Is education a right or a privilige? What do people think?
I just came from a City University of New York Board of Trustees meeting where in the face of a large militant student protest, the board members proceded to vote in an increase in the tuition for students in the CUNY system. The CUNY system exists to provide an education for people who couldn't otherwise afford it and was free until 1979. The tuition has been raised several times since then. This is not unique to the CUNY system. Tuition has been rising at colleges and universitys around the country.

It seems to me that in a society where people are allegedly considered equal, the right to an education can not be based on one's family background or economic status. By making higher education avaliable only to those who can afford it, our government is ensuring that people who are born into well off families will remain that way and those born into poor families will remain that way. This will serve to exacerbate the growing gap between rich and poor and perpetuate the domination of the country by the same small group of people.

It is my opinion that in a progressive civilized society everyone must have a right to an education.

You know, I worked my ass off to get my education, it's only an associate degree but it's mine, I'm tired of people thinking the world owes them this and that, to those people, get off your ass and work for it. After basic education it's up to the person and it's unfortunate we have such a large number of people wanting a free ride into those places some of us worked to get to with our own sweat.

Originally posted by siledre
You know, I worked my ass off to get my education, it's only an associate degree but it's mine, I'm tired of people thinking the world owes them this and that, to those people, get off your ass and work for it. After basic education it's up to the person and it's unfortunate we have such a large number of people wanting a free ride into those places some of us worked to get to with our own sweat.

What if you're associates degree had cost just a little more than you were able to get even working your ass off?
In general, if you don't have a college degree its very hard to make enough money to pay for college. Even harder to make that money AND attend classes.

As it is, too many people have degrees. It is getting to the point were all jobs require a degree. I worked hard to go to University, and feel it is part of the weeding out process. If you want to go, you better be ready to work your ass off. If students lived in the real world they would see how cheap tuition really is.

Originally posted by Jeremy
As it is, too many people have degrees. It is getting to the point were all jobs require a degree. I worked hard to go to University, and feel it is part of the weeding out process. If you want to go, you better be ready to work your ass off. If students lived in the real world they would see how cheap tuition really is. part of the weeding out process is making it impossible for people from working class families to go to college? The people who attend colleges like CUNY are by and large, already working very very hard to pay for their education. The last time tuition was raised 5000 people had to drop out. On the other hand people going to Columbia and Harvard by and large are NOT working very hard to pay for their college.

Making education a right is not about giving people a free ride, they'd still have to work to get their degree, its about leveling the playing field.

I personally think education is a right, a right of necessity.

Education is the key to human progress as a species; progress as a species means progress for the individual. But instead people would rather exploit imbalances in the world. Hey, I know y'all work hard to pay for college, but that's the point. Do we want Dr. Hibbert or Dr. Nick? Peaceful protesters or masked anarchists? People with fewer reasons to fight or a population armed to the teeth?

However, reality forces us to admit that some human beings are worth less to the species than others; if you're not born of privilege, no education is not your right.

A society has an obligation unto itself to educate its members to the fullest potential. Otherwise there seems no point to having a society.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

A society has an obligation unto itself to educate its members to the fullest potential. Otherwise there seems no point to having a society.
I agree. The gap between the haves & have nots are increasing exponentially. Where is this going to lead? Collapse of society me thinks:bugeye:

Originally posted by tiassa
I personally think education is a right, a right of necessity.

However, reality forces us to admit that some human beings are worth less to the species than others; if you're not born of privilege, no education is not your right.
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa, think about this scenario and then tell me again your views on this.

In our country Education is made to be a compulsory right upto the PhD level. Everyone has an opportunity to be education since fees are waived. Tell me how to handle the following scenarios:

- How would our ivy league universities that currenly perform state of the art research function while being over burdened. Pretty soon they will turn into shit.

-How would people select their professions? With everyone educated, what prevent the entire society from being doctors, lawyers, and engineers.....Much needed blue collar jobs would be abandoned....Noone would want to do anything less than the education they recieved.

Tiassa, under our current system, and while education remain to be a previledge, our talented poor are still being educated because they have the drive and ability to win in this system regardless of the setup. My dad came to this country with 20 dollars and F1 visa 35 years ago and managed to pull a PHD from University of Michigan....When the environment is correct, professors have opportunities to pull the talented from outside, even those who can't afford the program. If you drown the system with a bunch of useless souls who shouldn't be there, then the talented would loose out in the process.

Right or Privilege

neither...it is obligatory in my homecountry...

monkey: agreed.
it's everyone's responsibility to themselves and to society to learn as much as they can.

Originally posted by jps
Is education a right or a privilige? What do people think?


Depends on your GDP eh? If you've go the resources, education becomes a right. Otherwise it's a privilege.

Where I spent most of my life (Latvia) education was an obligation.
In US, considering prices of education and competition, it is a privilege. Back in the day when Afr. Am.'s werent accepted to schools, education was a privilege (my point being that this isnt news).

Originally posted by whitewolf
Where I spent most of my life (Latvia) education was an obligation.
In US, considering prices of education and competition, it is a privilege. Back in the day when Afr. Am.'s werent accepted to schools, education was a privilege (my point being that this isnt news).

Yeah, clearly, it is a privilege in the US, but do you think thats as it should be?

Well, in my country tuition fees are paid up to the BA degree level by the state. In the past two months, the Minister for Education suggested abolishing the free college tuition idea, only to trigger a massive outcry from the majority of the population and to have the idea shot down before it ever got past the cabinet. But is it seen as a right or a privilege? Neither. It's seen as a necessity, for purely practical reasons, namely that it's harder to get a job without a degree.
So can we amend the poll to add the "Necessity" option please?

It seems like if its a necessity it should also be a right.

I'd like to hear from Elsparks if the Universities in his country compare to Harvard, Berkely, Duke, ect.....And how does his country obtain funding for university research, ie.....Is research funding also publicly supported or is it privately supported by the industries.

Originally posted by Flores
-How would people select their professions? With everyone educated, what prevent the entire society from being doctors, lawyers, and engineers.....Much needed blue collar jobs would be abandoned....Noone would want to do anything less than the education they recieved.
That's a possibility... but here, school is free from the first year to the PhD one. Of course some school are not free but University is, thus everyone CAN study as long as he wants or as he can. The problem comes from food and bedrooms but our system helps students to pay it...

Now, we don't have so many post-graduates students... Lots of the teenagers like "blue collar" jobs too! Why can't everyone study, even if he will not use all his knowledge in his job? I heard once that knowledge is something that you will never lose... (but if you've got memory problem). That's our main treasure...

Don't worry, I understand your point of view, however I disagree! Just a thought : are you able to save someone that is doing a heart attack? I know that it's not a typical education topic but why would it be only studied by doctors? A baker could learn it too, no? I guess you would agree if you had an attack in his shop... I don't mean that a baker (or everyone else) should study medicine, but when the general knowledge of the population increases, that's good for everyone.

Understand? :bugeye:

Your points are well taken SG-N, but very unrealistic. You are sacrificing much when you make university education free. You are sacrificing the quality of education and removing the competetive edge and talent elimination system. Free market societies have been the best places to harvest opportunities, breed talents, and weed the useless. Universities need to stay as a free market so that they can react to the change in the world and always reflect the state of the art. Detaching universities from our supply demand economy would isolate universities from the outside world and would quickly deem them ineffective in producing with accordance to the need.

Also don't forget that money is not the only aspect. Scores and previous education play a big role. For example, in a free market system like the US, a 40 year old man may start studying engineering while holding a full time job to change his career. In France, that might not be possible, only highschool graduates with certain scores are admitted to certain universities...For example highest GPA goes to medical, lowest GPA goes to Gymnastic Education.....So France is producing a bunch of dum educators who have only studied education because their GPA was low even though some of them wanted to be doctors.

Wrong! In France university is open to everyone that has its baccalaureat (equivalent to A-levels). There's no exams needed to enter a french university. If you care about the "level" : the bad students are not able to go in 2nd year... that's all! Do your students get from 1st year to last year without passing exams? I guess that the answer is "no". The only difference between your system and ours is in the first year : you don't allow everyone to try, you don't give them a chance... while we don't think that it's a waste of time!
And for your information, Gymnastic Education is the only university that has a limited number of students... ;)

Sorry, I assumed France education system resembels Socialist Egyptian system that I briefly experienced. Sorry for the big extrapolation and thanks for the great info.....;)

I played with Frensh Gymnastic team in a mideterenean cup and they are very good.

Thanks :D

Education should be a right!

Also, leading figures in the industry should be the ones who pay for that type of education.

For example, Microsoft should pay for most of the computer science training, Ford motor company should pay for most of the training for car mechanics/etc.....

Leading scientific institutes should pay for scientific training.

I'd like to hear from Elsparks if the Universities in his country compare to Harvard, Berkely, Duke, ect.....

Well, the university I went to (Trinity College Dublin, the only college in the University of Dublin) compares very well indeed with the "Ivy League", especially at the BA degree level. It's generally accepted that the standard is higher, at that level. In postgraduate terms, there's no significant difference in doctorate levels - but a doctorate in TCD tends to take far less time than in a US college, because the students tend to start the PhD degree with a higher standard, and we don't have taught courses as a mandatory part of the degree. In terms of academic achievements, we rank fairly high, and in terms of seniority, well, our engineering school is the oldest in the world and the college itself is junior only to a handful like cambridge and oxford. In terms of resources, of course, we don't have the same level of funding as, say, MIT - but that hasn't stopped significant work from being done, it merely limits the amount of industrial-style development that we can do. As to whether or not that kind of development should be a college's job though, is another debate.

The newer universities (University College Dublin, University College Cork, University College Galway, University of Limerick, Dublin College University) don't have the same standard in some areas like seniority, but their academic standards are the equal of TCD in my opinon - though their empahasis is more industy-based in the computer science/engineering area, which is my area. I can't make a valid comparison of arts or medical or law courses, obviously.

And how does his country obtain funding for university research, ie.....Is research funding also publicly supported or is it privately supported by the industries.

Well, the funding for university research is a large and complicated issue. In short, both. We have students who are self-funded (I was for two years of my PhD through outside teaching), who are on contract with the college (as I've been for the last two years - I run the labs for a few courses, they pay my tuition fees (about 1800 euro per annum) and pay me a stipend - happily I don't need much in the way of experimental gear since my PhD topic is mostly mathematics), who are funded from government funding (basic and applied research grants), who are funded from public-private funding (a company pays some of the money, the government pays the rest - that's how my first two years were funded), and a bunch who are paid through EU grants. There aren't any who are funded through private means alone that I know of, however.

Are you sure you didn't mean tuition fees for undergrads? (They're paid for from public tax funds, the reasoning being that our country's greatest natural resource is the highly educated workforce we have, and that maintaining that workforce's standard is in everyone's interest as it sustains the economy - and as you may know, our economy was seen as a model for small countries everywhere for quite some time).

Originally posted by Flores
Your points are well taken SG-N, but very unrealistic. You are sacrificing much when you make university education free. You are sacrificing the quality of education and removing the competetive edge and talent elimination system. Free market societies have been the best places to harvest opportunities, breed talents, and weed the useless. Universities need to stay as a free market so that they can react to the change in the world and always reflect the state of the art. Detaching universities from our supply demand economy would isolate universities from the outside world and would quickly deem them ineffective in producing with accordance to the need.

Making education free does not make it uncompetitive. Saying that everyone has the right to an education is not the same as saying everyone has the right to be succesfull in getting whatever degree they want, just that they have the right to try.
Weeding people out based on how much money their family has in no way gives a univesity a "competitive edge" and does not constitute a "talent elimination system"

Originally posted by jps
Making education free does not make it uncompetitive.


It lowers the quality of education. Because it will federalize it. As we all know the governmnet knows shit about how to spend money correctly and don't give shit about state of the art research because they are beauracrats that are trains to fulfill regulations, so how can they understand a field like education that is based on tomorrow and not yesterday.


Originally posted by jps
Saying that everyone has the right to an education is not the same as saying everyone has the right to be succesfull in getting whatever degree they want, just that they have the right to try.
Weeding people out based on how much money their family has in no way gives a univesity a "competitive edge" and does not constitute a "talent elimination system"

It really is, the concept of equality in education is wrong. Because if you look at the real world, you don't see equality in achievement. We didn't all recieve the education nor the achievement of Einstein. When you make joining universities easy, you overwhelm the talented like Einstein with 500 idiots in his class, then you are lowering the quality of education for all. In the ripe time, we are all going to be equally idiots, just like with socialist and communism. And making every one equally idiotic seems to make the socialist and the communists happy.

Originally posted by MechTech

Leading scientific institutes should pay for scientific training.

research is mostly paid by taxpayers. Hence scientific institutes can not really pay for scientific training. They get their money from the government and some external funds. Basically your statement would just revert back to

- the government should pay for scientific training.
Which it already does.

And government could be subsituted by taxpayers of course.
hence your statement should be

- you should pay for scientific training. or
- you are paying for scientific training

depending on the country you live in.

Originally posted by Flores
It lowers the quality of education. Because it will federalize it.
So what about having both free public universities (lower levels as you seems to think) and private schools (with higher levels as you pay a lot for it). Thus everyone could go to school...

Oh yes, there's still one problem : the student level before coming in these schools... So we need 4 kinds of schools :
1) pay + good level (you're good and you've got money)
2) pay + bad level (you will have a good education anyway)
3) free + good level (you're good but as you don't have money, you will study in a special university)
4) free + bad level (you don't have money, you're not intelligent enough but you want to learn some little stuffs)

What about that? Is it better for you?

No SG_N.

No pay for the talented poor or rich through testings and felloships. Pay for everyone else to support the education of the few talented.

That means,
If you're poor, you better be talented to get in.
If you're rich, will take you regardless to pay for our program and research and there is a good chance you'll never graduate if you're really dumb.

OK but the problem is when you're poor and not talented enough! You would not be allowed to learn whatever you want... You don't have your chance.
Moreover : I said "not talented enough"... who would choose the minimum level needed? And how would it evolve? Would it depend on the number of students?

You clearly show that, for you, education is a privilege. For me, it's a right in rich countries and it should be a right in poor ones.

Originally posted by SG-N
OK but the problem is when you're poor and not talented enough! You would not be allowed to learn whatever you want... You don't have your chance.


I take it back, I don't want to use the word talented anymore to describe those that are meant to excell in higher education. Because there are extremely talented blue collars who can do jobs that no education can teach.

I believe in free obligatory education up to highschool level. Noway for higher education.

Originally posted by SG-N
You clearly show that, for you, education is a privilege. For me, it's a right in rich countries and it should be a right in poor ones.

Education is not a previledge or right, it's a pursuit or quest that only the determined can succeed in poor or rich..

Originally posted by Flores
I take it back, I don't want to use the word talented anymore to describe those that are meant to excell in higher education. Because there are extremely talented blue collars who can do jobs that no education can teach.
Right!
I believe in free obligatory education up to highschool level. Noway for higher education.
"Free obligatory education up to highschool", OK, but when you add "Noway for higher education" I would love to know if you mean that you don't want it to be free or to be obligatory! Don't worry, I already know what you mean... You don't want it to be obligatory, you want it to be "selective". You want that the teachers only take care of the good students... no?
"Don't fall because you will not be helped!"
Education is not a previledge or right, it's a pursuit or quest that only the determined can succeed in poor or rich..
Your dealing with the student view : for him it's a quest or a pursuit... but the system must allow him to reach its goals (even if it doesn't help him, following "your" ideas).

:)

You have a right to any education you can secure for yourself. Education subsidized by others is a privilege as you have no right to the property of others.

Originally posted by Flores
It lowers the quality of education. Because it will federalize it. As we all know the governmnet knows shit about how to spend money correctly and don't give shit about state of the art research because they are beauracrats that are trains to fulfill regulations, so how can they understand a field like education that is based on tomorrow and not yesterday.
Well, leave it in the hands of the acadmecs then and just pay for it.




Originally posted by Flores
It really is, the concept of equality in education is wrong. Because if you look at the real world, you don't see equality in achievement. We didn't all recieve the education nor the achievement of Einstein. When you make joining universities easy, you overwhelm the talented like Einstein with 500 idiots in his class, then you are lowering the quality of education for all. In the ripe time, we are all going to be equally idiots, just like with socialist and communism. And making every one equally idiotic seems to make the socialist and the communists happy. So you feel that the division between rich and poor is the same as between smart and dumb?
If people don't have the ability or the drive to do well in college they will drop out. All I'm saying is they should have the chance regardless of their finances. Standards could be kept just as high as they are now for success.

Originally posted by Galt
You have a right to any education you can secure for yourself. Education subsidized by others is a privilege as you have no right to the property of others.
Property is defined by the govt. If there is no govt there is no property. If the govt says that a percentage of one's income goes to education, then that percent of your income is not your property.

Originally posted by jps
Property is defined by the govt. If there is no govt there is no property. If the govt says that a percentage of one's income goes to education, then that percent of your income is not your property.

So...you're basically saying that the government owns 100 percent of the citizens' property and that which we are allowed to keep is only because of the graciousness of bureaucrats; that we have no right to our lives. This, of course, is wrong.

Property can and does exist independently of government. However, goverment often enforces property rights, at least to a certain degree.

Yeah, clearly, it is a privilege in the US, but do you think thats as it should be?
All rights are a privilege.

Originally posted by Galt
So...you're basically saying that the government owns 100 percent of the citizens' property and that which we are allowed to keep is only because of the graciousness of bureaucrats; that we have no right to our lives. This, of course, is wrong.

Property can and does exist independently of government. However, goverment often enforces property rights, at least to a certain degree.
No, I'm saying that the "right" to property is artificial, and exists only because of the govt, therefore, what constitutes your property is whatever the govt says it is. If it says something is your property then it is.

How do you figure property exists independantly?

Originally posted by jps
No, I'm saying that the "right" to property is artificial, and exists only because of the govt, therefore, what constitutes your property is whatever the govt says it is. If it says something is your property then it is.

That differs a bit from your original statement, but I still disagree.

I am not talking about the legal view of property, since laws don't justify their own existance. I am talking about a moral view of property.

From a moral perspective, if the government decided that your car, house or computer were somehow my property, would you consider this a fair and rational decision?

Originally posted by jps
How do you figure property exists independantly?

Can man exist and interact with his environment without the existance of government? The answer to that question is yes, and the products of his interactions with his environment (providing they don't violate the rights of others) are his property. The absence of a formal government would make it difficult to enforce his property rights, but his property and his rights to it certainly exist.

Originally posted by Galt
That differs a bit from your original statement, but I still disagree.

I am not talking about the legal view of property, since laws don't justify their own existance. I am talking about a moral view of property.

From a moral perspective, if the government decided that your car, house or computer were somehow my property, would you consider this a fair and rational decision?
I stand by my original statement. The second may have been a little ambiguous i guess.
What makes these things yours? why is your car your car?
If the government takes it than its not yours anymore is it?
Is it right? i guess it would depend on the situation.


Originally posted by Galt
Can man exist and interact with his environment without the existance of government? The answer to that question is yes, and the products of his interactions with his environment (providing they don't violate the rights of others) are his property. The absence of a formal government would make it difficult to enforce his property rights, but his property and his rights to it certainly exist. and what makes them his property? they're only his property if people recognize them as such.

Originally posted by jps
What makes these things yours? why is your car your car?

Because I worked for the money I used to purchase said car.

Originally posted by jps
If the government takes it than its not yours anymore is it?

From a moral standpoint, it is certainly still your property.

From a physically standpoint, no - but then again, neither is a car that is stolen by theives, but most would agree that that is a violation of rights.

From a legal standopoint, no - but do you really want to argue that laws are legitimate simply by virtue of existing?

Originally posted by jps
and what makes them his property? they're only his property if people recognize them as such.

So a violation of rights is justified if enough people support that violation or are at least indifferent to it?

Originally posted by jps
Making education free does not make it uncompetitive. Saying that everyone has the right to an education is not the same as saying everyone has the right to be succesfull in getting whatever degree they want, just that they have the right to try.
Weeding people out based on how much money their family has in no way gives a univesity a "competitive edge" and does not constitute a "talent elimination system"

You are obviously clueless about real life. When you make higher education free you jeoperdize it's quality, because you eleminate all private funding. When it's publically funded, the government governs and dictates how the university behaves and the students and their needs and concerns are flushed down the toilet. In a private university, the university take the students in account in every move and could care less about the government. Also, it's competetive, because Universities can compete in being better so that they attract better students. If they are getting annual checks from the government, then what is the motivation in being better.....

Professors would become government employees with pension, they would have no motivation to publish or do research....how beautifull ...huh....there goes the education.

College really has become a joke though. It is like everyone wants to go there so they can party with their parents paying for it. I agree that there are some people there that have a good intention and everything, but there are a heck of alot more people that would rather party, then make a mature decision about studying hard and pursuing their dream...

Good professions that need a good education: Doctors, Lawyers, Computer field, Business managers, Stock Brokers....

Bad professions that do not need a higher education: Beer Drinkers, Weed manufacturers, Product testers(weed of course), strippers (don't think this requires a $40,000 education), ...The list goes on..

Flores,
You are obviously clueless about real life. When you make higher education free you jeoperdize it's quality, because you eleminate all private funding.
I'm living in a country where higher education is effectively free (tuition fees are paid for and grants available). And from that perspective, your position is completely incorrect. See my earlier post if you would - you did ask me specifically to write it after all.

Originally posted by Flores
You are obviously clueless about real life. When you make higher education free you jeoperdize it's quality, because you eleminate all private funding. When it's publically funded, the government governs and dictates how the university behaves and the students and their needs and concerns are flushed down the toilet. In a private university, the university take the students in account in every move and could care less about the government. Also, it's competetive, because Universities can compete in being better so that they attract better students. If they are getting annual checks from the government, then what is the motivation in being better.....

Professors would become government employees with pension, they would have no motivation to publish or do research....how beautifull ...huh....there goes the education.
There's no reason government funding has to equal government control. The CUNY system was free up through the seventies and didn't have problems with govt interference, just inadequate funding. As Sparks pointed out countries that have publicly funded higher education do not necessarilly suffer problems with educational quality. It seems the evidence from "real life" supports my postion.

Is education a right: yes, you can't really stop somebody from learning all humans do it.

Is a formal education a right: No, because to do that you take away the right of person to decide not to teach you.

Originally posted by Thaug
Is a formal education a right: No, because to do that you take away the right of person to decide not to teach you.
That's a different problem!
Nobody "have to" teach. In fact, they generally do it because they like it (or sometimes for money). Anyway, you could have education through books (after high-school) even if it would be harder...

Originally posted by Thaug
Is education a right: yes, you can't really stop somebody from learning all humans do it.

Is a formal education a right: No, because to do that you take away the right of person to decide not to teach you.
That would be fine if people were allowed to print out their own degrees and have them recognized.

All a degree says is that you can pass a test.

Originally posted by Thaug
All a degree says is that you can pass a test.
A degree is required for a great deal of jobs. If a degree is the standard that we use for measuring education(which i don't really think it should be but thats beside the point) then everyone must have a shot at getting one.