Posted on 04/22/2008 6:03:17 PM PDT by jazusamo
Those who argue that the taxpayers should be forced to subsidize people who go to colleges and universities seldom bother to think beyond the notion that education is a Good Thing.
Some education is not only a good thing but a great thing. But, like most good things, there are limits to how much of it is good -- and how good compared to other uses of the resources required.
In other words, education is not a Good Thing categorically in unlimited amounts, for people of all levels of ability, interest and willingness to work.
Nor is there any obvious way to set an arbitrary limit. These are questions that no given individual can answer for a whole society.
The most we can do is confront individuals with the costs that their choices are imposing on others who want the same resources for other purposes, and are willing to pay for those resources.
Those who cannot bring themselves to face the tough choices that reality presents often seek escape to some kind of fairy godmother -- the government or, more realistically, the taxpayers.
When the idea of conscripting taxpayers to play the role of fairy godmother for some arbitrarily selected favorites of the intelligentsia, "the poor" are often used as human shields behind which to advance toward their goal.
What will happen to the poor if there are no government subsidies for college?
If this argument is meant seriously, rather than being simply a political talking point, then there can always be some means test used to decide who qualifies as poor and then subsidize just those people -- rather than the vastly larger number of other claimants for government largesse who advance toward the national treasury, using the poor as human shields.
Another option would be to allow students to sign enforceable contracts by which lenders would pay their college or university expenses in exchange for a given percentage of their future earnings.
That way, students would be issuing stocks to raise capital, the way corporations do, instead of being limited to borrowing money to be paid back in fixed amounts -- the latter being equivalent to issuing corporate bonds.
Not only would this get the conscripted taxpayers out of the picture, it would also make it unnecessary for parents to go into hock to put their children through college.
Still, the financially poorest student in the land could get money to go to college, with a good academic record and a promising career from which to pay dividends on the lender's investment.
More fundamentally, it would confront the prospective college student with the full costs of all the resources required for a college education.
Those who are not serious -- which includes a remarkably large number of students, even at good colleges -- would have to back off and go face the realities of the adult world in the job market. But not as many jobs would be able to require college degrees if such degrees were no longer so readily available at someone else's expense.
If individuals issuing stock in themselves sounds impossible, it has already been done. Boxers from poor families get trained and promoted at their managers' expense, in exchange for a share of their future earnings.
Even some college students have already gotten money to pay for college in exchange for a share of their future earnings. However, in the current atmosphere, where college is seen as a "right," there has been resentment at having to pay back more than was lent when the recipient's degree brings in large paychecks.
What is truly repugnant to some people about college students issuing stocks as well as bonds is that this not only takes the government out of the picture, it takes the intelligentsia out of the picture as prescribers of how other people ought to behave.
Reality can be hard to adjust to. The most we can do is see that the adjustments are made by those who get the benefits, instead of making the taxpayer the one who has to do all the adjusting.
---
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
As Chef of South Park advised the kids, There is a time for drugs and that is known as college.
What is truly repugnant to some people about college students issuing stocks as well as bonds is that this not only takes the government out of the picture, it takes the intelligentsia out of the picture as prescribers of how other people ought to behave.
DR SOWELL HAS A WAY WITH WORDS, UNCHALLENGED.
If kids want to party ( drugs or not ) then why tie up space in a classroom ?
They can get an apt off campus to party for 5 years...saving their parents and the taxpayers tons of money.
Dr. Sowell - a masterful observer of the current scene
in the light of inescapable truths !
Too bad that he didn’t take this opportunity to point out that
the true purpose of sending all youngsters to “college”
of one type or another ... one VALUE or another ...
is to keep employing the professoriate -
those myriad graduate students who squat around until they get that prized PhD.
When our #1 son entered high school, we told him and his three younger siblings that they'd better work hard for scholarships, and be prepared to take out loans, because we weren't going to spend all of our retirement savings to send them to college.
We paid for our own, so we figured they could pay for theirs. It made them think long and hard about their choice of college, and we knew they'd work harder knowing that it was THEIR investment on the line.
What jumped out also at me in Mr. Sowell's column was this:
But not as many jobs would be able to require college degrees if such degrees were no longer so readily available at someone else's expense.
BINGO! He's absolutely right. Lib Dems have created a perpetual, circular monopoly. Get Laid Off? Go back and get another degree. I currently know many middle-aged people with phenomenal work experience who, not having gotten the now currently required "degree" are having a hard time finding jobs -- at jobs, these folks could learn inside of two snaps, and with their past experience, bring absolute progress to any company.
That’s a good way to go, IMO. People always appreciate things more that they have to work for and as you say it makes them think about it beforehand.
Mine are just being told that they’ll join the service, do something, and that in large measure will take care of some education. There will be no Romney scenarios in this family.
“This is a very interesting concept. I suspect it might well lead to an increase in the number of students seeking degrees in business, engineering, and the hard sciences, in that such a degree would be a safer investment for the lender (and thus easier to get for the student) than a degree in, say, oppression studies or some obscure language. “
The Core of the socialist agenda is redistribution from producers to non-productive persons and activities.
After all, if it was economically productive, it could fund itself.
So, yes, eliminating socialism in funding of college educations would make education more productive.
Sowell is great. He cuts through the clutter of data with clear and concise writing.
“...rather than the vastly larger number of other claimants for government largesse who advance toward the national treasury, using the poor as human shields.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
That’s my favorite phrase of the piece.
Bluto Blutarski said he spent EIGHT years in college.
Not counting the time presumably spent in law school (Bluto eventually became a senator after all).
Actually it was "Seven years of college down the drain." [chugs an entire fifth of JD] - Bluto
Two of the dumbest, most annoying, aggravating people I’ve ever known were 2 Ph.D’s that I hated to be seen with, talk to, visit, be forced to go to dinner with or have anything to do with.
As you can probably guess, they were “family” (sister in law and her husband). They were cheap and stingy too. And did I mention fat and ugly too?
You should have seen their cars and driven with them! Oi vey, a death wish in a death trap.
I have no idea how they got through life And they had 2 children! So much for that “for the children” crap. I don’t know if the boys had a chance or if they were doomed too to a life of corduroy, beards and jackets with leather patches on the elbows. What my English friends call “wooly pullovers”, or just “woolies”. A term of total derision and contempt.
God save us from the over “educated”..... Please!
lol
Two of the dumbest, most annoying, aggravating people I’ve ever known were 2 Ph.D’s that I hated to be seen with, talk to, visit, be forced to go to dinner with or have anything to do with.
LOL! You about covered everything when it comes to the over educated that are hard to be around, especially the ones that are smarter than everyone else.
We all need a little laughter, you’ve made my evening. :)
Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed it.
My ex wife, always said that I was good for a laugh.
But apparently not much else.
I realized the real world was hard and I wanted to party hard, after all this was my last chance. I also realized the world was harder if you didn't have a degree, so I studied hard as well.
Did much better in college than in high school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.