Secular Europe, religious America

[Hedgehog]

Which brings me to the question, aren't secular Europeans setting themselves up for extinction?  Isn't a result of secularism in Europe a decline in the population?  There are less traditional marriages, more homosexual marriages, more abortion, more birth control, more suicides, all of which contribute to a reduction in the population.  Who is going to support all those welfare states?  Don't you need kids to grow up, get jobs and be heavily taxed to support those welfare states? 

What states are you referring to?

In Scandinavia eg, higher education is free.

Who do you think developed Losec? Performed the first bypass op, the first pacemaker op, invented color graphics and the mouse for computers?

Nokia, Ericsson, et al. There is a reason why countries in Scandinavia are able to compete. The education system has in modern times always been solid, and available to the public.

You need kids to grow up, get educated and stay out of trouble, social problems and shyte.

Having lots of people living in ghettos and going in and out of the legal system would be a disaster for small countries like those up in Scandinavia.

[Deicide]

What states are you referring to?

In Scandinavia eg, higher education is free.

Who do you think developed Losec? Performed the first bypass op, the first pacemaker op, invented color graphics and the mouse for computers?

Nokia, Ericsson, et al. There is a reason why countries in Scandinavia are able to compete. The education system has in modern times always been solid, and available to the public.

You need kids to grow up, get educated and stay out of trouble, social problems and shyte.

Having lots of people living in ghettos and going in and out of the legal system would be a disaster for small countries like those up in Scandinavia.

I agree Northman. Though I question the merits of 'free education', having studied in France and Germany where higher education is nearly 'free'. In my experience, much like all things in life you get what you pay for; pay little= get little.

[Hedgehog]

I agree Northman. Though I question the merits of 'free education', having studied in France and Germany where higher education is nearly 'free'. In my experience, much like all things in life you get what you pay for; pay little= get little.

Our education system is nowhere perfect, but the higher education (universities et al) are world class.

How much the government should fund the universities is a question for the politicians to decide on, but I can state this: It's macro economically sound to invest in the education system. It will pay off.

[Deicide]

Our education system is nowhere perfect, but the higher education (universities et al) are world class.

How much the government should fund the universities is a question for the politicians to decide on, but I can state this: It's macro economically sound to invest in the education system. It will pay off.

I doubt the Scandinavian universities rival the best of private American universities.

[Hedgehog]

I doubt the Scandinavian universities rival the best of private American universities.

I never claimed they're better.

But in rankings (but what does those rankings tell you, really? ), several universities up here generally gets into the top 100 in the world.

It's not really my point though. My point is that they're available to anyone with good enough grades.

Which means the best brains lands the most attractive educations, or at least to a larger extent than in countries where universities are paid for.

Eg, look at 240 or Bust. He's got an MBA from some decent, but not very well known university.

Had he been under the same system as here, he would've been able to get into Harvard, but more realistically, at least a very good business school.


There is an ongoing discussion whether the Scandinavian model can compete in quality with Ivy League et al.

As long as there is no tuition fees and the universities gets plenty of resources, I think they can at least be as good in producing top students.

JMO.

[Deicide]

I never claimed they're better.

But in rankings (but what does those rankings tell you, really? ), several universities up here generally gets into the top 100 in the world.

It's not really my point though. My point is that they're available to anyone with good enough grades.

Which means the best brains lands the most attractive educations, or at least to a larger extent than in countries where universities are paid for.

Eg, look at 240 or Bust. He's got an MBA from some decent, but not very well known university.

Had he been under the same system as here, he would've been able to get into Harvard, but more realistically, at least a very good business school.


There is an ongoing discussion whether the Scandinavian model can compete in quality with Ivy League et al.

As long as there is no tuition fees and the universities gets plenty of resources, I think they can at least be as good in producing top students.

JMO.

There is merit to what you say Northman. But in this cases as in many others I am convinced that the Scandinavian system works well because of a tiny population base. I do not think it would work well in a large country such as the USA, moreover it is currently failing in Germany. In Germany I found the education to be horrible and I went to a highly esteemed German university. Tough call.