The "burst" is overdue, and tuition isn't even the biggest reason. The federal monopoly on student loans and the law making those loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy are both relatively new, and both raise the real cost of college even if the tuition doesn't go up. Then, too, there's campus politics, with most universities so dominated by lefties that outrageous policies about speech or sexual behavior get adopted, often with deliberate "kangaroo courts" that make it effectively illegal to be male. How can such institutions expect the population to continue using their services?

On that I can agree! Now I have to go bck and catch up with everyone else. 😎

Eudaimonia, I'm struggling to see the vitriol in AJ's comments that deserved your "three strikes policy". He made what appeared to me to be valid points which you just happened to disagree with. I couldn't find any post where he misrepresented your comments except once when he promptly apologized. But that's a judgement call you have to make.

Here's my take:
Our current marketplace places employment value on a piece of paper - for better or for worse. My current employer viewed my undergraduate and MBA degrees in high favor and - coupled with my experience - offered me a good job I wouldn't have had without it. What is at question in your proposition is the actual valuation of that particular piece of paper and whether or not it represents anything of true value to a potential employer. So the question is in analyzing and dividing intrinsic from extrinsic value.

Can we make the generalized inference that because of the preponderance of self-professed liberals in higher education that such life philosophies will have a bearing on their students through their teaching? To me, that is a reasonable deduction on your part and one which has enough support to stand with the caveat that - given the differences in political climate from state to state - individual institutions will be affected to different degrees (pun intended). It should also be taken into account that the nature of the program itself lends itself to bias - it's pretty hard to argue Keynesian economics given the history we have to look at, but not hard at all to argue relative morality in a psychology or philosophy class. What should be noted is that the internal value of any of these degrees is going to be directly related to the field of employment - a history degree (unless you are Carly Fiorina) is not going to take you far in Computer Science, neither will a Philosophy degree take you far in Construction Management.

That being said, much of the value of a degree is culturally assumed. Employers don't know what one actually studied without looking at a transcript. I think it is only fair to question this assumed value, as you did.

The question you raise, however, is whether or not 1) the valuation of a degree is being accurately assessed, and 2) whether or not the universities themselves are falsely promoting a value which does not exist to the point that merit exists for filing a general lawsuit. The problem with a false advertising claim is that you have to establish that there was a reasonable expectation for implied contractual obligations. That's a pretty high standard of proof to meet under our current cultural mores and system of education because it isn't the universities per se which are making those advertising claims, but all of society from high school to business. There is no question that a person with a degree exhibits higher lifelong earning potential, which is going to be the claim made by universities in their support. And the lack of any overt claims by the universities that a graduate is guaranteed a job is similarly a high burden-of-proof barrier to any successful lawsuit. While I see substantial flaws in the current educational system, I think the claim that universities are systematically and intentionally committing fraud en masse is a bridge too far for me given the alternatives of choice which exist - though individual assertions very well may prove to contain substantial merit.

One more thing: A few days ago, there was a request that we suggest improvements to this site. In light of the other comments on this thread, I would like to suggest one:

I would like an option in my personal profile that automatically showed the hidden comments. This will mean that I do not have to click on them individually to open them up one by one. (I do think that the originator of the thread should be able to hide comments that he thinks are obfuscating; I propose this option as a convenience for those of us who are inescapably curious.)

Jan

...refreshing, is it not?...

I find myself in disagreement with posters on a thread on a reasonably frequent basis, but when I read their opinions and perspectives, I have enough that is philosophically in common with them that I can understand their viewpoint. I do not necessarily end up agreeing with them (though this has happened) but their counter-arguments elaborate my view of the world.

(I do tend to click to view the hidden comments.)

Jan

Best debate in the Gulch in a while. It would have been better without the two strike policy in this case, however. I agree in principle with the two strike policy, but I would not have chosen to apply it here.

I'm hoping the tuition bubble doesn't burst for at least another couple of decades, but A is A.

I just commented on the university thread, albeit not to yours directly. The points that you make are all excellent points.

I have found the Gulch to be as refreshing as a cold shower after a day at the beach. I have been disagreed with and contradicted in several of my postings, and in each case (so far) I have learned something.

hey, guy! you're a perfect example, yourself -- pushing
us to think straight and true ... so, thank you!!! -- j

I do. But never in the morning like right now. There.
The silly dino thought up something to write.

Arrogance. I made my statement. Regards.

I'd like to point out that no one replied to db and mine and Euda's arguments directly. One enters into a contract and suddenly, all teh assumptions have been changed. They have been changed, not by you, but the other side. ex: the other side prints money. are you personally responsible to fulfill your agreement? see marriage contract between Rearden and Lily.
most in the post wanted to make a one-sided argument about personal responsibility, while ignoring the university's constant and continuous failure to live up to their obligations. They are making the rules and changing them mid-stream and say that is allowed due to academic freedom. They have used the power of govt to tax us and demand our childrens' tuition rise faster than inflation. This is the WORST sort of crony capitalism. do we ignore this? you all see this with common core and secondary education and ignoring it in higher education. there ae always great teachers. but there's always a good racket in town

Me too... and I don't drink! :-o

You weren't stirring the pot, were you? ;-)

Wow, that was condescending...

Strike One.

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/6d...

OMG .... sigh.... Christ...I need a drink and I don't even know what's going on!

Not true.
You consistently misrepresented my points.
You insisted that I through those misrepresentations were "absurd".
You were asked to stop before I applied my Two Strike Policy to you.
You refused.
I applied my Two Strike Policy to you which plainly states that I will hide and downvote all of your comments.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/6d...

I, assuming that you got the hint, have since left your comments to that thread alone.
Perhaps I was wrong on that assumption.

I'm scraping time together to read a lengthy post and now I have to unhide comments and factor in time stamps? I wanted to understand the debate before I chimed in with my two cents, but I'm going to throw my hands in the air and shake my head instead....and wait for the tuition bubble to burst.. I guess...

Sheesh, have a drink and calm down. I never misrepresented anything you said. You asked "should unemployed grads sure their universities"

Pardon e for thinking differently than you (yes, you provoked my sarcasm. It does take quite a bit.)

You acted like an ape with a club. Strike me a third time tough guy.

I spent the day getting points taken away and being threatened with a "strike" (?) for expressing my contrasting view to the OP. First time that happened here. This is an odd post indeed.

Check the time stamps.

I made this post before AJ decided to flood my other post with misrepresentations of my points.

When asked to cease, he did not, and I applied the two strike policy to him.

Honest disagreement is welcome.
Stubbornly misrepresenting my views and insisting that I through those misrepresentations are "absurd" is not welcome.

My thanks to those who disagreed vigorously and honestly stands, as does my application of the two strike policy.

Well...I finally had time to go read the previous post and find out what all the hub up was about but I quickly realized all of AJ's comments are now hidden. Eud, why make a post about thanking gulchers for a good debate when so many comments IN the debate are hidden. Something about this just seems wrong.... :(

huh?