I was surprised they ranked so high. They were the west coast equivalent of Notre Dame when I was in college (a university built around a football team). Now they seem to be competitive with UCLA. I was just looking for regional equivalents of well regarded public schools.
Well, they CAN be (see NYC science high schools or Virginia governor’s schools) but the requirement that everyone attend high school means that there must be someplace for every one to go.
I see your point about the difference between high schools and colleges but I don’t think the comparison breaks down. How do you justify the financing of private colleges at higher rates per student (using some measures) than public colleges? We would never think of financing private high schools before we funded selective public high schools or financing at higher amounts than selective public high schools.
There would certainly still be an admissions process or did you think that anyone could attend Berkeley under the Sanders plan?
But that doesn’t mean that college isn’t widely available. California has many UC schools as well as many more Cal State Schools. Along with many community colleges (where admissions is virtually guaranteed with a high school diploma).
How the fuck does making college cheaper stack the deck against poor Americans? It doesn’t make it easier for rich kids to attend college. it doesn’t open doors for kids in your lily white upper middle class suburb but it DOES improve access for kids that would struggle with the financial hardship of attending college.
I have friends who are community college professors and they have some very bright students that are attending a 2 year college before moving on to a 4 year college because they can’t afford the cost of attending college. If you go to NOVA, there are a handful of students in every class that could be going to One of the top three Virginia state schools (William & Mary, Virginia Tech or U. Va), but are choosing to spend time scrounging for classes and credits at NoVA community college to save money.
I see a role for private colleges just as there is a role for private high schools. There are plenty of kids in public high schools that would be better served at small private high schools and yet we do not fund these private high schools and we fully fund the public ones.
For every dollar that goes towards funding a kid that would be a good fit at USC, there is one dollar less for a kid that would be a good fit at UCLA. If we need a school like USC then why not just have a public school like USC? Or are you saying that we need to fund small new England liberal arts colleges?
And frankly many private colleges are now provide full scholarships to anyone that cannot afford them because they have HUGE endowments.
What do you think keeps state school tuition in check right now?
Like I said, it would work like Medicaid. States continue to kick in a portion and the feds cover the rest. This widespread availability of free tuition would put a lot of downward pressure on private college tuition at all but the most selective schools and IMO help reduce college debt even for students attending private colleges.
Why not just let me spend the money that the DC would otherwise spend on my public high school education at Sidwell Friends School or National Cathedral School?
How much do you think the federal government subsidizes the average public school student? How much do you think they subsidize the average private school student?
If we can make all public colleges tuition free by eliminating the subsidy for private schools, why would you want to maintain that hurdle to attending at least the public school?
We have a zillion colleges in this country right now. The private ones all charge about the same sticker price. There is really no price competition going on. Its not supply demand its ability to pay. Private school can cost $50,000/year because a lot of people can come up with $50,000/year if they mortgage their futures and have their parents dip into their retirement funds. If we could just open up new schools, the market would have done so already. At $50,000/head you can make a case for starting a new college but that’s not what happens.
I guess you might be making an argument for opening more state schools and maybe we need more college grads than we have right now but AFAICT we have more than enough college grads, we just don’t have enough in the right fields and a lack of colleges is not the reason for that shortage.
We just keep the number of seats at state schools static and make them free.
Go to your local community college, I guarantee you will find kids that cold have gone to a 4 year institution but could not even afford to attend their state school. Check out the socioeconomic background of those kids.
research grants are not aid. I don’t think this should be affected
NATO is not the federal government. I am specifically referring to the 3 or 4 programs that make up the lion’s share of federal aid to private college students.
The GI bill is not aid. That’s their money. They can spend it at USC or use it to pay for living expenses at UCLA. (I don’t mean to keep picking on USC and UCLA but they are about are both good schools, they are ranked very close to each other, they are in the same city, and one is public while the other is private).
I don’t know how the ROTC program works but I don’t see why we would need to have ROTC programs at private schools. I am especially skeptical of ROTC programs at schools that had formerly banned ROTC during the 60’s. I don’t know that our military is in such dire need of ivy league officers that we should pay as much or more for them at Harvard than they cost at Annapolis or West Point.
Make them fill out college applications with transcripts and test scores and shit like that. if you want to add an element of affirmative action, then I’m OK with that but that’s a different conversation.
It’s not in check, and it’s rising faster at public schools. If there is any check, it’s because a too-high tuition may drive students elsewhere.
Where is an explanation for the mechanism for this? The state subsidy per student varies wildly between schools. IIRC UVA is $10k and UNC is $25k. Will this be regulated by the federal government? What if a student goes to school out of state? It’s hard to critique a plan when there is no real plan to critique.
We’re investing in the student. I looked those schools up and they look like good investments. You have not answered my question.
I’m not sure why this is relevant, but you can find these numbers with a simple google search. And maybe you can answer my question with an answer instead of a question.
I’m asking you why a subsidy should be taken away from one student and given to another, and you’re answer is to ask why we shouldn’t take a subsidy away from one student and give it to another. That’s not an answer. Care to try again?
So dramatically lower the price but force supply to be the same. That doesn’t make sense. Demand would increase and there would be mass shortages. Seats would be like taxi medallions pre-Uber except there would be no price on them and no way to trade.
Um just a thought but you realise you could seriously slash your military spending and still be the number 1 highest spending military in the world by a huge margin.
The US spends as much on defence as the next seven countries combined:
You could cut $200 billion from the defence budget and STILL be more than double the next closest country.
How about reducing the amount of financial aid that inflates the cost of college. The student loan market is not immune from what caused the housing bubble based on cheap mortgages.
Handing out cash like candy without regard to whether the student can or will ever be able to repay it will eventually come crashing down.
The OP’s proposal to limit aid to students at private schools and give that money to students at public schools takes means-tested money away from poor students and gives it to wealthy students.
It’s not clear what problem the proposal is attempting to solve. The supposed student debt crisis in this country is a myth, confined to a few smaller populations.
I’m not sure that I can make it any more simple. You’re making college entrance merit-based and free. I don’t know what your criteria are, but let’s say anyone with over a 3.2 GPA in high school will be able to go to college debt free, and anyone with less than a 3.2 will be shit outta luck, forced to go to expensive private school or none at all. Wealthier kids are more likely to have a 3.2 or better, ergo your plan benefits the wealthy.
Yes, this plan will help some poor kids who have a good GPA and no money, but those kids are probably already eligible for need-based scholarships. As others have said, it’s unclear what problem this is trying to solve.
Do all of our world wide commitments also go away? Because saying we spend more than other countries doesn’t really demonstrate anything, unless those countries have the same requirements we do and are somehow able to meet them for less…which isn’t the case. Considering that most NATO countries aren’t even making the minimum GDP commitments they are supposed to by treaty, SOMEONE has to carry the water, and sadly that means us since I don’t see our European allies stepping up to help put some backbone into the alliance and make it a viable and credible military threat that will make other nations think twice before tangling with it. When there are no more military threats or potential threats around the world and/or when our allies step up to do their part in ensuring we collectively have the capability to deal with anything that might crop up and effect our collective interests then come back and we can talk about vast military spending cuts here in the US. Until then it would be kind of stupid of us to do this.
Tuitions rose during the great recession because states cut their funding while private schools couldn’t get away with large tuition hikes but its pretty much the same dynamic we saw with new versus used cars during the great recession. The price of used cars rose while the price of new cars fell. But considering how much more expensive the cost of private schools are compared to public schools its a stretch to say that there isn’t a check on public school tuition.
Well this is not the Sanders plan. The Sanders plan is to fund schools by taxing financial transactions.
Do you really need to have the mechanism of how lower cost alternatives would reduce the price of private schools explained to you? The great recession shows that there is price sensitivity in college applicants.
It’s not in check, and it’s rising faster at public schools. If there is any check, it’s because a too-high tuition may drive students elsewhere.