Tuition - Public Funding

[obfuscator]

The point of this whole spiel is that the government should not care about the student's probable wage, and subsidize all post-secondary programs equally or not at all.

[Assume Nothing]

... wait, why shouldn't they care? It's public money - of course they should care. It'll be extremely wasteful to subsidize everything equally.

[Will H]

"A job is a job, and will still benefit the economy the same through taxes as another job. (as long as they earn the same)."

 

You've given it a condition that we know doesn't happen. High earning graduates earn much more on average, and it's not just the tax revenue that's the economic benefit of them; it's the fact that those industries are a necessity to a thriving, prosperous society/economy.

 

We can't expect people to work more than full time to supplement the income/wealth gap between them.

 

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off.

 

High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what.

 

Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees.

 

You can't honestly believe that all degrees have equal potential and provide equally paying jobs. They simply don't. Some degrees will provide, on purely statistical averages, a higher paying job, and therefore a higher amount in taxes. We could even factor in the likelyhood that the degree encourages job creation, which will also not be equal across degrees.

 

Not all degrees no, but the ones I'm talking about are those which people assume will have the best benefit, such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering etc. Can you give me the statistics which say they earn more than those who have degrees in the arts and humanities?

 

Degrees such as law, medicine and business will make more, simply because they are more specific in their career paths. However, apart from Law and medicine, most of the big money gained from a degree can be gained from simply getting into work from school, skipping higher education.

 

I've tried to avoid naming individual degrees because I don't have any comparative data for them. All I'm saying that it's just common sense that, no matter what configuration, they aren't equal. I'll break that rule to say this: Travel and Tourism is just as specific in its career path as Law, Medicine and Business, so why is that commonly accepted to lead on to a career with a lower salary?

[Danqazmlp]

"A job is a job, and will still benefit the economy the same through taxes as another job. (as long as they earn the same)."

 

You've given it a condition that we know doesn't happen. High earning graduates earn much more on average, and it's not just the tax revenue that's the economic benefit of them; it's the fact that those industries are a necessity to a thriving, prosperous society/economy.

 

We can't expect people to work more than full time to supplement the income/wealth gap between them.

 

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off.

 

High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what.

 

Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees.

 

You can't honestly believe that all degrees have equal potential and provide equally paying jobs. They simply don't. Some degrees will provide, on purely statistical averages, a higher paying job, and therefore a higher amount in taxes. We could even factor in the likelyhood that the degree encourages job creation, which will also not be equal across degrees.

 

Not all degrees no, but the ones I'm talking about are those which people assume will have the best benefit, such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering etc. Can you give me the statistics which say they earn more than those who have degrees in the arts and humanities?

 

Degrees such as law, medicine and business will make more, simply because they are more specific in their career paths. However, apart from Law and medicine, most of the big money gained from a degree can be gained from simply getting into work from school, skipping higher education.

 

I've tried to avoid naming individual degrees because I don't have any comparative data for them. All I'm saying that it's just common sense that, no matter what configuration, they aren't equal. I'll break that rule to say this: Travel and Tourism is just as specific in its career path as Law, Medicine and Business, so why is that commonly accepted to lead on to a career with a lower salary?

 

 

I actually removed that because afterwards I realised it was bad to name them individually. All jobs need doing, just as we need lawyers (unfortunately) modern society also needs people do do the other jobs degrees can lead to. Just having government funding for some will mean less qualified people in others, as the best people won't be able to afford to do them.

[obfuscator]

... wait, why shouldn't they care? It's public money - of course they should care. It'll be extremely wasteful to subsidize everything equally.

And extremely unfair to slash funds to certain programs based on stereotypes and assumptions.

[Will H]

[hide]

"A job is a job, and will still benefit the economy the same through taxes as another job. (as long as they earn the same)."

 

You've given it a condition that we know doesn't happen. High earning graduates earn much more on average, and it's not just the tax revenue that's the economic benefit of them; it's the fact that those industries are a necessity to a thriving, prosperous society/economy.

 

We can't expect people to work more than full time to supplement the income/wealth gap between them.

 

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off.

 

High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what.

 

Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees.

 

You can't honestly believe that all degrees have equal potential and provide equally paying jobs. They simply don't. Some degrees will provide, on purely statistical averages, a higher paying job, and therefore a higher amount in taxes. We could even factor in the likelyhood that the degree encourages job creation, which will also not be equal across degrees.

 

Not all degrees no, but the ones I'm talking about are those which people assume will have the best benefit, such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering etc. Can you give me the statistics which say they earn more than those who have degrees in the arts and humanities?

 

Degrees such as law, medicine and business will make more, simply because they are more specific in their career paths. However, apart from Law and medicine, most of the big money gained from a degree can be gained from simply getting into work from school, skipping higher education.

 

I've tried to avoid naming individual degrees because I don't have any comparative data for them. All I'm saying that it's just common sense that, no matter what configuration, they aren't equal. I'll break that rule to say this: Travel and Tourism is just as specific in its career path as Law, Medicine and Business, so why is that commonly accepted to lead on to a career with a lower salary?

[/hide]

 

 

I actually removed that because afterwards I realised it was bad to name them individually. All jobs need doing, just as we need lawyers (unfortunately) modern society also needs people do do the other jobs degrees can lead to. Just having government funding for some will mean less qualified people in others, as the best people won't be able to afford to do them.

 

Yeah. I've drafted a few posts myself naming them individually, then deleting them.

 

I'm not proposing that we fund some and not others, that would be even worse than the flat rate. It would be best done by some kind of ranking system, to match the distribution of people looking for certain jobs with the number of jobs available in that field. I'd say that having more or less equal levels of competition, no matter what your career, would be a feature of a fairer society.

 

... wait, why shouldn't they care? It's public money - of course they should care. It'll be extremely wasteful to subsidize everything equally.

And extremely unfair to slash funds to certain programs based on stereotypes and assumptions.

 

I trust you mean the assumption of "All science and engineering degrees are better than arts degrees". Of course, dividing them along that particular line would be unwise. Linking the economic benefit of a degree with the amount of funding it receives is not.

[Assume Nothing]

... wait, why shouldn't they care? It's public money - of course they should care. It'll be extremely wasteful to subsidize everything equally.

And extremely unfair to slash funds to certain programs based on stereotypes and assumptions.

 

I have yet to see a recent post of yours that isn't unsubstantiated, hypocritical claims that speaks more of yourself than it does others.

 

I'm talking about the economic benefits here, a statistical and quantifiable thing. They aren't assumptions - it's based purely on average earnings of graduates.

 

Did you not learn of the straw man fallacy?

[champion]

Assume, have you been to college yet?

Also wondering this.

[Assume Nothing]

That's completely irrelevant, but not yet; age prerequisites doesn't allow for me to be a University student yet. I'm anticipating to go next year.

[Danqazmlp]

... wait, why shouldn't they care? It's public money - of course they should care. It'll be extremely wasteful to subsidize everything equally.

And extremely unfair to slash funds to certain programs based on stereotypes and assumptions.

 

I have yet to see a recent post of yours that isn't unsubstantiated, hypocritical claims that speaks more of yourself than it does others.

 

I'm talking about the economic benefits here, a statistical and quantifiable thing. They aren't assumptions - it's based purely on average earnings of graduates.

 

Did you not learn of the straw man fallacy?

 

Yet you have shown how many statistics thus far?

 

You claim others arguments are unsubstantiated yet show no proof of your own.

 

Hypocrisy 101. When calling somebody hypocritical, don't be it yourself.

[Assume Nothing]

I maintain that its a well known enough statistic. I'll note that this is one of my last responses of the day, since I'm heading to bed now. You should be able to expect to see some early tomorrow.

[The_Gabe]

I haven't posted yet on this subject, so I'll give my opinion. All of the courses in college are important in their own way. What Assume Nothing is doing is simply looking at the finances and average income earned from these jobs. However, what if students are not given enough scholarships to go to college for a course to become teachers, for example. Teachers as we all know don't earn that much, but serve an extremely valuable role in society. This is the same with music, art, and so forth to bring out material to inspire outs and bring culture to society. They contribute a lot more than just money.

 

On the other hand doctors, lawyers, and those kinds of careers are extremely important as well, but cost a ton just for the education. The money spent on education is later earned back in life with the higher income that these jobs bring.

 

To bring back to my point, you should subsidize the programs either all the same, or according to one's individual needs and achievements as it is done in USA currently.

[Giordano]

I maintain that its a well known enough statistic.

:wall:

 

You still got to post your shit before you expect others to do it.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Stev
No need for name calling

[Will H]

I haven't posted yet on this subject, so I'll give my opinion. All of the courses in college are important in their own way. What Assume Nothing is doing is simply looking at the finances and average income earned from these jobs. However, what if students are not given enough scholarships to go to college for a course to become teachers, for example. Teachers as we all know don't earn that much, but serve an extremely valuable role in society. This is the same with music, art, and so forth to bring out material to inspire outs and bring culture to society. They contribute a lot more than just money.

 

On the other hand doctors, lawyers, and those kinds of careers are extremely important as well, but cost a ton just for the education. The money spent on education is later earned back in life with the higher income that these jobs bring.

 

To bring back to my point, you should subsidize the programs either all the same, or according to one's individual needs and achievements as it is done in USA currently.

 

Having the government invest in degrees makes economic sense, and having degrees related to teaching would be something that should be subsidised in an effort to help rectify the shortage of teachers. There is an argument that all degrees should have a minimum amount of funding, I'll concede that, but they are simply not created equal, and they never will be. If there's a shortage of people in any career, or an oversupply of people in another, moving the amount invested in those degrees is a cost-effective way of helping to fix that problem.

 

Funding them equally just sounds like a way of avoiding the tough job of telling people the truth about their degrees. Keeping people in denial about something that is so important to their lives is downright cruel.

[Assume Nothing]

I haven't posted yet on this subject, so I'll give my opinion. All of the courses in college are important in their own way. What Assume Nothing is doing is simply looking at the finances and average income earned from these jobs. However, what if students are not given enough scholarships to go to college for a course to become teachers, for example. Teachers as we all know don't earn that much, but serve an extremely valuable role in society. This is the same with music, art, and so forth to bring out material to inspire outs and bring culture to society. They contribute a lot more than just money.

 

On the other hand doctors, lawyers, and those kinds of careers are extremely important as well, but cost a ton just for the education. The money spent on education is later earned back in life with the higher income that these jobs bring.

 

To bring back to my point, you should subsidize the programs either all the same, or according to one's individual needs and achievements as it is done in USA currently.

 

I think what you've written so far in this quote has only reaffirmed my position that it should be prioritized and funded based on prioritization - either through additional grants, or slashed tuition fees. You've even said that not all degrees are equal. If a particular degree serves has so many non-fiscal benefits, why should it not receive more funding than those that don't (although contributing equally in financial terms)

 

I guess the objective of my proposed system would be to make sure that the financial side would reflect the value of a degree so that it can relatively quickly address shortages. Indeed, there needs to be a base level for funding because many courses just couldn't run without it, but that doesn't mean there should be no variance between the pricing of the degrees. It's basic utilization of the law of demand.

 

I don't see any of your reasoning so far to contradict my position - if lawyer/doctor degrees aren't very necessary, or costs a lot, then that would be considered so the prices and funding would be adjusted to a satisfactory level, if not the optimal level. I think a satisfactory level could be reasonably defined as 'above the level of absolute necessity, below the level where it no longer makes financial sense'.

 

I think the point of disagreement is to what extent these courses benefit society/the economy (either is considered beneficial in economic terms, since social welfare accounts for the non-fiscal benefits).

 

Is it reasonable to say that media/arts degrees benefit society to the same level as teaching degrees, and mathematic/science degrees?

[stevepole]

I found this a bit ironic, Santa Monica College is going to begin tiering classes based off their demand. Charging students more if they want to take either english or math.

 

http://gawker.com/5893172/college-to-charge-extra-for-deluxe-classes-like-english-and-math