3 ms·

I gotta flag this, and it's not because I disagree with it. Reading the title, the answer is obviously "zero". Government could by fiat decide that college edu

I gotta flag this, and it's not because I disagree with it. Reading the title, the answer is obviously "zero". Government could by fiat decide that college education is anything it decides it to be. No money required at all. But then the author comes up with this 62 billion number, which isn't the cost to make college tuition-free, it's the current private cost of tuition, which is a completely different animal. Hell, it might require an infinite amount of money to pay the tuition on everyone in the country for the next four years -- demand simply outstrips supply. So the article doesn't answer the question. Finally, the author seems to think this is all just basic math, which I find odd after having screwed the pooch so badly thus far. It's just a mess of a piece: linkbait headline, confusion of issues, poorly supported thesis, and rambling ending. I don't see it contributing to an interesting discussion on HN, and I wouldn't want to see HN full of articles like this.

sergiotapia 13y ago
Exactly, higher education costs in the US are FREAKING RIDICULOUS.
davidw 13y ago
Yeah, it seems to assume that current levels of attendance would remain the same if it were free, which doesn't sound like a very sound assumption. Also, if it's 'free' that means that even in the case of someone from a very wealthy family pays the same as someone who really does need the help, coming from a poor background. That's kind of inefficient... I like the idea of loans for anyone who wants them, which are payable from your future income, when and if you have it. I read they do that in Australia, and it seems sensible to me: it lets those without money attend, but ensures that they'll pay back what they consumed at some point if they find gainful employment because of their degree.
refurb 13y ago
How could the gov't make it cost nothing by fiat? Professors will house themselves and eat how exactly?
- jerf 13y ago
  With money the government prints for that purpose. Yes, I know. Some will claim that's a hidden tax, but then, some people will run around yelling "Keynes!" and claiming we come out ahead anyhow, so, shrug. Politicians will certainly claim this is a "free" education, so I'll just settle on that definition of "free" as good enough for this hypothetical thing that will never happen anyhow.

sergiotapia 13y ago

Exactly, higher education costs in the US are FREAKING RIDICULOUS.

davidw 13y ago

Yeah, it seems to assume that current levels of attendance would remain the same if it were free, which doesn't sound like a very sound assumption. Also, if it's 'free' that means that even in the case of someone from a very wealthy family pays the same as someone who really does need the help, coming from a poor background. That's kind of inefficient... I like the idea of loans for anyone who wants them, which are payable from your future income, when and if you have it. I read they do that in Australia, and it seems sensible to me: it lets those without money attend, but ensures that they'll pay back what they consumed at some point if they find gainful employment because of their degree.

refurb 13y ago

How could the gov't make it cost nothing by fiat? Professors will house themselves and eat how exactly?

jerf 13y ago
With money the government prints for that purpose. Yes, I know. Some will claim that's a hidden tax, but then, some people will run around yelling "Keynes!" and claiming we come out ahead anyhow, so, shrug. Politicians will certainly claim this is a "free" education, so I'll just settle on that definition of "free" as good enough for this hypothetical thing that will never happen anyhow.