|
I would say, in keeping with my "flooded markets" comment, that if someone takes their education and does not benefit economically from it, they have wasted a precious resource entrusted to them. Besides, even without "economic" benefit, the quality-of-life benefit gained from simply Knowing more is worth value as well, and it too should not be given away for free on the backs of the taxpayers.
I think the public sector is a fine way to address the concerns you mentioned. If you get an education, you should be able to get a good paying job, or be a samaritan and do public sector and/or public interest non-profit type work for the public good. If you can't do either, well, aren't you just dead weight anyway?
I just can't tell you how much the "benefits the whole of society" sounds like Reagan's trickle-down economics. It really does, only his applied to the business owners benefitting all of society (i.e. by letting them keep more of their money, they will invest more and create more jobs) just as learned academes benefit all of society (i.e. let them learn for free and they will think great thoughts, write great works, make great art and benefit us all). It really is the same economic theory. Think about that and how much you liked/like Reagan for that policy.
Thanks for the info about TB instituting the fees to begin with. I'm on the same page with him. First, students should pay. Now that they are paying, one should do the second task: structure their payment so that they can shoulder it better.
But, that's just me. I've made my case as best I can.
__________________
 
|