Free/Subsidised Education (1 Viewer)

[dieburndie]

This was briefly discussed in the NS forum in a not so serious thread, and I'm curious as to where most libertarians (and anyone else for that matter) stand on the issue of free or subsidised education.

Do you think Primary/Secondary/Tertiary education should be entirely privatised? Why?

 

[banco55]

I like the idea of vouchers. Most libertarians in america advocate a voucher system as they see that as being politically feasible. I don't really have any ideological problems with government funding of education. My concerns are more along the lines of with the current system the government doesn't seem to get value for money. Plus vouchers would have the salutary effect of severely damaging the teachers unions.

 

[lengy]

Status quo.

 

[bshoc]

Status quo minus any affirmative action or minority programs, plus extra funding for state secondary schools.

 

[Calculon]

Public and private education should both receive the same amount per student up until year 12, and university should be exclusively full fee.

 

[wuddie]

all education - primary, secondary and tertiary - should be made free. by excluding those who cannot afford education, we are not giving them a chance at all.

 

[P_Dilemma]

Damn, tough decision.

Free education means that anyone willing to get an education will get one, regardless of financial, social or whatever background. However, Government running of educational facilities is tricky because in effect this created a monopoly. And we all know what happens with a monopoly: the people running it have no incentive to be innovative, no reason to improve. It's not as though kids like us have anywhere else to go for an education...

On the otherhand, privatising education ensures that continuous competition will exist, resulting in schools try innovation and improvement, because that is the only way they can attract more customers (students). Then again, payment for education may cause a widening rift between the nation's rich and poor. For some people, it's either cheap education or no education. If there exist people with no education, the quality of life will split to two extremes; the educated rich and the uneducated poor. And this could also bring up the problem of discrimination; an educated person may be more "respected" than an uneducated hobo.

So, in conclusion: i actually believe the current balance is OK for now, Gov't schools and private schools running together. If the gov't fails to catch up, more and more students will opt to bail out and into the private sector. Then again, those who cannot aford to bail out will be left at a disadvantage, getting only a half-assed education. And they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

-P_D

 

[_dhj_]

If some notion of equality should exist in society it is a question of equality of what. I think the equality should at least be one of opportunity - that is, subsidised education to the point where it remains not reasonable for the student to pay for their own education. That would surely not conflict with the libertarian standpoint.

 

[kami]

In my mind this is how it should go:

Primary school most obviously should be supported, and I believe so should secondary school (including the HSC) but I believe the public/private system should be balanced - public and private schools should be funded equally and in order for a school to declare itself private (and still recieve government funding) they must either represent a religious or cultural sector or they must supply their senior secondary students with an international alternative to the HSC (an IB for year 12 and GSCE for year 10) so that the schools higher prices and thus funding and resources actually serve a purpose.

The vocational sector should likewise be funded to the point where fees are minimal, and changed so that students can take certain relevant Bachelors (such as nursing) through the VET sector instead of just at university.

Universities should be full fee but with government loans, as are available now. There of course should be some exceptions to these rules such as education in which those studying to be teachers can recieve unlimited amounts of full scholarships for bonded places after an interview. Something similar would be arranged for medicine students. Both would probably be pursuant to maintaining a certain GPA.

Other areas such as journalism, law, engineering, IT, accounting etc. could have pre-arranged industry partnerships which would both fund the degree and give the graduate an opportunity for a job right after. These too would be pursuant to maintaining your marks. This would get rid of a heck of alot of people who do law just for the prestige but without the interest of working in the area as well.

This basically leaves the humanities, creative arts etc. as full fee (except for the appropriate double degree students in law, education etc.) and this could be held up by the universities increased capacity to create scholarships for students. Which means you'd either have to be an exceptional student to get in and keep your scholarship or someone who has incredible amounts of money to waste on a degree they are no good at and hence have little chance of finding a job in (which should be somewhat of a detterent).

 

[_dhj_]

Other areas such as journalism, law, engineering, IT, accounting etc. could have pre-arranged industry partnerships which would both fund the degree and give the graduate an opportunity for a job right after. These too would be pursuant to maintaining your marks. This would get rid of a heck of alot of people who do law just for the prestige but without the interest of working in the area as well.

I don't think discrimination on the basis of reason for studying in an area should take place. In principle, obtaining a job in the relevant area should not be the sole valid purpose of being educated in that area.

 

[kami]

I don't think discrimination on the basis of reason for studying in an area should take place. In principle, obtaining a job in the relevant area should not be the sole valid purpose of being educated in that area.

Oh they could still do those courses, they just wouldn't be eligible for industry scholarships. Rather they'd be on a similar footing to those I outlined for humanities/performing arts students - which I think is a valid proposal, if they wish to study something for the sake of it.

 

[_dhj_]

Oh they could still do those courses, they just wouldn't be eligible for industry scholarships. Rather they'd be on a similar footing to those I outlined for humanities/performing arts students - which I think is a valid proposal, if they wish to study something for the sake of it.

Full fee should not be sought by any degree nor for any purpose of undertaking studies in that degree. This is because equal opportunity of education is an opportunity extending to the gaining of knowledge per se, and not merely the opportunity to gain entrance to particular professions. When you allow the relative attractiveness of vocational purposes to usurp knowledge building or other purposes, tertiary institutions will detract in educational value and turn into a mere stage in the production process. This runs contrary to the fact that artistic and intellectual utility (or fulfilment) within society cannot be quantitated, when ideally all young people should be given equal opportunity to fulfil such purposes given that youth is by far the best period for obtaining knowledge.

 

[_dhj_]

However the main factor abject to equal opportunity in education is not the material means of the student in question, but rather the intellectual means, just like the main factor abject to equality of opportunity in life (in general) is the inequality of genetic factors at birth (aesthetic, physical, intellectual, emotional) rather than material means of the parents. That is why equality of outcome is a relevant objective, given that equality of opportunity is impossible in reality.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

Whats wrong with the current system?

But then you would have serious skills shortages, because not many people would be able to afford medicine ($100,000 +)

Then they'd sell equity in their future careers to get their education funded. Search up the argue with waf thread, it was almost exclusively on this issue.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

However the main factor abject to equal opportunity in education is not the material means of the student in question, but rather the intellectual means, just like the main factor abject to equality of opportunity in life (in general) is the inequality of genetic factors at birth (aesthetic, physical, intellectual, emotional) rather than material means of the parents. That is why equality of outcome is a relevant objective, given that equality of opportunity is impossible in reality.

Pursuing equality of outcome disenfranchises those who deserve a better outcome because they are either intellectually superior or because they work harder to get to their final objective. I think what you're arguing, however, is that someone who is profoundly retarded has just as much business being in university as someone who has an IQ of over 150, and I believe that this is false because it helps neither the intellectually disabled nor society to have them in such an environment when they would be better off learning how to do something which they can perform up to a reasonable standard and get employed with (e.g. menial labour, data entry or ALP senator).

If you meant otherwise please say so, but I think that genetic factors to a large degree determine the places where an individual is best placed to make the biggest contribution to society, and such differences should be embraced rather than ironed out.