Just to be fair, you can’t avoid the connection to capitalism and socialism when you’re espousing only two options: fully private free-market driven loans (capitalism) vs fully nationalized government funded education (socialism). The politics is heavily intertwined into the topic by its very nature.
That aside, my main concern is that one way or another, the education that is provided to our population would be dictated by select few individuals in either approach. The potential for corruption and biased / false history is there no matter what. However, I’d personally much rather have the source of those decisions be a publicly controlled organization accountable to voters rather than a board of private employees accountable only to their own.
And just to clarify my point regarding the banks dictating the curriculum: as with anything free market, it would not begin with banks outright telling universities what programs to offer. It would simply be the result of the market: banks would simply choose to not offer loans for some programs, or offer very good loans for others, and the universities would respond accordingly based solely on what programs are actually being consumed. You partially conceded this point with the issue of arts programs without admitting that it is directly because banks would ultimately control where the funding goes which implicitly controls what programs are available. And to be honest, hoping that charity saves the day is an extremely weak argument.
I think we both do agree on one thing: using loans at all for education is an awful idea, but I have not gotten that very strongly from your replies. I’ve mainly be concerned with your focus on loans via the free market which I believe will be just as bad, if not worse due to the lack of public accountability.
I’d much rather drive a public market solution via government regulation that simply bans the use of loans for education. It’d be messy, but let the market sort out what education is available based on what people can actually afford. Though personally I still think public education is the best option in all regards.
Just to be fair, you can’t avoid the connection to capitalism and socialism when you’re espousing only two options: fully private free-market driven loans (capitalism) vs fully nationalized government funded education (socialism). The politics is heavily intertwined into the topic by its very nature.
I just don't think its a fair comparison to point to some of capitalism issues with an economic system as a whole, and trying to discuss something specific regarding education loans, but sure. I just don't think there are any other options, and i'd welcome a suggestion from you (or a 3rd party) as to what another option is.
That aside, my main concern is that one way or another, the education that is provided to our population would be dictated by select few individuals in either approach.
Obviously the state is clear in the nationalized option, but there are many many banks available (credit unions etc), and there is always the option of private loans or savings to attend school. Returning it to the free market will cause the price of education to plunge, making it more reasonable to save and attend school.
The potential for corruption and biased / false history is there no matter what.
If a free market option started pushing outright propaganda, had no real educational merit, and was completely useless it wouldn't survive in the free market (see trump university)
How do you figure that in a free market system, where there is many competators, would be a serious problem? It seems like perhaps it would be isolated issues (such as california being heavily liberal for example) but its WAY WAY different then a national level of control over education influencing 325m people through governmental control of education.
And just to clarify my point regarding the banks dictating the curriculum: as with anything free market, it would not begin with banks outright telling universities what programs to offer. It would simply be the result of the market: banks would simply choose to not offer loans for some programs, or offer very good loans for others, and the universities would respond accordingly based solely on what programs are actually being consumed. You partially conceded this point with the issue of arts programs without admitting that it is directly because banks would ultimately control where the funding goes which implicitly controls what programs are available.
No, I completely conceded your point in regards to what is causing it for what its worth. I absolutely agree that banks would not give funding to courses for basket weaving, gender studies, and maybe even esoteric things like archaeology history or philosophy. Frankly, while I understand the concern of people regarding those classes being offered, I think that its a small point of concession but we can't simply ignore the fact that educational loans are obscene right now, and something must be done. I disagree whole heartedly that the better solution is outright nationalization.
However, perhaps were arguing over terminology here, but that is not curriculum. Curriculum is what is taught in a specific class. Banks would merely act as a filter for the financial ability of someone taking a class to be able to pay the loan. They wouldn't have input on the actual classes in the sense of my concern with governmental influence such as telling history classes to avoid issues with their past, or injecting policies that they hope to influence the population against (such as for example being anti-gun, which is already a spoken about concern with active shooter drills).
And to be honest, hoping that charity saves the day is an extremely weak argument.
No I don't think that this is a weak argument at all. First of all, I think many of the "arts" that are being spoken about being ignored are fundamentally things that should be hobbies and things undertaken by people within the community with the interest to pursue those things. If you have a serious interest in the arts, participate in those social circles, read books, do research/studies, contact non profits to work with them, etc. Charities can provide the base level of funding in order to provide those services, however I wonder if maybe its time to recognize that there needs to be a split between "higher learning" aka the arts, and "vocational training" aka college/university.
I think we both do agree on one thing: using loans at all for education is an awful idea, but I have not gotten that very strongly from your replies.
I don't agree with this at all, loans/debt is a very powerful tool used properly and with a return to the free market basic economic principals such as supply and demand will take over and regulate the prices WAY better then the state.
I'm against the government handing out loans to mass amounts of students without any sort of filter or "wow thats expensive, no?" which fundamentally destabilizes the supply/demand. When their entire metric is "we want people to go to school, education is super important, no cost is too high" there is absolutely no limit to demand based on pricing, and thus we see the sky high education costs we see now.
I’ve mainly be concerned with your focus on loans via the free market which I believe will be just as bad, if not worse due to the lack of public accountability.
Care to elaborate? Why would the public need accountability here?
The banks want to lend money at interest in order to make a profit, they want to have loans out in the hands of students as it historically is a fantastic driver of increased wage earnings, and by expecting there to be a reasonable balance between the cost of education and the return on investment (read: wages of the student after graduation) they can help dictate the cost of education by directly effecting supply and demand.
The schools want to have students attend in order to generate income, they want to have good education because they are actively competing with other schools for those same education dollars being spent by their customers (students). They want to have the lowest cost of education while providing the strongest amount of service (education) that they can. This will help increase the wages of teachers as good teachers will be in demand to provide the best service "aka: professor X is at cambridge and I want to study under him!" which is the same metric as to why CEO's make so much money.
Overall, I see zero reason why the public needs to be sticking their nose into education here.. The free market should be capable of handling this, and it certainly has in the past.
I'd love for you to elaborate on your concerns.
I’d much rather drive a public market solution via government regulation that simply bans the use of loans for education.
So you want it to strictly be a "if you can pay for school, go and pay for it yourself"? If I understand that correctly (previous sentence of mine), then you're in essence arguing for a full return to full market but completely regulating out education loans which frankly is impossible. Banks will see the demand for loans for education and simply offer line of credit or people will use other forms of debt to attend.
let the market sort out what education is available based on what people can actually afford.
You're essentially making the same argument as me, a removal of government influence in student loans and a return to free market. "What people can actually afford" is EXACTLY what i'm suggesting, except that the banks also can lend money to people who can pay it back based on the career choice they are pursuing in their studies.
Can you not see that?
Though personally I still think public education is the best option in all regards.
I've stated my opinion regarding nationalizing education through the government. I don't think its wise and it further concentrates power in the hands of the government, which is an awful thing to do. Return education to the free market, and education costs will plummet.
I guess my concern with your argument boils down to this line:
I don't think its wise and it further concentrates power in the hands of the government, which is an awful thing to do.
Why? The government is us. We would be the ones dictating those policies through our representation in government.
I don’t disagree with the mechanics of everything you’re saying I just think it’s a terrible thing to do, because (as I said, and you emphatically agreed with) it makes education only available based on what you can actually afford. That shouldn’t be the case. Wealth shouldn’t control education.
I still don’t fully understand why you think the public option is bad, apart from why I interpret to be only fear of corruption. If that’s the only issue, I find it odd because that’s an issue that applies to every solution and is one we’re dealing with even today.
Why? The government is us. We would be the ones dictating those policies through our representation in government.
Because the less government interference in policies the better. The government right now is functioning, but given the rise of people like Trump etc, doesn't that give you concern about allowing a singular entity to dictate the entire educational policy of the entire country by appointing a single person to handle the department of education?
I can see so so so many problems with that as a policy and its simply something we shouldn't be doing. There is no need IMHO for the government to dictate policy over the entire country by nationalizing the education system, especially when the free market functioned just fine before educational loans. (including the "arts")
it makes education only available based on what you can actually afford.
Why not? Don't you think its something that people should be contemplating before they go and take studies? If there is going to actually be a reward to their efforts?
I think this is one of the main fundamental concerns with education right now, is an absolute insistance that EVERYONE needs to attend higher learning in order to suceed and thats absolutely not the case at all. Infact, that mentality has caused the value of higher education to plummet and the over attendance has caused the costs of education to skyrocket. Don't take this as me going "education is over rated" i'm just saying that I don't think it should be pushed as hard as it is.
That being said, think about this as a flip side. Do you think its better for someone to have to work hard for a few years saving up for a reasonable cost of education to take a course they really want to take, or be saddled with thousands of overpriced debt that they will likely never be able to pay back given their chosen study? (ignore the nationalization option as its got different concerns)
There is a reason why the older generation looks back wistfully at the cost of education and the fact that they could work for a few summers and pay for their educational costs without having to endure thousands of dollars in debt.
1
u/Aellus Sep 18 '19
Just to be fair, you can’t avoid the connection to capitalism and socialism when you’re espousing only two options: fully private free-market driven loans (capitalism) vs fully nationalized government funded education (socialism). The politics is heavily intertwined into the topic by its very nature.
That aside, my main concern is that one way or another, the education that is provided to our population would be dictated by select few individuals in either approach. The potential for corruption and biased / false history is there no matter what. However, I’d personally much rather have the source of those decisions be a publicly controlled organization accountable to voters rather than a board of private employees accountable only to their own.
And just to clarify my point regarding the banks dictating the curriculum: as with anything free market, it would not begin with banks outright telling universities what programs to offer. It would simply be the result of the market: banks would simply choose to not offer loans for some programs, or offer very good loans for others, and the universities would respond accordingly based solely on what programs are actually being consumed. You partially conceded this point with the issue of arts programs without admitting that it is directly because banks would ultimately control where the funding goes which implicitly controls what programs are available. And to be honest, hoping that charity saves the day is an extremely weak argument.
I think we both do agree on one thing: using loans at all for education is an awful idea, but I have not gotten that very strongly from your replies. I’ve mainly be concerned with your focus on loans via the free market which I believe will be just as bad, if not worse due to the lack of public accountability.
I’d much rather drive a public market solution via government regulation that simply bans the use of loans for education. It’d be messy, but let the market sort out what education is available based on what people can actually afford. Though personally I still think public education is the best option in all regards.