We could say the same about many parties, states, and programs, particularly those that are opaque, committee/executive overseen, funded through force, affiliated with older systems, and/or only integrated with affiliated older systems. Corruption has a habit of being unoriginal, due to its propagation vectors. I am not saying public or private education is inherently better or worse, I am proposing that new options be provided to maximize productivity in many ways for both economic domains, and suggesting that both domains can easily afford to fully implement them and continue to prosper.
There's just enough corporate-speak in these responses that I'm having a hard time following. 'Funded through force?' 'Integrated with affiliated older systems?' This language seems rather 'opaque.'
Novelty isn't inherently better. A novel system that simply makes it easier for enrolled, prospective, or self educating students to complete courses with high marks, and acquire certificates with that institution's name on it, is much better for everyone than what currently exists, especially if it's all funded through voluntary transactions or donations.
The bolded section is what kills this. The institution must have agency (actionable free will) to determine who gets their certification. We don't get to decide what's best for Harvard. Harvard decides what's best for Harvard, you decide what's best for you. I know half a dozen people who've taken online courses in the last year, which means I've taken half a dozen online courses in the last year as they ask me for help with their homework. Maybe the degree those online students are earning shouldn't
have the same value as the one I earned. Maybe it's not as good. Maybe the university should be allowed to make its own valuation of all possible avenues of education (including which to offer and from which to abstain), and the free market should be allowed to make its valuation of each university's reputation. Maybe none of this is broken except the cost.
Not really. As far as I know, private nonprofits and tax subsidized private educators are just creating highly focused in-house systems, not a multimedia, multisector, multidisciplinary platform. Also, I have yet to see anyone offer course completion exams set up by appointment, let alone exams for a very wide range of course, let alone across an entire country.
So.... is this an example of people doing the thing you want, or an example of people not doing the thing you want? This was your example. Help me out.
Right, as some people simply won't adopt a new system for one or more mutable reasons, such as incompatibility with their own system. But I urge you to find a school that has voluntarily refrained from adopting computer technology, then compare their quality and profitability with the rest of the market.
"Computers are good, do what I say!" Apples to oranges. I can play -- find me a school that has voluntarily started breathing oxygen substitute and compare their quality with the rest of the market. See? The old stuff is better!
Productivity is maximized by selection factors, of which the invisible hand is but one. I don't advocate for price ceilings or committee/executive interference, but I do think it's worth ensuring this system: keeps prices below market averages to grow demand so supply growth accelerates due to lower distribution costs, and letting citizens directly provide free feedback and oversight for this system.
You don't advocate for price ceilings but we need to make sure the price stays below market?
I don't believe that all forms of a nation's education industry market growth are good for that nation's economic health, but some forms are more cost effective and less detrimental than other forms in certain conditions.
When did I suggest the federal government proclaim that certain institutions be shut down and converted? I believe I actually said: "Who cares if they don't play along? They can just get their subsidies cut, if they want to continue stalling economic growth by draining capital for their short sighted benefit."
Here's my crux of the issue. You're collectivizing the education industry because prices are high. Prices are high -- but private schools perform much better than public schools. So rather than trying to make the public schools function more like private (by decentralizing, offering states and municipalities more agency, taking federal subsidies out), you're trying to make the private schools act more public (by putting all products into the same basket, intentionally undercutting its value, and coercing participation with selective subsidy). It's backwards. Mind you -- there's a great kernel of truth in there! But this version of the future education market you're picturing isn't just corrupted, it's corruption period. I imagine implementing as described (or at least, as understood -- feel free to clarify), we'd do for education in America what Venezuela did for its agriculture.
What is best now in a given worldview is not the best that a given worldview can quickly and reasonably attain for a low cost. It's also not necessarily what will be best in the near or far future, as quality can shift at any given time with the right conditions. To given it due credit, the current paradigm has a self improving flavor, thanks to its recursive self modification and selection. By creating an expanding frontier that can increase mobility in every sector of the economy, you unleash the informatic equivalent of the Industrial/Electric/Digital Revolution.
Which is a great idea. Um.... what revolution was ever begun by a federal government (I'm sure there is one, but, just saying...)
Okay the American Revolution was started by the Continental Congress, but... okay so that sounded better in my head, sheez, cut me some slack here. My point being -- Henry Ford does this, Eli Whitney does this, Al Gore pretends to have done this. Steve Jobs does this. Mitch McConnel doesn't do this.
As for salaries, I think there should be a way to ethically tip teachers (most likely without the teacher knowing their benefactors), don't you? If so, it seems quite easy for the system I'm talking about to facilitate that, if the institution employing them doesn't want to give them a raise despite high amounts of positive public feedback.
That doesn't seem practical. If the tip is going to be good enough that it'll attract the same level of professional talent as private schools do now, then it could hardly be cheaper. Or wouldn't the good ones just pitch to the wealthiest students, and the same inequalities persist? Or why wouldn't everybody freeload? The best content on the internet is behind a paywall. There's probably a reason for that.
You mean committee/executive monitored, because I doubt most citizens can see just how badly those teachers are doing their jobs while they're on shift, as if they were students.
Every citizen was a student, nearly every one can vote and/or serve on the school board. We have this level of control already
and we can't teach kids how to read. Turning the local school board into the comments section of YouTube doesn't seem likely to improve the situation.
Taxes are not voluntary.
Again I'm confused here. Willingly funded is your description. You're talking about subsidies and price controls (and tips I guess all of a sudden?)....
How better to make it elastic than to offer frugal customers a cheaper but high quality product?
Again, you're talking about setting a price below market value. That by definition
is inelastic. "How better?" Do the same thing you're talking about, in the free market. Be that hero. Be the University of Phoenix.
Yes, cut loans, stop subsidies, and encourage competition. But don't do it until you provide a much more practical alternative method to ensure productivity during and after the state steps back, or else your economy will stall like someone trying to replace their only gas tank while driving next to a tanker that's filling said tank with fuel. You get more homelessness due to less skilled laborers and employers, more low wage jobs due to multinationals or other countries benefiting from the weaker domestic output and brain drain, and more corruption due to initially higher scarcity encouraging price gouging.
Pah. If we announced today that federal subsidies for secondary and post-secondary education were being slashed 90% by 2025, the world would not explode into homelessness like a trucker.
What solutions could your paradigm offer to the country in such an unpleasant time, when the average person has no idea what you're even talking about, and has made up erroneous conclusions about economics that are perpetually reinforced by confirmation bias and subverted authorities that spread propaganda?
Apprenticeship programs, trade schools, small business revitalization, loosening of regulation, maybe even a little economic protectionism to protect national industry, immigration reform to help recover wages, federal government restricts its purchasing to national goods and materials, some infrastructure spending.... gosh if we did all that I think we'd see almost 4% growth in GDP quarterly.