Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The price is too high!

Indeed. Just because increased access to funding meant that students could be charged more, doesn't mean they should be. That's fine for a private institution to be as nakedly capitalistic as they like, but for public institutions, they have a higher responsibility, and that was a significant moral failing on their parts.

As I previously stated, insurance is an optional service, taxation is not optional.


No argument on any of your points, none of those points counter anything I've stated. As I said previously, my only point in relation to the military and college funding is, it's a viable option for those seeking college funding....this making it more accessible. YES! The beneficiaries are largely paying their own way! They're adults, personal responsibility for one's own well being SHOULD be paid for largely on one's own! I do believe we're getting somewhere!


Actually what I meant was that I contribute of my free will generously to improvement of societal issues outside of taxes that I pay. I view that as what adults do.



You'll noticed I had removed that reference prior to you posting as I realized that was an unfair assumption, it was only my perspective based on what you've posted. You have my apology for that assumption that I've corrected.


It would appear that what you mean is accepting the responsibilities that YOU deem appropriate to go along with them. I've agreed that people should accept the responsibilities that go along with them, as each person should do of their own free will rather than at the threat of punishment. In short, I don't get to decide what you deem as a social responsibility with what you own and the services you provide and you don't get to decide that for me with what I own and services I provide.

Of course taxes are optional. You can go live somewhere that you won't be taxed. A deserted island in the middle of the Pacific would do.

Not much of a choice, right? Same goes for insurance - you either have it and receive services that can save or improve your life at a price that won't send you immediately into bankruptcy (medical debt is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US), or not.

We can keep getting absurd and say that oxygen is optional, if you like.


It's not an option that can absorb the vast and growing number of people who are otherwise being pushed out of secondary education due to costs, because the military is not going to grow to absorb those folks. It's not an option for people with disabilities. Due to the hostile work environment, I'd strongly advise any woman to think twice.

Not sure why you're patting yourself on the back about people paying their own way, because at no point in this discussion have I suggested otherwise. The problem isn't people paying, it's that the current price is distorted and completely untethered to fundamentals.


Actually, what you're presenting is the opposite, because you're suggesting that you should have full access to all of the benefits of society, but have the right to choose which responsibilities you accept, and which you can shirk. The social contract doesn't work that way. We don't get to pick and choose which rights and services you get to enjoy, and you don't get to choose which responsibilities you accept. It's a package deal. All, or nothing. A civilized society, or a deserted island.

The process of deciding "what you deem as a social responsibility with what you own and the services you provide" is called "representative Democracy."

Dude, would you point us to the post(s) and phraseology in which you find Old Dad to be suggesting this?

No, I've suggested there is a range that exists in which it is fiscally neutral to provide public funding for some students' post-secondary education. Universal aid for college tuition is quite a departure from that.

I believe you have said both...

It's funny. You seem to be suggesting that you know my perspective better than I do. Why is that?

The first is a question. The second is a statement of fact. The two are not incompatible.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm pointing to the source... to facts... to statements which you have made, upthread in this discussion.
Please feel free to explain your meaning, if you believe you may have been misunderstood.

In the meanwhile, to further clarify understanding of your position, may I ask: are you saying that you are NOT in favor of free tuition at US public universities?

I am in favour of quantitatively evaluating the externality (the value created outside the transaction) associated with post-secondary education within a needs-based framework.

At a minimum, I am advocating for redirecting the expected savings from reduced government program spending rendered obsolete by additional post-secondary education to defraying tuition costs where needs-based testing thresholds are met. What share of total tuition costs of impoverished students that would account for is unknown- it could, theoretically, account for the full value of the tuition shortfall for attendance at public universities among this group of students.

Here are two accessible papers that provide an overview of the basics of the public economics debate around subsidized higher education. The works cited contain some good background reading on the public policy and evaluation frameworks used to evaluate the financial and non-financial benefits to needs-based partially or fully subsidized post-secondary education.

https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.3.288

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=student

This is a good evaluation on the efficacy of various forms of financial aid, and of the barriers (short- and long-term) to accessing a post-secondary education.

http://www.postsecondaryresearch.org/i/a/document/6963_LongFinAid.pdf

Note, particularly, the quote below from the last document (pp.37). This is the reason why I'm hesitant to approach post-secondary access solely through the lens of affordability at point of tuition payment. The issue of affordability and access is better addressed--and more comprehensively so--by tackling the larger challenge of creating a social ecosystem, from birth, that allows children from impoverished families to prosper. Pricing of post-secondary tuition remains a challenge to address, but one which is then secondary.


This approach requires us to consider the needs of the child within a struggling family system as paramount. Ideologically, this means being able to step away from a purist view that requires all adults to be self-sufficient, and to accept responsibility (as taxpayers) for supporting the development of children where their families cannot sustain that burden, in part or in whole.

Rawls had it right when he sought to address the welfare of the worst-off in society. Much of life is a lottery. Ex ante, behind the veil of ignorance, any one of us could have been subject to starting conditions which could have substantially hindered our development. Why accept that for our fellow humans, most especially for children, if we wouldn't want it for ourselves or our own families?