So in your analogy, Wren, beef consumption is to preferred education what mealworm consumption is to less preferred education. You get what you get, and you don’t get upset, to paraphrase my DS’ former kindergarten teacher. But being a self-avowed vegetarian you would, by extension, eschew both. For what? As it stands, your analogy encapsulates the universe of options in your two-protein world.
I will speak plainly, Wren. Price is a real barrier to access for a substantial portion of the western world, not to mention emerging economies. It’s not a question of “beef vs mealworms”, but “anything or nothing.” You and I are privileged to live in Canada, a country whose provinces have recognized post secondary education as a public good. (You may recall from intro economics that public goods are those for which significant externalities exist. That is, the value does not accrue solely to the direct consumer.) As it stands, most post secondary programming is heavily subsidized by the taxpayer to promote equity of access for all qualified students. Moreover, our federal and provincial governments offer generous financial support to defray costs of PSE further, and preferential loans. And I have not even delved into non-monetary costs of educational access, which often eclipse pecuniary concerns.
Here’s the meat, so to speak. Education is not a mere commodity. It is the foundation upon which opportunity is built and potential is realized. It is directly, causally related to a host of personal and societal developmental factors, health indicators, and quality of life. Expanding some contingent of post-secondary classes to an online channel is one lever available.
Perhaps you are, like me, proudly Canadian, and you are focusing only on our domestic context (which, albeit quite imperfect, is still very good).
But if you are suggesting that a market priced equilibrium in which a significant portion of the qualified population cannot access post-secondary education is inevitable, or even desirable (or only under financial duress), I would urge you to revisit your conclusions. This is not a question of want vs need. It is akin to “choosing” starvation or malnourishment for those with less money than we have.
I’m not okay with that from an ethical standpoint, and you shouldn’t be, either.
