[...]Access to Higher Education Should Be a Federal Guarantee « Analysis of Variance[...]…

[...]Access to Higher Education Should Be a Federal Guarantee « Analysis of Variance[...]…

The reason your description of positive rights doesn’t answer my argument is because I don’t buy that “freedom from taxation” is a negative right. That will be its own post someday. The one-sentence version is that the government constructs the economic system by guaranteeing the currency – use of that currency for transactions is not “property” on the same level that ownership of a refrigerator or a sailboat or a 27-foot clay sculpture of Franz Kafka is “property.”

Even if you don’t buy that argument (which I obviously know you won’t), you must admit that SOME taxation is necessary (police? national defense?), in which case money cannot be viewed as an *absolute* right, even by libertarians, and my argument that education is *especially* important relative to other forms of government spending comes into play.

I definitely do not propose having the government completely subsidize tuition to private universities. I favor more funding to public universities, with the aim of providing a minimal-tuition or tuition-free option. I considered the issue of private competition, and decided that I do not think such an option would make it impossible for private universities (which are also important) to stay afloat.

I do not think the result of guaranteeing access would be to produce a work force where everyone has a degree. The number of people who would enroll if not for finances is substantial, but such people are probably still a minority of the population without post-secondary degrees. I do not think it is ethical for an economic system to make college attendance dependent on existing financial resources — such a system is a serious Catch-22 for youth from working-class and middle-class families.

In my field, all the good grad schools already pay for their students’ tuition under most normal conditions. And having a Ph.D. in psychology is at least slightly better than not having one, no matter what it is you want to do. But most people don’t just enter Ph.D. programs for the hell of it.

Also, you assert that education must be provided because “bachelor’s degrees [have] become more and more essential to numerous forms of economic and political participation.” The first notable problem with this statement is that it takes a consequentialist approach to education. Education is more than just political or economic training. If education is vocational preparation, then most of what happens in the classroom could just be taught on the job. Instead, education should be about higher things — philosophy, art, humanity, truth. Second, even if education was just a tool for economic and political development, your statement doesn’t justify government action. Even if we were to accept the premise that a Bachelors in Communications makes people better citizens and workers, it doesn’t follow that taxpayers should bankroll everyone’s tuition.

There are two other serious problems to consider. First, if every kid did go to college, the market demand would increase while the supply remains constant. The problem: major tuition increases. This is unsustainable, especially for an already bankrupt government. Second, the benefits derived from getting a bachelors are a product of specialization. In other words, it’s because not every kid has a bachelors that a bachelors is valuable. If every kid gets one, it will simply force more students into masters programs to specialize — and then, following your logic, the argument could be made that it’s the Government’s role to pay for every student’s masters degree, and then doctorate after that.