> I think the idea that someone can get straight C's in highschool and get $50k a year to study art in college is not a good use of my tax dollars. Why Art is

> I think the idea that someone can get straight C's in highschool and get $50k a year to study art in college is not a good use of my tax dollars. Why Art is not a good use of tax dollars? Who decides what is good or bad to study? Should only be the free market? I believe a cost of $50k/year/student is not optimal. I also think cost for education per student/year is much cheaper in Europe. > I also don't think it's a good idea to give someone like me a free college education. I make $400k a year. I can pay for it my fucking self if I want to. The idea someone else should pay for it seems absurd. It's hard to tell "a priori" if someone studying certain degree will make X amount of money. Because of that, I believe the balance is better adjusted after the fact of someone studying (meaning: paying taxes on salary once they get a job) than before (when studying). > I don't think you should be able to get $70k a year to go to USC when you can study the same thing with better results at Pittsburgh for $20k Completely agree. One of the issues that I see on the current system is that perhaps people start paying more for the connections that studying there will entail than for the education per-se. > Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game Students should always have skin in the game. The question here is: should be mainly economical? There are a lot of other factors that can affect the status of someone that are not just about money. However I agree with you that perhaps a formula like 80%/20% might make sense. I believe that model is much closer to the one applied in Europe... and that model is actually closer to the concept of "free education" than anything else :) (at least, when viewed from the US prism)