Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
But so what? Their right to vote is more important than the fact that it might mean we ban abortions and gay marriage again, reinstate stop and frisk and start a war or two. These are PEOPLE and they all deserve their say.
It's only important if you're a true believer in democracy. There're a lot of areas in life where peoples opinions aren't all held to be equally valid, so why is it that for the one domain that requires the highest level of intellectual sophistication that everyone's opinion should count equally? And the cost of entertaining that farce of a process is easily in the billions every election cycle, only to get an outcome that about half of the country considers to be completely unacceptable.
There're ways of guaranteeing that peoples interests are represented without deferring to the judgment of the lowest common denominator.
Quote:
Come on guys. "Universal college" doesn't mean that people are rounded up into camps of higher education and forced to learn Calculus if they want to eat. It just means everyone has the opportunity to go to college IF they want to. And naturally, trade school and two-year college would be a part of the deal as well.
There're very few people who can't get a student loan for a program that leads directly to job skills. This isn't really about equality of opportunity - it's about a value judgment being placed on education as having greater returns than prospective buyers would anticipate, and wanting to incentivize it.
The extent to which this is true though varies as much from program to program as it does from person to person. It's a much easier sell if you limit it to programs that lead directly to job skills.
But of course there are non-vocational courses that add substantial value to peoples lives. It's just that when you're giving them away for free you need to be pretty sure of the value proposition of each of the components, and academic programs are notorious for including all sorts of fluff that would be more appropriately labelled entertainment than education.
If we plucked out the 5 'highest value' courses from undergrad programs... hypothetically let's say - financial planning, psych 101, statistical methods, life sciences, internet literacy and research methods etc, and then got some bulk pricing deal with the khan academy extending access to all americans, that's something republicans might vote for. Offering a 4 year program of which at least half is useless to the people taking it, with all sorts of costly bells and whistles - who wants to sign off on that? You're just giving more credence to the crap value package that most people who've actually gone through the academic world are in agreement is poorly structured.
Sanders et al would be far more likely to find success in campaigning for free education if they were more specific about what they want, the cost, and the value it's adding.