Sure its good for employers to have more applicants than
vacancies. But I'm not sure even employers really want to
see a ten to one ratio!
Treacy: Friday's Population column in the Wall Street Journal carried word about
a U.S. Cenus Bureau report that found in 1993 that the age
Does education only serve the purpose of producing human capital, which,
if not realized through employment, is an inefficent use of resorces?
Does not higher education have a use-value that cannot be reduced to a
quanitative measure/its exchange value in the labor market?
Peter Bratsis
CUNY
I am also inclined to think that higher education should be freely available
as well as publicly rather than privately funded. But I also think that this
requires that we have a strong system of vocational and secondary education.
As far as I can tell, for a great many in the US, that is often
Sure its good for employers to have more applicants than
vacancies. But I'm not sure even employers really want to
see a ten to one ratio! The marginal benefit to them of
additional job seekers must decline, and the effects of
demoralization and social unrest must be seen as some kind
of
People have spoken of "grade inflation" for decades, and also
sometimes of degree inflation. We may now be reaching the
stage where the college degree is what a high-school diploma
once was. More than that, in the new environment of temporary
private sector jobs, personal connections will be
If I understand this correctly, you are suggesting that any form of federal,
tax-payer support for access to higher education should be done away with. The
argument is that there is no room (or very little) in the higher echelon, which
is where these people think they are going, so they should
Richard:
I think that there are two flaws in your posting.
One, the relative return to a college degree has been increasing since the
early 1980s, i.e., the college graduate - non-college graduate differential
has been increasing -- especially for people with advanced degrees.
Two,
Sometimes I have serious reservations about the "left." Richard's remarks
on education are precisely the same as though of Milton Friedman and others
circa 1968-1973. This was precisely the point in time colleges and college
financing were forced open to accommodate working class students --
Although I appreciated much of the passion behind Mark Laffey's
post, I do think there are important questions to be raised about
the public subsidy of higher education. In one sense, I think it
is inadequate, since I would like to see higher education freely
available to anyone interested.
_The Economist_ recently ran an article (August 20-26, p44) on Germany's much
admired dual system of education -- two tracks, one academic, one vocational.
It's running into trouble. The need for highly skilled blue collar workers
is declining, the demand for more flexible generalists with
I appreciate the very thoughtful replies to my postings. My reply
follows.
I'm not saying that "_any_ form of federal, tax-payer support for access
to higher education should be done away with," as Mark Laffey
understands me to say. As long as the economy has any need for
additional
11 matches
Mail list logo
