Salomé
meh
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,527
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
Exceptional. (That's because we charge foreigners)Interesting! How's the quality?
Exceptional. (That's because we charge foreigners)Interesting! How's the quality?
Should higher education be free?
I don't know if we should assume that if an education isn't free to the public its going to better than it would have been in the case where it was paid for by the customers. If university education is to be rendered free to the public, isn't it a possibility that the government will provide enough money for Universities to perform at the level they do now? I think that we can accept that as a possibility at least, the real question is whether or not the U.S government will be able to match the funds that Universities earn by forcing tuition fees on their customers. Do you see that as a likely outcome?
It's an oversimplified understanding of a very complex issue.
Essentially, k - 12 is free and it largely lowers its standards because its geared towards average people, and the funding for it isn't really great here in America, because Americans dislike taxation. Hence, these two reasons explain the lower quality.
1. Average people need to graduate (so says the government). As a result, we will lower standards so that they can all graduate.
2. Americans dislike taxation, which means public schooling will be lower in quality.
Thus, the U.S. government simply doesn't have much of the budget to be spending on public schooling. So it's obvious why it wouldn't be so great in terms of quality.
However, if Americans simply learned that more taxes generally = higher quality social programs (since we're so afraid of socialism, OOOH so scary), we'd have public education with a lot more quality.
Thus, the real question is: why should we prefer a system that enables only the wealthiest members of society to get a really great education at the expense of the least wealthiest members instead of a system that grants all members of society a decent education in general?
Answer that.
"The_Liquid_Laser" said:So the question is what is better: quality education or universal education?
Your solution seems to be that we should somehow change the opinion of most Americans. That task seems much more difficult than the task of making higher education free.
For science degrees, yes (with strict entry qualifications). For arts degrees, no.Should higher education be free?
I'd like to say two things to this.
1) Do you think k-12 education is adequately funded? If not then why would university education be any different..
I could not agree more with this. The US actually spends over $10,000 per pupil and American schools are in shambles.US K-12 schools suck due to diminishing internal standards that are unrelated to cost-more related to making everyone feel good about themselves and not failing students. Also the easier the school work, the more percentage of students pass-and the higher "rating" the school receives-while never learning how to work to learn. My older son made straight As in public school as a lazy ass little bastard. We placed him in a science charter school and he gets Cs and Ds with the occasional B....as they hold him accountable for his lack of work ethic.
Could it be possible to change the plan regarding management of government resources? That way, the government might find enough money to adequately fund the K-12 and university systems. You mentioned that tuition fees are growing in alarming rate, but is it truly necessary for tuition rates to continue increasing in order to maintain the same quality of education? If so, why?
I disagree with Liquids discussion regarding cost being the deciding factor in quality.
Tuition is increasing for universities, because of the existence of community colleges. People are getting their gen. ed. requirements there, because it's cheaper, and the quality of gen. ed. courses at a community college is not much worse than a university. .
Most universities make money on gen. ed. courses and lose money on upper level courses. Gen. ed. courses are larger and often taught by grad students or adjunct faculty. Upper level courses are smaller and mostly taught by tenured professors. So when enrollment drops on only gen. ed. courses the university loses money and has to raise tuition..
If the money is coming from individuals, then education behaves like any other market. Universities compete to give quality education at a reasonable price. Businesses have to keep their quality high, because competitors would steal their customers otherwise. In terms of sheer quality you cannot beat a market economy...
In that case it will be the kind that the public demands, but the thesis that it will be of high quality is not warranted.Therefore if the funding comes from individuals in a market the education will be high quality, but it will not be available to everyone. ...
This is essentially the debate of Capitalism vs. Socialism in general. It's just that we are applying it specifically to education in this instance....
Do you know what inspired more students to take an interest in a community college education?
Suppose that the Universities make no effort to raise their tuition fees and suffer the financial loss of fewer students enrolling in general education classes. In that case will the losses be significant enough to preclude these institutions from maintaining the quality of their current education? I suspect that much of the money that the University earns lands in the pockets of elite officials of the organization. Suppose we cut their salary in half and devote the funds for educational purposes. There is no reason for them to be making $300,000 per year when we have dozens of adjuncts laboring for fast-food wages. Do you think that this idea could be implemented in 10, 20 or even 30 years?
I agree with your fundamental premise that businesses need to do what must be done to satisfy customers, however, I cannot accept the conclusion you've arrived at. The general public is generally not interested in learning and attends college to merely earn a degree. They demand courses in which one could succeed without learning a great deal. As you may know, many professors assign simple mutliple choice tests instead of essays that require critical thought and the answers to the tests can almost always be found in the lecture material. American Universities are renowned for their quality of education, however, the truly edifying classes are taught at graduate school academes and not in conventional undergraduate institutions.
In that case it will be the kind that the public demands, but the thesis that it will be of high quality is not warranted.
We are paying specifically so we can get a degree that lands us social prestige and a lucrative job. The American social values hold education in low regard. If the public could earn money without going to the Universities, they would gladly drop the pretense that they have any interest in learning.
My concern is that radicalization of capitalism in the university education system will create an undesirable competition among universities. They will be competing not to provide the most edifying education possible, but to appease the interests of the philistines who have little interest in anything but wealth and prestige. An increase in funding for universities certainly improves the quality of graduate level education and academic research, however, it does not have a significantly educative impact upon the general public.
Could it be possible to change the plan regarding management of government resources? That way, the government might find enough money to adequately fund the K-12 and university systems. You mentioned that tuition fees are growing in alarming rate, but is it truly necessary for tuition rates to continue increasing in order to maintain the same quality of education? If so, why?