Everyone has to be rich now??

[definenredefine]

Don’t borrow a bunch of money to go to college. Me.

I feel compelled to point out that education is both much more regarded as a necessity (path to a good-paying job etc) AND far more expensive than it used to be. Most of the time the go to is what tuition was in the 60s & 70s, but even when I was going to college/grad school (2000-2010), in-state tuition at a good public college was like $5000/semester (which is more or less what I paid.)

It's way more now. When you couple the markedly higher tuition with the "need" for a degree AND the predatory nature of student loans (very few loan products result in people making regular payments and owing MORE than they borrowed), it's not so simple as this advice.

I wish it was, I truly do, but it just isn't anymore.

Also public education should be free. An educated citizenry benefits all of us.

 

[hbarcat]

Huh? I would think that this would lead to a huge community of people commuting to work. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but there are an estimated 30-50.000 people who commute every day from southern NH into Massachusetts to work at places like Raytheon and Northrup for a probably 50% increase in wages. I have toyed with the idea of a 90 minute commute (which is probably only 50 miles lol) to raise my own pay 20-30%, but that would mean giving up gigging ( and probably a large chunk of my sanity), so in the end adding 15 hours a week to my work schedule in the form of a stressful commute isn't really worth it. Of course, if I were sweating a Mortgage or the cost of children, I would be forced to swap gigs for a commute.

That's exactly what happens every day where I live. Vast multitudes surge East towards the Chicago suburbs every morning and then back West again every afternoon.

In fact, that's what I've been doing for the past 20 years. I spend 90 minutes in my car every day going to and from work so that I can enjoy the benefits of suburban wages and rural prices.

Literally, all eight of my coworkers at my place of business in the burbs have a similar commute from their homes in the West to work in the East, and for the same reason.

It's a strange sight to see. Rush hour in a city means that there's traffic everywhere, going in all dorections, but at the suburban border, you see stop and go traffic going one direction and empty lanes in the opposite direction twice a day, with the direction of busy traffic switching between morning and afternoon.

Incidentally, I also get the benefit of better gasoline prices. In my hometown, gas is currently about $3.05 per gallon, while it's $3.99 near work.

 

[Parzival]

I feel compelled to point out that education is both much more regarded as a necessity (path to a good-paying job etc) AND far more expensive than it used to be. Most of the time the go to is what tuition was in the 60s & 70s, but even when I was going to college/grad school (2000-2010), in-state tuition at a good public college was like $5000/semester (which is more or less what I paid.)

It's way more now. When you couple the markedly higher tuition with the "need" for a degree AND the predatory nature of student loans (very few loan products result in people making regular payments and owing MORE than they borrowed), it's not so simple as this advice.

I wish it was, I truly do, but it just isn't anymore.

Also public education should be free. An educated citizenry benefits all of us.

On your first point, heck yes, education costs are sky high. College administrations are bloated. I go back to my old campus and they are constantly spending money building new buildings, not all replacements either, lots of new additional buildings. The student body is maybe 1,000 more than it was when I was a student 30+ years ago. Why? Why is the administration 5x what it was when I was there with only 1,000 more students? Why? Higher education is a scary thing right now. You want the young people to be educated, but good grief, at what cost?

On the student loans, how are they predatory? I'm not being smart, I am really curious. And on loans, you will always owe more than you borrowed. Unless you have found some generous folks to give you a 0% interest rate.

If all public education is free, then you will basically just be extending high school from 12th grade to 16th grade. Will you get a more educated citizenry? Maybe, but I'm not sure. And then there will still be higher education above that and then it will become the standard if you want to get a good job. All you will have really done is spent more of other people's money (because it really isn't free education, is it?) and gotten to the same point. Could there still be some benefit? Maybe, but I think the cons outweigh the pros. The problem to fix is the higher education system, but, I don't really know what you could do. We have the ultimate choice to buy it or not buy it.

And, in the system we are in, that is the true way to make change. Vote with your wallet. I am a firm believer in this. And it works. When there are large boycotts on businesses, whether they are loud and organized or not, change happens.

 

[nutdog]

I feel compelled to point out that education is both much more regarded as a necessity (path to a good-paying job etc) AND far more expensive than it used to be. Most of the time the go to is what tuition was in the 60s & 70s, but even when I was going to college/grad school (2000-2010), in-state tuition at a good public college was like $5000/semester (which is more or less what I paid.)

It's way more now. When you couple the markedly higher tuition with the "need" for a degree AND the predatory nature of student loans (very few loan products result in people making regular payments and owing MORE than they borrowed), it's not so simple as this advice.

I wish it was, I truly do, but it just isn't anymore.

Also public education should be free. An educated citizenry benefits all of us.

I have 3 kids in their 20s. I have some experience paying for college (and trade school).

Really, don't borrow money if you don't have a solid plan for paying back. For anything. But especially for an education that has no prospects for ROI. And yes, the colleges and lenders (which in most cases is the federal govt) are predatory. Exactly why you shouldn't borrow. You can get a good college education for much less than 5k/semester. My son is doing it now. But you may not need it. My community is full of non-college educated (often non-elementary educated) people who came here with nothing and work and start business and thrive. And they keep coming.

Nothing is free, and, often, people don't appreciate free. Most times, people appreciate more what they have to work for themselves.

My state started a lottery to fund "free" college education. That was about 30 years ago. Guess what. The colleges get that lottery money and college is...not free. Costs more than ever. When I went to college in the 80s I lived in the same dorm building my father did when he went in the 50s. Slept on an old army bunk bed with no airconditioning (in Atlanta). One bathroom per floor and we had to shower together. Not even a curtain. If you flushed the toilet you yelled "shower" to make sure anyone taking a shower didn't get scalded. The room had a radiator for heat. No temp control, either on or off. In the winter we slept with the heat on and the window open.

My daughter's dorm was an airconditioned private room and private bathroom with a kitchen and living room she shared with 3 people. Surprise, surprise, it cost more than my old dorm room rent. But it doesn't stop the students from complaining how rough they have it now.

 

[turf3]

Well, when we open the discussion of "free public education for all", it seems to me the first question is "why isn't the existing free public education for all, providing the "educated citizenry" it's supposed to?" So first action would be "fix that".

Then we have to say, if we decide to provide free (or nominal cost) public education past high school, what is that going to consist of? Because of course "free" education isn't free; the buildings cost money, the instructors cost money, the staff cost money. I can't see that the public purse needs to support more non-remunerative degrees; seems to me we've got plenty of those already. But electricians? Phlebotomist techs? maybe worth public funds for job training.

 

[hbarcat]

Respectfully, where we diverge - greatly - is when you say the 'minimum wage doesn't matter.' Of COURSE it matters, and it's hard to take much else seriously on that topic when you discount it.... because local businesses decide how much above the minimum wage they are going to offer workers to be competitive - hence, depressed wages in areas where the minimum wage is already below the poverty line.

It's fundamentally incorrect to say that "local businesses decide how much above the minimum wage they are going to offer workers to be competitive".

Businesses set their wages based entirely on what the local market will naturally support, according to that particular job, with extremely rare exceptions in the most highly impoverished communities.

Take burger flipper jobs, for example. You typically see fast food joints clustered together in an area, which means they're all competing with each other on an almost perfectly level playing field.

Let's say the typical starting wage for these jobs in this small section of town is close to $15.40 per hour. But the economy changes and higher inflation rates have made prices go up for everybody. This puts market pressure on employers to increase wages because employees are much more sensitive to wages.

If Wendy's and Burger King suddenly raise their employees' base pay by $1.00 an hour, then McDonald's, Arby's, Subway, Hardee's, Domino's, and pretty much all of them in the same fast food business have to follow the lead, or else the best (most hard working, reliable, efficient, and compeyent) employees will work for those who pay the most, while the stingiest businesses will be stuck with the slackers and losers.

Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage is what . . . . $8.00 an hour? Totally irrelevant to the situation.

There's an all too common misperception that companies decide where to set prices and wages, while consumers and employees have no choice in the matter.

That's absolutely false. Unless the government interferes with arbitrary mandartes, markets decide prices and wages, with "markets" being defined as the place where businesses and consumers and employees mutually agree to meet.

There's really not much thinking involved. A partucular business might try raising its prices by 5% to try to earn a little bit more profit. If they lose enough customers by doing so that they actually make less profit, despite higher prices, then they've made a mistake and should drop their price back down.

But if they don't lose customers and make the same or higher profit, then they know the market will accommodate the price increase.

Their competitors will immediately see this and will all raise their prices by 5% and everybody's back at parity.

Of course not every business has the exact same prices and wages. There's always a small variation. Probably to most obvious example is gasoline, where you have businesses aelling a virtually identical product (gasoline is gasoline), gas stations tend to be clustered closely together in one place, and their prices are advertised on giant elevated marquis that can be seen blocks away. It doesn't get much more competitive than that.

 

[hrodbert696]

On your first point, heck yes, education costs are sky high. College administrations are bloated. I go back to my old campus and they are constantly spending money building new buildings, not all replacements either, lots of new additional buildings. The student body is maybe 1,000 more than it was when I was a student 30+ years ago. Why? Why is the administration 5x what it was when I was there with only 1,000 more students? Why? Higher education is a scary thing right now. You want the young people to be educated, but good grief, at what cost?

On the student loans, how are they predatory? I'm not being smart, I am really curious. And on loans, you will always owe more than you borrowed. Unless you have found some generous folks to give you a 0% interest rate.

If all public education is free, then you will basically just be extending high school from 12th grade to 16th grade. Will you get a more educated citizenry? Maybe, but I'm not sure. And then there will still be higher education above that and then it will become the standard if you want to get a good job. All you will have really done is spent more of other people's money (because it really isn't free education, is it?) and gotten to the same point. Could there still be some benefit? Maybe, but I think the cons outweigh the pros. The problem to fix is the higher education system, but, I don't really know what you could do. We have the ultimate choice to buy it or not buy it.

And, in the system we are in, that is the true way to make change. Vote with your wallet. I am a firm believer in this. And it works. When there are large boycotts on businesses, whether they are loud and organized or not, change happens.

There's a lot of variables going on that converge to cause the rising cost of higher ed in America.

A lot of it is unfunded mandates. There are regulatory requirements that colleges have to cover, and the cost has to get paid by someone - whoever is funding the college, which is often tuition-paying students. And there are things like counseling centers, disability accommodations, these kinds of things.

Also, the nature of entrepreneurial, student-as-consumer American higher ed creates expenses. For instance, you need admissions staff to market the college to potential "customers" and to process all the applications. As students get more anxious about getting into a "good" college, they apply to more schools - when I graduated high school in the 80s I applied to maybe 6 or 7 schools, now kids often apply to double that. That's a lot more applications to process and visitors to show around, which means more staff, more offices, more computers, more IT staff... all of which has to be paid for. And then, of course, you need more administrators to supervise all that staff, their payroll etc.

Attracting students also means you need a "wow" factor to make them fall in love on a campus visit. Visitors rarely actually experience anything academic; it's the dorms and dining halls and athletic facilities that do this. That's why modern dorms are so much fancier than a generation or two ago. At an institution I used to work at, my position got cut due to budget shortfalls. That summer, news hit that they had spent $1 million of a $4 million bequest for a fancy new scoreboard for the football team. That could have paid twenty or thirty years of my teaching salary. But now I understand; in the absence of public funding, you have to market to applicants as consumers. Can't have a ragged old scoreboard on the football field, 17-year-olds won't be dazzled.

And of course there's overhead - energy costs, insurance premiums, etc., all that stuff affects a college same as any business. And needs administrators to manage it.

These things are basically the ramifications of having a tuition-driven, student-as-customer model, rather than university-as-public-good model. In countries that use the latter model, there are a variety of ways to structure it, and none are perfect. It's a matter of trade-offs. In Germany, university is basically free. But 1) you take a high-stakes test in 5th grade which basically sets your course as college-bound or not. 2) the "gymnasium" school that sends you to goes up to 13th grade, 3) The gymnasium basically counts as your general education, so at university you apply directly into your major and have limited opportunity to explore other fields or change field, and 4) since universities are state-funded, the state basically decides how many slots there will be for students in which majors at which schools. So there's a trade-off; the American system is hideously more expensive, and basically loads the lion's share of the expense on the student, who must therefore take out massive loans to pay for it, but as a result they obtain enormous flexibility and freedom in their studies.

 

[turf3]

You know, if the existing 12-14 year free public education system isn't meeting the goals of an educated citizenry that can participate in public life and meet their responsibilties in adult life, extending it for another 4 years (or more) isn't likely to fix the problems.

When you're in a hole, first thing is to stop digging. Rather than throwing good money after bad, how about getting something for the vast amounts of money we're already spending?

 

[WG Plum]

I’d prefer a European educational model, but that’s never going to happen.

 

[Parzival]

There's a lot of variables going on that converge to cause the rising cost of higher ed in America.

A lot of it is unfunded mandates. There are regulatory requirements that colleges have to cover, and the cost has to get paid by someone - whoever is funding the college, which is often tuition-paying students. And there are things like counseling centers, disability accommodations, these kinds of things.

Also, the nature of entrepreneurial, student-as-consumer American higher ed creates expenses. For instance, you need admissions staff to market the college to potential "customers" and to process all the applications. As students get more anxious about getting into a "good" college, they apply to more schools - when I graduated high school in the 80s I applied to maybe 6 or 7 schools, now kids often apply to double that. That's a lot more applications to process and visitors to show around, which means more staff, more offices, more computers, more IT staff... all of which has to be paid for. And then, of course, you need more administrators to supervise all that staff, their payroll etc.

Attracting students also means you need a "wow" factor to make them fall in love on a campus visit. Visitors rarely actually experience anything academic; it's the dorms and dining halls and athletic facilities that do this. That's why modern dorms are so much fancier than a generation or two ago. At an institution I used to work at, my position got cut due to budget shortfalls. That summer, news hit that they had spent $1 million of a $4 million bequest for a fancy new scoreboard for the football team. That could have paid twenty or thirty years of my teaching salary. But now I understand; in the absence of public funding, you have to market to applicants as consumers. Can't have a ragged old scoreboard on the football field, 17-year-olds won't be dazzled.

And of course there's overhead - energy costs, insurance premiums, etc., all that stuff affects a college same as any business. And needs administrators to manage it.

These things are basically the ramifications of having a tuition-driven, student-as-customer model, rather than university-as-public-good model. In countries that use the latter model, there are a variety of ways to structure it, and none are perfect. It's a matter of trade-offs. In Germany, university is basically free. But 1) you take a high-stakes test in 5th grade which basically sets your course as college-bound or not. 2) the "gymnasium" school that sends you to goes up to 13th grade, 3) The gymnasium basically counts as your general education, so at university you apply directly into your major and have limited opportunity to explore other fields or change field, and 4) since universities are state-funded, the state basically decides how many slots there will be for students in which majors at which schools. So there's a trade-off; the American system is hideously more expensive, and basically loads the lion's share of the expense on the student, who must therefore take out massive loans to pay for it, but as a result they obtain enormous flexibility and freedom in their studies.

Lots of great points. I have a friend who is an Assistant Dean at a university. One of many many Assistant Deans. The bloat in the administration is real and I don't believe it all comes from all of the points you mentioned. They don't need as many people as they do, but the higher education folks know there are limited options for academics in the world outside of universities so they create more positions. It happens the same in middle management in most corporations. The difference is that in corporations, they have to make a profit, so the "Bobs" get called in every so often and there is a bloodletting of the bloat. Most of the universities, even though they are student-as-consumer model, are still for the most part government run institutions and operate on a NFP basis and have little fiduciary outlook. They either look to government for more money, often from more taxes, or they raise tuition. I believe the biggest factor though is the student loans that have been discussed. It has been easy for students to get loans and that makes it easier for the universities to just raise tuition more and more knowing they will still have plenty of students because they can just get the money from the government or a financial institution. I agree that financial institutions should be more strict in granting credit for student loans, but they are hamstrung by the government who tells them, no, everyone deserves an education, along with their own greed getting in the way.

 

[Stewie26]

I have pretty much read all 13 pages here. Some post I agree with and others not so much. That said, as far as even the near future goes, there has been no mention how AI is going to affect the future of job markets, wages & salaries, and the overall economics that are being discussed here. Quite frankly, AI scares the hell out of me. Just my two cents.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I feel compelled to point out that education is both much more regarded as a necessity (path to a good-paying job etc) AND far more expensive than it used to be. Most of the time the go to is what tuition was in the 60s & 70s, but even when I was going to college/grad school (2000-2010), in-state tuition at a good public college was like $5000/semester (which is more or less what I paid.)

It's way more now. When you couple the markedly higher tuition with the "need" for a degree AND the predatory nature of student loans (very few loan products result in people making regular payments and owing MORE than they borrowed), it's not so simple as this advice.

I wish it was, I truly do, but it just isn't anymore.

Also public education should be free. An educated citizenry benefits all of us.

I think this “need” for higher education is starting to turn around. Lots of kids coming out of school with degrees but no real ability to apply anything they learned, or they’re learning stuff that’s either already obsolete or just irrelevant to the job at hand. I’m seeing more and more businesses looking for people with some baseline abilities (MS Suite), good communication skills, and the ability to connect the dots with what’s being communicated in an interview. It’s going to be a long and slow process, but I think the shift is starting.

 

[JazznFunk]

It's fundamentally incorrect to say that "local businesses decide how much above the minimum wage they are going to offer workers to be competitive".

Businesses set their wages based entirely on what the local market will naturally support, according to that particular job, with extremely rare exceptions in the most highly impoverished communities.

Take burger flipper jobs, for example. You typically see fast food joints clustered together in an area, which means they're all competing with each other on an almost perfectly level playing field.

Let's say the typical starting wage for these jobs in this small section of town is close to $15.40 per hour. But the economy changes and higher inflation rates have made prices go up for everybody. This puts market pressure on employers to increase wages because employees are much more sensitive to wages.

Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage is what . . . . $8.00 an hour? Totally irrelevant to the situation.

There's an all too common misperception that companies decide where to set prices and wages, while consumers and employees have no choice in the matter.

Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. HIGHLY relevant to the situation, especially since you (again) get your numbers wrong. If a State has a higher minimum wage than the Federal one, the State minimum is followed. NC was BELOW the Fed minimum wage until 2008, when they finally raised it to match it.

My particular day job position in a music-adjacent/telecommunications and multimedia oriented field would pay FAR MORE if I lived in Raleigh or Charlotte, but because we are a tourism-based economy where tech jobs are not as plentiful, the overall job market here is dominated by lower paid service industry positions - dragging the entire general wage environment down. That is affected by the minimum wage because most service industry positions don't pay much more than the minimum wage, with the rest expected to be made up in tips. And, minimum wage is often used as a metric, at least in part, for evaluation of 'cost of living' raises and more. Many, many dialogues have occurred in my time here among State and local officials, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Tourism Development Authority, with how to encourage more industries other than those in the Tourism/Hospitality sector to do business here. Unfortunately, the only efforts which get traction are ones which perpetuate the overall low wage scenario with too little job market diversity to move the needle and raise the tide for all the boats (i.e. all workers).

So - in terms of 'terminology', your assessment that the 'market' decides wages is correct.... but the OVERALL factors impacting the 'market' affects everyone indiscriminately. And that starts with what the dominant market forces at work happen to be, as previously mentioned. It's hard to attract people coming from other metro areas here for tech/professional positions because what they expect to get paid for the job is higher than what most employers here are willing to pay.

Our highly affluent retiree population, plus our tourism influx, suggests that our overall economic condition could support higher wages regardless of industry, but we lag behind in almost every area. Denver and Boulder, CO come to mind, as well as other areas with subpar wages and high rates of income from the tourist industry.

I also sense disdain in your tone/writing against 'burger flipper' jobs and other service/food industries. Those folks deserve a living wage as much as anyone else. Our local food/culinary scene is one of the most highly regarded in the country, and yet service industry wages lag behind State and National averages. Our restaurants and skilled chefs and their staff rosters are not 'burger flippers', and it's telling where your biases are. They are professionals in their field, as are most of the staff who work at and run hotels and hospitality positions.

I've posted concrete examples and resources to help you understand why your hot/cold, black/white, either/or view is not 100% correct, and you refuse to acknowledge it or entertain the notion of nuance. Listening to real world examples is far more pragmatic than regurgitating textbook definitions of what 'market forces' are or are not.... kind of like how you can read about playing Jazz all you want, but once you get on the bandstand, actually PLAYING it is a whole other animal.

Minimum Wages By State

 

[GretschWretch]

You know, if the existing 12-14 year free public education system isn't meeting the goals of an educated citizenry that can participate in public life and meet their responsibilties in adult life, extending it for another 4 years (or more) isn't likely to fix the problems.

When you're in a hole, first thing is to stop digging. Rather than throwing good money after bad, how about getting something for the vast amounts of money we're already spending?

The "getting something" is going to have to begin at pre-school and carry right on through to high school graduation. Unlike those who get all up in arms about what is being taught K-12, I am more alarmed by what is NOT being taught. I still see colleagues in the English Department at my former university who repeatedly tell me the students they are getting are not college material, they cannot even write a five-paragraph theme, they don't know ANYthing. And this flaw cannot be blamed on higher education.

When I began in 1985 we marketed to students who were the first in their families to attend college, and not only mom and pop but the extended family all chipped in to cover expenses. Even so, I saw kids working two and three jobs while taking a full course load, and even with that burden those kids took their studies seriously. They WANTED to learn. And the faculty were so sympathetic to that that we bent over backwards -- we did everything we could -- to help those kids.

I don't even recognize my university now.

 

[pyrat56host]

This is as much for myself as it is for any of you brothers and sisters that need to hear: practice/play MORE. talk to God/be in Nature MORE. LISTEN...MORE. I pray all of you find your heart's desire~

 

[turf3]

The "getting something" is going to have to begin at pre-school and carry right on through to high school graduation. ...

My mother used to say "it starts when you bring them home from the hospital".

My point is that sending a bunch more functionally illiterate unmotivated behavior problems to four more years of "college" will not transform them into educated productive citizens, but it surely will waste a heck of a lot of money and devalue a four year "college" degree.

Does anyone remember the sci fi story (Asimov?) where EVERYONE has a PhD?

 

[Parzival]

The "getting something" is going to have to begin at pre-school and carry right on through to high school graduation. Unlike those who get all up in arms about what is being taught K-12, I am more alarmed by what is NOT being taught. I still see colleagues in the English Department at my former university who repeatedly tell me the students they are getting are not college material, they cannot even write a five-paragraph theme, they don't know ANYthing. And this flaw cannot be blamed on higher education.

When I began in 1985 we marketed to students who were the first in their families to attend college, and not only mom and pop but the extended family all chipped in to cover expenses. Even so, I saw kids working two and three jobs while taking a full course load, and even with that burden those kids took their studies seriously. They WANTED to learn. And the faculty were so sympathetic to that that we bent over backwards -- we did everything we could -- to help those kids.

I don't even recognize my university now.

We can talk and debate the education system all we want, and there are good points all around about problems and deficiencies, but in 1st world countries like in the US, Europe, others, if a child is not born mentally deficient and puts in the work and has a support system, there is no reason they can't be successful. We have had educators in our family going back three generations. They will all tell you that the most important thing for a child is the support system they have at home. If that is not there, good luck to the teachers and the schools.

 

[Parzival]

I have pretty much read all 13 pages here. Some post I agree with and others not so much. That said, as far as even the near future goes, there has been no mention how AI is going to affect the future of job markets, wages & salaries, and the overall economics that are being discussed here. Quite frankly, AI scares the hell out of me. Just my two cents.

Oh, my job will be toast in the future. I see what's coming and I have options that I will take when it is at hand. That is, if the AI doesn't become self-aware by then and start to eradicate us all.

 

[GretschWretch]

We can talk and debate the education system all we want, and there are good points all around about problems and deficiencies, but in 1st world countries like in the US, Europe, others, if a child is not born mentally deficient and puts in the work and has a support system, there is no reason they can't be successful. We have had educators in our family going back three generations. They will all tell you that the most important thing for a child is the support system they have at home. If that is not there, good luck to the teachers and the schools.

Your points are well-taken, but my emphasis was on changes to the curriculum, most of which began occurring in this century. It's not the dedication of the teachers I question (well, maybe a little bit); it's what they are allowed, or not allowed to teach. My generation was actually TAUGHT. We were taught civics, we were taught biology, we had to learn to write. Nowadays I hear too many stories of kids just in a workbook answering questions from some online text.

IMO this problem begins with the colleges of education and then goes to the state level, where most curriculum is defined. Very little of this can be laid at the feet of the local levels; and if it can, it is the fault of the district superintendents and the principals of the local schools.

 

[Parzival]

Your points are well-taken, but my emphasis was on changes to the curriculum, most of which began occurring in this century. It's not the dedication of the teachers I question (well, maybe a little bit); it's what they are allowed, or not allowed to teach. My generation was actually TAUGHT. We were taught civics, we were taught biology, we had to learn to write. Nowadays I hear too many stories of kids just in a workbook answering questions from some online text.

IMO this problem begins with the colleges of education and then goes to the state level, where most curriculum is defined. Very little of this can be laid at the feet of the local levels; and if it can, it is the fault of the district superintendents and the principals of the local schools.

One place where I agree with the Euro system of schooling is that they have not gone full-in on the Chromebooks/Laptops. From what I have read, they still write everything and use notebooks and paper and real books. I think this is a great way of doing it. I think the computer education is also important as well as typing on a keyboard, but I think there should be a class time for that, not use it for learning every single subject.

I will say, my buddy talked me into taking typing class my Senior year of high school. I did not want to but he said, come on, it will be easy. It was not easy and out teacher had us clacking keyboards and typewriters from the moment the bell rang until it rang again. Turns out it was possibly one of the most important classes I ever took because everything changed within a few years and being able to be proficient on a keyboard on a computer put you in a good spot. I see people even today, all these years later, and they are not proficient on a keyboard. I tell them if they would just put the time in and get really good at it, they would be so much more efficient. Some care, some don't. Like life I guess.