imo this is pants on head backwards. The whole problem with the current university system is that it has become exclusively a credentialing system that everyone uses to justify higher salaries. We’ve completely left the education part of it by the wayside…except for the liberal arts majors who are actually there just to learn! This rule is just encoding the existing tulip mania into federal law directly, by making it clear that the ONLY reason one goes to school is for future $$$

▲

BeetleB 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This isn't banning such programs. The question is why the federal government needs to support them.

If you want to set up a teaching program to learn something arcane, by all means go for it and charge a fair/reasonable/whatever amount. Just because you're teaching it doesn't mean the Federal government should give you money. Let those who can afford it pay for it. If not many can, you need to make an argument why your program should be subsidized (and by who)? It shouldn't be a default that the support will come from the Federal government.

From the article:

> Specifically, certificate programs in cosmetology and somatic body work have the highest predicted failure rates.

Do you really want to make the case that the Federal government should fund these?

For more common arts/music programs, the Federal government can fund arts/music initiatives (not tied to education).

▲

mistercheph 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Education is not something arcane, TBH it's really the vocational schools that should be forced to call themselves something different. 99% of university students are not there for an education, they are in welding school upper-middle-class edition. Vocational programs are essential infrastructure, but they are not education, and those programs should not receive funds allocated for education or be held to the same standards as education programs and vice versa.

E.g. most computer science departments where computer science is not taught, students just participate in a charade of memorizing arbitrary facts that they never even attempt to understand in order to get a certificate that entitles them to receive on-the-job training to glue javascript components together for 6 figures.

Job training != education

	▲	yorwba 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What about job training disqualifies it from being education?

▲

fc417fc802 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Still it would seem to make some amount of sense for federal aid to be restricted to economically advantageous persuits, no? Doesn't mean that's the only thing institutions can offer nor do I necessarily think it's the best way to improve the status quo.

▲

usrnm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

On the contrary, who else is going to fund fundamental research that is not immediately useful? Stuff that prints money will have no problem finding funding, looking at the greater picture is exactly what the government is supposed to do

	▲	fc417fc802 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We aren't talking about fundamental research here (NIH, NSF, et al) we're talking primarily about students pursuing bachelor's. At least IIUC.

▲

WalterBright 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> liberal arts majors who are actually there just to learn

I didn't go to college to get an engineering degree. I am a born engineer and I wanted very much to learn the craft.

My diploma sits in the basement somewhere. I never put it on the wall.

▲

userbinator 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, it's making it clear that government aid, i.e. taxpayer money, should not be paying for education that won't result in the population, and in turn the government, earning more.

liberal arts majors who are actually there just to learn

s/learn/be indoctrinated/