Stupid ass private education bullshit
The library is free, my dude
*in the US. In Germany a semester at my university costs about 300 Euros and that includes cheaper lunch and a ticket to use all public transport in the whole of Germany.
gatekeeping
Australia lacks public education?
I would argue that its rare for education to make you smarter, it mostly makes you more knowlegable.
Knowledge is mostly free though. You can get it from the internet, from the library etc. A lot of what you are paying for is the certification - some places let you just sit the exam I think.
Or in some cases, like FOSS, the knowledge is freely available, but you pay for a detailed course or tutorial to receive that information in a simpler, more streamlined way.
A lot of the time I paid to have it taught to me so badly that I would have been better off with a textbook. 😢
They then call me up once every few years to ask for a donation! Fk off, I’m still paying off the loan!
CAPITALISM
Everything must be monetized. Education, art, healthcare, food and water, it all must be profitable or else there is no incentive for it to exist. Oh, you need it to live? Then hand over your wealth! What, you’re looking for free handouts? Nah, either pay up or go die in a gutter.
Obtaining education doesn’t increase your intelligence.
For centuries it was called “gatekeeping.” Education is the means of mobility. The elites want that limited.
I doubt the term was used. Perhaps “guild”?
Education as a means of mobility is a recent idea, I’d say finding cubic miles of oil allowed that to happen.
What use could a medieval serf make of calculus?
There would have been a patron behind the serf to even allow him school to begin with. So the serf using calculus is because a Duke felt he had promise.
Money cannot make you smarter.
To keep the poor undereducated and easier to control. The ones allowed through have to pay the entry fee.
Libraries are free.
Many libraries and community centers offer free classes depending on the subject. Local clubs can offer classes. Lots of youtube classes are free, like Khan Academy.
What you’re paying for is the degree on top of the education. A checkmark in a box that employers use to weed out people that don’t play the game of jumping through the hoops.
Access to books is not the same as access to a structured course with experts explaining the topics. YouTube classes can be very good to learn something specific, but do not achieve the organization of a university program.
In my country, university classes are public a d anyone can attend for free. You pay for the degree only. If it is formation you want, you can attend classes.
formal education feels like it was fully co-opted by “the market”
If you want to join “the market” (have a job and get paid for it), you need formal education
To get formal education, you need money
To get money, you need to join “the market” or have someone who’s “in” to pay for youAs for “getting smarter”, that’s different from formal education
To get formal education, you need money
Brazil’s top universities, the ones everybody wants to join, publish research and look good on your resume, are the public universities. They’re entirely free, and if you can prove you don’t have sufficient income, most will also provide somewhere to live (shared, but still) and free meals.
In other words, high quality education doesn’t need to depend on your income. Protest against that, vote against that.
Technically true, but as many students find out, having classes’ times all over the place each semester means you’ll have a hard time finding any jobs in the meantime, which will more or less force them to live off savings or family help, especially if the course has mandatory books that you cannot find a pirate copy somewhere. Also, the student residences get full super quick. Not to mention that every public medicine course in the public unis only has like 2-3 students that actually came from the lower classes.
Fonte: meu pai e minha irmã estudaram na UnB
It doesn’t.
You need to study to be smart and studying is free.
Check out this pedantic guy over here. Just to be clear, knowledge means shit, it’s the diploma that counts
I guarantee you, knowledge means something. You need the degree to get the job, but if you don’t know your ass for your elbow, that entry level job is as far as you are going to go. If you want a promotion and pay raise, you need to know your shit.
Yeah okay but OP is asking why it costs money to become smarter. The answer is: it doesn’t. But it does cost money to get help with getting smarter and to get a certificate that you did get smarter. And that does indeed cost more than it should in many places
Only when you are talking about earning money. The smartest people out there are the ditch diggers and factory folk.
… in america.
Everywhere. You can’t go to Europe and claim to be a doctor cause you read all the books for free
In healthcare, yes. An IT guy, a plumber, an analyst, no. Legal and healthcare are the only two fields I can think of right now that a person with enough knowledge couldn’t enter without a diploma.
But those two fields make up what, 1 percent?Also, I don’t need to go to europe, because I’m already there.
There are many other fields that require a degree. Engineering, architecture, chemistry, biology, etc. In some of those fields you can find some jobs which you can do without the degree, but the vast majority do require it.
I hire people and, to be fair, most people with a degree do not qualify as valid for certain jobs. But in that case is lack of knowledge. In my case I’d rather have someone without degree but with a deep knowledge; but those are very hard to find.
Nah, but you can do that in America.
There’s literally an entire demographic of americans that are having trouble with getting a job because they don’t have certification and it’s a nationwide problem causing insane amounts of debt for the general population, so unless there’s some kind of joke about the american healthcare system in there, then I don’t get what you’re saying.
Reminds me of that scene from Good Will Hunting
Hello, if you would please refer to “Wage labour and capital”:
We have just seen how the fluctuation of supply and demand always bring the price of a commodity back to its cost of production. The actual price of a commodity, indeed, stands always above or below the cost of production; but the rise and fall reciprocally balance each other, so that, within a certain period of time, if the ebbs and flows of the industry are reckoned up together, the commodities will be exchanged for one another in accordance with their cost of production. Their price is thus determined by their cost of production.
…
What, then, is the cost of production of labour-power?
It is the cost required for the maintenance of the labourer as a labourer, and for his education and training as a labourer.
…
Thus, the cost of production of simple labour-power amounts to the cost of the existence and propagation of the worker. The price of this cost of existence and propagation constitutes wages. The wages thus determined are called the minimum of wages. This minimum wage, like the determination of the price of commodities in general by cost of production, does not hold good for the single individual, but only for the race. Individual workers, indeed, millions of workers, do not receive enough to be able to exist and to propagate themselves; but the wages of the whole working class adjust themselves, within the limits of their fluctuations, to this minimum.
The price of education can only fall once the supply of laborer requiring said education falls below the demand of such laborers and, consequently, the price of their labor power rises above the cost of creating this labor power. The (even more) bad news is:
But the productive forces of labour is increased above all by a greater division of labour and by a more general introduction and constant improvement of machinery. The larger the army of workers among whom the labour is subdivided, the more gigantic the scale upon which machinery is introduced, the more in proportion does the cost of production decrease, the more fruitful is the labour.
…
Furthermore, to the same degree in which the division of labour increases, is the labour simplified. The special skill of the labourer becomes worthless. He becomes transformed into a simple monotonous force of production, with neither physical nor mental elasticity. His work becomes accessible to all; therefore competitors press upon him from all sides. Moreover, it must be remembered that the more simple, the more easily learned the work is, so much the less is its cost to production, the expense of its acquisition, and so much the lower must the wages sink – for, like the price of any other commodity, they are determined by the cost of production.
