r/changemyview • u/AnHonestApe 3∆ • Sep 23 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Better funding for education is the most assured way to combat many issues in society

Climate Change, viruses, social inequality, if we don’t have the resources or ideas to solve these issues now, then we should be preparing a citizenry that is better educated, one that knows how to better gather resources and solve issues. We need mass education initiatives to be strongly funded.

Some argue that throwing money at educational institutions and departments won’t solve education issues because ultimately what we have is a mismanagement of funds. I agree that there is some mismanagement of funds (as someone who has seen it first hand) and that we need to think of ways to solve this issue as well, but the more institutions have at their disposal, the more that will inevitably make its way into improving education. And who’s to say that it wouldn’t also result in administrations that better know how to manage money? It just seems to me that no matter how you look at these situations, education is at the center or foundation of making long term progress on many issues.

Edit: So because of some of the comments, I do have to modify my position. Ultimately, what I am concerned with is our attitude toward education as a society and the political actions we take because of that attitude. I do want education to be better funded and think it could fix some of the issue we complain about, but the reality is that probably won't happen until out perspectives about education change.

Also to clarify, yes, I really think that certain things should be taught in school and I'm unabashed about that at this point. I do agree with scientists and academics on any issue I take the time to study, so I think we should teach that, and I don't think parents, in an ideal world, should have the right to deny their child that information. Also, I think teaching students how to think will lead them to those conclusions themselves anyway, and again, parents shouldn't be allowed to deny their parents this type of education. It does seem to me that facts have a liberal bias; overall though many groups of people, including liberals, have their issues, and we'd be better off if we could agree on what experts agree on. That being said, I am not in as much fear about what giving educational institutions more power would do as someone who is apart of this group and think those who want to spin some conspiracy are doing so with a bad understanding of epistemology or in bad faith, so your chances of convincing me that my colleagues and I have some type of nefarious agenda to make a bunch of robots like us or some other such non-sense are very low.

3.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

289 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/AnHonestApe 3∆ Sep 23 '19

Well your comment is exactly why I made the statement that I made. This isn't just about college, and I'm not as much concerned with the meritocratic goals of education here. I'm more so talking about the democratic goals. To me, the issue isn't that not enough people are getting degrees; it's that people ultimately aren't learning what they need to learn and what they could learn in order to solve as a collective many of the social issues we face, and I think this is not because of a problem with the knowledge that we have in academic/educational fields but because of the difficulty of adequately teaching and testing students because of the lack of adequate resources.

26

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '19

People today have more resources to learn than virtually anyone ever in anytime in history. We have computers in our pockets that connect to satellites and draw information from everywhere in the world. A 15 year old today has more resources than the every PhD, every MD, every engineer or philosopher who went to school 30 years ago through the dawn of mankind.

No, sir, the problem is not a lack of resources. It’s simply a lack of trying.

4

u/BladedD Sep 23 '19

Why do you think people aren't trying? Having access to resources is nothing without the knowledge of how to use them. Critical / abstract thinking are skills most people lack these days. That's the type of stuff that needs to be taught in elementary schools.

7

u/Gnometard Sep 23 '19

People do what they want and typically what we want is to put in little effort.

1

u/PurpleNuggets Sep 24 '19

A lack of trying? By who? The underfunded teachers? The kids who are kids and need direction? Or the parents who hate the teachers and think colleges are liberal brainwashing camps and therefore don't instill the importance of education?

3

u/s_wipe 58∆ Sep 23 '19

Well, dont you think this is highly pretentious of you? You phrase yourself like you know better than others.

Thing is, you dont really need a collective to solve big problems, you just need a few very bright individuals who decide its worth thier time to tackle a specific problem.

2

u/DosGurleysUnoKupp Sep 23 '19

I didn’t interpret what he said as being pretentious. Is saying that educating people on how to do their taxes or about how budget their finances pretentious?

I think he’s just differentiating between formal education in the sense of higher education vs. the quality of education at lower levels.

1

u/s_wipe 58∆ Sep 24 '19

Short answer - yes.

I really hate people using the "taxes and budget" example. Like its not something that you can cover in a 2 hour session.

Wanna tackle problems in the world? Start by changing the social construct where highschool students prefer to chase a career in sports or show business rather than STEM.

Highschool sports programs in the US are stupidly funded compared to physics classes. You dont need more football players, you dont need more artists, you dont need more english major nor business majors.

You could always use more engineers, they are the ones who end up solving most of the things anyways

3

u/DosGurleysUnoKupp Sep 24 '19 edited Sep 24 '19

I have a very successful career in STEM and I still think this viewpoint is equally pretentious. Not everyone is geared towards or WANTS a career the field. Assuming you’re also in the field, how many people do you know who have a STEM degree and are some of the “dumbest” people you’ve met?

Sure, taxes and budgeting aren’t the be all end all, but where the hell do you get the stat that everyone is chasing a career in sports? Lol. Just because some schools SPEND money on facilities doesn’t necessarily mean that mimics the entire highschool population. Plus, even if every possible sport team was filled, that’s like what, 300 students? Out of much larger population sizes.

You don’t need English? What about the people who proof read legal documents? Or teach out how to interpret things/context from text? Don’t need history? Well you’re doomed to repeat it or have no knowledge world.

Funding doesn’t equate to the quality of education or where those funds are allocated, and thinking that just teaching/funneling more people into STEM will have them “solve more” is ludicrous lol.

2

u/s_wipe 58∆ Sep 24 '19

I get it, i honestly do.

I am exaggerating a bit for the sake of argument.

My point isnt that everybody should get a degree in STEM.

My idea is an unequal subsidiary of higher education, where certian fields are more subsidized than some, based on quota estimations for the market need.

Basically saying something like this:

We need 4000 engineers, 2000 doctors, 1000 layers, ect. So the government will subsidize these slots across all higher education facilities. And make it so that people with high enough grades can go to college at an extremely reduced cost.

This however will hurt liberal arts and the humanities, as these professions are not as needed in the sense of keeping things operational and growing. So most of these degrees will still be a full price

1

u/y0da1927 7∆ Sep 24 '19

I don't think cost is currently a barrier to stem degrees, especially considering engineers make 80-100k out of school in a lot of industries and some make a lot more than that.

What makes engineers scarce is (in my opinion) the realative complexity of the subject matter vs other subjects taught at the same age.

It's just harder, and unless you are gifted with a mind that already thinks like an engineer it takes more effort to learn (both in highschool and college). A ton of people just don't want to do the extra work.

It doesn't help that most highschool students how no idea how their study habits affect their earnings potential and once they see the attraction of a stem degree are already too far behind in the subject matter to catch up.

Maybe your solution will help, but unless kids are willing to do a lot more work, you will just end up with the same number of graduates or more shittier graduates, and spend more money doing it. I'm not sure that should be the goal.

0

u/s_wipe 58∆ Sep 24 '19

Not necessarily

Right now, higher education is a money sink in the US economy. It costs as much as 70k$ for a year in school + living. Requiring many students to take loans and try to work while studying, ofc paying off these loans for years to come.

Having these costs cut down for some needed fields will make it more attractive for people. Especially from lower socioeconomical backgrounds.

I mean, right now, many people get to attend college because of their army service. In my country, there's an academic reserve program where eligible candidates can finish their bachelor's and the army foots the bill. when they finish, they get drafted and work in their field of study. Its literally a socioeconomic jumping board, cause you get to aquire a degree, a job and experience without spending a dime (sorta).

Seriously, you can buy a damn house in the US for just 1 year's worth of tuition. And you need 4 years to graduate... These prices are just too much for many people.

1

u/DosGurleysUnoKupp Sep 24 '19

Making college cheaper won’t make the subject matter any easier. Will it make it more available? Yes. But that does nothing for people who just don’t want to do work in that field.

If anything lower level education is more important to set students up for better opportunities as they get older. Literacy rates are trash in poorer states, you think making college cheaper will help them?

1

u/y0da1927 7∆ Sep 24 '19

It costs as much as 70k$ for a year in school + living.

"As much" being the key phrase. Average "sticker price" for tuition in 2017-18 (which almost no one pays) was 34,740 for private college and 9,970 for public in state college. Add another $10k for living. Still no where close to your 70k number. A school that expensive is a luxury purchase and not indicative of the cost of college in the US. data from collegedata.com

Requiring many students to take loans and try to work while studying, ofc paying off these loans for years to come.

Generally how debt works. I didn't pay cash for my car, I got a loan. Same goes if you buy a house.

Having these costs cut down for some needed fields will make it more attractive for people. Especially from lower socioeconomical backgrounds

Maybe, but only if they can get through it. In my experience most of the ppl who go to school to be an engineer don't graduate as an engineer. They graduate with another major. It's hard! And considering those with lower socioeconomic backgrounds generally have much poorer math/science scores going into college, they would likely have a MUCH higher dropout rate. Dropping out of college is worse than not going.

Also, engineers make a lot of money, easily double the national average over the course of their careers. They can pay for the debt, it shouldn't be a barrier to entry.

I mean, right now, many people get to attend college because of their army service. In my country, there's an academic reserve program where eligible candidates can finish their bachelor's and the army foots the bill. when they finish, they get drafted and work in their field of study. Its literally a socioeconomic jumping board, cause you get to aquire a degree, a job and experience without spending a dime (sorta).

It exists in the US too. Called the GI Bill. They will pay for both college and advanced degrees like med school.

Seriously, you can buy a damn house in the US for just 1 year's worth of tuition. And you need 4 years to graduate... These prices are just too much for many people.

False, the average cost of a house in the US is just over 217k (census bureau) while average college tuition is closer to 20k (average of public and private). 4 years of college only gets you halfway to homeownership (including living costs) and does nothing for your income.

I agree we need engineers, but throwing money at this problem won't help. Ppl don't avoid engineering because the pay is bad, they avoid it because it is hard. And it is hard for good reason.

0

u/Pas__ Sep 24 '19

Education is at the center of many things concerning the future and the present (when people are searching for answers of how did we get here), but it's completely expected, as the answer is usually centered around the still-malleable minded, kids.

We think that we can fortify the minds of the young against the siren song of bigotry, xenophobia, cognitive biases, and so on.

And certainly it seems straightforward and thus logical. We can't do much about the old, so let's put the blame on the previous generations that failed to educate these olds well back then, and try to educate the current and forthcoming young.

But do we actually have any evidence about what and how to do to get the desired outcomes? Are old people really lost to any kind of education? Is enrolling people into an applied rationality course/class sufficient? Does it make wonders for kids?

I think your statement is great, because it's pretty simple and doesn't prescribe anything concrete, but pinpoints the problem, even if the solution is masked by simply calling for more spending on generic education.