"Vote for Kids"
"Vote for Kids"
Last edited by 417deer; March-12-16 at 05:58 PM.
The cost isn't really hidden. And it certainly won't be hidden in Sanders world. We'll all know just exactly what it is.
The logic is that if the populace is better educated, they will be more productive -- and will create the wealth to pay for their education through increased social wealth.
Its not entirely unreasonable.
We pay for primary and secondary education for just this reason. And we accept the social cost. It seems to work pretty well. The vast majority of socially-funded primary and secondary school students are certainly more productive than earlier generations raised on the farm.
I personally believe that the logic breaks down on post-secondary. Higher education isn't nearly as much a commodity has primary/secondary. Some students shouldn't go to college, but should either go to a trade school or some similar targeted education. And on the other end, the teaching and methods of higher education are far more diverse. So we're not just tossing $10k at a student per year, we'd be building entirely new, and probably more generic universities and trying to standardize the product.
As flawed as our colleges and universities may be in some ways, what we have is arguably the best system in the world. Changing how we manage higher education is risky, and would probably have significant unintended consequences
But to go socialist on y'all... why should we pay for something that only a subset of citizens are going to use? Should we subsidize all education, including trade schools and Trump University? [[Or do we need a bureaucracy to decide what schools are naughty or nice?) Should we pay for Doctoral degrees as well? Sure, we need more doctors, but do we need more lawyers? Do we need more Homeopaths? If its all free, then who decides what's needed, and what's not? I suppose we could reassign all the Deans of Diversity to the task.
|
Bookmarks