From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Oct 08 1999 - 20:31:52 MDT
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Dan Fabulich wrote:
> Apparently Bryan Moss wrote:
> > Question: Do parents, the people who would be funding this operation
> > in the absense of the state, have any serious economic incentives to
> > give their children a good education? I'm saying a big NO.
My parents struck a very interesting balance with myself and my
brothers -- they said we had to pay half. Now this was in the
day and age when someone 17-22 could probably save half a year
of college tuition in a summer of work. But I would say from
personal experience that it is both a good compromise & motivator.
Now, Bryan has an interesting point with regard to the economic
investment in a child. Presumably a parent never would want to
act in such a way that their actions make their previous investment
"worthless". (So generally, you don't kill children, you don't
move to someplace where there are no taxes *and* no schools, etc.)
In theory the economic incentive for parents to provide or
fund an education is the desire to maximize the value of their
previous investment. Now the point at which this fails is
when the perceived benefit from that investment falls below
the perceived investment.
> Yes, that explains why parents never pay lots of money to send their kids
> to high quality private schools. And why no parent would ever sacrifice
> his/her life for the life of their child.
Yes, the "perceived benefits" are very wide ranging. The most
superficial (but nonetheless real) are those of a parent touting
the acceptance or success of their child at an exclusive institution
to a "competitor" whose children have not achieved similar success.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:27 MST