Comment by jedberg
3 days ago
It would incentivize them to only offer majors that lead to high incomes. By pooling the money it removes that issue.
3 days ago
It would incentivize them to only offer majors that lead to high incomes. By pooling the money it removes that issue.
jobs that pay well are a signal that there is high demand for this skill in our society and that more people need to develops these skills.
Why would we not want universities to respond to that signal?
Because the job of a university isn't just to produce highly paid workers. It is to improve society through education. And sometimes people need to learn things that don't pay well, just for the sake of learning them.
People make fun of English and Art majors, but yet the majority of people consume art and writing as their primary activities outside of work (watching TV and movies).
The world would be a sad, boring place without those majors.
> sometimes people need to learn things that don't pay well, just for the sake of learning them.
why?
> yet the majority of people consume art and writing as their primary activities outside of work (watching TV and movies).
yes... but we don't need many of those skills, which is why you typically see 'winner take all' situations with a single person servicing this need for millions.
We don't need universities to pump out 10,000s of English and Art managers if a 100 artists can service the entire population.
It looks like you ignored supply and demand.
This is what Horkheimer and Adorno called "instrumental reason" ("instrumentelle Vernunft").
If everyone gets major that leads to high income, market will become oversaturated quickly
.5% of income over lifetime of alumni is very long-term investement
Universities are well aware of that and obviously won't self-sabotage in such dumb way
More likely outcome is that universities will ensure that most talented students will get high income majors