Fong

How about paying for someone to finish a medical degree and use their skills to save your life?

You have looked at one extreme end of the spectrum, but the Doctor is the other end of that spectrum, someone whose degree is important not only to them but to everyone around them.

Someone above mentioned the economic impact of education and tried to play down that impact, I think I countered it quite well, but it didn't deal with the issue of social impact.

The US and the UK has a real problem with under educated people. People with little to no education, have very few options. While it is fine to sit there in an ivory tower pouring scorn on these people and deriding it being their own fault, it doesn't change their impact on the society around us all.

When I look at the people convicted for the petty crime that effects us all, you usually find those criminals are the ones with the worst education.

It is my contention that the better educated your populace the lower your crime rate will be.

Shiva_TD

The incomes for a doctor with a minimum of three years of practice, depending on their specialty, ranges from a low of $111,000 to over $850,000 per year. They can easily pay back any student loans that they might have taken out to obtain their degree.

Physician Salary Survey - In Practice 3 Years


K-12 is paid for by the taxpayers and those that you refer to are those that do not complete their K-12 education and are not those that "can't afford" a college education. Of course the affordability of education is not an issue in these cases. Instead it is a lack of personal motivation by the individual.

In case you forgot, state colleges and universities are already subsidized by the taxpayers to a large degree. Compare the costs of a private university and a public university and you get an idea of how much. In "constant dollars" (i.e. adjusted for inflation) the average costs are less than $4k/yr for a public college and about $17/yr for private colleges for tuition. That means that the public is paying about $13K/yr or 3/4ths of the cost for each student in a public college. I don't believe that asking the student to come up with what amounts to a token payment which can easily be earned with a job at MacDonalds is unreasonable.

National and Regional Trends in College Tuition

AzTeK

Not only that, but overall productivity is directly related to the educational level of a region - there are several studies that point this out (which I'm not going to look for because the point made is obvious).

Education is IMO the single most important investment a government can make. As stated by your little calculation, the government will not only have a return ov investment of atleast 400% on average, and that's reason enough without taking into consideration all the economic and social impacts a good educational system has.

In Austria until a couple of years back we had a completely free and decently high standard college system (of course not comparable to elite-universities like Harvard and Yale or even MIT, but considering the funds for Austrian Universities totaled up merely start to touch the budget of the MIT, how should it be different). Now they've introduced a fee of around €360 Euros per semester, which still makes it affordable to pretty much anyone.

From a personal, studental point of view, it's easy to say "hell, getting into college should be as hard and as expensive as possible, after all the less college graduates, the better my pay" - but in overall, such a system is bad for the economy.

__________________

Fong

One could easily argue that the Tax on $111k - $850k would more then cover the cost of the education. That the amount they earn will pay the same amount of tax as you, plus the cost of their education...not just enough to pay for the education, all that someone without a degree will pay, plus the cost of education.

By making it a pay back system, you have no idea how many people will be deterred. As one poster earlier said, he is 25 and has $36k of debt, because he want to University.

K-12 is a term particular to your country. It is not a universal term. It is not one I know of.

Primary Secondary College Uni
5-11 //.// 11- 16 //.// 16- 18 //.// 18-21-24

I would say that when I was talking about a lack of education, I was talking to the age of 16. People who go into what we would describe in the UK as 'further' education, 16-18, according to a report recently published, are 80% likely to go on to Uni.

So we are talking here about people who only reach Secondary education.

Now I believe that you may be talking about the same thing. Which is fine.

The problem is your blame the individual for the failure of the school system. A lack of motivation on an individual level. When was the last time you were actually in a secondary school within an Inner City?

I am a teacher in an inner city in London, one of our poorest areas, 70% non-white population, and to blame an individual because our education system failed them, is rather upsetting to me. The education system, at least in this country, and from what I seen from the media the way your system works it is no different, is absolutely terrible.

It is amazing that these systems chuck out even one or two people a year that can manage to go on to further education.

It is like, and I know this might bite close to home but it is the only suitable analogy I can think of, it is like you blaming a soldier for the failures in Iraq because of a lack of individual motivation.

Nothing to do with the lack of strategy, equipment, forthought, leadership, actual goals of being there. No all the fault of the soldier cause he lacked individual motivation.

The argument that you explained further in this quote makes very little sense.

Here let me explain it to you.

You earn $50k a year. That is your earnings. There is a car for sale for $50k, you are not entitled to any credit or any loans.

So you can buy that car right? I mean you earn that in a year, so just take all your wages and buy the car.

But wait, you have to pay tax on the $50k, so now you don't have $50k, then of course you need to get to to work, pay your rent, pay your household bills, get food and whatever else you need. By the end of it all, you only have a few thousand per year to spend on yourself. Depending on your family size, where you live, the costs of your essentials will dictate how much you have left.

So you can't buy the car for $50k.

Now why can't you afford that car? Cost of living has diminished your earnings to the point where you can't afford to buy that car.

Yet someone who works in McDonalds is going to be able to afford that cost of living and the cost of University?

No of course not, so now we talk about placing people into debt before they have even started on their working life. You guarenteed at least a debt of $12k without any of the expenses of living.

And of course, you foget the greatest part.

It is a gamble. If every single person passed the degree course, it wouldn't be a very good course. So remember you are doing all this, paying all this money, creating all this debt, and it only pays off if you pass.

If you fail, you have to start again from the beginning with nothing but a massive debt.

You don't think that all of this is going to play into someones decision making process, maybe put them off a bit?

Shiva_TD

But you would have someone making $30K/yr pay so that someone else can earn $850K/yr. That, of course makes no sense at all.

As also documented he could have obtained the same 4-year degree for less than $16k so apparently his debt is due to his personal choices and not due to the basic cost of a college education. Why should the taxpayer subsidize personal choices? A four-year degree can actually be obtained for a much lower cost. Two years at a community college costs about $2K total and then two years at a state college would add another $8K for a total of $10K. Don't tell me that someone can't earn $2500/yr to go to school. If someone wants a college degree it is affordable for literally anyone. Of course they could also try getting a scholarship which would eliminate any tuition costs.


Ah, so you aren't even from the United States and don't really have a clue as to our education system.

As a former professional instructor in the private sector I can attest to the fact that a teacher merely presents the method and opportunity for the student to learn. You cannot force someone to learn. Those that excel is school are those that apply themselves to the task as opposed to anything that the teach might do. Those that fail do so regardless of anything the teacher might do. It is a personal choice by the individual. Of far more influence are the parents as opposed to the teacher. You would blame the school system for what is fundamentally the choice of the individual.

In the US we have a program for student loans so this is a moot argument.

Stay at home and go to school. Problem solved. As I noted I didn't stay at home but instead paid room and board to a nice family which, in today's dollars, would be about $100/mo. and a part time job at MacDonalds working 20hr/week pays about $560/mo which is more than enough for room & board plus tuition with enough left over for other expenses.

So you are saying that the taxpayer should pay for someone that doesn't even have the commitment to finish? How absurd. Of course they could "pay as they go" and make good decisions and they wouldn't have any debt at all.

Fong

Well the way you put it is very misleading.

Say you put it like this.

So you would have someone today who is earning $30k/yr help pay towards education so that someone in the future can pay more then $30k/yr in tax alone.

For your country, this obviously has few advantages.

For a country like mine, this is huge. We have a State pension, state health care, state transport, we have a welfare state. The more going in is better for all.

So his personal choices like eating, sleeping and actually completing the degree?

Despite my best efforts in my last post, you have still almost completely ignored the cost of living.

You can't earn 2.5k/yr on top of your living costs and at the same time do a full time degree course. The burden and difficulty of that makes completing the degree far far harder.

The coin toss of scholarships are not a realistic answer. They are a bonus for a few.

Sorry I thought this was US & World Politics.

While I have put my arguments in terms you can understand, because I am a nice guy, you aren't the only country in the world with Universities and you are not the only country in the world that has issues deciding how to pay for them.

There have been other posts in this thread I believe from a Belgium and other British people. So I am not sure why you are trying to single me out as if I shouldn't even be in this debate.

While you may not be able to force someone to learn, that is hardly the point is it?

What we are talking about is an environment conducive to learning.

Why ignore the next line in the sentence?

"No of course not, so now we talk about placing people into debt."

The entire argument was getting us to the point where people are in debt, how can you consider the argument moot with the answer student loans, which is just another form of debt.

It isn't moot, it is exactly what I am saying, that the only way to do it is to become indebted.

My word.

So you have no children abused in your country, physically, mentally, sexually, you have no broken homes, you have no people in poverty traps?

This idealistic world you live in where people can just decide, oh I will live off my parents while I do a degree. It is unrealistic for people in poverty, which are the people most aided by a free education system.

You think the only people who fail are those who don't finish? Where did you get that idea from?

If getting a degree was just a matter of turning up, we would all have degrees.

Fong

After reading a couple of your posts, I would like to make this comment.

You seem hell bent on blaming the individual, even if the reasons are far beyond their control.

You act as if poverty is someones fault. When you are born with nothing, when you go to school in areas of high crime and low expectation, these are not your fault.

Yes you can work very hard, and possibly, work your way out of that system, but the fact remains, that you have to work 10 times harder then someone born into a middle class family living in a middle class area with good schools and high expectations.

When the suggestion is made that we could ease that burden by making education free, the means to get out of the poverty trap, you argue that it is the individuals fault.

Just what about that situation is the individuals fault? Being born to the wrong family?

It isn't his fault, but the expectation that he must work 10 times harder is what we are really talking about. You act and talk as if everyone has the same choices, the same options. This is just clearly not true.

Your argument is it is down to the individual to get themselves out of that trap.

My argument is that an accident of birth should not have such a huge bearing on the quality and choices in the rest of your life and by introducing free education you ease the burden, you don't take it away, but you make the ability of a child born into poverty to work themselves out that much easier.

LessGovMrPrez

HA! Ok, well then other people's laziness shouldnt be cast upon me, or their personal financial problems.

Um, you joined the military, which is a job to go to school. Arent you doing both as well?

There is nothing wrong with working and going to school. I went to school, worked, got married, and had a kid all while in college. Why is this such a problem for people?

I seriously worry about the future of my country, if people are really to lazy to achieve something on thier own. Life is only as hard as you make it out to be.

All this talk of government giving us everything is scary.

Once again we have a certain percentage of the population asking for another government hand out, even though they want the same government to start spending more wisely. The same government that cant even fund the same type of programs. Where does all this stop? Will it stop when everyone is equally poor?

Fong

You are ignoring the fact that it is a joint venture between the Military and the Student. Where the Military will provide time for the Student to attend classes, study and put in assignments.

When you are out in the real world, finding a firm willing to give you the leighway required to fulfill a degree course is very difficult and your pay and conditions reflect that.

I have never understood this argument.

I have a double jointed elbow and shoulder, I can bend my hand behind my back and touch my neck.

Does that mean you can do it?

So you understand that we are all different then, yet somehow you still think that anything you can do can be done by anyone else?

To some of us, Government providing the neccessaries of life, is pretty much the entire point of their existence. If they are not doing that, what exactly are they doing?

LessGovMrPrez

Well #1, our schools are already taxpayer funded. Every kid can already go to school. So what you are talking about can and already is in reality available to evey kid out there. Yes, even poor kids get to go to school and can take the same classes as the rich kids. So if anybody is failing the poor people in school, it must be the governments fault.

All this talk of being born into a poor family is poppycock and is nothing more then a coup out. Every kid in this nation can go to a public school and does whether they are rich or poor, they pay taxes for schools. They have 12 freakin years to get good enough grades to get a scholarship to go to college or learn a trade to get into the work force if they dont plan on going to college. By the time kids are 18 they can make their own choices legally and do what they please, who is to say that every kid will want to go to college anyways? They dont do it now, even with government paying the way K-12. Is the government going to force every kid to go to college too?