Is education a right or a privilege?

[DavidS]

Is education a right or a privilege?

 

[brewerboy]

I'd say you're an idiot for asking this question if I didnt think that you were just gaining a lil insight into the attitude of other members of the board on this topic:

Right.

What would be the criteria for being able to be educated?

That being said, and since I have fucking E.S.P. powers and can read your mind, you're now going to mix it up and ask "Well why doesnt EVERYONE go to college then?"

My answer, personal choice. I made the choice not to go to college, and I'm not sorry.

p.s. I dont have E.S.P. powers

 

[DavidS]

au contraire - the reason why I am asking this is........

If healthcare is getting nationalized by the Obama administration and that's a right - is education next? FREE college education for ALL American citizens? I'm not talking about going to Yale or Columbia for free... I'm talking about a university or community college's education given to you for free. Many people don't go to college because they can't afford it - if education is free, more people would go to college and get better educated and thus we would have smarter workers who would earn more money and give back higher tax revenue to the government.

So if healthcare is a right and education is a right - is free education next upon Obama's list?

 

[brewerboy]

au contraire - the reason why I am asking this is........

If healthcare is getting nationalized by the Obama administration and that's a right - is education next? FREE college education for ALL American citizens? I'm not talking about going to Yale or Columbia for free... I'm talking about a university or community college's education given to you for free. Many people don't go to college because they can't afford it - if education is free, more people would go to college and get better educated and thus we would have smarter workers who would earn more money and give back higher tax revenue to the government.

So if healthcare is a right and education is a right - is free education next upon Obama's list?

Touche. But not too far off

To be honest, if I was in charge, under Americas current way of doing things, education would be my first pick. Hear me out:

If college education were free and available to everyone, we would have more educated workers (like you've already pointed out) in the work force capable of obtaining jobs with (more than, perhaps) liveable incomes AND health insurance. For a large part, that would cover healthcare, not in all cases, but most, thus reducing the need for such a drastic over-haul of the healthcare system (and granted, we're talking 20+ years down the road from now when free college education will pay off for America) . The more educated our people are, the more we're able to compete with countries like Japan and a few others who are what seems like light-years ahead of us in subjects like math and science.

And you're right, a lot of people in America dont go to college cause of the expenses. Thats my story right there. Of 6 kids, myself counted, I'm the only one without a college education, the youngest of us is still 11 and she had the $ for a college education already, so say 4 of 5. I've watched my older siblings graduate college with an off the top of my head average of $50,000 in debt thanks to student loans.

1 has done very well for herself.

Of the other three, one is a teacher, the other a computer progammer, the third a probation officer.

From my personal experience, its gonna be years before 75% of my siblings (that have graduated college thus far) will be able to pay off their student loans. I refuse to be in that situation.

I would have LOVED to go to college, but the debt I would be in afterwards didnt seem worth it. Instead, I chose a construction job that trained me and pays a liveable wage for me AND my child.

Under the current system, unless ones parents are rich or you're smart enough to get a scholarship (what? 10% of a high school population, and thats over-stating) one will be paying off student debts for a long enough time to make 4 years of college hardly worth the effort.

On a side note, before UFC was popular, my oldest brother was cage fighting around the Mid-West to help pay his tuition. You should see his face. He went to extremes to lessen his student loan debt. I wont do that....I'm too pretty

 

[KittenKoder]

If education was not a requirement for decent jobs, then it would be a privilege, but as they are now requiring it for almost all jobs now, it's a right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is not a right. It is a privilege and one we PAY for. It is mandatory to get an education until a certain age, that still does not make it a right. Everyone that pays property tax and sales tax pays for education.

It is a protected privilege, in that the Government ensures certain basic standards are met.

The Federal Government has zero authority to have any dealings outside of basic protections in Education. They have no authority to dictate to a State or County how they will run their schools, EXCEPT for some basic protections provided by the Constitutional Amendments.

 

[DavidS]

It is not a right. It is a privilege and one we PAY for. It is mandatory to get an education until a certain age, that still does not make it a right. Everyone that pays property tax and sales tax pays for education.

It is a protected privilege, in that the Government ensures certain basic standards are met.

The Federal Government has zero authority to have any dealings outside of basic protections in Education. They have no authority to dictate to a State or County how they will run their schools, EXCEPT for some basic protections provided by the Constitutional Amendments.

Incorrect. Remember segregation? Brown v. Board of Education?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is not a right. It is a privilege and one we PAY for. It is mandatory to get an education until a certain age, that still does not make it a right. Everyone that pays property tax and sales tax pays for education.

It is a protected privilege, in that the Government ensures certain basic standards are met.

The Federal Government has zero authority to have any dealings outside of basic protections in Education. They have no authority to dictate to a State or County how they will run their schools, EXCEPT for some basic protections provided by the Constitutional Amendments.

Incorrect. Remember segregation? Brown v. Board of Education?

Segregation breaks the basic law of the land. It is a BASIC protection the Government can enforce. It does not , however, give the Government any authority to pay for or tax for education, not to interfere in the school systems of the several States, EXCEPT to ensure they meet the basic protections of the privilege as protected by amendments in the Constitution.

Legally a State could decide it would no longer provide school at all. As long as it was a UNIFORM decision that equally effected every citizen in the State the Federal Government has NO authority to enforce that the State run a school system.

 

[brewerboy]

It is not a right. It is a privilege and one we PAY for. It is mandatory to get an education until a certain age, that still does not make it a right. Everyone that pays property tax and sales tax pays for education.

It is a protected privilege, in that the Government ensures certain basic standards are met.

The Federal Government has zero authority to have any dealings outside of basic protections in Education. They have no authority to dictate to a State or County how they will run their schools, EXCEPT for some basic protections provided by the Constitutional Amendments.

Incorrect. Remember segregation? Brown v. Board of Education?

Segregation breaks the basic law of the land. It is a BASIC protection the Government can enforce. It does not , however, give the Government any authority to pay for or tax for education, not to interfere in the school systems of the several States, EXCEPT to ensure they meet the basic protections of the privilege as protected by amendments in the Constitution.

Legally a State could decide it would no longer provide school at all. As long as it was a UNIFORM decision that equally effected every citizen in the State the Federal Government has NO authority to enforce that the State run a school system.

Uniform in terms of.....what? Those making the decision? Whats the process for making sure that its uniform for everyone in the state?

It's late, I'm gonna give it a few for your answer. Then I'll be going to bed. If I dont see it before then, good-night everyone. In that case, I'll address it in the 'morn

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Incorrect. Remember segregation? Brown v. Board of Education?

Segregation breaks the basic law of the land. It is a BASIC protection the Government can enforce. It does not , however, give the Government any authority to pay for or tax for education, not to interfere in the school systems of the several States, EXCEPT to ensure they meet the basic protections of the privilege as protected by amendments in the Constitution.

Legally a State could decide it would no longer provide school at all. As long as it was a UNIFORM decision that equally effected every citizen in the State the Federal Government has NO authority to enforce that the State run a school system.

Uniform in terms of.....what? Those making the decision? Whats the process for making sure that its uniform for everyone in the state?

It's late, I'm gonna give it a few for your answer. Then I'll be going to bed. If I dont see it before then, good-night everyone. In that case, I'll address it in the 'morn

Uniform would be that the State provides the exact same condition to each citizen, either a school to go to, or NO school to go to, all across the State.

1-12th grade is not free, never has been. It is not a right. And for damn sure anything after 12 is NO right.

 

[brewerboy]

Segregation breaks the basic law of the land. It is a BASIC protection the Government can enforce. It does not , however, give the Government any authority to pay for or tax for education, not to interfere in the school systems of the several States, EXCEPT to ensure they meet the basic protections of the privilege as protected by amendments in the Constitution.

Legally a State could decide it would no longer provide school at all. As long as it was a UNIFORM decision that equally effected every citizen in the State the Federal Government has NO authority to enforce that the State run a school system.

Uniform in terms of.....what? Those making the decision? Whats the process for making sure that its uniform for everyone in the state?

It's late, I'm gonna give it a few for your answer. Then I'll be going to bed. If I dont see it before then, good-night everyone. In that case, I'll address it in the 'morn

Uniform would be that the State provides the exact same condition to each citizen, either a school to go to, or NO school to go to, all across the State.

1-12th grade is not free, never has been. It is not a right. And for damn sure anything after 12 is NO right.

Damn it, RSG, I just signed off in another post then you just HAVE to make a liar out of me by posting a reply

But seriously, because its not a right at the moment (which you are 100% correct, we have to pay) does that mean it shouldnt be?

Do you really think that it WOULDNT be beneficial to America if it was a right and thus 100% free?

Going to bed now, pick up in the morning. Night all.

 

[DamnYankee]

au contraire - the reason why I am asking this is........

If healthcare is getting nationalized by the Obama administration and that's a right - is education next? FREE college education for ALL American citizens? I'm not talking about going to Yale or Columbia for free... I'm talking about a university or community college's education given to you for free. Many people don't go to college because they can't afford it - if education is free, more people would go to college and get better educated and thus we would have smarter workers who would earn more money and give back higher tax revenue to the government.

So if healthcare is a right and education is a right - is free education next upon Obama's list?

Maybe you shoulda specified the criteria first then.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Education is a universal human right, and that's not an "opinion," it is a fact.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

------

Should college education be "free"? Well, I mean, that depends how far you want to go. College education is absolutely free in many places [obviously you pay taxes, so it's not "free", but it's free for students], I believe in France and Argentina for example, I'm pretty sure you pay nothing. Here in Costa Rica you pay some token amount I believe, something like ~$50 per semester for one of the National Universities, though there are also many private universities. In Canada, all universities are public, but education is certainly not free- most Canadians have to pay around ~$5000 per semester (though, of course, the Quebecois only pay $1,700 per semester- talk about bang for your buck; in North America anyway). However, many of my friends in Canada also have some thing called OSAP (I think thats the acronym) which is basically a huge cash transfer for students, and it pays most of the tuition depending on how much you need. One of my roomates was basically going for free [not including room and board] and another got pretty much most of it crossed off. I think that is actually a good way to go about it, because with cash-transfer schemes those who can pay, pay, and that allows the institutions to get money, but at the same time the transfers allow anyone who gets in to afford it even if they cannot pay it. I'm sure there is something similar in America, but with tuition being something ridiculous like $40,000 a year I don't think you can really do much with cash-transfer programs. In fact that is the single biggest factor why I now live in Canada and not the US: I could pay $16,000 for a world-class education at a world-class university in Canada, or I could fork over $50,000 dollars at NYU for the same exact thing. Kind of a no-brainer.

 

[DamnYankee]

Education is a universal human right, and that's not an "opinion," it is a fact.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

------

Should college education be "free"? Well, I mean, that depends how far you want to go. College education is absolutely free in many places [obviously you pay taxes, so it's not "free", but it's free for students], I believe in France and Argentina for example, I'm pretty sure you pay nothing. Here in Costa Rica you pay some token amount I believe, something like ~$50 per semester for one of the National Universities, though there are also many private universities. In Canada, all universities are public, but education is certainly not free- most Canadians have to pay around ~$5000 per semester (though, of course, the Quebecois only pay $1,700 per semester- talk about bang for your buck; in North America anyway). However, many of my friends in Canada also have some thing called OSAP (I think thats the acronym) which is basically a huge cash transfer for students, and it pays most of the tuition depending on how much you need. One of my roomates was basically going for free [not including room and board] and another got pretty much most of it crossed off. I think that is actually a good way to go about it, because with cash-transfer schemes those who can pay, pay, and that allows the institutions to get money, but at the same time the transfers allow anyone who gets in to afford it even if they cannot pay it. I'm sure there is something similar in America, but with tuition being something ridiculous like $40,000 a year I don't think you can really do much with cash-transfer programs. In fact that is the single biggest factor why I now live in Canada and not the US: I could pay $16,000 for a world-class education at a world-class university in Canada, or I could fork over $50,000 dollars at NYU for the same exact thing. Kind of a no-brainer.

Wow.... Would you look at what I read in there?

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Sorry about the slight deflection here, but that's sure as hell going to be hard to argue against by the Gay Marriage Activists, isn't it?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Well, now that's a good way to derail a thread, but it's absolutely irrelevant. That doesn't say marriage is between a man and a woman, it's saying both men and women of full age can marry; it doesn't say who they can marry. It doesn't say "Men and women of full age [...] have the right to marry ONLY EACH OTHER." Wouldn't be opposed to adding "sexual orientation" after religion either, though, I guess. In any case, that was in 1948: gay rights were probably not high on the agenda back then.

 

[editec]

In a democratic republic an informed citizenry is absolutely essantial.

That's exactly why the neo-cn bastards have basically declared war on education.

Their goal is the end of the Republic and all vestages of the democratic aspects of it.

And they're winning, too, much thanks to their many citizen tools.

 

[DamnYankee]

Well, now that's a good way to derail a thread, but it's absolutely irrelevant. That doesn't say marriage is between a man and a woman, it's saying both men and women of full age can marry; it doesn't say who they can marry. It doesn't say "Men and women of full age [...] have the right to marry ONLY EACH OTHER." Wouldn't be opposed to adding "sexual orientation" after religion either, though, I guess. In any case, that was in 1948: gay rights were probably not high on the agenda back then.

Not giving an opinion one way or the other. That would be what the SC Justices are for....

 

[Annie]

In a democratic republic an informed citizenry is absolutely essantial.

That's exactly why the neo-cn bastards have basically declared war on education.

Their goal is the end of the Republic and all vestages of the democratic aspects of it.

And they're winning, too, much thanks to their many citizen tools.

The necessary tools for an informed citizenry are garnered by 6th grade. Even then many schools fail to provide the basics. As for 'higher education' it's over sold and becoming irrelevant:

Bursting the Higher Ed Bubble - THE WEEK

News & Opinion
Thursday, May 28, 2009


Bursting the Higher Ed Bubble
“Will Higher Education be the Next Bubble to Burst?” So asks a recent op-ed in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The question is powerful. Data points:

• Over the past quarter-century, the average cost of higher education has risen at a rate four times faster than inflation—twice as fast as the cost of health care.
• Tuition, room, and board at private colleges can cost $50,000 per year or more.
• The market crash of 2008 inflicted terrible damage on college endowments. The Commonfund Institute reports that endowments dropped by an average of 23 percent in the five months ending Nov. 30, 2008.

Authors Joseph Cronin and Howard Horton (respectively a past Massachusetts secretary of Education and the president of the New England College of Business and Finance) comment:


“The middle class, which has paid for higher education in the past mainly by taking out loans, may now be precluded from doing so as the private student-loan market has all but dried up. In addition, endowment cushions that allowed colleges to engage in steep tuition discounting are gone. Declines in housing valuations are making it difficult for families to rely on home-equity loans for college financing. Even when the equity is there, parents are reluctant to further leverage themselves into a future where job security is uncertain.

Consumers who have questioned whether it is worth spending $1,000 a square foot for a home are now asking whether it is worth spending $1,000 a week to send their kids to college.”

Even this underestimates the severity of the situation, however. The 2006 Economic Report of the President presents a remarkable fact: Between 2000 and 2005, the average wages of college graduates declined after adjusting for inflation.

From an economic point of view, in other words, a college degree costs more and more and returns less and less. Kind of like a hot stock with a price-to-earnings ratio of 32, it’s a prelude to a crash....

 

[DamnYankee]

In a democratic republic an informed citizenry is absolutely essantial.

That's exactly why the neo-cn bastards have basically declared war on education.

Their goal is the end of the Republic and all vestages of the democratic aspects of it.

And they're winning, too, much thanks to their many citizen tools.

Speaking of tools....

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), often abbreviated in print as NCLB and sometimes shortened in pronunciation to "nicklebee",[1] is a United States federal law (Act of Congress) that was originally proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001, immediately after taking office.[2] Congress based its legislation on this "blueprint" proposed by the President. The legislation was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH) and George Miller (D-CA) and Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA), and signed by President Bush. The law reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The Act, introduced as HR 1 during the 107th Congress, [3] was passed in the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001[4], United States Senate on June 14, 2001[5] and signed into law on January 8, 2002.

NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state, in line with the principle of local control of schools.

The Act also requires that the schools distribute the name, home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters and institutions of higher education, unless the student (or the student's parent) specifically opts out.[6]

The desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated. It is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the act per se, because it applied to all states making it difficult to infer what would have happened without the act. However, analyses of the state accountability systems that were in place before NCLB indicate that accountability for outcomes led to faster growth in achievement for the states that introduced such systems.[7] The direct analysis of state test scores before and after enactment of NCLB also supports its positive impact.[8] A primary criticism asserts that NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to "teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that shed light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to improve outcomes for all students while reducing the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.[9]

Over the time of this law, Congress increased federal funding of education, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. No Child Left Behind received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion. [10] A 2008 study from the Department of Education, “Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report,” analyzes the performance of students in 12 states who were in grades one to three during the 2004-5 and 2005-6 school years and concluded that the Reading First Program, a major billion dollar a year NCLB effort, had proven "ineffective." A final report on the impacts from 2004-2007 (three school years with Reading First funding) and on the relationships between changes in instructional practice and student reading comprehension is expected in late 2008.[11]

No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That NCLB was found to be ineffective does not support YOUR statement. You might try a little harder to look like a partisan fool. There are some whose heads it probably went right over....

 

[editec]

No way in hell that the average citizen is well enough informed to be a good citizen by 6th grade.

In the first place, you don't know anything about economics and economics is what makes our world go round.