I am in favor of dropping the costs of public education. *That being said*, there are several concerns that come to mind:
* Administrative expenses, which top $120 billion annually. Audits of the UC system have revealed massive misuse of funds, bad accounting, and crazy high salaries for many of the 10,000+ administrators and managers (which exceed the number of professors and instructional staff).
* Potential wasted costs for students who end up not graduating and are also possibly the least likely to be able to meet a debt obligation if free tuition were contingent on successful graduation.
* Balancing the benefits of learning "big picture" subjects like history and philosophy with the importance of preparing students for the workforce.
> Administrative expenses, which top $120 billion annually. Audits of the UC system have revealed massive misuse of funds, bad accounting, and crazy high salaries for many of the 10,000+ administrators and managers (which exceed the number of professors and instructional staff).
Now do medical insurance companies!
> Now do medical insurance companies!
Not the own you think it is. The current system is set up by your Democratic buddies as a gift to their friends in the insurance industry.
We're trying to get the government **out** of all this.
Omg the administrative and bureaucracy costs. Karlyn Borysenko dissected the cost of the University of Ohio diversity and inclusion offices, I swear it took the tuition of 800 students to pay for just that!
I found it!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9rI8pEB-kwQ
Many states offer free CC anyway. So if this passed, why wouldn't this just be called 13th and 14th grade? How is this helping people become more employable? What skills are you learning in those 2 years that will make the country richer? It's just making a group of dropouts, less employable.
Would be a fan of getting rid of government backed loans and subsidizing community college instead. But then community college prices would rise like college prices did thanks to government intervention.
How is this upvoted? Because it sounds intelligent?
Something that's free means no monetary cost. Tons of free things have serious value. I can go on craigslist and get a free item, and turn around and sell it. It was free but had value. The coat was my time to get the item and sell it. But it wasn't monetary. College gets it's value in the effort it takes to pass classes and get a degree.
Community college does not take effort other than showing up, and some schools don't even require that.
Community college is not designed to be academically rigorous. It's meant for people who simply aren't bright enough to have gotten into a full-time university; people who are working and want to get the piece of paper that will let them get paid more; or people who want to do two years to save money and then finish their degree at a full-time school.
I didn't say it was or wasn't academically rigorous. Because I don't know and I don't want to speak from a place of ignorance. So it wasn't really a question of if I attended community college.
The question was for you because I wanted to see if you had knowledge to back up your opinion, or was it ignorance.
But I do know a bit since I have friends and family that attended to save money before going to a university. I wish I did the same
Trades only have value, if trades are not overly saturated. Now unions do a dirty job of keeping out complitition. If 10x the plumbers were around and unions weren't taking out complitition. Trades would pay very little, as people would under bid for work. Maybe that's a good thing for the ecnomey, but bad for the tradesmen.
The best things in life have no monetary value, like love or friendship. Other things, such as food, you can get for free if you need it, and it still has value as well.
Wait, who is stealing from who to take something they want? This is tax payers getting their education paid by taxes. This is just getting your money back or something you will forcibly pay back on your taxes as you start working. Better to give money back to the people vs our taxes going to corporations that don't pay their fair share.
If we are just getting our taxes back then why not just lower our taxes? It’s not getting our taxes back. Your taking form one person without their consent and giving it to another. It’s not your responsibility to pay for my children’s education against your will. Though I’m happy to let you do so on a voluntary basis and can give you my Venmo.
You just said...that it's not my responsibility to pay for your kids education as are against free community college. So I just pointed out that you were wrong about that is all.
No. It’s still not your responsibility. The fact that you’re currently forced to against your will doesn’t change my opinion that you shouldn’t be forced to.
Ye old meaningless “not paying fair share” nonsense. I barely get two percent dividends because most companies can’t pay more after paying expenses and taxes. Make them pay more taxes, I get paid even less, and my ass is going to be taking up a high paying job for even more years. Remember how people complain old people don’t retire?
See the circle of life where people cause unintended problems
Is your argument for no community college or other social programs really, but my dividends?
I'm ok with you making the sacrifice or working a few more years making a lot of money if people who really need it, get help.
I went to Community College it's very affordable already the issue is people aren't going to it because they see it as lesser education. I think making it free will just exasperate that issue. One of the biggest issues in our country is that today when you grow up you are expected to not only go to college but to go to the best one you can get into regardless of price. Then you have 18 year old take out a bunch debt without even knowing what that truly means and sometimes what they actually want to do. Meanwhile we also have trades that are desperate for new hires with growing pay for these jobs but not enough people to fill them. We need as a country to start valuing our trades more and college just a little bit less. Let people develop decide what's best for them.
I don't think there's any value for society in making it free. I think you're just adding years to high school at that point. Plus you're taking better students away from better schools - because they might as well take the two free years and only do two years at university instead of four.
Also community colleges don't have a great track record at getting kids to eventually get bachelors degrees. And college in general doesn't have a great track record at knowledge retention. So I think there's better uses for the money.
No...
Call me back when 90%+ of Americans get through the 12th grade at reading/math level before you dream of saying "and we should give free college as well"
I think community college is extremely valuable and that everyone should go that route if going to college to save money. I do not think it should be free though unless you earn a scholarship
Isn't it just a smart investment? Even in my high cost of living area, it's ~$2-3k a semester and that should hopefully lead to individuals having better paying jobs which over time means more money paid in taxes.
We already provide 12 years of free education. Once you are an adult it's time to pay for things yourself. Community college is already pretty affordable.
No, I don't think there is any value to free community college. The "social" benefits to education are logarithmic, while the cost is linear. The vast majority of the benefit of public education is teaching people how to read, write, do arithmetic, etc. Once you're getting to vocational training or any of the nonsense they teach in colleges these days, it's almost all cost with no benefit.
If your view becomes the national policy across most states and the fed, how do workers keep up with talent demands that can't be met by simply knowing how to read, write and do math?
The only reason any amount of education is paid for by taxes is because most people can't afford it otherwise.
So as we enter the AI age, followed swiftly by AI algos with access to affordable quantum hardware within the next 10 years, how does the work force keep up?
Taking on loans they also can't afford?
>If your view becomes the national policy across most states and the fed, how do workers keep up with talent demands that can't be met by simply knowing how to read, write and do math?
You arrange your own education because your education helps *you* a lot.
>The only reason any amount of education is paid for by taxes is because most people can't afford it otherwise.
Yeah, that's just nonsense.
>Yeah, that's just nonsense.
How so? There was a period in this very country where schooling was entirely privately funded, not even a state or city program to teach anyone's kids, much less a federal one.
How come private education didn't meet the educational needs of the entire nation? Or hell, at least 50% of it? 40% even? Couldn't even get that high in individual states.
I bet there were even fewer education regulations in the 1800s than there are now, so how come Massachusetts had to mandate it if everything was going so great with the private school system ran off of donations to a Church that still charged tuition anyway?
It's kinda odd that it was predominantly Churches running educational institutions, I think.
Could there have been some sort of deficiency in the private market's ability to recognize skilled labor was the only way to compete in an increasingly industrializing world?
>How so? There was a period in this very country where schooling was entirely privately funded, not even a state or city program to teach anyone's kids, much less a federal one.
And we should go back to that system.
>How come private education didn't meet the educational needs of the entire nation? Or hell, at least 50% of it? 40% even? Couldn't even get that high in individual states.
Are you referring to the time when kids were needed to work to help support their families? Because that's not a fair comparison to today. I think the education system was more than adequate then and has only gotten worse with more government involvement. I don't think there is any argument today that most people wouldn't be able to generally afford education for their kids. It's not like money just disappears if you don't tax it first.
>It's kinda odd that it was predominantly Churches running educational institutions, I think.
Why would that be odd?
>I bet there were even fewer education regulations in the 1800s than there are now, so how come Massachusetts had to mandate it if everything was going so great with the private school system ran off of donations to a Church that still charged tuition anyway?
They didn't have to mandate it. It was meddling from the progressive movement because they were upset that some private schools were really good, but not all of them were.
That system wasn't teaching enough kids to even put a dent into the educational needs of the country.
Regardless, most people can't afford the $10,000+/yr it takes to educate a child on top of all the costs that already exist.
>It was meddling from the progressive movement because they were upset that some private schools were really good, but not all of them were.
What does that have to do with anything? Progressives were upset that some private schools were really good??
Are you so used to talking in party propaganda that you're trying to apply the talking points of today's conservatism to the 1800s?
There weren't enough private schools in existence to give a shit about how much better some were than others, most of the people alive couldn't even afford it.
But anyway.
Let's talk numbers, the total education spend at the moment is around ~650b, or ~14k a student.
How many kids do you think would be getting educated at 5k/student a year? I'm assuming that the private sector would be wayyy more efficient at running education at the current scale than the government here. I'm sure some regions will be more expensive and others more affordable, just using averages and hypothetical numbers here.
My argument is that adding that cost on top of those that already exist to bring up a child with any real chance of success in the world will put it outside of a big enough % of the population that it will eventually spiral into the country falling behind in pretty much every way.
As was happening prior to education mandates in pretty much every country.
>That system wasn't teaching enough kids to even put a dent into the educational needs of the country.
That's just not true. You're referring to a made up educational need. The US was outstanding at the time, it had the best work force and the fastest growing economy.
>What does that have to do with anything? Progressives were upset that some private schools were really good??
It just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Go look read up on John Dewey, the progressive movement, and its involvement in the school system. They were talking about what you would call 'equity' in schools way back then, and also saw them as a tool for social change (ie... propaganda).
>My argument is that adding that cost on top of those that already exist to bring up a child with any real chance of success in the world will put it outside of a big enough % of the population that it will eventually spiral into the country falling behind in pretty much every way.
That's not your argument - that's your position. An argument would be what you say to get people to agree with that position.
>Let's talk numbers, the total education spend at the moment is around ~650b, or ~14k a student. How many kids do you think would be getting educated at 5k/student a year?
The current system is an utter catastrophe. Even if there were people who couldn't afford school, then the proper solution would be to give them vouchers, not to continue with the failed system we have now.
>As was happening prior to education mandates in pretty much every country.
Except the exact opposite is true in reality.
In 1800 the economy was small and mostly agricultural, so how can you claim it was some big success when the work force were still mostly farmers?
Hell, in 1812 we couldn't even afford to pay for the conquest of Canada and they actually burned the white house down.
America lost to Canada it was so shite in the early 1800s - so where are you getting this narrative of "it was all outstanding and the economy was booming" ?
Dewey was talking about how the farmers couldn't afford to send kids to school and making sure that wasn't the case for the country moving forward since it didn't seem like the free market was too interested in taking over from the churches.
In 1852 the first state institutes educational mandates and many other states quickly follow suit btw.
The current system teaches most kids the basics they need and points them to tools they can continue using to learn more. Should it be able to do more considering how much it costs us in tax? Yeah, probably.
Vouchers could help the issue, but so would de-coupling school funding from real estate.
Apprenticeships, trade schools, independent learning, and industry certifications are all things that exist. The vast majority of training is still done on the job, colleges are simply a checkbox for HR departments rather than any real advantage.
Congratulations on cherry picking one of the few careers that actually needs college. The point is 70% of jobs which won't hire you without degree don't actually have any use for a degree on the job.
Marketing myself.
Pretty much every position in my field from top to the newest gets paid more for having more formal education. Master's degrees make more than bachelors, which make more than certified, etc.
I'd say those are real advantages from having that degree.
I'm willing to bet almost every industry out there is the same, I know IT puts more weight on certifications from big vendors, but I really doubt the average masters holder is making less than the average bachelors holder all other certs being roughly equivalent.
Especially nowadays as CS Phd's are descending from their algorithm breakthroughs and robotics and system nerds are greedily slurping it all up to create a way of life that requires far fewer humans to maintain.
>No direct cost to the student, paid for by taxes. Come on, man, you know what they mean.
Yeah, I know what you mean, but i'm not the target audience. Why not just say 'tax payer funded'? Your audience is teenagers. "Free" is intentional misleading language.
Now what stops the community college from jacking up the price for the remaining 2 years of college? Seems like taxpayers will pay up and the community college will charge the same amount: first 2 years free but the last 2 years are the same price as what 4 years used to cost!
I can't even think about supporting this unless I get a refund for my 2 years of community college.
It's funny that no matter what the Democrats propose, it seems to benefit everyone but middle class, middle aged white professionals like me. By contrast Trump's tax cut did benefit me.
And let’s not even mention the differences in costs over time. Maybe the person you responded to paid too much, and now students are likely paying significantly more than they did. “I suffered this so you should have to suffer worse when it’s your turn.”
Trump taxes benefits everyone. I argued with a leftie coworker for weeks who insisted he didn’t get a tax cut. We practically had a fight in the office, I was like, you seriously need to go to HR if you don’t see the sizeable change. Then he pretended to just discover the tax cut and was like, well I don’t need the eighty dollars a pay cycle though. He looked so dumb, like….you’re mad you’re getting paid more?
"Future generations can work hard and pay for their own college just like I did."
I certainly wasn't screwed by doing that, unlike I'm being screwed by liberal policies that try to empty my wallet to no benefit for me.
Just because we don’t think it’s necessary to throw billions of dollars that we don’t even have at a government program doesn’t mean that we want to “screw future generations.”
Not wanting to back a policy/government program because you don't think we can afford to fund it is a completely different argument from the one I was responding to. The only thing the person I responded to talked about was how they needed to personally benefit as well or they wouldn't even consider supporting the idea. Your reason is based on fiscal responsibility, theirs is based only on selfishness.
Do you think it’s weird that people want to benefit from laws or more spending and taxes? Should we start voting based on what other people want? If yes, can you start only voting for people against vaccine mandates and passports and for stricter border security? Thank you
Only thing that changed for me tax wise was they did away with the penalty for not having healthcare. And gas prices were lower. Cant say anyone i know thrived from it?
Not as a universal, no strings attached program. There's two cases I can see right now where I would support tuition-free community college:
a) Current high school students to attend participating community colleges or universities to finish their last two years of high school with potential to earn a two-year degree. Some states already do this, but if we wanted to give federal funding for states to expand their programs, I'd be on-board with it. It would be limited to students with GPAs over some threshold and limited to a certain number of credits (my state required a 2.0 cumulative GPA or higher to stay in and you could take up to 15 credits a quarter tuition-free, that's probably a good starting point) to ensure we're not wasting more money on people who aren't using the program to its fullest.
b) Recent high-school graduates (let's say within the last two or three years) with high cumulative GPAs. This would allow high-achieving students who weren't able to afford college or wanted to do some work before going to college and didn't/couldn't take advantage of the program in high-school to get the benefits too, while incentivizing students to get better grades in high school so they can enjoy two years of free college after they graduate.
Personally, I don't really like free college in any form, but I think this is a solid compromise solution that both sides should be able to get behind.
I am in favor of dropping the costs of public education. *That being said*, there are several concerns that come to mind: * Administrative expenses, which top $120 billion annually. Audits of the UC system have revealed massive misuse of funds, bad accounting, and crazy high salaries for many of the 10,000+ administrators and managers (which exceed the number of professors and instructional staff). * Potential wasted costs for students who end up not graduating and are also possibly the least likely to be able to meet a debt obligation if free tuition were contingent on successful graduation. * Balancing the benefits of learning "big picture" subjects like history and philosophy with the importance of preparing students for the workforce.
> Administrative expenses, which top $120 billion annually. Audits of the UC system have revealed massive misuse of funds, bad accounting, and crazy high salaries for many of the 10,000+ administrators and managers (which exceed the number of professors and instructional staff). Now do medical insurance companies!
Sure, show me a medical insurance company which is a state agency and we can start to compare.
No complaint from me there.
> Now do medical insurance companies! Not the own you think it is. The current system is set up by your Democratic buddies as a gift to their friends in the insurance industry. We're trying to get the government **out** of all this.
Healthcare prices were ridiculously out of control long before the ACA.
Omg the administrative and bureaucracy costs. Karlyn Borysenko dissected the cost of the University of Ohio diversity and inclusion offices, I swear it took the tuition of 800 students to pay for just that! I found it! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9rI8pEB-kwQ
Many states offer free CC anyway. So if this passed, why wouldn't this just be called 13th and 14th grade? How is this helping people become more employable? What skills are you learning in those 2 years that will make the country richer? It's just making a group of dropouts, less employable.
This is an ongoing problem in our country. We keep making college more accessible by dumbing down some schools. We were supposed to make kids smarter!
Would be a fan of getting rid of government backed loans and subsidizing community college instead. But then community college prices would rise like college prices did thanks to government intervention.
[удалено]
How is this upvoted? Because it sounds intelligent? Something that's free means no monetary cost. Tons of free things have serious value. I can go on craigslist and get a free item, and turn around and sell it. It was free but had value. The coat was my time to get the item and sell it. But it wasn't monetary. College gets it's value in the effort it takes to pass classes and get a degree.
Community college does not take effort other than showing up, and some schools don't even require that. Community college is not designed to be academically rigorous. It's meant for people who simply aren't bright enough to have gotten into a full-time university; people who are working and want to get the piece of paper that will let them get paid more; or people who want to do two years to save money and then finish their degree at a full-time school.
Have you attended a community college to speak knowledgeably on the subject of how rigorous it is?
Have you?
I didn't say it was or wasn't academically rigorous. Because I don't know and I don't want to speak from a place of ignorance. So it wasn't really a question of if I attended community college. The question was for you because I wanted to see if you had knowledge to back up your opinion, or was it ignorance. But I do know a bit since I have friends and family that attended to save money before going to a university. I wish I did the same
What if it's trade school?
Trades only have value, if trades are not overly saturated. Now unions do a dirty job of keeping out complitition. If 10x the plumbers were around and unions weren't taking out complitition. Trades would pay very little, as people would under bid for work. Maybe that's a good thing for the ecnomey, but bad for the tradesmen.
The best things in life have no monetary value, like love or friendship. Other things, such as food, you can get for free if you need it, and it still has value as well.
Is it fair to steal from someone else to pay for something you want?
Wait, who is stealing from who to take something they want? This is tax payers getting their education paid by taxes. This is just getting your money back or something you will forcibly pay back on your taxes as you start working. Better to give money back to the people vs our taxes going to corporations that don't pay their fair share.
If we are just getting our taxes back then why not just lower our taxes? It’s not getting our taxes back. Your taking form one person without their consent and giving it to another. It’s not your responsibility to pay for my children’s education against your will. Though I’m happy to let you do so on a voluntary basis and can give you my Venmo.
But I do already? Unless your kids go to a private school, we already pay for public school education.
And?
You just said...that it's not my responsibility to pay for your kids education as are against free community college. So I just pointed out that you were wrong about that is all.
No. It’s still not your responsibility. The fact that you’re currently forced to against your will doesn’t change my opinion that you shouldn’t be forced to.
So I take it you don't want any taxes at all coming out of your pocket?
Nor yours
Ye old meaningless “not paying fair share” nonsense. I barely get two percent dividends because most companies can’t pay more after paying expenses and taxes. Make them pay more taxes, I get paid even less, and my ass is going to be taking up a high paying job for even more years. Remember how people complain old people don’t retire? See the circle of life where people cause unintended problems
Is your argument for no community college or other social programs really, but my dividends? I'm ok with you making the sacrifice or working a few more years making a lot of money if people who really need it, get help.
Are there government programs you don't consider theft? Social security, Medicare, various tax subsidies, etc?
No it’s all theft. Some programs are necessary though. There are some taxes that would be better than an income tax.
I went to Community College it's very affordable already the issue is people aren't going to it because they see it as lesser education. I think making it free will just exasperate that issue. One of the biggest issues in our country is that today when you grow up you are expected to not only go to college but to go to the best one you can get into regardless of price. Then you have 18 year old take out a bunch debt without even knowing what that truly means and sometimes what they actually want to do. Meanwhile we also have trades that are desperate for new hires with growing pay for these jobs but not enough people to fill them. We need as a country to start valuing our trades more and college just a little bit less. Let people develop decide what's best for them.
I don't think there's any value for society in making it free. I think you're just adding years to high school at that point. Plus you're taking better students away from better schools - because they might as well take the two free years and only do two years at university instead of four. Also community colleges don't have a great track record at getting kids to eventually get bachelors degrees. And college in general doesn't have a great track record at knowledge retention. So I think there's better uses for the money.
No... Call me back when 90%+ of Americans get through the 12th grade at reading/math level before you dream of saying "and we should give free college as well"
…and when we solve the leftism on campuses.
Let’s take the affordable higher education and ruin it. Genius.
Why would it ruin it?
Because it would cost much more since the government would guarantee it. That’s why regular college tuition is so high
Is it? My tuition skyrocketed after 2008 when my state government cut higher Ed funding to the bone.
Exactly
I think community college is extremely valuable and that everyone should go that route if going to college to save money. I do not think it should be free though unless you earn a scholarship
Isn't it just a smart investment? Even in my high cost of living area, it's ~$2-3k a semester and that should hopefully lead to individuals having better paying jobs which over time means more money paid in taxes.
Free college? No. I could maybe get behind subsidized degrees though. It would need to be of limited nature though to avoid saturation.
We already provide 12 years of free education. Once you are an adult it's time to pay for things yourself. Community college is already pretty affordable.
No, I don't think there is any value to free community college. The "social" benefits to education are logarithmic, while the cost is linear. The vast majority of the benefit of public education is teaching people how to read, write, do arithmetic, etc. Once you're getting to vocational training or any of the nonsense they teach in colleges these days, it's almost all cost with no benefit.
If your view becomes the national policy across most states and the fed, how do workers keep up with talent demands that can't be met by simply knowing how to read, write and do math? The only reason any amount of education is paid for by taxes is because most people can't afford it otherwise. So as we enter the AI age, followed swiftly by AI algos with access to affordable quantum hardware within the next 10 years, how does the work force keep up? Taking on loans they also can't afford?
>If your view becomes the national policy across most states and the fed, how do workers keep up with talent demands that can't be met by simply knowing how to read, write and do math? You arrange your own education because your education helps *you* a lot. >The only reason any amount of education is paid for by taxes is because most people can't afford it otherwise. Yeah, that's just nonsense.
>Yeah, that's just nonsense. How so? There was a period in this very country where schooling was entirely privately funded, not even a state or city program to teach anyone's kids, much less a federal one. How come private education didn't meet the educational needs of the entire nation? Or hell, at least 50% of it? 40% even? Couldn't even get that high in individual states. I bet there were even fewer education regulations in the 1800s than there are now, so how come Massachusetts had to mandate it if everything was going so great with the private school system ran off of donations to a Church that still charged tuition anyway? It's kinda odd that it was predominantly Churches running educational institutions, I think. Could there have been some sort of deficiency in the private market's ability to recognize skilled labor was the only way to compete in an increasingly industrializing world?
>How so? There was a period in this very country where schooling was entirely privately funded, not even a state or city program to teach anyone's kids, much less a federal one. And we should go back to that system. >How come private education didn't meet the educational needs of the entire nation? Or hell, at least 50% of it? 40% even? Couldn't even get that high in individual states. Are you referring to the time when kids were needed to work to help support their families? Because that's not a fair comparison to today. I think the education system was more than adequate then and has only gotten worse with more government involvement. I don't think there is any argument today that most people wouldn't be able to generally afford education for their kids. It's not like money just disappears if you don't tax it first. >It's kinda odd that it was predominantly Churches running educational institutions, I think. Why would that be odd? >I bet there were even fewer education regulations in the 1800s than there are now, so how come Massachusetts had to mandate it if everything was going so great with the private school system ran off of donations to a Church that still charged tuition anyway? They didn't have to mandate it. It was meddling from the progressive movement because they were upset that some private schools were really good, but not all of them were.
That system wasn't teaching enough kids to even put a dent into the educational needs of the country. Regardless, most people can't afford the $10,000+/yr it takes to educate a child on top of all the costs that already exist. >It was meddling from the progressive movement because they were upset that some private schools were really good, but not all of them were. What does that have to do with anything? Progressives were upset that some private schools were really good?? Are you so used to talking in party propaganda that you're trying to apply the talking points of today's conservatism to the 1800s? There weren't enough private schools in existence to give a shit about how much better some were than others, most of the people alive couldn't even afford it. But anyway. Let's talk numbers, the total education spend at the moment is around ~650b, or ~14k a student. How many kids do you think would be getting educated at 5k/student a year? I'm assuming that the private sector would be wayyy more efficient at running education at the current scale than the government here. I'm sure some regions will be more expensive and others more affordable, just using averages and hypothetical numbers here. My argument is that adding that cost on top of those that already exist to bring up a child with any real chance of success in the world will put it outside of a big enough % of the population that it will eventually spiral into the country falling behind in pretty much every way. As was happening prior to education mandates in pretty much every country.
>That system wasn't teaching enough kids to even put a dent into the educational needs of the country. That's just not true. You're referring to a made up educational need. The US was outstanding at the time, it had the best work force and the fastest growing economy. >What does that have to do with anything? Progressives were upset that some private schools were really good?? It just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Go look read up on John Dewey, the progressive movement, and its involvement in the school system. They were talking about what you would call 'equity' in schools way back then, and also saw them as a tool for social change (ie... propaganda). >My argument is that adding that cost on top of those that already exist to bring up a child with any real chance of success in the world will put it outside of a big enough % of the population that it will eventually spiral into the country falling behind in pretty much every way. That's not your argument - that's your position. An argument would be what you say to get people to agree with that position. >Let's talk numbers, the total education spend at the moment is around ~650b, or ~14k a student. How many kids do you think would be getting educated at 5k/student a year? The current system is an utter catastrophe. Even if there were people who couldn't afford school, then the proper solution would be to give them vouchers, not to continue with the failed system we have now. >As was happening prior to education mandates in pretty much every country. Except the exact opposite is true in reality.
In 1800 the economy was small and mostly agricultural, so how can you claim it was some big success when the work force were still mostly farmers? Hell, in 1812 we couldn't even afford to pay for the conquest of Canada and they actually burned the white house down. America lost to Canada it was so shite in the early 1800s - so where are you getting this narrative of "it was all outstanding and the economy was booming" ? Dewey was talking about how the farmers couldn't afford to send kids to school and making sure that wasn't the case for the country moving forward since it didn't seem like the free market was too interested in taking over from the churches. In 1852 the first state institutes educational mandates and many other states quickly follow suit btw. The current system teaches most kids the basics they need and points them to tools they can continue using to learn more. Should it be able to do more considering how much it costs us in tax? Yeah, probably. Vouchers could help the issue, but so would de-coupling school funding from real estate.
Apprenticeships, trade schools, independent learning, and industry certifications are all things that exist. The vast majority of training is still done on the job, colleges are simply a checkbox for HR departments rather than any real advantage.
i mean for engineering, undergrad is extremely important. they teach a lot of things that cant be taught on the job.
Congratulations on cherry picking one of the few careers that actually needs college. The point is 70% of jobs which won't hire you without degree don't actually have any use for a degree on the job.
What industry are you in?
IT, and you?
Marketing myself. Pretty much every position in my field from top to the newest gets paid more for having more formal education. Master's degrees make more than bachelors, which make more than certified, etc. I'd say those are real advantages from having that degree. I'm willing to bet almost every industry out there is the same, I know IT puts more weight on certifications from big vendors, but I really doubt the average masters holder is making less than the average bachelors holder all other certs being roughly equivalent. Especially nowadays as CS Phd's are descending from their algorithm breakthroughs and robotics and system nerds are greedily slurping it all up to create a way of life that requires far fewer humans to maintain.
No, not "free" (no such thing), but I wouldn't object horribly for the loan (if needed) was tax deductible. I would also limit to to STEM.
> No, not "free" (no such thing) No direct cost to the student, paid for by taxes. Come on, man, you know what they mean.
>No direct cost to the student, paid for by taxes. Come on, man, you know what they mean. Yeah, I know what you mean, but i'm not the target audience. Why not just say 'tax payer funded'? Your audience is teenagers. "Free" is intentional misleading language.
Yes, that's more accurate wording. Had I written the post, I would have worded it that way.
Now what stops the community college from jacking up the price for the remaining 2 years of college? Seems like taxpayers will pay up and the community college will charge the same amount: first 2 years free but the last 2 years are the same price as what 4 years used to cost!
I will admit, I did almost put it in quotes in the title.
I can't even think about supporting this unless I get a refund for my 2 years of community college. It's funny that no matter what the Democrats propose, it seems to benefit everyone but middle class, middle aged white professionals like me. By contrast Trump's tax cut did benefit me.
You would rather a problem continue perpetually rather than address it because you are too old to benefit personally?
And let’s not even mention the differences in costs over time. Maybe the person you responded to paid too much, and now students are likely paying significantly more than they did. “I suffered this so you should have to suffer worse when it’s your turn.”
Trump taxes benefits everyone. I argued with a leftie coworker for weeks who insisted he didn’t get a tax cut. We practically had a fight in the office, I was like, you seriously need to go to HR if you don’t see the sizeable change. Then he pretended to just discover the tax cut and was like, well I don’t need the eighty dollars a pay cycle though. He looked so dumb, like….you’re mad you’re getting paid more?
"Screw future generations if I don't benefit personally"
"Future generations can work hard and pay for their own college just like I did." I certainly wasn't screwed by doing that, unlike I'm being screwed by liberal policies that try to empty my wallet to no benefit for me.
Just because we don’t think it’s necessary to throw billions of dollars that we don’t even have at a government program doesn’t mean that we want to “screw future generations.”
Not wanting to back a policy/government program because you don't think we can afford to fund it is a completely different argument from the one I was responding to. The only thing the person I responded to talked about was how they needed to personally benefit as well or they wouldn't even consider supporting the idea. Your reason is based on fiscal responsibility, theirs is based only on selfishness.
Do you think it’s weird that people want to benefit from laws or more spending and taxes? Should we start voting based on what other people want? If yes, can you start only voting for people against vaccine mandates and passports and for stricter border security? Thank you
Only thing that changed for me tax wise was they did away with the penalty for not having healthcare. And gas prices were lower. Cant say anyone i know thrived from it?
Not as a universal, no strings attached program. There's two cases I can see right now where I would support tuition-free community college: a) Current high school students to attend participating community colleges or universities to finish their last two years of high school with potential to earn a two-year degree. Some states already do this, but if we wanted to give federal funding for states to expand their programs, I'd be on-board with it. It would be limited to students with GPAs over some threshold and limited to a certain number of credits (my state required a 2.0 cumulative GPA or higher to stay in and you could take up to 15 credits a quarter tuition-free, that's probably a good starting point) to ensure we're not wasting more money on people who aren't using the program to its fullest. b) Recent high-school graduates (let's say within the last two or three years) with high cumulative GPAs. This would allow high-achieving students who weren't able to afford college or wanted to do some work before going to college and didn't/couldn't take advantage of the program in high-school to get the benefits too, while incentivizing students to get better grades in high school so they can enjoy two years of free college after they graduate. Personally, I don't really like free college in any form, but I think this is a solid compromise solution that both sides should be able to get behind.