• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why shouldn't the government subsidize higher education?

B

beer

Lifer
I am looking to hear from the more conservative members on this board. I definitely want to hear your reasons for opposing government subsidies on higher education.

Without stating my points, I invite reasons why the current system (where higher education is a user fee) is better than the system in place thirty years ago, when higher education was almost completely state funded (at least in Texas).
 
Of course they should. Everyone who wants (and is capable of) to receive higher education should be able to. If that means more Pell grants, or a lottery to pay for it, so be it. The end result is a more capable population.
 
Originally posted by: beer
I am looking to hear from the more conservative members on this board. I definitely want to hear your reasons for opposing government subsidies on higher education.

Without stating my points, I invite reasons why the current system (where higher education is a user fee) is better than the system in place thirty years ago, when higher education was almost completely state funded (at least in Texas).
Click to expand...

My personal opinion: too many people go to college now. There are quite a few people who attend that would actually be better off with the work experience. Thirty years ago, that wasn't necessarily true.

I personally think the state/federal gov't should fund higher education--but only about 10 to 15% of the population should go. We should invest additional money in community colleges/apprenticeship programs for everyone else--I know quite a few people that would have benefitted from that type of education instead of a "formal" university one. Note that this is what quite a few European nations do, with varying degrees of success.
 
Sorry, this is not a P&N thread. The more conservative members are here, which typically think that education isn't a right, but a privlidge for those who can afford it. If I posted it in P&N it would come down to bush-bashing and linking completely unrelated topics, as every thread in P&N ends up doing.
 
Originally posted by: HokieESM
Originally posted by: beer
I am looking to hear from the more conservative members on this board. I definitely want to hear your reasons for opposing government subsidies on higher education.

Without stating my points, I invite reasons why the current system (where higher education is a user fee) is better than the system in place thirty years ago, when higher education was almost completely state funded (at least in Texas).
Click to expand...

My personal opinion: too many people go to college now. There are quite a few people who attend that would actually be better off with the work experience. Thirty years ago, that wasn't necessarily true.

I personally think the state/federal gov't should fund higher education--but only about 10 to 15% of the population should go. We should invest additional money in community colleges/apprenticeship programs for everyone else--I know quite a few people that would have benefitted from that type of education instead of a "formal" university one. Note that this is what quite a few European nations do, with varying degrees of success.
Click to expand...

I honestly think you are the first person ever to argue that education is a bad thing. Why should only 10% get a decent education? What you learn in high school is pretty limited. Most people don't even take calculus or physics, and how can you ever have a technical career without such basic foundations?

Look at the income gap between those with college degrees and those with only HS diplomas. Compare that to the total cost of four years of education. How can you argue that the income gap doesn't immediately cover the cost of the government's burder of higher education? And with 8-10 million immigrants willing to do unskilled labor (a number which increases every day), it should be every tax-paying citizens right to escape the unskilled labor market.
 
Originally posted by: beer
Sorry, this is not a P&N thread. The more conservative members are here, which typically think that education isn't a right, but a privlidge for those who can afford it. If I posted it in P&N it would come down to bush-bashing and linking completely unrelated topics, as every thread in P&N ends up doing.
Click to expand...

I'm conservative, but I don't think education is a privilege for the rich. I think if you don't have the money now, you borrow and pay it back, like I'm doing. If the loans are subsidized by the govt, then I'm all for it. Paying back is better than giving freely. Why should I get mine paid for over Mr. Moneybags?
 
I'm not against any state or federal funding for universities, but there does also need to be some sort of per-user fee. If everything were paid for exclusively by the "government" (which is, in reality, paid for by the taxpaying citizens) it would effectively eliminate differentiation between universities. Socialistic systems do not make things better across the board, what they do is they sacrifice the performance of the best schools in order to bring up the worst and what we are left with is a universal level of mediocrity.

The more elite schools need to charge more money in order to attract the more elite professors that are necessary to maintain such schools. If no school had the budget to pay for these elite professors, they would vanish in time because there is no real incentive anymore.

ZV
 
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: HokieESM
Originally posted by: beer
I am looking to hear from the more conservative members on this board. I definitely want to hear your reasons for opposing government subsidies on higher education.

Without stating my points, I invite reasons why the current system (where higher education is a user fee) is better than the system in place thirty years ago, when higher education was almost completely state funded (at least in Texas).
Click to expand...

My personal opinion: too many people go to college now. There are quite a few people who attend that would actually be better off with the work experience. Thirty years ago, that wasn't necessarily true.

I personally think the state/federal gov't should fund higher education--but only about 10 to 15% of the population should go. We should invest additional money in community colleges/apprenticeship programs for everyone else--I know quite a few people that would have benefitted from that type of education instead of a "formal" university one. Note that this is what quite a few European nations do, with varying degrees of success.
Click to expand...

I honestly think you are the first person ever to argue that education is a bad thing. Why should only 10% get a decent education? What you learn in high school is pretty limited. Most people don't even take calculus or physics, and how can you ever have a technical career without such basic foundations?

Look at the income gap between those with college degrees and those with only HS diplomas. Compare that to the total cost of four years of education. How can you argue that the income gap doesn't immediately cover the cost of the government's burder of higher education? And with 8-10 million immigrants willing to do unskilled labor (a number which increases every day), it should be every tax-paying citizens right to escape the unskilled labor market.
Click to expand...


He is right. First off its not that hard to get a college education with grant/ loans. The fact is most people don't belong in college and could not handle calculus and physics. Along with paying for everyone to go you have to lessen standards cheapening the value of the degree. Not to mention the huge number of dropouts the money will be wasted on. Then you have a bunch of people in the workforce with a "degree" expecting to be paid for it and the jobs aren't there. This can already be seen in alot of industries that used to pay good/high wages but now that the fields are saturated with people capable of the job (degree) wages have dropped significantly. Even outsourcing is a direct result of the thought of wage entitlement a degree brings. A lot can be said for work experience I know alot of people with degrees that make half what I do. If anything the general education needs to be overhualed so there aren't quite as many dumbasses. That way when I order a whopeer with cheese the motherfvcker has cheese on it. That money would be far better used teaching people skills they can fall back on and preparing people to make sound financial decisions.before they enter the workforce.
 
Originally posted by: beer
I honestly think you are the first person ever to argue that education is a bad thing. Why should only 10% get a decent education? What you learn in high school is pretty limited. Most people don't even take calculus or physics, and how can you ever have a technical career without such basic foundations?

Look at the income gap between those with college degrees and those with only HS diplomas. Compare that to the total cost of four years of education. How can you argue that the income gap doesn't immediately cover the cost of the government's burder of higher education? And with 8-10 million immigrants willing to do unskilled labor (a number which increases every day), it should be every tax-paying citizens right to escape the unskilled labor market.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you interpreted it that way. My thought is that high school should be MORE tailored to educating some people for real jobs. I don't understand why some people are forced to take British Lit--when a class is "how to read a newspaper and glean information" would be more appropriate. Algebra II might be useful to an engineer--but a "real-world geometry" class with practical applications might be more suited to people going into welding. You don't need a "university education" to perform skilled labor--you need the APPROPRIATE education. Sure, I'm pursuing my PhD to be a professor and conduct research in high strain-rate deformations of solids.... but does my PhD in Engineering Mechanics make me well-suited to be a top-notch welder (which is, btw, a SKILLED profession)? Absolutely not. I failed my ASME PP stamp the first few times I took it (and finally passed it on the third attempt)... while other "less educated" people with more real-world training (or *gasp* an apprenticeship) passed it with flying colors on the first attempt.

And the percentage was pulled out of my ass--the percentage would be determined by the real-world demand. But I will say that even the much-vaunted technical degree is over-given these days--look at how many CompSci graduates from lesser institutions are working at CompUSA. Look at all the waiters and waitresses who have a business degree. The amount of college degrees should be determined by real-world demand--and then the government could pick up the tab. Over 70% of my high school went to a university... and I promise you, some of them are working careers where a more practical education would have been useful. I'm calling for an all out overhaul... from Grades 9 up through higher education.
 
The current system still subsidizes higher education, though it isn't a complete subsidy. State taxes go to subsidize tuition costs for state universities. The difference in cost for "in-state" versus "out of state" tuitions is a clear example. Also, the federal government subsidizes grants and loans. The subsidized Stafford loan pays the interest on the money you borrow for school while you are in school and for 6 months after you graduate, which is a really great deal.

In terms of being "conservative", my only objection to government subsidies for education is that while everyone pays into the system (almost), not everyone takes advantage of the system. If you want to go to a private college, you won't be able to take advantage of all the tax dollars available to subsidize tuition costs. You can still take Stafford loans, Pell grants, etc, but not state subsidized tuition fees.

I think it would be better to end state tuition subsidies, lower taxes, and let people pay for their own education. However, this could and would mean the death of some state colleges.

R
 
Originally posted by: fredtam
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: HokieESM
Originally posted by: beer
I am looking to hear from the more conservative members on this board. I definitely want to hear your reasons for opposing government subsidies on higher education.

Without stating my points, I invite reasons why the current system (where higher education is a user fee) is better than the system in place thirty years ago, when higher education was almost completely state funded (at least in Texas).
Click to expand...

My personal opinion: too many people go to college now. There are quite a few people who attend that would actually be better off with the work experience. Thirty years ago, that wasn't necessarily true.

I personally think the state/federal gov't should fund higher education--but only about 10 to 15% of the population should go. We should invest additional money in community colleges/apprenticeship programs for everyone else--I know quite a few people that would have benefitted from that type of education instead of a "formal" university one. Note that this is what quite a few European nations do, with varying degrees of success.
Click to expand...

I honestly think you are the first person ever to argue that education is a bad thing. Why should only 10% get a decent education? What you learn in high school is pretty limited. Most people don't even take calculus or physics, and how can you ever have a technical career without such basic foundations?

Look at the income gap between those with college degrees and those with only HS diplomas. Compare that to the total cost of four years of education. How can you argue that the income gap doesn't immediately cover the cost of the government's burder of higher education? And with 8-10 million immigrants willing to do unskilled labor (a number which increases every day), it should be every tax-paying citizens right to escape the unskilled labor market.
Click to expand...


He is right. First off its not that hard to get a college education with grant/ loans. The fact is most people don't belong in college and could not handle calculus and physics. Along with paying for everyone to go you have to lessen standards cheapening the value of the degree. Not to mention the huge number of dropouts the money will be wasted on. Then you have a bunch of people in the workforce with a "degree" expecting to be paid for it and the jobs aren't there. This can already be seen in alot of industries that used to pay good/high wages but now that the fields are saturated with people capable of the job (degree) wages have dropped significantly. Even outsourcing is a direct result of the thought of wage entitlement a degree brings. A lot can be said for work experience I know alot of people with degrees that make half what I do. If anything the general education needs to be overhualed so there aren't quite as many dumbasses. That way when I order a whopeer with cheese the motherfvcker has cheese on it. That money would be far better used teaching people skills they can fall back on and preparing people to make sound financial decisions.before they enter the workforce.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Kind of funny that you single out calculus and physics. Those subjects are very difficult for me, and so I would probably make Cs or Ds if I took the higher level classes. But calculus and physics have little to do with me.. no more than geology has to do with you (you probably were/are an EE major or something?). I get about 5k per semester in scholarships, National Merit related mostly (1550 PSAT). Major is geography, and I have a 3.54 (with science classes I don't need for my major). I would be screwed if you used calculus and physics to determine who should get scholarships. The world does not revolve around engineers.
 
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Hmm. Kind of funny that you single out calculus and physics. Those subjects are very difficult for me, and so I would probably make Cs or Ds if I took the higher level classes. But calculus and physics have little to do with me.. no more than geology has to do with you (you probably were/are an EE major or something?). I get about 5k per semester in scholarships, National Merit related mostly (1550 PSAT). Major is geography, and I have a 3.54 (with science classes I don't need for my major). I would be screwed if you used calculus and physics to determine who should get scholarships. The world does not revolve around engineers.
Click to expand...

What are you majoring in, Wink? I agree, calculus and physics should not be used as measuring sticks for everyone. Might be a good measuring stick for engineers, however (and that depends on the type of engineer, as well.... we're definitely awarding too many of those degrees). The measuring stick should be appropriate. Also, with smaller "higher education" classes, we might could devote the proper amount of attention to applicants--say actually giving them appropriate tests/interview/auditions. Because education IS important--just the right/appropriate kind.

EDIT: If I could read, I'd see geology. 🙂 Case in point, they could examine you for necessary skills before entering--the ones that really matter. We have so many grad school applicants at VT that we can't even do that--someone might do poorly in fluids classes but excellent in solids.... and get turned down despite wanting to pursue a solids graduate degree. And there are definitely different types of geologists--I just loaned my FE code to one who does a LOT of physics. 🙂
 
Wink -

It was just an example. I equated 'technical careers' with math and science, the foundation of those. Obviously rhetoric skills are more applicable to lawyers and biology is more applicable to doctors (that isn't to say that doctors arent technical...)
 
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Originally posted by: fredtam
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: HokieESM
Originally posted by: beer
I am looking to hear from the more conservative members on this board. I definitely want to hear your reasons for opposing government subsidies on higher education.

Without stating my points, I invite reasons why the current system (where higher education is a user fee) is better than the system in place thirty years ago, when higher education was almost completely state funded (at least in Texas).
Click to expand...

My personal opinion: too many people go to college now. There are quite a few people who attend that would actually be better off with the work experience. Thirty years ago, that wasn't necessarily true.

I personally think the state/federal gov't should fund higher education--but only about 10 to 15% of the population should go. We should invest additional money in community colleges/apprenticeship programs for everyone else--I know quite a few people that would have benefitted from that type of education instead of a "formal" university one. Note that this is what quite a few European nations do, with varying degrees of success.
Click to expand...

I honestly think you are the first person ever to argue that education is a bad thing. Why should only 10% get a decent education? What you learn in high school is pretty limited. Most people don't even take calculus or physics, and how can you ever have a technical career without such basic foundations?

Look at the income gap between those with college degrees and those with only HS diplomas. Compare that to the total cost of four years of education. How can you argue that the income gap doesn't immediately cover the cost of the government's burder of higher education? And with 8-10 million immigrants willing to do unskilled labor (a number which increases every day), it should be every tax-paying citizens right to escape the unskilled labor market.
Click to expand...


He is right. First off its not that hard to get a college education with grant/ loans. The fact is most people don't belong in college and could not handle calculus and physics. Along with paying for everyone to go you have to lessen standards cheapening the value of the degree. Not to mention the huge number of dropouts the money will be wasted on. Then you have a bunch of people in the workforce with a "degree" expecting to be paid for it and the jobs aren't there. This can already be seen in alot of industries that used to pay good/high wages but now that the fields are saturated with people capable of the job (degree) wages have dropped significantly. Even outsourcing is a direct result of the thought of wage entitlement a degree brings. A lot can be said for work experience I know alot of people with degrees that make half what I do. If anything the general education needs to be overhualed so there aren't quite as many dumbasses. That way when I order a whopeer with cheese the motherfvcker has cheese on it. That money would be far better used teaching people skills they can fall back on and preparing people to make sound financial decisions.before they enter the workforce.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Kind of funny that you single out calculus and physics. Those subjects are very difficult for me, and so I would probably make Cs or Ds if I took the higher level classes. But calculus and physics have little to do with me.. no more than geology has to do with you (you probably were/are an EE major or something?). I get about 5k per semester in scholarships, National Merit related mostly (1550 PSAT). Major is geography, and I have a 3.54 (with science classes I don't need for my major). I would be screwed if you used calculus and physics to determine who should get scholarships. The world does not revolve around engineers.
Click to expand...

I'll rephrase. Most people do not have the dedication or desire to learn on a college level. As to being an EE major I do not have a degree. I joined the military and was trained as an electronics technician. Aftre leaving the military jobs in my area were scarce and the even though I had the military education/experience jobs that were available were going to people with much more experience. I decided just to start an apprenticeship in a skilled labor field and now make more than most ETs I know. It was easy for me to switch because I was taught a variety of skills growing up (not in school). I think you should be required in high school to take classes that provide you with a basic skill set and give you more of a realistic view of life in the work force.
 
"Look at the income gap between those with college degrees and those with only HS diplomas."

Sounds like they ought to pay for it themselves, since they're the ones benefiting from it. I'd hate like hell for my taxes to be wasted on kids who waste the time there.
 
college is just a prolonged summer camp right now. if they made it so that you REALLY took something out of it, I would fully support subsidies. but even (and perhaps especially) at some of the top schools in the nation, students just get their hands held and told how smart they are for 4 years, and really the only difference they come out into "the real world" with is being a few years older.
 
Originally posted by: bigalt
college is just a prolonged summer camp right now. if they made it so that you REALLY took something out of it, I would fully support subsidies. but even (and perhaps especially) at some of the top schools in the nation, students just get their hands held and told how smart they are for 4 years, and really the only difference they come out into "the real world" with is being a few years older.
Click to expand...

I agree for the most part with this....
 
FWIW- Georgia has a pretty good deal with regard to funding college for in-state students. Your tuition to non-private schools is paid for by the HOPE program so long as you maintain a B average or better so only the people actually studying get the help. As an added bonus, the program is mostly funded by proceeds from the state lottery so those of us paying taxes can't gripe.

I'm sure this program will be mismanaged into nonexistence by the time my kids are college age, but it's nice nonetheless.
 
I am paying for my daughter's college education. I do not want to be forced to pay for everyone else's as well. 😉

I heard part of a show in BBC4 that was saying something about changing the fee structure in the UK to reflect what ppl are studying for. Did not hear the whole program, but what I got out of it was that ppl studying for degrees in stuff that will pay high salaries should pay more for their education then ppl studying for lower paid professions. Interesting concept.

I wonder if society can cope with all the ppl that are getting degrees in certain fields. Millions of ppl getting degrees in the same field will saturate the market and salaries will go down, no? I am curious about that.
 
How about this line of thought: The secondary education system is not a Federal system. Subsidize it and will become one. And what happens if it becomes one? Just take a look at all other Federally subsidized systems - like transportation, reserves and major parks, animal protection and retirement. You have the feds now using these programs for control of the states.

The constitution specifically states that any power not specifically authorized to the Feds in the constitution is reserved for the States. But because the Feds have so much money tied into these programs, they can force the States to do what they want. Look at the 55 mph speed limit, until a few year ago. That was only put into place in each state when the Feds threated to withhold monies for needed road repairs.

Have the Federal government subsidize the secondary education system and watch every college teach the same thing, have the same entrance requirements (can't descriminate (and I'm not talking racial discrimination) in a federal program - everyone is equal), the same cost, the same everything. And if a college doesn't like it, well then the Feds hold back the money. Now what's the college to do?
 
Because you have no right to FORCE me, or anyone else to pay for your education.

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Because you have no right to FORCE me, or anyone else to pay for your education.

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Click to expand...

Wow, you've convinced me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top