|
Do not derail the thread with discussions about other topics like global warming. |
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 03:09 aderum wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote: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 03:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:09 aderum wrote:On March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote: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:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/cost/index.html
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 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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 03:20 saynomore wrote:Show nested quote +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 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 01:36 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 01:30 HellRoxYa wrote: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.http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09f33pub.pdfWhere 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:Show nested quote +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).
|
On March 14 2012 03:12 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:09 Zato-1 wrote:On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote: [quote]
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 +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRAzbfqydoY
|
On March 14 2012 03:11 Roflhaxx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:00 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote: [quote]
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 03:18 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:09 aderum wrote:On March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote: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: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/cost/index.htmlThe 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 03:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:09 aderum wrote:On March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote: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.
I'd like to have your definition of "cheap as hell"... http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/budget.htm http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Default.aspx?PageID=feesched.html Especially, if one is not from California "cheap" certainly isn't the first word to come to my mind.
|
|
On March 14 2012 03:19 aderum wrote:Show nested quote +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?" 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 03:26 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:09 aderum wrote:On March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote: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. I'd like to have your definition of "cheap as hell"... http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/budget.htmhttp://registrar.berkeley.edu/Default.aspx?PageID=feesched.htmlEspecially, if one is not from California "cheap" certainly isn't the first word to come to my mind. expenses are relative. for california, that is cheap.
by the way, my roommate in college was bulgarian. =) for some reason, a lot of bulgarians went to my college (Whittier College). cheers!
|
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.
/rant
|
|
|
|