In general, I subscribe the to the school of thought that education is always good, particularly formal education in a university setting. The more educated a populace, the healthier the long-term economy. Not only do college educated people get better jobs, they create better jobs. So what better way to encourage education than to make it as accessible as possible? A free university education is unfortunately out of the question, so what's left? Low tuition. Why mess with that?
A university is only as good as its funding and the best funding is monetary. Public universities enjoy public funds or taxes. Long ago, someone imagined that it was to their community's benefit to promote education with public funds because an educated populace bring in more tax revenue via a healthier long-term economy. It worked. The problem with that system is that it is heavily dependent on public funds which from time to time dry up. The globe is in one of those droughts. Funding for public universities take up a decent portion of strained state budgets and at least for the moment, it must take a back seat to higher budgetary priorities. So why mess that? Sometimes you have to.
Both Becker and Posner make compelling arguments for a weaning off of public funding for universities. Discussion topics include include the increased stability that comes with greater budgetary diversity, the hypocrisy of having a college student attend a school funded by tax payers who are overwhelmingly non-college educated, and the arguments for further increased federal funds (Isn't it really a federal benefit since most university students do not live out their employment in that state) as state funds decrease.
0 comments:
Post a Comment