Instead of subsidizing the ridiculously inflated cost of these programs through loans, the government should just open a string of bare-bones universities across the country that offer decent job training for free. No fancy dorms, no deluxe athletics, just a free education. Don’t subsidize an over-expensive private market. Force the private market to compete with dirt cheap. (Same goes for health care, too)
State universities are already dirt cheap (<$7000/yr tuition in many places). People aren't good at making financial decisions at any age, must less at 18.
I find that statement pretty goofy. I went to an excellent public school - better than many private schools. The overall expansion of public schools since the 19th century has massively benefitted the American economy. Look at the relative lifetime earnings of high school graduates vs high school dropouts. It’s taxpayer money we’ll spent.
Caltech freshman physics dispensed with 2 years of my high school physics in about 2 lectures. After that the piano fell on me, and I was in deep doo doo, with 2 years of physics required for graduation. My "honors" high school chemistry class fared even worse.
While I had a fine time in high school, hanging with my friends and mucking about with muscle cars, helpful in college it was not.
Okay, well I had the opposite experience, and found that my public high school had made me over-prepared for Yale, to the point that writing 20 page papers was easy. One individual, anecdotal experience proves nothing. That is why I pointed to the overall statistics on high school graduates. Perhaps some public high schools do not make some people fully ready for Caltech (I wouldn’t expect them to??) but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a net economic good. Public schools set a good floor that the best private schools can expensively surpass; public colleges should set a good floor that the best private colleges expensively surpass; public health care should set a good floor that private health care can expensively surpass, etc. that is a more effective system for balancing quality and cost than the current unchecked subsidies for private systems
That's an astute observation. I did quite a lot of other stuff, and got in (I found out later) because the prof who came to interview me felt that I was worth taking a chance on. The school also put out a fine course catalog that looked amazing, it's possible that the admissions committee was taken in by that.
Nevertheless, I arrived very naive and woefully under prepared.
My high school was not exactly a pipeline to Ivy League :-)
In modern news, the Seattle public school system decided to abandon gifted programs because they were inequitable.
Or it’s possible that your public school helped make you into the person your professor thought had potential.
Re: Seattle. I didn’t say “the public school system is perfect and never does anything stupid.” I said, “it is a net-good for the government to provide free education, which people can then improve upon with more expensive private or family options.” Surely that distinction will not be lost on a Caltech grad :)
> Perhaps some public high schools do not make some people fully ready for Caltech
which implies that they, in general, do much better than I'm suggesting. But an objective test would be, does a public high school diploma command more pay? What does it mean in the job market?
No, the test is, does a public high school diploma command more pay than no high school diploma? And the answer is a resounding yes. As I have noted, multiple times, in this discourse, I think there is a role for private education, and I think it can do wonderful things. But It is a costly model whose social and economic benefits depend, in part, in exclusivity. If you hadn’t gone to your “worthless” public school, that doesn’t mean you would have suddenly gone to Dalton. It means you would, most likely, either not have gone to high school, or gone into debt to attend a more expensive school. Presumably you think your option was better? That means that public schools are a net good that should exist.
I think Seattle public schools like most big districts have two somewhat separate populations. Those who are intelligent and motivated and those who are not. The less they mix the better.
