By Professor Doom
Certainly,
there are students in college that are not very bright. They’re actually a
minority, dwarfed by the number of loan scammers on campus. I’d like to think
the majority of students are reasonably bright; it sure seems like it when I
talk to the students that still come to class once the loan checks get mailed
out.
That said, most students are young, and
even the bright ones don’t really understand what’s being done to them. Duke
University student Miriam Weeks, on the other hand, has a pretty good idea of
the student debt trap, and has made headlines for avoiding debt by making money
in pornographic movies. I don’t necessarily approve of being a porn star, but
still, she’s a smart girl to avoid those student loans.
Actually, she’s an extra smart girl,
because she applies what she’s learning in college. She sort of gets how
pornography and college are the same:
“Inelastic” is one of them $10 words, and
I’m proud of her for using it; I bet she learned it in an economics class.
Inelastic goods don’t respond to price—the amount sold is the same regardless
of price. Insulin, for example, is inelastic (that’s the mnemonic I use when I
cover this topic). The people that need insulin will pay no matter how expensive
(in economic theory, anyway), and lowering the price isn’t going to increase
sales (again, in theory).
It’s a good start for a student, but
she’s off a little bit here. Porn isn’t inelastic at all. Expensive pornography
(live shows, for example, or prostitution) isn’t “purchased” nearly as much as
free pornography (cf. “the internet”). There absolutely is more demand for porn
at the lower prices.
Demand for porn, and college, is universal
and strong, as she correctly notes. Pornography, however, has fallen in price
remarkably, to the point that the porn industry is having real
problems nowadays.
With that falling in price has, I strongly suspect, come increased use. I doubt
there’s any adult in the United States that hasn’t viewed at least a little
pornography (“it’s free, after all”). When I was a child, however, not everyone
watched “dirty movies”, much less did so regularly (or, perhaps I’m being
naïve).
Now, education is also widely available,
and it’s widely in demand. Thing is, anyone always could just go to the library
and read books to get an education. There
has always been a small segment of the population willing to do that.
On the other hand, “paid for” education is
another matter; it used to be not everyone wanted to go to college, although
nowadays it seems to be everyone, even as higher education’s price just goes
higher and higher.
The article I took the quote from points out the massive amounts of
money going to administration, and even notes “Congress lowered the standard
undergraduate loan rate last year,…”, but fails to connect those dots.
I will. Again. The reason tuition rises
higher and higher is because the government just keeps shoveling more money at
it. Reducing the loan rate is equivalent to just. Shoveling. More. Money. It’s
the money, not the education, that’s being demanded here.
Now, the budding porn star/student is at
Duke University, one of the few institutions in the United States that is,
mostly, legitimate. And it shows, right? She’s using things she learned there
(many students taking the same courses I teach, but with different instructors,
are never exposed to the concept of “inelastic”), and that will give her a big
advantage when she enters the real world…and she’ll have a bigger advantage
because, when she enters the real world, she won’t have a ton of student debt.
On the other hand, many institutions are
full-on bogus, or at least so much bogus that getting an education there is
pretty dicey, and students that eventually limp away from those places will not
have such an advantage. Instead, they’ll be four to six years older, and get a
disadvantage of being saddled with a student debt to “pay” for all that
“education” they received at the institution.
So, at the risk of repeating myself: If
you want an education just to get a job, and don’t think the occupation of
“porn star” is for you, can I suggest University of the People, again? Just as accredited as
everyone else but at 5% or less of the cost. At least look into it before
enrolling in any other online school.
Do you think such a student has any chance of getting a respectable job or marriage? It's not as if she just worked as a stripper or even as a prostitute in another city and nobody would know.
ReplyDeleteSure, why not? Considering that "respectable" is in the eye of the beholder, I'm not even sure how to address this question. She could easily have a good political career, not that politics is a respectable job.
ReplyDeleteAs far as marriage goes, well, that's between her and her spouse, so hardly my concern in any event.
Come on, don't pretend you don't understand. Do you really think that no opportunities that would otherwise have been available will be denied to someone who used to be a porn star? Have you heard of no one getting fired for having worked in the sex industry or produced a porno video? Do you know many top managers who are former or current porn stars or married to one? Why didn't Prince William marry a porn star (or, for that matter, even the sister of a porn star) and what do you think the Queen of England and the tabloids would have said if he tried to? Do you think a First Lady or female president can be a porn star? Can a preacher be the father-in-law of a porn star? It's not the kind of "career" one can just leave behind or practice on a part-time basis without repercussions.
DeleteStop it, you're killing me. Please, just substitute "Mexican" (or other racial slur) for "porn star" in your tirade, to, hopefully, catch a tiny glimpse of how badly you're embarrassing yourself here.
DeleteI'm not saying it's right. It's what happens in reality. Moreover, this is worse because one chooses to be a porn star and many people find such a choice immoral and association with such people embarrassing. On the other hand, belonging to a particular ethnic or racial group is not a choice. One is simply born that way. Moreover, those people may shun "immoral" women, too. It's not even necessarily a matter of personal opinion or feelings or disliking the activities in question. It may as well be, but it is often a matter of what other people would say if one were to associate with that kind of person. For all we know, maybe the Queen of England used to attend secret orgies among a small group of friends. As long as that remained secret... It's not about what one does or does not, it's about reputation. Or, porn stars don't exactly keep their activities secret.
DeleteIf you look at the AAU member universities, then the Research I universities, and then the Research II universities, plus some notable smaller colleges like Pepperdine, Gonzaga, etc., there's about 300 quality universities in the U.S. That's only about 10% of the some 3,000 four year colleges operating, but it's more than a "few." I'd bet any of those schools will teach price elasticity in introductory econ classes. Now, elasticities can get very complex with econometrics and elasticities of substitution, but that's upper division major and/or graduate level work.
ReplyDeleteA better econ term to use here is "adverse selection." That's what happens when you offer easy financing for junk degrees from junk colleges. The only people who will take advantage of that offer will be the least desirable candidates and people who don't know any better. Therefore, you produce worthless graduates with worthless degrees and big debts to pay off. Unfortunately, moral integrity isn't required to succeed someplace like Duke (Nixon) or Harvard (Bush) or Princeton (Cheney). The people running the junk education business are a lot smarter than the kids who fall for it, so the racket continues.
I concede "few" is in the eye of the beholder, but I used the word "institutions", not merely 4 year colleges. Community colleges also have economics classes, and calculus (I teach elasticity in calculus). Your restriction to 4 year colleges makes it 10%, and then only if I accept your number of 300...but I used the word "institution". Add up all institutions, and I conjecture we'd be under 5%. I also wonder if places that have half a dozen self-sufficient campuses scattered throughout the state (to maximize enrollment) should really count as a single institution, but that's debatable.
DeleteBut your argument of "only 90%" of what's going on in higher education is bogus is hardly glowing praise of the system.
Thank you for indicating the exact term that applies.