Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: How does education help all of us? Reply to Sykora Message-ID: <127@kontron.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 21:31:44 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.127 Posted: Thu Apr 25 21:31:44 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Apr-85 09:09:13 EDT References: <121@ttrdc.UUCP> <1340019@acf4.UUCP> <593@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 118 > > >If you're against social programs on principle, fine. I'd suggest to > > >you that most people in this country have benefited from them. If you > > >doubt that, ask yourself what kind of shape your older relatives would > > >be in without social security; what kind of education you would have had > > >without federal aid to primary and secondary schools, as well as the > > >federal loan, grant and work-study programs for colleges; what your health > > >would be like without federal support for disease research and universal > > >vaccination. For some reason, people think social programs are what > > >the government gives *someone else*; what you get are *rights*. > > > > > >Mike Kelly > > >/* ---------- */ > > > > Whether or not social security benefits some people or not is beside the > > point. What you must consider is if we'd be better off if people pro- > > vided for their old age themselves, through savings, counting on their > > children or whatever. > > > > I went to private primary and secondary schools that received no federal > > aid, but my parents still had to pay taxes to support public schools. > > So, it's hard to see how my family has benefited from federal aid to > > primary and secondary schools. > > > > I currently attend graduate school and receive no federal aid, yet I am > > required to finance the education of others thru taxes. > > > > Michael Sykora > > We *all* benefit from a more highly educated citizenry. For one thing > I think it is quite obvious that the ability to read and write is > simply a prerequisite for modern life. People would be most unproductive > at their jobs if they couldn't even read simple instructions. But > more than that education raises the cultural level of the people. > The ability to debate on this newsgroup implies at least the ability to > read and write. But I find the discussions are greatly aided by > knowledge of certain areas. While I may disagree with many of Danny > McK's propositions on the wonders of the free market, at least I > know that he knows what the phrase "free market" means in some sense. > It is far more difficult to debate people who accept something without > even knowing what it is they are accepting. > In economic terms I mentioned this before but I will mention it again: > according to the economist Dennison, major gains in productivity > in this century are more highly correlated with improved education > than with increased physical capital. This only makes sense: if you > work *smarter* you can work better. Most of the advances in this century > involve developments of technology- you cannot develop that technology > with a group of illiterates. There is a nice aphorism which applies > here: > "Give a person a fish and you will keep them fed for a day, > Teach a person how to fish and they will be fed for their life." > > The effectiveness of this principle was shown in the results of a multiyear > panel study of participants in Head Start programs vs poor children who > hadn't been in Head Start. The kids in Head Start programs grew up to > have over twice the employment levels of those not in Head Start, they > were several times more likely to go to college, they were much more likely > to get professional jobs, they were several times *less* likely to > have any criminal record. Was it worth the relatively small amount > spent on Head Start programs to provide poor children opportunities to > learn and grow they had never had before? I think there is no doubt > about it. It costs $20,000 a year to keep criminals in prison. If > Head Start keeps even a fraction of poor kids from going on to crime > and prison it is worth every penny spent on it. > > I agree that there is a lot of waste in many social programs and that > some should be eliminated. But, for the most part, I think that > spending for education is an investment in our future. The study > on Head Start demonstrates an enormously successful educational program > which should be increased rather than cut. Unless you would rather pay > money for more prisons twenty years from now! > tim sevener whuxl!orb Your comments on education suggest that you support more education in a rather indiscriminate manner. As nice as it may be for people to get educations in dance, art, and English literature, not all education is of equal value to the economy. During the 1960s, a lot of people went off to school and studied psychology, art, English literature, and lot of other fields where there were far fewer jobs than graduates. The areas where demand was and is high, were largely ignored by young people going off to college. I was unable to complete a bachelor's degree due to financial problems. (And being the wrong race contributed to the financial problems --- but that's another story.) My parents, like a lot of other lower middle class people, ended up paying to send people from more financially secure families off to college at governmentally operated and subsidized institutions. They benefitted from all that education by getting pretty good jobs. I got a pretty good job because of my skills. Why should my parents have subsidized kids from wealthier families? If education is as important to our economy as you say, then this should result in well-educated people being well paid. In fact, people going into fields where there was demand, did get well-paying jobs. There is no reason those people couldn't repay student loans. If education is as useful as you suggest to our economy, then any rational lender would be willing to make student loans without the government guaranteeing those loans. In fact, many of the degrees received are of no value to our society. They may make the person more interesting to talk to at a party; they make the person more culturally varied; but they benefit that person, and he should pay for it. The idea that education makes people better citizens strikes me as both idealistic and false. I know very few well-educated people with an active interest in politics; I know lots of people like me who are college dropouts, or even less educated, who are very aware of what's going in around the world. Education should pay its own way by insisting that those who receive the direct benefit of an education should pay the costs. Only then will we know whether the education is worth it. If it isn't worth it, a student going off to study English literature won't be able to realistically plan on paying back his student loans. One last thing --- the overwhelming majority of college students in this country are middle-class or above, and that has far more to do with the cultural values held by poor people than lack of money.