T Nation

Government and Higher Education


#1

Discuss Push's position. What would the costs and / or benefits of such a course of action be?

I believe that such a policy would severely degrade the American and international economy and lead to a long term decline in America's relative power. American universities are bar none the best in the world and our among the nation's greatest national assets. The American economy is heavily oriented to the service sector, which requires employees to possess a degree of human capital that is only attainable through the training provided by universities and colleges. Frantically reducing Americans access to such institutions would certainly lead to a prolonged and severe recession, and most likely an outright depression. Curtailing government sponsored research and development - the catalyst for the vast and cutting edge scientific achievements of the American people - would sharply reduce domestic prosperity and national security.


#2

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#3

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#4

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#5

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Third, it’s an entirely provable fact that massive federal intervention in terms of loans and grants causes tuition and expense inflation that dwarfs the across the board economic inflation average. It’s kinda like health care – the more money the feds take in and throw back out, the more intense the upward financial spiral.[/quote]

Do you have any studies you could point me to? The majority of university students today - many who are very capable and full of potential - would not be able to pursue higher education if it were not for the Department of Education as a patron. It’s in the national interest for the government to cultivate human capital in its citizens.


#6

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What would president Push do?
[/quote]

End all government education loans and grants.[/quote]

Discuss Push’s position. What would the costs and / or benefits of such a course of action be?

I believe that such a policy would severely degrade the American and international economy and lead to a long term decline in America’s relative power. American universities are bar none the best in the world and our among the nation’s greatest national assets. The American economy is heavily oriented to the service sector, which requires employees to possess a degree of human capital that is only attainable through the training provided by universities and colleges. Frantically reducing Americans access to such institutions would certainly lead to a prolonged and severe recession, and most likely an outright depression. Curtailing government sponsored research and development - the catalyst for the vast and cutting edge scientific achievements of the American people - would sharply reduce domestic prosperity and national security. [/quote]

First of all, “frantic reduction” need not be the case.[/quote]

Education is the engine of the American economy. Why reduce the amount of coal being put in the furnace?


#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#8

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#9

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#10

So…

Young people without the access/means would be forced into working force as they save up for their education. And thus filling a void in the labor pool that we currently have (18 year olds with no exp).

Maybe they will be more judicious in what they study when they are actually paying for it.

I say encourage more employee based tuition-reimbursement programs.


#11

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What would president Push do?
[/quote]

End all government education loans and grants.[/quote]

Discuss Push’s position. What would the costs and / or benefits of such a course of action be?

I believe that such a policy would severely degrade the American and international economy and lead to a long term decline in America’s relative power. American universities are bar none the best in the world and our among the nation’s greatest national assets. The American economy is heavily oriented to the service sector, which requires employees to possess a degree of human capital that is only attainable through the training provided by universities and colleges. Frantically reducing Americans access to such institutions would certainly lead to a prolonged and severe recession, and most likely an outright depression. Curtailing government sponsored research and development - the catalyst for the vast and cutting edge scientific achievements of the American people - would sharply reduce domestic prosperity and national security. [/quote]

Let me see if I get this. If we don’t subsidize college, less kids will go thus hurting the economy, and if we do subsidize school more kids will go, increasing overall student loan debt, which will hurt the economy?

I agree with Push, get rid of all of it. I however wouldn’t stop at education.


#12

The federal government needs to get out of this business. Encourage the private sector (Read: Employers!) to help there own Emplyees. And to enable this, the government should provide tax incentives for these Employers who do this.

Why the hell should the government pay $50,000 for a graduate degree in Women’s Studies?? Why the fuck?


#13

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So…

Young people without the access/means would be forced into working force as they save up for their education. And thus filling a void in the labor pool that we currently have (18 year olds with no exp).

Maybe they will be more judicious in what they study when they are actually paying for it.

I say encourage more employee based tuition-reimbursement programs. [/quote]

Yes, because it’s entirely viable for someone with a high school education to save 50,000 dollars before they begin their studies.

How many jobs that require only a high school education offer tuition reimbursement?


#14

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
The federal government needs to get out of this business. Encourage the private sector (Read: Employers!) to help there own Emplyees. And to enable this, the government should provide tax incentives for these Employers who do this.

Why the hell should the government pay $50,000 for a graduate degree in Women’s Studies?? Why the fuck?[/quote]

Again, it’s a catch 22. One can’t be expected to land a job that offers tuition reimbursement if one only has a high school education.

Loans are repaid by students with interest. The government is subsidizing education. Grants, which do not need to be repaid, are not astronomical sums. For undergraduate students, they are around $1000-$2000 per year.


#15

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What would president Push do?
[/quote]

End all government education loans and grants.[/quote]

Discuss Push’s position. What would the costs and / or benefits of such a course of action be?

I believe that such a policy would severely degrade the American and international economy and lead to a long term decline in America’s relative power. American universities are bar none the best in the world and our among the nation’s greatest national assets. The American economy is heavily oriented to the service sector, which requires employees to possess a degree of human capital that is only attainable through the training provided by universities and colleges. Frantically reducing Americans access to such institutions would certainly lead to a prolonged and severe recession, and most likely an outright depression. Curtailing government sponsored research and development - the catalyst for the vast and cutting edge scientific achievements of the American people - would sharply reduce domestic prosperity and national security. [/quote]

First of all, “frantic reduction” need not be the case.[/quote]

Education is the engine of the American economy. Why reduce the amount of coal being put in the furnace? [/quote]

Don’t worry, we’d just be replacing the coal shoveler.[/quote]

With state revenue instead of federal?


#16

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What would president Push do?
[/quote]

End all government education loans and grants.[/quote]

Discuss Push’s position. What would the costs and / or benefits of such a course of action be?

I believe that such a policy would severely degrade the American and international economy and lead to a long term decline in America’s relative power. American universities are bar none the best in the world and our among the nation’s greatest national assets. The American economy is heavily oriented to the service sector, which requires employees to possess a degree of human capital that is only attainable through the training provided by universities and colleges. Frantically reducing Americans access to such institutions would certainly lead to a prolonged and severe recession, and most likely an outright depression. Curtailing government sponsored research and development - the catalyst for the vast and cutting edge scientific achievements of the American people - would sharply reduce domestic prosperity and national security. [/quote]

Let me see if I get this. If we don’t subsidize college, less kids will go thus hurting the economy, and if we do subsidize school more kids will go, increasing overall student loan debt, which will hurt the economy?

I agree with Push, get rid of all of it. I however wouldn’t stop at education.
[/quote]

That’s disingenuous to say the least. The investment in human capital (which is repaid by the student) exponentially increases the productive value of the individual, which translates into GNP growth once applied on a large scale. The American economy is much more productive overall because the government makes the initial investment in the first place.


#17

Again, what the student studies is a non-issue. Underwater basket weavers will have to pay their loans back just like anyone else. Incentives for study in fields deemed critical to the national interest could be offered to encourage talented students to pursue those paths.


#18

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Again, what the student studies is a non-issue. Underwater basket weavers will have to pay their loans back just like anyone else.[quote]

But how could one be expected to repay their loans when there aren’t enough high paying underwater basket weaving jobs?

Based on what the state deems necessary comrade?


#19

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Again, what the student studies is a non-issue. Underwater basket weavers will have to pay their loans back just like anyone else.[quote]

But how could one be expected to repay their loans when there aren’t enough high paying underwater basket weaving jobs?

Based on what the state deems necessary comrade?

[/quote]

Domestic policy should strengthen the state and increase the prosperity of its citizens, yes. Incentivizing the study of disciplines critical to the national interest is perfectly legitimate. The government already does this through fellowships. Talented students in certain fields have their education paid for in exchange for public service upon graduation.

I’ve been nothing but a champion of free-market capitalism and American power on this forum, so I don’t appreciate the insinuation that I have communist sympathies. No one is being coerced to pursue or not pursue an occupation.


#20

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Again, what the student studies is a non-issue. Underwater basket weavers will have to pay their loans back just like anyone else.[quote]

But how could one be expected to repay their loans when there aren’t enough high paying underwater basket weaving jobs?

Based on what the state deems necessary comrade?

[/quote]

The state isn’t coercing citizens to work in one field or another. It simply incentivized students (often by paying for their education and offering a guaranteed job upon graduation) to study fields that are critical to the national interest in exchange for public service. The government already does this.

I have been nothing but a champion of free-market capitalism and American power in this forum, so I don’t appreciate the half-baked insinuation that I hold communist sympathies. I’m no less of an American for my views on this issue, especially given my field of study and peripheral relationship with the policy-making community.