It's completely unrealistic to expect anybody who wants to go to college and isn't wealthy to become a dental hygienist. The suggestion reeks of ivory tower thinking. As you said, it still takes two years of schooling to become one. How will those two years be paid for? What I did was I went to a local tech school for my A.A.S., then transferred all of my credits to a small local 4-year college to complete my B.A. This way, I kept my costs, and by extension, my loans, to a minimum. It will take less time for me to pay those off than it will take to pay off my car, and was a much, much better investment as far as I'm concerned.

Buying a house is risky. Buying a car is risky (arguably moreso than a student loan). Credit cards are risky. All of these things can be done, though, if someone can make a truly informed decision apropos the risks and benefits of each, and formulate a backup plan in case everything goes to shit. "Never" certainly is too strong. "Minimal loans if you absolutely need them, and proceed with caution" is far more realistic. None of this, of course, addresses the actual problem, which is the obscene increase in college costs over the last few decades, but that's out of scope here.

Except that they were financially secure; in fact, their excessive financial security is what caused the Revolution in the first place. But if you have some examples from living memory, do feel free to share.

At least we agree on cars, though.

I'm a bit surprised by the absolutisms being tossed around this thread. The problem with yours, in particular, is that HR drones are demanding more and more education from the proles, and without a bachelor's degree, someone born into poverty has no way to escape. Obviously, the degree is not a guarantee of escape, but it does increase the odds. Student loans were a godsend for my brothers and me, and without them, none of us would have had a chance in hell of doing anything with our lives that did not involve scraping a grill for minimum wage.

Another absolutism, and this, too, is problematic. "Completely and totally financially secure" is a condition that does not exist for anyone but the super-rich, as the crash of 2008 so clearly demonstrated. By this logic, nobody but the 1% should ever have kids. It also assumes that kids are a burden, but anyone with that kind of mentality really ought to get themselves fixed (I'm not spewing hyperbole; someone who hates kids really should not be having them at all).

We can agree to disagree about credit cards. I don't think that credit scores are all that important, as I'm from the school of "if you can't pay it all at once, don't buy it," with the only exceptions being a house or a car (and I hate the fact that owning a car is actually a necessity where I live).

I regularly buy beer directly from breweries (Wisconsin here). I'm not saying that that's the case in all states, but it just illustrates the point that the White House made: That it's up to individual states to decide whether a particular good needs to have a middleman for whatever reason. In the case of alcohol, some states' laws are still fairly draconian, but one can see the line of reasoning behind it, and they don't really seem to be "gotta pay my buddies in the distribution biz," so much as "gotta get votes, hammer on public safety!" In the case of automobiles, it's just plain and simple greed on behalf of car dealers.

Car dealerships form extremely powerful lobbies in most (all?) states, and have purchased laws in most (all?) states banning the direct sale of vehicles from the manufacturer to the consumer. This, obviously, is a protectionist racket that serves no purpose but to line the pockets of said dealers. I'm not aware of any other consumer good with such a restriction (though I will grant that such a thing is possible and I simply am not aware of it).

This is what I was thinking, as well.

There's also the possibility of someone eventually getting it into their head to spoof a Congressional IP address and cause all sorts of fun mayhem for the enjoyment of their twitter-provided audience.

Thanks for bringing some credibility to the discussion, AC. What the fuck is a "Tier 1 Chinese city?"

Any farther north, and I'll be in Canada, but thanks for the tip.

It's 20 degrees F below normal where I am (and raining on this week's festival!). How do I get in on this global warming thing? :(

Two things:

1) It's Google, so probably not. There was a time when the things they did were interesting and relevant, but those days are long over. See Glass for more information.

2) More importantly, these classes are designed to lure uninterested people into becoming code monkeys. It will undoubtedly consist only of the most basic of concepts, and in Java, and won't bother covering the underlying math (sort of like Indian "universities"). It will attract people with both a victim complex and zero self-motivation, as people who have any are already enrolled in real CS courses. Everyone will get a certificate and a juice box when it's over.

The thought of this program being even remotely good gave me a bit of a chuckle, so thanks for that.

True. If this initiative does get even a few more women into tech, then it won't be a complete waste. It's an ingrained societal issue, after all, so baby steps are probably be the best that can be hoped for.