6 ms·

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? In

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
    Free higher education is usually seen as the biggest helper of social mobility. In the US there is one more fundamental issue that needs to be addressed: the use of local school funding in school districts. Had schools been properly funded with more funds going to schools that need more resources (I.e schools where parents don't have higher education get more money per student than schools where they do) then having grades/tests as a qualification for free can be done without discriminating.
    - madengr 9y ago
      Spending more does not help. Spending per pupil in Washington, DC is possibly the highest in the nation, with the most abysmal performance.
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        > Spending more does not help. Spending per pupil in Washington, DC is possibly the highest in the nation, with the most abysmal performance. Perhaps even more needs to be spent, or the money is spent the wrong way? It would otherwise seem as though DC students are impossible to teach - which seems odd.
        pokemongoaway 9y ago
        This seems like a very common line of thinking on the "liberal" & "democrat" side of the "debates." That in situations that already have money being spent on them - and are not going to plan - all of the best solutions involve spending more...
        alkonaut 9y ago
        The solution might be spending differently or changing other things that are budget neutral, such as the curriculum. But in 90% of cases throwing money at it will help most problems a politician will face. More teachers or better teachers is doable without more money but it's hard. That means you need better school administrators that will attract and develop good teachers - but it's the same argument again - how will you get those? The objection might be that it's not the most efficient use of money - which depending on your political views might be more or less terrible.
- jrs95 9y ago
  But is the benefit society gets from a college educated populace really worth the cost? I feel like there are a decent number of degree programs which we would never get a return on our investment for subsidizing, so making it free for studying any topic seems foolish. Plus, job specific training could be just as good or better than a 4 year degree in many cases, and that would take far less time and be much cheaper.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Yes, the goal should be to offer university as an option to already well educated 17 year olds. (rather than the creeping credentialism we choose now)
  - somethingwitty1 9y ago
    It depends on what we feel is beneficial to society. Is financial return the only thing we should care about? I'm not a philosopher/artist, etc, but I feel they are important to society, regardless of whether they generate financial gain. We should be providing as many opportunities as possible, not putting financial barriers on education. These are the similar arguments that went on in the late 1800's and well into the 1900's. Society (at that time) determined it was not beneficial or better to simply do job-specific training. So they opened up secondary education to everyone, for free. I'm happy they did and feel it was great for society, despite the cost. I'd like to believe we've progressed enough as a society to open the next levels of education to everyone as well. It doesn't mean it is right for everyone, but the individual should be able to choose. They shouldn't be barred because they don't have money or the right activities on their transcript.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      In this case, I do think it's what we ought to care about. We have serious problems related to job skills and underemployment that need to be addressed far more than philosophy/art/etc needs to be subsidized. I'm especially opposed to just flooding our existing institutions with money, since they seem poorly equipped to deliver what's needed economically for either their students or for society in general. We could do a much better job of improving education by reforming K-12 than we could by just pumping money into our higher education system imo
- stale2002 9y ago
  Having an educated population certainly has societal benefits. But there is more than one way to become educated. I am not convinced that college is the most cost effective method of producing an educated population.
- pokemongoaway 9y ago
  This logic requires your definition of educational systems to be inherently beneficial and also financially a net-win for graduates. If you turn this around and say that educational systems don't always produce better workers than the self-taught and the apprentices, then we must say they are not necessarily "better than nothing." Which is why it is super reasonable for many of us not to want our tax money going to them!
staticelf 9y ago
I think the best solution for individuals in the US is to move to an european country, stay there and work until you get some kind of permenant stay visa or citizenship so you can enter college for free. That usually do not take long for americans. If you have kids you can do it when they're small so they are ready for university when they come of age.
- lazaroclapp 9y ago
  Hell, a few countries will provide tuition free education for foreign nationals too. The challenge is that Americans interested in that will have to prepare the corresponding entrance exams instead or in addition to SATs and have sufficient language proficiency. I knew students back in Mexico preparing for their Abitur exams for Germany at the end of high school (in all fairness, they were coming from bilingual private high school, which is a extreme luxury in Mexico, but still way below what college tuition in the U.S. looks like at most research universities...).
- pmiller2 9y ago
  Isn't it rather difficult for a non-EU citizen to become employed in EU member states?
  - netsharc 9y ago
    Look up "blue card scheme". If you have a university degree, and you interview somewhere and get the job, and your salary will be over 1.5x average national gross salary (In Germany this calculates to around 39KEUR/year), you will get a residence permit, none of this "is there an EU citizen qualified for the same job" check. As for the salary, I can only say a German computer science graduate being offered a real programming job would probably laugh at anything below 45K, and is looking at around 50K. After tax this comes to around 30K/year (don't quote me on this number), which will be enough to live if you're single, for more costs of living you can check numbeo.com
    - pmiller2 9y ago
      >If you have a university degree.... Um, the post I was responding to mentioned getting residency in Europe in order to take advantage of the university system, so....

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
  Free higher education is usually seen as the biggest helper of social mobility. In the US there is one more fundamental issue that needs to be addressed: the use of local school funding in school districts. Had schools been properly funded with more funds going to schools that need more resources (I.e schools where parents don't have higher education get more money per student than schools where they do) then having grades/tests as a qualification for free can be done without discriminating.
  - madengr 9y ago
    Spending more does not help. Spending per pupil in Washington, DC is possibly the highest in the nation, with the most abysmal performance.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      > Spending more does not help. Spending per pupil in Washington, DC is possibly the highest in the nation, with the most abysmal performance. Perhaps even more needs to be spent, or the money is spent the wrong way? It would otherwise seem as though DC students are impossible to teach - which seems odd.
      - pokemongoaway 9y ago
        This seems like a very common line of thinking on the "liberal" & "democrat" side of the "debates." That in situations that already have money being spent on them - and are not going to plan - all of the best solutions involve spending more...
        alkonaut 9y ago
        The solution might be spending differently or changing other things that are budget neutral, such as the curriculum. But in 90% of cases throwing money at it will help most problems a politician will face. More teachers or better teachers is doable without more money but it's hard. That means you need better school administrators that will attract and develop good teachers - but it's the same argument again - how will you get those? The objection might be that it's not the most efficient use of money - which depending on your political views might be more or less terrible.
jrs95 9y ago
But is the benefit society gets from a college educated populace really worth the cost? I feel like there are a decent number of degree programs which we would never get a return on our investment for subsidizing, so making it free for studying any topic seems foolish. Plus, job specific training could be just as good or better than a 4 year degree in many cases, and that would take far less time and be much cheaper.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Yes, the goal should be to offer university as an option to already well educated 17 year olds. (rather than the creeping credentialism we choose now)
- somethingwitty1 9y ago
  It depends on what we feel is beneficial to society. Is financial return the only thing we should care about? I'm not a philosopher/artist, etc, but I feel they are important to society, regardless of whether they generate financial gain. We should be providing as many opportunities as possible, not putting financial barriers on education. These are the similar arguments that went on in the late 1800's and well into the 1900's. Society (at that time) determined it was not beneficial or better to simply do job-specific training. So they opened up secondary education to everyone, for free. I'm happy they did and feel it was great for society, despite the cost. I'd like to believe we've progressed enough as a society to open the next levels of education to everyone as well. It doesn't mean it is right for everyone, but the individual should be able to choose. They shouldn't be barred because they don't have money or the right activities on their transcript.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    In this case, I do think it's what we ought to care about. We have serious problems related to job skills and underemployment that need to be addressed far more than philosophy/art/etc needs to be subsidized. I'm especially opposed to just flooding our existing institutions with money, since they seem poorly equipped to deliver what's needed economically for either their students or for society in general. We could do a much better job of improving education by reforming K-12 than we could by just pumping money into our higher education system imo
stale2002 9y ago
Having an educated population certainly has societal benefits. But there is more than one way to become educated. I am not convinced that college is the most cost effective method of producing an educated population.
pokemongoaway 9y ago
This logic requires your definition of educational systems to be inherently beneficial and also financially a net-win for graduates. If you turn this around and say that educational systems don't always produce better workers than the self-taught and the apprentices, then we must say they are not necessarily "better than nothing." Which is why it is super reasonable for many of us not to want our tax money going to them!

staticelf 9y ago

I think the best solution for individuals in the US is to move to an european country, stay there and work until you get some kind of permenant stay visa or citizenship so you can enter college for free. That usually do not take long for americans. If you have kids you can do it when they're small so they are ready for university when they come of age.

lazaroclapp 9y ago
Hell, a few countries will provide tuition free education for foreign nationals too. The challenge is that Americans interested in that will have to prepare the corresponding entrance exams instead or in addition to SATs and have sufficient language proficiency. I knew students back in Mexico preparing for their Abitur exams for Germany at the end of high school (in all fairness, they were coming from bilingual private high school, which is a extreme luxury in Mexico, but still way below what college tuition in the U.S. looks like at most research universities...).
pmiller2 9y ago
Isn't it rather difficult for a non-EU citizen to become employed in EU member states?
- netsharc 9y ago
  Look up "blue card scheme". If you have a university degree, and you interview somewhere and get the job, and your salary will be over 1.5x average national gross salary (In Germany this calculates to around 39KEUR/year), you will get a residence permit, none of this "is there an EU citizen qualified for the same job" check. As for the salary, I can only say a German computer science graduate being offered a real programming job would probably laugh at anything below 45K, and is looking at around 50K. After tax this comes to around 30K/year (don't quote me on this number), which will be enough to live if you're single, for more costs of living you can check numbeo.com
  - pmiller2 9y ago
    >If you have a university degree.... Um, the post I was responding to mentioned getting residency in Europe in order to take advantage of the university system, so....