[yummyfajitas]

- university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual.

Sounds like a fun luxury good. Why should we subsidize such a luxury good and encourage 25-50% of the population to consume it?

Should we also subsidize luxury goods enjoyed by other subcultures, e.g. video games, muscle cars or strip clubs? If not, why not?

[jazzyk]

There is a big elephant in the room here - the terrible state of high school education in the US. In many (advanced) countries in the world you can be reasonably educated/knowledgeable with a high school diploma - Kant and Hegel (and Confucius and Buddha :-)) are discussed in classes.

[yequalsx]

Educatuion is a public good. We all benefit when society is highly educated. The benefits might not be obtained at an individual level. That is, there will be some people whose education does not end up benefitting us all.

[yummyfajitas]

If you want to claim education has positive externalities, then make that case. But that's a little hard to square with BenElgar's idea that subsidizing some degrees more than others is "damaging". His comment argued nothing about externalities.

After all, if it turns out that the public external benefits of a physics degree exceed those of a women's studies degree, then the former should be subsidized but not the latter.

In any case, what do you believe the external benefits of education are?

[yequalsx]

If the public benefits of a physics degree exceed those of a women's studies degree then the former should be subsidized but not the latter? What if the former's benefit exceeds the latter's benefit by an epsilon amount? By your reasoning only the most beneficial degree should be subsidized but not any others. Perhaps you typed in haste and did not mean what you wrote in a strict sense.

I don't believe one can really quantize which degree has more public benefits. Some benefits are hidden, in the sense that their benefit isn't so readily recognizable. The benefits of an educated populace are manifest and, I believe, clearly worth the expense of public financial support.

[yummyfajitas]

To be more precise, what I meant is that both should only be subsidize to whatever degree they create external benefits. I.e., if a physics degree has $5k external benefit and a women's studies degree $5, then the physics degree deserves 1000x more subsidies.

And once you factor in the harms caused by signalling, it's far from clear it's even a net positive.

The benefits of an educated populace are manifest and, I believe, clearly worth the expense of public financial support.

The external benefits are far from clear.

If a person is educated and becomes a doctor, and then fixes my spine in return for money, the benefit is clear. But that benefit is fully captured by myself and the doctor, and he factored the cost of education into the price he charged me.

Can you name what the external benefit (i.e. benefits captured by third parties) is, for both medical education, physics education and women's studies?

[yequalsx]

The external benefits are quite clear to me. That they are not clear to you suggests to me that nothing I write or say will change your mind. So what's the point of asking me to list them? Are you merely trying to see if I understand the concept of a external benefits or genuinely trying know what possible external benefit there could be with someone being provided a subsidized education? I think you can think of some.

[yummyfajitas]

Are you merely trying to see if I understand the concept of a external benefits or genuinely trying know what possible external benefit there could be with someone being provided a subsidized education?

I'm trying to know what external benefits you think exist and why you think they are uniform across all fields of study, which is a much stronger claim that you made. I cannot think of any such benefits.

E.g., one might hypothesize that people in college develop useful skills that benefit others in a manner they cannot capture as wages. But it's a little crazy to suggest that a women's studies major develops those skills to the same degree as a nurse.

[enraged_camel]

>>Educatuion is a public good. We all benefit when society is highly educated.

Right. The point of contention is whether we should be paying $50-150k per person for this public good.

I mean, the benefits are clearly there, but the price has been skyrocketing and when the individual can't pay back their loans, we all suffer.