"Differential Tuition": A Safety Net for Colleges or Another Obstacle for the Poor?

[AuntShecky]

This video from MSNBC reports on recent changes on how colleges and universities set their tuition rates. In a nutshell, some education institutions have proposed increasing the annual tuition (or credit hours) according to the student's chosen major.

Administrators base these rates on the assumption that certain career tracks, such as business and engineering, have a higher R.O.I. (Return on Investment) than the fields for which the Liberal Arts prepare the student. The logic is that business and engineering majors are intrinsically more "valuable," and thus should carry a higher price tag.

I wonder if this is a topic which LitNutters would like to discuss, namely do you think the concept of differential tuition is good, or do you believe (as I do) that it is a bit unfair. Would students from a lower income background have to decide to choose lower-cost majors and ultimately be steered into lower-paying careers?

Watch the video or "Google" the topic and share your thoughts on this topic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

[Emil Miller]

This video from MSNBC reports on recent changes on how colleges and universities set their tuition rates. In a nutshell, some education institutions have proposed increasing the annual tuition (or credit hours) according to the student's chosen major.

Administrators base these rates on the assumption that certain career tracks, such as business and engineering, have a higher R.O.I. (Return on Investment) than the fields for which the Liberal Arts prepare the student. The logic is that business and engineering majors are intrinsically more "valuable," and thus should carry a higher price tag.

I wonder if this is a topic which LitNutters would like to discuss, namely do you think the concept of differential tuition is good, or do you believe (as I do) that it is a bit unfair. Would students from a lower income background have to decide to choose lower-cost majors and ultimately be steered into lower-paying careers?

Watch the video or "Google" the topic and share your thoughts on this topic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

This question will generate a lot of heat and I can see the usual suspects piling in to air their discontent. Today, similar pecuniary considerations have been announced in the UK with regard to setting aside university places for wealthy foreign students to UK universities.
The fact of the matter is that universities, like any other organisation, will perish without sufficient funding. I don't want to go into the politics of the issue because it's forbidden on this forum, but yesterday it was announced that the USA has slipped to third place among the World's exporting nations after China and Germany. Principles are all well and good, but I learned a long, long time ago that reality is much stronger than idealism.

[AuntShecky]

This question will generate a lot of heat and I can see the usual suspects piling in to air their discontent. Today, similar pecuniary considerations have been announced in the UK with regard to setting aside university places for wealthy foreign students to UK universities.
The fact of the matter is that universities, like any other organisation, will perish without sufficient funding. I don't want to go into the politics of the issue because it's forbidden on this forum, but yesterday it was announced that the USA has slipped to third place among the World's exporting nations after China and Germany. Principles are all well and good, but I learned a long, long time ago that reality is much stronger than idealism.

I may be wrong, but I have heard that up until this point,
the UK has been more pro-active in channelling young people into certain career tracks according to the perceived
aptitude and academic ability. On these shores the prevailing convention --which may be a myth -- is that anyone can "grow up to be whatever he wants to be." Equal opportunity, and all that.

In the video, the spokesman from the U. of Arizona said that the plan including using the expected extra income from the differential tuition to provide scholarships to needy students. We'll have to, as it's said, "follow up on that." Just as corporations who benefited from financial bailouts are reluctant to use the revenue to create more jobs --that's an economic observation, not a "political" one, we've seen educational institutions use added revenue for lesser priorities, such as building new
sports arenas or hiring academic directors at 7-figure
salaries. A highly respected and world-famous university in the area in which I reside laid off numerous workers yet
somehow had the funds to build a brand-new mansion for the University President. (Her pre-existing home was perfectly fine, opulent enough for an official residence.)

I wonder if certain universities will actually provide more opportunities to lower income students, and if so, will they be allowed to study engineering or will they be "channeled" into selected "cheaper" majors? Again, we'll have to follow up on that.

[OrphanPip]

My Alma Mater attempted something like this last year for its MBA program, charging 10k per semester instead of the government mandated 2k. The government fined them for every extra dollar they took in from increasing the fees. The government has subsequently given in to some of the universities' demands and agreed to double tuition, which has been frozen in Quebec since the 70s. Even with doubling the tuition we'll still have the most affordable education in North America by a long shot, so I'm not complaining yet.

[Alexander III]

I think the greatest problem with Universities in the western world, is the inflation of education. As in, 100 years ago if you had a university bachelors degree you were one of 3 things:

1) An idiot from a extremely affluent and wealthy family
2) An intelligent guy from a well of family
3) A very intelligent guy from a poorer family

So that when employers were looking for employees they knew that if you had a BA degree, they were getting a man of talent, or if the case was number 1, they were getting a man who had contacts and money.

Nowadays a BA university degree has become quite literally the equivalent of a high school diploma of 50 or 80 years ago. This is because everyone is attending university, and everyone seems to have a degree. So unless you are from a top tier school (note that graduates from Yale and Oxford don't have trouble finding jobs) the employer simply cant trust you.

So nowadays a man must get a masters in order to be considered specialized as a man 7 years ago had to have a BA to be specialized. The problem is Masters are expensive so unless you are once again

1) An idiot from a extremely affluent and wealthy family
2) An intelligent guy from a well of family
3) A very intelligent guy from a poorer family

You will not have an advantage. The whole point of higher education is that it is for the elite, the 3 categories I mentioned above are the elite. As soon as Bachelor degrees are held by people who are not of of those 3 options, they are no longer considered elite higher education.

[OrphanPip]

Or the elite never were so elite as they thought they were.

University degrees aren't that common yet either.

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=29

About 20% of the population over 15 is without a high school diploma, I assume a small amount of that includes students still in high school. (There is a strong drop off since the 90s of people without HS diplomas, probably old people dying.)

Only 20% of Canadians have university degrees. So, roughly the same amount of people who have no high school diplomas have university degrees. Not exactly a glut of the over-educated.

Moreover, a nation benefits from having more intellectual capital than less. You have too many educated people? Well then the cost of high skilled work decreases, increasing incentive for high skilled work to come to your country.

Anyway, if we want to look at the date over age groups, you see that there are certainly more young people with higher education, but there are also much less young people without basic education. Has higher education become easier, no not really, it's simply that better education infrastructure has assured that the generations born since the 70s have mostly been able to attend university as long as they had the ability. I see nothing wrong with that, certainly it means there is now more competition, but big deal.

The problem is the attitudes of recent graduates, they think they're better than everyone else, they don't realize how common above average intelligence is. Simply, very few people are elite in any sense of intelligence or wealth.

[Alexander III]

Simply, very few people are elite in any sense of intelligence or wealth.

Precisely what I was saying, people get a Ba thinking they are part of an elite and then declaim the system when they realize that their degree makes them an average joe. The real elite have master degree's from top tier universities.

And wow I am shocked by how backwards Canada is with lack of high school diplomas and low university education. In the greater part of europe the university educated are around 30% - 60%(this 60% high amount is from the scandinavian countries)

[Emil Miller]

I may be wrong, but I have heard that up until this point,
the UK has been more pro-active in channelling young people into certain career tracks according to the perceived
aptitude and academic ability. On these shores the prevailing convention --which may be a myth -- is that anyone can "grow up to be whatever he wants to be." Equal opportunity, and all that.

No, a similar situation prevails in the UK where, recently, some politicians have been bemoaning the fact that there were far too many students opting for the Liberal Arts rather than Science based subjects. In fact, this is part of the government's excuse for inviting overseas students in those subjects to the UK in order to make up the shortfall.


I think the greatest problem with Universities in the western world, is the inflation of education. As in, 100 years ago if you had a university bachelors degree you were one of 3 things:

1) An idiot from a extremely affluent and wealthy family
2) An intelligent guy from a well of family
3) A very intelligent guy from a poorer family

So that when employers were looking for employees they knew that if you had a BA degree, they were getting a man of talent, or if the case was number 1, they were getting a man who had contacts and money.

Nowadays a BA university degree has become quite literally the equivalent of a high school diploma of 50 or 80 years ago. This is because everyone is attending university, and everyone seems to have a degree. So unless you are from a top tier school (note that graduates from Yale and Oxford don't have trouble finding jobs) the employer simply cant trust you.

So nowadays a man must get a masters in order to be considered specialized as a man 7 years ago had to have a BA to be specialized. The problem is Masters are expensive so unless you are once again

1) An idiot from a extremely affluent and wealthy family
2) An intelligent guy from a well of family
3) A very intelligent guy from a poorer family

You will not have an advantage. The whole point of higher education is that it is for the elite, the 3 categories I mentioned above are the elite. As soon as Bachelor degrees are held by people who are not of of those 3 options, they are no longer considered elite higher education.

Agreed, a superfluity of anything detracts from its value. My attention was drawn to a newspaper headline yesterday 'Forget the Degree and get a McJob'.

[OrphanPip]

Precisely what I was saying, people get a Ba thinking they are part of an elite and then declaim the system when they realize that their degree makes them an average joe. The real elite have master degree's from top tier universities.

And wow I am shocked by how backwards Canada is with lack of high school diplomas and low university education. In the greater part of europe the university educated are around 30% - 60%(this 60% high amount is from the scandinavian countries)

I think you're confusing post-secondary education with university degrees. Sweden is 22% compared to Canada's 23%.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/education/university-completion.aspx




Agreed, a superfluity of anything detracts from its value. My attention was drawn to a newspaper headline yesterday 'Forget the Degree and get a McJob'.

No, it's a stupid thing to do, because the university educated continue to make more money than the uneducated. Even if you end up with a McJob you're gonna beat out the guy without the degree for the job. Not to mention the effects on an economy in general when they have skilled labour troubles. It's not fun for you when you're not highly skilled relative to the rest of your country, but you still want your country to be more skilled than others.

[Alexander III]

I think you're confusing post-secondary education with university degrees. Sweden is 22% compared to Canada's 23%.

Ok wait to clear things about, when I say university degree I mean a bachelors degree.

But with the statistic we muddled up I realize because you used % of entire population but I was using % of under 30's. For example the % of under 30's in the uk who have a degree is 44%, Italy france and germany are more or less the same. In scandinavian countries it is above 50 on average with some places like Norway where 80% of females under 30 have a university degree.

I think it is best to use the under 30% as we are not talking about ww2 generations or the 50's or the 60's or 70's - we are talking about now, about the current generation.

[Alexander III]

No, it's a stupid thing to do, because the university educated continue to make more money than the uneducated. Even if you end up with a McJob you're gonna beat out the guy without the degree for the job. Not to mention the effects on an economy in general when they have skilled labour troubles. It's not fun for you when you're not highly skilled relative to the rest of your country, but you still want your country to be more skilled than others.

I dont think you are getting what EMil and me are saying, we are saying that the perception of a uni degree is not what it is in reality. People still see a BA degree as it was seen 50 years ago, but it isn't, when you have the current generation in europe were half of them have a Ba, the Ba becomes the equivalent of a high school diploma in the 50's. SO you have an generation who thinks that their BA makes them specialized and educated when in truth it just makes them standard. Nowadays in most companies to be a secretary you need a uni degree, like 50 years ago you needed a high school degree to become a secretary. Nowadays if you ant to be above the standard and to be truly perceived as having an elite education you need a masters. A MA is the new BA so to say.

[Propter W.]

In my opinion, there should be no tuition or only a very small fee. Higher education should be accessible for everyone. It shouldn't be made easier, however, which seems to be happening here. Not only higher education, but education in general is dumbed down.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I dont think you are getting what EMil and me are saying, we are saying that the perception of a uni degree is not what it is in reality. People still see a BA degree as it was seen 50 years ago, but it isn't, when you have the current generation in europe were half of them have a Ba, the Ba becomes the equivalent of a high school diploma in the 50's. SO you have an generation who thinks that their BA makes them specialized and educated when in truth it just makes them standard. Nowadays in most companies to be a secretary you need a uni degree, like 50 years ago you needed a high school degree to become a secretary. Nowadays if you ant to be above the standard and to be truly perceived as having an elite education you need a masters. A MA is the new BA so to say.

Yes, I think this is pretty much true in the UK now, though I think the recent moves in education fees means that the BA will start to get back some of its prominence again, slowly. This is because, effectively, we are now facing the death of higher education for the working to middle classes.

(I might watch Question Time tonight as it is in Sheffield - I applied to get on the show but I was too late. Never mind, I've got better things to do anyway.)

[Propter W.]

(I might watch Question Time tonight as it is in Sheffield - I applied to get on the show but I was too late. Never mind, I've got better things to do anyway.)

Off topic: I often watch Question Time and hope that some day my country might have a similar programme.

[Alexander III]

In my opinion, there should be no tuition or only a very small fee. Higher education should be accessible for everyone. It shouldn't be made easier, however, which seems to be happening here. Not only higher education, but education in general is dumbed down.

That in theory would be great...but who is goign to pay for it all. At top universities you have the greatest intelectual minds teaching the student. Why should thos great minds teach if they don't get paid what they deserve. And if you do pay them what they deserve, do tell who will pay? And also all the millions spent in research at universities? All those thousands and thousands and thousands of academic studies and articles and research, who will pay for that? Oh and also as soon as you don't pay for it, guess which is the first to suffer? Science research is necessary...research in the humanities like art and literature and history isn't, so if there is no money literary academia dies.

And if you answer is, no we can still pay all for that to keep it as it is, just instead of student paying for it let the government pay.

But most of the governments in europe and america are broke...as in there is no money - should governments then stop putting money in health and military and building of public institutions (police, museums, libraries, pensions) just so that everyone has access to university? Seem's awfully selfish of students to say **** everyone else, government give us free higher education...

If a student can't afford university but is very intelligent, he will get a scholarship - or if he is intelligent but not very intelligent he can get various loans to help him get through university. But the question one must ask is, if I get all these loans when I finish uni shall I get a job and be able to pay them all. The answer is, if you go to a top university YES, if you go to a mediocre university the answer is no.

That is a huge problem in Italy, everyone who went to mediocre universities can't find a job now because Employers find that their degrees are largely useless.

[Emil Miller]

(I might watch Question Time tonight as it is in Sheffield - I applied to get on the show but I was too late. Never mind, I've got better things to do anyway.)

Neely, as you have only recently read Pro Bono Publico, I think it's necessary to remind you of the slightly satirical nature of the book. Here's a passage that directly relates to your application to attend Question Time. I obviously had to use ITV to avoid complications were I to have used BBC.

Olwyn thought of Tim Willoughby, his opposite number for Independent Television, who hosted a programme called In Your View, in which a studio audience was invited to harangue a panel of so-called experts on the social questions of the day. The programme attracted a disproportionate number from the ranks of the ‘progressive’ contingent, and its presenter was of a similar persuasion. Whilst maintaining a semblance of impartiality, he was a master of the loaded question who subtly phrased his comments to the advantage of those adopting a liberal line, and if one of the panellists began to make a telling point in opposition to his stance, he would interject and turn the subject onto a different tack. Highly regarded by the politically naïve and thoroughly disliked by the discerning, he was more devious than any politician Olwyn had ever known, and he was only too pleased that Willoughby wasn’t with the BBC, which was compromised enough as it was.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely, as you have only recently read Pro Bono Publico, I think it's necessary to remind you of the slightly satirical nature of the book. Here's a passage that directly relates to your application to attend Question Time. I obviously had to use ITV to avoid complications were I to have used BBC.

Olwyn thought of Tim Willoughby, his opposite number for Independent Television, who hosted a programme called In Your View, in which a studio audience was invited to harangue a panel of so-called experts on the social questions of the day. The programme attracted a disproportionate number from the ranks of the ‘progressive’ contingent, and its presenter was of a similar persuasion. Whilst maintaining a semblance of impartiality, he was a master of the loaded question who subtly phrased his comments to the advantage of those adopting a liberal line, and if one of the panellists began to make a telling point in opposition to his stance, he would interject and turn the subject onto a different tack. Highly regarded by the politically naïve and thoroughly disliked by the discerning, he was more devious than any politician Olwyn had ever known, and he was only too pleased that Willoughby wasn’t with the BBC, which was compromised enough as it was.

:lol:You know, when I read it first I did wonder, but didn't develop the thought much further...a perfect drawing of Mr Willoughby it has to be said, brilliant.

I have watched a bit and then come back to the more sane world of Puccini for a while. I don't know if you watched it. Mr Clugg couldn't have appeared because he would have been utterly slaughtered that's for sure, especially at that end of town. I totally agreed with the point the dad made whose son now had to drop of out uni on his MA, same story everywhere. The death of higher education as some smart fellow said earlier...

Edit: oh, it is nice to see Mr Blanket again. He's the man who runs the joint around my end of town, bumped into him a few times - even if those sort of people are never really to be trusted.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The real elite have master degree's from top tier universities.
This is something in which I have a problem. Beyond how much money you pay to go there, what makes a university "top-tier." There seems to be this huge idea that only universities with huge tuitions are the ones that mean anything, and in a sense they are right because it looks nicer on a resume, but I wonder how much better they really are. I go to state funded school and have payed around 3000$ for tuition per semester and have recieved an excellent education from the university's English department. I am not convinced at all that paying 10,000+ more would give me anything that I haven't gotten already, besides the name.

[MystyrMystyry]

Reeks of old school tie to me - contacts are everything, and that's all the thicks want, and all they deserve

[Alexander III]

This is something in which I have a problem. Beyond how much money you pay to go there, what makes a university "top-tier." There seems to be this huge idea that only universities with huge tuitions are the ones that mean anything, and in a sense they are right because it looks nicer on a resume, but I wonder how much better they really are. I go to state funded school and have payed around 3000$ for tuition per semester and have recieved an excellent education from the university's English department. I am not convinced at all that paying 10,000+ more would give me anything that I haven't gotten already, besides the name.

Actually in england undergrad tuition, weather in Cambridge or some local small uni is exactly the same price. So when I say top tier I refer to academic standards.

I am not quite sure of the system in america, but I think there also the undergrad tuition for harvard is more or less the same as that of many other non-ivy league schools

[AuntShecky]

The idea that as more and more more people get (not necessarily) "earn" degrees the less valuable it becomes seems like a corollary to Gresham's Law. In a certain sense, the notion may be true: if curricula themselves are "dumbed down" in order to accommodate everyone. This "leveling" effect would diminish the value of the degree.

There's another way of looking at it, though. If today's B.A. is the equivalent of yesterday's high school diploma, that may be the effect of how much of the world has been changed technologically. Yesterday's knowledge was appropriate for a post-agrarian, industrialized society; today the knowledge and skills designed to meet those needs are not as relevant as the skills which today's world requires.

I'd like, however, to return to the question in the original
post, and that is how the poor are not really helped by the
current status of higher education and its ever-rising costs.
(The costs of education keep escalating --the only other non-commodity whose costs rise at the same or higher rates is health care.) Everybody tries to come up with ways to pay for education, but nobody seems to question why it costs so damned much to begin with!

Traditionally there have been only two ways for societies to provide access to higher education for low-income students. The first is scholarships, which began as awards to those who were academically gifted. Sports scholarships can be both inspiring or notorious scandal-ridden. High school guidance counselors
take pride in researching and discovering all manner of obscure scholarships (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/CutCollegeCosts/wacky-world-of-college-scholarships.aspx) offered to students who meet very rarefied criteria.

The other way poor students can finance their education is with student loans. Even though these ambitious kids are forward-looking, it doesn't always occur to them that the
future may hold decades of debt, the failure to pay resulting in constant dunning notices by Harpies in three-piece suits, garnishment, an inability to claim tax refunds and all manner of misery. Those with a more realistic outlook will then choose a major that more likely will offer a better career track rather than the course of study for which he or she likes better or has better aptitude for.

Yet-- as we said before, since a college degree today is just as necessary as a high school diploma was yesterday, what is a high school senior supposed to do?

For the past half century, the hype has been: "If you want a good job, get a good education." Unfortunately, that's a lie. A good education guarantees a person almost nothing, except perhaps the aforementioned lifelong debt.

When it comes to long-term employment or a satisfying, profitable career, Equal Opportunity is indeed a myth. Even if one does have a good education, perhaps the only jobs available require less; in fact, he or she may not be able to land a lesser-paying job for which he is "overqualified." (Unless he lies on the application,which may open up another whole can of worms.)

Anyone who has lived as long as I have knows by now that it's not what you know, but "who" you know. That is precisely where the unconnected poor have a distinct disadvantage.

Yet, this "Anybody can be whatever he wants to be" Myth
prevails, so much so that America considers theinability to convince a company to hire you a moral failing.

[OrphanPip]

Actually in england undergrad tuition, weather in Cambridge or some local small uni is exactly the same price. So when I say top tier I refer to academic standards.

I am not quite sure of the system in america, but I think there also the undergrad tuition for harvard is more or less the same as that of many other non-ivy league schools

Definitely not, Harvard cost around 40k a year.

There are a couple more affordable quality public universities in the US, the University of Michigan is one of the best universities in the world. Even those cost an egregious amount by international standards.

http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities/articles/2010/09/21/worlds-best-universities-top-400-

Here is US News rankings for 2010.

Of the top 20, only 2 of the North American ones are public: UoM and my alma mater McGill.

You have to have deep pockets or good scholarships to go to top tier schools in this neck of the woods.

[Hurricane]

Actually in england undergrad tuition, weather in Cambridge or some local small uni is exactly the same price. So when I say top tier I refer to academic standards.

I am not quite sure of the system in america, but I think there also the undergrad tuition for harvard is more or less the same as that of many other non-ivy league schools

Of course, some of the best small colleges in the states actually pay you to go...:coolgleamA:

A lot of the state universities are pretty good, and some of them give very generous scholarships to in-state students near the top of their class. If you're good enough, or poor enough, you can make the more expensive private colleges happen with regards to financial aid. The tricky part is where you're very-smart-but-not-CRAZY-smart and not-well-off-but-not-below-the-poverty-line, which is, of course, where most people fall, because you're not eligible for either a merit or need-based scholarship.

The cost of some colleges is just ridiculous. My sister's college (which was not an ivy, though certainly a very good school) cost $40k+, and GWU (where I almost went) cost $45k+ yearly.

[JBI]

According to that Statscan article posted before, "Among Canada's adult population aged 25 to 64, 48.8% had completed post-secondary education in 2008, the highest percentage among OECD member countries, and well above the OECD average of 28.4%. Italy reported the lowest percentage of post-secondary graduates at 14.4%."

And also,

"The percentage of persons 15 years of age and over without high school diplomas decreased from 37.8% in 1990 to 20.2% in 2010. This is consistent with the increase in the percentage of the population with post-secondary certification. Between 1990 and 2010, the proportion of individuals who had obtained college or trade certification increased 9.1 percentage points, to 30.9%. Meanwhile, the percentage of individuals with university degrees rose from 10.9% in 1990 to 20.9% in 2009."


So, in other words, our system seems to be working, and education seems to be affordable. There is a gender bias favoring women for post-secondary education, but even then - it would appear that education is set at a good price for us, and people can afford it.

As for differentiating the price, we already do that at some institutions. It works, to an extent, but even then it is a question of 1 or 2 thousand dollars a year, money, but not huge money, and they qualify for more grants in Ontario at least.


I do not know though, if you take France all the Grande Ecole schools are pricey, whereas the others are cheap and state owned. For us Canadians, all institutions pretty much (and certainly all with real enrollment, that aren't just for clergymen) are Public.

In contrast, with the exception of a handful of American ones, all the great institutions are private there, which gives them a competitive advantage, but also means they are incredibly expensive. Even the public ones are pricey by our standards (And world standards).


As it is, in general, education, the more free it is, the better. But with that comes a responsibility of the school to fail people, and to have a system where people do not get carried.

I am in China now where of the 100 people who write the entrance test to get to university, 76 pass, and of those, over 90% graduate. At the same time though, I see people who are writing Ph. D.s in English and French unable to string a sentence, on paper, or out loud, and who know nothing and are worth nothing.

Every waitress here has a degree in something or another, and they cannot even do that job properly, as well as somebody without any education but a little common sense. At this university, you see bribery and cheating - this being considered a particularly good institution, speaking to a Quebec born French professor here, she says on average 40% of people cheat on everything, and the system is not allowed to fail them here, the minimum they can receive is a 70, speaking to another professor who is from China, and claims to have written a Ph. D. in Quebec, without knowing how to speak French, or anything about the place (if she has set foot in Quebec, she certainly did not leave her house, or learn anything, much less wrote a thesis) she remarked that the reason people do not fail is it is a state responsibility "to make sure people do not kill themselves."


Then, in contrast, I look at all my North Korean classmates, who all have degrees, and are the smartest people I have yet met, and they tell me, everything where they are from is free, and everyone has a high standard of education, including people who do manual labor.

It begs a question, what is the actual value of public education? I would assume it only works as an advantage if the workforce produced possesses skills that actually are worth something. China, despite building universities everywhere, has the least skillful workforce I have yet encountered, despite having institutions and education everywhere - Italians are able, but have a low education rate.

[Propter W.]

That in theory would be great...but who is goign to pay for it all.

The tax payer.


At top universities you have the greatest intelectual minds teaching the student. Why should thos great minds teach if they don't get paid what they deserve. And if you do pay them what they deserve, do tell who will pay?

They would be paid and again the tax payer would pay.


And also all the millions spent in research at universities? All those thousands and thousands and thousands of academic studies and articles and research, who will pay for that?

Tax payers, private companies, universities (they have other means to make money)...



Oh and also as soon as you don't pay for it, guess which is the first to suffer? Science research is necessary...research in the humanities like art and literature and history isn't, so if there is no money literary academia dies.

I'm not convinced it would die and I'm not sure if I'd care if it did.


And if you answer is, no we can still pay all for that to keep it as it is, just instead of student paying for it let the government pay.

But most of the governments in europe and america are broke...as in there is no money - should governments then stop putting money in health and military and building of public institutions (police, museums, libraries, pensions) just so that everyone has access to university? Seem's awfully selfish of students to say **** everyone else, government give us free higher education...

I'd love it if military spending was curbed in favour of education.


If a student can't afford university but is very intelligent, he will get a scholarship -Ideally.


or if he is intelligent but not very intelligent he can get various loans to help him get through university. But the question one must ask is, if I get all these loans when I finish uni shall I get a job and be able to pay them all. The answer is, if you go to a top university YES, if you go to a mediocre university the answer is no.

Starting life after graduation with a debt. Sounds great :thumbsup:

[Alexander III]

The tax payer.



They would be paid and again the tax payer would pay.



Tax payers, private companies, universities (they have other means to make money)...




I'm not convinced it would die and I'm not sure if I'd care if it did.



I'd love it if military spending was curbed in favour of education.

Ideally.



Starting life after graduation with a debt. Sounds great :thumbsup:


You do realize that the majority of european countries and the U.S are currently in extreme debt, arguably the worse debt they have ever been in. I am no economics expert but

If I earn 2 dollars a month but spend 10 every month, in a couple of years, to put it bluntly **** will hit the fan...

As for curbing military spending...the thing is the last time any of us in the 1st world were under serious threat was WWII (the cold war never involved direct fighting)...so it is easy for us to assume that the military machine is superfluous. But let us try and admit ( though I know it is hard for many) that people in high position in the government, mostly know what they are doing, they funnel billions into the military every year because they realize it is a necessity. It is easy to criticizes military spending when you have no idea what a real war is.

[ralfyman]

If the purpose of additional education is to provide opportunities for the poor to increase their income, then it is more practical not to require a college degree for entry-level work. Additional education can be funded by the student or his employer in tandem with any training needed for promotion.

[OrphanPip]

You do realize that the majority of european countries and the U.S are currently in extreme debt, arguably the worse debt they have ever been in. I am no economics expert but

If I earn 2 dollars a month but spend 10 every month, in a couple of years, to put it bluntly **** will hit the fan...

As for curbing military spending...the thing is the last time any of us in the 1st world were under serious threat was WWII (the cold war never involved direct fighting)...so it is easy for us to assume that the military machine is superfluous. But let us try and admit ( though I know it is hard for many) that people in high position in the government, mostly know what they are doing, they funnel billions into the military every year because they realize it is a necessity. It is easy to criticizes military spending when you have no idea what a real war is.

Well I don't think this is any way an adequate justification of not paying for it. Governments should spend in investment and supplying services. None of us tends to object to the government paying for police forces, and for most of us we live in societies where we already expect the vast majority of education to be covered by the government. It is perfectly reasonable to pay for school through taxes instead of direct tuition, bulk and government legislation can help to control costs and make sure it is available enough to provide enough education to support the country's education needs and to keep it competitive. Conservatives tend to favour systems of tax deduction to attract business and promote investment, I prefer a system of direct targeted spending by the government.

The American system is odd, as it is with the private university system they have sky rocketing tuition costs, and the government ends up spending an excessive amount on scholarships. Some American universities are good, but the quality doesn't seem to justify the cost. First of all, many of their very expensive schools are not particularly better than universities in other developed countries. Except for a cluster of the Ivies that have multi-billion dollar endowments, most American private universities are no better than the major public universities in other developed countries. And some public institutions actually outstrip American institutions and end up ultimately costing less than the American system.

I think the best approach is two-tiered. You have to have controlled tuition fees to prevent ridiculous price increases just because of the reputation of the school. There should be a combination of government funding (which American private institutions already receive in the millions, not to mention scholarship spending), and an affordable user's fee payed by students. This ensures that your country doesn't fall behind in producing trained citizens, and it also helps mitigate cost. A society doesn't benefit from a population with personal debt any more than a state does from having public debt.

Moreover, reducing military spending is hardly proposing the disbanding of the military. The US annual defense budget is nearly 1 trillion dollars, and accounts for more than half their budget deficit. If they reduced it by 10% they would still exceed the military spending of every country on Earth combined. Nor does it follow that governments always spend wisely and we should just trust their judgment, the Soviet Union bankrupted itself through excessive military spending. I can guarantee you that many of those determining military spending know a lot more about turning a profit than fighting a war. And the massive lobbies of companies like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin certainly play a part in pushing through military projects. This is getting too much into politics though, so I think I'll cut it off here.

[L€lä RËmØ MÅðçÂ]

What is with LitNUtters? I agree with you, but only because i think they deserve all that way. THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED to choose classes. I HATE that I am failing math because I am writing more.

[AuntShecky]

I can't imagine a more reasonable and viable argument than Orphan Pip's (Reply #28 ^^^.)

The following isn't nearly as brilliant and eloquent as his, but may I add a few more thoughts?

1. It may be a mistake to tie higher education so tightly to
"upward mobility." There are thousands of us Baby Boomers walking around with dusty college diplomas yet are no better off financially than our parents were (in many cases, worse.)

2. [The following is NOT a political statement, but a social and economic one]:
The "dirty little secret" about American culture is that just as in Old World civilizations, there IS a class structure in the United States. There is no such thing as economic --or even social--equality. We have an upper class, and a working class, as well as a middle class whose membership is shrinking everyday, and it's not moving upward, if you catch my drift.

Whenever some of us mention changing the economic landscape, lovers of the status quo are quick to accuse us of trying to promote "class warfare," as if we were Bosheviks in the year 1917. Here in the 21st century the system is --systematically!-- rigged against those who would deign to enter it and better themselves. It appears --to me, at least-- that only those who are born into the privileged classes can expect a satisfying life of comfort and success. (If you don't believe me, do an online search of how the gulf between rich and poor has steadily widened over the past 30 years or so and perhaps even more alarmingly, how a very low percentage of the populace on top controls a disproportionally high percentage of the wealth in this country. Wealth percolates up and very little drips --or "trickles" down. Just as in the old song, "Ain't We Got Fun?" the "rich get rich," and the poor? We all know what the poor get.)

Despite the vaunted "rags-to-riches" stories in the American Myth, it's extremely difficult for an unconnected
person to permeate the status quo. The ruling class does everything in its considerable power to protect the status quo.

This may explain, in part, the reason America hasn't gotten wholeheartedly behind reforming the sorry state of public elementary and seconday education in the country. We can cite statistics until we turn purple -- how students so many other countries in the world lead us in math, science, reading, etc. In fact, the only subject in which American students lead the world is in self-esteem. It's true! (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/waiting-for-superman-20110324-1c7g5.html)

3. Back to the title question of this thread, whether differential tuition is fair or not, I think that our culture might do well to remember what the original purpose of education was (with the more enlightened idea of opening it up to all social classes, not merely the privileged few.)
There is --or should be-- a huge difference between education and training. The former prepares a person for his or her chosen career, be it medicine, law, architecture,
teaching, whatever. The latter prepares an undeveloped mind for life.

Higher education isn't -- or shouldn't be -- about teaching a child morals or indoctrinating him into a culture but making him a whole person. In this way, he is able to maneuver through life more effectively. (Ironically enough, this is the reason an underprivileged person needs a high-class college education more than a rich person, a topic which a previous LitNet thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=985814#post985814) explored last year.)

4. And finally, a well-educated populace is crucial in order for democracy to survive.

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson