It means that the era of post-WW II prosperity is over and has been for a very long time. Mass higher education was introduced after the Second World because corporate and government planners believed that the economy was going to experience shortages of trained technical and professional people. Hence, after the war legislation like the G.I. Bill was passed to expand access to higher education among people who traditionally never had access to it. Later legislation extended access even further. But since the mid-70s, ruling class efforts have shifted to trying to limit and even restrict access to higher education. The postwar boom and the 1960s boom are now distant memories. There is no longer any great to produce more and more highly trained managerial and technical personnel. And where might be needs for trained technical specialists, that is something that can be taken care of by offshoring anyway.
And the US ruling class still has vivid memories of the 1960s when expansion of access to higher education was seen as having politically destablizing consequences.
Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant
---------- Original Message ---------- From: 123hop at comcast.net To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] posh as fuck Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 01:20:00 +0000 (UTC)
Actually, given what is happening with education in toto, the drift is to make everyone who wants an education, pay for it. Period.
There will be some public education left -- perhaps in the burbs; but mostly if you want an actual education for your kids, you will have to pay for it.
Don't you see, with productivity rising and available jobs shrinking, it will be considered a privilege to be earned to be able to be part of the professional work force.
Joanna
----- Original Message -----
On Dec 4, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
> I thought the point JH was making was a rather
> different one, namely that the the previous Uni
> system was anything but socially transformative;
> quite the contrary in fact. Which raises the question,
> just how worthwhile is it to defend such an institution?
>
> A broader question is whether the Left should spend any
> time, in general, trying to 'defend' things.
Go tell it to all the students occupying streets & buildings over tuition increases.
Since Rohatyn first insisted on tuition at CUNY, the bourgeoisie has been very clear on its higher ed strategy: make it more expensive. What do they know that you don't?
Doug ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
____________________________________________________________ 60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27 Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4edc28967d1347a6cc4st02vuc