12 ms·

What about... offering college for free like the rest of the modern world? Then you would only have to worry about living costs and those loans are pretty smal

What about... offering college for free like the rest of the modern world? Then you would only have to worry about living costs and those loans are pretty small. I could pay off mine in like 4-5 years if I really wanted to. Plus, then people still could get an education even if their parents didn't save up for you. What about as a society/culture you start telling people that the country should offer education for free instead of not getting educated? EDIT: For the butthurt americans, I don't mean that your country isn't modern and I understand that not every country even in europe offer free education. I just think a modern country should offer free education as they offer free roads to travel on. It works great in every country that has it, why do you think the US would suffer if you started doing the same?

mncolinlee 9y ago
We already provide free college to the best performing students and those students very likely achieve much higher ROI. I benefitted from a four-year tuition, room, and board scholarship from my college, as did my brother and sister from theirs. However, only a fraction of a percent receives academic scholarships and a good portion of scholarships go to star athletes instead. The German system is nearly comparable. Only 10% of Germans are accepted to Gymnasiums followed by Universitat. If you test highly enough to qualify there, your college is free. Other students get free trade school. Perhaps America should expand scholarships to more students instead of eliminating them along with other cuts? We seem to have far too much money for sports programs and war while cutting everything else. I've never seen any highly-placed leaders propose that war plans involve a cost-benefit analysis or that cuts should go to the men's football team.
- staticelf 9y ago
  There could be tons of reasons on why you would score badly in your younger years. That shouldn't mean that you should be excluded from a chance to college IMO. I performed pretty badly before my high school (gymnasium) but after that I performed well as I found what I was interested in. But I didn't have like the best scores but I still have a good education in IT and works as a competent programmer today. Perhaps I wouldn't be as successful if college weren't free in my country. It's just stupid not to offer college for free. A less educated population leads to bad things. Just see who the US president is.
  - joepvd 9y ago
    > Just see who the US president is. Think it is time to update Godwin's Law.
  - anon182429 9y ago
    You're not excluded, you just have to pay because you didn't prove you were responsible. I don't see how that is a problem. I don't want to pay for the idiots in my classes who would show up late, cheat off others, and obviously not care during highschool. They don't deserve to take my money and waste it on a very expensive education.
- ant6n 9y ago
  In Germany, about 1/3 of students finish with a High School degree that allows them to go to University (https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/235973/umfrage/schulabsolventen-abgaenger-in-deutschland-nach-abschlussart/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/235973/umfrag...)
- Steeeve 9y ago
  > a good portion of scholarships go to star athletes instead. That's simply not true. There are vastly more academic scholarships available than athletic scholarships. Athletic scholarships are regulated and limited to ensure that all schools can compete on even ground for student athletes. Even if you have an athlete who is a star student on academic scholarships it counts against the schools athletic limits. Aside from academic performance based funding, there is also plenty of needs based funding in the US. We have a set of standard forms that everybody who wants financial aid fills out, and a determination is made based on their personal and family financial situation as to how much financial aid they qualify for - which can come in the form of funding directly from the institution, federal and state grants, and in subsidized or guaranteed loans. It stops there for most people, but it doesn't have to. You don't _have_ to get loans, you can seek out independent scholarships, grants, and other means of financial assistance. There's something for everyone - for people who live in urban areas, for people who live in rural areas, for people with certain ethnic backgrounds, for people who represent a particular struggle or ideal, etc. etc. etc. A lot of those scholarships don't amount to much individually - $500 here, $1500 there, but even $25 is $25 that you don't have to borrow. There are frequently less expensive housing options, dining options, book options, etc. that can be taken advantage of. There are frequently options for students to earn money while in school. I don't know about german students, but I do know that Sweden has "free college" as well, and their students generally come out of school with just as much or more debt than students in the US.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- grafporno 9y ago
  > Only 10% of Germans are accepted to Gymnasiums followed by Universitat I just registered to point this out: This is completely untrue and has been for decades. Just have a look at this https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiturientenquote_und_Studienanf%C3%A4ngerquote https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiturientenquote_und_Studiena... wiki article, the table on the right should give you an idea how the development looks like, even if it's in German, the "B erechtigten, Ges." column shows the percentage of pupils that get the Abitur (the certificate that qualifies you to study at an university). It's been pretty much half of each year of pupils for a while now.
ma2rten 9y ago
like the rest of the modern world Many countries outside of Europe have tuition fees. Do we really have to label those countries as not part of the modern world?
- ecnal 9y ago
  Many countries in Europe, even. Tuition in the UK is actually higher than it is in the US, though the terms of the repayment are quite a bit more forgiving.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Free higher education and universal healthcare seems like reasonable criteria for "modern". Throw in use of the metric system for good measure(s).
  - someSven 9y ago
    That's some kind of ideology. The term modern is recognized as something positive, and then beeing used as an argument. I would argue developed countries are also modern.
- bigger_cheese 9y ago
  I graduated from university in Australia 10 years ago. At the time I did not have to pay anything upfront but I did accrue a debt while I was studying. The cost for me studying Engineering was ~$750 per subject (8 Subjects a year * 4 year degree = $24K debt at graduation). The entire debt was interest free and repaid out of my tax return once I started full time work (i.e. I effectively paid higher tax rate until I had paid off my university debt). The expensive part in Australia is not cost of university. It is all the living expenses and other costs while you are studying (rent, food, transport etc.) In some cities like Sydney cost of living is stupidly high especially compared to low wages you'd get doing typical student work (waiting tables, bar tending etc).
  - ruste 9y ago
    A significant chunk of the massive numbers people are throwing around talking about the cost of college comes from living expenses.
fortytw2 9y ago
Who pays for "free" things?
- geodel 9y ago
  Financial wizardry which can make other countries/continents pay in terms of trade or services regulations.
salesguy222 9y ago
Nothing is free in life except sunlight. Colleges employ people and build buildings and have ongoing costs. Taxpayer money would need to be used to pay for this, and that money must have continued value, otherwise no amount of money would actually get the job done (see Venezuela) Not everyone learns valuable skills at college. You have to watch out for conflating "learning valuable skills" with "occupying space on a college campus."
- Clubber 9y ago
  That's not true. If it nets a return greater than the costs, then the costs don't "cost" anything. Think of it this way: do you think having a large college educated population is a net good or a net bad for the US?
  - dontJudge 9y ago
    Net bad. Too many degrees reduce their value in the market with poor job prospects. The extra years of education does not create an enlightened utopia.
  - salesguy222 9y ago
    It would be a net good if the people who went to college were changed in such a way that they stopped destroying value and started creating value. That is to say, if college (more often than not) turned criminals into saints, and turned a welfare recipient into Erdos, then it would be an excellent investment for society. But there's no evidence it does this, and it doesn't even do a better job than high school. You can learn more on youtube than you do in college. So until then, it's a marketing racket that transfers state money into a few private hands- and the gov't goes around collecting for decades.
- staticelf 9y ago
  It is free for the student just as it's free for you to drive your car on the public roads to work.
  - salesguy222 9y ago
rhino369 9y ago
>What about... offering college for free like the rest of the modern world? Paying for tution with tax money doesn't make it free. If you aren't willing to invest in yourself, why should society do so? Free college tuition is a waste of resources on the upper middle class.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Doesn't that argument extend to mean that the public shouldn't fund any education? I mean what's the difference between the first ~12 years of school vs the last 2-5? Is the difference that the people are adults and no longer children (and so can be said to be responsible for themselves)?
  - ryanx435 9y ago
    The first 12 years is general knowledge: how to interact, read, write, basic knowledge, etc. Also has the purpose of acting as a binding agent for the local community: children make friends, join teams/clubs, etc. College / university is specialized knowledge that is typically used for career and social status advancement. Its helpful and has utility, but it's not necessarily required to be a functioning adult that lives in and contributes to society
  - rhino369 9y ago
    First, there must be a dividing line between when we are no longer going to pay for a persons education. 18 years old is a pretty good dividing line because that when society deems people responsible for themselves. Second, college is a good cut of because it's highly specialized education. Third, almost all the benefits are captured by the precipitant of the education. Finally, most of the country would either be unsuited or uninterested in college education. To a person breaking their back doing roofting, they might as well be buying rich kids trips to Europe instead. Not only does free college only benefit a portion of society, it benefits a portion that doesn't need a subsidy.
    - CuriouslyC 9y ago
      The point of subsidizing college is to give the person who might otherwise become a roofer the option of a more pleasant, lucrative career. Scientific and technical knowledge drives innovation. Economic growth on a per-capita basis is entirely driven by innovation. Thus scientific and technical education directly impacts your quality of life. With regards to liberal arts education, I'm inclined to agree that government subsidies may not be the best use of tax money.
ooqr 9y ago
That's still time opportunity cost for the student and merely shifts the financial burden. I'm not against a liberal education for the betterment of the person, but it's not a sound investment. We should not aim to make college free by means of government sponsorship, but rather education free or inexpensive by means of lowering the actual costs. As someone else said in this thread, certain kinds of knowledge are rather cheap to be had. Yet even so, degrees are pursued blindly by students, and hired blindly by employers. Again, there's plenty of benefit to schooling. I liked taking classes with peers, including the non-major classes (for the most part). But throwing more money at the problem is the problem.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  > We should not aim to make college free by means of government sponsorship, but rather education free or inexpensive by means of lowering the actual costs. I think that you're vastly underestimating how much money is needed to provide quality higher education. Trust me, the last thing we need is a race to the bottom when it comes to higher education.
  - ooqr 9y ago
    I'm absolutely not saying this is an easy problem. I also agree with your last point. I'm being idealistic, I know, but I'm cautious about accepting any proposed solution. I definitely see the merit in comparing the US to Europe in terms of what has worked. Even as I am cautious, I value societies willing to experiment and progress forward with solutions to problems. I'm not sure the US system is amenable to the same thing, but I'll bow out at that point and merely listen to what others have to say. What I do suspect is that the landscape is changing with regards to what jobs need a degree and how easy knowledge is to obtain.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Depends on the branch, but considering that about 10-15% of costs of college is actually faculty, and marketing is twice that, then something is going wrong.
  - ecshafer 9y ago
bko 9y ago
Sure, just convince the professors, real estate developers, janitors and everyone else involved in higher education to work for free. Otherwise, someone is paying for it. If its a bad investment, its a bad investment, whether tax payers or students pay
apsec112 9y ago
"butthurt americans" Please don't put insults like this in HN comments. Just one can ruin a whole thread.
- staticelf 9y ago
  Why? Does it offend you? People are just commenting stupid shit like "ITS NOT FREE OMG, TAX PAYERS PAY FOR IT" when it's so obvious that's exactly what I mean. Free for the student, not for the society.
  - apsec112 9y ago
    It lowers the discussion quality, it distracts from the underlying topic, and it's also against the site rules. "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
akhilcacharya 9y ago
I say a compromise with free 2-year college is a good one. Most CC's offer trades programs, the ones that don't still let students save 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost of a full bachelors.
GhostVII 9y ago
Why don't you subsidize it so it is affordable, but not free? In Canada I pay ~8k per term (and that's higher than most Canadian schools), which I think is pretty reasonable. Plus there are tuition discounts for lower income levels, so it's more affordable for them. Seems to work pretty well, I think making it free would cause people to get more useless degrees, which would just cost taxpayers money for no reason.
- ferdterguson 9y ago
  Is that plus living expenses? I went to a large 'football school' type school which was not cheap, but tuition a hair under 8K for a semester.
anon182429 9y ago
You sound like a butthurt European who lives in a fantasy land where opportunity costs and taxes don't exist. Call me in 20 years when the hordes of "migrants" steal all your wealth through these "free" programs. Then maybe you'll understand just how expensive "free" can be.
cmurf 9y ago
25% of the people in the U.S. believe in classism, and that everything is a product subject to the free market, including education. Sometimes (hand wave) it's acceptable to have very basic public versions that are free for primary and secondary education but beyond that it's socialism (and therefore evil). 25% want to get everyone at the same horse stall starting gate, and then compete. Getting to the same starting gate involves some socialism, but it's supposed to neutralize things like race, class, gender, geography. And then you compete. Those two groups are fighting which is why the political situation is why it's so acrimonious right now. And a 3rd group, 50%, maybe give a crap but they hate politics and don't get involved. Also, most of education happens at a state and local level, where political participation is pretty dreadful so you get even more extremes, and pretty much right now overwhelmingly counties in the U.S. are red/Republican states and they think already there's too much money spend on public schools, and more public money should go to private schools, i.e. make things competitive. (Hilariously, Republicans think in health care, an option to buy into Medicare to make things more competitive is evil, probably because it's evil whenever the government does something good.)
pokemongoaway 9y ago
So you're arguing that everyone should pay for it and go to it until we make it free? Why can't we argue using the reality college tuition payers have today? Instead of arguing from a fairy tale reality for high tuition payers...
- chillwaves 9y ago
  Because the argument is society reaps the benefit of an educated populace, secondly yes, everyone should pay for qualified individuals to go to college, as most or much of the civilized world does. That does not mean free college for everyone. There would still be a stringent entrance exam. It means free college for those who are qualified. Contrast that to the system now where college is seen as just another marketing device to squeeze profit out of the young and naive. This is not healthy for society and it is not sustainable. By the way, your jab about publicly funded college tuition being a "fairy tale" flies in the face of the reality of many, many, many countries. Completely unnecessary and ignorant comment.
  - somethingwitty1 9y ago
    So by keeping out the "unqualified" we continue to increase the gap between the haves and the have nots? I'm not suggesting that is your intention behind the statement, but that is the harsh reality of what will happen. A policy like this will continue to discriminate against the poor and those stuck in areas without access to decent primary/secondary education (inner-city comes to mind). Despite the numerous issues with the american primary/secondary education system, I'd imagine you'd struggle to find many arguing that making secondary education free to everyone (qualified or not) wasn't a net benefit for the US. It is my personal feeling that the entrance exams that used to exist as a barrier to secondary education were awful and unfair. Everyone should have a right to choose their direction, instead of being told you have to start a job/family. Based on the success of eliminating that barrier, I feel opening up university/college to everyone should be the goal of any civilized society.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
imesh 9y ago
Education in America is cheap, the problem is people don't go to their local school, they see college as an experience where they travel halfway across the country and stay in student housing.
- jonathankoren 9y ago
  Where do you get this impression, because it's simply not backed by any study, or even any anecdotal information? Quite the contrary, most people attend a college within 50 miles of their home[0]. [0] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/03/when-students-enroll-college-geography-matters-more-policy-makers-think https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/03/when-students...
  - imesh 9y ago
    No anecdotal information? My life? I went to the local college and graduated with less than 8k in debt and no scholarships. And that study doesn't really dispute my point, most may not, but a large percentage do, and those those who do are the ones without mountains of debt.
    - jonathankoren 9y ago
      Find a study, because "my biases are correct," isn't an argument.
- pmiller2 9y ago
  My "local school" when I was an undergrad now would cost me $30k/year to attend. Even assuming only 2 years (because the first 2 were spent at a community college, and all the credits magically transferred), that's over $60k. My parents never spent $60k on anything that didn't have a foundation and a roof.
- limeblack 9y ago
  How do you advise we fix this?
- ma2rten 9y ago
humanrebar 9y ago
> What about as a society/culture you start telling people that the country should offer education for free instead of not getting educated? Many kinds of education are cheap to free. You can learn how to make a brioche, read Chinese, cultivate roses, or write a compiler for almost nothing. It's degrees from universities that are expensive.
ferongr 9y ago
College is not "free" in the "modern world" whatever that means.
- staticelf 9y ago
  Obviously I was wrong, but it is free in many european countries. Payed for by tax payers. The same tax payers that once enjoyed a free education.
  - someSven 9y ago
    Minus the ones which went to US and other countries with lower taxes.
    - staticelf 9y ago
      Yeah sure, but far from everyone drives a car and still everyone pays for the roads. College is just one of these common goods we should all pay for.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
matthewmarkus 9y ago
The problem is that people are long education and short learning. Learning is free and useful. We should all do more of it.
- imjustsaying 9y ago
  The primary thing universities offer for jobseekers is a demonstration to an employer that a person probably learned contemporary skills in the field of their degree. They also offer licenses to join oligopolies. They are of course not the fastest way to learn. Learning quickly is a secondary or even tertiary goal. If you want to learn something the fastest, you gotta teach yourself or use a tutor.
vowelless 9y ago
On the other hand, one should wonder why college is so expensive in the US in the first place. Even without any subsidies, non-American tuition is a fraction of the cost of the big universities in the US. Why? Why are book so expensive here? Why is so much money spent on buildings, stadiums and hiring football coaches? The highest paid public employee in 39 states in the US is a college sports coach! [1] Throwing more money at this problem will hardly combat this issue (it's an issue in my opinion). [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-highest-paid-public-employee-college-coach-2016-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-highest-paid-public...
- SPBesui 9y ago
  But all you're really saying with sports coach comment is that, among people in a sector that is not profit-oriented or known for high wages, the highest paid employee is the biggest differentiator of success ("amateur" participants notwithstanding) for a lucrative entertainment business. That's not really surprising on its face.
  - pmiller2 9y ago
    Except that college sports aren't really a "lucrative entertainment business." See http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/jim-moran/moran-says-only-20-colleges-make-profit-sports/ http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/ji...
    - SPBesui 9y ago
      Agreed – see my comment lower down the thread. But even some athletic departments that are net in the red have football programs that make money on their own. Their coaches are paid market value, more or less. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=72825141901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=72825141901
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    Very few college football programs generate a profit for the school. A large majority of college football programs are propped up by mandatory student fees. College athletics is not profitable for schools with the exception of very few of them.
jimbokun 9y ago
We used to have something very close to that here in the US, with very low cost state schools. Just one of the things that has been lost in our rapid head first plunge towards third world status.
jaggi1 9y ago
> What about... offering college for free like the rest of the modern world? Free only means someone else pays for it. It is still a bad deal if you make someone else pay horrendous amount of money for a worthless degree. > What about as a society/culture you start telling people that the country should offer education for free instead of not getting educated? What you are saying is that vast majority of the people who themselves have not gone to college should be FORCED to pay for someone else's degree in French Literature ? I see that as highly immoral.
tastythrowaway2 9y ago
As a butthurt American I only have one real gripe with what you said - our roads aren't free. Our taxes pay for them. I think we need to change this mentality and acknowledge that our taxes going to something else useful is actually a net good - not 'welfare.'
- bobwaycott 9y ago
  The roads are free to travel on, as a publicly funded post-secondary education would be free to acquire. The parent was quite obviously not suggesting these things were not paid for by someone/everyone—at least not directly at time of use. Otherwise, totally agree with your last point. It's a shame we Americans, in our infinite political stupidity, devalue and denigrate tax-funded programs.
Radim 9y ago
I come from one of your "paradise European countries with free higher education" and it's astounding to me that in the 21st century, people still fall for this "free lunch" fallacy. You do realize the education is not really "free", right? That word is such a red herring. It's just tying up resources in a way YOU like, at the expense of other people's preferences. Many people here, teachers and doctors included, are deeply unhappy with what this centrally-planned-one-size-fits-all turns out to imply for their professional status and career prospects. It seems everyone is freaking about the original article, but I actually see it as positive news. The value of some good/service has been calibrated by the market and rational people are taking note. In fact, given the recent trend in (some?) US colleges (Bret Weinstein at Evergreen, Nicholas Christakis at Yale, Berkeley...), I'm surprised this break-even point hasn't occurred earlier. Too little bang for too much (tax-payer) buck.
- staticelf 9y ago
  Yes of course, I am not retarded. But you maybe don't own a car, go much to the hospital etc. but I assume you don't want to privately fund those things? Education is just one other thing that is simply good for everyone and something you shouldn't have a less opportunity in because you had the "wrong" parents. But if you're from a paradise country as you say, I assume you enjoyed your free education and now just simply shit on it for no good reason. Do you think you could've really afford it since your parents probably didn't save up? Unless you would have worked your ass of in several years and saved every dime you could not. It was probably good for you with free education, as it is good for the society.
  - Radim 9y ago
    Wrong assumptions all around. Listen, these are not novel concepts. The ideology of "grand social good trumps individual interests (and I decide what that good is)" has been tried repeatedly, around the world. Its long-term effect on human psyche and society are well documented (try some Solzenitsyn). "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." But it's always "This time is different! NOW we finally have the RIGHT social formula!!". Well, I have some bad news for you, sunshine. I'm not "shitting on education for no good reason". The efficiency tradeoffs that come with increased system complexity are real, the break-even ROI points are real. Your wishful thinking notwithstanding. Just google the people from my previous post, for god's sake.
nubian_ibex 9y ago
Americans are actually enrolling in college at a rate higher than many other developed countries. A good article in the Economist last year (which I hope to track down if I get the chance) pointed out that 6.25% of the U.S. population was enrolled in university as compared to 3.75% of Germany's population. Other developed countries do provide free and heavily subsidized higher education to their citizens, but they're also more selective in which people go on to university and typically decide which education path students will take at a young age. While I think that's a more beneficial setup as a whole I think it'd be a tough sell given the attitude the U.S. has towards higher education. I think a lot of people put a value in higher education beyond its economic return on investment. In other words, even if it's a less return on investment pursuing higher education provides the additional benefit of avoiding the stigma of not having a degree. In my ideal world, the U.S. would offer much greater subsidies to attend university but at the same time be much more selective with who gets into universities to begin with. That, coupled with better connecting high school juniors and seniors into technical education paths.

mncolinlee 9y ago

We already provide free college to the best performing students and those students very likely achieve much higher ROI. I benefitted from a four-year tuition, room, and board scholarship from my college, as did my brother and sister from theirs. However, only a fraction of a percent receives academic scholarships and a good portion of scholarships go to star athletes instead. The German system is nearly comparable. Only 10% of Germans are accepted to Gymnasiums followed by Universitat. If you test highly enough to qualify there, your college is free. Other students get free trade school. Perhaps America should expand scholarships to more students instead of eliminating them along with other cuts? We seem to have far too much money for sports programs and war while cutting everything else. I've never seen any highly-placed leaders propose that war plans involve a cost-benefit analysis or that cuts should go to the men's football team.

staticelf 9y ago
There could be tons of reasons on why you would score badly in your younger years. That shouldn't mean that you should be excluded from a chance to college IMO. I performed pretty badly before my high school (gymnasium) but after that I performed well as I found what I was interested in. But I didn't have like the best scores but I still have a good education in IT and works as a competent programmer today. Perhaps I wouldn't be as successful if college weren't free in my country. It's just stupid not to offer college for free. A less educated population leads to bad things. Just see who the US president is.
- joepvd 9y ago
  > Just see who the US president is. Think it is time to update Godwin's Law.
- anon182429 9y ago
  You're not excluded, you just have to pay because you didn't prove you were responsible. I don't see how that is a problem. I don't want to pay for the idiots in my classes who would show up late, cheat off others, and obviously not care during highschool. They don't deserve to take my money and waste it on a very expensive education.
ant6n 9y ago
In Germany, about 1/3 of students finish with a High School degree that allows them to go to University (https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/235973/umfrage/schulabsolventen-abgaenger-in-deutschland-nach-abschlussart/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/235973/umfrag...)
Steeeve 9y ago
> a good portion of scholarships go to star athletes instead. That's simply not true. There are vastly more academic scholarships available than athletic scholarships. Athletic scholarships are regulated and limited to ensure that all schools can compete on even ground for student athletes. Even if you have an athlete who is a star student on academic scholarships it counts against the schools athletic limits. Aside from academic performance based funding, there is also plenty of needs based funding in the US. We have a set of standard forms that everybody who wants financial aid fills out, and a determination is made based on their personal and family financial situation as to how much financial aid they qualify for - which can come in the form of funding directly from the institution, federal and state grants, and in subsidized or guaranteed loans. It stops there for most people, but it doesn't have to. You don't _have_ to get loans, you can seek out independent scholarships, grants, and other means of financial assistance. There's something for everyone - for people who live in urban areas, for people who live in rural areas, for people with certain ethnic backgrounds, for people who represent a particular struggle or ideal, etc. etc. etc. A lot of those scholarships don't amount to much individually - $500 here, $1500 there, but even $25 is $25 that you don't have to borrow. There are frequently less expensive housing options, dining options, book options, etc. that can be taken advantage of. There are frequently options for students to earn money while in school. I don't know about german students, but I do know that Sweden has "free college" as well, and their students generally come out of school with just as much or more debt than students in the US.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
grafporno 9y ago
> Only 10% of Germans are accepted to Gymnasiums followed by Universitat I just registered to point this out: This is completely untrue and has been for decades. Just have a look at this https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiturientenquote_und_Studienanf%C3%A4ngerquote https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiturientenquote_und_Studiena... wiki article, the table on the right should give you an idea how the development looks like, even if it's in German, the "B erechtigten, Ges." column shows the percentage of pupils that get the Abitur (the certificate that qualifies you to study at an university). It's been pretty much half of each year of pupils for a while now.

ma2rten 9y ago

like the rest of the modern world Many countries outside of Europe have tuition fees. Do we really have to label those countries as not part of the modern world?

ecnal 9y ago
Many countries in Europe, even. Tuition in the UK is actually higher than it is in the US, though the terms of the repayment are quite a bit more forgiving.
alkonaut 9y ago
Free higher education and universal healthcare seems like reasonable criteria for "modern". Throw in use of the metric system for good measure(s).
- someSven 9y ago
  That's some kind of ideology. The term modern is recognized as something positive, and then beeing used as an argument. I would argue developed countries are also modern.
bigger_cheese 9y ago
I graduated from university in Australia 10 years ago. At the time I did not have to pay anything upfront but I did accrue a debt while I was studying. The cost for me studying Engineering was ~$750 per subject (8 Subjects a year * 4 year degree = $24K debt at graduation). The entire debt was interest free and repaid out of my tax return once I started full time work (i.e. I effectively paid higher tax rate until I had paid off my university debt). The expensive part in Australia is not cost of university. It is all the living expenses and other costs while you are studying (rent, food, transport etc.) In some cities like Sydney cost of living is stupidly high especially compared to low wages you'd get doing typical student work (waiting tables, bar tending etc).
- ruste 9y ago
  A significant chunk of the massive numbers people are throwing around talking about the cost of college comes from living expenses.

fortytw2 9y ago

Who pays for "free" things?

geodel 9y ago
Financial wizardry which can make other countries/continents pay in terms of trade or services regulations.

salesguy222 9y ago

Nothing is free in life except sunlight. Colleges employ people and build buildings and have ongoing costs. Taxpayer money would need to be used to pay for this, and that money must have continued value, otherwise no amount of money would actually get the job done (see Venezuela) Not everyone learns valuable skills at college. You have to watch out for conflating "learning valuable skills" with "occupying space on a college campus."

Clubber 9y ago
That's not true. If it nets a return greater than the costs, then the costs don't "cost" anything. Think of it this way: do you think having a large college educated population is a net good or a net bad for the US?
- dontJudge 9y ago
  Net bad. Too many degrees reduce their value in the market with poor job prospects. The extra years of education does not create an enlightened utopia.
- salesguy222 9y ago
  It would be a net good if the people who went to college were changed in such a way that they stopped destroying value and started creating value. That is to say, if college (more often than not) turned criminals into saints, and turned a welfare recipient into Erdos, then it would be an excellent investment for society. But there's no evidence it does this, and it doesn't even do a better job than high school. You can learn more on youtube than you do in college. So until then, it's a marketing racket that transfers state money into a few private hands- and the gov't goes around collecting for decades.
staticelf 9y ago
It is free for the student just as it's free for you to drive your car on the public roads to work.
- salesguy222 9y ago

rhino369 9y ago

>What about... offering college for free like the rest of the modern world? Paying for tution with tax money doesn't make it free. If you aren't willing to invest in yourself, why should society do so? Free college tuition is a waste of resources on the upper middle class.

alkonaut 9y ago
Doesn't that argument extend to mean that the public shouldn't fund any education? I mean what's the difference between the first ~12 years of school vs the last 2-5? Is the difference that the people are adults and no longer children (and so can be said to be responsible for themselves)?
- ryanx435 9y ago
  The first 12 years is general knowledge: how to interact, read, write, basic knowledge, etc. Also has the purpose of acting as a binding agent for the local community: children make friends, join teams/clubs, etc. College / university is specialized knowledge that is typically used for career and social status advancement. Its helpful and has utility, but it's not necessarily required to be a functioning adult that lives in and contributes to society
- rhino369 9y ago
  First, there must be a dividing line between when we are no longer going to pay for a persons education. 18 years old is a pretty good dividing line because that when society deems people responsible for themselves. Second, college is a good cut of because it's highly specialized education. Third, almost all the benefits are captured by the precipitant of the education. Finally, most of the country would either be unsuited or uninterested in college education. To a person breaking their back doing roofting, they might as well be buying rich kids trips to Europe instead. Not only does free college only benefit a portion of society, it benefits a portion that doesn't need a subsidy.
  - CuriouslyC 9y ago
    The point of subsidizing college is to give the person who might otherwise become a roofer the option of a more pleasant, lucrative career. Scientific and technical knowledge drives innovation. Economic growth on a per-capita basis is entirely driven by innovation. Thus scientific and technical education directly impacts your quality of life. With regards to liberal arts education, I'm inclined to agree that government subsidies may not be the best use of tax money.

ooqr 9y ago

That's still time opportunity cost for the student and merely shifts the financial burden. I'm not against a liberal education for the betterment of the person, but it's not a sound investment. We should not aim to make college free by means of government sponsorship, but rather education free or inexpensive by means of lowering the actual costs. As someone else said in this thread, certain kinds of knowledge are rather cheap to be had. Yet even so, degrees are pursued blindly by students, and hired blindly by employers. Again, there's plenty of benefit to schooling. I liked taking classes with peers, including the non-major classes (for the most part). But throwing more money at the problem is the problem.

Cyph0n 9y ago
> We should not aim to make college free by means of government sponsorship, but rather education free or inexpensive by means of lowering the actual costs. I think that you're vastly underestimating how much money is needed to provide quality higher education. Trust me, the last thing we need is a race to the bottom when it comes to higher education.
- ooqr 9y ago
  I'm absolutely not saying this is an easy problem. I also agree with your last point. I'm being idealistic, I know, but I'm cautious about accepting any proposed solution. I definitely see the merit in comparing the US to Europe in terms of what has worked. Even as I am cautious, I value societies willing to experiment and progress forward with solutions to problems. I'm not sure the US system is amenable to the same thing, but I'll bow out at that point and merely listen to what others have to say. What I do suspect is that the landscape is changing with regards to what jobs need a degree and how easy knowledge is to obtain.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Depends on the branch, but considering that about 10-15% of costs of college is actually faculty, and marketing is twice that, then something is going wrong.
- ecshafer 9y ago

bko 9y ago

Sure, just convince the professors, real estate developers, janitors and everyone else involved in higher education to work for free. Otherwise, someone is paying for it. If its a bad investment, its a bad investment, whether tax payers or students pay

apsec112 9y ago

"butthurt americans" Please don't put insults like this in HN comments. Just one can ruin a whole thread.

staticelf 9y ago
Why? Does it offend you? People are just commenting stupid shit like "ITS NOT FREE OMG, TAX PAYERS PAY FOR IT" when it's so obvious that's exactly what I mean. Free for the student, not for the society.
- apsec112 9y ago
  It lowers the discussion quality, it distracts from the underlying topic, and it's also against the site rules. "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

akhilcacharya 9y ago

I say a compromise with free 2-year college is a good one. Most CC's offer trades programs, the ones that don't still let students save 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost of a full bachelors.

GhostVII 9y ago

Why don't you subsidize it so it is affordable, but not free? In Canada I pay ~8k per term (and that's higher than most Canadian schools), which I think is pretty reasonable. Plus there are tuition discounts for lower income levels, so it's more affordable for them. Seems to work pretty well, I think making it free would cause people to get more useless degrees, which would just cost taxpayers money for no reason.

ferdterguson 9y ago
Is that plus living expenses? I went to a large 'football school' type school which was not cheap, but tuition a hair under 8K for a semester.

anon182429 9y ago

You sound like a butthurt European who lives in a fantasy land where opportunity costs and taxes don't exist. Call me in 20 years when the hordes of "migrants" steal all your wealth through these "free" programs. Then maybe you'll understand just how expensive "free" can be.

cmurf 9y ago

25% of the people in the U.S. believe in classism, and that everything is a product subject to the free market, including education. Sometimes (hand wave) it's acceptable to have very basic public versions that are free for primary and secondary education but beyond that it's socialism (and therefore evil). 25% want to get everyone at the same horse stall starting gate, and then compete. Getting to the same starting gate involves some socialism, but it's supposed to neutralize things like race, class, gender, geography. And then you compete. Those two groups are fighting which is why the political situation is why it's so acrimonious right now. And a 3rd group, 50%, maybe give a crap but they hate politics and don't get involved. Also, most of education happens at a state and local level, where political participation is pretty dreadful so you get even more extremes, and pretty much right now overwhelmingly counties in the U.S. are red/Republican states and they think already there's too much money spend on public schools, and more public money should go to private schools, i.e. make things competitive. (Hilariously, Republicans think in health care, an option to buy into Medicare to make things more competitive is evil, probably because it's evil whenever the government does something good.)

pokemongoaway 9y ago

So you're arguing that everyone should pay for it and go to it until we make it free? Why can't we argue using the reality college tuition payers have today? Instead of arguing from a fairy tale reality for high tuition payers...

chillwaves 9y ago
Because the argument is society reaps the benefit of an educated populace, secondly yes, everyone should pay for qualified individuals to go to college, as most or much of the civilized world does. That does not mean free college for everyone. There would still be a stringent entrance exam. It means free college for those who are qualified. Contrast that to the system now where college is seen as just another marketing device to squeeze profit out of the young and naive. This is not healthy for society and it is not sustainable. By the way, your jab about publicly funded college tuition being a "fairy tale" flies in the face of the reality of many, many, many countries. Completely unnecessary and ignorant comment.
- somethingwitty1 9y ago
  So by keeping out the "unqualified" we continue to increase the gap between the haves and the have nots? I'm not suggesting that is your intention behind the statement, but that is the harsh reality of what will happen. A policy like this will continue to discriminate against the poor and those stuck in areas without access to decent primary/secondary education (inner-city comes to mind). Despite the numerous issues with the american primary/secondary education system, I'd imagine you'd struggle to find many arguing that making secondary education free to everyone (qualified or not) wasn't a net benefit for the US. It is my personal feeling that the entrance exams that used to exist as a barrier to secondary education were awful and unfair. Everyone should have a right to choose their direction, instead of being told you have to start a job/family. Based on the success of eliminating that barrier, I feel opening up university/college to everyone should be the goal of any civilized society.
  - alkonaut 9y ago

imesh 9y ago

Education in America is cheap, the problem is people don't go to their local school, they see college as an experience where they travel halfway across the country and stay in student housing.

jonathankoren 9y ago
Where do you get this impression, because it's simply not backed by any study, or even any anecdotal information? Quite the contrary, most people attend a college within 50 miles of their home[0]. [0] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/03/when-students-enroll-college-geography-matters-more-policy-makers-think https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/03/when-students...
- imesh 9y ago
  No anecdotal information? My life? I went to the local college and graduated with less than 8k in debt and no scholarships. And that study doesn't really dispute my point, most may not, but a large percentage do, and those those who do are the ones without mountains of debt.
  - jonathankoren 9y ago
    Find a study, because "my biases are correct," isn't an argument.
pmiller2 9y ago
My "local school" when I was an undergrad now would cost me $30k/year to attend. Even assuming only 2 years (because the first 2 were spent at a community college, and all the credits magically transferred), that's over $60k. My parents never spent $60k on anything that didn't have a foundation and a roof.
limeblack 9y ago
How do you advise we fix this?
ma2rten 9y ago

humanrebar 9y ago

> What about as a society/culture you start telling people that the country should offer education for free instead of not getting educated? Many kinds of education are cheap to free. You can learn how to make a brioche, read Chinese, cultivate roses, or write a compiler for almost nothing. It's degrees from universities that are expensive.

ferongr 9y ago

College is not "free" in the "modern world" whatever that means.

staticelf 9y ago
Obviously I was wrong, but it is free in many european countries. Payed for by tax payers. The same tax payers that once enjoyed a free education.
- someSven 9y ago
  Minus the ones which went to US and other countries with lower taxes.
  - staticelf 9y ago
    Yeah sure, but far from everyone drives a car and still everyone pays for the roads. College is just one of these common goods we should all pay for.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

matthewmarkus 9y ago

The problem is that people are long education and short learning. Learning is free and useful. We should all do more of it.

imjustsaying 9y ago
The primary thing universities offer for jobseekers is a demonstration to an employer that a person probably learned contemporary skills in the field of their degree. They also offer licenses to join oligopolies. They are of course not the fastest way to learn. Learning quickly is a secondary or even tertiary goal. If you want to learn something the fastest, you gotta teach yourself or use a tutor.

vowelless 9y ago

On the other hand, one should wonder why college is so expensive in the US in the first place. Even without any subsidies, non-American tuition is a fraction of the cost of the big universities in the US. Why? Why are book so expensive here? Why is so much money spent on buildings, stadiums and hiring football coaches? The highest paid public employee in 39 states in the US is a college sports coach! [1] Throwing more money at this problem will hardly combat this issue (it's an issue in my opinion). [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-highest-paid-public-employee-college-coach-2016-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-highest-paid-public...

SPBesui 9y ago
But all you're really saying with sports coach comment is that, among people in a sector that is not profit-oriented or known for high wages, the highest paid employee is the biggest differentiator of success ("amateur" participants notwithstanding) for a lucrative entertainment business. That's not really surprising on its face.
- pmiller2 9y ago
  Except that college sports aren't really a "lucrative entertainment business." See http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/jim-moran/moran-says-only-20-colleges-make-profit-sports/ http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/ji...
  - SPBesui 9y ago
    Agreed – see my comment lower down the thread. But even some athletic departments that are net in the red have football programs that make money on their own. Their coaches are paid market value, more or less. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=72825141901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=72825141901
- yequalsx 9y ago
  Very few college football programs generate a profit for the school. A large majority of college football programs are propped up by mandatory student fees. College athletics is not profitable for schools with the exception of very few of them.

jimbokun 9y ago

We used to have something very close to that here in the US, with very low cost state schools. Just one of the things that has been lost in our rapid head first plunge towards third world status.

jaggi1 9y ago

> What about... offering college for free like the rest of the modern world? Free only means someone else pays for it. It is still a bad deal if you make someone else pay horrendous amount of money for a worthless degree. > What about as a society/culture you start telling people that the country should offer education for free instead of not getting educated? What you are saying is that vast majority of the people who themselves have not gone to college should be FORCED to pay for someone else's degree in French Literature ? I see that as highly immoral.

tastythrowaway2 9y ago

As a butthurt American I only have one real gripe with what you said - our roads aren't free. Our taxes pay for them. I think we need to change this mentality and acknowledge that our taxes going to something else useful is actually a net good - not 'welfare.'

bobwaycott 9y ago
The roads are free to travel on, as a publicly funded post-secondary education would be free to acquire. The parent was quite obviously not suggesting these things were not paid for by someone/everyone—at least not directly at time of use. Otherwise, totally agree with your last point. It's a shame we Americans, in our infinite political stupidity, devalue and denigrate tax-funded programs.

Radim 9y ago

I come from one of your "paradise European countries with free higher education" and it's astounding to me that in the 21st century, people still fall for this "free lunch" fallacy. You do realize the education is not really "free", right? That word is such a red herring. It's just tying up resources in a way YOU like, at the expense of other people's preferences. Many people here, teachers and doctors included, are deeply unhappy with what this centrally-planned-one-size-fits-all turns out to imply for their professional status and career prospects. It seems everyone is freaking about the original article, but I actually see it as positive news. The value of some good/service has been calibrated by the market and rational people are taking note. In fact, given the recent trend in (some?) US colleges (Bret Weinstein at Evergreen, Nicholas Christakis at Yale, Berkeley...), I'm surprised this break-even point hasn't occurred earlier. Too little bang for too much (tax-payer) buck.

staticelf 9y ago
Yes of course, I am not retarded. But you maybe don't own a car, go much to the hospital etc. but I assume you don't want to privately fund those things? Education is just one other thing that is simply good for everyone and something you shouldn't have a less opportunity in because you had the "wrong" parents. But if you're from a paradise country as you say, I assume you enjoyed your free education and now just simply shit on it for no good reason. Do you think you could've really afford it since your parents probably didn't save up? Unless you would have worked your ass of in several years and saved every dime you could not. It was probably good for you with free education, as it is good for the society.
- Radim 9y ago
  Wrong assumptions all around. Listen, these are not novel concepts. The ideology of "grand social good trumps individual interests (and I decide what that good is)" has been tried repeatedly, around the world. Its long-term effect on human psyche and society are well documented (try some Solzenitsyn). "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." But it's always "This time is different! NOW we finally have the RIGHT social formula!!". Well, I have some bad news for you, sunshine. I'm not "shitting on education for no good reason". The efficiency tradeoffs that come with increased system complexity are real, the break-even ROI points are real. Your wishful thinking notwithstanding. Just google the people from my previous post, for god's sake.

nubian_ibex 9y ago

Americans are actually enrolling in college at a rate higher than many other developed countries. A good article in the Economist last year (which I hope to track down if I get the chance) pointed out that 6.25% of the U.S. population was enrolled in university as compared to 3.75% of Germany's population. Other developed countries do provide free and heavily subsidized higher education to their citizens, but they're also more selective in which people go on to university and typically decide which education path students will take at a young age. While I think that's a more beneficial setup as a whole I think it'd be a tough sell given the attitude the U.S. has towards higher education. I think a lot of people put a value in higher education beyond its economic return on investment. In other words, even if it's a less return on investment pursuing higher education provides the additional benefit of avoiding the stigma of not having a degree. In my ideal world, the U.S. would offer much greater subsidies to attend university but at the same time be much more selective with who gets into universities to begin with. That, coupled with better connecting high school juniors and seniors into technical education paths.