[mytailorisrich]

We are free to be curious and to "find ourselves". But why should we expect society to pay for it beyond a certain point? At some point it is indeed "subsidizing hobbies".

As long as things cost something, and a course costs something to create and deliver, the question of valuation in some way is valid. It's not a capitalist issue, it's an allocation of resources issue, which is something universal as long as resources are limited.

Where it works, the free market is great because it transparently shows how people actually value something. That is, it shows how we actually are and what we actually want, not what would be nice in some utopian world.

[knallfrosch]

It's interesting how abstract these discussions are. Countries with free – free for the student, at least – tertiary education do exist and you can use them for comparison.

[mardifoufs]

Surely you know that in those countries, education is gatekept in a different,perhaps even worse way. Sure you don't have to pay to get university education in France. But good luck entering a program you want, or reorienting later in life, after highschool. You end up with a lot of people competing for the sought after degrees, and not ever being able to even dream of "learning what you want" if you messed up your bac exam. And the requirements are very strict and inflexible for those,much more than in the US.

The same thing happens in Germany but in an even more vicious way. You are basically triaged before high school and can only manage to switch with tons of bureaucracy and difficulty. It's gotten better but it's still very much 'your path is set and is almost impossible to change after high school' for most people.

[mytailorisrich]

Yes they do exist. On the one hand this is great but on the other hand it also also generates waste, both in terms of resources and time.

I went to university in France when it was both free (still basically is) with no selection for entry and the amount of waste was huge for no benefit to anyone... well except for official stats because "I'm not unemployed, I'm a student"...

[em-bee]

please elaborate on the waste you saw. i studied in germany and austria and i didn't notice waste. on the contrary, requiring payment would have excluded many of the good students. (entry is limited to qualified students however, so there is some selection. does that make all the difference? i doubt it.)

[mytailorisrich]

> on the contrary, requiring payment would have excluded many of the good students

How? Surely people/families in Germany/Austria, some of the richest countries in the world, can afford to pay something towards education costs... And in fact they do through their taxes, which are needed to pay for this "free" university. [obviously poor families can benefit from bursaries so this is not a relevant argument]

The waste is students picking courses just to do something or just because they are vaguely interested in them (and then they get all the benefits afforded to students, including housing subsidies). And then they give up, or they fail, or once they graduate they realise that it gets them exactly 0 job. So huge waste of resources and time and, as mentioned, sometimes a way to hide youth unemployment.

[em-bee]

Surely people/families in Germany/Austria, some of the richest countries in the world, can afford to pay something towards education costs

rich country doesn't mean rich people. we have high taxes and lower average wages. high rent in cities. in vienna, more than 60% of people live in subsidized housing. none of them could ever afford to pay for university.

and if more than 60% of students need financial support, all we are doing is adding expensive bureaucracy. might as well just make it free instead.

[mytailorisrich]

That does not answer my question and it is obviously not true that people cannot afford to pay for university, not least when we haven't mentioned a price.

Every time similar topics are discussed it's odd to read some comments because they give the impression that people in the richest countries in the world have no disposable income (they can't pay for healthcare, they can't pay for higher education, they can't pay for public transport, etc). Of course there are poor people, but the majority have plenty of disposable income (that's what a rich country means).

> "in vienna, more than 60% of people live in subsidized housing"

This does not mean that this is a necessity it shows some issues with the housing market and housing policy, not that people are "poor". In fact, if the majority of people in a rich European city get housing subsidies it seems quite clear that this has nothing to do with poverty and not being able to afford it, but is a policy/market disfunction issue.

To go back to France, in France every student gets housing subsidies. This does not mean that they need it, it's just that the choice of policy has been to dish out subsidies without consideration of need.

[tonypace]

The difference smells like culture from across the ocean.

[mardifoufs]

It's interesting that you chose Germany as an example of ease of access to the education you want. Maybe if you managed to get into a Gymnasium and didn't fuck up when you were like... 10? Sure. Otherwise yeah, good luck getting into university for the degree you want.

[Hellolearning]

You can actually get a university allowance through your job experience.

You can get Bafoeg (financial support which you get for free) if you have a job degree and go to the BOS to get your university degree that way.

[em-bee]

in my time bafoeg was 50% loan, and it would only cover living expenses and study material. if university cost actual money, financial support for it would be another thing entirely.

the point is: does charging for university and then giving financial support to those who need it really change anything other than causing more bureaucracy and risking that some people can't go because they don't qualify for financial support yet shy away from the expense?

reducing taxes so that people have more money so they can afford paid education is not going to lead to more students but less.

[em-bee]

Maybe if you managed to get into a Gymnasium and didn't fuck up when you were like... 10

not true. there is also the gesamtschule which delays the decision to make the abitur until you are in 10th grade.

40% of students in germany qualify for university (and another 10% for fachhochschule). that is much higher than the university admission rates in the US.

[mardifoufs]

And then, what happens after that decision? How free are you to get the education you want after that? If you pick a path and then want something harder or better, say going into médecine in school. How hard is it going to be? And aren't 10th graders around like 14 years old?

Again, that's just as bad as paying for education. At least with money you can work or take a loan and chose the path you want even at age 20 or 25, you're not locked in by a choice that was made when you were a teenager. Yes, I know you also have to get good grades in the US or Canada, but at least here in Canada you can basically almost always go back to university, take a few perp courses and be eligible to apply even for medecine.

[em-bee]

why are people downvoting that comment? are you disputing the facts stated? those are the numbers i found on a quick search. if they are wrong, then please share references to correct them.

[1oooqooq]

naive. free market shows what generates revenue.

[mytailorisrich]

And what generates revenue is exactly what I described: what we want and value and thus are willing to pay for.

I don't see what's naive there. On the contrary this is absolute realism. And furthermore this goes hand in hand with individual liberty. Alternatives have been tried, and they failed...

[1oooqooq]

oh boy.

[Hellolearning]

Because we as a society are the only reason who holds us back.

We use capitalism to control resources etc. but only thanks to controled capitalism / politics we are keeping pure capitalsim under control (like minimum wage, labor laws etc.).

We could create a new system. A system which determines how many resources we as society can produce on one side and want we need + want on the other side. Than we optimize our system for this.

Which would mean we would get rid of everything we don't need and optimize everything we can.

We don't need thousends of different companies doing simliar things just different with their own overhead. Capitalism needs this to control itself.