05-31-2005, 12:40 AM
Groot Gouda & Nederland proposer --
On my NS Wiki page and in real life, I have tried to decide what a good educational policy should be. Not all higher education is or should be supported by governments.
(1) There is no mention here of merit.
If governments are expected to invest money in expensive post-secondary education, then they can expect a certain amount of academic ability in its place. Also, if governments are paying for this education, they should have more say in what fields of study are supported and how well.
I attended Humanities classes (but did not finish my degree) at an acadmeic university. These should not have been subsidized to the extent they were. I attended a library course (and finished it) at an applied college. It was cheaper, but it should have been subsidized because that's what made me into a productive worker.
In NS and RL, I believe education is important but that it should not be funded without consideration to its impact on a country's finances and economy.
(2) There is only slight mention here of the meaning of higher or post-secondary education.
Non-academic trade schools are as important or more important than many university courses of study. How many philosophers does a society need? I think more than one, but definitely less than the number of philosophy graduates at the universities I know. How many automobile mechanics does a society need? Many more, but physical labour is denigraded and not supported by government in the same way.
(3) I really like the idea of a loan for the majority of the funding for higher education.
This means that students know they have to pay money back, so it will focus their choice of study and make them take education more seriously.
Is it too late to add requirements for academic ability, government ability to require certain fields of study, and to broaden the meaning or application of higher education?
On my NS Wiki page and in real life, I have tried to decide what a good educational policy should be. Not all higher education is or should be supported by governments.
(1) There is no mention here of merit.
If governments are expected to invest money in expensive post-secondary education, then they can expect a certain amount of academic ability in its place. Also, if governments are paying for this education, they should have more say in what fields of study are supported and how well.
I attended Humanities classes (but did not finish my degree) at an acadmeic university. These should not have been subsidized to the extent they were. I attended a library course (and finished it) at an applied college. It was cheaper, but it should have been subsidized because that's what made me into a productive worker.
In NS and RL, I believe education is important but that it should not be funded without consideration to its impact on a country's finances and economy.
(2) There is only slight mention here of the meaning of higher or post-secondary education.
Non-academic trade schools are as important or more important than many university courses of study. How many philosophers does a society need? I think more than one, but definitely less than the number of philosophy graduates at the universities I know. How many automobile mechanics does a society need? Many more, but physical labour is denigraded and not supported by government in the same way.
(3) I really like the idea of a loan for the majority of the funding for higher education.
This means that students know they have to pay money back, so it will focus their choice of study and make them take education more seriously.
Is it too late to add requirements for academic ability, government ability to require certain fields of study, and to broaden the meaning or application of higher education?