8 ms·

It would help if people read the article. This has nothing to do with social democratic calls for government provided universal college, it's about scholarship

It would help if people read the article. This has nothing to do with social democratic calls for government provided universal college, it's about scholarship and grant programs sold as "free college" subsidies in various states in the US and how they all sort of fall short of being "free" or being "college".

gota 8y ago
Some countries have both systems. A network of public-funded universities, in which admission is controlled via standardized tests, plus private ones, in which the government subsidizes the monthly fees of many students in several ways. And both work to a satisfactory level. I'm particularly grateful of how I've been actually paid to study for the majority of my two Bachelors, my Masters and now my Doctorate. Not a lot, and without all the rights of a salaried worker, but still. The difference between debt and a small net gain (even though you may still require assistance from your family) is astounding for your mental health. Edit: just an addendum, and it might be particular to my country. Some of these private institutions are very renowned, specially regarding post-graduate courses. However, the public universities are typically considered to be the 'best' ones. As far as I can tell, the entrance exams serve as a filter of o high-quality candidates (or at least that's the consensus among professors). Another factor is that private universities have a higher share of undergraduate students that work concurrently, which impacts their performance. In any case, the relation cost (to the individual)-quality is not observable.
jefftk 8y ago
They have a summary chart: https://apps.npr.org/dailygraphics/graphics/free-college-comparison-20180905/child.html https://apps.npr.org/dailygraphics/graphics/free-college-com... It seems overly strict. For example, Maryland, Indiana, and Washington cover living costs and fees in addition to tuition for 4-year colleges, but they count it as not being "free college" because you can't use it to enroll half-time or as an adult.
- noobermin 8y ago
  I do somewhat agree, especially for the half-time, there is a discontinuous change in the amount of value of this program if it doesn't cover 4 years vs. it not covering living costs. It probably doesn't solve everything but it's much better than the lot most people in the US have with respect to college access.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Honestly, the summary chart is all most people should bother to look at here. But I don't know if the article is really claiming "it needs all these or it's not free college" so much as saying "what's offered varies a lot". I think people have pushed for free college at a national level, and the article is pointing out that the states offerings aren't consistent. Also, bear in mind that covering older students or half-time students is a big deal: Most lower income families may not be able to full-time school, and may not have gotten the chance to go as soon as they graduated high school, particularly if these programs weren't available at that time. Considering living cost coverage being the other least common component, not being able to work and go to class at the same time is a big deal.
- psalminen 8y ago
  I find the criterion of no college GPA requirement above a 2.0 to be stupidly strict. IMO all should have a requirement higher than this.
  - ppseafield 8y ago
    I somewhat agree. In Georgia the HOPE scholarship used to guarantee 100% of tuition if you had a 3.0 GPA. They moved to 80% for 3.2 and above because many students took 30 hours, didn't meet the requirements, and dropped out. Although I think the numbers would have been better if the students were actually prepared to be autonomous adults and college students.
0xTJ 8y ago
My province in Canada had a program for some substantial (I think it was 30%) bursary for university. The thing is that it wasn't based off of what you pay, but rather that percentage off of a specified rate. It was about to 1/6 of my actual tuition for an engineering degree.

gota 8y ago

Some countries have both systems. A network of public-funded universities, in which admission is controlled via standardized tests, plus private ones, in which the government subsidizes the monthly fees of many students in several ways. And both work to a satisfactory level. I'm particularly grateful of how I've been actually paid to study for the majority of my two Bachelors, my Masters and now my Doctorate. Not a lot, and without all the rights of a salaried worker, but still. The difference between debt and a small net gain (even though you may still require assistance from your family) is astounding for your mental health. Edit: just an addendum, and it might be particular to my country. Some of these private institutions are very renowned, specially regarding post-graduate courses. However, the public universities are typically considered to be the 'best' ones. As far as I can tell, the entrance exams serve as a filter of o high-quality candidates (or at least that's the consensus among professors). Another factor is that private universities have a higher share of undergraduate students that work concurrently, which impacts their performance. In any case, the relation cost (to the individual)-quality is not observable.

jefftk 8y ago

They have a summary chart: https://apps.npr.org/dailygraphics/graphics/free-college-comparison-20180905/child.html https://apps.npr.org/dailygraphics/graphics/free-college-com... It seems overly strict. For example, Maryland, Indiana, and Washington cover living costs and fees in addition to tuition for 4-year colleges, but they count it as not being "free college" because you can't use it to enroll half-time or as an adult.

noobermin 8y ago
I do somewhat agree, especially for the half-time, there is a discontinuous change in the amount of value of this program if it doesn't cover 4 years vs. it not covering living costs. It probably doesn't solve everything but it's much better than the lot most people in the US have with respect to college access.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Honestly, the summary chart is all most people should bother to look at here. But I don't know if the article is really claiming "it needs all these or it's not free college" so much as saying "what's offered varies a lot". I think people have pushed for free college at a national level, and the article is pointing out that the states offerings aren't consistent. Also, bear in mind that covering older students or half-time students is a big deal: Most lower income families may not be able to full-time school, and may not have gotten the chance to go as soon as they graduated high school, particularly if these programs weren't available at that time. Considering living cost coverage being the other least common component, not being able to work and go to class at the same time is a big deal.
psalminen 8y ago
I find the criterion of no college GPA requirement above a 2.0 to be stupidly strict. IMO all should have a requirement higher than this.
- ppseafield 8y ago
  I somewhat agree. In Georgia the HOPE scholarship used to guarantee 100% of tuition if you had a 3.0 GPA. They moved to 80% for 3.2 and above because many students took 30 hours, didn't meet the requirements, and dropped out. Although I think the numbers would have been better if the students were actually prepared to be autonomous adults and college students.

0xTJ 8y ago

My province in Canada had a program for some substantial (I think it was 30%) bursary for university. The thing is that it wasn't based off of what you pay, but rather that percentage off of a specified rate. It was about to 1/6 of my actual tuition for an engineering degree.