ArishMell · 70-79, M
Of course not, but where did you find that idea promulgated?
View 1 more replies »
ElwoodBlues · M
@ArishMell That idea has been kicking around the republican party for a while now.
Republicans believe higher education has a negative impact on the US.
As you probably know, the main sources of funding for American PhD students are the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. The proposed republican budget cuts NSF funding in half, and chops 40% out of the NIH research budget. That means far fewer PhDs in the coming years to work at the cutting edge of science and health.
Republicans believe higher education has a negative impact on the US.
While 73% of Democrats believe colleges and universities have a positive impact on the country, only 37% of Republicans feel that way.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113816868/more-americans-are-questioning-whether-college-has-a-positive-impactAs you probably know, the main sources of funding for American PhD students are the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. The proposed republican budget cuts NSF funding in half, and chops 40% out of the NIH research budget. That means far fewer PhDs in the coming years to work at the cutting edge of science and health.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues No, I don't know how the USA administers itself at Departmental level, but I find the notion of higher education being bad in itself, utterly baffling - especially for a nation that always prided itself on its science and engineering.
The UK has tended to go the other way, largely from Tony Blair's Labour government onwards. He and his Cabinet thought that the more people gained Degrees the better. They had a thing about the "Knowledge Economy" without ever really defining it beyond gaining any degree irrespective of subject or career needs. Nor considering that people who can build houses, operate precision machine-tools or drive trains don't need go to university but are very knowledgeable in their own ways.
The problem common to both countries, and any other, is that higher education is undeniably expensive even if adopting the UK model of Student Loans - and those are repayable only once the graduated debtor has started earning above a certain threshold. Also, if too many people gain degrees but there is insufficient employment needing them, that does unfortunately represent a financial loss to whoever has payed their tuition fees: the students themselves or the taxpayers at large.
It must be very disappointing and demoralising though for someone to work very hard for three or four years, leave university with a good Degree in some beloved subject, only to find no professional opportunity to use it - or to be told they are "over-qualified" for whatever work is available.
So I can understand the US government wanting to cut education funding for national budgetary reasons; and the economic argument will naturally have strong party-political biases.
What I find hard to comprehend though is that curious idea that higher education as such can harm the country! So I read the article you cite, and broadly, it is not that at all. Instead, it does come down to opinions about national economics and perceptions of individual careers, hence salaries, and those may well be coloured by individuals' Party loyalties and their own backgrounds. So not the education that is wrong, but its the affordability, and by whom.
The objection to "the government" paying tuition-fees is of course understandable because everyone knows "the government" is a term of convenience: the taxpayers fund the public services, with the government as collector and distributor according to policy.
So I can understand considerable concern that the higher-education system is too expensive finacially howver valuable professionally, for the country. Yet the country still needs the graduates, and still needs the universities as centres of research. As well as the house-builders, engineering technicians and train-drivers.
It is a very difficult problem and I am afraid there are no easy, or low-cost, answers.
The UK has tended to go the other way, largely from Tony Blair's Labour government onwards. He and his Cabinet thought that the more people gained Degrees the better. They had a thing about the "Knowledge Economy" without ever really defining it beyond gaining any degree irrespective of subject or career needs. Nor considering that people who can build houses, operate precision machine-tools or drive trains don't need go to university but are very knowledgeable in their own ways.
The problem common to both countries, and any other, is that higher education is undeniably expensive even if adopting the UK model of Student Loans - and those are repayable only once the graduated debtor has started earning above a certain threshold. Also, if too many people gain degrees but there is insufficient employment needing them, that does unfortunately represent a financial loss to whoever has payed their tuition fees: the students themselves or the taxpayers at large.
It must be very disappointing and demoralising though for someone to work very hard for three or four years, leave university with a good Degree in some beloved subject, only to find no professional opportunity to use it - or to be told they are "over-qualified" for whatever work is available.
So I can understand the US government wanting to cut education funding for national budgetary reasons; and the economic argument will naturally have strong party-political biases.
What I find hard to comprehend though is that curious idea that higher education as such can harm the country! So I read the article you cite, and broadly, it is not that at all. Instead, it does come down to opinions about national economics and perceptions of individual careers, hence salaries, and those may well be coloured by individuals' Party loyalties and their own backgrounds. So not the education that is wrong, but its the affordability, and by whom.
The objection to "the government" paying tuition-fees is of course understandable because everyone knows "the government" is a term of convenience: the taxpayers fund the public services, with the government as collector and distributor according to policy.
So I can understand considerable concern that the higher-education system is too expensive finacially howver valuable professionally, for the country. Yet the country still needs the graduates, and still needs the universities as centres of research. As well as the house-builders, engineering technicians and train-drivers.
It is a very difficult problem and I am afraid there are no easy, or low-cost, answers.
