Uba: How Free Is Too Free ?

[sesamosinsal]

If everyone has a similar set of skills from basic education, this doesn't discriminate anyone based on their social background, but only selects people with the better skill set.

However, not everyone has the same set of skills from basic education, and in many cases it has precisely to do with his/her social background.

Perhaps the Argentine entrance exams can be compared to the Brazilian vestibular? If so, I have a friend from the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, and she spent years trying to pass the vestibular. After several prep courses, she finally made it, but her family spent a lot of money on them. Had she been among Brazil's poorest, she may have never passed.

 

[thorsten]

I agree with you Bradley, the reality is - unfortunately - that there are a lot of places where public education is just bad and the only way to get a good education is an expensive public school, which directly affects your chances based on the social background.
An intermediate solution would then be to provide prep courses for free. This way, you can provide a university education in which courses assume you know the basic requirements, instead of mixing the teaching of advanced topics with the teaching of the basics which should have happened already.
In the long-term, however, it would make sense to fix the actual issue, not the symptoms of it.

 

[ElQueso]

So as I suggested, make a program run in conjunction with universities, or extra money for the students, or what-have-you, that allows the student to learn what is needed to enter the university. it's ridiculous to think that simply opening up higher education to anyone that passes secondary here, no matter how little they actually learned, is going to make anything equal in a positive way, in any kind of quantity to actually matter.

Bradly, I'm not sure why you think it's something interesting because free-marketers defend entry exams. Free marketers certainly don't think that resources should be wasted on someone that can't make use of them and will tie up resources for someone who can make use of them. Maybe I didn't understand your comment.

At any rate, restricting access to those who can actually benefit from a higher education without bringing everyone down at a free university is a different theme than how people are educated prior to entering a free university.

But I'm not even suggesting that you need to ignore those who can't get into a free university because they have a problem passing the entrance exams. In fact, as I understand it, UBA already has such a system in place. I don't understand how people with lesser education are restricted from getting into that entrance program and pass the tests. Because it's more difficult for a very poor person (which I agree with)? OK, so extend the time a student can take, expand the curriculum to include more basic subjects, etc. It's going to cost.

But this law is going to cost equally. First, you still have to get them help, or they won't be able to pass any courses. Second, they didn't have to prove themselves ready to be dedicated to a future of hard study by taking the entrance courses and passing tests, they are just let in. Imagine how many people are going to flood in when they realize that they have nothing holding them back? Even a relatively small increase in attendance is going to affect a system that is strained as it is and I don't think it would be that small.

The entrance exams are something that has to be passed and the year or so they give you now to take courses and work to pass the exams, makes a lot of sense and could be expanded. But they help weed out those who are serious at dedicating themselves to educating themselves.

Obviously, the best thing to do would be to improve secondary education to the point where it can send graduates to universities. Except for the fact that it's almost impossible to rollback social programs once started, it would also make sense to have a decade-long program to help those who didn't have the benefit of a decent secondary education to get up to speed to enter school. Both items would probably cost less in the long run.

But of course. Let's legislate equality instead and completely ignore reality because things aren't fair the way they are and do something even worse...

Edit: meant to add that this is one of the reasons I don't trust government to do a good job of governing. So often the worst, or at least not good, choice is made at a juncture due to so many overwhelming problems that are also caused by government and the end result either continues the problems or makes them worse.

 

[ben]

It would be way easier not to mix up the two separate issues:
1. Providing free education at universities
2. Allowing universities to select students using skill-based entry tests

If one considers that every capable person who wants to study should be able to independent of his social background, free education is a good way to go - and it works in a lot of countries.
Not allowing universities to perform entry tests is stupid in my opinion. If everyone has a similar set of skills from basic education, this doesn't discriminate anyone based on their social background, but only selects people with the better skill set. The fact Ries mentioned ("I know that in some of the programs my friends teach in, they start out with 700 kids, and 4 or 5 years later, 50 finish the program.") is basically showing how inefficient a system without proper selection is: if less than 10% finish their studies, it basically means that 90% of students just wasted a few semester and thus education funds were wasted. If there is an issue that the pre-university education is so bad that it people lack the basic skills required for university, then it should be fixed there as nikad said. In my opinion, the term "equality" in this context should be interpreted as 2 similarly smart persons should have similar chances to get their degree, no matter if they are coming from a poor or a rich family. But it doesn't mean that a person who can't [background=rgb(255, 253, 248)]add two numbers should have a right that the university accepts him as a math student...[/background]

Exactly. All but the second paragraph of Ries' response deal with financial considerations, regarding which there is little argument and which is implemented in many places - if not outright free, at least heavily discounted.

What there is argument about - but really shouldn't be - is about scholastic requirements. Society may choose to make this education free to the student but it certainly costs, and to not put in place - worse yet, to remove - any kind mechanism to ensure that college students are adequately equipped to ensure a decent chance of that time in college not being a waste of the student's time and public money.

In the one paragraph which was on topic, Ries referred to slackers and/or drug addicts who shaped up and went on to go to college. Again, one assumes that they shaped up before they actually entered college, and at the time they were admitted were capable of passing a college entrance exam. Maybe it's my ignorance, but I have heard of few successful cases of drug addicts entering college and getting off drugs while there. And on a serious note, even slackers probably shape up first, and then and only then have a chance at making it in university.

In his famous 1964 speech, President Reagan compared the amount of money the government was spending on some juvenile delinquency program with the much-lower cost per person of going to Harvard - and then added, to much laughter: "Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency". Possibly that point bears repeating.

P.S. As usual, takes me time to complete a post (I'm writing on my phone), and by the time I'm done I've been beaten to the punch by the great Queso.

 

[Matiasba]

you guys see education as a bussiness, as a merchandise.

IMO, and we all know I deeply differ with you, education must be provided by the State to the people, and the wider this service is, the better, I mean, the more people involved in this system, the better for the nation. If one person do not graduate but studied 2 years, I dont see that like a loss to the State, its more an investment, because that people recieved education and got educated despite not getting a degree.

The State must provide education, and the farer they go the better for everyone. The duty of the State is to spread education. Educacion para todos y todas

A loss to the State is when a graduated, a scientist, has to leave the country to work abroad because there are not enough infraestructure to contain them here.

 

[ben]

No, it's precisely because education is not merchandise that it has to be put on a pedestal of sorts, not sold by the pound.

There is a finite number of people that can enter university. Do you try to narrow it down to the people most likely to succeed - academically, not financially - or you don't care?

It boggles the mind that when we're not even talking about money, when we've agreed everyone shot be given a shot at getting into university- be it through free preparatory courses, or whatnot, just not that the institutions for higher learning become anything but - that the apologists that be will continue to defend mediocrity.

Not trying to bring up the people a notch higher. Always by dragging everyone else two notches lower.

They get it in CUBA - but not here. Here points must always be awarded for trying. OK. Noted. Again.

 

[nikad]

However, not everyone has the same set of skills from basic education, and in many cases it has precisely to do with his/her social background.

Perhaps the Argentine entrance exams can be compared to the Brazilian vestibular? If so, I have a friend from the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, and she spent years trying to pass the vestibular. After several prep courses, she finally made it, but her family spent a lot of money on them. Had she been among Brazil's poorest, she may have never passed.

Then removing entry tests is just a way to admit that the level of public education in elementary and high school is low (?)

 

[nikad]

In a true socialist country ( not talking about communism ) Public education and public health are of excellence. In a bad copy of a true socialist country you get crap education and crap health care for the poor and private schools, universities, health insurance, etc for the rest. This is the populist lie. You only get access to second class services for the poor. Because this model ( that will hopefully end very soon ) needs masses of poor and sub educated people to perpetuate their power. The current public education system is not that of Sarmiento, is the union's system, where students are held hostage of strikes and protests. The current system does not want educated people, it demands people with a piece of paper ( degree ) and loyal to the model.

 

[Noesdeayer]

Bradly: Correct you are . The Brazilian "vestibular·" besides being a considerably more difficult exam than the entrance test for Argentine universities was "educational apartheid" until Dilma's Affirmative Action Law for Universities in August 2012.Until that law which will be eternally to her credit unless you went to a good school either public or private that was able to prepare you for it,you could never expect to become a professional in Brazil.It might be interesting for Argentina to enact something similar.In 2013 I took a course at the state universtiy of Minas Gerais and had conversations with Brazilian educators on this subject.

 

[ElQueso]

you guys see education as a bussiness, as a merchandise.

IMO, and we all know I deeply differ with you, education must be provided by the State to the people, and the wider this service is, the better, I mean, the more people involved in this system, the better for the nation. If one person do not graduate but studied 2 years, I dont see that like a loss to the State, its more an investment, because that people recieved education and got educated despite not getting a degree.

The State must provide education, and the farer they go the better for everyone. The duty of the State is to spread education. Educacion para todos y todas

A loss to the State is when a graduated, a scientist, has to leave the country to work abroad because there are not enough infraestructure to contain them here.

Like most things that "make sense" and "sound fair", it doesn't take into account so many things. Particularly reality. The fact that if the state controls all education, the state controls what is taught (I know, that doesn't bother you - you believe the state should tell you what and how to think). The fact that many people will not actually benefit from education - when tied directly to their future earnings potential I mean - that's what most people go to university for, right? Not to learn Latin and art and literature and learn more about humanity, etc, and get a good liberal education to expand the mind. The fact that there is a real cost for each student that attends school. The fact that unprepared students will indeed suck up resources intended for those who are both capable and have a desire to learn.

If the government here was truly worried about educating its people, they would concentrate on educating its people at an earlier age before worrying about getting them in university. There is hardly any of that here, but people so blinded by populism think that the government already is doing this. But of course, that's not what this government is interested in - they are interested in smoke and mirrors that produce nothing but momentary entertainment for the masses.

As for something as simple as you not even understanding how wasteful it is to have seats occupied by students who will go, take up teaching and space resources and find out that they don't have the willpower to really push themselves (because yeah, they learned that so well in secondary school where the majority copy from everyone else and aren't pushed to do any original work and thinking) - where exactly is the extra money going to come from? Ah yeah - just print more!

You don't have to treat public education as a business, but you do have to be able to think critically enough to be able to see that more students = more resources = more money and Argentina doesn't have the money to do this and have good education.

Look at the state of the economy and education in Argentina and...oh yeah, I forgot. You think Argentina is doing even better than it was ten years ago. No reason at all to continue this discussion. Just keep feeding the monkey and watching the actual education that is done fall lower and lower and lower.

A popular definition of insanity: keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results...