"if we stopped giving student loans to people who major in worthless subjects like history, sociology, and poli sci, and then go on to law school"
I'd say your list of worthless subjects is rather subjective. I find history a subject that should be required throughout K-12 along with certain required history courses throughout college. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Plus, I find history fascinating. It would be a sad world if everyone in it was some technocrat, MBA, or math or science major. There is room for all subjects in our society, in fact, it is a moral imperative. The Liberal Arts"s degree that our forefathers thought so very important as one major component to the survival of our nation. Do you slam "conservative" historians, of which there actually are many, as having studied a worthless subject? Do you find the books historians write to enlighten us about our past, European history, U.S. history, Asian history. how our country was formed, how WWI and WWII were fought, about democracy in ancient Athens, the laws of Hammurabi, the Napoleanic Code, the history of Free Republic which was recently resurrected and posted again, the history of, the history of, you get the idea, a waste of time? Do you think the history degrees that many of our "conservative" politicians have, are worthless? By the way, history includes those subjects it appears you seem to value, the history of Math, the history of all things scientific and the discoveries throughout the ages, the history of business, inventions, medicine and its break-throughs,and even the history of high tech stuff, computers, etc.
Be careful in what appears to be your desire to slam college educations unless only in those subjects you see fit for study. You leave out a whole world of endeavor and value by doing so. Music and art usually don't get you much money in life, but I would be horrified at a life that didn't include both of them, and I value those that have the expertise to convey both to us. And English, would you prefer that there have been no experts (teachers) to have taught you the King's English? While you were going through K-12, would you have wished to learn nothing from those who had the degrees to teach you about music, art, english, philosophy, you know, all those so-called worthless subjects? It appears you have some reverse form of elitism, and look down your nose at the liberal arts part of an education.
I think I know where you are coming from, as you equate the liberal arts with LIBERALS, and in a certain sense the liberal arts have oftentimes been co-opted by way too many people of the liberal persuasion. The cure would be for more conservatives to get involved in these subjects, rather than ceding them to the left. More conservatives need to become lawyers and journalists, so that we can again better combat the leftists. It's not the subject matter, it's the people who abuse their areas of expertise for political gain (like most of the MSM journalists). We must fight fire with fire, by getting more of our own kind into those fields generally sought out by the liberals. That is how they have gained control of the cities (using their poli-sci degrees); the courts (using their law degrees); the news (through their journalism degrees), while conservatives ignore those areas and pay a steep price by emphasizing only business, science, and math. Thank goodness conservatives do pursue those degrees, because we keep the engine of the economy running, but the liberals, using their chosen degrees, limit, infringe, intrude upon, and destroy our businesses and scientific endeavors, via lawsuits, propaganda through the MSM, and by rules and regulations created by too many liberal administrations of politicians, using those poli-sci degrees against us. We'd better do something fast.
At least we are getting more conservative lawyers now to go up against the environmentalist whackos, the politically correct crowd, the anti-religion nuts, etc. We desperately need more conservatives to go into areas normally the turf of the liberals in order to beat them at their own game.
The consequences of LIE's suggestion are actually more interesting than you suppose. What you would get -- eventually -- is history, law and literature not being practiced by the best and the brightest, but those who could afford to indulge in those pursuits.
It would?
You are correct in saying that my perspective on worthless subjects is rather subjective. Holding a degree in political science and a law degree, I do happen to see them as particularly worthless. I saw hundreds of history and sociology majors turned out of college to go on to do jack with those degrees. But my favorite worthless major was a deputy county clerk who was bitter because she'd studied BOTANY and sealing land records had nothing to do with it.
However, your diatribe is misdirected. You think I'm merely against liberals and liberal-producing ecuational programs, but actually, I am against government subsidizing education in EVERY subject. I don't have a problem with liberals dominating any field--journalism, law, etc. I just won't pay them for it. I merely point out that those programs are the WORST drain on education resources, tax dollars that would be better spent by people out of their pockets, instead of on public schools...especially schools with tenured instructors.
If you want to tell me I'm wrong because educations are valuable, well, new cars are valuable, too. I don't see government buying one for poor folks or giving no-interest loans for those. If you want to tell me knowledge in varied liberal arts fields is valuable, spiffy. I agree. I'll buy the education I want, and you buy what you want, and we'll be happy about it. But don't tax me so a bunch of schmuck professors can act like Marxists while cashing government checks and indoctrinating young skulls o' mush.