4 ms·

It's a slippery slope when discussing subsidizing. Should students who are Lit majors subsidize expensive research labs? Or sports teams? College costs really c

• apcragg 7y ago
  No, it isn't. The literature department is a fundamental component of the university. Providing land and infrastructure for students to store their property in the middle of campus is not - especially when campus is accessible through a variety of modes of transit. Sure, if the university is in a cornfield in Iowa then parking costs are less of an issue given the low cost of land but the majority of campuses I have been to are limited in land. The university has to make a choice between using that land to educate people or for letting people store their cars.
• cortesoft 7y ago
  Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. Do we pay for all food students eat? The clothes they wear? The houses they live in? The cars they drive? Obviously not... some schools might provide some of those things, but all schools will draw the line somewhere (I don't know of any schools that provide clothing) Why is it anymore of a slippery slope to say "the college won't subsidize student parking" than "the college won't subsidize student clothing"?
  • yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    Because one of those is a result of attending. If the college required a uniform, it might be reasonable for them to provide it.
    • thaumasiotes 7y ago
      Colleges generally do require you to wear clothes to class.
      • anoncake 7y ago
        That "requirement" doesn't make a difference. Society already requires you to generally wear clothes in public.
        • thaumasiotes 7y ago
          Society has no expectation that you'll go out in public. College does expect you to go to class.
          • anoncake 7y ago
            Even if that answer were not false it would still be ridiculous.
    • cortesoft 7y ago
      You aren't required to park to attend
• beatgammit 7y ago
  Honestly, I think students should pay different amounts based on the infrastructure they need for their degree. New students pay some flat amount, and once they declare a major, they pay whatever that major costs. A lit major won't require much infrastructure, so they should pay less than an engineering student that needs access to more expensive equipment, but they'll also likely get a lower salary after college. Students should likewise be presented with estimated salaries upon graduation, as well as estimated cost of their education (including books and whatnot). Colleges that are more prestigious in a given field should be able to command a higher tuition, which helps pay for faculty, buildings, and equipment. But the higher rate needs to be justified by the school on their estimated costs and future earnings reports. Banks could take all of this into account when deciding whether to grant a loan to a student. And yes, the school shouldn't be forcing students to pay for athletics, theatre, etc. Athletics often pay for themselves through advertising agreements and merch, so I don't see why anything should be taken from tuition for that (and I don't think it is most of the time). So yes, education expenses should be ala carte as much as possible, and I think this (and ending federally backed student loans) would result in drastically reduced tuition prices on average as students see what value they're really getting.