Democrats and Republicans disagree whether college is worth the cost

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

An MSN poll found Republicans and Democrats have a lot of the same beliefs about college.

- But on the issue of whether college is worth the cost, there was a stark divide.

- 43% of Democrats believe college is worth it, compared with 28% of Republicans.

American politics have grown more polarized than ever before.

So it might come as a surprise that Republicans and Democrats actually agree on a lot when it comes to higher education — so long as it's not about the more philosophical issues of whether it's worth the cost.

A poll from Business Insider's partner, MSN, showed that families across the political spectrum had similar beliefs when it came to issues like their plans to pay for college and whether they've already started saving. Republican and Democrat respondents have differences no larger than the single digits. 

But when asked if they believe a college education is worth the cost, respondents split across political lines. Forty-three percent of Democrats responded yes and 44% responded no, compared with 28% of Republicans responding yes, and 62% no.

When asked whether tuition at public colleges and universities should be free, the results were even starker. Seventy-four percent of Democrats answered yes and 19% answered no, compared to 31% of Republicans responding yes, and 62% no.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/democrats-and-republicans-agree-on-almost-everything-about-college-%e2%80%94-except-whether-its-worth-the-cost/ar-BBFP9sP?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=edgsp

[customerserviceguy]

1. There are a lot of people out there

who would have been better off financially with a community college degree in a skill that they could actually sell, than the mountains of debt they have piled up getting four-year degrees in things that nobody's hiring for.

I'm lucky, I only borrowed a thousand dollars back in 1975, and had it paid off in the early 80's, but today, there are many, many people who borrowed more than they can afford to pay back, especially with the study programs they chose. If education loans had to face half the scrutiny that business loans deal with, there might not be so many people with debts they cannot possibly pay off.

[LisaM]

5. I had student loans from the 80s. They took me a while to pay back, but it was doable.

Mostly, the problem was that I wasn't working in very highly paid jobs, but I stuck to it and eventually cleared them out.

But, I didn't really go to college to monetize a degree, and that's a huge difference. I was an English major, but I wanted the opportunity to take a wide range of classes (things like computer programming, which I'm really glad I did), astronomy, figure drawing, etc., even some math classes that I knew would not be in my wheelhouse and that I'd get average grades in those compared to the higher grades in my major. I just wanted a good education.

I don't know if that's completely impossible now, or if people only see a college degree as a financial investment for high salaries?

[customerserviceguy]

13. Back when college was cheap

relatively speaking, and having a degree gave you a leg up on the competition, it might have been possible to get a degree, any degree, and been able to turn it into income to pay off the loans. Nowadays, if you don't have a reasonable plan to pay off the sizable loans, you're putting a gun to your head to finance a liberal arts education, and even some engineering degrees.

I'm just glad to see that my son took years to get his education, which strung out the cost over a long period of time, and his computer science degree is pretty much bought and paid for.

[LisaM]

14. You can do it at lesser-known schools, which are cheaper.

I see another problem with everyone thinking they must go to prestigious schools.

[DBoon]

26. If students did not need to borrow huge sums to get a degree

It would not be a problem either. Higher education costs have vastly outstripped the rate of inflation.

I think liberal arts education has benefits in both individual development and in ensuring we have a broadly educated citizenry who understand enough of the world to make the important decisions required in a democracy.

[Salviati]

28. It's not so much the costs that are rising so fast (at least at large public universities)...

as much as it is the price. The overall amount spent per student (adjusted for inflation) has actually been pretty stable over the last few decades, it's just that a larger share of the overall cost is being shifted to students as the states cut their spending on state universities. Just another way we're eating our seed corn in this country.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-college-costs-are-so-high-and-rising.html

[Sophia4]

2. There are a lot of people, especially business majors, who are in college "studying"

things they could learn on the job.

They should be studying humanities so that they learn to understand history, economics, science, languages, culture, literature, etc. so that they develop good judgment based on knowledge of the past and the wise and stupid choices our ancestors made.

Studying how to make decisions is a waste of time if you don't have the background in history and science and the world in which your decisions are to be made.

[LisaM]

6. You are so right, but part of the problem is employers.

They expect people to arrive at work ready to hit the ground running. The refusal of companies to train employees is a big part of this. And, it's what's driving all this emphasis on STEM only educations, if you ask me. They want colleges to do the training for them, so they'll only sink money into those disciplines. English and history departments are getting short shrift, which is really short-sighted and stupid.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. One of the most vicious cycles in job hunting

is the "experience paradox", namely that most employers want you to have practical, hands-on "experience" in something before they will consider hiring you but you can't really gain the necessary experience without having had a job first. Showing up with a college degree in your desired field in hand often isn't enough.

[DBoon]

27. Even a specific technical certification isn't enough

nt

[FarCenter]

10. Students should concentrate on learning something by age 22 that will enable them to make a living

At which point they should start educating themselves by continuous learning for the rest of their life.

[Sophia4]

12. They should first learn to think, and then learn to make a living.

Many of the jobs of today that require physical skill sets like running a cash register or programming or even repairing computers, even some aspects of farming, will be done by computers, by artificial intelligence and complex "gadgets" for want of a better word.

Training to do jobs that will be replaced should be done on the job or in conjunction with education that prepares the student for the world that is coming -- the world of artificial intelligence and far fewer of the jobs students can prepare for today.

A person can learn how to think, about history, about how communication works and to communicate and still learn skills to earn a living at this time in history. The important thing in the future will be to have the thinking skill to be flexible, to learn new things.

[FarCenter]

15. You can learn to think while studying a topic germane to making a living.

Learning to think does not require that you studying some esoteric or inapplicable subject.

History is a good example of something you can study for life. There are innumerable books by excellent historians. I'm particularly interested in the period 1870 to 1914 because I think we are in a similar period in history.

[Sophia4]

17. If you study something, you need a teacher.

And that teacher needs to eat, have a place to sleep, and continue to study.
That costs money.

Our system of education insures that we not only now share and disseminate knowledge but that we make it possible for the intellectual leaders in our culture to continue to develop the trove of knowledge and ideas that we have.

I love to work with my hands, but it is so, so, so important for me and all of us to also learn to understand more about the world and the life of the past and present and what the future may hold.

So we have to both learn too use our bodies -- learn physical skills -- and learn intellectual skills. Too many Americans have not learned intellectual skills.

A young friend of mine asked why a university should hire a professor who "teachers Marxism." He thought that was horrible.

I'm not a Marxist. Probably far from it. But we can learn a lot from people who teach Marxism. It is a way of looking at economic exchange which focuses on the inherent injustice that occurs when one person is extremely rich and uses the labor of another to increase his/her wealth while another person suffers in abject poverty. If you are interested in the Gilded Age of the 19th century, then you know how extreme that can get. And yes, today in Los Angeles County, the extraordinary wealth that exists, for example, in Beverly Hills, is quite a contrast to the extreme poverty of the between 35,000 and 55,000 homeless people who subsist (hiding at night in plain sight) in our County.

It strikes me as odd that a person would object to teaching and discussion of Marxist theory in universities but attends a Christian church on Sunday morning. Jesus taught us to care for the poor. He did not talk about economic disparity in some attempt of economic terms, but his message was pretty much the same as Marxes: It's evil to the point of Godless to accept the extremes of wealth and poverty.

Whether the message is from Marx or from Jesus, I agree that we should deal with the enormous disparity in wealth in some way, share in some way. (I repeat that I am not a Marxist.)

But people who merely study computer programming and do not study humanities are unlikely to understand issues like wealth disparity, like racial justice, like sharing on a larger social level, like empathy, like caring for others. I'm not saying they can't ever understand these things. It's just that it is really good for a society if we or at least our leaders actually take time out to understand the causes for the brutal wars of the past, how our ancestors saw things, why they made the terrible mistakes they made, etc. We learn compassion when we study these seemingly meaningless topics. And compassion is what makes a society and our lives psychologically healthy presuming our physical minds and selves are capable of health.

Anyway, it's fine to learn on the internet, but it does not replace the exchange of ideas in the classroom, the reach of the intellect of a good professor. We need that too.

Computers are great. They will never replace human parents. Nor will they replace human teachers. Humans are not machines.

[FarCenter]

22. But you can take a course in Introduction to Computer Science using Python from MIT

That way you get top professors, instead of some adjunct at a community college.

And you can take Introduction to Mao Zedong Thought from Tsinghua University instead of some warmed over US version.

https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-mao-zedong-thought-mao-ze-tsinghuax-10610224x-2

[Sophia4]

31. Computer science is relatively cut and dry.

You can listen to a lecture on history on the internet, but you will not get the benefit of direct interaction with people with ideas other than your professors, and you will not get a real discussion on the internet even if the course has some sort of interaction among those participating. It is not the same as sitting in a classroom and being called upon to participate with real people in real time.

Computer science is rather cut and dried.

The history of medieval England is not. Nor is learning a foreign language if you want to learn to speak it. You need real interaction with other students and a teacher who hears your voice.

I would not trust an internet course in chemistry or law or medicine or most other topics. A summer course on the internet in a topic like introduction to psychology or physics maybe, but not any course that is beyond introductory. Computer science might be one of the exceptional areas in which an internet course would do.

[FarCenter]

32. I don't recall much interaction with professors in college.

Lecture halls varied from a couple hundred students up to 5000 for freshman and sophomore classes. There were sectional classes and labs taught by grad students which typically had about 25 students. Junior and senior classes tended to be smaller, say 35 to 50.

MOOCs vary from having pretty quiet discussion groups to others with very interactive discussions and TA and professor participation.

You should take a few.

[Sophia4]

33. In addition to my undergraduate degree, I have graduate degrees in two

different, very different fields. If you are studying the humanities, even in large universities, your professors have office hours, and you should participate in study groups and discussions. It's the student's choice.

The classes in first and second year lecture courses can be rather large. But after that, and even in first-year English and other courses that require writing and discussion, the classes should be smaller if the school is good.

25 students is a class in which there can be a lot of useful class discussion. A good teacher asks questions. When my daughter taught at a university, each student had some sort of computer, and she asked questions while lecturing and required the students to give her feedback via computer as she went along. If a lot of students could not answer her question, she reviewed the material until they understood it. So she was mixing computer learning and human instruction that could immediately respond to students and remedy problems. The students got the best of both worlds -- human teaching and interaction to which we humans respond well because we are essentially social "animals" and computer reactivity, that is the immediate positive or negative feedback. I think that is the way the classroom teaching will move more and more in our time.

But just sitting alone with a computer is not an education. You learn, but you don't have to defend your ideas or grapple with those of a variety of other people.

[LisaM]

19. Wow, that's harsh.

Among other things, you are implying that everyone needs to have chosen a career by age 22.

To say that I disagree wholeheartedly with this would be an understatement. I became very ill during college, and my time there was stretched out, so I wasn't ready to have a career by age 22. Your timeline also wouldn't apply to anyone who took a gap year or worked for a couple of years after high school, or had served in the military or Peace Corps before hitting the work force.

[FarCenter]

20. OK, how about by age 25? And not a lifetime career, just a start in the world or work.

The model of going to elementary school, high school, college and then stopping your education is obsolete.

The complexity of the world now and the varieties of occupations, as well as organization specific skills and knowledge, require that education be a life long endeavor.

[LisaM]

21. But I didn't go to college to get a career. I went to get an education.

I think my liberal arts education (with a few science classes thrown in for balance) enabled me to be a good employee, ultimately, but I did not go to college to monetize myself in the workforce. I went to become a well-educated person.

I've never made the big bucks, but I don't regret for one minute the time I spent writing papers on books by authors like Thomas Pynchon, learning how to write computer code, or going to an observatory in the middle of the night to see constellations.

I had to spend a decade paying back the money it cost, but I don't care. No one can take from me that I had the opportunity to be exposed to big ideas and to meet other people from all over the state and country who were also eager and excited to learn.

People seem to think education is just an investment that needs to reap financial rewards. Me, I'll never be rich, but I'll enjoy that I reaped a lot of intellectual rewards.

[FarCenter]

24. Politically, many advocate for "investing" in education, while what you describe is an expense.

Since there is no direct link between "writing papers on books by authors like Thomas Pynchon" and career success, expenditures for this type of education have to be treated as current consumption expenses, in the same way as, for example, travel or concert tickets.

They may be personally satisfying experiences, but they are not capital investments with the expectation of a future monetary return.

[LisaM]

25. Well, you just seem tied to the idea that education is strictly for earning money, and not

for becoming a thinker. I'll also add that the computer programming classes I took, while not part of the curriculum for my major, did ultimately help me in the workplace.

I'm not the least bit wealthy financially, but my education has helped me immeasurably in leading a better, intellectually richer life. I value that. Perhaps it's not for you, but I don't see everything in the world with an eye to a profit. Your mileage obviously varies.

My job entails both some writing and some computer skills, so to that extent, my knowledge base is very helpful and has probably helped me advance a little more than I would have otherwise. I write better than about 90% of my colleagues, which helps both me and my company.

I also write poetry on the side, which I find very emotionally satisfying. I'd also posit that my liberal arts education helps me enjoy both travel and concerts more than if I'd never gone to college or at least been exposed to learning.

Again, yes, I paid money for an education, not a career (and was also partially helped by a scholarship) and even if I'm not Richie Rich, it doesn't bother me, and I think the money was well spent. I'm glad I borrowed money, and washed dishes, and refereed volleyball, and bused tables, and lived in a lot of different shared housing, and was really poor when I first started out. I may not be the best person or the best company in the world, but at least I respect myself more than the people I know who did things like take out student loans and bank them for the interest, or brag to me about getting big salaries out of the gate, or work for oil companies, or do a lot of things that I'd find compromising. Not sure what you have against Pynchon, but I'm glad I challenged myself taking-high level English classes and looking for secondary meeting and societal themes in literature because it gives me a nuanced view of the world that I don't think everyone is privileged enough to have.

[Sophia4]

34. If you view the world as simply one of money and things, then your view makes

sense.

But if you view the world as human, animal, plant and material, then your view makes no sense. If you view the world as encompassing all things alive and things not alive, then you, as a human, want to be able to assess and understand your place in that world.

Only when we understand our place in the entire world of trees, of horses, of lions, of stars and constellations as well as of our fellow man, do we have the judgment and the social and spiritual values to live consciously, constructively and in harmony and peace with the world.

So that is, I submit, the problem with your view of education.

If your view of education had been dominant in the time of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Voltaire, John Locke, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, even Theodore Roosevelt, in the time of America's greatest moments, we, as a nation would not have risen to change the world.

We are not simply material objects thrown haphazardly into a material world in which making things and money is the point of life.

We are spiritual, social beings with needs that are partially but by no means entirely satisfied by things and money. We need and must have much more than career success to survive as a human race and as individuals.

Right now, in the Trump administration, we are seeing a regime that would agree with your view of education completely. They are wrong.

That materialistic point of view drives nations to war and results in hunger and despair because it is bent in only one direction. It does not serve the entirety of either the individual or society as a whole. It sees humankind as a bunch of things, as tools for a special elite of bosses. It is wrong.

[tenderfoot]

3. I'd prefer physicians/educators/scientists/etc... to blow off college - total waste of time

I'm so sick of this FUCKING debate. Make college affordable and STFU.

[LongTomH]

7. +1000

[Sophia4]

8. Jealousy on the part of those who can't measure up in the classroom. That's all this is.

[Iris]

11. Well said. N/t

[mythology]

4. The math is simple

High school grads earn about 60% of what somebody with a 4 year degree earns and that gap is growing. You're also substantially more likely to be employed.

Yes we should make college more affordable, but even now, still worth it, especially if you go when you're ready so you take it seriously.

[FarCenter]

9. Bricks and mortar colleges will go the way of bricks and mortar retailing

There was a recent story that said about half of employees working as data analysts got their training online, mostly by taking MOOCs.

Plus, practitioners in the field are upgrading and keeping current mainly with online courses.

[WinkyDink]

16. Meanwhile, rich Republicans send their kids to the Ivy League.

[DBoon]

29. They see college as a private club for the children of the elite

Where they can form personal networks with other members of the elite

[WinkyDink]

30. Precisely! The better to keep the Ruling Class going.

[lame54]

23. That is an unfair question...

College is an important institution for the future of our country

The current cost is a scam

[USsoccerfan]

35. College isnt as useful anymore due to the cost

The only things worth taking there are some of the business fields and science engineering which is what we are lacking in this country. Heck even Obama took a shot at some of the not so useful majors like art history saying they don't lead to jobs. I hate to see college grads not able to find a job because they went the easy route and went into some humanities major. There just aren't enough jobs for that.