« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Economist: 36% of Chinese Undergraduates Choose Engineering, Vs 5% in US and UK 

By: Zimbler0 in GRITZ | Recommend this post (2)
Fri, 27 Jun 25 10:49 PM | 12 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens!
Msg. 10486 of 10518
(This msg. is a reply to 10482 by Fiz)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Fiz > As I said, I don't generally believe in "government run" things. But I would support a carefully designed and tightly run program to dramatically improve our education system and, yes, I think it needs to be funded from the Federal level, or it won't get done.


Sorry Fiz,
But I am going to have to strenuously disagree with you.

The federal 'student loan' program and the other 'lets educate people' programs have been spectacular failures. Between 'education costs' rising a LOT faster than the rate of inflation . . . and the enrollment in our 'prestigious universities' of clowns who's SAT scores say they can not do college level work . . .

Step 1. End the federal student loan program. End 'Pell Grants' and other assorted money give-a-Ways.

Step 2. If one owes student loan moneys - one still has to pay it back. However, if one can demonstrate that a 'prestigious university' enrolled them knowing that they could not do college level work - they get enrolled in a class action lawsuit against the universities and the universities can (and should) pay back the student loans.

Step 3. We have the Service Academies. I would not mind seeing them expanded. And maybe even some 'civil engineering' Service Academies created. Service Academies should include 'free' room, board, medical, etc.. . . Four years of schooling followed by eight years of service. There should be an entrance examination - slightly tougher and more comprehensive than the SAT and if the candidate can not pass the test they do not get admittance. Perhaps most important of all - this is not a 'social experiment' - There can be NO quotas or minority set asides or anything other than strict merit in admissions.

If the individual States want to create their own student loan programs or other 'educational programs' they can do that. But the federal has already demonstrated that it is NOT competent to create and run such a thing.

Zim.




Avatar

Mad Poet Strikes Again.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Economist: 36% of Chinese Undergraduates Choose Engineering, Vs 5% in US and UK
By: Fiz
in GRITZ
Fri, 27 Jun 25 10:06 PM
Msg. 10482 of 10518

As I said, I don't generally believe in "government run" things. But I would support a carefully designed and tightly run program to dramatically improve our education system and, yes, I think it needs to be funded from the Federal level, or it won't get done.

Think of it as something like a "moon" project, but with much more predictable consequences. The consequence of this is that in 20 years we would have more engineers, actual scientists, and hard-technical types than perhaps any nation on earth. And a supporting staff of highly trained, well paid, technical people coming out of high school.

I would expect the mental-illness, economic collapse, and spiritual-deadness we find around us now to be considerably, if not totally, in the rearview mirror. Compelling futures are like that, they give most people a reason to get up every morning and do their best.

How about something like this:
(1) These are the technical specialties the JOB MARKET says we need (so you should earn a decent salary if you get through the degree program.
(2) Cost of education, using some pre-defined standards of cost, will be deductible against future income taxes practicing that degree *IFF* you complete the technical degree with a grade of C or better average.
(3) Or it will be reimbursed on a as-you-go yearly basis, in stages, provided you pass a national, standardized test at some reasonably difficult threshold on a yearly basis. RE-TESTS ARE ALLOWED (cause anyone can have a bad or sick day).

My proposal is off the cuff. I'd appreciate feedback on how it could be better done to incentivize the right people in the right way toward the right goals.

I kind of like the idea of allowing you to offset your education costs against future income taxes, but it doesn't really address the hard-working students who come from poorer families or who otherwise can't afford the four+ year slog to get through the system.

I don't think more expensive schools, charging more money, should increase the payout. Maybe new schools could be built in depressed or rural areas.

The key thing, imo, is that high school kids who have the smarts would be given a clear focus and motivation to get ready in high-school and lack of funds for a good college education should not hold them back from making their best effort. I went to a reasonably good high school, but I drifted through high school and graduated with only the most vague path on what I was going to try to do ... and absolutely ZERO guidance from any teacher or counselor on what I might qualify for, much less any real plan.

And I always thought that was a shame, and I think it is a shame now. How school graduates are, mostly, more child than adult. So I graduated early and then bumbled about for a long while before I found a path the hard way.

Whether your degree MAKES SENSE ECONOMICALLY was absolutely not discussed by anyone at any time. Maybe largely because the cost of state Junior Colleges and Universities for state residents was much closer to zero back then! But, still, you shouldn't find out at the time of graduation that your degree doesn't qualify you for more than a minimum wage job.


« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next