送交者: mangolasi 于 2006-3-07, 11:55:10:
回答: 中国大学还有社会功能 由 吴礼 于 2006-3-07, 10:02:51:
Skilled labor is a main drive to long term growth.
Then the question is: If you have limited resource to spend on education, who do you choose for it? You want to brightest (one can argue what is "bright", and how to avoid educating the bright into the moronic, of course) youth. Using money, as well as urban residency as a barrier, just help nothing put keeping some brightest out. Because the education (provided that it's not educating the bright into the moronic) on the brightest can generate the biggest growth, which we hope, can lift all the boats, the limited resource on eduation is not meant to be bid by money, but by talent. Education on the brightest doesn't benefit those people alone. This is a sharp contrast to some other consumption: when you eat something, the benefit is limited to your own, and the benefit that you eat the meal (besides the profit it generates to the resteraunt owner) to other people is ear to nill. In this case, the limited resource should be bid by money.
And it's controversial whether the resource for education is seriously limited. True that the Williams rate of undergraduate education is very limited to Chinese people. But education itself is not that natural resource constrainted. Education (modiocre college eduation and high school educaiton and elementary school eduation) is labor intensive. China doesn't lack people. Free high school and elementary school education for all isn't really unrealistic to China. The same for free basic health care to all. Except for those advanced medicine, basic health care have no reason to be expensive in a populated country. While a body of health, literate workers can help a better future (and the people are happier, securier as well.)