TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Education
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
whoa, talk about blast from the past! hi smiley! 
We have spent $1.3 trillion on military expeditions into Iraq and Afghanistan, purportedly in retaliation for 9/11, when probably 75% of that of 1.3 trillion was completely wasted. Who in their right mind would say education should be a luxury of the wealthy when so much money is at stake. Who gets it? Of course, the military. As if this were the North Korean "military-first" policy. Doesn't it make sense to facilitate free college-level education? Why stop at high school? WTF can you do with a high school degree? Really, nothing but continue on to college.
Re: Re: Education
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Whether you think it's a right or not is probably irrelevant when asking whether or not the government should pay for peoples' education. What you should be asking is whether the potential benefits of government-funded education outweight the benefits of no education for those that cannot afford it (because that is the alternative). Many of the problems in society simply cannot be fixed because the people causing those problems have no education (think crime etc). If you take away what education these people have access to then you will make existing problems worse and in the long term that will cost the government (ie you!) more money for police etc etc. Then there's the issue of whether it is a "right". Well, why should those with rich parents have an advantage over those who don't have rich parents? It's not the child's fault how successful their parents were - why shouldn't they get the chance to make a success of their lives? We should create a level playing field as far as education goes where those with the intelligence/apptitude can succeed. Anyway, how is everyone?! |
Re: Re: Education
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley What you should be asking is whether the potential benefits of government-funded education outweight the benefits of no education for those that cannot afford it (because that is the alternative). |
| quote: |
| Suppose that groceries were supplied in the same way as K-12 education. Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties. Nearly half of those tax revenues would then be spent by government officials to build and operate supermarkets. Each family would be assigned to a particular supermarket according to its home address. And each family would get its weekly allotment of groceries - "for free" - from its neighborhood public supermarket. No family would be permitted to get groceries from a public supermarket outside of its district. ... ... quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in families' choices about where to live. Real-estate agents and chambers of commerce in prosperous neighborhoods would brag about the high quality of public supermarkets to which families in their cities and towns are assigned. ... thoughtful souls would call for "supermarket choice" fueled by vouchers or tax credits. Those calls would be vigorously opposed by public-supermarket administrators and workers. As for the handful of radicals who call for total separation of supermarket and state --- well, they would be criticized by almost everyone as antisocial devils indifferent to the starvation that would haunt the land if the provision of groceries were governed exclusively by private market forces. |
Re: Re: Re: Education
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss What's with the false choice narrative here? We must weigh no education vs. government funded education? Sorry but I'll take competition and private schools as option "C". When schools have to actually perform to stay open, quality of education goes up. |
People do realize that subsidies are a price support mechanism and, all else being static, serve to keep prices higher than they otherwise would be in a free market system, right?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka People do realize that subsidies are a price support mechanism and, all else being static, serve to keep prices higher than they otherwise would be in a free market system, right? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Comrade Stalin How can all citizens have access to education if it isn't subsidized by the government? |
) There is no perfect way to do it. | quote: |
For-Profit College Costs Surpass Nonprofit Peers in U.S. Study 2011-05-26 04:01:00.12 GMT By John Lauerman May 26 (Bloomberg) -- The average cost of attending a four- year for-profit college surpassed expenses at both U.S. state and private nonprofit universities, a government report found. Full-time students paid an average of $30,900 annually at the for-profit schools in the 2007-2008 academic year, almost double the $15,600 average paid at public universities, according to U.S. Education Department data released today. The average cost of attending a private nonprofit college was $26,600, the study said. Congress has been investigating costs and students� debt burdens at for-profit colleges, which get as much as 90 percent of their revenue from federal student grants and loans. Default rates among former students at for-profit colleges jumped to 15.2 percent, the biggest rise in the higher-education field, the Education Department said May 20 in a separate report. �The career-college industry readily admits that they cost students more than some alternatives,� said Pauline Abernathy, who oversees policy and advocacy for the Institute for College Access and Success, in a telephone interview. �The question, particularly for the lower-income students these colleges target, is whether it�s worth the higher cost.� The Bloomberg U.S. For-Profit College Index of 13 companies fell less than 1 percent yesterday. Apollo Group Inc., operator of the University of Phoenix and the biggest U.S. for-profit college, declined $1.05, or 2.6 percent, to $39.92 in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. �Traditional� Undergraduates The study�s cost estimates, which used constant 2009-2010 dollars, included living expenses such as housing and food, for students at all colleges. It looked only at students who were still considered dependent on their parents, to get a picture of the costs paid by �traditional� undergraduates, said Tom Snyder, an Education Department statistician. The report looked at a small sample of the students at for- profit colleges, where only about one-quarter are dependents, said Harris Miller, president of the Washington-based Association of Private Sector Colleges & Universities, an industry group. Other data show that for-profit colleges cost less than private nonprofit institutions because many students study at home through online courses, keeping living expenses lower, Miller said. Four-year, for-profit colleges also spent less than nonprofits on instruction, averaging expenditures of $2,659 per student in 2008-2009, according to the study. Private, four-year nonprofit colleges spent almost six times as much -- $15,289 per student -- in that same period, and public institutions spent an average of $9,418. Less Expensive Faculty Most for-profit colleges use lower-paid faculty, providing students access to teachers at less cost, Miller said. �They get a better student-to-faculty ratio than you would get when you have a high-priced professor in a large lecture,� Miller said. The study looked at the average cost of attending college after subtracting scholarships that students don�t have to repay, including U.S. Pell Grants. About one in four students at a U.S. for-profit college receives a Pell Grant, which provides as much as $5,550 annually for poor students. The costs for students at private nonprofit colleges were lower, in part, because they received an average of $10,900 in annual scholarships, while for-profit college students got an average of $2,600 in grants. Public university students received an average of $3,700 in such assistance. Pending Regulations Average costs after grants at four-year, for-profit colleges rose 37 percent from $22,500 in the 2003-2004 academic year, the study said. During the same period, costs at public universities rose 8.3 percent from an average of $14,400, and by 8.6 percent from an average of $24,500 at private nonprofit institutions. The Education Department is preparing to release regulations that may further restrict access to financial aid at for-profit colleges. California lawmakers passed a measure that will restrict students� ability to get state grants to cover costs of for-profit colleges. The figures were included in a report, called The Condition of Education, which the Education Department provides for Congress annually. The figures on average college costs are collected every four years, said Snyder, the department statistician. |
I think it's more a supply and demand issue. There is such a huge supply of students that colleges and universities know that they can raise their tuition and fees and the students just have to eat it. Or leave because there will most likely be someone else willing to take their place. Demand is inelastic so the schools can raise rates as much as they want way beyond inflation. Subsidies do contribute to the huge student supply but that doesn't justify raising rates so high every year.
Funny you guys should be talking about this.
I was just reading about this the other day.
Currently, the whole education system could be standing on it's head soon anyway
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.