I dunno how to make an archive link to subvert the pay wall :( But this article is interesting.

  • Three_Magpies [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I skimmed the article. No mention of how college frequently requires with a $60,000+ non-dischargeable loan and how that price gets higher every year.

    Just feels like they’re trying to answer a question without thinking about material circumstances very deeply.

      • Three_Magpies [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Fair point. Although I think the discussion of why fewer men go to college now is a vague shadow of a bigger discussion. To draw the lines at men vs. women seems at best like a distraction

        • Galli [comrade/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Perhaps WSJ might intend it as a distraction (though that's being generous).

          It is still a question worth asking not with the WSJ article's framing but as materialists to understand the how the conditions and structures we are living in have changed.

    • TankieTanuki [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Yet skyrocketing education costs have made college more risky today than for past generations, potentially saddling graduates in lower-paying careers—as well as those who drop out—with student loans they can’t repay.

      [...]

      Men in interviews around the U.S. said they quit school or didn’t enroll because they didn’t see enough value in a college degree for all the effort and expense required to earn one. Many said they wanted to make money after high school.

        • TankieTanuki [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          I agree. They were pretty clearly trying to pin the blame on "reverse oppression" because it's the WSJ and they suck. But they at least devoted a couple sentences to the elephant in the room.