5 ms·

When put on small terms, like this, subsidized education always starts to look bad. Scaling it up makes it seem much more fair. As an American, I understand t

When put on small terms, like this, subsidized education always starts to look bad. Scaling it up makes it seem much more fair. As an American, I understand the concept of doing it yourself and not paying for things that don't benefit you. That said, I also understand that paying extra taxes to get more kids in better schools has more benefit to society than letting me keep that money. Personally, I'd be happy to subsidize it in that way. The overall cost to me is low and the overall benefit to society is quite high. It seems to me that most of the resistance comes from this "I had to do it, so you should too" mindset and it's really not beneficial to anyone. As Retic mentioned, this isn't a zero-sum game and thinking about it like it is doesn't help anyone. A better use of your example would be to point out that both of those people may have been able to pay for a third person that couldn't have afforded it otherwise. The fact that one of them could have is irrelevant.

jiggy2011 12y ago
But if you allow the tuition payments to be deferred, as is the case in the UK then the question of who can "afford" tuition changes from being predicated on their economic position before they go to university to their expected economic position after university. If student loan repayments are capped at X% of income and you do not believe that getting a university degree will raise your earnings by at least X% then it probably is not in your best interest to attend university. The same math applies regardless of how much money you have before you start university.
- alphydan 12y ago
  >> you do not believe that getting a university degree will raise your earnings by at least X% then it probably is not in your best interest to attend university I was unaware that the role of university was to take your salary from X to X+Delta. What if you are a better citizen, a nurse (earning less than a secretary, but contributing more), a street artist? What if you earned more as a construction worker, but instead studied science and work part time as a scientist and part time doing community work? The salary and taxes are not the only measure of your contribution to society and of the positive effect of university.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    In that case , if these professions are valuable why not simply pay them more? If someone with a science degree only does science part time then that money should be diverted to people who intend to do science full time because there is a much better ROI.
- pedrosorio 12y ago
  And in that case, for the average 18 year old, the choice of attending University becomes a gamble (if you're poor) or business as usual (if your parents have money).
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    Why would it make any difference how poor your parents are? The only difference I can think of is that parents of rich students can afford to subsidise their offspring in studying a degree for which there is a negative ROI but why do we want people doing these degrees at all?

jiggy2011 12y ago

But if you allow the tuition payments to be deferred, as is the case in the UK then the question of who can "afford" tuition changes from being predicated on their economic position before they go to university to their expected economic position after university. If student loan repayments are capped at X% of income and you do not believe that getting a university degree will raise your earnings by at least X% then it probably is not in your best interest to attend university. The same math applies regardless of how much money you have before you start university.

alphydan 12y ago
>> you do not believe that getting a university degree will raise your earnings by at least X% then it probably is not in your best interest to attend university I was unaware that the role of university was to take your salary from X to X+Delta. What if you are a better citizen, a nurse (earning less than a secretary, but contributing more), a street artist? What if you earned more as a construction worker, but instead studied science and work part time as a scientist and part time doing community work? The salary and taxes are not the only measure of your contribution to society and of the positive effect of university.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  In that case , if these professions are valuable why not simply pay them more? If someone with a science degree only does science part time then that money should be diverted to people who intend to do science full time because there is a much better ROI.
pedrosorio 12y ago
And in that case, for the average 18 year old, the choice of attending University becomes a gamble (if you're poor) or business as usual (if your parents have money).
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  Why would it make any difference how poor your parents are? The only difference I can think of is that parents of rich students can afford to subsidise their offspring in studying a degree for which there is a negative ROI but why do we want people doing these degrees at all?