[patdennis]

As a professional liberal, it pains me to have to do this. But since nobody else is, here's the conservative take. Because, seriously, there are real debates about this stuff.

Imaginary Cato institute position: "Leaving higher education to the free market is always more efficient. People naturally make the most rational economic decisions in their journey to achieve maximum happiness. Government interventions, such as confiscating money through the threat of violence (this is what they call taxes) to support free higher education will always distort this market, leading to inefficiencies on the path to maximum happiness. Governments are incompetent and inefficient because of the lack of market incentives, while markets are ruthlessly efficient."

Imaginary Mitt Romney position: The financial support I have received from for-profit colleges is immense. Seriously, those places basically print money. We need more of them.

Real Heritage Foundation positions:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/ways-to-mak...

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/10/the-assault-on-for-profi...

I really do agree with the above comic strip. But liberals like me don't operate on a vacuum. Donate some money to us, you rich silicon valley types.

[raverbashing]

The "liberal-free market" education isn't

Distortion n.1: offering student loans. "Ah but the unprivileged don't have the resources to go to school!" Then give scholarships. Or cap limit student loans (to 10k for example), yes, to a lower number.

Distortion n.2: fscking textbooks. Really, if I'm paying an absurd amount for tuition, everything needed should be included. Nowhere else in the world people are made to buy scantrons for example.

Distortion n.3: people shooting for "the best schools". I understand the connections a good school offers, etc but 1) courses can only go so far (even STEM courses), 2) after around 5 years of professional experience your education becomes less and less important

[acconrad]

As a retort to the conservative theory, the biggest flaw I see in that argument is

> "People naturally make the most rational economic decisions in their journey to achieve maximum happiness"

Current economic thinking of the financially illiterate maximizes happiness on local, and not absolute maxima. You can see this in the everyday ethos of American culture: we want what satisfies us now; we want what is quick and easy. This comes at the cost of it being the best for us, which is oftentimes irrational.

An example of this would be buying fast food over healthy (natural) food. Rationally it's better to buy fast food as it is cheaper than healthy food (on a pure cost basis) and it sates local maxima for immediate happiness in the taste of food. However, it is not a rational economic choice in the long run, as unhealthy food choices correlate with increase disease, and thus higher long-term medical costs, and that sickness leads to an overall (absolute) maxima being lower.

[Gravityloss]

The Nordic countries have a combined population of 26 million, less than a tenth of the US 318 million.

So, assuming similar abilities and a naive random model, out of every research area's top labs, the US should have twelve fold representation compared to the Nordic countries.

There is some concentration in some niches in these countries, as there is probably elsewhere as well.

I think in general the US society and atmosphere is much more stratified than here. Also because of the larger "pool", the "peak" is bigger. The top research labs or top companies get the top people and give almost unlimited resources. But that is relevant to only a small percentage anyway.

Discussion about limiting freedoms and state guidance is quite hard.

In my view, basically anything the state (or city or your neighbordhood council or whatever) does, limits your freedom in some way. Hence we can start from the fact that our freedoms are already limited.