Socialize vs. Privatize
This is one of my favorite academic debates, but Professors always try to stay away from it, because it's such a "can of worms" topic. Once the conversation launches, and people assume sides, there is very little hope that anything else can get done during that class.
But this is my blog, so here goes.
Position one: Education is a social good, since well educated children will inevitably grow up to be productive adults, and thus, will improve our society. Therefore, the government should adopt a socialist approach to improving education. This means that the government (on a federal and local level) should modify its budget so as to greatly increase the financial allocation to public schools. This sort of spending is purely socialistic, since it’s a fiscal cost that will never produce any monetary revenue, or direct returns. However, it's completely necessary. Therefore, education in this country is failing because the government refuses to recognize it as a public good, and sufficiently fund it without hesitation. Conclusion - increase government funding.
Position two: We live in a capitalist society, and public education should be subject to the same free market laws as other industries. Higher education in this country is exceptional, because universities operate according to free market principles - they must compete for resources and funding, in the form of patents, government grants, and contributions. Therefore, we have a system where good universities prosper through competition. Public schools should be run according to similar economic laws, which will result in a highly competitive system of privately funded schools. Therefore, education in this country is failing because schools lack economic incentives to do well. Conclusion - privatization.
I can debate both sides, but most of you already know where my (tree-hugging, latte-sipping, Nader-loving) loyalties tend to fall. Still, there is always some value in a good argument.
9 Comments:
Sure, because privatization is working SO WELL for social security!
privatization can work, for precisely the reason you stated. look at our universities, they need to compete for resources. but public schools don't have any incentives to do well and they become stagnant. i say competition is always good.
irina, i believe you are the product of privatization, and the quality environments to which it leads. now imagine yourself having been educated in environments with very low competition, say oklahoma. without competition, our schools have a monopolistic situation and therefore no real incentive to not suck, just like microsoft.
If you look at countries like China, and the former Soviet Union, government funding for public education yields very excellent results. This doesn't mean that there is no competition. The competition is among students, and there are always specialized schools. But just imagine all the administrative overhead of privatizing schools, and that would be such a waste of valuable resources. For example, every public school would need to have an "Alumni Office" and we all know how efficient that is at Columbia.
yes. except of course for the fact that you have all the school and state colleges working in parallel with the private ones, and endless stipends and scholarships and financial aid, and the fact that I think it was MIT which stated that it actually LOSES about 10 grand a year per undergrad student...
So, the purely capitalist approach isn't gonna work too well :)
Plus, do you really look forward to spending $30-40 grand a year on college when your kid(s) grow up?
Why must these two be pitted against each other. Can they not co-exist in harmony?
In general privatization works when the market is healthy enough to support it (e.g. consumer electronics). If the market stagnates, then it is up to the people or their representation to decide if something is valuable enough to allocate their tax dollars to sustaining (e.g. national parks, roads).
Obviously, this theoretical utopia does not always exist. Often the socialization goes awry (e.g. U.S. agriculture industry) and the privatization goes, well, just plain nuts(e.g. California power and energy, U.S. cellular market), but that does not mean it cannot exist. In many areas such as lower manhattan and parts of San Francisco, you have a thriving market for education that is completely sustainable by the private sector. The schools have ridiculous fund raisers with people making donations anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. In those areas, there's no real need for the government to step in except to ensure some level of quality in students' education.
Alternatively, there are many areas that cannot support a privatized market for any number of reasons (low social value of education, financial incumberance, etc). It is here that a market must be artificially created. Incentivizing this type of market is very difficult and is probably best handled at the district level versus the national or state level.
So, here we are. Privatization living happily with Socialization. I get the feeling that somewhere imbedded in this diatribe is a very meta-marxist idea . . .
I think that gecko said the most intelligent thing on here. The best solution will be to draw on the benefits of both positions.
As far as I can tell, Irina is NOT the product of privatization. She is the product of a very well funded PUBLIC school.
Is it time to pile on the off-topic, ad-hominem attacks yet? Irina only went to one public school. The rest were privates.
Post a Comment
<< Home