Lets talk socialized education.
What incentive do schools have to lower cost when those cost are guaranteed by the Government? What scenario do you see where socialism in this area produces a better outcome for society as a whole?
Guaranteed minimum income in Switzerland $2,750 / mo
- Thread starter Meta Reign
- Start date
What incentive do schools have to lower cost when those cost are guaranteed by the Government? What scenario do you see where socialism in this area produces a better outcome for society as a whole?
Lets talk socialized education.
What incentive do schools have to lower cost when those cost are guaranteed by the Government? What scenario do you see where socialism in this area produces a better outcome for society as a whole?
I know the privatized route is not working. They still get federal aid, insanely too much aid, and use it to build things like lavish gyms, pay their staff with ridiculous salaries, etc....
Regions like the South have third world education systems and until the, they provide a base for politicians who seek to abuse the system. It needs to be addressed.
Then they aren't really privatized IMHO.
I think an overhaul is needed, with government subsidies completely removed...
Then they aren't really privatized IMHO.
I think an overhaul is needed, with government subsidies completely removed...
Huh? Private industries still get federal money. If that's the case, then NOTHING in America is a private sector.
Government shouldnt be subsidizing anything IMHO
It's not the subsidy that's bad, it's the amount of the subsidy. Education cost has outpaced the student and their families because the government gives students loans for whatever ridiculous asking price the school request. It should be socialized but not so much that it is abused by institutions.
Any amount will be abused is the problem, and the most likely response, or a least the one that will garner the most votes will be to increase the amount being subsidized.
Schools have an extremely vested interest in having students enrolled... without them they cannot remain open, yet alone turn a profit. The idea that they will price education out of reach is silly. They need consumers and will have to compete with other schools for them in a un-subsidized market.
They do price education out of reach, but the government foots the bill. It's a prime example of the private sector abuse. It's the same with healthcare, privatized prisons, etc. And no, in the 80s and 90s, the government send aid to schools but it was reasonable and schools could not up tuition to ridiculous prices or else they wouldn't have any students.
This abuse isnt possible without government subsidization...
If no one foots the bill and the schools receive no money, they are left holding their d*cks, with tenure to pay to professors. They couldnt sustain that model for any amount of time. Cost would come down.
Yes it is. Then you just have privatized education where only the rich can go to and thus an educational disparity. Some subsidy is needed to get kids without the socio economic status into the doors of our best universities.
Cost would come down futher than you think, but yes the poor would not be able to afford college in most instances. No way around that.
The question is how bad a thing is that? I think too many people attend college and as with any other supply/demand situation the more you have of something the less its worth.
We are at a point now where a BA is sometimes worthless and you need a masters to be taken seriously. Some people with BA's are graduating and getting jobs that used to be filled by high school graduates, while HS/GED graduates cant find work at all...
I would like to see fewer degrees(thus raising the value of each degree, and more utilization of trade schools and apprenticeships. I personally don't think every welder/carpenter/mechanic needs to know the modern history of Asia, or how to write a 30 page report .
This is what I have been saying for years...all the receptionists and the mail man at my company have degreesCost would come down futher than you think, but yes the poor would not be able to afford college in most instances. No way around that.
The question is how bad a thing is that? I think too many people attend college and as with any other supply/demand situation the more you have of something the less its worth.
We are at a point now where a BA is sometimes worthless and you need a masters to be taken seriously. Some people with BA's are graduating and getting jobs that used to be filled by high school graduates, while HS/GED graduates cant find work at all...
I would like to see fewer degrees(thus raising the value of each degree, and more utilization of trade schools and apprenticeships. I personally don't think every welder/carpenter/mechanic needs to know the modern history of Asia, or how to write a 30 page report .
who goes to school to become a mail man and a receptionist?
I can even take it far as say over 60% of jobs shouldn't require degrees. Most of the talented programmers and engineers on my team never stepped foot in a college classroom
Cost would come down futher than you think, but yes the poor would not be able to afford college in most instances. No way around that.
The question is how bad a thing is that? I think too many people attend college and as with any other supply/demand situation the more you have of something the less its worth.
We are at a point now where a BA is sometimes worthless and you need a masters to be taken seriously. Some people with BA's are graduating and getting jobs that used to be filled by high school graduates, while HS/GED graduates cant find work at all...
I would like to see fewer degrees(thus raising the value of each degree, and more utilization of trade schools and apprenticeships. I personally don't think every welder/carpenter/mechanic needs to know the modern history of Asia, or how to write a 30 page report .
No, you want the poor to be educated. The problem you listed has nothing to do with the amount of degrees but the lack of livable wage jobs. Your problem lies on the end of the Rich hoarding from the economy.
That liberal juice kicked back in.There isnt a pie.
People are not poor, because others are rich.
Gaining wealth does not require taking from some one else
^these are the backbone of liberal logic, and none of them are true.
This whole livable wage thing that has been picked up and run with is pure emotion.
If we wanted to tackle the wage issue seriously we would look at why the cost of living is so high, and clearly define these vague terms thrown around so much... "poor, rich, livable" etc.
Until this is done, I cant believe liberals are serious at all.
