8 ms·

> While other parents cheerfully promise that “if you get in, we’ll figure out the money part,” That is literally the worst mindset to go in to this about. I

> While other parents cheerfully promise that “if you get in, we’ll figure out the money part,” That is literally the worst mindset to go in to this about. I profoundly want to see college be free for all, and debt zeroed out. Failing that rather utopian vision, the smart bet is to get a degree that you can pay off in under 10 years without a miracle. I plan to save up enough to help my kid out, which might well involve "we'll send you internationally: those colleges are just as good, you'll get more independent, and you will be about debt free when you get out".

tim333 7y ago
>Failing that rather utopian vision When I went to university in the UK in 1983 university was free, both undergraduate and graduate, there was a means tested grant for living expenses and student debt wasn't really a thing. So it's possible. On the downside there was only so much money from tax hence only about 15% of the people got to do undergrad degrees and postgrad was maybe 10% of that.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  the downside there was only so much money from tax hence only about 15% of the people got to do undergrad degrees and postgrad was maybe 10% of that. I’m not sure this is true; were there any cases of kids who got 3 A’s at A-level (back when that meant something) being turned away because the colleges were full? It was actually the case that if you got the grades, there would be a place for you. Nowadays it’s different of course, but that is because of lowering standards both in the exams and in the entry requirements.
  - tim333 7y ago
    Yes if you got good grades you got to go. That was the main criteria for the limited number of places. Whether that's a good system or not is debatable.
learc83 7y ago
Public student loans have income based repayment. Assuming you go to a state school and don't live on campus, the debt isn't a big deal. And if you get into very top tier private school, the networking alone is definitely worth it.
- pnathan 7y ago
  > Public student loans have income based repayment. Assuming you go to a state school and don't live on campus, the debt isn't a big deal. only for very specific programs, doing very specific work. I looked into it. it's not a general program - at least, when I was dealing with my 10s of thousands of dollars..
  - learc83 7y ago
    Nope. Income based repayment is available for all federal student loans. There's a limit of $30k for dependent students and $60k fo independent students. For direct federal undergrad loans in general, not for income based repayment.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>I profoundly want to see college be free for all, and debt zeroed out. If you don't mind, can I ask some questions to expand upon this? First, does this count living expenses? Many students can save greatly living at home, but this requires going to a college near your home, for there to even been a college near your home, and decent enough relationship with the parents/guardian. If we don't cover room/board/etc. it greatly limits freedom of picking without people still having to take on some level of debt, but makes the overall cost cheaper. If we do cover room/board/etc. then what sorts of limits are on it? Second, you say free for all, but does all mean the people who take more than 4 years to finish a 4 year degree? What sort of upper limits? What about people who have a degree but want to go back (perhaps there degree is in a field that is currently shrinking)? Would there be an expected level of academic achievement that must be met to continue? Many people I've spoken to in the past will quickly point out that many nations already solve these problems, but I also find what the person envisions and how it works in other countries do have some level of disagreement (especially with regards to merit qualifications and the actual experience itself), though I haven't been able to verify if this is really the case or not.
- pnathan 7y ago
  These are my observations/opinions based on both graduate and undergrad school in the US. (1) In this utopian world, college owned dorms would be part and parcel of the free college. This allows control of the costs rather than allowing landlords to profit off of the university. The US has massive issues with expensive housing, even around rural universities. (2) I'd set the limit at, say, 6 years. 5 years isn't uncommon, 6 is rare, and 7 is .... extremely rare, and questionable for a full-time student... Generally speaking. I'd expect a 2.5 GPA or better. I have no real interest in an unending "free ride". But I do want an educated citizenry without enormous debt burdens. I will shoulder the tax burden that I, a high-earning citizen, will have to pay out, in order to get an educated citizenry with an interest in taking risks. I think a lot of the lack of new businesses etc in the last 20 years can be directly traced to that. And on a more nuanced scale, I think the lack of a wide college education has reduced the discourse in the country (prior cheap college in the US was largely contingent on the Cold War and the GI bill; it's very complicated, but I do think it helped us collectively in the 50s-70s). Anyway. I'm not per se drawing off of any other country's specific educational systems. I'm not personally fond of the West European systems I've looked at, although they do solve these issues to some level. The US has enormous resources and enormous capability.
variaga 7y ago
When I was applying to colleges (in the 90's), my parents told me that: (a) If I applied and was accepted at the local state University, they would pay the full costs for me to attend there. (at the time, ~$10K/yr) (b) If I was additionally accepted to any other school and decided to go there, they would still pay _me_ the costs of attending the state school, and I would be responsible for for making up any difference in tuition (financial aid, scholarships, loans, side jobs, whatever) to the alternate school. They did offer a ton of guidance and encouragement towards applying for scholarships, finding jobs, etc. and in the end I did manage to get through a private school in a different state. It worked out for me - I would probably offer a similar deal to my own children.
- pnathan 7y ago
  it's not a bad deal! The cost I expect for my kid at a state school for a 4 year school is ~~~~150K, given typical cost increases. I'm not averse to giving him enough debt to attend to his finances with care - say, 20-30K in today's dollars. But I'm not saddling him with debt to last into his 30s. I lived that. It killed a great deal of opportunity for me. I expect I will probably buy 90% or so of the Washington state GET program (somewhat complicated), and let him sort out the other 10%.
slowhand09 7y ago
There is no free. Free means Janet's dad who didn't go to college get to pay additional so Bill's son goes for free. When resources are free, they become either worthless or completely over-utilized. If you make college free, that means colleges will still charge for classes, still charge for books, still charge for dorm rooms, etc. They'll send their bills to the government, to pay with increased tax dollars. They'll increase their rates to the gov't also. Professors and administrators aren't working for free. Groundskeepers either. TA's won't either because now they don't have tuition. Professors workloads just increased because normally they have TA's to teach and grade for them. So more professors are hired. Notice anything interesting? College costs which keep increasing as long as easy student loans are available, (and are responsible for the higher costs) just went up more. Now taxes are increasing and additional gov't administration for programs are implemented. Looks like a major redistribution of wealth, from taxpayers to educational institutions. :-/ This is my surprised face.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  You should realize that primary and secondary school are already provided "free" to anyone, and the reasons that works are just as valid for college. There's nothing magically impossible about using taxpayer money to provide 16 years of education instead of 12.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    It benefits us as a country to have an electorate who can read and write and have a basic understanding of civics and history. It doesn't necessarily appear to benefit us the same way to have a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees to make mom and dad happy. There are a lot of benefits to college, but a lot of those benefits go away when college stops becoming a choice and starts becoming mandated state education.
    - snowwrestler 7y ago
      How about if a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees because sophisticated communication is a critical skill when your entire economy is based on information? It's really striking to me how the arguments against college for all today mirror the arguments against secondary school for all 120 years ago. Hopefully the parallel continues and our great grandkids can take their advanced education for granted the way we take secondary school for granted today.
jimbob45 7y ago
Counterpoint: I want to see college eliminated. The idea doesn't make as much sense in the modern world and codifies the idea that companies shouldn't have to train their own employees (and raises an artificial barrier to entry!). Subsidizing collegiate institutions might cement practices that should perhaps change as time goes on. Does it truly make sense for every kid to go to school for four years? Perhaps three years would do just as well? How and when will we change the funding to each institution to accommodate that? Will the institutions be able to transition well to a three-year model? The free market is able to make such changes as fast as need be. The regulated market would push back against changes that may be necessary. I'm not saying college isn't necessary or that it isn't too expensive. I too am alarmed at the number of bankrupted kids and the hordes of immigrants stealing jobs that we should rightfully be able to fill best. However, I am saying that rushing to the solution of free college may introduce unforeseen problems in the future.

tim333 7y ago

>Failing that rather utopian vision When I went to university in the UK in 1983 university was free, both undergraduate and graduate, there was a means tested grant for living expenses and student debt wasn't really a thing. So it's possible. On the downside there was only so much money from tax hence only about 15% of the people got to do undergrad degrees and postgrad was maybe 10% of that.

goatinaboat 7y ago
the downside there was only so much money from tax hence only about 15% of the people got to do undergrad degrees and postgrad was maybe 10% of that. I’m not sure this is true; were there any cases of kids who got 3 A’s at A-level (back when that meant something) being turned away because the colleges were full? It was actually the case that if you got the grades, there would be a place for you. Nowadays it’s different of course, but that is because of lowering standards both in the exams and in the entry requirements.
- tim333 7y ago
  Yes if you got good grades you got to go. That was the main criteria for the limited number of places. Whether that's a good system or not is debatable.

learc83 7y ago

Public student loans have income based repayment. Assuming you go to a state school and don't live on campus, the debt isn't a big deal. And if you get into very top tier private school, the networking alone is definitely worth it.

pnathan 7y ago
> Public student loans have income based repayment. Assuming you go to a state school and don't live on campus, the debt isn't a big deal. only for very specific programs, doing very specific work. I looked into it. it's not a general program - at least, when I was dealing with my 10s of thousands of dollars..
- learc83 7y ago
  Nope. Income based repayment is available for all federal student loans. There's a limit of $30k for dependent students and $60k fo independent students. For direct federal undergrad loans in general, not for income based repayment.

SkyBelow 7y ago

>I profoundly want to see college be free for all, and debt zeroed out. If you don't mind, can I ask some questions to expand upon this? First, does this count living expenses? Many students can save greatly living at home, but this requires going to a college near your home, for there to even been a college near your home, and decent enough relationship with the parents/guardian. If we don't cover room/board/etc. it greatly limits freedom of picking without people still having to take on some level of debt, but makes the overall cost cheaper. If we do cover room/board/etc. then what sorts of limits are on it? Second, you say free for all, but does all mean the people who take more than 4 years to finish a 4 year degree? What sort of upper limits? What about people who have a degree but want to go back (perhaps there degree is in a field that is currently shrinking)? Would there be an expected level of academic achievement that must be met to continue? Many people I've spoken to in the past will quickly point out that many nations already solve these problems, but I also find what the person envisions and how it works in other countries do have some level of disagreement (especially with regards to merit qualifications and the actual experience itself), though I haven't been able to verify if this is really the case or not.

pnathan 7y ago
These are my observations/opinions based on both graduate and undergrad school in the US. (1) In this utopian world, college owned dorms would be part and parcel of the free college. This allows control of the costs rather than allowing landlords to profit off of the university. The US has massive issues with expensive housing, even around rural universities. (2) I'd set the limit at, say, 6 years. 5 years isn't uncommon, 6 is rare, and 7 is .... extremely rare, and questionable for a full-time student... Generally speaking. I'd expect a 2.5 GPA or better. I have no real interest in an unending "free ride". But I do want an educated citizenry without enormous debt burdens. I will shoulder the tax burden that I, a high-earning citizen, will have to pay out, in order to get an educated citizenry with an interest in taking risks. I think a lot of the lack of new businesses etc in the last 20 years can be directly traced to that. And on a more nuanced scale, I think the lack of a wide college education has reduced the discourse in the country (prior cheap college in the US was largely contingent on the Cold War and the GI bill; it's very complicated, but I do think it helped us collectively in the 50s-70s). Anyway. I'm not per se drawing off of any other country's specific educational systems. I'm not personally fond of the West European systems I've looked at, although they do solve these issues to some level. The US has enormous resources and enormous capability.

variaga 7y ago

When I was applying to colleges (in the 90's), my parents told me that: (a) If I applied and was accepted at the local state University, they would pay the full costs for me to attend there. (at the time, ~$10K/yr) (b) If I was additionally accepted to any other school and decided to go there, they would still pay _me_ the costs of attending the state school, and I would be responsible for for making up any difference in tuition (financial aid, scholarships, loans, side jobs, whatever) to the alternate school. They did offer a ton of guidance and encouragement towards applying for scholarships, finding jobs, etc. and in the end I did manage to get through a private school in a different state. It worked out for me - I would probably offer a similar deal to my own children.

pnathan 7y ago
it's not a bad deal! The cost I expect for my kid at a state school for a 4 year school is ~~~~150K, given typical cost increases. I'm not averse to giving him enough debt to attend to his finances with care - say, 20-30K in today's dollars. But I'm not saddling him with debt to last into his 30s. I lived that. It killed a great deal of opportunity for me. I expect I will probably buy 90% or so of the Washington state GET program (somewhat complicated), and let him sort out the other 10%.

slowhand09 7y ago

There is no free. Free means Janet's dad who didn't go to college get to pay additional so Bill's son goes for free. When resources are free, they become either worthless or completely over-utilized. If you make college free, that means colleges will still charge for classes, still charge for books, still charge for dorm rooms, etc. They'll send their bills to the government, to pay with increased tax dollars. They'll increase their rates to the gov't also. Professors and administrators aren't working for free. Groundskeepers either. TA's won't either because now they don't have tuition. Professors workloads just increased because normally they have TA's to teach and grade for them. So more professors are hired. Notice anything interesting? College costs which keep increasing as long as easy student loans are available, (and are responsible for the higher costs) just went up more. Now taxes are increasing and additional gov't administration for programs are implemented. Looks like a major redistribution of wealth, from taxpayers to educational institutions. :-/ This is my surprised face.

snowwrestler 7y ago
You should realize that primary and secondary school are already provided "free" to anyone, and the reasons that works are just as valid for college. There's nothing magically impossible about using taxpayer money to provide 16 years of education instead of 12.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  It benefits us as a country to have an electorate who can read and write and have a basic understanding of civics and history. It doesn't necessarily appear to benefit us the same way to have a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees to make mom and dad happy. There are a lot of benefits to college, but a lot of those benefits go away when college stops becoming a choice and starts becoming mandated state education.
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    How about if a bunch of folks spend 4 years getting English degrees because sophisticated communication is a critical skill when your entire economy is based on information? It's really striking to me how the arguments against college for all today mirror the arguments against secondary school for all 120 years ago. Hopefully the parallel continues and our great grandkids can take their advanced education for granted the way we take secondary school for granted today.

jimbob45 7y ago

Counterpoint: I want to see college eliminated. The idea doesn't make as much sense in the modern world and codifies the idea that companies shouldn't have to train their own employees (and raises an artificial barrier to entry!). Subsidizing collegiate institutions might cement practices that should perhaps change as time goes on. Does it truly make sense for every kid to go to school for four years? Perhaps three years would do just as well? How and when will we change the funding to each institution to accommodate that? Will the institutions be able to transition well to a three-year model? The free market is able to make such changes as fast as need be. The regulated market would push back against changes that may be necessary. I'm not saying college isn't necessary or that it isn't too expensive. I too am alarmed at the number of bankrupted kids and the hordes of immigrants stealing jobs that we should rightfully be able to fill best. However, I am saying that rushing to the solution of free college may introduce unforeseen problems in the future.