Let's grant Free Higher Education to Academically Qualified

Great Debates
1

Free Higher Education - if Qualified! Who could be against it?

Imagine if what a student made of his high school years determined if he got a college education - free!

Let’s say college admission was granted to whoever qualified academically, regardless of family income. Other things could be factored in as well, e.g., extracurricular activities, community service, etc.

The most deserving would be assured of further education and the students who spent their HS years totally goofing off, would have to pay or go for other training programs.

Wouldn’t this be an improvement over the current system? Let’s discuss the pros & cons (if their are any cons!)

2

Minor point maybe, but college admission is granted to whoever qualifies academically. They admit you regardless of your financial standing. It is up to the student to choose what to do about financing college.

dev

3

I said Free in the title, and in the first two sentences. The point is: you get the higher education free if academically qualified.

Forget the scholarships, forget all the student loan apps, forget years of repaying loans, just earn it with your academic achievment.

What better place to invest than in our academic achievers?

4

Sage, I know your heart is in the right place, and having graduated college recently (I turned in my last paper Tuesday) I would love to not spend the next ten years or so paying back loans. But IMO, that money would be better spent on elementary education so more kids would be academically prepared to go to college in the first place.

~Kyla

“What Would Captain Planet Do?”

5

Sage, your definately on the right track, but I would also agree with Kyla, that you should aim first at lower education.

I would also have a problem with paying for “all” higher education, in that I think some of it is a waste of time. (oh boy, now I’ve done it!)

And what would be the qualification by the way? The top 5% ? which would mean everybody would try harder, and the top 5% would remain the top 5%. Maybe if your allready in the top 10% you’d give it a shot, but for the rest, just another seemingly futile battle.

And a free education where? …harvard … where ever they wanted? Then you get the government saying to harvard “hey, you can’t charge us that much!” And harvard saying “Keep your nose out of our business, and your students too for that matter!”

I like the idea of programs that help fiancially challenged student’s. They are one of the best ways to stir the pot, and help end poverty cycles. Not to mention that done in the correct way, they don’t have alot of political enimies. But maybe expanding and/or fine tuning the ones we have now is the best option.

I noticed that you mentioned extracurricular activities, community service, etc. I sort of like that idea. I always felt sorry for a few that were actually quite smart and worked hard, but would choke on tests. Knowing they could make it up somehow, might help them to not only still qualify, but help them to not choke in the first place.

In all, you’ve stumbled onto a great example, of a rather simple straight forward concept, that most people might agree with in principal. But still has every potential to crumble because of real world complications! Suck’s don’t it…
I could be wrong…it happend once before…

6

This is exactly the system we have in Britain. Personally, I think it’s great. The only problem is that there is constant pressure to drive down the qualifying grades. A number of universities will admit people with two E-grade A levels, which is a very low level indeed (most people take 3 or 4 subjects at A level, so two Es means you failed one and barely passed the other two).

7

Sure, it makes sense on the surface. But the long term repercussions can be intimidating. Maybe it would cause more high school students to become overly stressed. That can easily lead to depression and suicide attempts. It may sound like I’m exaggerating, but I’m not. High schoolers kill themselves (or try to) more often than most people realise. Stress can be a big factor. Added pressure would probably be a bad thing.

What’s the proposal, anyway? That a certain percentage of people are allowed into uni based on their grade, and then a certain percentage of that group are given free education? Or that all people permitted entry to uni are subsidized? The second option is hopeless… the gov’t could never afford it.

BJ

8

[quote]
Originally posted by bossbuster:
Sage, your definately on the right track, but I would also agree with Kyla, that you should aim first at lower education.

I would also have a problem with paying for “all” higher education, in that I think some of it is a waste of time. (oh boy, now I’ve done it!)
[/QUOTE

Well, supposedly we do provide free lower education! :smiley: That it could stand some improvement is agreed!

The idea starting germinating in my mind when I was living in Greece a few years ago. Greece also has free higher education, but it is for all! Consequently, many of the guys stay in school until age 27, because the have to go in the army no later than age 27, but earlier if they complete school!

The Greek army is a well-educated army! :smiley:

This country should be able to improve on programs other countries already have. So rather than free education for all, I propose free for all who qualify. This could be not much different from passing grade levels now.

How could this country lose if we educate more young people better, who won’t wind up with years of debt when starting out in real life? It might even give more students incentives to do well.
And what would be the qualification by the way? The top 5% ? which would mean everybody would try harder, and the top 5% would remain the top 5%. Maybe if your allready in the top 10% you’d give it a shot, but for the rest, just another seemingly futile battle.

And a free education where? …harvard … where ever they wanted? Then you get the government saying to harvard “hey, you can’t charge us that much!” And harvard saying “Keep your nose out of our business, and your students too for that matter!”

I like the idea of programs that help fiancially challenged student’s. They are one of the best ways to stir the pot, and help end poverty cycles. Not to mention that done in the correct way, they don’t have alot of political enimies. But maybe expanding and/or fine tuning the ones we have now is the best option.

I noticed that you mentioned extracurricular activities, community service, etc. I sort of like that idea. I always felt sorry for a few that were actually quite smart and worked hard, but would choke on tests. Knowing they could make it up somehow, might help them to not only still qualify, but help them to not choke in the first place.

In all, you’ve stumbled onto a great example, of a rather simple straight forward concept, that most people might agree with in principal. But still has every potential to crumble because of real world complications! Suck’s don’t it…
I could be wrong…it happend once before…**[/quote]

9

Sheeeesh! Got interrupted and forgot to delete the rest of boss’s post! and finish the UBB code! :frowning: Hope you can figure it out anyhow!

10

blakjak, what’s your system in Australia?

Are you saying we shouldn’t provide free higher education because some may get stressed? Do you not think they get stressed now worrying about getting scholarships, putting their families into deep debt, taking on personal debt that will last years into their adult life? That’s not enough to give stress? :frowning:

11

This came up recently here in Illinois. It was proposed in the House that any student with a B-average or above would be granted free admission to Illinois college. It was killed because it would cost too much and, as Kyla said, some felt any such money would be better spent on early education.

12

“What better place to invest than in our academic achievers?” Agreed, but with any investment, there should be a return to the investors. I see the point of government backing student loans - the recipient students will presumably earn more by going to college than not, and thus be able to pay the loan back. Minimal cost to taxpayers, and overall benefit to the students, in that even after paying back the loan, they show a net gain. But why should taxpayers be made to pay for university educations, with no expected return? It’s like asking me to give you money, so that you can make more money, but you don’t have to pay me back. Yes, I understand that there are other benefits to be gained from a university education other than money, and further, that everyone benefits from the education of those qualified. But these benefits are still obtained even if the students pay back their loans.

13

The return would be a better educated populace, resulting in more future tax dollars taken in, maybe more businesses started which would in turn employ more people, for starters.

On the other hand, many have no problem paying endless amounts of money to house, feed, clothe, medically treat convicted murders, mass murders, serial killers for the rest of their natural lives. See this thread:

So why would we rather pour endless dollars into the total care of violent felons, with NO payoff, but vote no for a few years of education for our young people who will be future taxpayers for years and years? Help me understand this thinking!

14

Totally UBB-challenged today! :frowning:

DP-Thread

15

I think it’s a good idea, as long as trade and technical schools are included. I mean schools like Heald and others which really prepare students for a career. All these schools would have to be accountable for the success of their students.
As for early education, roll these into the system too. Make them accountable for the progress of their students. And keep public education. Free, quality education from kindergarten through graduation and entry into the job market, regardless of the students economic situation. Based only on his/her achievement.
As for paying for this admittedly expensive system, we should be able to work that out. As has been proposed before, just set up sort of a reverse social security system. You collect the benefits when you’re young and getting your education (K-college), then pay your share the rest of your working life. A national education fund, for all education, separate and untouchable for other uses. Sorry, CIA.
Ole blue sky strikes again. :slight_smile:
Peace,
mangeorge

16

A-MEN, brother!!!

To be fair, a free education is available for top students. If a student can get into Harvard or Princeton, they can find a full ride at, perhaps, a state school or a middle of the road lib-arts college. Of course, the money saved may be negligible over the long haul…

Interesting fact about Harvard: they have over $10 billion in the bank. Let’s assume for a moment that tuition per year at Harvard was $40,000 (and let’s also imagine that they institute a tuition freeze…Williams did so this year, so others may not be far behind). Let’s say they enroll 2000 undergrads in every class (a ballpark figure…it’s about right), so 8000 undergrads total. If the could invest that 10 bil at a rather paltry 3.2%, they could afford to send everyone to school for free on that money alone (they would still have the sizable alumni donations coming in, of course, which would supply their profit base). Harvard is not the only one. Columbia has 6 bil in the bank, and I’m sure that Princeton and Yale have somewhere between 6 and 10. The other Ivys, and many other comparable institutions, are almost definetly up in the billions as well.

The ones who really get it stuck to them are the middle class students that qualify for Ivy League schools (hello). The Ivy League (as well as most comparable institutions, Duke, Hopkins, Stanford, etc) work on “needs-blind” admissions. They consider your application without ever looking at your financial statement. Then, once admitted, they use your financial statement to “construct a financial aid package” for you (of course, the Ivy League schools are not allowed to give “scholarships,” they give financial aid based solely on financial need, not other accomplishments). Naturally, the institutions aren’t exactly psyched to waive tuitions, so you have to demonstrate a legit financial need to get any help. The problem is students whose family income isn’t low enough to get aid, but who still don’t have that kind of money lying around. Basically, they have two options: hunt like a bastard for outside scholarships (this can rather arduous work, especially during the school year, as scholarships don’t exactly fall into the laps of the middle-class), or use their Ivy acceptance as leverage to get another school to shell it out for them (not an option for us early-D applicants).

Actually, David, Illinois also set up another program wherein parents can start paying towards their child’s education at birth. Of course, you’d have to be a gambling man to partake in it, since it restricts your child to Illinois public institutions. So if your kid is a prodigy and could go off to Oxford, you’ve either screwed him or bankrupted yourself. And if he turns out to not be the “college type,” well, tough luck I suppose.

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill

17

What exactly does a “free college education” mean? Does it just mean no tuition? Here in California, the public colleges don’t have tuition; they have “student fees”, which while considerable (several thousand dollars for the upper tier universities) are nowhere near the actual cost of educating the students. For a student attending a public college in California, food and housing cost more than the student fees (unless, of course, they’re still living with their parents). So would “free education” include giving students rent money? Would the amount of rent money depend on whether or not the student is living at home? What about students that attend school part time? Should they still be given just as much rent money?

18

Another question: is this proposed system federal or state?

19

Federal or state? Well, we incarcerate prisoners in city, county, state and federal facilities, so I think we could transfer that know-how to housing college students.

And on campuses with dorms, first priority would be full-time students too far from home to commute. I don’t see any need to house part-time students. You could wind up with students taking minimal classes to get the accommodations.

And “what would free mean”? Charge for books? Possibly.

Trade & technical schools? Yes, I think they should be included.

Alot of good questions and comments guys! There are definitely alot of areas to be considered. Everyone just accepts the fact of paying for the horrendously large penal system, but if this country would get the mindset to invest in higher education, I can’t see how it could fail! We’d start seeing the payoff in the same decade!

20

No matter what is included in the “free”, it is only free to the recipient; it is paid for by everyone else. I have no problem with that, for children’s education. But college students are adults, with few exceptions. They are supposed to be ready for the job market. If they aim for jobs that require additional education, then let them pursue it. We’ll provide cheap loans for those that need them, and maybe more assistance for the truly needy.

But free to all qualifiers, even the those that can afford it? To take an extreme example, that means someone who just isn’t bright enough and has to work low paying jobs in whatever field, gets to help pay for Bill Gates’ kids to go to law school, after which they will make millions. Now the not-too-bright do actually get some infinitesimal benefit from Gates’ kids being lawyers, but it hardly justifies making them pay for his education.