free college education

Great Debates
41

I agree with much of what you say here, especially in the second paragraph. Indeed much of what keeps kids in or out of school is environmental. However, there is still a monetary factor. I’d say there is a compounding effect at work here: many don’t want to go to school for lack of support or tradition and those who do can’t afford it.

I disagree that your anecdotal evidence undermines my argument. First of all, families making $40-60k aren’t the ones outside the system looking in. It’s the families making $10-20k (in other words, those hovering at or around the poverty line) that are left out.

It is the kids who either want to go to school of their own volition or whose parents want them to go, and who could but for a lack of money that are the problem, and who ought to be the focus of any changes.

42

They could join the military and take advantage of the G.I. Plan. If they really want to go to college there are ways to do so.

Marc

43

They could join the military and take advantage of the G.I. Plan. If they really want to go to college there are ways to do so. Or is that GI Bill? I forget.

Marc

44

thermalribbon - You rule. Until I came to your post, my frustration was building the farther down I read.

People, nothing is free. The exact arguments here could be used for health care, or any other sector of our economy for that matter.

The government doesn’t just print money to use to pay for everyones college education - it comes from the taxes that we all pay. The only difference is efficiency. When things are run by the government, they do not operate as well as they could be by the private sector. This is why American Colleges and Universities (privately run) are attended by the elite from around the world. This is also why American high schools (publicly run) are a miserable failure.

Also, the system currently penalizes the “rich” (see: middle class) by not giving them financial aid in the same amounts that the poor get. This evens the playing field.

45

Would you care to back this up with anything even vaguely resembling a fact?

46

It isn’t just family environment keeping people back, it is the high schools. It isn’t American public schools that are a miserable failure. On the contrary, I know of plenty of public schools where one can get an exellent education. It is poor public schools that are the problem.

I knew a brilliant man (got a five on his calculus AP) who didn’t bother to apply to college because no one ever told him that financial aid existed. He thought he was going to have to pay for college entirely on his own, and he knew that he couldn’t do that. If someone had just shown him a FAFSA, he’d probably have his master’s right now, instead of holding his current job as a printer.

In many high schools, junior year honors English class is devoted to college-enterence skills. For example, we were assigned autobiographical essays designed to prepare us for the personal statements that most colleges require in their applications. Our teacher offered to proofread and workshop any college application essays that people had written. We were also given high level vocab to help us out with the SATs. Important college-enterence dates, like when the SATs are and when state college applications are due were announced and prominently displayed. Our teacher, who was a bit zelous about college, would bring in college-going allumni to talk about their schools. She even had a collection of college brochures that she kept in the front of the room.

I am sad to say that the non-honors classes in my high school did none of that. I remember my shock when I talked to a non-honors student about the SAT, and she didn’t even know that they were required to get in to most colleges.

And many poorer public high schools nowdays have guidence counsolers in name only. I saw mine exacly four times in four years. He never said a word about college preperation.

I’d imagine there are high schools out there that are even worse than mine (it’d be pretty hard). For some kids, college is treated as if it isn’t an option, and they never get the important information and guidence they need to even consider it.

There are plenty more critical high school inequalities out there. How can a student from a high school that doesn’t offer weighterd AP or honors classes, and therefor has a max GPA of 4.0 compete against someone who has access to (and takes) five weighted AP classes with a max GPA of 4.83? How can a student with access to only bare bones classes (French II, Junior Enlish, American History) compete against someone that has the option of taking “French liturature of the Belle Epoque”, “Advanced Composition” and “History of WWII”? How can someone who had to hold down an after school job in order to have money for lunch and bus tickets to school compete with someone who spent their extracirricular time leading the well-funded Drama Club (which could spend their time producing interesting plays instead of spending it scrounging for money, making sets out of salvaged material and producing bad but popular plays because all the funding they get comes from box-office profits in an utterly cultureless town), playing lacrosse (did we mention you have to buy your own equiptment and uniforms?), and spending summers on volunteer trips to build schools in Mexico?

There are vast and dispicable disparities in public high school that severely limit the abilities of people from poorer backgrounds ability to access a quality higher geducation regardless of the cost of tuition.

As far as the GI bill, that was heavily pushed on my campus. The povery draft was in full swing at Cordova High School. The sons and daughter of the rich get ushered in to universities while the sons and daughters of the poor get to spend some time as cannon fodder first. Hyperbole aside, while some people do benefit greatly from the GI bill, many people never go on to their college dreams. The military, we must remember, is an institute devoted to national defense, not a college preparation program or a job-training facility.

And Debaser, come on over to California some day. I will show you one of the best higher education systems in the world, one which people from out of state and indeed around the world are eager to participate in. Funny though, it is run by that evil inefficiant government. Same government that runs the military schools and the very military (which I assume is horrible ineffficiant and a miserable failure). I’ll just write a letter to UC Berkeley telling them that the elite arn’t interested in them and they would be better off run by Time-Warner.

Sheesh, argueing with libertarian-eque people. This is no place for a good pinko to be. I’m not even going to talk about your theory that taxes “make the playing field even”.

47

I am not going to start scouring the internet for education statistics of the US. One thing off the top of my head: The success of home schooling in recent years. If they are successful, less people would be opting out of the entire system in favor of doing it themselves.

I stand by my belief that US colleges are far superior to US high schools.

48

I am not going to start scouring the internet for education statistics of the US. One thing off the top of my head: The success of home schooling in recent years. If they are successful, less people would be opting out of the entire system in favor of doing it themselves.

I stand by my position, after having attended both, that US colleges are far superior to US high schools.

49

Well, I never said the government was evil. But I find it impossible to understand your position that it is efficient. I was trying to get the point across to some of the posters in this thread that when the government pays for something that does not make it free. This is true - and I think a lot of people just don’t realize it. Do you think that the high tech marketplace would be better managed by the government than it is currently by Cisco, Sun and Microsoft?

As far as the military goes, good point. But, while I think the military is improved from the bad old days of the $68 screwdrivers, they still are inefficient. It is just that they have to be, because they don’t have a customer. In order for capitalism to work there has to be a discriminating buyer. Someone who wants the most for their money. Example: a student picks the best school for himself at the best price. This doesn’t work for the military. Example: Bob tries to pick which tank to guard his lawn today.

So, the only way for the military to work efficiently is by using private companies competing for government contracts - which we are currently doing. Because the government is the consumer of military products such as jets and tanks in the US economy.

And no, I didn’t mean taxes level the playing field. I meant they are attempting to - which they shouldn’t be doing! If my parents are doctors and yours are janitors, should I be punished by having to pay not only for my degree with no assistance, but my family’s taxes pay for the grants that you get? People shouldn’t be penalized for being successful.

50

Sorry about the double post up there. My box had me waiting for a very long time, so I re-submitted the post. (after actually taking the time to spell check, hehe)

Lesson learned.

51

Okay, first of all, I’m amazed that you suggest that the reason international students attend American Universities is because they are efficient. Second, you may want to think again about putting that little “privately run” paranthetical in there. A quick look at the schools with the highest percentage of international students shows no great advantage for public or private institutions (unfortunately, there was no way to further specify foreign elite students.)

Debaser, I pose this question to you: Why should the success of the education system be measure by efficiency?

It seems to be that the purpose of the education system is to educate people, not to operate like a for-profit business. Efficiency has its place, certainly, and I agree that we should not ignore whether or not the education system is operating efficiently, but to measure it soley by that standard is a bad, bad idea.

52

Yes, I did not mean to imply that efficiency is the only criteria on which schools should be judged. The topic of the thread is paying for higher education. This is certainly related to efficiency. Especially if people are suggesting (as it would seem) that we socialize higher education.

53

Who pays and who benefits?

Students who get a higher education generally go on to earn higher incomes than those without higher education, and end up paying more taxes and spending more money. The growth in the tax base helps pay for the next generation’s higher education, the previous generation’s old age security,and a plethora of other important but non-essential programs. At the same time, their higher incomes and disposable income will contribute to the economy more than if they had lower incomes.

Investment in publicly funded education is an investment in a country’s future.

54

The state of California’s higher educational system of junior colleges, colleges and universities are perhaps the best higher education system in the world.

55

My first reaction is of course to jump up and decry the extremely negative stereotyping, but much to my dismay, I have to concur with RickJay. The living and familial circumstances faced by a great many aboriginal Canadians are horrendous. Proportionately very few complete higher education. I take my hat off to those who make it through.

For example, one of my collegues who is an aboriginal Canadian is finishing her education and will become a lawyer in a few months. Her birth parents were murdered when she was young. Her brother is presently on trial for murder (a different murder). All her relatives suffer from severe alcohol abuse, many suffer from drug and solvent abuse (especially gasoline huffing, which kills brain cells at a massive rate – I want you to picture a young teenager huffing gas fumes out of a paper bag in one hand, while repeatedly trying to slam her infant child’s head through a basement drain with her other hand), and, as you may have guessed by now, a great many are repeatedly in conflict with the law.

Every time I have been up in her community, there have been problems with drunks staggering and falling on the street and in the courtroom. One time the residents of a neighbouring village hijacked the prisoner’s bus on the premise that they needed a ride to the liquor store. I have regularly encountered women of all ages who tell me that they are being regularly and repeatedly raped and beaten by close family members, extended family members, and by friends of the family. And every few weeks there is a suicide, more often than not of a young female.

And out of this hell on earth, we have a person who has survived and triumphed. We need more people like her, for she is a remarkable role model for her people. Anything that can be done to make is possible for people like her to succeed in life needs to be done. That includes offering a great deal of support in a number of dimensions, including financial educational support.

The cost in human lives of not offering support is morally unacceptable. The cost to the health, social support and legal systems of not offering support is economically unacceptable. While there is great dispute as to what type of support should be offered, and who should direct and control such support, the issue of higher education funding is not in dispute.

So that means that there will be absurd instances of inequity between indivuals based on their ethnicity. So be it. Earlier this week I sat down with an aboriginal Canadian student (social work program) and worked out her financial statement with her. It turns out that between her various native grants and her native income tax free status that she has a slightly higher net income than me, a lawyer with a comfortable income. Her debt to equity ratio is far better than mine, so once she graduates she will earn money for herself, rather than for the bank as I do, for I paid my own way through school.

Although I had a very challenging time to get where I am (no grants, multiple part time jobs, yadda yadda yadda), I never had to face anything like what she had to face when growing up. I have no problem with her receiving such huge financial advantages compared to me. It is well worth my tax money to know that someone is able to have a chance at having a good life, and will be yet another role model for her community, rather than being stuck in the indescribable misery which so many of her community face.

Out of these people – myself the lawyer, the aboriginal law student, and the aboriginal social work student, who had to crawl up the ladder? Not me.

I only hope that continued support in a number of dimensions, including financial education support will be continued and extended so that people like these two women can help pull their communities up by their bootstraps. Every penny of financial educational support given to people such as them is money very well spent.

56

Wow, I think I just won the prize for the most depressing 1,000th post. I knew I should have popped into alice_in_wonderland’s naked party instead.

57

That would be Rancho Cordova? I went to Folsom back when it was a tiny broken down podunk school. I had never even heard of AP (advanced placement) classes until my freshman year roommate started talking about all these basic classes he had out of the way before even begining university.

You hit the nail on the head in this post. Lower income people already have a couple of strikes against them in trying to continue on to higher education. Then affording university becomes financially daunting at best. You grow up poor and then look at taking out loans equal to your parents income every year to live the life of a poor student.

Also as mentioned elsewhere, college graduates then to earn more money on average. As such, then tend to pay more taxes and end up paying back that “free” education.

58

Gotcha beat – I checked out at CDN$40k. It was money well spent, but the debt load put a very serious crimp in both my career and my disposable income for the first couple of years. The bottom line is that if the debt load were not as high, I would be able to earn more (equity = opportunity in my field), pay more taxes, spend more money, and thus be more economically productive in general.

I think the major cuts in Canada to higher educational funding in the last couple of decades (and in particular the cuts of the last few years) have been a false economy, for they greatly inhibit people from making the most of their careers, either by limiting their ability for higher education and the higher incomes it usually leads to, or by limiting their earning and spending due to debt load.

If one is to look at efficieny, then one ought to look at the tremendous inefficiency of having people under-employed due to being under-educated relative to their interests and abilities.

For example, my firm pays me well, my office is larger than my apartment, my clerk is first rate, my co-workers are talented, dedicated, and just plain fun to be with, and the work is not only challenging, but also more often than not is an absolute blast. I have a dream job. But despite this, we have far more work than we can handle, and can not find anyone qualified for us to hire. Let’s think about that for a second. We can’t get a decent young lawyer for love or money, but at the other end of the pipe, there are perfectly qualified people who are not able to get into law school for lack of seats and for lack of funds.

If the government were to put more cash into the university system, then our firm, and others like us, would be able to hire more people and get more work done, thus generating a heck of a lot more money to spread about in the community and with which to pay taxes.

59

Yes, I strongly agree that education is necessary to the long-term interests of society, but I sadly it is not an unqualified right in Canada. We have a right to primary and secondary education (by implication from the minority rights to such education in our Charter), but we do not have a right to post-secondary education.

Like many nations, we pretty much fall within the UN’s Declaration on Human Rights:

Given that we are a tremendously wealthy nation which can reasonably spend significantly more on higher-education if we chose, and given that our economic advantage relies on a highly skilled and versatile work-force rather than large numbers of unskilled labour, I believe that it is folly for us to be complacent simply because we meet the minimum standard as set out by the UN. I would like to see us enshrine a right to higher education, and then work toward making that right a practical reality.

60

An Australian (who is currently a grad student in the US) checking in here with a contribution.

Ideally, i would like to see a system whereby the whole university system is funded through taxes, and people don’t have to pay for their education except through a progressive taxation system. As quite a few people on this thread have correctly pointed out, nothing is free. What we are essentially talking about here is changing the payment arrangement, and letting people have their education for no money upfront, on the understanding that this education will allow them to contribute to society, both in the work they do in their chosen field and in terms of taxes.

This was the case for about 16 years in Australia, from 1972 or 1973 through to (i think) 1988. I would be happy to go back to those days, but given that this is unlikely, i think the system that Australia currently has in place is a workable and comparatively equitable one. Here’s how it works:

Firstly, university education in Australia is subsidised by the federal government from tax revenue. Students make up the difference through a system called the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). HECS splits the university curriculum into three levels, and annual costs to the student are determined by what degree he or she is taking. The degrees that cost more to provide in terms of equipment, staff etc., and which are generally of higher prestige or higher earning potential, cost more than other degrees. The annual costs for each degree are as follows (all figures in $A; $A 1.00 = approx. $US 0.55):

Band 1 $3,598 (Arts, Humanities, Social Studies/Behavioural Sciences, Education, Visual/Performing Arts, Nursing, Justice and Legal Studies)

Band 2 $5,125 (Mathematics, Computing, other Health Sciences, Agriculture/Renewable Resources, Built Environment/Architecture, Sciences, Engineering/Processing, Administration, Business and Economics)

Band 3 $5,999 (Law, Medicine, Medical Science, Dentistry, Dental Services and Veterinary Science)

So, a four-year arts degree will cost you about $A 14,440 (approx. $US 8,000), and a five- or six-year law or medicine degree (these are combined undergrad/grad degrees) will cost about $A 30,000 - 36,000 (approx. $US 16,500 - 20,000).

The best part about the scheme, however, is not the price, but the way in which the money is collected. You don’t have to pay anything up front, and do not have to pay back any tuition costs until you are earning an income. Once your annual income exceeds $A 22,300 a year (a pretty paltry sum), you start paying the government back through the tax system. Each year, a certain amount is added to your tax bill until you have paid back your education fees.

The schedule for paying back HECS debts is as follows:

Annual income

Below $22,924 - Nil repayment
$22,924 to $24,176 - 3 per cent of income
$24,177 to $26,052 - 3.5 per cent of income
$26,053 to $30,220 - 4 percent of income
$30,221 to $36,473 - 4.5 per cent of income
$36,474 to $38,390 - 5 per cent of income
$38,391 to $41,266 - 5.5 per cent of income
$41,267 and above - 6 per cent of income

The debt does not draw interest, but does rise in line with the Consumer Price Index (i.e. with inflation).

There are some benefits that accrue to those with plenty of money. If you choose to pay your HECS fees up-front each year you are at college, you get a 25% discount. And if, after you have graduated, you make any voluntary payments in excess of $500 (on top of your normal repayment schedule) you get a 15% discount on those payments.

I currently have a debt of about $A 10,000 remaining. As i said, i’m in the US at the moment, and if i never return to Australia that debt will be written off. But i intend to return, and when i do i will commence repayments out of my Australian income.

This system allows people with little money to attend university in the knowledge that they do not have to start paying for their education until they graduate and are earning an income.