Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every economic good that is subsidized by a government has excess consumption compared to the optimal allocation of resources absent that subsidy.
The converse also is true: taxing a good discourages its consumption (e.g., "sin taxes.")
Public education has always been subsidized. That's why it's called "public." Why "state" is in the names of these institutions. The states subsidized them originally by granting the land, providing the startup capital, and so on and so forth. Indeed, the state OWNS THEM. Do you think that was a mistake?
The reason they cost more now is because states have divested in the percentage of the budgets they pay for, causing the organizations to become public-private entities focused more and more on profit and growth.
Public education has always been subsidized. That's why it's called "public."
I suppose the same logic holds for "public intoxication."
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
Why "state" is in the names of these institutions. The states subsidized them originally by granting the land, providing the startup capital, and so on and so forth. Indeed, the state OWNS THEM. Do you think that was a mistake?
The State subsidizes many things, mostly because those wishing subsidies come together to ask for them in exchange for campaign contributions (everything from peanut farmers to semiconductor manufacturers). At the same time, The State regulates many things, mostly to protect the industry being regulated (everything from milk producers to telecommunications providers).
I suppose the same logic holds for "public intoxication."
The State subsidizes many things, mostly because those wishing subsidies come together to ask for them in exchange for campaign contributions (everything from peanut farmers to semiconductor manufacturers). At the same time, The State regulates many things, mostly to protect the industry being regulated (everything from milk producers to telecommunications providers).
It absolutely benefits states to have educated employees. This attracts better paying employers/jobs and contributes to taxes paid by both employers and citizens. As we don’t have a national system, states contribute for the best employees. It’s no coincidence that California has a highly competitive state university system and also has one of the largest economies in the world.
The real problem is people who start expensive degrees and don’t finish them at all. A lot of times those degrees come from private, for-profit institutions, not inexpensive community colleges. If you go to the former and have to drop out for whatever reason, the credits usually transfer. I know a lot of people who ended up dropping out for a year or even 5-10 years and they were able to go back without having to repeat the entire degree. On the other hand, for-profit credits are largely not transferable, so if you leave (or even finish the degree), you are not going to be able to move to a legitimate school and pick up where you left off.
A lot of these for-profit schools pop up because there is a lack of legitimate programs. I know a few people who went to nursing school about 10 or so years ago and if you didn’t want to go to a for-profit school, you could end up on a waitlist for several years (even if you were coming in with a bachelor’s degree already). I heard stories from people also hoping to enter other vocational programs. Some areas do have fairly strong apprentice systems, but not all areas have large unions that will help facilitate this. For example, when I pass the local pipefitter union building, I will often see ads for apprentices. I have also had electricians or plumbers come to my house and bring apprentices with them. I did not see this in my previous state.
It absolutely benefits states to have educated employees. This attracts better paying employers/jobs and contributes to taxes paid by both employers and citizens. As we don’t have a national system, states contribute for the best employees. It’s no coincidence that California has a highly competitive state university system and also has one of the largest economies in the world.
The real problem is people who start expensive degrees and don’t finish them at all. A lot of times those degrees come from private, for-profit institutions, not inexpensive community colleges. If you go to the former and have to drop out for whatever reason, the credits usually transfer. I know a lot of people who ended up dropping out for a year or even 5-10 years and they were able to go back without having to repeat the entire degree. On the other hand, for-profit credits are largely not transferable, so if you leave (or even finish the degree), you are not going to be able to move to a legitimate school and pick up where you left off.
A lot of these for-profit schools pop up because there is a lack of legitimate programs. I know a few people who went to nursing school about 10 or so years ago and if you didn’t want to go to a for-profit school, you could end up on a waitlist for several years (even if you were coming in with a bachelor’s degree already). I heard stories from people also hoping to enter other vocational programs. Some areas do have fairly strong apprentice systems, but not all areas have large unions that will help facilitate this. For example, when I pass the local pipefitter union building, I will often see ads for apprentices. I have also had electricians or plumbers come to my house and bring apprentices with them. I did not see this in my previous state.
I agree with everything you say.
The Census Bureau reports inflation-adjusted spending in K-12 education has tripled since 1970 to a record $751.7 billion. Yet barely a third of all fourth-graders across U.S. urban communities can read or do math at grade level. It is better in the suburbs, but still pathetic. When 12th graders collect their High School diplomas, fully 25% of them are functionally illiterate, even though The State will have spent about $250,000 to educate each and every one of them.
It is no surprise that Colleges & Universities today have packed remedial classes and far too many students lack critical thought processes.
Our higher educational system has its own problems. It was designed in a different era - an era when well over 60% of the nation's population was directly involved in the business of feeding the nation (agriculture). Back then, an "educated young man" might have learned Latin and Greek, and gone off to Harvard and studied History and Philosophy, and upon graduation, gone into public service working at the State Department or perhaps he might have gone to into banking on Wall Street.
That world no longer exists, yet our higher educational system has not adapted very much. Your anecdote regarding nurses pursuing their BS degrees in nursing is a classic example: colleges and universities continue to fund overfund a curriculum designed for the 1800s.
WHY haven't colleges and universities adapted to the modern world, expanding nursing program seats and contracting seats in the useless areas? Why have they spent their scarce funding on expanded curricula focusing on Gender Studies & Social Justice, to name a few? Why do colleges and universities offer degrees in "Leisure Studies" in the first place?
Colleges and universities in the USA continue to view their mission as preparing students to be "good citizens" with a traditional liberal arts education. I believe they need to redefine what it means to be a "good citizen."
I argue the gap is between the person who selects the education (student) and the entity that pays for it (a faceless bureaucracy spending other people's money).
If students wish to study Great Books so they can Think Great Thoughts, fine - but I don't see that we taxpayers should fund programs in Critical Race Theory at the expense of fewer graduates in nursing, to use your example.
Last edited by moguldreamer; 06-23-2022 at 09:44 AM..
The Census Bureau reports inflation-adjusted spending in K-12 education has tripled since 1970 to a record $751.7 billion. Yet barely a third of all fourth-graders across U.S. urban communities can read or do math at grade level. It is better in the suburbs, but still pathetic. When 12th graders collect their High School diplomas, fully 25% of them are functionally illiterate, even though The State will have spent about $250,000 to educate each and every one of them.
It is no surprise that Colleges & Universities today have packed remedial classes and far too many students lack critical thought processes.
Our higher educational system has its own problems. It was designed in a different era - an era when well over 60% of the nation's population was directly involved in the business of feeding the nation (agriculture). Back then, an "educated young man" might have learned Latin and Greek, and gone off to Harvard and studied History and Philosophy, and upon graduation, gone into public service working at the State Department or perhaps he might have gone to into banking on Wall Street.
That world no longer exists, yet our higher educational system has not adapted very much. Your anecdote regarding nurses pursuing their BS degrees in nursing is a classic example: colleges and universities continue to fund overfund a curriculum designed for the 1800s.
WHY haven't colleges and universities adapted to the modern world, expanding nursing program seats and contracting seats in the useless areas? Why have they spent their scarce funding on expanded curricula focusing on Gender Studies & Social Justice, to name a few? Why do colleges and universities offer degrees in "Leisure Studies" in the first place?
Colleges and universities in the USA continue to view their mission as preparing students to be "good citizens" with a traditional liberal arts education. I believe they need to redefine what it means to be a "good citizen."
I argue the gap is between the person who selects the education (student) and the entity that pays for it (a faceless bureaucracy spending other people's money).
If students wish to study Great Books so they can Think Great Thoughts, fine - but I don't see that we taxpayers should fund programs in Critical Race Theory at the expense of fewer graduates in nursing, to use your example.
Maybe you should look up the stats on how many medical field degrees are awarded today vs. 1970, and then how many history and philosophy degrees. You're also confused about how many "Studies" degrees are awarded. It's 0.4% of the total as of 2019.
They ARE adapting - medical has the fastest growth in degrees awarded in the past 30 years, followed by a variety of STEM and vocatioal degrees. Liberal arts have been in steady decline.
I would argue the opposite. If the purpose of college is to train workers, that is a waste and I want to stop wasting my tax dollars on universities that don't fulfill the university mission.
The entities better equipped to train workers are the employers themselves. Let them shoulder the cost of their own workers' training.
The Census Bureau reports inflation-adjusted spending in K-12 education has tripled since 1970 to a record $751.7 billion. Yet barely a third of all fourth-graders across U.S. urban communities can read or do math at grade level. It is better in the suburbs, but still pathetic. When 12th graders collect their High School diplomas, fully 25% of them are functionally illiterate, even though The State will have spent about $250,000 to educate each and every one of them.
It is no surprise that Colleges & Universities today have packed remedial classes and far too many students lack critical thought processes.
Our higher educational system has its own problems. It was designed in a different era - an era when well over 60% of the nation's population was directly involved in the business of feeding the nation (agriculture). Back then, an "educated young man" might have learned Latin and Greek, and gone off to Harvard and studied History and Philosophy, and upon graduation, gone into public service working at the State Department or perhaps he might have gone to into banking on Wall Street.
That world no longer exists, yet our higher educational system has not adapted very much. Your anecdote regarding nurses pursuing their BS degrees in nursing is a classic example: colleges and universities continue to fund overfund a curriculum designed for the 1800s.
WHY haven't colleges and universities adapted to the modern world, expanding nursing program seats and contracting seats in the useless areas? Why have they spent their scarce funding on expanded curricula focusing on Gender Studies & Social Justice, to name a few? Why do colleges and universities offer degrees in "Leisure Studies" in the first place?
Colleges and universities in the USA continue to view their mission as preparing students to be "good citizens" with a traditional liberal arts education. I believe they need to redefine what it means to be a "good citizen."
I argue the gap is between the person who selects the education (student) and the entity that pays for it (a faceless bureaucracy spending other people's money).
If students wish to study Great Books so they can Think Great Thoughts, fine - but I don't see that we taxpayers should fund programs in Critical Race Theory at the expense of fewer graduates in nursing, to use your example.
Regarding why they can’t just expand nursing seats, it’s a little more complicated than that. First of all you have to have fieldwork opportunities available for every single student. I know in therapy, there is a severe shortage of fieldwork placement opportunities today much more so than when I graduated in 1996. The more shorthanded hospitals are, it creates a catch 22 because they cannot take students because they don’t have enough people available to mentor them. If you expand the nursing program to another hundred students, you have to have fieldwork placements for all those students and they aren’t available.
Aside from that, you have to balance current needs and future needs. When therapy was the hot healthcare major, all the school started opening PT and OT programs, and now both markets are saturated. The governing boards of those professions have to grant permission/accreditation for new programs. The school can’t just decide to do it on their own.
Courses like gender studies and social justice are most often taken by people who are then going to go on and get a masters in public health, go to law school etc. I’d imagine a course like leisure studies would be for someone who’s planning to get a masters in hospitality management, Activities Director for nursing home etc.
Maybe you should look up the stats on how many medical field degrees are awarded today vs. 1970, and then how many history and philosophy degrees. You're also confused about how many "Studies" degrees are awarded. It's 0.4% of the total as of 2019.
The issue isn't how many degrees are granted. The issue is that EVERY professor of Gender Studies means ONE LESS professor of electrical engineering or accounting or nursing. EVERY dollar spent on Leisure Studies means one less dollar for pre-med studies.
Courses like gender studies and social justice are most often taken by people who are then going to go on and get a masters in public health, go to law school etc. I’d imagine a course like leisure studies would be for someone who’s planning to get a masters in hospitality management, Activities Director for nursing home etc.
Nothing prevents someone who earns, say, a BS in Civil Engineering from pursuing a master degree in public health or go to law school. Indeed, patent law requires an undergraduate degree in a hard science or engineering or equivalent coursework prior to attending law school.
The two best schools for hospitality management are Cornell and the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
At both Cornell and UNLV, you enroll in the school to earn a Bachelor's Degree (BS) in Hospitality Management. Both have heavy business curricula. You can pursue graduate studies as well.
The issue isn't how many degrees are granted. The issue is that EVERY professor of Gender Studies means ONE LESS professor of electrical engineering or accounting or nursing. EVERY dollar spent on Leisure Studies means one less dollar for pre-med studies.
Only if no one signs up for the classes.
That's not how college budgets work.
Any traditional subject where butts are in seats pays for itself easily - the only thing that costs is the instructor's salary and they cover it if they teach enough students. Not even that many.
Anything medical is typically a loss leader. Industry accreditation limits class sizes and there are immense equipment, lab, & supply costs, etc... A program like nursing rarely pays for itself. But it is one of those programs that you have to have if you do anything medical & its graduates get immediate jobs so it is a cost they have to bear.
To the extent gender studies exists, it's because there's a population out there that wants to consume that information. Colleges do indeed respond to their market. If no one were taking those classes they would shut those departments down, or if they're mission critical, reduce them significantly.
Last edited by redguard57; 06-24-2022 at 09:42 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
