free college education

Great Debates
21

In addition to Manny’s question about whether we’re talking free, or FREE, I’m also wondering if you mean a free college education, or a free Harvard education. As we have seen in this thread, there are several decent opportunities for an almost free education in the US.

Red Menace, interesting point about merit v. need based scholarships. One additional thing to consider is that a lot of merit based monies are not necessarily need blind, that is, the people making the decisions are aware of the need of the applicant. In these cases, the committee has the power to judge the “merit” of a student who overcame advise conditions (poor secondary school, poverty, etc) to do well in school. Another way that colleges work with merit funds is in the marketing – a particular scholarship might be merit based and need blind, but the institution can take extra steps to heavily advertise the scholarship to people who need aid anyway, for example, the Red Menace Memorial Merit Scholarship brochure is automatically included in the general financial aid application, so a wealthy student would have to actively seek out the Red Menace Memorial Merit Scholarship information since that wealthy person would probably not request the financial aid packet.

Do I get a scholarship for the longest run-on sentence in this thread?

Anyhoo, with the current combination of private and public university systems in the US, I think it’s unlikely that the low-end price could be driven down any further without a major (and unwelcome) change in our tax structure. The thing is, I still think Jefferson’s ideas are fairly workable. Just about anyone who is “of promise” (which I would take to mean just about any combination of good test scores and determination, thus allowing for people who don’t test well but can otherwise demonstrate their initiative) can finance an undergraduate education for very little money. However, there are strings attached – the choice of school is limited, it might involve moving to another geographic location, and it could impact choices about marriage, children, and other lifestyle issues. I have no doubt that there are people who simply cannot afford college, but I think the numbers of people who claim not to be able to finance a higher education include those who cannot afford the education of their specific choosing.

I think Cranky has a good point about the current glut of people in the college system who probably, in another era or another universe, don’t need a college education. This is also keeping the average sticker price high. I would say it’s artificially high as a result, but there’s nothing artificial about the companies who look at college as a factor in hiring. If there was a way to eliminate this factor from the job market (and I doubt there is), we would eventually see a decrease in college prices.

22

That second thing.

Education should be paid for by taxes.

23

A University of California, Davis alumni checking in. I can’t say enough good about the California system. the Junior Colleges are cheap, as pointed out earlier $11/unit. California State Universities are very affordable.

My own experience with the University of California system was that one could “work” their way through University. A combination of State and Federal aid, work study, working part time, living lean, meant a student could graduate with only $10k in loans. When I worked in the dorm kitchens, one statistics has stuck in my head, students working part-time had the highest matriculation rate.

I believe it is (or at least was) a very fair system. You could get an education that wasn’t free, but was largely subsidized by the State. Most students willing to sacrifice and work hard were not prevented from graduating because of the cost. When you do graduate, the level of debt is not onerous.

To answer the OP, I do not think that education should be 100% free to the student. If it’s free, the education is probably not as valued as if it’s earned. The right to a higher education is one that should be earned IMHO. It should cost the student what they and/or their family can afford. I do believe it should be subsidized at the State and Federal level so that a student with no resources can afford a modest student lifestyle by a combination of working part-time (15-20 hours/week), loans (say $5,000 per year cap) and aid to cover the shortfall.

24

Ok, for ease.

How about a ‘step up’ scholarship fund for those would be unable to pay otherwise.

Government backed, with taxes.

Indeed we did have free education for all here in the UK but they increased the number of universities and hence lowered entry requirements.

My argument is that SAT scores are affected by school so if you live in a nice area you are more likely to attend a good school where IQ is apparently little affected.

25

These exist all over the place… Ever fill out a FAFSA form?

SAT scores are definately bogus in this sense, and IQ scores are only a little ways behind. Essays and an interview would be my suggestion.

26

I could be considered “rich” compared to the average family in the US. Does that mean that I should buy a wide screen TV set for you just because I happen to have more money?
I also happened to agree somewhat with Cranky. After going through 4 years of college and an MBA, I still can figure out why I (and my parents) speant over $150,000 so that some bank can pay my consulting company $300 an hour to pay me $75000 a year to make Powerpoint slides enter data into a fucking Excel spreadsheet. I can pay a barely literate high school grad $10 an hour to do that.

27

I think you mean “…to make Powerpoint slides and enter data into a…” Cause I think making Powerpoint slides actually enter the data into excel would take a CS Ph.D. candidate, on a good day.

28

Were you listening to what I said at all? IQ is not “apparently little affected”, it’s definitly affected by where you live and how you grow up. This is one of the greatest criticisms of IQ tests that they are measuring more than pure biological ability. On average African-American children score 10-15 points lower on IQ tests than their White counterparts. Is that a test you want to use for deciding who moves up and who doesn’t?

29

This has to be the most aggravating thread of all time, primarily because the people chiming in here are all “intelligent” people.

NOTHING IS FREE!!!

Unless the college professors donate their time and educate students for no cost and the colleges accept no tuition and their only funding is thru donations and endowments, their will be no free education for anyone!

What this thread ought to be titled is “Further Socialization of the Secondary Education System”. That is a debatable topic, but for the many posters who are trying to say that someone should be given a “free” education is completely wrong-headed. Like Pldennison and Manhattan have suggested, no one is giving anything away here.

The idea is that one citizen’s liberty be infringed upon thru taxation so that another citizen can attend university is one I disagree with, however, nobody would suggest that the education is free. There is a cost. The question is whether the cost is outweighed by the benefits; those ostensibly being a better educated and therefore more productive and stable citizenry.

So please, let’s not call it a free education. I would really appreciate it.

30

I’m in my last year of university. For the first three, I was taking student loans. I live in the Canadian province with the best student loan system in the country, and I’m now $20,000 Cdn dollars (about $13,000 American), because of the cost of tuition, books, rent, bills, etc. Worse, it didn’t even cover all of my basic expenses, and I was often left a week or two with very little food. And at the end of all this, I’ll be expected to pay every cent back. In Canada, students can’t even declare bankruptcy until they’ve been finished for a decade.

This last year, I’ve been working and going to school full time, and it’s really affected my grades. They’ve plummeted. But I couldn’t afford to remain of student loans. Things are getting more expensive, and student loans never go up.

I was talking to a close friend of mine who lives in Munich, Germany. He’s just planning to go to university now, and won’t have to pay a cent for it. Completely free over there.

Education is not only a right, it’s also necessary for the long-term interests of society. Tax cuts are economic heroin: they increase activity in the short run, damage the entire infrastructure in the long run, and frankly, they’re not a convinving argument for me to abandon something so basic to any civilization as universal education.

31

Um, the poster you’re responding to said, “should your chances in life depend on what jobs your parents have.” Is a wide screen TV necessary for life? I really hope you don’t believe that. I really hope you’re not equating a luxury item with an education.

32

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hamish *

Education may not be a luxury but that does not mean that every student has the right to go to a $25000 a year private school. There are plenty of affordable state schools out there.

I am simply disagreeing with the premise that wealthy people are somehow obligated to provide to poor people simply because they can “afford it”.

33

I feel the need to respond to Hamish’s posts. As a matter of principle, I feel the other side of the coin must be presented here.

*Hamish said:

I’m in my last year of university. For the first three, I was taking student loans. I live in the Canadian province with the best student loan system in the country, and I’m now $20,000 Cdn dollars (about $13,000 American), because of the cost of tuition, books, rent, bills, etc. Worse, it didn’t even cover all of my basic expenses, and I was often left a week or two with very little food. And at the end of all this, I’ll be expected to pay every cent back. In Canada, students can’t even declare bankruptcy until they’ve been finished for a decade.*

This is what is known as an investment. All investments are decisions made by the individual, corporation, etc… to incur short-term pain (thru debt, savings,etc…) in order to acheive long term prosperity. Education is no different and you are no different. We all lived on thin means during college so that we could be able to support ourselves later in life. Don’t complain about doing what everybody else has to do.

*Hamish said:

I was talking to a close friend of mine who lives in Munich, Germany. He’s just planning to go to university now, and won’t have to pay a cent for it. Completely free over there.*

It isn’t free. Other Germans are earning money which the German government is taking thru the implied use of force and giving to other so that they can get through university. Ask the working German if this is free!

*Hamish said:

Education is not only a right, it’s also necessary for the long-term interests of society*

The only rights in this country that you have are listed in the U.S. Constitution. Is this relevant to anyone anymore? If a child is raised by parents who understand the value of education, that child is lucky. If an uneducated adult comes to realize the benefits of education and proceeds to seek that education, then that is a wise adult. But don’t tell me that your education is a right that another is obliged to provide. Other than compulsory primary education, you are on your own. Obviously society is served when the citizenry is well-educated, and this is why the systems which educates the most people at the lowest cost is best. Getting the gov’t involved in paying for every citizens higher education would do nothing but drive up the cost of college and drive down the quality of the product.

34

I cannot help but think of Canadian aboriginals (hereinafter “Indians” because the relevant laws call them that) who are, in fact, entitled to free tuition at any college or university of their choice. Yet it goes largely unused, which suggests to be that social disadvantage starts a lot earlier than college. The sad truth is that a kid from a reserve who grew up in a crappy household and spent his teen years sniffing gasoline and drinking beer, just like his parents, is not in a position to take advantage of free tuition.

Hey, thermalribbon:

The person you were replying to is Canadian. So no, the Constitution of the United States is not relevant to him. Not every country in the world has exactly the same view of what are rights and what aren’t as does the United States. (But having said that, Canadians have no constitutional right to education, either.)

35

Forgive a slight hijack, but ah-fricking-men. I’m months away from having my PhD and I spend an inordinate amount of time on the job formatting little descriptive tables. It’s stuff anyone could do.

36

[nitpick] Excellent post, thermalribbon, with which I am in full agreement. This sentence, however, is not true. The 9th Amendment states explicitly otherwise. [/nitpick]

37

Since when is a college education necessary for life? Certainly plenty of people in the United States and Canada live happy productive lives without a degree.

Marc

38

I know, I know, I know. What I meant was that although it is your right to pursue a college education, the consitution doesn’t guarantee a college education as your (constitutionally protected)right.

Also, I understand Hamish is Canadian, but as a matter of philosophy, I took this discussion at it pertained to the U.S.

39

I think the objection from those who are rabidly anti-taxation comes in part from the premise that the purpose here is to “make life more equal for those from poorer backgrounds.” If, instead, we asserted that there is a societal benefit to maximizing the level of education of the populace regardless of income, perhaps the argument would be different.

Unsupported assertion 1: There are numerous benefits that can be empirically shown from having a more educated population. Society attains a benefit greater than it pays to educate each citizen to his or her maximum ability.

Unsupported assertion 2: There is a diminishing return effect (In other words, at some point paying for the education of another citizen will cost society more than it would gain.)

Now, if we buy into this and agree that it makes sense to educate many but not all of the people, how do we decide where to draw the line and say, “sorry, but we’ve got all the college kids we need right now?”

Currently, it appears that we do this by keeping those without family money out of the system. I assert that this is not only manifestly unfair, but is also not efficient.

If all were offered the opportunity to attend college (and beyond) without monetary cost, there would still be the lost time and effort that each student must invest. Only those students who saw a value in putting in four (or seven or ten) years would do so.

This is an idea that maximizes societal wealth (a Good Thing) and makes secondary education a true meritocracy. And, in addition, it just happens to have the nice benefit of promoting class mobility.

40

This is where your argument falls apart, IMO. The reason is that we do not “keep those without family money out of the system.” I know many many many students who come from lower middle class (total house income w/both parents working of about $40-60,000). They work for money, get scholarships, take out loans, etc. Some chose to attend the military academies, which are free. Other decided to take the GE requirements in community college.

What keeps kids out of higher education is usually not financial in nature. It’s environmental. Kids that grew up, even poor ones, in an environment and with parents/guardians that valued education are the ones who go on to get it at higher levels.