05-31-2005, 08:13 PM
GS and GG, you make some good points that I agree with.
While I don't like the chance element of RL State of Georgia's approach, the idea of giving qualified students a chance makes a lot of sense. In Sober Thought, direct government support for students is tied to academic achievement as being the most objective and likely predictor of academic potential. I should add in RL, I wouldn't qualify since I never finished high school; I got into unversity and later community college as an irregular student.
And yes, GG, I agree that it is the inquisitive nature that needs to be nurtured. However, it can be done much more cheaply, effectively and accessibly through other means. Adult education, night classes, open universities, educational television, etc., are all great ideas and should be explored as an alternative to full-time publicly supported unversities.
GG's observation that any field not worthy of study shouldn't be in a university is correct, but many fields are added for dubious reasons, e.g., dabblings in pseudo-science by J.B. Rhine at Duke University and by others at the Stanford Research Instutute. Some research chairs sponsored by companies or organizations with specific agendas. Do you want to also outlaw private higher education?
However, my main point is that I don't think students should be able to study only what they want to if they are asking for substantial government support. Government support comes from taxes. Taxes come from working people. Working people include manual labourers, at least some of whom would rather be doing things other than digging ditches, draining cesspools or picking up garbage. Is it fair that they should toil for an intangible benefit which goes mainly or exclusively to others and has no restrictions placed upon it?
So the question is: how do you make sure that academically minded students with some prospect of achievement get higher education regardless of family or personal wealth, while at the same time making sure that working people are not forced to support unproductive members of society.
In RL Germany, higher education is "free" -- but only to those who the state deems worthy. In fact, the academic stream begins after Grade 4, so if you are not marked as "academic" by age 10, you are effectively excluded from higher education in that country for life. This is wrong, too far in the other direction.
In RL United States, higher education is costly. Students of indifferent academic ability from rich families can easily buy their way into university or enter as a legacy student (like George W. Bush). Poor students may apply for scholarships, but those of exceptional academic ability are often ignored in favour of those with exceptional athletic ability. Other students afford higher education by joining the armed forces -- a great deal unless the country is at war. This is wrong, too far in the other direction.
And as GS points out, in RL Arabian Gulf states flush with cash can afford to pay for higher education for all their students. But will this policy continue when the oil money runs out? What was the policy before oil became a cash commodity?
People who value education and the pursuit of learning for its own merits should be able to buy into this fascinating intellectually hobby despite the lack of strong academic ability. It is admirable that not-so-intelligent rich people would want to spend money broadening their horizons rather than buying another luxury car or taking another expensive vacation. And it is doubly admirable that not-so-intelligent poorer people would give up buying any car and give up taking any vacation for the same goal. An educational policy should let them do so without interference.
However, those seeking direct government support for their hobby can reasonably asked to meet certain requirements. I think academic achievement is reasonable; perhaps a more limited choice of fields of study is reasonable; perhaps a promise to stay in a particular region of the country or field of work is reasonable (e.g., medical doctors to serve time in underserviced communities). If the state is willing to support its academically gifted students, it can expect something in return.
[RANT]
I love learning. You couldn't stop me from learning. But most of my learning is unworthy of government support. And truthfully, I would find difficult or impossible to meet the conditions I suggest above myself. That is why I (repeatedly) dropped out of university despite good grades and an apparently promising academic career. That is why I actually finished a practical course of study at a community college.[/RANT]
Government resources -- like other resources -- are limited. Governments should not be forced to spend these resources unwisely by a laudable but rarely affordable goal of providing higher education to all students at extremely low cost to themselves.
While I don't like the chance element of RL State of Georgia's approach, the idea of giving qualified students a chance makes a lot of sense. In Sober Thought, direct government support for students is tied to academic achievement as being the most objective and likely predictor of academic potential. I should add in RL, I wouldn't qualify since I never finished high school; I got into unversity and later community college as an irregular student.
And yes, GG, I agree that it is the inquisitive nature that needs to be nurtured. However, it can be done much more cheaply, effectively and accessibly through other means. Adult education, night classes, open universities, educational television, etc., are all great ideas and should be explored as an alternative to full-time publicly supported unversities.
GG's observation that any field not worthy of study shouldn't be in a university is correct, but many fields are added for dubious reasons, e.g., dabblings in pseudo-science by J.B. Rhine at Duke University and by others at the Stanford Research Instutute. Some research chairs sponsored by companies or organizations with specific agendas. Do you want to also outlaw private higher education?
However, my main point is that I don't think students should be able to study only what they want to if they are asking for substantial government support. Government support comes from taxes. Taxes come from working people. Working people include manual labourers, at least some of whom would rather be doing things other than digging ditches, draining cesspools or picking up garbage. Is it fair that they should toil for an intangible benefit which goes mainly or exclusively to others and has no restrictions placed upon it?
So the question is: how do you make sure that academically minded students with some prospect of achievement get higher education regardless of family or personal wealth, while at the same time making sure that working people are not forced to support unproductive members of society.
In RL Germany, higher education is "free" -- but only to those who the state deems worthy. In fact, the academic stream begins after Grade 4, so if you are not marked as "academic" by age 10, you are effectively excluded from higher education in that country for life. This is wrong, too far in the other direction.
In RL United States, higher education is costly. Students of indifferent academic ability from rich families can easily buy their way into university or enter as a legacy student (like George W. Bush). Poor students may apply for scholarships, but those of exceptional academic ability are often ignored in favour of those with exceptional athletic ability. Other students afford higher education by joining the armed forces -- a great deal unless the country is at war. This is wrong, too far in the other direction.
And as GS points out, in RL Arabian Gulf states flush with cash can afford to pay for higher education for all their students. But will this policy continue when the oil money runs out? What was the policy before oil became a cash commodity?
People who value education and the pursuit of learning for its own merits should be able to buy into this fascinating intellectually hobby despite the lack of strong academic ability. It is admirable that not-so-intelligent rich people would want to spend money broadening their horizons rather than buying another luxury car or taking another expensive vacation. And it is doubly admirable that not-so-intelligent poorer people would give up buying any car and give up taking any vacation for the same goal. An educational policy should let them do so without interference.
However, those seeking direct government support for their hobby can reasonably asked to meet certain requirements. I think academic achievement is reasonable; perhaps a more limited choice of fields of study is reasonable; perhaps a promise to stay in a particular region of the country or field of work is reasonable (e.g., medical doctors to serve time in underserviced communities). If the state is willing to support its academically gifted students, it can expect something in return.
[RANT]
I love learning. You couldn't stop me from learning. But most of my learning is unworthy of government support. And truthfully, I would find difficult or impossible to meet the conditions I suggest above myself. That is why I (repeatedly) dropped out of university despite good grades and an apparently promising academic career. That is why I actually finished a practical course of study at a community college.[/RANT]
Government resources -- like other resources -- are limited. Governments should not be forced to spend these resources unwisely by a laudable but rarely affordable goal of providing higher education to all students at extremely low cost to themselves.