"Freedom" thread or something

I think it's hard for a business not to do so though I'm not absolving them (if that's an appropriate label). The overabundance of degrees have further stratified the work force. The lack of any sort of degree would seem to indicate a level of incompetence since the prerequisite for a degree is just showing up essentially. Businesses have essentially outsourced their training and interviewing functions to the universities to reduce costs and risk. 

The T wrote: And some of the former top-schools seemed to have forgotten they are Universities first, NFL-breeding grounds second, I would add.

Windfall profits due to a slave labor force and a guaranteed stream of completely inelastic demand for your diminishing services will do that.

And some of the former top-schools seemed to have forgotten they are Universities first, NFL-breeding grounds second, I would add. 

Let's not forget the fact that banks are loaning out money to people to major in such useful degrees as Underwater Basket Weaving or degrees just as useful, which means they prepare kids to live at home with their parents. First, while I think people should be a bit more responsible for themselves and not borrow tens of thousands of dollars to pursue useless degrees which qualifies them for no job, I also blame the government and the banks for extending credit to kids to go to school for such useless degrees and the schools themselves for offering such meaningless fare. You want to major in engineering, science or even business, fine. You want to borrow 100 grand to study Ancient Greek Literature, ummm, no.

Sure, that is true but it does seem like the easy way out, gov plays a role as well, and I still think it's honestly more a demand bubble than anything...

Edited by JJLehto - July 06 2014 at 23:49

No one really talks about that though, it's always:

Edited by JJLehto - July 06 2014 at 14:29

Anyway...if I can get into college for a bit, I am curious what some here think, especially Roger. 

Edited by JJLehto - June 29 2014 at 21:43

Following from the train of thought I voiced last time on the adverse effects of wantonly pursuing expansion of output, I would like to state here that I am now a convert on the issue of legal tender.   It has taken a long time for me to look at it clearly but perhaps I have got the hang of it now.  Basically, even as a 'mere' means of exchange, money should have a price.  It should be a good.  It should be backed by value and ideally what money one decides to use should be decided by competition between currencies, not a govt monopoly.  Let me be very clear that this does not mean I have turned libertarian overnight (because I just have a strictly personal distaste for over-committing to one particular set of principles to the exclusion of everything else)!   But mainly that looking at it logically it is (suddenly) easy for me to see how the sheer worthlessness of a currency under govt monopoly allows them to do with it as they please and repeatedly wreck havoc on the economy.  If they did not have unlimited flexibility over what amount of money they could release into the market, they would also be forced to manage money supply better and allow for a scenario where the market could correct itself rather than govt having to bail it out at great cost to the taxpayer.  The only condition under which it is at all acceptable for govts alone to have the right to print currency is if it is backed by physical assets like gold and silver and not just an IOU.  But for the complex and inter connected world we live in today, competition would probably be better.  Just in my own country, looking at all the white-elephants-left-to-dust that the govt built for various reasons and wasted money on...that probably wouldn't be possible if money actually had a value instead of just something that flowed on the tap from a printing press.  It would have kept finances more responsible.  I think the great misgiving is austerity would not help the poor access at least a semblance of dignity in their lives but the other issue is such an upliftment has to happen on a sustainable basis and not by means of a blank cheque written by tax payers to govt. 

LOL @ stupid expenses on state of the art sports facilities.  You know, just a month back, I was in America and pretty much gaping in awe at my cousin sis's huge school campus with in house stadiums.  Because my school as well as my college were both just large, single, multi storeyed blocks with a small patch of land that was passed off as a playground and they were places of decent repute (the actual quality of education they delivered is a different story altogether).  

Not a lot at all.  But depends on what degree, what college.  Engineering and medical in the best institutes can be costly.   IIT-Bombay charges somewhere around what $800 per year.  That's dirt cheap by US standards, I guess, but for a poor student, it would be very costly.  Then again, IIT entrance tests are very competitive and I am not sure that many who are very poor would be able to clear it.   If you just want a Graduate Degree in either Science or Commerce, though, it's pretty cheap.  Even colleges that don't get govt aid would charge you around $170 or so per year and colleges that do get aid...maybe $50.  It's eight years since I graduated so these numbers may not be too accurate but I am sure they are not too far off.  Here the problem is more of getting admission to a good college because employers, especially in big companies, can fuss a lot about where you studied, what degree, etc.  However, in good times, even smaller firms paid decent salaries and they tend to be more interested in whether you can do the job rather than your qualifications.  There are too many students and too few seats, that in a nutshell is the issue here.  And ridiculous ultra high scoring in the high school exam (10th standard for us) doesn't help matters.

Edited by rogerthat - June 21 2014 at 02:06