My last post has been criticised on several valid grounds. However, I did not intend to make a full and consistent argument with it, but rather to ridicule the argument I quoted.
Interesting post.
1) Neither can universities.
- If you want research that pays for itself, you'll have to shut down the humanities and, well, everything except for the sciences, medicine and engineering. The point of university research is that it's not forced to be commerically motivated. Fundamental research is vitally important to technological progress, but it rarely brings in much money. The work the humanities researchers do is hardly financially viable, but it's valuable in other ways.
- Universities are already very research focussed. Making it even more so would hurt the amount of time lecturers can devote to teaching.
- The universities already do bring in funding from their research - anything that gets commercialised, they have a stake in. It offsets costs, but it doesn't pay for everything.
2) I'm not sure what point you're making here? No, primary and secondary education are not entirely free. They are heavily subsidised.
3) I never said it could be made as equally. In fact, I said, "I know there are some points, but they should be debated on. "
So, let's try that one. How about we start with this: Describe please what general good the public funding of the Leaving Certificate cycle does. Describe why it is deserving of public funding on the assumption that third level is not.
Bookmarks