Free education

[Jazzy]

Should the government provide free education? Why?

 

[Lamb]

The government doesn't give anything "free", it's all the people's taxes that provide for anything.

 

[tango]

Should the government provide free education? Why?

University is a fountain of knowledge where people go to drink.

When I went to university the government paid for it. Honestly, I didn't value the experience anywhere near as much as if I'd had some of my own skin in the game.

I think there's something to be said for students being able to study without the endless pressure of bills and working around a potentially busy lecture schedule, trying to also fit in some social life and - horror - private study time. That said it seems too easy to sign up for a degree in something that is commercially more or less useless.

If there were some system that took the top 10% or so, academically speaking and paid their university tuition for a specified range of course options we could make sure that the next generation of engineers, scientists etc were well educated. It wouldn't matter whether those people were the children of road sweepers or hedge fund managers, if they were smart enough they'd get a scholarship. If others want to take time out of their lives to explore Gender Studies or Golf Course Design or whatever else, they can pay their own way through it.

The trouble we have now is so many people going to get degrees, and so many of them underemployed. It would be nice if degrees weren't ever-more mandated by employers but there's only so much that can be done about that. I wonder how long it will be before you need a degree to mop the floor at McDonalds.

 

[Josiah]

Well, here is where I tend to depart a bit from my solidly Conservative political philosophy.....

Yes, I think Government should largely pay for the education of the people (and yes, TAX for it which means society is paying the tab). This is a benefit to society as a whole. It should have regulations (I'm opposed to supporting life-long, perpetual students) but is generally a benefit to the country to have a well educated citizenry.

But I'm not a fan of public schools. I hold that people should be able to choose whatever education supplier they deem best. I support what is sometimes called "the voucher system" or "school choice." This has worked very well for Veterans under the GI bill for over 75 years. The vet chooses his/her own school (including church related ones) and the VA supplies the vet with a grant to cover the cost (to a limit). It's worked extremely well, so well that even Democrats that universally supported it. The tax supported grant supports the student rather than runs the school. Since it works for vets, there's no reason it can't work equally well for all education. "School choice." "The Voucher System."



.

 

[tango]

Well, here is where I tend to depart a bit from my solidly Conservative political philosophy.....

Yes, I think Government should largely pay for the education of the people (and yes, TAX for it which means society is paying the tab). This is a benefit to society as a whole. It should have regulations (I'm opposed to supporting life-long, perpetual students) but is generally a benefit to the country to have a well educated citizenry.

Do you consider it beneficial to society to have people with degrees in Gender Studies, Horse Studies, Golf Course Design etc, who end up flipping burgers because nobody needs any more golf courses to be designed?

What proportion of society do you think should get a free education? I've heard some politicians talking about 50% of people going to university, which immediately means that having a degree essentially means nothing more than that you are essentially average or better.

ETA: Do you think some students should have government funding to do postgraduate studies, and postdoctoral studies? What criteria would you use to determine who is granted extra money and who is not?

 

[Albion]

Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, the educational system needs reform first. In the last several decades, what you're expected to learn--and produce--as a student has been downgraded to the point that a college degree today doesn't represent more learning than a high school diploma did in our parents' day. And it's getting steadily worse, thanks in part to reputable universities getting on the 'credit for classes taken totally by computer' bandwagon.

"Do you have a college degree?" Yes. "From what institution?" It's from the University of ______ (name of state)" Did you ever set foot on the grounds of the campus? Well, no.

 

[tango]

Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, the educational system needs reform first. In the last several decades, what you're expected to learn--and produce--as a student has been downgraded to the point that a college degree today doesn't represent more learning than a high school diploma did in our parents' day. And it's getting steadily worse, thanks in part to reputable universities getting on the 'credit for classes taken totally by computer' bandwagon.

"Do you have a college degree?" Yes. "From what institution?" It's from the University of ______ (name of state)" Did you ever set foot on the grounds of the campus? Well, no.

I'm curious to see the way things like home economics seem to be disappearing from what kids are taught. It's as if the purpose of schooling is to raise a generation who can't think beyond "credit card, buy things, pay minimum" and then wonder where all their money goes.

 

[Albion]

There is a question about maturity when it comes to the student who's in his or her late teens, but it would probably be a step forward if we were to junk the last two years of high school as we now know them and move those students to the two years of community college.

Some changes like that one--and not necessarily only that one--could make "free" college education more palatable to the public. It wouldn't eliminate all the usual four year universities, either, or do anything to the advanced degrees that are necessary for many professions.

 

[Josiah]

Do you consider it beneficial to society to have people with degrees in Gender Studies, Horse Studies, Golf Course Design etc, who end up flipping burgers because nobody needs any more golf courses to be designed?

What proportion of society do you think should get a free education? I've heard some politicians talking about 50% of people going to university, which immediately means that having a degree essentially means nothing more than that you are essentially average or better.

ETA: Do you think some students should have government funding to do postgraduate studies, and postdoctoral studies? What criteria would you use to determine who is granted extra money and who is not?

I don't think it is to the benefit of society to have an ignorant, illiterate population. That benefits neither the individual or the country. Thus, I think it is good for society to empower education. And yes, I think that should be universal.

As I stated, it should be regulated. A lot of the questions you asked have already been determined (decades ago) under the VA system, for the GI bill - at least for college/university/post-grade studies. But yes, those are issues. Whenever money is involved, regulation generally also should be. I don't pretend to know how every detail of that should be administered (indeed, I'd be in favor of that left to the states). And of course, most of this would be for K-12 education, not university education. I think PARENTS should decide what school and what curriculum their minor children should attend and receive ("school choice") and the adult for higher education (as we've done for veterans for some 80 years).

And I do not accept the premise that education has no value unless it results in higher pay. While I'm not keen on majors such as "gender studies" (some would add religious studies), I'm not in favor of the government regulating this - especially based solely on the pay of such graduates. I hold that education tends to have value - instrincticly.

BTW, I have a Ph.D. and the government paid for it 100%. I had several government grants. I didn't pay a dime of tuition for either my BS or my Ph.D. degree.



.

 

[Messy]

Do you consider it beneficial to society to have people with degrees in Gender Studies, Horse Studies, Golf Course Design etc, who end up flipping burgers because nobody needs any more golf courses to be designed?

What proportion of society do you think should get a free education? I've heard some politicians talking about 50% of people going to university, which immediately means that having a degree essentially means nothing more than that you are essentially average or better.

ETA: Do you think some students should have government funding to do postgraduate studies, and postdoctoral studies? What criteria would you use to determine who is granted extra money and who is not?

The brother from my BIL graduated on parasitic wasps. He now gives computer lessons. In Dutch it sounds funnier, sneakwasps.

 

[tango]

I don't think it is to the benefit of society to have an ignorant, illiterate population. That benefits neither the individual or the country. Thus, I think it is good for society to empower education. And yes, I think that should be universal.

As I stated, it should be regulated. A lot of the questions you asked have already been determined (decades ago) under the VA system, for the GI bill - at least for college/university/post-grade studies. But yes, those are issues. Whenever money is involved, regulation generally also should be. I don't pretend to know how every detail of that should be administered (indeed, I'd be in favor of that left to the states). And of course, most of this would be for K-12 education, not university education. I think PARENTS should decide what school and what curriculum their minor children should attend and receive ("school choice") and the adult for higher education (as we've done for veterans for some 80 years).

And I do not accept the premise that education has no value unless it results in higher pay. While I'm not keen on majors such as "gender studies" (some would add religious studies), I'm not in favor of the government regulating this - especially based solely on the pay of such graduates. I hold that education tends to have value - instrincticly.

BTW, I have a Ph.D. and the government paid for it 100%. I had several government grants. I didn't pay a dime of tuition for either my BS or my Ph.D. degree.

I don't believe that education must result in higher pay to have value. The trouble is that there needs to be some limit so we don't have every single 18-year-old headed to university on the taxpayer's dime to spend three years pretending to study, only to then spend their career flipping burgers because they didn't actually do anything useful.

An associated question is who does the regulating. I don't know that I'd trust the government to do anything useful where regulation was concerned, especially where handing out money like candy is an option. But as for who else would regulate it, who would do it? The universities?

It might make more sense to focus on education as a lifelong process rather than maintaining the idea that education is something that happens to do you in designated locations. Every single thing I've ever done professionally has been predominately self-taught.

 

[Josiah]

he trouble is that there needs to be some limit so we don't have every single 18-year-old headed to university on the taxpayer's dime to spend three years pretending to study, only to then spend their career flipping burgers because they didn't actually do anything useful.

@tango As I indicated, I agree. As with ALL grants, there need to be regulations. And yes, that can be problematic.

But I don't think this has to be difficult. Again, the GI bill has provided very generous grants for education for some 80 years, literally millions have taken advantage of this (including a lot of clergy who went to seminary on the GI bill). My dad used this for his college degree. This money is for the PERSON, not the school... thus it is not locked to the school but for the person. It's a good model for "school choice" or what sometimes is called "the voucher system." There are regulations and limitations with the education benefit in the GI bill but (sorry) I don't know what they are. But the program is extremely popular among both Democrats and Republicans. And millions have taken advantage of it for decades.


IMO, we should extend this to non-veterans and implement something similar for K-12, replacing the enormous funding for public schools. PARENTS (for those under 18) and STUDENTS (for those 18 and over) are empowered... THEY choose their school and curriculum, and society (yes, through taxes) empowers it - with regulations and limitations. This would place the control in the hands of the receivers rather than the providers, it would end the very socialistic approach to education in the USA. But while this idea has been floated since the early 1800's, it is opposed by government that wants to control this rather than parents and students, and more recently by teacher unions that passionately fight against every such proposal.


Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

[Stravinsk]

"Free education" from government just means they are going to take your tax dollars and put them towards "education" that suits the super wealthy and elite persons in power, without you knowing that is what they are doing.

 

[tango]

@tango As I indicated, I agree. As with ALL grants, there need to be regulations. And yes, that can be problematic.

Yes, I think we're mostly on a similar page, I'm curious to see how you'd see regulation working so the system works, rather than falling one way where it just hands out endless money to anyone who asks, or falling the other way where there are so many hoops to jump through it might as well not exist.

But I don't think this has to be difficult. Again, the GI bill has provided very generous grants for education for some 80 years, literally millions have taken advantage of this (including a lot of clergy who went to seminary on the GI bill). My dad used this for his college degree. This money is for the PERSON, not the school... thus it is not locked to the school but for the person. It's a good model for "school choice" or what sometimes is called "the voucher system." There are regulations and limitations with the education benefit in the GI bill but (sorry) I don't know what they are. But the program is extremely popular among both Democrats and Republicans. And millions have taken advantage of it for decades.

If someone is willing to put their life on the line for the country it doesn't seem unreasonable to give something in return, and an education is always useful even after a military career has finished. Whatever regulations might exist within the GI bill, what sort of regulations do you think would provide a well balanced approach to giving those who are intelligent enough to benefit but poor enough to struggle to fund it the chance to access a higher education without swamping universities with people who really aren't up to that level of academic education?

IMO, we should extend this to non-veterans and implement something similar for K-12, replacing the enormous funding for public schools. PARENTS (for those under 18) and STUDENTS (for those 18 and over) are empowered... THEY choose their school and curriculum, and society (yes, through taxes) empowers it - with regulations and limitations. This would place the control in the hands of the receivers rather than the providers, it would end the very socialistic approach to education in the USA. But while this idea has been floated since the early 1800's, it is opposed by government that wants to control this rather than parents and students, and more recently by teacher unions that passionately fight against every such proposal.

I remember someone I loosely know was very vocally opposed to the concept of vouchers. Her view (and she leans left politically, although I'm not sure to what extent) was that the problem wasn't so much with taking away the cost of educating the child because that would more or less match off against the reduction in incurred cost of education, but the splintering of all the associated costs. Her view was that the cost of educating the child is only one part of the picture and also considered the costs of things like administering the staff, providing a canteen etc. Although I could see her point I couldn't help thinking that if a school can't offer an education good enough for parents to choose it, whether or not you have a canteen for the kids becomes secondary.

That said, considering issues of trying to get kids from one side of town across town to the school their parents choose because it's best can provide logistical issues, and of course the best schools with be oversubscribed so there has to be some way to deciding which of the people who wants a place actually gets a place. And that, in turn, will lead to cries of indirect discrimination because the kids from the trailer park haven't got a chance to match the scores of the kids from wealthy families when it comes to academic testing.

In the UK some years ago there was talk of "patient choice" when it came to hospitals. One commentator noted that it's better to just be told which hospital you're being taken to for treatment and knowing it's a good clean hospital, than being given the choice between a hospital 150 miles away, a hospital half a mile away with a horrendous MRSA problem, or a hospital two miles away with a track record of patients having post-treatment complications.

How to raise the standards of the failing schools, with teachers unions apparently having vested interests in actively opposing such improvements, is probably a key question in all of this.