<p>Well its not necessarily a need for any in this discourse to convince the other of their interpretations. </p>
<p>And we do have a tendency and a right to express our opinions about our country or any other country. </p>
<p>The problem from a systemic view is when a society or it’s leadership loses the ability to respond to and remedy problems or respond to justified criticisms because of a belief that their system has been superior. The Spanish grandees and the Ottoman Sultan’s had such attitudes in the 19th century and the end result was their systems have long since failed. </p>
<p>And in the history of education a like model in regards to reform does apply. For example, the Prussian/German system began advocating practical applications for higher education and encouraged the education of the young beginning in the latter part of the 19th century. The British were caught unprepared, and soon there was a substantial debate whether academic studies should be more than what was then the classical curriculum. As a related phenomenon John Ruskin was advocating that elements of the liberal arts be taught to the common people. Between the two movements, the British managed to establish a educational system which allowed them to compete with the Prussians and later Germany. </p>
<p>A like ability to respond to criticism and address problems especially those dealing with inclusion issues-is what had made US education functional in the 20th century. When John Dewey first advocated using education as a means to socialize diverse populations, that was controversial for two reasons. First was the reaction against cost, the other was resistance as to if the lower orders (including immigrants) should be educated or could be educated. However these objections were overcome. And the Brown vs Topeka case addressed other related issues with finality. </p>
<p>If the US had not been able to receive justified criticism and make efforts to address these educational issues what could have occurred is hard to conjecture…but educational failures might have contributed to rigid social stratification with the attendant possibility of movements as Fascism or Marxism gaining substantial followings. We did have very close runs with these philosophies as is very evident from the attempted fascist coup that General Butler was instrumental in stopping back in the early thirties. That attempted coup had some support amongst the elites, but little amongst the common people (as is very evident from Butler acting against them) </p>
<p>And when the GI Bill was signed there was some resistance from the hidebound elitists about having these new populations in academia. But the GI bill and the grant education models of the 1960’s did permit large numbers of new populations to attend college. And in the long term this was essential to the economic boom of the time, and was instrumental in providing some social stability during the difficult adjustments of the post war era. </p>
<p>With the current debate about educational costs, the student loan problem, once again at the social core of the issue is access. But this time its about affluence, who can go to college? </p>
<p>If trends develop as they seem to be going, what will occur will be fiat accompli winnowing out of the lower economic classes from academia and a reduction of the members of the middle classes who can attend college. Now some SL corporations might benefit in the short term, but socially this trend would be incredibly dangerous. </p>
<p>Insofar as one of the social functions of higher education in the US has been to provide the perception that one could break into the elite classes. And if the costs of college, and attendant corporate profiteering break that perception, it could be very, very dangerous for the stability of this country…be that politically or economically.</p>