This assumes that schools are run purely for the future profitable careers of students. If you were a dean deciding what to invest in, would you ever give the teaching school more money? Would the medical school ever train another tropical disease specialist?
i wonder, is that specialist suppose to not make money their entire career? I think actually good education would allow them to do all kinds of things.
I do feel the raw idea is bad then added the survey to measure [????] say quality of life kind of things. If a school produces somewhat useful people who are really happy it seems to merit more funding. The economy may die if everyone has a good life
> i wonder, is that specialist suppose to not make money their entire career? I think actually good education would allow them to do all kinds of things.
School teachers and tropical disease specialists both make money, but they often make less money than others with similar educations. If a school is judged on future earnings it will optimize around that, and the predictable outcome to such an incentive is that programs that lead to lower paying careers will suffer.
wouldn't the scarcity increase the value? Why would we want people to study things we don't need and not study things in high demand? I wonder what the real cost is. My school does about 80:1 in diplomas:jobs every year. I got the job :) no one else did but they didn't do anything wrong. They just wasted years and money both their own and public funds.
