Hence the name: University of Second Choice.
But the thing is, if you’re comparing public high school with public college, then public college can’t be selective. Once you put the “selective” part into, then the comparison breaks down. You go to the public HS whose district you’re in, and there is no selection process.
I missed the part of your OP where you said the schools would be selective. Sanders’ talking points make no mention of selectivity, and if that’s his idea then I hate the plan 100x more. Parental income is a huge determinate of high school GPA, so the richest kids will have the best shot of getting a free college education. This plan would just further stack the deck against poor Americans.
The kids (mine included) in my lily-white upper-middle-class neighborhood might certainly want free college, but they don’t need it; they’re mostly going to college anyway. But under your plan, they’d all be first in line for a debt free college experience while the brown kids on the other side of town would be SOL. Nope, sorry, I can’t get behind this at all.
Most private colleges are not Harvard. Exceptional cases don’t make good examples.
As someone who has both attended and worked at private colleges, I think they serve a real need and are a better fit for many students than public colleges/universities are. I don’t want to see them close and I don’t want to see them out of the reach of all but the richest students.
Does this college funding scheme have a mechanism for reigning in tuition increases? Otherwise I can see states cutting their own funding to state schools and letting the feds pick up the tab. And there’s nothing to stop the schools from getting extravagant quickly.
I’m sure there are ways around that, but I didn’t see any details unless I missed a link.
I don’t understand the objection to loans and grants to students at private schools. If the point is to educate people, why not let the students use that money where they think they are getting the best value?
As long as the supply of college stays static, giving everyone more money to spendl just prompts colleges to raise prices. We’ve hit the point where the actual cost of tuition is so abstract that nobody cares; they’ll just get more loans, it’s all just numbers in a database somewhere.
I think the current system is good, guaranteed loans for those who can afford them and need-based grants for those who can’t, but if we want to curb the cost of college we need more colleges.
I’m pretty sure this is wrong. If you have more colleges serving the same population, that means decreasing the number of students at each college, which means the colleges will have to increase tuition per student (or cut programs) to make up for lost revenue.
I could be wrong, but it seems like economics 101 to me. If you only have 5 plumbers in a major city, they can all charge whatever they want, but if you have 5000 plumbers the consumers can select based on price. Replace plumbers with professors and I don’t see why it’d be any different.
I understand that objection. It’s more the objection of the OP that puzzles me.
This.
I think we could just sort of ease into some of this like say instead of free college for everyone, just giving out more scholarships.
Frankly I hate the idea of free college for everyone because their would be no mechanism or reasons for colleges to keep expenses down and I think we would have too many college students who would just be screwing around whereas right now the fear of debt pushes them to work and get out as fast as possible.
No, I get to criticize anything I want.
If you are claiming that debt doesn’t matter and we can continue to borrow and spend, then conservatives who say that debt doesn’t matter are right. Since debt does matter, the Tea Party is right and you are wrong.
You are quite correct - we do not yet spend the majority of our tax revenues on interest on the national debt. Congratulations on this stunning insight.
Which is exactly what I am advocating and you are arguing against. If Sanders gets his way, it will balloon further, and not be under control.
It will happen next year. It’s happening now. The national debt has doubled over the last eight years, and if Sanders gets his plans thru it will increase by a similar large and unsustainable amount.
As long as we never go into recession again, everything will be fine. Of course, an increasing amount of tax revenue will go to servicing the debt, and thus will be unavailable to pay for free education, free health care, free everything, but we can wave that off.
I am going to need to see your figures. Please demonstrate how many people will graduate from college when tuition is taxpayer-funded, and how much more they will pay in taxes, and how much more productive per capita countries with single-payer health care are than the US, and thus demonstrate that this will pay off in the long run.
Or wave your hands, simply assert “we can spend as much as we want and somehow it will all work out” and post stupid shit like -
and we can determine how much, if any, thought went into your position.
I didn’t see that in the article. The only thing I saw was a claim that private colleges got 25% of current federal aid. I don’t see how transferring 25% of federal aid will pay for tuition for 100% of state university graduates, including all of those who are paying for their own tuition in part or in whole.
Again, I would like to see some specific figures, either from you or from Sanders. How much, in total, are we spending in federal aid to private schools, how much, in total, does tuition at public universities cost, and how different are the figures?
ISTM that the author of the Atlantic article is comparing apples and oranges. Pell grants and most federal aid to students are need-based. Sanders is proposing that everyone has their tuition paid by the taxpayer regardless of need. It seems unlikely to me that eliminating 25% of need-based subsidies will cover the cost of extending subsidies of the same sort or greater to 100% of public university students. I am open to being convinced, but it seems unlikely.
Regards,
Shodan
To be clear, it is 110% of the PBGC guaranteed benefit, not 110% of the plan’s guaranteed benefit.
There are currently over 20 million college students in the US. If the percentage of people going to public free colleges matched the number of people going to public free high schools then 18 million people will be going to the free colleges. As I explained earlier providing free tuition to those 18 million people will cost an additional 300 billion above what the government now provides. If more people respond to the idea of free college buy attending college then there will be more hundreds of billions would be necessary.
The only way to make this scheme work is to say that public colleges will only be allowed to accept one third the students they do now. That would make the scheme revenue neutral. It would restore the prestige of college since only the top 10% or so of students would be accepted into the state schools. This would save the nation a huge amount of money that is currently wasted on higher education. However, it would be a massive transfer of wealth to the upper middle class and not be politically viable.
Would you also eliminate research grants from the government to private universities? Those are often granted to the students who will do the research.
What about entities which aren’t exactly the US government but which are closely linked to it? I had a grant from NATO (they have a very nice “researchers exchange” program).
Would the GI Bill not be applicable to students attending private universities? No ROTC in private centers?
Thats true and what about students who go to college on work/study programs? Will those be eliminated?
What about all the other scholarship funds given out? Will those go away?
What would be the advantage of most athletic scholarships?
Are we talking full free college or just the academic expenses or would it also be books?
Look, we wouldn’t be re-inventing the wheel here. Some other countries have free college education for all – we need only study how they do it, and what they do to prevent what you’re warning against.
That goes for a lot of Sanders’ proposals.
Germany and France do it in part by having a much lower percentage of students in post-secondary education. Cite. (And by much higher tax rates overall.)
So if we are going to do what they do, the number of students in tertiary education is going to have to be reduced.
Regards,
Shodan
Relating to this part of the OP, please reference for context Medicare for All: United states National Health Care Act.
*Under a single-payer system, all medical care would be paid for by the Government of the United States, ending the need for private health insurance and premiums, and probably recasting private insurance companies as providing purely supplemental coverage, to be used when non-essential care is sought.
The national system would be paid for in part through taxes replacing insurance premiums, but also by savings realized through the provision of preventative universal healthcare and the elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs.*
The idea is that a large entity would be able to negotiates better rates with the likes of drug companies and hospital systems, which are two culprits of high (and rising) costs of health care. As an alternative, Medicare for All could charge a nominal fee for working Americans to gain access to the vast, nationwide Medicare network of hospitals and providers, essentially becoming a competitor to traditional health insurance companies. Something like that could also help control costs.