[General Battuta]

You are actually totally correct about that.

There are many things about conservative policy which are valuable elements of a self-regulating system. The tendency to simplify and moralize is not a universal.

[Grizzly]

If you can keep your bros educated, or give them something to do aside from education, you're not going to see as much crime. And there are big structural factors which impact your chance of doing that.

Do you think that this is part of the reason crime rates are lower in Europe, with everyone getting a free liberal arts degree mill education from 80-90% graduation rate public colleges? Sounds like a good plan.

* -Joshua- now wants to eat Mustang. This might be related to something in his culture that says that it is ocassionally a good thing to suffer in order to make the world a better place.

[Mustang19]

There are many things about conservative policy which are valuable elements of a self-regulating system.

I'm curious GB, if you're an academic how can you get away with such treason? I mean, what aspects of conservatism are good or whatever intellectual sounding thing you said.

[Grizzly]

I don't really feel like arguing with you. If I could party for four years off of other people's money while getting my BA in Basket Weaving I would totally jump on it. If you want to read more on the neoliberal argument for education which is meant to apply regardless of international comparisons here's the OECD talking about it. Otherwise, meh.

edit: nevermind, that link wants you to buy stuff

The thing is that well educated people usually tend to give a lot more back to society once they are pretty highly educated. It more then pays for itself. Then there's the whole moral argument about being who you want to be, but lets not go into there.

[Mustang19]

I don't really feel like arguing with you. If I could party for four years off of other people's money while getting my BA in Basket Weaving I would totally jump on it. If you want to read more on the neoliberal argument for education which is meant to apply regardless of international comparisons here's the OECD talking about it. Otherwise, meh.

edit: nevermind, that link wants you to buy stuff

The thing is that well educated people usually tend to give a lot more back to society once they are pretty highly educated. It more then pays for itself. Then there's the whole moral argument about being who you want to be, but lets not go into there.

That's the point in mentioning GDP per work hour, it's actually slightly less in France implying less productivity.

edit: Not that that proves anything of course, and an economic debate about European education reform is really splitting hairs.

[Grizzly]

I don't really feel like arguing with you. If I could party for four years off of other people's money while getting my BA in Basket Weaving I would totally jump on it. If you want to read more on the neoliberal argument for education which is meant to apply regardless of international comparisons here's the OECD talking about it. Otherwise, meh.

edit: nevermind, that link wants you to buy stuff

The thing is that well educated people usually tend to give a lot more back to society once they are pretty highly educated. It more then pays for itself. Then there's the whole moral argument about being who you want to be, but lets not go into there.

That's the point in mentioning GDP per work hour, it's actually slightly less in France.

Its slightly higher in The Netherlands, and in Norway, for example. The Netherlands is known for having some exceptionall universities, while Norway is known for having awesome education.

[Mustang19]

The process of disaggregating variables would be tortuous, but suffice it to say I don't see how a liberal arts degree generates enough improved productivity to balance out four less years in the work force.

[Grizzly]

The process of disaggregating variables would be tortuous, but suffice it to say I don't see how a liberal arts degree generates enough improved productivity to balance out four less years in the work force.

Because education is not about liberal arts degrees.

[Mustang19]

It is always good for people to get a degree in a productive field, but I don't think cultural studies or anthropology really qualifies. ed: No offense if you happen to be studying that. Just random examples.

[Nuclear1]

I don't see how a liberal arts degree generates enough improved productivity to balance out four less years in the work force.

I'm not sure you understand what liberal arts means...

[Mustang19]

Even if I don't you should know what I mean.

It is always good for people to get a degree in a productive field, but I don't think cultural studies or anthropology really qualifies. ed: No offense if you happen to be studying that. Just random examples.

[Grizzly]

It is always good for people to get a degree in a productive field, but I don't think cultural studies or anthropology really qualifies. ed: No offense if you happen to be studying that. Just random examples.

I actually agree with you there. But those 'productive fields' are equally accesible, unlike, say, the US, where there's an rather high financial barrier to overcome.

[Nuclear1]

So what in your opinion is a 'productive career field'?  Just because anthropologists, historians, and biologists don't immediately make a product that can be sold or used, it doesn't mean they aren't productive or don't benefit society in the long run.

There's still going to be plenty of people to get into other fields.  That's why vocational and technical schools exist. 

[Mustang19]

I agree that more grants should be handed out to science majors. But letting everyone who passes the Sorbonne entrance exam get a free degree isn't best for economic production either.

So what in your opinion is a 'productive career field'?  Just because anthropologists, historians, and biologists don't immediately make a product that can be sold or used, it doesn't mean they aren't productive or don't benefit society in the long run.

I'd say a productive career field contributes more to economic production than the opportunity cost of education. Biologists contribute a lot to science. I don't see the other fields you mentioned curing cancer or putting **** on the moon.

[Nuclear1]

So you're saying anthropologists, historians, linguists, archaeologists, researchers, et al. don't contribute economically to a country?

If we didn't have career fields where people spend days compiling and analyzing mountains of data specific to one aspect of human society, we wouldn't be able to make good policy.  If we didn't have historians and economists analyzing causes for recessions, we wouldn't be able to prevent them.  If we didn't have market researchers, major companies would go bottoms up selling the wrong type of product. 

[Mustang19]

"Researchers" is too broad, but the other fields? Yes, they don't, at least in proportion to the number of graduates in these fields. If they were able to produce something of economic value- a product, an idea, expertise, a patent- they're entirely free to market it. Well, let's just say that the number of applicants exceed job openings and self-employment opportunities are minimal in these fields.

edit: Opportunity costs, more economically productive things to do with your time, etc. is what I'm saying.

[Mustang19]

If there is a demand for those services companies will hire them, but the market is the best way to determine if this is the case.

edit: The government can hire them for their services too, of course. It's a question of who pays these people to work given what they're supposedly able to contribute.

[Mustang19]

If we didn't have career fields where people spend days compiling and analyzing mountains of data specific to one aspect of human society, we wouldn't be able to make good policy.  If we didn't have historians and economists analyzing causes for recessions, we wouldn't be able to prevent them.  If we didn't have market researchers, major companies would go bottoms up selling the wrong type of product.

There are plenty of thinktanks hiring social scientists as well as government grants issued to fund their research. Economists make big bucks for finance companies and do a lot of senior government work too. Market researchers don't do bad either. It's a matter of "how many do we need" and "where is the point of diminshing returns" versus "lets give everyone a history degree who wants it".

[Nuclear1]

In the end, you can't tell people what they can or can't pursue an education in.  But you can advise them on what the market needs, and what will be most beneficial for them.

Basically, this whole thing can be boiled down to "we need really good college advisers and some students with decent foresight".  Most of the time, people do make good decisions with their majors, and most don't just go through higher education for the yucks.

[Mikes]

In the end, you can't tell people what they can or can't pursue an education in.  But you can advise them on what the market needs, and what will be most beneficial for them.

Basically, this whole thing can be boiled down to "we need really good college advisers and some students with decent foresight".  Most of the time, people do make good decisions with their majors, and most don't just go through higher education for the yucks.

Kinda ironic that as far as economics goes, the American business environment punishes anyone who doesn t take the short-term / quartly earnings view and business schools specifically utterly fail to provide any kind of long-term business politics or planning competency with their case study based farce of a curriculum.

Not sure about the rest of the education system... but the BA / economics niche I know quite well from writing my own comparative management/organisation research papers.