Hacker News Reader

Comment by jedberg | Hacker News Reader

That's how you get nothing but science and engineering majors, because most other majors don't have the ROI on average. But society is probably better off with some history and art majors too.

We need to find a way to finance education that isn't based on future income.

View on HN

Well it's also how you have a globally competitive workforce that can experience wage growth. We have a shortage and companies are outsourcing for good paying jobs because we aren't prepping enough people for the market.

There are some that can't get scholarships or even into universities in their state for engineering because there aren't enough spots. The no return majors take up resources and funding and leave countless people in debt they can't pull out of for a long time.

We don't have a shortage of history and art majors or lawyers and also, real artists would be a better investment than art majors anyway. No need for the debt. Just invest in the talent for society to thrive and be balanced.

> We need to find a way to finance education that isn't based on future income.

This already happens. One example - We have collegiate sports revenue financing no return liberal art degrees directly or indirectly via scholarships.

Studying things that don't make money has always been the privilege of the wealthy. Just because college was once only for the elite doesn't mean those same tedious sayings apply to our current world.

But when I went to college, in the 70's and 80's, people did exactly that. I studies math but lots of folks studied History. You didn't have to be wealthy.

What changed? Or was that time an aberration?

1) Vastly more people enroll in college now, per capita. It used to be a powerful signal, since only the most intelligent and driven people would go. Now it is just the minimum you need.

2) Cost of college has skyrocketed, and public funding for colleges has plummetted.

Well there's quite a few progressive European countries which it might be worth the USA having a look at

There's a presumption, I think, in this scheme that if loans for art majors are less available or attractive, the cost of an art degree will decrease. In which case you'd reach some equilibrium where the loans are not very good, but the cost is not very high, and people would still get art degrees.

Wouldn't sunk costs for a university make it difficult to charge based on major? All the fixed infrastructure and overhead would be the same. So you would end up with high cost for loans, plus significant costs for delivery; I think most colleges and universities would cut back on art majors etc.

With the rate tuition has risen (e.g. it rose 30% every year I was in college) it seems clear it's decoupled from the fixed costs & overhead.

Why?

The most creative people I know are engineers.

My friend who studied music is a tutor making $15/hr.

He isnt writing, I know this, he does his job, goes home, end of the day as far as society outside netflix is concerned.

While this engineer is constantly playing and learning music theory, recording, and soon to be releasing content.

This could merely be personality traits, but the methodical nature of engineering may make it beneficial outside physics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com