| « Employee sues Wynn Casino for second hand smoke | Political hiatus on Asymmetric » |
UCLA tuition protests: carnival of greed
11/24/09
Won't each dollar going to pay for the luxury dorms, gyms, and classes these mostly middle-class kids enjoy take away from some poor person-of-color's (POC) health care or primary education? Just asking.
Let's deconstruct the purpose of the public university:
Everything the government spends money on is supposed to be good for society in general. So, if the public decides to spend money on primary schools, it's because they think that a literate populace makes for a better society.
If the people spend money on parks or libraries, it's because citizens think that these activities provide a good -not just fun- experience, one that everybody should enjoy, or provide a society-improving function like keeping kids off the street, in the case of skate parks or midnight basketball.
Public money shouldn't benefit an individual or particular group alone, which is why the government doesn't pay for seminaries.
I can see the benefit to society for supporting future engineers, chemists, doctors and some other professions that increase the quality of life for everybody. Without offending anybody who's studied these worthy subjects, how will giving money to students delving into _________ [Gay, African American, Chicano, Feminist etc.] studies, sociology, English (mine), communications (nobody communicated before it became a major), or political science help society in general?
An argument can be made that an abundance of people in these fields actually harms the United States, as many of these graduates then require more education to learn to do something useful.
(In fact, I'm the only English major from my class -of those I'm still in contact with- who can claim to be using the things he learned in school [I'm an English teacher] to produce. Most of my classmates are in IT, movies, or whatever.)
My solution to the UC budget "crisis" (I'm sure African children are weeping with sympathy) is to limit public support for those majors that don't benefit society and give it to those who have the greatest likelihood of improving it: Robbing Peter Artsy to pay Paul Pediatrician. That would be the socially responsible thing to do, and we know how concerned UC students are about the general welfare.
3 comments
I like your post--you make a few very good points. This is not necessarily a "crisis" simply because these universities are not receiving all of their previous funding. Still, something will have to be done. Perhaps cutting spending on unnecessary expenses? That seems logical.I watched a video at Newsy.com on all of this. It's worth watching/commenting on if you have a few minutes:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/uc_protests_cast_light_on_higher_ed_s_financial_woes
Asian American Studies, Women Studies, Asian Humanities studies all contribute to societies in different ways. Many work in non-profits to help underserved communities, reducing conflict and state spending in many ways as well. Others also work in the government or international arena, contributing to national/global peace and development. Some go straight into business which also contribute to society. Film makers can also raise awareness about issues/events or present them effectively or in different perspectives.What about all those pre-law, pre-med, science majors that either drop out of med/law school or don't use their major EITHER!
Who are you or anybody else to judge what someone is going to make of their life or what their future is worth based on their major?
Yes. That's my point. What skills are necessary to work serving people? People waste the go vernment's money and then do something unrelated to their field of study. 
Comment feed for this post
