frankly piss me off a bit, considering how I had to work 3 part-time jobs and put myself 8 years behind the earning curve of my peers (my friends who had gone into the work force right out of high school had bought & sold 2 or 3 houses by the time I could afford my first) to get that higher education. I would not want that kind of education devalued by giving it away. Society should provide a basic education for all of us. From there, it is up to us. Fortunately, very few people who truly value and thirst for a higher education are denied one.

Exactly Daiwa. I would feel a little pissed off too, I guess. I mean I worked my ass off to graduate 3rd in my class so I could get a scholarship. My parents were always very frank with me. I could not go to college unless I earned a scholarship.

I posted something similar to your comment to dabe:

Wouldn't it be a nice "utopian" world if higher education were free! We could all go to college and get our degrees and do nothing else?Now our government provides free education for K-12, but that isn't enough for some people. Now they must pay for college. But you know, I don't just want a bachelor's degree. I want to enhance my intellect with a master's degree. It is my right as a human being. I want the government to pay for my master's degree too...(*sarcasm dripping from my lips*)

Don't think I was quite as nice though....oops

Wouldn't it be a nice "utopian" world if higher education were free! We could all go to college and get our degrees and do nothing else?Now our government provides free education for K-12, but that isn't enough for some people. Now they must pay for college. But you know, I don't just want a bachelor's degree. I want to enhance my intellect with a master's degree. It is my right as a human being. I want the government to pay for my master's degree too...(*sarcasm dripping from my lips*)

Well that's largely the case in Australia (we pay about US$3000 a semester max due to subsidies and Gov-sponsered loans), but most Masters and PhD candidates work as tutors and lecturers whilst they study and don't solely rely on federal funding. Their education costs are covered through government subsidies, but they still pay for other costs. Perhaps that's why education is Australia's 4th biggest export. Free education has the added bonus that people don't feel like they are 'paying' to get a degree - students are much more likely to accept a fail without making legal difficulties if it doesn't actually cost them anything. Australian lecturers often complain about the numbers of morons they have to pass purely because otherwise the money they bring would be lost.

Wheter you work ten jobs or three; whether the government pays for the education or not, in no way determines the value of an education. An education isn't a bicycle, or a TV, or a car. It's an education, a broadening of the mind, an increasing ability to support yourself and your family, an exercise in developing one's abiltity for free thinking and making educated and rational decisions. How could an education possibly be worth less because you obtained it free of charge? What about scholarships based soley on need? Do they provide a devalued education, just because it wasn't earned? I just don't see how it can possibly be measured that way.

And one more thing..... just because an education may be provided by the government, either wholey or in part, I would not expect a degree to be given lightly. I would continue to support the notion that a degree is earned, wherein you worked hard at your coursework, completed your assignments, papers, labs, tests, etc. to the satisfaction of an appropriate educational standard. Accomplishing that is not easy. It takes time, effort, brains, and grit. The outcome would presumably be not only a mind educated in a specific discipline, but one also broadened by the experience.

For dabe, I repeat what I said earlier:

Wouldn't it be a nice "utopian" world if higher education were free! We could all go to college and get our degrees and do nothing else?Now our government provides free education for K-12, but that isn't enough for some people. Now they must pay for college. But you know, I don't just want a bachelor's degree. I want to enhance my intellect with a master's degree. It is my right as a human being. I want the government to pay for my master's degree too...(*sarcasm dripping from my lips*)

No one is devaluing anyone's education. But a line has to be drawn somewhere! So tell me, if the government pays for everyone's free college tuition, too, then do they also get to determine what is taught? If so....awfully close to some fallen socialist and communist societies of the past. Do we really want to go there?

So tell me, if the government pays for everyone's free college tuition, too, then do they also get to determine what is taught? If so....awfully close to some fallen socialist and communist societies of the past. Do we really want to go there?

Surely you have constitutional, legal and people-based protections against direct government interference in education? What kind of country doesn't?

Actually, I recall coming across an article a couple of years back that looked at the "value" of a higher education in terms of the outcome. Turns out, those with the advanced degrees accumulated less wealth on average than their less-educated peers. Wealth alone isn't the point of an education, of course, but in strictly economic terms, education apparently isn't worth much.

I'll try to dig up the reference if I can.

Cheers,
Daiwa

but in strictly economic terms, education apparently isn't worth much.

That would not surprise me at all. I would be interested in the reference if you could find it. Again not to diminish education in terms of self development and awareness.

Surely you have constitutional, legal and people-based protections against direct government interference in education?

Yes of course, now we do, but I was referring to the "slippery slope."

No one is devaluing anyone's education. But a line has to be drawn somewhere!

Heather, I agree completely. But, I find that the government is more prone to draw it's lines along some things that really don't make sense. As much as I'd like to see a utopia, where everything is wonderful, I know that's not going to happen. But, my overriding point, back to the Pell Grants, is that changing the tables to eliminate almost 90,000 people who would have otherwise qualified is tantamount to a cut, and is not the line that needs to be drawn to salvage an economy gone awry. In my opinion, it's counterproductive. Rolling back the corporate tax cuts would have been a better place to draw the line. Eliminating the financial give aways to wealthy sports owners would be a better place to draw the line. Preventing Halliburton from riipping off the government would be a better place to draw the line. But cutting education is a terrible place to draw the line. Absolutely terrible.

Here's what'll happen when the government pays for everyone's education. College tuitions will skyrocket because somebody else is paying the bills and people don't "worry" about the money nor are colleges accountable. Then the government will request more money for the grants because the allocated money isn't "enough money" any more. It's a black hole money pit. Funny thing is you can already see it happening....college tuitions are consistently outpacing inflation. Face reality, you can't win that battle by dumping money at the problem.

Reply #22 By: little_whip - 11/27/2004 3:24:52 PM

Ever slept on the street, literally? I have.

Ever overcome drug addiction? I have.

Ever had to break the law to buy health care you required to save your freaking life, and paid the price for it? I have.

Oh man, imma quit before i truly lose it, but dont you fucking tell ME about fighting a goddamn thing. man o man yer telling my story kid, funny how the ones that drag themselves from the dregs are the ones that are most content with life after the fight and stabalize there sickness....... you truly are the bomb {something I reserve for ann coulter} and you hubby is a lucky man {so are you for having him}

Heather,

1st: The government should not have any right to your sense of goal accomplishment. We both agree with your statement, and I understood that this was what you were implying. What I was implying is that, yes, no-one should be denied quality education, period, and that 'achieving" in education is about how far you let the learning process take you. A degree is just a degree; expanding your perspective on what you thought was possible, or true, is the goal, is what you achieve.

Heather:

Wouldn't it be a nice "utopian" world if higher education were free! We could all go to college and get our degrees and do nothing else?Now our government provides free education for K-12, but that isn't enough for some people. Now they must pay for college. But you know, I don't just want a bachelor's degree. I want to enhance my intellect with a master's degree. It is my right as a human being. I want the government to pay for my master's degree too...(*sarcasm dripping from my lips*)

Daiwa:

Last I checked, education was mandatory to age 16. Our society provides every child the opportunity to earn a high school diploma, something that, in theory and if taken proper advantage of, would prepare an individual sufficiently to survive and thrive on their own. I suppose it would be nice if higher education were made available to all, but it would frankly piss me off a bit, considering how I had to work 3 part-time jobs and put myself 8 years behind the earning curve of my peers (my friends who had gone into the work force right out of high school had bought & sold 2 or 3 houses by the time I could afford my first) to get that higher education. I would not want that kind of education devalued by giving it away

I don't get it. I mean, I guess I understand that whatever degree you acrue, what ever financial success you achieve, you want to feel the sense of accomplishment, that you did it all on your own. Economically, you refer to a world where one could make academia your life and not have to worry about anything else as "utopian", which is to say, that this world does not exist right now, in reality TabooTenente! Come back! Hello?

Cacto:

Well that's largely the case in Australia (we pay about US$3000 a semester max due to subsidies and Gov-sponsered loans), but most Masters and PhD candidates work as tutors and lecturers whilst they study and don't solely rely on federal funding

There's a perspective from DownUnder. In Europe, UK, Germany, France. . .most countries, in fact, provided free or only nominal tuition-paid higher education. About two years ago, certain countries met to discuss the problem of funding higher education, and while some tuition-structures (highly protested) were established in some places, the common perspective is that such a system must be avoided at all costs.

Because they believe that not encouraging education is the highest cost.

We're not talking about Utopia. We're talking about prioritizing.

Daiwa, and many others, are rightly proud of the effort required to accomplish education goals. But I do not think "education for education's sake" cheapens anyone. We just have to decide what's important. It seems to me that "freedom' ranks highest on most of our lists. Freedom to do what? I interpret this to mean "freedom to determine our destinies". Depending on the perspective, we want the minimum interference from our government, from other people's religion, from aggressive nations, from racial or other pigeonholing labels. We want to make our ways, to accomplish what we may without having to haul sluggards or freeloaders in our already heavy packs.

I guess we also want to see our own morality reflected in the law. We don't mind supporting our unique agendas on national forums or in national courts. Majority should have more say, right? This is a democracy after all, and if most of us feel it's okay to ban Monday Night Football, then, well, let's go ahead and ban it.

Look, we're good, caring, freedom-loving people, but we're somewhat hypocritcal. We believe the roll of legal immigrants is to assimilate. We believe the roll of minimal government is to protect the freedom of the moral majority. We believe nothing tastes as good as something you had to work for. . .when you finally get to eat.

But this is USA right? Aren't we all immigrants? Doesn't the moral majority shift, change, realign with the changing world? And people who aren't eating yet probably do not universally share our culinary taste.

So what's our priority? Education does not equal utopia. Education is the purpose and the goal, and it exists in poorer places than the one we Americans live in. There are so many educational models out there that work, that it amazes me that we choose one that is underfunded (k-12 or higher education). Why does the concept of education for everyone feel so socialist to everyone? Why does someone else's quality education cheapen our own?

I do not understand the philosophy which says money=value. I work for money for education, so I have value. Why not say, "I value education?"

Does anyone believe that if education was our inalienable right, that welfare would become a less significant issue, that crime would be less of an issue, progress would be swifter, and your children would have the freedom to explore more possibilities than we even dream of?

Sorry, Heather. Your topic is too interesting to restrain all the tangents. Go ahead, blast away; I probably deserve it. You get an insightful from me, so I feel better about all this blathering .

TBT

rkuo:

no. it's not impossible. you just need to decide that education is a priority...for the country. if it is, then look around and decide whether or not the system could be better. if not, fine. if so, make it better.

Just a quick interjection of reality:

When something becomes a "right" the quality of it seems to go down.  Our high schools suck. That's because there's little competition involved. They're "free" so there's less concern about the quality.

By contrast, we DO care about the quality of colleges because we have to pay for them. When I was in college, I had to really look into which professors I would take. Which ones were GOOD teachers. That's because if I had to drop the class (in engineering, finding a professor you could understand was an issue) I knew I'd be out hundreds of dollars.  Hundreds of hours that were earned doing very menial labor at $4 to $5 per hour.

So no, I don't think college should be a "right". I think people should have to pay to go to college.  I do believe there shoudl be ample ways of paying for it (student loans, scholarships, etc.). But I think that people should be very painfully aware of the cost of it.

When something becomes a "right" the quality of it seems to go down.

That's not true. University education is a right in Australian yet on most indicators our universities score well - the last one I heard about had my own uni, the Australian National University, at number 10 in the world. That's pretty good for a country with a population that's roughly the same size as Beijing's.

You may be right, Draginol, that we care more about quality when we pay for it, but the education aspect of college is only one part of the system. Grades seem to outweigh the value of education, which seems reasonable because the success of one's education seems to be measured by the money one makes afterward. Good grades = top jobs. In some cases, people who learn the most obtain the best grades. Certainly not in most cases.

I would agree with you that a certain slice of the student population doesn't care enough, and one of the reasons for this is that their parents pay for it, without any lifestyle sacrifices for either the student or the parents. But I would also say that many of these students are not ready for higher education. They go because the societal class they come from suggests they are supposed to go. Why not let people learn when they are ready? Why not let them learn if they want to learn?

And I would guess, Draginol, that if you, in particular, had not been forced to pay for your eduation, you still would want to learn, and study with the best professors available. Your motivation was not just money. It was the education itself. And from reading some of your other articles, it seems like making the most cash per hour is not your objective, either. You talk about the importance of working environment, about business ethics, about sacrificing wage for other values.

Because the system uses productivity as the heart of education, you lose out on the diversity of talents that exist. Let someone take 10 years to pick up a degree that means something-- they'll probably end up using it more productively in the end, anyway.

TBT

Just a quick interjection of reality:

Reality? Oh really? Oh, I get it. Your reality. sheesh..........................

Are the Aussies getting inferior educations? Are the French and the British getting inferior educations? I think that they would object to your subjective and arrogant interjection of your "reality".

I firmly believe that given the opportunities to get quality educations (and this doesn't mean just providing it for free), will not diminish the quality of such educations. It may raise the quality of a lot of people's standards of living, however. We all know that getting a good education is about getting back what sweat equity you put in. Drag, you are a college graduate. You know what I mean. Some wil always get better educations than others because they are willing to make the intellectual investment. It's not only about the money. As for government subsidies and boosts up, like the Pell grants, it's a priorities issue, which has been a proven success. In your reality, trickle-down Reaganomics, to which you seem to adhere to and to which it is a proven failure, is the priority because it gives you tax cuts. But, education for lots of people, with assistence from government, is not your priority because you'd gain nothing.

dabe:

Rolling back the corporate tax cuts would have been a better place to draw the line

In an already "fragile" economy, do you think this would be a better "priority?"

Preventing Halliburton from riipping off the government would be a better place to draw the line.

Sad that you think this. Was it also Halliburton ripping off the government when Clinton allowed them no bid contracts, too?

rkuo:

Here's what'll happen when the government pays for everyone's education. College tuitions will skyrocket because somebody else is paying the bills and people don't "worry" about the money nor are colleges accountable. Then the government will request more money for the grants because the allocated money isn't "enough money" any more. It's a black hole money pit. Funny thing is you can already see it happening....college tuitions are consistently outpacing inflation. Face reality, you can't win that battle by dumping money at the problem.

Great point!

Taboo

we want the minimum interference from our government, from other people's religion, from aggressive nations, from racial or other pigeonholing labels. We want to make our ways, to accomplish what we may without having to haul sluggards or freeloaders in our already heavy packs.

Exactly! Sounds like the Republican party platform.

We believe the roll of minimal government is to protect the freedom of the moral majority.

Now here is where you miss it. We believe the roll of minimal government is to protect the freedom of everyone!

So what's our priority? Education does not equal utopia. Education is the purpose and the goal, and it exists in poorer places than the one we Americans live in. There are so many educational models out there that work, that it amazes me that we choose one that is underfunded (k-12 or higher education). Why does the concept of education for everyone feel so socialist to everyone? Why does someone else's quality education cheapen our own?

I am sorry, but you will never convince me that everyone needs to go to college. I will never think of colleges as a priority. College can be a wonderful experience and learning journey, but it is not necessary! You are closely approaching the "intellectual superiority" mentality that I despise! Just because someone has a college "education," does not make them intellectually superior or somehow a better person!

Sorry, Heather. Your topic is too interesting to restrain all the tangents. Go ahead, blast away; I probably deserve it. You get an insightful from me, so I feel better about all this blathering

Draginol

When something becomes a "right" the quality of it seems to go down. Our high schools suck. That's because there's little competition involved. They're "free" so there's less concern about the quality. By contrast, we DO care about the quality of colleges because we have to pay for them

Exactly. I think you and rkuo are on the same page here.

Taboo

I would agree with you that a certain slice of the student population doesn't care enough, and one of the reasons for this is that their parents pay for it, without any lifestyle sacrifices for either the student or the parents

And what if you replace parents in that sentence with "government."

Dabe:

As for government subsidies and boosts up, like the Pell grants, it's a priorities issue, which has been a proven success. In your reality, trickle-down Reaganomics, to which you seem to adhere to and to which it is a proven failure, is the priority because it gives you tax cuts. But, education for lots of people, with assistence from government, is not your priority because you'd gain nothing.

This argument is so full of hole and half-truths, I wouldn't know where to begin.

That's not true. University education is a right in Australian yet on most indicators our universities score well

I don't exactly hear about people clamoring to get to Australia for college.  But there are lines to get into American colleges from around the world. Why is that? Especially when our high schools are so pathetic? What is the difference in the way our high schools are run and the way our colleges are run?

Are the Aussies getting inferior educations? Are the French and the British getting inferior educations? I think that they would object to your subjective and arrogant interjection of your "reality".

Yes, I believe that was what I was saying. By every measurable criteria American colleges, on average are superior to the colleges in France, Britain, and Australia. This is pretty thoroughly documented if you'd care to lift your head out of your ideology and look it up. Frankly, I'm astounded that anyone would even debate this given how much has been written on this subject.

American high schools rank amongst the lowest in the world. Yet our colleges rank at the very top. This isn't exactly news to anyone that remotely follows this subject.

Drag, you are a college graduate. You know what I mean. Some wil always get better educations than others because they are willing to make the intellectual investment. It's not only about the money. As for government subsidies and boosts up, like the Pell grants, it's a priorities issue, which has been a proven success. In your reality, trickle-down Reaganomics, to which you seem to adhere to and to which it is a proven failure, is the priority because it gives you tax cuts. But, education for lots of people, with assistence from government, is not your priority because you'd gain nothing.

You know, Dabe, you obviously know nothing about me.  I grew up at the poverty line, Dabe. We're talking at the level where having enough food is an issue. By high school, my mom had turned the corner and we had a lower/middle class life style.

But going to college for me meant working 2 to 3 jobs. The only reason Stardock exists is because I ran out of money in my senior year and had to get a 4th job - one that I created myself.

 I was a conservate Republican before I went to college. I.e. when I was very poor. Perhaps my ATTITUDE about life has something to do with my success.  You left wingers always ascribe the most selfish motives to those of us on the right. As if we were somehow bleeding heart liberals until we magically cashed in on the money train and reverted, instantly, to being a Republican.  I would say that those with left leaning views of the world tend to do relatively poorly because their philosophies don't lead to success in the first place.

So don't sit there implying that I'm in favor of Republicans because I want a "tax cut".  You're the one belly aching for free money from the government that you didn't earn.  I got a Pell grant too, Dabe. I benefited from it as well. And you know what? It's still there. It hasn't been cut. And even if it were cut, people like me would have found another way.  I would have had to get more student loans probably. And incidentally, I didn't get as much as others because my mom lived responsibliy and wasn't piled up in debt. I knew kids who got much more financial aid than I did because their parents were incredibly irresposnible.

So don't assume so much about people you know nothing about.

For your amusement, here's an article that talks about what I've gone through to get to where I am: http://draginol.joeuser.com/articlecomments.asp?AID=20053&s=1

I don't expect free hand-outs from others. And I don't attack the integrity of those who don't feel they should have to give out their hard earned money to others. Personal responsibility and self-reliance can get you pretty far.

American high schools rank amongst the lowest in the world. Yet our colleges rank at the very top. This isn't exactly news to anyone that remotely follows this subject.

Well then according to your own head up your ideology stance, we should start making kids and/or their parents pay for their own grade and high school eductions. That way only those that can affford it will go, and the education will be so much better for those few. (Gee, I suppose that's the premise of vouchers. Those that can afford the difference get them, and those that can't afford them get screwed) Everyone else be damned, cuz we as a society don't care. Is that what you're suggesting? Because if that's what you really believe, you're ............ shit, I can't say it. I'll get chastised.

And I don't attack the integrity of those who don't feel they should have to give out their hard earned money to others. Personal responsibility and self-reliance can get you pretty far.

Yeah, but you attack the integrity of virtually everyone else with your arrogant, let-me-inject-some-reality sanctimony. For your freakin' information, I also was raised in poverty. My parents didn't spend a dime on my education because they didn't have it. What got me through school was my determination, and yes, thank you government, the Pell grants and student loans, which by the way took me years and years to pay off. I'm so happy for you that you didn't abandon your republican roots. Nor, will I abandon my democratic roots. It's a huge philosophical divide, here. Crap, all I was doing was trying to make an argument in favor of subsidized education, and you get your britches all bunched up and inject excuse me, your reality. Oh puleeeeeze............................ And yes, I do blame republicans. Their the ones who seem to want to cut every social program they can get thier twisted little minds around, while at the same time give tax breaks during wartime, run up the deficits into all time record highs, which our grandchildren will have to juggle with when their time to think about balancing the budgets comes around. Also, considering the tax breaks are not salvaging this economy in any way, shape or form, it's just getting worse and worse, and now your buddy boy bush wants to borrow a few trillion more to pay for privatizing social security. Holy freakin' crap, it never ends with you righties. And you call yourselves the fiscally responsible party. That's your up your you know what reality. It sure ain't my reality.

I don't exactly hear about people clamoring to get to Australia for college. But there are lines to get into American colleges from around the world. Why is that? Especially when

I'll forgive you for saying that you've never heard of people clamouring to get to Australian universities, because you are American and thus don't hear about other parts of the world particularly regularly. But while it is true that the US attracts many of the world's students, Australia does quite well for itself in the international student stakes. Most Aussie unis have around 25% of their students coming from OS, in particular Southeast Asia. Apart from Cornell University in the US and Tokyo University in Japan there is probably no better university in the world for Southeast Asian studies than the ANU. Our business schools have at one time or another provided education to nearly half of the region's leadership in both politics and economics. Compared to the US perhaps that is insignificant, but how many American states of similar population can claim that kind of record? On any weighted comparison I feel Australia would do extremely well compared to the US.

I would attribute much of that success to the efforts of our federally funded education department, whose efforts are proving an example for nations like the UK and regional states like Singapore and Malaysia. The UK has largely adopted the Australian degree structure and is using Australian knowledge to restructure their departments.

When you consider that the oldest Australian university is around 100, that seems like a considerable success to me.