From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 22:30:29 MST
James Rogers wrote:
> On 1/14/02 1:31 AM, "Damien Broderick" <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
>>I don't see the relevance to my point, which was that those who bleat about
>>`evil' communistic/socialistic `free' education for all never seem to worry
>>about `virtuous' rich-parent-pays-&-kid-gets-in-`free' education.
>>
>
>
> In my not-so-long-ago educational past the actual case was that most parents
> of all economic strata paid for their children's education. I was one of
> the few poor saps whose parents weren't paying for my education, which kind
> of works against you since the system operates under the assumption that
> your parents will be paying since most do. I don't see where the system
> needs to be fixed, beyond changing things a bit so people whose parents
> aren't paying for their education don't get hosed. As far as I can tell,
> the only people who really lose out under the current system are people who
> neither have someone to pay for their education nor qualify for one of the
> myriad of special exceptions and aid programs that basically ignore
> otherwise ordinary non-minority folk such as myself.
>
It looks to me like instead of patching the current hodge-podge
system with its friction (rake-offs) and ills, it would make
more sense to simply say that everyone who is willing and able
to go to college and can make the grade gets supported in doing
so to a certain reasonable minimal level if they do not have
other means of support or to supplement inadequate levels of
support. This could be done as a fundamental given with very
minimum red tape and friction. It could also be done as a
non-profit rather than a tax-driven government program but the
coverage would be likely to be less complete. I will gladly
donate generously to such a program myself once I am no longer
supporting my own 2 dependents.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST