Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
It really is true that we had some of the finest universities before the Federal Gov. provided MASSIVE monetary funding. Although some of them, as far back as the 17th century, did provide some private scholarships to "worthy" students that couldn't afford the tuition, it is true that they were not accessible to the masses. But for the first 70 years in this nation's history the Feds followed the Constitution and allowed the states and local communities to provide education--which included two land grant colleges.
|
For the first 70 years of our history we were still primarily a nation of farmers, and as you've stated higher education was mostly for the elite. The majority of colleges founded early on were short-lived religious based institutions that served a particular sect rather than a local population.
The influx of government spending which started in the last 1/2 of the 19th century and continued into the 20th was a direct response to a transforming industrial base as well as shifting demographics.
These macro trends (like conflicting civilizations, radical advances in technology or transforming economies) aren't going to be solved by States providing local educational assistance alone, and the free market certainly isn't going to solve the issue. These are national issues and in some cases might require national solutions.
Is education too expensive? Sure it is, but I don't need Glenn Beck's chalkboard to understand this. Has government exacerbated the issue? I'd think it has, although that alone doesn't invalidate the benefits...
Put simply, I'm not sure America would have been able to rise to dominance during the 20th century had we not had the infrastructure to enable the people to keep pace with the opportunities.
K-12 is another issue, one I don't have time for this morning...
-spence
Threaded Mode