Education: Right or Privilege?
- Thread starter jps
- Start date
Education should be a right!
Also, leading figures in the industry should be the ones who pay for that type of education.
For example, Microsoft should pay for most of the computer science training, Ford motor company should pay for most of the training for car mechanics/etc.....
Leading scientific institutes should pay for scientific training.
Also, leading figures in the industry should be the ones who pay for that type of education.
For example, Microsoft should pay for most of the computer science training, Ford motor company should pay for most of the training for car mechanics/etc.....
Leading scientific institutes should pay for scientific training.
Well, the university I went to (Trinity College Dublin, the only college in the University of Dublin) compares very well indeed with the "Ivy League", especially at the BA degree level. It's generally accepted that the standard is higher, at that level. In postgraduate terms, there's no significant difference in doctorate levels - but a doctorate in TCD tends to take far less time than in a US college, because the students tend to start the PhD degree with a higher standard, and we don't have taught courses as a mandatory part of the degree. In terms of academic achievements, we rank fairly high, and in terms of seniority, well, our engineering school is the oldest in the world and the college itself is junior only to a handful like cambridge and oxford. In terms of resources, of course, we don't have the same level of funding as, say, MIT - but that hasn't stopped significant work from being done, it merely limits the amount of industrial-style development that we can do. As to whether or not that kind of development should be a college's job though, is another debate.
The newer universities (University College Dublin, University College Cork, University College Galway, University of Limerick, Dublin College University) don't have the same standard in some areas like seniority, but their academic standards are the equal of TCD in my opinon - though their empahasis is more industy-based in the computer science/engineering area, which is my area. I can't make a valid comparison of arts or medical or law courses, obviously.
Well, the funding for university research is a large and complicated issue. In short, both. We have students who are self-funded (I was for two years of my PhD through outside teaching), who are on contract with the college (as I've been for the last two years - I run the labs for a few courses, they pay my tuition fees (about 1800 euro per annum) and pay me a stipend - happily I don't need much in the way of experimental gear since my PhD topic is mostly mathematics), who are funded from government funding (basic and applied research grants), who are funded from public-private funding (a company pays some of the money, the government pays the rest - that's how my first two years were funded), and a bunch who are paid through EU grants. There aren't any who are funded through private means alone that I know of, however.
Are you sure you didn't mean tuition fees for undergrads? (They're paid for from public tax funds, the reasoning being that our country's greatest natural resource is the highly educated workforce we have, and that maintaining that workforce's standard is in everyone's interest as it sustains the economy - and as you may know, our economy was seen as a model for small countries everywhere for quite some time).
Making education free does not make it uncompetitive. Saying that everyone has the right to an education is not the same as saying everyone has the right to be succesfull in getting whatever degree they want, just that they have the right to try.
Weeding people out based on how much money their family has in no way gives a univesity a "competitive edge" and does not constitute a "talent elimination system"
It lowers the quality of education. Because it will federalize it. As we all know the governmnet knows shit about how to spend money correctly and don't give shit about state of the art research because they are beauracrats that are trains to fulfill regulations, so how can they understand a field like education that is based on tomorrow and not yesterday.
It really is, the concept of equality in education is wrong. Because if you look at the real world, you don't see equality in achievement. We didn't all recieve the education nor the achievement of Einstein. When you make joining universities easy, you overwhelm the talented like Einstein with 500 idiots in his class, then you are lowering the quality of education for all. In the ripe time, we are all going to be equally idiots, just like with socialist and communism. And making every one equally idiotic seems to make the socialist and the communists happy.
research is mostly paid by taxpayers. Hence scientific institutes can not really pay for scientific training. They get their money from the government and some external funds. Basically your statement would just revert back to
- the government should pay for scientific training.
Which it already does.
And government could be subsituted by taxpayers of course.
hence your statement should be
- you should pay for scientific training. or
- you are paying for scientific training
depending on the country you live in.
So what about having both free public universities (lower levels as you seems to think) and private schools (with higher levels as you pay a lot for it). Thus everyone could go to school...
Oh yes, there's still one problem : the student level before coming in these schools... So we need 4 kinds of schools :
1) pay + good level (you're good and you've got money)
2) pay + bad level (you will have a good education anyway)
3) free + good level (you're good but as you don't have money, you will study in a special university)
4) free + bad level (you don't have money, you're not intelligent enough but you want to learn some little stuffs)
What about that? Is it better for you?
No SG_N.
No pay for the talented poor or rich through testings and felloships. Pay for everyone else to support the education of the few talented.
That means,
If you're poor, you better be talented to get in.
If you're rich, will take you regardless to pay for our program and research and there is a good chance you'll never graduate if you're really dumb.
No pay for the talented poor or rich through testings and felloships. Pay for everyone else to support the education of the few talented.
That means,
If you're poor, you better be talented to get in.
If you're rich, will take you regardless to pay for our program and research and there is a good chance you'll never graduate if you're really dumb.
OK but the problem is when you're poor and not talented enough! You would not be allowed to learn whatever you want... You don't have your chance.
Moreover : I said "not talented enough"... who would choose the minimum level needed? And how would it evolve? Would it depend on the number of students?
You clearly show that, for you, education is a privilege. For me, it's a right in rich countries and it should be a right in poor ones.
Moreover : I said "not talented enough"... who would choose the minimum level needed? And how would it evolve? Would it depend on the number of students?
You clearly show that, for you, education is a privilege. For me, it's a right in rich countries and it should be a right in poor ones.
I take it back, I don't want to use the word talented anymore to describe those that are meant to excell in higher education. Because there are extremely talented blue collars who can do jobs that no education can teach.
I believe in free obligatory education up to highschool level. Noway for higher education.
Education is not a previledge or right, it's a pursuit or quest that only the determined can succeed in poor or rich..
Right!
"Free obligatory education up to highschool", OK, but when you add "Noway for higher education" I would love to know if you mean that you don't want it to be free or to be obligatory! Don't worry, I already know what you mean... You don't want it to be obligatory, you want it to be "selective". You want that the teachers only take care of the good students... no?
"Don't fall because you will not be helped!"
Your dealing with the student view : for him it's a quest or a pursuit... but the system must allow him to reach its goals (even if it doesn't help him, following "your" ideas).
Well, leave it in the hands of the acadmecs then and just pay for it.
So you feel that the division between rich and poor is the same as between smart and dumb?
If people don't have the ability or the drive to do well in college they will drop out. All I'm saying is they should have the chance regardless of their finances. Standards could be kept just as high as they are now for success.
So...you're basically saying that the government owns 100 percent of the citizens' property and that which we are allowed to keep is only because of the graciousness of bureaucrats; that we have no right to our lives. This, of course, is wrong.
Property can and does exist independently of government. However, goverment often enforces property rights, at least to a certain degree.
No, I'm saying that the "right" to property is artificial, and exists only because of the govt, therefore, what constitutes your property is whatever the govt says it is. If it says something is your property then it is.
How do you figure property exists independantly?
That differs a bit from your original statement, but I still disagree.
I am not talking about the legal view of property, since laws don't justify their own existance. I am talking about a moral view of property.
From a moral perspective, if the government decided that your car, house or computer were somehow my property, would you consider this a fair and rational decision?
Can man exist and interact with his environment without the existance of government? The answer to that question is yes, and the products of his interactions with his environment (providing they don't violate the rights of others) are his property. The absence of a formal government would make it difficult to enforce his property rights, but his property and his rights to it certainly exist.
I stand by my original statement. The second may have been a little ambiguous i guess.
What makes these things yours? why is your car your car?
If the government takes it than its not yours anymore is it?
Is it right? i guess it would depend on the situation.
and what makes them his property? they're only his property if people recognize them as such.
Because I worked for the money I used to purchase said car.
From a moral standpoint, it is certainly still your property.
From a physically standpoint, no - but then again, neither is a car that is stolen by theives, but most would agree that that is a violation of rights.
From a legal standopoint, no - but do you really want to argue that laws are legitimate simply by virtue of existing?
So a violation of rights is justified if enough people support that violation or are at least indifferent to it?