Santorum: Obama 'A Snob' For Wanting Everyone To Go To College

[Politico]

College is not for everybody, or even most folks for that matter. The evidence: 60% of college entrants do not go on to graduate.

To remain truly competitive, and ensure a college education still means something, we cannot dumb-down college the same way that high school has been dumbed down the past few decades. Doing so would NOT help new college entrants nor previous college graduates. It would actually help nobody other than faculties that want to bring in more revenue.

I am not necessarily advocating this, but one idea that is not the worst in the world is having the federal government subsidize college education for intelligent/high-GPA/high-SAT applicants from poor families assuming the students go into one of the STEM (science/technology/engineering/mathematics) fields and maintain a high GPA. That could potentially lead to positive spillover effects.

[Politico]

I suspect if you adjusted it for race (made the other developed countries as black and brown as America, or vice versa), the US would be at or near the top of those rankings too.

Of course, this is all assuming that a college education is, per se, a universal good.  On the contrary, producing a large number of overqualified workers for available positions requiring less qualification and taking large numbers of people out of the labor force for several years both produce significant deadweight losses in the economy (as well as creating a major obstacle to upwards social mobility in the first case).

This is something else to consider.

If everybody had a college degree, are we going to have college graduates who are janitors? College graduates working the front-lines at Target? We already have quite a few who work at Starbucks...

[Politico]

If everybody had a college degree, are we going to have college graduates who are janitors? College graduates working the front-lines at Target? We already have quite a few who work at Starbucks...

Perhaps we could get a workforce where being a janitor was a job rather than a career?  While it came out sounding very silly, Gingrich's proposal to have kids doing the bulk of the janitorial work at their schools made some sense because you don't need even a kindergarten diploma to do most janitorial tasks.

While it's true that you don't even need to know how to read/write to do most janitorial tasks, it's also true that you have to have somebody to clean up facilities. We do not have machines that can do that task. It's an essential job in the sense that somebody has to do it if you want clean facilities. With that said, there is no great shame for some people in being a janitor for life. There are folks with an IQ of 70, for example, who could not do much else. It does not make them any less dignified than you or I. The question is this: Do we really want to dumb-down our education system to the point where people like that are being pushed through into college the same way they are, in many places, being pushed through high school today? The end result is they still end up as a janitor, a college education means nothing, and many resources were wasted in the process of getting them from point A to point B, so to speak. It would be government intervention run amok, if you ask me.

[Politico]

One of the problems with specifically vocational kinds of training is that vocational skills do become obsolete rather quickly these days.

I question this, but I am admittedly unfamiliar with the subject. Yes, being an auto mechanic is different today versus forty years ago. But it is not that much different, is it? I would imagine auto mechanics who learned their trade forty years ago have updated their skills/knowledge on-the-job with the changes in automobiles. To give some other examples, I cannot imagine much changes with regards to learning the different specialties within construction (e.g., carpentry, electrical work, dealing with heavy machinery, etc.), or plumbing to give another example.

These are occupations that will always be around in our lifetime, and I suspect a lot of folks would be a lot happier learning one of these trades rather than being forced to attend college first.

[Politico]

Folks, the British have a saying: "Horses for courses." It comes from the fact that certain horses run better on certain courses. Similarly, what is suitable for one person may not be suitable for another. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for everybody. For better or worse, market forces pick horses for courses. Let the markets operate, and we will be more competitive, and resources will be allocated more efficiently, than any entity could possibly hope to achieve via planning/manipulation.

[Politico]

I've taught in colleges and universities full-time for twelve years, and for five years part-time before that, and I've had just as many conservative and/or Republican colleagues as I've had colleagues of other political persuasions.  The "liberal indoctrination" charge is bs, and Rick, who has been through as much college as he has, knows it's bs.    

In all fairness, most professors of a conservative persuasion are less likely to openly voice their opinions compared to their liberal brethren, especially outside of economics/business. At least at most colleges, anyway. I cannot imagine disputing that. But I do agree it is a bit much to charge "liberal indoctrination." I like to think that most folks in college are able to see bias when it rears its head. Perhaps I am wrong.

[Politico]

I just want to chime in that it would most likely be beneficial for the nation if we saw more undergraduates in the STEM (science/technology/engineering/mathematics) fields. I am not an expert in labor economics, but it appears we have a severe shortage in these type of college graduates and a still-growing surplus in graduates who studied other fields (e.g., psychology, sociology, political science, history, etc.). Of course, market forces will work things out one way or another eventually...

Lastly, college is a rather expensive way to "find yourself" these days. But if that is what you want and you (or your parents) can afford it, you are free to choose that. More power to you.

[Politico]

Also, why have we never discussed the comments Obama made about high school in his SOTU? He practically implied he is in favor of mandatory schooling until 18, not 16. Mind-boggling, if you ask me. It reminds me of the proverb, "you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink it..."

[Politico]

Also, why have we never discussed the comments Obama made about high school in his SOTU? He practically implied he is in favor of mandatory schooling until 18, not 16. Mind-boggling, if you ask me. It reminds me of the proverb, "you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink it..."

Let's see -- what prospects do high-school dropouts usually have?

Destitution

Crime

Early death

I am not disagreeing, but what do you think pushing the mandatory age from 16 to 18 is going to accomplish? If somebody wants to drop out at 16, they should be allowed to do so. They're never going to finish either way, and forcing them to continue through 18 is a drain on resources that would be better applied to people who actually want to be there to learn. There are only so many resources to go around. We live in a world of scarcity. You cannot legislate away problems with the stroke of a pen. And most of these fancy ideas from Washington just create more problems without solving the original problems. The federal government should be out of education altogether. Resources are better allocated at the state/local level.

[Politico]

Offers man nothing? What does man offer himself? I was on a job 4 years ago and the subcontractor dropped out of high school during his second year of 9th grade and was making $126,000 a year. Tell him he needed to go to college so he can make $70,000. Most of my friends graduating from college can't find work and it's because we have too many people qualified for high paying jobs that don't exist in such high numbers.  Several people going to college only rack up debt. We can't all be doctors and lawyers.  If we were all doctors, then who would teach school? The perfect economy has a perfect balance among sectors. At my buddy's office, there are people with Ph.D's in molecular biology and nuclear physics making only $30,000 a year. College is only good for an individual if you put it to use. To Obama who doesn't understand any of this because of his elitist and liberal background, looks down on people who don't go to college or so it seems. Or, perhaps he just wants more debt in order to enslave people towards the federal government. His idea for 10 years working for the government in exchange for elimination of school debt screams of ancient Rome's policies of enslavement for those of you who are ignorant of classical culture.  I know it's easy to jump the gun and talk on impulse, "education is imporant because it's our future" or "not going to college makes someone less intelligent." Tell those things to my subcontractor friend making $126,000 a year. Explain to me IN DEPTH DETAIL how it would be productive for us to have only doctors and lawyers?  Who would work the farms, grow food, package products, cook?  Please explain in depth detail to me how those professions are less noble or somehow below being a doctor or lawyer?

You're absolutely right. The tragic part is that government interference causes a lot of the shortages and excess-supply problems (i.e., surpluses) we experience over a sustained period. If markets were allowed to operate more freely, America would have less of what it does not want/need (i.e., less instances of excess supply) and more of what it does want/need (i.e., less instances of excess demand; shortages).

[Politico]

Can we call this Great depression II?

Only if Obama is re-elected. The "hipsters" won't think Obama is hip when they're living off Campbell's tomato soup and unable to afford electricity, let alone cell phones and the Internet.