5 ms·

Education should not cost anything at all. Full stop. Free education for everybody should be considered the biggest achievement by human beings. If a society i

by reirob 11y ago

Education should not cost anything at all. Full stop. Free education for everybody should be considered the biggest achievement by human beings. If a society is not able to provide free education for the upcoming generations, then the basis of such a society should be questioned, rightfully so.

mafribe 11y ago
Education should not cost anything at all. Bikeshedding! Education always costs a great deal. Teachers need to be paid, schools need buildings, universities needs labs, etc. The only question is how payments are organised: taxes, fees, some hybrid ... Whatever mechanism is chosen, somebody feels hard up and will seek to change it. Yet, it's always the old paying for the education of the young, just like it is always the young paying the oldies' pensions.
cturner 11y ago
Is there a limit to your principle? Should people be able to live at university forever, with a living wage from the public purse? What if they were enrolled but didn't ever attend? Should the government even be involved in education? Were it not for government protection, what kind of disruption would we have seen to the education sector by now? Given that university-educated people earn more than other taxpayers, why is it unreasonable to expect that they should be responsible for covering the cost of their education? Consider the deferred payment system of the Australian model. The Swiss model is interesting as well. In Switzerland, each university has to take whoever wants to go. But there's no rules about the conditions that they give you when you get there. So if 200 people applied and they were only set up for 50 places, they could give aptitude tests to them all, and then put seats and books in the gym for the remaining 150 with instruction to submit one difficult major project for pass-fail assessment each per semester.
- orf 11y ago
  > Should the government even be involved in education? Were it not for government protection, what kind of disruption would we have seen to the education sector by now? More for profit colleges?
- ollifi 11y ago
  > Should people be able to live at university forever, with a living wage from the public purse? What if they were enrolled but didn't ever attend? One way to sort it is the finnish system where you have certain amount of months you can get paid for. Your courses are tracked and if you are enrolled but are not advancing fast enough you need to payback your benefits. If you advance to further studies you can get more months, but eventually you run out of them. There is only so many places available to study and you need to take test to get into most places. It's not without its problems and it certainly is not 'free'.
- lkozma 11y ago
  You make some very interesting points - I just want to ask a side-question on a linguistic issue: - do you use "disrupt" in a positive sense, or in its original dictionary sense: "interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem, alter or destroy the structure of .." My point is also that often when people mean to disrupt in one way, they end up achieving the other.
  - cturner 11y ago
    I always think of disrupt from the perspective of creative destruction, and it always being unambiguously good. So if I was in a stagnant industry, I'd be trying to reform. And if I was getting hit hard by reformers, I'd see that as justice that I was on the wrong side of. Hence, I'm tempted to say that both meanings mean the same thing to me. But it's interesting you raise it. I recently reread _A Second Chance at Eden_ by Peter F Hamilton. In one of the stories, a character turns down an opportunity at fabulous wealth from a mindset that it would cause vast social trauma. This seeded a thought - perhaps creative destruction is not as unambiguously good as I presume. But it still hasn't yet sunk in. (And such a correction would require a worldview rebuild - a trauma of its own :) )
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Assuming you are discussing college and similar forms of education with high marginal costs (e.g. stuff involving teachers), how do you prevent society from wasting resources on unproductive education? Of course, if you are discussing education in general, the cost is already close to $0. Khan, duolingo, wikipedia, etc are all free.
- minikites 11y ago
  The devices and means to access those services are far from free.
  - chroma 11y ago
    Well, yummyfajitas did say, "close to $0", not free. And I think you are forgetting about libraries. They offer Internet access and they are far cheaper than colleges. Edit: In 2011, the cost for all libraries in the US was $11.5 billion.[1] In the same year, $483 billion was spent in the US on college education.[2] That's a 42x difference. Granted, the uses and use-cases are different. But anyone who can go to college can, if they have the motivation, get the same knowledge for far cheaper. Of course (excepting a few unusual disciplines like programming), credentials help one's career more than knowledge. 1. https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/FY2012%20PLS_Tables_21_thru_31A.pdf https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/FY2012%20PLS_Tabl... 2. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_029.asp http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_029.asp
xyzzy4 11y ago
> Education should not cost anything at all. Full stop. Free education for everybody should be considered the biggest achievement by human beings. So taxpayers should foot the bill for someone to get an expensive degree in women's studies or sports management?
- unknownzero 11y ago
  I went almost straight into the workforce instead of going to college so I feel like I should be on your side here. However I don't think I would really mind some of my tax dollars going to people thinking about women in society as I rather like women, or managing sports teams, as I also enjoy watching sports. Is this opinion entirely out of vogue now? What the hell else am I getting out of my sizable federal tax bill?
- bitserf 11y ago
  When you hear the word "taxpayer" brought up in an argument, it's a good hint that what will follow is a screed against providing anyone any assistance from the public purse whatsoever, despite any such benefits the author may have received and conveniently forgotten in their personal "self made man" narrative.
UK-AL 11y ago
There is a cost to education regardless, what's in question is who pays it. Somebody has to use resources to build, pay salaries, pay for research etc
kauffj 11y ago
http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies...
- pjscott 11y ago
  Quick summary: subsidizing positional goods makes them more expensive (because there's always someone willing to pay more for a higher place on the totem pole), and it looks like this effect has driven up the cost of higher education, which is partly a positional good. Beware of throwing more money at this.
dawnbreez 11y ago
If nobody pays the professors, how do they pay for lunch?
- spacehome 11y ago
  Eat the students.
grecy 11y ago
>If a society is not able to provide free education for the upcoming generations, then the basis of such a society should be questioned. And every developed country/society on the planet has done it, except one. It's extremely obvious which society has it figured out when you move from a country where people are encouraged and paid to further their education, to one where people take on crushing debt to get it. It genuinely feels like a society of slaves in comparison.

by reirob 11y ago

mafribe 11y ago

Education should not cost anything at all. Bikeshedding! Education always costs a great deal. Teachers need to be paid, schools need buildings, universities needs labs, etc. The only question is how payments are organised: taxes, fees, some hybrid ... Whatever mechanism is chosen, somebody feels hard up and will seek to change it. Yet, it's always the old paying for the education of the young, just like it is always the young paying the oldies' pensions.

cturner 11y ago

Is there a limit to your principle? Should people be able to live at university forever, with a living wage from the public purse? What if they were enrolled but didn't ever attend? Should the government even be involved in education? Were it not for government protection, what kind of disruption would we have seen to the education sector by now? Given that university-educated people earn more than other taxpayers, why is it unreasonable to expect that they should be responsible for covering the cost of their education? Consider the deferred payment system of the Australian model. The Swiss model is interesting as well. In Switzerland, each university has to take whoever wants to go. But there's no rules about the conditions that they give you when you get there. So if 200 people applied and they were only set up for 50 places, they could give aptitude tests to them all, and then put seats and books in the gym for the remaining 150 with instruction to submit one difficult major project for pass-fail assessment each per semester.

orf 11y ago
> Should the government even be involved in education? Were it not for government protection, what kind of disruption would we have seen to the education sector by now? More for profit colleges?
ollifi 11y ago
> Should people be able to live at university forever, with a living wage from the public purse? What if they were enrolled but didn't ever attend? One way to sort it is the finnish system where you have certain amount of months you can get paid for. Your courses are tracked and if you are enrolled but are not advancing fast enough you need to payback your benefits. If you advance to further studies you can get more months, but eventually you run out of them. There is only so many places available to study and you need to take test to get into most places. It's not without its problems and it certainly is not 'free'.
lkozma 11y ago
You make some very interesting points - I just want to ask a side-question on a linguistic issue: - do you use "disrupt" in a positive sense, or in its original dictionary sense: "interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem, alter or destroy the structure of .." My point is also that often when people mean to disrupt in one way, they end up achieving the other.
- cturner 11y ago
  I always think of disrupt from the perspective of creative destruction, and it always being unambiguously good. So if I was in a stagnant industry, I'd be trying to reform. And if I was getting hit hard by reformers, I'd see that as justice that I was on the wrong side of. Hence, I'm tempted to say that both meanings mean the same thing to me. But it's interesting you raise it. I recently reread _A Second Chance at Eden_ by Peter F Hamilton. In one of the stories, a character turns down an opportunity at fabulous wealth from a mindset that it would cause vast social trauma. This seeded a thought - perhaps creative destruction is not as unambiguously good as I presume. But it still hasn't yet sunk in. (And such a correction would require a worldview rebuild - a trauma of its own :) )

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Assuming you are discussing college and similar forms of education with high marginal costs (e.g. stuff involving teachers), how do you prevent society from wasting resources on unproductive education? Of course, if you are discussing education in general, the cost is already close to $0. Khan, duolingo, wikipedia, etc are all free.

minikites 11y ago
The devices and means to access those services are far from free.
- chroma 11y ago
  Well, yummyfajitas did say, "close to $0", not free. And I think you are forgetting about libraries. They offer Internet access and they are far cheaper than colleges. Edit: In 2011, the cost for all libraries in the US was $11.5 billion.[1] In the same year, $483 billion was spent in the US on college education.[2] That's a 42x difference. Granted, the uses and use-cases are different. But anyone who can go to college can, if they have the motivation, get the same knowledge for far cheaper. Of course (excepting a few unusual disciplines like programming), credentials help one's career more than knowledge. 1. https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/FY2012%20PLS_Tables_21_thru_31A.pdf https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/FY2012%20PLS_Tabl... 2. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_029.asp http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_029.asp

xyzzy4 11y ago

> Education should not cost anything at all. Full stop. Free education for everybody should be considered the biggest achievement by human beings. So taxpayers should foot the bill for someone to get an expensive degree in women's studies or sports management?

unknownzero 11y ago
I went almost straight into the workforce instead of going to college so I feel like I should be on your side here. However I don't think I would really mind some of my tax dollars going to people thinking about women in society as I rather like women, or managing sports teams, as I also enjoy watching sports. Is this opinion entirely out of vogue now? What the hell else am I getting out of my sizable federal tax bill?
bitserf 11y ago
When you hear the word "taxpayer" brought up in an argument, it's a good hint that what will follow is a screed against providing anyone any assistance from the public purse whatsoever, despite any such benefits the author may have received and conveniently forgotten in their personal "self made man" narrative.

UK-AL 11y ago

There is a cost to education regardless, what's in question is who pays it. Somebody has to use resources to build, pay salaries, pay for research etc

kauffj 11y ago

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies...

pjscott 11y ago
Quick summary: subsidizing positional goods makes them more expensive (because there's always someone willing to pay more for a higher place on the totem pole), and it looks like this effect has driven up the cost of higher education, which is partly a positional good. Beware of throwing more money at this.

dawnbreez 11y ago

If nobody pays the professors, how do they pay for lunch?

spacehome 11y ago
Eat the students.

grecy 11y ago

>If a society is not able to provide free education for the upcoming generations, then the basis of such a society should be questioned. And every developed country/society on the planet has done it, except one. It's extremely obvious which society has it figured out when you move from a country where people are encouraged and paid to further their education, to one where people take on crushing debt to get it. It genuinely feels like a society of slaves in comparison.