24 Comments

1. Great post! It's always baffled me how (in the UK) English Lit is one of the most popular degrees, even though it opens very few doors to those who are determined. I always think of Ernest Hemingway, who had no 'qualification' to win the Nobel Prize for Literature other than his being trained as a reporter.
   I'd be interested to hear what you thought about degrees in music - it's undoubtedly an art, but I can't imagine a composer or conductor being taken seriously unless he had been to some conservatoire or another.

   Comment by Adam G — November 23, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

2. I've not seen anyone argue for "free" college for "everyone." What I have seen are arguments for free or highly-subsidized higher education, but that doesn't imply that the people making the argument think *everyone* should be able to get a higher education. I won't try any further to speak for others, whom you do not name in any event, but I will point out that the idea of free higher education -- for those who qualify academically -- is a given in most of the advanced economies of the world. To take one example, higher education in Germany, as in most of Europe, is cost-free -- in fact, students are paid a stipend by the government, on top of free tuition, to cover living expenses, books, etc. Germany seems to do alright by such a system. Their universities are high quality, highly competitive, and not filled with people who by virtue of a trust fund or student loan, and lack of a better idea, run off to college to get a Mickey Mouse degree, as you put it. It's also a bit brutal -- if you don't have the grades to qualify for the very limited number of available spaces (compared to demand) in the degree field you apply to, you don't go to college. Period. But Germany also has an elaborate system of vocational and technical training institutions (also free) that prepare people for skilled trades and the like. There is no shame, either, in attending one of those institutions instead of university. I have a feeling that Germany's education system plays a big role in the country's ability to maintain a significant manufacturing sector as part of its economy (something most advanced economies have lost by now, especially the US and the UK, where higher education costs a fortune).

   So, "free college for everyone" is, indeed, a stupid idea, but it also is a bit of a red herring.

   Comment by Greg — November 23, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

3. Greg: And what percentage of your income as a German goes to taxes? Nowhere did I claim that it's impossible to fund "free" college, I claimed it's a stupid waste of tax money. Also, how can you fault me for not knowing the names of protesters from a movement comprised of tens of thousands of people who express themselves in poorly-drawn signs and has no leaders, spokespersons, or official platform? It would be a challenge for anyone, Occupy fanboy or not, to be able to attribute quotes, signs, slogans, and ideas to names - which is kinda the whole point of a non-hierarchal anonymous movement.

   Comment by Furry Girl — November 23, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

4. Furry, the reason college is such an expensive proposition here in the US is, much like our healthcare system, it is largely a privatized for-profit affair. Subsidized education through graduate school in the US would be a snap if we where to slash the Pentagon budget by two thirds and shutter our 800+ military bases garrisoning the entire globe (military spending accounts for fully half the US budget). Sweden and Denmark have managed to provide a subsidized education for their respective populations precisely because they haven't transformed themselves into modern day Spartas in which virtually the only thing produced are bombs and prisons.

   Another problem with our approach to education here in the US is that the process has become completely commodified whereas the value of an education for its on sake has nearly been lost entirely. What is particularly absurd in the US given the state of our economy as the inevitable consequence of the off-shoring of the nation’s manufacturing capacity over the past 35 years in pursuit of “free-trade” is that many kids are now leaving school carrying debt loads of 75k to 100k without job prospects.

   All that is required for the US population to benefit from the healthcare and educational opportunities that the people of other developed nations enjoy without facing a lifetime of debt is a sea-change in how tax revenue is allocated and for what purpose.

   Comment by Bill Jackson — November 23, 2011 @ 9:11 pm

5. Ugh! Own sake..

   Comment by Bill Jackson — November 23, 2011 @ 9:34 pm

6. I love it when someone I admire and respect articulates exactly how I feel about a subject. The only thing that I would add is that in a society like mine (Britain) where the presumption is that everyone should have a degree it makes it increasing difficult to even get the menial low paid work without one. I work in an office as a marketing officer / clerical assistant in a language school, the job mainly involves customer service based tasks, answering emails etc. The point being its pretty basic but I wouldn't have got the job if I haven't of had a degree. Its an increasingly expensive cycle that isn't really making things any better for anyone.

   Comment by Lee Gill — November 24, 2011 @ 12:49 am

7. So, thanks for calling all degrees in Visual Performing Arts 'bullshit'. As a music major at a conservatory, I'm glad I can thank you personally for devaluing everything I do.

   I think one of the big reasons that you do not understand what college is about is because you never attended. Sure, there are some 'coasters' who have time and money to burn and end up overeducated for their line of work, but there are many who attend college for a mind-stretching experience (something that you, with your closed mind, might not get). College isn't just professors reading textbooks out loud. The best teach the material at an extremely high level and add their years of research and expertise to the subject, providing a solid context for material. While it's true that not many people will use their English literature degrees to become poets or writers, many will continue into Law school, or grad school, where, yes, they could become professors, to teach other impressionable kids about their awesome subject.

   Basically, I took offence to you calling my degree a 'hobby'. Professional orchestral musicians can make a lot (a 6-figure salary at some orchestras) or a little (shudder), but they do it out of love of what they do and the sincere belief that the arts make a difference in our community. (I don't expect you to understand). Basically, you seem like a cold-hearted, closed-minded person from your article, your comment to Greg, and your bio, which I read before choosing to comment. I just wanted to mention that even though you read up on your stuff, know a lot about your subject and are probably a tenacious business person, something that jumps out to me is your lack of education, which comes out in your patterns of thinking in your article. Just sayin'.

   Comment by Ron — November 24, 2011 @ 1:09 am

8. I'm tempted to respond to your question about what percentage of income Germans pay in taxes with a "so what?" For one thing, I have no embarrassment in defending a higher tax rate, especially on the more well off. For another, it is a fact that higher tax rates correlate quite nicely, thank you very much, with higher rates of economic growth, better health and welfare outcomes for the general population, longer life expectancy, less severe income and wealth inequality, and so on. The US had its longest period of robust economic growth from 1945 to the early 1970s, when the highest marginal income tax rate was at least double and, for about a decade, almost triple what it is now. I realize that libertarian fanboys and -girls (dismissive pejoratives are no substitute for actual argument, I admit, but that seems to be where we're going, based on your response) like to frame taxes as The Worst Thing Ever, a serious infringement of liberty, but, following Bill Jackson's line of thinking, it makes more sense to discuss how to allocate existing tax revenues to produce more desirable social outcomes. If I were to write an anti-tax rant, for example, scolding people for claiming the right to make me fund their pet projects, attacking the idea of "free college for all" would be well down the list of things that provoke my outrage. I'm forced to fund all sorts of things that add nothing to -- or, in some major cases, are a net negative for -- the society and can well be classified as someone's pet issue -- for example, most of what is called "defense spending" in our Orwellian vernacular, the cost of which could actually, you know, fund "free college for everyone" and then some.

   Since we're asking questions to make our point, my question to people who live in Any Rand Fantasy Land is always, what country in all of modern history has built a modern, organized, complex economy without significant public investment and subsidy (meaning significant taxation)? Most of them know enough about the world to keep silent, although a few hazard uninformed guesses that reveal they have no idea what they're talking about.

   The basic point about taxes is that, to the extent the central governmental authority that collects and spends tax revenue is representative of the preferences of the general population, there's not much of a "liberty infringement" argument to be made about spending tax revenue on this or that outlay. The arguments that make more sense are about what public good can be expected to be achieved from any given expenditure. I, for one, believe that we'd have better social and economic outcomes if we diverted a large portion of government expenditures from "defense," corporate subsidies, fossil fuel subsidies and the like to "free college" for the qualified, universal health care, and the like.

   A lot more can be said on this point, but I'll leave it at that.

   As for your failure to attribute the argument about "free college" you're attacking to any identifiable person, I didn't realize you were attacking a slogan on a sign. If so, that's hardly fair, since it's hard for anyone to make a cogent, defensible argument for anything in less than 10 words. However, you report multiple debates with real people, who presumably didn't lose their name just because they're participating in a "non-hierarchical anonymous movement." Beyond that, 10 minutes on Google reveals thousands of articles, written by people with actual names, making all sorts of arguments in favor of OWS, laying out their diagnosis about the current economic and political mess we're in, and offering policy and political prescriptions for solving them that they'd like to see OWS support. I would assume that, if there is some sort of significant movement within OWS that advocates "free college for everyone," it would be child's play to find examples of some actual articles written by people whose names didn't magically disappear because they support or participate in a "non-hierarchical anonymous movement."

   Comment by Greg — November 24, 2011 @ 3:02 am

9. I'm of mixed opinion on this. Like Furry girl, I was a school drop-out. I managed to have a pretty high paid career without college, but then, not everyone is suited for the work I did. (Do you agree, Furry?) I learned my skill "on the job" as it were.

   I've also associated with the college educated, and often not been too impressed. I've read a lot, I'm curious, so I can often keep up with them.

   I also think so many "universities" and "colleges" are nothing but glorified vocational schools.

   But I also agree with Greg. I've also lived in Europe, and the tax there is not as oppressive as many Americans fantasize. And at least the citizens there get something for there money. What do we get in the USA? Dead people from all our useless wars?

   I think people should have easy access to education. And free access. It just doesn't always have to be college.

   Comment by Comixchik — November 24, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

10. I'm a regular reader of your blog, Furry Girl, and your pro-sex work attitude has my full support, but your last two posts have been disappointing.

    You make some valid arguments in both articles but on the whole there is too much unconscious resentment going on here. Like yourself I did not go straight from school into further education, but in my mid-twenties I decided to go to my local university to do a combined degree in philosophy and literature, first part-time (which I paid for myself)and then full-time, getting a small grant. I found out I was good at this and got high marks. For someone who had a bad time at school this was a huge confidence boost. In Britain it is this type of educational access for the working class that is being cut to ribbons. I realised I would not get some great high paying job (I still work in a boring office job) but I do not regret going. The lectures were great and with broad based opinions, not the shrill PC obsessed of popular myth and I think philosophy, literature and politics are just as important as science and maths-basically they encourage critical thinking in our conformist and consumerist culture.

    Ideally I would like to see a proliferation of non-state educational organisations who are paid for by their subscribers but also I cannot see what is wrong with education being funded by a democratically elected govt through taxation as long as the wealthy pay the most and not the poor and the working class. Education in all its variety needs money and we should not depend on rich philanthropists and charities, who have their own right-wing agenda to push.

    As for Occupy, of course their are middle-class youthful naiveties circulating in this new movement, but you seem to be more concerned with your own minor inconvenience and resentment against the type of protesters involved, then the brutal violence of the police, who even some of my more conservative relatives here in the UK found shocking.

    Sorry to be so negative in my first comment. As I said I really like your blog and will continue to read it with interest if not always in full agreement.

    Comment by George — November 25, 2011 @ 9:10 am

11. My wife : Degree in chemistry and diploma in teaching = $70,000 a year teaching high school.

    Me : Certificate II in surface extraction operations (a bullshit certification if ever there was one - I did the full years work in less than 2 days and handed it in at the end of the year) = $130,000+ a year driving CAT 785 dunp trucks and D11 bulldozers in a coal mine.

    She's still paying for her degree - Here in Australia they used to call it HECS, now it's called HELP. Higher Education Loan Program.
    I think school should be free until you leave high school. If you choose higher education, pay for it yourself. The problem then is that University administrators see it as a chance to charge you a mint for bullshit degree.
    So what do you do?

    Comment by Stick — November 26, 2011 @ 3:16 am

12. Damn! DUMP trucks.
    I need an edit button.

    Comment by Stick — November 26, 2011 @ 3:17 am

13. great post . like any business , post secondary education has nothing to do with learning . i have in the past been denied promotions at work , because of the absence of a degree . what i ve learned in my race to old age is that employers will try different methods of hiring employees . with the exception of skills that do require excessive training , most skills can be acquired on the job . i find that most employers are not impressed with what the universities are rolling off the assembly line . the day of promoting from the mail room has returned . i ll take ambition , dedication and committment over a degree anyday . todays youth have been duped by colleges and universities into believing that a degree equals or equates to success . work hard and network , network , network .

    Comment by pattoo — November 27, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

14. Bill: Every protester in America who wants anything insists that if we just did away with our defense budget, then we could afford all sorts of things. While I fully support the US getting out of the war business and stop meddling in other countries, I also know that is not going to happen, and that arguments that rely on that wishful thinking can't be taken seriously. It's like any other activist cutesy-ism, like "if every single person donated just $10, we could feed all of Africa" or whatever. You can't base politics on fairytale thinking of, "if only we magically had tons of money, then my plan would work."

    Lee: agreed, and see the article I linked, written by a Brit, about how when everyone has a degree, no one has one.

    Ron: Please call your college and ask for a refund, as they obviously did not teach you reading comprehension. If you are a professional musician, you did not obtain a hobby degree. I am speaking about all the people who gets arts degrees and then act dumbfounded that those degrees don't translate into high-paying business careers. Very few people make a living as artists, but tons of people get art degrees.

    Greg: If your position is "I don't give a shit what it costs, I believe other people should be forced to pay for anything I want," then you're just an asshole. Congratulations. I'd like to force society to buy me a stable full of pink ponies wearing golden hats and monocles.

    FACT: People with art degrees and pro-"college for all" activists have the fucking worst reading comprehension in the entire world. They are perfect examples of why art degrees are a monumental waste of time and money.

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 28, 2011 @ 6:18 pm

15. Stick: I think the answer is to not play the degree game at all, unless you absolutely need one for your career. There are a million ways to learn most subjects taught in college for free/cheap. It's like student loan debt is a tax on people who think they're too good to use the public library.

    Comment by Furry Girl — November 28, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

16. You would have to be pretty intensely bad at science and maths to believe that freshman courses in either would be more strenuous than 4th level liberal arts courses. I know you didn't go to college, but that's a hugely misguided statement. Sciences are not in the least the only things that take effort or critical thought.

    Comment by Andrea — November 29, 2011 @ 4:57 pm

17. Andrea: That's so cute of you to say I must not be able to understand science and math because I'm smarter than liberal arts time-wasters. Good comeback! Liberal arts courses are about spewing and reading a bunch of extremely subjective fluff and navel-gazing. Anyone can write ten thousand words on what it means to them to be a woman. There's no such thing as a wrong answer. Those same people would burst into panicked tears if they had to take four years of substantive classes where there are such things as correct and incorrect answers.

    Comment by Furry Girl — December 1, 2011 @ 2:58 am

18. There's no such thing as a wrong answer? That's ridiculous. How do you think the professors grade this stuff, by asking a magic 8 ball? There's room for subjectivity if you're doing a literary analysis or a personal reflection, but they don't exactly make up the bulk of the arts curriculum. Having more nuance than yes or no doesn't make something inherently useless or easy. Actually, to many of the science and math-brained types it makes it much less so.

    You clearly lack understanding of what goes into the courses you're talking about, apparently it's not thinking math is hard but thinking everything else is easy. I've taken mid level calculus and it didn't hold a candle to the workload and effort involved in some of my 4th year English courses. If I had any interest in math as a career, a degree in that wouldn't have been harder.

    Comment by Andrea — December 2, 2011 @ 8:21 pm

19. Andrea: Just because you have a hard time comprehending your courseload, it doesn't mean that 400-level English classes are harder or even equal to science classes - it just means you're not terribly smart. I would be so embarrassed if I struggled with understanding reading and writing, but you seem to take pride in it.

    I interact with people with liberal arts degrees constantly. I crush their arguments and slaughter their logic-free ideas with ease - including people who hold PhDs and serve as tenured professors. I don't need to have taken liberal arts classes myself. I can look at what those who take *and* teach the classes know, and for most of them, it's not the least bit impressive.

    There's a reason that society gives very little weight to liberal arts degrees, and it's not because there's a conspiracy on the part of we fact-brained. It's because you precious darlings spent 4 years frittering away time contemplating and your navels.

    Comment by Furry Girl — December 2, 2011 @ 11:05 pm

20. It looks like I've discovered the blog of a truly independent thinker on the Internet. Good for you on finding your way out of the maze of college-"educated" myths.

    Comment by Avery — December 6, 2011 @ 5:17 pm

21. Furry,
    Gotta say, I agree with you on this topic. I have two bachelor degrees (of science), but the first one was laughable (Parks and Recreation) and the second didn't convey as much science as it should have (Nursing).
    The vast majority of college degrees are not an education... they are you buying a piece of paper to get a better job.

    It's also a way for people to protect their jobs... if a high school education is enough to do your job, how do you protect your career from being swamped by people willing to do it cheaper? You require a degree that entails an upfront investment. This pushes away many of those potential job-seekers.

    Comment by Brian — December 7, 2011 @ 6:02 pm

22. So you can measure the validity or effort involved in an area of study by the how intelligent the people who have studied it are outside that body of knowledge? That's your crushing logic right there, is it? You only have to be knowledgeable in your own area to get a PhD, and have the work ethic and money to see it through. Nobody said the college education system doesn't let idiots through, and that goes just as well for the math and computer science types, assuming what you're going to evaluate them on isn't fuzzy logic or infinite series. It's up to the student whether they actually learn anything other than the bare minimum needed to score on evaluations.

    I didn't say I have any difficulty comprehending my courses. I said it takes less time and effort to take some formulae and apply them to different sets of numbers and symbols than it does to construct a 12 page term paper with solid supported arguments and secondary sources, for example. As long as you're not the type who can't handle numbers and symbols. There isn't exactly a lot of independent thought involved in finding the value of x. I know that there are science courses that are plenty hard, but I also know there's a good share of science students who wouldn't excel in my area. Just wait for MCAT season and listen to them complain about how it includes an evaluation on writing skills. There are intelligence types who freak out when there's only right or wrong (or black and white), and there are intelligence types who freak out when there's more than that. You can be either and still be an idiot or an intellectual.

    Society doesn't value liberal arts degrees because they aren't utilitarian. I know I'm not getting a job based on my ability to interpret Shakespeare or understand the sociological forces behind inequality. But that's really only an issue if all I plan to do is get an undergraduate, or if all I had been doing with mine was the so-called navel gazing.

    Comment by Andrea — December 11, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

23. Andrea: I can see you've never taken any real science classes if you think they require "no independent thought." I could pass your finals while drunk, and I regularly outwit people with liberal arts degrees (BA, MA, and PhDs) at their own field of study. I'm sure that's embarrassing for you, poor stupid thing.

    Comment by Furry Girl — December 11, 2011 @ 2:31 pm

24. Some other loony chick posted insulting comments about how I'm terrible for "refusing to have a discussion" (refusing to agree with the pro-free college people) on this issue. FUCKWITS: This is my blog. I don't owe it to you to agree with your opinion just because you went to all the trouble of posting a comment or sending an email. No blogger owes you anything, not even publishing your comments. Comments are a privilege, not a right, and I know that the drive-by insulters are not the people who contribute to interesting discussions overall on my blog.

    Comment by Furry Girl — December 12, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.