Let's start first to give you the context of my thread I live in montreal, quebec, Canada. We live in a society that was founded mostly with left politic. Our health system is free and our education fees are low. At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept. Our governement wants us to now pay 1600$/year more. In other terms, they are asking the students to double the dept they end with Students are now on strike and asking the governement to cancel the raise. You have to be aware that this only represent 1.2% of the global education budget so we are not talking about a huge sum.
Where do I stand? To be honest, I always tought everyone should have equal access to education. The best way would be to make it free. I think we should favor more an 'elitism' way of choosing the students by looking more into the grades.
I will not get into the details and argue on both side but I was really interrested to see what people all over think about education.
EDIT: We pay around 40-45% in tax... so yea we have low fees but we pay it back in some way.
P.S. This is no democrat vs republicans Forgive my poor english it is not my first language.
Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way.
In the UK the gov has triple the fees. Basically if you entered this year you will pay 10k for a bachelor, if you enter next year you will pay 30k. Actually a free education at a uni level is not that good. But it shouldn't be absurdly high like in the US or soon in the UK. For instance in France the unis are for bad students, the good ones go to high ranked business and engineering schools.
In Denmark it is free, and we even get 1000$ each month from the government, with the chance of making a student-rent for 650$ each month with 1% interest.
Education does not spontaneously occur in nature. It is impossible for it to be free. Someone is always going to have to pay and to coerce payment from people through force is wrong.
Be glad you don't live in the U.S and end up with tens of thousands in debt from post-secondary education, in addition to having for-profit healthcare that can bankrupt you.
That is a big hike though. You have to ask yourself is it really worth it the extra money.
Well i studied in Singapore as an International Student. I paid 3 times the fee the locals had to pay. I hope it was a little lesser as half my monthly pay check is going to the bank.
On March 13 2012 15:45 NotSorry wrote: Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way.
Yes indeed you people pay alot, however what happens if somebody has great potential but he's poor? Does he have any way to access a higher enducation?
On March 13 2012 15:45 NotSorry wrote: Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way.
Yes indeed you people pay alot, however what happens if somebody has great potential but he's poor? Does he have any way to access a higher enducation?
Scholarships, but they pay less and less nowadays it seems.
The reason university costs so much in the States is because the government guarantees student loans. If students didn't have access to these loans, which they wouldn't if the government didn't guarantee them, most couldn't afford university. Universities would be forced to reduce tuition and increase efficiency in order to sustain themselves and keep making a profit.
On March 13 2012 15:50 OsoVega wrote: Education does not spontaneously occur in nature. It is impossible for it to be free. Someone is always going to have to pay.
The government? In order to ensure meritocracy. It's really bad if a poor students with better marks than a richer student can't access higher education while the richer student can. Really really bad.
On March 13 2012 15:45 NotSorry wrote: Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way.
Yes indeed you people pay alot, however what happens if somebody has great potential but he's poor? Does he have any way to access a higher enducation?
Enslaving himself to student debt for the next decade of his life is always a possibility.
It is crucial for first world countries to invest into their education, they can't allow people to go back to mining coal.
The only things that should decide how far you get in life are your own talents. Not how much money your mom and dad have or how many people they know.
The government should ensure that everyone gets the same chances to start their life, and after that the free market takes over and the best person wins the race and walks home with the most money.
The rich and connected will still have more advantages than the poor, it shouldn't be so extreme that the poor can't even compete, even when they are smart enough.
It enhances the social mobility, one of the most important factors of any country imo.
On March 13 2012 15:45 NotSorry wrote: Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way.
Top schools it's more like 25X. Most top 50 private schools cost about 50K a year for everything.
On March 13 2012 15:52 weeA wrote: Well i studied in Singapore as an International Student. I paid 3 times the fee the locals had to pay. I hope it was a little lesser as half my monthly pay check is going to the bank.
too bad , is not fair for the local if you pay the same fee as us :D
to me sponsor student who have good grade and have super low income. this will help instead of making education free which wont go well imo
Higher education is not and should not be free. It should not be required for every job though.
University was designed to be for people who wanted a higher level education, for people who wanted to learn and become academics, to move forward in their understanding of the world.
Now it is essentially required to make more than 15-20 an hour.
I'm cool with the theoretical American version of public schooling. This is were your taxes pay for the public education system, only k-12, though (I would want it to go through to the public colleges as well). And private schooling requires the individual to pay for their education. The current problem America has is that the government keeps spending money poorly, and education is suffering because of it.
On to an unrelated problem I have with the education process in America. In k-8, you learn the basic knowledge of important subjects such as math, english, and science. And in 9-12, it gets more advanced with those subjects, and you get a variety of other classes which help you determine what you want to major in when you attend college. However, when you attend college, you have to do the same thing as you did in 9-12. I'm majoring in engineering, yet one of the english requirements has to deal with poetry. This serves no purpose for me. I don't see the need for poetry, and 10 engineers that I've spoken with have never used poetry in their entire career, yet I'm still required to take it. These useless classes are a waste of not only my money, but my time. Another problem I have is with homework. Homework, in its literal form, is practice. Why is it required that I practice? Teachers have agreed with me on this point, yet they still tell me I needed to do it. We go to school to learn, and are graded by how well we retained that knowledge. So, if I choose not to practice, yet am capable of retaining all of the information that was given, I shouldn't be punished.
Quick question: do you get on studysubsidy? Here in the netherlandswe have to pay about the same, but we receive $150-600 each month from the government to study (the amount depends on the whealth of ur parents etc)
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread I live in montreal, quebec, Canada. We live in a society that was founded mostly with left politic. Our health system is free and our education fees are low. At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept. Our governement wants us to now pay 1600$/year more. In other terms, they are asking the students to double the dept they end with Students are now on strike and asking the governement to cancel the raise. You have to be aware that this only represent 1.2% of the global education budget so we are not talking about a huge sum.
Where do I stand? To be honest, I always tought everyone should have equal access to education. The best way would be to make it free. I think we should favor more an 'elitism' way of choosing the students by looking more into the grades.
I will not get into the details and argue on both side but I was really interrested to see what people all over think about education.
P.S. This is no democrat vs republicans Forgive my poor english it is not my first language.
Education can be free. Public libraries do, in fact, exist. If you want education in anything, ANYTHING, there's always ways to get it. I feel like universities should have a visitor/library policy though, but disallow books to be checked out, and they have to give up the book to students studying material relevant to their course or something. But that would take a stronger sense of community and a rebirth of social etiquette to acquire without security guards. Part of the reason you pay for education is to ensure you have access to the highest quality material on your timetable.
http://www.khanacademy.org/ Here's some good free education. you can learn how gravity and force relate to mass and density and thus why black holes have such huge gravitational pull. the lesson itself can be generalized so a person understands the relationships of all bodies of mass in space and it can paint a pretty good picture of how the universe works on a macroscopic scale. Just for instance.
Honestly, unless you work really hard to make your education count so that you are a sure hire in the future, you're better off not getting into debt and working a job while doing studies at libraries on your own time until you can afford college. you also would have plenty of time to decide what you really want as an end goal with your education/career path.
its abit of both in australia, can take a 'loan' of sorts from the government which we call HECS, and they take care of it, and you will pay it back in taxes when u earn over 30 grand a year. you can also choose to pay, so its a choice, essentially anyone can go to university.
I don't think university needs to be free, but it certainly shouldn't be rising at extraordinary rates like the doubling here. You have to have these things rise gradually for people to actually be able to continue to afford them. I have no doubt it will be very difficult for a large number of people to suddenly come up with twice as much money.
That said, slow rising still has a number of issues, much of which are evidenced in the US where tuition costs have slowly but steadily grown, but ultimately reached a fairly absurd current rate. Without a scholarship my school would've run me nearly $110,000. This issue isn't free vs not free so much as it is about being affordable and accessible.
On March 13 2012 16:04 Minzy wrote: its abit of both in australia, can take a 'loan' of sorts from the government which we call HECS, and they take care of it, and you will pay it back in taxes when u earn over 30 grand a year. you can also choose to pay, so its a choice, essentially anyone can go to university.
Not sure what Canada has, but the US has student loans. They're pretty horrendous, though. You can google for lots of abuse cases regarding them.
Free? Currently I don't think it makes sense for a college level education to be free. Some people don't want/need/care to go to college. By subsidizing college education, people that wouldn't go now will end up going which brings the overall level and worth of the education down. If people who don't want/need/care to go DO end up going, I would argue that they won't get much value out of it, while putting a burden on taxpayers and other college students.
There's no such thing as bringing the value or worth of education down. There are a ton of relationships between the level of education in a society and it's overall well-being with things like health, economics, etc.
On March 13 2012 16:01 Ercster wrote: I'm cool with the theoretical American version of public schooling. This is were your taxes pay for the public education system, only k-12, though (I would want it to go through to the public colleges as well). And private schooling requires the individual to pay for their education. The current problem America has is that the government keeps spending money poorly, and education is suffering because of it.
On to an unrelated problem I have with the education process in America. In k-8, you learn the basic knowledge of important subjects such as math, english, and science. And in 9-12, it gets more advanced with those subjects, and you get a variety of other classes which help you determine what you want to major in when you attend college. However, when you attend college, you have to do the same thing as you did in 9-12. I'm majoring in engineering, yet one of the english requirements has to deal with poetry. This serves no purpose for me. I don't see the need for poetry, and 10 engineers that I've spoken with have never used poetry in their entire career, yet I'm still required to take it. These useless classes are a waste of not only my money, but my time. Another problem I have is with homework. Homework, in its literal form, is practice. Why is it required that I practice? Teachers have agreed with me on this point, yet they still tell me I needed to do it. We go to school to learn, and are graded by how well we retained that knowledge. So, if I choose not to practice, yet am capable of retaining all of the information that was given, I shouldn't be punished.
Well I think that poetry is part of culture. I think that 6-12 grade are there to help you see what you like/dislike. So yeah all engineer hate poetry and love mats... but what about that english teacher... maybe that poetry class was the one that started everything.
On March 13 2012 16:05 Lobotomist wrote: Free? Currently I don't think it makes sense for a college level education to be free. Some people don't want/need/care to go to college. By subsidizing college education, people that wouldn't go now will end up going which brings the overall level and worth of the education down. If people who don't want/need/care to go DO end up going, I would argue that they won't get much value out of it, while putting a burden on taxpayers and other college students.
We are talking about university and post-secondary school.
In Germany we get money for studying. You get about 200-400 € a month, together with "Kindergeld" (150 € / month which parents get for a kid until they are finished with their education including university) you can live pretty okay with it. You need to pay it back after you got a job, but they are really relaxed with paying back (they start asking for it after 1 or 2 years after you finished). Also it is capped with a max. of 10000€ (afair), so even if they give you more then that you dont need to pay it back. Also afaik if you are like in the best of some percentage of your semester you aren't even gonna need to pay back that 10k but a smaller sum.
I find this is a really good way to deal with it, since it allows kids with migration background to study if they are willing, since they are paying for their education "themselves" (as future me^^).
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept.
now i'm sad. wish my university had been that cheap. paid like 30x that
On March 13 2012 15:48 tetrismaan wrote: In Denmark it is free, and we even get 1000$ each month from the government, with the chance of making a student-rent for 650$ each month with 1% interest.
Yep, it's pretty sweet. I think you meant student-loan though.
I spent 6 years of my life getting my free education(s), and never having to work on the side, and my parents never paid any kroner (it's a real currency, stupid as it may sound ). It really let's you focus on studying. Now, I have a degree and a full time job, and have no problem paying my ~40% tax cut (~50% if you add all sorts of union fees/workers associations fees etc.). I got a lot from society in my twenties, and now I have the opportunity to give something back, while maintaining a decent living (annual income ~60k $).
On March 13 2012 16:01 Ercster wrote: I'm cool with the theoretical American version of public schooling. This is were your taxes pay for the public education system, only k-12, though (I would want it to go through to the public colleges as well). And private schooling requires the individual to pay for their education. The current problem America has is that the government keeps spending money poorly, and education is suffering because of it.
On to an unrelated problem I have with the education process in America. In k-8, you learn the basic knowledge of important subjects such as math, english, and science. And in 9-12, it gets more advanced with those subjects, and you get a variety of other classes which help you determine what you want to major in when you attend college. However, when you attend college, you have to do the same thing as you did in 9-12. I'm majoring in engineering, yet one of the english requirements has to deal with poetry. This serves no purpose for me. I don't see the need for poetry, and 10 engineers that I've spoken with have never used poetry in their entire career, yet I'm still required to take it. These useless classes are a waste of not only my money, but my time. Another problem I have is with homework. Homework, in its literal form, is practice. Why is it required that I practice? Teachers have agreed with me on this point, yet they still tell me I needed to do it. We go to school to learn, and are graded by how well we retained that knowledge. So, if I choose not to practice, yet am capable of retaining all of the information that was given, I shouldn't be punished.
Well I think that poetry is part of culture. I think that 6-12 grade are there to help you see what you like/dislike. So yeah all engineer hate poetry and love mats... but what about that english teacher... maybe that poetry class was the one that started everything.
I'm for more practical knowledge rather than general knowledge, at least in terms of higher education. So, If someone is going to be an english teacher or a writer, then yes, that person takes poetry. But, if that person is going in business or mathematics, then no, that person takes a formal/business writing class.
On March 13 2012 16:04 Minzy wrote: its abit of both in australia, can take a 'loan' of sorts from the government which we call HECS, and they take care of it, and you will pay it back in taxes when u earn over 30 grand a year. you can also choose to pay, so its a choice, essentially anyone can go to university.
if you're an aussie citizen anyway.
i was amazed to hear recently that education is australia's third or fourth biggest export.. international students get reamed for the big bucks
University in my state is 4125 per year + whatever other expenses you end up requiring. Rent around here can be as low as 3-400 depending on your situation. Unfortunately, I had to go to a different university for my degree, as it wasn't offered in my state. Now that I'm in graduate school, it does become nearly free, though financial aid is slow and apparently is missing my stuff for my tuition waiver (surprise surprise).
I think a lot of people decide to go to "top" & out of state universities, when in many cases, it isn't necessary unless you really are doing cutting edge stuff (which probably means you have a scholarship). Getting your run of the mill liberal arts / social sciences degrees (the easy BS degrees just to get one) really don't amount to a whole lot, and it isn't worth going to an out of state or private college just to pay upwards of 3 times as much.
I heard something somewhere, but if you are spending more per year on your school than you see yourself earning when you finish school, it isn't a worthwhile investment.
All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Mysticesper wrote: University in my state is 4125 per year + whatever other expenses you end up requiring. Rent around here can be as low as 3-400 depending on your situation. Unfortunately, I had to go to a different university for my degree, as it wasn't offered in my state. Now that I'm in graduate school, it does become nearly free, though financial aid is slow and apparently is missing my stuff for my tuition waiver (surprise surprise).
I think a lot of people decide to go to "top" & out of state universities, when in many cases, it isn't necessary unless you really are doing cutting edge stuff (which probably means you have a scholarship). Getting your run of the mill liberal arts / social sciences degrees (the easy BS degrees just to get one) really don't amount to a whole lot, and it isn't worth going to an out of state or private college just to pay upwards of 3 times as much.
I heard something somewhere, but if you are spending more per year on your school than you see yourself earning when you finish school, it isn't a worthwhile investment.
How can you view social sience as a BS degree, especially when we are talking about the America? Who are you to jugde what degree is necessary, or even what is easy? if you don't got that degree yourself, you are not entitled to state such things. If anything, then social sience could be viewed as more important and possibly harder than a math degree.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Mysticesper wrote: University in my state is 4125 per year + whatever other expenses you end up requiring. Rent around here can be as low as 3-400 depending on your situation. Unfortunately, I had to go to a different university for my degree, as it wasn't offered in my state. Now that I'm in graduate school, it does become nearly free, though financial aid is slow and apparently is missing my stuff for my tuition waiver (surprise surprise).
I think a lot of people decide to go to "top" & out of state universities, when in many cases, it isn't necessary unless you really are doing cutting edge stuff (which probably means you have a scholarship). Getting your run of the mill liberal arts / social sciences degrees (the easy BS degrees just to get one) really don't amount to a whole lot, and it isn't worth going to an out of state or private college just to pay upwards of 3 times as much.
I heard something somewhere, but if you are spending more per year on your school than you see yourself earning when you finish school, it isn't a worthwhile investment.
How can you view social sience as a BS degree, especially when we are talking about the America? Who are you to jugde what degree is necessary, or even what is easy? if you don't got that degree yourself, you are not entitled to state such things.
LOL! BS stands for Bachelors of Science. Generally speaking, the liberal arts/social science degrees are fairly "easy" because you should already know the information for all of the classes prior to taking them.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Mysticesper wrote: University in my state is 4125 per year + whatever other expenses you end up requiring. Rent around here can be as low as 3-400 depending on your situation. Unfortunately, I had to go to a different university for my degree, as it wasn't offered in my state. Now that I'm in graduate school, it does become nearly free, though financial aid is slow and apparently is missing my stuff for my tuition waiver (surprise surprise).
I think a lot of people decide to go to "top" & out of state universities, when in many cases, it isn't necessary unless you really are doing cutting edge stuff (which probably means you have a scholarship). Getting your run of the mill liberal arts / social sciences degrees (the easy BS degrees just to get one) really don't amount to a whole lot, and it isn't worth going to an out of state or private college just to pay upwards of 3 times as much.
I heard something somewhere, but if you are spending more per year on your school than you see yourself earning when you finish school, it isn't a worthwhile investment.
How can you view social sience as a BS degree, especially when we are talking about the America? Who are you to jugde what degree is necessary, or even what is easy? if you don't got that degree yourself, you are not entitled to state such things. If anything, then social sience could be viewed as more important and possibly harder than a math degree.
Lets be realistic, no, just no. Unless this is from the perspective of an asian who came to america and only lived there for a few months, then yeah social science is harder.
On March 13 2012 15:48 tetrismaan wrote: In Denmark it is free, and we even get 1000$ each month from the government, with the chance of making a student-rent for 650$ each month with 1% interest.
Yep, it's pretty sweet. I think you meant student-loan though.
I spent 6 years of my life getting my free education(s), and never having to work on the side, and my parents never paid any kroner (it's a real currency, stupid as it may sound ). It really let's you focus on studying. Now, I have a degree and a full time job, and have no problem paying my ~40% tax cut (~50% if you add all sorts of union fees/workers associations fees etc.). I got a lot from society in my twenties, and now I have the opportunity to give something back, while maintaining a decent living (annual income ~60k $).
Yeah, "socialism" is torture .
Denmark got one, if not the best, education system, especially with the SU(state support) system. If you really want a education, you can get one. Like it should be
On March 13 2012 16:09 sunprince wrote: What a ridiculously biased OP and title.
Education can't be free. What's really being asked is: "Should education be subsidized by taxpayers?"
It already is to a extent in pretty much every public university. At least in Canada. I shake my head when I see how good the Quebecers got it when they only pay like 3-4k a year in undergrad tuition fees.
If that wasn't the case I'd probably be paying up the wazoo for my already expensive pharmacy degree which currently runs 15k/year with that going up 5-7% every year.
On March 13 2012 16:04 Minzy wrote: its abit of both in australia, can take a 'loan' of sorts from the government which we call HECS, and they take care of it, and you will pay it back in taxes when u earn over 30 grand a year. you can also choose to pay, so its a choice, essentially anyone can go to university.
if you're an aussie citizen anyway.
i was amazed to hear recently that education is australia's third or fourth biggest export.. international students get reamed for the big bucks
yup, you guys pay less than 5k per semester, we pay 10-15k per semester. but technically you'd pay all of that back eventually, unless you decide to be a bum, then your higher education would be discounted
On March 13 2012 16:09 sunprince wrote: What a ridiculously biased OP and title.
Education can't be free. What's really being asked is: "Should education be subsidized by taxpayers?"
It already is.
1075 + (1600/2 or 1600/3) ~ 1600 to 1875 per semester. I pay 2200 to 3000 per semester and I go to school in British Columbia. 2200 for about 12 credits and 3000 for about 18. If you can't afford to pay it, then apply for an interest free student loan. Apply to do a few co-op semesters and you can get your education paid for with extra to spend on other things.
On March 13 2012 16:09 sunprince wrote: What a ridiculously biased OP and title.
Education can't be free. What's really being asked is: "Should education be subsidized by taxpayers?"
It already is to a extent in pretty much every public university. At least in Canada. I shake my head when I see how good the Quebecers got it when they only pay like 3-4k a year in undergrad tuition fees.
If that wasn't the case I'd probably be paying up the wazoo for my already expensive pharmacy degree which currently runs 15k/year with that going up 5-7% every year.
He was saying that the money has to come from somewhere, whether it be from taxes or you pay extra (which you are currently doing). It's nitpicking because most people understand that you meant "Should education be subsidized by taxpayers?"
Yes it should be free, or at the very least muuuuuuch cheaper then it is now. I feel like university these days are more of a business then they used to be.
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread I live in montreal, quebec, Canada. We live in a society that was founded mostly with left politic. Our health system is free and our education fees are low. At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept. Our governement wants us to now pay 1600$/year more. In other terms, they are asking the students to double the dept they end with Students are now on strike and asking the governement to cancel the raise. You have to be aware that this only represent 1.2% of the global education budget so we are not talking about a huge sum.
Where do I stand? To be honest, I always tought everyone should have equal access to education. The best way would be to make it free. I think we should favor more an 'elitism' way of choosing the students by looking more into the grades.
I will not get into the details and argue on both side but I was really interrested to see what people all over think about education.
EDIT: We pay around 40-45% in tax... so yea we have low fees but we pay it back in some way.
P.S. This is no democrat vs republicans Forgive my poor english it is not my first language.
Bolded, why?
There are already scholarships to be had for those who work for it. I really really don't believe grades should be looked upon even more favorly, simply because it's a terrible system. Having said that, I realize it's also just about the only sustainable system, but we should be trying to move away from it, not to rely on it even more.
In germany, higher education doesn't cost too much when compared to the US. However, during the last 10 years, politicians always said that they "need more academics" and "too little children from poor/low-educated families attend universities", while at the same time increasing the university fees, which is kinda hypocrital. Every country needs a lot of high-educated people today to stay competitive in the future, and therefore I say that free or even paid education up to say a bachelor degree will be a win-win situation for everybody (obviously there need to be some reasonable mechanism not to exploit this, for example a time-limit and not too bad grades required before entering etc,).
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
I completely agree with you.
However, I'd like to point out that, actually, education is a basic human right. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, "higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit".
I think that a College Education should be free, or damn close to it.
A University education should have fee's attached to it, but not at the rate they are currently at. Some law schools cost $4000+ for a SEMESTER. That is beyond stupid.
Colleges and university's should be regulated and non-profit organisations. There is no reason VP's and the like of a University deserve a $250k+ annual salary. If someone thinks they do deserve it, I challenge that person to clearly indicate what special abilities and skills such an individual possessses to deserve such a wage - a wage paid for by students primarily under the age of 24. Sickening.
On March 13 2012 16:29 Kamais Ookin wrote: Yes it should be free, or at the very least muuuuuuch cheaper then it is now. I feel like university these days are more of a business then they used to be.
I can't imagine what you'd be saying if you were an international student
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a specific rights to things like education, food, housing, etc. contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
I completely agree with you.
However, I'd like to point out that, actually, education is a basic human right. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, "higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit".
Just because the UN asserts it does not make it true. There is no rational basis to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
On March 13 2012 16:13 BluePanther wrote: I pay nearly 40k a year to attend school. You must have it so bad...
I have to ask, where are you going to school, and what are you majoring in?
I have the same potential cost, Art Center for Industrial Design (may be going this year, can't afford honestly....). It costs a total of about 160k for the 4 year degree and living in LA.........lol.....yeah. Don't think it's happening.
theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
On March 13 2012 16:29 Kamais Ookin wrote: Yes it should be free, or at the very least muuuuuuch cheaper then it is now. I feel like university these days are more of a business then they used to be.
I can't imagine what you'd be saying if you were an international student
It is really funny how when reading through this almost all the Americans think that it is absurd that university should be free, while some canadians, and all the europeans believe it should be free. I'm not sure if the Americans realize that if they cut their Military budget they could easily afford to pay for free university. I pay 3000$ a semester in Canada, I wish my area(Saskatchewan) had the attitude that quebec has, but unfortunately people would never strike here, I think they enjoy getting fucked by Harper.
Yes it should be. I had a luck that so far in my life I didn't have to pay for my education (with one exception, I went to private primary school, so my parents payed). I studied in Poland and now in Finland.
I think free education and the business education model we have in America can work in harmony. The more prestigious and private schools will still charge money and give you an edge over the competition with your education and connections and the poor people can get better than minimum wage jobs or at the very least a type of career with the free education.
I don't think the free education should be government ran, maybe a non-profit? or what UC berkley is doing and offering free online courses is a step in the right direction.
On March 13 2012 16:41 savagebeavers wrote: It is really funny how when reading through this almost all the Americans think that it is absurd that university should be free, while some canadians, and all the europeans believe it should be free. I'm not sure if the Americans realize that if they cut their Military budget they could easily afford to pay for free university. I pay 3000$ a semester in Canada, I wish my area(Saskatchewan) had the attitude that quebec has, but unfortunately people would never strike here, I think they enjoy getting fucked by Harper.
I don't think most Americans think that, everyone of my friends including myself think we should be getting paid to go to university. But instead we're supposed to wrack up debt ranging from 20k to 160k.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
I completely agree with you.
However, I'd like to point out that, actually, education is a basic human right. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, "higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit".
Just because the UN asserts it does not make it true. There is no rational basis to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Well, of course it doesn't make it "true"... it's a right, not a fact.
On March 13 2012 16:41 savagebeavers wrote: It is really funny how when reading through this almost all the Americans think that it is absurd that university should be free, while some canadians, and all the europeans believe it should be free. I'm not sure if the Americans realize that if they cut their Military budget they could easily afford to pay for free university. I pay 3000$ a semester in Canada, I wish my area(Saskatchewan) had the attitude that quebec has, but unfortunately people would never strike here, I think they enjoy getting fucked by Harper.
It's really disturbing that you think that it is physically possible for something like university to be free.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
How can you say free education is impossible when it exists in so many countries?
You'd be paying a lot more if not for govt subsidies already given to the education system at least here in the U.S.. No, education will never be "free" in a market economy. If it were free, demand would skyrocket, but given zero incentive to produce educational services, it is free btw, you'd be suddenly in a situation where what services are available are poor quality ones.
If you're asking the student to bear zero cost, then that's another story, and one that taxpayers will have a strong opposition towards.
On March 13 2012 16:44 Daray wrote: Education is free. Get course goals, go to the library and get books you need and learn. Too bad you won't get that important piece of paper though
which is why they should offer tests for people so they can just get a degree if they studied on their own and know the subject material. to make the test, grade the test and prepare the test would all require work hours so there would have to be some payment made to someone, I guess if whoever set up the tests could get reimbursed by the government or something.
you can take bar exams and engineering exams without going to school, they should have more exams for other careers. I know my brother graduated from UCI with a degree in physics, got an engineering job and certified himself by taking an exam after getting the job.
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
I completely agree with you.
However, I'd like to point out that, actually, education is a basic human right. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, "higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit".
Just because the UN asserts it does not make it true. There is no rational basis to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Well, of course it doesn't make it "true"... it's a right, not a fact.
What do you think rights are? Things granted to you by your government or the UN?
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
How can you say free education is impossible when it exists in so many countries?
There is no such thing as free education. Someone along the way has to pay for it, whether it be taxpayers or the student.
On March 13 2012 16:41 savagebeavers wrote: It is really funny how when reading through this almost all the Americans think that it is absurd that university should be free, while some canadians, and all the europeans believe it should be free. I'm not sure if the Americans realize that if they cut their Military budget they could easily afford to pay for free university. I pay 3000$ a semester in Canada, I wish my area(Saskatchewan) had the attitude that quebec has, but unfortunately people would never strike here, I think they enjoy getting fucked by Harper.
It's really disturbing that you think that it is physically possible for something like university to be free.
Agreed, I believe that Canadian students pay less than 1/3 of the cost needed to run a post secondary institution
On March 13 2012 16:41 savagebeavers wrote: It is really funny how when reading through this almost all the Americans think that it is absurd that university should be free, while some canadians, and all the europeans believe it should be free. I'm not sure if the Americans realize that if they cut their Military budget they could easily afford to pay for free university. I pay 3000$ a semester in Canada, I wish my area(Saskatchewan) had the attitude that quebec has, but unfortunately people would never strike here, I think they enjoy getting fucked by Harper.
It's really disturbing that you think that it is physically possible for something like university to be free.
In this thread when we are saying "should education be free" we are saying "should tax money go toward paying for 100% the costs of university".
If your trying to say that it is physically impossible for this to happen, I would defiantly disagree with that.
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
There's more ways to distinguish your self than just getting an M. Sc as well. There's a reason why employers don't strictly look at GPA, hence, the interview.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
How can you say free education is impossible when it exists in so many countries?
Because someone is always paying. Someone is producing the wealth needed to fund your education whether it is you, your parents, someone donating to a scholarship or the tax payer.
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
Your character isn't going to get you into graduate school or get you research grants to show the world you actually are capable at something other than basic memorization. Sorry to tell you but these days a B Sc is as good as a BA in terms of getting a job because everyone has one now since the requirements to get one are objectively low
I was an open minded child once, but then i grew up and got experienced. IMO its you with the pathetic outlook.
Personally I believe that Education is free in a sense that if you want to learn something, you can always go watch a mit class lesson on youtube or something similar. However, I feel that in reality education should be at least inexpensive. College education nowadays is relative to high school diploma back in the days. It is a cultural expectation that people go to college and get their education from there. Because of that I feel that college education needs to be at least inexpensive for everyone, so that the society as a whole can grow to be less ignorant.
In Austria uni costs...15 € per semester and additional 450 € once you get 3 semesters over the minimum required time to finish a study.
My opinion?Awesome!You have very much freedom to 'look around' as student, and all that matters is your self-motivation, not some pressure from the top (there still is, but not direcly financial).
I wanted to use the human development index as an example, but it seems to be flawed since it contains income/GDP. Wtf does money have to do with human development?Have the most billionaires in your country while everyone else is starving and the HDI rises...
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
You need to learn to start new sentences, you can't just roll a short novel like that out in one go, and expect people to read it. I think you are a little confused. What i said was the greater good of the human race, as in all of us. The more the human race advances pr individual, the better a world can be achived.
If you truely think that we don't have right to "anything that does not occur in nature" then you have no right to anything, because NOTHING happens in nature that affect it's inhabitans, other than disasters, hence the human race have seperated our world from nature, as the nature is pretty much the shittiest of shitholes to live in.
Also quit being dellusional. There is NO such thing as a right to "live" in nature. Not even to be born. We can use the turtle as an example. They lay dozens of eggs, but only 1-3 will survive, and those who do are in danger of predators from the moment they are born.
The human race should seek to distance itself from nature, not obey it like a common dictator.
But back to the main point. If the individual humans in the future would be much smarter than now, then we as a race could properly achive more, and end a lot of problems going on in the world.
Basic education should be free. Well, technically it can't be free but should be government funded through taxes as it contributes to the betterment of society at a fundamental level.
Higher education should not be free but also should not be a requirement by all employers, only those with a specialized need for tertiary education.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
How can you say free education is impossible when it exists in so many countries?
There is no such thing as free education. Someone along the way has to pay for it, whether it be taxpayers or the student.
Stop playing on words u_u, ofc he is speaking about taxpayers.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
How can you say free education is impossible when it exists in so many countries?
Because someone is always paying. Someone is producing the wealth needed to fund your education whether it is you, your parents, someone donating to a scholarship or the tax payer.
The discussion is "should the government pay for 100% of the tuition costs". We are not discussing whether money should appear out of thin air.
Edit : basically your using the strawman argument.
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
Your character isn't going to get you into graduate school or get you research grants to show the world you actually are capable at something other than basic memorization. Sorry to tell you but these days a B Sc is as good as a BA in terms of getting a job because everyone has one now since the requirements to get one are objectively low
I was an open minded child once, but then i grew up and got experienced. IMO its you with the pathetic outlook.
The "morons" with a "cool" 2.5 aren't going to grad school and wont be looking to get research grants so don't worry.
In Sweden you get payed about 300 dollars a month as a university student (which you don't have to pay back), you get discounts on just about anything from computers to bus tickets, you get shorter queues for apartments that you can rent really cheap while studying and it's all completely free. You do have to pay for the books though. You can also take student loans which have pretty gosh darn good interest rates. Just recently the right wing party removed the possibility for foreigners outside of the EU to have free education here as well.
Having an educated population is one of the corner stones of democracy. You can't have democracy if you have a population that doesn't even know what it's voting for. It's one of the most important thing in society. If the majority in a country lacks higher education you might as well turn into a dictatorship, because the public can't be held responsible to make good decisions.
Edit. Of course Sweden is in no way unique for this. Just an example as I actually know how the system works here.
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
Your character isn't going to get you into graduate school or get you research grants to show the world you actually are capable at something other than basic memorization. Sorry to tell you but these days a B Sc is as good as a BA in terms of getting a job because everyone has one now since the requirements to get one are objectively low
I was an open minded child once, but then i grew up and got experienced. IMO its you with the pathetic outlook.
The "morons" with a "cool" 2.5 aren't going to grad school and wont be looking to get research grants so don't worry.
still doesn't mean they deserve a B SC either sorry, its less about the number but more about how much effort you put into it, and the fact that if I got the GPA i did and some idiot who had no idea how to use a graduated cylinder got the GPA they did and we both got the same degree, its on me to spend more time and money to distinguish myself from that person since employers dont care about my hilariously high GPA (they also don't care about bachelors since its really e Z to get).
I agree with employers though, makes sense from their perspective
On March 13 2012 17:01 Euronyme wrote: In Sweden you get payed about 300 dollars a month as a university student (which you don't have to pay back), you get discounts on just about anything from computers to bus tickets, you get shorter queues for apartments that you can rent really cheap while studying and it's all completely free. You do have to pay for the books though. You can also take student loans which have pretty gosh darn good interest rates. Just recently the right wing party removed the possibility for foreigners outside of the EU to have free education here as well.
Having an educated population is one of the corner stones of democracy. You can't have democracy if you have a population that doesn't even know what it's voting for. It's one of the most important thing in society. If the majority in a country lacks higher education you might as well turn into a dictatorship, because the public can't be held responsible to make good decisions.
I'm moving to sweden O_o
america's corner stone of democracy is military to keep the democracy.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
I completely agree with you.
However, I'd like to point out that, actually, education is a basic human right. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, "higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit".
Just because the UN asserts it does not make it true. There is no rational basis to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Well, of course it doesn't make it "true"... it's a right, not a fact.
What do you think rights are? Things granted to you by your government or the UN?
I think I'll just say yes.
Before you - once again, I might add - try to imply that I'm an idiot, please note that I am perfectly aware of the difference between ius positum and lex naturalis, as well as the ambiguity of 'codified natural law' in regard to that difference. I merely refuse to be baited into a completely off-topic discussion that has nothing to do with the fact that education should indeed be free.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
You need to learn to start new sentences, you can't just roll a short novel like that out in one go, and expect people to read it. I think you are a little confused. What i said was the greater good of the human race, as in all of us. The more the human race advances pr individual, the better a world can be achived.
If you truely think that we don't have right to "anything that does not occur in nature" then you have no right to anything, because NOTHING happens in nature that affect it's inhabitans, other than disasters, hence the human race have seperated our world from nature, as the nature is pretty much the shittiest of shitholes to live in.
Also quit being dellusional. There is NO such thing as a right to "live" in nature. Not even to be born. We can use the turtle as an example. They lay dozens of eggs, but only 1-3 will survive, and those who do are in danger of predators from the moment they are born.
The human race should seek to distance itself from nature, not obey it like a common dictator.
But back to the main point. If the individual humans in the future would be much smarter than now, then we as a race could properly achive more, and end a lot of problems going on in the world.
You've misunderstood me but it's partially my fault. I didn't mean that we do not have the right to produce and own things, that are not natural, but that we do not have a specific right to the products of other people's minds. I've replaced that sentence. I think my sentence structure is fine.
I don't get how you think I was suggesting that we have a right to "live in nature". Even with my one inaccurate sentence, that is a stretch. I am saying that we have a right to the actions necessary for our survival and happiness. This is what I call the right to life. It includes everything that does not violate other people's rights because what contributes to one's happiness is up to the individual to decide.
Unless you want to make every university the same and have broad structure like public schools are k-12, I don't see free as being feasible in most countries. The better schools attract higher caliber faculty and require more funding. Therefore, the cost of operating that university will be more and the value of education will remain high. The flip-side is a school which has average faculty and facilities and doesn't have the prestige of its top-tiered counterpart. If you let everyone go to school for free, you basically charge everyone the same amount of money through taxes and then let some students go to better schools for the same tax cost. Despite the high cost of higher education in the current state, it is an investment. Even if you pay $100k for your undergrad education, the investment is made so that your career will be more lucrative then the jobs which don't require a degree. The same can be said for any advanced degree beyond a bachelor's. You pay for the future return and it's money well spent. Unlike a car you buy which only loses value over time, an education has the opposite effect. A degree boosts your prospects of a better career and places you higher on the monetary totem pole when you begin working.
I have no trouble paying for education...in fact, the fact that I paid for it made it more valuable to me than it would have been otherwise. I did well in school prior to my university years but I didn't have the same motivation to succeed until it was coming from my own pocket. It was the best thing I could have gotten for my money and it's something that will help me for the rest of my life. This is why scholarships are so good. The most motivated people and talented students receive the aid that they deserve. There is a lot of money to be had through scholarships if you as a student are willing to put in the effort of tracking it down.
The government already subsidizes public schools quite a bit and they should always try to keep the costs at an affordable level. Unfortunately, with the global economy still in a state of instability, prices on anything with value can't possibly stay as low as they were before. That may change after the financial crisis is dealt with but for now, I think the system in place is fine...the implementation could always use improvements, however.
tl;dr: It's expensive but worth it. It is an investment for the future, not a cost which has no ability to recoup the initial expenditure. There might be issues in the overall implementation but the system works as it is for the most part.
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
Your character isn't going to get you into graduate school or get you research grants to show the world you actually are capable at something other than basic memorization. Sorry to tell you but these days a B Sc is as good as a BA in terms of getting a job because everyone has one now since the requirements to get one are objectively low
I was an open minded child once, but then i grew up and got experienced. IMO its you with the pathetic outlook.
The "morons" with a "cool" 2.5 aren't going to grad school and wont be looking to get research grants so don't worry.
still doesn't mean they deserve a B SC either sorry, its less about the number but more about how much effort you put into it
the number is a reflection of how much effort you put in so I don't know what you're talking about. You seem bitter that people with a GPA with < 3 can get degrees.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
How can you say free education is impossible when it exists in so many countries?
There is no such thing as free education. Someone along the way has to pay for it, whether it be taxpayers or the student.
Stop playing on words u_u, ofc he is speaking about taxpayers.
OK, if that's the case, then it'll still never be free. The majority of voters fall in the age group of 50+. They certainly won't vote to pay more on education than they would, say medicare, speaking of the U.S. again.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
How can you say free education is impossible when it exists in so many countries?
There is no such thing as free education. Someone along the way has to pay for it, whether it be taxpayers or the student.
Stop playing on words u_u, ofc he is speaking about taxpayers.
OK, if that's the case, then it'll still never be free. The majority of voters fall in the age group of 50+. They certainly won't vote to pay more on education than they would, say medicare, speaking of the U.S. again.
You do know a shit-ton of money is going towards useless warfare that could be put towards education right?
On March 13 2012 16:09 sunprince wrote: What a ridiculously biased OP and title.
Education can't be free. What's really being asked is: "Should education be subsidized by taxpayers?"
It already is to a extent in pretty much every public university. At least in Canada. I shake my head when I see how good the Quebecers got it when they only pay like 3-4k a year in undergrad tuition fees.
I'm aware that it is. The operative word of the question is the word "should".
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
How can you say free education is impossible when it exists in so many countries?
There is no such thing as free education. Someone along the way has to pay for it, whether it be taxpayers or the student.
Stop playing on words u_u, ofc he is speaking about taxpayers.
OK, if that's the case, then it'll still never be free. The majority of voters fall in the age group of 50+. They certainly won't vote to pay more on education than they would, say medicare, speaking of the U.S. again.
You do know a shit-ton of money is going towards useless warfare that could be put towards education right?
Yeah, so what? It doesn't stop our country from deploying its military.
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
How can you say free education is impossible when it exists in so many countries?
There is no such thing as free education. Someone along the way has to pay for it, whether it be taxpayers or the student.
Stop playing on words u_u, ofc he is speaking about taxpayers.
OK, if that's the case, then it'll still never be free. The majority of voters fall in the age group of 50+. They certainly won't vote to pay more on education than they would, say medicare, speaking of the U.S. again.
You do know a shit-ton of money is going towards useless warfare that could be put towards education right?
That solution to that waste is not to spend it elsewhere that the government has no business, it is to not take that money from the tax payer at all. If tax payers want to do things like donate to scholarships, investing in universities and such, they can do that.
If speech is free, education should definitely be free (at least up to and including high school).
People nowadays put too much premium on freedom of speech while churning out tons of idiots spewing their shit everywhere.
It would be great if the opinions people love to voice are actually worth hearing. Freedom of speech isn't worth much if people don't have the education to utilize it to their best ability.
On March 13 2012 16:41 savagebeavers wrote: It is really funny how when reading through this almost all the Americans think that it is absurd that university should be free, while some canadians, and all the europeans believe it should be free. I'm not sure if the Americans realize that if they cut their Military budget they could easily afford to pay for free university. I pay 3000$ a semester in Canada, I wish my area(Saskatchewan) had the attitude that quebec has, but unfortunately people would never strike here, I think they enjoy getting fucked by Harper.
So far the war in Iraq has costed... 800 000 000 000 dollars, right? And the average university in the U.S costs 25 000 dollars? They could send 32 000 000 students to unviersity instead
This math is probably incorrect, don't know the actual costs of the universities in the U.S, but i wanted to make a comparison.
Anyway, speaking from a swedish perspective where education is free and where you are given a small sum each month to complete your education i can't really imagine any good argument to why you wouldn't have free education in a country. Having the possiblity to become anything you want no matter who you are has done so much for this country, and believe me the qualities of the universities hasn't suffered at all despite them not charging the students for more than half of their parents yearly salary.
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
Your character isn't going to get you into graduate school or get you research grants to show the world you actually are capable at something other than basic memorization. Sorry to tell you but these days a B Sc is as good as a BA in terms of getting a job because everyone has one now since the requirements to get one are objectively low
I was an open minded child once, but then i grew up and got experienced. IMO its you with the pathetic outlook.
The "morons" with a "cool" 2.5 aren't going to grad school and wont be looking to get research grants so don't worry.
still doesn't mean they deserve a B SC either sorry, its less about the number but more about how much effort you put into it
the number is a reflection of how much effort you put in so I don't know what you're talking about. You seem bitter that people with a GPA with < 3 can get degrees.
Not really, because < 3 GPA means they wont get a job or be able to get their masters. They're stuck kek. I just think its hilarious that people need to academically distinguish themselves further from the riff raff who dont think those student loans will come back to bite em
I also think its sad that a lot of people think that higher learning is bachelors degree. You can get the same knowledge from reading articles on wikipedia. Higher learning starts with Masters, which is when university starts paying you stipend (at least where I live) + any grant money to "go to school".
On March 13 2012 17:01 Euronyme wrote: In Sweden you get payed about 300 dollars a month as a university student (which you don't have to pay back), you get discounts on just about anything from computers to bus tickets, you get shorter queues for apartments that you can rent really cheap while studying and it's all completely free. You do have to pay for the books though. You can also take student loans which have pretty gosh darn good interest rates. Just recently the right wing party removed the possibility for foreigners outside of the EU to have free education here as well.
Having an educated population is one of the corner stones of democracy. You can't have democracy if you have a population that doesn't even know what it's voting for. It's one of the most important thing in society. If the majority in a country lacks higher education you might as well turn into a dictatorship, because the public can't be held responsible to make good decisions.
Edit. Of course Sweden is in no way unique for this. Just an example as I actually know how the system works here.
This is the winner comment in this thread. Also, the exact same things applies in Denmark, except non-europeans can still get free education.
I think something that some people are missing is that there are teens out there who can NOT get a loan. They live with their single mom in a crappy suburban area, and the bank will not give them more than 1k. So, expensive education means = some people can NOT go to university, unless you fund them, somehow.
Education is so important. Having an uneducated population leads to so many problems.. and they end up costing way more than education would have in the first place (running prisons costs so much..).
Education doesnt have to be free, but anyone who meets the academic requirements should be able to attend, no matter how much money you have. This can be achieved with free (or almost free) education, or with a very solid funding allocated by the government to the poorest students.
On March 13 2012 17:01 Euronyme wrote: In Sweden you get payed about 300 dollars a month as a university student (which you don't have to pay back), you get discounts on just about anything from computers to bus tickets, you get shorter queues for apartments that you can rent really cheap while studying and it's all completely free. You do have to pay for the books though. You can also take student loans which have pretty gosh darn good interest rates. Just recently the right wing party removed the possibility for foreigners outside of the EU to have free education here as well.
Having an educated population is one of the corner stones of democracy. You can't have democracy if you have a population that doesn't even know what it's voting for. It's one of the most important thing in society. If the majority in a country lacks higher education you might as well turn into a dictatorship, because the public can't be held responsible to make good decisions.
Edit. Of course Sweden is in no way unique for this. Just an example as I actually know how the system works here.
This is the winner comment in this thread. Also, the exact same things applies in Denmark, except non-europeans can still get free education.
On March 13 2012 17:01 Euronyme wrote: In Sweden you get payed about 300 dollars a month as a university student (which you don't have to pay back), you get discounts on just about anything from computers to bus tickets, you get shorter queues for apartments that you can rent really cheap while studying and it's all completely free. You do have to pay for the books though. You can also take student loans which have pretty gosh darn good interest rates. Just recently the right wing party removed the possibility for foreigners outside of the EU to have free education here as well.
Having an educated population is one of the corner stones of democracy. You can't have democracy if you have a population that doesn't even know what it's voting for. It's one of the most important thing in society. If the majority in a country lacks higher education you might as well turn into a dictatorship, because the public can't be held responsible to make good decisions.
Edit. Of course Sweden is in no way unique for this. Just an example as I actually know how the system works here.
This is the winner comment in this thread. Also, the exact same things applies in Denmark, except non-europeans can still get free education.
the downside is you'd have to speak danish
There are probably tonnes of English courses as well. I studied political science in English. It was a great experience.
On March 13 2012 15:48 tetrismaan wrote: In Denmark it is free, and we even get 1000$ each month from the government, with the chance of making a student-rent for 650$ each month with 1% interest.
Yep, our system is pretty swell. But most countries can't afford this. And if they actually wanted it - they'd have to accept paying 48%-68% in taxes as we do in Denmark - depending on income
On March 13 2012 16:12 Zergmeister wrote: All levels of education should be free, it is for the greater good of the human race, money's importans pale in comparison.
How can you even suggest to deny humans from education, simply because they have fewer resources than you? by that logic, no 3rd world humans would EVER recive any edjucation, neither would orphans, or poor people. It completely boggles my mind, that we still live in a world, where free education isn't a basic human right.
BTW. Here in Denmark, you get paid as a student to educate yourself beyond primary school.
Free education is impossible. In order for someone to receive an education they must either produce the wealth needed to buy it or someone else needs to produce the wealth needed to buy it. The idea of a right to something that does not occur in nature contradicts the entire ideas of the actual rights which we need in order to survive. The single fundamental right, from which all other rights are corollaries is the right to life, which means, the right to the actions (but not objects) necessary for a rational being to survive and achieve happiness. A corollary of this right to life is the right to property because if a man is to sustain his life by his own actions and reason, he must have the right to the use and disposal of the products of his actions. The man who has no right to the product of his actions has no means to sustain his life. The right to life is not the right to the objects necessary for survival and happiness. If one has the right to the objects needed for survival and happiness, that means someone else is obliged to produce those objects for him. If one is obliged to forfeit the products of his mind, that means he has no right to those objects which means he has no right to property and therefore no right to life. Economic rights destroy individual rights.
How can you say free education is impossible when it exists in so many countries?
There is no such thing as free education. Someone along the way has to pay for it, whether it be taxpayers or the student.
Stop playing on words u_u, ofc he is speaking about taxpayers.
OK, if that's the case, then it'll still never be free. The majority of voters fall in the age group of 50+. They certainly won't vote to pay more on education than they would, say medicare, speaking of the U.S. again.
You do know a shit-ton of money is going towards useless warfare that could be put towards education right?
That solution to that waste is not to spend it elsewhere that the government has no business, it is to not take that money from the tax payer at all. If tax payers want to do things like donate to scholarships, investing in universities and such, they can do that.
Education is the gov business. Otherwise only rich people get a chance to go to uni, and poor people even if they have more merit are fucked. That's called meritocracy, and that's why higher education should not be ridiculously high like in the US. And yes gov has to force people to pay tax. Do you think as individualist the people are they would start donating for scholarships by themselves?
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
Your character isn't going to get you into graduate school or get you research grants to show the world you actually are capable at something other than basic memorization. Sorry to tell you but these days a B Sc is as good as a BA in terms of getting a job because everyone has one now since the requirements to get one are objectively low
I was an open minded child once, but then i grew up and got experienced. IMO its you with the pathetic outlook.
The "morons" with a "cool" 2.5 aren't going to grad school and wont be looking to get research grants so don't worry.
still doesn't mean they deserve a B SC either sorry, its less about the number but more about how much effort you put into it
the number is a reflection of how much effort you put in so I don't know what you're talking about. You seem bitter that people with a GPA with < 3 can get degrees.
Not really, because < 3 GPA means they wont get a job or be able to get their masters. They're stuck kek. I just think its hilarious that people need to academically distinguish themselves further from the riff raff who dont think those student loans will come back to bite em
I also think its sad that a lot of people think that higher learning is bachelors degree. You can get the same knowledge from reading articles on wikipedia. Higher learning starts with Masters, which is when university starts paying you stipend (at least where I live) + any grant money to "go to school".
You can get master equivalent knowledge reading through a book. Edit; I suppose several..
The thing that bothers me with your obsession of grades is that you have no idea how clever the people getting 'bad' grades are. Perhaps they will bring more to the table than you? Don't be so quick judging them, you are very narrow minded. I realize it's about getting a job later on, but is that all you think there is to it?
You keep saying you need to distinguish yourself in a way that makes me wonder if you even really care about the knowledge and learning and not just to perceive yourself as better than others.
My favorite thing is how in starting schools they push getting good at math, science, engineering because these are the areas that are struggling in the US. So, I get good at all of these things and go to college for an engineering degree and see that I am paying the same as every other person there. It makes me wonder why people with humanities degrees, that will have a nigh impossible time finding a job in the near future, actually attend college. Here in the US it doesn't seem worth it to me, I'd rather study abroad in Sweden where its free (could be a rumor but I remember hearing that somewhere) than get the same degree here for those types of degrees.
But in an ideal world it would be free for everyone, and you would think at least public universities would be since a nation should want to invest in its own future (at least in its future engineers!! )
On March 13 2012 17:01 Euronyme wrote: In Sweden you get payed about 300 dollars a month as a university student (which you don't have to pay back), you get discounts on just about anything from computers to bus tickets, you get shorter queues for apartments that you can rent really cheap while studying and it's all completely free. You do have to pay for the books though. You can also take student loans which have pretty gosh darn good interest rates. Just recently the right wing party removed the possibility for foreigners outside of the EU to have free education here as well.
Having an educated population is one of the corner stones of democracy. You can't have democracy if you have a population that doesn't even know what it's voting for. It's one of the most important thing in society. If the majority in a country lacks higher education you might as well turn into a dictatorship, because the public can't be held responsible to make good decisions.
Edit. Of course Sweden is in no way unique for this. Just an example as I actually know how the system works here.
This is the winner comment in this thread. Also, the exact same things applies in Denmark, except non-europeans can still get free education.
the downside is you'd have to speak danish
see it like this, if you learn danish you will be ale to speak a language, that sounds like a drunk polarbear speaking.
Joke aside, the overwhelming majority in Denmark is able to speak english(except Villy Søvndal our secretary of state...lol wtf?), and there is alot of english courses.
In Australia basically (for tertiary/university education) the government gives you a low interest loan that you pay back after you finish your degree and start earning above a certain threshold (they also subsidise the actual cost as well). Personally I think this is a great system, and I feel very privileged to live in a country that operates this way.
I do think we should pay for our tertiary education though, if we don't we just end up paying it back through taxes anyway, makes more sense the individual pays for what they use.
For primary and secondary the public schools are pretty much free.
On March 13 2012 15:48 TanTzoR wrote: In the UK the gov has triple the fees. Basically if you entered this year you will pay 10k for a bachelor, if you enter next year you will pay 30k. Actually a free education at a uni level is not that good. But it shouldn't be absurdly high like in the US or soon in the UK. For instance in France the unis are for bad students, the good ones go to high ranked business and engineering schools.
Yea im going to England in october to start my university education so im going to have to pay 9k pounds every year which kind of sucks Upside is that ill be going to a amazing university.
I live in a country where pretty much any education is free (my tuition this year was 30 euros) unless you choose to go to private institutions (which are usually worse than free ones) and while this all seems good and well as students have large discounts on meals, can work as student which means they don't have to pay taxes, it also means there's a lot of abuse of this and many people extend their studies to double or triple the required time It is also becoming a problem as people do not want to learn professions that require lower education, since you can go to university as long as you pass, meaning you get 50%, while university should be for people that are better than majority, which means we're starting to lack lower rated jobs while on other hand we have a lot of unemployed young people with high education Funny thing is that those professions that require lower education often pay more, since you can open private business and with the lack of these they charge high prices
tl:dr higher education can be free but there have to be standards and limits as to who can attend it
So many dkdkdk praising our system which to some extent is good, no doubt. But srsly...here we are, welfare system, free education - you even get paid monthly because our living expenses is so high and yet one of the latest discussions in our media is about student wanting to be acknowledged as poor. Wtf is happening to this luxuary nation? Not sure if the universal welfare system is a good idea and neither does the left wing in danish politics think it seems.
Anyway free or nearly free education is exactly how it should be I believe
On March 13 2012 17:53 xrapture wrote: "education" is free because you have the internet and the library.
the piece of paper called a diploma you want should not be free.
You seem to imply, firstly, that access to the internet is free and, secondly, that there is no qualitative difference between the education you receive from attending courses at a University and the education you get from reading Wikipedia articles. I'd consider both assumptions to be quite a stretch, to say the least.
Speaking from the viewpoint of a former student and current taxpayer, I wouldn't mind subsidizing people who are learning something useful for the society, such as engineering or medicine or programming or accounting, etc etc. I would, however, not be very happy if my tax money was used to subsidize a bunch of students sitting around discussing something like art history or certain social subjects I've heard of (I heard a certain UK university has a class on David Beckham). They can do that - on their own money.
Plenty of Americans claiming that higher education shouldn't be free which is quite disheartening. In the current economical climate you'd preferably want every single person to get a higher education since low-investment jobs (those that don't require education) will be on a steady decline in the coming decades. The only advantage modern countries have over less developed ones is that we can actually educate people and guide them towards high-investment jobs.
This fall I'll be attending one of the top technical universities in the world, for free, something I could never do in the states. I will repay this for the rest of my life with a profitable employment. (It's called win-win, you might've heard of it)
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread I live in montreal, quebec, Canada. We live in a society that was founded mostly with left politic. Our health system is free and our education fees are low. At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept. Our governement wants us to now pay 1600$/year more. In other terms, they are asking the students to double the dept they end with Students are now on strike and asking the governement to cancel the raise. You have to be aware that this only represent 1.2% of the global education budget so we are not talking about a huge sum.
Where do I stand? To be honest, I always tought everyone should have equal access to education. The best way would be to make it free. I think we should favor more an 'elitism' way of choosing the students by looking more into the grades.
I will not get into the details and argue on both side but I was really interrested to see what people all over think about education.
EDIT: We pay around 40-45% in tax... so yea we have low fees but we pay it back in some way.
P.S. This is no democrat vs republicans Forgive my poor english it is not my first language.
It never was free, and given what you said (government wants you to now pay 1600$/year more), the government no longer has the funds to provide a subsidy to the education.
Perhaps you would like to include a spending graph for your government or a profit/loss for Quebec's budget.
On March 13 2012 17:53 xrapture wrote: "education" is free because you have the internet and the library.
the piece of paper called a diploma you want should not be free.
You seem to imply, firstly, that access to the internet is free and, secondly, that there is no qualitative difference between the education you receive from attending courses at a University and the education you get from reading Wikipedia articles. I'd consider both assumptions to be quite a stretch, to say the least.
Since when is reading wikipedia articles the only way to retrieve information on the internet? Also, provide at least 1 study that shows that learning in university is more effective than independent learning.
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
Your character isn't going to get you into graduate school or get you research grants to show the world you actually are capable at something other than basic memorization. Sorry to tell you but these days a B Sc is as good as a BA in terms of getting a job because everyone has one now since the requirements to get one are objectively low
I was an open minded child once, but then i grew up and got experienced. IMO its you with the pathetic outlook.
The "morons" with a "cool" 2.5 aren't going to grad school and wont be looking to get research grants so don't worry.
still doesn't mean they deserve a B SC either sorry, its less about the number but more about how much effort you put into it
the number is a reflection of how much effort you put in so I don't know what you're talking about. You seem bitter that people with a GPA with < 3 can get degrees.
Not really, because < 3 GPA means they wont get a job or be able to get their masters. They're stuck kek. I just think its hilarious that people need to academically distinguish themselves further from the riff raff who dont think those student loans will come back to bite em
I also think its sad that a lot of people think that higher learning is bachelors degree. You can get the same knowledge from reading articles on wikipedia. Higher learning starts with Masters, which is when university starts paying you stipend (at least where I live) + any grant money to "go to school".
That is actually some of the most misinformed statements i have ever heard. Where i study now we get an F if we use Wikipedia as citation and when i look on wikipedia and compare it to most academical sources, it turns out that wiki is either overly simplified, or just plain wrong. In addition, My education in law includes exactly the same as a bachelor degree expept for the last 2 years when you learn a little bit more. Both are higher education.
On March 13 2012 17:01 Euronyme wrote: In Sweden you get payed about 300 dollars a month as a university student (which you don't have to pay back), you get discounts on just about anything from computers to bus tickets, you get shorter queues for apartments that you can rent really cheap while studying and it's all completely free. You do have to pay for the books though. You can also take student loans which have pretty gosh darn good interest rates. Just recently the right wing party removed the possibility for foreigners outside of the EU to have free education here as well.
Having an educated population is one of the corner stones of democracy. You can't have democracy if you have a population that doesn't even know what it's voting for. It's one of the most important thing in society. If the majority in a country lacks higher education you might as well turn into a dictatorship, because the public can't be held responsible to make good decisions.
Edit. Of course Sweden is in no way unique for this. Just an example as I actually know how the system works here.
Hey! I live in Norway where i don't get payed an ear for my education (though its like 100 dollar a year :D), get no discount on anything whatsoever except public transport occasionally, Guess that oils a bitch :D
But yea, besides what Euronyme said, Education should be entirely free, since paid education will only make class separation larger in that only rich people can be lawyers etc. It's the horrible truth about capitalism that even the creators of it supported that someone will be lesser of than others. I for one cannot understand how someone can in any way support or create an ideology that will not give people equal opportunitys. Not that wealth brings happiness, but i think it brings opportunity.
Well, higher education should not be for the wealthier and it should not put young people in debt for the rest of their life :D
Scandinavian model for the win, of course education should be free. It might be a heavy expense for the government, but think about it, what's a better investment for the future of your nation if not high education for a lot of people? One would think Americans would agree, spend 50% of your military budget on education and it would all be free
Since when is reading wikipedia articles the only way to retrieve information on the internet? Also, provide at least 1 study that shows that learning in university is more effective than independent learning.
I'd say that studying medicine on university tops pretty much everything you can do independently unless you want to go around cutting people to see what they're made of. Also the courses that require high knowledge of physics and math and any kind of experimental work are also a lot better in university (engineering, architecture etc.) I don't need a study showing me this when it's common sense.
Yes all education should be free, up to a max time for each individual person (so you cant get education your whole life for free) I strongly believe that on average every penny spend on education is an investment with a positive financial return in the end for society. We should spend alot more on education,and maybe a bit less on healthcare. Healthcare is an investment with little financial returns for society as a whole.
This is kinda funny from an austrian point of view. Here we have an endless discussion whether 316€ per semester are legitimate, about 20 % of the students(based on parent's income) wouldn't even have to pay
On March 13 2012 17:58 anomalopidae wrote: I live in a country where pretty much any education is free (my tuition this year was 30 euros) unless you choose to go to private institutions (which are usually worse than free ones) and while this all seems good and well as students have large discounts on meals, can work as student which means they don't have to pay taxes, it also means there's a lot of abuse of this and many people extend their studies to double or triple the required time It is also becoming a problem as people do not want to learn professions that require lower education, since you can go to university as long as you pass, meaning you get 50%, while university should be for people that are better than majority, which means we're starting to lack lower rated jobs while on other hand we have a lot of unemployed young people with high education Funny thing is that those professions that require lower education often pay more, since you can open private business and with the lack of these they charge high prices
tl:dr higher education can be free but there have to be standards and limits as to who can attend it
It's pretty much the same thing in france, we have a lot of 25 year old student with masters or doctorate in useless fields, that just end up cashier or flipping burgers. But here we have a system called "grandes écoles" which are basically schools made for the top notch student (the engineering ones are free, but I think the manager and salesmen one are not free). You often have to pass really difficult tests to get in
I think education should be provided by the government for its citizens for free. However, I do not think that the government should come up for bad parenting, as the German media wants the German politicians to do. I mean, why should I pay for something, that is a direct effect of some parents not doing their job well (not talking about abusing children, but not looking after the educational process of their children)?
On March 13 2012 17:53 xrapture wrote: "education" is free because you have the internet and the library.
the piece of paper called a diploma you want should not be free.
Do not confuse information and education. And really, you want people to pay for their grades/exams/diploma even though they might have acquired all the knowledge they need? Taking exams to proove your knowledge is about the least expensive part (from the state's perspective) of higher education studies in most subjects.
I think that at least a basic education should be free so that you are able to leave school with some basic mathematic/science/english (or whatever primary language) skills that are always invaluable in life. From there I think that first world countries should provide free or almost free Post secondary (university/college) education with the fee depending on your average grades and the first year always being free.
With that said the current education system has a lot of useless programs you can get degree's in, for example a degree in Outdoor Recreation is quite simply a useless degree for slacker's who don't want to do any work in their lives.
Regardless of the useless programs however keeping free post secondary education with incentives to use it will result in a more enlightened society which is always good.
On March 13 2012 17:53 xrapture wrote: "education" is free because you have the internet and the library.
the piece of paper called a diploma you want should not be free.
You seem to imply, firstly, that access to the internet is free and, secondly, that there is no qualitative difference between the education you receive from attending courses at a University and the education you get from reading Wikipedia articles. I'd consider both assumptions to be quite a stretch, to say the least.
Since when is reading wikipedia articles the only way to retrieve information on the internet? Also, provide at least 1 study that shows that learning in university is more effective than independent learning.
As anomalopidae has already pointed out, a University offers quite a bit of infrastructure that a "hobbyist" simply cannot acquire by himself. But since you'd like to read a study on the incompleteness of independent learning, how about Tuovinen/Sweller (1999). "A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples". Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (2): 334–341?
On a sidenote, the next time you're making a contraintuitive statement and I say that I consider it to be quite a stretch, it'll be up to you to provide evidence for your claim, not up to me to disprove you, ok?
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
Your character isn't going to get you into graduate school or get you research grants to show the world you actually are capable at something other than basic memorization. Sorry to tell you but these days a B Sc is as good as a BA in terms of getting a job because everyone has one now since the requirements to get one are objectively low
I was an open minded child once, but then i grew up and got experienced. IMO its you with the pathetic outlook.
The "morons" with a "cool" 2.5 aren't going to grad school and wont be looking to get research grants so don't worry.
still doesn't mean they deserve a B SC either sorry, its less about the number but more about how much effort you put into it
the number is a reflection of how much effort you put in so I don't know what you're talking about. You seem bitter that people with a GPA with < 3 can get degrees.
Not really, because < 3 GPA means they wont get a job or be able to get their masters. They're stuck kek. I just think its hilarious that people need to academically distinguish themselves further from the riff raff who dont think those student loans will come back to bite em
I also think its sad that a lot of people think that higher learning is bachelors degree. You can get the same knowledge from reading articles on wikipedia. Higher learning starts with Masters, which is when university starts paying you stipend (at least where I live) + any grant money to "go to school".
Then it looks like you'll be fine getting a job / getting a masters so I don't know what your going on about complaining about the "riff raff". Having hire GPA will get you an edge that's for sure. I know quite a few engineers who might not have the highest GPA but are much more well rounded people. Last time I checked, grad school uses textbooks / internet as well. Some undergrad classes are even taught jointly with a graduate class. If by higher learning, you mean research, then you can do that in undergrad by doing an honours degree with a thesis to get access to "higher learning". Of course, not as much time is spent doing the research.
An educated nation is a capable nation. People can provide for themselves better and make better choices. It's an all around win for everyone, unless you want the majority of people to be dumb (and consequently easily controlled by the media).
That said, university level education needs a symbolic cost attached to it and stern time constraints or people just pretend to study while partying and slacking.
In America it goes off how much money your parents make. If I didn't join military, I would have been paying 4600$ for a semester, however if you want free college, you join military and just do it. I currently do half a day at work, half in class because of reenlistment options, and
If only people realized how much free education for "man kind" would benefit us, sadly this will never be the case. It would honestly be nice if fees and taxes became a bit lower though... :\
Only because it keeps your country competitive with other countries and provides long term prosperity.
Only problem is elections run on a 3 or 4 year cycle, so they only see that far ahead. Seems like every country is cutting on education funding these days because it doesn't get them votes.
A full meritocracy has flaws as well. For one it allows foreigners to overpopulated the best schools leading to diasatisfaction from the locals. For another merit can often be games through sat classes and grade inflation. There's a lot of corruption and guidelines that need to be set on the mission statement of schools before all schools can be funded by taxes, research and endowments solely.
On March 13 2012 19:31 obesechicken13 wrote: A full meritocracy has flaws as well. For one it allows foreigners to overpopulated the best schools leading to diasatisfaction from the locals. For another merit can often be games through sat classes and grade inflation. There's a lot of corruption and guidelines that need to be set on the mission statement of schools before all schools can be funded by taxes, research and endowments solely.
Yeah that's a given. Not very hard to accomplish though.
In the end someone always pays for the education. The question is more about if education should be available to everyone or just the ones in the upper social classes.
The state pays for the education: Higher taxes. Everyone is able to get a good education. Possibility to climb to a higher social class through education. Students can be lazy and draw out on their education without being affected by it.
Students pays for their own education: Lower taxes. Not everyone will be able to get a good education. The poor stay poor and the rich stay rich. (more or less) Students get pressured to complete their educations since they are spending their own money on it.
Czech Republic here. We have free health care and free education. I think there is one big problem with tuition fees. You can say "oh well, we can afford to pay a bit." But once the fees are established, they will start rising. Eventually, education will be only for the rich, just like few centuries ago. The problem of USA is that they spend all they money on military so there are no money left for the people.
Yes. Having your choice to be whatever the fuck you want, despite of your initial economic/social status is amazing, and even if it means getting raped with taxes later, i wouldnt change that for nothing. It gives you the chance to get as far as you want in life, depending on the effort you put in the things you do, and not on where were you born/if your family can afford, so i think its a really positive thing for any society.
We have free college here, and its pretty damn good education. Most medics/buisnessmen/scientists here studied on Buenos Aires university. There are some private choices, but most of them are "pay for easy title" and are for rich kids who dont give a fuck about learning anything.
On March 13 2012 16:01 Ercster wrote: I'm cool with the theoretical American version of public schooling. This is were your taxes pay for the public education system, only k-12, though (I would want it to go through to the public colleges as well). And private schooling requires the individual to pay for their education. The current problem America has is that the government keeps spending money poorly, and education is suffering because of it.
On to an unrelated problem I have with the education process in America. In k-8, you learn the basic knowledge of important subjects such as math, english, and science. And in 9-12, it gets more advanced with those subjects, and you get a variety of other classes which help you determine what you want to major in when you attend college. However, when you attend college, you have to do the same thing as you did in 9-12. I'm majoring in engineering, yet one of the english requirements has to deal with poetry. This serves no purpose for me. I don't see the need for poetry, and 10 engineers that I've spoken with have never used poetry in their entire career, yet I'm still required to take it. These useless classes are a waste of not only my money, but my time. Another problem I have is with homework. Homework, in its literal form, is practice. Why is it required that I practice? Teachers have agreed with me on this point, yet they still tell me I needed to do it. We go to school to learn, and are graded by how well we retained that knowledge. So, if I choose not to practice, yet am capable of retaining all of the information that was given, I shouldn't be punished.
I don't know what weirdo uni you go to, but I've never had to do a course that I found had absolutely no educational value, like poetry for engineers (lol). I've also never been forced to do homework at uni, no one cares if you do it or not.
On the topic of this thread, uni probably shouldn't be free, otherwise you'd get some people feeling like they are obligated to go to uni, while they have no place being there. Uni isn't for everyone.
I like the Australian system, where the only thing that determines entries is your mark, and the government offers everyone a loan to defer all costs. You don't have to pay back this loan until you earn over ~$40k a year And since it automatically comes out of your tax, uni feels free.
Everyday we see money wasted by our government while education is just pushed back on the to-do list. I was one of the lucky ones, I only paid £1,000 per year for my Bachelor 13 years ago. Now, students are paying almost £9,000 per year.
The way I see it, a degree or equivelant qualification has become an absolute requirement to enter the job market. And since there is so much competition in the UK, young people cant go anywhere without it, hence the prices get inflated. Sad state of affairs to be a 22 year old and begin your life with £30,000 of debt.
They say education is the only way out of poverty.
Australia is awesome in terms of university education as poster mentioned above. I just got my accounting degree and the only shit i had to fork out for was parking permit and textbooks.
Education should be entirely free up to tertiary. School is important as it lays the foundation of intelligence (essentially a bottom line). Countries without free education will have a severe income gap where a few portion of people would be filthy rich and everyone else struggling to eat.
Don't feel like boasting.. but the social net in Belgium is so great that I get paid to study. But that's because my father is quite poor.. Nonetheless.. I'm comfortably gaining money each year to study and I love it. It's to cover expenses (dorm, food, ..) but I waste so little money I can save a very large sum to my bank account. Plus I work a little here and there so I hardly spend any money.
Also, I think education should be free or fees should be held as low as possible. If a government is smart they should spend less money (indeed like some previous posters have mentioned) on military and more on education, so their students won't flee the country for better opportunities. That being said, I think the USA is still running on it's "golden image of wealth and prosperity" to keep these educational fees running. But this will not keep going forever. Once the world becomes more united and war, violence and all that bad shit becomes rare, the US should reflect upon their military budget and perhaps make their glorious nation of once shine again.
Information should be free, teaching should come at a price. That's how I've always thought about education and I will stand by it. The internet is a godsend for people who can homestudy or want to homestudy, but indeed this would create a 'disadvantage' to people that aren't as keen to study at home because they need to use the teachers explanatory skills to learn better.
Education itself shouldn't put you into an enormous debt like in the U.S. You have to educate yourself to even compete with the world, so it's pretty backward to get in the workforce that drives a nation forward, you have to be in debt for a long period of time, putting you in a disadvantageous spot from the getgo in both situations.
On March 13 2012 19:49 Batch wrote: In the end someone always pays for the education. The question is more about if education should be available to everyone or just the ones in the upper social classes.
The state pays for the education: Higher taxes. Everyone is able to get a good education. Possibility to climb to a higher social class through education. Students can be lazy and draw out on their education without being affected by it.
Students pays for their own education: Lower taxes. Not everyone will be able to get a good education. The poor stay poor and the rich stay rich. (more or less) Students get pressured to complete their educations since they are spending their own money on it.
I like how you broke down each side into the pros and cons, rather than a simple Yes or No answer. It makes it a lot easier to assess the situations.
As an American educator who's taking the full route of graduate studies (all the way to the doctoral level), I'd love for education to be free all across the board, because I believe it's one of the most important things a person can have. That being said, I find your counterpoint of motivation a very good one. When people have to spend their own money on a product, they best understand the benefit of it and are most motivated to use it. I hope that people will take education as seriously as possible, even if it's free/ very cheap (and I think there are a few countries that exhibit this behavior and support this idea, like Sweden and Finland).
Education should be free or at least greatly subsidized. If education is expensive then only wealthy people can afford to educate their children. The gap between wealthy and impoverished people will continue to grow as long as education isn't free.
Education is completely free for me AND i get paid to do it! 1.000$ each month just to sit on my lazy ass and get knowledge thrown at my face! It's the greatest thing ever! :D
Though I do have to pay for my own books! Oh the horror!
I don't understand people who get upset about their taxes going to education/healthcare. What more noble thing could your taxes go to than educating generations and providing medicine to those who require it?
On March 13 2012 20:52 Red112 wrote: I don't understand people who get upset about their taxes going to education/healthcare. What more noble thing could your taxes go to than educating generations and providing medicine to those who require it?
You don't understand man. Gov robs money from its citizens. Solidarity? Wait, what? Fuck the poor, it's their fault if they are poor. My dad was rich but I stayed rich because of my hard work.
Nothing is free. In the end something free is always paid by someone If the cost increases, either students must pay more or you must tax more.
The real question is whether or not its justified for students to pay a part of the cost. I live in Quebec also and goes to university of Montreal, I believe its justified for a student to pay a part of the cost and this part in Quebec is low enough.
Is the increase they are suggesting too much ? maybe, probably, I've not looked into it too much since I finish this year.
The problem for me arises when it's impossible to pay the fees without already being rich, this is where it makes no sense. The fees should be such that a student can pay for his fees (and the rest of his life) if he takes a part time job (10-15 hours a week) and get full time in the summer. Loans should also be an option and I believe there should be pressure from governments to make banks offer very low interests loans to pay fees (by a contract between the bank and universities for example).
If a student cannot pay his fees and live decently with this part-job and a reasonable loan then there is a real issue.
On March 13 2012 20:52 Red112 wrote: I don't understand people who get upset about their taxes going to education/healthcare. What more noble thing could your taxes go to than educating generations and providing medicine to those who require it?
You don't understand man. Gov robs money from its citizens. Solidarity? Wait, what? Fuck the poor, it's their fault if they are poor. My dad was rich but I stayed rich because of my hard work.
haha they're all for standing with the troops and shit but once they're no longer employed by the military and need healthcare? WHAT? FUCK YOU I don't pay for your healthcare! yeah I love the troops!!!! USA USA
On March 13 2012 20:52 Red112 wrote: I don't understand people who get upset about their taxes going to education/healthcare. What more noble thing could your taxes go to than educating generations and providing medicine to those who require it?
You don't understand man. Gov robs money from its citizens. Solidarity? Wait, what? Fuck the poor, it's their fault if they are poor. My dad was rich but I stayed rich because of my hard work.
haha they're all for standing with the troops and shit but once they're no longer employed by the military and need healthcare? WHAT? FUCK YOU I don't pay for your healthcare! yeah I love the troops!!!! USA USA
Coming from Scotland I paid no tuition fees. Education should be free, however I also think that there should be less focus on making it so that everyone has to go to university to get a career.
Make university free for everyone, with more focus on the students going on to become academics and researchers. Where graduates contribute to human knowledge and can increase the quality of life for everyone.
Provide some kind of tax break for small businesses that offer apprenticeship/internships, particularly to school leavers, where they can learn by doing from the people who have experience. This helps and encourages businesses to grow as well as providing employment.
This would mean many more people are going into higher education or employment with prospects. It could lower unemployment which means lower welfare bills and potentially less crime which again saves money. By investing in education you get an intelligent and employed populace which can actually save the government money and taxes can be lower as more people are employed and actually paying them.
However in some countries those in power seem to want to keep the poor poor and uneducated the rich rich and everyone else in debt for a significant portion of their lives, which makes it easier to manipulate and control the people.
Yes, education should be free... in a contry that is socialist.
What Canada nor Quebec is, sadly. No point in striking in the road, boycutting schools, blocking road, slowing down your education and going outrage at the society, like you guys love to do right now. Basically, the only single thing you guys will achieve, is losing more and more ground. Most citizens in Quebec pretty much see your movement as retarded, therefore it just can't work. Basic logic. Why would the governement back you up when not even a half of the population is agreeing with you... and it's getting worst each day?
I belive education should be free, or atleast available for anyone who has the ability and motivation to educate them selves.
In Norway you pay around 100 $ for each semester at any state educational institusion, wich includes the best schools in most fields. You get around 13k a year as a minimum student loan, half of wich the state pays if you pass all your classes each year(you can ask for a bigger loan, but your stipend will be around 6k). Living costs are extremly high though so it can be hard to live just on a student loan.
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept.
$2000 per year on tuition $1000 per year on books x4 years
= $12,000
How is it possible for the AVERAGE to be 15,000 in debt? That makes no sense.
1) Get a part-time job during the school year OR a full-time job during the summer and you won't have any debt. 2) Learn how to budget and be frugal with your money. 3) We have it so lucky compared to many people around the world because of the subsidized costs of post-secondary education.
Typical Quebec crying when they already have the lowest tuition fees.
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept.
$2000 per year on tuition $1000 per year on books x4 years
= $12,000
How is it possible for the AVERAGE to be 15,000 in debt? That makes no sense.
1) Get a part-time job during the school year OR a full-time job during the summer and you won't have any debt. 2) Learn how to budget and be frugal with your money. 3) We have it so lucky compared to many people around the world because of the subsidized costs of post-secondary education.
Typical Quebec crying when they already have the lowest tuition fees.
Accomodation? There are some cities really really expensive. And I can ensure you there are some places where you just cant find a part-time job.
In our beloved Sweden (the true land of opportunity if I may be so bold!) you can become a doctor, dentist, any kind of engineer etc. without paying a single SEK - the government is actually paying you! ~2500 SEK each month for studying at university level (no interest or anything, its a donation from the government).
But yeah... we better use the money for something with our idiotic taxes to be quite frank.
There probably should be a small cost for higher education. There definitely should not be the insanely high costs like the USA though. Every year state college tuition is getting higher and higher. The quality is not increasing at the same rates either.
I'm glad I finished when it was still relatively cheap.
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept.
$2000 per year on tuition $1000 per year on books x4 years
= $12,000
How is it possible for the AVERAGE to be 15,000 in debt? That makes no sense.
1) Get a part-time job during the school year OR a full-time job during the summer and you won't have any debt. 2) Learn how to budget and be frugal with your money. 3) We have it so lucky compared to many people around the world because of the subsidized costs of post-secondary education.
Typical Quebec crying when they already have the lowest tuition fees.
Yeah I also don't believe this -15K AVERAGE from ALL STUDENTS. Almost every student I know have things paid by their parents, others have half time jobs. The only person I know who is really in debt because of university and cost of life is my GF, and she is at -2000.
Alot of people getting a good education = good for country (economically and otherwise) => taxes going to making unis and schools free = good investment.
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept.
$2000 per year on tuition $1000 per year on books x4 years
= $12,000
How is it possible for the AVERAGE to be 15,000 in debt? That makes no sense.
1) Get a part-time job during the school year OR a full-time job during the summer and you won't have any debt. 2) Learn how to budget and be frugal with your money. 3) We have it so lucky compared to many people around the world because of the subsidized costs of post-secondary education.
Typical Quebec crying when they already have the lowest tuition fees.
Accomodation? There are some cities really really expensive. And I can ensure you there are some places where you just cant find a part-time job.
If living expenses are too much for you and you can't get a part-time job then why in the world would you pick to go to school there? Do people never think of the consequences first? Just move out, cry and complain when it's too expensive? People need to plan better.
On March 13 2012 17:53 xrapture wrote: "education" is free because you have the internet and the library.
the piece of paper called a diploma you want should not be free.
You seem to imply, firstly, that access to the internet is free and, secondly, that there is no qualitative difference between the education you receive from attending courses at a University and the education you get from reading Wikipedia articles. I'd consider both assumptions to be quite a stretch, to say the least.
Since when is reading wikipedia articles the only way to retrieve information on the internet? Also, provide at least 1 study that shows that learning in university is more effective than independent learning.
As anomalopidae has already pointed out, a University offers quite a bit of infrastructure that a "hobbyist" simply cannot acquire by himself. But since you'd like to read a study on the incompleteness of independent learning, how about Tuovinen/Sweller (1999). "A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples". Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (2): 334–341?
On a sidenote, the next time you're making a contraintuitive statement and I say that I consider it to be quite a stretch, it'll be up to you to provide evidence for your claim, not up to me to disprove you, ok?
You're the one that made a claim to begin with, thus making you the person that needs to come up with proof of that assertion. Next time check the name of who you quote before saying something stupid to someone else who is asking you questions.
I believe education cannot be 'free' but I do believe it the cost that students have to put up when they go to college should be minimum/close to zero. Here in Belgium the cost is around 500 EUR per annum for a Bachelor degree (with lower tarrifs for very low income families who receive government scholarships). This is good in the sence that there is little to no obstruction to go to college. However, people easily tend to forget that the true cost for the university/government of a year of me studying is around 11k per year (not including my opportunity costs of any sort). This cost is put up by the government, which is 'fair' given the high income tax rates we have to pay when earning $$. Higher education, higher income, more 'return' for the government for investing in me.
The thing that bothers me about the education system of Bachelor/Master, is that it tends to inflate the degrees. Bachelor means nothing these days, they are reduced to nothing more but a requirement for your Master. Nevertheless, the EU aims the Bachelor degree to be self-sufficient in the working place, which it is not. It will most likely become worse when in 5 or 10 years time the Master will equal the Bachelor nowadays (basicly nothing besides the fact that you can learn).
Please note that Im talking about most general university studies and not specific studies will undoubtedly keep its value, like engineering (eg).
On March 13 2012 20:52 Red112 wrote: I don't understand people who get upset about their taxes going to education/healthcare. What more noble thing could your taxes go to than educating generations and providing medicine to those who require it?
The problem is that both "educating generations" and "providing medicine to those who require it" are too vague. There's a difference between subsidizing the education of people in fields of serious study for which there is a real societal need, such as medicine or engineering, and paying for some frat boy to party for four years while he cruises to a "communications" degree he'll never use. Similarly, there's a difference between paying for someone's life-saving medical treatment and paying for a symptomless individual to undergo a screening procedure of questionable medical value.
Only the most obtuse ideological zealot really believes that public funds should be used for everything that could be described as education or health care, or that absolutely nothing in the either area is worth funding. Crazies on either side aside, the devil is in the details. Just what should the public subsidy include? By what criteria and procedures do we separate those that are worth paying for from those which are not? That's where the real action is, and the issues aren't simple. People who try to boil them down to simplistic platitudes are a big part of the problem.
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept.
$2000 per year on tuition $1000 per year on books x4 years
= $12,000
How is it possible for the AVERAGE to be 15,000 in debt? That makes no sense.
1) Get a part-time job during the school year OR a full-time job during the summer and you won't have any debt. 2) Learn how to budget and be frugal with your money. 3) We have it so lucky compared to many people around the world because of the subsidized costs of post-secondary education.
Typical Quebec crying when they already have the lowest tuition fees.
Accomodation? There are some cities really really expensive. And I can ensure you there are some places where you just cant find a part-time job.
If living expenses are too much for you and you can't get a part-time job then why in the world would you pick to go to school there? Do people never think of the consequences first? Just move out, cry and complain when it's too expensive? People need to plan better.
I wasn't complaining about anything. Just that your calculation was incorrect. You forgot accommodation in it, and its the biggest cost for most students.
On March 13 2012 17:53 xrapture wrote: "education" is free because you have the internet and the library.
the piece of paper called a diploma you want should not be free.
You seem to imply, firstly, that access to the internet is free and, secondly, that there is no qualitative difference between the education you receive from attending courses at a University and the education you get from reading Wikipedia articles. I'd consider both assumptions to be quite a stretch, to say the least.
Since when is reading wikipedia articles the only way to retrieve information on the internet? Also, provide at least 1 study that shows that learning in university is more effective than independent learning.
As anomalopidae has already pointed out, a University offers quite a bit of infrastructure that a "hobbyist" simply cannot acquire by himself. But since you'd like to read a study on the incompleteness of independent learning, how about Tuovinen/Sweller (1999). "A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples". Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (2): 334–341?
On a sidenote, the next time you're making a contraintuitive statement and I say that I consider it to be quite a stretch, it'll be up to you to provide evidence for your claim, not up to me to disprove you, ok?
You're the one that made a claim to begin with, thus making you the person that needs to come up with proof of that assertion. Next time check the name of who you quote before saying something stupid to someone else who is asking you questions.
Sorry, I did indeed confuse you with xrapture. You're very welcome for me looking up the study if you were genuinely interested in the empirical data and not just trying to shift the burden of proof.
Wow...2000$ for a year of studying...? :O Here in Poland its free and also we GET PAYED if we study well and the level of education is one of the best in Europe...
On March 13 2012 21:07 zanga wrote: In our beloved Sweden (the true land of opportunity if I may be so bold!) you can become a doctor, dentist, any kind of engineer etc. without paying a single SEK - the government is actually paying you! ~2500 SEK each month for studying at university level (no interest or anything, its a donation from the government).
But yeah... we better use the money for something with our idiotic taxes to be quite frank.
What is so idiotic about our taxes? Is the average swede living on the edge of poverty or something? Hardly. High taxes are a blessing few people actually appreciate enough.
Nothing is free, and you really do run out of other people's money. Apparently even the slow-motion train wreck of Europe's and America's finances isn't enough to convince people of this. They just want more more more. You can sensibly provide public services through taxation, or you can go on borrowing sprees to provide that more more more that eventually bite you in the ass and put undue strain on an economy that's been addicted to "public" money and is forced into withdrawal by reality.
doesn't free education make the education basically shit? Schools starts cheating tests to keep subsidies etc etc. Teachers that never get fired even if they can't educate a monkey to eat a banana.
While a fully private education would be worse, the current system is pretty horrible.
On March 13 2012 21:21 DeepElemBlues wrote: Nothing is free, and you really do run out of other people's money. Apparently even the slow-motion train wreck of Europe's and America's finances isn't enough to convince people of this. They just want more more more. You can sensibly provide public services through taxation, or you can go on borrowing sprees to provide that more more more that eventually bite you in the ass and put undue strain on an economy that's been addicted to "public" money and is forced into withdrawal by reality.
taxes are way more then enough to pay for education. and health care. 10 times over.
the problem is all the worthless other crap. like a hype war on terror. or all the parasites getting welfare while having a job off the books.
On March 13 2012 21:21 DeepElemBlues wrote: Nothing is free, and you really do run out of other people's money. Apparently even the slow-motion train wreck of Europe's and America's finances isn't enough to convince people of this. They just want more more more. You can sensibly provide public services through taxation, or you can go on borrowing sprees to provide that more more more that eventually bite you in the ass and put undue strain on an economy that's been addicted to "public" money and is forced into withdrawal by reality.
Well not really. How it works is, if people want more they have to pay more tax. Most Scandinavian country are ok to make this trade, and it seems to work quite well. But you can't ask for more public services and want to lower the taxes. You have to make this trade. The other issue is what you do of the taxes, and in most countries it's not really effective to say the least.
I see so many people, mainly americans which I can understand, arguing against taxpaid education by saying that this'll eventually lead to inflation of grades students who sit on their ass forever since they're paid to study. It's just plain wrong and misinformed.
Not only do better universities have higher requirements for students to be accepted, they're also more easily booted from that university again if they really don't put in any work. It's not as easy as simply having every option available to you, you're required to know that you want to go down that route basically from before you begin going to highschool.
Secondly there are loads of easily applicable systems in place to prevent students from fucking around eternally. Simply cut their funding if they spend more than a year extra compared to the given time they had for that particular course. It's not difficult.
Taxes are definitely higher, but they're there to pay for the future generation that's inevitably going to have to pay for your own sorry ass when you either become sick or too old to take care of yourself. If you'd truly want for this next generation to be a bunch of uneducated ignorants, then I don't know what to say.
On a different note though. Living in Denmark where education is paid for on all levels I'll have to say that not everything is as easy as its made out to be. Since I was qualified and wanted to study at the university that gave me the most and the best options I was forced to apply to uni in Copenhagen. Not a problem at all. However I live pretty damn far away, which means that every day I have to go to class, even if it's simply a 1,5 hour lecture, I have to spend 3-5 hours on transport and its associated waiting times to go forth and back.
Now I could go ahead and move closer couldn't I? Well there's the issue that even though I queued up for college housing the same autumn I was accepted, which is 1,5 years ago, I'm not even close to getting a spot. This leaves regular apartment renting, which even with the state support of ~500$ a month isn't even close to being affordable inside the city. Move to a suburb you say? Ok, it's definitely cheaper to live outside of the capital city and actually affordable with a job on the side. However it's still pretty damn difficult to find a place. Additionally this would mean being forced to work on the side, detracting focus and time from things like proper sleeping schedules, social life and networking and of course studying. Another worry would be the fact that living in a suburb still puts me far enough away from campus that transport is still an issue.
TL:DR Taxpaid education is where its at, and how it should be. A thing of note is that the amount of danish/scandinavian posters fail to mention arguments against all the people who come and tell us how easy we all have it.
On March 13 2012 21:21 DeepElemBlues wrote: Nothing is free, and you really do run out of other people's money. Apparently even the slow-motion train wreck of Europe's and America's finances isn't enough to convince people of this. They just want more more more. You can sensibly provide public services through taxation, or you can go on borrowing sprees to provide that more more more that eventually bite you in the ass and put undue strain on an economy that's been addicted to "public" money and is forced into withdrawal by reality.
What does that even mean? Only the piigs are in bad shape in Europe, and they're pulling down the rest because of the shared euro. Germany's finances are more than good otherwise, and have always been really. Free health care and university.
This is the fact for almost every European country. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland etc etc.
I really don't understand these arguments when it's been in place for almost a hundred years at this point. How come it's always been going great for the countries with the highest taxation?
On March 13 2012 21:21 DeepElemBlues wrote: Nothing is free, and you really do run out of other people's money. Apparently even the slow-motion train wreck of Europe's and America's finances isn't enough to convince people of this. They just want more more more. You can sensibly provide public services through taxation, or you can go on borrowing sprees to provide that more more more that eventually bite you in the ass and put undue strain on an economy that's been addicted to "public" money and is forced into withdrawal by reality.
What does that even mean? Only the piigs are in bad shape in Europe, and they're pulling down the rest because of the shared euro. Germany's finances are more than good otherwise, and have always been really. Free health care and university.
This is the fact for almost every European country. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland etc etc.
I really don't understand these arguments when it's been in place for almost a hundred years at this point. How come it's always been going great for the countries with the highest taxation?
Fun fact, during 60 years the US had almost 90% tax on the richest people. Still, had some of its highest growth rate.
On March 13 2012 21:23 Nizaris wrote: doesn't free education make the education basically shit? Schools starts cheating tests to keep subsidies etc etc. Teachers that never get fired even if they can't educate a monkey to eat a banana.
While a fully private education would be worse, the current system is pretty horrible.
Nah, universities etc are still ranked, even though they may not be private institutions. A good university will be a popular university which leads to more students which leads to more money, more fame... Universities can also provide research and tons of other services, doesn't depend on them being privatized.
I used to attend one of the biggest universities in Sweden and it's not private but still has good ranking internationally, is huge, has a big hospital connected to it and does a ton of research. There's just no reason to believe education is worse because it's free.
On March 13 2012 16:39 askTeivospy wrote: theres already enough people with a B. Sc making it hard to get a job in sciences now, opening it up to everyone would be annoying unless Free education = increase GPA to graduate
I'd be for that, i'd still pass and all the people who think they're scientists by pulling sub 3.0 UDGPA / CGPA (even 3.0 is low for Upper division IMO, but for cgpa w/e) wont get a degree. Currently morons are coasting by with a cool 2.5 getting the same degree I have so in order to distinguish myself from them I need to spend more time and money getting a M. Sc. (which i am going to do regardless, but that's besides the point)
Why do you feel grades are of such importance (for character)? Why do people define themself through grades? It's pathetic.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but see...you define yourself through grades because EVERYONE ELSE DOES. You will realize this one day. This whole "wear what you want to wear, say what you want to say, and do whatever the fuck you want with no regard for anything" attitude is cool in theory but you DO have to deal with other people whose opinion of you can mean the difference between a 100k job and being a begger. This sort of devil may care outlook is going to get you nowhere. Other peoples opinion of you does matter. That's adult life unfortunately.
Also Education should be paid with taxes. Id be much happier paying for someone elses education than funding the "war on terror, drugs, and the occasional boogy man" for sure.
taxes are way more then enough to pay for education. and health care. 10 times over.
the problem is all the worthless other crap. like a hype war on terror. or all the parasites getting welfare while having a job off the books.
Of course taxes are more than enough to pay for a limited amount of ventures in countries with highly developed economies that create a lot of wealth and have a relatively very minuscule population. Try expanding that to hundreds of millions of people, a large minority of them not creating enough wealth to pay for their share of the spending, and you have a problem.
Well not really. How it works is, if people want more they have to pay more tax. Most Scandinavian country are ok to make this trade, and it seems to work quite well. But you can't ask for more public services and want to lower the taxes. You have to make this trade. The other issue is what you do of the taxes, and in most countries it's not really effective to say the least.
Scandinavian countries also have very strict limits on spending and borrowing and are small enough to get away with maintaining a relatively high welfare state through high taxation.
That trade didn't work during the downturn of the 1990s, when the fiscal safeguards that are in place now were not in existence yet. And again, doing it for a few million or a few tens of millions is not something you can extrapolate to 300, 400, 500 million people of much different economic makeup.
What does that even mean? Only the piigs are in bad shape in Europe, and they're pulling down the rest because of the shared euro. Germany's finances are more than good otherwise, and have always been really. Free health care and university.
This is the fact for almost every European country. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland etc etc.
I really don't understand these arguments when it's been in place for almost a hundred years at this point. How come it's always been going great for the countries with the highest taxation?
No, it is not only the PIIGs that are in bad shape in Europe. Germany's finances are in good shape only as long as they don't keep giving handouts to the PIIGs, which is why Merkel is very reluctant to hand out any more. France's finances are in precarious shape thanks to their banks taking on too much PIIG debt.
You can't just separate the Euro from everything else, one of the things the Euro was intended to do was to make it possible for the countries of southern Europe to spend like the countries of northern Europe without having the economy strength and spending safeguards that the northern countries do. How well is that working out?
And honestly it's like people's memories start at 1995 and anything that happened before then doesn't matter, those countries you listed, throw in the UK as well, went through greater or lesser problems in the 1960s and 1970s thanks to their economies being unable to sustain the level of government spending and debt.
I really don't understand these arguments that act like the economy will always be growing at 5-8% annually and history only started 15 or 20 years ago, completely ignoring the fact that it has not "always been going great" for these countries and actually is not "going great" now, Merkel and Sarkozy wouldn't be meeting all the time and handing out edicts left and right about what the PIIGs must do and what France and Germany will do to protect themselves and the economy of Europe wouldn't be projected to shrink this year if everything was working fine the way it has always worked fine according to fantasy remembrances of a past that never happened.
I think the money plays a big part in it, regardless of where you stand on that.
Most often the best education you'll get is at higher prices, just like the best Doctors for the most money. If everybody had access to FREE education, even if schools were ranked, everyone would just go to/apply for the best, there's no way they could accommodate those numbers and that's where I feel it would get out of hand.
Colleges in America may be expensive, but you have a TON of options at all price and quality levels, if you actually apply yourself, or even just search the internet you can get a lot of money to help you go through school, they give out money just for being or having certain feats.
If you do well, you can get into any school you want, youll have to pay it off later in some degree but if you apply that knowledge/exp youll be fine. I don't see much of a problem, what I do see a problem with actually IS THE FREE EDUCATION, Americas public education system is TRASH! So riddle me that
On March 13 2012 21:20 An2quamaraN wrote: Wow...2000$ for a year of studying...? :O Here in Poland its free and also we GET PAYED if we study well and the level of education is one of the best in Europe...
I dont imagine it being other way.
2k/yr is for lower end schools too...if u want to go to like a real uni expect to pay $20k+/yr
On March 13 2012 21:47 v3chr0 wrote: I think the money plays a big part in it, regardless of where you stand on that.
Most often the best education you'll get is at higher prices, just like the best Doctors for the most money. If everybody had access to FREE education, even if schools were ranked, everyone would just go to/apply for the best, there's no way they could accommodate those numbers and that's where I feel it would get out of hand.
Colleges in America may be expensive, but you have a TON of options at all price and quality levels, if you actually apply yourself, or even just search the internet you can get a lot of money to help you go through school, they give out money just for being or having certain feats.
If you do well, you can get into any school you want, youll have to pay it off later in some degree but if you apply that knowledge/exp youll be fine. I don't see much of a problem, what I do see a problem with actually IS THE FREE EDUCATION, Americas public education system is TRASH! So riddle me that
Everyone can apply for the best all they want but that just makes the competition harder. Being free =/= accepting everyone. Not sure what your point is.
I went to a school that charged me 37k/yr to go. My grants and funds that I spent OVER A YEAR finding only covered 29k of it. The rest of that was out of my own pocket or my parents pocket. I was lucky to have a family that made quite a bit of money so this wasn't a huge strain but I had plenty of friends that were as qualified/more qualified that couldn't go to that upper tier school because they simply had no reasonable way to afford it. That just isn't right. You have bright minds that can't do their best because of something that is simply outside of their control. My WIFE would be one of those if I hadn't come around. The only reason her ability to go into PT school turned into a reality is because i have the means to put her through it...and she has scholarships/grants that cover roughly 85% of the costs. Her family just wasnt in a position to help. I have a problem with this.
America's public education is trash for a myriad of reasons and being "free" has little to do with it.
I see so many people, mainly americans which I can understand, arguing against taxpaid education by saying that this'll eventually lead to inflation of grades students who sit on their ass forever since they're paid to study. It's just plain wrong and misinformed.
Not only do better universities have higher requirements for students to be accepted, they're also more easily booted from that university again if they really don't put in any work. It's not as easy as simply having every option available to you, you're required to know that you want to go down that route basically from before you begin going to highschool.
Secondly there are loads of easily applicable systems in place to prevent students from fucking around eternally. Simply cut their funding if they spend more than a year extra compared to the given time they had for that particular course. It's not difficult.
Taxes are definitely higher, but they're there to pay for the future generation that's inevitably going to have to pay for your own sorry ass when you either become sick or too old to take care of yourself. If you'd truly want for this next generation to be a bunch of uneducated ignorants, then I don't know what to say.
On a different note though. Living in Denmark where education is paid for on all levels I'll have to say that not everything is as easy as its made out to be. Since I was qualified and wanted to study at the university that gave me the most and the best options I was forced to apply to uni in Copenhagen. Not a problem at all. However I live pretty damn far away, which means that every day I have to go to class, even if it's simply a 1,5 hour lecture, I have to spend 3-5 hours on transport and its associated waiting times to go forth and back.
Now I could go ahead and move closer couldn't I? Well there's the issue that even though I queued up for college housing the same autumn I was accepted, which is 1,5 years ago, I'm not even close to getting a spot. This leaves regular apartment renting, which even with the state support of ~500$ a month isn't even close to being affordable inside the city. Move to a suburb you say? Ok, it's definitely cheaper to live outside of the capital city and actually affordable with a job on the side. However it's still pretty damn difficult to find a place. Additionally this would mean being forced to work on the side, detracting focus and time from things like proper sleeping schedules, social life and networking and of course studying. Another worry would be the fact that living in a suburb still puts me far enough away from campus that transport is still an issue.
TL:DR Taxpaid education is where its at, and how it should be. A thing of note is that the amount of danish/scandinavian posters fail to mention arguments against all the people who come and tell us how easy we all have it.
Just a question, what are you studying, and I can't believe you haven't gotten ANYTHING within the last 1,5 years, are you a bit picky? Even though I live in Aarhus, which is not as expensive as CPH, I have had no problem finding something to live in.
On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap.
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has
In some parts of Germany (and many other european countries) university is free. I myself think that it is a huge hit for a society if it isn't since then money equals education and since good education gives you a good chance of good income, educated people have more money for the next generation. The clear and obvious downside is that poor people have VERY LITTLE chance to get rich, not even close to wealthy. That leads to those people not getting a chance of good education and suddenly you have a society like in the 14th century. It clearly is a step in the wrong direction if you ask me.
taxes are way more then enough to pay for education. and health care. 10 times over.
the problem is all the worthless other crap. like a hype war on terror. or all the parasites getting welfare while having a job off the books.
Of course taxes are more than enough to pay for a limited amount of ventures in countries with highly developed economies that create a lot of wealth and have a relatively very minuscule population. Try expanding that to hundreds of millions of people, a large minority of them not creating enough wealth to pay for their share of the spending, and you have a problem.
Well not really. How it works is, if people want more they have to pay more tax. Most Scandinavian country are ok to make this trade, and it seems to work quite well. But you can't ask for more public services and want to lower the taxes. You have to make this trade. The other issue is what you do of the taxes, and in most countries it's not really effective to say the least.
Scandinavian countries also have very strict limits on spending and borrowing and are small enough to get away with maintaining a relatively high welfare state through high taxation.
That trade didn't work during the downturn of the 1990s, when the fiscal safeguards that are in place now were not in existence yet. And again, doing it for a few million or a few tens of millions is not something you can extrapolate to 300, 400, 500 million people of much different economic makeup.
What does that even mean? Only the piigs are in bad shape in Europe, and they're pulling down the rest because of the shared euro. Germany's finances are more than good otherwise, and have always been really. Free health care and university.
This is the fact for almost every European country. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland etc etc.
I really don't understand these arguments when it's been in place for almost a hundred years at this point. How come it's always been going great for the countries with the highest taxation?
No, it is not only the PIIGs that are in bad shape in Europe. Germany's finances are in good shape only as long as they don't keep giving handouts to the PIIGs, which is why Merkel is very reluctant to hand out any more. France's finances are in precarious shape thanks to their banks taking on too much PIIG debt.
You can't just separate the Euro from everything else, one of the things the Euro was intended to do was to make it possible for the countries of southern Europe to spend like the countries of northern Europe without having the economy strength and spending safeguards that the northern countries do. How well is that working out?
And honestly it's like people's memories start at 1995 and anything that happened before then doesn't matter, those countries you listed, throw in the UK as well, went through greater or lesser problems in the 1960s and 1970s thanks to their economies being unable to sustain the level of government spending and debt.
I really don't understand these arguments that act like the economy will always be growing at 5-8% annually and history only started 15 or 20 years ago, completely ignoring the fact that it has not "always been going great" for these countries and actually is not "going great" now, Merkel and Sarkozy wouldn't be meeting all the time and handing out edicts left and right about what the PIIGs must do and what France and Germany will do to protect themselves and the economy of Europe wouldn't be projected to shrink this year if everything was working fine the way it has always worked fine according to fantasy remembrances of a past that never happened.
The problem with the Eurozone isn't debt. Spain and Ireland had a surplus right before the crisis. The problem is that wages are too high in the PIGS and Germany exported too much too the PIGS, giving them a huge trade surplus, while giving the PIGS a huge trade deficit, because wages are too high so that their exports are not competitive. Germany is part of the problem, their wages are too low compared to the PIGS. This trade imbalance which caused the Eurozone crisis would hardly be a problem if there wasn't a common currency, simply depreciating the currency would solve most of the problem.
If debt is the problem why isn't Japan in crisis? Why are countries like Ireland and Spain with lower debt than the US in crisis?
Another thing to note is that a lot of money flowed into the PIGS when the Eurozone was formed, bringing down their interest rates and making the interest rate for all Eurozone sovereign bonds converge, because investors thought they all had the same risk since they're all on the Euro. And then when the crisis hit, all these rates diverged to essentially their pre-Eurozone values, they never really had the same risk. This is a prime example that disproves rational expectations, one of the key assumptions needed for free markets to work. Free markets can't work because people are stupid, they weren't smart enough to see same currency does not equal same risk, they are not rational.
The Eurozone economy is shrinking because Germany is forcing everyone to cut spending in a recession. Why would the private sector want to invest in an economy in recession when unemployment is up to 20% in some places? No one has money to spend on their products.
So this isn't the case of reckless government spending on public services. Not that education spending was ever significant anyway.
On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap.
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not sure how it is in other European countries, but in the Netherlands it's not nearly as bad as you describe. It does depend on which type of specialist you want to see, but usually the waiting time is a few weeks at most. For urgent matters it is much faster of course.
On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap.
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has
It can be like that, specially with Social Security which EVERYBODY has here and you can get medican attention. Myself (and most people with a somewhat high mid-high lvl) have private insurance so I usually dont have to wait at all.
Even ignoring the obvious ethical problems of education level being determined by parental wealth, the most valuable resource for a country is an educated population.
I think it's pretty obvious that a wealthy society should be paying for education to a large degree, though specifics depend on country and there's no one size fits all policy you can put across the globe.
On March 13 2012 22:28 FuzzyJAM wrote: Even ignoring the obvious ethical problems of education level being determined by parental wealth, the most valuable resource for a country is an educated population.
I think it's pretty obvious that a wealthy society should be paying for education to a large degree, though specifics depend on country and there's no one size fits all policy you can put across the globe.
I agree a well educated society is something to strife for even though the taxes will be high. Because an educated country will see the will probably be more democratic, have a richer culture and care more about the environment. It also creates a good discussion about the political topics that arises and by having a educated discussion that political issues will be at hand not some other side issues.
On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap.
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has
Yes, there are waiting times, IF you want to do it without paying out of your own pocket, however if you're an urgent case or you choose to go private/pay yourself, then you get it done pretty fast and at least in my country there is lack of doctors but only because of the current space limits at universities, as well as the fact that majority wants to work in cities(towns) and not in the country although the pay would be better.
taxes are way more then enough to pay for education. and health care. 10 times over.
the problem is all the worthless other crap. like a hype war on terror. or all the parasites getting welfare while having a job off the books.
Of course taxes are more than enough to pay for a limited amount of ventures in countries with highly developed economies that create a lot of wealth and have a relatively very minuscule population. Try expanding that to hundreds of millions of people, a large minority of them not creating enough wealth to pay for their share of the spending, and you have a problem.
Well not really. How it works is, if people want more they have to pay more tax. Most Scandinavian country are ok to make this trade, and it seems to work quite well. But you can't ask for more public services and want to lower the taxes. You have to make this trade. The other issue is what you do of the taxes, and in most countries it's not really effective to say the least.
Scandinavian countries also have very strict limits on spending and borrowing and are small enough to get away with maintaining a relatively high welfare state through high taxation.
That trade didn't work during the downturn of the 1990s, when the fiscal safeguards that are in place now were not in existence yet. And again, doing it for a few million or a few tens of millions is not something you can extrapolate to 300, 400, 500 million people of much different economic makeup.
What does that even mean? Only the piigs are in bad shape in Europe, and they're pulling down the rest because of the shared euro. Germany's finances are more than good otherwise, and have always been really. Free health care and university.
This is the fact for almost every European country. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland etc etc.
I really don't understand these arguments when it's been in place for almost a hundred years at this point. How come it's always been going great for the countries with the highest taxation?
No, it is not only the PIIGs that are in bad shape in Europe. Germany's finances are in good shape only as long as they don't keep giving handouts to the PIIGs, which is why Merkel is very reluctant to hand out any more. France's finances are in precarious shape thanks to their banks taking on too much PIIG debt.
You can't just separate the Euro from everything else, one of the things the Euro was intended to do was to make it possible for the countries of southern Europe to spend like the countries of northern Europe without having the economy strength and spending safeguards that the northern countries do. How well is that working out?
And honestly it's like people's memories start at 1995 and anything that happened before then doesn't matter, those countries you listed, throw in the UK as well, went through greater or lesser problems in the 1960s and 1970s thanks to their economies being unable to sustain the level of government spending and debt.
I really don't understand these arguments that act like the economy will always be growing at 5-8% annually and history only started 15 or 20 years ago, completely ignoring the fact that it has not "always been going great" for these countries and actually is not "going great" now, Merkel and Sarkozy wouldn't be meeting all the time and handing out edicts left and right about what the PIIGs must do and what France and Germany will do to protect themselves and the economy of Europe wouldn't be projected to shrink this year if everything was working fine the way it has always worked fine according to fantasy remembrances of a past that never happened.
That wasn't really my point. My point was that relatively large countries such as Germany can pull it off, and they're still fine financially. The euro crisis has nothing to do with public health care or education. I've never said anything about a constant growth in economy. I'm saying that health care and education should be a basis of a society, not some unreachable luxury, which is the case in many countries. Scandinavia isn't in the Euro, so by northern countries I assume you mean Germany and France?
Why do you write Spain with a small S in PIIGS? =(
taxes are way more then enough to pay for education. and health care. 10 times over.
the problem is all the worthless other crap. like a hype war on terror. or all the parasites getting welfare while having a job off the books.
Of course taxes are more than enough to pay for a limited amount of ventures in countries with highly developed economies that create a lot of wealth and have a relatively very minuscule population. Try expanding that to hundreds of millions of people, a large minority of them not creating enough wealth to pay for their share of the spending, and you have a problem.
Well not really. How it works is, if people want more they have to pay more tax. Most Scandinavian country are ok to make this trade, and it seems to work quite well. But you can't ask for more public services and want to lower the taxes. You have to make this trade. The other issue is what you do of the taxes, and in most countries it's not really effective to say the least.
Scandinavian countries also have very strict limits on spending and borrowing and are small enough to get away with maintaining a relatively high welfare state through high taxation.
That trade didn't work during the downturn of the 1990s, when the fiscal safeguards that are in place now were not in existence yet. And again, doing it for a few million or a few tens of millions is not something you can extrapolate to 300, 400, 500 million people of much different economic makeup.
What does that even mean? Only the piigs are in bad shape in Europe, and they're pulling down the rest because of the shared euro. Germany's finances are more than good otherwise, and have always been really. Free health care and university.
This is the fact for almost every European country. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland etc etc.
I really don't understand these arguments when it's been in place for almost a hundred years at this point. How come it's always been going great for the countries with the highest taxation?
No, it is not only the PIIGs that are in bad shape in Europe. Germany's finances are in good shape only as long as they don't keep giving handouts to the PIIGs, which is why Merkel is very reluctant to hand out any more. France's finances are in precarious shape thanks to their banks taking on too much PIIG debt.
You can't just separate the Euro from everything else, one of the things the Euro was intended to do was to make it possible for the countries of southern Europe to spend like the countries of northern Europe without having the economy strength and spending safeguards that the northern countries do. How well is that working out?
And honestly it's like people's memories start at 1995 and anything that happened before then doesn't matter, those countries you listed, throw in the UK as well, went through greater or lesser problems in the 1960s and 1970s thanks to their economies being unable to sustain the level of government spending and debt.
I really don't understand these arguments that act like the economy will always be growing at 5-8% annually and history only started 15 or 20 years ago, completely ignoring the fact that it has not "always been going great" for these countries and actually is not "going great" now, Merkel and Sarkozy wouldn't be meeting all the time and handing out edicts left and right about what the PIIGs must do and what France and Germany will do to protect themselves and the economy of Europe wouldn't be projected to shrink this year if everything was working fine the way it has always worked fine according to fantasy remembrances of a past that never happened.
Scandinavia isn't in the Euro, so by northern countries I assume you mean Germany and France?
Actually 2/3 of the Scandinavian countries are in EU^^, Sweden not using the euro.
On March 13 2012 16:06 Craton wrote: There's no such thing as bringing the value or worth of education down. There are a ton of relationships between the level of education in a society and it's overall well-being with things like health, economics, etc.
when you pay 110,000 for an education but working at walmart stocking shelves because you cant find a job. yea those loan bills coming in son what you gonna do? i already know what your going to do. live in a piece of shit house with little spending money if any at all and wish u had of joined the military and be halfway to retirement driving a new ride with a system in it. don't talk shit unless you know shit. open your eyes your just an average troll.
Education in the u.s is pretty expensive compared to here, it costs the equivalent of 10k dollars to get my engineering degree, and if you study pretty hard you can get it done for a lot lower. Whats more, if your a minority, you dont even have to study that hard to get that lower fees. I was quite shocked when I looked at the fees for an m.s degree. But then, a lot of things are a lot more expensive in the u.s than here, so it might be a natural progression of that.
taxes are way more then enough to pay for education. and health care. 10 times over.
the problem is all the worthless other crap. like a hype war on terror. or all the parasites getting welfare while having a job off the books.
Of course taxes are more than enough to pay for a limited amount of ventures in countries with highly developed economies that create a lot of wealth and have a relatively very minuscule population. Try expanding that to hundreds of millions of people, a large minority of them not creating enough wealth to pay for their share of the spending, and you have a problem.
Well not really. How it works is, if people want more they have to pay more tax. Most Scandinavian country are ok to make this trade, and it seems to work quite well. But you can't ask for more public services and want to lower the taxes. You have to make this trade. The other issue is what you do of the taxes, and in most countries it's not really effective to say the least.
Scandinavian countries also have very strict limits on spending and borrowing and are small enough to get away with maintaining a relatively high welfare state through high taxation.
That trade didn't work during the downturn of the 1990s, when the fiscal safeguards that are in place now were not in existence yet. And again, doing it for a few million or a few tens of millions is not something you can extrapolate to 300, 400, 500 million people of much different economic makeup.
What does that even mean? Only the piigs are in bad shape in Europe, and they're pulling down the rest because of the shared euro. Germany's finances are more than good otherwise, and have always been really. Free health care and university.
This is the fact for almost every European country. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland etc etc.
I really don't understand these arguments when it's been in place for almost a hundred years at this point. How come it's always been going great for the countries with the highest taxation?
No, it is not only the PIIGs that are in bad shape in Europe. Germany's finances are in good shape only as long as they don't keep giving handouts to the PIIGs, which is why Merkel is very reluctant to hand out any more. France's finances are in precarious shape thanks to their banks taking on too much PIIG debt.
You can't just separate the Euro from everything else, one of the things the Euro was intended to do was to make it possible for the countries of southern Europe to spend like the countries of northern Europe without having the economy strength and spending safeguards that the northern countries do. How well is that working out?
And honestly it's like people's memories start at 1995 and anything that happened before then doesn't matter, those countries you listed, throw in the UK as well, went through greater or lesser problems in the 1960s and 1970s thanks to their economies being unable to sustain the level of government spending and debt.
I really don't understand these arguments that act like the economy will always be growing at 5-8% annually and history only started 15 or 20 years ago, completely ignoring the fact that it has not "always been going great" for these countries and actually is not "going great" now, Merkel and Sarkozy wouldn't be meeting all the time and handing out edicts left and right about what the PIIGs must do and what France and Germany will do to protect themselves and the economy of Europe wouldn't be projected to shrink this year if everything was working fine the way it has always worked fine according to fantasy remembrances of a past that never happened.
Scandinavia isn't in the Euro, so by northern countries I assume you mean Germany and France?
Actually 2/3 of the Scandinavian countries are in EU^^, Sweden not using the euro.
taxes are way more then enough to pay for education. and health care. 10 times over.
the problem is all the worthless other crap. like a hype war on terror. or all the parasites getting welfare while having a job off the books.
Of course taxes are more than enough to pay for a limited amount of ventures in countries with highly developed economies that create a lot of wealth and have a relatively very minuscule population. Try expanding that to hundreds of millions of people, a large minority of them not creating enough wealth to pay for their share of the spending, and you have a problem.
Well not really. How it works is, if people want more they have to pay more tax. Most Scandinavian country are ok to make this trade, and it seems to work quite well. But you can't ask for more public services and want to lower the taxes. You have to make this trade. The other issue is what you do of the taxes, and in most countries it's not really effective to say the least.
Scandinavian countries also have very strict limits on spending and borrowing and are small enough to get away with maintaining a relatively high welfare state through high taxation.
That trade didn't work during the downturn of the 1990s, when the fiscal safeguards that are in place now were not in existence yet. And again, doing it for a few million or a few tens of millions is not something you can extrapolate to 300, 400, 500 million people of much different economic makeup.
What does that even mean? Only the piigs are in bad shape in Europe, and they're pulling down the rest because of the shared euro. Germany's finances are more than good otherwise, and have always been really. Free health care and university.
This is the fact for almost every European country. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland etc etc.
I really don't understand these arguments when it's been in place for almost a hundred years at this point. How come it's always been going great for the countries with the highest taxation?
No, it is not only the PIIGs that are in bad shape in Europe. Germany's finances are in good shape only as long as they don't keep giving handouts to the PIIGs, which is why Merkel is very reluctant to hand out any more. France's finances are in precarious shape thanks to their banks taking on too much PIIG debt.
You can't just separate the Euro from everything else, one of the things the Euro was intended to do was to make it possible for the countries of southern Europe to spend like the countries of northern Europe without having the economy strength and spending safeguards that the northern countries do. How well is that working out?
And honestly it's like people's memories start at 1995 and anything that happened before then doesn't matter, those countries you listed, throw in the UK as well, went through greater or lesser problems in the 1960s and 1970s thanks to their economies being unable to sustain the level of government spending and debt.
I really don't understand these arguments that act like the economy will always be growing at 5-8% annually and history only started 15 or 20 years ago, completely ignoring the fact that it has not "always been going great" for these countries and actually is not "going great" now, Merkel and Sarkozy wouldn't be meeting all the time and handing out edicts left and right about what the PIIGs must do and what France and Germany will do to protect themselves and the economy of Europe wouldn't be projected to shrink this year if everything was working fine the way it has always worked fine according to fantasy remembrances of a past that never happened.
Scandinavia isn't in the Euro, so by northern countries I assume you mean Germany and France?
Actually 2/3 of the Scandinavian countries are in EU^^, Sweden not using the euro.
Sweden and Denmark are in the EU, none of the Scandinavian countries are using the euro, which is what I said.
taxes are way more then enough to pay for education. and health care. 10 times over.
the problem is all the worthless other crap. like a hype war on terror. or all the parasites getting welfare while having a job off the books.
Of course taxes are more than enough to pay for a limited amount of ventures in countries with highly developed economies that create a lot of wealth and have a relatively very minuscule population. Try expanding that to hundreds of millions of people, a large minority of them not creating enough wealth to pay for their share of the spending, and you have a problem.
Well not really. How it works is, if people want more they have to pay more tax. Most Scandinavian country are ok to make this trade, and it seems to work quite well. But you can't ask for more public services and want to lower the taxes. You have to make this trade. The other issue is what you do of the taxes, and in most countries it's not really effective to say the least.
Scandinavian countries also have very strict limits on spending and borrowing and are small enough to get away with maintaining a relatively high welfare state through high taxation.
That trade didn't work during the downturn of the 1990s, when the fiscal safeguards that are in place now were not in existence yet. And again, doing it for a few million or a few tens of millions is not something you can extrapolate to 300, 400, 500 million people of much different economic makeup.
What does that even mean? Only the piigs are in bad shape in Europe, and they're pulling down the rest because of the shared euro. Germany's finances are more than good otherwise, and have always been really. Free health care and university.
This is the fact for almost every European country. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland etc etc.
I really don't understand these arguments when it's been in place for almost a hundred years at this point. How come it's always been going great for the countries with the highest taxation?
No, it is not only the PIIGs that are in bad shape in Europe. Germany's finances are in good shape only as long as they don't keep giving handouts to the PIIGs, which is why Merkel is very reluctant to hand out any more. France's finances are in precarious shape thanks to their banks taking on too much PIIG debt.
You can't just separate the Euro from everything else, one of the things the Euro was intended to do was to make it possible for the countries of southern Europe to spend like the countries of northern Europe without having the economy strength and spending safeguards that the northern countries do. How well is that working out?
And honestly it's like people's memories start at 1995 and anything that happened before then doesn't matter, those countries you listed, throw in the UK as well, went through greater or lesser problems in the 1960s and 1970s thanks to their economies being unable to sustain the level of government spending and debt.
I really don't understand these arguments that act like the economy will always be growing at 5-8% annually and history only started 15 or 20 years ago, completely ignoring the fact that it has not "always been going great" for these countries and actually is not "going great" now, Merkel and Sarkozy wouldn't be meeting all the time and handing out edicts left and right about what the PIIGs must do and what France and Germany will do to protect themselves and the economy of Europe wouldn't be projected to shrink this year if everything was working fine the way it has always worked fine according to fantasy remembrances of a past that never happened.
Scandinavia isn't in the Euro, so by northern countries I assume you mean Germany and France?
Actually 2/3 of the Scandinavian countries are in EU^^, Sweden not using the euro.
Sweden and Denmark are in the EU, none of the Scandinavian countries are using the euro, which is what I said.
Edit. My nick is unrelated.
Ah my bad, I thought Finland was a Scandinavian country. And I didn't notice where you were from, my bad as well
I think subsidizing higher education or at least offering it for free is absolutely justified, even necessary. Higher education equals significantly better payment working after university, thus more taxes paid. Long term, the subsidies are an investment that actually pays for itself in higher tax revenue. Also, from a countries point of view, education is a resource that can easily be monetized. I personally don't think a small country like germany could be one of the leaders in worldwide export trade and technology without free access to higher education for everyone wants it and qualifies for it.
On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap.
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has
Non urgent matters a few weeks, sometimes months if that particular department of your local hospital is backed up or under staffed. There's a three month rule, so they try hard to accomodate you and find time for a visit within that time frame.
A big factor that should be taken into account when it comes to waiting times in countries with socialized medicine, at least when it comes to most hospitals here in Sweden, is that a lot of the departments have a policy of calling patients in certain age groups for regular interval visits. My mother, who works as an ophtalmologist, remarked that they'd have a much shorter waiting list if they'd merely settle with notifying patients that they're due for a checkup and then let the patients contact the hospital themselves for a doctor's appointment time.
The way they work now, they call children in for regular visits and elderly people above a certain age (can't remember exact limit). If the patient fails to show up, they have to pay a fee of about ~$50, and then the hospital administration has to spend time and resources calling them to reschedule.
It's just a difference in philosophy between privatized and socialized systems. My mother would rather would rather move towards the privatized system in having more responsibilities shifted to the patient (in contacting the hospital for scheduling and rescheduling etc). But at the same time that approach would make a significant chunk of the population ignore their checkups and/or screenings. It would make Sweden's preventive care system less effective.
If you want instant health care though, there are private clinics in most European countries just as there are in the US. If you've got the money, pay.
Education shouldn't be free. It should be an investment one makes for their future career. Besides if education was free, one wouldn't cherish the opportunity enough to motivate them to really try to do well. Also it's a lot easier on government budgeting.
Free education enables equality among people and prosperity for the nation. Ridiculous university prices like in the US cause people to leave with retarded amounts of debt, which could be catastrophic later on. Such prices are also a sure way to waste capable minds that simply cannot afford to study.
On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap.
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has
However, waiting times for some specialists tend to be longer in European countries than in the US. The reason being that in the US there are simply a lot of people who could never afford a specialist. At least in Germany (and I guess all other European countries) you can secure yourself a shorter wait for a specialist if you have a private health insurance.
taxes are way more then enough to pay for education. and health care. 10 times over.
the problem is all the worthless other crap. like a hype war on terror. or all the parasites getting welfare while having a job off the books.
Of course taxes are more than enough to pay for a limited amount of ventures in countries with highly developed economies that create a lot of wealth and have a relatively very minuscule population. Try expanding that to hundreds of millions of people, a large minority of them not creating enough wealth to pay for their share of the spending, and you have a problem.
Well not really. How it works is, if people want more they have to pay more tax. Most Scandinavian country are ok to make this trade, and it seems to work quite well. But you can't ask for more public services and want to lower the taxes. You have to make this trade. The other issue is what you do of the taxes, and in most countries it's not really effective to say the least.
Scandinavian countries also have very strict limits on spending and borrowing and are small enough to get away with maintaining a relatively high welfare state through high taxation.
That trade didn't work during the downturn of the 1990s, when the fiscal safeguards that are in place now were not in existence yet. And again, doing it for a few million or a few tens of millions is not something you can extrapolate to 300, 400, 500 million people of much different economic makeup.
What does that even mean? Only the piigs are in bad shape in Europe, and they're pulling down the rest because of the shared euro. Germany's finances are more than good otherwise, and have always been really. Free health care and university.
This is the fact for almost every European country. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Poland etc etc.
I really don't understand these arguments when it's been in place for almost a hundred years at this point. How come it's always been going great for the countries with the highest taxation?
No, it is not only the PIIGs that are in bad shape in Europe. Germany's finances are in good shape only as long as they don't keep giving handouts to the PIIGs, which is why Merkel is very reluctant to hand out any more. France's finances are in precarious shape thanks to their banks taking on too much PIIG debt.
You can't just separate the Euro from everything else, one of the things the Euro was intended to do was to make it possible for the countries of southern Europe to spend like the countries of northern Europe without having the economy strength and spending safeguards that the northern countries do. How well is that working out?
And honestly it's like people's memories start at 1995 and anything that happened before then doesn't matter, those countries you listed, throw in the UK as well, went through greater or lesser problems in the 1960s and 1970s thanks to their economies being unable to sustain the level of government spending and debt.
I really don't understand these arguments that act like the economy will always be growing at 5-8% annually and history only started 15 or 20 years ago, completely ignoring the fact that it has not "always been going great" for these countries and actually is not "going great" now, Merkel and Sarkozy wouldn't be meeting all the time and handing out edicts left and right about what the PIIGs must do and what France and Germany will do to protect themselves and the economy of Europe wouldn't be projected to shrink this year if everything was working fine the way it has always worked fine according to fantasy remembrances of a past that never happened.
Scandinavia isn't in the Euro, so by northern countries I assume you mean Germany and France?
Actually 2/3 of the Scandinavian countries are in EU^^, Sweden not using the euro.
Neither do Norwegiens
Norway isn't in EU, we're in European Economic Area (EEA). Therefore we don't use euro
On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap.
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has
I think you are on the right track. As far as I've experienced, keep in mind I'm only 20 years old, getting an appointment with a doctor is easy. In Norway everyone have the right to have a, what I believe you in the US call, general practitioner, which is one doctor who has X amounts of people that can make an appointment at a low fee. If you don't have one the waiting time is much longer and the fee is much, much higher. About the waiting times to see specialists I do not know by experience. But recently I've seen a political debate about the waiting time for people diagnosed with cancer etc.
If we take the treatment of cancer in Norway vs US - who do you think have the highest percentage of success in cancer treatment? I believe Jens Stoltenberg, PM of Norway, said (in the debate I mentioned earlier) that Norway is one of the best countries to cure cancer. I know that US have a larger population than Norway, but I think the fact that health care is free that's the biggest reason. Millions upon millions in the US can't afford insurance.
Keep in mind that I'm not an expert in this area, just expressing my opinion.
But more on topic: I think education should be free for many reasons. First of all everyone should have the same oppertunity to become something they want to strive for regardless of their background. I think it's bullshit that you can be 'lucky' to be born into a wealthy familiy that can pay for your education when there is someone who could accomplish more than others but doesn't have enough money. Second of all it's a good investment for the country. You'll have more and better people in their respective fields. The students will repay by paying taxes. And probably much, much more pros than I can think of on top of my head.
Education should be free for the people who can't afford it. Those who can afford it should realize that it's already not "free" for them, they are paying the costs through taxation.
And we should replace the government monopoly on education with a system designed to foster competition, by subsidizing the parents rather than subsidizing the schools. That alone will revolutionize the broken system overnight.
On March 13 2012 23:21 Blasterion wrote: Education shouldn't be free. It should be an investment one makes for their future career. Besides if education was free, one wouldn't cherish the opportunity enough to motivate them to really try to do well. Also it's a lot easier on government budgeting.
Even if education is free, there is a high opportunity cost involved in attending school over working. So nothing is free.
With this I mean. If you spend 4 years in university, paying 2k each year 8k +4 years taht you could be making 15k easy (depending on where you live) My costs of going to university and performing well, (4 years on a 4 year carrer) are closer to 80K than to nothing.
i only had to pay like ~92 eur for this year in uni but it was only some student union fee (mandatory), so the education itself is free i guess. i like dis system xD
Canadian here. Free and equal primary and secondary education is where I stand. I think that you can apply for bursaries. I don't know if bursaries are only really popular in Ontario though. :S
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has
You may have a point but be careful with your generalising all EU member states into one category of medical service provider. Every member state have different ways of dealing with their healthcare, what you say may be true regarding the NHS (waiting times have been a constant issue in the UK) but not for France or Germany. My question is do you need 20 competing specialists when 5 equally well trained ones would satisfy the demand? (This is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know, my first impression is though having 20 competing specialists means that you probably get better doctors/facilities, the financial trade off doesn't seem worth it imo).
I'm 29, a college grad with a BS in Accounting, and it put me $53,000 in debt. This was after scholarships and grants which I applied for every year, but each year in school the amount kept becoming less and less and the amount financed through loans kept going up. The article does a really good job describing just how fucked up our college system is over here. For those countries with free or substantially government subsidized higher education, just be grateful you have it that way. Yes, you pay for it through taxes, but you're not setting yourself up for massive amounts of debt straight out of school.
It depends. At levels that everyone should obtain then making education free has great benefits. Once you hit a level that most people will not obtain, you are basically spending state money to subsidize the future upper class which is the most regressive thing that can be done.
The way the college system typically operates is they seek those people who are already most likely to be successful and then make them even more successful while taxing those who are less likely to be successful to pay for it.
In America, someone with a Master's Degree is expected to make $1.3M more than someone with just a high school diploma. I have no problem with saddling the fortunate student with $150K in student loans since that still leaves them $1M ahead.
On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap.
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has
The waiting times may be slightly lower than some EU nations but your point has been massively overplayed by right wing Americans. Also, it's easier to have access to a doctor when there's 35 million people missing from your healthcare coverage lmao.
On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap.
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has
In the US, you can pay and see a specialist quickly... or you die, because you can't afford the healthcare. In universal healthcare countries such as sweden, you can pay and see a specialist quickly... or you can wait in line and see one for free.
On March 13 2012 23:34 meadbert wrote: It depends. At levels that everyone should obtain then making education free has great benefits. Once you hit a level that most people will not obtain, you are basically spending state money to subsidize the future upper class which is the most regressive thing that can be done.
The way the college system typically operates is they seek those people who are already most likely to be successful and then make them even more successful while taxing those who are less likely to be successful to pay for it.
Which is only true in the fantasy world where the (often educated) middle class (And the rich) don't pay a disproportionately larger share of taxes.
In America, someone with a Master's Degree is expected to make $1.3M more than someone with just a high school diploma. I have no problem with saddling the fortunate student with $150K in student loans since that still leaves them $1M ahead.
He's also expected to pay some $300,000K more in taxes back to the government, off that income. Investing into accessible post-secondary education provides amazing returns from the government's... And socity at large's side of the coin...
In the US, you can pay and see a specialist quickly... or you die, because you can't afford the healthcare. In universal healthcare countries such as sweden, you can pay and see a specialist quickly... or you can wait in line and see one for free.
More like you can get whatever treatment you need, quickly if you're in danger of dropping dead... Or wait in line if you're not.
On March 13 2012 23:34 meadbert wrote: It depends. At levels that everyone should obtain then making education free has great benefits. Once you hit a level that most people will not obtain, you are basically spending state money to subsidize the future upper class which is the most regressive thing that can be done.
The way the college system typically operates is they seek those people who are already most likely to be successful and then make them even more successful while taxing those who are less likely to be successful to pay for it.
In America, someone with a Master's Degree is expected to make $1.3M more than someone with just a high school diploma. I have no problem with saddling the fortunate student with $150K in student loans since that still leaves them $1M ahead.
The problem with this though is that 10 years ago it cost 1/3rd of the current amount paid for college. Did inflation go up that much? Hell no, it has to do with the fact that universities jack up costs due to a lot of unesscesary overhead costs, and no one can really do anything to combat it. What makes the cost of something that's fairly constant TRIPLE over 10 years?
Like the article I linked says, price to buy a ticket for a plane goes up, people don't buy tickets. Well if a school jacks up tuition 15% from year to year (which my school did multiple years in a row) a kid can't just drop out and say screw it without severely messing up their education/life plans.
On March 13 2012 23:22 liberal wrote: Education should be free for the people who can't afford it. Those who can afford it should realize that it's already not "free" for them, they are paying the costs through taxation.
And we should replace the government monopoly on education with a system designed to foster competition, by subsidizing the parents rather than subsidizing the schools. That alone will revolutionize the broken system overnight.
Government monopoly has shown excellent results in Finland (almost always top 3 in the world in math tests). South Korea gets similar results but they but at least twice as much time on school work. Equality gives better results.
Just because education is free does not mean it leads to abundance. There is a shortage of engineers in Sweden where you get money from going to school.
If the society as a whole can afford to pay for the education of all the children, then it should- this is one of the biggest steps towards having a more equal society without a lot of class tension and resentment. However, private schooling should NEVER be disallowed as an option; the idea of "free education" (a better term would be 100% subsidized education) is to help the children from families who might otherwise not be able to afford to send them to school, not to force children to go to public schools.
On March 13 2012 21:23 Nizaris wrote: doesn't free education make the education basically shit? Schools starts cheating tests to keep subsidies etc etc. Teachers that never get fired even if they can't educate a monkey to eat a banana.
While a fully private education would be worse, the current system is pretty horrible.
Free education definitely doesn't "make the education shit", we have free education here in Finland and we constantly score super high in PISA, and our universities are decent. Good schools attract more students, so schools want to be competitive. In Finland schools decide for themselves whether a teacher does a good job or not so bad teachers get fired if they don't perform. Additionally, teacher is a valued job which requires a good deal of University training so teachers are pretty good overall.
On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap.
Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field.
Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has
The queues aren't as bad as some people claim, and even though we have public healthcare in Finland, you can still buy private health insurance and/or dish out dough at a private doctor/clinic for faster/better healthcare if you want.
On March 13 2012 23:21 Blasterion wrote: Education shouldn't be free. It should be an investment one makes for their future career. Besides if education was free, one wouldn't cherish the opportunity enough to motivate them to really try to do well. Also it's a lot easier on government budgeting.
You're already losing money by not earning money by working, so it's already a financial investment (higher income later), and you're already motivated to study well because good performance in your studies will result in better further education/job market offers/options.
On March 13 2012 15:50 OsoVega wrote: Education does not spontaneously occur in nature. It is impossible for it to be free. Someone is always going to have to pay and to coerce payment from people through force is wrong.
I'll break this down to two answers:
A. Taxes pay for education in countries where education is "free", so you pay (relatively) little over a long time period, thus lessening the financial burden on the person. Compare this with a situation, where a person who graduates is tens of thousands of dollars in debt - this poses a much higher risk for bankruptcy.
B. I really, really, really hate this shallow and frankly bizarre line of thought. Government is the institutionalised structure of the society in a democracy. A healthy, ie democratic, transparent government where representatives feel responsible to the people and not special interests tends to reflect the will of the people rather well. Government didn't impose itself out of some authorative "nothing", it was instituted and is supported by the people (in democratic societies).
In my country, Finland, we have high taxes and eg. public education and public healthcare. Who do you think instituted those taxes and services? People did. People organised, formed parties, protested, voted and thus brought about social changes in Finland. Public education and public healthcare are so popular here that not even the most right-wing, pro-capitalism party dares to dream about disestablishing either - heck, many people in said party don't even want to because they recognise their value to Finnish society, societal mobility, people's welfare and true equality of opportunity for all citizens and their offspring. It doesn't matter whether your parents were rich or poor, your education depends on your hard work, success and personal choices.
On March 13 2012 23:45 Zato-1 wrote: If the society as a whole can afford to pay for the education of all the children, then it should- this is one of the biggest steps towards having a more equal society without a lot of class tension and resentment. However, private schooling should NEVER be disallowed as an option; the idea of "free education" (a better term would be 100% subsidized education) is to help the children from families who might otherwise not be able to afford to send them to school, not to force children to go to public schools.
Well the most common solution is that the private schools get the same funding that public schools do, that they can do what they want with. They do have a list of criteria to fill up though, or their 'license' or whatever can be revoked.
No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
Funny, how in the USSR, and a lot of the previous socialist and communist countries have/had free education, free day care, extremely low living costs. Only problem was that the government was corrupt, and people had to work. Education should be free, so should any living expenses and basics for children. Food should become more expensive as a result. Would be much nicer than it is today, where any dead beat dumbass musician can make a song called Ho, and make millions of dollar from it.
Society is destined to fail, I see no future for the world.
No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
On March 13 2012 15:50 OsoVega wrote: Education does not spontaneously occur in nature. It is impossible for it to be free. Someone is always going to have to pay and to coerce payment from people through force is wrong.
Hilarious. The question isn't whether people should be forced to pay tax or not, they already are. The question is whether everyone, no matter which social class, should be able to attend higher education. The cost is then put on everyone in society, not just the one getting the education. This seems logical to me as the education is a net benefit to society in terms of GDP.
So, to sum up, it's a lot more fair, and it's a net benefit to society, therefore my answer is very simply yes, it should be free (to the ones attending the education).
I will add that progressive taxation goes hand in hand with this as you end up paying both for your education, faster, and more on top of that, apart from the general GDP growth that you will eventually be part of.
No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
Try reading the thread champ.
I did. Sorry, if my reply wasn't as mundane and myopic as all the rest. I think I answered the question adequately.
On March 13 2012 15:45 NotSorry wrote: Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way.
Yes indeed you people pay alot, however what happens if somebody has great potential but he's poor? Does he have any way to access a higher enducation?
Poor people get financial aid, they essentially don't have to pay anything. We do, however, make the rich pay. O_O zomg the U.S.A. is actually MORE progressive then the ever so forward thinking French Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
Strawman argument. Subsidized education is not socialism, it is perfectly compatible with capitalism as a Public Good. The government should provide funding for education if the society can afford it because having a more equal society is good for the society as a whole, including those who don't need subsidized education (if you won't take my word for it, I suggest you read the book "The Spirit Level"). As to the actual educational institutions, in my experience it'd be better if they're administrated privately, as that will tend to increase cost efficiency and quality of education- make them compete among themselves to provide better service, while the government gives education vouchers directly to the parents who can take them with them by moving their kids to a better school.
No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
Try reading the thread champ.
I did. Sorry, if my reply wasn't as mundane and myopic as all the rest. I think I answered the question adequately.
You somehow missed the point where the retarded societies filled by socialism are topping the charts when it comes to education. If you've actually read this thread you've gotta be made of teflon if you came to that conclusion.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
Try reading the thread champ.
I did. Sorry, if my reply wasn't as mundane and myopic as all the rest. I think I answered the question adequately.
I think if someone who can understand the meaning behind what you wrote knows you answered OP. I agree 100% with unschooling and homeschooling, its the BEST possible and most efficient education for people who are not complete morons, and know what they want to do.I among others are wasting potential by being in schools and wasting time on things I could be learning.
But we have to make progress somewhere, free university is a start. That way people do not have to worry about marks or money required to go to university, and get 50% in all their courses before to learn more by themselves. Our system for education, economy, and voting are all horrid. For the US and CA. The rich keep getting richer because they are organized, less of them makes it easier. And the opposite with poor people. And the people in the middle are being slowly drained and put into the poor class. If we want the society to change for the better we have to change everything.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
USA has most expensive schools in the world. Yet people in USA spend more years in school by average than people from any other nation Why do say that free education would further the problem of over education?
Also 1 scientist out of 1 000 000 being home schooled is no prove that home schooling is always better. Imagine if all parents home schooled, then who would be doing the other work?
Also if
Socialism retards society
then why has Finland, a nation where all education is 100% free and in later years heavily monetarily supported been the #1 western nation in international PISA test for who knows how many decades?
I love it how you assume what the state is meant for. If you're in a democracy the people should decide what the state is meant for. And if they decide it should "cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society' then the state will take steps towards that. Maybe in history the US is glorified, but in the UK or in France it's not exactly the case. Actually in France a big part of the history you are taught is how about France collaborated with the Nazi regime. Which is not glorious as you may expect.
And for your last sentence: "Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress." Sorry but if I'm a middle class or poor I prefer to live in Finland for instance than in the US. I don't know what you think the ultimate goal of a society should be, but we must differ grandly.
then why has Finland, a nation where all education is 100% free and in later years heavily monetarily supported been the #1 western nation in international PISA test for who knows how many decades?
Wegandi has a point about socialism retarding society. However, he is wrong to believe that government subsidized education implies socialism- it doesn't.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You clearly have never met anyone who was home schooled. I have a friend who was home schooled through all of primary school, now in high school. He is the most intelligent person in that year, by far. But he doesn't have much discipline, so he never does any work and gets 50% in half of his courses.
Yes, a lot of people are home schooled because parents want their children to follow an agenda, which is bad. But when done correctly the most intelligent people come out successful from homeschooling.
No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
Try reading the thread champ.
I did. Sorry, if my reply wasn't as mundane and myopic as all the rest. I think I answered the question adequately.
I think if someone who can understand the meaning behind what you wrote knows you answered OP. I agree 100% with unschooling and homeschooling, its the BEST possible and most efficient education for people who are not complete morons, and know what they want to do.I among others are wasting potential by being in schools and wasting time on things I could be learning.
But we have to make progress somewhere, free university is a start. That way people do not have to worry about marks or money required to go to university, and get 50% in all their courses before to learn more by themselves. Our system for education, economy, and voting are all horrid. For the US and CA. The rich keep getting richer because they are organized, less of them makes it easier. And the opposite with poor people. And the people in the middle are being slowly drained and put into the poor class. If we want the society to change for the better we have to change everything.
Just for the record. I'm pretty sure every university in the world requires good marks for you to be accepted. You have to send in your high school grades / do a test and then the uni accepts the best.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You clearly have never met anyone who was home schooled. I have a friend who was home schooled through all of primary school, now in high school. He is the most intelligent person in that year, by far. But he doesn't have much discipline, so he never does any work and gets 50% in half of his courses.
Yes, a lot of people are home schooled because parents want their children to follow an agenda, which is bad. But when done correctly the most intelligent people come out successful from homeschooling.
Homeschooling university.. Well that's something I've never heard about. Sounds like it'd offer a wide array of possible careers.
I'm a firm believer of you get what you paid for, for the most part. I've heard arguments that with free education then the quality of education would actually go up because really smart people with poor circumstances that usually decline admissions because of not enough scholarship money will be able to go to their first choice out of state private schools (only talking about the U.S. here) but I don't buy that. I think universally free education will ultimately decline the quality of education, look at the U.S. public schools, which are completely free. They had to create the magnet school system to sort this stuff out.
Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
On March 13 2012 15:48 tetrismaan wrote: In Denmark it is free, and we even get 1000$ each month from the government, with the chance of making a student-rent for 650$ each month with 1% interest.
Yeah, a few of my friends went to Denmark to do their Masters (among other reasons), they are upping the price here as well (if you take longer to study than allotted time you have to pay a ton more). For reference, my current tuition fee is still quite low at € 1.771,- per year (M2.1 currently).
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
Elaborate? Why would "they" have more control over it?
On March 14 2012 00:09 Count9 wrote: I'm a firm believer of you get what you paid for, for the most part. I've heard arguments that with free education then the quality of education would actually go up because really smart people with poor circumstances that usually decline admissions because of not enough scholarship money will be able to go to their first choice out of state private schools (only talking about the U.S. here) but I don't buy that. I think universally free education will ultimately decline the quality of education, look at the U.S. public schools, which are completely free. They had to create the magnet school system to sort this stuff out.
Isn't that the EXACT argument people against healthcare in the USA make? Yeah well all the studies and European examples show that government run healthcare provides better results than private healthcare 'BUT I DON'T BUY THAT'.
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
I guess you never call 911 either huh? Those powerful people paying taxes might come knocking at your door one day demanding your freedom.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it.
This much is 100% true.
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do.
This is only true to some extent. If the government is the one doing the administration of the educational facilities and the hiring of staff etc., then yes, they will have a lot of control over it; however, if it's private institutions who administrate them and get their funding through the government, then the latter group has less room to push any partisan agendas through the education system.
It's a bit like housing subsidies; if the government gives you a lower interest rate on your mortgage or whatever, it doesn't mean that they get to choose what house you live in.
No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
Try reading the thread champ.
I did. Sorry, if my reply wasn't as mundane and myopic as all the rest. I think I answered the question adequately.
I think if someone who can understand the meaning behind what you wrote knows you answered OP. I agree 100% with unschooling and homeschooling, its the BEST possible and most efficient education for people who are not complete morons, and know what they want to do.I among others are wasting potential by being in schools and wasting time on things I could be learning.
But we have to make progress somewhere, free university is a start. That way people do not have to worry about marks or money required to go to university, and get 50% in all their courses before to learn more by themselves. Our system for education, economy, and voting are all horrid. For the US and CA. The rich keep getting richer because they are organized, less of them makes it easier. And the opposite with poor people. And the people in the middle are being slowly drained and put into the poor class. If we want the society to change for the better we have to change everything.
Sadly, very few understand why what is happening in today's world. The Classical Liberal Class Theory has all but been forgotten in lieu of the completely insane and wrong Marxist Class Theory. Any cursory view of the situation confirms the Liberal view. Whenever the State grows in power, those attached to the vestiges of power become richer, while those pilfered from become poorer. Thus, you see the Corporations and Politicians that are getting richer are nearly completely in bed with Government to impose restrictions, regulations, and impediments on the rest of society to reduce competition, as well as to eat the taxpayer. The solution to the problem of an overarching State is not to increase its powers, but to reduce them and restore individual liberty.
If only Charles Dunoyer and Charles Comte were around today.
In any event, progress by its definition means steps toward a goal. If the goal is a wealthier society, a more equal society, as well as a society that progresses forward, then progress means a liberal society. So a start would be repealing any regulation or imposition upon homeschooling and unschooling, reducing and eliminating property taxes, and ending State-compulsory attendance to their institutions. That's a start :p
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
Government decides what is educated in government ran education. In a democratic nation government = majority of peoples opinion In a democratic nation government != people who pay most taxes opinion.
The thing is just in most nations most people vote for representatives that have same visions as the rich people. This is not the case in all nations, unlike your post clearly hints.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that requires the work of intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally a great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children seems to be because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated as some of their private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good than most private companies.
You reminded me of Santorum's rant about colleges being institutions of elitism and snobbery.
Stupidity is hard to kill when people are anti-intellectuals who reek of mediocrity and are unashamedly proud of it.
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
Elaborate? Why would "they" have more control over it?
Truly don't understand.
Somebody has to pay the school, and that payment is going to come with strings attached. Guaranteed. They will decide what they'll pay for and what they won't, and you won't have any say in the matter since it's not your money.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It's the same old right wing projection. Pretend that schools are indoctrinating children to a certain belief to strengthen the case for not sending your kids to school and insead homeschool them, where you can actually indoctrinate them into holding the exact same beliefs the parent does.
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
Elaborate? Why would "they" have more control over it?
Truly don't understand.
Somebody has to pay the school, and that payment is going to come with strings attached. Guaranteed. They will decide what they'll pay for and what they won't, and you won't have any say in the matter since it's not your money.
Who is "they"? The governement? There are institutions who take care of this, and there are not directly related to all the tax payers. Really don't see your point.
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
Elaborate? Why would "they" have more control over it?
Truly don't understand.
Somebody has to pay the school, and that payment is going to come with strings attached. Guaranteed. They will decide what they'll pay for and what they won't, and you won't have any say in the matter since it's not your money.
Government forces the rich to pay taxes, and government is allowed to spend those tax money how ever they want. Rich people have one vote as do poor people to decide how the government spends their money/how money spent in schooling is used.
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
Government decides what is educated in government ran education. In a democratic nation government = majority of peoples opinion In a democratic nation government != people who pay most taxes opinion.
The thing is just in most nations most people vote for representatives that have same visions as the rich people. This is not the case in all nations, unlike your post clearly hints.
Pols might talk big about how they care for the poor, but they still answer to the rich people who finance their election campaigns.
On March 13 2012 23:34 meadbert wrote: It depends. At levels that everyone should obtain then making education free has great benefits. Once you hit a level that most people will not obtain, you are basically spending state money to subsidize the future upper class which is the most regressive thing that can be done.
The way the college system typically operates is they seek those people who are already most likely to be successful and then make them even more successful while taxing those who are less likely to be successful to pay for it.
Which is only true in the fantasy world where the (often educated) middle class (And the rich) don't pay a disproportionately larger share of taxes.
In America, someone with a Master's Degree is expected to make $1.3M more than someone with just a high school diploma. I have no problem with saddling the fortunate student with $150K in student loans since that still leaves them $1M ahead.
He's also expected to pay some $300,000K more in taxes back to the government, off that income. Investing into accessible post-secondary education provides amazing returns from the government's... And socity at large's side of the coin...
In the US, you can pay and see a specialist quickly... or you die, because you can't afford the healthcare. In universal healthcare countries such as sweden, you can pay and see a specialist quickly... or you can wait in line and see one for free.
More like you can get whatever treatment you need, quickly if you're in danger of dropping dead... Or wait in line if you're not.
"Investing" in college for the student only pays back fantastic returns if the student would not have gone to college without the government paying for it. In most cases the student would have still gone.
It is true that high income taxes discourage education, because increasing one's income. If this becomes a significant problem, it will not be unique to education but will affect all kinds of investment. The solution to this problem is to lower the income tax.
Making investment in educational capital subsidized while heavily taxing traditional capital you create a system that provides great rewards to the intelligent at everyone else's expense.
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
Government decides what is educated in government ran education. In a democratic nation government = majority of peoples opinion In a democratic nation government != people who pay most taxes opinion.
The thing is just in most nations most people vote for representatives that have same visions as the rich people. This is not the case in all nations, unlike your post clearly hints.
Pols might talk big about how they care for the poor, but they still answer to the rich people who finance their election campaigns.
That's for the US. In most european countries it's the state who pays the elections, giving subsidies to the parties depending of their previous results.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
What is this post? See this is what I mean by Socialists assuming and making asses of themselves. As in the analogy I gave in my first post. Because I am against the State providing 'education' therefore, I must be against science, math, etc. etc. How absurd can one get? Because I do not want the State to grow food, therefore I want everyone to starve. This is your reasoning. In actuality it is the complete opposite. Because of my love of advancement and progress, I precisely do not want the State involved whatsoever.
If you had read my post you would not have written what you did.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
Elaborate? Why would "they" have more control over it?
Truly don't understand.
Somebody has to pay the school, and that payment is going to come with strings attached. Guaranteed. They will decide what they'll pay for and what they won't, and you won't have any say in the matter since it's not your money.
Who is "they"? The governement? There are institutions who take care of this, and there are not directly related to all the tax payers. Really don't see your point.
Those institutions don't care what they spend their money for? No agenda at all? They don't specify certain requirements?
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
What is this post? See this is what I mean by Socialists assuming and making asses of themselves. As in the analogy I gave in my first post. Because I am against the State providing 'education' therefore, I must be against science, math, etc. etc. How absurd can one get? Because I do not want the State to grow food, therefore I want everyone to starve. This is your reasoning. In actuality it is the complete opposite. Because of my love of advancement and progress, I precisely do not want the State involved whatsoever.
If you had read my post you would not have written what you did.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
You sounds conspiracy theorist:
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
On your point about science and math, unless your parents are, say, physicists, who's going to teach you special relativity or evolution or integration by parts or Taylor series, in a competent and correct way? Sure, you can read it off a textbook, but it's much better to learn off both a textbook and a qualified science or math teacher.
Yes, it should be free. It should always be in the countrys best interest to educate its people. In Norway we pay $80 per semester, basically a fee for student ID card etc.
On March 14 2012 00:07 Mafs wrote: Yes, a lot of people are home schooled because parents want their children to follow an agenda, which is bad. But when done correctly the most intelligent people come out successful from homeschooling.
That is a backwards conclusion. On average, (and for the average student) home schooling is terribly inefficient. The exception to this rule is students that are not average (on either side of the range), who can especially benefit from a personally tailored curriculum. (e.g. a public school typically is not equiped to deal with students with a very high IQ, a student with a very high IQ may therefore benefit from home schooling. Especially since he/she is more likely to have highly educated parents.)
On March 14 2012 00:08 Euronyme wrote: Just for the record. I'm pretty sure every university in the world requires good marks for you to be accepted. You have to send in your high school grades / do a test and then the uni accepts the best.
This is not entirely true. Dutch universities will (have to legally) accept any student with a VWO (highschool) degree.
To catch here, is that the Netherlands has a tiered high school system. VWO is the highest tier of this system, completing it means you already among the upper 10-20% of the population in terms of learning potential.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to homeschool these millions of kids?
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
Hmmm, yes, that is why there is no Income Tax / internal taxation, no regulations, free-banking, and competition in currency...I can't think of any country with free-trade (you know, that thing written about by the likes of Francis Quesnay, Richard Cobden, etc.), etc.
Most of the world's economies today are Corporatist / Fascist. There is not one Laissez-Faire economy in the world today.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
Actually, in my experience most economics courses start with free market models, simply because they are the easiest to understand. They are the cleanest and simplest, requiring only the use of grade 9 math.
Then it goes on to discuss more complicated models, based on the fact that some of the assumption of the free market models are wrong, such as rational expectations being unrealistic, and market failures due to information asymmetry, like moral hazard, agency problems etc.
Usually there's a discussion of other market failures like monopolies and externalities, etc.
This generally a sensible way to teach, start with a simple free market model, show that the assumptions can't be true in reality, then go to the more complicated models as a result of the simple model being wrong.
Some people only pay attention to the first part and not the second.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
Well, the pair of you have shown a propensity for assumption.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
Hmmm, yes, that is why there is no Income Tax / internal taxation, no regulations, free-banking, and competition in currency...I can't think of any country with free-trade (you know, that thing written about by the likes of Francis Quesnay, Richard Cobden, etc.), etc.
Most of the world's economies today are Corporatist / Fascist. There is not one Laissez-Faire economy in the world today.
The invisible hand has its limits. And not believing it is foolish. Even a bachelor in Economics should be enough to understand that.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
Well, the pair of you have shown a propensity for assumption.
What other alternatives exist for dealing with a victorian reactionary?
I pay alot of money for my schooling (university), and honestly wouldn't have it any other way. I'm commiting around 8 years of my life to post secondary, the fact that I have to pay for it makes it so much more important to me. I also appreciate the fact that most of the people at my school aren't being givin a free ride, they had to work hard to get where they are just like I did.
That being said K-12 should always be free everywhere, without learning basic skills associated with those years, you're not likely to go anywhere.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
Hmmm, yes, that is why there is no Income Tax / internal taxation, no regulations, free-banking, and competition in currency...I can't think of any country with free-trade (you know, that thing written about by the likes of Francis Quesnay, Richard Cobden, etc.), etc.
Most of the world's economies today are Corporatist / Fascist. There is not one Laissez-Faire economy in the world today.
The invisible hand has its limits. And not believing it is foolish. Even a bachelor in Economics should be enough to understand that.
I don't even like Smith, who wasn't even Laissez-Faire. No one has ever made the argument that laissez-faire is perfect. The argument is that it is both morally superior and economically superior to any other. It's like blaming the shopkeeper for rising prices instead of the Government printing fiat notes. Your perception belies the truth.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
He probably isn't implying either. It's completely unrealistic and idiotic to think that every child in America could be home-schooled. It would cause a complete breakdown in societal structure. For every teaching job that disappeared, there would be 10 men or women (it doesn't matter) who wouldn't be working anymore because they're forced to stay at home to make sure their kid gets an education.
The whole "man goes to work while woman stays at home" or vice versa model doesn't work in today's society. For the most part, both partners in a lower/middle-class home are required to work, and especially so if they have children.
Santorum may be able to afford homeschooling for his children, but the vast majority of Americans cannot. It's just not realistic and it's insensitive of him to denounce public schooling since he is part of the 1% who can afford to do it.
Like it or not, public education is the best option we have. It's not perfect, and a lot of the time it's damn inefficient, but it gives kids the social structure they need to grow emotionally and (hopefully, this depends on the teachers) teaches them how to learn so they can succeed in higher education.
I think education should be free but it should be limited by smartness and skill so that anybody can get all the education he wants as long as he's good enough in this particular subject. Of course having connections would give you advantages but you could take care of that and it would be hard to actually find out how is good and talented at something and who jsut practiced alot or had luck but I'm sure you could find out.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
Well, the pair of you have shown a propensity for assumption.
What other alternatives exist for dealing with a victorian reactionary?
Perhaps I'll speculate based off of assumptions myself for a bit. I'd venture a guess that the pair of you fell into the "partisan trap" where one subscribes to the ideology that their are exactly two sides to political discourse. "Mine" and "Their's". You then go on to assume that anyone who disagree's with you on something must necessarily be a part of that "evil side" and must necessarily disagree with you on every last issue. Because I demonstrated support for home schooling, and the right to do it, you have assumed that I am sexist. Am I racist as well? Perhaps a homophobe? Generally extremists and radicals draw these kind of absurd conclusions.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
What is this post? See this is what I mean by Socialists assuming and making asses of themselves. As in the analogy I gave in my first post. Because I am against the State providing 'education' therefore, I must be against science, math, etc. etc. How absurd can one get? Because I do not want the State to grow food, therefore I want everyone to starve. This is your reasoning. In actuality it is the complete opposite. Because of my love of advancement and progress, I precisely do not want the State involved whatsoever.
If you had read my post you would not have written what you did.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Um,I don't know everything about the university's in other country's,but they way it works here the body's that regulate everything are completely separate from the state government,like for instance the judicial system. While yes these are founded by the government by the tax payers money,the conspiracy theory of the government owning the university's is completely ridiculous because they are not the only source of income. The way it works here if you enroll a university here its completely free.If you fail a subject however or didn't meat the requirements to attend the exam you need to retake the subject and pay for it.The amount you pay is calculated by the point index of a subject and the net worth of a point is 120,00 kunas for a grade average of 3,4 to 3,6(grade average can be from 1,5(lowest) to 5,0(highest)),the net worth of a point becomes more of less depending on your average grade score. This year I had to retake thermodynamics again which cost me about 720,00 kunas(that's like 127 $ I think). So all in all,I think its not the best system,but I think its pretty fair considering your first shot is free from all costs and if you fail something and have to retake it you than pay for it. The best students are therefore rewarded by "free education" and the ones that are not excellent need to pay.
Oh forgot to mention one other thing,you can retake a subject only once.There are 4 exams for each subject per year,if you fail the exam 8 times you are banned from that university for life.That means you can't stick around at a university indefinitely EVEN if you have money.
The university's that are considered "the best" here are FER(faculty of el. engineering),FSB(faculty of mechanical engineering and naval architecture),Architecture,Law and Medicine. They are all public university's and are way more rigorous and the quality of education is considered better than in any other private uni in this country.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
He probably isn't implying either. It's completely unrealistic and idiotic to think that every child in America could be home-schooled. It would cause a complete breakdown in societal structure. For every teaching job that disappeared, there would be 10 men or women (it doesn't matter) who wouldn't be working anymore because they're forced to stay at home to make sure their kid gets an education.
The whole "man goes to work while woman stays at home" or vice versa model doesn't work in today's society. For the most part, both partners in a lower/middle-class home are required to work, and especially so if they have children.
Santorum may be able to afford homeschooling for his children, but the vast majority of Americans cannot. It's just not realistic and it's insensitive of him to denounce public schooling since he is part of the 1% who can afford to do it.
Like it or not, public education is the best option we have. It's not perfect, and a lot of the time it's damn inefficient, but it gives kids the social structure they need to grow emotionally and (hopefully, this depends on the teachers) teaches them how to learn so they can succeed in higher education.
WTF? When did I imply that every child should be homeschooled? And the rest of that. I defended the right to choose homeschooling, nothing else. Where does all this other shit come from?
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
Well, the pair of you have shown a propensity for assumption.
What other alternatives exist for dealing with a victorian reactionary?
Perhaps I'll speculate based off of assumptions myself for a bit. I'd venture a guess that the pair of you fell into the "partisan trap" where one subscribes to the ideology that their are exactly to sides to political discourse. "Mine" and "Their's". You then go on to assume that anyone who disagree's with you on something must necessarily be a part of that "evil side" and must necessarily disagree with you on every last issue. Because I demonstrated support for home schooling, and the right to do it, you have assumed that I am sexist. Am I racist as well? Perhaps a homophobe? Generally extremists and radicals draw these kind of absurd conclusions.
Not at all. It's just that if you need someone to stay at home to teach their kid we know that in most cases it would be the woman. I don't see why you relate it to racist, homophobic or whatsoever. The woman thing was directly related to home schooling.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
Hmmm, yes, that is why there is no Income Tax / internal taxation, no regulations, free-banking, and competition in currency...I can't think of any country with free-trade (you know, that thing written about by the likes of Francis Quesnay, Richard Cobden, etc.), etc.
Most of the world's economies today are Corporatist / Fascist. There is not one Laissez-Faire economy in the world today.
The invisible hand has its limits. And not believing it is foolish. Even a bachelor in Economics should be enough to understand that.
I don't even like Smith, who wasn't even Laissez-Faire. No one has ever made the argument that laissez-faire is perfect. The argument is that it is both morally superior and economically superior to any other. It's like blaming the shopkeeper for rising prices instead of the Government printing fiat notes. Your perception belies the truth.
Laissez-Faire if all we were don't is selling the same type of vegetables to each other.
It doesn't work in the complex and interconnected world we live in where there are information asymmetries in the underwriting of financial derivatives, agency problems such as losses by banks being borne by taxpayers, too-big-to-fail banks gambling billions in financial instruments like credit default swaps (a bet that another party will default), while neither the quants working at the banks nor the academics understand some of the math required to even price these exotic derivatives, so how can rational expectations possibly hold? The assumptions of Laissez-Faire cannot possibly hold, even if there are 0 government regulation.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
You've got to note that you're talking about university education here. So if we consider the postive externalities of university education, the marginal external benefit derived from university versus, say, primary is much less. That and university education is harder to provide which makes goverments think twice about paying for university as compared to primary education, being free also encourages waste ie. people not paying attention, coming out with degrees but being useless. There aren't also enough jobs for grads to go around sadly. I read a story of how chinese plumbers earn more than fresh grads cause they're so many of them.
University isn't often worth it to governments, I don't think it should be free, but it should be affordable to almost all. Primary education on th other hand is very important. I'd like university to be free but it wouldn't be practical.
EDIT: On the topic of school being indoc centres and places which instill certain dogmas, kinda off-topic isn't it? I wouldn't consider it "an education" Proper school, on the other hand, should be free (or close to)
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
On March 13 2012 15:48 TanTzoR wrote: In the UK the gov has triple the fees. Basically if you entered this year you will pay 10k for a bachelor, if you enter next year you will pay 30k. Actually a free education at a uni level is not that good. But it shouldn't be absurdly high like in the US or soon in the UK. For instance in France the unis are for bad students, the good ones go to high ranked business and engineering schools.
france universities are obviously not the same as US universities then -.- apples to oranges
On March 14 2012 01:02 taldarimAltar wrote: You've got to note that you're talking about university education here. So if we consider the postive externalities of university education, the marginal external benefit derived from university versus, say, primary is much less. That and university education is harder to provide which makes goverments think twice about paying for university as compared to primary education, being free also encourages waste ie. people not paying attention, coming out with degrees but being useless. There aren't also enough jobs for grads to go around sadly. I read a story of how chinese plumbers earn more than fresh grads cause they're so many of them.
University isn't often worth it to governments, I don't think it should be free, but it should be affordable to almost all. Primary education on th other hand is very important. I'd like university to be free but it wouldn't be practical
Why wouldn't it be practical? It's not like it's not a huge investment regardless. You're missing out on lost wages. You could've been working and making money, instead you're studying something useless making +-0. It works very well in a lot of countries.
On March 13 2012 15:48 TanTzoR wrote: In the UK the gov has triple the fees. Basically if you entered this year you will pay 10k for a bachelor, if you enter next year you will pay 30k. Actually a free education at a uni level is not that good. But it shouldn't be absurdly high like in the US or soon in the UK. For instance in France the unis are for bad students, the good ones go to high ranked business and engineering schools.
france universities are obviously not the same as US universities then -.- apples to oranges
Never said so. But the engineering and business schools which are among the best in the world are still way cheapen than the US unis.
On March 14 2012 00:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: [quote]
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
Well, the pair of you have shown a propensity for assumption.
What other alternatives exist for dealing with a victorian reactionary?
Perhaps I'll speculate based off of assumptions myself for a bit. I'd venture a guess that the pair of you fell into the "partisan trap" where one subscribes to the ideology that their are exactly to sides to political discourse. "Mine" and "Their's". You then go on to assume that anyone who disagree's with you on something must necessarily be a part of that "evil side" and must necessarily disagree with you on every last issue. Because I demonstrated support for home schooling, and the right to do it, you have assumed that I am sexist. Am I racist as well? Perhaps a homophobe? Generally extremists and radicals draw these kind of absurd conclusions.
Not at all. It's just that if you need someone to stay at home to teach their kid we know that in most cases it would be the woman. I don't see why you relate it to racist, homophobic or whatsoever. The woman thing was directly related to home schooling.
Perhaps it would be the woman, that is the parent's business. It wasn't directly related it was just kind of a dazed and confused way to accuse me of being sexist when it really isn't pertinent to women's rights at all.
school should be free.. Belgium is the land with the highest tax-rate in the world. At first you'll be like wtf that is terrible .. but it also has some cool benefits, for example i only had to pay 100€ for an entire year of coleage.
But even better, my friend had to pay 500€ but he got all kinds of reductions so the state refunded him 1500€ so he basicle made 1000€ simply by going to school ofc this wasnt the state's intention, but w/e
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
When you get out of scientific subjects everything is ideology. The kid is impregnated by ideology at home as well. The only thing you can do about it is provide him with critical thinking.
Universities should not be free because they are not necessary in order to get a job. My dad never went to college, and while we're not rich, he's a foreman in an auto-plant here. For those saying Universities are overly expenses, there are tons of scholarships that you can apply for and FASFA is a huge help, I know without those plus an a scholarship from my university I could never afford to attend. I'm not saying university is as affordable as it could be, but university is a choice and part of that choice is figuring out how to pay to attend, and choosing a university based of what you can afford.
On March 14 2012 00:19 TanTzoR wrote: [quote] Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
Well, the pair of you have shown a propensity for assumption.
What other alternatives exist for dealing with a victorian reactionary?
Perhaps I'll speculate based off of assumptions myself for a bit. I'd venture a guess that the pair of you fell into the "partisan trap" where one subscribes to the ideology that their are exactly to sides to political discourse. "Mine" and "Their's". You then go on to assume that anyone who disagree's with you on something must necessarily be a part of that "evil side" and must necessarily disagree with you on every last issue. Because I demonstrated support for home schooling, and the right to do it, you have assumed that I am sexist. Am I racist as well? Perhaps a homophobe? Generally extremists and radicals draw these kind of absurd conclusions.
Not at all. It's just that if you need someone to stay at home to teach their kid we know that in most cases it would be the woman. I don't see why you relate it to racist, homophobic or whatsoever. The woman thing was directly related to home schooling.
Perhaps it would be the woman, that is the parent's business. It wasn't directly related it was just kind of a dazed and confused way to accuse me of being sexist when it really isn't pertinent to women's rights at all.
Studies have proven that, for instance, in a case of a disable child it will be by a huge margin the woman who will stay home to take care of their kid. Why? Mainly because the dad makes more money. Why would it be different for home schooling?
Um, nothing is free. We all pay for our education via taxes. Unless you are very poor, or an illegal immigrant, in which case richer (or more legal) people than you pay for your education.
Now what we are really asking is should paying for education be mandatory for all people regardless of whether they use it or want to use it, and then whether it is okay for it to be mandatory for the rich to pay for the education of the poor.
Most of us will still probably say yes, but it's important to really understand what we are talking about here.
Some tax money goes into education. Non-tertiary/basic education should be free, or the cost close to negligible. I'm in the opinion if this is the case, hopefully every child will go to school. At a young age, children do not have the maturity to distinguish or appreciate the usefulness of education. So, parents/society/government should make that choice for them.
The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency.
How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids.
Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode:
Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant?
Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated.
And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money.
If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it.
Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it.
On March 14 2012 01:09 Brosy wrote: Universities should not be free because they are not necessary in order to get a job. My dad never went to college, and while we're not rich, he's a foreman in an auto-plant here. For those saying Universities are overly expenses, there are tons of scholarships that you can apply for and FASFA is a huge help, I know without those plus an a scholarship from my university I could never afford to attend. I'm not saying university is as affordable as it could be, but university is a choice and part of that choice is figuring out how to pay to attend, and choosing a university based of what you can afford.
edit for spelling
The world changes. It's much much harder now to find a decent job without a good postsecondary education.
On March 14 2012 01:09 Brosy wrote: Universities should not be free because they are not necessary in order to get a job. My dad never went to college, and while we're not rich, he's a foreman in an auto-plant here. For those saying Universities are overly expenses, there are tons of scholarships that you can apply for and FASFA is a huge help, I know without those plus an a scholarship from my university I could never afford to attend. I'm not saying university is as affordable as it could be, but university is a choice and part of that choice is figuring out how to pay to attend, and choosing a university based of what you can afford.
edit for spelling
Well you see,the way we see it in some other country's is,the purpose of higher education is not only to land you the big bucks and save you from manual labor,but to help you find and give everyone the equal opportunity to find out and pursue whatever they feel like is the best profession for them.
Oh and the job your dad got 20 years ago or whatever,he would never get today because the requirements for the same job are higher now than they were back than so its a pretty baseless argument.
On March 14 2012 00:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote: [quote]
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
Well, the pair of you have shown a propensity for assumption.
What other alternatives exist for dealing with a victorian reactionary?
Perhaps I'll speculate based off of assumptions myself for a bit. I'd venture a guess that the pair of you fell into the "partisan trap" where one subscribes to the ideology that their are exactly to sides to political discourse. "Mine" and "Their's". You then go on to assume that anyone who disagree's with you on something must necessarily be a part of that "evil side" and must necessarily disagree with you on every last issue. Because I demonstrated support for home schooling, and the right to do it, you have assumed that I am sexist. Am I racist as well? Perhaps a homophobe? Generally extremists and radicals draw these kind of absurd conclusions.
Not at all. It's just that if you need someone to stay at home to teach their kid we know that in most cases it would be the woman. I don't see why you relate it to racist, homophobic or whatsoever. The woman thing was directly related to home schooling.
Perhaps it would be the woman, that is the parent's business. It wasn't directly related it was just kind of a dazed and confused way to accuse me of being sexist when it really isn't pertinent to women's rights at all.
Studies have proven that, for instance, in a case of a disable child it will be by a huge margin the woman who will stay home to take care of their kid. Why? Mainly because the dad makes more money. Why would it be different for home schooling?
Which is irrelevant because that is a familial matter. It is their business and their choice. What are you suggesting exactly? Should there be laws saying the man must stay home in such a situation?
People arguing it should 'ofcourse' be free are ignoring way too much. The exact height should depend on the number of people that are going to university etc. but it should never be free really. Free education means less motivation and in general too many people that go to university. It's complete nonsense that more educated people is good for a country, up to a certain degree it is but if everyone were to study it would be terrible, you need different kind of people as there are jobs with different education requirements. For most western countries I think around 1500-2000$ is a reasonable amount, you could easily earn that while studying if it's needed and doesn't mean to high of a barrier to stop people from going to education at all. Lowering it too much will just let too many go to study though and fool around, something that has happened in some countries already.
I do think education is one thing that should be freely available to anyone who wants it or at least be affordable enough so most students will be able to graduate debt-free.
I spend about $8000 CAD per term studying at U of Waterloo for tuition + food + housing + misc expenses. Thanks to our co-op program, I'll be graduating debt-free
On March 13 2012 23:34 meadbert wrote: It depends. At levels that everyone should obtain then making education free has great benefits. Once you hit a level that most people will not obtain, you are basically spending state money to subsidize the future upper class which is the most regressive thing that can be done.
The way the college system typically operates is they seek those people who are already most likely to be successful and then make them even more successful while taxing those who are less likely to be successful to pay for it.
Which is only true in the fantasy world where the (often educated) middle class (And the rich) don't pay a disproportionately larger share of taxes.
In America, someone with a Master's Degree is expected to make $1.3M more than someone with just a high school diploma. I have no problem with saddling the fortunate student with $150K in student loans since that still leaves them $1M ahead.
He's also expected to pay some $300,000K more in taxes back to the government, off that income. Investing into accessible post-secondary education provides amazing returns from the government's... And socity at large's side of the coin...
In the US, you can pay and see a specialist quickly... or you die, because you can't afford the healthcare. In universal healthcare countries such as sweden, you can pay and see a specialist quickly... or you can wait in line and see one for free.
More like you can get whatever treatment you need, quickly if you're in danger of dropping dead... Or wait in line if you're not.
"Investing" in college for the student only pays back fantastic returns if the student would not have gone to college without the government paying for it. In most cases the student would have still gone.
It is true that high income taxes discourage education, because increasing one's income. If this becomes a significant problem, it will not be unique to education but will affect all kinds of investment. The solution to this problem is to lower the income tax.
Making investment in educational capital subsidized while heavily taxing traditional capital you create a system that provides great rewards to the intelligent at everyone else's expense.
Except that it's not a zero sum system and enabling and benefiting the intellectuals to do what they do best will benefit everyone in society. It's all very logical. I would rather have recruitment by merit than recruitment by money.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
When you get out of scientific subjects everything is ideology. The kid is impregnated by ideology at home as well. The only thing you can do about it is provide him with critical thinking.
Last I checked, politics wasn't a high school subject.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
I had a hard time understanding what he really was trying to say with his speach as well. There are no easy answers and he does not give any either. Those who say free education is bad, are completely wrong. Studies and history have shown that more education is a very good thing for the society as a whole. It is almost exclusively a positive thing. After all everyhing should be free, but that is a utopia. But how to finance it is a completely different matter. Giving black and white answers and views like the most post I have seen in this thread. This is not how the world works.
Milton Friedman was a smart man, but if I remember correctly, his economic views have shown its faults as well. But at least we could try to give others a chance instead of pushing others down for your own good.
On March 14 2012 01:09 Brosy wrote: Universities should not be free because they are not necessary in order to get a job. My dad never went to college, and while we're not rich, he's a foreman in an auto-plant here.
if more people would think like you then there wouldnt be an autoplant.
On March 14 2012 01:09 Brosy wrote: Universities should not be free because they are not necessary in order to get a job. My dad never went to college, and while we're not rich, he's a foreman in an auto-plant here. For those saying Universities are overly expenses, there are tons of scholarships that you can apply for and FASFA is a huge help, I know without those plus an a scholarship from my university I could never afford to attend. I'm not saying university is as affordable as it could be, but university is a choice and part of that choice is figuring out how to pay to attend, and choosing a university based of what you can afford.
edit for spelling
When did your dad start his career at this auto-plant? Times have changed, and if you were interviewing for that position today, I can almost garauntee a degree would be required. Almost any non minimum wage job requires one now.
And yes, you can apply for FAFSA, scholarships, and whatever else you need... but guess what? FAFSA is made up mainly of loans... it's not free money my friend, and you are going to be severely in debt upon graduation. Pell Grant funding has been slashed by massive amounts the past few years. My main loan is a Federal Ford Direct Loan... current balance on the principle is right around $21k. And that's just one of 3 I'm still paying off. Scholarships do help, but unless you are incredibly lucky, the ones you get are only going to cover a grand or two of expenses and most scholarships only apply to a single year.
And why should someone be forced to go to a second rate school because of their family's income if they're qualified to go to the best?
The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency.
How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids.
Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode:
Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant?
Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated.
And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money.
If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it.
Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it.
Well in this case it's not a problem of education being free, it's free in Finland as well. It's an issue of a proper use of the money, that's it. You draw big conclusions of a simple matter.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
When you get out of scientific subjects everything is ideology. The kid is impregnated by ideology at home as well. The only thing you can do about it is provide him with critical thinking.
Last I checked, politics wasn't a high school subject.
Politicians decide what you need to be taught, and in public schools they decide on almost everything that you will be taught. His statement is true to a large extent. It is especially easy to see in the "history" class. Most of the "ugly" things about your own country is removed. Especially if you were the "winner" in the war. All the winners of WW2 have been quite good and effective on removing the uglier parts of their own history. Thats just how things work.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency.
How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids.
Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode:
Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant?
Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated.
And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money.
If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it.
Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it.
Well in this case it's not a problem of education being free, it's free in Finland as well. It's an issue of a proper use of the money, that's it. You draw big conclusions of a simple matter.
Please actually read my post before you try and comment on it....
You know what,I can really understand any kind of argument from anyone about the way they feel about education.But one thing I will never be able to understand is getting education while putting yourself +50 k $ in debt before you even get a half way decent job.I really can't,and from a basic intuitive level it just seems wrong and broken to me. But hey whatever,I'm a guy from a country that was part of a socialist system not too long ago so I may have a twisted point of view.
The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency.
How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids.
Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode:
Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant?
Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated.
And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money.
If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it.
Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it.
I'm not sure how the public school administration system works in the US. When it comes to schools (universities are different), I completely agree that throwing money at the problem is quite pointless. In Australia, there's recently been a report asking for 5 billion in funding public schools.
To teach kids, you don't need gimmicks like smart boards, school halls, a iPad for every student, or anything else that money can be thrown at. All you need is a blackboard, and a teacher that know what the fuck he or she is doing.
It seriously can't be that expensive to hire competent teachers and have a blackboard in every classroom, can it?
About universities, you might say America's education system is crap, but America has by far the best universities in the world, no other country is even remotely close.
The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency.
How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids.
Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode:
Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant?
Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated.
And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money.
If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it.
Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it.
Well in this case it's not a problem of education being free, it's free in Finland as well. It's an issue of a proper use of the money, that's it. You draw big conclusions of a simple matter.
Please actually read my post before you try and comment on it....
Read all of it, going to read it again if you want.
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
Interesting statistics but as far as this "waste" goes, there are more expenses than the teacher's personal salary. You have 1. Rent for, and maintainance of, the property in which you teach. 2. Administrative personell (which should probably be around another 50k$ per classroom) 3. Cleaning staff, also salary for any fulltime maintainance worker, on a big school this might be several people. 4. Books, educational material, nowadays, computers and technical equipment. Also lab equipment, protection. 5. Extra expenses. (Perhaps you need to make sure you follow a certain standard or code set up by the state, requiring you to hire an expensive consultant. Or fix vandalism to a number of lockers. Etc)
Obviously this is a lot more than the estimated 55k$ per teacher. At least try to be honest when presenting problems such as this one. I'm sure there are a lot of problems and a 740k$ severance package is obviously unacceptable. A year's pay might have been more in line (rather than just over 6 year's pay).
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
When you get out of scientific subjects everything is ideology. The kid is impregnated by ideology at home as well. The only thing you can do about it is provide him with critical thinking.
Last I checked, politics wasn't a high school subject.
Politicians decide what you need to be taught, and in public schools they decide on almost everything that you will be taught. His statement is true to a large extent. It is especially easy to see in the "history" class. Most of the "ugly" things about your own country is removed. Especially if you were the "winner" in the war. All the winners of WW2 have been quite good and effective on removing the uglier parts of their own history. Thats just how things work.
I wouldn't know if that actually happens in history.
Nor do I care.
My experience with Australian History seem to involve many unsavory chapters in our nation's history, but it also involved sheer and utter boredom and indifference on my part.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
Interesting statistics but as far as this "waste" goes, there are more expenses than the teacher's personal salary. You have 1. Rent for, and maintainance of, the property in which you teach. 2. Administrative personell (which should probably be around another 50k$ per classroom) 3. Cleaning staff, also salary for any fulltime maintainance worker, on a big school this might be several people. 4. Books, educational material, nowadays, computers and technical equipment. Also lab equipment, protection. 5. Extra expenses. (Perhaps you need to make sure you follow a certain standard or code set up by the state, requiring you to hire an expensive consultant. Or fix vandalism to a number of lockers. Etc)
Obviously this is a lot more than the estimated 55k$ per teacher. At least try to be honest when presenting problems such as this one. I'm sure there are a lot of problems and a 740k$ severance package is obviously unacceptable. A year's pay might have been more in line (rather than just over 6 year's pay).
As a former auditor of school districts, I can safely say teachers benefits and pay are the biggest expenses of a school district. Teachers pensions in this country run on a basis where it doesn't have to be completely funded, much like the Social Security system. The problem is that this is not reflected on the books of a school district, so when a district shows a pension liability of say $10mil, it's more than likely something more around the range of $20-30mil.
If school districts had to go to report this liability in full, and make sure the pension was 100% fully funded, every school district in the U.S. Public School system would be beyond bankrupt.
P.S. That's why the United States Postal Service is in so much trouble now when they had been fine for years... Bush put a law into effect where the pension for employees has to now be completely 100% fully funded.
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
Interesting statistics but as far as this "waste" goes, there are more expenses than the teacher's personal salary. You have 1. Rent for, and maintainance of, the property in which you teach. 2. Administrative personell (which should probably be around another 50k$ per classroom) 3. Cleaning staff, also salary for any fulltime maintainance worker, on a big school this might be several people. 4. Books, educational material, nowadays, computers and technical equipment. Also lab equipment, protection. 5. Extra expenses. (Perhaps you need to make sure you follow a certain standard or code set up by the state, requiring you to hire an expensive consultant. Or fix vandalism to a number of lockers. Etc)
Obviously this is a lot more than the estimated 55k$ per teacher. At least try to be honest when presenting problems such as this one. I'm sure there are a lot of problems and a 740k$ severance package is obviously unacceptable. A year's pay might have been more in line (rather than just over 6 year's pay).
Textbooks and educational material is another thing I generally found quite worthless at a high school level. Kids don't read them, and you don't need them to teach.
It was only in year 12 and at universities that I read textbooks seriously.
The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency.
How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids.
Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode:
Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant?
Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated.
And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money.
If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it.
Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it.
Well in this case it's not a problem of education being free, it's free in Finland as well. It's an issue of a proper use of the money, that's it. You draw big conclusions of a simple matter.
Please actually read my post before you try and comment on it....
Read all of it, going to read it again if you want.
No need to. I read it as well. By looking at his conclusion you can see he is not well educated at all. The only thing that really bothers me how the americans hijacket the word "liberal". It have lost all its meaning now days. USA have the same problem with a lot of other things, including the amry and not the least health care.
I dont say I have the/a answer, but being ignorant is way worse. Having such strong opinions on subject you have no to little knowledge about is mostly just depressing. Just look at this thread. Almost no one have any idea what they are talking about. But then again, that is what you get for living in a democracy, and it is my biggest argument for having a free education for everyone, so that they can make the right choice now and in the future.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"? University? Medical/Law school? Graduate school? Art/Music school? Culinary school? What should and shouldn't be "free"?
The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency.
How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids.
Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode:
Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant?
Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated.
And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money.
If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it.
Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it.
Well in this case it's not a problem of education being free, it's free in Finland as well. It's an issue of a proper use of the money, that's it. You draw big conclusions of a simple matter.
Please actually read my post before you try and comment on it....
Read all of it, going to read it again if you want.
No need to. I read it as well. By looking at his conclusion you can see he is not well educated at all. The only thing that really bothers me how the americans hijacket the word "liberal". It have lost all its meaning now days. USA have the same problem with a lot of other things, including the amry and not the least health care.
I dont say I have the/a answer, but being ignorant is way worse. Having such strong opinions on subject you have no to little knowledge about is mostly just depressing. Just look at this thread. Almost no one have any idea what they are talking about. But then again, that is what you get for living in a democracy, and it is my biggest argument for having a free education for everyone, so that they can make the right choice now and in the future.
Debt and deficits... in fact, economics, in general.
Every member of the electorate is an armchair economist.
Education is ALMOST free here. Also our healthcare system is regarded as one of the best on the planet. Im glad that i live in a social democracy like that and not in the US(no offense)
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
Or the ones where teachers whip out some Howard Zinn and throw the assigned textbook in the garbage. AKA my high school.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"?
So true with the over-broad mention. Honestly, I think it should be paid for, but a person should still have to qualify to get into higher education. You can't just throw money around to those that don't deserve it. If you busted your ass to get in, then fine, but to pay for someone that doesn't give a shit and is just going to fail out their first year, they should be paying for it on their own.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"?
So true with the over-broad mention. Honestly, I think it should be paid for, but a person should still have to qualify to get into higher education. You can't just throw money around to those that don't deserve it. If you busted your ass to get in, then fine, but to pay for someone that doesn't give a shit and is just going to fail out their first year, they should be paying for it on their own.
Like everyone said for higher education subsidies should be based on merit.
I think education should be free. It is what separates people in society from eachother if education was free and had easier access I am pretty sure poverty and other issues might disappear. Of course this could be just wishful thinking and of course its just my opinion.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"? University? Medical/Law school? Graduate school? Art/Music school? Culinary school? What should and shouldn't be "free"?
It's not a problem, schools are already categorized. In Sweden, studying in medical school is obviously free, you're studying to become a doctor. Studying french at folkuniversitetet (as an adult because you think it's fun) costs money.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"? University? Medical/Law school? Graduate school? Art/Music school? Culinary school? What should and shouldn't be "free"?
It's not a problem, schools are already categorized. In Sweden, studying in medical school is obviously free, you're studying to become a doctor. Studying french at folkuniversitetet (as an adult because you think it's fun) costs money.
Then it's a question that should be addressed for each category, rather than the over-broad question "should education be free?". You should be asking the questions "should medical school be free?" or "should university be free?".
Phrasing the question in an over-broad way is, intentionally or otherwise, going to inject bias into the discussion based on peoples' interpretation of the question.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
The problem with America's education system is that we look to scores on standardized tests, and business as the overall determining educational factors. Since we pay, and treat K to 12 teachers like they were part of a prison chain gang in terms of our political and business views, the quality of education suffers greatly; also, political and religious (passing laws to limit the teaching of evolution in schools, for example) are influences exist that severly limit what a public, K to 12 education is in all actuality by setting the bar increasingly low, and generalizing/inculcating all of the students into lump sums based on ISTEP scores, thereby incentivizing schools to teach only to the test.
Not only are these all problems, but the huge costs of obtaining a college degree severly limits us as well. When people have to choose between putting bread on the table, or getting an education, they're going to choose the logical route. The problem is that employers treat a college degree with increasing scruntiny, and wages are exceedingly static. How are those people that cannot afford the costs, or don't choose to do so, going to be able to find jobs that are now asking for a college degree? State minimum wage is roughly 7 to 8.25 dollars an hour, and I really doubt you can carve out much of a life for yourself on it--especially if you want anything. As it stands, they'll have to incurr the costs as the system of employment and business in America both demands and asks for it. So it's all a frustrating situation that delegitmatizes the actual education in America for the profits of a few.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"? University? Medical/Law school? Graduate school? Art/Music school? Culinary school? What should and shouldn't be "free"?
It's not a problem, schools are already categorized. In Sweden, studying in medical school is obviously free, you're studying to become a doctor. Studying french at folkuniversitetet (as an adult because you think it's fun) costs money.
Then it's a question that should be addressed for each category, rather than the over-broad question "should education be free?". You should be asking the questions "should medical school be free?" or "should university be free?".
Phrasing the question in an over-broad way is, intentionally or otherwise, going to inject bias into the discussion based on peoples' interpretation of the question.
I don't know, I think it's pretty obvious what is meant with a general question, it's obviously education for careers since it's about people affording it. It wouldn't really be an interesting discussion if you included luxury hobby schools.
In Sweden we get PAID to go to college. we get like 400$ monthly just to go to college. And people in Sweden complain that sum is to low because you can't afford apartment/food with it.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
The problem with America's education system is that we look to scores on standardized tests, and business as the overall determining educational factors. Since we pay, and treat K to 12 teachers like they were part of a prison chain gang in terms of our political and business views, the quality of education suffers greatly; also, political and religious (passing laws to limit the teaching of evolution in schools, for example) are influences exist that severly limit what a public, K to 12 education is in all actuality by setting the bar increasingly low, and generalizing/inculcating all of the students into lump sums based on ISTEP scores, thereby incentivizing schools to teach only to the test.
Not only are these all problems, but the huge costs of obtaining a college degree severly limits us as well. When people have to choose between putting bread on the table, or getting an education, they're going to choose the logical route. The problem is that employers treat a college degree with increasing scruntiny, and wages are exceedingly static. How are those people that cannot afford the costs, or don't choose to do so, going to be able to find jobs that are now asking for a college degree? State minimum wage is roughly 7 to 8.25 dollars an hour, and I really doubt you can carve out much of a life for yourself on it--especially if you want anything. As it stands, they'll have to incurr the costs as the system of employment and business in America both demands and asks for it. So it's all a frustrating situation that delegitmatizes the actual education in America for the profits of a few.
Doesn't every country use standardized tests?
The alternative is different tests for different schools, which can be rigged to be easier so that no fair comparison between scores can be made for university admission.
Teaching to the test isn't a problem in math here (it is for science though), since the last few parts of the final year 12 test generally ask quite creative questions, with requires some ingenuity to solve.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
Interesting statistics but as far as this "waste" goes, there are more expenses than the teacher's personal salary. You have 1. Rent for, and maintainance of, the property in which you teach. 2. Administrative personell (which should probably be around another 50k$ per classroom) 3. Cleaning staff, also salary for any fulltime maintainance worker, on a big school this might be several people. 4. Books, educational material, nowadays, computers and technical equipment. Also lab equipment, protection. 5. Extra expenses. (Perhaps you need to make sure you follow a certain standard or code set up by the state, requiring you to hire an expensive consultant. Or fix vandalism to a number of lockers. Etc)
Obviously this is a lot more than the estimated 55k$ per teacher. At least try to be honest when presenting problems such as this one. I'm sure there are a lot of problems and a 740k$ severance package is obviously unacceptable. A year's pay might have been more in line (rather than just over 6 year's pay).
Do you know what you could do with $436,096??? Here, let's try to figure it out together...
Let's start modestly. Hire a teacher for $55,000 a year.
Now I don't wanna spend a bunch of time figuring out rent, utilities, janitorial expenses, upkeep, internet.... Let's just put all 18 kids in a luxury hotel suite every day for class, at $500 a day.
And we still have $246,096 left over. Hmmm let's double the teachers pay....
$191, 096.... Buy every student an $800 imac computer that they can keep when school is over, for the rest of their student life!
$176,696..... Let's buy every student a $5 lunch every day of the school year. Chances are our luxury hotel suite will take care of that already, but we'll assume they don't.
$152,396.... Damn I'm having a hard time spending this money.....
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency.
How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids.
Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode:
Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant?
Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated.
And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money.
If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it.
Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it.
So what you say is, if the goverment runs the schools, they suck at it and doesn't know how to. Better run them as private schools because they know how to and don't get anything out of it?
If I understand you post correctly your main point is that your education suck because all your money goes to administration. But most of the contries which you rank against in the PISA has some form of free public schools. This suggest that running a good school doesn't mean it has to be run by a company.
Running schools by companies is a bad thing, because they have to make money. They have to make a profit for their owners. And this makes a dilema. Because how can you not graduate people who pay you for their education?
In Denmark we have free education all including free universities. At the university level the university only get money for the number of students who graduate a class, to make it like a private university, where you strife to educate more people to pass the course. The problem is this didn't happen. Several teachers felt forced to lower the standard of the education to the point where the reseachers know warn that our Masters Students education level is lowering. Now is it not known if there is a correlation. But it is pretty apparent that this doesn't work. Universities do too many things to get more money.
In a private school this would be worse, because if you don't have high grades people wont chose your school so teachers can be inclined to not only lower the graduation level, but also the top grade level will be lowered, all because of money.
The problem with US spendings on school isn't because the goverment is running it, but because the the money is spent wrongly because of stuff like unions and such. A company wont change things, it might look better on paper, but the fraud is just moved into places where you can't detect them on paper, in and audit.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil.
What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math.
Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency.
How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids.
Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode:
Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant?
Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated.
And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money.
If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it.
Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it.
So what you say is, if the goverment runs the schools, they suck at it and doesn't know how to. Better run them as private schools because they know how to and don't get anything out of it?
If I understand you post correctly your main point is that your education suck because all your money goes to administration. But most of the contries which you rank against in the PISA has some form of free public schools. This suggest that running a good school doesn't mean it has to be run by a company.
Running schools by companies is a bad thing, because they have to make money. They have to make a profit for their owners. And this makes a dilema. Because how can you not graduate people who pay you for their education?
In Denmark we have free education all including free universities. At the university level the university only get money for the number of students who graduate a class, to make it like a private university, where you strife to educate more people to pass the course. The problem is this didn't happen. Several teachers felt forced to lower the standard of the education to the point where the reseachers know warn that our Masters Students education level is lowering. Now is it not known if there is a correlation. But it is pretty apparent that this doesn't work. Universities do too many things to get more money.
In a private school this would be worse, because if you don't have high grades people wont chose your school so teachers can be inclined to not only lower the graduation level, but also the top grade level will be lowered, all because of money.
The problem with US spendings on school isn't because the goverment is running it, but because the the money is spent wrongly because of stuff like unions and such. A company wont change things, it might look better on paper, but the fraud is just moved into places where you can't detect them on paper, in and audit.
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Free? no way. But the price of classes are getting out of hand. It cost me 800 dollars for a freaking Nursing Aid class. If i decide to work in the field the job itself only pays 10-12 bucks an hour and it is hard ass work. (it is a requirement for a RN degree) Not counting the scrubs and shoes i had to buy also.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
On March 14 2012 00:49 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
On March 13 2012 15:45 NotSorry wrote: Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way.
Guess what, someone having it worse than you doesn't make your situation better.
I don't think Uni education should be free or trade school. I worked my butt off getting enough scholarships to be able to go through college free and also working part time to pay for side expenses.
I'm starting my third year's worth of classes this summer and I have 0 debt, and most likely will have 0 debt until my senior year.
In America you can get free, but you have to really work for it, which is a good thing. It weeds out people who otherwise go to college just for the heck of it or shouldn't be in college at all. It also makes the rich kids, who go to college because daddy tells them to, to pay a high tuition rate so I can go free.
I of course like the idea of free education, but if a country did do so, they would have to find a way to pay everyone in the school. So the most logical solution is for the government to pay it, which would most likely involve taxes. I'm no tax expert so I can't really comment on how high they would be, but if people would be willing to pay those extra taxes, its viable.
On March 14 2012 02:26 SySLeif wrote: I don't think Uni education should be free or trade school. I worked my butt off getting enough scholarships to be able to go through college free and also working part time to pay for side expenses.
I'm starting my third year's worth of classes this summer and I have 0 debt, and most likely will have 0 debt until my senior year.
In America you can get free, but you have to really work for it, which is a good thing. It weeds out people who otherwise go to college just for the heck of it or shouldn't be in college at all. It also makes the rich kids, who go to college because daddy tells them to, to pay a high tuition rate so I can go free.
And those who should go to college but due to financial reasons cannot afford it? There cannot be scholarships for all.
The options are: (1) Each student will pay for their own education out of their own pocket. (2) Taxpayer money is pooled then goes to pay for children's education. (3) Some combination of (1) or (2).
The US employs option (2) and economists back the idea by arguing that education is a positive externality. This simply means that the well being of society is proportional to the number of people going through the school system. Therefore, if education is already payed for and therefore you can maximize the number of children going to school, you will maximize the well being of society when those children grow up and enter the workforce. However, the measurement of public happiness is theoretical, therefore people can rebuttal this idea by arguing the costs to society to fund the school system doesn't make up for the improved well being of society.
I feel some form of payment or proof of legal residency, I live in an area with a heavy flow of illegal immigrants and I personally get pissed off seeing ESL and half of my old classes not able to even speak english.
On March 14 2012 02:33 tryummm wrote: Education will never be free.
The options are: (1) Each student will pay for their own education out of their own pocket. (2) Taxpayer money is pooled then goes to pay for children's education. (3) Some combination of (1) or (2).
The US employs option (2) and economists back the idea by arguing that education is a positive externality. This simply means that the well being of society is proportional to the number of people going through the school system. Therefore, if education is already payed for and therefore you can maximize the number of children going to school, you will maximize the well being of society when those children grow up and enter the workforce. However, the measurement of public happiness is theoretical, therefore people can rebuttal this idea by arguing the costs to society to fund the school system doesn't make up for the improved well being of society.
Omg why all the Americans are starting with "Education will never be free.", ofc it's not free. We are talking about free for the students, therefor paid by the taxpayers.
I pay about 780€ each semester and i hate it to death. I have to take a credit and go to work to pay my flat etc. Its about break even every month; I was thankful to be allowed to take a credit without having any collaterals. Otherwise i would have just not been able to study. Not because i'm stupid but just because i got no € On the other hand i see the people from well saturated families. they are studying at the most expensive private universities (buying every book necessary / having a great laptop / car / making semesters in other countries).And in many cases these are the exact people who would have never received a high educational degree (to be allowed to go to university) without getting extra help (by well payed private teacher).
In my opinion education must be free for everyone! People with money are heavily priviliged anyways. Higher taxes even increase the difference.
through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
On March 14 2012 02:26 SySLeif wrote: I don't think Uni education should be free or trade school. I worked my butt off getting enough scholarships to be able to go through college free and also working part time to pay for side expenses.
I'm starting my third year's worth of classes this summer and I have 0 debt, and most likely will have 0 debt until my senior year.
In America you can get free, but you have to really work for it, which is a good thing. It weeds out people who otherwise go to college just for the heck of it or shouldn't be in college at all. It also makes the rich kids, who go to college because daddy tells them to, to pay a high tuition rate so I can go free.
And those who should go to college but due to financial reasons cannot afford it? There cannot be scholarships for all.
I have financial reasons. I've lived on my own since the beginning of my senior year of high school. I, luckily, in the summers have a good factory job working 3am to 3pm for 18 dollars an hour. Then it's just part time the rest of the year and learning to budget harshly.
The "no scholarships for all" is a myth. Schools have their own scholarships they give also to help college students who are needy. But if you can't go because of financial reasons, and your grades are not good enough, then you probably should not be going.
The thing that ruins it for other people is when you have huge dropout rates. According to the New York Times only around half of the kids who enter college finish with their bachelors, taking into students who are going for a bachelors. This is a huge strain of resources that now hurts the low socio-economic class.
On March 14 2012 02:41 WerderBremen wrote: I pay about 780€ per semester and i hate it to death. I have to take a credit and go to work to pay my flat etc. Its about break even every month; I was thankful to be allowed to take a credit without having any collaterals. Otherwise i would have just not been able to study. Not because i'm stupid but just because i got no € On the other hand i see the people from well saturated families. they are studying on the most expensive private universities (buying every book necessary / having a great laptop / car / making semesters in other countries).And in many cases these are the exact people who would have never received a high educational degree (to be allowed to go to university) without getting extra help (by well payed private teacher).
In my opinion education must be free for everyone! People with money are heavily priviliged anyways. Higher taxes even increase the difference.
This is an argument from envy. Not exactly too persuasive rationally. Given this argument, one should take the position that you are extremely privileged and wealthy compared to the mass poor lot of billions around the world (such as say, much of Africa), and therefore tax monies from your country should be given to those people instead of you.
No one has brought it up yet, but I guess I will. Instead of this argument of envy, if you actually made a reasoned assessment, you would realize that State-licensing, restriction, and rent-seeking is highly destructive to new entrants (you) and expensive. Then perhaps you would find actual solutions which would drive down costs, improve quality, and remove unnecessary barriers to employment and opportunity. The State says you need license X, therefore gives monopoly either to itself, or some privileged company who lobbied, therefore charging X rate which usually gets more expensive over-time. You then complain about X rate, and completely miss the problem itself therefore leading you to some Socialist position.
You can hardly get a job these days without a State-license, create an entrepenuerial start-up, or generally make a living for yourself without permission and thus, rent, from/to the State and its subsidiary leeches in the so-called 'private' sector.
The problem has always been and always will be monopoly (re: State as it has always been understand), rent-seeking, and barriers to entry. This is why it is so frustrating to hear people diagnose what is wrong, and then be so completely wrong on how to fix the problem. I generally attribute this to a lack of any understanding of economics, class theory, and sociology (of say, Herbert Spencer).
It should be almost free imo, totally free is never good, there needs to be a small stepping stone. like 500€ ayear for uni in Belgium is reasonable, above 1K a year is just... criminal
What the fuck. I live just a 10 Hour drive away in the same country and I'm paying like quadruple per semester. Fucking Dalhousie lol.
Yes education should be free but obviously there is a lot more to that. How high are the grades to get in, to stay in? Should grades matter? Should you be able to get into University with a shitty academic record in High school etc. etc. There has to be some way that keeps everyone from going to University.
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
Higher education should be free. But for-profit institutions should have the freedom to charge what they want, as well. State funded schools ought to be free to taxpayers. In fact, this is already how it's like in America, from my experience. I went to my state university without paying a dime.
Educated members of society are good for the country. Less crime and more informed decisions. Or let's put it this way: the better educated your general public is, the higher the chance you have competent government officials who are not corrupted rich people.
I'll start my bachelor this summer, and will i pay anything? NO! :D I'll get around $1.000 a month for studying + an airplane ticket a year to visit family. Scandinavia FTW!
EDIT: And this would apply for any country I would like to study in except I would get more travel money the further I go.
I haven't looked a lot into this, but IMO ATM I would say education should be free as educated people are good for society and people who could do very well aren't held back by their family's social circumstances.
To deal with the "slackers" that everyone mentions, could it not be based on achievement? You don't get into Harvard or Yale as a student who "doesn't take things seriously." Maybe instead of paying a financial price you have to pay an academic fee - where cutoffs are based on grades/community service/etc.
Seems wrong that the most important thing a person can have in their life costs so many such an absurd amount for so many, while others get the same thing for free.
Been there, done that, paid my tuition. It's not the end of the world but it sure would have been nice to have that tuition as extra cash right when I finished university.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
He might have come to a conclusion much too son on the global warming issue, but he was definitely right on the evolution issue.
On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
Then prove me otherwise? At least at my uni all the scientists think global warming is a reality.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Im not saying that everybody need to have higher education, Im saying by not having free schools many people dont even get a chance, and thats the really sad part.
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
Then prove me otherwise? At least at my uni all the scientists think global warming is a reality.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
I have the same problem. It is almost impossible to argue with people like them, as they cant argue with us. We have no place to start, no where we can agree on, and that makes it very hard to have an argument. We cant convice each others. For me I cant see anything more valuable than a well educated society. Some people dont apperantly. Well, after all scandinavians have a quite different way of thinking that most other countries it seems. The idea about equality have a much stronger/different hold here, than especially in the US.
On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
Then prove me otherwise? At least at my uni all the scientists think global warming is a reality.
97-98 % of all scientists believes in man made global warming. That people even discusses this is weird.
Well it is mostly only in the US. For me it is a easy choice. Not only beecouse it seems legit after I have learned a lot about it. But trusting sources that have very economic intentions, I cant trust it. Seems to me that oil companies spend a lot of money on trying to lobby it out, almost everywhere. "Green" technology dont have that money and I cant remember I have ever read about they "founding" pro-global warming research.
On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
So you are saying that the fact that the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere reflect heatwaves is a lie?
On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
But global warming exists doesn't it. Not saying anything apocalyptic is going to happen. I'm willing to trust science, but trust it from where?
Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Im not saying that everybody need to have higher education, Im saying by not having free schools many people dont even get a chance, and thats the really sad part.
well, in the U.S., specifically California, community colleges are almost free, adult education centers are free, and public universities are cheap as hell (especially considering they are ranked high in the world, U.C. Berkeley, UCLA). if you cant "afford" those schools with the cheap tuition, government subsidies and all the financial aid that is available, you shouldn't be going to school in the first place.
On March 14 2012 03:12 Presidenten wrote: Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
the problem is that nothing is ever free. you pay for it through your taxes. so, the question is not "should it be free," it is "should we raise taxes to pay for it?"
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Im not saying that everybody need to have higher education, Im saying by not having free schools many people dont even get a chance, and thats the really sad part.
well, in the U.S., specifically California, community colleges are almost free, adult education centers are free, and public universities are cheap as hell (especially considering they are ranked high in the world, U.C. Berkeley, UCLA). if you cant "afford" those schools with the cheap tuition, government subsidies and all the financial aid that is available, you shouldn't be going to school in the first place.
Are you crazy? The UCs cost nearly $30,000 a year for California residence who are living off campus. Don't believe me? I pulled it off the UC website:
The tuition is even higher for out of state students. Not everyone grows up in a state with good universities. Grow up in a rural state like South Dakota? You're screwed out of getting any in-state tuition discounts unless you're planning on getting a degree from a university that will be laughed at by employers in any major city. Entire industries are completely unavailable with degrees from low-tier universities like that.
Education in the U.S. is severally flawed on all levels.
On March 14 2012 03:12 Presidenten wrote: Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
the problem is that nothing is ever free. you pay for it through your taxes. so, the question is not "should it be free," it is "should we raise taxes to pay for it?"
Very true, nothing is free. But is it wrong to raise taxes for this? I mean Sweden is doing pretty well compared to the rest of the world, and we raise taxes for almost everything. Haha. And we even have a "rightish" government right now, and have had for about 6 years.
I guess we are just from so different cultures as the guy from norway said. We will probably never agree on how taxes should be paid.
On March 14 2012 03:12 Presidenten wrote: Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
the problem is that nothing is ever free. you pay for it through your taxes. so, the question is not "should it be free," it is "should we raise taxes to pay for it?"
No need to raise the taxes. It is basically free for me anyway
On March 14 2012 03:12 Presidenten wrote: Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
the problem is that nothing is ever free. you pay for it through your taxes. so, the question is not "should it be free," it is "should we raise taxes to pay for it?"
On related news, electricity isn't generated by the socket. Who would have thought?
On March 13 2012 15:45 NotSorry wrote: Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way.
same thing I thought. I would LOVE to pay 2000 a year...that is nothing.
On March 14 2012 03:12 Presidenten wrote: Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
the problem is that nothing is ever free. you pay for it through your taxes. so, the question is not "should it be free," it is "should we raise taxes to pay for it?"
No need to raise the taxes. It is basically free for me anyway
That is because we already have really high taxes in norway + a state budget going 200billion in profits...
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
Interesting statistics but as far as this "waste" goes, there are more expenses than the teacher's personal salary. You have 1. Rent for, and maintainance of, the property in which you teach. 2. Administrative personell (which should probably be around another 50k$ per classroom) 3. Cleaning staff, also salary for any fulltime maintainance worker, on a big school this might be several people. 4. Books, educational material, nowadays, computers and technical equipment. Also lab equipment, protection. 5. Extra expenses. (Perhaps you need to make sure you follow a certain standard or code set up by the state, requiring you to hire an expensive consultant. Or fix vandalism to a number of lockers. Etc)
Obviously this is a lot more than the estimated 55k$ per teacher. At least try to be honest when presenting problems such as this one. I'm sure there are a lot of problems and a 740k$ severance package is obviously unacceptable. A year's pay might have been more in line (rather than just over 6 year's pay).
Textbooks and educational material is another thing I generally found quite worthless at a high school level. Kids don't read them, and you don't need them to teach.
It was only in year 12 and at universities that I read textbooks seriously.
Too much gimmicks in education.
I'm amazed you think textbooks are gimmicks.
I'm not sure you're aware of this but some people learn better through reading texts rather than being told (taught) by other people. So it's rather irrelevant if, for you personally, the contact with your teacher was enough to get you through basic schooling or not. What matters is what works for everyone as you want everyone to get through basic schooling with at least acceptable grades, while still doing it at as cheap as possible.
On March 14 2012 03:12 Presidenten wrote: Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
the problem is that nothing is ever free. you pay for it through your taxes. so, the question is not "should it be free," it is "should we raise taxes to pay for it?"
No fucking shit. What is with people repeating this? It's not like you refuted anything he said (in fact he didn't really even say anything).
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
But global warming exists doesn't it. Not saying anything apocalyptic is going to happen. I'm willing to trust science, but trust it from where?
Yes, anthropogenic (manmade) global warming is pretty much basic and settled science. As to where do you inform yourself of the science... sadly, there is no easy way of doing so. You just have to learn as much as possible and listen to what all the sides have to say and then make up your own mind. If it helps, this is the guy whose analysis I trust the most after my own research into the matter: + Show Spoiler +
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
So you are saying that the fact that the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere reflect heatwaves is a lie?
Edit* Failed on writing in correct place lol
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you've been indoctrinated to a political ideology instead of learning the scientific theory that underlies the phenomena of global warming. And no, I'm not interested in rehashing the debate here. It's been beaten to death in other threads.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Im not saying that everybody need to have higher education, Im saying by not having free schools many people dont even get a chance, and thats the really sad part.
well, in the U.S., specifically California, community colleges are almost free, adult education centers are free, and public universities are cheap as hell (especially considering they are ranked high in the world, U.C. Berkeley, UCLA). if you cant "afford" those schools with the cheap tuition, government subsidies and all the financial aid that is available, you shouldn't be going to school in the first place.
Are you crazy? The UCs cost nearly $30,000 a year for California residence who are living off campus. Don't believe me? I pulled it off the UC website:
The tuition is even higher for out of state students. Not everyone grows up in a state with good universities. Grow up in a rural state like South Dakota? You're screwed out of getting any in-state tuition discounts unless you're planning on getting a degree from a university that will be laughed at by employers in any major city. Entire industries are completely unavailable with degrees from low-tier universities like that.
Education in the U.S. is severally flawed on all levels.
i was referring to tuition, not living expenses. UC is only about $13k in tuition, which is incredibly cheap for universities and does not include financial aid, scholarships, etc. (I paid $30k for a private university before financial aid, scholarships, etc.; my friend went to UC Berkeley for free because of scholarships and financial aid.) and it is more expensive for out of state residents because they dont pay California taxes, which is where the government subsidies come from. also, universities are obviously at the high end, you glossed over the fact that adult education centers are free and community colleges are dirt cheap.
if you think paying for your education is a flaw, then i guess it is flawed. i am not sure what you mean by "all levels."
In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Im not saying that everybody need to have higher education, Im saying by not having free schools many people dont even get a chance, and thats the really sad part.
well, in the U.S., specifically California, community colleges are almost free, adult education centers are free, and public universities are cheap as hell (especially considering they are ranked high in the world, U.C. Berkeley, UCLA). if you cant "afford" those schools with the cheap tuition, government subsidies and all the financial aid that is available, you shouldn't be going to school in the first place.
On March 14 2012 03:12 Presidenten wrote: Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
the problem is that nothing is ever free. you pay for it through your taxes. so, the question is not "should it be free," it is "should we raise taxes to pay for it?"
Very true, nothing is free. But is it wrong to raise taxes for this? I mean Sweden is doing pretty well compared to the rest of the world, and we raise taxes for almost everything. Haha. And we even have a "rightish" government right now, and have had for about 6 years.
I guess we are just from so different cultures as the guy from norway said. We will probably never agree on how taxes should be paid.
my gov't (U.S.) tends to use my tax money for wars. so, forgive me for not wanting to give them any more money. ;-)
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
Indeed. You have medical professions learning subjects they'll never ever use. If people want to learn these things on their own so be it, but to be required to do so to in order to perform nursing functions or surgery is completely assbackwards. A massive waste of time and resources. Just one major area that makes society poorer. Yes, when you waste time and resources that could have been put to productive (profitable) uses, that makes society poorer. Hence, my earlier post about folks having no understanding of economics being a major cause of the dearth of understanding of the needed solutions. (The Seen and Unseen!)
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Im not saying that everybody need to have higher education, Im saying by not having free schools many people dont even get a chance, and thats the really sad part.
well, in the U.S., specifically California, community colleges are almost free, adult education centers are free, and public universities are cheap as hell (especially considering they are ranked high in the world, U.C. Berkeley, UCLA). if you cant "afford" those schools with the cheap tuition, government subsidies and all the financial aid that is available, you shouldn't be going to school in the first place.
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
rofl. regarding this, the only reason I am going to UW right now is simply because my boss wants me to have a degree. So I ask him what he wants me to study......he says it doesn't matter "you won't be using any of it where I work"....I ask him why I am going to college....he says so I can show my piece of paper to my peers and future employers....
oh and the shit my college teaches is fucking bullshit. I do not understand why I pay $4k a quarter for information that I can get for free online or in a damn library. Not to mention I can learn anything online for free...instead of 3 measly subjects for 4 fucking grand.
On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
"Scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Now before you post about citations, that very sentence has good citations [1-4] at the bottom of the page. This is why people need an education, so they stop with their conspiracy theories and listen to the scientists instead of a pundit.
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major.
I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas?
I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm].
On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Higher education is not that necessary for most peoples lives? This would be true - if we didn't live in a democracy. Voting for the people who move our nation necessitates that we be able to conceptualize the consequences of our actions. If we don't know anything about global warming, if we don't know enough to ask questions like "hey, isn't it weird that our regulators bought the idea that an oil spill in the gulf coast could never happen and then it did anyway?", and most importantly, if we don't know enough to fill the variety of jobs which require higher education (you can't exactly go and get a factory job these days, after all), we're in trouble as a society.
Look at it this way - we have how many unfilled specialized jobs in the US? And we're in the midst of high unemployment? That should tell us something.
"And policymakers need to take seriously the challenge of raising the bar for all students’ learning. As Brian Fitzgerald put it so well in his Times posting, however, “These points are moot, though, if we continue our systemic slashing of funding for public higher education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world, but as proportions of state support for higher education dip into single digits, we risk weakening the entire enterprise — in all fields — that undergirds our innovation and economic development.” "
You go to get that piece of paper. It proves that you're willing to put up with all the bullshit to get a piece of paper to prove that you're willing to put up with all the bullshit.
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major.
I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas?
I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm].
I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that engineering majors tend to be among the few who actually use the information they gain in college in their careers. I'm not saying that people are spending their time in college partying or screwing around, I'm just saying that most of the stuff taught in college will end up having no relevance whatsoever to the careers that the vast majority of students end up in.
When I studied physics I paid $100 per semester for expenses the university had only for me as for copied scripts, etc. and in these $100 was a ticket for all public transportation included in the area where the university was for the whole semester.
I think education MUST be free or cost as low as I paid. It should depend on your skill, not on the wealth of your parents. But instead of a high taxation to all workers in a state the universities should be funded by a law where the graduate after he successfully did his examn and starts working should have to pay 1% of his/her income to a fund which supports the universities. This fund will be split over all universities according to their needs.
This basically grants the independence of the universities. Businesses should kept completely out of the universities. This is science, not business. Universities should try to get neutral results and base their teaching on facts, not influenced oppinions.
Whenever I hear about the stories of bright, talented people who aren't able to go to university, I count myself as lucky that I am able to get a free university education, although I'll have to pay as roughly £3000 per year for accommodation, it's much better than living somewhere else and having to add on another £6-9000.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Higher education is not that necessary for most peoples lives? This would be true - if we didn't live in a democracy. Voting for the people who move our nation necessitates that we be able to conceptualize the consequences of our actions. If we don't know anything about global warming, if we don't know enough to ask questions like "hey, isn't it weird that our regulators bought the idea that an oil spill in the gulf coast could never happen and then it did anyway?", and most importantly, if we don't know enough to fill the variety of jobs which require higher education (you can't exactly go and get a factory job these days, after all), we're in trouble as a society.
Look at it this way - we have how many unfilled specialized jobs in the US? And we're in the midst of high unemployment? That should tell us something.
"And policymakers need to take seriously the challenge of raising the bar for all students’ learning. As Brian Fitzgerald put it so well in his Times posting, however, “These points are moot, though, if we continue our systemic slashing of funding for public higher education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world, but as proportions of state support for higher education dip into single digits, we risk weakening the entire enterprise — in all fields — that undergirds our innovation and economic development.” "
i don't think you need a college degree to vote responsibly. as someone said above, you can educate yourself better at your public library or online. hell, most people learn more from on the job training than they ever learn in a university. real life choices and experiences make people responsible voters, not econ101, polsci101, etc. i would love to have everyone who votes on a tax issue to have a firm foundation in economics, but thats just not realistic or necessary.
as for filling specialized jobs, that has more to do with people not wanting to go into those fields rather than the education being unavailable.
Not only is higher education seen as a key to economic advancement, but if all 18-24 year olds were in college, we would reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million people, and fewer people would be in need of governmental assistance. Moreover, a federal program to fund higher education would relieve states of having to fund these institutions, which would free up money for other needed services.
While the US has a free K-12 public education, its failure to fund higher education means that America's economy is unable to compete with other developed nations that have free universities. Furthermore, by removing the need for students to go into debt, the government would allow graduates to be more productive, and they would have more money to spend, which in turn would act as a stimulus for the economy.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Higher education is not that necessary for most peoples lives? This would be true - if we didn't live in a democracy. Voting for the people who move our nation necessitates that we be able to conceptualize the consequences of our actions. If we don't know anything about global warming, if we don't know enough to ask questions like "hey, isn't it weird that our regulators bought the idea that an oil spill in the gulf coast could never happen and then it did anyway?", and most importantly, if we don't know enough to fill the variety of jobs which require higher education (you can't exactly go and get a factory job these days, after all), we're in trouble as a society.
Look at it this way - we have how many unfilled specialized jobs in the US? And we're in the midst of high unemployment? That should tell us something.
"And policymakers need to take seriously the challenge of raising the bar for all students’ learning. As Brian Fitzgerald put it so well in his Times posting, however, “These points are moot, though, if we continue our systemic slashing of funding for public higher education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world, but as proportions of state support for higher education dip into single digits, we risk weakening the entire enterprise — in all fields — that undergirds our innovation and economic development.” "
It seems Brian Fitzgerald doesn't understand that innovation and economic development (aka entreprenuership) doesn't come from a piece of paper learning many times meaningless subjects that either have no productive merit, or are entirely irrelevant to the reason you went to college. Furthermore, I ever wonder how the United States underwent the transition from an agricultural society, to an Industrial one when there was little to no taxation and no Government-schools. It would according to him be impossible, yet it happened. Perhaps this means he should question his position, but then I would give him too much intellectual credit.
Education (even at high level as university) should be free by default. That's the so called government investing into the future of the country. This is how you ensure that you have enough qualified people that someday will take over current generation and ensure progress. To be honest, paid high level education is bullshit, it promotes discrimination (as in the more wealthy you are the better) instead of promoting really smart ppl. (in my case, in my country, high level education is free, but in order to get access to it you must prove it/deserve it [by passing entry exams that aren't the "so called walk in the park"]) I'm not going to say that US education (or other countries where education is a paid service) system is bad, but still, education is the very first rock placed in a society foundation (and health care too).
Student loans are readily available. Oh, but some students want to take bullshit courses like "gender studies" instead of something that will actually be worth something. And then they complain when they're stuck with the loan payments for their expensive vacation.
On March 14 2012 03:46 HomeWorld wrote: Education (even at high level as university) should be free by default. That's the so called government investing into the future of the country. This is how you ensure that you have enough qualified people that someday will take over current generation and ensure progress. To be honest, paid high level education is bullshit, it promotes discrimination (as in the more wealthy you are the better) instead of promoting really smart ppl. (in my case, in my country, high level education is free, but in order to get access to it you must prove it/deserve it [by passing entry exams that aren't the "so called walk in the park"]) I'm not going to say that US education (or other countries where education is a paid service) system is bad, but still, education is the first rock placed in a society foundation (and health care too).
doesnt forcing people to take admission tests also cause class discrimination? sure, the really intelligent, poor people will get in because they are just naturally gifted, but i think the most likely scenario is that wealthy people are able to get private tutors, test prep, etc. that poor people can't afford.
in japan, they have cram schools for the specific purpose of preparing for admission tests. and they are expensive. but, if you dont go, you are shit out of luck at the admission test. when i was preparing for my bar exam, i went to a bar prep course that was like $4,000. if you cant afford that, you are almost guaranteed to fail. i havent heard of anyone who didnt take bar prep and passed the California bar.
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major.
I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas?
I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm].
I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that engineering majors tend to be among the few who actually use the information they gain in college in their careers. I'm not saying that people are spending their time in college partying or screwing around, I'm just saying that most of the stuff taught in college will end up having no relevance whatsoever to the careers that the vast majority of students end up in.
You're failing to see the point of many degrees. It's not necessarily about the exact content that you learn - it's about the skills you learn through studying that concept. Take philosophy as an example. I'm currently studying it, and aside from going to graduate school for it (which I'm hoping to do), you can't really apply the actual content of studying philosophy to many practical places (philosophy is incredibly applicable to intellectual/political discussions, but we're talking purely day-to-day life here). However, the skills that you gain in critical/analytical thinking, analysis, writing skills, debate skills, speech skills, etc. are all incredibly useful and you would be very, very hard-pressed to get the same skillset to such a degree elsewhere.
On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Higher education is not that necessary for most peoples lives? This would be true - if we didn't live in a democracy. Voting for the people who move our nation necessitates that we be able to conceptualize the consequences of our actions. If we don't know anything about global warming, if we don't know enough to ask questions like "hey, isn't it weird that our regulators bought the idea that an oil spill in the gulf coast could never happen and then it did anyway?", and most importantly, if we don't know enough to fill the variety of jobs which require higher education (you can't exactly go and get a factory job these days, after all), we're in trouble as a society.
Look at it this way - we have how many unfilled specialized jobs in the US? And we're in the midst of high unemployment? That should tell us something.
"And policymakers need to take seriously the challenge of raising the bar for all students’ learning. As Brian Fitzgerald put it so well in his Times posting, however, “These points are moot, though, if we continue our systemic slashing of funding for public higher education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world, but as proportions of state support for higher education dip into single digits, we risk weakening the entire enterprise — in all fields — that undergirds our innovation and economic development.” "
It seems Brian Fitzgerald doesn't understand that innovation and economic development (aka entreprenuership) doesn't come from a piece of paper learning many times meaningless subjects that either have no productive merit, or are entirely irrelevant to the reason you went to college. Furthermore, I ever wonder how the United States underwent the transition from an agricultural society, to an Industrial one when there was little to no taxation and no Government-schools. It would according to him be impossible, yet it happened. Perhaps this means he should question his position, but then I would give him too much intellectual credit.
I... this paragraph is so purposefully wrongly stated it makes me so sad. Peter Thiel makes the case against college and higher education in a similar way, but we cannot have 300 million entrepreneurs. Right? Someone has to code, program, debug all that stuff. You can teach yourself that, or you can take courses. I don't know. Whatever, people are so.... depressing sometimes in their opinion
On March 14 2012 03:50 Freddybear wrote: Student loans are readily available. Oh, but some students want to take bullshit courses like "gender studies" instead of something that will actually be worth something. And then they complain when they're stuck with the loan payments for their expensive vacation.
First off, don't even start the argument about what constitutes a legitimate course of study. Just because you don't see the immediate application of something like "gender studies" doesn't mean that it isn't something useful to study.
Second, you sound woefully ignorant of the situation concerning student loans. It's a terrible system that accrues entirely too much interest and it is impossible to escape them even through bankruptcy/death. Furthermore, the ability to take out loans still depends on your parents' financial situation.
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Higher education is not that necessary for most peoples lives? This would be true - if we didn't live in a democracy. Voting for the people who move our nation necessitates that we be able to conceptualize the consequences of our actions. If we don't know anything about global warming, if we don't know enough to ask questions like "hey, isn't it weird that our regulators bought the idea that an oil spill in the gulf coast could never happen and then it did anyway?", and most importantly, if we don't know enough to fill the variety of jobs which require higher education (you can't exactly go and get a factory job these days, after all), we're in trouble as a society.
Look at it this way - we have how many unfilled specialized jobs in the US? And we're in the midst of high unemployment? That should tell us something.
"And policymakers need to take seriously the challenge of raising the bar for all students’ learning. As Brian Fitzgerald put it so well in his Times posting, however, “These points are moot, though, if we continue our systemic slashing of funding for public higher education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world, but as proportions of state support for higher education dip into single digits, we risk weakening the entire enterprise — in all fields — that undergirds our innovation and economic development.” "
It seems Brian Fitzgerald doesn't understand that innovation and economic development (aka entreprenuership) doesn't come from a piece of paper learning many times meaningless subjects that either have no productive merit, or are entirely irrelevant to the reason you went to college. Furthermore, I ever wonder how the United States underwent the transition from an agricultural society, to an Industrial one when there was little to no taxation and no Government-schools. It would according to him be impossible, yet it happened. Perhaps this means he should question his position, but then I would give him too much intellectual credit.
I... this paragraph is so purposefully wrongly stated it makes me so sad. Peter Thiel makes the case against college and higher education in a similar way, but we cannot have 300 million entrepreneurs. Right? Someone has to code, program, debug all that stuff. You can teach yourself that, or you can take courses. I don't know. Whatever, people are so.... depressing sometimes in their opinion
Why not? In 19th Century America 75% of the populace were self-employed. With any understanding of economics you realize that higher population numbers are a positive, and therefore, more demand in more areas means more jobs / start-ups / ideas / etc. Our economic policies have created an environment which produces these large Corporations, highly compartmentalized institutions, mass rent-seeking via licensing / State-permission to live / make a living, etc. You have many cases where little kids lemonade stands are being shut-down because they don't have a city-permit. It's ridiculous. Then people wonder why things are so fucked up.
Whatever happened to apprenticeships? Trades? Skills? You don't need to learn about 15th century poetry, or humanities, or so-many other waste of resources that produce nothing in order to advance society and fulfill individual demands and wants. I do like Peter a lot :p (Fellow radical liberal and all)
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major.
I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas?
I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm].
I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that engineering majors tend to be among the few who actually use the information they gain in college in their careers. I'm not saying that people are spending their time in college partying or screwing around, I'm just saying that most of the stuff taught in college will end up having no relevance whatsoever to the careers that the vast majority of students end up in.
You're failing to see the point of many degrees. It's not necessarily about the exact content that you learn - it's about the skills you learn through studying that concept. Take philosophy as an example. I'm currently studying it, and aside from going to graduate school for it (which I'm hoping to do), you can't really apply the actual content of studying philosophy to many practical places. However, the skills that you gain in critical/analytical thinking, analysis, writing skills, debate skills, speech skills, etc. are all incredibly useful.
yes those skills are useful...but does it make sense to pay 3 grand a quarter for such BASIC things? All those skills you listed can be learned outside of philosophy...they are useful, sure...but the fact that your core education and knowledge will not see the light of day in your field of work (unless you become a phil. prof.) is saddening and pitiful.
On March 14 2012 03:46 HomeWorld wrote: Education (even at high level as university) should be free by default. That's the so called government investing into the future of the country. This is how you ensure that you have enough qualified people that someday will take over current generation and ensure progress. To be honest, paid high level education is bullshit, it promotes discrimination (as in the more wealthy you are the better) instead of promoting really smart ppl. (in my case, in my country, high level education is free, but in order to get access to it you must prove it/deserve it [by passing entry exams that aren't the "so called walk in the park"]) I'm not going to say that US education (or other countries where education is a paid service) system is bad, but still, education is the first rock placed in a society foundation (and health care too).
doesnt forcing people to take admission tests also cause class discrimination? sure, the really intelligent, poor people will get in because they are just naturally gifted, but i think the most likely scenario is that wealthy people are able to get private tutors, test prep, etc. that poor people can't afford.
in japan, they have cram schools for the specific purpose of preparing for admission tests. and they are expensive. but, if you dont go, you are shit out of luck at the admission test. when i was preparing for my bar exam, i went to a bar prep course that was like $4,000. if you cant afford that, you are almost guaranteed to fail. i havent heard of anyone who didnt take bar prep and passed the California bar.
Seriously, you don't need tutoring or something else that involves money, unless you are really dumb or something like that. Pre-uni stuff (stuff required at uni admission exams are pretty much easy stuff), you do not need to be a rocket scientist to pass those exams, you only need to have a good understanding of what is required to pass that exam. Trust me, i was tutored and failed the first time, the second time i did/learned everything by myself and guess what, got maximum scores (math/physics). As some ppl would say wtf ::EFFORT::, but it worked. You don't need tutoring as long as you work off your ass (not learning but understanding)
On March 14 2012 03:43 Nagano wrote: Not only is higher education seen as a key to economic advancement, but if all 18-24 year olds were in college, we would reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million people, and fewer people would be in need of governmental assistance. Moreover, a federal program to fund higher education would relieve states of having to fund these institutions, which would free up money for other needed services.
While the US has a free K-12 public education, its failure to fund higher education means that America's economy is unable to compete with other developed nations that have free universities. Furthermore, by removing the need for students to go into debt, the government would allow graduates to be more productive, and they would have more money to spend, which in turn would act as a stimulus for the economy.
You reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million (given that all ages choose to go to higher level education), then what? Instead of getting government assistance in one form, they get it in another through education which is vastly more expensive, solving no budget deficit issues whatsoever, just making the problem worse.
There is also no difference between state and federal programs, the opportunity cost is still the same for both institutions. Granted the fed can print the money and inflate the currency, but is that a solution? No.
You seem to think government has infinite capital...
On March 14 2012 03:50 Freddybear wrote: Student loans are readily available. Oh, but some students want to take bullshit courses like "gender studies" instead of something that will actually be worth something. And then they complain when they're stuck with the loan payments for their expensive vacation.
First off, don't even start the argument about what constitutes a legitimate course of study. Just because you don't see the immediate application of something like "gender studies" doesn't mean that it isn't something useful to study.
Second, you sound woefully ignorant of the situation concerning student loans. It's a terrible system that accrues entirely too much interest and it is impossible to escape them even through bankruptcy/death. Furthermore, the ability to take out loans still depends on your parents' financial situation.
Does anyone ever ask the question -- Why is it so expensive? Or does this just escape everyone?
On March 13 2012 18:03 targ wrote: Speaking from the viewpoint of a former student and current taxpayer, I wouldn't mind subsidizing people who are learning something useful for the society, such as engineering or medicine or programming or accounting, etc etc. I would, however, not be very happy if my tax money was used to subsidize a bunch of students sitting around discussing something like art history or certain social subjects I've heard of (I heard a certain UK university has a class on David Beckham). They can do that - on their own money.
Programming/accounting more important than art/history/social sciences? Lol, give me a break. You can't be serious.
On March 14 2012 03:50 Freddybear wrote: Student loans are readily available. Oh, but some students want to take bullshit courses like "gender studies" instead of something that will actually be worth something. And then they complain when they're stuck with the loan payments for their expensive vacation.
First off, don't even start the argument about what constitutes a legitimate course of study. Just because you don't see the immediate application of something like "gender studies" doesn't mean that it isn't something useful to study.
Second, you sound woefully ignorant of the situation concerning student loans. It's a terrible system that accrues entirely too much interest and it is impossible to escape them even through bankruptcy/death. Furthermore, the ability to take out loans still depends on your parents' financial situation.
I have a very simple way of determining whether a course of study is worthwhile. How much money will an employer pay you after you graduate with that degree? By that metric, "gender studies" is worth about as much as a course in burger flipping at McDonalds.
Teachers need to get paid somehow, which is why they get tax money. Internet requires money too but you can get half a lifetime of education from Khan Academy for free, so.... in short, nothing in this world is truly ever free. Except air.
On March 14 2012 04:09 Areon wrote: Teachers need to get paid somehow, which is why they get tax money. Internet requires money too but you can get half a lifetime of education from Khan Academy for free, so.... in short, nothing in this world is truly ever free. Except air.
Air isn't free. It costs resources/capital (land / plant life) to produce oxygen (or Air). TANSTAAFL.
k-12 should be free/mandatory in all countries that can offer it (thankful I live in the western world where this is already in place).
Secondary education should have something like "maintain "x" grade average and we'll pay up to 3/4 of your tuition or 100% of it"
1/2 should be paid (I think this is how it is in canada, goverment pays 1/2 of all tuition) regardless for post-secondary. World needs ditch diggers but it also needs quality professionals and it shouldnt be out of reach for anyone.
Yes it should be free, or as close to free as possible. Your academic success should not depend on the income of your parents. It's not only fair, but also a societal waste of talent to deny young people the chance to fulfill their potential.
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major.
I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas?
I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm].
I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that engineering majors tend to be among the few who actually use the information they gain in college in their careers. I'm not saying that people are spending their time in college partying or screwing around, I'm just saying that most of the stuff taught in college will end up having no relevance whatsoever to the careers that the vast majority of students end up in.
You're failing to see the point of many degrees. It's not necessarily about the exact content that you learn - it's about the skills you learn through studying that concept. Take philosophy as an example. I'm currently studying it, and aside from going to graduate school for it (which I'm hoping to do), you can't really apply the actual content of studying philosophy to many practical places. However, the skills that you gain in critical/analytical thinking, analysis, writing skills, debate skills, speech skills, etc. are all incredibly useful.
yes those skills are useful...but does it make sense to pay 3 grand a quarter for such BASIC things? All those skills you listed can be learned outside of philosophy...they are useful, sure...but the fact that your core education and knowledge will not see the light of day in your field of work (unless you become a phil. prof.) is saddening and pitiful.
I find going to college just to get a high-paying job instead of trying to actually educate yourself to be saddening and pitiful.
I think there should be a fee, but a fee that is covered by the college/government depending on the student's HS/college grades. Like a person with high grades should have to pay less than a person with low grades. Incentive to learn.
I've always found it weird, though, that you have to pay for intelligence, and then those dumbshit reality TV show stars get paid to be stupid.
On March 14 2012 03:43 Nagano wrote: Not only is higher education seen as a key to economic advancement, but if all 18-24 year olds were in college, we would reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million people, and fewer people would be in need of governmental assistance. Moreover, a federal program to fund higher education would relieve states of having to fund these institutions, which would free up money for other needed services.
While the US has a free K-12 public education, its failure to fund higher education means that America's economy is unable to compete with other developed nations that have free universities. Furthermore, by removing the need for students to go into debt, the government would allow graduates to be more productive, and they would have more money to spend, which in turn would act as a stimulus for the economy.
You reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million (given that all ages choose to go to higher level education), then what? Instead of getting government assistance in one form, they get it in another through education which is vastly more expensive, solving no budget deficit issues whatsoever, just making the problem worse.
There is also no difference between state and federal programs, the opportunity cost is still the same for both institutions. Granted the fed can print the money and inflate the currency, but is that a solution? No.
You seem to think government has infinite capital...
Let me tell you one thing, education even if it seems to be highly expensive (in terms of state annual budget) it pays off 10x or more if properly done. Highly skilled workers (generic term) will produce a hell lot more income to the budget than a sheep herder (extreme comparison but it works). It's up to the "government" to ensure high revenues to its budget and a healthy economy ( by fostering high level education and a healthy economic environment that emphasize on high level qualified workforce). But lets have a look at US/Apple and China (just an example). That's a major WTF but a good example.
Making school free just doesn't make sense because there would be nothing stopping someone from getting a good education in Canada, and then moving to another country that pays better (example - USA).
Education should be available to everyone, same as food, same as a home, also the ability to pursue a hobby etc etc. Just because it should BE doesn't mean we can soak up all of the costs involved because our country is already in too much debt trouble.
Favoring elitism with grades is stupid for so many reasons, and I would rather it be just expensive but anyone could go. You should never exclude people based on grades because someone might have personal issues (parents die in a crash, or they were raped or sick or anything like that) and now their grades slump. Are we supposed to tell them they're not good enough anymore? Now they have to work a crappy retail job?
I'm from Ontario and we pay much more than you do in QC, and I think you probably already struck a nice balance. In my opinion, I think schools need to do better at providing students with more summer work opportunities (would solve the cost problem). I think schools should have to work harder to ensure students get working after they get a degree because fees keep rising. The government should be doing a better job at controlling costs to the average citizen, but unfortunately the conservatives are in power now and they don't care.
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread I live in montreal, quebec, Canada. We live in a society that was founded mostly with left politic. Our health system is free and our education fees are low. At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept. Our governement wants us to now pay 1600$/year more. In other terms, they are asking the students to double the dept they end with Students are now on strike and asking the governement to cancel the raise. You have to be aware that this only represent 1.2% of the global education budget so we are not talking about a huge sum.
Where do I stand? To be honest, I always tought everyone should have equal access to education. The best way would be to make it free. I think we should favor more an 'elitism' way of choosing the students by looking more into the grades.
I will not get into the details and argue on both side but I was really interrested to see what people all over think about education.
EDIT: We pay around 40-45% in tax... so yea we have low fees but we pay it back in some way.
P.S. This is no democrat vs republicans Forgive my poor english it is not my first language.
Well in Finland education is free. Most of good uni spots go to kids of rich parents anyway. I find it kinda weird that poor/lower-middle class have to pay for their education via taxes.
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major.
I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas?
I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm].
I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that engineering majors tend to be among the few who actually use the information they gain in college in their careers. I'm not saying that people are spending their time in college partying or screwing around, I'm just saying that most of the stuff taught in college will end up having no relevance whatsoever to the careers that the vast majority of students end up in.
You're failing to see the point of many degrees. It's not necessarily about the exact content that you learn - it's about the skills you learn through studying that concept. Take philosophy as an example. I'm currently studying it, and aside from going to graduate school for it (which I'm hoping to do), you can't really apply the actual content of studying philosophy to many practical places. However, the skills that you gain in critical/analytical thinking, analysis, writing skills, debate skills, speech skills, etc. are all incredibly useful.
yes those skills are useful...but does it make sense to pay 3 grand a quarter for such BASIC things? All those skills you listed can be learned outside of philosophy...they are useful, sure...but the fact that your core education and knowledge will not see the light of day in your field of work (unless you become a phil. prof.) is saddening and pitiful.
I find going to college just to get a high-paying job instead of trying to actually educate yourself to be saddening and pitiful.
On March 13 2012 15:45 NotSorry wrote: Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way.
Yes indeed you people pay alot, however what happens if somebody has great potential but he's poor? Does he have any way to access a higher enducation?
Of course. I'm am from a very poor family, and I have worked since I was 16 while going to school. I studied very hard, and now I am going to a good engineering university and paying nothing. Being a white male, I didn't get any money for my ethnicity or anything like that, just private scholarships based on my grade.
It is very possible. You just have to work REALLY hard for it.
Guys you are ALL confusing me with this make education free thing. Education is FREE. You can learn anything with a bit of research.
Do not confuse education with the piece of paper and a prestigious university slapped onto it. the piece of paper is not free, but education is. colleges just make us think we are paying for high quality and exclusive education that cannot be found anywhere else.
On March 14 2012 04:34 zezamer wrote: Well in Finland education is free. Most of good uni spots go to kids of rich parents anyway. I find it kinda weird that poor/lower-middle class have to pay for their education via taxes.
I find your statement quite awkward, free education ... kids of rich parents getting almost all spots ... , is it free or not? Or is it something else?
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
Interesting statistics but as far as this "waste" goes, there are more expenses than the teacher's personal salary. You have 1. Rent for, and maintainance of, the property in which you teach. 2. Administrative personell (which should probably be around another 50k$ per classroom) 3. Cleaning staff, also salary for any fulltime maintainance worker, on a big school this might be several people. 4. Books, educational material, nowadays, computers and technical equipment. Also lab equipment, protection. 5. Extra expenses. (Perhaps you need to make sure you follow a certain standard or code set up by the state, requiring you to hire an expensive consultant. Or fix vandalism to a number of lockers. Etc)
Obviously this is a lot more than the estimated 55k$ per teacher. At least try to be honest when presenting problems such as this one. I'm sure there are a lot of problems and a 740k$ severance package is obviously unacceptable. A year's pay might have been more in line (rather than just over 6 year's pay).
Textbooks and educational material is another thing I generally found quite worthless at a high school level. Kids don't read them, and you don't need them to teach.
It was only in year 12 and at universities that I read textbooks seriously.
Too much gimmicks in education.
I'm amazed you think textbooks are gimmicks.
I'm not sure you're aware of this but some people learn better through reading texts rather than being told (taught) by other people. So it's rather irrelevant if, for you personally, the contact with your teacher was enough to get you through basic schooling or not. What matters is what works for everyone as you want everyone to get through basic schooling with at least acceptable grades, while still doing it at as cheap as possible.
On March 14 2012 03:12 Presidenten wrote: Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
the problem is that nothing is ever free. you pay for it through your taxes. so, the question is not "should it be free," it is "should we raise taxes to pay for it?"
No fucking shit. What is with people repeating this? It's not like you refuted anything he said (in fact he didn't really even say anything).
Isn't it better to just dl those books or make photo copies of them? They're meant to be public knowledge for hundreds of years... pretty sure they intended to share that info...
On March 14 2012 04:45 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: My university tuition is 50k a year, I only say education should be free because I will be in debt for the rest of my life.
Why are you going to a 50k/year university? Is the "prestige" really worth it compared to going to a state uni and getting the same degree?
should be free, or at least stop nickel and diming us. nowadays, teachers are assigning textbooks with unique cd-rom keys to upload assignments on the web or something. can't even buy a used book anymore. contemplating going back for a masters, but don't want to be in debt.
On March 14 2012 04:45 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: My university tuition is 50k a year, I only say education should be free because I will be in debt for the rest of my life.
That's fucking ridiculous. 50k per year? WTF WTF WTF It doesn't make any sense, seriously.
On March 14 2012 04:09 Areon wrote: Teachers need to get paid somehow, which is why they get tax money. Internet requires money too but you can get half a lifetime of education from Khan Academy for free, so.... in short, nothing in this world is truly ever free. Except air.
Air isn't free. It costs resources/capital (land / plant life) to produce oxygen (or Air). TANSTAAFL.
Over 90% of the oxygen on earth is generated by the oceans, it's free as long as we don't start polluting our oceans to such a degree that plankton and algae cannot survive there anymore. Not a single piece of land on Earth is kept in its current condition solely for oxygen production.
I think the average education level of the population of a country reflects on how good of a country it would be to live in. It's not the only factor, but it's a pretty big one. So, free education raises the population's education level easier than it would if it wasn't free, and the country improves.
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
Interesting statistics but as far as this "waste" goes, there are more expenses than the teacher's personal salary. You have 1. Rent for, and maintainance of, the property in which you teach. 2. Administrative personell (which should probably be around another 50k$ per classroom) 3. Cleaning staff, also salary for any fulltime maintainance worker, on a big school this might be several people. 4. Books, educational material, nowadays, computers and technical equipment. Also lab equipment, protection. 5. Extra expenses. (Perhaps you need to make sure you follow a certain standard or code set up by the state, requiring you to hire an expensive consultant. Or fix vandalism to a number of lockers. Etc)
Obviously this is a lot more than the estimated 55k$ per teacher. At least try to be honest when presenting problems such as this one. I'm sure there are a lot of problems and a 740k$ severance package is obviously unacceptable. A year's pay might have been more in line (rather than just over 6 year's pay).
Textbooks and educational material is another thing I generally found quite worthless at a high school level. Kids don't read them, and you don't need them to teach.
It was only in year 12 and at universities that I read textbooks seriously.
Too much gimmicks in education.
I'm amazed you think textbooks are gimmicks.
I'm not sure you're aware of this but some people learn better through reading texts rather than being told (taught) by other people. So it's rather irrelevant if, for you personally, the contact with your teacher was enough to get you through basic schooling or not. What matters is what works for everyone as you want everyone to get through basic schooling with at least acceptable grades, while still doing it at as cheap as possible.
On March 14 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
On March 14 2012 03:12 Presidenten wrote: Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
the problem is that nothing is ever free. you pay for it through your taxes. so, the question is not "should it be free," it is "should we raise taxes to pay for it?"
No fucking shit. What is with people repeating this? It's not like you refuted anything he said (in fact he didn't really even say anything).
Isn't it better to just dl those books or make photo copies of them? They're meant to be public knowledge for hundreds of years... pretty sure they intended to share that info...
dont worry bro people are waaaaaaay ahead of you. i dont buy any books cuz nowadays you can find them all online for real cheap or mostly free. dont waste $$$ on books that you will only read a part of or not use at all!!!
On March 14 2012 04:34 zezamer wrote: Well in Finland education is free. Most of good uni spots go to kids of rich parents anyway. I find it kinda weird that poor/lower-middle class have to pay for their education via taxes.
I find your statement quite awkward, free education ... kids of rich parents getting almost all spots ... , is it free or not? Or is it something else?
It's free but statistics have proven that most uni students parents also have a college degree. So the next generation usually gets on the same level of education that previous.
Wealthy families produce kids that value education more so they put more effort into it. So they will take most of good uni spots.
On March 14 2012 04:49 TerlocSG wrote: I think the average education level of the population of a country reflects on how good of a country it would be to live in. It's not the only factor, but it's a pretty big one.
Cuba has a very high literacy rate (rank 2), so does Estonia (rank 3)...but I don't think they are better to live than the U.S. (who is ranked 120 something).
I've watched an entire astrophysics course (posted by a prof at the University of Michigan) on youtube. Something like 52 or 54 hour-long episodes. All free.
No I don't get a degree from it, but it's nice to know that if I want to learn something thoroughly that at least it's out there.
On March 14 2012 04:40 Golgotha wrote: Guys you are ALL confusing me with this make education free thing. Education is FREE. You can learn anything with a bit of research.
Do not confuse education with the piece of paper and a prestigious university slapped onto it. the piece of paper is not free, but education is. colleges just make us think we are paying for high quality and exclusive education that cannot be found anywhere else.
So where am I going to find somebody (reputable) to teach me Fluid Mechanics for free? If it's a textbook, it costs money. If it's on the interwebz, it either can't be trusted or costs money.
It most definitely would cost less money than a college education, but then how are you going to get a job? The other ten applicants for my entry-level engineering position have a 4-year degree from a state school, but I read some textbooks I got off of amazon. Doesn't matter if your IQ is 50 points above theirs, there is no reason for them to choose you.
And yeah, I'll jump through the hoops of the system if it means I get to do what I want with my life. Newsflash for some of you people; money actually can buy happiness. It means I can snowboard as often as I like, buy whatever games interest me even if I know I won't finish them, travel to the places I want to go, eat the food I want to eat, etc. etc.. All without having the crushing weight of "how am I going to pay for it?" looming over my head, because I got an (expensive) education and have a decent-paying job as a result.
Also if you live in a Province that offers a Graduate Retention Program you can claim a large chunk of your expenses for going to school in a tax rebate. The condition is that you work in the same Province for how many years you went to school there.
I know about these programs and I have never attended University.
The basic point is... If school is too expensive search goverment webpages on education and locate all of the wonderful programs they offer to help you during school and after you graduate.
On March 14 2012 04:49 TerlocSG wrote: I think the average education level of the population of a country reflects on how good of a country it would be to live in. It's not the only factor, but it's a pretty big one. So, free education raises the population's education level easier than it would if it wasn't free, and the country improves.
I'd like free education.
Yea, this concept is still an unknown concept to US. But meh, the only country where "lobbying" aka "bribing" is legalized, daring to have a free education system starting from first grade till master ... NEVER
On March 14 2012 04:45 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: My university tuition is 50k a year, I only say education should be free because I will be in debt for the rest of my life.
That's fucking ridiculous. 50k per year? WTF WTF WTF It doesn't make any sense, seriously.
Mine is currently sitting at $48k a year. Granted, I'm paying for a noticably better educational experience, guaranteed Res Hall living whenever I want it, great food, several campus services that other campuses don't have, etc etc. But I still think the price tag is ridiculous and overall entirely too steep.
On March 14 2012 04:40 Golgotha wrote: Guys you are ALL confusing me with this make education free thing. Education is FREE. You can learn anything with a bit of research.
Do not confuse education with the piece of paper and a prestigious university slapped onto it. the piece of paper is not free, but education is. colleges just make us think we are paying for high quality and exclusive education that cannot be found anywhere else.
So where am I going to find somebody (reputable) to teach me Fluid Mechanics for free? If it's a textbook, it costs money. If it's on the interwebz, it either can't be trusted or costs money.
It most definitely would cost less money than a college education, but then how are you going to get a job? The other ten applicants for my entry-level engineering position have a 4-year degree from a state school, but I read some textbooks I got off of amazon. Doesn't matter if your IQ is 50 points above theirs, there is no reason for them to choose you.
And yeah, I'll jump through the hoops of the system if it means I get to do what I want with my life. Newsflash for some of you people; money actually can buy happiness. It means I can snowboard as often as I like, buy whatever games interest me even if I know I won't finish them, travel to the places I want to go, eat the food I want to eat, etc. etc.. All without having the crushing weight of "how am I going to pay for it?" looming over my head, because I got an (expensive) education and have a decent-paying job as a result.
no don't get me wrong. I am not saying that people should drop out and go crazy. it is very good that you are taking classes that will benefit you greatly in the future. but you are the lucky few! statistics show that the average college student will do nothing in terms of his/her major-related work. I am simply speaking to the fact that the system is inefficient and wasteful.
I am jumping through the system myself so I can get $$$ job, etc. But I am not blind to how ridiculous it is for most people. How much they pay, what they learn, how they learn and most importantly how they will use it later in life.
I think a lot of people don't understand how American Education works... yes there are 50k top private universities here, but the best of those universities are "need-based" and calculate how much you pay based on your EFC(estimated family contribution) The majority of the students aren't paying near the 50k sticker price and those top colleges can wind up being cheaper than state universities depending on how much your parents make. On top of that their are many universities such as the University of Alabama to name one that will allow you to attend for free based on a certain PSAT score. Also for poor families the government offers the pell grant which is pretty much free money that you do not have to pay back and will allow an impoverished student to attend a state university for free. I am fine with how the system works for Americans.
On March 14 2012 03:50 Freddybear wrote: Student loans are readily available. Oh, but some students want to take bullshit courses like "gender studies" instead of something that will actually be worth something. And then they complain when they're stuck with the loan payments for their expensive vacation.
First off, don't even start the argument about what constitutes a legitimate course of study. Just because you don't see the immediate application of something like "gender studies" doesn't mean that it isn't something useful to study.
Second, you sound woefully ignorant of the situation concerning student loans. It's a terrible system that accrues entirely too much interest and it is impossible to escape them even through bankruptcy/death. Furthermore, the ability to take out loans still depends on your parents' financial situation.
I have a very simple way of determining whether a course of study is worthwhile. How much money will an employer pay you after you graduate with that degree? By that metric, "gender studies" is worth about as much as a course in burger flipping at McDonalds.
Some of the most fundamental and necessary jobs that make a society run are some of the worst paid. Your measurement is narrow-minded, arrogant, and straight up stupid. Without the study of music, culture, history, philosophy, etc. etc. etc. Where would the world be? Just because something doesn't give an immediate tangible monetary benefit doesn't mean it isn't useful. Your mindset is absolutely sickening.
yes those skills are useful...but does it make sense to pay 3 grand a quarter for such BASIC things? All those skills you listed can be learned outside of philosophy...they are useful, sure...but the fact that your core education and knowledge will not see the light of day in your field of work (unless you become a phil. prof.) is saddening and pitiful.
The difference is that you can't just learn those skills anywhere else. Studying philosophy (or any number of other majors) at a respected institution will give someone significantly better skills in these areas that just picking them up as you go.
On March 14 2012 04:58 Livelovedie wrote: I think a lot of people don't understand how American Education works... yes there are 50k top private universities here, but the best of those universities are "need-based" and calculate how much you pay based on your EFC(estimated family contribution) The majority of the students aren't paying near the 50k sticker price and those top colleges can wind up being cheaper than state universities depending on how much your parents make. On top of that their are many universities such as the University of Alabama to name one that will allow you to attend for free based on a certain PSAT score. Also for poor families the government offers the pell grant which is pretty much free money that you do not have to pay back and will allow an impoverished student to attend a state university for free. I am fine with how the system works for Americans.
no that is too simple lol. your analysis of the system is way to broad and general. Yes, many kids who come from low income families only have to pay very little! Even a full ride if they are smart and poor! However! the system lives off the large middle class of America where kids do not qualify for government aid and must either get a scholarship by getting top marks or take out loans. You might be lucky with paying little due your parent's income status or because you got good grades, but what about the folks who do not meet those requirements?
On March 14 2012 04:49 TerlocSG wrote: I think the average education level of the population of a country reflects on how good of a country it would be to live in. It's not the only factor, but it's a pretty big one.
Cuba has a very high literacy rate (rank 2), so does Estonia (rank 3)...but I don't think they are better to live than the U.S. (who is ranked 120 something).
Education and literacy are quite different. Literacy is the most basic foundation for an education, it doesn't equal an education.
On March 14 2012 04:58 Livelovedie wrote: I think a lot of people don't understand how American Education works... yes there are 50k top private universities here, but the best of those universities are "need-based" and calculate how much you pay based on your EFC(estimated family contribution) The majority of the students aren't paying near the 50k sticker price and those top colleges can wind up being cheaper than state universities depending on how much your parents make. On top of that their are many universities such as the University of Alabama to name one that will allow you to attend for free based on a certain PSAT score. Also for poor families the government offers the pell grant which is pretty much free money that you do not have to pay back and will allow an impoverished student to attend a state university for free. I am fine with how the system works for Americans.
no that is too simple lol. your analysis of the system is way to broad and general. Yes, many kids who come from low income families only have to pay very little! Even a full ride if they are smart and poor! However! the system lives off the large middle class of America where kids do not qualify for government aid and must either get a scholarship by getting top marks or take out loans. You might be lucky with paying little due your parent's income status or because you got good grades, but what about the folks who do not meet those requirements?
They get shafted and pay a ridiculous 50k a year.
If you are truly middle class your EFC is not going to be 50k a year... for a top college to require you to be full pay your family would make north of 200k. That is not middle class. No you aren't getting a free ride as a middle class student, but you will get some money from one of those need-based private schools (I know, because I have that puts it in line with state schools). If your parents aren't willing to help you out you can graduate with minimal debt by going to a 2 year community college and transferring into a 4 year state school afterwards. Assuming you make good grades in community college you can get a scholarship (my mom did this).
On March 14 2012 04:49 TerlocSG wrote: I think the average education level of the population of a country reflects on how good of a country it would be to live in. It's not the only factor, but it's a pretty big one.
Cuba has a very high literacy rate (rank 2), so does Estonia (rank 3)...but I don't think they are better to live than the U.S. (who is ranked 120 something).
Education and literacy are quite different. Literacy is the most basic foundation for an education, it doesn't equal an education.
fair enough. then just look at the international standardized tests countries are gauged upon. South Korea and Japan have very high marks in this test, but the U.S. falls horribly short. Still, I would argue that as a South Korean, I can say that living in the U.S. is far easier and full of more opportunities.
On March 14 2012 04:58 Livelovedie wrote: I think a lot of people don't understand how American Education works... yes there are 50k top private universities here, but the best of those universities are "need-based" and calculate how much you pay based on your EFC(estimated family contribution) The majority of the students aren't paying near the 50k sticker price and those top colleges can wind up being cheaper than state universities depending on how much your parents make. On top of that their are many universities such as the University of Alabama to name one that will allow you to attend for free based on a certain PSAT score. Also for poor families the government offers the pell grant which is pretty much free money that you do not have to pay back and will allow an impoverished student to attend a state university for free. I am fine with how the system works for Americans.
no that is too simple lol. your analysis of the system is way to broad and general. Yes, many kids who come from low income families only have to pay very little! Even a full ride if they are smart and poor! However! the system lives off the large middle class of America where kids do not qualify for government aid and must either get a scholarship by getting top marks or take out loans. You might be lucky with paying little due your parent's income status or because you got good grades, but what about the folks who do not meet those requirements?
They get shafted and pay a ridiculous 50k a year.
If you are truly middle class your EFC is not going to be 50k a year... for a top college to require you to be full pay your family would make north of 200k. That is not middle class. No you aren't getting a free ride as a middle class student, but you will get some money from one of those need-based private schools (I know, because I have that puts it in line with state schools). If your parents aren't willing to help you out you can graduate with minimal debt by going to a 2 year community college and transferring into a 4 year state school afterwards. Assuming you make good grades in community college you can get a scholarship (my mom did this).
Look, 50k is in the high range but even 25k a year is way too much for most people. and dont be naive and think that simply because you have to pay full, you are not middle class. many middle class people have to pay full and the amount you pay is not always related to how much you make. IF ONLY it worked that way, if only it was simply: you make X so you pay X. it aint so simple. The thing is...ALL unis have different price points and they might give you 20k for education...but the total cost is 50k!
On March 14 2012 04:58 Livelovedie wrote: I think a lot of people don't understand how American Education works... yes there are 50k top private universities here, but the best of those universities are "need-based" and calculate how much you pay based on your EFC(estimated family contribution) The majority of the students aren't paying near the 50k sticker price and those top colleges can wind up being cheaper than state universities depending on how much your parents make. On top of that their are many universities such as the University of Alabama to name one that will allow you to attend for free based on a certain PSAT score. Also for poor families the government offers the pell grant which is pretty much free money that you do not have to pay back and will allow an impoverished student to attend a state university for free. I am fine with how the system works for Americans.
no that is too simple lol. your analysis of the system is way to broad and general. Yes, many kids who come from low income families only have to pay very little! Even a full ride if they are smart and poor! However! the system lives off the large middle class of America where kids do not qualify for government aid and must either get a scholarship by getting top marks or take out loans. You might be lucky with paying little due your parent's income status or because you got good grades, but what about the folks who do not meet those requirements?
They get shafted and pay a ridiculous 50k a year.
If you are truly middle class your EFC is not going to be 50k a year... for a top college to require you to be full pay your family would make north of 200k. That is not middle class. No you aren't getting a free ride as a middle class student, but you will get some money from one of those need-based private schools (I know, because I have that puts it in line with state schools). If your parents aren't willing to help you out you can graduate with minimal debt by going to a 2 year community college and transferring into a 4 year state school afterwards. Assuming you make good grades in community college you can get a scholarship (my mom did this).
Look, 50k is in the high range but even 25k a year is way too much for most people. and dont be naive and think that simply because you have to pay full, you are not middle class. many middle class people have to pay full and the amount you pay is not always related to how much you make. IF ONLY it worked that way, if only it was simply: you make X so you pay X. it aint so simple. The thing is...ALL unis have different price points and they might give you 20k for education...but the total cost is 50k!
If 25k is too much for your family then the student needs to reevalute their educational plans and decide "hey I can't afford this, I need to go to community college" It is up to the student to find out how much that university gives on average and what other people in their income bracket have gotten and then decide if they cannot pay for that, maybe apply anyway and if the financial aid isn't enough then NOT ATTEND. No one is going to hold your hand throughout the process, but you can still get a relatively debt free education if you work for it.
If university wasn't free, then it would be an capital-investment. Thereby forcing those finished an education to receive a much higher relative income to compensate for the high cost of their education. But as with all investments those without a starting capital are left without a choice.
The words of freedom and equality are not of trivial interpretation. For me people wouldn't really be equal if the wealth of their parents should decide whether they would be able to take an education or not.
I'm pretty sure every Dane is very proud of the idea of our university education system. And I would never use my liberalism/capitalism points of view, when dealing with infra-structure, environment or education.
On March 13 2012 15:50 OsoVega wrote: Education does not spontaneously occur in nature. It is impossible for it to be free. Someone is always going to have to pay.
The government? In order to ensure meritocracy. It's really bad if a poor students with better marks than a richer student can't access higher education while the richer student can. Really really bad.
So it should be illegal to pay for education? What if someone is a REALLY good teacher and they can make more money teaching children of rich parents than working for a government system? Then they are earning their money through merit and just plain capitalism.
On March 14 2012 04:45 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: My university tuition is 50k a year, I only say education should be free because I will be in debt for the rest of my life.
Why are you going to a 50k/year university? Is the "prestige" really worth it compared to going to a state uni and getting the same degree?
It's not the same degree. Where you went to school matters as much as what your degree is in. Most businesses recruit based on your campus. Some state schools are good but private unis are worth the extra penny because they usually get you a better job. At least this is my experience and what my friends tell me. Many of the elite accounting firms take me and my fellow accounting students out to dinner to try to get us to sign with them. This simply does not happen at state unis according to my friends that are accounting majors as well.
On March 13 2012 15:50 OsoVega wrote: Education does not spontaneously occur in nature. It is impossible for it to be free. Someone is always going to have to pay.
The government? In order to ensure meritocracy. It's really bad if a poor students with better marks than a richer student can't access higher education while the richer student can. Really really bad.
So it should be illegal to pay for education? What if someone is a REALLY good teacher and they can make more money teaching children of rich parents than working for a government system? Then they are earning their money through merit and just plain capitalism.
It should not be illegal to pay for education. The two systems can (and do, in many countries) coexist, and there's nothing wrong with that.
hmm education should be free. who's gonna pay it? the whole society, because everybody gains to a more instructed society. denmark is a remarkable example
You realize that education is free right? If your smart and have proved you deserve it; they are called scholarships. Why would I want to pay a dropout to waste my money in college for a few years who will never give back to society?
No it shouldn't be free for everyone, only for those who have worked hard enough to earn it....
I think your fees are cheap enough you shouldn't really be the one bringing this up, lol. I don't know if secondary education should necessarily be free, but it should be heavily subsidized. If it cost as much as it does in the US I wouldn't have gone at all, but it doesn't have to be free. 10-15k in debt is actually fairly minimal from 4 years, and it isn't hard to come out without debt.
On March 14 2012 05:43 Livelovedie wrote: If 25k is too much for your family then the student needs to reevalute their educational plans and decide "hey I can't afford this, I need to go to community college" It is up to the student to find out how much that university gives on average and what other people in their income bracket have gotten and then decide if they cannot pay for that, maybe apply anyway and if the financial aid isn't enough then NOT ATTEND. No one is going to hold your hand throughout the process, but you can still get a relatively debt free education if you work for it.
This is what I mean. Having super-high costs will turn intelligent people off of education, lowing the value of your workforce. What kind of a situation you're born into shouldn't affect whether you can get further education without going heavily into debt. Rationalizing that is silly, and only really done by people like those in the US who're forced to pay the price. And 25k is in fact ridiculous, you'd end up so far in debt without your family paying for the entire thing you'd be paying it off 5-10 years down the line still. Or you'd have to have a job all through university, taking up time and lowering your marks, which are actually the reason you're there in the first place.
On March 13 2012 16:01 SafeAsCheese wrote: Education is free in the US.
Higher education is not and should not be free. It should not be required for every job though.
Unfortunately, it pretty much is. The work market is becoming more competitive by the minute, as people with higher degrees are logically chosen over people with less education. So it makes sense that the students force themselves to study more and more time and, as such, pay more and more fees in order to have a decent chance to have a decent job and good life quality.
On March 14 2012 03:50 Freddybear wrote: Student loans are readily available. Oh, but some students want to take bullshit courses like "gender studies" instead of something that will actually be worth something. And then they complain when they're stuck with the loan payments for their expensive vacation.
First off, don't even start the argument about what constitutes a legitimate course of study. Just because you don't see the immediate application of something like "gender studies" doesn't mean that it isn't something useful to study.
Second, you sound woefully ignorant of the situation concerning student loans. It's a terrible system that accrues entirely too much interest and it is impossible to escape them even through bankruptcy/death. Furthermore, the ability to take out loans still depends on your parents' financial situation.
I have a very simple way of determining whether a course of study is worthwhile. How much money will an employer pay you after you graduate with that degree? By that metric, "gender studies" is worth about as much as a course in burger flipping at McDonalds.
Some of the most fundamental and necessary jobs that make a society run are some of the worst paid. Your measurement is narrow-minded, arrogant, and straight up stupid. Without the study of music, culture, history, philosophy, etc. etc. etc. Where would the world be? Just because something doesn't give an immediate tangible monetary benefit doesn't mean it isn't useful. Your mindset is absolutely sickening.
yes those skills are useful...but does it make sense to pay 3 grand a quarter for such BASIC things? All those skills you listed can be learned outside of philosophy...they are useful, sure...but the fact that your core education and knowledge will not see the light of day in your field of work (unless you become a phil. prof.) is saddening and pitiful.
The difference is that you can't just learn those skills anywhere else. Studying philosophy (or any number of other majors) at a respected institution will give someone significantly better skills in these areas that just picking them up as you go.
I agree about the study of music, culture, history, etc. being useful, but we're talking about government subsidies here. While the study of those particular fields are enlightening, interesting, and make for a more well-rounded individual, it is a fact that it is harder to achieve gainful employment in the fields of art, history, and philosophy than the fields of science, engineering, and technology with the applicable 4-year degree.
People can study whatever the hell they want. But when it comes time for the government to inject a little money into helping the populace become educated and enter the workforce, it's the practical degrees with tangible benefits that will get all the attention.
That's just how shit works. I can't tell you how many of my friends got "Communications" degrees and then were flabbergasted that they couldn't find related work and ended up secretaries. It's just as much a problem with the individual as it is with the system that most people end up in a line of work that had nothing to do with their degree. People will pick the most arbitrary shit because it sounds cool, without even thinking for a second if it is practical or will be able to sustain them. And that's fine if they know what they're getting into.
On March 14 2012 06:36 Starshaped wrote: I think free education is a beautiful idea. However, should my taxes really go towards your poetry degree? Are all educations really worth as much?
Everything up until university definitely should be free, but I'm still not entirely convinced about anything after that.
How much would a university save by dropping poetry classes? Hardly enough to warrant discrimination among academic subjects.
Every student should have to pay for his or her education. Then, when they've earned their degree, they can turn around and collect a higher level of income for their hard work. Just like ANY OTHER INVESTMENT.
On March 14 2012 06:36 Starshaped wrote: I think free education is a beautiful idea. However, should my taxes really go towards your poetry degree? Are all educations really worth as much?
Everything up until university definitely should be free, but I'm still not entirely convinced about anything after that.
How much would a university save by dropping poetry classes? Hardly enough to warrant discrimination among academic subjects.
That's kind of the point though.
Let the free market and universities decide what to offer.
Government handles mandatory education, after that your field of study is your choice and should be at a minimum partially your cost.
The moment the government is paying for it all, 1) the value of it drops immensely, and 2) the government now has control over it.
I think important to the OP's point on his particular situation, the rate increases in Quebec are simply bringing Quebec education up to almost as much as it costs anyone in the other provinces. School in Quebec for student who already lived in Quebec was almost free for years. So the steep hikes in fees are really then slowly losing their special subsidies for being a French population.
The government paying for stuff like education actualyl raises the price of education in total, as well as diminishing its value. If everyone has a degree it just becomes the new absolute minimum and doesn't help anyone with employment.
In a fair free and moral based world it should always be free , and the teachers should always be highly motivated cause they are not forced to do it for money but hey free market is always best right? Maybe if the world would stop to put a price tag on everything we could really start to think in what kind of world we all would like to life . I guess we could created a much more fair system . Maybe then posts like
On March 14 2012 06:36 Starshaped wrote: I think free education is a beautiful idea. However, should my taxes really go towards your poetry degree? Are all educations really worth as much?
Everything up until university definitely should be free, but I'm still not entirely convinced about anything after that.
would disappear or we go the other way and argue that your taxes should not be used to support poets so they can buy stuff to eat because who needs them anyway right? . Nobody should decide what will be taught and what not. It should all be based on the interests of the people involved . Of course they needs to be some basic level of understanding on a broad spectrum of topics to generate interests in them . I could wright an book about all this stupid stuff capitalism created but the problem is there is no normal way to get rid of this shit . Considering the parties in the western world theres no one whose arguing against the system itself . Because they are the ones who live on the back of rest of the world resources . Just look at this kony stuff i mean cmon that was filmed ages ago and now after they find oil the world police sends some troops to save the children yeah right. End of rant .
As a general rule if you want or use something you should pay for it. If you don't want or don't use something you shouldn't have to pay for it. If I want an education I should pay for it. If I want housing I should pay for it. If I want healthcare I should pay for it. If I want children I should pay for them. If I want to eat I should pay for the food. I am all about personal responsibility. None of this food stamps, unemployment benefits, government subsidized business. If someone wants something either save money, or get a loan. Hard work should be rewarded not laziness, excuses, and dependance on others.
I believe we should do EVERYTHING in our power to provide for ourselves. If somehow we are the 1 in 100k that can't do so we can turn to our family for help temporarily for relief till we get on our feet. If we are the 1 in 1 million that can't get help from ourselves or our family we should turn to our church. If one doesn't attend a church they should repent and start attending. Problem solved.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Both, and because 98% of climate scientist believe it. Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Both (I know the basics of climate science, although I know a lot about the some the statistics behind it like time series analysis), and because 98% of climate scientists believe it.
I don't know much about chemistry, it doesn't mean I don't trust the chemists about it.
@BrenttheGreat so the so called third world countries all have these problems because people are lazy? Or a chinese worker who works 18 hours? Do you really think that if all these hard working humans get what they deserve we could substain our system ? If just the Chinese get to the same car per person ration like germany the whole world could start their engine and all the known oil would be used up . Although that you mentioned the church to help people is kinda ironic if you look at the history of this institution . We evolved from a highly social species who fight against other social groups maybe we should start to use our brain to not just care about our family , i mean there is nothing wrong with that.
On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
Yep, you're a conspiracy theorist.
What did we learn from climategate? There was a global conspiracy between climate scientists to make up global warming for the gain of some faceless benefactors? Oh wait, no such conspiracy was found. It was just a bunch of scientists talking about what eventually proved to be legitimate science and giving a FU to deniers with particular harsh language.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Both, and because 98% of climate scientist believe it. Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Do you unbelieve in global warming because you're a right-wing dogmaist, or do you actually have a PhD in climate science that enables your opinion on this technical matter to be worth a damn?
On March 13 2012 15:50 OsoVega wrote: Education does not spontaneously occur in nature. It is impossible for it to be free. Someone is always going to have to pay and to coerce payment from people through force is wrong.
educations shouldnt be free but i also believe that education should not cost absurd amounts as in the US. Then again, costs for the university increase as everything else increases (i.e. fuel and staff wages, research, etc.)
On March 14 2012 07:35 BrenttheGreat wrote: As a general rule if you want or use something you should pay for it. If you don't want or don't use something you shouldn't have to pay for it. If I want an education I should pay for it. If I want housing I should pay for it. If I want healthcare I should pay for it. If I want children I should pay for them. If I want to eat I should pay for the food. I am all about personal responsibility. None of this food stamps, unemployment benefits, government subsidized business. If someone wants something either save money, or get a loan. Hard work should be rewarded not laziness, excuses, and dependance on others.
I believe we should do EVERYTHING in our power to provide for ourselves. If somehow we are the 1 in 100k that can't do so we can turn to our family for help temporarily for relief till we get on our feet. If we are the 1 in 1 million that can't get help from ourselves or our family we should turn to our church. If one doesn't attend a church they should repent and start attending. Problem solved.
Church = Problem not the solution.
Everything CAN'T be provided by ourself, we need the government to help us in specific ways. Roads, Bridges, Welfare for those who need help getting off their feet ( Not how the USA does it ) Social Security to help older people when they retire. Education K-12. How many kids would get an education now a days if the government didn't provide it at all? All of our people would be way behind any nation that did provide education.
The list goes on and on for government helping people.
I saw the title of the post and I knew u were from montreal loll. should a big debate at the moment, in fact, I voted in my college today to block the raise of tuition. We pay way more then enough in taxes and our governement is wasting our money/ressources so bad that theres no way I, as a student, would accept to pay more. Stop wasting my money then ill give you more, but until then, no way.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
Yep, you're a conspiracy theorist.
What did we learn from climategate? There was a global conspiracy between climate scientists to make up global warming for the gain of some faceless benefactors? Oh wait, no such conspiracy was found. It was just a bunch of scientists talking about what eventually proved to be legitimate science and giving a FU to deniers with particular harsh language.
No, that's not what we learned from climategate. Nice try, but you only prove just how indoctrinated you are.
On March 14 2012 07:54 electrondude wrote: @BrenttheGreat so the so called third world countries all have these problems because people are lazy? Or a chinese worker who works 18 hours? Do you really think that if all these hard working humans get what they deserve we could substain our system ? If just the Chinese get to the same car per person ration like germany the whole world could start their engine and all the known oil would be used up . Although that you mentioned the church to help people is kinda ironic if you look at the history of this institution . We evolved from a highly social species who fight against other social groups maybe we should start to use our brain to not just care about our family , i mean there is nothing wrong with that.
Somebody has to do the hard work, We got a lot of people here you can't expect all of them to work white collar jobs and own multiple estates like us city folks. Somebody has to work the farms, somebody has to work in the factories. If we don't have lower class people the economy won't be able to sustain itself
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be.
Both, and because 98% of climate scientist believe it. Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Do you unbelieve in global warming because you're a right-wing dogmaist, or do you actually have a PhD in climate science that enables your opinion on this technical matter to be worth a damn?
I believe that your credentialism and your attempt to impute foul motives to me invalidates any argument you might try to make.
On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Like what? Global warming?
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
Yep, you're a conspiracy theorist.
What did we learn from climategate? There was a global conspiracy between climate scientists to make up global warming for the gain of some faceless benefactors? Oh wait, no such conspiracy was found. It was just a bunch of scientists talking about what eventually proved to be legitimate science and giving a FU to deniers with particular harsh language.
No, that's not what we learned from climategate. Nice try, but you only prove just how indoctrinated you are.
How about you try to explain yourself instead of keep using the same word over and over
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions?
Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject.
And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda.
Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them.
Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political.
And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed.
Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
Yep, you're a conspiracy theorist.
What did we learn from climategate? There was a global conspiracy between climate scientists to make up global warming for the gain of some faceless benefactors? Oh wait, no such conspiracy was found. It was just a bunch of scientists talking about what eventually proved to be legitimate science and giving a FU to deniers with particular harsh language.
No, that's not what we learned from climategate. Nice try, but you only prove just how indoctrinated you are.
How about you try to explain yourself instead of keep using the same word over and over
Why should I use different words to explain the same thing? People have been taught a political ideology under the guise of "science". Phrases like "90% of climate scientists agree" are not scientific. It is a political statement, not a scientific one.
I believe Education to be one of the most important aspects of society, right up there close to healthcare. So yes, I believe everyone, no matter what socio-economic class, should be able to get top notch education.
I will take my freedom and pay for my education. I can manage my debt as I worked all the way through college and with scholarships I had very little to pay out of pocket. I will keep my freedom and pay the monetary price.
In Israel, the "main" universities (is that how you write it?) are partly funded by the governmant, so students pay around 3,500$ per year. Our colleges are around 9,000 per year if I recall.
We had around 8+ Nobel prize winners coming from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the last decade, I think this works just fine.
Yes i believe education is a human right so it should be extended to all humans without some kind of financial cost. Otherwise everyone would simply grow up as a product of their environment and they would never change anything (maybe)
On March 14 2012 09:20 Jaso wrote: Lol I don't really feel like you should be complaining.. people in the US pay easily upwards of $40k a year to go to college ><
People act like they are forced to pay that much. They pay that much because they WANT TO/are convinced it will make their lives better.
I got an AA degree and it didn't cost me one penny. Government covered 100% of the cost. I'm working toward my bachelor's now, and I pay less than $15k a year.
It's honestly not unreasonable at all. What's unreasonable is people going into insane amounts of debt because they're convinced it will assure them better pay for life. Employers pay for skills, not for degrees.
On March 14 2012 09:20 Jaso wrote: Lol I don't really feel like you should be complaining.. people in the US pay easily upwards of $40k a year to go to college ><
People act like they are forced to pay that much. They pay that much because they WANT TO/are convinced it will make their lives better.
I got an AA degree and it didn't cost me one penny. Government covered 100% of the cost. I'm working toward my bachelor's now, and I pay less than $15k a year.
It's honestly not unreasonable at all. What's unreasonable is people going into insane amounts of debt because they're convinced it will assure them better pay for life. Employers pay for skills, not for degrees.
From what I've seen, they do in fact pay for degrees.
You pay for the name of your school/university don't you? Privatized education favors elites...
edit: see above me... Otherwise you could read some pretty good books, go to KhanAcademy and whatnot and get some sort of useful education almost for free. But since there is no sign which says where u were and what exactly you did it won't help you getting a job at all... (although it may help you in the job once u get it...)
In fact you pay tons of money to improve your chances to get a decent job. Nice system...
On March 14 2012 09:20 Jaso wrote: Lol I don't really feel like you should be complaining.. people in the US pay easily upwards of $40k a year to go to college ><
People act like they are forced to pay that much. They pay that much because they WANT TO/are convinced it will make their lives better.
I got an AA degree and it didn't cost me one penny. Government covered 100% of the cost. I'm working toward my bachelor's now, and I pay less than $15k a year.
It's honestly not unreasonable at all. What's unreasonable is people going into insane amounts of debt because they're convinced it will assure them better pay for life. Employers pay for skills, not for degrees.
From what I've seen, they do in fact pay for degrees.
That's not what I've seen. I know two computer programmer's who don't even have a degree and make very good income.
nothing is free. someone is always going to have to pay for it. should education be free? in the same way that golden toilets should be free, sure. will it ever be free? no.
On March 14 2012 09:20 Jaso wrote: Lol I don't really feel like you should be complaining.. people in the US pay easily upwards of $40k a year to go to college ><
People act like they are forced to pay that much. They pay that much because they WANT TO/are convinced it will make their lives better.
I got an AA degree and it didn't cost me one penny. Government covered 100% of the cost. I'm working toward my bachelor's now, and I pay less than $15k a year.
It's honestly not unreasonable at all. What's unreasonable is people going into insane amounts of debt because they're convinced it will assure them better pay for life. Employers pay for skills, not for degrees.
From what I've seen, they do in fact pay for degrees.
That's not what I've seen. I know two computer programmer's who don't even have a degree and make very good income.
There is a difference between what you can learn on your own and what you can learn on universities/college. Different fields have different requirements for what it takes to be employed.
On March 14 2012 09:20 Jaso wrote: Lol I don't really feel like you should be complaining.. people in the US pay easily upwards of $40k a year to go to college ><
People act like they are forced to pay that much. They pay that much because they WANT TO/are convinced it will make their lives better.
I got an AA degree and it didn't cost me one penny. Government covered 100% of the cost. I'm working toward my bachelor's now, and I pay less than $15k a year.
It's honestly not unreasonable at all. What's unreasonable is people going into insane amounts of debt because they're convinced it will assure them better pay for life. Employers pay for skills, not for degrees.
From what I've seen, they do in fact pay for degrees.
That's not what I've seen. I know two computer programmer's who don't even have a degree and make very good income.
and i know two computer programers making 85k a year at 22. but they went to Berkeley. also the kid at 22 whos making 100k+ is a investment banker. He got the job because he went to berkeley business school, not some no name JC . The name on your degree matters my friend, it matters a lot
What I find the funniest part (slight off-topic) is the hypocrites that just graduated. For example, a bunch of my friends just graduated from college last year and they're saying that they wouldn't have cared about it if the prices would have increased while they were in college. They even tell them to stop leeching off the taxes that they pay and to get a job if they can't afford the new fees.
I do believe that education is important and it should be accessible to everyone.
The United States has the best collegiate and post-graduate schools in the world because they charge people a lot of money for that education. If people want to go to cheap community colleges for their eduation they can, but they will get less out of that investment. The best schools in the world require a steep price, obviously.
Granted, I think that $50,000/year to go to many of the US's top schools are insane, but I mean around half of the students attending these schools receive at least some kind of financial aid...
On March 14 2012 09:20 Jaso wrote: Lol I don't really feel like you should be complaining.. people in the US pay easily upwards of $40k a year to go to college ><
People act like they are forced to pay that much. They pay that much because they WANT TO/are convinced it will make their lives better.
I got an AA degree and it didn't cost me one penny. Government covered 100% of the cost. I'm working toward my bachelor's now, and I pay less than $15k a year.
It's honestly not unreasonable at all. What's unreasonable is people going into insane amounts of debt because they're convinced it will assure them better pay for life. Employers pay for skills, not for degrees.
Actually, as a new college graduate, employers look at the degree and where it is from.
On March 14 2012 10:05 Jonas wrote: The United States has the best collegiate and post-graduate schools in the world because they charge people a lot of money for that education. If people want to go to cheap community colleges for their eduation they can, but they will get less out of that investment. The best schools in the world require a steep price, obviously.
Granted, I think that $50,000/year to go to many of the US's top schools are insane, but I mean around half of the students attending these schools receive at least some kind of financial aid...
I don't think people are arguing whether or not there shouldn't be private schooling, but rather whether or not there should be government subsidized schooling.
People always say that throwing money at education can't solve the problem. But then I see really rich people throwing a lot of money at the problem for their kids and getting them an awesome education. Hmm. Seems to be a disconnect here.
In the US I think one of the main problems is the existence of guaranteed students loans, though. I mean, I look at my university, it's pretty decent. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on construction, carpeting, and new pretty buildings. Does that sound like the sort of thing a struggling business ought to pay? Not really. But they'd have us believe that they are struggling. That they need to raise the tuition or they couldn't afford to stay open. Eliminate the student loans, let the prices fall. The universities are operating on a business model that would normally be impossible to sustain, but made possible by easy credit.
Education is already "free" at the university level for some people(scholarships). We can look at this discussion as the creation of a universally avialable scholarship that everybody qualifies for automatically. The question is what are the criteria for getting continued benefits? Do you lose the benefit if you don't take advantage before a certain age? Are all degrees covered or just the professions experiencing a scarcity of applicants?
We are talking about extending the K-12 level of access to support 4(or more?) years of college. I don't know that the university model works when its a continuation of highschool. The student has much greater control over their course of study in the university system so there is no guarentee they will achieve marketable job skills when they graduate. Does it make sense to subsidize "super highschool diplomas"?
I'm at UofT (Canadian University also) and I pay $11000... and you are complaining about paying $1600 more?
And it really isn't so bad... a lot of universities have A LOT of grants, scholarships, work-study and internship opportunities.
Children should get free education because they cannot be expected to earn it at that age. As a university student, you are an adult which means one way or another you CAN earn it and if you are: a) not talented enough to get scholarships/internships/research positions b) not resourceful enough to get bursaries/work-study program spot c) not willing to live with parents and work weekends d) not from a rich family Then there are other adults out there who can do one of these or a hybrid of these and deserve the limited resource of post-secondary education more than you. And even if you can't do any of the above, it's not like you have to pay your tuition out of your own pocket, you get OSAP. (it's a Canadian education loan that doesn't have interest until AFTER you graduate, that's right a 4 year loan with NO interest! )
TLDR: As a Canadian you have nothing to complain about with regards to post secondary education price...
Americans on the other hand.... ya you guys are getting screwed...
The U.S. has the best schools in the world. We also pay the most. The way I see it, post-secondary schooling is an investment, so no, it should not be free.
On March 14 2012 10:05 Jonas wrote: The United States has the best collegiate and post-graduate schools in the world because they charge people a lot of money for that education. If people want to go to cheap community colleges for their eduation they can, but they will get less out of that investment. The best schools in the world require a steep price, obviously.
Granted, I think that $50,000/year to go to many of the US's top schools are insane, but I mean around half of the students attending these schools receive at least some kind of financial aid...
On March 14 2012 12:23 ampson wrote: The U.S. has the best schools in the world. We also pay the most. The way I see it, post-secondary schooling is an investment, so no, it should not be free.
Pretty sure the US has one of the worst primary and secondary educations within first world countries. No surprise as they also have the lowest education funding.
With respect to universities, I believe the UK has the most prestigious followed by the US.
From what I've seen of Harvard VODS though top university lecturers are miles better than the kind of lecturers we have in Australia I think.
On March 14 2012 12:23 ampson wrote: The U.S. has the best schools in the world. We also pay the most. The way I see it, post-secondary schooling is an investment, so no, it should not be free.
It shouldn't be crazy expensive either
McGill and University of Toronto rank well in the QS World University rankings, and are dirt cheap compared to American schools.
I'm not saying a good education isn't worth it ... but I hope Americans are looking for bargains
On March 13 2012 15:48 tetrismaan wrote: In Denmark it is free, and we even get 1000$ each month from the government, with the chance of making a student-rent for 650$ each month with 1% interest.
Yep, it's pretty sweet. I think you meant student-loan though.
I spent 6 years of my life getting my free education(s), and never having to work on the side, and my parents never paid any kroner (it's a real currency, stupid as it may sound ). It really let's you focus on studying. Now, I have a degree and a full time job, and have no problem paying my ~40% tax cut (~50% if you add all sorts of union fees/workers associations fees etc.). I got a lot from society in my twenties, and now I have the opportunity to give something back, while maintaining a decent living (annual income ~60k $).
Yeah, "socialism" is torture .
Damn you and your LEGO and your insanely low unemployment rates.
Yes, free education is good. This way everyone has an equal opportunity at success, and those who work hardest will reach their greatest potential, not just those who have the money to invest. I feel like colleges and universities should have some price tag attached to them, though it should cost certainly a lot less than it does in the united states. The cost is quite prohibitive to many people who would otherwise have put that education to good use. The costs in Canada don't sound quite so bad, and I think it is good that there is some kind of cost in order to motivate students to work hard to make the most out of their investment. If it was completely free students might feel less inclined to get their degree in a timely fashion.
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university.
I am also from Canada and pay the same income tax as you do. But our fees are ~4500$/year in tuition for an undergraduate degree. That being said, I do not know how much the Quebec provincial government subsidizes universities.
On March 14 2012 13:21 itkovian wrote: Yes, free education is good. This way everyone has an equal opportunity at success, and those who work hardest will reach their greatest potential, not just those who have the money to invest. I feel like colleges and universities should have some price tag attached to them, though it should cost certainly a lot less than it does in the united states. The cost is quite prohibitive to many people who would otherwise have put that education to good use. The costs in Canada don't sound quite so bad, and I think it is good that there is some kind of cost in order to motivate students to work hard to make the most out of their investment. If it was completely free students might feel less inclined to get their degree in a timely fashion.
I actually don't think having to pay a fee makes any difference. Often its the parents paying anyway, and if you are lazy you are gonna be lazy. I hardly went to any lectures even though I had to "pay" (courses are partially subsidised, but we also have to re-pay the leftover fees back to the government once we get a job).
I am shocked , by some of the opinions in here.. Education , and by that i mean knowledge & a Professor to hammer it into your brain should be 100% Free. If you are a 60 year old man , deciding to be a doctor , you should be able to do it without paying 1 cent.
Here in poor Greece education in 100% free.(that includes books ofc) From age 3 - to whatever the f*** you want. We also have privet schools & Unis but they are considered a joke and a big laugh.
We get discounts for everything , from public transportation to Cinema tickets.
There are some occasions ,gov tried to "Earn" money from unis , and that without even making us pay something , just by some weird ways like "Sponsoring" some actions of the university or things like that , but the Greek mentality on the subject didn't allow it. The only thing we have to pay OVER THE 22-24 years of education(including university) is 2 $ for a plastic card(and that is optional) You also get paid if you are a good student etc.
On March 14 2012 12:23 ampson wrote: The U.S. has the best schools in the world. We also pay the most. The way I see it, post-secondary schooling is an investment, so no, it should not be free.
It shouldn't be crazy expensive either
McGill and University of Toronto rank well in the QS World University rankings, and are dirt cheap compared to American schools.
I'm not saying a good education isn't worth it ... but I hope Americans are looking for bargains
Pretty much any school on those rankings that's not american is dirt cheap (or completely free) when compared to american schools. Plus "world" rankings are kind of worthless.
As people say, there is nothing that is really free. someone somewhere pay for it. It could be you paying for it in term of tax or it could be other person paying interm of higher public transportation cost etc etc. So yeah, we all should should have access to standard education but also those who get it have to make it count.
On March 14 2012 18:05 kaiz0ku wrote: I am shocked , by some of the opinions in here.. Education , and by that i mean knowledge & a Professor to hammer it into your brain should be 100% Free. If you are a 60 year old man , deciding to be a doctor , you should be able to do it without paying 1 cent.
Here in poor Greece education in 100% free.(that includes books ofc) From age 3 - to whatever the f*** you want. We also have privet schools & Unis but they are considered a joke and a big laugh.
We get discounts for everything , from public transportation to Cinema tickets.
There are some occasions ,gov tried to "Earn" money from unis , and that without even making us pay something , just by some weird ways like "Sponsoring" some actions of the university or things like that , but the Greek mentality on the subject didn't allow it. The only thing we have to pay OVER THE 22-24 years of education(including university) is 2 $ for a plastic card(and that is optional) You also get paid if you are a good student etc.
People...srsly.... L2 Riot
Greece isn't really a good example of "Free" education being towards the benefit for the country and the people involved.
Education shouldn't be free, the high prices in the states are too much but it really doesn't need to be free.
Countries like the US are feeling the crunch of a world based on Education. It's nearly impossible to earn a decent living as a dockworker, factory worker whatever and everybody wants to make 100k/year as an engineer. Education now is seen as a requirement to have a good life and this leads to a lack of jobs where too many people have educated themselves, and to many jobs with reduced pay because so many people can do it.
This drives down the amount people are paid in "lower quality" jobs because even college educated jobs are paying less, and the menial jobs, or trades, are paying less and being filled by people with college educations not necessarily the best people for the job.
I bet 100% of the people if they got polled in high school would rather be an engineer than a welder and that's becoming a big big problem. The economy is now much more top heavy and instead of 10% of the people having college educations it's going to be over 50%+ sometime in the future, that simply can't work and probably won't. There's only so many people to design the bridge, some have to build it.
*Statistics are not accurate/looked up just based on trends in the last 4 or 5 decades.
Edit: And paying 5-10k a year for a college Education shouldn't be a big deal for anybody. If you're good enough to "deserve" school then you can work a job for 20 hours a week to pay for it, even if the jobs flipping burgers.
On March 14 2012 18:05 kaiz0ku wrote: I am shocked , by some of the opinions in here.. Education , and by that i mean knowledge & a Professor to hammer it into your brain should be 100% Free. If you are a 60 year old man , deciding to be a doctor , you should be able to do it without paying 1 cent.
Here in poor Greece education in 100% free.(that includes books ofc) From age 3 - to whatever the f*** you want. We also have privet schools & Unis but they are considered a joke and a big laugh.
We get discounts for everything , from public transportation to Cinema tickets.
There are some occasions ,gov tried to "Earn" money from unis , and that without even making us pay something , just by some weird ways like "Sponsoring" some actions of the university or things like that , but the Greek mentality on the subject didn't allow it. The only thing we have to pay OVER THE 22-24 years of education(including university) is 2 $ for a plastic card(and that is optional) You also get paid if you are a good student etc.
People...srsly.... L2 Riot
Greece isn't really a good example of "Free" education being towards the benefit for the country and the people involved.
Education shouldn't be free, the high prices in the states are too much but it really doesn't need to be free.
Countries like the US are feeling the crunch of a world based on Education. It's nearly impossible to earn a decent living as a dockworker, factory worker whatever and everybody wants to make 100k/year as an engineer. Education now is seen as a requirement to have a good life and this leads to a lack of jobs where too many people have educated themselves, and to many jobs with reduced pay because so many people can do it.
This drives down the amount people are paid in "lower quality" jobs because even college educated jobs are paying less, and the menial jobs, or trades, are paying less and being filled by people with college educations not necessarily the best people for the job.
I bet 100% of the people if they got polled in high school would rather be an engineer than a welder and that's becoming a big big problem. The economy is now much more top heavy and instead of 10% of the people having college educations it's going to be over 50%+ sometime in the future, that simply can't work and probably won't. There's only so many people to design the bridge, some have to build it.
*Statistics are not accurate/looked up just based on trends in the last 4 or 5 decades.
Why isn't this happening in Sweden then? There are a ton of countries in Europe with free/almost free education who are doing just fine. Personally I know alot of people from high school who hated math/science and wanted to do some more practical work like welding or carpentry (which pays damn well in Sweden atleast).
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread I live in montreal, quebec, Canada. We live in a society that was founded mostly with left politic. Our health system is free and our education fees are low. At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept. Our governement wants us to now pay 1600$/year more. In other terms, they are asking the students to double the dept they end with Students are now on strike and asking the governement to cancel the raise. You have to be aware that this only represent 1.2% of the global education budget so we are not talking about a huge sum.
Where do I stand? To be honest, I always tought everyone should have equal access to education. The best way would be to make it free. I think we should favor more an 'elitism' way of choosing the students by looking more into the grades.
I will not get into the details and argue on both side but I was really interrested to see what people all over think about education.
EDIT: We pay around 40-45% in tax... so yea we have low fees but we pay it back in some way.
P.S. This is no democrat vs republicans Forgive my poor english it is not my first language.
Shut up. Seriously, shut up you freeloading hippy.
On March 14 2012 10:05 Jonas wrote: The United States has the best collegiate and post-graduate schools in the world because they charge people a lot of money for that education. If people want to go to cheap community colleges for their eduation they can, but they will get less out of that investment. The best schools in the world require a steep price, obviously.
Granted, I think that $50,000/year to go to many of the US's top schools are insane, but I mean around half of the students attending these schools receive at least some kind of financial aid...
So you think it is ok that rich kids can just cruise through because their parents pay for their tuition?
I agree that IF everybody had an equal chance of actually loaning these money, then your argument holds. However as it is now, no low-income kid who wants to work hard can just take out a 50,000$/year loan for 5 years and be like "EZ PZ, when I get my degree I can just pay the money back" So many people just assume that everyone has money to make that investment, not seeing education as a thing to improve the countries welfare, but just as a personal investment. However the current American system doesn't promote even rights among people.
But what do I know, I live in a "socialist" country with free education. Denmark is SO crappy, both in levels of education and distribution of wealth among all... Ohh wait, that's not us
All I can say is, ever since they introduced private unis in our country, a huge number of retarded, spoiled dumbass rich kids finally managed to mysteriously graduate they must have some super-efficient hard work encouraging mechanisms in there!
Up to secondary education, school should be 100% free and equal for everyone. I could write a long piece explaining why exactly that benefits society and the human race, but I'll rather just say anyone who can't see this is a bona fide cretin.
University should be either merit-based or paid for, because by that time you're a grown person with a solid education base, and abuse of higher education happens all the time with people who don't really want to study but find it convenient.
There is no "free" education. The money has to come from somewhere. Much like public elementary and high school, there might not visibly be a fee, but its from taxpayer's money that funds all the necessary teachers and equipments at school.
With that said, a more inexpensive option would be nice. I don't know why the US tuitions cost so much and I would imagine their schools aren't any better than other first world nations, unless they're the incredibly good ones like MIT or Harvard.
On March 14 2012 18:42 Meteora.GB wrote: There is no "free" education.
Omg stop with that. You're like the 30th person saying that. It may look smart but I think we all know we are talking about free for the students, therefor paid by the taxpayers.
It's around triple in Australia, but the HECS system makes it possible for anyone to study (interest free loan), the US is the worst, if you're poor and not bright enough to receive a full scholarship, you cannot study, simply not worth it
On March 13 2012 15:48 tetrismaan wrote: In Denmark it is free, and we even get 1000$ each month from the government, with the chance of making a student-rent for 650$ each month with 1% interest.
Denmark also has the highest taxes in the world, so it evens out after you graduate. But that gives everyone a good chance to start their education which they can then use, later, to earn some money which they wouldn´t have been able to earn otherwise.
On March 14 2012 18:42 Meteora.GB wrote: There is no "free" education.
Omg stop with that. You're like the 30th person saying that. It may look smart but I think we all know we are talking about free for the students, therefor paid by the taxpayers.
Actually, it doesn't look smart but incredibly dumb. It's like saying milk doesn't originate from the fridge.The fact that this is even considered postworthy - once every two pages even - makes me think that education should be made more readily available for everyone.
edit: i'll elaborate. i assume you mean higher education (college/university and above). my time in college fundamentally change my outlook on life, and honestly for the better. i was an apathetic asshole beforehand. my partner (who knew me in high school) even can't believe sometimes that she goes out with that person she used to know. if there is one thing to take away from higher education, it's critical thinking. that is what changed me.
why should that be free? because it furthers society as a whole. it contributes to society. it makes every member in society that much more aware and that much more contributing. while i'm not going to argue the logistics of making higher education free, in a fantasy world if you want to further advance a society, higher education has to be free.
now if you want to argue logistics, its not going to happen under capitalism. not purposely trying to sound like some hardcore marxist extremist, but its true. college as an institution under capitalism is design to produce members of society who will contribute to the capitalist machine (ie make money), not to actually educate themselves in any way that goes against that (not saying college doesn't educate currently, just that its education has a different purpose). it is also required to function as a capitalist institution in that it needs to make money. critical thinking doesn't necessarily teach you to be a proper cog in the machine.
ok, that does sound hardcore extremist after all, but fuck it, don't feel like rewriting it so that it doesn't.
On March 14 2012 18:05 kaiz0ku wrote: I am shocked , by some of the opinions in here.. Education , and by that i mean knowledge & a Professor to hammer it into your brain should be 100% Free. If you are a 60 year old man , deciding to be a doctor , you should be able to do it without paying 1 cent.
Here in poor Greece education in 100% free.(that includes books ofc) From age 3 - to whatever the f*** you want. We also have privet schools & Unis but they are considered a joke and a big laugh.
We get discounts for everything , from public transportation to Cinema tickets.
There are some occasions ,gov tried to "Earn" money from unis , and that without even making us pay something , just by some weird ways like "Sponsoring" some actions of the university or things like that , but the Greek mentality on the subject didn't allow it. The only thing we have to pay OVER THE 22-24 years of education(including university) is 2 $ for a plastic card(and that is optional) You also get paid if you are a good student etc.
People...srsly.... L2 Riot
Greece isn't really a good example of "Free" education being towards the benefit for the country and the people involved.
Education shouldn't be free, the high prices in the states are too much but it really doesn't need to be free.
Countries like the US are feeling the crunch of a world based on Education. It's nearly impossible to earn a decent living as a dockworker, factory worker whatever and everybody wants to make 100k/year as an engineer. Education now is seen as a requirement to have a good life and this leads to a lack of jobs where too many people have educated themselves, and to many jobs with reduced pay because so many people can do it.
This drives down the amount people are paid in "lower quality" jobs because even college educated jobs are paying less, and the menial jobs, or trades, are paying less and being filled by people with college educations not necessarily the best people for the job.
I bet 100% of the people if they got polled in high school would rather be an engineer than a welder and that's becoming a big big problem. The economy is now much more top heavy and instead of 10% of the people having college educations it's going to be over 50%+ sometime in the future, that simply can't work and probably won't. There's only so many people to design the bridge, some have to build it.
*Statistics are not accurate/looked up just based on trends in the last 4 or 5 decades.
Edit: And paying 5-10k a year for a college Education shouldn't be a big deal for anybody. If you're good enough to "deserve" school then you can work a job for 20 hours a week to pay for it, even if the jobs flipping burgers.
I understand what you are saying.. but that is now exactly how it works. If you want to be an engineer , it doesn't mean you are allowed to study it. Once you reach the end of highschool , we have the final exams. In greece the grades you get from your hichschool teachers , or the grades you have aquaired during the years count as nothing. For 2-3 weeks Every person in greece that wants to be tested ( in order to study) sits down at the exact same time , giving the exact same subject as everyone else.
A few hours later the solutions to the problems(answers to the questions) are Solved on national Tv by some professor. Your grades result from 1-20 , and different subjects have different values (for example if you want to be a programmer math counts more than let's say physics.) If you are below 10 you are not accepted in a university , if you are 10-15 you are accepted in lower tier unis , from 15-18 you are accepted in good-very good unis and from 18-20 you reach God mode .
P.S. fun facts : You prepare for this 2 weeks for almost 2 years. 1 month later the results come out... you cry. You almost always Cry. (JK if ur good u don't xD) and 3 months later ALL the kids gather at cafes. For 3 hours the Base for each university in the whole country is announced. And then around 2 p.m. you can walk around and see people crying and crawling in despair :D
On March 13 2012 15:48 tetrismaan wrote: In Denmark it is free, and we even get 1000$ each month from the government, with the chance of making a student-rent for 650$ each month with 1% interest.
Denmark also has the highest taxes in the world, so it evens out after you graduate. But that gives everyone a good chance to start their education which they can then use, later, to earn some money which they wouldn´t have been able to earn otherwise.
Nah, depends on how you calculate but if you go by mean income taxes as a percentage of income by country, a lot of countries have higher taxes than Denmark, for example Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Germany and France.
On March 14 2012 18:05 kaiz0ku wrote: I am shocked , by some of the opinions in here.. Education , and by that i mean knowledge & a Professor to hammer it into your brain should be 100% Free. If you are a 60 year old man , deciding to be a doctor , you should be able to do it without paying 1 cent.
Here in poor Greece education in 100% free.(that includes books ofc) From age 3 - to whatever the f*** you want. We also have privet schools & Unis but they are considered a joke and a big laugh.
We get discounts for everything , from public transportation to Cinema tickets.
There are some occasions ,gov tried to "Earn" money from unis , and that without even making us pay something , just by some weird ways like "Sponsoring" some actions of the university or things like that , but the Greek mentality on the subject didn't allow it. The only thing we have to pay OVER THE 22-24 years of education(including university) is 2 $ for a plastic card(and that is optional) You also get paid if you are a good student etc.
People...srsly.... L2 Riot
Greece isn't really a good example of "Free" education being towards the benefit for the country and the people involved.
Education shouldn't be free, the high prices in the states are too much but it really doesn't need to be free.
Countries like the US are feeling the crunch of a world based on Education. It's nearly impossible to earn a decent living as a dockworker, factory worker whatever and everybody wants to make 100k/year as an engineer. Education now is seen as a requirement to have a good life and this leads to a lack of jobs where too many people have educated themselves, and to many jobs with reduced pay because so many people can do it.
This drives down the amount people are paid in "lower quality" jobs because even college educated jobs are paying less, and the menial jobs, or trades, are paying less and being filled by people with college educations not necessarily the best people for the job.
I bet 100% of the people if they got polled in high school would rather be an engineer than a welder and that's becoming a big big problem. The economy is now much more top heavy and instead of 10% of the people having college educations it's going to be over 50%+ sometime in the future, that simply can't work and probably won't. There's only so many people to design the bridge, some have to build it.
*Statistics are not accurate/looked up just based on trends in the last 4 or 5 decades.
Edit: And paying 5-10k a year for a college Education shouldn't be a big deal for anybody. If you're good enough to "deserve" school then you can work a job for 20 hours a week to pay for it, even if the jobs flipping burgers.
I understand what you are saying.. but that is now exactly how it works. If you want to be an engineer , it doesn't mean you are allowed to study it. Once you reach the end of highschool , we have the final exams. In greece the grades you get from your hichschool teachers , or the grades you have aquaired during the years count as nothing. For 2-3 weeks Every person in greece that wants to be tested ( in order to study) sits down at the exact same time , giving the exact same subject as everyone else.
A few hours later the solutions to the problems(answers to the questions) are Solved on national Tv by some professor. Your grades result from 1-20 , and different subjects have different values (for example if you want to be a programmer math counts more than let's say physics.) If you are below 10 you are not accepted in a university , if you are 10-15 you are accepted in lower tier unis , from 15-18 you are accepted in good-very good unis and from 18-20 you reach God mode .
P.S. fun facts : You prepare for this 2 weeks for almost 2 years. 1 month later the results come out... you cry. You almost always Cry. (JK if ur good u don't xD) and 3 months later ALL the kids gather at cafes. For 3 hours the Base for each university in the whole country is announced. And then around 2 p.m. you can walk around and see people crying and crawling in despair :D
Shut the hell up. You are from Greece and whatever you say isn't credible. Fix your economy before even thinking about posting here.
On March 14 2012 18:05 kaiz0ku wrote: I am shocked , by some of the opinions in here.. Education , and by that i mean knowledge & a Professor to hammer it into your brain should be 100% Free. If you are a 60 year old man , deciding to be a doctor , you should be able to do it without paying 1 cent.
Here in poor Greece education in 100% free.(that includes books ofc) From age 3 - to whatever the f*** you want. We also have privet schools & Unis but they are considered a joke and a big laugh.
We get discounts for everything , from public transportation to Cinema tickets.
There are some occasions ,gov tried to "Earn" money from unis , and that without even making us pay something , just by some weird ways like "Sponsoring" some actions of the university or things like that , but the Greek mentality on the subject didn't allow it. The only thing we have to pay OVER THE 22-24 years of education(including university) is 2 $ for a plastic card(and that is optional) You also get paid if you are a good student etc.
People...srsly.... L2 Riot
Greece isn't really a good example of "Free" education being towards the benefit for the country and the people involved.
Education shouldn't be free, the high prices in the states are too much but it really doesn't need to be free.
Countries like the US are feeling the crunch of a world based on Education. It's nearly impossible to earn a decent living as a dockworker, factory worker whatever and everybody wants to make 100k/year as an engineer. Education now is seen as a requirement to have a good life and this leads to a lack of jobs where too many people have educated themselves, and to many jobs with reduced pay because so many people can do it.
This drives down the amount people are paid in "lower quality" jobs because even college educated jobs are paying less, and the menial jobs, or trades, are paying less and being filled by people with college educations not necessarily the best people for the job.
I bet 100% of the people if they got polled in high school would rather be an engineer than a welder and that's becoming a big big problem. The economy is now much more top heavy and instead of 10% of the people having college educations it's going to be over 50%+ sometime in the future, that simply can't work and probably won't. There's only so many people to design the bridge, some have to build it.
*Statistics are not accurate/looked up just based on trends in the last 4 or 5 decades.
Edit: And paying 5-10k a year for a college Education shouldn't be a big deal for anybody. If you're good enough to "deserve" school then you can work a job for 20 hours a week to pay for it, even if the jobs flipping burgers.
I understand what you are saying.. but that is now exactly how it works. If you want to be an engineer , it doesn't mean you are allowed to study it. Once you reach the end of highschool , we have the final exams. In greece the grades you get from your hichschool teachers , or the grades you have aquaired during the years count as nothing. For 2-3 weeks Every person in greece that wants to be tested ( in order to study) sits down at the exact same time , giving the exact same subject as everyone else.
A few hours later the solutions to the problems(answers to the questions) are Solved on national Tv by some professor. Your grades result from 1-20 , and different subjects have different values (for example if you want to be a programmer math counts more than let's say physics.) If you are below 10 you are not accepted in a university , if you are 10-15 you are accepted in lower tier unis , from 15-18 you are accepted in good-very good unis and from 18-20 you reach God mode .
P.S. fun facts : You prepare for this 2 weeks for almost 2 years. 1 month later the results come out... you cry. You almost always Cry. (JK if ur good u don't xD) and 3 months later ALL the kids gather at cafes. For 3 hours the Base for each university in the whole country is announced. And then around 2 p.m. you can walk around and see people crying and crawling in despair :D
Shut the hell up. You are from Greece and whatever you say isn't credible. Fix your economy before even thinking about posting here.
Ban? You have some dumb politicians who claim that homosexuality is evil therefor we shouldn't let the Americans speak? I don't think he is responsible for all the troubles in his country. Btw the system he describes is the same as the French one (well not really anymore actually because you decide which uni you join before the exam). The English one is slightly different.
On March 14 2012 18:05 kaiz0ku wrote: I am shocked , by some of the opinions in here.. Education , and by that i mean knowledge & a Professor to hammer it into your brain should be 100% Free. If you are a 60 year old man , deciding to be a doctor , you should be able to do it without paying 1 cent.
Here in poor Greece education in 100% free.(that includes books ofc) From age 3 - to whatever the f*** you want. We also have privet schools & Unis but they are considered a joke and a big laugh.
We get discounts for everything , from public transportation to Cinema tickets.
There are some occasions ,gov tried to "Earn" money from unis , and that without even making us pay something , just by some weird ways like "Sponsoring" some actions of the university or things like that , but the Greek mentality on the subject didn't allow it. The only thing we have to pay OVER THE 22-24 years of education(including university) is 2 $ for a plastic card(and that is optional) You also get paid if you are a good student etc.
People...srsly.... L2 Riot
Greece isn't really a good example of "Free" education being towards the benefit for the country and the people involved.
Education shouldn't be free, the high prices in the states are too much but it really doesn't need to be free.
Countries like the US are feeling the crunch of a world based on Education. It's nearly impossible to earn a decent living as a dockworker, factory worker whatever and everybody wants to make 100k/year as an engineer. Education now is seen as a requirement to have a good life and this leads to a lack of jobs where too many people have educated themselves, and to many jobs with reduced pay because so many people can do it.
This drives down the amount people are paid in "lower quality" jobs because even college educated jobs are paying less, and the menial jobs, or trades, are paying less and being filled by people with college educations not necessarily the best people for the job.
I bet 100% of the people if they got polled in high school would rather be an engineer than a welder and that's becoming a big big problem. The economy is now much more top heavy and instead of 10% of the people having college educations it's going to be over 50%+ sometime in the future, that simply can't work and probably won't. There's only so many people to design the bridge, some have to build it.
*Statistics are not accurate/looked up just based on trends in the last 4 or 5 decades.
Edit: And paying 5-10k a year for a college Education shouldn't be a big deal for anybody. If you're good enough to "deserve" school then you can work a job for 20 hours a week to pay for it, even if the jobs flipping burgers.
I understand what you are saying.. but that is now exactly how it works. If you want to be an engineer , it doesn't mean you are allowed to study it. Once you reach the end of highschool , we have the final exams. In greece the grades you get from your hichschool teachers , or the grades you have aquaired during the years count as nothing. For 2-3 weeks Every person in greece that wants to be tested ( in order to study) sits down at the exact same time , giving the exact same subject as everyone else.
A few hours later the solutions to the problems(answers to the questions) are Solved on national Tv by some professor. Your grades result from 1-20 , and different subjects have different values (for example if you want to be a programmer math counts more than let's say physics.) If you are below 10 you are not accepted in a university , if you are 10-15 you are accepted in lower tier unis , from 15-18 you are accepted in good-very good unis and from 18-20 you reach God mode .
P.S. fun facts : You prepare for this 2 weeks for almost 2 years. 1 month later the results come out... you cry. You almost always Cry. (JK if ur good u don't xD) and 3 months later ALL the kids gather at cafes. For 3 hours the Base for each university in the whole country is announced. And then around 2 p.m. you can walk around and see people crying and crawling in despair :D
Shut the hell up. You are from Greece and whatever you say isn't credible. Fix your economy before even thinking about posting here.
Yeah, because the economy in the USA is just fine and dandy, don't rob someone the freedom of speech just because their country is broke. If we did that, you should probably keep your trap shut as well.
On March 14 2012 18:05 kaiz0ku wrote: I am shocked , by some of the opinions in here.. Education , and by that i mean knowledge & a Professor to hammer it into your brain should be 100% Free. If you are a 60 year old man , deciding to be a doctor , you should be able to do it without paying 1 cent.
Here in poor Greece education in 100% free.(that includes books ofc) From age 3 - to whatever the f*** you want. We also have privet schools & Unis but they are considered a joke and a big laugh.
We get discounts for everything , from public transportation to Cinema tickets.
There are some occasions ,gov tried to "Earn" money from unis , and that without even making us pay something , just by some weird ways like "Sponsoring" some actions of the university or things like that , but the Greek mentality on the subject didn't allow it. The only thing we have to pay OVER THE 22-24 years of education(including university) is 2 $ for a plastic card(and that is optional) You also get paid if you are a good student etc.
People...srsly.... L2 Riot
Greece isn't really a good example of "Free" education being towards the benefit for the country and the people involved.
Education shouldn't be free, the high prices in the states are too much but it really doesn't need to be free.
Countries like the US are feeling the crunch of a world based on Education. It's nearly impossible to earn a decent living as a dockworker, factory worker whatever and everybody wants to make 100k/year as an engineer. Education now is seen as a requirement to have a good life and this leads to a lack of jobs where too many people have educated themselves, and to many jobs with reduced pay because so many people can do it.
This drives down the amount people are paid in "lower quality" jobs because even college educated jobs are paying less, and the menial jobs, or trades, are paying less and being filled by people with college educations not necessarily the best people for the job.
I bet 100% of the people if they got polled in high school would rather be an engineer than a welder and that's becoming a big big problem. The economy is now much more top heavy and instead of 10% of the people having college educations it's going to be over 50%+ sometime in the future, that simply can't work and probably won't. There's only so many people to design the bridge, some have to build it.
*Statistics are not accurate/looked up just based on trends in the last 4 or 5 decades.
Edit: And paying 5-10k a year for a college Education shouldn't be a big deal for anybody. If you're good enough to "deserve" school then you can work a job for 20 hours a week to pay for it, even if the jobs flipping burgers.
I understand what you are saying.. but that is now exactly how it works. If you want to be an engineer , it doesn't mean you are allowed to study it. Once you reach the end of highschool , we have the final exams. In greece the grades you get from your hichschool teachers , or the grades you have aquaired during the years count as nothing. For 2-3 weeks Every person in greece that wants to be tested ( in order to study) sits down at the exact same time , giving the exact same subject as everyone else.
A few hours later the solutions to the problems(answers to the questions) are Solved on national Tv by some professor. Your grades result from 1-20 , and different subjects have different values (for example if you want to be a programmer math counts more than let's say physics.) If you are below 10 you are not accepted in a university , if you are 10-15 you are accepted in lower tier unis , from 15-18 you are accepted in good-very good unis and from 18-20 you reach God mode .
P.S. fun facts : You prepare for this 2 weeks for almost 2 years. 1 month later the results come out... you cry. You almost always Cry. (JK if ur good u don't xD) and 3 months later ALL the kids gather at cafes. For 3 hours the Base for each university in the whole country is announced. And then around 2 p.m. you can walk around and see people crying and crawling in despair :D
Shut the hell up. You are from Greece and whatever you say isn't credible. Fix your economy before even thinking about posting here.
User was banned for this post.
That was rather... rude.. But even in these troubled times , our Health and Education system is better than most ! And as other person said.. We also have to decide which uni we apply for before our grades are out. So it is pretty much the same. Health is also 100% Free.
It sounds to me like Quebec has had it easy. Uni. tuitions in Ontario go up by ridiculous amounts all the time. Also, it's BECAUSE of all the tax you pay that it isn't insanely expensive to go to Uni. like in the U.S. Your province subsidises the shit out of post-secondary. They've obviously made cuts, and this is probably a result of the right-shift in the political climate over there over the past few years.
As someone finishing their degree and harboring a fair bit of student debt:
I think there needs to be barriers to post-secondary education. Free education for all will result in many, many more people taking advantage of this, increasing strain on the system, requiring higher taxes and greatly decreasing the young labour pool. Degree inflation would be even more rampant than it already is, requiring graduates to either know the right people, or to separate themselves from the pack by getting a Masters or PhD, even when the job they are applying for doesn't necessarily require that high degree of knowledge. It's wasteful and inefficient on so many levels. One could also make the argument that post-secondary education is an investment in oneself and statistically increases one's expected lifetime earnings. In that sense, it seems just that one should pay for it. Learning for its own sake can easily be done for free in a less formal environment.
Preferably, I would like to see merit play a much greater role in tuition fees. Scholarships exist, but their distribution can sometimes be random or based on arbitrary factors. I would love to see a system where A students receive a fully subsidized education, average students receive some subsidies and accessible loans (ie: the situation basically every Canadian student is in today) and sub-par students could only get a post-secondary education if a wealthy family member paid their way.
Whether higher levels of education being available to the masses is necessary or even positive for a country depends so hugely on factors most northamericans in this thread completely ignore for no apparent reason. There's a reason the european style of subsidized payment for education works, some of the obvious of it lies in the fact that smaller countries with more concentrated population have less landspace and fewer natural ressources to draw upon. These countries simply cannot sustain or come close to competing on an international scale were the majority of the population not to be well educated and capable of working in academics or the like. These types of countries need a large amount of people to work in tertiary sections and less so people in the primary and secondary sections. This means that without an edge when it comes to education, science and research etc. countries like these will simply cease to remain competitive compared to the up and coming powerhouses that offer loads of easily accessible workforce with less restrictions and an increasing amount of well educated people in addition to the former. That's why education needs to have a large focus, and why it's so often said that it needs to be free for the students so that they can fully focus on their studies.
It is not to say everyone and their mother gets to have a BS or Masters degree with ease. That assumption is retarded. What it means though is that a larger amount of pupils will have a shot at succeeding at a higher level of education, which is exactly what's needed for future prospects.
Where the discussion seems to derail is the when northamericans and europeans fail to realize the differences in the type of countries. Both CA and the US are both massive landslides with insane amounts of natural ressources available of almost any kind. This means that the countries are bound to be less dependant on having a higher percentage of the population field a higher level education. Instead they're actually reliant on having a fairly large workforce that don't expect a higher paid office job, but are content with working as farmers, factory workers etc.
This all means that what may or may not be the right solution in one part of the world might not fit for another. What I do think most people can agree on though, is that, ideally, no amount of education a competent student is undertaking should ever be burdening to them in a financial way that could detract from their focus on studies. It's not to say it's realistic, I don't believe it is personally but wouldn't it be pretty good to have in most developed countries?
Education should be free to anyone who wants it, and always will be as long as there are teachers around who love and care about what they do. However, I do not believe education should be compulsory for as long as it is.
I know a large number of people who were kept in the public education system long after it had ceased to do them any good, and this simply embittered them to schools.
UK university fees were approx £1000 6 years ago, £3000 until now, and going to be £9000 (maximum I think) from Sept 2012. Further education has to be paid for because not everyone chooses to take that path. It sucks and I'm not sure why the increase is so steep, but I don't disagree with the fact that we have to pay for university in general.
I like the system as it is now here in NL basically you pay 1600€ a year for uni and then you get extra money monthly from the government based on parents income and free public transport. The money you get builds up as debt and so does the 'free' public transport. The nice thing about our system though is that when you finish your study the debt you accumulated becomes a gift by the state. You can also loan more but you will have to pay that back with interest. By doing this the government makes it affordable for everyone to go to university while also giving people incentive to finish their studies. THey're thinking about changing it now though which saddens me quite a bit.
I don't think university should be free. It's an investment and you can easily work your way through it and emerge without much debt.
In Scotland we don't pay fees, but we probably should. I think it should be privatised, rather than relying on taking money from people who don't attend university to pay for others who want to go, which is essentially what happens if you pay for it with tax (i.e. it's not free, it just means other people have to pay for it).
However, the ridiculous fees in the US are absurd, and the ones in England are getting pretty silly too. Theres really no reason for Education to be THAT expensive - it didn't used to be.
Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
On March 15 2012 21:21 Piy wrote: I don't think university should be free. It's an investment and you can easily work your way through it and emerge without much debt.
In Scotland we don't pay fees, but we probably should. I think it should be privatised, rather than relying on taking money from people who don't attend university to pay for others who want to go, which is essentially what happens if you pay for it with tax (i.e. it's not free, it just means other people have to pay for it).
However, the ridiculous fees in the US are absurd, and the ones in England are getting pretty silly too. Theres really no reason for Education to be THAT expensive - it didn't used to be.
It is in the national interest for the country to subsidize the academic future of our youth. Education will get that expensive if it is privatised, resulting in a detrminetal effect on available talent pool and social mobility. The only factor in deciding who gets what place should be on academic merit alone.
Scotland actually has a pretty solid education system, where we go wrong is that we simply offer to many places, devaluing the entire worth of degree in the first place. 50% of the entire population goes to univeristy now, if we trimmed the fat off some of the courses and increased the entry difficulty it would cut costs and increase merit. They need to increase the difficulty of standard grades/higher/adv highers and make the spots at universty more competitve. Getting straights "A's" at school should be an anomaly, not something happening to a few kids in every year group. We could further reduce costs by shortening most of our courses from 4 years to 3 years. The 1st year of most subjects is mostly a free ride anyway.
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
On March 15 2012 23:19 TanTzoR wrote: For the US I was speaking about the fees of their unis. I hope when you talk about education not being free you don't consider it before uni?
On March 15 2012 23:22 TanTzoR wrote: Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies?
Because many are "private" (operating in a heavily regulated market though).
What I want is obv. a completely free university market (and by that i mean the opposite of what you mean by "free". I mean no regulation, no government interference).
On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation).
What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework.
Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream fictitious free market has ever lasted.
On March 15 2012 23:22 TanTzoR wrote: Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies?
Because many are "private" (operationg in a heavily regulated market though).
Wait wait. What kind of "free" are we talking about here? I don't really understand. It seems to me that the average student in the US has to pay way more than the average student in Europe.
On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation).
What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework.
Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream free market has ever lasted.
Wrong. Go read polticially incorrect guide to capitalism by Robert Murphy. You honestly haven't throught this through.
On March 15 2012 23:22 TanTzoR wrote: Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies?
Because many are "private" (operationg in a heavily regulated market though).
Wait wait. What kind of "free" are we talking about here? I don't really understand. It seems to me that the average student in the US has to pay way more than the average student in Europe.
On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation).
What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework.
Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream free market has ever lasted.
Wrong. Go read polticially incorrect guide to capitalism by Robert Murphy. You honestly haven't throught this through.
On March 15 2012 23:22 TanTzoR wrote: Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies?
Because many are "private" (operating in a heavily regulated market though).
What I want is obv. a completely free university market (and by that i mean the opposite of what you mean by "free". I mean no regulation, no government interference).
Actually the US system is a lot more limited o.0
If free means that instead of getting into uni because of your academic grades and instead getting in because you pay.. wat? That doesn't even make sense :S Could you explain yourself a bit more please?
What is it like where I live? In germany it differs. Where I live it is 400€/year which is basically only to cover the expenses university has on the organisational part and to pay for the bus/train ticket. For one year it was raised to 1400€/year. Uproar and a political change resulted in the fees being removed again which brings us back to 400€/year.
Why should it be free? 1. I'd never thought it but the raised fees actually made many people quit there studies and stopped some people I know from studying. Trust me: Not everyone can afford to study even with small fees. There is always at least SOMEONE who doesn't have the money to study - even though he'd be a great student. 2. Additionally the PISA study clearly indicates that those countries have the highest degree of knowledge and abilities that enables a broad variety of people to attend higher education. 3. Knowledge becomes increasingly important plus there is a shift from "hard work"-jobs to intellectually demanding and often changing jobs. You simply need as much education as you can get for this.
On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation).
What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework.
Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream free market has ever lasted.
Wrong. Go read polticially incorrect guide to capitalism by Robert Murphy. You honestly haven't throught this through.
He's wrong. See, that simple.
I wrote in the same way as you did. You claimed that it led to disaster. But there was no argumentation. Honestly there are tons of people like you, who thinks they understand how the free market works, but they don't really. They only know what they been told by parents/teachers/politicans who doesn't get it either.
It would take me a lot of time to explain it to you ( I have done that in other threads but its very time consuming), so instead I advice you to read that book. Now tell me why he is wrong.
If you don't subsidize education, then the rich will pay for good education and the poor will skimp on it. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That leads to greater social unrest such as protests.
I'd just like to point out that university education IS free. UC Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, and some other schools have posted videos and notes of their lectures for pretty much every course. You can even go sit in at your local University campus and learn whatever the professor is teaching.
What is not free is getting your diploma (and tutorial/labs experience but beggers can't be choosers). However, I forget which school, but they were planning on running an Electricity course and starting a new online-diploma program where you get some form of credit for finishing and doing well in the course.
On March 15 2012 23:22 TanTzoR wrote: Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies?
Because many are "private" (operating in a heavily regulated market though).
What I want is obv. a completely free university market (and by that i mean the opposite of what you mean by "free". I mean no regulation, no government interference).
Actually the US system is a lot more limited o.0
If free means that instead of getting into uni because of your academic grades and instead getting in because you pay.. wat? That doesn't even make sense :S Could you explain yourself a bit more please?
Free market = business are free to do whatever they want.
On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation).
What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework.
Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream free market has ever lasted.
Wrong. Go read polticially incorrect guide to capitalism by Robert Murphy. You honestly haven't throught this through.
He's wrong. See, that simple.
I wrote in the same way as you did. You claimed that it led to disaster. But there was no argumentation. Honestly there are tons of people like you, who thinks they understand how the free market works, but they don't really. They only know what they been told by parents/teachers/politicans who doesn't get it either.
It would take me a lot of time to explain it to you ( I have done that in other threads but its very time consuming), so instead I advice you to read that book. Now tell me why he is wrong.
This is not a valid argument, you can't possibly claim that you know what we have been told by our parents/teachers/politicians. Arguing that it takes too long to explain how we're wrong is also not a statement that you can make in a discussion.
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation).
What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework.
Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream free market has ever lasted.
Wrong. Go read polticially incorrect guide to capitalism by Robert Murphy. You honestly haven't throught this through.
He's wrong. See, that simple.
I wrote in the same way as you did. You claimed that it led to disaster. But there was no argumentation. Honestly there are tons of people like you, who thinks they understand how the free market works, but they don't really. They only know what they been told by parents/teachers/politicans who doesn't get it either.
It would take me a lot of time to explain it to you ( I have done that in other threads but its very time consuming), so instead I advice you to read that book. Now tell me why he is wrong.
This is not a valid argument, you can't possibly claim that you know what we have been told by our parents/teachers/politicians. Arguing that it takes too long to explain how we're wrong is also not a statement that you can make in a discussion.
Well its not up to me to argue why it doesn't lead to disaster. You claimed that it did, yet there was no further argumentation. Why does it lead to disaster? Free market = Voluntary exchanges. People can live the way they desire. What is so bad about freedom? Why does government need to tell you what you need to do, when in fact they are terrible at making decisions for other people.
US in the 19th century was probably one of the most free centuries of a society in human history, and didn't prosperity grow? Even though there were poor people, how was US compared to comparable nations?
On March 15 2012 23:22 TanTzoR wrote: Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies?
Because many are "private" (operating in a heavily regulated market though).
What I want is obv. a completely free university market (and by that i mean the opposite of what you mean by "free". I mean no regulation, no government interference).
Actually the US system is a lot more limited o.0
If free means that instead of getting into uni because of your academic grades and instead getting in because you pay.. wat? That doesn't even make sense :S Could you explain yourself a bit more please?
Free market = business are free to do whatever they want.
No they're not. They're not allowed to steal, counterfeit, de-fraud, enslave, etc. The market is merely freedom of contract to trade, sell, or barter property titles, with property being defined generally as deriving first from self-proprietorship (self-ownership), to Non-proviso Lockean Homesteading. There is a clear line of justice, rights, and moral inquiry that is required for Laissez-Faire.
On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation).
What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework.
Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream free market has ever lasted.
Wrong. Go read polticially incorrect guide to capitalism by Robert Murphy. You honestly haven't throught this through.
He's wrong. See, that simple.
I wrote in the same way as you did. You claimed that it led to disaster. But there was no argumentation. Honestly there are tons of people like you, who thinks they understand how the free market works, but they don't really. They only know what they been told by parents/teachers/politicans who doesn't get it either.
It would take me a lot of time to explain it to you ( I have done that in other threads but its very time consuming), so instead I advice you to read that book. Now tell me why he is wrong.
So your not going to bother.
I don't need to explain why a pure free market doesn't work for the same reason I don't need to explain why the easter bunny doesn't exist. Emprically it doesn't exist other than as a idealist concept that certain academics and US politicians have a fetish for.
Somalia and Antarctica have no government intervention in buisness. Neither has roaring economies.
I could just as easily speculate about an omniscience computer with limitless processing power with complete command over an economy which could operate at 100% work rate and 100% energy efficency in all tasks consistently and outperforming a free markets human operators at every single process due to total information awareness. Guess what though, it doesn't exist.
On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation).
What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework.
Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream free market has ever lasted.
Wrong. Go read polticially incorrect guide to capitalism by Robert Murphy. You honestly haven't throught this through.
He's wrong. See, that simple.
I wrote in the same way as you did. You claimed that it led to disaster. But there was no argumentation. Honestly there are tons of people like you, who thinks they understand how the free market works, but they don't really. They only know what they been told by parents/teachers/politicans who doesn't get it either.
It would take me a lot of time to explain it to you ( I have done that in other threads but its very time consuming), so instead I advice you to read that book. Now tell me why he is wrong.
So your not going to bother.
I don't need to explain why a pure free market doesn't work for the same reason I don't need to explain why the easter bunny doesn't exist. Emprically it doesn't exist other than as a idealist concept that certain academics and US politicians have a fetish for.
Somalia and Antarctica have no government intervention in buisness. Neither has roaring economies.
I could just as easily speculate about an omniscience computer with limitless processing power with complete command over an economy which could operate at 100% work rate and 100% energy efficency in all tasks consistently and outperforming a free markets human operators at every single process due to total information awareness. Guess what though, it doesn't exist.
Agreed. A common problem with free market fundamentalists and Austrians.
They live in a fantasyland, not in the real world.
On March 15 2012 23:45 paralleluniverse wrote: To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
Your assumption that in a Laissez-Faire economy Universities would be expensive is simply absurd. You make the oh-so-common mistake of assuming the price in the Corporatist-Statist economy we have today is reflective of a market economy. It's like telling Richard Cobden he's an absolute moron, and that laissez-faire free-trade will not work, and thus, the Anti-Corn Laws would only make food available for the rich because right now food prices are astronomically high...is completely absurd.
Prices are high for secondary-Education precisely because of Government policies. It wasn't even that long ago you could afford a good University working part-time usually waiting tables, or other relatively low-skill jobs. Of course, there wasn't the insane amount of intervention there is today. Those guaranteed Government loans are a major factor for the explosion of the price of tuition, board, and other associated University costs. It would be the same in any other industry the Government instituted guaranteed loans. Imagine there were Government guaranteed loans to pretty much anyone to buy a car. All the car companies would be ecstatic. Prices would continually rise because the Government is there giving these loans out as they do not care about profit or loss, but are politically motivated, and the money they receive they receive no matter what either from taxation or from counterfeiting (Fed Reserve).
You would probably make the same argument against me if I said that the Government should stop interfering in the car sector because I only want the rich to have one, or something absurd. The two main factors for rising prices across the board (or individualized sectors) is watch where Fed money gets funneled to first (through the Government allocation) and watch the rate of increase of new money creation. You will find that prices rise precisely in the associated industry much faster than anywhere else. Richard Cantillon noted this 300+ years ago. He made a lot of money because of his knowledge.
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
1) People make cost-benefit calculations every single day, every single time they make a decision. NPV analysis is bascially a cost-benefit calculation involving a series of expected cash flows. In the end value is destroyed if NPV = less than 0. If NPV is above 0 value is created. Of course people actually dont think in terms of discount rate or try to calculate these numbers. However they can still make a much better judgement than the government.
If people are taking a high expensive education even though they don't think it has a positive NPV, but that it will still be worth in terms of cost-benefit (e.g. it gives prestige), then economic value is destroyed. The soceity as a whole is worse of in economic goods. But so what? In a free society the guy who paid for prestige is the only paying. In a public society the guy is getting the prestige for free and tax payers are paying for this prestige.
2) Today the NPV calcuations are manipulated as univisties are free.
3) Universities are supposed to operate like any other business. There are no need for other purposes. Sure I get that purposes are different today, but as I have tried to argue, this is dumb IMO.
4) Did you even read my post - I actually clearly argued why high income isn't a neccesitiy to be able to take an education (future expected income is)
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population
I agree that if people are taking an educaiton they are not supposed to take then its a "waste" of human capital from an economical perspective. But if we ignore the fact that its his familiy or him self who wastes those money on that kind of education for the reasoning of prestige (and not taxpayers). Do you really think that public univeristies are more efficient economically than private?
Today people can take a lot of worthless educations, because they don't care about the costs. How come you haven't even mentioned this in your waste of human ressources?
Its btw a myth that public educaiton is a positive externailiy. This is just assuming that more people taking an educaiton = better no matter what. But its only better if the NPV is positive (as I have previsouly argued).
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
Your assumption that in a Laissez-Faire economy Universities would be expensive is simply absurd. You make the oh-so-common mistake of assuming the price in the Corporatist-Statist economy we have today is reflective of a market economy. It's like telling Richard Cobden he's an absolute moron, and that laissez-faire free-trade will not work, and thus, the Anti-Corn Laws would only make food available for the rich because right now food prices are astronomically high...is completely absurd.
Prices are high for secondary-Education precisely because of Government policies. It wasn't even that long ago you could afford a good University working part-time usually waiting tables, or other relatively low-skill jobs. Of course, there wasn't the insane amount of intervention there is today. Those guaranteed Government loans are a major factor for the explosion of the price of tuition, board, and other associated University costs. It would be the same in any other industry the Government instituted guaranteed loans. Imagine there were Government guaranteed loans to pretty much anyone to buy a car. All the car companies would be ecstatic. Prices would continually rise because the Government is there giving these loans out as they do not care about profit or loss, but are politically motivated, and the money they receive they receive no matter what either from taxation or from counterfeiting (Fed Reserve).
You would probably make the same argument against me if I said that the Government should stop interfering in the car sector because I only want the rich to have one, or something absurd. The two main factors for rising prices across the board (or individualized sectors) is watch where Fed money gets funneled to first (through the Government allocation) and watch the rate of increase of new money creation. You will find that prices rise precisely in the associated industry much faster than anywhere else. Richard Cantillon noted this 300+ years ago. He made a lot of money because of his knowledge.
Shame so many are so unaware of the problem.
You make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of their private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good than most private companies.
Also to subsidize the cost of of university education isn't voodoo economics. It's basic microeconomics that government should subsidize positive externalities.
Finally, the cost of universities is perfectly fine. It's free in Europe, and it's essentially feels free in Australia. I have no complaints about the cost of university.
In italy you pay beetwen 0 and 1200 usd a year, depending on your family income. Private universities are rare here, as public ones have a very high standards and there is a public university where only students with top grades can get into, witht the same rates. Cost are payed majorly with taxes, which in italy are very high, 40 % about. Due to the high demand, certain faculties like medicine, some enginering programs and law have a limited amout of places available.
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
1) People make cost-benefit calculations every single day, every single time they make a decision. NPV analysis is bascially a cost-benefit calculation involving a series of expected cash flows. In the end value is destroyed if NPV = less than 0. If NPV is above 0 value is created. Of course people actually dont think in terms of discount rate or try to calculate these numbers. However they can still make a much better judgement than the government.
If people are taking a high expensive education even though they don't think it has a positive NPV, but that it will still be worth in terms of cost-benefit (e.g. it gives prestige), then economic value is destroyed. The soceity as a whole is worse of in economic goods. But so what? In a free society the guy who paid for prestige is the only paying. In a public society the guy is getting the prestige for free and tax payers are paying for this prestige.
2) Today the NPV calcuations are manipulated as univisties are free.
3) Universities are supposed to operate like any other business. There are no need for other purposes. Sure I get that purposes are different today, but as I have tried to argue, this is dumb IMO.
4) Did you even read my post - I actually clearly argued why high income isn't a neccesitiy to be able to take an education (future expected income is)
What's the NPV of your university education? Walk me through it.
Tell me what model you used to project your income if you went to uni, and how you project it if you didn't.
Now explain to me the interest rate model you used to estimate the rate at which you discount the cash flows projected in the first step. Was it it Vasicek model? If so, explain how you would learn such a model before going to uni in the first place?
Then finally put all this together and calculate the NPV.
Bonus marks: Incorporate utility theory into the above analysis to account for the fact that, say, a certain person may prefer to earn $50,000 a year as a scientist, than $50,000 a year as a factory worker.
On March 15 2012 23:37 FinalForm wrote: If you don't subsidize education, then the rich will pay for good education and the poor will skimp on it. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That leads to greater social unrest such as protests.
How did those rich pepole become rich, and poor, in the first place? By luck? In the turn of the last century, more than 50% of the US's population lived under the poverty line, so it's obviously not "old money" that made most of today's rich pepole (upper decile) rich. There's a huge correlation between IQ and Economic Status these days, the pepole who were smart made good decisions and learned, and thus they earned money, stupid pepole made stupid mistakes and got poor.
So far, while taking Socioeconomic status into consideration, the correlation index of Intelligence (as gauged by IQ points) stands at 0.6, this is a lot, so it seems that being smart leads to having more money in the first place.
On March 15 2012 23:37 FinalForm wrote: If you don't subsidize education, then the rich will pay for good education and the poor will skimp on it. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That leads to greater social unrest such as protests.
How did those rich pepole become rich, and poor, in the first place? By luck? In the turn of the last century, more than 50% of the US's population lived under the poverty line, so it's obviously not "old money" that made most of today's rich pepole (upper decile) rich. There's a huge correlation between IQ and Economic Status these days, the pepole who were smart made good decisions and learned, and thus they earned money, stupid pepole made stupid mistakes and got poor.
So far, while taking Socioeconomic status into consideration, the correlation index of Intelligence (as gauged by IQ points) stands at 0.6, this is a lot, so it seems that being smart leads to having more money in the first place.
People are rich because they were born into rich parents.
Economic mobility is very low in the US, meaning that the 50% below the poverty line (citation needed on your claim) is likely still below there, and those above it are likely the rich ones.
On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy?
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
1) People make cost-benefit calculations every single day, every single time they make a decision. NPV analysis is bascially a cost-benefit calculation involving a series of expected cash flows. In the end value is destroyed if NPV = less than 0. If NPV is above 0 value is created. Of course people actually dont think in terms of discount rate or try to calculate these numbers. However they can still make a much better judgement than the government.
If people are taking a high expensive education even though they don't think it has a positive NPV, but that it will still be worth in terms of cost-benefit (e.g. it gives prestige), then economic value is destroyed. The soceity as a whole is worse of in economic goods. But so what? In a free society the guy who paid for prestige is the only paying. In a public society the guy is getting the prestige for free and tax payers are paying for this prestige.
2) Today the NPV calcuations are manipulated as univisties are free.
3) Universities are supposed to operate like any other business. There are no need for other purposes. Sure I get that purposes are different today, but as I have tried to argue, this is dumb IMO.
4) Did you even read my post - I actually clearly argued why high income isn't a neccesitiy to be able to take an education (future expected income is)
What's the NPV of your university education? Walk me through it.
Tell me what model you used to project your income if you went to uni, and how you project it if you didn't.
Now explain to me the interest rate model you used to estimate the rate at which you discount the cash flows projected in the first step.
Then finally put all this together and calculate the NPV.
Well assume I am 20 years old and that I plan to work till I am 70. I am considering whether to take a 5 year education. I estimate that with only a high school education I would be able to earn 50.000$ year (yeh danish wages are pretty high), and if I take that education my wage will be 80.000$ year (average number, obv. i could do it more implicated by assuming that I would have a higher income around the age of 50 than 26). If I take this education it will be relatively easy for me to get a job, and lets say for simpliciity that there are no price increases, so I use a relatively low discount rate of 5% year.
I know I always can get any kind of job paying 50.000$/year with a 100% certainity, and since there are no uncertainity involving taking a loan the discount rate if i do not take an education is equal to the time value of money, which we assume is 3%.
The education costs me 200.000$, which I will have to borrow. The banks look at my grades from high school, perhaps they ask me some questions about what I want to do in life, and what kind of person I am (perhaps they don't, who knows what the free market will do). Then they decide to charge me 2% in interest on those 200.000$ (since they assume that there will be no inflation forever).
I assume that starting by year 6 I will be able to pay back 10.000$/year on my debt. By year 6 total debt will be 221.000. This will take me around 30 years to pay back the debt (incl. interests). Hence for 30 years my expected income will be 70.000$ instead of 80.000$.
Annuity (not taking an education) = 1/0,03-1/(0,03*1,03^55) = 26.77. Annuity (taking an educaiton) = 1/0,05 - 1/(0,05*1,05^50) = 18.25.
PV of not taking an education = 50.000 * 26.77 = 1,338,721 Present value of taking an education = 1,277,915
Hence if above numbers are correct, taking an education has negative NPV. So the wages are supposed to be higher than 80.000$ (or not taking an education is supposed to be lower than 50.000$).
I don't expect that everyone ( in a free society ) will sit down and analyze these numbers, but they will at least consider them. Today they are not considered, and this destroys value.
EDIT: Just realized I forgot to take into account that after year 35 if i took an education my wage would be 80.000 (instead of 70.000). Probably makes taking an educaiton costefficient. Edit 2: Bank interest rate is too low to be realistic (as it is below time value of money, should prob. be 4%).
On March 15 2012 23:37 FinalForm wrote: If you don't subsidize education, then the rich will pay for good education and the poor will skimp on it. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That leads to greater social unrest such as protests.
How did those rich pepole become rich, and poor, in the first place? By luck? In the turn of the last century, more than 50% of the US's population lived under the poverty line, so it's obviously not "old money" that made most of today's rich pepole (upper decile) rich. There's a huge correlation between IQ and Economic Status these days, the pepole who were smart made good decisions and learned, and thus they earned money, stupid pepole made stupid mistakes and got poor.
So far, while taking Socioeconomic status into consideration, the correlation index of Intelligence (as gauged by IQ points) stands at 0.6, this is a lot, so it seems that being smart leads to having more money in the first place.
Being smart was enough before, now you need to show a piece of paper named diploma (you can always show me the case of recent "self made men" but overall that's it. So if they can't even access to uni they are screwed.
On March 15 2012 23:37 FinalForm wrote: If you don't subsidize education, then the rich will pay for good education and the poor will skimp on it. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That leads to greater social unrest such as protests.
How did those rich pepole become rich, and poor, in the first place? By luck? In the turn of the last century, more than 50% of the US's population lived under the poverty line, so it's obviously not "old money" that made most of today's rich pepole (upper decile) rich. There's a huge correlation between IQ and Economic Status these days, the pepole who were smart made good decisions and learned, and thus they earned money, stupid pepole made stupid mistakes and got poor.
So far, while taking Socioeconomic status into consideration, the correlation index of Intelligence (as gauged by IQ points) stands at 0.6, this is a lot, so it seems that being smart leads to having more money in the first place.
We live in a society that generally rewards smart people with cash. It's your decision if you want to strengthen those mechanisms or weaken them.
All humans are born with different intelligence on a normal distribution, and of course these intelligences can be further ripened with a great education or atrophied with a poor one.
Any policy that allows freedom for intelligent and smart people to skyrocket and solidify their gains will also further deepen the misery of the less intelligent.
A larger divide between the two creates social unrest.
There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider.
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
1) People make cost-benefit calculations every single day, every single time they make a decision. NPV analysis is bascially a cost-benefit calculation involving a series of expected cash flows. In the end value is destroyed if NPV = less than 0. If NPV is above 0 value is created. Of course people actually dont think in terms of discount rate or try to calculate these numbers. However they can still make a much better judgement than the government.
If people are taking a high expensive education even though they don't think it has a positive NPV, but that it will still be worth in terms of cost-benefit (e.g. it gives prestige), then economic value is destroyed. The soceity as a whole is worse of in economic goods. But so what? In a free society the guy who paid for prestige is the only paying. In a public society the guy is getting the prestige for free and tax payers are paying for this prestige.
2) Today the NPV calcuations are manipulated as univisties are free.
3) Universities are supposed to operate like any other business. There are no need for other purposes. Sure I get that purposes are different today, but as I have tried to argue, this is dumb IMO.
4) Did you even read my post - I actually clearly argued why high income isn't a neccesitiy to be able to take an education (future expected income is)
What's the NPV of your university education? Walk me through it.
Tell me what model you used to project your income if you went to uni, and how you project it if you didn't.
Now explain to me the interest rate model you used to estimate the rate at which you discount the cash flows projected in the first step.
Then finally put all this together and calculate the NPV.
Well assume I am 20 years old and that I plan to work till I am 70.
How do you know you'll work until you're 70? Maybe you'll be disabled in an accident. Maybe you'll get hit by a bus.
I am considering whether to take a 5 year education. I estimate that with only a high school education I would be able to earn 50.000$ year (yeh danish wages are pretty high),
Based on what? How do you know your income will always be $50,000 a year?
Surely you'll earn less at the start and more as you get older. What about increases in income due to inflation?
and if I take that education my wage will be 80.000$ year (average number, obv. i could do it more implicated by assuming that I would have a higher income around the age of 50 than 26).
Based on what? How do you know your income will always be $80,000 a year?
Surely you'll earn less at the start and more as you get older. What about increases in income due to inflation?
If I take this education it will be relatively easy for me to get a job, and lets say for simpliciity that there are no price increases, so I use a relatively low discount rate of 5% year.
Why would there be no price increases? Your assumption is wrong in the real world.
A discount rate of 5%? Why always 5%? Interest rates are more like 1% now.
Where did you take into account the autoregressive behavior of interest rates?
I know I always can get any kind of job paying 50.000$/year with a 100% certainity, and since there are no uncertainity involving taking a loan the discount rate if i do not take an education is equal to the time value of money, which we assume is 3%.
No, you can't know that with certainty. What if there's a double-dip recession caused by Greece leaving the Euro and unemployment increases to 30% because of government inaction?
The education costs me 200.000$, which I will have to borrow. The banks look at my grades from high school, perhaps they ask me some questions about what I want to do in life, and what kind of person I am (perhaps they don't, who knows what the free market will do). Then they decide to charge me 2% in interest on those 200.000$ (since they assume that there will be no inflation forever).
How do you know that's how much your education costs? What if tuition fees increase?
Your assumption of 0 inflation is absurd and completely wrong.
I assume that starting by year 6 I will be able to pay back 10.000$/year on my debt. By year 6 total debt will be 221.000. This will take me around 30 years to pay back the debt (incl. interests). Hence for 30 years my expected income will be 70.000$ instead of 80.000$.
Again, how did you pull these numbers out of your ass?
Annuity (not taking an education) = 1/0,03-1/(0,03*1,03^55) = 26.77. Annuity (taking an educaiton) = 1/0,05 - 1/(0,05*1,05^50) = 18.25.
PV of not taking an education = 50.000 * 26.77 = 1,338,721 Present value of taking an education = 1,277,915
Hence if above numbers are correct, taking an education has negative NPV. So the wages are supposed to be higher than 80.000$ (or not taking an education is supposed to be lower than 50.000$).
I don't expect that everyone ( in a free society ) will sit down and analyze these numbers, but they will at least consider them. Today they are not considered, and this destroys value.
No. NO ONE will take these numbers seriously.
These numbers are concocted and based on delusional and false assumptions.
It would be laughable to take this with even a grain of salt. You would be making a colossal act of stupidity to take calculations based off invented numbers seriously, because the true values are not even remotely knowable.
And where did you account for the utility of a person getting more enjoyment and happiness working as, say, a scientist, which requires university education, for $50,000 a year, than working as a factory worker for $50,000 a year?
Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works.
It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
1) People make cost-benefit calculations every single day, every single time they make a decision. NPV analysis is bascially a cost-benefit calculation involving a series of expected cash flows. In the end value is destroyed if NPV = less than 0. If NPV is above 0 value is created. Of course people actually dont think in terms of discount rate or try to calculate these numbers. However they can still make a much better judgement than the government.
If people are taking a high expensive education even though they don't think it has a positive NPV, but that it will still be worth in terms of cost-benefit (e.g. it gives prestige), then economic value is destroyed. The soceity as a whole is worse of in economic goods. But so what? In a free society the guy who paid for prestige is the only paying. In a public society the guy is getting the prestige for free and tax payers are paying for this prestige.
2) Today the NPV calcuations are manipulated as univisties are free.
3) Universities are supposed to operate like any other business. There are no need for other purposes. Sure I get that purposes are different today, but as I have tried to argue, this is dumb IMO.
4) Did you even read my post - I actually clearly argued why high income isn't a neccesitiy to be able to take an education (future expected income is)
What's the NPV of your university education? Walk me through it.
Tell me what model you used to project your income if you went to uni, and how you project it if you didn't.
Now explain to me the interest rate model you used to estimate the rate at which you discount the cash flows projected in the first step.
Then finally put all this together and calculate the NPV.
Well assume I am 20 years old and that I plan to work till I am 70.
How do you know you'll work until you're 70? Maybe you'll be disabled in an accident. Maybe you'll get hit by a bus.
I am considering whether to take a 5 year education. I estimate that with only a high school education I would be able to earn 50.000$ year (yeh danish wages are pretty high),
Based on what? How do you know your income will always be $50,000 a year?
Surely you'll earn less at the start and more as you get older. What about increases in income due to inflation?
and if I take that education my wage will be 80.000$ year (average number, obv. i could do it more implicated by assuming that I would have a higher income around the age of 50 than 26).
Based on what? How do you know your income will always be $80,000 a year?
Surely you'll earn less at the start and more as you get older. What about increases in income due to inflation?
If I take this education it will be relatively easy for me to get a job, and lets say for simpliciity that there are no price increases, so I use a relatively low discount rate of 5% year.
Why would there be no price increases? Your assumption is wrong in the real world.
A discount rate of 5%? Why always 5%? Interest rates are more like 1% now.
Where did you take into account the autoregressive behavior of interest rates?
I know I always can get any kind of job paying 50.000$/year with a 100% certainity, and since there are no uncertainity involving taking a loan the discount rate if i do not take an education is equal to the time value of money, which we assume is 3%.
No, you can't know that with certainty. What if there's a double-dip recession caused by Greece leaving the Euro and unemployment increases to 30% because of government inaction?
The education costs me 200.000$, which I will have to borrow. The banks look at my grades from high school, perhaps they ask me some questions about what I want to do in life, and what kind of person I am (perhaps they don't, who knows what the free market will do). Then they decide to charge me 2% in interest on those 200.000$ (since they assume that there will be no inflation forever).
How do you know that's how much your education costs? What if tuition fees increase?
Your assumption of 0 inflation is absurd and completely wrong.
I assume that starting by year 6 I will be able to pay back 10.000$/year on my debt. By year 6 total debt will be 221.000. This will take me around 30 years to pay back the debt (incl. interests). Hence for 30 years my expected income will be 70.000$ instead of 80.000$.
Again, how did you pull these numbers out of your ass?
Annuity (not taking an education) = 1/0,03-1/(0,03*1,03^55) = 26.77. Annuity (taking an educaiton) = 1/0,05 - 1/(0,05*1,05^50) = 18.25.
PV of not taking an education = 50.000 * 26.77 = 1,338,721 Present value of taking an education = 1,277,915
Hence if above numbers are correct, taking an education has negative NPV. So the wages are supposed to be higher than 80.000$ (or not taking an education is supposed to be lower than 50.000$).
I don't expect that everyone ( in a free society ) will sit down and analyze these numbers, but they will at least consider them. Today they are not considered, and this destroys value.
No. NO ONE will take these numbers seriously.
These numbers are concocted and based on delusional and false assumptions.
It would be laughable to take this with even a grain of salt. You would be making a colossal act of stupidity to take calculations based off invented numbers seriously, because the true values are not even remotely knowable.
And where did you account for the utility of a person getting more enjoyment and happiness working as, say, a scientist, which requires university education, for $50,000 a year, than working as a factory worker for $50,000 a year?
Hmm yeh you dont understand how NPV works. Noone knows future income, or for how long time they work. COmpanies do not either. But thats why they use estimates, and discount the uncertainity by the time value of money + a risk premium. If the numbers are very uncertain you use a higher discount rate.
But the numbers aren't pulled out of my ass: One can go and check the average wage for someone having taking that education, and use those estimates. It isn't nessacarily rocket science.
And btw the inflation number was just used for simplicity (which I wrote - becasue it doesn't change how NPV works if there are price increase. It just makes it more complicated). Surprised you actually cared about the specific numbers instead of the idea behind the principle.
On March 15 2012 22:24 TanTzoR wrote: [quote] It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
1) People make cost-benefit calculations every single day, every single time they make a decision. NPV analysis is bascially a cost-benefit calculation involving a series of expected cash flows. In the end value is destroyed if NPV = less than 0. If NPV is above 0 value is created. Of course people actually dont think in terms of discount rate or try to calculate these numbers. However they can still make a much better judgement than the government.
If people are taking a high expensive education even though they don't think it has a positive NPV, but that it will still be worth in terms of cost-benefit (e.g. it gives prestige), then economic value is destroyed. The soceity as a whole is worse of in economic goods. But so what? In a free society the guy who paid for prestige is the only paying. In a public society the guy is getting the prestige for free and tax payers are paying for this prestige.
2) Today the NPV calcuations are manipulated as univisties are free.
3) Universities are supposed to operate like any other business. There are no need for other purposes. Sure I get that purposes are different today, but as I have tried to argue, this is dumb IMO.
4) Did you even read my post - I actually clearly argued why high income isn't a neccesitiy to be able to take an education (future expected income is)
What's the NPV of your university education? Walk me through it.
Tell me what model you used to project your income if you went to uni, and how you project it if you didn't.
Now explain to me the interest rate model you used to estimate the rate at which you discount the cash flows projected in the first step.
Then finally put all this together and calculate the NPV.
Well assume I am 20 years old and that I plan to work till I am 70.
How do you know you'll work until you're 70? Maybe you'll be disabled in an accident. Maybe you'll get hit by a bus.
I am considering whether to take a 5 year education. I estimate that with only a high school education I would be able to earn 50.000$ year (yeh danish wages are pretty high),
Based on what? How do you know your income will always be $50,000 a year?
Surely you'll earn less at the start and more as you get older. What about increases in income due to inflation?
and if I take that education my wage will be 80.000$ year (average number, obv. i could do it more implicated by assuming that I would have a higher income around the age of 50 than 26).
Based on what? How do you know your income will always be $80,000 a year?
Surely you'll earn less at the start and more as you get older. What about increases in income due to inflation?
If I take this education it will be relatively easy for me to get a job, and lets say for simpliciity that there are no price increases, so I use a relatively low discount rate of 5% year.
Why would there be no price increases? Your assumption is wrong in the real world.
A discount rate of 5%? Why always 5%? Interest rates are more like 1% now.
Where did you take into account the autoregressive behavior of interest rates?
I know I always can get any kind of job paying 50.000$/year with a 100% certainity, and since there are no uncertainity involving taking a loan the discount rate if i do not take an education is equal to the time value of money, which we assume is 3%.
No, you can't know that with certainty. What if there's a double-dip recession caused by Greece leaving the Euro and unemployment increases to 30% because of government inaction?
The education costs me 200.000$, which I will have to borrow. The banks look at my grades from high school, perhaps they ask me some questions about what I want to do in life, and what kind of person I am (perhaps they don't, who knows what the free market will do). Then they decide to charge me 2% in interest on those 200.000$ (since they assume that there will be no inflation forever).
How do you know that's how much your education costs? What if tuition fees increase?
Your assumption of 0 inflation is absurd and completely wrong.
I assume that starting by year 6 I will be able to pay back 10.000$/year on my debt. By year 6 total debt will be 221.000. This will take me around 30 years to pay back the debt (incl. interests). Hence for 30 years my expected income will be 70.000$ instead of 80.000$.
Again, how did you pull these numbers out of your ass?
Annuity (not taking an education) = 1/0,03-1/(0,03*1,03^55) = 26.77. Annuity (taking an educaiton) = 1/0,05 - 1/(0,05*1,05^50) = 18.25.
PV of not taking an education = 50.000 * 26.77 = 1,338,721 Present value of taking an education = 1,277,915
Hence if above numbers are correct, taking an education has negative NPV. So the wages are supposed to be higher than 80.000$ (or not taking an education is supposed to be lower than 50.000$).
I don't expect that everyone ( in a free society ) will sit down and analyze these numbers, but they will at least consider them. Today they are not considered, and this destroys value.
No. NO ONE will take these numbers seriously.
These numbers are concocted and based on delusional and false assumptions.
It would be laughable to take this with even a grain of salt. You would be making a colossal act of stupidity to take calculations based off invented numbers seriously, because the true values are not even remotely knowable.
And where did you account for the utility of a person getting more enjoyment and happiness working as, say, a scientist, which requires university education, for $50,000 a year, than working as a factory worker for $50,000 a year?
Hmm yeh you dont understand how NPV works. Noone knows future income, or for how long time they work. COmpanies do not either. But thats why they use estimates, and discount the uncertainity by the time value of money + a risk premium. If the numbers are very uncertain you use a higher discount rate.
But the numbers aren't pulled out of my ass: One can go and check the average wage for someone having taking that education, and use those estimates. It isn't nessacarily rocket science.
And btw the inflation number was just used for simplicity (which I wrote - becasue it doesn't change how NPV works if there are price increase. It just makes it more complicated). Surprised you actually cared about the specific numbers instead of the idea behind the principle.
Companies don't make decisions solely based on NPV because they understand the the limitations involved. People are not robots. NPV is in fact usually only suitable for short term projects where the cash flows and interest rates can be estimated with some certainty, and only profit matters. Humans do not only value profit, but also utility.
To estimate the amount of money you make now until you die is as good as pulling a number out of your ass, and that's exactly what you did. Your NPV is absolutely and completely wrong based on the thousands of guesses that has gone into it's components.
Garbage in, garbage out.
You strike me as someone who has done a course in finance and economics involving mostly mechanical computations, while having no understanding of how theory is applied in practice. There are various other project appraisal methods in finance and a large number of qualitative considerations that matters in practice.
Indeed, while your usage of NPV is completely wrong in practice, allow me to give you an example of correctly using NPV for valuation of long term risk. NPV can be applied to life insurance contracts, because there is a well defined payout on such a contract, and the probability of death at every year can be estimated from an actuarial table. While this death rate is not representative of any particular person, it is representative of the general population, so given a large number of life insurance contracts, the ENPV, i.e. expected NPV is somewhat accurate on average.
This is a correct an useful application of NPV for long tail risk. Using NPV to measure the benefit of university education by making guesses and false assumptions at every line is utterly worthless.
Indeed, nobody does it. NPV isn't even taught in high school.
On March 16 2012 01:22 Hider wrote: Hmm yeh you dont understand how NPV works.
Don't try to degrade his intelligence, it seems like he actually do understands NPV, especially, he understands better than you why normal people doesn't use NPVs.
This coming from someone who ALSO knows NPV/investment theory/financing/microeconomics/macroeconomics..
Although your point in theory is correct, the theory is not applicable to practise in any useful way.
On March 16 2012 01:44 paralleluniverse wrote: Indeed, while your usage of NPV is completely wrong in practice, allow me to give you an example of correctly using NPV for valuation of long term risk. NPV can be applied to life insurance contracts, because there is a well defined payout on such a contract, and the probability of death at every year can be estimated from an actuarial table. While this death rate is not representative of any particular person, it is representative of the general population, so given a large number of life insurance contracts, the ENPV, i.e. expected NPV is somewhat accurate on average.
This is a correct an useful application of NPV for long tail risk. Using NPV to measure the benefit of university education by making guesses and false assumptions at every line is utterly worthless.
Indeed, nobody does it. NPV isn't even taught in high school.
So basically, who will be born clever and who will not is a largely a matter of chance. The next Einstein could be borne anywhere in the world - into any kind of economic conditions. So having high fees for education increases the chance that the next Einstein wont afford higher education. Thus, low/no fees for higher education is something that benefits everyone in the society, since only the intellect will be the measure for who gets education and who doesn't.
Although your point in theory is correct, the theory is not applicable to practise in any useful way.
If theory involves making stuff up, then his point in theory is correct.
Yeah, if he substituted cash for utillity, then the theory would somewhat hold. Assuming lots and lots of stuff, like knowing the discount rate for utillity and a million other things.
On March 15 2012 23:37 FinalForm wrote: If you don't subsidize education, then the rich will pay for good education and the poor will skimp on it. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That leads to greater social unrest such as protests.
How did those rich pepole become rich, and poor, in the first place? By luck? In the turn of the last century, more than 50% of the US's population lived under the poverty line, so it's obviously not "old money" that made most of today's rich pepole (upper decile) rich. There's a huge correlation between IQ and Economic Status these days, the pepole who were smart made good decisions and learned, and thus they earned money, stupid pepole made stupid mistakes and got poor.
So far, while taking Socioeconomic status into consideration, the correlation index of Intelligence (as gauged by IQ points) stands at 0.6, this is a lot, so it seems that being smart leads to having more money in the first place.
Being smart was enough before, now you need to show a piece of paper named diploma (you can always show me the case of recent "self made men" but overall that's it. So if they can't even access to uni they are screwed.
By "the last century" I meant the beginning of the 20th, my mistake, my point was that smart pepole have already detached themselves, with the education they gained in 1920-1960, so there are very few poor brilliant pepole.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
1) People make cost-benefit calculations every single day, every single time they make a decision. NPV analysis is bascially a cost-benefit calculation involving a series of expected cash flows. In the end value is destroyed if NPV = less than 0. If NPV is above 0 value is created. Of course people actually dont think in terms of discount rate or try to calculate these numbers. However they can still make a much better judgement than the government.
If people are taking a high expensive education even though they don't think it has a positive NPV, but that it will still be worth in terms of cost-benefit (e.g. it gives prestige), then economic value is destroyed. The soceity as a whole is worse of in economic goods. But so what? In a free society the guy who paid for prestige is the only paying. In a public society the guy is getting the prestige for free and tax payers are paying for this prestige.
2) Today the NPV calcuations are manipulated as univisties are free.
3) Universities are supposed to operate like any other business. There are no need for other purposes. Sure I get that purposes are different today, but as I have tried to argue, this is dumb IMO.
4) Did you even read my post - I actually clearly argued why high income isn't a neccesitiy to be able to take an education (future expected income is)
What's the NPV of your university education? Walk me through it.
Tell me what model you used to project your income if you went to uni, and how you project it if you didn't.
Now explain to me the interest rate model you used to estimate the rate at which you discount the cash flows projected in the first step.
Then finally put all this together and calculate the NPV.
Well assume I am 20 years old and that I plan to work till I am 70.
How do you know you'll work until you're 70? Maybe you'll be disabled in an accident. Maybe you'll get hit by a bus.
I am considering whether to take a 5 year education. I estimate that with only a high school education I would be able to earn 50.000$ year (yeh danish wages are pretty high),
Based on what? How do you know your income will always be $50,000 a year?
Surely you'll earn less at the start and more as you get older. What about increases in income due to inflation?
and if I take that education my wage will be 80.000$ year (average number, obv. i could do it more implicated by assuming that I would have a higher income around the age of 50 than 26).
Based on what? How do you know your income will always be $80,000 a year?
Surely you'll earn less at the start and more as you get older. What about increases in income due to inflation?
If I take this education it will be relatively easy for me to get a job, and lets say for simpliciity that there are no price increases, so I use a relatively low discount rate of 5% year.
Why would there be no price increases? Your assumption is wrong in the real world.
A discount rate of 5%? Why always 5%? Interest rates are more like 1% now.
Where did you take into account the autoregressive behavior of interest rates?
I know I always can get any kind of job paying 50.000$/year with a 100% certainity, and since there are no uncertainity involving taking a loan the discount rate if i do not take an education is equal to the time value of money, which we assume is 3%.
No, you can't know that with certainty. What if there's a double-dip recession caused by Greece leaving the Euro and unemployment increases to 30% because of government inaction?
The education costs me 200.000$, which I will have to borrow. The banks look at my grades from high school, perhaps they ask me some questions about what I want to do in life, and what kind of person I am (perhaps they don't, who knows what the free market will do). Then they decide to charge me 2% in interest on those 200.000$ (since they assume that there will be no inflation forever).
How do you know that's how much your education costs? What if tuition fees increase?
Your assumption of 0 inflation is absurd and completely wrong.
I assume that starting by year 6 I will be able to pay back 10.000$/year on my debt. By year 6 total debt will be 221.000. This will take me around 30 years to pay back the debt (incl. interests). Hence for 30 years my expected income will be 70.000$ instead of 80.000$.
Again, how did you pull these numbers out of your ass?
Annuity (not taking an education) = 1/0,03-1/(0,03*1,03^55) = 26.77. Annuity (taking an educaiton) = 1/0,05 - 1/(0,05*1,05^50) = 18.25.
PV of not taking an education = 50.000 * 26.77 = 1,338,721 Present value of taking an education = 1,277,915
Hence if above numbers are correct, taking an education has negative NPV. So the wages are supposed to be higher than 80.000$ (or not taking an education is supposed to be lower than 50.000$).
I don't expect that everyone ( in a free society ) will sit down and analyze these numbers, but they will at least consider them. Today they are not considered, and this destroys value.
No. NO ONE will take these numbers seriously.
These numbers are concocted and based on delusional and false assumptions.
It would be laughable to take this with even a grain of salt. You would be making a colossal act of stupidity to take calculations based off invented numbers seriously, because the true values are not even remotely knowable.
And where did you account for the utility of a person getting more enjoyment and happiness working as, say, a scientist, which requires university education, for $50,000 a year, than working as a factory worker for $50,000 a year?
Hmm yeh you dont understand how NPV works. Noone knows future income, or for how long time they work. COmpanies do not either. But thats why they use estimates, and discount the uncertainity by the time value of money + a risk premium. If the numbers are very uncertain you use a higher discount rate.
But the numbers aren't pulled out of my ass: One can go and check the average wage for someone having taking that education, and use those estimates. It isn't nessacarily rocket science.
And btw the inflation number was just used for simplicity (which I wrote - becasue it doesn't change how NPV works if there are price increase. It just makes it more complicated). Surprised you actually cared about the specific numbers instead of the idea behind the principle.
Companies don't make decisions solely based on NPV because they understand the the limitations involved. People are not robots. NPV is in fact usually only suitable for short term projects where the cash flows and interest rates can be estimated with some certainty, and only profit matters. Humans do not only value profit, but also utility.
To estimate the amount of money you make now until you die is as good as pulling a number out of your ass, and that's exactly what you did. Your NPV is absolutely and completely wrong based on the thousands of guesses that has gone into it's components.
Garbage in, garbage out.
You strike me as someone who has done a course in finance and economics involving mostly mechanical computations, while having no understanding of how theory is applied in practice. There are various other project appraisal methods in finance and a large number of qualitative considerations that matters in practice.
Indeed, while your usage of NPV is completely wrong in practice, allow me to give you an example of correctly using NPV for valuation of long term risk. NPV can be applied to life insurance contracts, because there is a well defined payout on such a contract, and the probability of death at every year can be estimated from an actuarial table. While this death rate is not representative of any particular person, it is representative of the general population, so given a large number of life insurance contracts, the ENPV, i.e. expected NPV is somewhat accurate on average.
This is a correct an useful application of NPV for long tail risk. Using NPV to measure the benefit of university education by making guesses and false assumptions at every line is utterly worthless.
Indeed, nobody does it. NPV isn't even taught in high school.
Do you have any source for the claim that companies do not make NPV calculations (or a similiar concept?) This will surprise me if you actually had as you didn't understand the concept before making that post.
Btw how do you think stocks are valuated? Do you think stock analyst give up as they have no idea on how to valuate the expected future cash flow for more than 5-6 years? Or do you think they come up with some kind of average number?
But your correct that we can't estimate future income in 40 years with a very high probability. But most likely your future income will be higher if you have a specific education that gives you qualificants that employeers demand.
But if the estimated income is just marginal higher and the education is very expensive, then it probably has a negative NPV. This makes the economy worse off, and unfortunately we have a ton of these educations in our current society that we would have not have if education was privatised. So whether people use hours in front of excel or just use 1 minute to think of the cost-benefit of taking that education isn't that relevant here. The point here is that people are considering the cost of the education and whether that education actually increases their future income.
On March 16 2012 01:22 Hider wrote: Hmm yeh you dont understand how NPV works.
Don't try to degrade his intelligence, it seems like he actually do understands NPV, especially, he understands better than you why normal people doesn't use NPVs.
This coming from someone who ALSO knows NPV/investment theory/financing/microeconomics/macroeconomics..
Although your point in theory is correct, the theory is not applicable to practise in any useful way.
On March 16 2012 01:44 paralleluniverse wrote: Indeed, while your usage of NPV is completely wrong in practice, allow me to give you an example of correctly using NPV for valuation of long term risk. NPV can be applied to life insurance contracts, because there is a well defined payout on such a contract, and the probability of death at every year can be estimated from an actuarial table. While this death rate is not representative of any particular person, it is representative of the general population, so given a large number of life insurance contracts, the ENPV, i.e. expected NPV is somewhat accurate on average.
This is a correct an useful application of NPV for long tail risk. Using NPV to measure the benefit of university education by making guesses and false assumptions at every line is utterly worthless.
Indeed, nobody does it. NPV isn't even taught in high school.
Precisely <3
No he didn't understand NPV! Because then he would be aware that all estimated future income was uncertain, and this is why I use a discount rate.
Im pretty sure he just read the first few lines on wikipedia. And tbh. NPV isn't a high level concept (high school/bachelor), so I think it's fair that before people critize me, they should make sure that they understand the concept.
When it comes to issues such as this people tend to get bogged down in all the details. Each individual ends up advocating a policy that filters out all the elements they dont like personally. In the end this is counter productive.
I think what we have to ask is what the value of higher education is. Is it simply training for a productive career or does it have additional intangible benefits for those fortunate enough to have attended? When I was in 10th grade I took Shakespearean literature. To this day I have never taken a literature class I have liked less and so at the time I asked my teacher what the value of reading Romeo and Juliet was and he said that much of what we read in high school is important because it creates an academic connection between generations and within peer groups. We have all read Catcher in the Rye, Animal Farm and Macbeth. Just by sharing these experiences and the knowledge conferred by them makes our connection and ability to communicate stronger. I believe there is a similar quality to the higher education experience and by excluding people from it they are made not just unqualified but also alienated.
On this note, does raising the average level of education strengthen our country in a way that makes it a vested interest for everybody? I think so, but the point can be argued.
On March 16 2012 01:22 Hider wrote: Hmm yeh you dont understand how NPV works.
Don't try to degrade his intelligence, it seems like he actually do understands NPV, especially, he understands better than you why normal people doesn't use NPVs.
This coming from someone who ALSO knows NPV/investment theory/financing/microeconomics/macroeconomics..
Although your point in theory is correct, the theory is not applicable to practise in any useful way.
On March 16 2012 01:44 paralleluniverse wrote: Indeed, while your usage of NPV is completely wrong in practice, allow me to give you an example of correctly using NPV for valuation of long term risk. NPV can be applied to life insurance contracts, because there is a well defined payout on such a contract, and the probability of death at every year can be estimated from an actuarial table. While this death rate is not representative of any particular person, it is representative of the general population, so given a large number of life insurance contracts, the ENPV, i.e. expected NPV is somewhat accurate on average.
This is a correct an useful application of NPV for long tail risk. Using NPV to measure the benefit of university education by making guesses and false assumptions at every line is utterly worthless.
Indeed, nobody does it. NPV isn't even taught in high school.
Precisely <3
No he didn't understand NPV! Because then he would be aware that all estimated future income was uncertain, and this is why I use a discount rate.
Im pretty sure he just read the first few lines on wikipedia. And tbh. NPV isn't a high level concept (high school/bachelor), so I think it's fair that before people critize me, they should make sure that they understand the concept.
Using a 5% discount rate over a time span of 55 years.....
Seems legit..
About the part in bold, he did EXACTLY say that the estimated future income was uncertain. The discount rate has more to it than just uncertainty.
However, I don't need to teach you NPV, you seem to understand the concept, the way you use it is just overly simplistic.
And yes businesses use NPV, but the use SO MUCH MORE than just that to value an investment. This discussion seems hopeless, you are convinced that NPV is the answer to the problem, so I won't keep trying to convince you otherwise.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
Nobody calculates the NPV of their university education. It's simply unknowable with any sort of reasonable accuracy.
To even suggest that the NPV of university education should be a consideration on the part of the student is delusional, in the sense that it is completely out of touch with how people live in the real world.
There have been many studies showing that the earning potential of university graduates is much larger than that of high school graduates, so people go to university. Some people want to be lawyers, some want to be scientists, some want to be economists, so people go to university because it's a prerequisite to getting one of these jobs. This is the thought process they use, not NPV calculations which require unknowable projections of income from now until the day you die.
To suggest that universities should be run on essentially a free market system is failing to understand the purpose of a university. Universities do not exist merely to maximize profits by charging high prices to students so that only students from a high income can afford it (as opposed to students with high potential but low income). Universities exist also to propagate knowledge and research, this is a public good.
To put university education out of reach of bright students who are poor, but let in rich students, even if they are stupid, which is what will happen if unregulated, is a waste of human capital and human intelligence, and will degrade the intelligence and productivity of the general population.
It's basic microeconomics that negative externalities should be taxed. It is also basic microeconomics that positive externalities should be subsidized. Education is a positive externality.
1) People make cost-benefit calculations every single day, every single time they make a decision. NPV analysis is bascially a cost-benefit calculation involving a series of expected cash flows. In the end value is destroyed if NPV = less than 0. If NPV is above 0 value is created. Of course people actually dont think in terms of discount rate or try to calculate these numbers. However they can still make a much better judgement than the government.
If people are taking a high expensive education even though they don't think it has a positive NPV, but that it will still be worth in terms of cost-benefit (e.g. it gives prestige), then economic value is destroyed. The soceity as a whole is worse of in economic goods. But so what? In a free society the guy who paid for prestige is the only paying. In a public society the guy is getting the prestige for free and tax payers are paying for this prestige.
2) Today the NPV calcuations are manipulated as univisties are free.
3) Universities are supposed to operate like any other business. There are no need for other purposes. Sure I get that purposes are different today, but as I have tried to argue, this is dumb IMO.
4) Did you even read my post - I actually clearly argued why high income isn't a neccesitiy to be able to take an education (future expected income is)
What's the NPV of your university education? Walk me through it.
Tell me what model you used to project your income if you went to uni, and how you project it if you didn't.
Now explain to me the interest rate model you used to estimate the rate at which you discount the cash flows projected in the first step.
Then finally put all this together and calculate the NPV.
Well assume I am 20 years old and that I plan to work till I am 70.
How do you know you'll work until you're 70? Maybe you'll be disabled in an accident. Maybe you'll get hit by a bus.
I am considering whether to take a 5 year education. I estimate that with only a high school education I would be able to earn 50.000$ year (yeh danish wages are pretty high),
Based on what? How do you know your income will always be $50,000 a year?
Surely you'll earn less at the start and more as you get older. What about increases in income due to inflation?
and if I take that education my wage will be 80.000$ year (average number, obv. i could do it more implicated by assuming that I would have a higher income around the age of 50 than 26).
Based on what? How do you know your income will always be $80,000 a year?
Surely you'll earn less at the start and more as you get older. What about increases in income due to inflation?
If I take this education it will be relatively easy for me to get a job, and lets say for simpliciity that there are no price increases, so I use a relatively low discount rate of 5% year.
Why would there be no price increases? Your assumption is wrong in the real world.
A discount rate of 5%? Why always 5%? Interest rates are more like 1% now.
Where did you take into account the autoregressive behavior of interest rates?
I know I always can get any kind of job paying 50.000$/year with a 100% certainity, and since there are no uncertainity involving taking a loan the discount rate if i do not take an education is equal to the time value of money, which we assume is 3%.
No, you can't know that with certainty. What if there's a double-dip recession caused by Greece leaving the Euro and unemployment increases to 30% because of government inaction?
The education costs me 200.000$, which I will have to borrow. The banks look at my grades from high school, perhaps they ask me some questions about what I want to do in life, and what kind of person I am (perhaps they don't, who knows what the free market will do). Then they decide to charge me 2% in interest on those 200.000$ (since they assume that there will be no inflation forever).
How do you know that's how much your education costs? What if tuition fees increase?
Your assumption of 0 inflation is absurd and completely wrong.
I assume that starting by year 6 I will be able to pay back 10.000$/year on my debt. By year 6 total debt will be 221.000. This will take me around 30 years to pay back the debt (incl. interests). Hence for 30 years my expected income will be 70.000$ instead of 80.000$.
Again, how did you pull these numbers out of your ass?
Annuity (not taking an education) = 1/0,03-1/(0,03*1,03^55) = 26.77. Annuity (taking an educaiton) = 1/0,05 - 1/(0,05*1,05^50) = 18.25.
PV of not taking an education = 50.000 * 26.77 = 1,338,721 Present value of taking an education = 1,277,915
Hence if above numbers are correct, taking an education has negative NPV. So the wages are supposed to be higher than 80.000$ (or not taking an education is supposed to be lower than 50.000$).
I don't expect that everyone ( in a free society ) will sit down and analyze these numbers, but they will at least consider them. Today they are not considered, and this destroys value.
No. NO ONE will take these numbers seriously.
These numbers are concocted and based on delusional and false assumptions.
It would be laughable to take this with even a grain of salt. You would be making a colossal act of stupidity to take calculations based off invented numbers seriously, because the true values are not even remotely knowable.
And where did you account for the utility of a person getting more enjoyment and happiness working as, say, a scientist, which requires university education, for $50,000 a year, than working as a factory worker for $50,000 a year?
Hmm yeh you dont understand how NPV works. Noone knows future income, or for how long time they work. COmpanies do not either. But thats why they use estimates, and discount the uncertainity by the time value of money + a risk premium. If the numbers are very uncertain you use a higher discount rate.
But the numbers aren't pulled out of my ass: One can go and check the average wage for someone having taking that education, and use those estimates. It isn't nessacarily rocket science.
And btw the inflation number was just used for simplicity (which I wrote - becasue it doesn't change how NPV works if there are price increase. It just makes it more complicated). Surprised you actually cared about the specific numbers instead of the idea behind the principle.
Companies don't make decisions solely based on NPV because they understand the the limitations involved. People are not robots. NPV is in fact usually only suitable for short term projects where the cash flows and interest rates can be estimated with some certainty, and only profit matters. Humans do not only value profit, but also utility.
To estimate the amount of money you make now until you die is as good as pulling a number out of your ass, and that's exactly what you did. Your NPV is absolutely and completely wrong based on the thousands of guesses that has gone into it's components.
Garbage in, garbage out.
You strike me as someone who has done a course in finance and economics involving mostly mechanical computations, while having no understanding of how theory is applied in practice. There are various other project appraisal methods in finance and a large number of qualitative considerations that matters in practice.
Indeed, while your usage of NPV is completely wrong in practice, allow me to give you an example of correctly using NPV for valuation of long term risk. NPV can be applied to life insurance contracts, because there is a well defined payout on such a contract, and the probability of death at every year can be estimated from an actuarial table. While this death rate is not representative of any particular person, it is representative of the general population, so given a large number of life insurance contracts, the ENPV, i.e. expected NPV is somewhat accurate on average.
This is a correct an useful application of NPV for long tail risk. Using NPV to measure the benefit of university education by making guesses and false assumptions at every line is utterly worthless.
Indeed, nobody does it. NPV isn't even taught in high school.
Do you have any source for the claim that companies do not make NPV calculations (or a similiar concept?) This will surprise me if you actually had as you didn't understand the concept before making that post.
Btw how do you think stocks are valuated? Do you think stock analyst give up as they have no idea on how to valuate the expected future cash flow for more than 5-6 years? Or do you think they come up with some kind of average number?
But your correct that we can't estimate future income in 40 years with a very high probability. But most likely your future income will be higher if you have a specific education that gives you qualificants that employeers demand.
But if the estimated income is just marginal higher and the education is very expensive, then it probably has a negative NPV. This makes the economy worse off, and unfortunately we have a ton of these educations in our current society that we would have not have if education was privatised. So whether people use hours in front of excel or just use 1 minute to think of the cost-benefit of taking that education isn't that relevant here. The point here is that people are considering the cost of the education and whether that education actually increases their future income.
It's laughable to claim that I do not understand NPV. I'm not the one who made a fool of myself by making up numbers to plug it into an equation that I do not understand. You've completely misused the concept of NPV, and I'm the one who showed you how to correctly use it in my example.
If you've had even a semi-decent education, you'd know that businesses are not robots that make up numbers for NPV calculations and reject if NPV is less than 0 and accept if NPV is greater than 0. Indeed, this isn't even what is taught in universities, there is a whole range of quantitative and qualitative factors that are not taken in account by NPV, like the reaction of competitors, constrains placed on your business when it undertakes certain projects, and economic utility. I didn't say businesses never used NPV, I'm saying they would likely use it correctly, i.e. for short projects or for contracts with clearly defined terms. They would also take many other factors into account. You seem like you've had your world shattered upon learning that businesses don't exclusively use NPV, as if it's inconceivable and illogical that they take into account many qualitative factors and risks too.
Using a discount rate of 5% for an investment of 55 years is lunacy. What if interests rates rise to 10% over the next 20 years? Then your "risk premium" is completely wrong. You've just pulled a 5% number out of your ass.
To even suggest that NPV be used for trading stocks just shows how little you understand. I will say this, no one who can be taken seriously uses NPV for stocks. Wall street quants use algorithmic trading, which models the behavior of stocks as a stochastic process, and uses trading strategies like delta hedging, risk arbitrage, Markowitz portfolio optimization. All of which are techniques of stochastic calculus and numerical optimization. Wall Street quants do not use first year finance. The fact that you mention NPV and stocks in the same sentence just shows how elementary and basic your understanding of finance is. Your entire financial world view is overly simplistic to the point of being completely wrong.
No one can calculate the NPV of their university education, and anyone who attempts to do so with a serious face deserves nothing but ridicule for placing weight on a made up number that is worthless in actuality.
On March 16 2012 08:43 -_-Quails wrote: I like the Australian HECS system. I'll pay back my student loan when and only when I earn enough to be able to do so.
Yep, essentially an interest free loan (interest rate in line with inflation to account for the time value of money).
Too many blind patriots in this thread, the USA is terrible for tertiary education, only the rich and extremely bright (top 1% may get full scholarships) make it to a University worthwhile, if you are poor but in the top 5% of all students you're simply not smart enough for a scholarship and too poor to study.
On March 16 2012 08:43 -_-Quails wrote: I like the Australian HECS system. I'll pay back my student loan when and only when I earn enough to be able to do so.
Yep, essentially an interest free loan (interest rate in line with inflation to account for the time value of money).
Too many blind patriots in this thread, the USA is terrible for tertiary education, only the rich and extremely bright (top 1% may get full scholarships) make it to a University worthwhile, if you are poor but in the top 5% of all students you're simply not smart enough for a scholarship and too poor to study.
Open your eyes America.
Yep, ive changed course twice and even though thats like an extra 2k in hecs, it doesnt worry me at all.
A post on the first page suggested that Teritiary education should act like a bussiness, but the opposite is ture, do we want a society where education is accesable for everyone thus expanding our knowledge, or should only the privalleged few be able to get this, and thus stunt the growth of society.