|
|
 Originally Posted by CoccoBill
As an example, in the nordic countries where education is free, there quite effectively is nothing resembling a class system. Literally everyone with the mental and physical capacity is able to become e.g. a surgeon if they so choose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US that's not really the case. You basically need either wealthy parents, a scholarship, or have to take massive risks by ending up with massive debt before you graduate, which means that if you don't immediately get a suitable job you're screwed. Also it's been said here that being born to a minority family in a poor neighborhood in effect blocks you from ever having a proper career.
I would think the former demonstrates income mobility better than the latter.
Merit in education was always strong in America. Growing up, I always remembered that people who showed aptitude and work ethic earned quite a lot of stuff, from closer relationships with faculty to scholarships. There's a great deal of love and pride for things like providing scholarships to students who demonstrate that they will likely use them productively. The system I just described still remains but it is undergoing change, probably due to government grants and loans effecting reduced merit in order to succeed in the system.
The US university system grew to be what it is because of how well it organized people according to merit, aptitude, and ethic. That doesn't mean a system like what Finland uses can't also function on merit. It probably does. Though there are likely costs associated with inefficiencies and distorted incentives that manifest elsewhere.
|
Reply With Quote