5 ms·

This is kind of nitpicking a small point in your argument, but I've been in a lot of free-college discussions lately so I'm curious. Why do you think that an ad

This is kind of nitpicking a small point in your argument, but I've been in a lot of free-college discussions lately so I'm curious. Why do you think that an adequate GPA is the correct baseline for maintaining free tuition? GPA is dependent on so many extraneous factors such as a student's major or a department's grading scale that I feel like you would need a more fair metric. Is the cutoff simply a passing GPA (2.0), or something higher?

lolsal 8y ago
What other measure would you use to determine if education was being thoroughly and adequately transferred and learned? Space is limited in classes - a class with half of the students failing to grasp the material is of less benefit to society than a class where most of the students are grasping the material.
zitterbewegung 8y ago
When I went to college you would need a GPA of 3.0 to keep scholarships. This was also the norm for nearly every scholarship.
- vageli 8y ago
  "That's how it's always been done" is kind of lacking as an argument.
pnathan 8y ago
My arbitrarily guesstimated number would be 2.0 on a 4.0 scale. Students who scored under that at my alma mater (U of Idaho, go go State School!) really had issues of one kind or another, whether it be health, disinterest, family, etc. Over that, yes, issues occurred, but it didn't make me sideeye and wonder if they should withdraw and save themselves their time and effort. I expect other people would adjust that number. I'd probably also cut the funding for a full-time undergrad after 6 years. That number is also debatable, and I acknowledge that one could come to different numbers with solid justifications. I also would fully fund grad student tuition, room, and board, with somewhat adjusted numbers depending on the program. Note that this isn't merit-based, but a eh, you're giving it the ole college try, we're not going to defund you, along with a low-pass filter to remove pure leech behavior. IMO, one of the big issues with massive extraneous issues hitting a student is that if you withdraw without a degree, you still have the debt, but no degree to help you pay it off. The incentive is to stick around and squeeze out the degree somehow, anyhow. Which is a perverse incentive, since profs, employers, fellow students tend to prefer people who want to be there and do well. So when you drop out early, you end off in a worse financial state than if you'd not gone to college at all (modulo whatever learning you picked up). n.b., my perspective is that education is a socially provided benefit to improve society. It should not be a market good like a house or car. We all benefit from a more educated populace (and one with less debt, too!). I recognize there are other perspectives, but I think they lead to worse systemic ends.
- tnecniv 8y ago
  > I also would fully fund grad student tuition, room, and board, with somewhat adjusted numbers depending on the program. This already happens for PhD students.

lolsal 8y ago

What other measure would you use to determine if education was being thoroughly and adequately transferred and learned? Space is limited in classes - a class with half of the students failing to grasp the material is of less benefit to society than a class where most of the students are grasping the material.

zitterbewegung 8y ago

When I went to college you would need a GPA of 3.0 to keep scholarships. This was also the norm for nearly every scholarship.

vageli 8y ago
"That's how it's always been done" is kind of lacking as an argument.

pnathan 8y ago

My arbitrarily guesstimated number would be 2.0 on a 4.0 scale. Students who scored under that at my alma mater (U of Idaho, go go State School!) really had issues of one kind or another, whether it be health, disinterest, family, etc. Over that, yes, issues occurred, but it didn't make me sideeye and wonder if they should withdraw and save themselves their time and effort. I expect other people would adjust that number. I'd probably also cut the funding for a full-time undergrad after 6 years. That number is also debatable, and I acknowledge that one could come to different numbers with solid justifications. I also would fully fund grad student tuition, room, and board, with somewhat adjusted numbers depending on the program. Note that this isn't merit-based, but a eh, you're giving it the ole college try, we're not going to defund you, along with a low-pass filter to remove pure leech behavior. IMO, one of the big issues with massive extraneous issues hitting a student is that if you withdraw without a degree, you still have the debt, but no degree to help you pay it off. The incentive is to stick around and squeeze out the degree somehow, anyhow. Which is a perverse incentive, since profs, employers, fellow students tend to prefer people who want to be there and do well. So when you drop out early, you end off in a worse financial state than if you'd not gone to college at all (modulo whatever learning you picked up). n.b., my perspective is that education is a socially provided benefit to improve society. It should not be a market good like a house or car. We all benefit from a more educated populace (and one with less debt, too!). I recognize there are other perspectives, but I think they lead to worse systemic ends.

tnecniv 8y ago
> I also would fully fund grad student tuition, room, and board, with somewhat adjusted numbers depending on the program. This already happens for PhD students.