Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tusaki · Mar 6, 2004, 03:25 pm

this was originally an argument/response to Outsourcing will add more jobs in the longrun?

Public schools: UK & Dutch schools are publicly funded. there are almost no private schools here. I'm not saying it is nessicarily better, but the population overall is quite well educated. Public schooling allows people with a lower income to give a shot at going to a university without fearing for exorbitant costs. In Germany, all higher education is free. The idea is that when you make education available for everyone, it will pay itself back in the long run. Also, the universities here are almost equal in quality. (in the Netherlands). As long as someone has done 'a' university, people will know what to expect. (A good level of education)

Some of the issues with this system (as far as I can think of) are: Higher taxes, less motivation to study hard (hey, it's cheap/free), an aging population makes it hard to support the system without it collapsing under it's own weight, equal quality means less opportunity to differentiate, tendancy to be underfunded, prone to the whims of the current ruling party.

Another argument in favor could also be: When people are not afraid of the costs and the duration of their studies, they do more things alongside their study. They join a club or 2, they read more, they have and take more time to 'develop'/'discover' themselves at other things besides studying. A bit of a shaky argument, but one that still counts I think.

What are your thoughts?

Write Winger · Mar 6, 2004, 03:35 pm

please don't equate "publically funded" with "free." They aren't even close to being the same.

tusaki · Mar 6, 2004, 03:37 pm

I didn't. I said it results in higher taxes. But to the people going to the university, it will be 'seem' free. And their parents, who have paid taxes all their lives, it will 'seem' cheap.

Paavo · Mar 6, 2004, 04:17 pm

In Finland, education is -- more or less -- free (yes, for the student, not the taxpayers). I can't see how it's unfair for anyone. Everybody gets the same ground to start from. At least virtually, a poor family doesn't stay poor because of the system, the wealth of the parents of a child has a smaller role -- in the child's future -- with this system. This way generation after another won't be poor just because they started off poor.

I have never thought of my country as a socialist one (even less so because we have Russia as our neighbour), but after learning about how things work in countries like the USA, I'm realizing that Finland is pretty socialist in it's ways. I must've been really naive / ignorant not to see it, but what really made me think was an MSN chat convo I was having with an American person -- she told me she was having some medical problems and that she was in pain and couldn't work. I asked her "er...go see a doctor?" and she replied with "Hehe, I can't afford that." ..I was shocked. Just shows how strongly I've taken our social system for granted and never really thought about it. I do now, and I'm more than happy to pay my share of taxes.

Uhm......yeah, going a bit off topic with that rambling I guess, but it's the same with the education system. Why not pay for equal and fair education with taxmoney? I can't see the point in not doing that. Everyone wins. Or?

Mar 6, 2004, 04:22 pm

well canadians are always boasting about their free health care
but neglect to mention how bad it is for the taxpayers and the *shock* doctor

tusaki · Mar 6, 2004, 04:26 pm

You mean, financially? Aren't doctors still one of the best paid professions? I mean, I don't know how it is in Canada, but over here, a doctor is always making top euro :)

Mar 6, 2004, 04:27 pm

A useful distinction to make here would be that of public schooling and government "schooling"

A public school would be one that is simply open to the public (may or may not be without cost to the consumer)

Whereas a government school is one that is run by the government at the expense of innocent citizens most of whom make no use of the school at any given time. This distinction also helps to avoid the assumption that what is taught is unbiased, is education, or is objective. By making the distinction one can begin to see the biases and ideologies which are taught.

Mar 6, 2004, 04:29 pm

RE: canadian doctors.. some close friends of mine live in a moderately rural setting where the number of doctors is controlled by mandate resulting in a distinct shortage of doctors in their area. To get an appointment for even a physical will require a wait of something like 10 months.

Mar 6, 2004, 04:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
of innocent citizens <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

nice subtle modifier there

Mar 6, 2004, 04:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
You mean, financially? Aren't doctors still one of the best paid professions? I mean, I don't know how it is in Canada, but over here, a doctor is always making top euro :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

no canada has some socialist thing in place where health care is free
but doctors suddnely find themselves giv't commodities

dotcoma · Mar 6, 2004, 05:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
canada has some socialist thing in place...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mar 6, 2004, 05:04 pm

tusaki · Mar 6, 2004, 05:06 pm

You must admit, roxdog made a valid point. :)

Mar 6, 2004, 05:11 pm

what point? thats why i said hmm?

tusaki · Mar 6, 2004, 05:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
Whereas a government school is one that is run by the government at the expense of innocent citizens most of whom make no use of the school at any given time. This distinction also helps to avoid the assumption that what is taught is unbiased, is education, or is objective. By making the distinction one can begin to see the biases and ideologies which are taught.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, but the citizens who do not make use of the facilities benefit from the higher overall education level even though they might not be the ones using them directly. If you look at the big picture, everyone benefits. And everyone is biased, no matter what you teach them. Or do you think there is just one bias.. the 'current' government bias? The idea of a university education is that you teach people to think and to question. Or, that is is what I bias-edly(?) think.

tusaki · Mar 6, 2004, 05:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
what point? thats why i said hmm?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's why I made a joke

Mar 6, 2004, 05:13 pm

good points tusaki

Mar 6, 2004, 05:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
what point? thats why i said hmm?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's why I made a joke <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

a ok
heh

Mar 6, 2004, 03:25 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	this was originally an argument/response to Outsourcing will add more jobs in the longrun? Public schools: UK & Dutch schools are publicly funded. there are almost no private schools here. I'm not saying it is nessicarily better, but the population overall is quite well educated. Public schooling allows people with a lower income to give a shot at going to a university without fearing for exorbitant costs. In Germany, all higher education is free. The idea is that when you make education available for everyone, it will pay itself back in the long run. Also, the universities here are almost equal in quality. (in the Netherlands). As long as someone has done 'a' university, people will know what to expect. (A good level of education) Some of the issues with this system (as far as I can think of) are: Higher taxes, less motivation to study hard (hey, it's cheap/free), an aging population makes it hard to support the system without it collapsing under it's own weight, equal quality means less opportunity to differentiate, tendancy to be underfunded, prone to the whims of the current ruling party. Another argument in favor could also be: When people are not afraid of the costs and the duration of their studies, they do more things alongside their study. They join a club or 2, they read more, they have and take more time to 'develop'/'discover' themselves at other things besides studying. A bit of a shaky argument, but one that still counts I think. What are your thoughts? Hope & Dream

Mar 6, 2004, 03:35 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Write Winger Molten Ash Location: Texas Posts: 96	please don't equate "publically funded" with "free." They aren't even close to being the same. My book... Write Winger: Solutions for the Politically Oblique available from Booklocker.com

Mar 6, 2004, 03:37 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	I didn't. I said it results in higher taxes. But to the people going to the university, it will be 'seem' free. And their parents, who have paid taxes all their lives, it will 'seem' cheap. Hope & Dream

Mar 6, 2004, 04:26 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	You mean, financially? Aren't doctors still one of the best paid professions? I mean, I don't know how it is in Canada, but over here, a doctor is always making top euro :) Hope & Dream

Mar 6, 2004, 04:31 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by of innocent citizens <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> nice subtle modifier there

Mar 6, 2004, 04:17 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	In Finland, education is -- more or less -- free (yes, for the student, not the taxpayers). I can't see how it's unfair for anyone. Everybody gets the same ground to start from. At least virtually, a poor family doesn't stay poor because of the system, the wealth of the parents of a child has a smaller role -- in the child's future -- with this system. This way generation after another won't be poor just because they started off poor. I have never thought of my country as a socialist one (even less so because we have Russia as our neighbour), but after learning about how things work in countries like the USA, I'm realizing that Finland is pretty socialist in it's ways. I must've been really naive / ignorant not to see it, but what really made me think was an MSN chat convo I was having with an American person -- she told me she was having some medical problems and that she was in pain and couldn't work. I asked her "er...go see a doctor?" and she replied with "Hehe, I can't afford that." ..I was shocked. Just shows how strongly I've taken our social system for granted and never really thought about it. I do now, and I'm more than happy to pay my share of taxes. Uhm......yeah, going a bit off topic with that rambling I guess, but it's the same with the education system. Why not pay for equal and fair education with taxmoney? I can't see the point in not doing that. Everyone wins. Or?

Mar 6, 2004, 04:22 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	well canadians are always boasting about their free health care but neglect to mention how bad it is for the taxpayers and the shock doctor

Mar 6, 2004, 04:27 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	A useful distinction to make here would be that of public schooling and government "schooling" A public school would be one that is simply open to the public (may or may not be without cost to the consumer) Whereas a government school is one that is run by the government at the expense of innocent citizens most of whom make no use of the school at any given time. This distinction also helps to avoid the assumption that what is taught is unbiased, is education, or is objective. By making the distinction one can begin to see the biases and ideologies which are taught.

Mar 6, 2004, 04:29 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	RE: canadian doctors.. some close friends of mine live in a moderately rural setting where the number of doctors is controlled by mandate resulting in a distinct shortage of doctors in their area. To get an appointment for even a physical will require a wait of something like 10 months.

Mar 6, 2004, 04:32 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,) You mean, financially? Aren't doctors still one of the best paid professions? I mean, I don't know how it is in Canada, but over here, a doctor is always making top euro :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> no canada has some socialist thing in place where health care is free but doctors suddnely find themselves giv't commodities

Mar 6, 2004, 05:03 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) canada has some socialist thing in place...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Mar 6, 2004, 05:04 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	hmm?

Mar 6, 2004, 05:06 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	You must admit, roxdog made a valid point. :) Hope & Dream

Mar 6, 2004, 05:11 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	what point? thats why i said hmm?

Mar 6, 2004, 05:11 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Whereas a government school is one that is run by the government at the expense of innocent citizens most of whom make no use of the school at any given time. This distinction also helps to avoid the assumption that what is taught is unbiased, is education, or is objective. By making the distinction one can begin to see the biases and ideologies which are taught.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, but the citizens who do not make use of the facilities benefit from the higher overall education level even though they might not be the ones using them directly. If you look at the big picture, everyone benefits. And everyone is biased, no matter what you teach them. Or do you think there is just one bias.. the 'current' government bias? The idea of a university education is that you teach people to think and to question. Or, that is is what I bias-edly(?) think. Hope & Dream

Mar 6, 2004, 05:12 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) what point? thats why i said hmm?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's why I made a joke Hope & Dream

Mar 6, 2004, 05:13 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	good points tusaki

Mar 6, 2004, 05:14 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) what point? thats why i said hmm?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's why I made a joke <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> a ok heh