News Should scientific research be solely funded by the private sector?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SixNein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Grants
Click For Summary
Tea Party members expressed frustration over Pell Grant funding, perceiving it as a form of welfare. Some participants in the discussion argued that Pell Grants are a valuable investment in education that can yield future returns, while others criticized the program for high dropout rates and perceived misuse of funds by students. Concerns were raised about the lack of merit-based criteria for grant eligibility, with suggestions that stricter requirements, such as maintaining a certain GPA, could improve accountability and reduce abuse. The debate highlighted the tension between supporting education for low-income students and concerns about fiscal responsibility, with some advocating for a reevaluation of government involvement in financing higher education. The conversation also touched on the broader implications of financial aid on college affordability and the potential for abuse within the system, suggesting a need for reform to ensure that aid effectively supports students who are genuinely committed to their education.
  • #91
FlexGunship said:
A subsidy is kind of welfare, though. Right? It's the government using your money to make something cheaper to help you pay for it when you normally wouldn't. Subsidy money comes from your pockets anyway. Fundamentally there isn't a difference, except that higher education isn't a staple of existence (like food or shelter).

Financial aid for higher education is like a kind of frivolous welfare. A luxurious welfare. If there were no subsidies, and no one could afford to attend colleges and universities, you'd better believe that would drive prices down.

The problem is that we're creating those higher wage earners at the expense of the higher wage payers.
The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Evo said:
The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.

That's exactly our system, also with a limit of 4 years and then get a degree or pay back.
 
  • #93
Evo said:
The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.

Sure, that's a decent system. I think it should address the other side, though. If you flood the market with degree holders all fighting for the same pool of jobs, you're going to drive the value of a degree down. So there should be an equal effort put on the other side to give new and existing businesses funds to grow and create new positions for these individuals to occupy.
 
  • #95
FlexGunship said:
Sure, that's a decent system. I think it should address the other side, though. If you flood the market with degree holders all fighting for the same pool of jobs, you're going to drive the value of a degree down. So there should be an equal effort put on the other side to give new and existing businesses funds to grow and create new positions for these individuals to occupy.
Indirectly, the federal government does fund states, which can go to state small business grants, and the SBA subsidizes small business loans.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusiness/a/stategrants.htm

I don't think it's smart to encourage people to start their own business when they are doomed to fail either.

Off topic, but this all goes back to my personal belief that we have more people than we can realistically support economically. If we are in fear of too many people getting degrees, we have a problem, IMO.
 
  • #96
Evo said:
Indirectly, the federal government does fund states, which can go to state small business grants, and the SBA subsidizes small business loans.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusiness/a/stategrants.htm

I don't think it's smart to encourage people to start their own business when they are doomed to fail either.

Absolutely, Evo! I didn't mean to imply it wasn't already happening. I guess I was introducing the topic in the same way that others were creating a narrative that described Pell grants.

We should give money to help people pay for...
We should also give money to help business pay for...

I happen to think that encouraging entrepreneurs is a large part of what is missing in the U.S. and causing it to stagnate. We were once a country of risk-takers, up-all-nighters, hard-workers, and make-it-happeners. Now, because of how dangerous it is to fail, people tend to find stable jobs and just... survive...
 
  • #97
Evo said:
The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.
Evo,

We are in agreement here. Your ideas are valid as are https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3430820&postcount=69". too bad too many following this thread resort to politics versus practical common sense. I am done here, so any rebuttals will go unanswered.

Rhody... :devil:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
FlexGunship said:
I happen to think that encouraging entrepreneurs is a large part of what is missing in the U.S. and causing it to stagnate. We were once a country of risk-takers, up-all-nighters, hard-workers, and make-it-happeners. Now, because of how dangerous it is to fail, people tend to find stable jobs and just... survive...
The problem is that the economy simply can't support everyone that wants to own their own business. If 10 businesses offering the same thing are struggling, giving money to someone (perhaps the same people that would have gone to school with a Pell Grant)to open yet another business in the same area is only going to cause more businesses to potentially fail. People can't just keep opening businesses, there has to be a demand, there has to be something that can assure they won't be out of business within a year, or less.
 
  • #99
FlexGunship said:
Absolutely, Evo! I didn't mean to imply it wasn't already happening. I guess I was introducing the topic in the same way that others were creating a narrative that described Pell grants.

We should give money to help people pay for...
We should also give money to help business pay for...

I happen to think that encouraging entrepreneurs is a large part of what is missing in the U.S. and causing it to stagnate. We were once a country of risk-takers, up-all-nighters, hard-workers, and make-it-happeners. Now, because of how dangerous it is to fail, people tend to find stable jobs and just... survive...

The global structure of our economy really complicates the picture in regards to business.
 
  • #100
BobG said:
Pell Grant recipients are more likely to have the risk factors that make it less likely to complete college - and the risk factors that make it more likely to receive other forms of welfare, such as Aid to Dependent Children, Food Stamps, WIC, Earned Income Credit, etc.

So, an analysis of their value has to factor in how Pell Grants affect other welfare programs, as well as compare the success rate of Pell Grant recipients to non-recipients.

That said, there should be some restrictions on what types of degrees Pell Grants can be used for. Handing out Pell Grants to students pursuing degrees that will be virtually worthless is as much a disservice to the student as to the taxpayers.


As a few others have mentioned, the colleges may not be as excited by their students' future job prospects as they are about receiving their students' tuition money, so they may not find it in their best interests to funnel students into degree programs where the demand already exceeds supply (simply expanding high demand degree programs isn't always a solution if the pay working in the field is better than the pay teaching college classes).

This is a good idea - but it's implementation is rough. Encouraging 'good' degress is hard because of the long term impact - right now, in general, English degrees aren't worth the investment, but what about 15 years from now? It seems common conversation for some folks now to complain about the amount of old-established scientists because of the space race push for science, if the government does any more encouragement towards a particular field you'll just have these waves of individuals.

I have a few different friends whom have 'success' stories due to pell grants, and a few that... well.. I want my money back. A stricter academic requirement for university level courses may be in order, but can't pell grants also be used for certifications and technical programs (which will draw non-academically rigourous individuals to start)?
 
  • #101
SixNein said:
Why don't we end all government welfare for physicists, engineers, biologists, chemist, and other scientific disciplines? We could save plenty of money by shutting down NASA, NOAA, cutting the NSF, and other government facilities.

Why not let the private market fund all research?

I agree,... excepting two specifics. Scientific research for the DOD, i.e. research into weapons and other militarily relevant technology (such as GPS) and scientific research important for policy decisions, e.g. sociology, economics, and such...
are justified as supporting the primary role of government.

But by all means, defund NASA and NSF (and NEA and Public Media and ...). NOAA has important policy supporting research as well as data gathering important for Emergency Management so I'd say keep it funded. Move the rest to the private sector.

But everything in order of priority. Defund first social engineering programs and wealth redistribution which aside from the waste of tax dollars are actively detrimental to our society and economy. Then begin cutting productive programs which can be transitioned to the private sector and are not essential for defense, law enforcement, emergency management, and foreign relations.
 

Similar threads

Replies
37
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
12K
Replies
11
Views
12K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K