06-01-2005, 02:20 PM
Sober ThoughtMay 31 2005, 08:13 PM 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. [/quote]
Sure, but that is a different kind of education. We're talking academics now. All worthwhile to support, maybe, but this resolution doesn't stop that.
Quote: 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?[/quote]
No, but one could limit the financial support for universities not recognized by the government as such, due to dubious influences.
Quote: 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?[/quote]
Why not? Others can profit from other things. I don't hold the view that each tax (insert currency unit here) should be spread evenly over everybody. In this case, students profit. But they don't profit from other rules. And we're not talking about a lot of money; only a third of the costs. The people digging ditches are unlikely to profit from this, but at least their children can get financial support if they have the brains to go to university.
Quote: 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.[/quote]
I don't want to look at it like that. Because it is extremely difficult to determine what "unproductive" is. If a student finishes secondary school at university preparatory level, they are fit to go to university. End of discussion. They might do nothing there, but there's hardly any profit in it for them. They might as well get a job so they actually have enough money, instead of a lousy 1/3 financing of their life. So the system pretty much solves its own problems.
Quote: 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.[/quote]
In RL Netherlands, the split happens around 11/12. But that doesn't exclude anyone from university, as you can work your way up (and some do) from the lowest normal secondary school level to university. It just takes a few years longer. At 11 it might still be difficult to estimate the level, but from my own experience I can say that generally, a lot of people end up in the right place.
Quote: 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).[/quote]
But that's simply wrong, and also bad for universities as they will get a lot of bad students. Here in the Netherlands you simply can't buy yourself into uni. You either have to have a "VWO" (preporatory scientific education) diploma from your secondary school, or have finished "HBO" (higher professional education, ends with a bachelor-level diploma and more practical than uni) after secondary school. If you don't have a diploma, or lack certain subjects, there's an entry test. Fees are the same for each uni (though they're trying to change that), so that doesn't make any difference. Those wishing a more practical career tend to go to the HBO, the more theorecically inclined go to university.
If a higher education system runs on money instead of intelligence, that's an entirely
different matter to solve, not for this resolution.
Sure, but that is a different kind of education. We're talking academics now. All worthwhile to support, maybe, but this resolution doesn't stop that.
Quote: 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?[/quote]
No, but one could limit the financial support for universities not recognized by the government as such, due to dubious influences.
Quote: 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?[/quote]
Why not? Others can profit from other things. I don't hold the view that each tax (insert currency unit here) should be spread evenly over everybody. In this case, students profit. But they don't profit from other rules. And we're not talking about a lot of money; only a third of the costs. The people digging ditches are unlikely to profit from this, but at least their children can get financial support if they have the brains to go to university.
Quote: 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.[/quote]
I don't want to look at it like that. Because it is extremely difficult to determine what "unproductive" is. If a student finishes secondary school at university preparatory level, they are fit to go to university. End of discussion. They might do nothing there, but there's hardly any profit in it for them. They might as well get a job so they actually have enough money, instead of a lousy 1/3 financing of their life. So the system pretty much solves its own problems.
Quote: 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.[/quote]
In RL Netherlands, the split happens around 11/12. But that doesn't exclude anyone from university, as you can work your way up (and some do) from the lowest normal secondary school level to university. It just takes a few years longer. At 11 it might still be difficult to estimate the level, but from my own experience I can say that generally, a lot of people end up in the right place.
Quote: 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).[/quote]
But that's simply wrong, and also bad for universities as they will get a lot of bad students. Here in the Netherlands you simply can't buy yourself into uni. You either have to have a "VWO" (preporatory scientific education) diploma from your secondary school, or have finished "HBO" (higher professional education, ends with a bachelor-level diploma and more practical than uni) after secondary school. If you don't have a diploma, or lack certain subjects, there's an entry test. Fees are the same for each uni (though they're trying to change that), so that doesn't make any difference. Those wishing a more practical career tend to go to the HBO, the more theorecically inclined go to university.
If a higher education system runs on money instead of intelligence, that's an entirely
different matter to solve, not for this resolution.