EDIT: I didn't mean to be all smug about it. The cost of going to university is different in different countries, and if it's too expensive where you're at, maybe going as an exchange student is a viable alternative? That's the only big regret I have, never having done that.
Firstly, it does, in Scandinavia just like everywhere else. Secondly, it does for a reason. Not just because they can charge (though obviously...), or that teachers/professors would like to eat something every once in a while, but also because getting the results is quite expensive. Take a look at the universities rankings[1] -- how many schools in the top ten aren't British or American?
Before we get all smug about our educational systems largely free of exorbitant fees, arbitrary admissions, and racists nonsense like affirmative action (well, largely), we should take a look at the results Americans are getting. It's not all corruption and waste.
Most "top" universities receive their ranking for the quality of the research they produce, not quality of undergraduate education. There is likely a decent correlation between research output and undergraduate education, which one can determine by looking at schools that have some of the highest achieving undergrads (such as MIT, Harvard, Stanford) and noting that these schools also are major research centers. Note there are most certainly exceptions to this, ie schools without a ton of research output but with great education for undergrads (I'm thinking of Reed College here, but no evidence/just my perception) or universities that don't do much with undergrads but are major research centers.
However, I'd mostly like to address the fallacy of attributing the high international rankings of American universities to the high undergraduate tuition. At Caltech, I've heard many undergrads say that all undergrad tution is about 5% of Caltech's budget, with a lot of the rest coming from various research grants. At schools with less of a research focus and more undergrads, undergrad tuition might make 30% of the budget. I can't find the blog post at the moment, but there was a discussion a few years ago about what would happen if MIT gave a full scholarship to all attending undergrads, and the conclusion was that it would hurt (but not cripple) MIT financially, but appeared possible.
Those same universities have selection criteria which predict success after college independent of the college attended. So it's not like they are masterfully teaching anything; rather, it seems very much like they are simply rebranding the best students.
To the extent that they also teach students more and better, this is actually damaging socially because it sucks secondary educational capital into a few locations. Lower end schools could do more and better if they housed many more bright and ambitious students. But if they're all going to a handful of schools, they're not improving the social networks at Random State.
Although elite universities might not "masterfully teach", the students at these universities still learn more than students at a lot of universities simply because the classes are more difficult (these are generalizations, not the rule). If classes are more difficult/cover more content but aren't taught well enough/not all content covered, then highly ambitious students just end up teaching themselves a lot of the curriculum, but they still know the material of their classes by the end. Essentially, even though the teaching might not be better, I believe an average MIT student studying X comes out more knowledgeable than student from [[ state school ]].
And its an interesting thought to distribute top students. Assuming a fixed quantity of "bright and ambitious" students, wouldn't sending more of them to lower end schools weaken the social networks formed at elite schools and destroy something unique about American education system?
Please. There are thousands of these rankings. They all show different results and most of them are produced by Americans in the first place.
To start with how do you qualify a college good or bad? Nobel prize winners, number of sharks graduated, number of Forbes 100 people, scientific articles published?
Let all of these alone I just graduated from an high school outside USA and am accepted to those top schools along with my classmates. Everybody knows that US applications are about how good you can memorize SAT words and how well you can look on the paper. I know people who faked hundreds of projects and got into these top schools. Believe me their number far exceeds the number of people who actually deserve to be there.
A school with abundant resources attracts high profile customers rather than actual students.
Everybody knows that US applications are about how good you can memorize SAT words and how well you can look on the paper.
That's what it looks like from outside the USA. For US students, the SAT barely matters at all. Top criteria at elite schools are 1. race (don't be Asian-American), 2. sports (especially elite sports like crew), 3. contacts, recommenders, networking, 4. high grades from a well-known high school, 5. extracurricular activities, 6. objective tests.
Try that gauntlet and you'll be pining for tests of SAT words.
For the record: going to university is free in Sweden (and probably the rest of Scandinavia) for the individual, which is the relevant metric here. Obviously someone has to pay, but the cost is not part of the equation when you're making the decision (other than the alternative cost for not working).
I didn't say that. Listen, if you want me to describe to you how biased these rankings are in favor of Western institutions, I'd be glad to do so. For example, a common metric is number of publications, for which the accepted journals are almost entirely Western (or US-based). And then you have scores that are based partially on (perceived) reputation, for which American schools will always come first. For the QS World University Rankings, this accounts for 40% of their final score.
The thing is though, private education systems has shown to produce cost explosion as education is a needed thing and no one is controlling the costs. State financed education has a much better cost control. Like they don't build insanely expensive stadiums or put a grand piano in the cafeteria (seen this at a US university).
The problem with that is that it sets a precedent , basically saying "If you are poor , you better be a genius or you will have no qualifications and will work in mcdonalds"
How ironic, apparently in scandinavia they must not teach basic algebra, basic accounting, and basic tax law.
There is no free lunch in the world, you indeed pay for university.
The statement you make is so ironic because you are displaying an incredible amount of ignorance in basic math and taxes, thereby discrediting the scandinavian university system you are here defending!!
I'm sitting here cracking up and can't stop laughing at your comment.
Welcome to America! Cash is king. My art school degree when said and done will cost somewhere near $72,000. That is just tuition. I can't wait to see what the "open" education platforms of the future bring.
As much as people crap on art school an art degree can at least pay for itself as long as your willing to work for other, and not, say, make drawings of anime all day. Most of the anti-college rhetoric comes from 1 simple things.
Cost of degree > Worth of degree.
$200,000 for a degree which only nets a $35,000/yr job is starting to seem like a bad deal.
That's if you value the degree in terms of the salary you can garner after graduating, or believe that money is everything. There are simply some things that you cannot put a price on. College is not for everyone, but for many it can be an eye-opening experience that enriches lives in deep ways.
Re: There are simply some things that you cannot put a price on.
Debt that will follow you through bankruptcy is not one of
them. I know of people who took exactly that attitude about college and it destroyed their lives.
If you are not paying for college, or not paying much, it is true that it can be a fun 4 years and does not need to be considered a financial decisions. But when you are collecting more debt than an average mortgage you should really consider if the house you are buying is worth it.
If someone is looking for a safe financial investment that provides guaranteed returns on the dollar, college isn't likely to rank high on that list. We seem to agree on that. I said that college isn't for everyone. My point was that equating worth or value directly to a dollar value return is probably a bad way to look at an education. Many people can't afford a quality education, and it's an injustice. But how much money you can earn because of your degree is only one facet to weighing the benefits of an education. And, to me, it's a poor method of valuation.
Well first of all I do not equate education necessarily with college, education is a process and college is a place where that may or may not happen. My main point is that assuming large levels of debt should be approached as a business/investment decision, as should anything with such a large down side. And even if you are college material having $200,000 in debt and a degree in something that gets you a $35,000/year job is just not a reasonable thing to do. And with a debt/salary load like above college will be the best 4 years of your life, loan payments will see that it is so in the best case.
I re-read your comment, and I think that where we agree is that an education doesn't have to mean college. Also, a degree as a piece of paper is not really worth anything -- I was thinking of the experience of diving into learning, and the benefits of being in an academic environment that can't be reduced to a dollar value (at least not easily).
And who's fault is this for choosing to go to a private college? There are plenty of community colleges that are a viable alternative, quit bitching when their are plenty of cheaper alternatives available.
</scandinavian>
EDIT: I didn't mean to be all smug about it. The cost of going to university is different in different countries, and if it's too expensive where you're at, maybe going as an exchange student is a viable alternative? That's the only big regret I have, never having done that.