[RandomBK]

Why should taxes subsidize the study of topics that have no economic value?

Most "college should be free" proposals fail under scrutiny because degrees tend to fall into a spectrum of utility:

On one end are degrees that impart skills that are needed and desired by the economy. By and large, graduates of these degrees _already_ enjoy sustainable wages, because the market recognizes and rewards those skills. Government subsidy for these degrees tend to have marginal benefits, because it is already a sound financial choice for students.

On the other extreme are degrees that, like GP identified, were never meant to be economically sound. They focus on intellectual ideas and curiosities, rather than skills actively needed by the economy. Government subsidy here would be little more than subsidizing hobbies and other activity that do not provide economic returns.

There _are_ specific degrees where there's a public policy interest in encouraging the study of topics not adequately compensated by market forces. Most of these are already covered by specific subsidies, such as scientific research grants.

[fezfight]

Because if they don't have to pay for it, theyll do it because it's what interests them and we will get more interacademic crossover ideas. Which is where innovation thrives! As it stands, people who persue their dreams are forced to go into debt which is, I assume, a shitty thing to have to do and probably doesn't promote creative problem solving (beyond how to get a higher paying job to pay off the debt).

Also, because an eclectically educated mix of people is likely more pleasant to live amongst than an uneducated group. And since it would benefit everyone to have everyone educated it should be paid for with taxes.

Plus it's simply good to leave the world better than you came into it.

[didgeoridoo]

Four years of on-campus private school education is a consumption good and I’m not paying for it with my taxes. Nobody who commutes to state school is graduating with six figures of life-destroying debt, and the educational quality is the same or better. Don’t fall for the shiny brochures. A decent, cheap higher education can be had if you aren’t in it for the parties.

[throwaway_4ever]

For example, in the most populous US state, California, there's a CSU within commuting distance of probably 95% of the population, had for $6k/year, such that student loans at 4% mean a cost of $960/year interest. If you were truly financially savvy (and not having the rest of your countrymen paying for your dorm fraternity experience), the first two years would be community college, at a cost of $2k/year and an interest cost of $640/year.

But maybe I'm biased since I paid for my 3 years community college and 2 years of UC by choosing Computer Science and paying for the $30k with my first year's salary. All of my peers had that option.

[fezfight]

Is that what you wanted to study? Or did you do it because you had to, just to be able to pay for it?

You're OK with public school being paid for by tax, but not post secondary. Why?

[throwaway_4ever]

It's both. I had a variety of things I wanted to study: philosophy, economics, history, and computers. I took electives where I could and majored in CS so I could pursue the rest in my leisure time. The alternative had worse odds of letting me study the others in my leisure time.

You're OK with post secondary being paid for by tax, but not PhD's, why? Why not two PhD's?

I am ok with the basic critical thinking skills useful in navigating life being taught. I believe public school is designed that way and accomplishes that much better than post secondary. I've seen the general psychology, business admin, arts, sociology, and criminology cohort that public universities pump out in the last 5 years. They aren't swimming in unique insights and most worthy of the substantial financial investments we could make elsewhere.

I would have 0 respect for someone that wants a free 4 year ride to study sociology in a pampered university setting, while opposing critical financial aid to the impoverished Ukrainians dying to defend their country.

[peyton]

> You’re OK with public school being paid for by tax

I’m not. Show me a child at a public school who wouldn’t be better educated by a private school for the same price.

[cloudsec9]

Oh, I don't know where to START with this one.

I think people hear "private" and they think "better". Which in some cases, sure. But when you hear "private" you should think "FOR PROFIT". And we all know the way to maximize profit is by maximizing spending and minimizing revenue, right?

I am blessed that public schools in my area are EXTREMELY good. To compete, private schools have to have smaller class sizes and charge a LOT more then a comparative public education costs. If you drop all students in the public system into a private system, to have things COST the same to parents, you'd have to ramp up class sizes or cut what you are providing. Plus, you have to run a profit, so more incentives to skimp.

I think in a lot of areas, due to chronic underfunding, the public school system is bad. But the way to fix this is adequate funding, not the notion that private schools are magic and that the same funding level will lead to similar outcomes.

[insightcheck]

I can show you one counter-example, which should work.

Hunter College High School in New York City is a public school, and its students disproportionately end up in top US universities (from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_College_High_School).

The graduates of the private high school near the neighborhood I grew up in, however, mostly ended up as accountants after attending a local public university. For specifics, you can take most private high schools in the US (even many of the very expensive ones), and they won't have as good outcomes recorded for their students as Hunter or its equivalent public schools in New York City.

[fezfight]

I'm curious to hear why you are ok with elementary through to high schools being paid for with tax?

[insightcheck]

> "On the other extreme are degrees that, like GP identified, were never meant to be economically sound. They focus on intellectual ideas and curiosities, rather than skills actively needed by the economy. Government subsidy here would be little more than subsidizing hobbies and other activity that do not provide economic returns."

The risk of defunding these programs is that you can't confidently say whether many of these subjects might become useful in the future.

Many research areas in linguistics, for example, may not have direct economic benefits right now, but could be useful far in the future if humans have alien contact (like the film "The Arrival"). Less speculatively and outside of science fiction, many pure math discoveries have ended up as useful in cryptography and computer science. Astronomy and astrophysics could yield commercial applications far into the future, along with other fundamental scientific research.

Outside of science and more into the arts, history has been influential in recent times to the decision-making of various political leaders. Social science research can be important for the welfare of a country, in the creation of effective evidence-based policy. The support of artists and writers can improve the political influence of a country, when influential works spread to other countries. Focusing on economic returns right now is too narrowly focused on the short term, and ignores the longer-term benefits for a country.

[gruez]

>>> Really? You wouldn't prefer that it was all free any everyone got access to it?

>> "On the other extreme are degrees that, like GP identified, were never meant to be economically sound. They focus on intellectual ideas and curiosities, rather than skills actively needed by the economy. Government subsidy here would be little more than subsidizing hobbies and other activity that do not provide economic returns."

>The risk of defunding these programs is that you can't confidently say whether many of these subjects might become useful in the future.

Why do the options have to be either "free college for all" or "defund programs that don't have direct economic benefits"? The option that you're missing is not giving free college for all, but still providing some merit based scholarships to subsidize the most promising students.

[insightcheck]

That's a a valid option, but my response was to GP's phrase that "Government subsidy here would be little more than subsidizing hobbies and other activity that do not provide economic returns," which effectively supports the removal of government funding to humanities programs.

Partial or full funding covers my view that at least some government support should exist for humanities programs. The UK, Canada, and many US state universities effectively already do this, where domestic students pay a relatively affordable sum each year (roughly $10,000 USD annually) with merit and need-based scholarships available.

[exadrid]

Because economic value is not the end all and be all of life. Have you considered social and cultural benefits?

[MoreSEMI]

Social and cultural benefits are entirely subjective and difficult to see how any large group of people would agree on what constitutes such benefits. I don’t think many people would be okay with subsiding the supposed benefits that theologists percisely because they disagree about the benefits. Economic benefits are much more likely to be widely accepted and understood.