Free University?

(1/3) > >>

BoogieMonster (October 23, 2015, 14:55:52 PM):
I think we all know what this thread is about.

What do you think?

Rigil Kent (October 23, 2015, 15:30:10 PM):
Yes. But it must go hand in hand with strict(er) prerequisites for enrollment. And you get only one chance. Fail a course and you are out. The only excuse for sub par marks is death in the family, and only if it's that of the student itself.

Theology students must continue to pay full price.

Rigil
Mefiante (October 23, 2015, 15:47:13 PM):
No. Access to tertiary education is a Constitutional right, just like access to food is one, but no one is agitating that food be provided free of charge. Besides, tertiary education is its own (later) reward because it bestows an advantage and subsequent material benefits on the student.

The thing I disagree with fundamentally is turning education, of whatever level, into a business.

And theology students must pay for all eternity. >:D

'Luthon64
BoogieMonster (October 23, 2015, 16:19:06 PM):
no one is agitating that food be provided free of charge

... right now. I think the SACP would beg to differ in the big scheme of things. Also is that not what the social grant system is meant for in the first place? It's not free food, but it's free money for food...

Quote
Besides, tertiary education is its own (later) reward because it bestows an advantage and subsequent material benefits on the student.

You just saying it because Blade said it. :P

Quote
The thing I disagree with fundamentally is turning education, of whatever level, into a business.

OK here's the only thing I ACTUALLY disagree with. You have beef with businesses that teach IT courses to help bolster candidates' career prospects? I have to tell you I work with many folk who only have a job because they did these and didn't qualify for anything else. Similarly almost any IT certification (iow: You pay company that sells product X to make you an expert on product X). Sure, they're costly (depending on who you are and what you think "costly" means), but they're needed and can be very beneficial for the trainee AND his/her employer AND the business giving them. It's a triple win.
BoogieMonster (October 23, 2015, 16:28:30 PM):
Here's my 2c: No, absolutely not. We shouldn't even subsidise TERTIARY education because IT IS a DEMONSTRATED slippery slope...

And by demonstrated I mean... the medical profession.

(a) Government subsidises education for medical professionals because that's good™.
(b) Medical professionals are in high demand not just here, but everywhere.
(c) Government realises medical professionals qualify in SA on govt dime and then get on a plane and never come back.
(d) Government is outraged it has subsidised healthcare for rich countries.
(e) Laws get passed to turn medical students who qualify in to quasi-intentured servants.

What do you want to bet when qualified IT professionals or physicists or engineers roll off the presses on the govt' dime they won't be expecting some returns on investment before the person goes jet-setting around the globe?

... AND what reasonable basis does a person have for demanding that the government supply them with such a high level of means in a country where people really DO struggle to feed themselves. Isn't this a MASSIVE form of entitlement? The poor must starve so the govt can kick-start my jet-set lifestyle!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page