• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Higher Education: Europe vs. USA"

as usual you offer nothing but ad hominems when you can't defend your argument.

Blah, blah, blah.

Consider these remarks from the National Center for Education Statistics:
*In fall 2016, about 50.4 million students will attend public elementary and secondary schools.
*In fall 2016, some 20.5 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities ...

Presuming that enrollment in American colleges and universities is not that different from 2015, then only 40% of American students are even going to a post-secondary education.

However, be careful. The above data does not include those going to vocational training - which also gives students the necessary attributes for a job. So, I figure somewhere between 45 and 55% of American high-school students go on to graduate with a post-secondary degree..

From the OECD - both primary and tertiary education (according to the symbol), from here: Education Spending

Hint - look immediately to the far right. US Tertiary education is the most expensive (except Luxembourg).

Look at the facts, one helluva lot of American students never ever graduate from a post-secondary degree program ...
 
Last edited:
Maybe you don't make so much, but making the childless poor pay for your kids' university is pretty unfair, if you aren't poor poor yourself. Even if you are poor, the kids' income will be higher and they could repay a loan. If they don't want the loan, they could work their way through school. What you are doing can certainly be called free riding, don't you think? There are others that would call it selfishly asocial maybe, but I would only term it as taking advantage of a free lunch instead of paying your share of the bill. and letting the poor pay.

Pure unadulterated BS.

The reason why kids start don't finish school is because their parents were jobless during and since the Great Recession precariously employed. The kids can't do it by themselves, the US is NOT generating that many jobs.

You seem to think earning a decent salary permanently is a "given". That idea ended in flames even before Great Recession. The basic manufacturing and low-end retailing jobs are gone (thank you Internet!); and we are moving on to the Information Age, which DOES NOT MEAN that just because you have smartphone you are "information smart".

Wakey, wakey ...
 
Blah, blah, blah.

Consider these remarks from the National Center for Education Statistics:
*In fall 2016, about 50.4 million students will attend public elementary and secondary schools.
*In fall 2016, some 20.5 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities ...

Presuming that enrollment in American colleges and universities is not that different from 2015, then only 40% of American students are even going to a post-secondary education.

However, be careful. The above data does not include those going to vocational training - which also gives students the necessary attributes for a job. So, I figure somewhere between 45 and 55% of American high-school students go on to graduate with a post-secondary degree..

From the OECD - both primary and tertiary education (according to the symbol), from here: Education Spending

Hint - look immediately to the far right. US Tertiary education is the most expensive (except Luxembourg).

Look at the facts, one helluva lot of American students never ever graduate from a post-secondary degree program ...

I see you ignored the links that proved you wrong but I don't expect you to do anything else.

You then bring up something irrelevant to the topic.
If you looked at the link I provided US colleges have about a 96% enrollment rate.
Germany had a 62% interesting don't you think.
 
I see you ignored the links that proved you wrong but I don't expect you to do anything else.

You then bring up something irrelevant to the topic.
If you looked at the link I provided US colleges have about a 96% enrollment rate.
Germany had a 62% interesting don't you think.

Useless babble. The data I posted is from accredited institutions, the NCES and OECD.

Get help ...
 
I see you ignored the links that proved you wrong but I don't expect you to do anything else.

You then bring up something irrelevant to the topic.
If you looked at the link I provided US colleges have about a 96% enrollment rate.
Germany had a 62% interesting don't you think.

What "enrollment rate" 96% of what? You're quoting data without explaining them. (And no, a data source is not enough. You need to explain what the number means to have any validity.)

So, apparently, your link is in complete contradiction with the data from the National Center for Education Statistics (of the US Dept. of Education).

Whadaya know, Joe ...
 
From the OECD (the BLS site was down this morning)

For the US age group 15/24, the percentages are:
Employment to population Ratio: 49.4
Labor-force participation Rate: 47.2
Unemployment Rate: 10.4

For the US age group 15/65:
Employment to population Ratio: 67.0
Labor-force participation Rate: 73.0
Unemployment Rate: 4.9


So, yes, the circumstances as described for the two populations above are very dissimilar.

Primarily, the Labor force participation Rate is important to consider due to the great disparity between the two values. Meaning what?

That most of the kids (at age 15) are still in school and not working so they do not show-up in both the Employment-to-population Ratio and the Labor-force participation Rates. (Aren't statistics fun! ;^)

So, if they are "sitting home watching the BoobTube", then that's perfectly normal. Unless, of course, they do not get a secondary-school degree, upon which they are in line for a long-term unemployment history. Because their statistical existence will jump (in the above E-to-p Ratio) from the 49.7 to the 67% range as they become unemployed "adults" statistically listed at the local Unemployment Office*.

As I keep harping about: If we want them to be "employed" and not "unemployed" they need a better set of work-credentials, which they can only have by means of a post-secondary degree (vocational, 2- & 4- & 6-years).

For reasons I have repeated a thousand times on this forum, btw. To wit: Most are not getting that tertiary-level degree because it is Too Effing Expensive! So, instead of subsidizing the obtention of an advanced degree, we are funding their Unemployment or, worse, inevitably their Jail Terms in a penitentiary.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhh ...

*Let's not forget that once you are no longer receiving Unemployment Insurance does not necessarily mean that you're are employed. It means for 14% of our population that they are likely living below the Poverty Threshold ($24K annually for a family-of-4) and bouncing from job-to-job because they have no real "qualifications" to obtain a better level of employment.
 
Pure unadulterated BS.

The reason why kids start don't finish school is because their parents were jobless during and since the Great Recession precariously employed. The kids can't do it by themselves, the US is NOT generating that many jobs.

You seem to think earning a decent salary permanently is a "given". That idea ended in flames even before Great Recession. The basic manufacturing and low-end retailing jobs are gone (thank you Internet!); and we are moving on to the Information Age, which DOES NOT MEAN that just because you have smartphone you are "information smart".

Wakey, wakey ...

Do I understand that you sent your kids to France for the French poor to pay their education, because of the Great Recession? And are you telling me that the kids had to, because it is unclear that the education will pay off and have been worth the costs that you are free riding on French PAs' and taxi drivers' taxes?

You must be joking.


PS: I was discussing this problem with a Spanish neighbor just yesterday. The public costs of tertiary education are very high and in large numbers the graduates have not been able to find jobs for many years. The country has been hemorrhaging well trained doctors and engineers, while others are in menial positions or practically unemployed. But the state is stuck with the costs incurred and the money is lost. Luckily the Present Value of the costs does not climb very fast with interest rates where they are. That seems textbook of the misallocation from setting the wrong price. There is always over-consumption of free goods.
 
Do I understand that you sent your kids to France for the French poor to pay their education, because of the Great Recession? And are you telling me that the kids had to, because it is unclear that the education will pay off and have been worth the costs that you are free riding on French PAs' and taxi drivers' taxes?

There are only two/three prestations that a National Government must assure ALL ITS CITIZENS. Why? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE that a free market-economy should provide them. Why? Because the services must be assured at the highest-possible level.

They are:
*National Defense
*National HealthCare, and
*National Tertiary Education.

These are provided in Europe out of relatively high-taxation but Europeans consider the worth of said services justify the expense.

Period - all the rest is infantile blah-blah-blah. Especially your wording, "are you telling me that the kids had to, because it is unclear that the education will pay off and have been worth the costs that you are free riding on French PAs' and taxi drivers' taxes? "

Free-riding. Just what sort of idiocy do you mean by that?

Would you apply the same word to National Defense. Nope!

Then why the inconsistency? Because National Defense is far more important than human longevity in good health? Or, that a nation should be responsible for the furthest educational attainment possible by its people?

Nope, nope and nope -- and you should know better ...

PS: The Spanish deserve the economic miasma that they went through. The entire soft-underbelly of the EU (Portugal, France, Spain, Italy and Greece) deserved the mess because of an incompetent political-class that stoopidly thought that more borrowing was absolutely necessary to keep fullest employment possible. (Or get unelected!) Of course, they has second-thoughts when the borrowing rates reached 12%. They are all self-responsible for the economic hardship they went through - and quite possibly they learned an historically important lesson.
 
There are only two/three prestations that a National Government must assure ALL ITS CITIZENS. Why? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE that a free market-economy should provide them. Why? Because the services must be assured at the highest-possible level.

They are:
*National Defense
*National HealthCare, and
*National Tertiary Education.

These are provided in Europe out of relatively high-taxation but Europeans consider the worth of said services justify the expense.

Period - all the rest is infantile blah-blah-blah. Especially your wording, "are you telling me that the kids had to, because it is unclear that the education will pay off and have been worth the costs that you are free riding on French PAs' and taxi drivers' taxes? "

Free-riding. Just what sort of idiocy do you mean by that?

Would you apply the same word to National Defense. Nope!

Then why the inconsistency? Because National Defense is far more important than human longevity in good health? Or, that a nation should be responsible for the furthest educational attainment possible by its people?

Nope, nope and nope -- and you should know better ...

PS: The Spanish deserve the economic miasma that they went through. The entire soft-underbelly of the EU (Portugal, France, Spain, Italy and Greece) deserved the mess because of an incompetent political-class that stoopidly thought that more borrowing was absolutely necessary to keep fullest employment possible. (Or get unelected!) Of course, they has second-thoughts when the borrowing rates reached 12%. They are all self-responsible for the economic hardship they went through - and quite possibly they learned an historically important lesson.

In other words the same lame excuses.

It is not a question of international security being "more important" than education. It is a question of the type of economic good it is and the consequences for welfare optimum of the public producing other than public goods. At the time of Bismarck you could have argued the education must be made public, but the level of technology and information distribution have changed and the erstwhile argument is moot. This is no longer the 19th/beginning of the 20th centuries. But, of course, you do like your free ride and protect it viciously. ;)

Also, the "soft-underbelly" is an argument for fools and you are economist enough to realize that and you certainly remember the Sick Man of Europe. But again, it avoids the bitter truths about the EU and Northern elites and the monster their.
 
It is not a question of international security being "more important" than education. It is a question of the type of economic good it is and the consequences for welfare optimum of the public producing other than public goods.

Wrong and dead wrong. There are essential needs, and they are not always JUST national defense.

And I tire of telling you. It's like an echo reverberating in a hollow cave ...
 
Wrong and dead wrong. There are essential needs, and they are not always JUST national defense.

And I tire of telling you. It's like an echo reverberating in a hollow cave ...

Essential needs do not have to be produced or provided by the state and should not be unless they are public goods. The two have nothing to do with each other.

And yes, it is annoying that someone that professes to understand economics refuses to admit the different implications of things being public vs private goods. Of course there are other public goods than defence. Any comedian knows that. But need is not the defining issue.

And yes, it is quite embarrassing to watch you try and deflect from getting the taxi drivers of France to pay for your kids university out of their taxes.

But never mind.
 
Compared to other "rich" countries, the US public education system is clearly lacking.
Yes indeed, I'm lucky to live in Switzerland. Great accessible opportunities here.
In national terms, statistically, yes I agree.

But unlike say France, American public schools vary greatly by locale. By good fortune, I moved from one of the worst public systems in the country, to one of the very best! All in the same major metro area, across a distance measured in scant miles!

Some local American public school systems can be absolutely excellent. But far too many are not. And those that are not, can be really terrible.
 
Essential needs do not have to be produced or provided by the state and should not be unless they are public goods. The two have nothing to do with each other.

But never mind.

Oh, yes, that's for sure.

We disagree fundamentally on this matter (of education) and it doesn't mind me in the least.

Moving right along ...
 
The graduation rate is much higher than thirty seven percent (37%) of age cohort of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries, and with only of twenty one (21%) in Germany (“On shaky…”, The Economist, 2009).An excerpt of the presentation -

The graduation rates of other than US countries have improved considerably since this presentation.

See here (from Pew Research): Percentage of population with tertiary education
 
Last edited:
This incisive presentation to a collection of educators (at a colloquium), though long, summarizes well the key differences between tertiary-educations in the US and in Europe. (It can be found in full here.)

What is important to note is that - despite WW2 - Europe has played catch-up to the US and is graduating post-secondary degree students at about the same rate (though a bit lower). And the reason is key: A tertiary education in Europe does not cost an arm-and-a-leg. (My exaggeration.)

In France, I've sent my kids to university for a tuition fee of less than $800 - plus, of course, room 'n board. Which is typical of the rest of Europe to a small but varying degree of cost.


"Oh hey, look. [X] is free. I didn't have to pay a dime."

"Wow, that's awesome. How is it paid for, then."

"Oh, the government pays for it."

"Oh. Um. Okay, where did the government get it's dime?"

"Well, it took $0.12 from me, and $0.02 went to admin fees, and then it gave the dime to the school."

"So the school that costs a dime actually cost you 12 cents?"

"No, silly, didn't you hear me? It's Free."


:sigh:
 
In national terms, statistically, yes I agree.

But unlike say France, American public schools vary greatly by locale. By good fortune, I moved from one of the worst public systems in the country, to one of the very best! All in the same major metro area, across a distance measured in scant miles!

Some local American public school systems can be absolutely excellent. But far too many are not. And those that are not, can be really terrible.

Nota Bene: The differences may be smaller between public schools in Europe and the US, but the same rule applies. Some are just not good. I followed the educational discussions of friends in Germany in four German cities (Heidelberg, Frankfurt, Bochum and Munich) over the years. All families lived in up market areas of the cities. After initial attempts none of the families had left their children in the public systems. Some had removed the kids in kindergarten and some stayed on till third to sixth grade. Only three sent them abroad before university and none of the kids stayed in German universities post bachelor, though, two did come back for post graduate studies.

I will ask my neighbor about France. He was a principal in France before he retired and should know the system and its qualities.
 
Nota Bene: The differences may be smaller between public schools in Europe and the US, but the same rule applies. Some are just not good. I followed the educational discussions of friends in Germany in four German cities (Heidelberg, Frankfurt, Bochum and Munich) over the years. All families lived in up market areas of the cities. After initial attempts none of the families had left their children in the public systems. Some had removed the kids in kindergarten and some stayed on till third to sixth grade. Only three sent them abroad before university and none of the kids stayed in German universities post bachelor, though, two did come back for post graduate studies.

I will ask my neighbor about France. He was a principal in France before he retired and should know the system and its qualities.
My understanding is the public school system in France is reasonably uniform. But I don't know that from personal experience.

But I do know there are some public schools in America that are exceptionally terrible! The Southside of Chicago has some examples. Whether by cause or effect, those schools are often in neighborhoods that are economically disadvantaged, and suffer from social ills.
 
Labor force participation rate for adults 25/64 years old

From the National Center for Education Statistics (here):

All persons 25 to 64 years old (2015) - Employment to Population Ratio*: 73.1%
-Less than high-school completion: 54.3%
-High-school completion: 67%
-Some college, no degree: 73%
-Associate's degree: 78.3
-Bachelor's degree or higher: 83.5%
*Those employed as a percentage of the entire population (adults and children).

My point?
-We could do a lot more to enhance high-school completion rates and move people to finish a post-secondary education necessary for a good job.
-Otherwise, we will all be paying their unemployment and other social insurances ...
 
WE, THE SHEEPLE

My understanding is the public school system in France is reasonably uniform. But I don't know that from personal experience.

But I do know there are some public schools in America that are exceptionally terrible! The Southside of Chicago has some examples. Whether by cause or effect, those schools are often in neighborhoods that are economically disadvantaged, and suffer from social ills.

And as long as the schools remain "disadvantaged" then the neighborhoods will "suffer social ills".

We keep turning around the same problem, lamenting its persistence, but never really doing anything about it. And why?

Because we, the sheeple, keep voting either chamber of Congress with Replicant majorities who do their utmost to prevent any budget being spent to improve the situation - either as regards Health Care or Post-secondary Education. Because both are obviously far less important than the DoD that gobbles 54% of the National Budget. (Don't believe that? See here.)

So, Uncle Sam is stuck in a no-man's land, with a jerk PotUS and going nowhere ...
 
Last edited:
There are only two/three prestations that a National Government must assure ALL ITS CITIZENS. Why? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE that a free market-economy should provide them. Why? Because the services must be assured at the highest-possible level.

They are:
*National Defense
*National HealthCare, and
*National Tertiary Education.

These are provided in Europe out of relatively high-taxation but Europeans consider the worth of said services justify the expense.

Period - ...

Yes. Bismarck started national education so he could train educated soldiers.
Perhaps nationalists in the U.S. can be persuaded with that argument.
It's even more necessary today.
 
No American private education is not the best in the world.. it is the most expensive period. The "rankings" are based on the public perception of universities and it is highly subjective. Because Harvard and Princeton have built up a world wide reputation (usually via movies and tv shows btw), of excellence and "the best", then the people perceive that graduates from these institutions are the best of the best. Reality is something else. I compare it like buying a pair of Ray Bans ... one is the Ferrari version, other is not. The Ferrari version costs 10 times the normal version, but they are the same sun glasses. Or Apple products... Apple takes a premium on the name and myth alone.. in reality, the components are often average at best and do not deserve the high price.

Point is, the rankings are a popularity contest pure and simple and does not reflect much else. After all Bush Jr went to Harvard and Yale.. you think he got in on merit?

You do not have the black problem that Europe saddled us with during the colonial period:

Illiterates, no-shows, all seniors graduate at DC high – GOPUSA

Today we graduate black kids from high school that can neither read nor write (it's a "liberal" thing). When I say they cannot read, I do not mean that they can't understand John Milton or William Shakespeare. When I say they cannot read, I mean they cannot understand this: "See Jane pet kitty"

What's more these kids with diploma in hand get Pell grants (free money from government) to enter college. After four years of "higher" education they still can neither read nor write or even add a column of figures.

Who wins: the ("liberal") education unions.

Who loses: The taxpayers out another $80,000 per head and the kids who could have learned more working at the local car wash.
 
Last edited:
You do not have the black problem that Europe saddled us with during the colonial period:

Illiterates, no-shows, all seniors graduate at DC high – GOPUSA

Today we graduate black kids from high school that can neither read nor write (it's a "liberal" thing). When I say they cannot read, I do not mean that they can't understand John Milton or William Shakespeare. When I say they cannot read, I mean they cannot understand this: "See Jane pet kitty"

What's more these kids with diploma in hand get Pell grants (free money from government) to enter college. After four years of "higher" education they still can neither read nor write or even add a column of figures.

Who wins: the ("liberal") education unions.

Who loses: The taxpayers out another $80,000 per head and the kids who could have learned more working at the local car wash.

the black problem..... sorry but there is no black problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom