Should everyone have the chance to learn? page 2

65 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
On another question: If such education is such a great investment(as all studies seem to show), then should society not be interested in investing into those who lack the money and thus can not invest in themselves?

The government should, and it does – both federally and at the state level. There is a large difference between government assistance and government giving everyone free education.

And instead of asking people to pay up front at a time where only the rarest among them has or can actually earn such an amount of money themselves, would it not be wiser to ask the money back latter?

I get the impression you have no idea how student loans work in the US. You don’t start paying them back after you graduate, usually with several months of grace period in order to find a job.

Could be that the Reputation the USA has regarding higher education and institutionalized economic discrimination is wrong, but i highly doubt it.
There is a large difference between having the option to pay tuition fees later and paying back student loans. In the countries where i know how they work, which are countries much more socialized than the USA, student loans are:
A. conditional to the Grades(usually referred to as Credits) one gets and on the speed with which one is getting said Grades. Generally meaning that person has to stay quite above average both in Grades and Speed to keep getting his loans.
For private and parent loans another condition is the financial Status of the parents.

B. they usually don´t cover all the necessities, which means that most Students who receive them have to work while Studying. Don´t get me wrong working while studying is not necessarily bad, but when your supposed to stay above average and have to compete with students who don´t have to work it´s an important disadvantage.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

nope.
its a luxury.

nothing is entitled to anyone.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by cesarcurado:

No, the others can die already.

and this ^

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:

nope.
its a luxury.

Oh yeah, it’s not like a basic education is necessary for almost every job or society as a whole.

nothing is entitled to anyone.

You just want to sound as nhilistic as possible, don’t you?

 
Flag Post

Issen,

It shouldn’t be, but likewise, I shouldn’t be made to feel cold-hearted when the poor liberal arts major who racked up $200k in student loans by getting a history degree from Harvard can’t get a job. I think part of the problem is that universities are becoming more and more big business and they don’t really have a vested interest to tell the students that coming to our school and majoring in the liberal arts may not be your best option.

Quite agree.

I also think there is general agreement that education is too expensive in the US. While I will confess I don’t know what reforms are needed in order to make higher education more affordable, I’m pretty confident having the government pay for everything won’t lower costs. Contrary to popular belief, just because the government pays for something doesn’t mean that we still don’t have to pay for it.

Granted. But who the paying “we” is becomes subject to, well taxes. Which is a whole other kettle of fish. But yes, I agree that net cost would likely rise.

Tenco,

Oh yeah, it’s not like a basic education is necessary for almost every job or society as a whole.

I am not sure a basic education is really the necessary for many jobs. Although we may start mincing as to what we mean for “basic” and even really, “education”. But, nevertheless I find the blurring of lines between career and skill training and the traditional model of education a cultural problem for the Western world.

 
Flag Post

Assuming that everybody wants to “learn”.

If it wasn’t illegal to not go to school (meaning pre-college), can you imagine how many people wouldn’t go at all?

So many people would rather be able to live on government funding or mom and dad’s savings than actually work for a day in their life.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by basicbasic:

I’ve been told in my country that education is a right


I don’t really think we should go as far to make it free.

I see a problem right there.

Nice taking stuff out of context. College is considered further education, no-one going there is forced to, they have the option. Whilst high school isn’t (in my country by law). So therefore if your forced to go somewhere (by law) and its a right in your country, it should naturally have a free option. However if your choosing to increase your education further, then it shouldn’t.

 
Flag Post

So education is not a right.
It is a duty when it comes to basic education and an investment that increases the gap between rich and poor when it comes to higher education.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:

nope.
its a luxury.

nothing is entitled to anyone.

I think education is a right. It should be something everyone has access to, like clean water and shelter. I am not talking about a higher education, I’m talking about K-12 education. everyone should have a K-12 kind of education.

 
Flag Post

i dont agree with this, unions should be banned

 
Flag Post

So education is not a right.
It is a duty when it comes to basic education and an investment that increases the gap between the educated and uneducated when it comes to higher education.

Fixed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

So education is not a right.
It is a duty when it comes to basic education and an investment that increases the gap between the educated and uneducated when it comes to higher education.

Fixed.

Not if it costs so much that poorer people have a significant sure that as well. But if poorer people by default have much more trouble getting higher education, not based on their intelligence but solely on their finances then this effectively increases the gap between rich and poor.

Again, my point is not that everyone should get a college education. My point is that everyone who is qualified to go to college should be able to do that without a problem to reach their full potential.
Income is not a qualifying factor; at least, it should not be.

 
Flag Post

Pretty much everyone who is qualified and desires it, can find the scholarships or money out there to go to college. There are LOADS of scholarships offered from both my university, and the private sector around here that are for urban students only. They are all based on merit.

While I think that college is ridiculously expensive for almost everyone, I don’t think that it should be ‘free’ (which would never work, because salaries … ) or paid for by taxes, personally. The basic (which isn’t even basic anymore, the amount of advanced classes I was offered in K-12) K-12, free, public education is more than enough to educate someone to think critically and be able to form opinions. You don’t need college to find a good job. I’ll have a Bachelor’s degree and even after working 25 years, a plumber who went through an apprentice program, or trade-school will make more than me in his/her first year.

College degrees aren’t what they once were, a guarantee of a job, and for many people it isn’t always the wisest investment. That’s what higher education is, an investment. You don’t need to have money to learn more, if that is your desire. A lot of schools are offering free lectures online about a variety of topics. Not to mention, if anyone is considering higher education, they should in some way have access to a computer and the internet, whether it is at home or in a public setting.

But I don’t think that anyone else should be forced to pay for my education through taxes. I’ve seen too many classmates wasting the money they are using for their education to skip classes, not do assignments, and ultimately flunk out. Why should anyone be forced to pay for someone who isn’t going to take it seriously?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Natamora:

Pretty much everyone who is qualified and desires it, can find the scholarships or money out there to go to college. There are LOADS of scholarships offered from both my university, and the private sector around here that are for urban students only. They are all based on merit.

The measurement of that merit is generally so that it excludes many People who are qualified(fullfill the basic requirments except money to go to college).

I don’t think that it should be ‘free’

I agree they should not be free, but to guarantee equal and better access it would be better if the costs where charged after and not before/during the education phase.

College degrees aren’t what they once were, a guarantee of a job, and for many people it isn’t always the wisest investment.

While having a College degree is no longer a guarantee of a job it once was, not having one has become much more of a guarantee of not having one.
For the overwhelming majority College degrees are a very very wise investment and more importantly for society at large it(and education in general) is a very important one.

That’s what higher education is, an investment. You don’t need to have money to learn more, if that is your desire. A lot of schools are offering free lectures online about a variety of topics. Not to mention, if anyone is considering higher education, they should in some way have access to a computer and the internet, whether it is at home or in a public setting.

The same is true of lower education.

But I don’t think that anyone else should be forced to pay for my education through taxes. I’ve seen too many classmates wasting the money they are using for their education to skip classes, not do assignments, and ultimately flunk out. Why should anyone be forced to pay for someone who isn’t going to take it seriously?

Because its a good bet for society. Those that do make it are an enrichment of society as a whole. Private businesses are loath to make such bets, because they have far less instruments at hand with which they can reap profits or at least reclaim their bet. Well educated employees are a resource that business rather consume than create. That they still do the later a lot, shows just how much having a better educated populace can attract businesses.
In a time of Globalisation its the infrastructure vs. costs which decides where companies invest. A better educated populace means a better infrastructure. A better infrastructure is the basic trait of the leading economics, which allows them to attract Capital even with higher costs.

 
Flag Post

it isnt a necessity to live

its a luxury used to thrive.

no one is entitled to ANYTHING in this world

 
Flag Post
Not if it costs so much that poorer people have a significant sure that as well. But if poorer people by default have much more trouble getting higher education, not based on their intelligence but solely on their finances then this effectively increases the gap between rich and poor.

Where is this data that the poor are not getting into college because of their finances? I can understand because of intelligence because large numbers of the lower class in this country live in inner cities where the school systems are terrible. I haven’t heard of colleges turning people down because of money – rather they point out student loans and other government assistance/scholarships that the student may qualify for to help pay for the education.

Again, my point is not that everyone should get a college education. My point is that everyone who is qualified to go to college should be able to do that without a problem to reach their full potential.
Income is not a qualifying factor; at least, it should not be.

Absolutely, but having the government pay for everyone isn’t a feasible solution. Reforms that would actually lower the cost of secondary education is.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by basicbasic:

I’ve been told in my country that education is a right and I know that its illegal for you not to go to school until year 10 (two years off graduating from high school) by then your out of the basic maths, English and science and you are starting to specialise (the sciences split, more subjects such as accounting pop up). So for me I believe that education from primary through to completing high school is a necessity.

For College and other further education I think it is not a necessary mainly because not all jobs require degrees. While everyone should have the chance to (as the OP says) I don’t really think we should go as far to make it free.

education is not needed to survive. it is used to advance.

and yeh, trades are currently very valued, as everyone goes to college instead and neglects these needed sectors

 
Flag Post

I haven’t heard of colleges turning people down because of money – rather they point out student loans and other government assistance/scholarships that the student may qualify for to help pay for the education.

Although, loans are only a cost escape is the education is going to result in placement in a better paying job. If one can’t expect to use their given education as guaranteed better employment, then cash in hand now is still a cost of education.

Absolutely, but having the government pay for everyone isn’t a feasible solution. Reforms that would actually lower the cost of secondary education is.

I wince a little at “Feasible”. I do feel it is a feasible method. I am not sure it is the most successful model, and I am not sure it is the most moral one, and so ultimately I don’t even really endorse it as a process. Nevertheless, I think it is an option to carefully consider and one that wouldn’t have to operate as some sort of total disaster.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Although, loans are only a cost escape is the education is going to result in placement in a better paying job. If one can’t expect to use their given education as guaranteed better employment, then cash in hand now is still a cost of education.

Loans are never a cost escape, they only let you distribute the cost over a longer period of time instead of paying a lump sum.

 
Flag Post
If one can’t expect to use their given education as guaranteed better employment, then cash in hand now is still a cost of education.

If one isn’t going to school to use their given education as guaranteed better employment, then that person shouldn’t be going to a four year school in the first place. If you are simply looking to continue education beyond high school, it’s far more prudent to go to one of the tens of thousands of technical and community colleges to take classes that are far, far, far more affordable than a four year school.

I wince a little at “Feasible”. I do feel it is a feasible method.

We can’t afford our budget now – debt is projected to be $26t in 2023. I would love to be shown how we can afford yet another massive entitlement program. I hope you’ll forgive me for being completely skeptical that this is “feasible.”

Nevertheless, I think it is an option to carefully consider and one that wouldn’t have to operate as some sort of total disaster.

Generally speaking, most everything the government gets their paws into operates as a total disaster.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
I wince a little at “Feasible”. I do feel it is a feasible method.

We can’t afford our budget now – debt is projected to be $26t in 2023. I would love to be shown how we can afford yet another massive entitlement program. I hope you’ll forgive me for being completely skeptical that this is “feasible.”

Because the overall economic effect would pay back the entitlement in terms of taxes. One important reasons why the USA is ever more slipping down economy wise, is the overall education level of the populace. Even the USA has the reputation of having many of the top Universities of the World, the average level of education is a bit low for a modern country and especially low if one disregards the top 10-20%.
Before the increase in globalization this was actually a strength. America had enough well or even greatly educated Leaders (Scientist, Managers and etc.) to lead their much larger but much less educated workforce to prosperity. This less educated workforce was considered cost efficient, due to the workforce being protected from the competition of 2nd and 3rd world countries. The difference in infrastructure limited the ability too outsource work to there. This protection is gone.
The large low educated workforce has become a constraint, because its forced to compete in competition it can not win.

The first world economies are changing, from production based to service based(providing other countries with workforce leadership from afar). The modern 1st world countries have the choice to adapt to and spearhead this change or they can cling to their old production based models and become 2nd world countries.

 
Flag Post
Because the overall economic effect would pay back the entitlement in terms of taxes.

I don’t buy that. We have tons of highly educated people who aren’t getting jobs. Perhaps if this administration were more business friendly, companies wouldn’t be hoarding trillions of dollars, too petrified to invest because of completely uncertainty in relation to new regulations and higher taxes. The issue isn’t an uneducated workforce as you put it, its that business won’t hire and expand.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Because the overall economic effect would pay back the entitlement in terms of taxes.

I don’t buy that. We have tons of highly educated people who aren’t getting jobs.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-29/shortage-of-educated-workers-boosts-u-s-joblessness.html

Having thousands(tons) of highly educated who are not getting jobs in no way counters what i said. Since i never said that it would be a magic solution to all economic problems. Otherwise a country like Cuba would have much better economic prospects than it has right now.
Education is just one the infrastructure fields which decides where business invest. Now one could (and should) try to win in others. But education remains a important factor, because viewed globally it is a rare and limited commodity.

Perhaps if this administration were more business friendly, companies wouldn’t be hoarding trillions of dollars, too petrified to invest because of completely uncertainty in relation to new regulations and higher taxes. The issue isn’t an uneducated workforce as you put it, its that business won’t hire and expand.

One of the Reasons they don´t expand is because of the uneducated workforce. You can get an uneducated workforce much cheaper in countries like China and India. Not only cheaper but willing to work under conditions that are basically the same as suicide.
You can´t compete against that with a more business friendly Administration, especially since other countries can out compete or at least match the USA there too.

But, hey. If you Americans want to compete with china and other 3rd and 2nd world countries in the cheap uneducated labor market by becoming more business friendly, well then: