3 ms·
> No, it's because no matter what the cost of school is, universities know their "customers" will just take out a loan to match whatever the price is. And one w
by xyzelement 5y ago
> No, it's because no matter what the cost of school is, universities know their "customers" will just take out a loan to match whatever the price is. And one way to "disrupt" this is to make public universities free for in state students
It's not just the ability to borrow that's driving this, but the perception that you must absolutely have the product (college degree) - so you don't feel like you have a choice not to borrow to pay the exorbitant fee.
University is hard to "disrupt" but the fact that the cost comes out of your pocket, student debt and all, is one motivating factor for others to try.
If you entrench the university as something that's "free" (meaning, you still pay the exorbitant fee, just in the form of taxes) then you've basically established a monopoly because nothing can compete with something that's "free"
My take on the university is simple - the university originally existed because you needed a single physical location for books and smart people. Access to people and information was finite and location really mattered.
This is the opposite of the world we live in now - ability to access people and knowledge today is only hurt by the physical colocation aspect. So the university, which is still operating under the "books and smart people are scarce so you need to pay us to be near them" principle just no longer makes sense as the default way to educate the masses.
- Naac 5y ago>> My take on the university is simple - the university originally existed because you needed a single physical location for books and smart people. Access to people and information was finite and location really mattered. This is the opposite of the world we live in now - ability to access people and knowledge today is only hurt by the physical colocation aspect. So the university, which is still operating under the "books and smart people are scarce so you need to pay us to be near them" principle just no longer makes sense as the default way to educate the masses. That doesn't make sense. Maybe for some fields, but certainly all the fields that actually require a lab to work in still benefit from the physical space a university provides. I'm also not convinced that remote work/meetings == in person collaboration between colleagues.
- xyzelement 5y ago> Maybe for some fields, but certainly all the fields that actually require a lab to work in still benefit from the physical space a university provides. Sure. But it doesn't have to be black and white. A degree costs the.same currently regardless of whether you are in a. Lab-heaby major or one where you mainly sit in a 200+ lecture hall passively listening. Either way you rack up tens lt hundreds of thousands of debt. Wouldn't it be at least nice to have am option to learn the same material in an acredited way while taking advantage of modern technology to drive costs majorly down. Then for majors with labs etc maybe you do show up somewhere to work on it. You maybe even pay more for lab access since the cost of providing one is higher. I bet you still come out way ahead compared to today. Bottom line if someone wants the classic education experience, sure. But that financial commitment shouldn't be everyone's default
- jasperry 5y agoIf you know of a place where there are a lot of books and you can hang out with smart people, please tell me where it is, it sounds wonderful.