11 Feb 17
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat percentage of the population is allowed to take advantage of the free education? Isn't an certain test score required?
Those countries that provide tuition-free tertiary education - how do you imagine they do it?
In the US we want everyone in free college classes, no matter what the age. No test requirement. No prior education requirement. Anyone and everyone can just show up and take courses.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat country has had free University education as I've described? No prior education requirement and no minimum test score requirement.
Yeah... free education and a complete public health system are completely impossible!!!
Well, obviously, considering many countries have or have had both, you're wrong.
It's just a question of how you spend your taxes.
How much did the pointless (in fact, negative is probably a better description) wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan cost?
That's a helluva lot of free eduction blown to smithereens.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by EladarThe number of people taking courses just for the heck of it without intending to get a degree is so small it plays practically no role in the overall cost of education.
What percentage of the population is allowed to take advantage of the free education? Isn't an certain test score required?
In the US we want everyone in free college classes, no matter what the age. No test requirement. No prior education requirement. Anyone and everyone can just show up and take courses.
Of course, where limited places are available it makes sense to select students based on academic ability. In my university there was no requirement at all to enroll in the physics programme aside from having passed physics and mathematics at the highest level in high school.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by EladarWhat gave you that idea? Read my post again, more carefully this time.
So you do not believe in technological advancement.
You do not believe that in the future a more efficient solar energy cell will not be developed.
Of course I believe there will be more efficient, and cheaper, solar energy cells. But that does not make the currently in use solar cells stop working. Try and use your brain for at least half a second.
Solar plants will continue to work for their projected lifetime regardless of what new developments are made in solar technology. In most cases it will make more sense to build more solar plants rather than replace existing ones - until nobody in the region wants more energy.
This is different from coal which is both a polluter and resource hungry, so when newer technology comes along which is either more efficient or cleaner, the coal plants may be replaced. Similarly with nuclear, newer, safer technology may motivate replacing a nuclear plant.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by EladarSounds great! When are you implementing it?
In the US we want everyone in free college classes, no matter what the age. No test requirement. No prior education requirement. Anyone and everyone can just show up and take courses.
My own opinion is that anyone should be allowed to take any course any time. Obviously they shouldn't be given certifications unless they pass the course.
But at a very minimum, nobody should ever be denied education for monetary reasons. That is just plain discriminatory and elitist.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn the US there would be no need at all to have math or physics in the US. Everyone gets free Universitt means everyone can take any course. If too many people fail, then it is yhe teacher's fault.
The number of people taking courses just for the heck of it without intending to get a degree is so small it plays practically no role in the overall cost of education.
Of course, where limited places are available it makes sense to select students based on academic ability. In my university there was no requirement at all to enroll in the physics programme aside from having passed physics and mathematics at the highest level in high school.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo in the future Germany will be required to reinvest in its clean energy programs. The spending never stops.
What gave you that idea? Read my post again, more carefully this time.
[b]You do not believe that in the future a more efficient solar energy cell will not be developed.
Of course I believe there will be more efficient, and cheaper, solar energy cells. But that does not make the currently in use solar cells stop working. Try and use your brain for ...[text shortened]... eplaced. Similarly with nuclear, newer, safer technology may motivate replacing a nuclear plant.[/b]
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
11 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, there aren't even 400 million Americans in the USA (more like 325 million). I was using sarcasm with exaggerated figures to illustrate a point that you seem to have completely missed. Lets say that they offered a free universal education to all Americans tomorrow. What is today's supply of university educators, and what is the current student enrollment? A quick google search yeilds appx. 1.5 million university educators vs. 20 million students. A program like this could easily increase student enrollment 4 fold. ( probably half of which would gladly leave their current careers to further their education - creating massive economic workforce shortages. Heck, a reasonable portion of the university educators themselves would probably opt to further their education) Do we have in stock 4 fold of our current university level instuctors? No. Ok, so two things can happen. Either the quality of America education plummets (even though its pretty much already crap), or...like good Americans...we will import the best and brightest educators from around the world, which will then create a unfillable educational void throughought the poorest nations. We might be ok, for a while, until the rest of the world without its educators becomes a black hole of violence and agression.
I think that proves beyond a doubt that your current system is not working. You are saying that there are 400 million americans that really do want a university education but are denied access to one because of the cost.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by EladarYou're being a little bit silly. No one (that I know of) is seriously claiming that Berkeley (for example) should admit every applicant regardless of academic qualifications if and when tuition fees are abolished.
In the US there would be no need at all to have math or physics in the US. Everyone gets free Universitt means everyone can take any course. If too many people fail, then it is yhe teacher's fault.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey won't even allow free speech, so it's not likely they're going to be über accessible on any other front, either.
You're being a little bit silly. No one (that I know of) is seriously claiming that Berkeley (for example) should admit every applicant regardless of academic qualifications if and when tuition fees are abolished.
11 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by joe shmoNever a wise thing to do on an internet forum without some sort of indication that that is what you are doing.
I was using sarcasm....
with exaggerated figures to illustrate a point that you seem to have completely missed.
Probably because instead of making your point clearly, you tried to hide it behind sarcasm.
Lets say that they offered a free universal education to all Americans tomorrow. What is today's supply of university educators, and what is the current student enrollment?
I don't know, but given you history of exaggeration, I don't think I will be asking you.
A quick google search yeilds appx. 1.5 million university educators vs. 20 million students. A program like this could easily increase student enrollment 4 fold. ( probably half of which would gladly leave their current careers to further their education - creating massive economic workforce shortages.
Creating a large number of jobs. Sounds fantastic!
Heck, a reasonable portion of the university educators themselves would probably opt to further their education)
Most university educators are in a permanent state of education. Teaching is part of it.
Do we have in stock 4 fold of our current university level instuctors?
Yes.
No.
Wrong.
Ok, so two things can happen. Either the quality of America education plummets (even though its pretty much already crap), or...like good Americans...we will import the best and brightest educators from around the world, which will then create a unfillable educational void throughought the poorest nations. We might be ok, for a while, until the rest of the world without its educators becomes a black hole of violence and agression.
Or you could just pay them better and you will find many many willing workers just waiting for the opportunity.
I find your 'we don't have enough skilled people so lets stop teaching' argument to be stupid in the extreme. Your lack of logical thinking makes you an excellent advocate for the need for better education in the US.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
11 Feb 17
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead1) Your individual replies to portions of my response are inconsistent...as usual.
Never a wise thing to do on an internet forum without some sort of indication that that is what you are doing.
[b]with exaggerated figures to illustrate a point that you seem to have completely missed.
Probably because instead of making your point clearly, you tried to hide it behind sarcasm.
Lets say that they offered a free universal educ ...[text shortened]... of logical thinking makes you an excellent advocate for the need for better education in the US.
I ask you what is our current number of educators currently and you reply: "I don't know"
Then I ask you if we have 4 times that amount ( that you don't know) and you reply "Yes"
2) I have absolutely no idea how you are interpreting my argument to be "we don't have enough skilled people so lets stop teaching"
and
3) Your use of the term "advocate" in the context of your statement below is completely and utterly incorrect.
"Your lack of logical thinking makes you an excellent advocate for the need for better education in the US."
see: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/advocate
I think what you were trying to verbalize was that my lack of logical thinking makes an excellent rationale for the need of better education in the US.
In the words of our great American redneck comedian - Jeff Foxworthy - "Here's your sign"