Do you realize university is overrated and overvalued?

[Desu_Maiden]

This video explains it perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqx0CRJFAXg

Don't go to university unless you can meet the following criteria:

1) You don't burden yourself with tens of (sometimes hundreds of) thousands of dollars of student loan debt. Avoid going to school away from the city where you live. Go to a local university. That way you can save money by not having to pay for board and room, and you can simply save money by living with your parents while going to university

2) Do not brother majoring in something that you can simply find the answer on the Internet i.e. sociology or women's study. Only study something in university where the skills you acquire cannot be learned on the Internet i.e. a surgeon or technician.

3) Only study something in university that is required for a particular field you want to get into.

Otherwise, if you can't meet these criteria, you are better off of going to a community college, apprenticeship or a trade after high school. Please don't follow the indoctrinated people and believe you must have a university degree to be successful in life. You don't.

Also your grades in school don't determine how intelligent you are and how successful you will be in life. Nobody cares about your grades in school. The only thing that matters is your financial report card aka how much money you make. Just watch the video I linked earlier in this post, if you want to learn the truth about university education.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Alternatively: you live in Europe.

Seriously, over here in Germany, most people stare at you yanks with a sense of "The **** is wrong with you people already?"

 

[Desu_Maiden]

Alternatively: you live in Europe.

Seriously, over here in Germany, most people stare at you yanks with a sense of "The **** is wrong with you people already?"

Well the USA isn't a socialist government. That's why they charge you ridiculous fees to attend college. In many European countries, college tuition is minimal and a fraction of the cost of it in the USA.

 

[Deleted member]

Well the USA isn't a socialist government. That's why they charge you ridiculous fees to attend college. In many European countries, college tuition is minimal and a fraction of the cost of it in the USA.

Yeh you Muricans charge waaaaaaaay too much for education.

 

[_Keno_]

It's just that college is a requirement to get THE VAST MAJORITY of jobs. I DO want specific jobs, and I DONT want other jobs. It's been my dream to a librarian or teacher because that's what I WANT to do for my entire life, and there's no other way to do it.

Sometimes it's as simple as that.

 

[Troll Man]

The only thing that matters is your financial report card aka how much money you make.

Or, you know, how happy you are.

 

[Nixon Corral]

This is a poorly worded and inflammatory post. This is the debate hall. In order to encourage debate, you should first pose a question, not an accusatory stance.

In any case, going to college, like anything, relies on a lot of factors to ultimately be judged as a good or bad decision.

I would, generally speaking, recommend going somewhere where you can get a scholarship, though. Definitely reduces the risk and debt involved.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Yeh you Muricans charge waaaaaaaay too much for education.

Please, we charge waaaaaaaay too much for anything that isn't fast food.

Also your grades in school don't determine how intelligent you are and how successful you will be in life. Nobody cares about your grades in school. The only thing that matters is your financial report card aka how much money you make. Just watch the video I linked earlier in this post, if you want to learn the truth about university education.

This goes without saying. Intelligence cannot be truly measured. Sure, there's the intelligence quotient test, but where I would be what many have labeled smart, there are those who would easily trump me in the ways of how to survive in the wilderness or the streets. Just some food for thought.

 

[Mechageo]

This video explains it perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqx0CRJFAXg

Don't go to university unless you can meet the following criteria:

1) You don't burden yourself with tens of (sometimes hundreds of) thousands of dollars of student loan debt. Avoid going to school away from the city where you live. Go to a local university. That way you can save money by not having to pay for board and room, and you can simply save money by living with your parents while going to university

2) Do not brother majoring in something that you can simply find the answer on the Internet i.e. sociology or women's study. Only study something in university where the skills you acquire cannot be learned on the Internet i.e. a surgeon or technician.

3) Only study something in university that is required for a particular field you want to get into.

Otherwise, if you can't meet these criteria, you are better off of going to a community college, apprenticeship or a trade after high school. Please don't follow the indoctrinated people and believe you must have a university degree to be successful in life. You don't.

Also your grades in school don't determine how intelligent you are and how successful you will be in life. Nobody cares about your grades in school. The only thing that matters is your financial report card aka how much money you make. Just watch the video I linked earlier in this post, if you want to learn the truth about university education.

There's no reason to take on Student Loan debt these days if you can avoid it.

 

[DeliciousDarren]

In my opinion, the main reason a college degree is useful is for the status it brings.

When someone has a degree, society's first impression of this individual is "wow that guy or girl must be an expert at this subject." For some companies, the status of their employees is a huge deal. For instance, with the company that I work for, they have to make proposals to the clients and explain how they own the best people for the job. Within the proposal, the company inputs the resumes of the individuals who all have numerous certifications and degrees.

For a young adult, the degree works in a similar manner. Simply because you have a degree, you will get considered where others will not. However, it is probably not worth it when amassing massive amounts of debt.

 

[ZeekLTK]

Funny that someone says "we have to pay more because we don't have socialism" because the main reason the cost of education is so expensive, and keeps getting more expensive each year, is because it IS subsidized by the federal government.

Most student loans are "federal loans" which are "guaranteed" by the government. Even the ones that aren't actually from the federal government are still protected by a law which states that your student loans cannot be expunged even in bankruptcy. This takes away any risk involved for the schools - and also gives them a blank check to basically come up with whatever number they want because the government will give them the money (under the guise of "loaning" it to the student), no questions asked.

This is a huge problem because unlike getting a mortgage or even an auto loan, there is virtually no criteria for acquiring a student loan. They basically give a loan to anyone who asks, for any amount, regardless of the person's means of paying it back. Oh, you work part time at Burger King? Here's an $80,000 loan, no problem!

Fixing this aspect alone (handing out student loans like candy on Halloween to anyone who asks for one) would significantly drop the price of tuition because schools would not be able to charge these insane amounts for tuition if lenders weren't comfortable giving out that much via a loan. And lenders would not be comfortable giving out that much to people who essentially have little to no income (aka most students) if it were possible to declare bankruptcy or otherwise default on the loans in question. Basically, make the loans more risky for lenders and you'll see the price plummet.

 

[ZeekLTK]

So I'll agree that it is overvalued (and I said why), but I don't think it is overrated. Having a degree opens up many more career paths than you would otherwise have without one. I can safely say that I would not have the job I have without my degree.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Fixing this aspect alone (handing out student loans like candy on Halloween to anyone who asks for one) would significantly drop the price of tuition because schools would not be able to charge these insane amounts for tuition if lenders weren't comfortable giving out that much via a loan. And lenders would not be comfortable giving out that much to people who essentially have little to no income (aka most students) if it were possible to declare bankruptcy or otherwise default on the loans in question. Basically, make the loans more risky for lenders and you'll see the price plummet.

Okay, so we remove the loans, and the prices go down. How much do they go down? Enough for the average middle-class or lower-class kid to get a college education? I somehow doubt it. Even if it did work, the gap between "we're not providing these loans" and "Oh **** we need to lower our prices" would probably hurt the economy a fair bit.

 

[Desu_Maiden]

It's just that college is a requirement to get THE VAST MAJORITY of jobs. I DO want specific jobs, and I DONT want other jobs. It's been my dream to a librarian or teacher because that's what I WANT to do for my entire life, and there's no other way to do it.

Sometimes it's as simple as that.

That's a lie. If college was required for the vast majority of jobs, then why are over 50% of college graduates either unemployed or underemployed? College is NOT required for the vast majority of jobs. And for the jobs that require a college education like becoming a teacher, doctor or lawyer, the ONLY reason these jobs require a college degree is because the degree serves as a barrier to entry in these professions. Any profession that makes a lot of money requiring a college degree simply wants you to spend a large amount of money on a degree. That way they can limit the number of people in those professions, and inflate the salaries of people in those professions.

Here's a fun fact. Contrary to popular belief, you do not need to go to law school to understand the law. Before the mid 20th century, you could practice the law or become a lawyer without going to law school. All you needed was to become an apprentice and study the law with someone. All you needed to do was pass a bunch of tests (demonstrating you understand the law) to become a lawyer.The reason you need a law degree to practice law these days is because the law degree is expensive to obtain. Therefore, this can limit the number of people who can practice law. This allows lawyers to maintain their high salaries and prestige. The same applies to doctors. Medical school, and its expensive costs, serve as a barrier to entry to the medical profession. But until recently, doctors didn't need to go to college. Doctors learned their skills through an apprenticeship, which was far less expensive than medical school. The same logic applies to teachers. It wasn't until the past couple of decades that teachers need a college education to enter their profession. In the past, you only needed a high school diploma to become a teacher in public schools. Most white collared jobs, that require a college degree, only require a degree because they want to limit the number of people that can do these jobs. That way they can maintain their overpaid salaries for their professions.

Here's a fun fact. If you've done your research, you will realize that most people with a university degree end up doing jobs that have absolutely nothing to do with what they studied in college (i.e. someone who studied biology in university, but ends up driving a taxi for a living), or they end up doing a job that doesn't even require a university degree (i.e. someone with a degree in biology ending up waiting tables at a restaurant). If you want proof of this, watch this Youtube video. The people in this video all have college degrees, and yet they end up doing jobs that someone without a high school diploma could do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXpwAOHJsxg

If you want to become well-educated, you have absolutely no reason to attend college. What you need to become well-educated is Internet access and books. There is very little, if anything, useful they teach you in college that you can't learn on your own using the Internet or books. For example, a degree in computer science is pretty useless given that you can learn virtually everything about computers using the Internet and books. I know how to program a computer and design websites without even getting a computer science degree. All the info you need to know about computers can be learned without university.

I am not saying college is never worth attending. But 8 to 9 times out of 10, it is not worth attending especially if you are getting yourself into a huge amount of debt for a degree that lands you a job that someone without even a high school diploma could do. If college was worth attending, there wouldn't be over 1 trillion dollars of outstanding student loan debt in the USA.

As for graduate schools (schooling that you receive after an undergrad degree is completed), the only graduate school program worth attending is medical school. Forget about law school. Law school is largely a scam, as most people graduating from them don't end up becoming lawyers. There are too many lawyers in most developed countries, and not enough job openings for lawyers. So most people with law degrees end up doing a crappy job that doesn't even require a high school diploma. Plus, they are saddled with a huge amount of debt, which they will have a hard time paying off.

If you want to go to college to become a doctor or engineer, go ahead because those professions actually pay you a good amount of money and are rewarding. You will have enough income from your job, after college, to pay off your student loan debt. But if you go to college to major in something like sociology, music, English or some other liberal arts degree, and end up having tens of thousands (in some cases over 100,000 dollars) of student loan debt, you are screwed because these degrees don't have much potential in increasing your income. Aside from a handful of careers that pay well and require a college education (like becoming a doctor or engineer), don't waste your money on college. Learn a trade, go to vocational school, become an apprentice, start your own business or work your way up a business after high school. Like people already mentioned, do NOT go into a massive amount of debt for college especially if you plan on majoring in the liberal arts.

Of course, liberal arts are useful and interesting. But you do not need to waste thousands of dollars studying something like philosophy or religion in university when you could learn that stuff on your own on the Internet and books.

If you think you are incapable of learning useful knowledge without school, then you will end up as nothing more than a failure in life. College, as far as I am concerned, is a scam because mainstream media brainwashes you into thinking that without a college degree, your life will be ruined, and that you will not succeed in life. But that is just not true. Success in life, contrary to popular belief, has absolutely nothing to do with obtaining a college degree. Some of the richest people in the world don't even have a high school diploma, let alone a college degree. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and John Rockefeller are billionaires, and they don't have a college degree. You don't even need a high school diploma to be successful in life because many millionaires and billionaires don't even have a high school diploma. The amount of schooling you receive, contrary to popular belief, has little if anything to do with financial success. As long as you can read, write and do basic math, you can become successful in life without schooling beyond high school.

If you want proof that college is fraud, read this article.

http://mrconservative.com/2013/05/1...that-show-a-college-education-is-just-a-scam/

As more and more people end up having university degrees, you end up having no advantage in having one. In fact, you end up at a huge disadvantage because obtaining that degree likely required you to go deeply into debt, and yet you are stuck with the same crappy jobs you did while you were in high school like MacDonald's and Walmart.

College is becoming more and more like a gamble at a Vegas Casino. There is certainly no guarantee you will end up having a higher income just from attending college unless you know the right people.

I hope you understand the real purpose behind university. Nobody wastes their money for the sake of learning in university because you can learn almost anything without university. If you are going to university to become a well-educated citizen, you are wasting your time and money because you can obtain an education using the Internet and books, which cost much less money. The ONLY reason anyone would waste money on university is because certain professions require that silly degree before you can take the professional exams for entering the profession.

 

[_Keno_]

That's a lie.

Uhhh...that's a bit aggressive, and also entirely wrong. I'm in school to be a teacher (Bachelor's in Math, Master's in Education), and literally the only way to become a school teacher is through getting a degree. I'm doing it purely because it's just a job that I want.

If college was required for the vast majority of jobs, then why are over 50% of college graduates either unemployed or underemployed?

Because people were roped into the mindset that college = success, and that they need to go to college. If you don't think about what you want to do with your degree, then you really are wasting your time.

College is NOT required for the vast majority of jobs.

College isn't required to work at walmart or the local gas station, or even the animal clinic down the road. However, a lot of jobs do require college, even if just to narrow competition.

And for the jobs that require a college education like becoming a teacher, doctor or lawyer, the ONLY reason these jobs require a college degree is because the degree serves as a barrier to entry in these professions. Any profession that makes a lot of money requiring a college degree simply wants you to spend a large amount of money on a degree. That way they can limit the number of people in those professions, and inflate the salaries of people in those professions.

That's true, but it doesn't make going through college and getting a degree any less required.

Here's a fun fact. If you've done your research, you will realize that most people with a university degree end up doing jobs that have absolutely nothing to do with what they studied in college (i.e. someone who studied biology in university, but ends up driving a taxi for a living), or they end up doing a job that doesn't even require a university degree (i.e. someone with a degree in biology ending up waiting tables at a restaurant). If you want proof of this, watch this Youtube video. The people in this video all have college degrees, and yet they end up doing jobs that someone without a high school diploma could do.

Once again, that's just a lack of forethought combined with the idea that 'college is the next step for successful people.' It's almost a social stigma that college is necessary, and people continue into it almost without thought, when it actually requires A LOT of thought. If you end up in debt working at walmart with an English degree, that's because of poor planning.

I am not saying college is never worth attending. But 8 to 9 times out of 10, it is not worth attending especially if you are getting yourself into a huge amount of debt for a degree that lands you a job that someone without even a high school diploma could do. If college was worth attending, there wouldn't be over 1 trillion dollars of outstanding student loan debt in the USA.

I wouldn't say 8 times out of 10 at all, unless you're in a liberal arts field. I literally dont have any friends that aren't using their degrees. Maybe we have entirely different friend groups, but there are useful majors like physics, accounting, mathematics, and biology, as well as the useless ones.

If you think you are incapable of learning useful knowledge without school, then you will end up as nothing more than a failure in life. College, as far as I am concerned, is a scam because mainstream media brainwashes you into thinking that without a college degree, your life will be ruined, and that you will not succeed in life. But that is just not true. Success in life, contrary to popular belief, has absolutely nothing to do with obtaining a college degree. Some of the richest people in the world don't even have a high school diploma, let alone a college degree. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and John Rockefeller are billionaires, and they don't have a college degree. You don't even need a high school diploma to be successful in life because many millionaires and billionaires don't even have a high school diploma. The amount of schooling you receive, contrary to popular belief, has little if anything to do with financial success. As long as you can read, write and do basic math, you can become successful in life without schooling beyond high school.

Definitely agree that knowledge =/= schooling. A person could learn anything I've learned throughout college by visiting the public library, no doubt. Really, the purpose is just to make sure that I've gained specific knowledge and that I'm capable of learning certain material.

As for college being a scam, that's only if you go into college with zero ideas about what to do, which plenty of people do. People who poorly plan their lives and just "go with the flow" are going to end up with a Bachelor's degree in a useless or flooded major, and probably work at McD's. I wouldn't blame college for offering course that people are apparently willing to take and calling it a 'scam.'

Anyways, my over-arcing point is that college is certainly useful if you go into it with a cohesive plan.

 

[FrankTheStud]

As a fourth year student, I can attest that college is definitely NOT overrated, nor overvalued if you know what it is you want to do. I'm in school to be a music educator, and I have a deep love for my profession/art. To most people's surprise, I'm not in it for the money, but rather because I want to do what I love: teach, practice, and perform music. Expanding your education via school is never a bad idea, as no money is ever "wasted" when it's being used to further your education. While I agree that most Universities are overpriced, and that debt is never good in any circumstance, you have to be smart with your money. College is an INVESTMENT--If you don't know what you want to do, don't waste time or money, or if anything, slowly work toward an AA at your State/Community/Junior College, and then stop until you really know what you want to do before transferring to a University. (I personally attended 2 years at a local State College, then transferred to a University). If all you're in this world for is to make money, become an electrician, plumber, air conditioning repair man, or a mechanic--Those kinds of handymen get paid very well for their hard work, without a 4-year degree.`

 

[FlusteredBat]

As a fourth year student, I can attest that college is definitely NOT overrated, nor overvalued if you know what it is you want to do. I'm in school to be a music educator, and I have a deep love for my profession/art. To most people's surprise, I'm not in it for the money, but rather because I want to do what I love: teach, practice, and perform music. Expanding your education via school is never a bad idea, as no money is ever "wasted" when it's being used to further your education. While I agree that most Universities are overpriced, and that debt is never good in any circumstance, you have to be smart with your money. College is an INVESTMENT--If you don't know what you want to do, don't waste time or money, or if anything, slowly work toward an AA at your State/Community/Junior College, and then stop until you really know what you want to do before transferring to a University. (I personally attended 2 years at a local State College, then transferred to a University). If all you're in this world for is to make money, become an electrician, plumber, air conditioning repair man, or a mechanic--Those kinds of handymen get paid very well for their hard work, without a 4-year degree.`

Oh, I'm sure university is great for people who manage to get into academia.

 

[tttt]

Please, we charge waaaaaaaay too much for anything that isn't fast food.

Not gas! Compared to Europe, at least.

 

[Izanagi97]

Yeh you Muricans charge waaaaaaaay too much for education.

Funny thing is, it wasn't like that until the 80s. You can blame Reagan administration for that.

I tend to dislike how we don't value education nowadays. I'm not going to skip out on the chance to get a Master's Degree in Information Technology with a minor in Computer Science even if I'm gonna pay a lot for it.

 

[Desu_Maiden]

In my opinion, it is worth it as long as you have the right goals and expectations when coming into college. Do not expect college to guarantee you a successful career or high-paying job. College doesn't guarantee you anything these days. College only improves your chances of having a successful career, but it is not necessary to have a college degree to have a successful career. However, in order to enter many jobs these days, you must have a college degree. For example, you need a college degree to become a lawyer, doctor, teacher, engineer, psychologist, professor, some sort of scientist and etc. Having a college degree is literally the only way you can have certain jobs. So if you want to have certain jobs, you must have a college degree.

I say if you can afford college without going deeply into student loan debt, by all means go to college. If you can afford college with minimum or no student loan debt, then college is definitely worth it. But if you need to burrow an exorbitant amount of money to attend college, then it is likely not worth it. Do not burrow 100,000 dollars for a psychology degree. While psychology is a useful and interesting subject, it is certainly not worth 100,000 dollars. Maybe 40,000 dollars max for a psych degree is what you should burrow. The only thing worth burrowing over 100,000 dollars for is a medical degree in order to become a doctor because doctors are paid a lot of money. You will be paid enough money as a doctor to easily pay back your student loan debt.

Don't listen to the people calling college a scam. It is not a scam. But it is only worth it you can afford college with little to no student loan debt AND you are trying to enter a career that actually requires a college degree (i.e. becoming a lawyer, teacher, doctor, engineer and psychologist).

Since my dad makes a considerable amount of money, I can afford going to college without burrowing ANY student loan debt. Therefore, I think college is worth it to me. Even if my college degree is absolutely worthless in terms of improving my career prospects, I wouldn't care because I will not be graduating college with a mountain of student loan debt.

There is also a common misconception that majoring in the liberal arts is more useless than majoring in a STEM major (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). That's simply not true. Your employment opportunities are just as good (or bad) if you major in the liberal arts compared to majoring in a STEM major.

I major in Psychology, by the way. Don't troll me by saying it is a useless major because I wouldn't want to be your friend if you say it is useless. Psychology is one of the best majors in my opinion. It isn't nearly as worthless as some hyphenated studies like Women's Studies or Religious Studies. While I respect all majors, I do believe certain majors aren't as useful as some other majors.

Anyways that's my quick rant on college. I hope you enjoyed reading it.

 

[Sucumbio]

Merged this with your other college topic, no need for two.

 

[Schematic]

Having a Degree or working toward one is what lands you internships (most larger Universities partner with these companies, and those companies recruit on campus), and it definitely increases your chances massively in landing a Job. The larger the school, the more you pay, the MORE connections and companies that University actually works with plus it looks way better on a resume since those schools are known for having better programs and curriculum (actual hands-on labs and experience, better Professors and facilities, more rigorous and comprehensive/current material, extracurricular groups, work placement, famous guest lecturers, etc). Most of my professors were quite well known - My Lit professor had 3 NY Bestsellers, most of my Engineering professors had made significant advancements or patents in their respective fields (or still were working in the industry), and we had Level 5 Biomedical and Electrical Engineer labs (with state of the art fabrication and machine shops).

And grades do matter A TON! What are you talking about? If you were about to take on some students for an internship; invest time, training, and money into them for a future job....are you gonna take that slacker that comes to class half the time and gets Cs and Ds or the student that actually gives a crap gets As and High Bs and does lab work after class? It's one of the few metrics companies and the University has to judge your motivation, progress, and ambition by.

So yea; University is only overvalued if you are unambitious or unintelligent, otherwise it's completely worth the money spent. If you are unmotivated or get bad grades because you slack off, then yes I too would say don't go to University. Graduate with a barely passing grade, no internships or CV, do the bare minimum, and get bad recommendations from your professors and peers....well yea you can expect for places not to want you.

 

[Capita]

Most of what I wanted to say was brought up by @ Z ZeekLTK
The best thing that I could see happening is that students, rather then wasting their time and money in college, should at least delay the option of college and realize that 15,000 dollars in debt due to government subsidized loans isn't worth getting into. Once there is a drop in college attendance rates, colleges will lower tuition rates due to the lower demand for college, making it a more viable option for students.
I think the biggest problem when people make statements such as "education is too expensive in the US, therefore they should be like Europe" is a flawed argument. Almost all countries that have "free" education have crippling loads of debt.The only country that I can think of that has free higher education and a debt-to-GDP ratio below 50% is Sweden. Greece for example had universal education, and I think we all know of their 200% debt-to-GDP crisis. We wouldn't be able to afford universal education without further burdening our 18 trillion dollar debt. Nothing is free.

There is also a common misconception that majoring in the liberal arts is more useless than majoring in a STEM major (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). That's simply not true. Your employment opportunities are just as good (or bad) if you major in the liberal arts compared to majoring in a STEM major.

I major in Psychology, by the way. Don't troll me by saying it is a useless major because I wouldn't want to be your friend if you say it is useless. Psychology is one of the best majors in my opinion. It isn't nearly as worthless as some hyphenated studies like Women's Studies or Religious Studies. While I respect all majors, I do believe certain majors aren't as useful as some other majors.

Not trying to defame non-STEM degrees, but job availability is heavily influenced by how much in demand the skills you get from a college degree are. If everyone were to major in X, X would have a labor surplus where the supply of labor is far greater than the demand for what X was, which would cause unemployment. That's why STEM pays really well, the skills you learn in STEM fields are skills that the job market is looking for. You can most definitely make Psychology a viable degree, by no doubt you can, but the demand for Psychology isn't very high, therefore the best way you can secure your place in the job market as a Psychologist is by showing mastery in the skills you retained while getting a Psychology degree, such as a good GPA and perhaps internship experience.

 

[the.tok]

Almost all countries that have "free" education have crippling loads of debt.

I don't think you can make such a connection. US has crippling load of debt too.

The main thing to consider is efficiency in generating a skill pool within a generation for your economy.
If entry fees are high, only a select few will even consider it, so you will end having to take rich but less gifted kids, therefore generating less skilled workers on average.
If you remove the entry fee, you will have a larger pool, and then more gifted workers produced.

The education cost is largely irrelevant compared to the productivity gains at stake for the economy. An engineer might cost a few 10.000$ to train, but he generates a lot more for the economy throughout his career for example.

If you lack skilled workers, you will not be able to generate a lot of added value

 

[Capita]

I don't think you can make such a connection. US has crippling load of debt too.

Our 18 trillion dollar debt is due to government spending. Reallocating government spending from the US military, Social Security, and Medicaid/Medicare funds, to other sectors such as education, is still going cause massive loads of government spending that will exceed the rate of government revenue.

If entry fees are high, only a select few will even consider it, so you will end having to take rich but less gifted kids, therefore generating less skilled workers on average.

The rich are generally more gifted and productive due to acquired skills, however socio-economic status plays a part of it. However, even the productivity difference between the rich and the poor is irrelevant. By the way, the reason education fees are so high are due to government subsidized student loans which inflate tuition fees.

If you remove the entry fee, you will have a larger pool, and then more gifted workers produced.
The education cost is largely irrelevant compared to the productivity gains at stake for the economy. An engineer might cost a few 10.000$ to train, but he generates a lot more for the economy throughout his career for example.
If you lack skilled workers, you will not be able to generate a lot of added value

You can't simply "remove the entry fee." Either one of two things occurs. You end up with either less than sub-par quality education due to the huge lack of incentive there would be to teach, or you end up with a crippling amount of debt. Such skills you attain would be rendered irrelevant in a market where you're having to pay such high interest due to the excessive loads of debt the country has attained.

 

[Troll Man]

By the way, the reason education fees are so high are due to government subsidized student loans which inflate tuition fees.

No. The government subsidizes student loans BECAUSE of inflated tuition fees.
Colleges can get away with charging whatever they want because the demand to go to college is so high.

You can't simply "remove the entry fee." Either one of two things occurs. You end up with either less than sub-par quality education due to the huge lack of incentive there would be to teach, or you end up with a crippling amount of debt. Such skills you attain would be rendered irrelevant in a market where you're having to pay such high interest due to the excessive loads of debt the country has attained.

Professors will get paid whether or not tuition goes down, the inflated capital from the tuition fees isn't going to professors, in fact, adjunct professors are being used now more than ever to decrease the amount of money colleges need to pay in their expenses. We made school free from pre-k to 12th grade and at one point the U.S had the best education system in the world, if we choose to keep a capitalist system the U.S should be responsible for supplying education at the college level through a system of public universities.

I'm an anarcho-communist though, so naturally the state controlling education isn't something I'm too happy about, but it's much better than privately owned businesses educating and throwing our youth into debt. All of the problems that are bring brought up are a direct result of capitalism, not the lack of capitalism.

 

[Capita]

No. The government subsidizes student loans BECAUSE of inflated tuition fees.

You're misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about the government's intention for student loans. I brought up the fact as to why the tuition for college has risen so much. The more money the federal government charges for tuition rates, the higher colleges are going to charge for tuition. Why? Because by subsidizing education, you're inflating the actual value. It's like printing money. An increase in the money supply does not increase the amount of production.

Those "inflated tuition fees" aren't because some evil college is going "oh, I can raise the price and get more money." That is completely ignoring basic economic rules such as supply and demand and competition. If one college were to raise the price of its tuition, a competitor would show up and offer lower costing tuitions forcing the previous college to lower tuition fees in order to stay in competition. There isn't a one college monopoly.

We made school free from pre-k to 12th grade and at one point the U.S had the best education system in the world

We have that now. However, even then public education has its flaws. Uniform education standards set by government schools keep schools from trying different teaching methods and the lack of experimentation keeps schools from seeing what's best. Best examples are the huge quality difference between a government school as opposed to a charter or private school.

U.S should be responsible for supplying education at the college level through a system of public universities.

Again, we have an 18 trillion dollar debt, this will only further cripple us into debt.

All of the problems that are bring brought up are a direct result of capitalism, not the lack of capitalism.

Every single thing you mentioned was a result of government intervention into the education system.

 

[Troll Man]

You're misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about the government's intention for student loans. I brought up the fact as to why the tuition for college has risen so much. The more money the federal government charges for tuition rates, the higher colleges are going to charge for tuition. Why? Because by subsidizing education, you're inflating the actual value. It's like printing money. An increase in the money supply does not increase the amount of production.

Those "inflated tuition fees" aren't because some evil college is going "oh, I can raise the price and get more money." That is completely ignoring basic economic rules such as supply and demand and competition. If one college were to raise the price of its tuition, a competitor would show up and offer lower costing tuitions forcing the previous college to lower tuition fees in order to stay in competition. There isn't a one college monopoly.

This doesn't actually happen in capitalism though. There's a practice known as "price signaling" - where one competitor sets a price, and the other sets the same price for their product so as to not compete with each other.

States have been divesting in public higher education. 10 years ago, the state of WA used to pay for 80% of UW's costs through taxes, and tuition made up the other 20%. Now that ratio is flipped, so tuition has had to rise very quickly to pick up the majority of costs.

We have that now. However, even then public education has its flaws. Uniform education standards set by government schools keep schools from trying different teaching methods and the lack of experimentation keeps schools from seeing what's best. Best examples are the huge quality difference between a government school as opposed to a charter or private school.

I wish that were true, but it isn't.
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/01/STEM_pisa.png
The education system in America is way too old and needs major reforms, I'll agree with that, but private schools aren't better because they're private schools, and they're not always better anyway.

Again, we have an 18 trillion dollar debt, this will only further cripple us into debt.

Maybe if the corporations paid their fair share in this country we could afford to spend taxes on the people in it. Most of the debt is internal anyway.
"Google's income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries"
That's us losing 60 billion dollars.

Every single thing you mentioned was a result of government intervention into the education system.

You need to let go of this notion that the U.S giving out loans and grants to citizens is what's driving up tuition. Everybody should be allowed a college education regardless of whether or not they can afford it, just like everybody should have healthcare whether or not we can afford it.

 

[Capita]

This doesn't actually happen in capitalism though. There's a practice known as "price signaling" - where one competitor sets a price, and the other sets the same price for their product so as to not compete with each other.

That isn't what price signaling means. Price signaling is communicating prices to the consumer. I think what you meant was price fixing, but your statement is still inaccurate and ignores basic economic principles. Entry barriers are low, therefore there is nothing stopping a competitor from entering the market and offering a lower price. Price fixing only leads to a deadweight loss as the equilibrium price isn't met. Never have I seen price fixing in the education sector. Price fixing isn't maintainable in a free market system.

I wish that were true, but it isn't.
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/01/STEM_pisa.png
The education system in America is way too old and needs major reforms, I'll agree with that, but private schools aren't better because they're private schools, and they're not always better anyway.

That only further proves my point. 24% of schools in the US are private and 10% of students attend private schools. So your claim of "privates schools aren't better because they're private schools" is a flawed argument.

Our education system does indeed need major reforms. It's all because our current system of forcing kids into government schools without any school-choice to stimulate competition is a fundamentally flawed system.

Maybe if the corporations paid their fair share in this country we could afford to spend taxes on the people in it. Most of the debt is internal anyway.
"Google's income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries"
That's us losing 60 billion dollars.

This is quite simply wrong. The "muh corporations don't pay their fair share" is a myth that has long been debunked. Before you link me to some article and claim it as a "source," keep in mind that I'm getting my data from the Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/15919
According to the publication, the top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes, the top 10% pay 50% of taxes, the top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes, and the top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes, while the bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes.

That is quite simply not true. Any sort of attempt to close tax loopholes (which they should do) isn't enough to compensate for our 18 trillion dollar debt. Any sort of tax increase wouldn't suffice either and would only strangle the private sector along with our countries economic growth.

You need to let go of this notion that the U.S giving out loans and grants to citizens is what's driving up tuition. Everybody should be allowed a college education regardless of whether or not they can afford it, just like everybody should have healthcare whether or not we can afford it.

Rather than tell me to let go of my opinion that is based off of practical observations, why don't you tell me why you believe college tuitions are so high?

It isn't some randomly conceived notion. However, rather than repeat myself for the second time, I suggest you refer to the post made by @ Z ZeekLTK who summarized why government subsidized loans drive up tuition costs. Read my post that you replied to again and you'll see my reasoning for my notion that I apparently need to let go of. What you need to let go of is your entitlement complex that has caused numerous nations nothing but debt.

There is no such thing as a right to an education or a right to health care. It's a good/commodity. Our country isn't built on principles of deserving something. Using coercion to pay for others health care only infringes on rights. I can't force you to make a sandwich, and I can't force you to pay for my medical procedure. You're confusing an entitlement complex with what fundamental individual rights actually are.

 

[Troll Man]

That isn't what price signaling means. Price signaling is communicating prices to the consumer. I think what you meant was price fixing, but your statement is still inaccurate and ignores basic economic principles. Entry barriers are low, therefore there is nothing stopping a competitor from entering the market and offering a lower price. Price fixing only leads to a deadweight loss as the equilibrium price isn't met. Never have I seen price fixing in the education sector. Price fixing isn't maintainable in a free market system.

It feels like every time somebody points out a flaw in capitalism, capitalists go "that isn't REALLY happening! You're ignoring basic market principles that I learned in 10th grade."

That only further proves my point. 24% of schools in the US are private and 10% of students attend private schools. So your claim of "privates schools aren't better because they're private schools" is a flawed argument.

It most certainly is not a flawed argument. A school isn't good by mere virtue of the fact that it's a private school.

Our education system does indeed need major reforms. It's all because our current system of forcing kids into government schools without any school-choice to stimulate competition is a fundamentally flawed system.

AHAHAHAHA. Seriously, have you ever read anything about history? Do you think these government programs just showed out of the blue? We tried it your way, and it didn't lead to Americans having the best education in the world, a lot of children ended up sweeping chimneys instead of going to school.

This is quite simply wrong. The "muh corporations don't pay their fair share" is a myth that has long been debunked. Before you link me to some article and claim it as a "source," keep in mind that I'm getting my data from the Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/15919
According to the publication, the top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes, the top 10% pay 50% of taxes, the top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes, and the top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes, while the bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes.

That is quite simply not true. Any sort of attempt to close tax loopholes (which they should do) isn't enough to compensate for our 18 trillion dollar debt. Any sort of tax increase wouldn't suffice either and would only strangle the private sector along with our countries economic growth.

This isn't how much they pay, this is how much they're supposed to pay. Believe it or not, rich people don't pay their taxes like us normal people do. Surprising right? Maybe the invisible hand of the free market should give 'em a spanking.

Rather than tell me to let go of my opinion that is based off of practical observations, why don't you tell me why you believe college tuitions are so high?

It isn't some randomly conceived notion. However, rather than repeat myself for the second time, I suggest you refer to the post made by @ Z ZeekLTK who summarized why government subsidized loans drive up tuition costs. Read my post that you replied to again and you'll see my reasoning for my notion that I apparently need to let go of. What you need to let go of is your entitlement complex that has caused numerous nations nothing but debt.

Your opinion is not based on practical observation, it's based on what a self-proclaimed libertarian on the internet said about the evil government.
And maybe you should re-read my post, because I explicitly stated why tuition is going up.

There is no such thing as a right to an education or a right to health care. It's a good/commodity. Our country isn't built on principles of deserving something. Using coercion to pay for others health care only infringes on rights. I can't force you to make a sandwich, and I can't force you to pay for my medical procedure. You're confusing an entitlement complex with what fundamental individual rights actually are.

Translation:

Speaking as a middle class male (who's probably white), I've never had a problem affording health care or received a poorer education by mere virtue of the fact that my parents pay less in property taxes and therefore go to a school with less funding, and have no idea what life without those things is like, so they must be commodities. Also, my group has never faced any exploitation (slavery, racism, sexism, classism), leading them to play worse roles in society, so I see no reason why we should help those who've been hurt by literally hundreds of years of oppression. Also, making poor people work hard labor jobs without proper healthcare or a living wage so that they don't starve or end up in public housing isn't coercion, but making me pay for the old and sick to get better? You ****ing monsters!!!!!!!!!!

It's really gross to see people who think like you do. So I'm not going to speak about this anymore. You've seriously been drowning yourself in a lack of empathy, and you really do need to realize that not everybody in this world is given a fair shot.

 

[Capita]

I'm going to try my very best to stay polite, because this is quite possibly one of the most childish reponses I have ever replied to.

It feels like every time somebody points out a flaw in capitalism, capitalists go "that isn't REALLY happening! You're ignoring basic market principles that I learned in 10th grade."

Rather than say that, how about provide a source to your baseless statement? I have never seen it, and even if it wasn't a fundamentally flawed idea that is uncharacteristic of a free market system, it's illegal to price fix in the United States. How can I possibly trust someone that says price fixing is a flaw of capitalism and occurs in our education system even though the person that said that can't tell the difference between price signaling and price fixing?

It most certainly is not a flawed argument. A school isn't good by mere virtue of the fact that it's a private school.

It's a flawed argument because you stated "private schools aren't better because they're private schools." Again, rather than reply to me saying "no it's not, you're argument is flawed," it would be helpful if you would back up your statements with actual sources. According to the research you sent me and the statistics I provided you, there is a clear correlation that the majority of public schools fall behind in quality, but if that isn't enough.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97983.pdf

Everything, from parent satisfaction to the school, absence of crime, and academic performance, private schools consistently out-preform public schools.

AHAHAHAHA. Seriously, have you ever read anything about history? Do you think these government programs just showed out of the blue? We tried it your way, and it didn't lead to Americans having the best education in the world, a lot of children ended up sweeping chimneys instead of going to school.

Um, "AHAHAHAHAHA", I do know my history. If you knew just the least bit of history, or at the bare minimum a Google search, you would know public schools have been around since the 19th century.

My idea of education reform isn't to privatize the whole K-12 education sector. You seem to have misinterpreted. Public schools have done their wonders in increasing education attendance rates, however if you bothered to read past the first sentence of my post, you would have realized I was critical of the anti-competition system that we currently have in place. By capping competition and not allowing students to choose which public schools they go to, there is a lack of innovation occurring in the classrooms. I'm quite fond of publicly funded charter schools.

This isn't how much they pay, this is how much they're supposed to pay. Believe it or not, rich people don't pay their taxes like us normal people do. Surprising right? Maybe the invisible hand of the free market should give 'em a spanking.

It really isn't that hard to provide a source. You do realize that is the Congressional Budget Office reporting how much they received from tax dollars right? Not the IRS tax code. Closing the loop holes would only turn that 84% to a 90%. Doesn't change the fact that 40% of the people gave 90% of the governments money while another 40% only gave the government around 5% of the governments money. I'm not calling for tax increases on the poor, but to state that the evil rich people don't pay their fair share is quite simply false. It doesn't matter what any liberal outlet says, it's a fact that the rich do pay their fair share. You can't get any more reliable than the CBO.

Your opinion is not based on practical observation, it's based on what a self-proclaimed libertarian on the internet said about the evil government.
And maybe you should re-read my post, because I explicitly stated why tuition is going up.

It's quite simple really. Basic observation of the education sector shows that the federal government has continuously pumped more money in subsidized loans, with a correlation to rising tuition rates. The premise is simple: If you pump money into a market, inflation is bound to occur.
http://www.aei.org/publication/how-the-college-bubble-will-pop/

You never stated why college tuitions are rising. You pointed to a failed and illegal concept that is incompatible with free market economics and you later stated that I needed to get rid of the notion that the lack of capitalism is what is causing tuition rises… again, without providing a source.

Speaking as a middle class male (who's probably white), I've never had a problem affording health care or received a poorer education by mere virtue of the fact that my parents pay less in property taxes and therefore go to a school with less funding, and have no idea what life without those things is like, so they must be commodities. Also, my group has never faced any exploitation (slavery, racism, sexism, classism), leading them to play worse roles in society, so I see no reason why we should help those who've been hurt by literally hundreds of years of oppression. Also, making poor people work hard labor jobs without proper healthcare or a living wage so that they don't starve or end up in public housing isn't coercion, but making me pay for the old and sick to get better? You ****ing monsters!!!!!!!!!!

This post disgusts me.
As a Hispanic whose family has benefited tremendously from hard work, I can't help but think very poorly of you at this point. Because I value hard-work and success means I'm white? Probably one of the most demeaning and racist things I've heard in a while. Millions of Hispanics and Blacks have proven time and time again they are able to achieve on their own. My mom faced discrimination in her youth, does that mean she just quit trying and demanded that the government help her? No, like my mom, so have plenty of other minorities. I, like many others, don't want some demeaning government program or subside to help my way through success. Rather then cry about the past, minorities rather work hard and prove racial inequality of the past wrong.

Even if you excluded race, you still listed entitlements rather than rights. I try not appeal to emotional value and I'd rather view things from a pragmatic perspective. If I want to help someone via charity, I have every right to. If I don't want to, that's also my right to. However, I have no choice in whether I want to pay taxes that will go towards entitlements programs, or anything for that matter. Let me try not paying my taxes, let see how that turns out. That's the perfect example of government coercion.
I'd rather not strangle the future in debt that they had no say in, just to satisfy the entitlements of a select few.

It's really gross to see people who think like you do. So I'm not going to speak about this anymore. You've seriously been drowning yourself in a lack of empathy, and you really do need to realize that not everybody in this world is given a fair shot.

Well, that "gross thinking of mine" has been proven to work. Hard work is the key factor to success. If you don't believe so, and you believe government's prime duty is to give everyone an equal foot, I'll just provide you a family experience.

My grandparents of my mothers side were far from rich. Mexico didn't provide many economic opportunities. When they came to Houston in the early 60's, the lack of economic opportunities in Mexico was moot due to the racial barriers, the language barriers, and the lack of skills and education they had when they came to Houston. While my grandfather was struggling to start up his business in the United States, my grandmother was overloaded with having to raise three daughters, find some part-time work, and learning the language. However, she didn't point to the racial barriers and the language barriers as an excuse to be dependent on the government and not try at all. She took pride in never signing up for food stamps or other entitlement programs, it's mainly because she knew teaching her children a sense of dependency would only hinder their success. Despite the huge difficulty in learning the language, she started off working at a McDonalds, however with hard work, her work conditions started improving to the point where she had the credentials to start working at a decent paying convenience store. Despite her not being the most successful of people, she knew that demonstration of hard work was laying the foundation for future success in her family. My mom made 2 bachelors in science and is currently a full time nurse.
I could bring up my dads side of the family, but it would be a bit redundant. Just know, with hard work and having to study his entirety in Mexico, he was able to get a full scholarship to UT at Austin to fulfill his PHD in Civil Engineering. No connections whatsoever. Just hard work.

I'd suggest you not reply to this post if you're not going to form coherent arguments and you're just going to pull the race-card again (which backfired miserably).

 

[the.tok]

Hey guys, it is starting to become very difficult to discuss the subject if you are tossing each othe WoT with a dozen points in each. The name calling doesn't help either, and the general tone of one message was not very appropriate if you ask me.

The discussion is interesting, though.

About the point of private school being superior to public school, well... I am sorry, but this cannot be true in all case.
Maybe you are overgeneralizing what happens in the US. Maybe it is just that US public schools are not as good as they could?

For a fact, I know that in France, public engineer schools are generally higher than private ones.
For sure, all the top ones are public.
The reasoning is : if you're good, you go to public school, and if you're not... well you can always pay to get more support to achieve something similar.

I went from private to public middle school, and there is absolutely no doubt : level was higher in public school.
The main difference was that the private school was more focused on religion (though that was never mandatory).

My mom was a private middle school teacher too, and it was very common for a family who had several kids to put the "gifted" ones in public school (which had several "elite" classrooms) and the less gifted ones in private (which had several "support" classrooms)

The point where privates schools are obviously better is "crime" rate (though there is no crime in middle school per se, it's more little bullies that take your toy away ). But that is expected when you gather people from a wealthy background.

tl;dr, being a private school is not guaranteed to be better. in a lot of cases, it is quite the opposite.

Oh, and about that

it's a fact that the rich do pay their fair share.

Fair being subjective, you cannot say it's a fact ;-)
I consider they could pay much more, but that is opinion. I am in favor of tax raising generally, but that would be an entire other topic.

 

[Capita]

Hey guys, it is starting to become very difficult to discuss the subject if you are tossing each othe WoT with a dozen points in each. The name calling doesn't help either, and the general tone of one message was not very appropriate if you ask me.

Yeah, despite how heated that got, I'd say any hard feelings would be a tad immature. We're all entitled to our opinions, no matter how controversial one may view them.

I went from private to public middle school, and there is absolutely no doubt : level was higher in public school.

I don't know much about European education (something I might research later), but in the United States, the difference is quite clear. Everything from private universities to private elementary schools, privatized education has shown to be a better option than most government schools. I think the lack of competition is what hinders most government schools. As a student who attended locally funded charter schools, the quality difference between that and the typical neighborhood school was also clear. Our education system needs major reforms, and the best way I personally see it happening is by allowing more school choice.

The main difference was that the private school was more focused on religion (though that was never mandatory).

While most private school attendees are indeed enrolled in religious schools, those religious schools still have major quality difference to the typical government school.

My mom was a private middle school teacher too, and it was very common for a family who had several kids to put the "gifted" ones in public school (which had several "elite" classrooms) and the less gifted ones in private (which had several "support" classrooms)

American public schools have similar classrooms, but the quality difference is still there. While speaking to friends about the elite programs, I couldn't help but notice how easy the "elite" work was.

The point where privates schools are obviously better is "crime" rate (though there is no crime in middle school per se, it's more little bullies that take your toy away ). But that is expected when you gather people from a wealthy background.

Oh my, this might be where America differs most from the EU then.
What "crime" meant in that document are actual federal crimes. Perhaps some of the biggest crime problems in schools have to be drugs and gang-banging. There is also the occasional stabbing you'll hear on the news every now and then, but drugs have always been a frequent problem in schools in general, they just so happen to be more frequent in public schools.

 

[the.tok]

I don't know very well either the reasons why public schools are as bad as you say in the US. Has it always been the case, or was there some kind of turning point?

In some fields (notably engineering master, it's the field I know better) the competition among public schools is very strong in France.
They compete in recruiting the best student and make their own entrance examination (though they usually gather for this and make school groups of 4-10 schools). Maybe that is the better of two worlds : public and free, but with fierce competition :-) Not saying that is perfect at all though. Despite being free, the level asked at entry is pretty high, which makes wealthy background kids overrepresented because they are on average better prepared for it.

This is inherited from the revolution, when the republic needed to form an elite. If you need more info on the Grandes Ecoles system :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandes_écoles

And yes, I agree with on the religious thing in private schools : it's largely irrelevant with the level.

American public schools have similar classrooms, but the quality difference is still there. While speaking to friends about the elite programs, I couldn't help but notice how easy the "elite" work was.

Maybe another difference here : for public middle schools you are only allowed to chose which one you attend IF you take a specific facultative course (like usually a language/high level sport/music) or an elite class. Otherwise, you have to go to the closest from where you live, leading on public schools to compete on the level of this kind of special programs.

What "crime" meant in that document are actual federal crimes

I googled it and realize that I misunderstood this word. The equivalent in french "crime" doesn't have the same meaning : only murder, ****, terrorism and the kind qualify as a crime. That seemed a little bit too much for middle school. :-) I learnt something !

 

[GenNyan]

I don't know much about European education (something I might research later), but in the United States, the difference is quite clear. Everything from private universities to private elementary schools, privatized education has shown to be a better option than most government schools. I think the lack of competition is what hinders most government schools. As a student who attended locally funded charter schools, the quality difference between that and the typical neighborhood school was also clear. Our education system needs major reforms, and the best way I personally see it happening is by allowing more school choice.

Where I live in the U.S., the situation is similar to the.tok's description where the majority of kids go to public school and only the ones who need extra help go to private ones. And while you are not given *much* freedom of choice, you can choose to go to trade schools instead of regular high school, or in some rare circumstances, attend other high schools if your current one lacks a course.

And of course if we are allowed choice in schools, there would be rampant overcrowding in some schools and neglect/failure of others (trailers as classrooms would accumulate outside of overcrowded schools and quality of education would decrease) as parents try to get their kids into the richest school. It would also lead to "de facto" segregation, where races will voluntarily separate themselves over time (which led to the supreme court rulings that children had to be bussed to different schools without choice.)

 

[Capita]

And of course if we are allowed choice in schools, there would be rampant overcrowding in some schools and neglect/failure of others (trailers as classrooms would accumulate outside of overcrowded schools and quality of education would decrease) as parents try to get their kids into the richest school. It would also lead to "de facto" segregation, where races will voluntarily separate themselves over time (which led to the supreme court rulings that children had to be bussed to different schools without choice.)

What we have now isn't much better. I'm not exactly sure where you live, but the public school system has failed students in large cities. The suburbs may be different, but in large urban areas, there is a consistent lack of quality that the typical zoned school has. Charter schools and school choice has worked wonders in helping the lower class students receive a quality education. It serves the ones that are willing to strive for success the most.

 

[GenNyan]

What we have now isn't much better. I'm not exactly sure where you live, but the public school system has failed students in large cities. The suburbs may be different, but in large urban areas, there is a consistent lack of quality that the typical zoned school has. Charter schools and school choice has worked wonders in helping the lower class students receive a quality education. It serves the ones that are willing to strive for success the most.

I do agree school systems are lacking in many areas, especially large cities and such, but you kind of generalized that to all of the U.S., when its not quite the case. I'm sure we both have extremely biased/narrow viewpoints however, or at least I do, as I haven't lived everywhere and can only talk about what I know.

Anyway, the whole 18th century Prussian/Victorian school model is certainly outdated, but nobody can think of a better solution. Or at least a cheap, better solution. It reminds me of a Churchill quote, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried." Just replace "democracy is" with "current schools are" and "government" with "education."

My personal opinion is that a big wad of cash will make the problem disappear. For now.