[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.

[peyton]

Show me the data.

[cloudsec9]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geog...

Poor funding seems to be strangely well correlated with poor educational outcomes in public education. And well funded systems seem to produce good results.

[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.