6 ms·

> This is why I'm so skeptical of the "free college" rhetoric I assume by "this" you are refering to the OP's statement that "This is what happens when there's

> This is why I'm so skeptical of the "free college" rhetoric I assume by "this" you are refering to the OP's statement that "This is what happens when there's 0 pressure on universities to price their programs competitively." One of the idea's behind free public college is to apply market pressure to private college's, so that they have to price their programs competitively. In a risk free debt financed system, prices will rise, the same dynamic happens for both medical care and real estate. I am not sure on what basis you think this kind of system would make the problems worse. Also I am curious, are you in favor of abolishing public high school? What part of your argument against free college does not apply to free high schools? One of the many talking points behind the free college proposal is that in today's job market, a college degree has the some utility that a high school degree used to have.

freewilly1040 7y ago
I am not against free public education, and if I were starting a system from scratch I think making public universities free would be a great idea, for the reasons you point to. The current proposals as I understand them will subsidize tuition at the current, severely inflated rate, letting the colleges get away with their price gouging, and I want to see accountability there. I wonder if as an incremental step attaching cost effectiveness conditions to school's ability to accept loan funds would be better. I believe this was Obama's general approach, though I will admit I have not looked into the issue deeply.
- calhoun137 7y ago
  > The current proposals as I understand them will subsidize tuition at the current, severely inflated rate, letting the colleges get away with their price gouging This is great point in my opinion. Solving this issue in the real world is not simple, it comes down more to the political power of various competing factions than it does to coming up with a "big idea". Once you have a "big idea" (like free public college), unless your faction has sufficient political power, then how are you going to implement it? The problem is not that we are lacking big ideas that will work, there are many of them. The problem is we don't have the political power to implement a single one of them. Consider this statement from the OP: "Look no further than this chart (https://i.imgur.com/B3sVMjg.png https://i.imgur.com/B3sVMjg.png), around 2010 was when the gov started fully backing and giving the loans directly, and conveniently it's when students needs for loans skyrocketed. It's so obvious that colleges took advantage of it." Right now the gov't intervene's in public education by "fully backing and giving the loans directly". My position is that not all forms of government intervention are inherently bad, for example, the way the government intervenes in public high school is something we both agree is good. I believe that the current way the gov't intervenes in college education is deeply problematic, and that instead of completely removing the role of gov't, we should copy the model from high school which has proven to work very well.
  - didericis 7y ago
    Does the model from high school actually work that well? High schools definitely seem cheaper (though I’m not sure how much cheaper), but I don’t think high schools have as much incentive to increase performance. Regardless, I think the bigger problem here is we don’t really know what we want from colleges. They’re a status symbol, a rite of passage, a place to learn about the world, a place to try out adulthood, a place to party, a place to demonstrate intelligence, a place to learn career specific skills, and a place that promises to lift people out of poverty. Those are all very different things. I think we’d be better off if each of those goals were separated into different institutions. Colleges have become little utopian towns in which everything a young adult would want is wrapped into a single package. It’s like the space shuttle: it’s been designed by a committee that wants it to do everything. Expense and compromised performance is inevitable. I think parents, kids and employers are as much to blame as the institutions themselves. You can get a lot of what college promises from different sources for a fraction of the cost. But we don’t accept the alternatives that should be driving the cost down because college is such a deeply ingrained institution, and is considered the only onramp for most forms of success. We accept the price because we feel like we have to. The key to a good negotiation is the willingness to walk away. Until we accept that there are alternatives to the fantasy package that is modern day college, I don’t think the price will lower.
    - calhoun137 7y ago
      I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. But the education system functions as a means of enforcing class divisions and preventing economic mobility. The major issue is student debt, regardless of any other legitimate criticisms of college culture/education, this is literally the largest source of debt in America today. There is more student debt than there is real estate debt. In many ways, college has become a scam designed to entrap young people in a life time of debt servitude. We dont have to fix all the other problems with college at the same time. I am lucky to have no student loans, but most people I know are saddled with massive debt. I want to do something to help them.
      - didericis 7y ago
- leetcrew 7y ago
  I think I agree. instead of having the federal government back loans for students to attend private college, why not just double down on funding for public universities? there are already some very high quality state universities in the US where you can get a first rate education. fund these schools to the point where tuition is somewhere between $0 and $5000 a year and see how the elite private schools justify their prices.
conanbatt 7y ago
> Also I am curious, are you in favor of abolishing public high school? What part of your argument against free college does not apply to free high schools? High schools are for minors. The return/cost benefit of them is much higher, and the users of it are not responsible adults, a decision is made unto them. College is used mostly by the upper half of society, and the majority that goes to college can afford it. Taxing the populace to give the richer resources is "trickle down economics".

freewilly1040 7y ago

I am not against free public education, and if I were starting a system from scratch I think making public universities free would be a great idea, for the reasons you point to. The current proposals as I understand them will subsidize tuition at the current, severely inflated rate, letting the colleges get away with their price gouging, and I want to see accountability there. I wonder if as an incremental step attaching cost effectiveness conditions to school's ability to accept loan funds would be better. I believe this was Obama's general approach, though I will admit I have not looked into the issue deeply.

calhoun137 7y ago
> The current proposals as I understand them will subsidize tuition at the current, severely inflated rate, letting the colleges get away with their price gouging This is great point in my opinion. Solving this issue in the real world is not simple, it comes down more to the political power of various competing factions than it does to coming up with a "big idea". Once you have a "big idea" (like free public college), unless your faction has sufficient political power, then how are you going to implement it? The problem is not that we are lacking big ideas that will work, there are many of them. The problem is we don't have the political power to implement a single one of them. Consider this statement from the OP: "Look no further than this chart (https://i.imgur.com/B3sVMjg.png https://i.imgur.com/B3sVMjg.png), around 2010 was when the gov started fully backing and giving the loans directly, and conveniently it's when students needs for loans skyrocketed. It's so obvious that colleges took advantage of it." Right now the gov't intervene's in public education by "fully backing and giving the loans directly". My position is that not all forms of government intervention are inherently bad, for example, the way the government intervenes in public high school is something we both agree is good. I believe that the current way the gov't intervenes in college education is deeply problematic, and that instead of completely removing the role of gov't, we should copy the model from high school which has proven to work very well.
- didericis 7y ago
  Does the model from high school actually work that well? High schools definitely seem cheaper (though I’m not sure how much cheaper), but I don’t think high schools have as much incentive to increase performance. Regardless, I think the bigger problem here is we don’t really know what we want from colleges. They’re a status symbol, a rite of passage, a place to learn about the world, a place to try out adulthood, a place to party, a place to demonstrate intelligence, a place to learn career specific skills, and a place that promises to lift people out of poverty. Those are all very different things. I think we’d be better off if each of those goals were separated into different institutions. Colleges have become little utopian towns in which everything a young adult would want is wrapped into a single package. It’s like the space shuttle: it’s been designed by a committee that wants it to do everything. Expense and compromised performance is inevitable. I think parents, kids and employers are as much to blame as the institutions themselves. You can get a lot of what college promises from different sources for a fraction of the cost. But we don’t accept the alternatives that should be driving the cost down because college is such a deeply ingrained institution, and is considered the only onramp for most forms of success. We accept the price because we feel like we have to. The key to a good negotiation is the willingness to walk away. Until we accept that there are alternatives to the fantasy package that is modern day college, I don’t think the price will lower.
  - calhoun137 7y ago
    I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. But the education system functions as a means of enforcing class divisions and preventing economic mobility. The major issue is student debt, regardless of any other legitimate criticisms of college culture/education, this is literally the largest source of debt in America today. There is more student debt than there is real estate debt. In many ways, college has become a scam designed to entrap young people in a life time of debt servitude. We dont have to fix all the other problems with college at the same time. I am lucky to have no student loans, but most people I know are saddled with massive debt. I want to do something to help them.
    - didericis 7y ago
leetcrew 7y ago
I think I agree. instead of having the federal government back loans for students to attend private college, why not just double down on funding for public universities? there are already some very high quality state universities in the US where you can get a first rate education. fund these schools to the point where tuition is somewhere between $0 and $5000 a year and see how the elite private schools justify their prices.

conanbatt 7y ago

> Also I am curious, are you in favor of abolishing public high school? What part of your argument against free college does not apply to free high schools? High schools are for minors. The return/cost benefit of them is much higher, and the users of it are not responsible adults, a decision is made unto them. College is used mostly by the upper half of society, and the majority that goes to college can afford it. Taxing the populace to give the richer resources is "trickle down economics".