Starting with this post, I am going to start responding at least once a week to other blog posts or articles on different aspects of politics. Today, I'd like to address "Against Tulip Subsidies" http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/
The author compares the "education bubble" to the tulip bubble in the Dutch Republic; he tells a story of how Dutch traders caused the price of tulips to skyrocket in an imaginary country where tulips were how one asked for another's hand in marriage. One country responded by having government subsidies for tulips; another starting using daffodils.
The author compares the "education bubble" to the tulip bubble in the Dutch Republic; he tells a story of how Dutch traders caused the price of tulips to skyrocket in an imaginary country where tulips were how one asked for another's hand in marriage. One country responded by having government subsidies for tulips; another starting using daffodils.
I don't want to simply pick apart the author's metaphor but there are many problems with it. At its root, the metaphor implies that tulips (and thus higher education) have no inherent worth; they do not help one come to a better understanding of society or one's self. Instead, one buys the tulip (with or without government subsidies) in order to start a family. Because of this, higher education is portrayed in strictly economic terms and thus perceived of in a limited way as job training.
This is a thoroughly neoliberal way of looking at education. It says that education has a limited economic purpose and that non-affluent people who pursue education for other reasons are a waste of taxpayer money because "anything not related to job-getting can be done three times as quickly by just reading a book."
I want to address this assumption with some anecdotes, though I know they don't count for much in a world of empiricism.
I took a gap year, mostly to take care of family, but also to read. I'd always maintained that I learned more through books than through classes. That year taught me how difficult it is to learn on one's own, especially when one doesn't have access to JSTOR or borrowing privileges at an academic library, let alone guidance from a professor. After that year, I've been skeptical about conclusions that books teach as well as professors. Yes, one can learn a lot from books, but they aren't a full substitute.
Furthermore, his argument is problematic in a society with so much inequality. Well-off people don't have the pressure of finding a job, so apparently, they are free to major in "Medieval Studies" (which the author singles out for derision). It is us poorer people who have to settle for vocational training.
He complains that a bunch of old people have somehow attained the power to sentence students to unrelated undergraduate degrees and thus to debt I protest that his arrogant response is to decide for everybody that education is meaningless and thus justifies denying it to those who, because of factors outside of their control, are unable to afford it.
Additionally, he fails to address why the price of higher education has been rising when research clearly shows that one of primary reasons is the increasing numbers and salaries of administrative staff.
I can see the reasoning behind decrying the requirement of a bachelor's degree for virtually all jobs as this effectively commodifies the degree. However, I still disagree strongly with the author's conclusion because I believe that people do gain something valuable from a background in liberal arts and from exposure to different ways of looking at the world.
Besides, what would a daffodil look like anyway?
This is a thoroughly neoliberal way of looking at education. It says that education has a limited economic purpose and that non-affluent people who pursue education for other reasons are a waste of taxpayer money because "anything not related to job-getting can be done three times as quickly by just reading a book."
I want to address this assumption with some anecdotes, though I know they don't count for much in a world of empiricism.
I took a gap year, mostly to take care of family, but also to read. I'd always maintained that I learned more through books than through classes. That year taught me how difficult it is to learn on one's own, especially when one doesn't have access to JSTOR or borrowing privileges at an academic library, let alone guidance from a professor. After that year, I've been skeptical about conclusions that books teach as well as professors. Yes, one can learn a lot from books, but they aren't a full substitute.
Furthermore, his argument is problematic in a society with so much inequality. Well-off people don't have the pressure of finding a job, so apparently, they are free to major in "Medieval Studies" (which the author singles out for derision). It is us poorer people who have to settle for vocational training.
He complains that a bunch of old people have somehow attained the power to sentence students to unrelated undergraduate degrees and thus to debt I protest that his arrogant response is to decide for everybody that education is meaningless and thus justifies denying it to those who, because of factors outside of their control, are unable to afford it.
Additionally, he fails to address why the price of higher education has been rising when research clearly shows that one of primary reasons is the increasing numbers and salaries of administrative staff.
I can see the reasoning behind decrying the requirement of a bachelor's degree for virtually all jobs as this effectively commodifies the degree. However, I still disagree strongly with the author's conclusion because I believe that people do gain something valuable from a background in liberal arts and from exposure to different ways of looking at the world.
Besides, what would a daffodil look like anyway?