Supporters of a tax-funded school-system argue that the State must pay all elementary and most higher education, and some say the State must pay for all education for everyone in order to prevent some rich from receiving a "better" education than most poor. This argument has the flaw of eliminating the price for the individual student, thereby hiding the needs for his education from him. If an education is popular many are willing to seek for it. Most likely, because many seek for something in limited supply, the price for the education increases. However, due to increased numbers of students graduating with a certain degree, the need for that certain education decreases. Salaries for those who graduate drop as a consequence and fewer see the rewards in paying for the education as a result. Fewer take the education, supply of graduates stabilizes according to demand on the market and salaries recover. This is the tuning-system of the price-system seen in everything but health-care and education in Europe. That's why the world is filled with unemployed French-literature graduates and that's why many die needlessly on long waiting-lists.
However, this kind of argumentation has no effect on the socialist. "The society," he says "must make sure the poor have a chance to seek education too, and research show that education is beneficial for everyone in the society!" Ok, lets say that is so and for the reasons the socialist gives (of course education is just an investment like everything else - houses, cars, televisions, clothes - and the poor have the best chance of affording those investments when the market is free, but lets keep these facts out for now). On what grounds, then, does the socialist choose his own personal education? Does he study unemployment-numbers to see what education is the most likely one to lead to a job-offer later? Does he look at the hospital's waiting-list to see if there is more need for a nurse or a doctor? Does he count the number of old people who need support or streets that need police protection and choose an education accordingly?
In most cases the answer is no. Having no need to bear the cost of the education the student will in most cases simply base the choice of his education on his own personal interests without regards to possible future earnings or need on the market. Despite all the fair descriptions about "benefits for the society" or "national need" he will choose according to his own personal will. Luckily most people realize that there is more need for this than that and make some realistic estimates about the future possibilities for a good job after finishing a certain degree, but that is simply a sign of resistance against a system that tries to force people into school for the "society". It is simply a fortunate coincidence that people choose something which is missing instead of crowding into differently useful lectures about the bees and the birds. The human's survival instinct simply doesn't allow us to think that the "society" will welcome any education even though its noble and nice and lead to beautiful poetry and writings.
When it all comes down to it we don't think to much about the society as such. We are individuals and we make choices that benefit our own future and present needs. A nationalized school-system needs other logic than the "benefits the society" to argue for its existence. Here's a suggestion: Because the State must control what we learn!"
No comments:
Post a Comment