And a little video to expose the reaction:
And a little video to expose the reaction:
California tuitions for IN -STATE residents have been well below market rates for colleges for decades. The Taxpayers can no longer subsidize discounted tuition for the children of the upper and upper middle classes. If you don't believe me, check out the student parking lots at U.C.L.A. ; San Diego State; Santa Barbara ;Chino and Long Beach State not to mention Berkely.
Just an example of letting our seed corn rot.
At the beginning of this country, there was a great debate about public schooling. It was decided, if we want a democratic society capable of ruling it's self, it needs the ability to reason.
These days I also agree, that if we want a modern society based on the benefits of science and efficient organization of resources, we need schooling.
For these reasons, I think schooling should be one of the cheapest things in this country.
(Whether schools achieve these goals today is another conversation indeed!)
Hmmm. I've wrestled with that argument for quite a while. You're right. Society as a whole benefits from an educated populace but so does the individual. Earnings for college grads are MUCh higher than for just H.S. grads. If the college grads were the engineers and alternative energy researchers that we need , fine. But why should the working and middle class subsidize Art History majors ?
Because Art has value also. And I don't mean it in the traditional way of selling paintings or sculpture.
I mean in a practical matter. Take for example, the shape and geometry of cars. Of how the forms we see around us can be abstracted into lines. The round happiness of a VW bug or the angular full tech of a Lamborghini. A vehicle with nice asthetics has repeatedly been found to be more desirable and enjoyable than one purely utilitarian.
What of colors? Who took the time to wander around looking for minerals and oils and created processes to create pigments and paint. Can you look at a hot rod in translucent blues to the pitch flat black of a model A and say one puts a smile on the face?
We all listen to music, which is probably the most easy art to get into (I mean, listen to Britney Spears LOL!) No one can say there is no material joy in mood altering by a song.
And of course dance. Dances that tell a story. Dances that expand our dreams of how to move and control our body. Dances that brings a sense of belonging when in synchronicity or grouped. Dances that celebrate sexuality and allure.
Art is valuable. The techniques passed down from centuries back and expanded upon today.
Technology makes a tool. Art creates a society.
That's all well and good but what about the INDIVIDUAL who benefits ? The prime beneficiary of a subsidized college education is the individual. Maybe if market rate tuition were charged, more people would be more upset about the cost of college.
Another idea that deserves consideration is Llamar Alexander's proposal for THREE year college educations. He spelled it out in NEWSWEEK not too long ago.
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 11-23-2009 at 12:47 PM.





trying to keep this thread focused on the economic aspect, for a fact the actual costs of providing a college education are substantial. For many years the state of California ( along with quite a few other states ) has elected to heavily subsidize higher education costs at state colleges via the transfer of general tax revenues. Now that state tax revenues are falling precipitously, the state has been forced to re-evaluate its spending priorities ... with higher education subsidies carrying one of the highest price tags per beneficiary from a short term viewpoint.
Bookmarks