Education, free or not?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:20 pm

What do you think, should education be free or not? Should certain kinds of education be free and others not, depending on level, whether it's compulsory or not, depending on field, etc?

If all or some education should be free, how should it be financed? If people should pay for all/some education, what about all who can't afford it?

Funds, grants and scholarships for studying - what about it? Does it work?

What advantages and disadvantages do you see with different edcuation systems and/or different combinations?

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:57 pm

Free, other wise we will start seeing the "Educational loop" in some 3rd world countrys, which we are only now starting to stop.But, if this does start in the uk(USA and elsewhere), I hope we see it before it becomes a problem

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:29 pm

No such thing as a free lunch

Hi, CE. Zippy topic. I would just point out that the term "free education" is exceedingly mis-leading. You cannot get anything for free, because, of course, someone has to pay for the services provided. Generally, "free" education is paid through tax dollars, so that the education provided is taken from the population at large. So the question becomes: should I pay for my neighbor's education? I don't think so.

And, you ask: then what about the people who cannot afford an education. Well, I cannot afford a BMW, but does that give me the right to ask that someone else buy me a BMW? No. Heck, I can't even afford college! So I have been going to school part time and working full time to pay for it. Why is this not appropriate for people in general?

I have nothing against scholarships and such, and think that they are a wonderful means for people with ability, but without money, to get an education. Loans are another option. I would be much more inclined to having the government provide low-interest loans than to have it simply give over cash sums. At least LESS tax money is required for this.

New board! Whoah.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:30 pm

One of the problems we have in the United States is that kids are graduating from secondary schools performing at a level comparable to primary schools in other countries. Part of the reason is that we have an overloaded curriculum and (in my opinion) decreased parental involvement in their children's educations.

This leads to a deflation in the value of a high school diploma and an over-emphasis on a college education. We also do not have an effective vocational/apprenticeship system over here, so a lot of folks think that unless you have a college degree, you must somehow less employable than your baccalaurate-weilding counterpart.

This is, of course, hogwash. A college degree doesn't mean that someone is smarter or a harder worker; it just means that person knows how to stand in line, can put up with loads of bureaucratic crap and has the chutzpah to stick with something for four years.

I believe that a quality primary and secondary education should be available to everyone free of charge, funded entirely by taxes. However, I do not believe that education should be compulsory after about 7th grade. How many kids did (do) we know who are in school but don't want to be (for whatever reason). The kids who do not want to be in school are often troublemakers or bored and occupy a disproportionate amount of the teachers/administrators time and energy. As a result, they hurt the kids who do want to be there.

If taught properly, someone with a 7th grade education should be functionally literate enough to survive in the world, and as far as I'm concerned, if kids don't want to be in school, they need to be working.

I like that in the United States, most students follow a general-education curriculum throughout secondary school. I have heard (some of our friends abroad can confirm or deny this) that countries like Germany, Japan and Russia have tests at certain levels which determine a "track" for a student to follow and if a child has a bad day when he or she is 11 years old, they may be stuck in either a college-prepatory or vocational track for the rest of their life. I think that to be kind of harsh, however, I think that most kids know when they're 14 or 15 whether they're going to be going to college or pursuing vocational training.

In short, I think that education is something that we (at least in the US) take for granted or feel that we are entitled to. As a result, many people (including myself) to not exert enough energy and time pursuing. However, I also believe that if a nation is able to provide universal schooling, it should, because an educated populace is the modern day equivalent of industrial-age business capital.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:31 pm

Free, but not. Canada has a reletivly good way of handling it, but it is only the start of what really should be done. Taking aspects from other services the government provides, I think we should find a way to apply that to the way education works, everywhere in the world. Using, we'll say roads and road maintenence as an example. We pay for the roads in our taxes, through gas taxes and overall taxes. something like that could make it so you don't directly have to pay, but the svice is there. I think that chouls be done with education too, as education is something we all should be entitled to, and deserve.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:35 pm

I think education should be free and open to all. I also believe educators should be required to take exams every several years , whose grading establishes their ability to teach. In turn, teachers should be paid considerably more, encouraging a better grade (both figuratively and literally) of teacher.

For all the claims of horror at socialized schooling, the greatest experiment in this--the Soviet model--succeeded brilliantly. It catapulted a 19th century nation of medieval peasants, merchants and slaves (let's give 'em their right name) into a country whose intellectual achievements were the equal of anywhere else, in Europe, Asia or the US. It was a rigorous system that provided good wages to instructors, and emphasized the value of both common skills and the cultural arts an important achievement.

Mysteria · Post by **Mysteria** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 3:19 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave

I like that in the United States, most students follow a general-education curriculum throughout secondary school. I have heard (some of our friends abroad can confirm or deny this) that countries like Germany, Japan and Russia have tests at certain levels which determine a "track" for a student to follow and if a child has a bad day when he or she is 11 years old, they may be stuck in either a college-prepatory or vocational track for the rest of their life. I think that to be kind of harsh, however, I think that most kids know when they're 14 or 15 whether they're going to be going to college or pursuing vocational training.

Well, I truly only know about my country, but here it is handled in such a way that childen are tested at age 11/12. Depending on those tests, the general performance and, as far as I know, the assessment of the teacher. They are then admitted into either classic secondary school, which should be the same as your college way, or technical secondary school, which should be the same as your vocational training.

Now, yes if somebody has got a bad day, he may be sent off to the wrong school. As you need better results for our classical than our technical secondary school, he would end up in technical secondary school. But, if he really is better than appeared in the tests, his reasults in the first year will show this and he will be able to change to the classical system.

Also, my father is a teacher, and even though he does not teach the classes in which the tests are taken, he has colleagues who do. He always tells me that they rarely ever sent somebody off to the wrong school. It may happen, but it's rare.

What is worse than being sent off to technical school, because you had a bad day, is when you are sent to classical school even though you not are good enough to succeed. (Mostly, you have to be good at languages and Mathematics, no manual skills are necessary). I've known people who doubled almost every class, just because they and/or their parents did not admit that they were in the wrong school. It's all a question of prestige, classical school is just looked upon better than the technical one. In fact, it is often the parents who try to "push" their children to do more than they can.

Somehow, I seem to be going quite off topic...

OK, on topic: over here it is handled in this way: public schools are "free" (paid by taxes). Those schools cover primary and the secondary schools I spoke off. (primary school from age 6/7 to age 11/12, secondary school from age 12/13 to 17/19)

Private schools have to be paid for, but it is to note that the public schools are better!

As for university, we don't have one in Luxembourg, it' s too small a country, so we have to go off somewhere. Now, there are inscription fees to universities. If they go over a certain amount (can't remember how much), all they go over it is paid back by the our state.

Further, there are aids that are given based on the salary of the parents. Part of it does not have to be paid back, part of it is under form of a loan, but at an advantagous rate. Also, there is an extra amount that is paid if you stay in the normal study length, that is e.g. when you pass your first two years of university in no more than three years.

I think our system does work pretty well, tell me if I'm wrong about that.

(oh: completely off-topic: @CE:sig looks great now

)

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:37 pm

Good education of all people is a requirement for any kind of real democracy, If I dont know what the is consequences of a choice, it does not matter if i have a choice or not.

btw, I would rather pay for someone else kids education then my own kids BMW.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:51 pm

I think we have to keep in mind that some of the best education is received outside of the class room, in the real world.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 11:10 pm

I actually agree with HighLordDave on this one for the most part.

I keep thinking about how I've worked for some amazingly stupid people who have Master's degrees...Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings...Some people are educated beyond their intelligence.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 11:22 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
I think we have to keep in mind that some of the best education is received outside of the class room, in the real world.

Unfortunately, the RW does not provide the kind of training that develops scientists or artists. But there is another alternative.

Home schooling. It is extremely difficult for a family to responsibly manage, and society (at least, in the US) deliberately doesn't try to make matters easy. But if a parent has the time, the energy, and the personality to manage it, this can turn out a kid who is, for a change, knowledgeable, self-disciplined, and still possessing a curiosity for further growth.

I met with one of the pioneers of the home schooling movement back in the early 80s. He'd come to Moorhead, Minnesota, to receive an award at Moorhead State College (actually, a very good school), and had been set up by his publicist at an interivew for a weekly radio arts program I did. We were taping it in advance.

After the radio interview was over, Morse and I sat and talked...and talked...and talked. I told him about the horrors of my public schooling, the daily beatings, the teachers laughing at my asthma attacks from being forced to drink orange juice (I was deathly allergic to), being sent to the principal's office for requesting library books that were beyond my grade, etc. He in turn told me about his schooling, and we talked about other things, too, good things: my love for learning about the wider world, and his wife's gift, at the age of 55, of a cello.

"I'd always wanted to learn one, and told her," he said. (I still have a copy of that interview tape, by the way.) "So now, a couple of years later, I play Beethoven quartets with friends. We're all amateurs, but I love it. I wouldn't trade it for anything."

About twenty minutes after nine--roughly an hour-an-half after the interview was supposed to end--his publicist called, frantically looking for Morse. The dinner was on. He wasn't around. Morse told him to go hang. We talked until about eleven, as I recall. We discussed what learning could and should do, why it couldn't, and how people who had the keys could reach beyond the limitations of the system.

I'm sorry if this has become a rather rambling post, but just thinking of those hours, and our conclusions, warms me.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 7:12 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
However, I do not believe that education should be compulsory after about 7th grade. How many kids did (do) we know who are in school but don't want to be (for whatever reason). The kids who do not want to be in school are often troublemakers or bored and occupy a disproportionate amount of the teachers/administrators time and energy. As a result, they hurt the kids who do want to be there.

If taught properly, someone with a 7th grade education should be functionally literate enough to survive in the world, and as far as I'm concerned, if kids don't want to be in school, they need to be working.

I agree in principle to this line of thinking, the only problem becomes that we are relying on the responsibility and intelligence of the child. Their parents would obviously want them to stay in school for as long as possible (if only - my cynical POV - because of child support) and would therefore not be an acceptable mediator of a childs abilities. The answer becomes the teacher, yet again though they can be biased for and against students, i always remember from my education (what little there was) that teachers would warm to certain students and ignore the others, if this was a purely academic attitude then it makes sense, but quite often it would be for purely personality reasons.

So the question becomes who takes responsibility?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 7:52 am

Ultimately, I believe in parental reponsibility. However, as I said before, I think that parents in general are less involved in their children's educations than they should be.

A couple of years after I graduated from (public) high school, I tagged along to open house with my folks and brother, who was attending the same high school. I went to visit some of my favourite old teachers and noticed something odd. I was in mostly honours and gifted classes and I thought that everyone's parents went to open house, because my classes were always SRO on open house night and my folks always dropped everything to meet with my teachers.

However, the year I went back and visited, I noticed that in a lot of classes, especially those labeled general or remedial, there were almost no parents present. In talking to some of my old teachers, they confirmed this observation; in general, kids who have parents that take an interest in their education do better in school.

This is regardless of socio-economic class; while most of us in my class were middle-class kids, there were some poor and rich kids mixed in. Another interesting note, I think race plays a factor in parental involvement. Aside from sports, I have noticed that black parents are less involved in their kids educations than their white or asian counterparts (I cannot make an observation about any other group since the largest ethnic groups in Tallahassee, FL were white, blacks and asians).

I think that if a kid wants to drop out of school, they should be required to receive their parent's consent and should meet with their teachers and administrators to declare their intentions. I think it also needs to be made clear that people with lesser levels of education tend to have a poorer standard of living than others with more education. However, if a kid truly doesn't want to be in school, they need to be somewhere else, so they are not distracting the kids who do want to be there.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 9:08 am

Take it easy CE - you are posting to many subjects - i dont have time to post in any of them.

quick comment.

Free education is about equallity. it means that rich and poor of same abillity can get the same level of education. Thus everybody get a fair go.

But then many people dont like the idea of equllity - strangely enough.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 9:36 am

@Mysteria: Good! Thanks!

Originally posted by Dottie
btw, I would rather pay for someone else kids education then my own kids BMW.

I certainly agree with you here, Dot

The meaning, relevance and consequences of education are to very at another level of necessity for an individual than a BMW

posted by Tom
Take it easy CE - you are posting to many subjects - i dont have time to post in any of them.

It's my personal revenge at you for never posting part III of the parts v whole questions

But then many people dont like the idea of equllity - strangely enough.

Seems strange to me to, but it's obviously so

Why do think this is?

GandalfgalTTV · Post by **GandalfgalTTV** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 9:50 am

Because equality diminishes the effects of personal achievement. If all are equal regardless, none could achieve greatness, and it is human nature to try to achieve this. We like feeling better than others.

About education, I do believe it should be paid for collectively. Two poor and not to bright parents, could give birth to the next Einstein.

And all could benefit. Paying for your own educuation, means depending on the wealth of your parents, or having to work so hard, you'll be burned up by the time you should have finished school.

Last thing I heared the average cost of sending a child to middle school ( comparable to college I think, ages 11/13-16/19 ) are $20.000,-. Ouch.

I think the dutch system is pretty similiar to the one Mysteria described, we just have a lot more options available. And I think it works well.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 9:53 am

I think that some people view life as a zero-sum game. That is, for someone to be made "equal" and given rights the rest of us take for granted, someone else must "lose" some of their rights.

This is the view of those who dislike affirmative action. The positive side of affirmative action is that people who may have been passed over for an opportunity are not shut out of a good 'ole boys network. On the other hand, there are lots of horror stories about reverse discrimination involving a more qualified white, middle-class, hetero-sexual, protestant male being denied a promotion/job/enrollment/opportunity for a less qualified minority candidate.

In reality, the people who complain most about granting equal status to minorities are those who live on the stacked end of an uneven playing field.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 10:40 am

A few brief questions, I have to go:

Originally posted by Aegis
I think we have to keep in mind that some of the best education is received outside of the class room, in the real world.

I agree with Aegis here, but of course some specific training is needed to prepare for specific types of work. I think this taps the question about what kind of knowledge should be provided from school education and other sources respectively.

VooD and HLD has commented on an overestimation of academic degrees, and I certainly agree that academic degrees has nothing to do with how smart a person is or how hard they are prepared to work - there are other factors that makes a difference here, I believe. Studies show that socioeconomic and cultural factors are still the major influence on school achievment. Personally, I view higher education as a measure of how well a person is prepared to do a certain task/job - no more, no less. I doesn't even say whether the person will become successful or not at his/her chosen profession.

@HLD: Parental responsibility is lacking in many societies, at least in the Western culture. On a more detailed level, what sort of responsibilites to you think would be most beneficial? Also, how much responsibility do you think school and parents should take respectively, and in what areas?

@Fable: Home schooling is an idea and a system I'm personally very unfamiliar with. My first thought is: wouldn't the pupil miss discussion with peers and isn't there a risk of being too much influenced from a single person or mentor rather than having many different teachers?

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 11:42 am

Originally posted by C Elegans
Home schooling is an idea and a system I'm personally very unfamiliar with. My first thought is: wouldn't the pupil miss discussion with peers and isn't there a risk of being too much influenced from a single person or mentor rather than having many different teachers?

While there's no single method to home schooling, in general its proponents do not suggest removing the child from their surrounding social environment. The opposite is in fact the case. They urge that parents of home-schooled children make sure the child is integrated into their neighborhood peer group through after-hours games, etc.

There's also a tradeoff due to a couple of parents substituting for many different teachers; but is this necessarily dangerous? Influence can be diluted by museum trips, books, audio-visual aids, etc. I'd suggest that there are pitfalls to either side. An exposure to too many teachers of frequently inferior quality (as is all too often the case in our society, which pays a pittance to its teachers and never reviews their work) could result in a series of conclusions about adult society as a whole which is less than flattering.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 12:12 pm

Education can't be for free. You can't expect the government to pay for everything. But I do think it can be cheaper.

I have just started a new education and the costs are way to high. Books are very expencive, not to mention what the school expects you to pay.