|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
misher
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| I'm putting this in my What's Wrong with the World folder, in the subfolder Unintentionally Revealing. |
I'm going on my personal experience as an undergrad.
I'm very happy that you took the time to meaningfully contribute to this discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think this thread has gone somewhat off-track. I don't understand the animus here against Business students or Philosophy. I guess they are representing two different disciplines, one perceived as more practical and one more theoretical. The answer is that they are of course both needed in society. Business majors study difficult theoretical concepts in accounting, economics, and interpersonal relations. Philosophy majors hopefully learn critical thinking skills that they can apply to their careers.
As to the question of whether university and tech school students are treated better than high school graduates and have cause to complain, my answer is sort of halfway: I think that young adults are generally not well-treated in our society regardless of their income level. Journalism and media tend to be controlled by baby boomers who have little interest in youth unemployment, student debt, or (coff) how their children fare in Korea unless it affects them directly, such as a crime issue. And so I think education is worth subsidizing at all levels, from elementary to grad school, whether people are going to be pipefitters or surgeons. Though I grant that we probably need more pipefitters and fewer grad students. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| misher wrote: |
| Finance and accounting have their uses which you chose to ignore in my post. |
I ignored it because those are majors in their own right rather than being nebulous "Business Majors." Accounting is a very useful degree that will get you a job very easily. That said, it's not something the government needs to be subsidizing; businesses will subsidize those degrees through salary if they feel they need more accountants, and society in general doesn't benefit from their existence the way they do from things like doctors or nurses.
You need to understand there's a difference between "Totally useless," and "Unworthy of government subsidization." Finance isn't a totally useless degree; you learn something practical and useful while pursuing it. It's not a field we desparately need more people in, though, so we shouldn't be subsidizing it.
| misher wrote: |
| Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. |
I'm sorry my position upsets you, but I attacking my knowledge base on this topic just because I don't want government money wasted on degrees like yours (or mine) is just ridiculous.
| misher wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And I'm sorry for my Philosophy education being funded with yours. It's not as if I'm applying some standard to you that I'm not applying to myself. |
Where did I attack philosophy? Please point that out for me please? |
You didn't. I mentioned it because my degree is in Philosophy, and I wanted to show you that I'm against my major being publically funded too. I felt the need to do this because you seem unhappy that I don't consider your major worthy of public funding.
| misher wrote: |
| I was merely attacking your ignorant stance on the "uselessness" of business school for our economy to function. |
That just goes to show you've misunderstood my point. You're acting like if we stop the government subsidization of these degrees, practicioners of them will simply vanish. If they're really as important to the business world as you say they are (and I agree, they are important to the business world), then businesses will pay competitive salaries to encourage people to continue going to school for those things.
| misher wrote: |
| Our society needs capable and HONEST finance, accounting and tax professionals which you casually won't comment on and casually brush aside. |
Yes, we do need honest individuals in those fields. Some honest individuals in those fields. But we don't need more of them than we have, and we shouldn't be spending tax payer dollars on helping more of them get educated. If businesses want more of these individuals serving them, those businesses can subsidize their educations themselves.
What does honesty have to do with it anyway? Government subsidization doesn't ensure honesty at all. It doesn't even interact with honesty.
| misher wrote: |
| I think philiosophy has its strengths ... |
Having done it myself, I obviously agree. I don't think those strengths warrant public subsidization, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
| I think this thread has gone somewhat off-track. I don't understand the animus here against Business students or Philosophy. |
Being a Philosophy Major myself, of course I don't have an issue with it. I just don't feel it's worthy of government subsidization. If someone wants to study Philosophy, they should pay the full price for it.
This isn't about whether the major in question is useless to the student. It's about how useful it is to society. Some majors (Medicine is an excellent example) we just plain need more of. As such, it becomes worthwhile to subsidize their educations. Others -- like Philosophers -- we really don't need more of. So why should you pay for part of my education? I don't think you should have to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I ignored it because those are majors in their own right rather than being nebulous "Business Majors." Accounting is a very useful degree that will get you a job very easily. That said, it's not something the government needs to be subsidizing; businesses will subsidize those degrees through salary if they feel they need more accountants, and society in general doesn't benefit from their existence the way they do from things like doctors or nurses.
You need to understand there's a difference between "Totally useless," and "Unworthy of government subsidization." Finance isn't a totally useless degree; you learn something practical and useful while pursuing it. It's not a field we desparately need more people in, though, so we shouldn't be subsidizing it. |
I am glad to see this distinction and it makes the argument more reasonable. Not in that 'I agree' but in that the post states a reason for opposing subsidization that goes beyond an ex-girlfriend who took Business. The principles suggested, I think are two: that society doesn't receive direct benefit from Philosophy grads, and that private industry should pay for degrees, for this would sort out the necessary and frivolous graduates.
I see two problems. One is that we would need to ask, why should we fund any education at all? Do we receive any direct benefit from teaching everyone to read and write? This is a little like senior citizens who don't want to pay their school taxes because they have no children. Philosophy graduates and people in humanities disciplines may not directly enter a related trade such as "Professional philosopher," but they hopefully become more informed citizens and voters, and they (again hopefully) enter productive trades and pay increased taxes. The link between the subsidization and the job is longer but still there.
If I never get sick, why should I pay for doctors and nurses to be trained? No trade is totally justifiable in being subsidized.
The second problem is that having private industry pay for degrees in their direct trade would not work for several reasons. It is done in some very specific fields, but overall university training is long and requires a multi-year commitment for a distant goal. Very few businesses or industries are going to make such a commitment when they can hire from a pool of existing graduates (meaning that there would be no impetus to fund students for possibly decades!) or they can hire foreigners. There would be ineffeciencies in having to both judge whether someone might be a good nurse in four years, and in forcing someone to work for the same company until the tuition is recompensated.
Perhaps what we are also arguing about here is the problem that there are too many people taking Greek Art and not enough taking Dentistry. I think the solution to this problem lies more in quotas derived from industry needs and based on grades rather than making education expensive overall. Simply cutting the numbers by raising prices would give us rich graduates, not necessarily the best ones. It would also, in practice, give us an industry of middlemen: a slew of companies financing education or offering contracts of some sort, all with duplications and inefficiencies of their own, and with everything resulting in far fewer people going to college. It sounds a little like a certain country's health care system... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
misher
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough fox. I don't have really anything to disagree about in your post. I just responded because of this:
| Quote: |
| It's possible to subsidize that woman without at the same time subsidizing rubbish like business majors. |
| Quote: |
Yes, we do need honest individuals in those fields. Some honest individuals in those fields. But we don't need more of them than we have, and we shouldn't be spending tax payer dollars on helping more of them get educated. If businesses want more of these individuals serving them, those businesses can subsidize their educations themselves.
|
I'm sorry but we do need more of them. When I graduated public audit firms were crying for accounting majors. There wasn't enough in north america so your comment is wrong. So you say the business should pay for it? They already pay for articling and CASB expenses so students can get an accounting designation. We need these professionals so the present paradigm (no matter how fuct up it is) can function. I could say the same thing about science and engineering majors...Let the huge firms (bechtel et al) subsidize students education so we can keep the present system going.
Are you from England ? In Canada even though university tuition is partly subsidized, students still usually rack up about 20-30k pound sterling for an undergrad degree. It's still damn expensive and hardly like the UK. I know for a fact in England it is a bit different as my family (cousins) go to school for pretty much nothing in comparison. IF you are talking about your british tax dollars going to some yahoo in getting some BS "business" degree in human resources, then I would entirely agree with you. The thing is, where I'm from, students pay out the ass for a business degree and most of them are pursing professional designations that the local economy needs. I could have done a BA for about 60% of the price and it took me 3 years of discipline to pay off my loans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
misher
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Being a Philosophy Major myself, of course I don't have an issue with it. I just don't feel it's worthy of government subsidization. If someone wants to study Philosophy, they should pay the full price for it.
This isn't about whether the major in question is useless to the student. It's about how useful it is to society. Some majors (Medicine is an excellent example) we just plain need more of. As such, it becomes worthwhile to subsidize their educations. Others -- like Philosophers -- we really don't need more of. So why should you pay for part of my education? I don't think you should have to. |
I agree with everything in this post. I just disagreed with you about your assessment of business majors being entirely useless to society. Most of it is but there are some components that are needed and private businesses already fund to a certain extent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| misher wrote: |
Fair enough fox. I don't have really anything to disagree about in your post. I just responded because of this:
| Quote: |
| It's possible to subsidize that woman without at the same time subsidizing rubbish like business majors. |
|
I apologize for calling your major rubbish. I can understand why it would prompt a reaction. I overspoke.
| misher wrote: |
| I'm sorry but we do need more of them. When I graduated public audit firms were crying for accounting majors. There wasn't enough in north america so your comment is wrong. |
Hrm. When did you graduate? My father is the head of a large accounting firm in the midwest (of the USA, to answer a question later in your post), and his firm hasn't had much trouble finding qualified workers at all. Perhaps it's regional?
| misher wrote: |
| So you say the business should pay for it? They already pay for articling and CASB expenses so students can get an accounting designation. We need these professionals so the present paradigm (no matter how fuct up it is) can function. |
I thought it was clear part of what I was arguing against was the present paradigm, though.
| misher wrote: |
| I could say the same thing about science and engineering majors...Let the huge firms (bechtel et al) subsidize students education so we can keep the present system going. |
From my perspective, the big difference between something like accounting, and something like science, is that an investment in accounting is an investment in the present, while an investment in science is an investment in the future. As you say, accounting majors are about keeping the current paradigm running. Science majors, however, create entirely new things and help advance the state of our technology and our understanding of the world. Accounting majors are something you need a given number of, but with scientists, the more the better I feel. That's why I support subsidizing their educations. This is, at least, how I'd prefer to see my tax dollars spent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
