What would your polictical party be? Should we abolish the political spectrum?

Originally posted by inimalist
as odd as it is, there still is the moral consideration:

Is it right for a government to take money from people in order to educate someone else.

Yes I think it is, because in the end those people as part of society benefits from the services those graduates provide. And if more people can access higher education then you don't have as much of a drain on social programs.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
So your saying the tuition is in relation to the amount of money a college has to run campus operations?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
So I think as long as people have the grades to get into college they shouldn't be prevented simply because they don't have the exceptional grades the scholarships require.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Stealing money?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And if more people can access higher education then you don't have as much of a drain on social programs.

unfortunately, the more people that graduate from post-secondary education, the less value is placed on the degree

Originally posted by Bardock42
Does anyone else hate that school books are so ridiculously expensive? I mean, what the hell is up with that?

Yes. Capitalism.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm not sure you fully get the whole governments subsidize fees thing.

The government subsidizes tuition fees, which lowers them and makes them moderately affordable, although they still remain expensive. But the reason the government subsidies are required are the costs of running the courses.

This funding makes up for the difference between what students pay and what courses actually cost.

If you remove the government funding.
And somehow let competition account for reduction in fees to the same level they are today when government subsidies are factored in.
You still end up with a shortfall on the costs of providing this education.

I'm not sure where Universities would derive the money to provide scholarships for the students they've already dramatically reduced fees to attract, while somehow attracting quality educators and making up for the loss of government funding.

Also the set-up costs of universities and other higher education institutions are enormous. So I wouldn't envisage the lowering of costs to be particularly rapid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. Capitalism.

Originally posted by inimalist
as odd as it is, there still is the moral consideration:

Is it right for a government to take money from people in order to educate someone else, or to fund research without those people's consent?

Regardless of how good it is for science, I feel this deserves at least a little consideration. Obviously I love science and do not want to see it lose funding.

Regarding research the benefits derived are generally shared by everyone... eventually.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I would look at it from the point of view that should one require medical treatment, an electrical engineer, etc then contributing to the education of these people provides doctors and engineers and lawyers etc for society...

Regarding research the benefits derived are generally shared by everyone... eventually.

Especially since the person taking and giving the money would have an immense power that could be easily abused.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nonsense.

A limited number of books are used, paying researchers, writer, artists etc is expensive. The demand for them is high. Price goes up. Other enter the market and see high prices. They charge high prices as well. No one can undercut without making huge losses.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I never lead a university so I can't tell how much they actually cost to run, nor do I know how it would change if they were run more like enterprises in a free market. But I'd be glad to be educated, what are the major expenses of a University?

Tuition at current levels generally does not cover course costs and running costs, as far as I'm aware, thus government funding makes up the shortfall. Removing that funding and expecting tuition to remain at it's current levels or even fall below it is frankly unrealistic.

(NB I am working from the perspective of my education system, not that it applies to all education systems.)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I would look at it from the point of view that should one require medical treatment, an electrical engineer, etc then contributing to the education of these people provides doctors and engineers and lawyers etc for society...

Regarding research the benefits derived are generally shared by everyone... eventually.

I largely share the sentiment

It puts me more on the socialist side of the anarcho-capitalists

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I honestly can't see where you could disagree with that statement.

Why is it the government's right to take my money and give it to someone else?

Because that way it insures a fair society where people have equal access to necessary programs and services

unfortunately, the more people that graduate from post-secondary education, the less value is placed on the degree/

And that matters more then having more doctor's or teachers? And if less value is placed on the degree, then that should effect it's market value which would in theory help to lower tuition.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Maintenance and the associated staff salaries, academic salaries, administrative salaries, materials, equipment, new construction etc. etc. etc.

Tuition at current levels generally does not cover course costs and running costs, as far as I'm aware, thus government funding makes up the shortfall. Removing that funding and expecting tuition to remain at it's current levels or even fall below it is frankly unrealistic.

(NB I am working from the perspective of my education system, not that it applies to all education systems.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
. And again, the idea that everyone has to pay for it whether they want or not appals me.

Only if you look at it short term, long term it benefits you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A limited number of books are used, paying researchers, writer, artists etc is expensive. The demand for them is high. Price goes up. Other enter the market and see high prices. They charge high prices as well. No one can undercut without making huge losses.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Only if you look at it short term, long term it benefits you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really.

Yes because eventually everyone in society benefits from research, or from education funding because then you have more Doctors, Teachers, Scientists, and many other key occupations. Also if more people can get an education and get jobs it puts less of a strain on the blue collar job market and you have less people on social assistance.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Then if the costs are what regulate tuition, how does it effect things whether or not it's the government funding it or a private company?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
The operating costs are still the same, so the tuition would be.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
ometimes thats not enough or it would take too long for them to save if they also have to pay for rent and other necessities.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Because that way it insures a fair society where people have equal access to necessary programs and services

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well you should presumably agree that a society without doctors, engineers, teachers and scientists would not be particularly beneficial to someone even if all they aspire to do is run a bakery.