|
Do not derail the thread with discussions about other topics like global warming. |
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
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 21:11 PrimeTimey wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 21:07 TanTzoR wrote:On March 13 2012 21:04 PrimeTimey wrote: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 21:11 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 18:45 Poffel wrote:On March 13 2012 18:12 MethodSC wrote:On March 13 2012 18:00 Poffel wrote: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...
I dont imagine it being other way.
|
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 21:30 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +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 16:46 sirkyan wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
A forum made of primarily college kids think education should be free. Who would have thought!
|
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.
|
On March 13 2012 21:30 Divine-Sneaker wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
|
|
|
|