Bradley in DC
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 12,279
http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle...tter.Ron.Paul.Is.Not.My.Homeboy-3176354.shtml
Letter: Ron Paul is not my homeboy
Issue date: 1/30/08 Section: Opinion
PrintEmail Article Tools
Page 1 of 1
I read the following last paragraph in Dustin Gardiner's column ("Knowing the real Ron Paul," Jan. 28), which made me think for a couple of minutes: "But would Paul's same fervent supporters still support him if they realized that removing government funding for public universities would dramatically increase their tuition costs?"
I think removing federal funding for state programs, such as publicly funded universities, overnight would result in massive chaos. I highly doubt any government would be so stupid. So let's speak slightly more long-term than overnight. Say, for example, that such funding was removed. Then all universities would be privately held, and a market economy for providing education would be in place. At that point, what would likely happen is the following:
First, yes, it would cost money to get an education. How much would it cost? Who knows. Currently, there are a handful of private universities. Students who can afford them go there. If all universities were private, they would all be in competition with each other to provide the best education at the best price. Universities would start to specialize more in providing certain types of education rather than being large, monolithic do-it-alls (unless they had the resources to provide such services). Supply would meet true demand.
This would start to hurt art history majors, as they'd realize that they have to pay a lot for their education but can't find jobs later. That, in turn, would reduce the number of people wanting to study art history and would then reduce the number of institutions providing it -- everything would boil down to those students who truly care about art and history and not the ones who are looking to get an easy degree. And of course, to meet their demand, you'd have a handful of universities that cater to such students -- and their economic situation.
Art history is only an example. The same can easily apply to different types of engineering. Basically, education would adapt faster to the requirements of industry. As it is, this gap is being met by many community colleges.
The only people I see suffering -- and one should not take this pool lightly -- are the professors who spent many years of their life specializing. But then why should they be any different from other humans?
Finally, there would be even more scholarships in place for deserving students. It is in our nature to help the needy. If we feel that we are paying taxes and that they should be doing the job, then why should we have to pay twice by donating to a cause? If schools were privately funded, it would be in the interest of those who graduated from those schools and the schools themselves to attract the highest-caliber students -- and not just the richest ones.
Vishal Patel
Berkeley, California
Letter: Ron Paul is not my homeboy
Issue date: 1/30/08 Section: Opinion
PrintEmail Article Tools
Page 1 of 1
I read the following last paragraph in Dustin Gardiner's column ("Knowing the real Ron Paul," Jan. 28), which made me think for a couple of minutes: "But would Paul's same fervent supporters still support him if they realized that removing government funding for public universities would dramatically increase their tuition costs?"
I think removing federal funding for state programs, such as publicly funded universities, overnight would result in massive chaos. I highly doubt any government would be so stupid. So let's speak slightly more long-term than overnight. Say, for example, that such funding was removed. Then all universities would be privately held, and a market economy for providing education would be in place. At that point, what would likely happen is the following:
First, yes, it would cost money to get an education. How much would it cost? Who knows. Currently, there are a handful of private universities. Students who can afford them go there. If all universities were private, they would all be in competition with each other to provide the best education at the best price. Universities would start to specialize more in providing certain types of education rather than being large, monolithic do-it-alls (unless they had the resources to provide such services). Supply would meet true demand.
This would start to hurt art history majors, as they'd realize that they have to pay a lot for their education but can't find jobs later. That, in turn, would reduce the number of people wanting to study art history and would then reduce the number of institutions providing it -- everything would boil down to those students who truly care about art and history and not the ones who are looking to get an easy degree. And of course, to meet their demand, you'd have a handful of universities that cater to such students -- and their economic situation.
Art history is only an example. The same can easily apply to different types of engineering. Basically, education would adapt faster to the requirements of industry. As it is, this gap is being met by many community colleges.
The only people I see suffering -- and one should not take this pool lightly -- are the professors who spent many years of their life specializing. But then why should they be any different from other humans?
Finally, there would be even more scholarships in place for deserving students. It is in our nature to help the needy. If we feel that we are paying taxes and that they should be doing the job, then why should we have to pay twice by donating to a cause? If schools were privately funded, it would be in the interest of those who graduated from those schools and the schools themselves to attract the highest-caliber students -- and not just the richest ones.
Vishal Patel
Berkeley, California
)
