Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 4247372, member: 622"]
It's far less a slippery slope than paying for useless degrees.  Your arguments are as useful against you as they are for you.  I.e.  jobs which require a degree without a field of study are more likely to be filled by fluff degrees.  Likewise, graduate schools accepting any undergrad as a prerequisite for acceptance into a grad program are also likely to add more fluff degreeholders than useful degree holders.  In both cases, fluff degree holders with higher gpas may get the job over better qualified non-fluff degree holders with lower gpas.

That is where the market element comes in.  Banks, when they are backing the loans, are fiscally minded and can be reasonably sure a degree in a particular program from a particular school has a value of X.  However, lending without liability (government backed ducation loans) removes banks from liability and the general safeguards in place for responsible lending.  This applies to grants as well, taxpayers are not getting any bang for their buck.

Regardless, we should stay on topic and bash Rutgers for failing to educate their students sufficiently to get legitimate jobs and avoid a practice of "hiring" their own grads to pad their stats.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?