Education versus Free Market

I am very curious to see how the free market approach as in the US affects educational quality when compared to non-free market approaches such as in Europe.

I am sure both sides has pros and cons. For example, diploma mills seem to flourish more in a free market world.

 

And why would a free market be in opposition to education?

 

Re: Re: Education versus Free Market

THe question, is whether a free market approach helps or not the education process.

In other words, in most European Countries education is funded by the state, in the US its totally market driven.

Thats where my thinking is.

 

The less-regulated US system produces many schools that are much worse than those found in (for example) Europe. However, it also produces many schools that are much better.

For example, consider the "Academic Ranking of World Universities" by Shanghai University (a presumably unbiased source). US schools hold 37 of the top 50 slots, compared to 9 for all European countries combined.

In fact, by this measure, the State of California alone now has more great universities (10 of the top 50) than all of Europe. That's pretty impressive growth, considering that California did not have a single college until ~ 150 years ago.

But on the other hand, the State of California also has unaccredited schools that would probably be grossly deficient by European standards.

 

A quick observation from your comments seem to imply that a free system has more variation in quality.

Also the US probably has many more schools since its deregulated. In respect to presentage of US schools that are top from the total, its probably a small number too.

 

You can stop right there -your assumption about the US having a laissez faire educational marketplace is incorrect.

US schools are regulated by Federal and state governments, as well as private, quasi-regulatory accreditors.

 

Re: Re: Education versus Free Market

I think you misunderstood my question. How does the federal government regulate schools in terms of Curriculum or pricing? I don't think they do.

 

Re: Re: Re: Education versus Free Market

Very interesting thread.

One observation, though. American PUBLIC universities are also funded with government money in the European sense. Soooo.

I think this is the major difference as you pinted out:

True. Over here education quality is more homogeneous.

 

Re: Re: Re: Education versus Free Market

The federal government exercises indirect control over curriculum by making federal financial aid available only to students enrolled in regionally-accredited or Department of Education-approved programs.

States exercise pricing control over public colleges and universities by establishing tuition levels.

Private schools are free to establish curricula and pricing at levels they choose, but they suffer:

1. the reduction of accounts receivable in the form of federal student aid.

2. the cost of incurring the wrath of State-level regulators, in some cases. Refer to the threads about Kennedy-Western in their fight against the States of Oregon and Wyoming, or the numerous law and medical school threads (attorneys and physicians are licensed at the state level, not US federal level, so they must meet State education requirements).

In contrast to European countries, the separation of powers between state and federal levels is a major influence on our regulatory landscape.

 

Free market is implying less regulations controlled by the government. Absolute free market, similar as invisible hand in economic term, may imply government should NOT take a hand in the economy and let the market itself decide its mechanism. So, variation must be a result.

Under absolute free market structure, if we assume employers do not care their employees holding degrees from where or which sources, will you take a degree from an accredited institution at expensive fee or unaccredited one or even from a degree mill at very low cost?

Therefore variation not only in quality but also in price is usual in free market.

In respect to presentage of US schools that are top from the total, its probably a small number too. [/QUOTE]

Yes, there are thousands of schools in USA offering degrees and most of them are not acceptable worldwide, or even illegal between States of the country itself!

 

Re: Re: Re: Education versus Free Market

It is commonly believed (at least in the US) that individuals and institutions (including schools) tend to perform at their best when faced with aggressive competition.

If you accept this premise, then you may favor a system that promotes competition between schools for top students and faculty. In general, this is more characteristic of the US system than of the European system.

In the Shanghai University's list of top world universities, it is striking that most of the top-ranked US schools are well known for their competitive rivalries: e.g. Harvard vs. Yale vs. Princeton, MIT vs. Caltech, Stanford vs. Berkeley. Such competition occurs at less prestigous levels as well.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the highest-ranked European schools are Cambridge and Oxford.

 

Well my studies are restricted to theological and religious education so accreditation and the like is not an issue for ministry related courses as a rule. Excluding licensed aspects like therapists that are ministers as an example. But my two cents is the free market is better than a restricted market and the First Amendment protections shield religious education at the post-secondary level. So in my case your free to select any school that fits ones religious needs. I noticed in the U.K. they are tryng to passa law requiring 30% of students at relgigious schools must be non-religious or of faiths outside what the school teaches. I do not want that kind of interference here in the United States.

 

I think that the biggest difference between the United States and the rest of the world is that the US has grown familiar with the concept of the private university.

In many countries universities seem to exclusively be state-run or at least state-funded institutions. Academic quality assurance is typically a function of state management or state funding, so the international meaning of the word 'private' is often synonymous with the word 'unaccredited'.

In the United States academic quality assurance is performed by independent accrediting associations and is equally applicable to public and private universities, regardless of how they're funded. There's no distinction in that respect.

So the United States possesses a whole class of higher education institutions of a sort that you don't often see elsewhere: the fully-accredited and universally-recognized private university. They include many of our most illustrious names (Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, Duke, Johns Hopkins, U. Chicago...)

Probably the world's leading degree-mill haven at the moment is the United Kingdom and its dependent territories. They simply wash their hands of their private/mill sector by announcing that those schools aren't granting "British academic awards", so their activities are none of the government's business. If some of those things were operating out of Honolulu rather than London addresses, they would have been run out of town long ago with Jeffrey Brunton's bootmark indented in their butts.

Bottom line is that it's not just a simple matter of academic socialism versus anything goes. Dealing effectively with private universities demands finding an equilibrium between those contrasting extremes. The United States has been dealing with the products of private academic enterprise for several hundred years now, and has evolved both the independent accreditation associations and the state regulatory schemes to handle them (however imperfectly in some cases).

 

Re: Re: Education versus Free Market

Ted,

Do you think there is a difference in motivation between an institution that is primarily responsible to their shareholders versus an institution that is responsible to some definition of the public good?

I firmly believe that the overall majority of students are interested in an education largely for its credential value; however, the public good may be more interested in its educational value so that the workforce has the necessary skills. Can't you see where the different stakeholders produce different outcomes?

I believe there is a reason why we don't see UoP and other for-profits rated in the top tier by US News -- if they were they probably wouldn't be economically viable.