College Should Be Free To Go To!

[TNT]

Ever wondered how expensive public universities and colleges are? The cost will keep going up, and there is nothing to do about it. But considering the fact that our public schools(elementary to high school)is free to go to(thats why there is taxes), then why should we be involved in paying tons of money for our college?

My idea is having the first 4 semesters free, so that way they can get at least an associate degree, but for the remaining semesters, yeah sure, they should pay. By doing this we won't have as many poor, druggies or criminals on the street. Our economy can improve as well, with more professionals involved in engineering, medical, etc.

Taxes, however could increase though. I understand how public schools gets their money. Taxes. The state government gives them money through our taxes, but considering the people going to college, it could go up to 10%-25%. Its expensive, but as the future goes on, it can come to the point that it saves loads of money for their kids to go to college at half the cost(if the kid wants to get a bachelors degree.

Now for GPA wise, they should remain the same. It wouldn't be fair that a not so bright person ends up to Harvard and a genius going to a community college. Students should still be required to study their asses off to make it into a good university. But at least if a lower middle class family that cannot afford their very smart son to go to college at first, will have a fresh start.

This can apply to students and adults. It might sound expensive at first, but give this into some thought about it and reply back about what you think.

[CaptainPoncho]

If you don't make a lot of money in Washington State, college is already free. I know several people who have full rides. This is mostly through the Gates foundation, though. Govt.-funded college would be an expensive disaster. You compare how public school is free to how college isn't, completely neglecting the fact that public school is a complete joke and teaches you nearly nothing.

[fli]

why not have colleges go to high schools and offer the basic materials that are needed?

I mean, all you need in a junior college are 2 English's and 2 Maths.
Those are the most important basics before leveling up...

If people want to lessen the cost, then they could do there 2 semester at a JC.

It's cheap enough that the majority of people can work and pay their classes off.
And after that, go to a JC and get scholarships and loans-- by the time you graduate, you don't have to worry too much about your debt.

Unless, you get stupid throw-away classes and crap like that.

[Maxben]

My god man! Careful before someone calls you a Commie!

But yeah, some sort of free higher education is a great idea. But, as you said, taxes will need to increase. As an American you probably understand that the United States in a country based on Capitalism, and such a Socialist attitude will never gain even a foothold there.

Sweden is a welfare state, having a very socialist economic system. As such, for them, free higher education exists and makes sense (it also exists for foreigners, if I remember correctly, but I may be wrong). Though you do need to pay a small fee to be a part of the student union in university.

You have to understand that ideas are usually not measured on their merit, but on the political culture of a state.

[cellardoor6]

Free education of that kind can't be free to the public, the failure and drop out rate in highschool would just be the same for college, wasting too much money.

As it is, we have the by far the best colleges in the world. Changing the situation would just sabotage this. If they were to make free college feasible, they'd have to cut costs, either that or raise taxes to ridiculously high levels. Cutting costs would negatively affect the quality of education.

Not a good idea.

[ABsoldier17]

Being poor has nothing to do with education. Neither does being a drug addict, nor being a criminal (as proven by enron). It's all in the motivation. And what if those people don't get degrees in engineering and medicine? They could get art degrees and then we'd be screwed. Besides what's wrong with working your ass off to pay for college? When you're out of college you'll have to, it's good practice.

[Maxben]

At 1/29/08 10:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Free education of that kind can't be free to the public, the failure and drop out rate in highschool would just be the same for college, wasting too much money.

As it is, we have the by far the best colleges in the world. Changing the situation would just sabotage this. If they were to make free college feasible, they'd have to cut costs, either that or raise taxes to ridiculously high levels. Cutting costs would negatively affect the quality of education.

Not a good idea.

If this is true, I still bring up Sweden. This is a European country who went through a terrible recession in the 1990s and who is a welfare state, yet can allow for free higher education for students as well as give financial help to student. As the United States is larger, richer, and more powerful than Sweden, they should have an easier time implementing such a system.

And though you may bring the argument of worse universities, the Karolinska Institution is the 53rd best in the world, which may not appear to be wonderful compared to the United States (where there is no comparison due to above reasons), but is significant on the world stage.

[flamingninja777]

Its called France dumb ass. Everything is free there

[Maxben]

At 1/29/08 10:33 PM, flamingninja777 wrote: Its called France dumb ass. Everything is free there

Good point! I didn't know about France and just checked it out.

They also have a system with partial government funding and partial private, creating a system where there are very low tuition costs, though the more prestigious the university, the more it costs.

[TNT]

You explained about your opinions and I see your point. But what about the fact that colleges are going to be more expensive each year?

[cellardoor6]

At 1/29/08 10:16 PM, Maxben wrote:

At 1/29/08 10:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Free education of that kind can't be free to the public, the failure and drop out rate in highschool would just be the same for college, wasting too much money.

As it is, we have the by far the best colleges in the world. Changing the situation would just sabotage this. If they were to make free college feasible, they'd have to cut costs, either that or raise taxes to ridiculously high levels. Cutting costs would negatively affect the quality of education.

Not a good idea.

If this is true, I still bring up Sweden.

Swedes spend almost 60% of their income on taxes...

If you want to live in a country where the government controls the majority of the wealth, then that's your thing. But America would never go for it. We enjoy a little something called financial freedom.

As the United States is larger, richer, and more powerful than Sweden, they should have an easier time implementing such a system.

1) Sweden is smaller, with a smaller population. This makes education systems a lot more easy to manage.

2) Sweden's schools are vastly inferior to US schools. American schools are by far the best in the world.

3) Even though the Swedes have free college, and we don't, the US still has higher educational attainment than Sweden.

So you bringing up free college in Sweden is hilarious, considering that despite the fact that it's not free in the US, Americans are still more likely to receive higher education.

[Maxben]

Dammit Celldoor, I always get the feel that you never read my posts to the end but pick and choose what I say.

I admitted their schools are lesser, but that is because America is a superior country economically and technologically speaking.

I also claimed that the American political ideology is very different than Swedish, so Americans will never accept it. The 60%, which I am personally fine with, is anathema to Americans (you in particular), but it has nothing to do with the merit of the idea, just personal preference.

As for less attainment in Sweden, what does that mean? The system is in place for all. If people don't use it, that is their fault. Also, that graph does not show foreign students who benefit from the Swedish system. The number has been increasing (search oecd for it if you want the actual number). And don't start speaking of foreign students in the USA, that is very different to the point (foreigners with money is still the rich).

[cellardoor6]

At 1/29/08 11:00 PM, Maxben wrote: Dammit Celldoor, I always get the feel that you never read my posts to the end but pick and choose what I say.

I don't even know who you are.

I admitted their schools are lesser

And I fortified that point, used a link, and used it against your larger argument.

but that is because America is a superior country economically and technologically speaking.

And part of this is because of our colleges.

As for less attainment in Sweden, what does that mean?

It means that using Sweden as an example of the good that free college education provides is inapplicable.

Despite the fact that their healthcare is free, and therefore supposedly more accessible, Swedes still have lesser educational attainment. Thus showing that the argument for free education on the grounds of making it more accessible is bunk.

The system is in place for all.

The system in Sweden is a highly-controlled, extension of their government. Squashing innovation, and in the meantime performing less well compared to the US as far as providing quality education to a high proportion of the population.

Our higher education is superior. In fact it's the best in the world, period.

If people don't use it, that is their fault. Also, that graph does not show foreign students who benefit from the Swedish system.

Um...

You're actually going to make the argument that we should provide cheap/free education in order to benefit people from other countries? Have fun selling that to American tax payers in the event that we might choose to socialize education.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

I'm actually going to take a completely different stance here and argue that for many people, college is actually over rated. I know a few people who are working in jobs that don't require college degrees, and most never actually use their degrees in the industry they are working in. There are many jobs that where the college degree is simply a rite of passage to get the job, with no other reason other than that the individual "proved their commitment," and they can get away with it because so many people are willing to spend 4 years of their life and put themselves into sometimes 6 figure debt just to get a job that someone out of high school could probably accomplish. This is an interesting article on the subject.

Instead, I would suggest that we rework our public education system to promote alternative educational paths. Instead of basing everything off of a college bound track and then watering it down, we should offer vocational bound tracks as well. Not everyone is college material, and even of those that are, not all of them want to go to college. We have a lack of skilled tradespeople, and this would solve a lot of problems in the process. We should also offer classes covering basic economics and business management while we are at it.

At 1/29/08 10:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Free education of that kind can't be free to the public, the failure and drop out rate in highschool would just be the same for college, wasting too much money.

I'm going to disagree somewhat. For one thing, we could limit this by making state colleges open to free enrollment while leaving private colleges alone. I'll even compromise and say that we could limit this to community colleges and allow students to transfer to four year schools to complete their degrees. In fact, my state has a program like this in place. We could also limit this program to a certain group based on academic achievement. This would help to curb a lot of the problems you mentioned

As it is, we have the by far the best colleges in the world. Changing the situation would just sabotage this. If they were to make free college feasible, they'd have to cut costs, either that or raise taxes to ridiculously high levels. Cutting costs would negatively affect the quality of education.

Again, I'm going to somewhat disagree. There are many colleges and universities that could afford to cut costs. I went to a state university , and in spite of the state budget being shot to hell, the school continues to beg for more money and raise tuition rates. While doing this, they are blowing money on brand new buildings to replace buildings that are only a few decades old, running sports programs that provide net losses into the millions, and are planning to rework the entire road system of the main campus to reroute all local traffic away from it and build a central bus depot for campus transportation.

From a tax perspective, I can't state what a program of complete free tuition would cost for everyone, especially without a study, and I will admit that even my state's program is turning out to be quite expensive. Still, I would prefer to pay taxes toward a program like this, one that enables individuals to better themselves, and scale back welfare back to the point where it is merely a last resort safety net for the few who really do need it.

At 1/29/08 10:09 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Being poor has nothing to do with education. Neither does being a drug addict, nor being a criminal (as proven by enron). It's all in the motivation. And what if those people don't get degrees in engineering and medicine? They could get art degrees and then we'd be screwed. Besides what's wrong with working your ass off to pay for college? When you're out of college you'll have to, it's good practice.

Yes, but being raised in poverty can cause a person to lack that motivation. I don't know where you lived, but I've lived in poor areas, and I've seen this first hand. Many people come to believe that they will be stuck where they are no matter what they do. A lot of this is bull, but it doesn't change the fact that they were raised to believe this and genuinely believe it nonetheless. I agree that this situation is untenable and must change, but to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't help fix it in anyway. This is part of the reason why I suggest changing the education system for non college bound tracks.

As for working hard to pay back college, I really question the wisdom of this unless you plan on going into a field where you are guaranteed to make your money back. It currently costs $20,000 for room and board at the state school I went to for one year. That is $80,000 for a four year degree without taking into account increases in tuition and costs over the four years. That is a sizeable down-payment on a house. In many areas, that would be a nearly 40% down payment.

With the amount of college graduates coming out, many of them aren't making much more to start than someone who took a much less expensive vocational course to go into a similarly paying career. Once you factor in the amount of money lost over the four years from productivity and the loans to repay, the college graduate is in the hole for several years relative to the non graduate who became went and got training a different career. Admittedly, the college graduate will have more opportunity for advancement the non-graduate, but for many graduates, that reward won't come for several years after graduation.

I'm not saying college is worthless. It isn't, and I value what I learned in school in how it shaped me as individual and how it influenced my world view, but I question the inherent value of a college education as being a guarantor of success in life. While there are still many fields where a college education is necessary to function, there are many more where it is merely rite of passage to gain entry, even though most of what you learned won't actually help you.

[Maxben]

I've got to wake up early tomorrow, so I won't get to argue with you (though it is likely you don't remember me because you argue with almost everybody on almost every topic).

I am not trying to defend my position for the American tax payers (different political culture). All I am saying is the system works and has merit.
Yes, I believe every student, native or foreigner, is important.
Yes, America is superior economically, but there are many reasons for this that are way beyond education.

At the end of the day, my larger argument had nothing to do with who gets through higher education in Sweden, but the benefits it can have in the West. Swedish culture and their view of education (which are very important factors for enrollment and attaining higher education degrees) are beyond me, but some sort of free higher education in Canada and the United States, for example, would be very useful for the lower disadvantaged classes (yes, this is a socialist idea).
The Swedish example was to show that a system is possible. And since their system is not stagnating, broken, and horrible, it is an appropriate example.

And, if at the end of the day you even manage to convince me that this system does not work (as your arguments do not as they miss the point entirely, which I hope you see), than I can always move back and say that partial government control and government intervention in the setting of tuition costs would bring the same result without compromising whatever capitalist/elitist ideals you seem to have.

I have always said that America is strong economically, technologically, militarily, and even in education, but social concerns seem to be ignored a bit too much because of overly capitalist ideals. Sacrificing some wealth for the sake of those disadvantaged seems such a foreign concept to you.

[Durin413]

Keep in mind that another problem is that as more and more people get college degrees, there is more and more competition for college educated men, particularly in fields that the degree isn't fully used (think of an English degree vs a degree in Mechanical engineering, the mech eng. degree is more likely to be NEEDED than the English degree for the job, and that pattern remains for rest of the math and science degrees vs the more liberal art ones).

Personally I believe in having trade schools, perhaps even as a substitute for the last 2 years of high school for those who desire it (the ones your old enough to drop out of). This would allow an increase of skilled labor, such as plumbers and electricians.

As for the college costs, if your good academically, chances are you can get full tuition paid, and that $20,000 a year room and board seems awfully high. Chances are you can get it for cheaper, though it may mean on campus housing and a meal plan. Also, many groups can get this from scholarships as well, particularly those who aren't white males.

And simply allowing anyone to go to college for free would decrease the quality, as money is spent on the failures instead of the serious people.

[Elfer]

At 1/29/08 10:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Free education of that kind can't be free to the public, the failure and drop out rate in highschool would just be the same for college, wasting too much money.

Agree. Post-secondary education is costly to administer, so the presence of tuition is a good financial incentive to get people to work hard and not squander the opportunity.

I'd say the best way to go about lowering the cost of tuition is to have the government regulate and subsidize tuition, rather than directly funding the schools. It seems to work fine here, and student loans aren't such a financial burden on young professionals entering the work force.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 1/30/08 01:35 AM, Durin413 wrote: Keep in mind that another problem is that as more and more people get college degrees, there is more and more competition for college educated men, particularly in fields that the degree isn't fully used (think of an English degree vs a degree in Mechanical engineering, the mech eng. degree is more likely to be NEEDED than the English degree for the job, and that pattern remains for rest of the math and science degrees vs the more liberal art ones).

Fully agreed. Certain fields will always remain more competitive and will require the actual knowledge acquired in the degree. I suppose a lot of my issue with this is in areas where the degree is used to filter out candidates even though the job requires skills that at best may have been honed better than that of a high school graduate. Too many applicants are screened out because they lack degrees, but their natural abilities may be better than those who did go to college. There are even areas in technology where this is the case. I've heard a few horror stories of comp sci grads who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag, and there are many who learned how to program because they loved doing it and do it very well as a result.

Personally I believe in having trade schools, perhaps even as a substitute for the last 2 years of high school for those who desire it (the ones your old enough to drop out of). This would allow an increase of skilled labor, such as plumbers and electricians.

Definitely agreed. In some countries, such as Japan, all of high school would actually be devoted for preparing for a vocational career for the non college bound. In fact, I'd suggest going this far over hear, because we could still teach the core curriculum but tailor it to the profession. Future electricians could learn the math necessary for both business and for practicing their craft without having to focus too much on abstract theory that most people will never use.

As for the college costs, if your good academically, chances are you can get full tuition paid, and that $20,000 a year room and board seems awfully high. Chances are you can get it for cheaper, though it may mean on campus housing and a meal plan. Also, many groups can get this from scholarships as well, particularly those who aren't white males.

Sorry about that. I meant to say $20,000 room, board, tuition, and fees. As for getting full tuition, its rarer than you think. I know a lot of people carrying around $30,000 + in debts. Certainly you can get scholarships. I just think that we should begin to question what exactly all of the time is being spent on. Historically, college was designed around the idea of learning simply for the sake of learning. It's only really in the past 100 years that its become a sort of business school, but many programs haven't caught up. I believe college is valuable for many reasons, but I also feel that the idea that college is the only path to success is one that we should seriously challenge as a culture.

And simply allowing anyone to go to college for free would decrease the quality, as money is spent on the failures instead of the serious people.

Agreed, and in some ways I feel that less people should be going to college. Unfortunately, its not so hidden secret that colleges accept people who they know will fail just to get their tuition money.

[0peth]

This would either require private or govt. funding. Socializing colleges would likely have the same cuts in corners to actually educate the students, much like elementary to HS.

So far, every socialized form of education is a rather poor form of education. I'm sure leaving something like this in the hands of the government is a bad idea. i.e.- "lower taxes, ( whispers ) and less quality education in schools".

Basically any kind of socialized, public-funded education results in a poorer standard of education.

[Imperator]

Well.....for those of you who might be thinking of grad school, a lot of those programs ARE fully funded.....at least at the Ph.D level.

Finances are the LAST thing on my mind when it comes to Ph.D programs because of this. All the good ones I've been looking at are fully funded (no tuition, stipends to cover living expenses, grants/scholarships as well).

A lot of the MA programs aren't as nice, but they're usually only a year or two anyways, even if you do have to pay.

The more you know!

[WolvenBear]

At 1/29/08 09:45 PM, T-N-T wrote: My idea is having the first 4 semesters free, so that way they can get at least an associate degree, but for the remaining semesters, yeah sure, they should pay. By doing this we won't have as many poor, druggies or criminals on the street. Our economy can improve as well, with more professionals involved in engineering, medical, etc.

There has never been a single "poor, druggie, criminal" who has ever applied for a loan and been denied.

In short: What a load of horsecrap.

Taxes, however could increase though. I understand how public schools gets their money. Taxes. The state government gives them money through our taxes, but considering the people going to college, it could go up to 10%-25%. Its expensive, but as the future goes on, it can come to the point that it saves loads of money for their kids to go to college at half the cost(if the kid wants to get a bachelors degree.

Offer proof?

This can apply to students and adults. It might sound expensive at first, but give this into some thought about it and reply back about what you think.

It sucks.

The government furthering education makes education more expensive (thus more gov't funding).

There isn't a individual in the US who can't afford an associates...period.

[Slizor]

As for less attainment in Sweden, what does that mean?

It means that using Sweden as an example of the good that free college education provides is inapplicable.

Despite the fact that their healthcare is free, and therefore supposedly more accessible, Swedes still have lesser educational attainment. Thus showing that the argument for free education on the grounds of making it more accessible is bunk.

Actually, the argument about accessibility to do with class and economic wealth, not simply to do with how many people go to University. I do wonder what the class breakdown is for the respective countries' higher education systems is.

The system is in place for all.

The system in Sweden is a highly-controlled, extension of their government. Squashing innovation, and in the meantime performing less well compared to the US as far as providing quality education to a high proportion of the population.

Our higher education is superior. In fact it's the best in the world, period.

Again, that has not been proven. What has been proven is that the very best Universities are American, but that is not necessarily reflective of your entire higher education system.

I notice that no-one has pointed out the high ranking of British Universities.

[The-evil-bucket]

At 1/29/08 09:45 PM, T-N-T wrote: Ever wondered how expensive public universities and colleges are? The cost will keep going up, and there is nothing to do about it. But considering the fact that our public schools(elementary to high school)is free to go to(thats why there is taxes), then why should we be involved in paying tons of money for our college?

College is a "higher education" system. You can still get a job with just a high-school degree, you could be a mechanic or something. College is for those people who want to get a job that requires a college degree, such as a software engineer.

My idea is having the first 4 semesters free, so that way they can get at least an associate degree, but for the remaining semesters, yeah sure, they should pay. By doing this we won't have as many poor, druggies or criminals on the street. Our economy can improve as well, with more professionals involved in engineering, medical, etc.

Yeah, sounds like a great idea, except that you're not going to go far in four semesters.

Taxes, however could increase though. I understand how public schools gets their money. Taxes. The state government gives them money through our taxes, but considering the people going to college, it could go up to 10%-25%. Its expensive, but as the future goes on, it can come to the point that it saves loads of money for their kids to go to college at half the cost(if the kid wants to get a bachelors degree.

Now hold on. This is the paragraph where you proved you're an idiot. You clearly have no idea how public schools get their money. Yes, some states give them money from taxes, and most counties do, but there's this thing called "school tax". It's how schools get most of their money, I'll dumb it down for you. If you live within the boundaries of a school district, you pay a large amount of taxes to that district, even if you don't have a kid going to school.

10-25% is a huge range in terms of taxes. And woulds these taxes go to the state, so the state can divide them up among colleges? How would they divide the money among the colleges? By students? By size?

Anyway, the government already takes more than 25% of my income from me.

Now for GPA wise, they should remain the same. It wouldn't be fair that a not so bright person ends up to Harvard and a genius going to a community college. Students should still be required to study their asses off to make it into a good university. But at least if a lower middle class family that cannot afford their very smart son to go to college at first, will have a fresh start.

Too bad the reason there are good colleges is because those colleges charge more. If colleges can't charge the students for the first four semesters and they have to get money from the state, all colleges will become more and more similar.

This can apply to students and adults. It might sound expensive at first, but give this into some thought about it and reply back about what you think.

I think you're a naive 12 year old who doesn't understand the world.

[Al6200]

I think Americans need to get realistic about how much college matters - and how they need to be majoring in a good, solid field, or at least going to grad school in said field.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/27/pf/colle ge/lucrative_degree/

So if a starting Electrical Engineer makes about 56k a year, and college costs maybe 10k a year (public) or 50k a year (private), the numbers don't work out that bad.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/30/08 06:45 AM, Al6200 wrote:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/27/pf/colle ge/lucrative_degree/

So if a starting Electrical Engineer makes about 56k a year, and college costs maybe 10k a year (public) or 50k a year (private), the numbers don't work out that bad.

I think your numbers are a bit off.

Up in New England, state University is about 17k and private can be from 36k on average to 52k(for Harvard, Yale and Brown)

But to be fair, these are businesses. Just like any other shop, they offer a service for money. They shouldn't be free.

State scholarships should be improved though and be made more available to individuals. Maybe reduce payment on State Universities for good students.

In Massachusetts for example, if one does well on the state standardized test and holds a certain GPA, they get a tuiton waiver at State University.

[joannaleigh]

Of course tuitions costs should be lowered. Education should be readily available--maybe then we wouldn't be ranked 36th in international intelligence levels. We gots to be gettin ourselves ejemacated, bra!

joannaleigh
www.whatwouldjoannado.com

[kidray76]

This is a horrible idea.

Let's face it, for a society to work, people have to be at the top and bottom. Making college "too" readily accessible would just push all the standards up making it even more difficult.

Right now, I'm doing an under graduate, and when I finish this summer, I will still need a master's just to do anything or get a decent job in my field. At the moment, it is getting to the point where to differentiate yourself eduational wise, need the next level in graduate. Matter of fact, if you have a psychology BA, can't do ANYTHING with it without a masters.

Now, if we were to do what your saying, everyone would now have masters and people would need to get PHD's or Doctorates to then differentitate yourself from the mass.

Besides, everyone isn't cut out for college. It would just be a waste of money to invest money in people who will just drop out or not finish. Enough money is wasted already in grants and scholarships. No need to waste mor emoney.

In any event, there are enough programs that people can go to if they want to continue there education. Between pell grants, special loans, scholarships and what not, if someone wants to go to school, they can do it without the government just saying "here is 2 years worth of money just for trying."

[The-evil-bucket]

If we really want more people in college, more money should be put into scholership funds, get the people who deserve college, but can't afford it, the money.

[Elfer]

They should start some sort of new scholarship fund where it's actually possible to obtain it if you're a straight white male.

[Empanado]

At 1/31/08 05:49 PM, Elfer wrote: They should start some sort of new scholarship fund where it's actually possible to obtain it if you're a straight white male.

You're full of shit! It's perfectly feasible for a straight white male to obtain a scholarship, as long as he's differently-abled, speech, sight or hearing-impaired, height-challenged or member of the so-called "little peoples", household-challenged, religiously divergent or if he holds refugee status.

Can't get a scholarship? Just become a member of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church or something.