TOTAL COST OF A FREE TERTIARY-LEVEL EDUCATION AT A PUBLIC SCHOOL

Discussion in 'Education' started by LafayetteBis, Jul 7, 2018.

  1. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you always assume that which you don't know?
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You might want to improve on your questions. Smart refers to innate ability. Analytical skills, however, are taught and are indeed found to be higher in Democrat voters (relative to the other lot)
     
  3. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am sure they interviewed every single person to discover that hoped for fact.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They achieve a rather large sample: "In five studies with more than 5,000 participants, we found that liberals think more analytically...than moderates and conservatives" (Talhelm et al., 2014)
     
  5. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am generally in favor of providing a tuition free state college education for our children.

    Two caveats:

    1). We must pay for it in full. No deficit spending.

    2). I don’t want the federal government to run it. This is something that would be much better run by the individual states.

    Seth
     
  6. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Take the expenditure out of the DoD-budget. It must be free, gratis and for nothing to attract those who need it most. And it need not expand total Federal budget-outlays.

    It will also give the states a break because they fund post-secondary education at present.

    (And it is regardless of degree level, as long as they have teachers for all principle subjects.)

    Neither do I, but the funding must be appropriate; that is, not more to one state than another.

    Just enough to pay decent salaries to all teachers and accept all students in a broad range of disciplines.

    Tertiary Education can cover a lot-of-ground in terms of subjects. Some smaller state universities cannot teach everything, so those wanting a specialized degree should be able to go anywhere else in the system to pursue their studies and the Federal government picks up the tab.

    That's the way it functions in Europe (within each country), and it works well enough. I sent my two kids to university for a total cost of $500 each annually plus room-'n-board. The French state (to whom I pay taxes) made an investment in their lives that they could never have had in the US ...

    PS: Why is it we have no limits on DoD-spending (this humongous boondoggle for the Defense Industry) but none such for Post-secondary Education? Because the DoD is a boondoggle since WW2! Moreover, we don't vote for politicians who would make Free Tertiary Education possible! That's on a progressive agenda, and we can't have that! So, the kids are stuck at the bottom where they populate our prisons!
    PPS: Sixty-percent of inmates in America do not even have a high-school degree!
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2018
  7. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, to begin with, I don't want to take $500 billion away from the defense budget. There are some reforms I would like to see in the configuration of our forces (a whole other topic I won't go into), and I am solidly against unnecessary wars. While I strongly disagree with some of the choices my government has made in recent years with respect to wars, generally speaking, the U.S. is a benevolent superpower, and the world is best off with the U.S. remaining as the preeminent military superpower.

    Secondly, the U.S. is not Belgium or France. The U.S. is a huge country. There are widely disparate cost-of-living realities when comparing one region to another. Regional economies are widely disparate in the U.S. For example, if my income remained the same, and I were to move to California, my standard of living would go down significantly. If I moved to Arkansas, it would go up significantly. Consequently, you simply cannot equalize the cost of education across the whole country. If you did, California would complain that it wasn't enough money, while Arkansas would be receiving more than enough money. Now, if you try to compensate for that by disbursing these funds on a cost-of-living index, then the taxpayer in Arkansas is effectively subsidizing the high cost of living in California, and that would not be acceptable to Arkansas. We have regions in the U.S. that are larger than most European countries, having very different economies in each region.

    Another reality in our very large country is that our federal politicians are far removed from the people they represent and, frankly, have little accountability to them. Consequently, if you create a huge pot of money for them to disburse to the states, it will lend itself to the inevitable horse trading and secret deals and earmarks for funding that go on in Washington, D.C. Inevitably, there would be widespread abuse of this money, and there would be almost nothing the average citizen could do about it. On the other hand, state politicians are much closer to the people and more accountable. If the money for a college education is coming from their state's taxpayers, there may be no shifting of responsibility for how it is spent by these local state representatives and governors. They own it, and the state's voters know it.

    If the federal government pays for this program, a huge, insulated, unaccountable federal bureaucracy will be set up to administer it. On the other hand, since states already administer education programs, the administrative infrastructure to administer this "free college for all" program is already in place, and all it would experience is some expansion to account for additional students and workload.

    And, if the federal government takes this on, it becomes an "entitlement" that goes into the non-discretionary annual spending budget of the federal government. This means that those funds must be paid, and that means that if the government doesn't take in enough money to pay for it, they spend it anyway in the form of deficit spending, adding to the national debt. On the other hand, if states fund and administer the program, there is no option for deficit spending. You either pay for the program fully, or you don't, and if you need to raise taxes to fully fund the program, you go to your state's voters and ask them for the additional taxes. By keeping this funding within the individual states, we don't need to cut other federal budgets, and we don't add to our annual federal budget shortfall and deficit spending.

    Having made my case for not letting the federal government administer this program, I wish to add that I believe there are some cost-saving ways we could fund the program at the state level, such as by simply expanding our local schools to include the first two years of college right in your own school district. When the high school student graduated, he/she would simply continue to live at home and take the first two years of college right there in the same school district. I have figured out what it costs me in taxes to fund K-12 education. It is $96 per year per grade level. This means that it would cost me a paltry $200 per year to fund the first two years of college right here in my own community for my local high school graduates. In those two years, those students could knock out a lot of their required subjects and be off to a good start towards their Bachelor's Degrees. Then we just figure out how to fund the other two years, and I think figuring that out is very feasible.

    Well, that's enough for now.

    Seth
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2018
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then you want no change in the status-quo.

    Fifty-five percent of high-schoolers WILL NOT GET A TERTIARY EDUCATION and - given the advent of the Information Age and aside from fingering a smartphone - will have no credentials whatsoever to work other than preparing BigMacs and other such senseless jobs.

    If you've got kids, it is difficult to understand how you can be sooooo blind as regards their future ...
     
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong again. I am NOT comparing the US and France, but the US and the European Union - which, btw, consists of a population more than double that of the US. Each EU- "state" is a member of a larger group with common economic goals, common laws to achieve those goals, and and the sine-qua-non appetite for consumption as strong as America.

    The singular exception is that as regards Healthcare and Education the members of the EU are far better off than we are in the US. Which is why, for instance, lifespan is four years greater in the EU than in the US and for almost half the our per-capita total Healthcare Cost. See that demonstrated here:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2018
  10. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't say that. I think our defense posture could be reconfigured to save money while still preserving our superpower status, but I didn't want to deflect to all that since that is not the topic. I also suggested that the states are better equipped to provide tuition-free college than the federal government. The truth is, the states don't need the federal government to achieve that for them. What the states need is the will to do it - the willingness to sacrifice something for their children. I showed you how I could give the graduating high school class of my local school district two years of college for a mere $200 if my local government raised my taxes by that much.

    So yes, I would change the status quo if I had the power to single-handedly do it.

    But that is not the case in the U.S. I edited my answer to you to be more clear. I edited it to say "Regional economies are widely disparate in the U.S." Because of the EU control over the economies of its member states, it may be true that they can equalize the cost of education in all those countries, just as they can equalize the cost of everything. That is simply not the case in the U.S.

    Let's not deflect to health care. But I recently read a report on obesity in the developed world, and the U.S. rate of obesity was obscene. It was #1 by an huge margin. Therein lies the reason for our lower life expectancy level. It can't be because of our health care system - not with the outrageously high rate of obesity we have in this country. That said, let's stick to the education debate and save the health care debate for another thread on another day.

    There was much more I said in that long reply to you that you didn't address. The efficiency and accountability of state governments over the federal governments, for example.

    Seth
     
  11. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I beg to differ. First, the DoD swallows whole nearly half the National Budget. (See here.) Nobody in their right mind can justify that enormous sum when, actually, the world is relatively at peace. So, no, we don't need that outrageous level of wasted expenditure. It's just a bad habit, and the nation's real urgent needs are elsewhere (Education & Healthcare) - as I never tire of saying.

    The will to change the US has to come from its collective voter constituency. Despite a high level of education (more than 43% of Americans have a post-secondary degree), we see neither the need that it should be free nor that National Healthcare should not be outrageously expensive.

    Which is crass national stoopidity on our part.

    The market-economies of the EU-states are all independent, with their own law-systems. The rules of commercial exchange are set by the EU, however, must be observed by all which is the only key constraint. In fact, the EU Parliament in Strasbourg is more for show than real law-making.

    Yes, let's. There is nothing more important as regards life-style than health.

    America's HC-system per capita is twice as expensive as Europe's and with only some exceptions is entirely private. It generates more profit for insurance companies than delivering real Healthcare Services as do the national counterparts in Europe. A GP in the US earns nearly $200K a year, whilst one in Europe makes anywhere from 40 to 45% of that amount - and those numbers apply for other HC-specialities as well.

    Europe too has a problem of obesity, but the countries are addressing that problem by FREE medical services to assure those needing/desiring to reduce weight can do so in a "controlled environment".

    That "controlled environment" is a private-service in the US, which is why it only employed by the rich.

    I addressed what I thought was key.

    And I disagree with your comment on "accountability". The purpose of the EU Commission in Brussels (which is not elected) is to take funds provided by states and redistribute them as necessary. Which is how the lesser populated (and therefore less rich) states are able to provide national-services at the same level as anywhere else in the EU.

    Ditto for education. And the EU gladly allows the US to burden itself with an expensive Defense Agency whilst they maintain minimum expenditure on the military. Toys for boys.

    There is simply no need whatsoever for the DoD to waste so much of tax-money policing the world. There is no common national enemy threatening world peace ...
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2018
  12. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As much as I may criticize our politicians, I would never want to hand over our tax money for redistribution by an unelected body.

    This is one of Trump's issues where I agree with him.

    In large part because we are here. Our military might is the "brake" that is put on to would be aggressors in the world. One cannot "prove" their point by claiming that nothing happened that could have happened. Still, we may use our common sense and a little imagination. What if the U.S. was an insignificant, third rate military power and always had been? What would the world be like today?
     
  13. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your undernourished brain is still stuck on the use of a term, I see. I suppose that's why you also feverishly believe that you have some sort of power over defense spending.

    In other words, it's not about results, it's about achieving your moral satisfaction.

    Yes, it's done so well, so far. Pray tell, do you have any evidence that government schools have been efficacious compared to not having them? I'll accept evidence in the form of statistically significant increase in the rate of increase of academic education among primary school aged chidlren post-government education implementation compared to the years prior.

    I doubt that you can provide that. As a true believer in the power of the state, and like all religious types, all that matters is your faith.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2018
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just find it amusing that you're reliant on liberal political economy.

    Is equality of opportunity such a horrid concept for you?

    We have a positive rate of return throughout primary, secondary and tertiary education. Golly gosh, its like you're clueless over the human capital model.
     
  15. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Violence against peaceful people is horrid to me. My personal morals and your personal morals do not justify violence, so it doesn't matter if the concept is horrid to me or not.
    It's up to those with children to decide what they want for their children, not moralistic, do-gooder busybodies such as yourself to shove it down their throats. Not that you would ever sully your soft hands with such work; that is for the police and other sociopaths to take care of on your behalf.

    Compared to what?
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't shy away from the question. Are you against equality of opportunity in education?
     
  17. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't live in Iceland with a population of 379,000 people, one economy, one labor market, and one Cost-of-Living.

    You live in the US with a population of 320 Million, 1,538 separately functioning economies, 5,000+ labor markets, and 3,007 different Costs-of-Living.

    Additionally, you live in a federal republic currently consisting of 50 separate sovereign States who have agreed to forfeit certain facets of sovereignty, namely the ability to wage war, engage in diplomacy, enter into treaties and create currency and coinage, in order to speak as one voice.

    Accordingly, the cost of tuition at both public and private universities in the several States is not uniform, nor could it ever be.


    So?

    Not everyone is academically or intellectually worthy of a tertiary education.

    I prefer the German system myself.

    In Germany, everyone goes to Grundschule for four years, starting at age 6.

    Then the children test.

    If your child doesn't score high enough, then your child ends up in Hauptschule or the Schulart mit mehreren Bildungsgängen or Berufsschule, where they basically learn how to retread tires or something else akin to manual labor. It's general education focused on manual labor, including services, such as retail clerk or retail sales.

    If your child sores high enough, then they end up at a Realschule. The Realschule certificate allows students to attend the Fachoberschule, or the Fachgymnasium. Those are like technical schools where you can be in the medical field as a medical claims coder, a CNA or LPN, paralegal, emergency medical technician and other skills like that. And if you were a "late-bloomer" you can get a shot a free college at the Fachgymnasium.

    If your child scores really high, then they go to the Gymnasium and get an Abitur, which is a certificate of aptitude for higher learning, and they --- and only they --- get to go for free to university.

    Students that went to a Hauptschule or Realschule can still get an Abitur, if they are really, really motivated and spend a lot of time and their own money on additional education. They'd need a tutor or would have to spend 1-2 years studying on their own to pass the test.

    All Euro-States operate pretty much the same as Germany.

    If you want, we can use the Romanian system.

    In Romania, if you want to go to high school, you have to pass the high school entrance examination.

    If you don't pass the test, you don't go to high school. Instead, you dig ditches or do whatever your little brain allows you to do.

    Let's assume you pass the test....don't get too excited, because the fact that you passed the test doesn't mean you get to go to the high school of your choice.

    Your test score determines which high school you get to attend, and if you don't score high enough on the test, then you cannot attend the high schools that send kids to college.

    You might only score high enough to allow you to attend a high school that prepares you for a trade or vocation.

    If you score a little higher, you can go to a high school that will teach you technical professions.

    Only if you score really high do you get to go to the high school that prepares you for college.

    As you can plainly see, only students with the intelligence AND aptitude for university actually get to go to university for free.

    If the US adopted such a system, I would be willing to foot the bill for the best and brightest to go to college, but I'm not going to pay for morons to go to college.

    I had to waste an entire class period teaching the Declaration of Independence as an essay, because some of the students who supposedly went to high school didn't know what an essay was or to write one.

    And those idiots were getting student loans, when the reality is they should never have been allowed to set foot on a college campus.
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem, and why equality of opportunity is not favoured by the market fundamentalists, is that suitability is rigged. You see that with mature students. These are 'allowed' into tertiary education despite having none of the usual requirements (e.g. in Britain, its regular to set a minimum requirement of ' 3 A Levels' qualifications in further education at grades of at least A, B and B). They then go on and ace tertiary education, demonstrating that the means to choose 'intellectual worthiness' is a crock of bob. I've seen it myself, as I've had the pleasure of giving some of my workers time off to achieve exactly that.
     

Share This Page