3 ms·

1. College is not free. It is paid for by parents/grandparents/relatives/friends of the end consumer through very high taxes. It's really a marketing trick - ki

1. College is not free. It is paid for by parents/grandparents/relatives/friends of the end consumer through very high taxes. It's really a marketing trick - kinda like how these startups call something 'sharing (economy)', when in fact people are trading, not sharing. If the college wasn't labeled "free" and financed through high taxation, then parents/grandparents/relatives/friends would have to pay it anyway if the end consumer wants to go. So, they are paying whether the college is labeled as "free" or not (either through high taxes or directly). 2. The fact that college is labeled as "free", for the end consumer, makes making bad decisions easier. So, you will see a lot of dumb people who are bad at math, physics, computer science, chemistry, trades etc. going to these "free" colleges to study some worthless bullcrap like sociology, psychology, journalism, economics, gender studies, philosophy etc. That way, they will waste a lot of tax dollars and what do taxpayers get in return? Nothing. They get arrogant and entitled dummies who might become socialists/communists/feminists/feel_the_bern and bitch about nonsense and how the world is unfair, when in fact they are the parasites. You'll see some of them becoming 'diversity officers' or government bureaucrats sucking even more tax dollars.

guard-of-terra 10y ago
You are assuming that most people are "stupid" and therefore not qualified to study at college. That reeks of highly stratified society like the USA is. I guess nordic coutries just consider that most people are good enough for high education and high education should be able to teach all these people. And nordic countries tend to ace it; they are at the top of all the "human capital quality" ratings.
- realitycheckxxx 10y ago
  No, no... I didn't write that most people are stupid (where did you read that?). I wrote that there are certain people who, when given the opportunity to study something for free, will pick really bad majors, like sociology, anthropology etc. Then, those people will have a hard time finding productive employment and some of them might even join the bloated public sector and suck even more tax dollars. The existence of those people doesn't benefit society. Also, they will be heavily politically indoctrinated in leftist ideologies(socialism, communism, modern feminism) that promote wealth redistribution. Why is that appealing to sociology/anthropology majors? Because they are incompetent parasites who don't participate in production chain of anything they consume. So, they attach themselves to ideologies that promote wealth distribution from producers to parasites, all disguised as feminism/anti-oppression/progressivism etc.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    I definitely understand your concern, but in my opinion benefits for society outweight costs, and the leftist-leaning of modern society should be fixed not in University but in different places (direct democracy anyone?)
  - Pica_soO 10y ago
    psychology is a quack science about boxing in stereotyped people social sciences is basically a field waiting to start existing once neurology is done mapping the human brains (yes, there is not only one, those things described as diseases are just part of the species). But anthropology, how is that not a solid field? It has a clear cut topic, it has ongoing discussions and has brought us evidence backed up theory's like evolution. The irony is none the less, that something like a john doe who majored in sociology blogging about the basic income might be more useful in the long run then a john doe working in a steel mill, waiting for a robot to replace him. Disclaimer: Im in robotics, but ventured into a lot of other fields out of pure interest. TL,DR - Conclusion: If it feels right - its usually wrong, or has a thousand edge cases.
charlesism 10y ago
I like to think that some of them will use that free education to develop cures for diseases, cheaper sources of energy, faster computers, etc. I think about my fellow people the way I think about immigration... neither inherently good nor inherently bad for a society. If an immigrant is a brilliant physicist, it's a plus, whereas if an immigrant is a drug lord, it's a minus. I'd rather live in a society surrounded by educated people, even if some of them choose a flakey major, or don't agree with all my views. That the people who get a "free education" also benefit from it themselves is just an added bonus.
atspruce 10y ago
> It's really a marketing trick - kinda like how these startups call something 'sharing (economy)', when in fact people are trading, not sharing. What is the use in assuming that anyone who has come to a conclusion other than your own has had the wool pulled over their eyes? No self-respecting Swede believes that university is 'free' in the sense you mean it; the costs are palpable to all taxpayers. The argument in favor of 'free' higher education—that is, education for which the costs are borne collectively, rather than by individual students who are presumed not to have funding to match their abilities—typically runs that a better and more widely educated country is a more productive country, and that students of higher education will as a body more than pay back the money given them in the form of schooling. What's more, they will pay their costs forward, offering the same opportunities for succeeding generations. You argue against this belief, after misrepresenting its proponents as people 'tricked' into thinking that no money has changed hands. That showed poor faith—something that is discouraged on this site—but, I'll move on. You insist that students given a leg up are more likely to squander their chances and to become parasitic, taking more than they put in. But you've given absolutely no evidence for this. Your 'reality check' is nothing more than supposition. Please direct us to numbers that indicate that Swedes are more likely to take degrees which you deem 'worthless,' and less likely to take STEM degrees or study a trade, than countries without 'free' education. Perhaps compare these figures to the US (you're clearly American, as shown by your line about the fervor surrounding Bernie Sanders among Swedish undergraduates). The US has quite high post-secondary tuition, even at its public universities, so if you're right in your thinking there should be far fewer 'parasites' there. On what grounds do you speak about the left-leaning faculty in the Swedish university system? I certainly have no first- or second-hand experience that I could counter your claims with, but I suspect you have none by which to make them. In general, a system of 'free' education is at least intended to give each generation as clean a sheet as possible. People may be self-made, but their children are not. 'Free' education provides (better) opportunities for those willing to put in the effort and do the work, regardless of their parents' abilities to land them in a good situation. No system rewards work and only work absolutely; but this is one attempt to do so, and it behooves anyone who wants to engage in actual conversation (as, for instance, on an online forum) to address it as such.
Pica_soO 10y ago
eh, Sorry but how is that related to college being free or not. As far as i remember its very expensive in the US and the effects you described still appear.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

You are assuming that most people are "stupid" and therefore not qualified to study at college. That reeks of highly stratified society like the USA is. I guess nordic coutries just consider that most people are good enough for high education and high education should be able to teach all these people. And nordic countries tend to ace it; they are at the top of all the "human capital quality" ratings.

realitycheckxxx 10y ago
No, no... I didn't write that most people are stupid (where did you read that?). I wrote that there are certain people who, when given the opportunity to study something for free, will pick really bad majors, like sociology, anthropology etc. Then, those people will have a hard time finding productive employment and some of them might even join the bloated public sector and suck even more tax dollars. The existence of those people doesn't benefit society. Also, they will be heavily politically indoctrinated in leftist ideologies(socialism, communism, modern feminism) that promote wealth redistribution. Why is that appealing to sociology/anthropology majors? Because they are incompetent parasites who don't participate in production chain of anything they consume. So, they attach themselves to ideologies that promote wealth distribution from producers to parasites, all disguised as feminism/anti-oppression/progressivism etc.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  I definitely understand your concern, but in my opinion benefits for society outweight costs, and the leftist-leaning of modern society should be fixed not in University but in different places (direct democracy anyone?)
- Pica_soO 10y ago
  psychology is a quack science about boxing in stereotyped people social sciences is basically a field waiting to start existing once neurology is done mapping the human brains (yes, there is not only one, those things described as diseases are just part of the species). But anthropology, how is that not a solid field? It has a clear cut topic, it has ongoing discussions and has brought us evidence backed up theory's like evolution. The irony is none the less, that something like a john doe who majored in sociology blogging about the basic income might be more useful in the long run then a john doe working in a steel mill, waiting for a robot to replace him. Disclaimer: Im in robotics, but ventured into a lot of other fields out of pure interest. TL,DR - Conclusion: If it feels right - its usually wrong, or has a thousand edge cases.

charlesism 10y ago

I like to think that some of them will use that free education to develop cures for diseases, cheaper sources of energy, faster computers, etc. I think about my fellow people the way I think about immigration... neither inherently good nor inherently bad for a society. If an immigrant is a brilliant physicist, it's a plus, whereas if an immigrant is a drug lord, it's a minus. I'd rather live in a society surrounded by educated people, even if some of them choose a flakey major, or don't agree with all my views. That the people who get a "free education" also benefit from it themselves is just an added bonus.

atspruce 10y ago

> It's really a marketing trick - kinda like how these startups call something 'sharing (economy)', when in fact people are trading, not sharing. What is the use in assuming that anyone who has come to a conclusion other than your own has had the wool pulled over their eyes? No self-respecting Swede believes that university is 'free' in the sense you mean it; the costs are palpable to all taxpayers. The argument in favor of 'free' higher education—that is, education for which the costs are borne collectively, rather than by individual students who are presumed not to have funding to match their abilities—typically runs that a better and more widely educated country is a more productive country, and that students of higher education will as a body more than pay back the money given them in the form of schooling. What's more, they will pay their costs forward, offering the same opportunities for succeeding generations. You argue against this belief, after misrepresenting its proponents as people 'tricked' into thinking that no money has changed hands. That showed poor faith—something that is discouraged on this site—but, I'll move on. You insist that students given a leg up are more likely to squander their chances and to become parasitic, taking more than they put in. But you've given absolutely no evidence for this. Your 'reality check' is nothing more than supposition. Please direct us to numbers that indicate that Swedes are more likely to take degrees which you deem 'worthless,' and less likely to take STEM degrees or study a trade, than countries without 'free' education. Perhaps compare these figures to the US (you're clearly American, as shown by your line about the fervor surrounding Bernie Sanders among Swedish undergraduates). The US has quite high post-secondary tuition, even at its public universities, so if you're right in your thinking there should be far fewer 'parasites' there. On what grounds do you speak about the left-leaning faculty in the Swedish university system? I certainly have no first- or second-hand experience that I could counter your claims with, but I suspect you have none by which to make them. In general, a system of 'free' education is at least intended to give each generation as clean a sheet as possible. People may be self-made, but their children are not. 'Free' education provides (better) opportunities for those willing to put in the effort and do the work, regardless of their parents' abilities to land them in a good situation. No system rewards work and only work absolutely; but this is one attempt to do so, and it behooves anyone who wants to engage in actual conversation (as, for instance, on an online forum) to address it as such.

Pica_soO 10y ago

eh, Sorry but how is that related to college being free or not. As far as i remember its very expensive in the US and the effects you described still appear.