Tertiary education, right or privilege?

[!Kaggen]

Rejecting the establishment of an elite private university on the basis that it would exclude the poor because of the high cost of its fees is like banning Lamborghinis because they’re too expensive for ordinary folks like you or me.http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2011-06-21-thats-right-tertiary-education-is-a-privilege-not-a-right

Freedom comes at a cost.
I choose freedom every time.
Just don't try to institutionalise freedom.

Like always I agree with Dawkins et al's sentiment but not their methods.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well, it gets muddled beyond a certain point because education starts specializing, and we get the "elite" schools where you are paying a lot for the name on the diploma. With this one in particular I am afraid that the reputation might have an opposite effect, akin to Liberty University.

As to the quote, education is something that society values because it needs educated citizens to function properly, unlike a particular brand of car. Allowing it for some and not for others has been part of historical policy for oppression, and nowadays people tend to see a benefit from equal opportunity to learn. Exorbitant prices and restricted enrollment for that "elite" factor just make the founders of the school seem like selfish pricks, IMO.

[stokes234]

The gap between rich and poor itself is harmful. Countries with a lower gap between rich and poor have fewer people in prison, fewer general health and mental health problems, lower teen pregnancy, etc etc. If you allow people to buy a superior chance in life for their children, you perpetuate the rich-poor divide by ensuring the rich and their children are more likely to stay rich, and you exacerbate the problems caused by inequality.

I believe in equality of opportunity. Every child should have the same chance in life, regardless of how well they did in the post-code lottery. The children that succeed should be the cleverest, the ones with the greatest work ethic, the most innovative. Not the ones who were born to the richest parents.

In my opinion, if there is enough money lying around to pay double tuition fees for private universities, then taxes on the rich should be raised and money used to fund more merit-based university places.

[ThunderChunky]

In the USA there are great public universities that are very affordable and lots of government aid. The problem is that people make very poor decisions and get worthless degrees from very expensive and not so great private schools.

[Roboramma]

The gap between rich and poor itself is harmful. Countries with a lower gap between rich and poor have fewer people in prison, fewer general health and mental health problems, lower teen pregnancy, etc etc. Which, if true, shows correlation, not causation.
Do you have evidence that those differences are caused by the gap between the rich and the poor?

If you allow people to buy a superior chance in life for their children, you perpetuate the rich-poor divide by ensuring the rich and their children are more likely to stay rich, and you exacerbate the problems caused by inequality. On the other hand, if you don't allow people to buy a superior chance in life for their children, you may simply be denying your country adults who were bought a superior chance in life: ie. well educated adults. Those same well educated adults could contribute a great deal to your economy, but they won't, because they've been denied the opportunity to get that advanced education.
Point being: it's not necessarily a zero sum game. People love their own children, and are willing to spend money on their education that they wouldn't be willing to spend on the education of other people's children. Denying them the opportunity to spend that money on their own children doesn't necessarily result in that money being spent on other people's children, and thus we end up with less being invested in education. It may mean that the pie is more equal, but only by way of being smaller.

In my opinion, if there is enough money lying around to pay double tuition fees for private universities, then taxes on the rich should be raised and money used to fund more merit-based university places.

I doubt it would work out that way. Taxes on the rich may be raised, but is there really the public will to put that money into "merit-based" university places? It doesn't seem to me to necessarily follow, at any rate.

Now, I certainly believe that we are all better off by having government supply education as a public good, but I can't see how anyone benefits by limiting privately funded education. You want to raise taxes on the rich to fund more public education? Great, and perhaps with a higher tax burden they'll be less likely to spend as much on their own children's education, but why stop them if that's how they want to spend their money? It seems to me that better educated people only helps, rather than harms, a nation, it's economy, scientific advancement, and even the running of it's government.

[stokes234]

Which, if true, shows correlation, not causation.
Do you have evidence that those differences are caused by the gap between the rich and the poor?

The evidence is that the problems caused by high income inequality come in groups, such that countries with high inequality recieve most if not all of the problems rather than countries with one or two of the problems related to inequality recieving high inequality. It just seems far more likely that high inequality results in high values for 10-12 social problems, than these social problems causing high inequality only when all combined.

For a better explanation, take a look at the FAQ (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/frequently-asked-questions#opposite) on the equality trust website. In particular, the explanation of causation versus correlation, and the list at the bottom of the page of social issues that correlate with inequality.

On the other hand, if you don't allow people to buy a superior chance in life for their children, you may simply be denying your country adults who were bought a superior chance in life: ie. well educated adults. Those same well educated adults could contribute a great deal to your economy, but they won't, because they've been denied the opportunity to get that advanced education.

Yeah, that's the risk. But attempting to emulate the american system of funding the economy by boosting the status of an elite few and hoping the wealth they create trickles down to the masses hasn't served us particularly well in the past 30 years. I'd rather attempt a more european system of higher equality.

Point being: it's not necessarily a zero sum game. People love their own children, and are willing to spend money on their education that they wouldn't be willing to spend on the education of other people's children. Denying them the opportunity to spend that money on their own children doesn't necessarily result in that money being spent on other people's children, and thus we end up with less being invested in education. It may mean that the pie is more equal, but only by way of being smaller.

I see where you're coming from, and i'm not denying the benefits of creating an elite, i'm more trying to weigh them off against the benefits of equality, and i'll also add that if you allow people to separate their children off from most of society they become less concerned with how well the rest of the education system is going. This is mostly a concern in regards to politicians - if the prospects of their children don't rely on the same standards, if they are allowed to fence their children off from the state system, they are less likely to be concerned with how the system actually performs, and can concentrate purely on how society percieves it to perform.

I doubt it would work out that way. Taxes on the rich may be raised, but is there really the public will to put that money into "merit-based" university places? It doesn't seem to me to necessarily follow, at any rate.

Well, at the last general election, around 38% of voters (iirc) voted for a party that could be expected to increase tuition fees. Labour had no plans to and likely wouldn't have gone against a public backlash, and the libdems outright pledged against it and suffered badly for going back on this pledge, as shown in the recent council and devolved elections. To me that says that the majority of the public prefer university places to be decided on merit, rather than ability to pay. If you are of the opinion that the recent decision to raise tuition fees was pragmatic rather than ideological, then it could be argued that higher taxes would have allowed the government to avoid the rise in tuition fees.

Now, I certainly believe that we are all better off by having government supply education as a public good, but I can't see how anyone benefits by limiting privately funded education. You want to raise taxes on the rich to fund more public education? Great, and perhaps with a higher tax burden they'll be less likely to spend as much on their own children's education, but why stop them if that's how they want to spend their money? It seems to me that better educated people only helps, rather than harms, a nation, it's economy, scientific advancement, and even the running of it's government.

I agree that a better educated population helps the economy, but my worry is over the selection system regarding who becomes the best educated part of the population. If it is decided on the wealth of your parents, you exacerbate the problems of inequality as discussed above, and in my eyes you run the risk of reducing politician accountability.

[Mark6]

In the USA there are great public universities that are very affordable and lots of government aid. The problem is that people make very poor decisions and get worthless degrees from very expensive and not so great private schools.
Also, there are a lot of jobs which society objectively needs, and which pay well, but because they do not require university education too many young people (and even more so their parents) turn up their noses at them. Like welder or plumber.

US really needs an honest society-wide discussion about who actually benefits from traditional college education and who does not. It also needs more and better vocational schools.

[Travis]

In the USA there are great public universities that are very affordable and lots of government aid. The problem is that people make very poor decisions and get worthless degrees from very expensive and not so great private schools.

Which I had to drop out of because I still couldn't afford it.

[ThunderChunky]

Which I had to drop out of because I still couldn't afford it.

Some people will have to get jobs and maybe take a loan. The costs are very low though. The fact that you dropped out means you either weren't planning ahead or some unforseen and financially cataclysmic event occurred. Cant blame the cost of school for that.

[Travis]

I couldn't get a loan without a cosigner and both my parents (divorced) had just, unexpectedly, declared bankruptcy. I had no place to live either so I had to drop out, get a job and find a place to live. Also my brother had just died.

Not a great time in my life.......more like a low point actually.

[Complexity]

I couldn't get a loan without a cosigner and both my parents (divorced) had just, unexpectedly, declared bankruptcy. I had no place to live either so I had to drop out, get a job and find a place to live. Also my brother had just died.

Not a great time in my life.......more like a low point actually.


That was then. Why not spend July looking into options and register for a class that qualifies for a degree this fall. Start with a class at a time. It is much better than having regrets.