Bengal/Ramsu, you are pushing for a system like Germany's if I understand you right... check that out if you don't know about it.

Actually Nordic model, as I am familiar with it.

Are they similar? I don't know that one.

@Ramsu - the only reason the Nordic system works is because of the high taxes. No American in their right mind would pay as much.

Just to play devil's advocate here, let me propose a Libertarian corollary to your suggestion:

1. Taxpayer dollars should only fund programs that operate in the public good.
2. For public education to serve a public good, all citizens should enjoy equal access to it, or at least equal opportunity.
3. It is not fiscally possible to provide universal free post-secondary education, thus restricting access and opportunity to those with means to pay.
4. It is not academically viable to ensure that public post-secondary schools will admit all applicants, thus restricting access and opportunity to those with a base level of academic achievement.
5. If point 2, 3, and 4 are all true, then public education as it currently exists does not serve the public good.
6. If points 1 and 5 are true, then tax funding for public universities should be terminated immediately.

Discuss.

People are taxed a literal fuckton of money, so unis are free of tuition fees.

@Ramsu,
What's the conversion rate between metric tons and fucktons?

I'll re-up your devil's advocate.

1.) Okay.
2.) Okay.
3.) It is possible if everyone contributes through a tax of some kind (I know libertarians don't like that). Those with the willingness and ability to pay can always pay for a private institution which will, in this scenario, likely provide a better overall education.
4.) Another incentive for private schools to up their game if necessary.
5.) If there are scenarios in which they aren't true, public education as it WOULD exist if reformed could serve the public good.
6.) (Take your quote and turn it upside down.)

Also, here aren't any private schools like in USA: the very few we have they are banned to take tuition fees or any other similar fee from their students, and still rely onthe county to provide funding (and the investor).

Too many people already go into tertiary education, making it free would only make that worse.

We should be trying to discourage, not encourage liberal arts majors.

@hecks
The general consensus is that 1 fuckton= 1.2009 metric tons. There have been debates that it could be 1.201, but no peer reviewed study has published.

"I'll take krellin one step further - lower, lower education must be improved and expanded - free public pre-school will make a bigger difference in the long run than will free higher education."
Despite being libertarian, I agree. I think the government should be doing more to help preschools and daycare.

But Fasces, who would doodle stuff on my coffee cup then?

@Fasces,
And what exactly is wrong with being a liberal arts major?

"We should be trying to discourage, not encourage liberal arts majors."
By the way, full disclosure the program I am currently in is Honours Arts, Econ

Early education (pre-school through elementary) is easily the most important age. If you don't get the things you need early, you aren't going to succeed later.

"@Fasces,
And what exactly is wrong with being a liberal arts major?"
In Canada, the median salary for liberal arts majors is lower then non-university grads.

Its a waste of time, money and doesn't prepare you for a job or for the real world.

Tertiary education should be about preparing you for a job, ie an apprenticeship program or something in the sciences like engineering or pre-med.

It shouldn't be about poetry and political science.

To quote one of my friends who works part time at a subway (since I really like the quote):
I'm in engineering because the other day a political science major walked into my subway with a resume, not a wallet.

"Its a waste of time, money and doesn't prepare you for a job or for the real world."

Most liberal arts majors don't consider it a waste of time because they aren't concerned with money or job prospects, only their sense of self. They want to live their life their own way. As a self-admitted libertarian why would you have a problem with that?

So you're suggesting that the sciences are the only worthwhile path to follow, and anyone who does anything else is wasting their life?

What is being suggested is that one should pursue a career they will have future income in. As a liberal arts major you'll be drawing on cups at starbucks-if youre lucky.

Look, if you're smart and don't mind learning, you can get a job no matter what you major in. I was an English major, and have worked in everything from business lending to government finance, and am now raising money for a museum. Since the day I graduated, I've never been unemployed for more than 2 weeks (save the time I terminated my lease, quit my job, and went hiking on the Appalachian Trail for three months... good times).

Why? Because I can speak and write well, and can calculate compound interest in my head. I studied English because I like to write, like to analyze things, and am good at public speaking. It taught me to be a more effective and efficient communicator. I got as much out of that as I would have if I hadn't dropped my double-major in comp sci for a self-designed concentration in Medieval Studies.

Bottom line, the problem isn't what people major in: it's the sense of entitlement that makes people think a degree (in anything) qualifies them for a job. If you study to learn instead of to graduate, and you commit yourself to continued learning throughout your career, you WILL be successful in your career, no matter what you studied.

@Hokkis,
On what glib, half-considered basis can you possibly make that universal claim, you facile, closed-minded snob?

I enjoy being able to think, dissect literature, experience empathy, write, and have original thoughts. If I wanted to be a mindless automaton, sitting at a desk and compiling code, then I would have majored in CS. As it is, its the hard sciences that will be replaced by computers before the rest of us liberal arts majors.

^^ He got you good. Read again what he said. Said stereotype is all over the internet, and he did not in fact make such claims, just told what others were suggesting/saying/implying.

@BoSox,
"Most liberal arts majors don't consider it a waste of time because they aren't concerned with money or job prospects, only their sense of self. They want to live their life their own way. As a self-admitted libertarian why would you have a problem with that?"

That's oversimplifying it, too. It's not that Liberal arts majors don't care about our job prospects. Surely, many of us are willing to trade some future earning potential for work we enjoy (certainly the case with me... two years out of college I was making $55k base plus more than $25k in bonuses, but I quit to take a job in non-profit making half that.)

But the point is that a successful Liberal Arts major learns to analyze, be innovative with their ideas, and apply learning from different fields to problems requiring a solution. Someone who learns to do that will be successful no matter what their field.

@Rasmu,
Who got whom good? The messages are coming so quickly that I'm not sure whom you were addressing.

@ ckroberts

"College is not and should not be vocational school"

I totally agree. But let's be honest; that's where college is heading. I don't think this movement is a good thing; I'm just pointing out the direction in which things are going. Where do actuaries, lawyers, pharmacists, and doctors get trained? College. Why in the hell does an actuary or a pharmacist need a liberal arts education?

@ 2WL

"As it is, its the hard sciences that will be replaced by computers before the rest of us liberal arts majors."

You do bring up an interesting point about technology. Within the next century, someone will invent a software program that will replace the pharmacist. Other occupations are in danger too. Some master actuarial program could eliminate that entire field overnight. Humans could very easily invent ourselves out of the hard sciences, and the soft sciences would have nothing left to do but lament the invention of the microchip.

@hecks Hokkis got you. As I said he didn't say that and got you calling him names. 10/10 even though it wasn't intended to be a bait.

@Hokkis
I think you're wrong there. He said, "What is being suggested is that one should pursue a career they will have future income in. As a liberal arts major you'll be drawing on cups at starbucks-if youre lucky."

That second sentence stands independently. If he's connecting it to his "What's being suggested is..." clause, then he's doing it wrong, and should take an English class or two himself if he wants people to understand him properly.