forum Politics and Society ›› paying for college ›› new reply Post Reply
kp for life

drop and give me 2
163 Posts
31/M/PA

offline 
August 20 2005 2:46 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Alright, this is one i've never really understood, so i'm interested in hearing all the pro's and con's on this: what is good about not having a socialized higher education system? What is bad?
Is it a coincidence that countries where people don't have to pay for college have the highest literacy rates and the best educated populace?
And i really want to hear from any Bush supporters on this one because even if i agreed with the republican party on all other ideological and policy issues, this would have been a real deal-breaker for me and made me vote against him. And it's not just because I'm poor and up to my ass in financial aid, grants and student loans. I really think the whole future and direction of our country, of any country is determined by the level of education or ignorance of its people.
How can we compete with countries where everyone goes to college, and most have graduate degrees, when we throw up so many barriers to kids just paying for the schools it was hard enough to get into in the first place?
Is it no wonder the guy giving you tech support on the phone is from India when full grown, adult Americans have trouble with basic arithmetic?

So o.k. - socialized higher education: good or bad?
Didymos
Time Husk
3,854 Posts
38/M/PA


offline   (1)
August 20 2005 3:06 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
You mentioned India. Does India even have a socialized higher educational system?
kp for life
drop and give me 2
163 Posts
31/M/PA


offline 
August 20 2005 3:16 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
^ i meant that more about us not being as qualified
Didymos
Time Husk
3,854 Posts
38/M/PA


offline   (1)
August 20 2005 3:18 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
As far as outsourcing goes, that's not really an educational issue. I think outsourcing occurs because companies can pay their employees in countries like India much less for the same exact work.
JGalt
nothing
607 Posts
34/M/FL


offline 
August 20 2005 3:36 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Two main reasons:
1: I think the public school system sucks. Why would we want to turn our higher ed. system into the same thing? The govt. has proven time and time again that they are extremely inefficient.

2: Morally, what makes it ok to steal from one person and give to another?? Nothing. But I guess that is the mindset of our current govt. so I wouldnt be suprised if this happens in the future. Too many people in this counrty feel entitled to everything.

You are entitled to your pursuit of happiness. This does not mean you must be happy at others expense.

This is an idiotic idea.
kp for life
drop and give me 2
163 Posts
31/M/PA


offline 
August 20 2005 3:54 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
i don't think the idea would be to turn college into the inner city ghetto public school model. maybe you haven't known as many poor genius kids as i did growing up, kids that got into really good schools like m.i.t. and harvard but wound up going to the local community college because their parents couldn't afford the tuition. one of those kids is the manager of a burger king right now instead of a doctor.
i don't think it's about entitlement, i think it's about planning and what you want your society to look like and be composed of, doctors or burger flippers.
carlos danger
something
23,443 Posts
28/M/ME


offline   (1)
August 20 2005 4:08 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Socialized education wouldn't produce "Harvards" and "M.I.T.s", there would be no such this as a "good school" to strive for. The smart kids get lumped into mediocrity with the dumb kids.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,504 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
August 20 2005 4:49 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
"Two main reasons:
1: I think the public school system sucks. Why would we want to turn our higher ed. system into the same thing? The govt. has proven time and time again that they are extremely inefficient. "

One need not have government interference in higher education itself to socialize access.

"2: Morally, what makes it ok to steal from one person and give to another?? Nothing. But I guess that is the mindset of our current govt. so I wouldnt be suprised if this happens in the future. Too many people in this counrty feel entitled to everything. "

The social good of ALL is justification for "stealing" from the rich.

"You are entitled to your pursuit of happiness. This does not mean you must be happy at others expense."

You need to start taking a hard look at the way corporate structure works as it is now.

"Socialized education wouldn't produce "Harvards" and "M.I.T.s", there would be no such this as a "good school" to strive for. The smart kids get lumped into mediocrity with the dumb kids."

Only if you drop all standards for admittance, which is not necessary for a system of socialized tuition payment to work. You apply where you want... you choose your school... the goverment pays for it.
kp for life
drop and give me 2
163 Posts
31/M/PA


offline 
August 20 2005 5:25 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by:YourLastSavior

Socialized education wouldn't produce "Harvards" and "M.I.T.s", there would be no such this as a "good school" to strive for. The smart kids get lumped into mediocrity with the dumb kids.





boy, once again you seem to like writing before thinking: do you think there are any good schools in the countries that did this years ago? i don't know, is Oxford a "good school"? are the Universitat or the Institut or the Universidade or the Korkeakoulu or the Vysoka Skola "good schools"?

go ahead, look 'em up.

A lot of countries did this decades ago and are just fine.
Didymos
Time Husk
3,854 Posts
38/M/PA


offline   (1)
August 20 2005 5:38 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
As a neutral observer who came into this thread without an opinion on the subject, I'd have to say the people here arguing for socialized education are doing a better job arguing their point than those who are against socialized education.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,504 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
August 20 2005 6:09 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
"Socialized education wouldn't produce "Harvards" and "M.I.T.s", "

It is not student tuition that funds Harvard... it is their endowment from alumni, supporters, etc... Harvard has actually toyed with the idea of cutting out undergrad tuition altogether.

Speaking of which... Wheeee... the moose is now an employee of the conservation department of Harvard's Weidner Library!
JGalt
nothing
607 Posts
34/M/FL


offline 
August 20 2005 6:15 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by:crunkmoose[/b

"One need not have government interference in higher education itself to socialize access."

what would you propose?


"The social good of ALL is justification for "stealing" from the rich."

So you do not support individual rights?


"You need to start taking a hard look at the way corporate structure works as it is now. "

Your point?

crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,504 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
August 20 2005 6:20 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Also... Harvard is something like $40,000 a year for tuition... then there is room and board in Cambridge. My rent over in JP is, with two roommates, over $6,000 a year. Transportation (A T-pass) is around $600 a year. I have no idea what books run for Harvard classes.

We already lack a system where the intelligent can necessarily go to a "good" school... unless they come from a well-off family to begin with.
carlos danger
something
23,443 Posts
28/M/ME


offline   (1)
August 20 2005 6:22 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
i assumed when the thread said socialized education it meant socialized education, not just free tuition. my mistake.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,504 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
August 20 2005 6:40 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
"So you do not support individual rights?"

I do... but there are already limits on our rights for the good of society. It is part of the social contract. How different, really, is finally enforcing the idea that those who have more must pay their fair share for the good of the society that they have benefitted from so much.
JGalt
nothing
607 Posts
34/M/FL


offline 
August 20 2005 7:48 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by:crunkmoose

"So you do not support individual rights?"

I do... but there are already limits on our rights for the good of society. It is part of the social contract. How different, really, is finally enforcing the idea that those who have more must pay their fair share for the good of the society that they have benefitted from so much.



"I do...but..." That is all I needed to see. It is a yes or no question.

What social contract is that? I never signed a contract. It is the society that has benefited from those paying the high taxes.

In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention or business recieves but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter how much he makes. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, recieves an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. The same is true of all men in between. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to those below him, but gets nothing but his material payment. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude contributes nothing to those above him, but recieves the bonus of all of thier brains.

This is the service they provide us, and all they ask in return is freedom. Freedom to function, think, work, take risks, and free to earn profits and fortunes.

But you feel it is unfair that those who provided you with modern apartments, raidos, computers, and cars should own their own palaces and yachts.

You think YOU have a right to your wages, but they have no right to their profits.

You want a society that is established at the point of a gun. You want all sacrificed to the "public good". Who decides what is "good" and who the "public" is??

This is, at the core, a philosophical debate on individual rights. But I will also show you how your scenario will not work pratically as well.

Higher taxes imposed on the rich (and semi-rich) will not come out of thier consumption expenditures, but out of their investment capital (i.e. their savings); that such taxes will mean less investment, i.e. less production, fewer jobs, higher prices for scarcer goods; and by the time the rich have to lower their standard of living yours will be gone. If the erosion of profits were to force buinessmen out of production altogether, the only alternative would be a "nonprofit" govt. run industry. What this would mean to the people has been demonstrated amply and conclusively in Soviet Russia.

What is the riches' "fair share"? Do we tax them until they are no longer rich and everyone is equal?? Who then is there to provide your wonderful non productive society with all of their "free" goods?? You want to disconnect production with distribution. That is not possible. In order to distribute to the "public", something must first be produced. And that production belongs to someone; if you forceably take that away then it is real obvious you do not care about individual rights. In the end your "public" is made up of individuals.

The only social contract I live by is to not infringe on anyone elses rights, and I expect the same in return.
forum Politics and Society ›› paying for college ›› new reply Post Reply

Quick Reply - RE: paying for college

Connect with Facebook to comment: Login w/FB

or Sign up free! - or login:







Subject


wrap selection with italics
wrap selection with bold
insert less than symbol
insert greater than symbol