This happens to any good or service that everyone needs but that we stubbornly refuse to fund publically.
That's always been my beef with the "college for everyone" movements. That instantly de-values jobs that don't require a college education.
But anyway, your statement may be true but how do you determine who "needs" to go to college and who doesn't?
If I (as a European) remember correctly, one of the US core values is the pursuit of happiness. That would imply to me that everyone should at least be given the chance to go to college - whether or not they decide to go (and graduate) is a different question.
If I (as a European) remember correctly, one of the US core values is the pursuit of happiness. That would imply to me that everyone should at least be given the chance to go to college - whether or not they decide to go (and graduate) is a different question.
I don't disagree with this, necessarily. I disagree with rhetoric that implies if you don't go to college, you are a second class citizen.
Anecdotally, I think these tides may be slowly changing. I feel like a lot of people are beginning to see the value in craft (bakers, mechanics, carpenters, beer brewers, etc.)
I have no idea. But a few years ago, you could have said the same about truck or taxi drivers - and now it seems feasible that those jobs will be automated away in ten years.
For electricians, you could imagine that IoT/home automation tech will change a lot: Home electrics could become more complex and more locked-down, requiring additional qualifications. In the worst case, independent electricians could find themselves in a similar situation that independent car repair shops are today.
Or a company like TaskRabbit could employ their own electricians/plumbers/carpenters/etc... (at worse conditions) and decide to roll up the market.
Those are wild guesses. But my point is that jobs may change quickly in the future. having a broad education and additional qualifications gives you a better chance to deal with "disruption" in your area.
I disagree with rhetoric that implies if you don't go to college, you are a second class citizen.
That's not what I wanted to tell. But I don't think we are in a position to decide that. And I don't think it's correct to simply assume that college education plays no role and to conclude from that assumption that it's OK if certain people never get the choice to go to college.
A computer can do a lot of the pre-cutting.
I would see this going in the direction of some auto mechanics--that you have to be certified by a particular company in order to work on their equipment. But, yes, as you point out, independent electricians, as a vocation, aren't going anywhere soon. There are too many homes (particularly in the east) with very old wiring.
People need education. They don't need an expensive social club that happens to teach.
A need would be something more like a community college and less like Harvard. Or maybe if you are going into research, community college + graduate school at university.
And that's a very generous definition of need.
(Personal experience tells me that champagne improves my quality of life, though I don't have a further education experience to compare it to.)
It also happens to any good or service we decide to fund publicly: the civil servants' unions which provide it insure that their members capture as much money as they can.
Providing it publicly doesn't at all mean that it will be provided cheaply.
An analogy in education would be, government funds a certain jumber of public, free or low-cost universities, but you can also pay more to go to a better, private school (without the government paying/guaranteeing for it).
Jokes aside, what we really should do is get government out of the business of paying for private education. In theory, joint public and private efforts sound good. In practice, they have all the flaws of both the private and public sectors and end up being inefficient, ineffective, and expensive. (cf. housing, military contractors, etc.)
Depends in which practice. In Europe (e.g. Slovenia), public universities are reasonably good, cheap (free), and serve the majority of the population. In the UK, I think council housing was a great idea - until they started selling it off (i.e. privatizing it).
Public universities are simply public. There's no problem with them and they can in fact be both good and cheap.
> In the UK, I think council housing was a great idea - until they started selling it off (i.e. privatizing it).
Exactly. If the government wants to operate public housing, that's fine. The problem is when the government starts giving private enterprises control of the housing and the opportunity to make profits while government still foots the bill.