> If the upper class want someplace to send their kids to read poetry and binge drink for 4 years
Is the heart of the problem. For a long time, this was basically the core function of universities - to make people part of the elite. We told ourselves that it was actually about the things being taught rather than social connections. Maybe to a certain extent it even was.
But then, operating on that assumption, we say, what gives these people the right to be elites? Let's make it more accessible! Send anyone who's smart enough and can afford it to school.
We do that. And many of them do go on to get better and higher-paying jobs. To some extent, society creates more jobs for them to do, and to some extent, existing jobs get education inflation, requiring advanced degrees for no real reason.
But why stop there? This is biased against the people who can't afford it. Let's create a ton of scholarships and student loan programs to make it more affordable so more people go. This kind of works, and kind of increases the prices even more (due to bad design of the loan system) and increases education inflation some too.
We've already made it so attractive, might as well tell all high school students that they're failures if they don't go to college, even if it really isn't for them. Tell 'em that so hard that the blue-collar jobs we do still need start to have trouble getting employees and sometimes actually increase in wage past the point of some degree-requiring jobs.
The way the whole financing of the system works makes the whole thing a huge money-pit too, which helps it keep absorbing more functions.
It sure feels like the whole system has gone crazy and needs some major reworking. I'm not sure what the new healthier system would look like or how we transition to it, but something needs to happen. Sorry, not everyone can be the elite. We should stop telling people that they're a failure in life if they don't join the elite and stop making them perform signs of elite status, like degrees at high-ranked universities, to get jobs that ultimately aren't all that important.
Do you think access to education is a human right?
I find your last paragraph a bit troubling, I agree that becoming a part of the elite does not really have a significance with regards to your own worth. But the USA is not a country that revolves around the middle class, its a country that revolves around the elites. In America not being part of the elite is a failure because the political and economical system is made to benefit, empower and sustain elites. Becoming part of the elite is a very good way of sustaining your family and the future family of your family for generations to come. Look at the downward versus upward mobility! To pretend like there is a social class that just isn't for everyone is extremely offensive; everyone should have the same chance. Not everyone can be the best, but everyone who wants to should have a fair shot at it and universities and education as a whole is the best way we have to pave the way.
In Europe, in most countries, universities are accessible to all and they do have some excellent institutions. But not only that, children of all social classes go to the same schools (yes you do have mega elites but I'm talking here about the vast majority of the population) on the other hand compare that to america where children go to school that depends on their location and where you have an incredible disparity between where the poor and where the rich live. How could you say "not everyone can be part of the elite" when being part of the elite is already largely determined on the area you were born in!
I think the US education system needs a complete reform and so much has to change, but really, if youre a politician and you are part of the elite what incentive do you have to make things harder for you and your class? Your kid is going to a top high school then its going to go to a top university. And their kids will do the same if you keep things the way they are.
I don't like the idea of "positive rights" at least as applied to human rights. I don't think it makes sense to consider something a "right" when it requires the active participation of others to provide.
Education is good, but it should be as cheap and simple as possible. Putting it in universities that cost more than the per-capita GDP to attend is about as far from that as it gets. If we take that system and call it a "human right" and get the Government directly involved in paying for it, we're only making it worse by institutionalizing all of the bad practices that make it so insanely expensive, making it even more difficult to ever change and effectively extracting even more money from the people who don't use it.
Education is also not for everyone, and not at every time. People should pursue it because they actually want it, not because they perceive or are told they need it to succeed in life. We shouldn't tell kids they're destined for failure if they don't go to college, shouldn't shame people for being interested in jobs that don't need college, and shouldn't require college degrees for jobs that don't actually need it.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with positive rights. The right to physical safety involves active participation of others, and you'd be bonkers to say it isn't a valid right. No society functions without police.
What we do with positive rights is bundle them up into government provided services, so the load gets distributed evenly through society. These tend to work well, at least in Europe. I really can't understand the US view that anything that is state-provided is inefficient.
> I don't like the idea of "positive rights" at least as applied to human rights. I don't think it makes sense to consider something a "right" when it requires the active participation of others to provide.
All rights require active participation of others to provide. Negative rights such as the right to live and the right to have property don't exist by default. They only become real if the society spends sufficient effort to prevent people from killing and stealing.
Human rights are aspirational. They are not rights people already have but rights people should have. They are the desired outcomes in an ideal society.
Look up US vs Europe university statistics and the population. Also look at what socioeconomic classes in Europe and the US go to and finish university. The data is very close to one another. To the point arguing one is decidedly better woule be too much.
Status and class in the US blows. It doesn’t seem to be much different in Europe either.
First, by definition, not everyone can be elite. Hell, you can't even get more than 50% of the population to be better than average! -- its math.
And if "In America not being part of the elite is a failure because the political and economical system is made to benefit, empower and sustain elites." is true (which seems likely), then maybe that is what needs to change.
A good step would be as you suggest, to start to massively invest in education and childhood health.
> But not only that, children of all social classes go to the same schools
That's quite a fantasy - many people in Europe who can, enlist their kids in private schools because they don't want them to go to integrated schools. Why? Because in cities like Amsterdam integrated schools usually have a big amount of children of immigrants who are poorer and harder to teach. So the teachers who go there are also oftentimes not the best (since the best teachers go to private schools).
I'm not saying everyone does this, but it's getting quite common for those who can afford it.
I wish someone would have told me this is completely false when I was in college, then I wouldn't have been stressed about it.
Truth is the education quality doesn't correlate that strongly with "top" University ranking; at above top X ranked university, or top university in respective country, the quality of education is mostly the same. The difference in the ranking only really reflects the research output/opportunities and networking opportunities.
This becomes so glaringly clear as soon as you start being the interviewing side of the job.
European elites seems to not go to US top universities either; top talent (in intelligence) from upper middle class and above, maybe. But there's more to gain networking in their own countries top universities than abroad. (hence the exchange year system for that)
> the quality of education is mostly the same. The difference in the ranking only really reflects the research output/opportunities and networking opportunities.
I think the point of the top level comment here is exactly what you've said and additionally that the networking opportunities are actually what matter for success.
Exactly. If you have the opportunity to network with people who will actually be relevant in industry -- globally -- and the means to do it, you do. This is the whole point of many MBA programs.
I spent one year as an undergrad reading maths at Oxford and the curriculum, teaching and students were all far superior to the same at Duke University (1988)
Oxford is a global institution, so is Cambridge. What portion of British college attendees attend those two universities? How do the universities in France, Spain, Italy, and Germany compare?
Hm, I'd hire a RTWH, Saclay or ETH graduate over a graduate from every single US university anytime. They seem better grounded in reality, look for solutions instead of 'visions' and actually understand math. But that's just me.
And when you turn out all those MBAs who didn’t know what ELSE to take in College, they go looking for, well, MBA things. Which is why everything is now rented, Medicine is so expensive, Money that used to go to children after death is now sucked up by end-of-life care (and permanently cruising around the world is actually cheaper than that end of life care), and your money goes less far buying less mac n cheeze per box… all those MBA’s squeezing every untapped market.
"To the university of Oxford I acknowledge no obligation; and she will as cheerfully renounce me for a son, as I am willing to disclaim her for a mother. I spent fourteen months at Magdalen College; they proved the fourteen months the most idle and unprofitable of my whole life...
In the university of Oxford, the greater part of the public professors have for these many years given up altogether even the pretence of teaching.
As a gentleman commoner, I was admitted to the society of the fellows, and fondly expected that some questions of literature would be the amusing and instructive topics of their discourse. Their conversation stagnated in a round of college business, Tory politics, personal anecdotes, and private scandal...The names of Wenman and Dashwood were more frequently pronounced, than those of Cicero and Chrysostom."
> If the upper class want someplace to send their kids to read poetry and binge drink for 4 years
Is the heart of the problem. For a long time, this was basically the core function of universities - to make people part of the elite. We told ourselves that it was actually about the things being taught rather than social connections. Maybe to a certain extent it even was.
But then, operating on that assumption, we say, what gives these people the right to be elites? Let's make it more accessible! Send anyone who's smart enough and can afford it to school.
We do that. And many of them do go on to get better and higher-paying jobs. To some extent, society creates more jobs for them to do, and to some extent, existing jobs get education inflation, requiring advanced degrees for no real reason.
But why stop there? This is biased against the people who can't afford it. Let's create a ton of scholarships and student loan programs to make it more affordable so more people go. This kind of works, and kind of increases the prices even more (due to bad design of the loan system) and increases education inflation some too.
We've already made it so attractive, might as well tell all high school students that they're failures if they don't go to college, even if it really isn't for them. Tell 'em that so hard that the blue-collar jobs we do still need start to have trouble getting employees and sometimes actually increase in wage past the point of some degree-requiring jobs.
The way the whole financing of the system works makes the whole thing a huge money-pit too, which helps it keep absorbing more functions.
It sure feels like the whole system has gone crazy and needs some major reworking. I'm not sure what the new healthier system would look like or how we transition to it, but something needs to happen. Sorry, not everyone can be the elite. We should stop telling people that they're a failure in life if they don't join the elite and stop making them perform signs of elite status, like degrees at high-ranked universities, to get jobs that ultimately aren't all that important.