The one thing that can be reliably expected from any debate of this kind is that those who fall on the fortunate side of some line between a good outcome and a poor outcome will be all about personal responsibility and making good choices, and those who fall on the other side of that line will be all about injustice. I don't really give a shit how hard you worked to become a well-compensated software engineer. It was still mostly luck. You were lucky to be born at the right time, lucky to have a brain that works the right way, lucky to have access to the tools and materials you would need to learn, lucky to have time to learn them, lucky to have a stable-enough environment in which to learn them. Lucky, just like me.
I've been a well-compensated software engineer for three decades. Even more lucky in my case because I was on track to be a journalist and the only reason I do what I do now is that my parents sent me to a school where I happened to stumble on a mainframe I could play with, and later bought a home computer I could continue to learn on. I had nothing to do with either decision. It was just luck. Before you judge the outcomes that others have to deal with, and the paths by which they got there, you should think back on your own and consider all the little inflection points in your life that you had nothing at all to do with. That exercise should be enough to whack a couple of inches off of your estimation of your own merit and entitlement.
And one last thought: perhaps the most damaging effect of the very high cost of education in America is that it means we can only have one kind of education: the kind that results in making a lot of money. All the other kinds of value seemingly have no value. We don't need artists, for example, because most of them won't make enough to pay for an education. Ditto philosophers, writers, most teachers, many scientists, etc. If you were a parent now, as I am, and considering colleges for your child, as I am, how could you possibly encourage him or her to attempt to study the arts or sciences at a first-class school? The odds of ever being able to pay back those loans in those professions are small and dwindling. The arts and sciences will, I think, end up as the hobby careers of the children of rich families who can afford to pay for school out of pocket. Maybe it's always been more that way then not, but I can't help but contrast our approach to that of Denmark or Germany, where everyone goes to school at no or low cost. Which society is more likely to make the most of it's human potential?
I've been a well-compensated software engineer for three decades. Even more lucky in my case because I was on track to be a journalist and the only reason I do what I do now is that my parents sent me to a school where I happened to stumble on a mainframe I could play with, and later bought a home computer I could continue to learn on. I had nothing to do with either decision. It was just luck. Before you judge the outcomes that others have to deal with, and the paths by which they got there, you should think back on your own and consider all the little inflection points in your life that you had nothing at all to do with. That exercise should be enough to whack a couple of inches off of your estimation of your own merit and entitlement.
And one last thought: perhaps the most damaging effect of the very high cost of education in America is that it means we can only have one kind of education: the kind that results in making a lot of money. All the other kinds of value seemingly have no value. We don't need artists, for example, because most of them won't make enough to pay for an education. Ditto philosophers, writers, most teachers, many scientists, etc. If you were a parent now, as I am, and considering colleges for your child, as I am, how could you possibly encourage him or her to attempt to study the arts or sciences at a first-class school? The odds of ever being able to pay back those loans in those professions are small and dwindling. The arts and sciences will, I think, end up as the hobby careers of the children of rich families who can afford to pay for school out of pocket. Maybe it's always been more that way then not, but I can't help but contrast our approach to that of Denmark or Germany, where everyone goes to school at no or low cost. Which society is more likely to make the most of it's human potential?