Remix.run Logo
Aeolun 7 hours ago

You can provide the piece of paper at a fraction of the cost too. Nearly all of Europe does, I believe.

crossbody 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Did Europe find a cheat code that gets free $$$ for education?

Nothing is free - once you graduate you are hit with 50% tax that gets back all you "free" tuition costs many, many times over.

Not saying education should not be subsidized via taxes (I think it's good overall), but it's not free at all - the price is just hidden and spread out over many years (similar to student loans but less visible).

satvikpendem 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Europe has a much lower expenditure per student compared to the US.

https://www.aei.org/articles/the-crazy-amount-america-spends...

crossbody 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It does. In large part due to Baumol's cost disease - higher overall incomes in productive sector like tech drive up costs for sector with low productivity growth - so professors and admin staff in US make 2x salaries compared to Europe (cost of living adjusted). Also, have you seen EU student amenities and dorm sizes?

piperswe 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Is it necessary for there to be student amenities paid for by the school? Why should tuition pay for a bunch of ancillary nice-to-haves instead of, ya know, the education?

mbesto 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm trying to follow you. I don't get how Baumol's has a higher degree of effectiveness in the US than it does in the EU? Are you saying there are more tech companies and therefore tech roles in the US than EU and thus those drive up non-tech wages even though they aren't as productive?

crossbody 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly

btilly 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When you break down how budgets have changed, the two biggest drivers of tuition increases are the growth of administration, and fancy amenities like sports facilities.

The cost of the person in front of the blackboard has not been increasing.

thaumasiotes 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The cost of the person in front of the blackboard has been steadily going down; those people have been complaining about this for decades.

crossbody 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

Ok, the prior link was comparing it to EU though, so perhaps costs for professors there went down even more, as professors make less there compared to US

yardie 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

EU universities, the amenities are quite meager, as they should be. But for dorms it’s usually single occupancy. Unlike the US where you’re expect to have roommates.

anonymouskimmer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From what I understand European education and degree programs are typically much more structured and narrow, and thus finish a lot faster. A student who finishes K-Ph.D. in the US will have a lot more breadth of exposure than such a student in most of Europe, if I recall what I read on the topic a while ago correctly.

ahartmetz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Was it much more subsidized in the US when it was much cheaper, though?

crossbody 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd reword the question: "was college paid for via higher income taxes for graduates (and others) or via a more direct approach of student loan taking?". I believe the latter but I don't see the fundamental difference. It's the same student loan but hidden from sight, as it's packaged as higher tax %

xethos 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> don't see the fundamental difference

You're kidding. The former means all higher net worth individuals to take on both the cost (via taxes) and the benefit (a well-trained workforce for businesses, well-paid, highly taxed contributors for the state, an educated populace of voters, graduates with stable work and in-demand skills). The latter is another example of America's "Everyone for themselves" theme, with students bearing the entire cost of their education, while the graduate, public, state, and businesses reap the benefit.

If the benefits are spread so widely, why shouldn't the cost be?

crossbody 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The students bear costs but no benefit to themselves? No higher wages?

My point is that it doesn't matter in principle if one takes a loan and pays it down over time vs. one is taxed at much higher % and that tax "pays down" a phantom student loan of "free" education.

It does introduce a risk and hence the incentive for loan takers to choose their degree wisely though. Which should lead to better allocation of labor but at a cost of some personal risk.

xethos 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I actually included the graduate as a beneficiary ("a well-paid, highly taxed contributor" or "the graduate" in the counter), but more importantly:

The entirety of society benefits from a well-educated populace. That's one reason even those without children pay for public education.

Following that, if everyone benefits, why is the graduate taking on all the risk (via a non-dischargeable student loan) instead of spreading the risk across the entirety of society?

crossbody 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok, I overlooked that.

I think that's fair that risk should be more spread. Comes at a cost of people choosing degrees more frivolously though and wasting their time and everyone's money

xethos an hour ago | parent [-]

I'd like to push back on "useless" degrees here, as well. The idea that degrees that leave graduates struggling to pay their bills (especially with student loans factored in) are worse than degrees that maximize income is bad for society. Not every job that is good for society pays well - if they did, educators would be better paid, and many executives would not be compensated as well as they are.

Some degrees are less in-demand (at time of graduation) economically, but a well-educated populace that can apply critical thinking and remember lessons from history, can be its own reward. Notably, pushing for a population completely lacking these skills is an excellent way to topple a democracy over time.

crossbody 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

The pay is determined by supply and demand, apparently there is a relatively large supply of educators (many just enjoy it despite low pay) relative to the demand.

I see your point on broader benefits, however, those are largely speculative while a shortage of e.g. doctors has very direct and concrete costs to the society.

On prior point regarding spreading risks - would you say government should bail out failed entrepreneurs? Because that is very similar in principle (taking risk, benefit for society)

eli_gottlieb 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The students bear costs but no benefit to themselves? No higher wages?

Nobody said the student achieves no benefit. We keep saying that the student does not capture all the benefit of their own education in higher wages, but bears the entire cost.

crossbody 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

That's also true for entrepreneurs, right?

surgical_fire 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's what taxes are for. Subsidizing public good.

Affordable access to good education is a good outcome from the heavy taxation I pay.

crossbody 6 hours ago | parent [-]

For sure. The main benefit is that it allows smart, hardworking but poor students to get a degree and utilize their brainpower productively for the benefit of all. That's great.

Just don't say it's "free" - those who get the education pay back all they got via taxes (which in it's end effect are like paying down a student loan).

venturecruelty 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just going to point out that this is semantic hair-splitting that usually comes from opponents of governments providing for the social welfare. Not saying you're doing that, but it's a thing that happens.

And nobody thinks free education doesn't cost anything, just like people don't think the military doesn't cost anything. Somehow, though, there is endless trillions for "defense", and a little moth flies out of the wallet when it's for something that doesn't involve drones.

surgical_fire 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Absolutely. I never would say it is "free". But in many ways it is a matter of what one values.

I had opportunities to move to the US and likely make 2x-3x what I make here and pay less taxes. I chose moving to Europe instead. It is the sort of society I prefer to live in.

alistairSH 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Free at point of consumption. Anybody with half a brain understands that’s what’s meant when somebody says “free” education or “free” healthcare.

JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You can provide the piece of paper at a fraction of the cost

This isn’t socially useful.

venturecruelty 3 hours ago | parent [-]

And what we're doing now is? Telling 17-year-olds to take on six figures of debt and then replacing them with ChatGPT while making it impossible to discharge their debt?

energy123 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That doesn't have prestige value. Prestige comes from scarcity and the ability to exclude the lower caste.

If people want to play those exclusivity games that's up to them. What's wrong is asking the taxpayer to fund it under the false mask that the entire product is education.

creato 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The scarcity in Europe (at least the two countries I'm familiar with) comes from a standardized test. If you don't do well on the test, you don't go to college.

MengerSponge 2 hours ago | parent [-]

America used to do that, but Jewish students started taking (and doing well on) the test, and later Black and Asian students had the audacity to be brilliant too. This led to America's "holistic" college admissions process.

For what it's worth, the USA isn't unique in adapting admissions to reject an unwanted minority. The most interesting mechanism has to be Moscow State University's Jewish Problems: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1556

thatcat 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most prestigous colleges are profitable and don't need the funding or the tuition