

The Death Of Bundling In University Education? - bgray
http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2011-07.html#e2011-07-15T16_25_44.htm

======
yummyfajitas
The article makes a strong, unsupported assumption: that "subsidizing...the
broad education of a well-informed citizenry" is a "public good". I'd be
curious to hear some sort of justification for this.

In short, how do I (as a member of the public) benefit from a waiter with a
degree in women's studies or some similar degree with little economic value?

~~~
kenjackson
As I'm sure you know Jefferson was one of the big proponents of a well-
informed citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy.

At the end of the day the title of the degree doesn't matter. Whether its
Women's Studies, Math, or Seafood Prep, it's more about learning to use
analytical skills to look at problems. The idea being these skills are
translatable.

I do like the idea of college. I do like the idea that you've spent four years
thinking. I do sometimes feel college is waster on the young. If society
functioned in a way such that you could work for 10 years and go back to
college at age 30 I think people would derive much more value from it, even
for degrees with no direct economic value.

~~~
tokenadult
_I'm sure you know Jefferson was one of the big proponents of a well-informed
citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy._

Yes, Jefferson generally expressed the opinion that an educated citizenry is
beneficial to a country, and I have often expressed agreement with that
opinion. But it is important to note that Jefferson did not support making
school attendance compulsory, nor did he think that education should be
provided solely by state governments. Jefferson received more nonparental
schooling than the other three presidents depicted on Mount Rushmore combined,
first at home with a hired tutor in Tuckahoe, where Jefferson's father moved
when Jefferson was two to be guardian for his wife's late cousin's son. At age
nine Thomas Jefferson was placed as a boarding student in the one-room "Latin
school" kept by the Reverend William Douglas, minister of St. James Parish.
Thomas Jefferson's later letters reveal Jefferson didn't think Reverend
Douglas really knew the subject matter very well.

Thomas Jefferson's studies with that teacher ended at the age of fourteen,
when his father died. Thomas Jefferson then was sent to the five-student
school kept by the Reverend James Maury, whose son was one of the other
students in the school. Jefferson spent many hours walking in the woods or
practicing the violin while studying there. Jefferson then again stopped
attending school briefly before traveling to Williamsburg to attend the
College of William and Mary.

William Small was Thomas Jefferson's favorite member of the college's seven-
man faculty. Jefferson was remembered in later years by his classmates for his
diligence in independently reading books until late at night. After two years,
Jefferson completed his studies at William and Mary and then studied law by
working with a Williamsburg lawyer from 1762 to 1766.

Jefferson, after retiring from his rather trouble-plagued presidency, spent
years planning a system of publicly subsidized schools in Virginia. He wrote
extensively to other planners of that project, and many of his letters from
that period survive and have been reprinted. He was convinced from his
extensive observations of society in America and in Europe that parental
control was vital for schools:

"But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by
the Governor and Council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other
general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it
is a belief against all experience. Try the principle one step further and
amend the bill so as to commit to the Governor and Council the management of
all our farms, our mills, and merchants' stores." Letter of Thomas Jefferson
to Joseph Cabell, Feb. 2, 1816, reprinted in _Political Writings of Thomas
Jefferson_ (1955), page 98 and in _The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_ (Memorial
Edition 1904), volume 14, pages 420-21.

In other words, it is as ridiculous to have governments, especially
governments of broad territorial units, operate schools as it is to have
governments operate grocery stores or farms. But of course socialist countries
around the world have tried the experiment of governments running farms and
stores, always with disastrous results, and almost every country in the world
today has government-operated schools. Perhaps it is time to listen again to
Jefferson's advice.

Jefferson was quite consistent on this point of preferring private operation
of schools, however much those schools were publicly funded and open to all
members of the public. In a state of the Union address during his second term
as president, Jefferson noted:

"It [should not] be proposed to take ordinary branches [of education] out of
the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns
to which it is equal." Thomas Jefferson, sixth annual message to Congress
(1806), reprinted in _The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_ (Memorial Edition
1907), volume 14, page 384.

Jefferson most definitely supported public funding of schools, but made clear
he opposed compulsory attendance.

"Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in
opposition to the will of the parent? . . . It is better to tolerate the rare
instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the
common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the
infant against the will of the father. What is proposed here is to remove the
objection of expense, by offering education gratis . . . Letter of Thomas
Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, September 9, 1817, reprinted in _Writings of
Thomas Jefferson_ (Memorial Edition 1904) volume 17, page 423.

~~~
kenjackson
I think many would support private publicly-funded schools if private schools
would adhere to being open to the general public. It's in the best interest of
many (if not most) private schools to push out special needs students. They're
expensive and generally don't help the "reputation" of the school.

We might be able to handle this by having private schools, but no school
choice. That way private schools can't push students out -- if they live in
your area, they're yours. Of course this destroys the free market dynamics,
which many say is key.

There is just real incentive in education to not have to deal with special
needs children in a way that stores and farms have no real analog (the closest
analog is farms working with certain _easy_ crops -- which is one reason we
see so much corn and soy crops, in addition to subsidies).

The other thing that is interesting is you look at colleges, for-profit
colleges seem to be almost universally reviled (especially relative to public
and private-non-profit colleges). So far in the US private education of any
peoples except the intellectual and/or economic elite has not yielded
promising results.

 _Jefferson most definitely supported public funding of schools, but made
clear he opposed compulsory attendance._

In the US today school attendence isn't compulsory. I think anyone could home
school.

~~~
yummyfajitas
If a private school is better than a public school at educating non-retarded
children, then why shouldn't we allow it to do so?

Normal children will receive a better education than at public schools.
Retarded children will continue to attend public schools and receive the same
education.

I.e., some people get a better education, some continue to receive the same
education. What's the harm?

~~~
kenjackson
The problem is you probably can't reasonably fund a school for disenfranchised
segments of the population without resorting to massive busing. So you'd
literally end up with a system where normal students get a decent, but
probably not vastly superior eduction, and other students get no education at
all.

This is why the current system is better that the one proposed. If you want to
contribute to other people not getting an education, the govt shouldn't pay
for it (hence private schools shouldn't be funded if they're going to select
who they want to serve).

The other alternative is that funding is commensurate with things like family
income. So rich kids aren't funded at all. Poor kids are funded at 5x their
cost, or something like that. This works a little better as its slightly
harder to game.

~~~
yummyfajitas
How does a private school teaching Student A prevent student B from getting
the exact same education as before at the old public school?

~~~
kenjackson
Because of how funding works. It's similar to the reason why if you remove all
healthy people off of insurance plans, you can no longer afford to cover the
sick. I leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Huh? Insurance is about hedging against low probability, high cost events.
I.e., 1 million people (each with a 5/1,000,000 chance of getting a medical
condition costing $200k) pay $1, and in the future approximately 5 of them get
sick and receive $200k.

If one could see the future and determine who will become sick (as in Robert
Heinlein's "Life Line"), it would indeed destroy the insurance business model.
But I can't see what this has to do with education - near as I can tell,
education is not about hedging risk in any way remotely comparable to
insurance.

~~~
kenjackson
It's not just hedging risk, but also subsidizing costs. Education is similiar
in that you can't create a school for 100 different schools, each of 10
students across multiple grade levels within a single school district. And
furthermore it's very cost ineffective when they share 75% of the
infrastructure that other children would use.

So you have one school with 1,000 students that has all the finances to have a
building, janitorial staff, gym, new textbooks, have music teachers, etc...
The schools with 10 students can barely afford lease for a single room office
-- much less one general purpose teacher.

The healthy subsidize the unhealthy. This is why for healthcare reform
insurance is mandatory.

I'm not against private schools per se, but I am against the public funding
them. The implicit goal of private schools is to oppress those not in them, as
much as to educate those in them. It's an anti-public good to fund them. With
that said I do think private schools are consistent with the goals of
capitalism, part of which is exploit others as best possible.

------
WWWWH
OK, this is interesting but as best I can tell he's talking about splitting
profitable from unprofitable courses. But there is another way of drawing the
line between the functions of modern unis. The offer is;

\+ undergraduate education

\+ postgraduate education (including research degrees)

\+ scientific and engineering research

\+ research and scholarship in the humanities

\+ nationally televised sports (subset of US only)

\+ We provide accommodation

\+ A social experience for late teens / early twenties

\+ We set and assess exams (could split again here)

\+ We provide accreditation (our courses are worthwhile as we say they are;
this is complex, though, and depends on course, jurisdiction, much more)

\+ We provided a branded experience ("I went to M...")

Now it is unlikely that universities that offer much of this will ever split
out the functions (Vince Cable suggested it in the UK and didn't get very
far). What do you reckon on the chances of some nimble new entrants taking
away some of this business from the incumbents?

[edited to try and get the list to work]

~~~
justincormack
Well in the UK we had a huge number of recent new entrants to the market
(polytechnics, fe colleges etc), whole sets of mergers. And the number of
customers increased a lot, probably past the point where the returns are
positive. London has recently seen a huge new market in student accomodation.
Universities are providing branded courses overseas. Only the postgrad
situation is arguably stagnent in terms of innovation.

------
dotBen
Did anyone else think this was something completely different?

For those of us with a British education "bundling" in education means
something very different...

Best demonstrated via video I think:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ6lsa3V5SA> (safe for work)

------
smcj
I found the authors mistake:

"But now that students and parents are paying the majority of the cost of the
education [...]"

WTH? Every society which basically favours people with deep pockets instead of
intelligent, gifted people (and don't let yourself be fooled by
"scholarships") is heading for a huge failure.

Real scientific research, political progress and prosperity of the nation will
suffer from it (which is exactly what you can observe in the US).

~~~
endtime
In a capitalist society, "people with deep pockets" is an approximation of
"capable people".

~~~
pyre
So capitalist societies don't have inheritance?

~~~
endtime
First of all, I said "approximation". Second of all, genes and values are
inherited as well.

~~~
pyre
Is that really the case though? There have been plenty of cases where the
subsequent generations have let the wealth crumble (or at least pieces of it,
like historic mansions, etc).

~~~
endtime
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

