"Freedom" thread or something

That's awful.  Access of good education should be decided on merit, not money.  But by the same token, quotas for minorities also need to go, at least at higher levels. It is alright at the primary level but one would expect that less privileged students would also be equipped enough to secure higher education on merit.

India.

But what stops the market creating more seats at lower prices to compensate for this?  Is it teachers' unions keeping salaries of teachers high, something like that?  Because land on average is pretty cheap in USA compared to India so that can't be the issue.  

Ah, debt!  Sorry if I ask too many questions of detail, but what are the interest rates (if any) charged on student loans?  They are pretty high (like interest on any other loan for that matter) in India so only the really ambitious students who want to study in the best engineering institutes/B-schools do it. But you can get through a normal graduate program, say, in commerce, with a very nominal financial burden, especially if it's one that gets govt aid.  And back when I was studying, the IT virus was so rampant that there was less competition for commerce seats so it was relatively speaking a breeze for me.  Don't know if that's necessarily true today because CPA equivalents here get jobs more easily than those going to the software industry, who have to wait months together, sometimes a year, to get placed.

Edited by rogerthat - June 21 2014 at 01:27

Maybe debt makes the students complacent. It pinches more if you have to pay for it with whatever you've actually got by way of savings than if you can have a loan take care of it and hope to recoup it when you start working.  

You mean private tutors?  Strictly, depends.  Some simply cram a condensed version of the subject into your head which is good enough to max the exams but won't help you if you want to apply it in practical situations.  But otherwise, some of the best teachers I have had, especially at higher levels, were actually those who ran their own 'classes' (as we call them) because they took the time to give students a good conceptual foundation.   I would not say even then they were all totally amazing or awe inspiring but they did their job well and I am a self reliant person, errmm...when it comes to education anyway, so I helped myself wherever there were gaps.  I spent money on a tax course for my final CPA (CA is what we call it) papers but it was a waste because the tutor was not good.  But I had already been doing a lot of tax work in my apprenticeship so I didn't really need it, in hindsight.  So anyhow the situation of private tutorship shows how markets fill the need felt by students for good teaching and also provide an opportunity to people who might not find compensation in schools and colleges appetising enough.

Not a lot at all.  But depends on what degree, what college.  Engineering and medical in the best institutes can be costly.   IIT-Bombay charges somewhere around what $800 per year.  That's dirt cheap by US standards, I guess, but for a poor student, it would be very costly.  Then again, IIT entrance tests are very competitive and I am not sure that many who are very poor would be able to clear it.   If you just want a Graduate Degree in either Science or Commerce, though, it's pretty cheap.  Even colleges that don't get govt aid would charge you around $170 or so per year and colleges that do get aid...maybe $50.  It's eight years since I graduated so these numbers may not be too accurate but I am sure they are not too far off.  Here the problem is more of getting admission to a good college because employers, especially in big companies, can fuss a lot about where you studied, what degree, etc.  However, in good times, even smaller firms paid decent salaries and they tend to be more interested in whether you can do the job rather than your qualifications.  There are too many students and too few seats, that in a nutshell is the issue here.  And ridiculous ultra high scoring in the high school exam (10th standard for us) doesn't help matters.

Edited by rogerthat - June 21 2014 at 02:06

LOL @ stupid expenses on state of the art sports facilities.  You know, just a month back, I was in America and pretty much gaping in awe at my cousin sis's huge school campus with in house stadiums.  Because my school as well as my college were both just large, single, multi storeyed blocks with a small patch of land that was passed off as a playground and they were places of decent repute (the actual quality of education they delivered is a different story altogether).  

Following from the train of thought I voiced last time on the adverse effects of wantonly pursuing expansion of output, I would like to state here that I am now a convert on the issue of legal tender.   It has taken a long time for me to look at it clearly but perhaps I have got the hang of it now.  Basically, even as a 'mere' means of exchange, money should have a price.  It should be a good.  It should be backed by value and ideally what money one decides to use should be decided by competition between currencies, not a govt monopoly.  Let me be very clear that this does not mean I have turned libertarian overnight (because I just have a strictly personal distaste for over-committing to one particular set of principles to the exclusion of everything else)!   But mainly that looking at it logically it is (suddenly) easy for me to see how the sheer worthlessness of a currency under govt monopoly allows them to do with it as they please and repeatedly wreck havoc on the economy.  If they did not have unlimited flexibility over what amount of money they could release into the market, they would also be forced to manage money supply better and allow for a scenario where the market could correct itself rather than govt having to bail it out at great cost to the taxpayer.  The only condition under which it is at all acceptable for govts alone to have the right to print currency is if it is backed by physical assets like gold and silver and not just an IOU.  But for the complex and inter connected world we live in today, competition would probably be better.  Just in my own country, looking at all the white-elephants-left-to-dust that the govt built for various reasons and wasted money on...that probably wouldn't be possible if money actually had a value instead of just something that flowed on the tap from a printing press.  It would have kept finances more responsible.  I think the great misgiving is austerity would not help the poor access at least a semblance of dignity in their lives but the other issue is such an upliftment has to happen on a sustainable basis and not by means of a blank cheque written by tax payers to govt. 

Anyway...if I can get into college for a bit, I am curious what some here think, especially Roger. 

Edited by JJLehto - June 29 2014 at 21:43