VoiceofReason

If you mean we don't need to send everyone to college and that we should stop pumping and endless stream of money into a bottomless pit I totally agree. The way to improve them is to make the consumer pay for them so they will bring competition into the picture and demands by the people actually paying to provide a quality service.

The cost of higher education is outrageous and out of control because the government is willing to take money from people and pour it into the system.

Fong

I have never understood this idea, I hear it a lot from capitalists and it just seems counter intuitive to me.

So the way to improve education is to allow someone to make a profit from it?

How does allowing someone to siphon off money for their own benefit going to help the system?

It hasn't helped in any other cases.

I will list some from my own country.

Rail - Privatised - 10 years later after two major accidents that were unheard of in our modern railway system, it was renationalised.

Water - Water was privatised 12 years ago, in those 12 years prices have risen by over 100%, more then doubled. Yet the water companies lose more water per day then they ever have before. One company that runs London's water was losing 984 million litres of water a day, almost a trillion litres, that is 33% of London's water usage per day. The company responsible made $640m profit that year.

Army Housing - Army housing was sold off to a private company 15 years ago, last year there was a scandal about the state of Army housing in our country.

Telephone Service - Privatised in 1986ish, 1471 This is to find the last missed call. Costs money. 118 This is to find a telephone number you want, for a pizza company. Costs Money. Broadband, 5 years behind Europe in terms of roll out and speed.

How has privatisation helped us the consumers? It has not, it has helped business that has been allowed to create wealth at our expense, but it certainly can't be said that it has helped the end user in anyway.

I could go on, for the list is almost endless.

This idea that allowing someone to siphon off a profit will improve the system is a fallacy propogated by Government and Business to help them make a profit at your expense.

The ONLY thing privatisation does to improve a company is allow mass redundancy through-out the company. Nationalised companies adhere to Government rules on employment, these are usually far far better then anything offered for the same level in the private sector. This means that these companies always end up over staffed. Think of it like this, the EU says that if you work on a Computer you should take a break every 15 mins. Now most private firms I worked in, don't tell you not do that, but it soon becomes clear that this is not the norm in the office. Go to a Government building and it is almost enforced. They don't want carpal tunnel syndrome, they don't want repetative strain injury.

A private company comes in, lays off 25-33% of the staff as a private company they can do this pretty easily in comparison to Government. This doesn't improve the service obviously, but it does create a lot of profit.

Take note of that last sentence, its very important.

It doesn't improve the service, but it does create a profit.

Fong

Now I am sure that someone will point out that Private schools do very well in league tables and are usually the leaders in their field.

Yes of course they are even in our country private schools are far better then state funded schools.

This isn't because money is wasted in State schools, it is because Private schools can be selective.

A private school needs only have enough students to turn a profit. A State school has to accept pretty much as many students as their capacity will allow, usually going far beyond their capacity to meet demand. A private school can do entrance exams to increase their standing, they can also discriminate with ease. A state school has to allow entrance to everyone without discrimination or prior examination.

To compare the two is like comparing apples and battleships.

If you forced a private school, pick any in the country, to fill their capacity and then another 20% of any student that asked to join, I am pretty certain that you would find their scores diminish in league tables of education excellence.

Shiva_TD

Actually wasting money is a primary reason. In a private institution the ratio of staff to students is typically 1:6 whereas it is much less in public universties from what I can find. The Univesity of Washington has a ration of 1:2. The adminstration of public universities is excessively heavy whereas in private colleges it is far less.

The fact is that a private university has to be superior in providing education because they have to compete with government funded universities which are far cheaper to the student due to subsidies by the taxpayer.

LessGovMrPrez

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in the education sector all together. Show me where in the Constitution where the states gave the Federal government the enumerated power to inject itself into the school system.

It is really to bad our education system doesnt teach the Constitution, then people would realize how far our Federal government has gone in destroying it altogether and trampled on the states that created it.

Education is not the governments business.

Fong

Does it say in the constitution that the Federal Government can't be involved in education?

I have read it a few times, just so I know what it is about, good document, but I don't remember any particular clause that says Federal Government can't be involved in Education. I could be wrong, not like I memorised it or anything, but I am sure I would have remembered that part.

Fong

The administration of education facilities, like ALL Government departments, has a problem with staffing.

I was talking to a mate on the phone earlier this morning and we were talking about a massive complaint me and 27 other people made against a member of staff at our local council offices.

Despite the volume and nature of the complaints, the member of staff in question is still at work.

If this was a private company, they would have been out on their ear ages ago,

It is a problem Governments have laying off staff, it seems it is very difficult for Government to simply sack someone.

AzTeK

Unfortunately, yes it does But then again, there are a couple of passages in your constitution that are highly dependant on how you interpret them and, under certain cicumstances (which not even your supreme court can agree on appearently) are just flawed because they'r outdated. Just because it says so in the constitution does not mean that's the best way to do it.

Still, it seems an attempt on your part to turn this into an "America only" thread. We are discussing wether free education for everyone with everyone having equal opportunities being a good thing or a bad thing. Our point stands that for the overall developement of a country it is good.

__________________

VoiceofReason

Not what I said but yes adding a profit motive generally increase the quality of the product or service provided.

They have an inherent self interest to do a better job or produce a better product.

Only just about everything in our economy.

It really has nothing to do with our discussion here, allowing vochers and having people pay for thier own higher education doesn't require privitization although more is likely and since most of the top schools here are private.............

And ours has never been as good since the government took it over.
Do they have a monopoly or are there competing water companies?

Is it a monopoly or do the soldiers get to choose which company they deal with?

We're just fine here with more options and plans and phones and services than ever before. Is their competition in your system or was the system turned over to a monopoly?
It has here.
The myth is that government bureaucrats can do a better job.

But you are shifting the argument. School choice can co-exist with a government school system.


Why is it better to have 25-33% excess overhead? Why is it good that taxpayers pay for uneeded labor?

Fong

No they do not, what they have an inherent self interest to do is create a profit.

IF increasing profit comes from doing a better job or producing a better product, they will do that.

BUT if they do not need to do either of them to increase profit, then they will not, because both of those options cost money, which detracts from profit.

You can't just claim that capitalism is interested in making things better. It isn't, it is interested in turning a profit. Now in many cases in private business that means being innovative, being creatative, doing a better job then your competitors.

However, that is not the main ideal of capitalism, the main ideal is to create profit. Not to improve anything. Nothing is inherent in capitalism that requires it to improve anything. It does naturally and I freely admit that, I am a big fan of capitalism, but lets not paint it as some friendly figure that will improve everything, it will ONLY improve things if it can profit from those improvements.

Now in the case of education.

Improvement won't breed increased profit. Since at the end of the day, there are a limited number of schools and most of them are more then fully booked every single year.

Improving those schools will not bring more students, because those schools are at capacity already. The only thing you can do is improve the school enough to charge more for them. Thus making education even more expensive.