On the subject of in-state tuition for illegals, Mitt Romney suggested in Wednesday's debate that "there is only so much money to go around." This struck me as surprisingly myopic thinking, but then maybe I don't understand the issue. If subsidizing college for gifted but broke students is a net economic negative (that is, the state pays out X and gets back <X in additional tax revenue), then indeed, only so much money can be wasted in this way. I question why any fiscal conservative would want to waste money, even on citizens, but Romney's new to conservatism, so I'll chalk that up to inexperience and wait for him to change his mind.

BUT, if subsidizing college education for students of a certain academic caliber is a net economic positive, then wouldn't it be in our best interest to send ALL qualifying students to college? If the state shells out $80,000 and gets back $200,000 in additional taxes and other externalities, then we'd be stupid to withhold a scholarship to someone because of their citizenship. We should be sending recruiters around the world looking for the best and brightest kids to come to America.

Now, I'm a home schooled conservative and thus skeptical of public education, so I'm not sure which scenario is accurate. Perhaps, if we did a cost/benefit analysis of education, we'd discover that everything after the 5th grade is a waste of money. Doesn't Jeff Foxworthy have a TV show based on this premise? If that's the case, then nobody of any legal status ought to be getting a subsidized 4 year trip to State. But if there's something to this leftist notion of public education, and I suspect there is, then even fiscal conservatives ought to be hunting down illegal immigrants - to send them to school.

Does public education make sense economically? I don't like to use the word "investment" when talking about public education because it implies that the state 'owns' the education, or the educated, but I guess you could look at it as an investment. Is it a good one? And if it is, why shouldn't we maximize that investment and extend education to illegal immigrants?

As I see it, there are two justifiable positions on this issue.

1. Public education is a waste of money and should be eliminated.

2. Public education is a good 'investment' and should be maximized.

Taking the position (as Mitt Romney does) that public education is a good investment but shouldn't be extended to immigrants seems awfully close to outright nativism...

Well reasoned and entertaining post.

Thanks for sharing!

Good.

But i think everyone wishes for home schooling and private schools.

But either doesnt have the means or money to do this.

Unfortunately this is the arguement sets that always keep this places going.

I have been teaching for the last ten years in public schools. I believe that concerning economics that you get more "bang for the buck" with private schools and homeschooling. Any incentives given to encourage or reward private schools and homeschooling are worth the money. I see a lot of money wasted in public schools. Public schools spend a ton of money with very mediocre results.