Milton Friedman upon education. freetochoose.com
Related education posts:
- Milton Friedman: Education (Part Two) Milton Friedman upon education. freetochoose.com...
- Milton Friedman: Education (Part Three) Milton Friedman upon education. freetochoose.com...
- Eben Friedman (Roma Education Fund) – 19th International Steering Committee Meeting Eben Friedman (Roma Education Fund) – 19th International Steering Committee Meeting – Decade of Roma Inclusion MORE: www.romea.cz...
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Get the government out of education. Let local and state government have public schools yet let a voucher system make it so there is fair competition.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
9:11 pimp daddy lol
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Boston, I think, though this is in the Bronx. Might be just plain New York, but I say Boston.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
8:30 – wow- what is that accent?
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
subsidies drive prices up
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
see this and take their money to better schools. Our k-12 lacks this competition. That in addition to it being next to impossible to fire bad teachers here and you have a huge problem.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
@Nintendomanwill
Yes depending on you parents net income. But as you realized Harvard has a lot of resources and many alumni with very deep pockets. Federal taxes don’t go to unis here. Only state taxes. If you go to school on your home state you get lower tuition. The thing about american public unis that separate it from public high schools is that there is (even in state subsidized sys) a great deal of competition. Poor performing unis can’t fund good programs and students …
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Financial aid? Doesn’t that stop it being a marketised system? I suppose competition is still open, but I wonder how deep pockets are over there to allow universities to have high costs, so they can be free to develop as they like, while always paying for students whose family earns under 60K. It soudns like you allow a market but pay to reduce inequalities of opportunity it might produce. Surely that costs athe public a helluva lot which sort of beats the point of allowing a private uni system.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Fair argument. Yet in countires where universities simply cannot attract the funding to pay for people’s tuition, society foots the bill and frankly, that helps make uni feasible for a lot of people. I totally understnd the point about state subsidy demarketising and removing competition, yet state aid towards universities (ie to help studetns pay for it) is necessary where you have many poor students going to unis that don;t have the resourcse Harvard can muster. Do they pay ALL of it @Harvard?
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
@Nintendomanwill
Well If Joe Bloggs was bright enough to go to Oxford and poor at the same time, chances are (in America) he would receive a substantial amount financial aid both from private academic scholarships and the government.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
@Nintendomanwill
Funny that you mention Harvard in your analogy because as it turns out if either of your parents make below $60K annually and you get accepted Harvard will pay your tuition for you. Secondly, competition with other good schools would help keep costs down.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
If they charged too much, students would simply go to another school such as Harvard or Stanford or Cornell. They keep their prices low to remain competitive. Perhaps you don’t understand how private schools work in this country because you do not live here.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
That is simply not true! Yale can charge as much as it likes, no government organization sets a price. Yale provides it’s own financial aid, also, and makes a point to admit any student no matter their inability to pay. They are able to do this because they receive money in the form of donations/endowments and invest that money wisely to create more.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
(continued) reach the top. Oxford would charge possibly as much as Eton or more. And peopel would still pay. They would take loans, they would have richer families than the average university student. But how could any Joe Bloggs go to Oxford, no matter how bright, if it would cost him more than one hundred thousand pounds? Do you think I’m overestimating the cost that Oxford would have in a private system? Think of how it’s mostly middle/upper class anyway and how much demand there is togothere
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I live in the U.S. and the government’s infringement on our rights has not yet reached the level that it as there. The state subsidizes education only because the positive externalities of everyone achieving a certain level outweigh the enormous cost to taxpayers to educate them.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Nothing you say is incorrect. Nor does anything you have said defeat my argument: that if universities could charge as much as they liked, the very good ones would be profitable at a price which some people could ismply never afford. In such a system they would only have relatively rich people going to the best unis, just as only relatively rich people can afford the best things in any market. That is why to completely marketise education would lead to some people never having the chance to
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Yale is a private institution and therefore have to compete against other similar private institutions such as Harvard and Yale as far as value for higher education is concerned. If they charged more than was demanded, then there would be a surplus of education and a lack of students in seats.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Through the state defining basic rates of tuition fees, such a situation is prevented. Believe me, I would love to break up most state monopolies and smash the bureaucracy. In the UK health care is now compromised as bureaucratic targets of financial prudence are the main goal for hospitals. Policemen make arrests for statistics. We are forced to pay taxes for institutions of great profit to their organisers, eg the BBC or Parliament. But the state must force education to be equitably available.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I can assure you that I have not forgotten that we pay for public schools and that due to bureaucracy and lack of freedom of choice, costs are greater than they would be for the LOWER end of a market system. But do you not understand that unis like Oxford and Yale could and therefore would charge a sum far, far too high for the minority of their applicants who are poor but appropriately successful. They are the ferrari of unis and the costs would go too high forwhatis a tool of social mobility.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
It is very easy to get a student loan, so almost any poor kid can get in. As long as they do the work and pass their tests, they’ll go on and have the education to receive much higher wages than their parents did. You are forgetting that we already pay for public schools, just indirectly and inefficiently. A voucher system would simply create competition between them.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
The point is that the market isn’t perfect and can’t be under any sort of economic conditions recognisable to us. If privatised then so many kids wouldn’t go because the cost would be greater in the better schools. The whole reason that we don’t allow all universities and schools to be absolutely private is that poor kids would never, ever be able to go to good ones. If HArvard could increase fees based on demand how many poor kids do you think could go?
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
short term profit motive… in education? the government should not intervene because if someone can profit by providing more/better education, than there is a demand for it. The short-term rise in price that would stem from privatizing schools would lead to an influx of suppliers -thus reducing cost down to below the cost taxpayers pay through school.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Not much discussion about race affecting schools…
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Is his point that the extreme disparity between the rich and poor in the USA due to misguided welfare policy? If it is, he argues it well, but perhaps even Friedman fans like myself should recognise that short term profit motive could lead to deliberate subjugation of the poor by the rich, mercantilism, anti-compeititon, everything agaisnt free and fair competition and efficiency that renders everyone wealthier: ie the government needs to intervene to prevent that and they have NOT.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I went to public school and leaned my 3 R’s….
rudeness, racism and spelling.