|
|
|
|
|
by yequalsx
3565 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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?