|
|
|
|
|
by yummyfajitas
3565 days ago
|
|
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? |
|