Can't really tell if the last line is sarcasm for sure (I think it is?).
I can't stand when people are taught to listen instead of think, and that predilection of mine is why I can't see the sub-prime mortgage crisis as being at all similar to college debt.
Someone who is going to college is supposed to be bright, intelligent, and motivated. A budding critical thinker who can deal with new and complex ideas. Hence I don't think someone who makes decisions based on what they're told is a good candidate for college. Likewise I don't think someone who is focused on the past success of others is exactly an ideal college candidate, either. Both of these things are ostensibly why there are large essay sections as part of the college application process.
In any case, I think it's kind of disingenuous and silly to have the same expectations of someone without a high school degree and three kids working 60 hours a week getting pitched on a bad loan and a top end of the spectrum student getting pitched on colleges. You can't have the same expectations.
That said, I think you hit the nail on the head when comparing modern college recruitment practices to used car salesmen. In fact, visiting MIT (academic activity related) remains one of the most disillusioning experiences of my life. Sure, science goes on there, but I felt like I was inside of an infomercial.
If anything perhaps both are a sign that K-12 needs to have more coverage of financial- and media- literacy.
But I guess I've regarded the success of graduates of Ivy Leagues and other prestigious schools as having more to do with being part of the good old boys club and networking with the wealthy than actually having anything to do with having good teachers.
No sarcasm; just a lot of regret and self-loathing.
It seems like the root of our disagreement is our differeing expectations for the cognitive and decisionmaking abilities of teenagers. As other posters have mentioned, there are lots of social factors at play in the college decision, and I think those factors can be far more powerful than what's necessary to lead a straight-A high school student astray.
If we pared away all of the people who were susceptible to making bad decisions based on what they're told or who are focused on the past successes of others, only the tiniest sliver of the population would remain as viable candidates for college. Maybe this is the point you're making - maybe you think we should shut down almost every university and tell everyone outside the enlightened sliver to go figure out something else to do. (Might actually not be that bad of an idea.) Or maybe you have a different view of people's cognitive abilities at age 17.
The approach that you personally took toward your college decision is, I think, pretty exceptional, and puts you toward the top of the top 1% of rational 17-year-old decisionmakers. I hesitate to condemn people as clueless and undeserving of our sympathy because they fall short of that lofty standard.
I agree there are large structural flaws with college (well, pretty much the whole educational system). Good teachers and good researchers aren't the same thing for sure. Likewise, many amenities at college today are not really necessary, but also likely don't have a anywhere near an order of magnitude impact on costs. At some schools healthy food is often replaced by junk food provided through restaurant contractors, which is not so great, but maybe is a little cheaper. I agree that something needs to change with how college works, and that the costs are getting a bit silly when they're almost at the point that you could get together with a class of friends and hire expert personal tutors instead.
Likewise, I definitely think that many people who feel they need to go to college are people who shouldn't go to college, or who at least aren't ready for it. Witness the huge numbers of remedial courses at many public institutions, as well as decreasing standards in many courses. I sometimes take classes at the local community college for fun and I'll have classmates who can barely read and write using student loans to fail their courses. Sadly enough, I've seen some of the same at 4 year schools. It's just depressing and I often wonder how they even got through High School. (And I'm not talking about non-English speakers or anything, either. Upper or upper-middle class Caucasians who have maybe 5th or 6th grade level language skills.)
Of course some people just eat McDonald's and play WoW instead of going to class while living off loans. I had a room mate one year in the dorms who did that.
I'm sure you're right that social pressure is a lot of it. Dad goes to college, assumes the kids will too, then doesn't much pay attention while they do rather mediocre in school, aren't ready for college, but absolutely feel like they've got to. So on and so forth.
I can't accept the notion that social pressure is really a valid excuse, though, even if it's behind the reality for some of the problems.
But I'm the kind of cruel bastard who hates it when people worry about what everyone else thinks and who if ever has kids will move several times on purpose and keep them from watching TV and hopefully raise them so that they can trust themselves instead of their peers with lots of comments like 'well, if Freddy jumped off a cliff would you?.'
I've also got to think another part of it is the notion that the credential is meaningful, but doesn't represent any skill or knowledge. So many people these days think of the paper first, the socialization second, and learning third.
I'm sure there's something, too, with the excessive helicopter parenting keeping even smart 17/18-year-olds from really thinking for themselves.
I guess I'm just not super sympathetic about things that irritate me, and my experiences have rarely exposed me to the sympathetic side.
One thing I just thought about is ROTC. Better than debt, I guess? The people I knew in it were definitely on the straight and narrow and all set to finish with decent grades and no debt.
I can't stand when people are taught to listen instead of think, and that predilection of mine is why I can't see the sub-prime mortgage crisis as being at all similar to college debt.
Someone who is going to college is supposed to be bright, intelligent, and motivated. A budding critical thinker who can deal with new and complex ideas. Hence I don't think someone who makes decisions based on what they're told is a good candidate for college. Likewise I don't think someone who is focused on the past success of others is exactly an ideal college candidate, either. Both of these things are ostensibly why there are large essay sections as part of the college application process.
In any case, I think it's kind of disingenuous and silly to have the same expectations of someone without a high school degree and three kids working 60 hours a week getting pitched on a bad loan and a top end of the spectrum student getting pitched on colleges. You can't have the same expectations.
That said, I think you hit the nail on the head when comparing modern college recruitment practices to used car salesmen. In fact, visiting MIT (academic activity related) remains one of the most disillusioning experiences of my life. Sure, science goes on there, but I felt like I was inside of an infomercial.
If anything perhaps both are a sign that K-12 needs to have more coverage of financial- and media- literacy.
But I guess I've regarded the success of graduates of Ivy Leagues and other prestigious schools as having more to do with being part of the good old boys club and networking with the wealthy than actually having anything to do with having good teachers.