Having lived in different countries with different economic systems and different approaches to tackling this problem, the truth is that the right way of doing something is not necessarily a good way.jenesaislaw wrote:dingbat wrote:This is why, despite the current economic toils, a poor person is more likely to attain the american dream in europe than in america - education is either free or the cost is negligible, so the price of admission to the gentrified professions are not a barrier to entry.
However, as for the public interest part, there are practical considerations. I've heard the economy described as "too many managers, not enough plumbers"
education for the sake of education is all well and good, but if you want members of society to be productive (without defining what that entails) it is important that they are given a practical education that fills needs for jobs.
When we set education policy, it should be designed to maximize jobs, which means encouraging proper diversification. That is, in my opinion, the biggest problem with education in our country.
As has been stated before, law schools graduate nearly twice as many JDs as there are new legal jobs opening up every year.
There are other professions that are chronically understaffed (actuaries come to mind as a profession that has 95%+ employment rates upon graduation)
If we could encourage some of those prospective JDs to become actuaries instead, it would be better for society as a whole
And really, this gets to my real concern. It's way inefficient (in a non-technical sense, policy-oriented sense) to send a bunch of people in one direction when another is better for them individually and for the public interest (which when maximized will help the individual). I think energy should be focused here as opposed to whether the current price of education is justified by an IRR analysis. At the individual level, the effects of debt are pretty clear. It reduces social and economic mobility. It depresses people. It makes them act more unethically. The broader impact is less well understood, at least by me. The issue when doing investment analyses, however, is that people do not exist into perpetuity. The short-term matters significantly more on an emotional level and practical level. This is why we see programs like IBR.
I asked the simple question because I felt like you and manofjustice followed each other down the rabbit hole. Your debate was interesting, but in terms of policy setting, not necessarily relevant. And since you were both interested in outcomes, it makes sense that the regulatory layer get its due consideration. We can get a lot more normative there.
there are pros and cons to every system.
I personally love the commentary in this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=185951
The problem is that everyone wants cheap education, affordable healthcare, comfortable retirement, etc., but no one wants to pay for it. This is a struggle for every society and the solution that works in one place (e.g. free health care in UK/Canada) does not necessarily work in another place (medicare waste in the US)
This is a very, very long debate that we can have, but, unfortunately, implementing a feasible solution is nigh impossible.
I am of the opinion that the US suffers from diseconomies of scale and this impacts all facets of society.