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 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This would save young Americans from going into crippling debt, but it would also make a university degree completely unaffordable for most. However, in the age of the Internet, that doesn't mean they couldn't get an education.

Consider the long term impact of this. There are a lot of different ways such a situation could go, for better and for worse.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Generally oppose.

We would need massive structural changes in education and funding before banning student debt; you'd need to make university free, and give students a living stipend while they were there, as loans usually cover living expenses as well. I can't see that happening in the current political climate. So if we simply outlawed educational loans, the effect would be that millions of people would no longer have access to higher education at all.

The idea that you can learn things on the internet ignores the fact that the internet is rife with misinformation--i.e., bullshit and outright lies--and it allowed people to get into thought bubbles, which higher education fights against pretty effectively.

[–] online@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I want to add:

Most books have never been digitized. Most information that you would learn in college is still in books and not on the Internet. You can't replace access to information (and reading that information) in college with lack of access to information (and thus not reading that information) online.

In addition, the Internet doesn't give you access to passionate subject-matter experts who are necessary guides to help us travel down the path of acquiring the knowledge that they have. Sure, there's recordings of MOOC lectures, but they become outdated and you can't ask them questions or have them help you by giving useful assignments and answer your questions and give you constructive criticism.

If higher education is going to work we would do better to pay those experts (the poor teachers) a fair living wage so that they can focus on the quality of their teaching and not be desperately trying to survive and navigate departmental politics while hoping that bureaucratic administrators don't cut the library budget (again) while dumping money into a new football field (why is sports part of college anyway? Why can't there be a separate and unrelated sports-academy system for the sports people so that it's impossible to misappropriate from academic budgets in favor of sports?).

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Totally agree.

In addition, the Internet doesn’t give you access to passionate subject-matter expert

You can find them on Discord servers, message boards, and YouTube channels. But knowing who is actually an SME, and who has a great line of believable bullshit, is quite challenging. In a university system, you have a group of peers that are making that determination.