Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
This is generally directed at America, but anyone can join in.
I've been very loud about this, but in case you didn't know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_Denmark
Danish students universally study for free and recieve compensation in the form of economical support from the state. They get paid to study. There are a couple of reasons for this, of which I will highlight three:
1. The socialist idealist's argument: Students are poor and need some support to survive. Most students have a job beside their SU to ensure luxuries: The SU ensures that every student can afford food, clothes, electricity and shelter. This is idealist ethics though and really doesn't matter much to me personally.
2. General pragmatism (This usually isn't mentioned when discussing the support and is therefore probably debunked rudely somewhere - It's my own view on things): It's compensation for several hours spent on "work" each day. The student is often aware that he's actually helping Denmark by educating himself to be more productive. A student isn't forced through primary school for his own good: Public education exists because the state should recognize the power in having an educated people. The supporting politicians recognize that an educated individual is not only beneficial to that individual, but also to the state. Therefore, incentive to study isn't that far-fetched.
3. It ideally saves time and provides for better results: When supported economically, students don't waste all of their time working when studying. When serving less people in the Danish supermarkets, students can read more books instead. Most students still work to gain connections, a proper resume as well as a means of affording luxuries.
Please also stay away from the 'no free lunch' argument - of course the students indirectly repay their support in the shape of higher taxes when they grow up. There's no reason to discuss semantics here. Talk values instead. Tell me why this is a bad idea.
What do you think about such a political stance?
What would you think of an American politician that suggested that students should recieve free student grants?
Why should the individual be punished (acquiring debt through student loans) for doing something the state shour prefer everybody doing (studying)?
I've been very loud about this, but in case you didn't know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_Denmark
Danish students universally study for free and recieve compensation in the form of economical support from the state. They get paid to study. There are a couple of reasons for this, of which I will highlight three:
1. The socialist idealist's argument: Students are poor and need some support to survive. Most students have a job beside their SU to ensure luxuries: The SU ensures that every student can afford food, clothes, electricity and shelter. This is idealist ethics though and really doesn't matter much to me personally.
2. General pragmatism (This usually isn't mentioned when discussing the support and is therefore probably debunked rudely somewhere - It's my own view on things): It's compensation for several hours spent on "work" each day. The student is often aware that he's actually helping Denmark by educating himself to be more productive. A student isn't forced through primary school for his own good: Public education exists because the state should recognize the power in having an educated people. The supporting politicians recognize that an educated individual is not only beneficial to that individual, but also to the state. Therefore, incentive to study isn't that far-fetched.
3. It ideally saves time and provides for better results: When supported economically, students don't waste all of their time working when studying. When serving less people in the Danish supermarkets, students can read more books instead. Most students still work to gain connections, a proper resume as well as a means of affording luxuries.
Please also stay away from the 'no free lunch' argument - of course the students indirectly repay their support in the shape of higher taxes when they grow up. There's no reason to discuss semantics here. Talk values instead. Tell me why this is a bad idea.
What do you think about such a political stance?
What would you think of an American politician that suggested that students should recieve free student grants?
Why should the individual be punished (acquiring debt through student loans) for doing something the state shour prefer everybody doing (studying)?
