jim hardy said:
OmCheeto said:
Is that a 2007 thread? Since when have you been here?I'm currently slowly reading The Authoritarians that you provided and have to say that it's somewhat mind-expanding. Thank you for the book!Tom.G said:
That thread was started the day after I joined the forum.Psinter said:
Don't give them any ideas.Posty McPostface said:
Just yesterday, I watched Kingsman: The Golden Circle. It involved a president getting rid of his problems by letting everyone die. For the first time ever, I feel that an actual president in the real world is capable of doing something like that.Posty McPostface said:
Why wouldn’t university be free? I would say there is something wrong if it isn’t.Posty McPostface said:
If it's free then the big guys don't make any money. Capitalism runs todays education.Orodruin said:
You are generalising the US situation to the world. Many European countries have free or essentially free university education.lekh2003 said:
I am aware of that, which is why I hope to study in Europe, not in the cash heavy country of capitalism. My statement was specifically referring to the stupidity of the US education system.Orodruin said:
You should be aware that many European states will not pay for non-Europeans. For EU citizens, all have to be treated equally so if nationals get free university all Europeans get it. However, at least in Sweden, a few years back there was a decision not to offer non-Europeans free education and people from outside now neef to pay tuition.lekh2003 said:
I actually hope to study in Switzerland (ETH Zurich), where the tuition costs are minimal, at least lesser than even my home country's education. The only issue is that French or German is a prerequisite for undergrad courses, which I don't think I can learn in a span of 3-4 years fluently along with all of school work. English is only accepted for Masters courses and PhDs.Orodruin said:
Orodruin said:
I think that some countries have designed exorbitantly high minimum wages such that if you work part time, you should be able to study part time at the same time without generating debt, of course this only a viable option for citizens since the university tuition cost is lower for citizens. I think this is also why Australia has such a large minimum wage.Posty McPostface said:
Apart from that, I think it is actually a good economic decision for the nation as a whole. Not only in terms of personal values, but also in economical terms. If education is not freely available you will lose a chance for educating a productive highly educated workforce. In the future job market, qualified jobs are likely to show a great deficit in available workers. Furthermore, I believe that state-paid education overall is cheaper than having a system where universities are privatised and you have to pay enormous tuition fees because they are run like for-profit companies. The same of course goes for health care. So what if you have to pay a bit more taxes? (And it is generally not that much.) The benefits that you get from paying those extra taxes far outweigh the money that you pay. My taxes are probably my best investment ever.Posty McPostface said:
I sort of agree, but there is a downside. Many times you end up with unmotivated students wasting their time and taxpayer money who would not likely be there if it was not free. I know by experience.Orodruin said:
This is basically true, but the amount of taxpayer money is usually, well, infinitesimal. Reason: These cases often occur in studies which aren't very popular or occupy intense lab capacities, will say, it simply doesn't matter, whether there are 30 or 32 students in the lecture about Relevance of Salon de Refusés for the early impressionism. In crowded or care intensive studies, they will probably fail to pass the exams. So this taxpayer argument is a typical American one and often simply doesn't apply. At least those suggested extra costs should be proven before claimed. It's a political argument, not an economic one. If all, then laboratory equipment and salaries are affected, not the number of enrolled students.WWGD said:
But why would I have the burden of proof and not you ( or both of us)? I don't have numbers , but I did see in my undergrad plenty of people who were just hanging out, playing hacky-sack, and just lowering the standard for those of us who were serious. Nowadays with courses on Frisbee, The Simpsons, etc., you can go on for a while without doing much work ( Thanks, Postmodernism). In order to make themselves look better, some schools will pass some students who are not likely to be able to do any real work. I am not far-right in my politics; actually more slightly Left-ofCenter, but I make an effort to evaluate each issue on its own.fresh_42 said:
Because I haven't claimed anything, only doubted yours. I've been long time within the administrative structure, as well as have seen these cases. Now, for mathematics it is usually not a problem, as they don't increase costs and don't show up in high numbers. It is different for studies with a high portion of lab time, e.g. in physics or chemistry, or if they require extra assistance, e.g. more tutorials. But then they have to occur in higher numbers than they do, in my opinion. Studies which are typically more affected than mathematics often are those with low numbers of students anyway. Furthermore there are methods in place to reduce these numbers, e.g. exams and time limitations.WWGD said:
You may be right, but, do the properties in Germany apply in the U.S in this regard, i.e., do schools do a good job of filtering out within a reasonable amount of time ( say one year) those people who are not serious? If so, I would agree. There are other issues, at least in U.S schools, like grade inflation: Baby-Boomer professors don't want to fail people, it seems, which makes the filtering more slow , and, for those filtered, more painful -- more time wasted. I I took Philosophy classes ( my minor) with people who could barely write. Maybe I was at a weak school.fresh_42 said:
I think education ( maybe ability, intelligence?) level in the U.S is largely fat-left-tailed and thin right-tail, with a large proportion with very little and a small proportion with a lot of training, education. I hear in Europe it is closer to a normal distribution. U.S thrives thanks to a few people who produce a lot ( often foreigners, who lead a lot of startups), unlike, I believe, most other places. EDIT: This may be due, as you said, because of the equipment issue, attracting a lot of well-qualified people , trained outside of U.S.fresh_42 said:
Yep, that's my opinion, too. If we look at the Nobel laureates, it often reads: <name> from <European or Asian country> at <American University>, of course not all, but frequently. Also I think it's far easier to rise venture capital in the US than it is in Europe. Both are severe problems in my opinion, other than a few lazybones in Politics or Art. But it is a different discussion, whether we talk about state of the art or simply the chances to a general education. The discussion about excellence be it universities or students is a different one, than the one about students' debts and common opportunities for the average student.WWGD said:
Hey, I am no ideologue; if I see data to the effect that free university works, I will change my mind in favor of it. It is just that the U.S has some quirks , so that things that work elsewhere do not always work in here. Maybe a key issue is the "frontier" one where it may be more acceptable to be an outsider here than elsewhere, which may explain the larger rate of shootings, but also allowing some to do their own thing to create without too many social consequences. Just throwing it out there, Friday pop Sociology.fresh_42 said:
