It's impressive to see this simplistic "you get what you pay for, damn it" sort of argument appearing in a situation where clearly students don't get what they pay for at all.
It's easy to find example in the US past and in other countries where high general and specialized quality education is provided in a fairly low-cost fashion.
>>It's impressive to see this simplistic "you get what you pay for, damn it" sort of argument appearing in a situation where clearly students don't get what they pay for at all.
I'm not saying you get what you pay for, I'm saying you get what you vote for. The government needs to get the heck out of the loan market.
>>It's easy to find example in the US past and in other countries where high general and specialized quality education is provided in a fairly low-cost fashion.
If you are talking about Europe, the catch is that they weed out those who shouldn't be there early. For example in Italy, everyone can go for the first year, but then you have to pass a continuation exam, that upwards of 50 to 70 % fail. Germany has a similar system with exams early in high school that separate what tier school you can go to (trade schools or universities). So sure, its "free/low cost" but and technically "universal", except for those who fail at the gate. Otherwise try your luck in the US where you can rack up massive debt to attend any for profit college with 90% acceptance rates and the peice of paper is accredited the same as any other college. Plus, most Europeans want to finish in an American school because late game quality is light year beyond what you can get in Europe save for a few schools like Cambridge or Oxford, and maybe the Max Planck institute.
It's easy to find example in the US past and in other countries where high general and specialized quality education is provided in a fairly low-cost fashion.