Yes, but should people take on substantial debt to get a 'meaningful' degree that will not provide a real ROI? Studying fluffy majors is only logical for 1%ers, basically, because you don't really have to work for a living and you can get set up with some prestigious non-profit through connections. For everyone else, they should probably get cultured on their own, without paying tens of thousands of dollars.

Money is not the only thing in the world, or even the most important. It’s a means to an end.

Right, tell that to a person in 3rd world who doesn't know where their next meal is going to come from. Money is not the most important thing in the world when you are making more than maybe $60-$70k/year in NA, but if you are making anything less than that, it definitely is the one of the most important thing if not the most important thing in the world.

Okay, but I think we as a society are poorer as a result. Consumerism is not the end-all, be-all.

Turns out that a lot of people would rather live comfortably. Same with me, I'm making more than triple what I would make if I had pursued my original studies into a career. My only regret is that I didn't study computer science so I could be making more than I currently earn.

It's not. But the news is full of people who got degrees and giant college debt and it's a terrible anvil hanging over their entire lives. They can't buy a house or car (or its tremendously harder), the need to service the debt is a central part of their decision making.

If you want to look at it in another lense, it hurts our whole economy because many younger people in this group aren't able to help our economy grow through buying stuff like previous generations did. When I went to college long long ago it was really cheap, like $1000 a semester. The states stopped subsidizing it so much. I was a beneficiary of this.

If you only have Federal loans (which are about 90% of total disbursements), you will qualify for income based repayment. That means that you will never pay more than 10% of any income over 1.5x the Federal poverty level.

It will also be cancelled after 20 years of payments.

I would vastly prefer more direct subsidies though.

Until you don't have any. Then it is.

Is that what the arts and humanities graduates serving my coffee in Starbucks are generating - culture?

Don't conflate culture with those who study it. The vast majority of non-STEM graduates generate no activity of either cultural or economic significance. All such degree programmes could be dropped tomorrow with no detriment to society.

And possibly even a net benefit to society as many of these degree programs have become little more than people believing they are highly educated because they have been trained to hold certain cultural and political opinions.

>All such degree programmes could be dropped tomorrow with no detriment to society.

That is such an outrageous and untestable claim that it is basically meaningless.

Meaning is what people seek once all the bills are paid.

Yeah, my dad grew up very poor and he has worked 10 hours a day, 6 days/week for 30 years without ever being "burnt out".

I sometimes complain about being burnt out and needing a vacation after working for about 3 years, 9-5 max, 5 days a week that includes one day a week working from home.

There is more to life than bills.

Yeah, like food and shelter.

I get that "bills aren't important" is a thing if you don't have trouble paying them, but that's not the situation for everybody. "Hey, lighten up, have some fun, you don't need to work that hard" is cool if you're wealthy. It's an insult to somebody living paycheck to paycheck. They do have to work that hard.

Yes, once the bills are paid.

I assign my own meaning to things in life. I don't need other people to study humanities at universities in order to do that. As far as I know none of my favorite cultural icons/entertainers have even gone to university.

That implies that culture comes from universities, and I don't think that's true. They may be first among those describing culture, but they aren't creating it.

And recently, I feel a lot of them tried to force change, leaving their role of scientist and becoming backseat politicians. They don't run for office but still try to make the rules.

Come on.. most of the people studying the arts in college are not seeking deeper meaning. They study what they enjoy and then get jobs elsewhere. And many people in non-arts majors are still taking lots of electives in the arts, getting double majors, pursuing it later in life. I was part of a group of computer science students in my undergrad college that took many years worth of philosophy courses and advanced rhetoric courses just because we all loved philosophy.

I seriously doubt that a reduction in number of degrees granted in arts-focused majors actually equates to a populace that is less appreciative or knowledgeable regarding the arts.

It’s not about actual arts & culture (which any given person learns through many walks of life)... it’s about these expensive arts-only degrees simply not conferring economically meaningful labor market skills.