Also that state funding should match workforce demands for the state - this part makes sense.
Should it?
First off, is the point of college to fill job slots or to educate the population? It’s not a trade school.
Second, if you change funding now it impacts programs a few years down the line then prior take 4/5 years to graduate. If you overspecify your funding on the current economic situation you’re always 6 years behind when the grads hit the market.
Yes it should. It isn’t a discussion (well, it is heavily implied though) that they shouldn’t exist, only that the state shouldn’t fund it. States job is to get a return on their investment, and funding what is needed is a good way to start - especially in the context of a brain drain from the state.
For the record, im only arguing against the facts at face value. Well aware this has a much deeper motive im not going to defend.
Has the state been funding schools though? Because state funding has been falling across the board and if the state has an interest in being lean then they should focus on out of prop salaries of administration and sports spending. After all what interest does the state have in sports? By this line of reasons colleges should have to fund that themselves.
This is of course setting aside that humanities does help society and is in the vested interest of the state. I’m saying this as someone who was a STEM major. Giving context to the world and giving people a greater understanding is useful for every major. It allows them to understand their world and make better decisions from their station in life.
To take the stance that the state has an interest in funding “useful” degrees then no one should be allowed to do anything outside their education, which is aburd. People with different points of view and knowledge enhance professions, not destroy them. That’s what happens when a profession only has one allowable perspective to deal with infinite possibilities of the world.
Yes it should. It isn’t a discussion (well, it is heavily implied though) that they shouldn’t exist, only that the state shouldn’t fund it. States job is to get a return on their investment, and funding what is needed is a good way to start - especially in the context of a brain drain from the state.
Educated people still benefit the state, even they are educated in things that wealthy people don’t think they can monetise.
I think the key thing people are misunderstanding (or im not being clear with) is that investment isn’t just financial return - education in things the state needs is an investment, even if they don’t make money from it
Your previous comment said that education funding should match workforce demands. That is what I responded to and disagree with. Education has value beyond just placing people into the workforce.
Should it?
First off, is the point of college to fill job slots or to educate the population? It’s not a trade school.
Second, if you change funding now it impacts programs a few years down the line then prior take 4/5 years to graduate. If you overspecify your funding on the current economic situation you’re always 6 years behind when the grads hit the market.
Republicans treat it as a trade school.
Yes it should. It isn’t a discussion (well, it is heavily implied though) that they shouldn’t exist, only that the state shouldn’t fund it. States job is to get a return on their investment, and funding what is needed is a good way to start - especially in the context of a brain drain from the state.
For the record, im only arguing against the facts at face value. Well aware this has a much deeper motive im not going to defend.
Has the state been funding schools though? Because state funding has been falling across the board and if the state has an interest in being lean then they should focus on out of prop salaries of administration and sports spending. After all what interest does the state have in sports? By this line of reasons colleges should have to fund that themselves.
This is of course setting aside that humanities does help society and is in the vested interest of the state. I’m saying this as someone who was a STEM major. Giving context to the world and giving people a greater understanding is useful for every major. It allows them to understand their world and make better decisions from their station in life.
To take the stance that the state has an interest in funding “useful” degrees then no one should be allowed to do anything outside their education, which is aburd. People with different points of view and knowledge enhance professions, not destroy them. That’s what happens when a profession only has one allowable perspective to deal with infinite possibilities of the world.
The state’s “job” is to provide services for its people. Not everything the government does needs to turn a profit.
Educated people still benefit the state, even they are educated in things that wealthy people don’t think they can monetise.
I think the key thing people are misunderstanding (or im not being clear with) is that investment isn’t just financial return - education in things the state needs is an investment, even if they don’t make money from it
Your previous comment said that education funding should match workforce demands. That is what I responded to and disagree with. Education has value beyond just placing people into the workforce.