When democrats get over this idea of handing all the colleges blank checks and telling new students to pursue whatever degree they want, take as long as they want, put out as little effort as they want, and STILL we will pay for it.
Now can we backtrack and come up with something in the middle? Can we come up with scholarship programs tied to things like need and ability? Can we come up with ways to control the costs of college administrations? Can scholarships be tied to GPA and setting goals for making adequate progress? Can we tie scholarships to the needs of the community at large?
What if in response to your “middle of the road” suggestions here I dropped some giant, stinky turd of an argument? Maybe something like, “If you think college is expensive maybe don’t get $100,000 Gender Studies degrees!”
If we can talk about middle ground for a moment, before I was completely jaded, I thought the following was a good place to start between Democrats and Republicans: colleges have gotten way too expensive for normal people to afford, and the free market solutions (for-profit colleges) are not adequately solving the problem.
Now that I’m completely jaded, here’s a comment I made all the way back on page 3, in response to Shodan:
And you, Urbanredneck, did exactly what I would expect a modern conservative would do – shit on college as a concept. Pro-tip, never, ever use the words “gender studies” in an argument unless you’re actually talking about a specific person or degree program. It’s a very, very tired conservative trope that we’ve all heard before, it’s not clever, and it just makes me think you hate college. I’ve got 3 kids and 12 nieces and nephews all staring down the barrel of very expensive STEM degrees. Something needs to be done. I don’t think “free college for everyone” is the best idea, but if your response is to suggest that maybe they don’t get a gender studies degree, I’m going to assume we don’t have any common ground to stand on.
You seem to hold opinions in high regard if they’re held by someone you admire rather than if they’re supported by the facts. Wasn’t John McCain a pilot? Does being a pilot mean his opinion on interstate trade or immigration quotas has weight? Does it mean he made good decisions when he decided to vote in favour of Trump’s cabinet choices? If so, how?
First of all I understand, I have a kid about to start college (well trade school).
But your right I have to admit I am frustrated with colleges.
Maybe we should look at reforming the whole system and getting rid of the monopoly colleges have where they hold the keys to getting a job? Why does everyone have to go to college anyways? Why cant regular school end at 10th grade and have students go to trade schools or internships for the final 2 years?
Well it isnt going to happen because the colleges have this damn monopoly where a person almost HAS to go to a college. Then their is degree inflation. While it used to be adequate to get a BA in most fields, now you have to have a Masters. It’s crazy!
As for your above case, why couldnt they get more college credit in high school so college is at the most 2 years for their STEM degrees? I hope they can work it out so they wont have to take out so many loans.
No. It means I’ll listen closer to one who has put their life at stake for the country - before I vehemently disagree. As for McCain, I also consider his rather severe personal and military shortcomings as part of the package.
Another BIL of mine was an Army Ranger. I love and respect him, and quite thoroughly disagree with his politics. But I listen.
One of the reasons people talk past each other so much is because one side will talk about what a person should do that’s best for them, and the other side will talk about what policies are best for society. The two are not mutually exclusive, and it doesn’t help to ignore one over the other.
Consider a national package delivery company that has had a string of deaths and injuries from mechanics working on poorly supported delivery trucks. Friends, family, and coworkers of mechanics might well advise them to be extra careful around trucks, to double check the jack safeties, to always make sure to work with a buddy. All of that might be true and prudent advice, but there’s going to be another discussion at the executive level – are mechanics provided enough training, is the safety equipment adequate, are employees overworked or encouraged to cut corners to save time. The problem is that while being extra cautious around heavy equipment might work for an individual, if nothing else changes with the company culture, people will still get hurt and die. It’s just human nature. Some problems need to be solved from the top.
Likewise, all of the advise you listed is great for individuals, but college isn’t stupid expensive right now because hundreds of thousands of 18 year olds aren’t heading sound advice. Something else is going on, and it’s going to take large scale policy changes to fix.
Now, 20 years ago, common ground might have meant both sides want to fix the high cost of college, but Republicans didn’t see that as the job of the federal government while Democrats did. So Republicans would advocate for state level programs, or private charities, or for-profit colleges, and Democrats would advocate for federal grants and loans, and there’d be room for compromise in the middle there – some federal grants, some state programs, relaxed restrictions for for-profit colleges.
Didn’t work, mind you, so Democrats are now pushing for more radical ideas to fix college and Republicans are apparently leaving that common ground altogether, suggesting that maybe college as we know it isn’t worth saving. To me, THAT’S a radical idea, but it’s becoming more and more mainstream in the Republican party. And I don’t know where we go from there.
I don’t know where you are getting this notion of handing out blank checks. We will not be handing out blank checks any more than we hand out blank checks for any other form of public education.
529 plans are useless to poor people.
The fundamental question is whether a college education is something that ought to be distributed based on ability to pay. I think we’ve already answered the question on K-12 education and I think that we should not distribute college based on ability to pay either however it is resource intensive and most children would be beer served by a better k_12 system than by free college.
I think the best answer for society is to make admissions merit based (so only the top 10% get the full ride) and free. And spend the rest of the money on improving K-12.
This is… completely insane. Employers are the ones who decide that they will only hire people with a certain degree. Colleges don’t control any of that. This is 100% the fault of the employment market.
If you want this fixed, that means laws to prevent employers from requiring degrees that are irrelevant or unnecessarily advanced. Are you down for some government labor regulations to solve your problem? Let’s do it!
We should have a program where you can get federal tax deductions for donating to a college retirement account.
The catch: You can’t pick the person, they’re chosen from random out of a hat. But when they complete their degree, you are granted a 5 minute phone call with the graduate, in which you can congratulate or berate them for their academic performance and field of study.
