Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

That person has a whole life outside of work where they can benefit from a richer understanding of the world.

Why should the 3/4 Americans without a college degree be forced to subsidize the private enjoyment of an individual? Should the government also subsidize my private enjoyment of video games, pornography or martial arts?

As an example, we're a (kinda) democratic society, and a lot of the sanity of our government and policy rests on the judgment of the citizenry.

If that is the case, would you favor denying the vote to people unable to make correct judgements, deal with political rhetoric or form opinions about highly technical issues? It seems that filtering the noise is far cheaper than increasing the signal, in this case.

View on HN

OK, I think maybe it's worthwhile to distinguish between the issues of (a) whether higher education has a value and function beyond job training and placement and (b) whether higher education is worthy of receiving public funds. My response above was in response to a position I perceived you to be making with respect to (a), and not so much because of my opinions with respect to (b). I think there's a coherent position that could say that higher education has value beyond job placement, but which still held that it didn't deserve public subsidies. That said, I think the $40k of public funding for a neglectful English student turned waiter is an unfair characterization. It's not like we're throwing 40k scholarships after any high school graduate that moves, and most educations are not subsidized to nearly that degree.

That seems messed up, mainly because (a) evaluating people's sophistication with respect to those abilities is tricky and doing it in a politically neutral way is even trickier and (b) I would expect that people who weren't disenfranchised by such a policy wouldn't represent the interests of the people who were disenfranchised.

However, I do think we need more high quality, wide availability of events and materials arranged by non-partisan organizations with the intent of providing the necessary background to follow the issues.

Regarding your first point: since you already stated you're sometimes in favor of publicly subsidizing things like vaccinations and criminal incarcerations, your opposition to publicly funded education must result from this distinction you draw between public good and "private enjoyment". But I think rather than just assuming a position on college degrees a priori there is a rich and valuable debate to be had about whether higher education should be considered a public good and not merely a private enjoyment.

And your second: this seems to be both a distraction (I don't see how arguing that an educated citizenry is a necessary ingredient of democracy implies that one should necessarily agree with denying participation to those deemed incapable) and somewhat misguided (seeing as we already do deny the right to vote to a certain class of people unable to make correct judgments--we call them felons).

I agree with your sentiment, there is no way that the general population of taxpayers should be subsidizing education for people with the sole rational being "they're happier" or "they have a deeper understanding of the world". That's great for them, but don't spend my money on it.

However this data doesn't really mean much. The table shows how many poeple have thsoe jobs RIGHT NOW. Will they have those jobs forever? Likely not. If you have a phD and spend a year in a crap job looking for something better, I view that as better than just doing nothing.

In fact those numbers are just people with more than a bachelors degree. Some number of them are currently graduate students, I know plenty of graduate students who are bar tenders at the same time. This data doesn't differentiate.

It also doesn't tell you anything about how school was paid for. If you have a phD that someone paid for from a private school, and do nothing for with your life, that doesn't matter to me at all. Only when people start getting subsidized by the taxpayers does it matter.

And hey, if we're going to bitch about the cost of education to the taxpayer, I'd extend it even to phDs with jobs that are paid for by the government (professors doing research at both public and private universities funded by taxpayer grants). A lot of research is freaking useless, and it costs a whole heck of a lot more than the subsidy on loans for students.

...would you favor denying the vote to people unable to make correct judgements, deal with political rhetoric or form opinions about highly technical issues? It seems that filtering the noise is far cheaper than increasing the signal, in this case.

As to your position that "filtering the noise" is easier than "increasing the signal", I think that you have perhaps...shall we say, not carefully considered the logistics involved? But leave that aside.

The danger with disenfranchising anyone, for any reason, is that of false positives. To paraphrase Blackstone, I would far rather that a hundred idiots were voting than for one wise person to be unfairly disenfranchised.

Fundamentally, society works because most or all of its members believe that they are better off as members of the existing framework than they would be by moving away, rebelling, etc. The last time Americans were bound by laws and taxes concerning which they had no voice, they threw quite a party in this little town up in Massachusetts...I think they served tea?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com