Student Loan Interest Rankles College Grads 1259
theodp writes "Like many recent college grads, Steven Lee finds himself unemployed in one of the roughest job markets in decades and saddled with a big pile of debt — he owes about $84,000 in student loans for undergrad and grad school. But what's really got Lee angry are the high interest rates on his government-backed student loans. 'The rate for a 30-year mortgage is around 5%,' Lee said. 'Why should anyone have to pay 8.5%? The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?' Not only that, federal student loans are the only loans in the nation that are largely non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, have no statutes of limitations, and can't be refinanced after consolidation, so Lee can forget about pulling a move out of the GM playbook. And unlike mortgages on million-dollar vacation homes, student loans have very limited tax deductability. A spokeswoman for the Department of Education blamed Congress for the rates which she conceded 'may seem high today,' but suggested that students are a credit-unworthy lot who should thank their lucky stars that rates aren't 12% or higher. Makes one long for the good-old-days of 3% student loans, doesn't it?"
All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)
Direct loans were cheap, and the consolidation brought them down to ~5% afair. I know the new loans are not as cheap, but thats because some idiot decided having non-direct loans and promising a profit to everyone who serviced them. Doh!
That's a rip off (Score:4, Interesting)
Grad student with huge loans (Score:4, Interesting)
not the real problem (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem isn't finding a new fangled way for college student to be able to pay the enormous costs of college, it is to find ways to educate them more cheaply tha nwe do now. Online learning, competition, utilisation of open source textbooks... Be creative.
Restating the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm from the UK, and just recently I've been reflecting on the things that I took for granted in the UK that are pay-for over here in the USA. Don't get me wrong, I love living here, I've just married an USAsian who's simply wonderful, but there are things I miss...
Primarily of course, is universal healthcare. The NHS is so far and away better than the situation we have here in the US that it's just not funny. Leaving that argument aside, the other major thing is education. My new wife and I were thinking about where any future offspring might be educated...
If the USA stays the same course as it's currently on, I think my children (as UK citizens by birthright) may be going to the UK for their education. It's a lot cheaper, it'll broaden their minds by travelling, and the quality is generally very high.
Oh how things have changed. I no longer think of the USA as being the gold-standard of higher education. Now I think of it as being just a way of transferring money from rich people to educated people.
As it happens, my wife paid off her student loans (for a JD/MBA) this evening (well, they'll settle on Tuesday). For the cost she just paid, we could buy a small house in the UK. The only debt higher is our mortgage, and living in a nice house in a nice part of the Bay area, that's expected.
I didn't pay for my education (although these days if you don't go to Scotland you pay something in the UK - it's a *lot* less than over here in the US though). I gave the UK about 10 years of higher taxes as a result - probably less than they were expecting - but moved to the USA for the nicer weather
Simon.
Australia has it right (Score:2, Interesting)
In Australia, if you're a citizen or permanent resident, the government will subsidise a large portion of your undergraduate tuition fee. The remainder is paid by the student, but the student can pay for the remaining amount with a government loan (a HELP fee).
Interest is not charged on the loan, and you essentially have an indefinite repayment schedule. You begin paying 6% of your salary towards that debt once it passes some threshold ($37,000 AU if I recall correctly). The only thing they do is apply indexation each year so that inflation doesn't devalue repayments.
Post-graduate students are required to pay their tuition up front each semester in full, though again, if you're a citizen or a permanent resident, you get a big subsidy in cost.
I can't understand why the US government would saddle undergraduates with that much debt before they've even had a chance to start making a living. If there's one thing a large chunk of government money SHOULD be spent subsidising, it's education.
I'm sorry, but you guys are really screwed up in some ways.
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:2, Interesting)
So what you're saying is that even though the system is broken it is your own damn fault for having put up with it to get a college education? That's not solving anything.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing like starting life $100K in the hole (Score:4, Interesting)
The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?'
To me this is a tragedy. Young people starting off almost $100K in the hole. I had student loans, so did my wife. Together they didn't add up to $40K and she went to grad school.
On a higher level this kills entrepreneurial opportunities at the time in life you have the most desire, creativity and energy to launch a new business. Many of you are stuck in low-paying, dead end jobs because of student loans...one of the reasons some companies like to hire right out of college. Student loans and health insurance. Wouldn't it be better to turn all that creativity loose developing new businesses and jobs? But how can you saddled with all that debt and no health care coverage?
We have to do something, not just for people in college now but those recently graduating into 9.5% unemployment. Whatever that is, it has to include cost controls on education. The cost of education is running way ahead of inflation and textbook companies are worse than the mafia (at least the mob runs prostitutes). This is crazy.
But what to do about it? If the government tried some kind of forgiveness program, Republicans would scream about budget deficits. Student loans are also a giant bank pork program and you can see what kind clout they have in Washington. So, it's got to be paid for somehow, deficit neutral, combined with cost controls on education and everyone on both sides of the political pork barrel have to STFU long enough to get it done.
Re:Typo in summary: detectability vs deductibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Last time I checked, student loan interest is deductible... I don't know what more of a handout this guy needs.
YOU SIGNED THE PAPERWORK, YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME, YOU COULD HAVE GONE TO A CHEAPER SCHOOL.
Re:Experience from academia (Score:3, Interesting)
All your highfalutin ideas about education being the point of education is just fine as long as you don't have to worry that much about shelter and food. At the rate tuition is increasing though, a higher education will become the sole domain of the wealthy which means that countries with a system like that in Australia (mentioned above) are going to kick our plumbing asses one of these days.
In a sane sustainable society, education is seen to be valuable in and of itself, but is also affordable so that many minds can benefit (and return the benefit back to society). Such a society is structured so that graduates can eat, live, and be productive members. An insane, unsustainable society fails to value education and in so doing, saddles anyone who attempts it with crushing debt load.
Re:Experience from academia (Score:3, Interesting)
tuition prices are so high because kids keep getting approved for loans.
No, they're high because so many kids are trying to get into schools. Supply and demand.
Student loans are enabling/helping it, but it isn't the root cause.
Re:It's cheap compared to India... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:1, Interesting)
I'd really like to know when someone is suppose to be old enough to take responsibilty for his choices, 18?, 21? 25? It seems that anyone under the age of 45 is trying to find out a way to blame someone else for decisions they made or didn't make.
There are a lot of good college educations that do not require getting $80K in loans.
It always amazed me why some one would go to some place like Harvard, spend $140K to major in Art with absolutely no path being able to recover the cost.
If some one is considered an adult, and signs a loan, they should be thinking through the implicitations of what they are signing... or is the implication is that college students are not bright enough to understand a loan..which will then beg the questions.. should they be in college, allowed to wander the streets without adult supervision or even vote.
Re:Experience from academia (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, how many societies have plumbers as heroes?
Well, we (America) did - at least during the 2008 election.
Re:Student Loan Forgiveness Plan (Score:2, Interesting)
My Universities Law School will forgive your law school loans(probably end up around 6 figures) if you work for 4 years in various public service law jobs.
I hate to break this to you (Score:5, Interesting)
If I didn't care about the state of play in the USA, I'd just up and leave, taking my family and my considerable yearly tax burden with me. I choose to stay and try to influence people as I can...
FWIW, my uncle was recently diagnosed with a heart problem back in the UK, he was in hospital the same day, operated on within 2 days and back home 2 days later. The only real down-side was that he couldn't attend the wedding because of the US insurance costs.
And two weeks before the wedding, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. She opted to put off the operation-date offered (1 week after diagnosis) and wait until after the wedding. Since then she's been back and had her operation.
My family is not rich. My father worked on the docks, my mother had a variety of part-time jobs through her life. Excellent, timely medical care is something she (and I, until I moved to the USA) take for granted, without any "recission", or "previously established medical condition" nonsense. If you're sick, see a doctor. Get better with as much or as little help as necessary. No co-payments. No payments (at the point of treatment) at all, and if you need heart surgery or extensive (5 years chemotherapy is being talked about for my mother) treatment, there's no questions asked...
There's no way my family could have afforded the medical insurance that would be equivalent to the care that my mother and uncle have just received. They of course don't consider this to be anything special, it's only when you don't have something any more, that you miss it. Similarly, I don't think americans miss it because frankly they've never experienced it. They just keep on telling themselves they have "the best healthcare system in the world", which (IMHO) is only true for the minority of rich americans that don't really need the insurance companies anyway...
Simon
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps universities are being phased out as the gatekeepers of knowledge; however, that doesn't mean that they're no longer useful.
Re:Hmm.. must be some difference (Score:4, Interesting)
I think he meant you pay taxes once you get a job... But obviously if you are defaulting on a student loan, you are probably not paying much taxes either...
Re:Experience from academia (Score:3, Interesting)
Universities moreover are excellent at price discrimination: charging you exactly as much as you're willing to pay, and maximizing their profit. Most students will even fill out forms to help the university price-discriminate against them better. It's called "financial aid". And yes, if there is more money available to the typical student for attending college, the typical college is able to charge more, plain and simple.
I lucked out with a big fat faculty-dependent tuition concession and graduated with zero debt, and a thousand dollars' advance from a programming job in California.
Re:Stop Going to College (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+education+increases+with+subsidies [google.com]
Re:The worthlessness of "education" (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowledge is needed at most jobs, education in all honesty is not. I think its time for society to realize this.
I think you have that the wrong way 'round. Knowledge isn't needed - like you said, it's available at the click of a 'google search'. Education is what you need to be able to do something useful with the knowledge you've just found.
I can't remember the characteristic funtion of the normal distribution, but I can look it up on wikipedia and use the education I have to do something useful with it.
But maybe we're just expressing the same thought with different words.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)
He does bring up an interesting point though, admittedly in a stupid and ignorant way.
Why isn't education free? It's sure as hell free right up to a high school diploma, so why not free after that?? Government subsidizes some enormously unimportant and stupid shit and don't even get me started on the bail outs. Too late...
I'm sure his post can be seen as ignorant but it DOES create a question in many people's minds why Wall Street, the supposed bastion of white elitism, get's a bailout while the rest of America does not? I have yet to see any benefit from it. Other than the few in the service industries receiving large ridiculous payments for lavish "gloating" parties.
So why don't we just clawback 90% of their pay, it's not like that would not leave them with multiple times the average American salary, and use that to forgive all student loans?
Where is the *real* bailout for the American people?
I understand capitalism and the supposed free market (fuck-it, it DOES NOT EXIST) but why does it have to be labeled as socialism and pinko-communism to have the idea that education should be one of the few things that is supported solely by the government? Why does free education always have to be instantly equated to unpaid teachers and staff?
We are going to turn into a 3rd world country without education reform in our lifetimes. Part of that reform must be a federal education budget, that cannot be withheld from the states under any circumstances, and appropriately funded college educations. I am also definitely for removing high school and changing it to a trade school/college prep 5 year time period. Trade school does not have to a bad thing either. How about seriously training some of our young people for once? Paying local businesses, which can include IT firms, to take on young apprentices and actually give 5 years of subsidized real world experience. Operating tech/trade labs where young people can get hands on training in contemporary technology used in the field? Maybe instead of having a high school diploma we could just have certifications instead. Meaningful Certifications too, not worthless MCSE's. That's not a troll either, all of the MCSE's I have met have been near worthless and the ones that are not will candidly tell you how much they needed to learn outside of the certification to survive and get their jobs done.
I am sure that a lot of people could tear this post to shreds, but you know what? Education is not working right now and the only thing we seem to be able to do is to churn out young people by the thousands that have no real skills and start out saddled with debt at unreasonable rates that cannot be erased.
P.S - I would gladly pay a 5% tax rate on all good, services, and income if I KNEW it went straight into the education system in a way that it could not be diverted to anything else like SS has been in the past. At some point I might be retired and will have to rely on all those stupid young people for 20-40 years not to fuck things up too much till I die. The last thing I want to be is 75 in a grocery store being told by a 19 year old that they can't give me change because the machine is, "like all broke or something", while the cash tray is open and all they have to do is reach in and grab it. Oh wait... that was last week. Of course there are the good days too. When another young person get's handed a 100 dollar bill to pay for something and I get handed back 160 dollars as change. Of course I sweetly pointed out that she should check her math again and she blushed and said thank you. I wish I was kidding about those two incidents. Sadly I am not.
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:4, Interesting)
If the system is broken (which it is) then you can't just sweep the problem under the rug just by declaring it the result of a character flaw and refuse to address the system its self.
IF.
My view is that the system is broken precisely because it lends money to people who should not be borrowers due to their inexperience, and yes, character flaws.
Re:I hate to break this to you (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really on both accounts.
There are relatively few problems with the NIH in the UK, especially compared to the US and most of them have been blown out of proportion for the purposes of political jockeying (you didn't think the US had a monopoly on political wankery). If that is not good enough for you I suggest you stop using the NIH as a poster child for universal health care and look at Australia, Canada, Sweden, Malta and Ireland. Australia and Canada have flawless medical systems.
There are many issues with the employer provides scenario which just dont exist with the UK, Australian or Canadian systems. The first is that there is no means of ensuring a minimum standard of health care as they will differ from employer to employer. The second is that costs will be high, because the government can set the minimum price and standard of care private insurers must keep lower prices in order to remain competitive and provide a higher standard of service to justify the higher prices.
That's a lot of people, often not the richest of people either. The part timers and self employed would have been the hardest hit in the recent economic apocalypse.
Our systems are designed so that there are no people "in-between".
Right now travel insurance is most expensive for me, as an Australia to travel to the United States all due to the health insurance costs, travelling to Asia is relatively cheap compared to this, Europe is less then this due to several reciprocal health agreements. The current US system is archaic and broken for a first world nation.
Re:Charging! (Score:3, Interesting)
THANK YOU, Sir!
FINALLY there's some fresh proof that education is the world's biggest Dutch Tulip enterprise. Yes there's scholars at the front of the room, but did'ya know, he's teaching the same courses every year. So I agree the Labs have scary fees for equipment, but the lectures ... are just words! And with or without backing instruments, we all know how cheap WORDS are...
Part of the Uni deal is holistic discipline, 'cause otherwise the kid might cram pretty hard for 6 months then fry out and quit his studies. But thank you for the proof I have searched for a long time now.
please read my lips: ..... (Score:2, Interesting)
5% vrs 8.5%?? why???
its called: C O L L A T E R A L
simple, really....
At what rate do you even imagine having to pay
for a home which is not held by the bank as collateral?
30%?? 40????
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)
Higher education isn't free for several reasons.
First, kids don't value free stuff, but they'll take it anyway. University is already "13th grade" to many people, and by telling kids that they can shirk responsibility and stay in high school as long as they want without paying for it is just crazy. Who wouldn't want to live the college life as long as possible? It's certainly a lot less stressful than "the real world." The only thing saving college from the unmitigated mediocrity of high school is the fact that they know they'll eventually pay for this lifestyle (or their parents are on their case because *they're* already paying for it.)
Second, it isn't required for survival. Many people get along just fine without college degrees, and indeed, don't need them in their day to day lives.
Third, it increases the number of people staying because of the Mom and Dad factor. I'm of the opinion that even the upper grades of *high school* are a waste on a significant number of people, because they simply don't care and are only there because they "have to be." Yes, they could theoretically drop out at 16, but Mom and Dad won't hear of it because they're convinced that little Johnny is throwing away his opportunity to become President one day. The fact that Johnny harbors an *active disdain* for the idea of school and learning in general doesn't ever seem to sink in.
The fact that people pay for University and take on a certain amount of risk means that people have to *think about it* before going or sending their kids. Do they really want to do it? Are they willing to put in the work necessary? How long are they willing to pay for it? Maybe in other countries the culture is different, but I fear in America, the disdain for learning that I observed during my time, and continue to observe in kids today, guarantees that government funding of higher education will be nothing more than another money sink with no tangible benefit. Scholarships, grants, and tuition assistance exist for a reason. Let them pick the people who are qualified for the privilege.
Re:outrage noted :-) (Score:4, Interesting)
Physics and maths are just theory, they have no economic value at face value and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moronic anti-intellectual who has no idea what either of those is or does. Also, someone who doesn't understand the meaning of economic value.
Hah! I guess you were going for giggles with that one. An abstract theory per se has little economic value, but the application of physical theory (which is all but inevitable) can create wealth. Since the development of theory is expected to be followed by practical uses, economists do assign value to such theory (as usual, they have difficulty estimating the value, except in hindsight). However, your statement made me recall an old saying which I heard as a freshman about 35 years ago:
"A physicist is a theoretician of engineering. An engineer is a practitioner of physics. Mathematics is their common language."
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:4, Interesting)
An interesting point and I agree that your concerns are valid. However, what about the idea of figuring out which kids are qualified for higher learning early on? That you don't have the right to receive a higher education, only the right to the opportunity to prove you are worthy of it?
I would argue that a lot of your concerns could be mitigated quite well by starting a "sorting" process in 7th, 8th, or 9th grade. Give every child a free and basic, but well rounded education throughout elementary school right up to around 14-16 years old.
In Johnny's case I don't think it as much an active disdain for learning as it is a deep frustration with how it is being done and whether or not it will ever apply to him. He might be bored, disinterested, and probably just does not give a fuck about most of what they are trying to jam into his skull in high school. He is probably overwhelmed, or just fixated on jamming something else into Suzy.
So why not revisit the idea of trade schools? Johnny might really like the idea "pimpin' other people's cars". Johnny might be really interested in how to build houses with cool new technology. Why not teach him hands on how to create a pre-fab house? Install wiring, plumbing, solar panels, and actually CREATE something. Instead of learning a bunch of "useless" uninteresting crap and taking multiple choice tests Johnny might find an exciting sense of accomplishment in working his peers and adults to create something that actually has an immediate and practical real world use. One in which he is immediately acknowledged to have some value, and perhaps... even paid a small amount. More importantly Johnny is not treated like he is worthless and stupid. He chose to enter the adult world with contemporary skills he can apply now. His choice.
For those children that truly have a passion for learning, research, and science we can put them into programs designed to prepare them directly for a College/University environment. These children would understand the only way they get to make it to a College or University is by merit. They would need to demonstrate that they WANT it. For those that choose the hard path, understanding the rewards it contains, they would be allowed to study with teachers that are actually well paid. Better equipment, smaller classes, more attention to the students individual pace and requirements. Those that can prove they can absorb the knowledge and apply it get to advance and ultimately be tested. Those that pass are entitled to choose the particulars of their higher education.
Other countries have similar attitudes and ideas about education and the U.S is probably lucky to still be in the top 20 for education. Perhaps we should take some lessons from these countries, or at least recognize that what we have right now does not work.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:3, Interesting)
Even better.
Here in Ireland I have no student loans.
3rd level education is regarded as similar to first and second level and everyone gets one 3rd level course covered by the government.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:4, Interesting)
Having met a large number of history and philosophy majors, I can tell you that they are no more politically and/or civically informed or capable than the average engineering or physics major.
It is not the field of study that counts for "an informed citizenry." The seeds for "informed and capable" are sown well before high school. The prejudice against arts & humanities majors isn't because those fields are less important, but because those fields have made more allowances for jackasses who don't belong in college, and permit the graduation of citizens who are not informed or capable and will never be, thanks to the indoctrination in the culture of "know-nothing" by their parents and early teachers.
Also, please refrain from implying that us lowly widget-makers are somehow beneath the likes of Al Gore. By claiming science lobbyists as more important than actual researchers, you demean the work of thousands upon thousands of scientists actually producing the technology required to combat climate change.
Waaa, Waaa, frikin' WAAAAA! (Score:5, Interesting)
A college education was never meant to be a guarantee of future financial stability, especially in the short term. We need to get away from this pervasive mentality of "Things didn't go exactly according to the PLAN. The Government needs to save me!!!! WAAAAAAAA".
Of course it sucks trying to find a job in the current market, and I sympathise as I'm currently looking for my next job as I'm going to graduate soon. However, that doesn't mean that the federal government, who already bent over backward in order to help me get the loans I needed in order to persue my education, should be expected to further subsidize me into my 30's. Grow a friggin' pair, and if necessary get a job working at McD's and rent the shittiest appartment you can find to make ends meet. This sense of entitlement to an easy life, simpy because you are college educated is assinine and juvenile. The education is supposed to give you more skills, based on the idea that more skills make you more valuable. However, if you pursue a degree in which those skills are next to useless (I'm looking at you art history majors), or one in which the market is oversatturated, well then you were an idiot and deserve to suffer a little for your stupidity. That doesn't mean that you should be able to get your education for free, just because it took you a little while to find a job.
We need to stop supporting those that have made stupid decisions or else they'll never learn that there are consequences for their actions. I learned that in middle school, my older brother took until after high school, and apparently some have failed to learn the lesson despite being 22 (Bachelors), 24-28 (Graduate Degree), or even older 50-60 (Corporate CEO's that ran their companies into the ground). Maybe I'm just an insensitive clod, but not everyone can be happy all of the time. A little hardship can build character, just as our grandparents.
There are nowhere near as many people suffering as there were in the great depression, all the "Worst recession since the depression" hyperbole aside. If the current hardships mean that it takes you an extra 10 years to buy a house, or that you have to settle for something less than a McMansion I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it. I will probably lose more than a little over my own financial problems, but they are MY PROBLEMS and not the governments. A little more personal accountability on behalf of most Americans would go a long way to improving our collective condition.
Re:Australia has it right (Score:3, Interesting)
HECS isn't a scholarship because it is not based on ability, and because it has to be paid back.
America screwed up yet another simple thing, because idiots who don't understand the first thing about economics decided to let the "free market" work things out.
And places like the Communist States of Australia ended up with a "freer market" than the US in education.
In the US the government set up student loans by setting a bunch of rules that makes them good bets for banks. Of course that means students can borrow large amounts of money. Colleges will then of course raise their prices to get that money and keep raising them until students can no longer get those loans. At which point the government says "oh noes look how expensive education is, this isn't fair on poor people" so they give the students more money so the colleges can raise prices further.
Whereas Australia said to colleges, we will pay you $X per semester for a full time science students, and $Y per semester for a full time law student, and so on. And the government then collects it back from the students via a levy on top of their taxes once they hit an income threshold until it is paid back. The universities offer a fixed number of HECS places (which I'm sure it where the negotiations between government and the university lobbyists come in - setting the number of places and the X, Y, and Z numbers). Universities offer additional places at whatever price they like for students who don't qualify for HECS (foreign students for example) or who didn't make the cutoff for the HECS places (not getting high enough scores in high school, for example - but way below anything at scholarship level).
The US system results in ever increasing prices so rational people who won't saddle themselves with that much debt early in life can't afford to go to college. The Australian system avoids that at the cost of there being a risk the government sets the HECS payments to the universities too low in which case we have essentially price controls and the supply will dry up - but that hasn't happened yet.
Re:Pissed at the bail-outs (Score:3, Interesting)
You are just fucking stupid if you think they are spending a trillion dollars a year on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. How you got modded "Insightful" is beyond me because you dont' know what you are talking about. The total cost of the wars to date is less than 1 trillion in total.
You can't be "the smart, hardworking, disappearing upper middle class" because smart people actually research there points BEFORE spouting off and proving that they are ignorant.
But, you want to know what will cost a trillion dollars per year? The healthcare bills being put together in Congress.
bah (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:yep, but it's not politically correct (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hypothetical question. Would it be possible to "repay" a student loan by taking money from credit card cash advances, paying off the student loan, then defaulting on the credit card and filing bankruptcy? Or perhaps during the housing bubble someone could have done the same with a home equity loan? I'm just curious what the legal implications would be here.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:3, Interesting)
A citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history is more easily duped.
Yes, but that is an excuse to cover the subject in high school and make it available in college, not to devote extensive amounts of time to it. Your view of what is important doesn't matter nearly as much as a prospective employer's view.
It has long been a dream of fascists to eliminate such forms of education for precisely that reason.
Actually most fascist governments have been thrilled to have science, math, and other intellectual pursuits. It makes an excellent tool to manipulate the masses. I hate to prove Godwin's law, but Nazi Germany was perhaps the most scientifically advanced society in the world at its time. The USSR also devoted large amounts of money to science (though rarely could they actually put any of their discoveries to good use. Heck Woodrow Wilson was the first President with an advanced college degree and when WWI ended he tried to convince the US to continue with its "War Socialism" (the term for the centralized comand and control economic policies we enacted during WWI and abolished at the end), when members of congress refused and when there was public outcry he used his education to try to "prove" that others were just simply not smart enough to know he was right, but that his educated opinion should be the only one people listen to. Crying out the term "science" is no substitute for the democratic process.
And before anyone starts, you should already have noticed that the same phenomenon occurs with science degrees. Some of those who think science degrees are great as long as science graduates are making useful widgets tend to get very agitated when science graduates start using their education to hold policy makers to account (climate change is an obvious example, as is teaching evolution in schools).
Global Warming can be studied, but there are a mix of political, scientific, and economic realities here. A scientist can study global warming, but that doesn't mean that it is economically worth the money to fight it or that one method of fighting it is economically better than the other. There is also the question of whether or not it is worth the loss of freedom that companies and individuals will suffer from due to regulation. There is also the political reality that while fighting it might possibly be in every countries best interest (debatable) it is pretty much undeniable that the countries that bother to act will suffer economic losses for it (a "tragedy of the commons") but turning it over to some international agency (such as the U.N.) likely will leave it open to corruption and political gaming (as well as a serious threat to the sovereignty of different nations). As for the teaching of evolution, that is not exactly a purely scientific issue. Yes, evolution is a proper scientific theory and creationism is not, but school curriculum and standards are something to be decided upon by the publicly elected or appointed officials (such as the school board, state legislature, and to some extend the federal, county, and municipal government) and/or by those involved in education (such as the PTA, student council, the school's administration, teachers, and staff). I would much rather those involved make a decision. I personally believe evolution should be taught, but if whatever powers that be oppose that, then the law is the law, whether or not it is actually scientific has very little meaning (of course ID may be taught in a way that violates the establishment clause or some other legal code, but that is once again a legal question, not a scientific question.
Beware those who say that all education must be "useful". They often have a hidden agenda.
I wouldn't describe pragmatism as a "hidden agenda". It is pretty open. There is no vast right wing conspiracy here, there is just a question of what level of education is practical.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm jerking off. And I'm also not giving a shit what you might think of me.
But it's obvious that you like talking, and you don't do much thinking.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:2, Interesting)
You need to read a little more.
You need to read a little more. I told you straight out that I was distorting what you said to mean what I wanted it to mean.
Why? To fucking troll you. Why? Because you let me do it.
Example:
You then continued by linking all white conservatives to the Republican party. Also an ignorant statement.
No, it's not ignorant. It hooked your dumb ass in, which is exactly what it was meant to do. But for some reason, you thought it was a political comment.
And now is where I laugh at you. HAHA!