Learnedness is an industry. Within a certain, limited "capitalist view" it must be that, if we have 100,000 scholars, that would be a growth industry; and 110,000? -that must be even better.
How would questions of quality come into it? What if all are less than perfect scholars? They do not have to know anything at all, from such a point of view, if the schools continue to receive money. If what matters, in this view, is the quantity of money. If what matters is only that someone will pay money. Assuming there is a product at all. Do the additional 10,000 scholars improve the product? If there is one? Who really cares? From a certain, limited view the only thing that needs to happen is for funds to change hands, But rejoice, our goal can be me in exciting ways. The goal of money, or "income stream," is met if students pay money for courses. But it is also met when endowment money comes in from (well-meaning) (rich) alumni, persons of quality who think their money will improve quality of education. Finally, inputs of incomes are attenuated (aggrandized, grabbed, attained...) when government scholarships input money in for the purpose of sending young persons to school to learn. It's so much fun you do not even care if they learn anymore. Of course we do need to reassure our donors. That we are "Ivy League."
Everything is backwards! If you said that learning will lead to more persons making more money? OK. But aren't we also implying that the money leads to (more) persons learning?
In that case - what does "learning" - or "learnedness" - mean? It's just words, you see. It is just the name of the industry doing the money-making. The inflow of money does not seem to insure the quality of the learning or learnedness. So, what was the whole point? Learnedness is an industry, I said. Right, but in a world where the quality is sinking even as the quantity of commodities, money, and idiocy is rising touchstone is money. You just need the live bodies as an excuse to keep your badass college endowed with money.
The show must go on, so, yes, in all practicality you'll need some bodies there. That too. You need the biological forms, walking zombie-like across the Potemkin Village University of the USA.
Is this the "economics of education"? The "privatization" of (or "economics" of) education? Ah but it is not economics because it is not education, and because there is no wisdom. The reality is that economics implies human welfare. But we don't get it, we never got that. If there are no human beings, only homo sapiens animals, or only zombies or walking corpses....Well, is that "Economics"? In reality? In the real sense? Or "Madness"? Or "Horror"? Or is it all just "Words"? Or will mathematics save us from words? And finally attain meaning? I doubt it. But, of course, I am not a mathematician. Maybe they have a beautiful language, all their own. What can math accomplish?
Economics is human, only human. The term "economics" must imply a "social science." It is so, even in the academic registers and catalogs. We have forgotten about that. We chase money. Today we chase Money, and we shall go completely insane tomorrow!!!!!! Such "economics," such fraud.
Economics is a human science. (Oh, but that's so 19th century!)