3 ms·

For any endeavor, including education, if we shift the source of funding from democratic government to private individuals, then those needing funding will shif

For any endeavor, including education, if we shift the source of funding from democratic government to private individuals, then those needing funding will shift their focus from pleasing the public to pleasing wealthy parties. For example, there was a new park being designed in NY. Lacking traditional public funding, they sought private funding. As a result, instead of a design that serves the public, the park is designed according to the desires of a wealthy donor.[0] In higher education, instead of making progress and giving more and more people a better education, as prior generations did, we are going the wrong way (AFAIK). I believe it's fundamentally undemocratic, which is an American ideal much more than small government, which is a partisan ideology. To me, the adherence to ideology (in this case, smaller government) over practical good results (educating people and opportunity), always is a terrible idea and can lead to dangerous results. The free market allocates goods to those willing and able to pay most for them. That's efficient for many things such as soda and cars, but undesirable for basic human needs and societal goods such as education and healthcare, which we don't want to deny to people because they are poor. Funding by the public (via taxes) is a good solution for some things. [0] That was the story as I read it maybe 1-2 years ago; it's possible the situation changed since then. EDIT: added sentence, reworded another

ende 10y ago
I don't see how your comment is relevant to the topic. This isn't a public vs private debate. If anything it's a debate between federal loans and state appropriations, or an issue of administrative mismanagement. There is another kind of ideology, however, which may be at play here: an automatic reaction to pour public money on problems. Public institutions can be irrational actors that cator to narrow interests just as private ones can. The public sector needs to be regulated as well, and it largely is not.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > This isn't a public vs private debate We might be referring to different forms of "private". The article says that as public funding was pulled back, tuition was increased to fill the gap. Tuition is private funding, though by many (mostly) wealthy people rather than a few uber-wealthy. With funding coming from that private source, wealthy customers, educational institutions need to focus on pleasing them and invest in fancy amenities rather than educational resources. > The public sector needs to be regulated as well, and it largely is not. It is regulated by voters and their representatives - very imperfectly, and we should improve it and not be satisfied, but I've yet to find a large human endeavor for which that wasn't the case. > There is another kind of ideology, however, which may be at play here: an automatic reaction to pour public money on problems Given the radical cuts in government budgets on the federal and local level, I don't see that approach having much influence currently so I'm not worried about it. Also, spending public money is a strategy, not an ideology. Democratic socialism is an ideology, and I do dread dogmatic ideologues of all stripes, but that one also isn't a threat right now.

ende 10y ago

I don't see how your comment is relevant to the topic. This isn't a public vs private debate. If anything it's a debate between federal loans and state appropriations, or an issue of administrative mismanagement. There is another kind of ideology, however, which may be at play here: an automatic reaction to pour public money on problems. Public institutions can be irrational actors that cator to narrow interests just as private ones can. The public sector needs to be regulated as well, and it largely is not.

hackuser 10y ago
> This isn't a public vs private debate We might be referring to different forms of "private". The article says that as public funding was pulled back, tuition was increased to fill the gap. Tuition is private funding, though by many (mostly) wealthy people rather than a few uber-wealthy. With funding coming from that private source, wealthy customers, educational institutions need to focus on pleasing them and invest in fancy amenities rather than educational resources. > The public sector needs to be regulated as well, and it largely is not. It is regulated by voters and their representatives - very imperfectly, and we should improve it and not be satisfied, but I've yet to find a large human endeavor for which that wasn't the case. > There is another kind of ideology, however, which may be at play here: an automatic reaction to pour public money on problems Given the radical cuts in government budgets on the federal and local level, I don't see that approach having much influence currently so I'm not worried about it. Also, spending public money is a strategy, not an ideology. Democratic socialism is an ideology, and I do dread dogmatic ideologues of all stripes, but that one also isn't a threat right now.