4 ms·

Good for students in the short term; long term, it's strongly in students' interests for universities to get more money. This is great progress, but it needs t

Good for students in the short term; long term, it's strongly in students' interests for universities to get more money. This is great progress, but it needs to be coupled with better funding for public universities.

chad_oliver 14y ago
Could you explain your reasoning? I don't think that universities are a good way to provide education, but I'd like to hear your perspective.
- veridies 14y ago
  My university provides access to top-of-the-line audio and video editing software and computers for students to use. It also has a fantastic internet connection, a large research library, and numerous other small amenities that help students practice and learn. Those could be cut, and would be cut in a price war, and yet doing so would not be advantageous to students in the long run. As for whether universities are a good way to provide education: I don't think they are for everyone. Many people do better when they can work on their own, at the pace they need. But for some people that's overwhelming and too unguided. Plus, in-person access to expert professors can be great for independent research and projects.
gojomo 14y ago
It is not self-evident to me that it's necessarily in students' interest for universities to get more money. As a purchaser of anything else -- gas, entertainment, books, electronics, whatever -- is it always in my long-term interest for the seller to "get more money"? (Even when that money doesn't come directly to me -- for example, government subsidies -- their bonanza doesn't necessarily inure to me, the customer, as opposed to insiders.)
- veridies 14y ago
  Always? No. But when news agencies get more money, they have more careful copy-editing and better investigative journalism. When hardware companies get more money, they can afford better R&D, resulting in nicer products down the road. The things that get cut tend to be what avoids short-term losses, which isn't always good for the consumer.

chad_oliver 14y ago

Could you explain your reasoning? I don't think that universities are a good way to provide education, but I'd like to hear your perspective.

veridies 14y ago
My university provides access to top-of-the-line audio and video editing software and computers for students to use. It also has a fantastic internet connection, a large research library, and numerous other small amenities that help students practice and learn. Those could be cut, and would be cut in a price war, and yet doing so would not be advantageous to students in the long run. As for whether universities are a good way to provide education: I don't think they are for everyone. Many people do better when they can work on their own, at the pace they need. But for some people that's overwhelming and too unguided. Plus, in-person access to expert professors can be great for independent research and projects.

gojomo 14y ago

It is not self-evident to me that it's necessarily in students' interest for universities to get more money. As a purchaser of anything else -- gas, entertainment, books, electronics, whatever -- is it always in my long-term interest for the seller to "get more money"? (Even when that money doesn't come directly to me -- for example, government subsidies -- their bonanza doesn't necessarily inure to me, the customer, as opposed to insiders.)

veridies 14y ago
Always? No. But when news agencies get more money, they have more careful copy-editing and better investigative journalism. When hardware companies get more money, they can afford better R&D, resulting in nicer products down the road. The things that get cut tend to be what avoids short-term losses, which isn't always good for the consumer.