Fully tax supported public colleges and universities.

[laughing dog]

Is there some relevant point here? Studying art or music or mathematics makes one better off.

This is a thread about taxpayers paying fully for schooling. The question is what benefit does the taxpaying public get in exchange for paying for the schools? In the case of Medicine, Law, Engineering, Science, and many other areas of study the benefit is clear. In the case of Fine Art, not so much. You may think it makes you a better person if you can sculpt the style a school is teaching, but I don't think that benefits anybody else a whole lot. Not enough to justify the tax dollars spent anyway.

I suppose if I ignored that educated people tend to have wider views of the world and tend to make more informed choices and decisions as citizens that I'd make a response like yours.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 Mozart effect

 

[SimpleDon]

Fully taxpayer funded higher education? Only the truly useful ones. Science and engineering and medicine and law, yes. Philosophy and Fine Art, no.

And no public funding of any kind for any admission not based entirely on merit. None for athletic scholarships. None for race based.

If public tax dollars are used, it should be used fairly and based on merit alone, and it should yeild results for the general public.

So you believe that public supported colleges should be heavily regulated.

 

[Juma]

Look at sweden. Here education is free. It is absolutelt perfect. Of course there are dropouts but they are not commn and really no problem: a dropout is really no big cost: the extra cost per each student is very small.

 

[SimpleDon]

No, what we need are progressive taxes so that the people who get the most benefit out of society pay the most taxes. State taxes which pay for most public education including higher education, are regressive, falling heavily on the poor and the working class.

And people that get a college education are getting more out or society than those that do not, thus they should pay more. Even with progressive State taxes, the 20 year old high school grad who makes $40K per year in construction is paying taxes that partly pay for 20 year old his neighbor to get more out of society than himself via a college education and free room and board.

Also, plenty of college students already screw off and put no effort into it, barely graduating or dropping out. That's a lot of wasted money other people are paying for zero benefit to society. That would get much worse with completely free tuition.

So you agree with Loren that the only skin in the game that counts is money? That the students time and effort doesn't count?

The point is that many students don't put in the time and effort to begin with, so they have nothing really invested in it. For many kids, college is a way to avoid work and responsibility. The ones that invest the effort are those with internal motivation to actually get an education or at least look like they did, so they can make more money with their degree. For others, they lack this internal motivation, thus more immediate financial cost to themselves or their parents impacts whether they try to get more out of college than it being just a place to hide from adult decisions. For colleges with high entrance standards, they get more internally motivated students. For colleges that basically take anyone with a 1000 on their SAT, the student make-up and number of screw offs is not too different from average high schools.

You do understand that students that screw off in college get kicked out?

After many thousands of wasted dollars and after hindering the learning of most their classmates, the most extreme screw ups who fail most of their class for an entire year get kicked out. However, the more screw offs in a class (and free college will increase their numbers), the more they can get away with not really learning and stumble over the extremely low bar that is a bachelors degree. Course difficulty and requirements get adjusted toward the average student performance. The more screw offs, the lower the expectations and requirements to pass the course, meaning that they and everyone else learns less, meaning wasted educational resources. In addition, all students and profs know that their are many "fluff" courses that only require a pulse to pass. Padding their schedule with such course is a strategy screw offs use to avoid academic dismissal, while still not learning anything. And even a student putting in only the effort needed to get a C average and not get kicked out is still wasting finite resources and thereby harming others who would better use of that aid. Bottom line is that kicking students out after a year of a below 2.0 GPA doesn't come close to solving the problem of students that lack the motive to learn.

Here are a couple of uncommon suggestions that could address these issues:

1) Higher grades and graduation get students tuition refunds up to potentially "full refund" levels, which will incentivise effort and disincentivise students just wasting everyone's time and money spending years in school without real effort or direction.

2) Loan repayment is conditional on future income. Graduates pay back % of their loans, depending upon income during the years after graduation. This has a number of benefits. First, it allows education to serve its other important societal functions above and beyond just creating a skilled workforce. Second, graduates that get more financial benefit from their education will pay for more of that education.

Reread my discussion about progressive taxation. This is a much simpler solution, isn't it?

No, it isn't. My proposals are actually really simple and they actually address the problems while yours does not. First, yours does nothing to incentivize student effort which reduces the waste that inherently harms other people in need, because we don't live in fairytale with unlimited funds. Second, a college education is a benefit one is getting from society, so by your own "principle" (presuming you apply it non-hypocritically) means they should pay more than people making the same income without getting this extra benefit of a college education.

So you believe that,

We shouldn't decrease regressive taxation and increase progressive taxation? That the people who gain the most from society shouldn't have to pay the most except if they went to publicly supported college in which case we should put an extra tax on them because they gained more from society's investment in them?

And since some people screw off in college we shouldn't publicly support anyone in college?

And the blue collar worker doesn't gain any benefit from people going to college? Blue collar workers don't benefit from drug research, from the innovations and discoveries from other research and they don't benefit from the efforts of the engineers, doctors, lawyers, architects, teachers, managers, military officers, musicians, farmers, etc. trained in college because they don't need homes, roads, electricity, food education, communication, military protection, medical care, etc?

And even though the worker gains the least from society, we have to maintain the regressive taxes on him because increasing the progressive taxation that we already have is too complicated compared to the simplicity of adding a completely new tax and we shouldn't make him pay for others to go to college that he doesn't benefit from?

And I am hypocritical because I believe that the people who benefit the most from society should have to pay the most in taxes because I don't realize that this principle should only apply to the people who go to college because they are the only ones who benefit from college?

And I live in a fantasy world because I don't realize that we don't have unlimited funds because, presumably, in the real world that you occupy free tuition will require unlimited funds?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren,

Do you think school should be hard just for the sake of being hard? Do you think you aren't really learning unless you are really struggling?

You miss the point--the students I'm talking about aren't actually interested in learning. They're just there on their parent's dime because it's easier than going out in the real world and getting a job.

 

[arkirk]

Loren,

Do you think school should be hard just for the sake of being hard? Do you think you aren't really learning unless you are really struggling?

You miss the point--the students I'm talking about aren't actually interested in learning. They're just there on their parent's dime because it's easier than going out in the real world and getting a job.

So then you are saying their lives should be hard. Maybe you had a hard life and think everybody else should also. Athena's point is correct. You also mischaracterize some student without a name somewhere in your mind who is just plain lazy and no good and allow him no chance to defend himself. This person you describe is certainly not the vast majority of students or persons who would be students if they had a fighting chance. Your statement as usual is based on your assumption of what you think others are privately thinking. You do this with your political foes too, not just students. You create an imaginary creature with all the flaws you hate (a salient exemplar) and then use this imaginary creature to justify actions or inactions against real people. Stop telling us how other people think in the privacy of their own minds. You are not privy to that information.

 

[laughing dog]

Loren,

Do you think school should be hard just for the sake of being hard? Do you think you aren't really learning unless you are really struggling?

You miss the point--the students I'm talking about aren't actually interested in learning. They're just there on their parent's dime because it's easier than going out in the real world and getting a job.

What makes you think these type of people are even a significant minority of the student body?

 

[Toni]

Loren,

Do you think school should be hard just for the sake of being hard? Do you think you aren't really learning unless you are really struggling?

You miss the point--the students I'm talking about aren't actually interested in learning. They're just there on their parent's dime because it's easier than going out in the real world and getting a job.

You mean that at 18 years old, some students haven't figured out their life's plan? And their parents think that continuing their education might help them figure out what they would like to do? And that some parents are willing to help pay for this?

Oh the iniquity! Oh the injustice! How dare anyone not know exactly what they want by the time they graduate from high school!

 

[ksen]

You miss the point--the students I'm talking about aren't actually interested in learning. They're just there on their parent's dime because it's easier than going out in the real world and getting a job.

So then you are saying their lives should be hard. Maybe you had a hard life and think everybody else should also. Athena's point is correct. You also mischaracterize some student without a name somewhere in your mind who is just plain lazy and no good and allow him no chance to defend himself. This person you describe is certainly not the vast majority of students or persons who would be students if they had a fighting chance. Your statement as usual is based on your assumption of what you think others are privately thinking. You do this with your political foes too, not just students. You create an imaginary creature with all the flaws you hate (a salient exemplar) and then use this imaginary creature to justify actions or inactions against real people. Stop telling us how other people think in the privacy of their own minds. You are not privy to that information.

I'd put $20 on this imaginary student having a *ahem* "swarthy" complexion.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You miss the point--the students I'm talking about aren't actually interested in learning. They're just there on their parent's dime because it's easier than going out in the real world and getting a job.

You mean that at 18 years old, some students haven't figured out their life's plan? And their parents think that continuing their education might help them figure out what they would like to do? And that some parents are willing to help pay for this?

Oh the iniquity! Oh the injustice! How dare anyone not know exactly what they want by the time they graduate from high school!

I have very few students that fit this model. No reason to throw out the system just because someone needs more time in the holding tank.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Fully taxpayer funded higher education? Only the truly useful ones. Science and engineering and medicine and law, yes. Philosophy and Fine Art, no.

And no public funding of any kind for any admission not based entirely on merit. None for athletic scholarships. None for race based.

If public tax dollars are used, it should be used fairly and based on merit alone, and it should yeild results for the general public.

So you believe that public supported colleges should be heavily regulated.

Indeed. If the tax paying public is funding the school, the school better benefit the tax paying public.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why fund any kind of school at all?

Doctors who don't go to medical school tend to kill people. Artists who don't go to art school... what's the worst that can happen? They hold the brush wrong? They do something original and not within the style you wanted them to learn? They turn out some paintings you don't like?

We regulate doctors, lawyers, engineerings, and many other trades, because there is a right and wrong way to do it, and doing it wrong can cause harm to the public. Part of that regulation is requiring people to get degrees and diplomas and certifications. Not everybody can afford that, and we need these professions and trades, so the public should pay in. That doesn't apply so much to Fine Arts.

 

[Toni]

Why fund any kind of school at all?

Doctors who don't go to medical school tend to kill people. Artists who don't go to art school... what's the worst that can happen? They hold the brush wrong? They do something original and not within the style you wanted them to learn? They turn out some paintings you don't like?

We regulate doctors, lawyers, engineerings, and many other trades, because there is a right and wrong way to do it, and doing it wrong can cause harm to the public. Part of that regulation is requiring people to get degrees and diplomas and certifications. Not everybody can afford that, and we need these professions and trades, so the public should pay in. That doesn't apply so much to Fine Arts.

Do you believe that the only reason to teach courses at the university is to provide good little compliant workers?

Do you have any idea what actually happens in a fine arts program? Do you know what fine arts encompasses?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do you have any idea what actually happens in a fine arts program? Do you know what fine arts encompasses?

Does it matter? I am not saying we should ban art schools. I am saying the public shouldn't be required to pay for them. What justification do you have to say otherwise? The onus is on you if you want our money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You miss the point--the students I'm talking about aren't actually interested in learning. They're just there on their parent's dime because it's easier than going out in the real world and getting a job.

So then you are saying their lives should be hard. Maybe you had a hard life and think everybody else should also. Athena's point is correct. You also mischaracterize some student without a name somewhere in your mind who is just plain lazy and no good and allow him no chance to defend himself. This person you describe is certainly not the vast majority of students or persons who would be students if they had a fighting chance. Your statement as usual is based on your assumption of what you think others are privately thinking. You do this with your political foes too, not just students. You create an imaginary creature with all the flaws you hate (a salient exemplar) and then use this imaginary creature to justify actions or inactions against real people. Stop telling us how other people think in the privacy of their own minds. You are not privy to that information.

You're totally missing the point.

I'm talking about students that were there for the purpose of slacking off rather than there for the purpose of learning. While I favor some form of government funding for those who are there to learn I do not support government money for slacking off.

If there are no consequences from going to school for slacking off then you'll see a lot more of it. That's why I favor an approach where they have some skin in the game. Affordable, not free.

- - - Updated - - -

You miss the point--the students I'm talking about aren't actually interested in learning. They're just there on their parent's dime because it's easier than going out in the real world and getting a job.

What makes you think these type of people are even a significant minority of the student body?

1) Seeing so many of them.

2) Both of my parents taught at the college level--and they saw a *BIG* difference between the fresh-out-of-high-school parent-supported students and the older self-supported students.

- - - Updated - - -

So then you are saying their lives should be hard. Maybe you had a hard life and think everybody else should also. Athena's point is correct. You also mischaracterize some student without a name somewhere in your mind who is just plain lazy and no good and allow him no chance to defend himself. This person you describe is certainly not the vast majority of students or persons who would be students if they had a fighting chance. Your statement as usual is based on your assumption of what you think others are privately thinking. You do this with your political foes too, not just students. You create an imaginary creature with all the flaws you hate (a salient exemplar) and then use this imaginary creature to justify actions or inactions against real people. Stop telling us how other people think in the privacy of their own minds. You are not privy to that information.

I'd put $20 on this imaginary student having a *ahem* "swarthy" complexion.

Of the leeches that come to mind (it's been a *LONG* time) there's only one that wasn't clearly white. That one might have been part hispanic.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Do you have any idea what actually happens in a fine arts program? Do you know what fine arts encompasses?

Does it matter? I am not saying we should ban art schools. I am saying the public shouldn't be required to pay for them. What justification do you have to say otherwise? The onus is on you if you want our money.

Why would you pay for the others on your list and not art schools? (Hint: you may have a stereotype about what artists do.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why would you pay for the others on your list and not art schools? (Hint: you may have a stereotype about what artists do.)

Already stated above. A lack of funding to medical schools means fewer and worse doctors, which means more sick and dead people. A lack of funding to art schools means what? Some paintings you don't like? People who don't understand or appreciate various styles of painting and drone on about it in coffee shops?

We regulate doctors, and force them to go to school and get credentials before we let them practice medicine. Since we are forcing doctors-to-be to go to med school, it makes sense to fund that. It makes sense to get the best and brightest. It makes sense to streamline them and regulate them and make sure they are properly educated. Public health depends on it. So the public should pay for it. Same with engineers, scientists, architects, accountants, welders, and to a lesser extent teachers, lawyers, etc.

Artists-to-be are not forced to go to art school before being allowed to be artists. Regulation of art isn't something desirable. Anybody can paint, dance, or sing, and it really doesn't hurt anybody if they do it in a way we don't like, which is in itself subjective.

 

[Juma]

Why would you pay for the others on your list and not art schools? (Hint: you may have a stereotype about what artists do.)

Already stated above. A lack of funding to medical schools means fewer and worse doctors, which means more sick and dead people. A lack of funding to art schools means what? Some paintings you don't like? People who don't understand or appreciate various styles of painting and drone on about it in coffee shops?

We regulate doctors, and force them to go to school and get credentials before we let them practice medicine. Since we are forcing doctors-to-be to go to med school, it makes sense to fund that. It makes sense to get the best and brightest. It makes sense to streamline them and regulate them and make sure they are properly educated. Public health depends on it. So the public should pay for it. Same with engineers, scientists, architects, accountants, welders, and to a lesser extent teachers, lawyers, etc.

Artists-to-be are not forced to go to art school before being allowed to be artists. Regulation of art isn't something desirable. Anybody can paint, dance, or sing, and it really doesn't hurt anybody if they do it in a way we don't like, which is in itself subjective.

We need artist. One example of millions:

We need artist to create the educational material wee use to educate physicians.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I fully support the public funding of art and art education. It has been the artistic imagination that allows us to see the world as it could be, to see problems in new ways leading to new and better solutions, it is the way we stir the soul, the way we tell our story, the way we moralize and contextualize the world.

We need to promote and provide outlets for the arts because of what art adds to our private and public lives.

art teaches us to value, appreciate and discern beauty and higher thought; it expands to mind and the heart, it propels us into a brighter future

Art saves us from becoming a society of philistines who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.