4 ms·

As I'm sure you know Jefferson was one of the big proponents of a well-informed citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy. At the end of the day t

As I'm sure you know Jefferson was one of the big proponents of a well-informed citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy. At the end of the day the title of the degree doesn't matter. Whether its Women's Studies, Math, or Seafood Prep, it's more about learning to use analytical skills to look at problems. The idea being these skills are translatable. I do like the idea of college. I do like the idea that you've spent four years thinking. I do sometimes feel college is waster on the young. If society functioned in a way such that you could work for 10 years and go back to college at age 30 I think people would derive much more value from it, even for degrees with no direct economic value.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
The idea being these skills are translatable. In that case, Math is always superior to Women's studies. Math is economically beneficial and also helps maintain a functioning democracy. Women's studies only does the latter. Following this logic, the author is incorrect that the public goods are being unbundled from the private goods.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Well given the high numbers of math majors who go to work on finance one could argue that it's economically less beneficial. :-)
tokenadult 15y ago
I'm sure you know Jefferson was one of the big proponents of a well-informed citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy. Yes, Jefferson generally expressed the opinion that an educated citizenry is beneficial to a country, and I have often expressed agreement with that opinion. But it is important to note that Jefferson did not support making school attendance compulsory, nor did he think that education should be provided solely by state governments. Jefferson received more nonparental schooling than the other three presidents depicted on Mount Rushmore combined, first at home with a hired tutor in Tuckahoe, where Jefferson's father moved when Jefferson was two to be guardian for his wife's late cousin's son. At age nine Thomas Jefferson was placed as a boarding student in the one-room "Latin school" kept by the Reverend William Douglas, minister of St. James Parish. Thomas Jefferson's later letters reveal Jefferson didn't think Reverend Douglas really knew the subject matter very well. Thomas Jefferson's studies with that teacher ended at the age of fourteen, when his father died. Thomas Jefferson then was sent to the five-student school kept by the Reverend James Maury, whose son was one of the other students in the school. Jefferson spent many hours walking in the woods or practicing the violin while studying there. Jefferson then again stopped attending school briefly before traveling to Williamsburg to attend the College of William and Mary. William Small was Thomas Jefferson's favorite member of the college's seven-man faculty. Jefferson was remembered in later years by his classmates for his diligence in independently reading books until late at night. After two years, Jefferson completed his studies at William and Mary and then studied law by working with a Williamsburg lawyer from 1762 to 1766. Jefferson, after retiring from his rather trouble-plagued presidency, spent years planning a system of publicly subsidized schools in Virginia. He wrote extensively to other planners of that project, and many of his letters from that period survive and have been reprinted. He was convinced from his extensive observations of society in America and in Europe that parental control was vital for schools: "But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the Governor and Council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience. Try the principle one step further and amend the bill so as to commit to the Governor and Council the management of all our farms, our mills, and merchants' stores." Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, Feb. 2, 1816, reprinted in Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson (1955), page 98 and in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1904), volume 14, pages 420-21. In other words, it is as ridiculous to have governments, especially governments of broad territorial units, operate schools as it is to have governments operate grocery stores or farms. But of course socialist countries around the world have tried the experiment of governments running farms and stores, always with disastrous results, and almost every country in the world today has government-operated schools. Perhaps it is time to listen again to Jefferson's advice. Jefferson was quite consistent on this point of preferring private operation of schools, however much those schools were publicly funded and open to all members of the public. In a state of the Union address during his second term as president, Jefferson noted: "It [should not] be proposed to take ordinary branches [of education] out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." Thomas Jefferson, sixth annual message to Congress (1806), reprinted in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1907), volume 14, page 384. Jefferson most definitely supported public funding of schools, but made clear he opposed compulsory attendance. "Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? . . . It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father. What is proposed here is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis . . . Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, September 9, 1817, reprinted in Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1904) volume 17, page 423.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  I think many would support private publicly-funded schools if private schools would adhere to being open to the general public. It's in the best interest of many (if not most) private schools to push out special needs students. They're expensive and generally don't help the "reputation" of the school. We might be able to handle this by having private schools, but no school choice. That way private schools can't push students out -- if they live in your area, they're yours. Of course this destroys the free market dynamics, which many say is key. There is just real incentive in education to not have to deal with special needs children in a way that stores and farms have no real analog (the closest analog is farms working with certain easy crops -- which is one reason we see so much corn and soy crops, in addition to subsidies). The other thing that is interesting is you look at colleges, for-profit colleges seem to be almost universally reviled (especially relative to public and private-non-profit colleges). So far in the US private education of any peoples except the intellectual and/or economic elite has not yielded promising results. Jefferson most definitely supported public funding of schools, but made clear he opposed compulsory attendance. In the US today school attendence isn't compulsory. I think anyone could home school.
  - tokenadult 15y ago
    Your suggestion is one possible policy. Another possible policy is to allow ANY provider to refuse service to any subsidized customer, on the reasoning that the refusal of the provider to provide service is essentially a statement that that provider cannot help that customer. If some category of customers appear to be unattractive to most providers, but there is a positive externality from providing service to those customers, increase the subsidies for customers in that category until you reach an equilibrium price at which some providers are willing to meet those customers' needs.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      I fear that creates an incentive to game the system. "This person is dislexic so we get the dislexic bonus", but they're really not, but parents work to get their child labeled as such so they can get into the top schools, and the top schools take this "not really dislexic" child, which they can interview or test to ensure they're perfectly capable students. I think this would actually be a case where the stick works better. A school can't reject anybody. And if a student leaves your school with a complaint about service you are severely punished. Maybe funding cut by a percentage of the size of the student body per complaint.
wisty 15y ago
What analytic skills do humanities (aka liberal arts) grads have? The gold standard in mathematical analysis is proof. In science, it's statistically sound empirical evidence. In liberal arts, the analytical skills do not seem to be more sophistry than analysis. Persuasive writing and cherry-picking facts can carry a lot of weight. I can see why that is useful to a marketer or reporter (who doesn't need to be correct, as long as they are persuasive), but it's not a sound basis for "looking at problems". Just witness the number of arts students who study a lot of "social" stuff, and end up believing that left-wing === virtuous. I'm far from a Republican, but that I can't say that's a sign of good analytical skills.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

The idea being these skills are translatable. In that case, Math is always superior to Women's studies. Math is economically beneficial and also helps maintain a functioning democracy. Women's studies only does the latter. Following this logic, the author is incorrect that the public goods are being unbundled from the private goods.

kenjackson 15y ago
Well given the high numbers of math majors who go to work on finance one could argue that it's economically less beneficial. :-)

tokenadult 15y ago

I'm sure you know Jefferson was one of the big proponents of a well-informed citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy. Yes, Jefferson generally expressed the opinion that an educated citizenry is beneficial to a country, and I have often expressed agreement with that opinion. But it is important to note that Jefferson did not support making school attendance compulsory, nor did he think that education should be provided solely by state governments. Jefferson received more nonparental schooling than the other three presidents depicted on Mount Rushmore combined, first at home with a hired tutor in Tuckahoe, where Jefferson's father moved when Jefferson was two to be guardian for his wife's late cousin's son. At age nine Thomas Jefferson was placed as a boarding student in the one-room "Latin school" kept by the Reverend William Douglas, minister of St. James Parish. Thomas Jefferson's later letters reveal Jefferson didn't think Reverend Douglas really knew the subject matter very well. Thomas Jefferson's studies with that teacher ended at the age of fourteen, when his father died. Thomas Jefferson then was sent to the five-student school kept by the Reverend James Maury, whose son was one of the other students in the school. Jefferson spent many hours walking in the woods or practicing the violin while studying there. Jefferson then again stopped attending school briefly before traveling to Williamsburg to attend the College of William and Mary. William Small was Thomas Jefferson's favorite member of the college's seven-man faculty. Jefferson was remembered in later years by his classmates for his diligence in independently reading books until late at night. After two years, Jefferson completed his studies at William and Mary and then studied law by working with a Williamsburg lawyer from 1762 to 1766. Jefferson, after retiring from his rather trouble-plagued presidency, spent years planning a system of publicly subsidized schools in Virginia. He wrote extensively to other planners of that project, and many of his letters from that period survive and have been reprinted. He was convinced from his extensive observations of society in America and in Europe that parental control was vital for schools: "But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the Governor and Council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience. Try the principle one step further and amend the bill so as to commit to the Governor and Council the management of all our farms, our mills, and merchants' stores." Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, Feb. 2, 1816, reprinted in Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson (1955), page 98 and in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1904), volume 14, pages 420-21. In other words, it is as ridiculous to have governments, especially governments of broad territorial units, operate schools as it is to have governments operate grocery stores or farms. But of course socialist countries around the world have tried the experiment of governments running farms and stores, always with disastrous results, and almost every country in the world today has government-operated schools. Perhaps it is time to listen again to Jefferson's advice. Jefferson was quite consistent on this point of preferring private operation of schools, however much those schools were publicly funded and open to all members of the public. In a state of the Union address during his second term as president, Jefferson noted: "It [should not] be proposed to take ordinary branches [of education] out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." Thomas Jefferson, sixth annual message to Congress (1806), reprinted in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1907), volume 14, page 384. Jefferson most definitely supported public funding of schools, but made clear he opposed compulsory attendance. "Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? . . . It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father. What is proposed here is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis . . . Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, September 9, 1817, reprinted in Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1904) volume 17, page 423.

kenjackson 15y ago
I think many would support private publicly-funded schools if private schools would adhere to being open to the general public. It's in the best interest of many (if not most) private schools to push out special needs students. They're expensive and generally don't help the "reputation" of the school. We might be able to handle this by having private schools, but no school choice. That way private schools can't push students out -- if they live in your area, they're yours. Of course this destroys the free market dynamics, which many say is key. There is just real incentive in education to not have to deal with special needs children in a way that stores and farms have no real analog (the closest analog is farms working with certain easy crops -- which is one reason we see so much corn and soy crops, in addition to subsidies). The other thing that is interesting is you look at colleges, for-profit colleges seem to be almost universally reviled (especially relative to public and private-non-profit colleges). So far in the US private education of any peoples except the intellectual and/or economic elite has not yielded promising results. Jefferson most definitely supported public funding of schools, but made clear he opposed compulsory attendance. In the US today school attendence isn't compulsory. I think anyone could home school.
- tokenadult 15y ago
  Your suggestion is one possible policy. Another possible policy is to allow ANY provider to refuse service to any subsidized customer, on the reasoning that the refusal of the provider to provide service is essentially a statement that that provider cannot help that customer. If some category of customers appear to be unattractive to most providers, but there is a positive externality from providing service to those customers, increase the subsidies for customers in that category until you reach an equilibrium price at which some providers are willing to meet those customers' needs.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    I fear that creates an incentive to game the system. "This person is dislexic so we get the dislexic bonus", but they're really not, but parents work to get their child labeled as such so they can get into the top schools, and the top schools take this "not really dislexic" child, which they can interview or test to ensure they're perfectly capable students. I think this would actually be a case where the stick works better. A school can't reject anybody. And if a student leaves your school with a complaint about service you are severely punished. Maybe funding cut by a percentage of the size of the student body per complaint.

wisty 15y ago

What analytic skills do humanities (aka liberal arts) grads have? The gold standard in mathematical analysis is proof. In science, it's statistically sound empirical evidence. In liberal arts, the analytical skills do not seem to be more sophistry than analysis. Persuasive writing and cherry-picking facts can carry a lot of weight. I can see why that is useful to a marketer or reporter (who doesn't need to be correct, as long as they are persuasive), but it's not a sound basis for "looking at problems". Just witness the number of arts students who study a lot of "social" stuff, and end up believing that left-wing === virtuous. I'm far from a Republican, but that I can't say that's a sign of good analytical skills.