Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
CampeadorSweden is on its way to becoming a 3rd world country, it clearly hasn't been very beneficial. Plus what is the point of getting all that education if the government turns around and takes everything you make?
And there are only so many jobs that open each year in fields that require a 4-year degree. For example, just because you send everyone to law school for "free", doesn't mean they're all going to become lawyers.
A 4-year degree isn't some magical conduit to a middle class living.
NikolausThat's not why Sweden's in trouble. take a look at finland, norway, and other european countries that have free or virtually free college education. The government in no way takes everything you make. It is true that they have higher taxes than us, but look at what it brings them: college, healthcare, etc. There's a reason that norway, finalnd, and denmark are all on the top 10 on the hdi. Having affordable college does not make a college degree worthless, it merely makes it available to more people. One still has to get accepted and maintain good grades. Even if a college degree was watered down, I'd take that and an educated populace over the alternative any day. I believe that nobody should be barred from seeking higher education because they can't afford it.
CampeadorThey aren't, there are plenty of affordable options (like community colleges) and state colleges that provide subsidized education. Furthermore, there are plenty of Pell grants and other funding methods for low-income households.
So besides funding middle-class college students, what other benefits does "free" education provide?
And yes it's basic economics to understand that if everyone has a college degree, those degrees are worth much less. Increased supply of degrees-holders for unchanged labor demand, means each degree-holder earns less, thus the degrees earned are worth far less.
The US has no shortage of 4-year graduates, it's certificated and 2-year graduates that are somewhat lacking.
NikolausSo thats totally why thousands upon thousands of kids can't do any college at all, right? Besides allowing everyone a chance at higher education, it results in a more educated populace, which we clearly need as evidenced by you.
CampeadorI've got two bachelor's degrees and a master's degree, what have you got?
.
NikolausSo thats totally why thousands upon thousands of kids can't do any college at all, right? Besides allowing everyone a chance at higher education, it results in a more educated populace.
CampeadorThey aren't, there are plenty of affordable options (like community colleges) and state colleges that provide subsidized education. Furthermore, there are plenty of Pell grants and other funding methods for low-income households.
So besides funding middle-class college students, what other benefits does "free" education provide?
And yes it's basic economics to understand that if everyone has a college degree, those degrees are worth much less. Increased supply of degrees-holders for unchanged labor demand, means each degree-holder earns less, thus the degrees earned are worth far less.
The US has no shortage of 4-year graduates, it's certificated and 2-year graduates that are somewhat lacking.
onenerdykidThis.
College diplomas never have and never will guarantee anyone a job. It is the education and training they bring to the table that get people jobs. But when more people have to compete for the education based on grades, test scores, writing samples, and teacher recommendations versus those who can simply buy their way in, you will have a college system that is extremely competitive to enter, and competitive based on academic merit. Lazy, deadbeat kids will be the last ones to get a college degree (unless they go to a private school).
Not only does the university level need an overhaul, but obviously so does the primary level. Both need to happen and countries that offer publicly funded university also have fantastic primary education too. And while we are on the topic of primary education, why is no one bitching about free k-12 education? Should we make that privately paid for too?
cool_namenow you are going to likely reply with, 'well yes loans exist, but education is extremely expensive and students arent able to pay them back, it leaves them with crippling debt'. In that case we absolutely should not be providing free education, because for all those students unable to pay back their debt, it is clear that education didn't provide the needed boost in income to justify the cost and with free education even more people will pursue degrees that do not offer enough benefit to recoup the costs
cool_namewho is going to be able to get those great grades those, the low income kid working two jobs through high school or the rich kid going to a top notch private school with a different tutor for every class ?
now yes, that is an extreme example, but the logic holds even with more realistic examples.
So, now i ask if children of rich parents are disproportionately getting into universities due to these harsh standards is it really helping the poor. No, it would be subsidizing a good primarily consumed by middle and upper class citizens, which is clearly a regressive taxation scheme and shouldn't be supported
The end of the day the whole argument for free education is based on the fact that we need to provide the opportunity for all citizens to pursue education, the opportunity to pursue education does not require that education to be free. There are amble opportunities already for citizens from all levels of social class to attend university and fund it through loans.
now you are going to likely reply with, 'well yes loans exist, but education is extremely expensive and students arent able to pay them back, it leaves them with crippling debt'. In that case we absolutely should not be providing free education, because for all those students unable to pay back their debt, it is clear that education didn't provide the needed boost in income to justify the cost and with free education even more people will pursue degrees that do not offer enough benefit to recoup the costs
onenerdykidI will reply with- other countries prove that it works. There is plenty of evidence that shows free healthcare and free university raise the quality of living in a country, something people in the USA seem to ignore quite often. (If the word "free" annoys you, we can use "publicly funded" instead).
As I mentioned, in order to work well and end-to-end, it would require an overhaul of not just the university level but at the primary level as well. The money is there, it just needs to be re-prioritized to allow it to happen.
cool_nameya it was used successfully in soviet Russia, the people republic of china, north Korea, and many more. All shining examples of high quality of life.
I am for free , publicly funded, or whatever health care however, i believe every person has the right to life and liberty and the goal for the government is to work to get as close to an ideal wold achieving that with infringing as minimally as necessary on peoples rights, but think the use of taxes to fund health care is a justified infringement.
onenerdykidThe examples I am currently referring to are Austria (where I live and experience this first hand), Germany, Sweden, Norway, etc. Many of these countries rank higher than the USA in the quality of their education system, quality of life, and overall prosperity, at least according to one well regarded study.
onenerdykidThose horrible, oppressive, and dogmatic regimes share very little with what I am discussing. While there are some commonalities, it is mainly by extension. The examples I am currently referring to are Austria (where I live and experience this first hand), Germany, Sweden, Norway, etc. Many of these countries rank higher than the USA in the quality of their education system, quality of life, and overall prosperity, at least according to one well regarded study.
cool_namethey may not share a lot, but they do share 'free' education, which is exactly what we are discussing. You cant just cherry pick from the countries with the free education and only pick good examples and then declare it free education raises the quality life when there are numerous examples of other countries with that characteristic with horrible quality of life.
Abu-BaghdadiBut free education wasn't the cause of those countries to be shit. Those countries are shit because of terrible governments. Those countries aren't also first world countries, they're also not democratic at all. The examples you have chosen bare no resemblance what so ever to first world countries.
onenerdykidI will reply with- other countries prove that it works. There is plenty of evidence that shows free healthcare and free university raise the quality of living in a country, something people in the USA seem to ignore quite often. (If the word "free" annoys you, we can use "publicly funded" instead).
cool_nameI never said free education was the cause, i was providing evidence to counter this claim.
All of the countries i posted provide evidence where free education has done nothing to improve the quality of life(something these proponents of free education seem to quite often ignore), which is directly contrary to his claim
Of course i can not say education was the cause of the problems in those countries (though free education is grounded in the same principles those governments were founded on, possibly with the exception of north korea) by the same token you can not say education was the cause of quality of life in the countries onenerdykid posted, especially were there are clear cases where despite free education, nothing improved, in fact life got worse.
cool_namethey may not share a lot, but they do share 'free' education, which is exactly what we are discussing. You cant just cherry pick from the countries with the free education and only pick good examples and then declare it free education raises the quality life when there are numerous examples of other countries with that characteristic with horrible quality of life.
cool_nameI never said free education was the cause, i was providing evidence to counter this claim.
All of the countries i posted provide evidence where free education has done nothing to improve the quality of life(something these proponents of free education seem to quite often ignore), which is directly contrary to his claim
Of course i can not say education was the cause of the problems in those countries (though free education is grounded in the same principles those governments were founded on, possibly with the exception of north korea) by the same token you can not say education was the cause of quality of life in the countries onenerdykid posted, especially were there are clear cases where despite free education, nothing improved, in fact life got worse.
onenerdykidI was not cherry picking and I never said it was the SOLE cause of a higher standard of living. I said that there was evidence that links free healthcare and free education to a high standard of living. I never said that it was a necessary condition for that high standard of living, meaning that without it it is impossible to have. What I was merely trying to get at was that in countries that have a high standard of living (and sometimes higher than that of the USA), free healthcare and free education are basic and common ingredients in that recipe.
I would never claim that free education and free healthcare ALONE cause a high standard of living. But instead they are present when looking at countries that have a high or higher standard of living than the USA.
onenerdykidThere is plenty of evidence that shows free healthcare and free university raise the quality of living in a country
Abu-BaghdadiBut you're comparing apples to oranges. You would have a case if you could provide a case where in a first world country free education didn't improve the quality of life. But you can't, because there is none.
You're also forgetting how in developing nations, education isn't regarded as highly as it is in the western world. In developing nations, the majority of people work manual labour jobs, manufacturing, etc,etc. Not computers or innovation or whatever. An education isn't needed in developing nations as much as it's needed in the western world.
cool_nameYou would never claim free education and free healthcare alone causes a high standard of living(that is good to hear), as you will you notice i never said you did either. What you do claim is that
In order to say action A to raises standard B, you must say action A causes a rise in standard B. In order for that to hold true, in all cases where action A is done, standard B will rise. I provided several cases where this is not the case, rebutting your claim the free education causes a rise in standards of living.
You can attempt to modify your argument all you want, from one that attempts to rebut my argument that free university is a bad idea, by claiming that there is a proof that free university causes a rise in the quality of life, to one that merely suggests free education is correlated to a higher quality of life, but once you are only are only claiming correlation your argument no longer provides a valid reason why my argument is wrong.
After all using your same logic, due to all the top countries on the survey you provided being primarily Caucasian, there is a correlation between countries being primarily Caucasian and quality of life, but surely that isn't a good reason for closed boarders and deportation of non Caucasians, nor is it a good argument being primarily Caucasian causes a rise in the quality of life. There are clearly other factors in play and simply pointing to one factor and saying 'hey this factor exists and quality of life is good, therefore this factor causes quality of life to rise' follows no valid logic.
Fact is, globally the average of quality of life has been growing, therefore even in cases where quality of life grows with free education, unless you can show that free education causes that rise, you cannot validly point to such a case and declare that it proves free education is a good idea because there are hundreds of other reasons why quality of life may be rising, and my argument would simply suggest that it would have raised even more without free education.
Now before you try to attack my point attempting to say i too can not claim causation, please read my post again. Then you will see that i actually provide reasons why causation is likely to exist, rather than just pointing to stats that prove nothing more than shaky correlation.
cool_nameYou would never claim free education and free healthcare alone causes a high standard of living(that is good to hear), as you will you notice i never said you did either. What you do claim is that
In order to say action A to raises standard B, you must say action A causes a rise in standard B. In order for that to hold true, in all cases where action A is done, standard B will rise. I provided several cases where this is not the case, rebutting your claim the free education causes a rise in standards of living.
You can attempt to modify your argument all you want, from one that attempts to rebut my argument that free university is a bad idea, by claiming that there is a proof that free university causes a rise in the quality of life, to one that merely suggests free education is correlated to a higher quality of life, but once you are only are only claiming correlation your argument no longer provides a valid reason why my argument is wrong.
After all using your same logic, due to all the top countries on the survey you provided being primarily Caucasian, there is a correlation between countries being primarily Caucasian and quality of life, but surely that isn't a good reason for closed boarders and deportation of non Caucasians, nor is it a good argument being primarily Caucasian causes a rise in the quality of life. There are clearly other factors in play and simply pointing to one factor and saying 'hey this factor exists and quality of life is good, therefore this factor causes quality of life to rise' follows no valid logic.
Fact is, globally the average of quality of life has been growing, therefore even in cases where quality of life grows with free education, unless you can show that free education causes that rise, you cannot validly point to such a case and declare that it proves free education is a good idea because there are hundreds of other reasons why quality of life may be rising, and my argument would simply suggest that it would have raised even more without free education.
Now before you try to attack my point attempting to say i too can not claim causation, please read my post again. Then you will see that i actually provide reasons why causation is likely to exist, rather than just pointing to stats that prove nothing more than shaky correlation.
.MASSHOLE.Welp.
Trump is now apparently pro-abortion if this is true:
"NEW Trump to @msnbc: "there has to be some form of punishment" for women who have abortions but he has yet to determine what that should be."
