Its a captialsm valuation nothing more.
What are we as humans if we don't have the resources to educate and learn and be curious?
I really hope the current AI and Robot wave will lead us all to a more 'free' society
As long as things cost something, and a course costs something to create and deliver, the question of valuation in some way is valid. It's not a capitalist issue, it's an allocation of resources issue, which is something universal as long as resources are limited.
Where it works, the free market is great because it transparently shows how people actually value something. That is, it shows how we actually are and what we actually want, not what would be nice in some utopian world.
I went to university in France when it was both free (still basically is) with no selection for entry and the amount of waste was huge for no benefit to anyone... well except for official stats because "I'm not unemployed, I'm a student"...
How? Surely people/families in Germany/Austria, some of the richest countries in the world, can afford to pay something towards education costs... And in fact they do through their taxes, which are needed to pay for this "free" university. [obviously poor families can benefit from bursaries so this is not a relevant argument]
The waste is students picking courses just to do something or just because they are vaguely interested in them (and then they get all the benefits afforded to students, including housing subsidies). And then they give up, or they fail, or once they graduate they realise that it gets them exactly 0 job. So huge waste of resources and time and, as mentioned, sometimes a way to hide youth unemployment.
rich country doesn't mean rich people. we have high taxes and lower average wages. high rent in cities. in vienna, more than 60% of people live in subsidized housing. none of them could ever afford to pay for university.
and if more than 60% of students need financial support, all we are doing is adding expensive bureaucracy. might as well just make it free instead.
Every time similar topics are discussed it's odd to read some comments because they give the impression that people in the richest countries in the world have no disposable income (they can't pay for healthcare, they can't pay for higher education, they can't pay for public transport, etc). Of course there are poor people, but the majority have plenty of disposable income (that's what a rich country means).
> "in vienna, more than 60% of people live in subsidized housing"
This does not mean that this is a necessity it shows some issues with the housing market and housing policy, not that people are "poor". In fact, if the majority of people in a rich European city get housing subsidies it seems quite clear that this has nothing to do with poverty and not being able to afford it, but is a policy/market disfunction issue.
To go back to France, in France every student gets housing subsidies. This does not mean that they need it, it's just that the choice of policy has been to dish out subsidies without consideration of need.
the majority have plenty of disposable income (that's what a rich country means)
no, it doesn't.
rich country means a high GDP, but we put most of that into public infrastructure, public healthcare (so, yes, we can all pay for healthcare because everyone has insurance) and public transport, and we don't need to pay for education. if education were taken out of the mix then those with lower income would be excluded.
not true. there is also the gesamtschule which delays the decision to make the abitur until you are in 10th grade.
40% of students in germany qualify for university (and another 10% for fachhochschule). that is much higher than the university admission rates in the US.
Again, that's just as bad as paying for education. At least with money you can work or take a loan and chose the path you want even at age 20 or 25, you're not locked in by a choice that was made when you were a teenager. Yes, I know you also have to get good grades in the US or Canada, but at least here in Canada you can basically almost always go back to university, take a few perp courses and be eligible to apply even for medecine.
the abitur i got from the gesamtschule is just as good as the abitur someone got from a gymnasium. if i want to get into medicine or some other highly popular field all i need is good grades in the last 3 years of school.
a 10th grader is 16 years old because first grade starts at 6 years.
those 10th graders that don't continue school go into an apprenticeship, of which there are many choices available. germany has 12 years of compulsory education (9 or 10 years of school and 3 years of either school or professional education)
and no, that is not the same as paying for education.
loans are way harder to get in germany as the banks are much more conservative. getting a loan for school would be practically impossible.
And I guess that makes sense for Germany. Where I live, loans are basically guaranteed and almost free for students especially if you are graduating in a degree with good job prospects. This allowed my dad to basically switch paths entirely when he was like 40, as it paid for his entire spendings during his degree and he could do it easily in north America. It was basically impossible for him to do something similar in France.
i don't know if switching schools became easier or harder, but today i would only send my children to a gesamtschule where it was certain that they would not be under undue pressure in order to be able to continue after 10th grade. in my opinion the three-tiered system might as well be abolished because evaluating 9 year old children whether they might be capable of passing the abitur some 9 years later is absolutely dumb and misguided, and forcing them to switch schools will also hurt their socialization as they lose touch with some friends and have to find new ones.
the system should be replaced with a highschool like system that allows everyone a chance at passing the abitur, and only those that specifically opt to learn a trade instead should be able to leave school earlier, and even those should be offered a short path to an abitur test if they complete their apprenticeship.
on the other hand there is no problem entering university in germany at 40. it's free, so what should stop you? i actually did become a student again at age 30 for a short time. noone suggested that that would be wrong.
getting a loan for that is an entirely different matter. conservative thinking and ageism suggests that nobody has good job prospects starting a new career at that age. but you can do it if you get a part time job (actually, if you switch your current job to part time, which is something you are allowed to do by law in germany) and then use the remaining time to study. if classes are still structured the way they were in my time then you can study at your own pace. it may take a bit longer, but then i also expect that at 40 you are more driven to focus on getting stuff done so i don't think part time study will double the time you need to complete your studies.
You can get Bafoeg (financial support which you get for free) if you have a job degree and go to the BOS to get your university degree that way.
the point is: does charging for university and then giving financial support to those who need it really change anything other than causing more bureaucracy and risking that some people can't go because they don't qualify for financial support yet shy away from the expense?
reducing taxes so that people have more money so they can afford paid education is not going to lead to more students but less.
The same thing happens in Germany but in an even more vicious way. You are basically triaged before high school and can only manage to switch with tons of bureaucracy and difficulty. It's gotten better but it's still very much 'your path is set and is almost impossible to change after high school' for most people.
We use capitalism to control resources etc. but only thanks to controled capitalism / politics we are keeping pure capitalsim under control (like minimum wage, labor laws etc.).
We could create a new system. A system which determines how many resources we as society can produce on one side and want we need + want on the other side. Than we optimize our system for this.
Which would mean we would get rid of everything we don't need and optimize everything we can.
We don't need thousends of different companies doing simliar things just different with their own overhead. Capitalism needs this to control itself.
I don't see what's naive there. On the contrary this is absolute realism. And furthermore this goes hand in hand with individual liberty. Alternatives have been tried, and they failed...
Focus on automatisation and we don't have a production issue.
Its a man made problem, not some kind of magic rule.
If we live in a world where human effort has no marginal utility, we also live in a world where human life has no value. If we don't, you're in a world where you're competing with other humans for some set of resources. Regardless of whether you believe that you are competing with them, others are competing with you.
I think competition is perhaps one of the most basic rules of reality.