So only the wealthy get to receive higher education. Good one! I know this is HN but this take goes beyond the typical level of unhinged. Honestly it seems like straight up trolling.
Someone who received public loans to attend university and who spent 10, 20, or 25 years paying them off at which point the rest was cancelled isn't really irresponsible.
The original mission of aid has been overrun to the point of being self-defeating. Higher ed is an inflated, bloated mess with a steep opportunity cost measured in time, money, and mindset. There are drawbacks to the narrow white-collar expectations and self-sabotaging ideologies (ie degrowth, critical theory). Why not a sensible in-between?
Aid should be merit-based. Both statistically and in my experience growing up at average and poor public schools <5% of the population is gifted and talented at the level where going to college would be a value gain for both them and society. Giving ~50% of youth a perverse incentive towards higher ed is obviously turning out to be destructive for both them and the institutions.
If you think that stating that you should not go to a college that you can't afford is "beyond the typical level of unhinged," you must be from a very sheltered corner of the internet. It strikes me as a very common sense and mainstream opinion indeed.
Saying only the wealthy and top 5% of students should receive higher education is unhinged. That might be a popular opinion on HN and libertarian land but no one can seriously argue that with a straight face lol.
Comments
So only the wealthy get to receive higher education. Good one! I know this is HN but this take goes beyond the typical level of unhinged. Honestly it seems like straight up trolling.
Someone who received public loans to attend university and who spent 10, 20, or 25 years paying them off at which point the rest was cancelled isn't really irresponsible.
The original mission of aid has been overrun to the point of being self-defeating. Higher ed is an inflated, bloated mess with a steep opportunity cost measured in time, money, and mindset. There are drawbacks to the narrow white-collar expectations and self-sabotaging ideologies (ie degrowth, critical theory). Why not a sensible in-between?
Aid should be merit-based. Both statistically and in my experience growing up at average and poor public schools <5% of the population is gifted and talented at the level where going to college would be a value gain for both them and society. Giving ~50% of youth a perverse incentive towards higher ed is obviously turning out to be destructive for both them and the institutions.
If you think that stating that you should not go to a college that you can't afford is "beyond the typical level of unhinged," you must be from a very sheltered corner of the internet. It strikes me as a very common sense and mainstream opinion indeed.
Saying only the wealthy and top 5% of students should receive higher education is unhinged. That might be a popular opinion on HN and libertarian land but no one can seriously argue that with a straight face lol.
Who said that?