OK so what? It also leads to more pay for the person with the degree, so why should the guy who doesn't have the degree doesn't make as much have to foot the bill?

Should have guessed.

But the question was about free education for everyone going to a University. OK how are you going to get the teachers to teach for free, the university to provide classrooms for free and the book and material publishers to provide their stuff for free?

Maybe you'll see the point in it this time.

VoR.

Are you unwilling to accept that an educated populace is better for the country as a whole?

In terms of business finding the staff they need. In terms of people with disposable income adding more to the economy and helping to support retail businesses. In terms of people who are better educated, generally refraining from petty crime.

Can you not see that yes while it will cost you something, just like the example I made of Street Lamps and Trees, it will make the environment better for EVERYONE.

You keep coming back to the SAME thing.

Why should I pay if it is not my education!?

Because it will make the world around you better.

Please, refute that last line if you have a problem with, but don't come back again and say the same thing.

This is why you should pay, this is why everyone should pay, because it makes life better for us ALL, not JUST the person with a degree.

It does so when the people getting the education making the higher salaries because of it pay for it too. Why should the working stiff have to turn over part of his pay so the doctor can get a degree so he can make 10 times as much? The doctor can well afford to pay for his own education.

That is what you are comparing to paying for people to go to college so they can earn more money and requiring people of lower incomes to foot the bill?

OK then send me money so I don't have to drive to work, use resources, create pollution. That would improve the environment and I can stay home and "study".

A higher education is something a person decides to do for themselves to enable them to earn more than those who do not go on to higher learning. Their higher earnings allow them to pay for it and they should, they should not force someone else to.

Do you understand what you are saying here?

Why should the ordinary working stiff pay to make their environment better?

Well why shouldn't they? Or do they not gain from high employment rates, a strong economy and low crime rates?

Everyone gains, that is why everyone should pay.

Don't worry, I've seen your point 4 times now (which is the amount of times yu've stated it), and I'm telling you for the 5th time now, I believe, that it doesn't make sense in the big picture.

The guy who doesn't get the degree should help pay for it because everyone, including himself, will be better off. The higher the education of people, the lower the crimerate - he's less likely to get shot. The higher the education of peoeple the higher their productivity and growth of the entire economy - he's likely to get a better pay.

I don't know who you come to the absurd conclusion that if education were free teachers would be working for free. As Fong clearly stated, in the course of his life a person with a degree in the UK pays back around 4* the amount the government "invested" in his education. That would mean that teachers would actually be likely to get a higher pay and universities would get more funds for better classrooms and publishers obviously getting more money since more students means more people buying their books.

__________________

Just considering the situation of (5) kids and a $30K/yr income got me to thinking a little about how would such a family deal with this.

Well first the parent(s) should have the goal of all (5) children going to college and need to involve the children in that goal. That means that whatever the effort the kids need to focus on excelling in K-12. It isn't a case of "is your homework done" but "what extra credit projects are you working on" that takes the average kid and makes them excel in school. Yes, it means more "work" for the kids to excel but they are going to need to be straight A students if they hope to get a scholarship. Simply passing that high school math class isn't enough. They need to be taking the advanced trigonometry and calculus classes and getting A's in them. Basic science isn't enough, they need to be taking the chemestry classes and getting A's in it as well.

Don't tell me it can't be done. If the entire focus of the family is on the kids getting scholarships and graduating college it can be done and is by a rare minority.

Of course if you sit around thinking that "someone owes me" then you are likely to be a failure regardless.

yeah but that is fantasy world where parents behave like they are in a TV advert.

If you have the chance, download a British program called "Shameless"

It is a drama/comedy detailing life in the North of England for a great number of people. It is 'real' it has a lot of swearing, a lot of sex, a lot of drugs and a lot of alcohol in it.

Just like the real world.

This fantasy where mum is at home cooking a lovely dinner using 'Persil' automatic washing up powder as her husband comes home in a suit and their perfectly clean children rush home from school, before mom and dad head off for the local Parent/Teacher evening....this isn't real.

Thing I would like to add to this point.

Some will say, well the parents are to blame.

Yes, no one is denying that. Does this mean that their offspring should suffer?

That is what this is really about.

Should the children of poor people have less choices then those of wealthy children, in terms of education?

Now unless you are willing to outright ban private schools, which isn't really on the table, then you will never be able to match the choices, without paying for private schooling for every child, which is unrealistic.

You can however narrow the gap between those choices.

The only way to do that is to provide state funded education of a high standard.

In the UK we used to do that.

The fact is that in the United States a four year degree can be obtained for $10,000 or less in tuition with the additional costs already being paid for by the taxpayers makes higher eductation affordable to anyone that is dedicated to obtaining a degree.

The argument that the poor cannot afford a degree is moot.

OK then how about we give everyone a "free" (we'll deal with that later) college education because as you say it is good for the environment and the country. But then we limit their earnings to just $50,000 a year, that's all they can charge for their labor. Think how good that would be for the environment and the country and the economy, we wouldn't have to pay as much for their service.

OK and the guy who gets it shouldn't earn more than the guy who paid for it because everyone would be better off.

OK then let's just give everyone $100,000 a year and get rid of crime.

So it's not "free" it does cost, you just want someone else to pay for your education. So why no say that instead of "free"?


Well instead of having the government pay for it he can pay for it himself.