|
When high school educations up to grade 12 were made mandatory and freely available in North
America, that level of education was sufficient for any person to succeed in almost any walk of life
except perhaps higher level sciences.
That was in the 1910s. This is almost 2010, and the world has changed.
A high school education today, even at a good school is worth as much as a grade 9 education a
century ago. A person with no post secondary education has no higher job prospects than lucking
into a fast-disappearing union job, the military, or maybe entrepreneurial success. There are no
other options.
By making just one year of post-secondary education "free", there would be two main benefits, among
others:
1. People could achieve one year diplomas that would be more skilled and earn higher incomes, making
them less likely to be a burden on the public coffers.
2. A person's results in classes could be the metre for determining student loans, rather than
income. A 4.00 GPA? You get a full loan. A 2.50 GPA? A partial loan. A student's results and
work ethic would determine loans, not his family's wealth.
The cost of giving a year of "free" education could easily be covered by a 0.5% increase in the
student's income tax for 20 years. At $1,000 income per month, that's $50 per month, $600 per year,
and $12,000 paid back on $6,000 tuition at a community college. The system would pay for itself,
and the educated would get higher incomes, which means MORE money to pay for it. |
| |
K9  28 Apr 2008 19:07
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
I think people should be given the opportunity to carry on their education if they want to, but they
should also have a wider range of subjects to choose from - practical ones as well as academic ones.
I agree with some of what Spartan76 says: That many degrees are pretty useless and don't prepare
young people for the outside world. However, I think some of the examples given are wrong: Media
Studies is a good degree if you're planning to work in the media industry. Likewise Theatre Studies.
I guess the problem is that most people who take these degrees don't really know what they want to
do, and don't end up using what they've learnt in the world of work.
Would it be better for them to go and get a job, and learn as they work? Maybe, but then how do they
know what career to choose? Would employers be able to deal with the increased number of people
seeking work, and would they provide adequate facilities and resources to train them properly?
I also have to take issue with the statement that "Higher Education should be for the bright". How
do you measure 'brightness'? Is a mechanic or a salesman less 'bright' than a philosopher or an art
historian? I would say that they are all highly skilled and equally 'bright'. Their skills are very
different, but should be valued equally. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
I think everyone who wants to and is academically able to should have access to higher education.
I don't think that it's a good idea to turn all the old colleges into universities just to
accommodate anyone who wants to go as this has lowered standards and the British system is poor
enough these days anyway. Modula degrees are often of a very low standard.
Higher education should be available in a variety of different forms for different academic and
practical needs.
I lecture in adult education and many people say how much they would appreciate the opportunity to
return to education if they could. Mature students have a great deal to offer.
Spartan says weak students cheat and partake of plagiarism, in my experience gifted, intelligent
ones do too.
Perhaps we need a return to high entry standards for traditional universities and a range of graded
higher education institutions such as the old technical colleges which gave firm grounding to the
gifted but non- academically orientated students?
Yes I agree, degrees should be useful but not all need to be vocational. For example a philosophy
degree will form a sound grounding for dealing with many situations in the post-university world as
it teaches students to think and reason. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Some people are simply not intelligent enough to get a PHD. You can tell be reading any flog on the
web !
Higher education is not a goal for all of us. If you feel happy with just ten years in school, good
! If you feel the need to study for the rest of your life and can afford it, good !
Some of the most interesting persons I have met (I am 70) were illiterate. But what wisdom ! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Before going deeper to this point everyone should ask himself or herself that how much education
they need in their wallet to go to the long journey of life. According to me it is not important to
every student have the higher educational degree. A number of colleges and universities are popping
up here and there to the demand of increasing students. But is the demand truly meets the proper
result? I don’t think so. There numerous students who do not know what they are capable of. These
lots more provoking ads are making them confusing and after some day in the college they understand
that they have just wasted their valuable time. So the higher education needs to be selected to
those who have the confidence to go through it properly. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
First off, I don't know if there is a value to modern higher education. I'm not sure what is is
for. I can understand someone who wants to be a doctor needs to study medicine, but with a million
and one other types of other courses, which seem to have no real function. English literature,
Theatre Studies, Media Studies, etc seem to have no value at all that could not be learned by a
genuine interest in the subject and a good long time in a well stocked public library.
Everyone should be able to go if they need to. But why would some need to go? If it is an
expectation that they go, they will go because their parents or friends expect them to go. However,
this has created over crowding in universities, where they see the student as points towards
financial contribution and it begins to feel like a warehouse, rather than an institution of
educational enlightenment.
Opening the doors has also made the university a different environment. If you allow anyone in, you
are also letting in elements of a community would do not know how to behave in this kind of
environment.
More and more universities and colleges are popping up all over the place. They are responding to a
demand they say, but who is creating the demand? Do young people all just want to become students,
do they want a degree, do they want to be prepared for work, do they just want to put off the real
world for three or even four years. Some of these things can be achieved from university and some
are a chronic waste of time.
I for one say make getting into university as difficult as possible. Not based on financial
capacity, but based entirely on merit. Does the student have the drive, the ambition and the
cognitive capacity to gain a good degree? This will drive up the standards of degrees once more,
which have become pitifully ten a penny. Once it is hard to get a degree, employers will once again
believe that it is good that young people hold a degree, because it shows they are intelligent and
have worked hard. There is something sadly ridiculous about letting everyone in, that's equality
gone mad.
Close down all of the mickey mouse courses, they don't shape young minds, they don't teach anything
useful at all and attempts to suggest otherwise are often weak and flimsy.
Higher Education should be for the bright, that was the original purpose and there's nothing wrong
with that now. In my experience, weak students, cheats, plagiarists, those failing are not allowed
to be discontinued and they stay in the system earning the university money, taking up a place and
driving down the value of a degree in high education.
Make degrees useful. Teach things that people can use.
If you want to teach people how to think, ban the television. If you want people to read, ban the
television.
And I am a former university educator, so I at least have experience of this! |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|