[tokenadult]

A University allows you to explore your interested in a nice structured manner, allowing you to get feedback from respected professionals and though leaders in different fields.

How much third-party subsidy should any one person get to enjoy those advantages? What criteria should be applied to deciding which persons get to enjoy subsidies for that advantage from funds paid by taxpayers, including poor taxpayers with no hope of attending college?

[mdda]

Maybe you're familiar with the trickle-down theory (whereby the rich are the wealth-creators, so they should be encouraged with low tax rates) : That line of thinking should have you advocating that people with high intelligence should be similarly encouraged to improve themselves, even if that means that others lose out - because those lucky few are better prepared to lead?

[DjMojoRisin]

Bringing in Taxpayers into the argument about people getting the opportunity to goto University is not cool. Education should be a choice, that all are allowed to make. It's an investment in the future of the country, and it should definitely not be a "passtime".

[tokenadult]

It's an investment in the future of the country, and it should definitely not be a "passtime".

Where is the proof of return on investment? (That is the point under discussion in the submitted article.) I am happy to spend my own money on education--I still do--and I am happy to spend family money on my children's education while my children are minors in my care. But why should some person poorer than I am pay for my children's education in their adult life if what my children are doing is exploring options to make up their mind what to do with their life? That's the kind of issue I was responding to in my response to your comment above. We all have teen years while still in high school "try out your hand at different fields, and figure out which ones you are good at, and where you can be successful in the future," if a high school is properly structured.

After edit: a friend on Facebook, a high-tech engineer, suggested this link today as a rationale for examining ALL the ways that colleges spend money now.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/14/stop-funding-college-s...

[DjMojoRisin]

By your argument, we should not have public schools then either? Since some taxpayer who is poorer than you is still paying for that? Also you can choose not to use this option; just go-to a private college?

I think that in the majority of cases, with the progressive system of taxation, and need-based aid in institutions, we avoid the scenario where my education is severely subsidized by those taxpayers that are poorer than I; also we pay a percentage of our incomes, so by definition the poorer people pay less and get the same services.

As for exploring options while in high school: I'm all for that, but I think that in most cases that's not possible; given that the level of education provided is quite basic in most cases.