So farcical

I just saw this...l




..and it seemed to me to be the epitome of false choices.

To frame the issue as " who should pay for education" totally ( and purposely) ignores the larger issues which face students and parents each day.

1.  Quality of education.  It sucks.  From top to bottom, the fallacy of universal education is the promise to feed everyone steak, then serve them steak-ums.   At the high school level guys like Bush and Romney were going to places like Phillips or the Hill School and learning through the Harkness method or some other system that taught them the process of learning and rhetoric and all the other skills to be successful...while you were making posters and dioramas.

2. Effectiveness of education.  Places such as Stevens Tech in Lancaster find a post graduation market for their students.  They only offer courses aimed at those end markets and then place 95% of their students in jobs with an average starting salary of $50,000 a year.  Meanwhile, down the street, Franklin and Marshall graduates 50 English majors a year with a budding future as cashiers at Kohls paying off $200,000 in debt.

3.  Which brings us to the final point of the cost of education in the first place.  These two shills atop this post are talking about who/how to pay for education, but never talk about the ridiculous cost in the first place.  Posts secondary education is hyper-inflated because its supplemented by grants and loans.  Its not as if without those subsidies to quality of knowledge isn't going to diminish.  But perhaps a reduction in the torrent of debt raining down on the heads of 20 year olds might be bad for the banks, and credit card companies.  And of course there's always the risk that debt free students might spend some post college time contemplating the system instead of assimilating into it, and that's never good for anyone....especially the Ivy League alum above.