4 ms·
The assumption being that it's the government's job to invest in individuals. I'm not here to argue either way, but at least half the country would disagree tha
by TheBeardKing 8y ago
The assumption being that it's the government's job to invest in individuals. I'm not here to argue either way, but at least half the country would disagree that it is.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- beat 8y agoThe other half treats education as investing in society.
- vkou 8y ago> The assumption being that it's the government's job to invest in individuals. I'm not here to argue either way, but at least half the country would disagree that it is. Why is the government involved in teaching children how to read, write, do arithmetic, and sit in a chair for 8 hours a day, then? Absolute ideological opposition to government involvement in education - period - is a fringe opinion, that is at best, shared by ~5% of the country - not 50%. (Much of the 50% disagrees about the curriculum, but that's another story.)
- TheBeardKing 8y agoWe're obviously talking about higher education here. We all agree basic functioning citizens need 12 years of education. Educational attainment beyond that varies depending on occupation requirements and personal interest.
- vkou 8y agoGiven the problems that people without post-secondary degrees face, I don't think it's a stretch to say that productive, functioning citizens need 12 + ??? years of education. For every example you give of a successful college dropout, I can give an example of a successful person who only forced themselves to slog through 12 years of schooling for the sake of social signaling, and not running afoul of truancy laws.