Why shouldn't the government subsidize higher education?

[Balt]

It does subsidize higher education. All you have to do is get a nice ACT/SAT score and have a decent GPA.

If you aren't willing to work hard enough to do that for yourself to get a free ride, why should anyone else have to do it for you?

As for the "free for everyone, regardless of blah blah blah" argument, how do you think universities are going to increase their capacity enough to handle all of these students? What do you think will happen to the quality of universities when they do not have to compete to get students anymore, but just receive a check from the government for each student ? Universities would no longer have to care about letting in those that actually work to get into college, because as long as they have x number of students they receive x number of checks from the feds to pay their tuition.

Edit: And for the record I'm not a conservative, I'm a realist.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Here's the problem with it:
Person A gets a free doctorate degree.
Person B just goes straight to work.
Person B pays for Person A to go to school.
Person A graduates, and has to pay the same amount (as a % of income) as Person B.
Person B gets largely nothing from paying for Person A's education.
Person C goes to school on grants and the like, and just keeps going to school for 10 years getting every degree imaginable at the school while keeping grades just high enough to avoid being kicked out.
Persons A and B are paying for Person C.

I have ZERO problem with a student loan style education. You pay back every bit of what you get. YOU have to make your education count and be worth it. There should be at the very least a signifigant copay to keep people from leeching on the system. Grants work to help the lower income families and people living on thier own (read: not me 5 years ago) get the education and level the opportunity slope a bit. But I'm against "free rides for all".

 

[EagleKeeper]

Which government.

Most states have a higher educational system that recieves funding from taxes.

The Federal gov also sends moeny to the higher educational system in terms of direct grants (research, tutition, pork, etc).

The benefit of a higher educational system will translate into better workers with better jobs.

To subsidize for the sake of numbers is a falacy. Also, there must be an accountability for funds transfered/promised into the educational system.

 

[scauffiel]

Here ya go:

Why shouldn't the government subsidize brand new SUV's or Volvo's for everyone?
I mean, shouldn't everyone be as safe as possible?

Why shouldn't the government subsidize beach houses for everyone?
I mean, the country would be a lot less stressful if everyone had a house on the beach to come home to.

Why shouldn't the government subsidize prostitutes for everyone?
Hell, got to relieve that sexual tension, 'sides maybe it'll reduce instances of rape.

Why shouldn't the government subsidize drug abuse?
Shouldn't people be able to feel good?

Why shouldn't the government subsidize grocery purchases for everyone?
A man's got to eat; why should only SOME of the people be able to afford the 'good' stuff?

Why shouldn't the government subsidize computer and video game purchases?
Got to make sure the software programmers and game designers are getting paid and who doesn't like and need video games and computer stuff?

Ad nauseum.

S.

 

[Ornery]

Damn scauffiel, you'd make a lousy Democrat if that was sarcasm! 😛

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Because we're not a socialist government (yet).

 

[Vic]

Because when a college education becomes "free" (government paid-for), then it will be worth exactly what the students paid for it. Nothing.
Let's not make college like how high schools have become.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: HokieESM

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.

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. 🙂

If you could read better, you would see geography 🙂. Minor is biology, though I may minor in anthropology or history as well/instead. I'm almost afraid to say it on this forum.. but then I realize that geographers decide where these EEs and ECEs can buy houses, build factories, hike, bike, and offroad.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
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

Congratulations on being the only one to get it right. Indeed, the best solution is to have a part of higher education paid for by the gov and the other by the student. Naturally, students loans are an absolute must.

 

[Chaotic42]

If you have the drive to go to college, you can. It may not be Harvard, but for the most part, the people who don't go to college are those who don't really want to.

Grants are there. Scholarships are there. Loans are there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Congratulations on being the only one to get it right. Indeed, the best solution is to have a part of higher education paid for by the gov and the other by the student. Naturally, students loans are an absolute must.

It's already well-documented that the cost of higher education has gone up proportionate to the amount of government subsidy that is available.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Congratulations on being the only one to get it right. Indeed, the best solution is to have a part of higher education paid for by the gov and the other by the student. Naturally, students loans are an absolute must.

It's already well-documented that the cost of higher education has gone up proportionate to the amount of government subsidy that is available.

I suppose that can happen if you introduce such a thing. If people in the US are used to paying 20K a year and all of a sudden tuition becomes 10K because of gov funding, no doubt tuition would go up.

I'm not entirely sure what the formula is here, I think the gov provides some base funding and the uni charges whatever they want on top of that. It works pretty well.

 

[PlatinumGold]

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).

thirty years ago, texas still had some oil money.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Vic
Because when a college education becomes "free" (government paid-for), then it will be worth exactly what the students paid for it. Nothing.
Let's not make college like how high schools have become.

Strangely, even though I don't often agree with Vic on much, I do agree with him here. You used to have to work hard to get a high school degree. Now, because everyone is allowed to pass through (dumbing down of education system by feds, special interest, et al) without actually having to really work for it. C'mon...a 60% to pass a class? WTF!?! The typical history test of thirty years ago for a 10th grader would fail most graduates. Unless you attach some sort of actual work to any subsidy, then higher education would become worthless. Just like a highschool diploma, which a lot of times isn't worth the paper its written on. I have no problem with funding a certain top percentage...say 15% of high school graduates to go on because they have truly worked for it. Competition is the key. If you didn't put in the work or don't have the aptitude to get ranked that high, then you should have to pay.

 

[stormbv]

Education is necessary for conforming people to societal "norms", but it is also necessary for escaping the madness if you forget everything else you've been taught and start fresh.