Germany has long shown far greater foresight than the United States in the investment into science, infrastructure, and alternative energy — investments that are now giving the country huge returns as a leading economic system. With a decision of Lower Saxony, the German have now shown precisely how serious they are about keeping the country as one of the most educated in the world: they have eliminated all college and university tuition. The Germans view education as not just a right, but an essential component for continued growth.
There are critics to educational subsidies who raise some good-faith issues of how such payments can eliminate pressure to make efficient choices and actually drive up costs. I actually see value to students paying some tuition. However, with tuition sky rocking in the United States and falling enrollment numbers, the United States is heading to a reckoning in the future for our lack of investment in our workforce. While we have spent trillions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and just renewed our commitment to the later to keep forces in the country), we have continued to cut environmental, scientific, educational, and infrastructure investments. The inevitable result is that we will continue to drop in our competitiveness in the world market and the future economy. Every other country is investing heavily in education while the United States continues to be distracted by shiny objects with more immediate political benefits for politicians.
What is striking is that it is not just third world countries that are investing heavily education, but economic leaders like Germany.
Notably, tuition was only introduced in Germany in 2006 after the German Constitutional Court ruled that limited fees do not violate the country’s commitment to universal education. However, the tuition rates proved unpopular and the country is now tuition free. Of course, there is no such thing as free tuition. The taxpayers are footing the bill. Moreover, such government subsidies can have a negative impact on not just the choices of students (who feel less pressure to make efficient choices) but on schools which are dependent on the government.
Nevertheless, the contrast could not be greater with the United States in terms of the commitment to education as not just a right (as it is in Germany) but as a real national security priority.
The article below has an interesting discussion of how England rejected the free tuition approach but has lost more money due to the higher student default rate on tuition. Yet, the English students face a maximum debt load of $14,550 per year where U.S. tuition rates and debt are soaring. Student loan debt in our country now stands at $1.2 trillion.
Of course, that is less than a third of the costs for the wars, but no one is making such comparisons.
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/10/01/3574551/germany-free-college-tuition/
Darren, You deserve better. This blog and JT deserves better. Shameful. but that’s her pathology.
I certainly don’t feel welcomed here. What a disappointment, my hubby told me this was a great place.
Karen,
Thanks for your comment on welfare and regulations. However, in my view the Republican leadership, office holders, pundits, and think tanks do not agree with your somewhat more ‘restrained’ position and they are calling the shots.
We’ll have to leave it up to history to see which of us is correct in our assessment.
I have 1st Amendment rights. I said nothing that needed to be deleted. I think someone is feeling overly authoritative during the Professor’s absence.
Darren,
I hope you’ve stocked up on the No-Doz. Good luck sir!
Excuse me? Am I not allowed to comment?
I have deleted a comment at 11:15 that was in violation of the Civility Rule.
When Nick goes into ‘deduction’ mode I’m always reminded of the much missed Amazing Kreskin. And Paul makes a charming Ed.
What is your proof that mango is not new? Do you really think folks should have to put up with your snarky abuse?
This tropical fruit is not new. He is an old timer, new name, and playing you guys like a cheap banjo.
Mango
po is correct and being a gentleman he supplies a generous motive. I believe he is wrong about the motive. But ‘hazing’ is a very apt description what is going on.
Oddly, hazing is being ended by frat boys. Unluckily, that is not the case here.
Doc:
There seems to be some confusion about conservatives and regulations and government assistance.
Contrary to popular belief, fiscal conservatives do not want NO regulations or laws, or NO government assistance.
Fiscal conservatives, like myself, have a reasonable expectation that regulations make sense, and have a defined goal and result, such as protecting the public. An example of a ridiculous regulation is that earlier thread on “no sagging pants allowed.” Just because it is a regulation does not make it good. Anther example of an absurd regulation is here in CA, a campground operator wanted to park a concessions truck temporarily in his parking lot. The onerous permit process required him to drill a hole through his asphalt and take a soil sample from underneath. There was an article written about it, and a long list of ridiculous barriers to small business that chased him, and his tax money, out of the state.
As for government assistance, of COURSE we want the poor, the handicapped, and anyone on hard times to have help. We don’t want people starving in the hedgerows. We DO want to weed out fraud, and we want able bodied people to at least show they tried to look for work. We also want to design the system so that for most, it serves as a hammock rather than a safety net. The quandary people get into is that they are afraid to lose their benefits. When they start working, in some cases, they are actually worse off when they lose their Welfare benefits. Obviously, this needs to be addressed. Studies show that when the work requirement was implemented, over the passionate objection of Liberals, the Welfare roles emptied. It got people back to work. We also want to maximize the opportunities out there for people who can work. It doesn’t do much good to anyone if there are no jobs to be had. And for those jobs to grow, it has to be a business-friendly environment. We need a balance where there are laws and regulations protecting employees and the public from harm, while at the same time encouraging entrepreneurship and business growth.
Calling for regulations and Welfare to be reformed is NOT the same as saying there should be no protections. The debate is on how to reform them, and that is a hot topic, to be sure.
Mango, it may sound crazy, but it isn’t personal. It just happens to be you. It could have been anyone else. It is hazing, but out of love.
You’ll understand!
Annie, Some, well, mostly one, gets to make derisive statements and its ok. You ask a question and your comment gets deleted. I’m sure you understand double standard. Just more of the same.
Predictably Paul, who has explained to us that he is well educated and well read, will soon comment that I am neglecting to respond to his demand that I explain the regressive flat tax. I have no intention of responding to such sophomoric games. Instead I suggest he try this…
Search on google. Press the following keys…..
r,e,g,r,e,s,s,i,v,e,space,f,l,a,t,space,t,a,x
Enlightenment awaits.
Then why bring it up?
Mango is a tropical fruit. And, there is absolutely nothing wrong w/ being gay, that’s what NTTAWWT means!
Nick Spinelli
“DBQ, There was a recurring character on SNL played by Chris Kattan, called “Mango.” And Mango was over the top, gay. NTTAWWT.”
Hmm! Wonder is that qualifies as a personal attack on mango! First calling him a tropical fruit, then comparing him to Chris Kattan, an actor of minor talent playing a flamboyant gay character! Hmm! Teacher, teacher!
Can I tattle too?!
Good point, some people just are bad businesspeople but keep trying to make it! Silly them! Entrepreneurs!!!! Glad there is no american dream to pursue, otherwise they would look even sillier.
I am glad I am one of those who start businesses because they just have many talents, many of them complementary. Imagine how silly I’d feel if my businesses weren’t at least profitable!!!! I’d be just like those silly amateurs!
DBQ, There was a recurring character on SNL played by Chris Kattan, called “Mango.” And Mango was over the top, gay. NTTAWWT.