 1.85 CGPA (at least in the Faculty of Arts and Science). Yeah, students may be ill-equipped to do well at university, but the universities sure aren't doing much to keep standards up given the low requirement for graduating. If the market's flooded with people who have Bachelor's degrees and the standards of attaining them are so low, then I'm not surprised that employers aren't particularly impressed with this credential anymore.

By all means, let more people into university--but make the baseline standards for getting that piece of paper a bit higher.

Now regarding that last point--we have subsidized health care and we're proud of it. I don't really see why we're splitting hairs over people getting more educated versus subsidizing the health of people who regularly smoke/drink/eat poorly etc. At the very least, I'd hope a better education would at least lead to better lifestyle choices that helps decrease the burden on the health system.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Oshawott

[ExponentialDecay]

3 hours ago, Oshawott said:

If the market's flooded with people who have Bachelor's degrees and the standards of attaining them are so low, then I'm not surprised that employers aren't particularly impressed with this credential anymore.

By all means, let more people into university--but make the baseline standards for getting that piece of paper a bit higher.

Oh, this old malarkey. You assume that, in some long past good old days, the standards for the BA were higher, and therefore employers were more impressed with it. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim? I am by no means a specialist, but in my understanding, the reason the BA was more valued in the past (which, frankly, I've yet to see evidence of) is that it was an extremely good indicator of socioeconomic class, and was, by extension, comparatively much rarer. In other words, employers used to like BAs because they were shiny and new, and not because they necessarily qualified a person for a job or even qualified a person to be considered a responsible adult. 

I also strongly contend the claim that getting a BA is easier today than it was before, if only because the amount of knowledge one has to have to be considered a loose specialist is so much higher than ever in the past, because humanity has more knowledge in total. I mean, in the medieval ages, an extremely educated man essentially knew how to read, write, count, and play music - things that your average middle schooler is proficient in today. Maybe 50% of the scientific knowledge of today didn't exist even 50 years ago. You can go on and on about how in the past the average GPA was 3.0 and now it's 3.2 or somesuch, but the only way you can make the comparison is if the material and the degree requirements haven't changed. Which they have. Significantly.

[eternallyephemeral]

4 hours ago, ExponentialDecay said:

Oh, this old malarkey. You assume that, in some long past good old days, the standards for the BA were higher, and therefore employers were more impressed with it. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim? I am by no means a specialist, but in my understanding, the reason the BA was more valued in the past (which, frankly, I've yet to see evidence of) is that it was an extremely good indicator of socioeconomic class, and was, by extension, comparatively much rarer. In other words, employers used to like BAs because they were shiny and new, and not because they necessarily qualified a person for a job or even qualified a person to be considered a responsible adult. 

I also strongly contend the claim that getting a BA is easier today than it was before, if only because the amount of knowledge one has to have to be considered a loose specialist is so much higher than ever in the past, because humanity has more knowledge in total. I mean, in the medieval ages, an extremely educated man essentially knew how to read, write, count, and play music - things that your average middle schooler is proficient in today. Maybe 50% of the scientific knowledge of today didn't exist even 50 years ago. You can go on and on about how in the past the average GPA was 3.0 and now it's 3.2 or somesuch, but the only way you can make the comparison is if the material and the degree requirements haven't changed. Which they have. Significantly.

I completely agree. As our society gets more educated, more people will have degrees, and because education can pull people out of poverty, lead people to have fewer children later in life when they have more resources for each child, and increase their earning power and their family's subsequent educational attainment, among other things, I don't see a problem with more people getting an education.

Whether high school grades are inflated is frankly another matter, which is not limited to high schools in Ontario. And yes, the University of Toronto accepts a huge fraction of their applicant pool, which is the complete opposite of the way it works in the US. In the States, it's extremely difficult to get into university (some acceptance averages are 7%, compared to U of T's 85%). However, that doesn't cheapen a degree from U of T, because it's actually damn hard to finish it. So letting more students in hasn't actually hurt anything, even though we have 30% off tuition programs, national and provincial loans, and a relatively affordable tuition rate compared to the US out of state and private school cost.

I also take issue with statistics that say people aren't using the skills from their degree. Do people not use their writing skills? Their critical thinking skills? Their communication skills? Their life experience? Could someone who is 18 years old coming out of high school be able to do that job with the same level of maturity, professionalism, and responsibility?

A degree isn't what it used to be, because it used to be a set of skills that one had to learn in University and you couldn't learn these skills another way. Now it's an indicator that you can work hard and complete something, and that you're investing in your future, etc. The skills and requirements you're using in your career from your university education may not be so easy to identify.

Subsidising education is not just going to follow a basic supply and demand curve. There are so many limited resources, and frankly I don't think the universities care if the students or the government is paying. It won't change the way they operate their schools. There isn't unlimited space and unlimited buildings and unlimited teaching resources and unlimited TAs, so the number of students can't increase that much.

[Oshawott]

7 hours ago, ExponentialDecay said:

Oh, this old malarkey. You assume that, in some long past good old days, the standards for the BA were higher, and therefore employers were more impressed with it. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim? I am by no means a specialist, but in my understanding, the reason the BA was more valued in the past (which, frankly, I've yet to see evidence of) is that it was an extremely good indicator of socioeconomic class, and was, by extension, comparatively much rarer. In other words, employers used to like BAs because they were shiny and new, and not because they necessarily qualified a person for a job or even qualified a person to be considered a responsible adult. 

I also strongly contend the claim that getting a BA is easier today than it was before, if only because the amount of knowledge one has to have to be considered a loose specialist is so much higher than ever in the past, because humanity has more knowledge in total. I mean, in the medieval ages, an extremely educated man essentially knew how to read, write, count, and play music - things that your average middle schooler is proficient in today. Maybe 50% of the scientific knowledge of today didn't exist even 50 years ago. You can go on and on about how in the past the average GPA was 3.0 and now it's 3.2 or somesuch, but the only way you can make the comparison is if the material and the degree requirements haven't changed. Which they have. Significantly.

I agree with you--in fact, given the level of knowledge that people need to acquire, I'd think those that are at the top 5 - 10% of their class are probably much smarter than previous graduates of the institution who were at the top 5 - 10%. But my point wasn't that a bachelor's degree is easier to get (though it wasn't worded properly). If the issue is rarity, you can either do that in two ways: you can either be exclusive in who you let in, or you can raise the standards of who you let out. Given that it won't be a financial sinkhole to fail in a "free undergrad tuition" scenario, I think universities can afford to increase their standards over time. It also disincentives students who only go because they feel like "its the next step" if there are other, easier avenues, to get a decent paying job.

People should be allowed to try to achieve something regardless of their financial background, but it doesn't mean everyone who tries can. I'm not talking about the average GPA increasing over time. My argument is that the minimum standard of achieving that piece of paper is (and always has been) too low and we're only seeing the effects of it now since more people can afford to go to university. I've seen students who don't plan on going into academia or professional programs outright state that their GPA's don't matter since all companies care about is that they have a piece of paper so its no wonder if more of those students are in university, that the bachelor degree is being devalued (independent from the lack of scarcity, a claim which I've only seen correlational evidence for, so I doubt its as unidimensional as people like to claim). Solution? Make it harder to come out, not harder to come in.

EDIT:

Regarding the scarcity claim--I've talked to people with PhD's going into non-academic job markets. If scarcity predominantly drives the value of Bachelor's degrees, than PhD's should be more valued. I have heard people actually say that they thought they could get a job just because "I'm a PhD!". They didn't. The ones with PhD's who were successful in their non-academic job search were those who 1) managed to cultivate skills that were useful for the non-academic jobs they were pursuing and 2) knew how to network and sell their skills.

I'm not saying that people who have a Bachelor's degree now don't know how to sell their skills as much as those back then, its just that there's a more representative distribution of graduates along the academic achievement spectrum, and even more of them are taught "Degree = Job" so they focus more on just getting the paper rather than taking advantage of the fringe benefits of university that actually helps you get a job (i.e., a strong network). Building a social network 50+ years ago at university probably wasn't as hard given that most graduates come from the social elite and therefore either have a built in network already, or their classes are small enough that chances are, you know someone who knows someone.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Oshawott

[Cheshire_Cat]

My state used to pay for 100% of tuition if you maintained a 3.0 GPA average, but budget cuts, so now it is not quite that.  When they started offering it, our schools grew dramatically, and the quality of the schools increased as well, because the top students we not going out of state to better quality schools. However, to get around the tuition being held low by the government, the fees were inflated. Also, my dad is a professor, and he says that they have started to get pressure to pass people. 

I think this is a very good discussion about this issue.  I don’t think the general populace understands that if free education is provided, it won't be for everyone.  But, hat brings us to another problem, if state schools provide free education to the deserving, will unscrupulous schools prey on the students who just want a degree?  I think they will, and thus we will still have a problem with student debt and such.  And, even without tuition and fees, living expenses for four years can still add up to  a good chunk of change that may still be unaffordable to some.

I think, getting back to the original discussion, that grad school is not a neccesity or a  luxury, but rather a privelege given to few in order to benifit the many. (Hopefully)

[Danger_Zone]

@Oshawott Yes you're definitely right. I meant more like higher grades are awarded more leniently as opposed to letting students graduate with subpar GPAs. If the standards for admission were higher than I would hope that the standards for graduation would follow. I think if students had more of a chance to experience failure earlier on (maybe not literally failing a course, but experiencing repercussions for not putting in effort) then they may have a more realistic idea of whether or not they would be able to handle university. There is no harm in finding this out for yourself, and you can experience a significant amount of maturity and growth in just a few years - the time it takes to complete a degree, but I think with the notion that going to college is very common - coupled with a mismatch of grades and expectations at the secondary and post-secondary levels - is why so many people are barely scraping by at university.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Danger_Zone