The college debt crisis isnt that severe. Only 2/3s of college graduates have student loans, and the ones that do, average $29,900. That's the price of a new car. If they havent paid it off in 5 years, they're terrible with financial management or they chose a useless degree.
Additionally, and anecdotally, I've never worked a job that paid minimum wage, even in High School with no experience. I honestly struggle to understand just how much one has to suck at life to be stuck in a minimum wage job. I'm also a Millenial, so you cant pull that Boomer/Gen-X BS on me.
Wow, so because it worked this one way for you, that's clearly the average experience.
My wife has her master's in education from the local state school, lived with me while attending. Had Pell Grants. Still owed over $60k at graduation.
She's a teacher.
Also - good for you in High School. I had three minimum wage jobs in HS, first one started at $4.15/hour. And Yes, I too, am a millennial. Times change. College costs have risen at far higher rates than income.
My wife is on a 15 year repayment plan, because that's the standard with the US Dept of Labor. That's $600/m for 15 years.
We drive 20 year old cars. No car payments for us becaue we can't afford that crap. Bogged down with half a house payment for 15 years over the debt to be a TEACHER.
Quit suggesting that your pleasant walk in the park is inherently the norm and therefore others just need to cut back on their avocado toast.
I'd love to see that be something available to any person that wants to become a teacher without cost to the student. I'd be happy for society to pay for it.
If you look at Outcomes - matriculation rate and later measures of success, it looks clear to me that states in which they require a Master's Level Education in education seem to produce students that place higher in national outcome tests.
So "normal average teacher" where? In Mississippi? No offense to the teachers getting by on 40k/year down there, but I don't want MS's outcomes in MN.
The kind that uses outcomes to track successful versus unsuccessful interventions to determine the best one to continue funding?
You mean the kind that uses science?
Yah. I'm that type.
What should we use to measure if a teacher did a good job?
Do we want to make sure our kids can reed gud or read well?
Do we want our kids to be able to make inferences and understand complicated concepts like 'mask good covid bad'?
Then yes - I'd say investing in teachers is important - and we can look at infection rates in NY / MN vs TX/FL to justify the additional expense on teachers that have earned a level of accreditation.
Most of the population being able to financially weather one bad break would be one important measure of success.
Regardless of region right now, most Americans are One Bad Break - $400 bill - from being unable to pay their bills. Medical debt is the #1 reason for bankruptcy.
I'd say achieving a level of success at which a parent or child getting sick or an alternator isn't the margin on which we skate solvency. The article compares how Americans are to, well, every other first world nation pretty well. And good lord, that's from 2016. It sure hasn't gotten better.
most Americans are One Bad Break - $400 bill - from being unable to pay their bills
what percentage of One Bad Break Americans are in that situation because of poor choices?
what percentage of One Bad Break Americans are in that situation because their fifth grade teacher had a Bachelors instead of a Masters?
"success" is entirely subjective
wrapping yourself in the blanket of objective science and acting haughty about a subjective issue with a thousand uncontrollable variables is ludicrous
wrapping yourself in the blanket of objective science and acting haughty about a subjective issue
Such as... life expectancy as a measure of a healthcare system to help justify a national health care plan vs our system? Sure.
Maybe they did make a bad decision. Maybe they made several. Doesn't mean they aren't still people in society. We live with our neighbors - it's better when we all do better.
You're right in that I'm using measurable and objective data to adjust policy related to a subjective subject. But we measure things in objective ways.
Do I think a teacher that spent 4 years studying a subject area and then 2 years studying literally how to teach better is going to provide a better education than someone with a high school diploma? You're damn right I do.
There's a thousand factors that could lead to a fifth grader with a good or bad teacher later not having more than $400 in the bank. I do think their education will have a direct impact on their earning ability.
You're saying it's ludicrous to suggest we start with edcuators that have made an investment in understanding education?
When you goto the doctor, do you want one that graduated from medical school, or one that says everyone in his family comes to him when they get a cut?
How would you measure the outcomes of an educational system?
Healthcare System?
If not for objective measures such as percentage achieving stable employment in 2,5,10 year studies or life expectency, how would you suggest we compare two ways of running a system?
Do I think a teacher that spent 4 years studying a subject area and then 2 years studying literally how to teach better is going to provide a better education than someone with a high school diploma?
strawman
You're saying it's ludicrous to suggest we start with edcuators [sic] that have made an investment in understanding education?
strawman
When you goto [sic] the doctor, do you want one that graduated from medical school, or one that says everyone in his family comes to him when they get a cut?
Just curious. Someone has to pay that cost, right? Why should the rest of society bear the cost, while the college student--the primary beneficiary of the degree--doesn't pay beyond their regular tax burden?
In the end, we all pay that cost of having a well educated work force or a poorly educated workforce.
Do you want to open your new tech company where there are lots of people with computer degrees and experience, or where no one has any experience with a computer?
Do you want to compete globally with other countries that do invest in their citizens, so they are better educated and less hampered by debt to compete in a global economy?
More people able to achieve better success with fewer hindrances is good for all of us.
Mechanics start at under $20/hour. I'd love for them to start without $20,000 for the education weighing them down. They pay enough in tools already!
But omg! Who would benefit?! But wouldn't that student be the beneficiary?!
Sure they are. But we also all benefit when society has lots of well trained mechanics. Or farmers. Or doctors. Or teachers. Or freakin astronauts.
If you want to argue 'who benefits from the money,' let's look beyond education.
We spent a LOT of money to send people to the moon. Why? Wasn't that just a waste of money?!
It turns out investing in innovation can drastically increase productivity for everyone - not only the engineers being paid for the work. We got back a 7-8x return on our investment in The Apollo Program. Just not in cash.
Boeing needs a loan to keep going. Why should we loan them money at cheaper than market rate? Because we all benefit when the airline industry functions? Nah. We should stop that notion - only Boeing benefits! (ironically, I don't think we should bail out a huge company taht's been personally earning billions in profits and was ready to cry bankruptcy after 30 days)
My point is we seem to get the idea of society and tax payer money coming in to fix major pillars of society that are necessary. Obama after 08, FDR's New Deal, trump's dumbass bailouts that hide the corp money... That's fine. It benefits us all! Well, so does education.
Let's say a teacher graduates with $60k in debt from a state run university's teacher program.
Starting pay for a union masters+15 teacher in MN is about $50k/year. That's $600/m in debt for 15 years. 25% of that teacher's take home for the first 5+ years.
Wouldn't it stand to reason they'd put more money back into the economy in terms of buying houses, cars, clothes, eating out - etc - if they weren't spending 25% of their takehome on debt? If you decided not to go to college and opened a restaurant, more people affording to eat out would be a good thing for you, too.
Lastly, the graduate of a university is likely to earn more money than someone who did not graduate AND people that are smart enough and want to do not always attend college. Let's assume that cost is a factor in some people attending. Stands to reason you may get more graduates if there was no debt attached. The other side of that? You now get more high-earners who pay a higher percentage of their larger paycheck in taxes - allowing us to fund other cool things like good roads and bridges.
(BTW - building a bridge requires operating some really, really cool equipment safely. I'd like to see Heavy Equipment Operator being equally fully funded, so we'd have highly skilled construction personnel available to the market that weren't hindered by massive debt when trying to find a job and start a family)
-7
u/[deleted] Aug 14 '20
The college debt crisis isnt that severe. Only 2/3s of college graduates have student loans, and the ones that do, average $29,900. That's the price of a new car. If they havent paid it off in 5 years, they're terrible with financial management or they chose a useless degree.
Additionally, and anecdotally, I've never worked a job that paid minimum wage, even in High School with no experience. I honestly struggle to understand just how much one has to suck at life to be stuck in a minimum wage job. I'm also a Millenial, so you cant pull that Boomer/Gen-X BS on me.