3 ms·
One could flip your argument on its head and argue that, in countries with free (or subsidized) university tuition, because taxpayers are paying for the tuition
by hnfong 2y ago
One could flip your argument on its head and argue that, in countries with free (or subsidized) university tuition, because taxpayers are paying for the tuition, universities should teach things that are demonstrably valuable to provide graduates with a fast path to becoming a productive ($) person in the workforce. If somebody wants to learn "useless" things, they can do so with their own money.
(Not that I disagree with your general thesis though. I just think it applies to free uni tuitions as well...)
- zarzavat 2y agoFor scholarships yes, but not for mass free or cheap subsidized tuition (e.g. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Scotland, etc). Governments everywhere subsidize the arts because a society where people only go in to economically productive careers is culturally barren. So I don’t think any Government enlightened enough to offer mass free university tuition would be unenlightened enough to see universities as mere training centers for industry, rather than as places of higher education at arm’s length from industry. Whereas when individuals pay fully for their own tuition then they do need to see degrees as training for industry because they have to pay the money back with interest. Interest accrues with time so they need to be productive as quickly as possible. If universities have their students’ best interests at heart then they need to acknowledge this reality and design courses to give students useful skills that will let them pay the money back ASAP.