4 ms·

Not anyone. Some kind of test is required for admission. I am thinking like the UK system. Also if you are being $ focused then offer it where there is ROI: ST

Not anyone. Some kind of test is required for admission. I am thinking like the UK system. Also if you are being $ focused then offer it where there is ROI: STEM, medicine (allow more doctors too). Education doesn't lose its value if it is free. Does food and water? Shelter? Unless people are just tuning out of their degree and it is just a social thing. In which deal with that specific problem.

_heimdall 2y ago
How does no one pay for it, though? I don't know the ins and outs of the UK education system, but I have to assume the facilities and employees are still paid for. > Does food and water? Shelter? If everyone had access to it for free? Absolutely! I wouldn't work as a farmer or build houses if no one had to pay for those products. Value, or price in this context, is only really feasible for scarce assets. If something is seemingly unlimited and freely available it will have no (financial) value.
- thfuran 2y ago
  It's publicly funded, not built and staffed by slaves.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Sure, but then the answer to my original question of who pays for it is the taxpayer. It isn't free, the cost is just subsidized by the public rather than paid by the student. I'm not even saying that's a bad thing, if most people want it that way I don't see the problem. But it isn't free.
    - olyjohn 2y ago
      Sorry, but you're just being a bit pedantic about this and it's not helping any conversation.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        I'm not sure how, it seems really important to distinguish between free and not free. To me it seems disingenuous to call something free when its publicly funded.
        thfuran 2y ago
        But everyone knows that "free" in this context means publicly funded. Free as in beer never meant that the entire production of the beer somehow was accomplished without financial or material input.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        That doesn't hold up even just in this comment thread. Higher up when I asked who pays for it the reply I got was "Not anyone". The person really didn't seem to get that " free" == publicly funded == taxpayers pay for it.
        thfuran 2y ago
        No, they said that not just anyone can get in for free; there's an admission test.
- nejsjsjsbsb 2y ago
  Tax. The missing link is those educated people pay it back with their tax. And/or contributions to the economy. Also part of this is making education better bang for buck. You can say who's gonna pay for it for everything. Defense and meddling in world affairs is a big cost too.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Right, but if our answer is taxes then someone pays for it and it is not free. There's nothing wrong with that, we just can't call it free. > You can say who's gonna pay for it for everything. Defense and meddling in world affairs is a big cost too. For sure, no disagreement here. My personal opinion is that defense is only necessary in times of war and meddling in world affairs is never necessary.
    - dinkumthinkum 2y ago
      You think defense is only necessary in times of war? I think you should re-think that position. If you mean that, it is just a fundamental misunderstanding of ... everything.

_heimdall 2y ago

How does no one pay for it, though? I don't know the ins and outs of the UK education system, but I have to assume the facilities and employees are still paid for. > Does food and water? Shelter? If everyone had access to it for free? Absolutely! I wouldn't work as a farmer or build houses if no one had to pay for those products. Value, or price in this context, is only really feasible for scarce assets. If something is seemingly unlimited and freely available it will have no (financial) value.

thfuran 2y ago
It's publicly funded, not built and staffed by slaves.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Sure, but then the answer to my original question of who pays for it is the taxpayer. It isn't free, the cost is just subsidized by the public rather than paid by the student. I'm not even saying that's a bad thing, if most people want it that way I don't see the problem. But it isn't free.
  - olyjohn 2y ago
    Sorry, but you're just being a bit pedantic about this and it's not helping any conversation.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I'm not sure how, it seems really important to distinguish between free and not free. To me it seems disingenuous to call something free when its publicly funded.
      - thfuran 2y ago
        But everyone knows that "free" in this context means publicly funded. Free as in beer never meant that the entire production of the beer somehow was accomplished without financial or material input.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        That doesn't hold up even just in this comment thread. Higher up when I asked who pays for it the reply I got was "Not anyone". The person really didn't seem to get that " free" == publicly funded == taxpayers pay for it.
        thfuran 2y ago
        No, they said that not just anyone can get in for free; there's an admission test.
nejsjsjsbsb 2y ago
Tax. The missing link is those educated people pay it back with their tax. And/or contributions to the economy. Also part of this is making education better bang for buck. You can say who's gonna pay for it for everything. Defense and meddling in world affairs is a big cost too.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Right, but if our answer is taxes then someone pays for it and it is not free. There's nothing wrong with that, we just can't call it free. > You can say who's gonna pay for it for everything. Defense and meddling in world affairs is a big cost too. For sure, no disagreement here. My personal opinion is that defense is only necessary in times of war and meddling in world affairs is never necessary.
  - dinkumthinkum 2y ago
    You think defense is only necessary in times of war? I think you should re-think that position. If you mean that, it is just a fundamental misunderstanding of ... everything.