Good point. An education shouldn’t bankrupt you, but I agree if you have some of your own cash in the pot, you should have more motivation to do well.
My own personal opinion based on my own personal experience - unless a person knows absolutely what they want to do with their life, they should take a year or two off between high school and possible college and have a taste of the real world. I went right from high school to college, thinking I wanted to be a teacher. It only took a couple of months for me to realize that I was sick of being in school and I didn’t want to be in college.
My solution was to join the Navy (where I was immediately sent to school for a year, but it was very specific training for a very specific job specialty) and after a few years, I applied for and was accepted into a program where I earned my engineering degree. At 18, I had no idea what an engineer did or that I could be one.
As for my question, I’d like to see most, if not all, the cost of tuition, fees, and books covered. Living expenses according to need. And there need to be specific standards that must be met. If the student can’t be serious, let him/her try a shot at real life for a while.
Top-ranked universities are quite often free. If Harvard decides they want to admit you, they’ll make sure that you’re able to afford it, one way or another. If you’re not worth spending scholarship money on, if needed, they just won’t admit you at all.
Is the problem that higher education is not free or is the problem that it’s so incredibly expensive? Someone has already brought up that tuition is outpacing inflation. @Hari_Seldon laid it out pretty well.
People who went to college before 2000, before the “student debt crisis” are already sort of baffled that Millennials and younger are drowning in student debt because when they (we) went to school it wasn’t that ridiculously expensive. People seem to think it’s a failing of the borrower but it’s really due in large part to the hyper inflated costs.
When I went to college in 1997 I went to state school and never got a loan. I got a couple measly scholarships and my dad (a middle class worker) had no problems paying the rest. I am positive if I went just a few years later I’d still be paying off a student loan…or still living with my folks when I was 30.
I am all for loan forgiveness but I don’t think college needs to be free. And I’m a dirty Liberal. I think college costs need to be way more regulated than they are. And I’ll throw in that I’m on the side of the professors who say they are underpaid, and on the side of the people who are disgusted that college football coaches are the highest paid state workers in the country and the athletes play for free.
I’m all for some taxes going to higher education but I am NOT for taxes going to whatever bloated costs are causing these huge inflated tuition prices.
Just like I’m for universal health care because it will lower the cost of health care for all by removing the costs of profit.
But to do this in higher education there needs to be regulation to cut out that high profit. And we might find that when that high profit is eliminated that college is once again affordable without being taxpayer funded.
Traditionally, the textbook industry made its money by releasing new editions of books. Sometimes these iterations reflected breakthroughs in the academic fields they covered, though they often seemed to amount to little beyond the previous version with a couple of new images. Regardless, they cost an estimated 12 percent more with every release on average, which has ultimately led to the price of textbooks rising four times faster than the rate of inflation. As the Atlanticreported in 2013, the price of textbooks had outstripped everything from healthcare to houses since 1978, rising some 812 percent along the way.
True. On the other hand, if a kid faints at the sight of blood but thinks he’s going to be a doctor…
True. My hunch is that there’s really a lot of chaff. Lots of high school aged students might say they want to be a doctor for instance, but are they taking the challenging classes, maintaining good grades, and generally walking the walk? With time, maybe the government can sweeten the deal sufficiently for businesses to participate more. It could also be good PR and a chance to meet the up-and-coming talent.
I know a guy who got a law degree, practiced a short while, and got out. It wasn’t what he expected. He opened a record store and was much happier.
If I implied that comment was directed at you, sorry. I just think many people figure college is the be-all-end-all and it isn’t. We probably all know some people without college degrees—plumbers, real estate agents, etc.—who make plenty of money, if that’s the measure of success. Especially as college gets more expensive, I think it’s worth remembering.
I went to school with a guy I who wanted to be a forest ranger. AIUI those people didn’t (don’t?) make any money and we asked if he really wanted it because he might never pay off the loans he was taking out. I like the idea that the government would pay it, reasoning that forestry management is important. If someone is willing to accept the low pay, they shouldn’t also be paying back loans for it.
I believe that full taxpayer subsidy of tuition without taxpayer control of cost will result in ballooning costs. E.g. if the federal government will cover full tuition at any state school, states will have even less pressure to control costs than they do now.
I suspect this is solvable but I haven’t seen a coherent plan and doubt I can put one together. But maybe other countries have models we could emulate.
Re: textbooks versions, how often are college students even turning in graded problem sets? IME they were just in a few intro classes, which are ripe for open sourcing*. Otherwise they were just “assigned” as study aids.
*Per the peanut gallery reading over my shoulder, this is already a thing. I know nothing about it.
Again, scale and accessibility - I’m talking about requirements for all students. Internships are great - I did one in high school for genetics - I wanted to be a science researcher - it was actually the other students in the program that convinced me I didn’t really want that path, those kids were obsessive and didn’t have a life. But in a high school class of 200 students, I was the only person who had any experience like that. Another student got a year abroad through a student exchange program. Funding half a dozen hours of one on one post high school focused counseling for every student during their high school career is doable (not cheap, but doable). Getting every student a high profile internship (where is my nephew going to do a physics research internship in the middle of North Dakota? He’s an hour from a WalMart.) is not doable.
Here is a true story. It’s about Princeton, but is likely true, or nearly so all the top private schools.
About 30 years ago, I was having a light conversation with the principle (= president) of McGill, whose twin brother was president of Princeton. Our guy was hired explicitly to end McGill’s deficit. So I said to him, “I guess when you and your brother get together your problems are entirely different.” He readily agreed and said, “My brother tells me that Princeton could easily afford to abolish tuition.” So I asked him why they didn’t. His answer was that they wanted a good representation from families that could afford tuition for those would be where their future donations would come from.
Even granting that, why do they give partial scholarships and partial loans? I know because I had just finished painfully paying off the loan we made when my son went to Princeton.
Community college is free in my area if you go during high school. The school district pays for the tuition. All 3 of my kids took at least 2 college level classes during high school. Several of their classmates got an Associates Degree or Technical/trade degree at the same time they got their high school diploma.
Apologies for the hijack, - To me, this is yet another weakness of our Federal vs. State system. The other countries we like to point to do not have the same division of responsibilities (to my knowledge). They are generally what we would consider completely Federally governed. So, looking to emulate the model of other countries will inevitably run up against these structural differences that drive our political discussions.
Then create more guidance counselors. We have way to few of them for the number of students. And create specialists - we shouldn’t have the same person who is coaching a kid to get into a highly selective school be the person who helps a kid adjust after coming home from rehab - even if they are the same kid. The expertise to deal with drug abuse or social problems or career counseling or college counseling or “I want to get into a different Math course, this is too hard for me” - all of that are different skills - some of them wildly different.
Good point, top universities will recruit students (especially athletes) at little cost to the student. I was thinking more of this Oxford Dictionary definition of ‘free’: “not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.”
In the context of free higher-education in Europe mentioned earlier, free doesn’t mean it’s accessible.
Completely agree on both fronts: The solution is simple. Of course, “simple” is not the same thing as “easy”: The way to create more guidance counselors is to pay them more, and then pay for more of them. And the money isn’t there.
And the high schools I’m familiar with are all urban or suburban. I’m not sure how job shadowing would work in a rural area, either.
If the Ivy League schools were truly interested in providing great educations to the broadest swath of our population, they should take their nearly $200 billion in endowments, and expand their brands and campuses to more places across the country, thus admitting more students and providing an Ivy League education to multiples of the enrollments they have today. They should have no problem recruiting the most highly qualified faculty because their brands.
It would never happen, because the boards and alumni of these institutions would feel like this strategy would dilute the schools’ brands which is very critical to those particular stakeholders.
Tuition, books, dorm, and cafeteria for the first two years of a state run school or trade school.
Said vouchers can be used for accredited private schools, apartments, and groceries/meals not in the cafeteria. Any deficit is the student’s responsibility. Any overage in food is just bonus spending money. The college will pay for the apartment directly so if it’s cheaper there’s a bit more in the bucket for next time.
what problem would it solve? There’s no shortage of colleges
I think we have three problems in the US:
too many jobs require a college degree. This is partly because our high schools suck, in many cases, and businesses see college as meaning “can read, write, and cipher”.
college costs to damn much. I don’t think everyone should go to college, but i think state schools should be free to those who qualify.
we don’t have a lot of non-college job education. Vocational school in my high school was where those who couldn’t hack high school ended up. But why? A good electrician needs to understand some math. There are tons of jobs that would be better served by teaching kids how to do those jobs, and tons of kids who would be good at doing those, and well-served by an easy path to get there. This should also be free to those who qualify.
It’s the job of society to rear the next generation.
Community colleges have huge vocational departments, though. Vocational programs for days. And a lot of them do require a higher level of basic skills than the vocational programs of yesteryear: you need more math, you need more basic writing (today, a plumber needs to be able to send emails to ask questions and explain answers), you need a basic understanding of technology. So it makes sense to me that you need more high school before you start vocational classes.