russ_watters said:Well the premise is faulty, which makes the conclusion faulty. It is extremely rare for people who are poor to "not be able to do anything about it". The vast majority are poor as a result of their own choices. Therefore, it is fair that they reap the 'rewards' of their efforts.
You can't have it both ways. If you give a house to someone who can't afford it, you take a house from someone who otherwise can. That's not fair in my book.
Mech_Engineer said:So, you would prefer a society that makes the rich poor and the poor "less poor." Sounds like communism to me. Everyone with the same amount of money, the same opportunities, the same same same.
What if everyone had the exact same opportunities to go to universities and come out with a phd? Do you really think there are jobs for EVERYONE to have a college education?
I'm a little confused about what you meant when you mentioned the response to the crisis. I thought you were talking about the stimulus bill, the TARP program, the GM deal, the Wall Street regulation bill, etc. I don't think of the Healthcare bill as being in response to the economic/financial/housing crisis.russ_watters said:That's why - my distaste for national healthcare aside - the '90s would have been a much better time to implement it.
Well yes, but you're stepping well past the issue: In the US anyway, the vast majority of the poor have not completed high school.jarednjames said:Ah, so it's fair that I'm stuck not able to afford to go into higher education (from age 16 onwards) because my parents messed up in school?
You didn't. The flaw is that you don't recognize that reality.Woah. At what point did I say take houses from people and give them to the poor?
What?! By giving them housing, you are ensuring that they will never need to work harder to afford it!If you reduce the options available to the lower classes to improve their lifestyle, how are they ever going to get into a position of being able to afford better housing?
russ_watters said:You didn't. The flaw is that you don't recognize that reality.
What?! By giving them housing, you are ensuring that they will never need to work harder to afford it!
jarednjames said:Did I say the same amount of money? No. It's when you are putting people in a position where it is difficult to change their circumstances I disagree with.
jarednjames said:This is on the basis every person goes to university and gets a phd.
jarednjames said:Firstly, just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean people will take it up (my sister hates school and couldn't wait to get out at 16)
jarednjames said:and it certainly doesn't mean people are suddenly capable of attaining the phd's.
jarednjames said:Ah, so it's fair that I'm stuck not able to afford to go into higher education (from age 16 onwards) because my parents messed up in school?
Well setting aside the fact that Obama has linked healthcare to the financial crisis, even if it was completely unrelated, it would seem unwise to do something harmful to the economy at a time when you should be fixing it. IOW, even if one doesn't consider it part of the stimulus, it still affects our economy -- a lot, and negatively!Gokul43201 said:I'm a little confused about what you meant when you mentioned the response to the crisis. I thought you were talking about the stimulus bill, the TARP program, the GM deal, the Wall Street regulation bill, etc. I don't think of the Healthcare bill as being in response to the economic/financial/housing crisis.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32088107/ns/politics-white_house/The president said that in addition to helping millions who lack coverage, the health care legislation is central to the goal of eventually rebuilding the economy stronger than it was before the recession that began more than a year ago.
He said Medicare and Medicaid, government health care programs for the elderly and the poor, are the "biggest driving force behind our federal deficit."
CRGreathouse said:Can't you get a loan? That's what I did, and what most people do. Who seriously expects their parents to pay for their college?
Because people in their '50s are a lot better able to afford college than people in their '20s, I think parents should pay for college for their kids if they can. It becomes something passed-on from generation to generation.CRGreathouse said:Can't you get a loan? That's what I did, and what most people do. Who seriously expects their parents to pay for their college?
Mathnomalous said:With that being said, I welcome the idea of privatized higher education. It is going to force many universities to play by market rules and to actually deliver a quality education or training. The beauty of it all is that knowledge itself is not affected by market forces; a person paying $10 to learn calculus will learn the same thing as a person paying $1,000 to learn calculus.
russ_watters said:Because people in their '50s are a lot better able to afford college than people in their '20s, I think parents should pay for college for their kids if they can. It becomes something passed-on from generation to generation.
jarednjames said:University choice in the UK is a big deal. If you don't go to a university that is strongly rated in your course then your chances of getting a job after it are seriously affected. Cambridge has a 100% employability rate in some subjects, compared to only 70% for Kingston (where I'm at).
jarednjames said:I don't like the idea of only having rich people able to go to somewhere like Cambridge and the poorer only being able to use the 'lesser' places. It puts a bias on people applying for jobs - it gives the rich a greater chance of getting jobs.
jarednjames said:You make money the deciding factor in higher education, not academic ability.
jarednjames said:However, in the UK university ranks do play a big part in becoming employed once you graduate. See above post for notes on it.
Mech_Engineer said:Just because you're rich doesn't mean you have the grades to get into the good school, and it doesn't mean a "regular" guy can't get excellent grades in high school and get a student loan to go to the good school. "Rich" people aren't the only ones who get into good schools, or get good grades.
If you're "poor" and don't like where you're at, you'd better study hard and earn the right to get out of there. It shouldn't be the public's job to give it to you.
I'll bet getting straight A's at Kingston is a lot better than straight C's at Cambridge...
jarednjames said:You'd be surprised what money can do for you when it comes to certain universities.
jarednjames said:Not for an employer, something I proved on application for a placement last year.
Mech_Engineer said:And you have to work accordingly hard to get into those schools. Does it really make sense for them both to cost the exact same?
Mech_Engineer said:Just because you're rich doesn't mean you have the grades to get into the good school, and it doesn't mean a "regular" guy can't get excellent grades in high school and get a student loan to go to the good school. "Rich" people aren't the only ones who get into good schools, or get good grades.
If you're "poor" and don't like where you're at, you'd better study hard and earn the right to get out of there. It shouldn't be the public's job to give it to you.
Mech_Engineer said:I'll bet getting straight A's at Kingston is a lot better than straight C's at Cambridge...
Same in the US. And the better universities charge through the nose $40-$60k a year.jarednjames said:A nice post.
However, in the UK university ranks do play a big part in becoming employed once you graduate. See above post for notes on it.
Evo said:Same in the US. And the better universities charge through the nose $40-$60k a year.
As I said: if they can.jarednjames said:Yes well for my mother, a single mother, who earns £17000 a year. Paying out the £9000 tuition costs (as of a years time) plus any living costs (excluding a part time jobs for me which would pay around £80 a week) would give a total of about £12000 per year. Yep, she could afford that.
I am the first in my family to go to university. I'm able to do so because of the current costs.
No, you have to have the grades, you have to have done charitable work, been an intern, have letters of recommendation , and if you have all that, then you get the privilege of paying, if they accept you. Of course there are scholarships loans, etc... to help. Evo child is hoping to get into Stanford and is trying to get all of her "extracurricular" requirements and letters of recommendation together. She has the grades.jarednjames said:Wow, that's steep.
But I see that as unfair as you are introducing money as a deciding factor in where you can be educated, when I personally see it should be down to ability.
Yep, +1russ_watters said:We're supposed to be less socialistic than Europe but we're responding to the same crisis by moving to the left while they're moving to the right. That's pretty ironic to me.
And the current costs are the current costs because the government has been i) borrowing money and/or ii) taking money by force from other people and funneling it indirectly to you. Great Britain can not do any more of i) unless it want's to become Greece, and it's done about as much of ii) as it can, witness Keith Richards living in fabulous Weston, Connecticut, USA where http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/01/keith-richards-we-left-england" Hmmm. Either chalk that last anecdote up as a drug induced irrationally, or all that bluff about tax increases having no impact on the behavior of the rich is load of bull.jarednjames said:Yes well for my mother, a single mother, who earns £17000 a year. Paying out the £9000 tuition costs (as of a years time) plus any living costs (excluding a part time jobs for me which would pay around £80 a week) would give a total of about £12000 per year. Yep, she could afford that.
I am the first in my family to go to university. I'm able to do so because of the current costs.
jarednjames said:Wow, that's steep.
But I see that as unfair as you are introducing money as a deciding factor in where you can be educated, when I personally see it should be down to ability.
An ideal system would be one where the best in a subject go to the best facilities for that subject. Obviously, that's not how things work but I don't see why we can't try to work towards it.
Thanks to the UK's current system where all charges are virtually equal. Anyone can apply anywhere and the main deciding factor is what qualifications you leave school with.
If that's true, then why waste your time on forum catering to the interests of scientists and engineers?Mathnomalous said:[...]Universities are nothing more than glorified country clubs for young people. Like most country clubs, the main goal is socialization and networking; that people become educated is a pleasant surprise.
Not a bad list, but I think you missed Leviathan and Two Treatises of Government...Mathnomalous said:You assume universities are in the business of educating when they are simply gatekeepers to the upper middle and higher class. You want people to be educated? Give them these 5 books:
- On the Origin of Species by C. Darwin
- The Wealth of Nations by A. Smith
- Crime and Punishment by F. Dovstoyevsky
- Communist Manifesto by Marx & Engels
- Candide by Voltaire
After reading those 5 your average person will have the basics of how modern society functions.
...well those books won't get you past freshman year (and in many cases, past high school). And if you're going to be a scientist or engineer, you're pretty much outta luck: Locke was a smart guy, but he didn't have a lot to say about thermodynamcs or calculus.Universities are nothing more than glorified country clubs for young people. Like most country clubs, the main goal is socialization and networking; that people become educated is a pleasant surprise.
Shhh. I don't want him to connect Adam Smith to thermodynamics, he'll pull down the average engineering salary!mheslep said:If that's true, then why waste your time on forum catering to the interests of scientists and engineers?
russ_watters said:And if you're going to be a scientist or engineer, you're pretty much outta luck: Locke was a smart guy, but he didn't have a lot to say about thermodynamcs or calculus.
russ_watters said:You miss just about the entire point of college. Making students socialized and well rounded is a very distant second to the primary purpose: training them for careers.
Why should you expect that?Mathnomalous said:And if higher education is privatized, you can expect the "best" schools to cater to the rich.
mheslep said:If that's true, then why waste your time on forum catering to the interests of scientists and engineers?
I have to say, I still fail to understand the irony here. What if the US were much farther to the right that it presently is - a libertarian free market economy with virtually no government regulation of anything? Essentially the US of Right. Would you still think that the non-ironic thing for the US to do would be to move further to the right?mheslep said:Yep, +1
Gokul43201 said:Why should you expect that?
So you don't think that somewhere along the way, the university will start spiraling downwards if it can not attract good students? That somehow, it can continue to accept (and perhaps graduate) year after year of super-rich kids (who have no motivation to excel), with no regard to their academic qualifications?Mathnomalous said:Because universities that manage to connect wealthy students with other wealthy students, will attract more wealthy students. Universities that manage to place its students in high paying positions will charge higher tuition and attract people who have the financial means to attend.