> But it's subsidized; so people who aren't getting an education are paying for those who do.
This is just another way of saying that the society cares about this issue!
To put an analogy: When a society cares about parenthood and children, non-parents pay some share to parents. This is how financial solidarity works. How else should that work? By telling parents that they do a great job, that you appreciate what they do for society, but not giving a single cent to them? That would be hypocritical, not solidary.
So why can't it voluntary via donations to universities?
> By telling parents that they do a great job, that you appreciate what they do for society, but not giving a single cent to them? That would be hypocritical, not solidary.
It's not hypocritical if you compliment someone without paying them money.
Education is perhaps more important for preventing crime and violence than police and courts are. Remember, police and courts just deal with the crime; they don't prevent it like having a proper education and employment does.
No, only some portion of the population (possibly not even the majority--see the U.S. 2016 election) decides for everybody including those who are against it.
One could very much argue that having educated people is more beneficial to the society, and therefore for everyone, than it costs the society. Also educated pay more taxes individually since they usually earn more.
But you'd have to argue it, it isn't self-evident that more education is simply better. Look at the number of PhDs who can't secure post-docs let alone tenure track. They may feel some personal satisfaction from the letters after their names, but it's very questionable that "society" benefits from churning them out. Once you educate people to the level of basic literacy and numeracy, say age 16, it's diminishing returns after that.
Subsized - yes. But I don't agree to the second sentence: Generally the higher educated people are getting higher salaries afterwards and are paying way more taxes. These taxes are then used for providing education to the next generation (and also for lots of social programs which target the low/no income population).
If education was always profitable like that, governments wouldn't subsidize it, they wouldn't need to. Heck people would be fighting to give student loans.
The reality is lots of people study subjects that don't result in higher salaries but political correctness insists that people be able to study the arts easily, so governments "have" to subsidize education.
Well, no, the cost of education is ridiculous. Not many people get out of undergrad without any loans, and especially if you want to go on to get higher education (yes, even law degrees which pay nicely after you graduate), you'll be stuck with a mountain of debt that you won't be paying off any time soon.
I know someone in particular who went on to get a law degree (and was steadily employed in her field from her time of graduation) but was only managing to pay in the double digits toward her loan's principal on a monthly basis -- the rest went toward interest.
The benefits are ridiculous. Not the costs. Where I live it costs $28,000 to get a BS. I took out loans for every penny. Before college my salary was just under $18,000. After college I was making $48,000. I got my MS and PhD for free, fully funded by my work while in graduate school. I even made a decent salary, $18,000 during the year and $30,000 during summer internships.
Yes, but so are the trade schools/apprenticeships where people go that don't go to university, so what's your point? Your education is subsidized either way, unless you don't attend either of those options, in which case the individual is probably not going to pay for anything at all.
When the government pays for health care (like what happens in most european countries) it means that people that are not sick are paying for people that are sick. Why should they, right?
I hate that sort of terminology, money only exists for you to trade because you are a member of a society that collectively decided it was a good idea.
Welcome to social state, where the state thinks the sustainable development of the whole society can be only accomplished by increasing the life level of everyone
This is just another way of saying that the society cares about this issue!
To put an analogy: When a society cares about parenthood and children, non-parents pay some share to parents. This is how financial solidarity works. How else should that work? By telling parents that they do a great job, that you appreciate what they do for society, but not giving a single cent to them? That would be hypocritical, not solidary.