NBC News: Exposing the College-is-for-Everyone "fantasy"

[Parasaurolophus]

Most definitely. Unless you can give some clear rules for deciding what should not be publicly funded, then it's just an unrealistic fantasy. In principle, if everyone decided to become lifelong full-time students, there'd be no-one to pay taxes and so no funding for education or anything else.

It's not much of a reductio, then, since the government does provide free language acquisition classes. It's also not much of a reductio because your hypothetical "nightmare" scenario rests on a series of assumptions about what students are and how they operate and what the consequences would be. A reductio typically just relies on applying the results of a scenario to everything in its domain. If you need a complex chain of further inferences to get there, it's not much of a reductio.

As for deciding what gets publicly funded... obviously, it's not the case that some cabal got together at the dawn of Government and made that decision; it developed gradually, over time, in fits and starts, as a result of complex social factors, conventions, inertia, etc. A natural place to start is with whatever is currently being offered, and then you can review the programs on a case-by-case basis.

But that's also entirely irrelevant. Although I'm in favour of free education, you'll recall that what I actually said was that "anyone who wants to attend a college or university--for one course, for a degree, whatever--should be able to do so, and should be able to do so without taking on crushing levels of debt." Free education is one means to that end, but it's hardly the only pathway.

Same goes for basically anything taught at university. You can find lots of good content on all kinds of subjects that's of much higher production value than any university course, and for someone who's not going to get a degree in that topic, that will be a much better general introduction.

Sure. And that's great. And if you want to explore it in more depth, have direct contact with an expert, or have hands-on experience with the material yourself, you can take a course. Learning all by your lonesome is a lot harder than doing it with someone's guidance. If a high school janitor wants to learn about the Roman empire, then good on them. They should be able to take a class on the subject--or more--if that's what they want to do. And they shouldn't have to sell a kidney to do it.

[Kron3007]

Most definitely. Unless you can give some clear rules for deciding what should not be publicly funded, then it's just an unrealistic fantasy. In principle, if everyone decided to become lifelong full-time students, there'd be no-one to pay taxes and so no funding for education or anything else.

It's not much of a reductio, then, since the government does provide free language acquisition classes. It's also not much of a reductio because your hypothetical "nightmare" scenario rests on a series of assumptions about what students are and how they operate and what the consequences would be. A reductio typically just relies on applying the results of a scenario to everything in its domain. If you need a complex chain of further inferences to get there, it's not much of a reductio.

As for deciding what gets publicly funded... obviously, it's not the case that some cabal got together at the dawn of Government and made that decision; it developed gradually, over time, in fits and starts, as a result of complex social factors, conventions, inertia, etc. A natural place to start is with whatever is currently being offered, and then you can review the programs on a case-by-case basis.

But that's also entirely irrelevant. Although I'm in favour of free education, you'll recall that what I actually said was that "anyone who wants to attend a college or university--for one course, for a degree, whatever--should be able to do so, and should be able to do so without taking on crushing levels of debt." Free education is one means to that end, but it's hardly the only pathway.

Same goes for basically anything taught at university. You can find lots of good content on all kinds of subjects that's of much higher production value than any university course, and for someone who's not going to get a degree in that topic, that will be a much better general introduction.

Sure. And that's great. And if you want to explore it in more depth, have direct contact with an expert, or have hands-on experience with the material yourself, you can take a course. Learning all by your lonesome is a lot harder than doing it with someone's guidance. If a high school janitor wants to learn about the Roman empire, then good on them. They should be able to take a class on the subject--or more--if that's what they want to do. And they shouldn't have to sell a kidney to do it.

You can learn a lot from youtube, but that fails to recognize the other less tangible benefits of attending university. I am not convinced that the wage gap between people who attended university vs those who didn't is completely a product of subject matter expertise, it also includes a lot of other aspects such as networking and exposure to various other opportunities.

For example, I had never planned on going to graduate school, but I ended up working in a lab (on campus) where I interacted with various graduate students and learned a lot more about this opportunity.  I then went onto grad school, got my PhD, and am now a faculty member (and have had many opportunities with industry I could have taken). I am now also working with people I met during undergrad, opening even more opportunities.

None of this would have happened by watching youtube (not that it existed at the time anyway...).  I am from a very blue collar background, and had no idea of the opportunities that exist. It is only because I attended university in person that I learned of what is really out there, otherwise I would likely be working in a local factory or something along those lines.  It behooved society to provide equitable access to education at the post-secondary level not only to provide a level playing field for its citizens, but to ensure people reach their potential to benefit society overall. 

[marshwiggle]

Most definitely. Unless you can give some clear rules for deciding what should not be publicly funded, then it's just an unrealistic fantasy. In principle, if everyone decided to become lifelong full-time students, there'd be no-one to pay taxes and so no funding for education or anything else.

It's not much of a reductio, then, since the government does provide free language acquisition classes. It's also not much of a reductio because your hypothetical "nightmare" scenario rests on a series of assumptions about what students are and how they operate and what the consequences would be. A reductio typically just relies on applying the results of a scenario to everything in its domain. If you need a complex chain of further inferences to get there, it's not much of a reductio.

As for deciding what gets publicly funded... obviously, it's not the case that some cabal got together at the dawn of Government and made that decision; it developed gradually, over time, in fits and starts, as a result of complex social factors, conventions, inertia, etc. A natural place to start is with whatever is currently being offered, and then you can review the programs on a case-by-case basis.

But that's also entirely irrelevant. Although I'm in favour of free education, you'll recall that what I actually said was that "anyone who wants to attend a college or university--for one course, for a degree, whatever--should be able to do so, and should be able to do so without taking on crushing levels of debt." Free education is one means to that end, but it's hardly the only pathway.

Same goes for basically anything taught at university. You can find lots of good content on all kinds of subjects that's of much higher production value than any university course, and for someone who's not going to get a degree in that topic, that will be a much better general introduction.

Sure. And that's great. And if you want to explore it in more depth, have direct contact with an expert, or have hands-on experience with the material yourself, you can take a course. Learning all by your lonesome is a lot harder than doing it with someone's guidance. If a high school janitor wants to learn about the Roman empire, then good on them. They should be able to take a class on the subject--or more--if that's what they want to do. And they shouldn't have to sell a kidney to do it.

You can learn a lot from youtube, but that fails to recognize the other less tangible benefits of attending university. I am not convinced that the wage gap between people who attended university vs those who didn't is completely a product of subject matter expertise, it also includes a lot of other aspects such as networking and exposure to various other opportunities.

For example, I had never planned on going to graduate school, but I ended up working in a lab (on campus) where I interacted with various graduate students and learned a lot more about this opportunity.  I then went onto grad school, got my PhD, and am now a faculty member (and have had many opportunities with industry I could have taken). I am now also working with people I met during undergrad, opening even more opportunities.

None of this would have happened by watching youtube (not that it existed at the time anyway...).  I am from a very blue collar background, and had no idea of the opportunities that exist. It is only because I attended university in person that I learned of what is really out there, otherwise I would likely be working in a local factory or something along those lines.  It behooved society to provide equitable access to education at the post-secondary level not only to provide a level playing field for its citizens, but to ensure people reach their potential to benefit society overall.

My point is still that this basically gives universities carte blanche to create whatever programs they want and disparage any questions about whether it's a good use of taxpayer money. Suppose a university decided to start a "Klingon Studies" program. I'm sure there are enough Trekkies out there that if the program got enough publicity, they could potentially get *enough students. Why can't the public (including politicians) legitimately point to something like that and put the onus on the university to justify the expense? FWIW, my department has had programs cut for budgetary reasons. (And these were programs with good employment prospects, just limited enrolment.) It's not fun, but it's not wrong to actually consider the cost per student. In fact, the higher the cost per student, the less viable it is going to be for anything approaching universal access.


*Having "prime mover" advantage in something unusual would be a great asset. Think how many people have tried to raise money by walking, roller-blading, etc. across the country after Terry Fox. And how successful they've been......

[dismalist]

Suppose a university decided to start a "Klingon Studies" program.

We already have many programs akin to Klingon Studies! [I desist from giving examples. :-)]

The difference between Klingon Studies at college and on Youtube is

-To get through college, one has to have a modicum of punctuality.
-To get through college, one has to have or learn a modicum of social compatibility.
-To get through college, one has to learn some stuff, any stuff.
-College gives you a piece of paper that says you attended.

The content doesn't matter all that much for most students.

This is all signalling that could be accomplished much more cheaply on the job at a low entry wage. That doesn't happen [much] because students are willing to pay for the signal themselves. They'd be less willing if tertiary ed were less subsidized.

[Kron3007]

Most definitely. Unless you can give some clear rules for deciding what should not be publicly funded, then it's just an unrealistic fantasy. In principle, if everyone decided to become lifelong full-time students, there'd be no-one to pay taxes and so no funding for education or anything else.

It's not much of a reductio, then, since the government does provide free language acquisition classes. It's also not much of a reductio because your hypothetical "nightmare" scenario rests on a series of assumptions about what students are and how they operate and what the consequences would be. A reductio typically just relies on applying the results of a scenario to everything in its domain. If you need a complex chain of further inferences to get there, it's not much of a reductio.

As for deciding what gets publicly funded... obviously, it's not the case that some cabal got together at the dawn of Government and made that decision; it developed gradually, over time, in fits and starts, as a result of complex social factors, conventions, inertia, etc. A natural place to start is with whatever is currently being offered, and then you can review the programs on a case-by-case basis.

But that's also entirely irrelevant. Although I'm in favour of free education, you'll recall that what I actually said was that "anyone who wants to attend a college or university--for one course, for a degree, whatever--should be able to do so, and should be able to do so without taking on crushing levels of debt." Free education is one means to that end, but it's hardly the only pathway.

Same goes for basically anything taught at university. You can find lots of good content on all kinds of subjects that's of much higher production value than any university course, and for someone who's not going to get a degree in that topic, that will be a much better general introduction.

Sure. And that's great. And if you want to explore it in more depth, have direct contact with an expert, or have hands-on experience with the material yourself, you can take a course. Learning all by your lonesome is a lot harder than doing it with someone's guidance. If a high school janitor wants to learn about the Roman empire, then good on them. They should be able to take a class on the subject--or more--if that's what they want to do. And they shouldn't have to sell a kidney to do it.

You can learn a lot from youtube, but that fails to recognize the other less tangible benefits of attending university. I am not convinced that the wage gap between people who attended university vs those who didn't is completely a product of subject matter expertise, it also includes a lot of other aspects such as networking and exposure to various other opportunities.

For example, I had never planned on going to graduate school, but I ended up working in a lab (on campus) where I interacted with various graduate students and learned a lot more about this opportunity.  I then went onto grad school, got my PhD, and am now a faculty member (and have had many opportunities with industry I could have taken). I am now also working with people I met during undergrad, opening even more opportunities.

None of this would have happened by watching youtube (not that it existed at the time anyway...).  I am from a very blue collar background, and had no idea of the opportunities that exist. It is only because I attended university in person that I learned of what is really out there, otherwise I would likely be working in a local factory or something along those lines.  It behooved society to provide equitable access to education at the post-secondary level not only to provide a level playing field for its citizens, but to ensure people reach their potential to benefit society overall.

My point is still that this basically gives universities carte blanche to create whatever programs they want and disparage any questions about whether it's a good use of taxpayer money. Suppose a university decided to start a "Klingon Studies" program. I'm sure there are enough Trekkies out there that if the program got enough publicity, they could potentially get *enough students. Why can't the public (including politicians) legitimately point to something like that and put the onus on the university to justify the expense? FWIW, my department has had programs cut for budgetary reasons. (And these were programs with good employment prospects, just limited enrolment.) It's not fun, but it's not wrong to actually consider the cost per student. In fact, the higher the cost per student, the less viable it is going to be for anything approaching universal access.


*Having "prime mover" advantage in something unusual would be a great asset. Think how many people have tried to raise money by walking, roller-blading, etc. across the country after Terry Fox. And how successful they've been......

Saying that university should be affordable dosnt mean that universities would have unlimited funding to create any program they wanted.  Universities would still have a budget and need to determine how best to spend that budget.  If Klingon studies meets their criteria, so be it, but I think we both know this is hyperbole.

There are many countries with free university, so we do not need to create these wild scenarios of what could happen.  We can simply look around to see if that actually happens in the real world.  I have not seen Klingon studies in any of the free university countries, but I admittedly have not looked too hard.  That being said, I suspect this is actually more likely to happen in a for-profit setting where they are incentivized to attract tuition dollars.   

[dismalist]

There are many countries with free university,

Free university for those who are going to be the top earners in society is a crime.

[Kron3007]

There are many countries with free university,

Free university for those who are going to be the top earners in society is a crime.

Well, in most of these countries they end up paying much more back into the system through a progressive tax system. 

Free university is more equitable and should lead to a more merit based outcome compared to a system where it is based on who's parents were able to pay their way.

[dismalist]

There are many countries with free university,

Free university for those who are going to be the top earners in society is a crime.

Well, in most of these countries they end up paying much more back into the system through a progressive tax system. 

Free university is more equitable and should lead to a more merit based outcome compared to a system where it is based on who's parents were able to pay their way.

No, that's what loans are for.

Paying more back?

Let those individuals who benefit from whatever pay for whatever. Cash gets lost and redistributed along the indirect route. :-)

[Kron3007]

There are many countries with free university,

Free university for those who are going to be the top earners in society is a crime.

Well, in most of these countries they end up paying much more back into the system through a progressive tax system. 

Free university is more equitable and should lead to a more merit based outcome compared to a system where it is based on who's parents were able to pay their way.

No, that's what loans are for.

Paying more back?

Let those individuals who benefit from whatever pay for whatever. Cash gets lost and redistributed along the indirect route. :-)

Some take loans, others have the bank of Mom and Dad.  The outcome is anything but equitable.

But your right and why stop there?  Why should I have to pay for your snot nosed kids to go to high school?  Or the fire department, my house isn't on fire.  Don't even get me started on police, I can protect my own damned family! 

[dismalist]

There are many countries with free university,

Free university for those who are going to be the top earners in society is a crime.

Well, in most of these countries they end up paying much more back into the system through a progressive tax system. 

Free university is more equitable and should lead to a more merit based outcome compared to a system where it is based on who's parents were able to pay their way.

No, that's what loans are for.

Paying more back?

Let those individuals who benefit from whatever pay for whatever. Cash gets lost and redistributed along the indirect route. :-)

Some take loans, others have the bank of Mom and Dad.  The outcome is anything but equitable.

But your right and why stop there?  Why should I have to pay for your snot nosed kids to go to high school?  Or the fire department, my house isn't on fire.  Don't even get me started on police, I can protect my own damned family!

Equity? You mean equality.

If there are loans for kids going to high school, why not? The benefits accrue to the kid, not to anyone else. Thus, so should the costs.

Fire department, police department? These are insurance problems strangely best solved with a monopoly it seems.

Thimk! :-)

[Kron3007]

There are many countries with free university,

Free university for those who are going to be the top earners in society is a crime.

Well, in most of these countries they end up paying much more back into the system through a progressive tax system. 

Free university is more equitable and should lead to a more merit based outcome compared to a system where it is based on who's parents were able to pay their way.

No, that's what loans are for.

Paying more back?

Let those individuals who benefit from whatever pay for whatever. Cash gets lost and redistributed along the indirect route. :-)

Some take loans, others have the bank of Mom and Dad.  The outcome is anything but equitable.

But your right and why stop there?  Why should I have to pay for your snot nosed kids to go to high school?  Or the fire department, my house isn't on fire.  Don't even get me started on police, I can protect my own damned family!

Equity? You mean equality.

If there are loans for kids going to high school, why not? The benefits accrue to the kid, not to anyone else. Thus, so should the costs.

Fire department, police department? These are insurance problems strangely best solved with a monopoly it seems.

Thimk! :-)

No, I think I mean equitable.  Those who excel should be given opportunity, rather than based on financial status.

I suppose we just strive for a different.society. 

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

There are many countries with free university, so we do not need to create these wild scenarios of what could happen.  We can simply look around to see if that actually happens in the real world.  I have not seen Klingon studies in any of the free university countries, but I admittedly have not looked too hard.  That being said, I suspect this is actually more likely to happen in a for-profit setting where they are incentivized to attract tuition dollars.   

I would modify the famous trilemma as follows:
"choose any two elements out of three for mass post-secondary education: cheap (or free), good, a-la-carte course choice".
In this context, those notorious (and often popular) Klingon (movies/anime/LotR) studies are a symptom of how system operates. I.e. to get cheap, one need to either introduce strict limits on students taking random classes (and classes they are unprepared for) or to accept quality drop (though, each element is more like a lever than a switch and one country can combine institutions with different choices).
There is an irony in that people advocating for further subsidies in hopes of filling their classes are the ones to be excluded for mass free university approach to work.

[dismalist]

No, I think I mean equitable.  Those who excel should be given opportunity, rather than based on financial status.

University graduates' future financial status will be wonderful! They collect the benefits of their education. Having loans to finance this is the way to go.

[marshwiggle]

No, I think I mean equitable.  Those who excel should be given opportunity, rather than based on financial status.

University graduates' future financial status will be wonderful! They collect the benefits of their education. Having loans to finance this is the way to go.

I can't remember where I heard the idea, but in principle you could set up an investment fund where prospective students can apply to get money for their education in return for some *portion of their income for a certain number of years after graduation. If the fund vetted students for academic ability and choice of program, it could potentially be a pretty good investment.

*Portion no doubt subject to certain minimum dollar amounts, etc.

Good students going into programs with good earning potential would benefit a lot from this.


ETA: Come to think of it, it's not all that different from people who go into the military to get an education.

[dismalist]

No, I think I mean equitable.  Those who excel should be given opportunity, rather than based on financial status.

University graduates' future financial status will be wonderful! They collect the benefits of their education. Having loans to finance this is the way to go.

I can't remember where I heard the idea, but in principle you could set up an investment fund where prospective students can apply to get money for their education in return for some *portion of their income for a certain number of years after graduation. If the fund vetted students for academic ability and choice of program, it could potentially be a pretty good investment.

*Portion no doubt subject to certain minimum dollar amounts, etc.

Good students going into programs with good earning potential would benefit a lot from this.


ETA: Come to think of it, it's not all that different from people who go into the military to get an education.

My own [socialist -- we were all socialists once] instincts in my youth led me to firmly believe that such "income contingent loans" were a good idea. Alas, they are not because of "adverse selection".

The scheme will unravel because those who expect to earn a lot of money will finance privately at lower cost. This leaves low income people in the contingent loan pool.The best they can do is be charged  market rates of interest.

Sorry, people, scarcity sucks.