Should College Be a Constitutional Right?

oh, you're talking about one of those for-profit trade schools that charge you more in tuition than you can pay off with the salaries those jobs provide.

got it.

yeah, i'm against those... they are predatory should be shut down... they prey on young ppl who only want to try and find a way in this world.

No, I went to an accredited private college.

However, that doesn't change the fact that it was an inefficient use of my time.

No, but the ability to finance higher education should never prevent someone from pursuing it if they have the interest and aptitude. Society gains from the increased productivity of educated labor so it makes sense for the government to subsidize education to some degree.

Not really. While educated population is a public good, government subsidization of education is a large part of what has cause education to be the second fastest growing industry in terms of costs. This means that ultimately, society benefits most by not subsidizing education.

Not true.

So you don't think there is a correlation between federally subsidized education and the ever-increasing cost of college tuition?

What do you think would happen to tuition if there were no federal subsidies?

I'm pretty sure institutions of higher learning would have to either lower tuition or go out of business.

To think, you wasted at least 4 years in college and didn't even master basic economics.

You're an idiot. I never claimed anything you are accusing me of saying. Learn to read.

Yes true. It is a clearly illustrated fact. The increase in government subsidization in any industry, but particularly in healthcare and education, has seen a sharp inflation rate, compared to those that are not subsidized. It is a large part of why gas prices are so high (combined with high dependency and a $0.40 a gallon tax.)

No. Subsidies make gasoline artificially cheap. But the point is, society benefits from an educated populace, and subsidizing it providesbenefits beyond the costs.

It doesn't. That's the problem. Subsidizing it ultimately decreases the growth in number of ponies able to receive and education. Subsidies artificially make a product cheaper in the short run, but over the long run dramatically increase inflation. The question is really, do you want more ponies educated now, or from 20 years on into infinity. This is because, when you subsidize a product, you do two things:

1. Artificially increase demand, making the products value increase.
2. You continue to use more expensive means for providing that education. Many ponies would be fantastic lawyers by just going through an apprentice ship, but can't. The institution of the Bar did not increase the skill of lawyers or their success rate, did increase their education costs (by artificially increasing demand) and this was exacerbated by federal subsidization of those schools.

The economics against government subsidization are sound. All three schools of economics, Keynesian, classical and Austrian, agree that the outcome of subsidization is increased, not decreased, costs.

1) A products value is separate from it's price. Price does not change the value of a commodity, it only influences the cost/benefit analysis of purchasing that good or service. A turd is still a turd if you pay $1 or $100. It is still the same turd. Likewise, a diamond doesn't become less valuable because you found it under the cushion of your couch. It is still the same diamond someone else paid $10000 for.

2) You cannot subsidize a product or service and let its price float, or all you are doing is putting dollars in the pockets of the companies that provide the good or service. This is why public financing of private and charter schools has been such a disaster. It is more effective to provide the good or service at a fixed cost through public schools and public universities. Using this method, inflation can be kept in control because their mission is to educate students, not maximize profit for shareholders.

1) The problem with this argument is that it doesn't resolve the problem. That is the exact problem I was pointing out. When you artificially change the price of a product to a lower rate while not changing the value, it creates artificially high demand. This then means that the subjective value (value is not an objective concept. It changes depending on the pony. Exm. My Little Pony Merchandise. For you, it doesn't likely have and value. You wouldn't pay much for something like that. A brony would be willing to pay more. Its value in the brony's eyes is higher than in your eyes.)

2) I can name one big problem with the public university argument. They have had equal inflation with private institution, and are frequently considered a lower value for the cost. I have not seen a single shred of evidence that subsidizing or socializing a non-finite product has done anything but raise prices. Your argument here is essentially:
Making profit is bad, so we shouldn't let them do that, because if they make bits, then they will treat their customers like crap and somehow those customers will be stupid enough to keep coming back.
This argument not only holds no weight in reality (it is actually the opposite, private schools have happier and more successful students by a wide margin.) it doesn't even make sense in a logical position. For any of this to be true, everything we know about economics, how to run a business, psychology and sociology have to be absurdly wrong.

Correcto.

Whenever the government subsidizes an industry, the demand for that industry (whether it provides a commodity or service) artificially increases. This makes costs go through the roof.

e.g.,

1. The # of students going to college increases.

2. This increased demand leads colleges to raise tuition costs.

3. College becomes more and more unaffordable.

4. Because students aren't actually paying for their education, high tuition costs don't stop them from applying to expensive universities (thank you, government).

5. Tuition costs become more exorbitant.

Subsidizing public universities actually makes them cheaper because costs are controlled to ensure they are affordable. So your argument only applies to subsidizing private colleges.

I was - quite clearly - talking about subsidizing the secondary education of people that can't afford college.

And subsidies only make commodities cheap if you pay no taxes.

That's the whole point, to make college affordable for everyone who would benefit from a college education. Even the person who can afford college benefits from having an educated labor force to hire future employees from.

I don't mind businesses paying for kids' educations if they can get something in return - but that should be their personal decision. That way, the costs would be limited to businesses and not affect tax-payers. However, that decision should be up to businesses and businesses alone.

Under the public system, people who shouldn't go to college wind up going and 25% of all student loans wind up defaulting.

Federal subsidies - while enabling everyone to go to college - drive up tuition costs for everyone, including those who can afford it and those who deserve it.

I agree that not everyone should go to college. But allowing businesses to determine curriculums and decide who gets to go would result in armies of unthinking drones who only know how to perform tasks designed to make money for corporations. This would be the end of our republic. Education is about much more than vocational training. We are not drones. Making money is not the purpose of our existence.

One demonstrates his worth by how much he produces. The amount of money someone makes - or how much property one acquires - is really the only objective variable that demonstrates personal worth (IMO, it's the 'most' objective, that's for sure).

Personally, my program would be far more efficient than the government in containing costs and preventing artificial tuition hikes. Businesses can select better individuals for college than the government, as the former have an actual, vested interest in selecting people based on merit whereas the government does not (i.e., the government's main interest is merely increasing the number of people receiving student loans; a business's main interest is selecting the best, brightest employees).

Ah.. You already are a mindless drone devoid of self and have lost your humanity. You are a perfect corporate cog, a perfect political tool.

Just stating facts.

I don't like them, but that doesn't stop them from existing.

Worthiness is a value judgment, not an objective fact. Economic exchange is a means to an end and not the purpose of human existence.

By individual worth, I was referring to material worth (which is objective). Other forms are purely esoteric, usually being the product of group sentiment. Material worth, however, is universally understood and that makes it the best indicator of value (it's not subject to sentimentality).

Economic prestige is the best indicator of individual value because it isn't subject to people's fancies. It's not a perfect judgement, but it's certainly the best.

Would you measure the objective value of your wife by looking at the present hourly rate of sexual companions for rent on the internet multiplied by the number of hours in your marriage? Is the value of your children determined by the going rate of kids at the adoption agency? A life whose value is based on commodification of all life's joys is not worth living, and I think any normal, well balanced individual would agree.

Material worth is purely monetary (or a part of some vested capital interest); therefore, I don't understand how the amount of sexual exploits one has can be equated with his material worth.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't value my children. I would just differentiate my personal value judgements from objective indicators of material wealth. That's all.

I think we are saying the same thing. We do not use the marketplace to evaluate worthiness within our personal lives.

here in Egypt ... everyone can go to college .. it is cheap ..
we try to make all students can go to college ...

Operative word.... "make"

^_^

Americans said ACCESS to it, you seem to think that means taxpayers should PAY for it for EVERYBODY, and I don't think that is what it means.

Kids seem to really need it, now that high school is not enough any more...and now they need to work until 72 to collect social security...we might as well extend adolescence.

"Kids" need a skill. There are too many that go to college that are not college material. There is a certain amount of snobbery associated with a college education. That's a shame. Because we need plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc. And there's nothing wrong with having a skill vs. a degree.

Exactly, very well said. I am college material (but of course, can't afford it), should be in science somewhere. But even so, I wish we'd still had metal, wood and auto shop in high school by the time I got there... I'd have signed up for all three (as opposed to gym, art and computer class). Invaluable skills these days, and they're disappearing fast. Then again, now we have those damned tech colleges that cost just about a leg and a testicle (or boob, for the ladies) - you know the ones, teach from some book in theory rather than hands-on and churn out the paper-wielding idiots who leave spark plugs over the throttle and almost get you killed by a semi when it completely jams up on the freeway (this actually happened to me). Or those IT ones that produce 'professionals' the likes of which were responsible for that turd, Vista over at MS. I'd laugh, but it's just too damn sad and true. >_<

I believe that part of the reason the middle class is being squeezed out is because we're too busy trying to force kids that aren't college material or who just don't want to go to college into college instead of a trade school or entrepreneurship. Quite a few of those skilled jobs workers have long been a big part of our middle class.

I'm in agreement.

Been thinking about trying something else (can't find a minimum wage "starter" job anywhere) to do and I was absolutely FLOORED to learn that it takes a 4-year to get into Database Admin or System's Analyst in IT. I do both things already right here at home (for nothing), but to do either 'professionally', I'd have to go in debt of my life four year's time and a whole boat load of money I don't have.

It's way out of hand, this college crap - and you get nothing but sneers with a community level certification or God forbid, manual labor experience these days. Its disgusting.

I've done a good bit of research on this issue. What this article says makes a lot more sense than trying to force everyone to get a degree

"Online learning is more flexible and affordable than the brick-and-mortar model of higher education. Certification tests could be developed so that in many occupations employers could get more useful knowledge about a job applicant than whether he has a degree. Career and technical education could be expanded at a fraction of the cost of college subsidies. Occupational licensure rules could be relaxed to create opportunities for people without formal education."

"It is absurd that people have to get college degrees to be considered for good jobs in hotel management or accounting — or journalism. It is inefficient, both because it wastes a lot of money and because it locks people who would have done good work out of some jobs. The tight connection between college degrees and economic success may be a nearly unquestioned part of our social order. Future generations may look back and shudder at the cruelty of it."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nati...

Your right and trades educate as well... My point is continuing education.

Sometimes continuing education can be the school of hard knocks. Unfortunately, we don't even allow our young people to do that! (sigh)

There are no shortage of construction jobs on the east coast from Boston MA. to VA. Most are union and they supply education for all trades.