this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
113 points (71.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43892 readers
1059 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In the short term, only the children of the wealthy could continue into higher education. Anyone else who had dreams of doing anything that required higher ed, including professions that are already in short supply like doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, would be SOL. I can see how "starve the beast" makes an appealing, easy to understand fix for the issues in higher education, but I think the cost to people is too high to do it like that.
There would definitely be a shock to society in the short term.
Pharmacist market is saturated...
Where are you getting this info?