complicated simplicity

Sorry Ivan. I can’t agree fully on this one. I can’t help but think that this view is slighty class-centric.

How much of biting the bullet is enough then? If you can only afford to eat 2 bowls of rice a day, does biting the bullet all the way to half a bowl of rice considered fair and affordable then?

Unfortuantely, for many out there, education IS the luxury. To say that “whatever you want, you must be willing to get it yourself” is to me, assuming that everyone has equal opportunities and ignores the social and structural barriers in place. It also assumes that everyone has equal access to social opportunities and benefits.

This is one theory i subscribe to, because it is the only theory that is able to explain what I see in Singapore’s education : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_education#Structure_and_Agency

Is that the way of the world, or a world that subscribes to capitalism? Not that i can offer any better alternatives right now, but I think it is only fair we look deeper and further, to understand why people are poor in the first place.

Lets define several terms.

Access: The route taken to the final objective.
Opportunity: The availability of the final objective.
Barriers: Difficulty in access to the opportunity.

Basic assumptions:
Equal opportunity to all.
Ease of access is increased, barriers can be lowered due to the availability of resources.
Thus access is not equal due to resourcses.

My argument so far is this:
1) There are ample opportunities for all, at least in Singapore.
2) Thus opportunities are equal for all.
3) Access is not even for all, and I have earlier agreed, but I also said that this uneven access should not be used as an excuse for not putting in effort to educate.
4) Ideally there should be equal access, but practically, this is not possible. Read: France/Germany/Swiss free education case. Read recent economical analysis by Higher Education Board of UK.
5) As such, the closest ideal system is one of a self-sustaining education system where you have a “free” education system by taking a loan etc now, and paying back later when you can afford it. This would minimise waste and promote efficiency in education. Not ideal, but wasting money is not acceptable to maximise capital to maximise number of people educated.
6) Thus the onus is on the person to make an effort to educate, even if he has to pay back later.

Barriers etc is another topic for discussion, and should not be muddled with an argument for personal responsibility in self-education.

However, barriers to entry are lowered by:
1) Easy access to interest-free education loans backed by governments. This is in place in most education systems backed by sustainable education system in (5) above.
2) Easy access to education information. This is in place over the world, the onus is on the individual to enquire and thus there should be no blame on the system.

Thus, the responsibility is placed FIRMLY on the individual on finding out and trying to find funding. This is my crux of the argument.

It should also be noted that arguments put forth by Bourdieu has been considered by some for simplication and neglecting macroeffects. I am an admirer of Bourdieu myself, having read a couple of his books including “Bourdieu and Education”, but I do not agree with some of his assertions.