Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
America really has to get over this "OMG, it is socialism." attitude. Every developed, civilized country in the world has health care, and many have FREE or greatly reduced education from K--PhD..
Yes, if there's a selection system to determine who is best qualified to attend (like some European countries) and make college "free" to only those students. And by best qualified, I mean based on academic achievement.
No, if it's "free" to everyone. Last thing we need is another huge entitlement program.
IMO, if we did this 2 things would happen: students would work harder to assure themselves a "free" education and schools that are less in demand would have to lower their costs to entice paying students to attend. Win-Win.
America really has to get over this "OMG, it is socialism." attitude. Every developed, civilized country in the world has health care, and many have FREE or greatly reduced education from K--PhD..
That is not true. Many "developed, civilized" countries have fees for public school education and only allow the best and the brightest to attend University...the rest are shuffled off to the working sector after they graduate from "high school" or maybe allowed to attend "college" which is the similar to our community college system. Even though tuition may be "free" they still have to pay living expenses, etc....which is not unlike the system in the US where the top students do receive full rides are at least full tuition scholarships to college. Even kids that are not at the tip top can benefit from these at 1000's of schools around the country.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,387,565 times
Reputation: 3539
Personally, I would like to see ALL public funding abolished for ALL education, even elementary and secondary. As some have said, people tend not to value anything that comes easily.
Of course, in my scenario, the education system would have to change drastically. I would like to see parents have to band together to personally fund the teacher/s for their children. In most communities, I'm sure there would be some philanthropists that would be willing to contribute funds for those unable to afford the costs themselves; however, that philanthropy would be rescinded if the students had no desire to learn and/or if parents wouldn't support the educational process. This system would force parents to take an active role in their children's education, both by vetting the teacher and by putting some skin in the game to finance the teacher and schoolroom and to keep the schoolroom in good repair. If that happened, educational apathy would almost disappear as everyone would have a stake in education. I'd be willing to bet that parents would become much more interested in what their children were learning and how they were progressing. Furthermore, the teachers would be held directly accountable to the ones paying their salaries. As for those parents/students who wouldn't work hard or support the system, they would--unfortunately--bear the consequences of their own actions. I do believe others would support any child who truly wanted to learn regardless of parental influences. And, if parents absolutely refuse to let their children participate, how would that outcome be any different from what we are seeing today in schools where the parents won't hold their children accountable and/or the children have no desire to learn? Even if the parents won't allow their children to attend school, a child who really wants to learn will find a way (friends/neighbors/community member/teacher) even if that means waiting until he is older.
Many colleges already have handsome endowments and there are a myriad of privately funded grants available, so we know that there are philanthropists who see the value of helping others with their educational expenses. If a student proves his/her worth during the secondary education process and/or through community involvement, philanthropists could step up to the plate, help fund or entirely fund a post-secondary education for candidates they feel would benefit the community or greater society. There could even be contractual obligations to ensure the student returned to the community. In the meantime, the bloated bureaucracy and lavish expenditures on unnecessary items would greatly lessen as the educational establishment is held acountable by those funding it.
But, most importantly in my opinion, both parents and students would take education more seriously if they actually had some of their own money involved. Being taxed isn't the same as consciously having to decide how much money one can afford and writing that check. It's also very easy to vote to spend other people's money, but it is another thing altogether to write the check yourself or paint the building yourself.
-------
When it comes to higher education, costs skyrocketed when college loans became easily accessible. The variables associated with educating an individual didn't change, so there was no need for the drastic increase in college expenses except for the greed of the educational establishment.
Back in the dark ages when I went to school, I could afford my private college on my low paying, part-time salary. There is no way in the world today the average student could do the same for a private education, and it would be difficult--but not impossible--for a public education. Not all students have easy access to a college campus and can live at home, plus many (most?) of the grants and scholarships are needs/gender/race based. Furthermore, unless one is unusually computer savvy or has an extremely good scholarship counselor, it can be extremely difficult to find information on grants and scholarship for which one is qualified, especially for the non-traditional student.
America really has to get over this "OMG, it is socialism." attitude. Every developed, civilized country in the world has health care, and many have FREE or greatly reduced education from K--PhD..
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me
Yes, if there's a selection system to determine who is best qualified to attend (like some European countries) and make college "free" to only those students. And by best qualified, I mean based on academic achievement.
No, if it's "free" to everyone. Last thing we need is another huge entitlement program.
IMO, if we did this 2 things would happen: students would work harder to assure themselves a "free" education and schools that are less in demand would have to lower their costs to entice paying students to attend. Win-Win.
Yep--definitely agree with both of you. I actually think that schools that are less in demand could be subsidized as well, but just with less money per student. Although schools below a certain level should not receive any funding. I think that it harms economic risk-taking if students are overburdened with debt, and I think that harms growth. Perhaps there should be a sliding scale subsidy based on qualification to attend--more subsidies for the highest aptitude and fewer subsidies for the lower aptitudes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
That is not true. Many "developed, civilized" countries have fees for public school education and only allow the best and the brightest to attend University...the rest are shuffled off to the working sector after they graduate from "high school" or maybe allowed to attend "college" which is the similar to our community college system. Even though tuition may be "free" they still have to pay living expenses, etc....which is not unlike the system in the US where the top students do receive full rides are at least full tuition scholarships to college. Even kids that are not at the tip top can benefit from these at 1000's of schools around the country.
This payment of only living expenses is unlike the US system. We do not give top students full rides in any systematic way. Schools that struggle to attract the most desirable students will offer them scholarships in order to entice them. Some schools also offer need-based scholarships to qualified students. And then the government guarantees student loan debt for most students. It is completely untrue that top students receive full rides in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueberry
Personally, I would like to see ALL public funding abolished for ALL education, even elementary and secondary. As some have said, people tend not to value anything that comes easily.
Of course, in my scenario, the education system would have to change drastically. I would like to see parents have to band together to personally fund the teacher/s for their children. In most communities, I'm sure there would be some philanthropists that would be willing to contribute funds for those unable to afford the costs themselves; however, that philanthropy would be rescinded if the students had no desire to learn and/or if parents wouldn't support the educational process. This system would force parents to take an active role in their children's education, both by vetting the teacher and by putting some skin in the game to finance the teacher and schoolroom and to keep the schoolroom in good repair. If that happened, educational apathy would almost disappear as everyone would have a stake in education. I'd be willing to bet that parents would become much more interested in what their children were learning and how they were progressing. Furthermore, the teachers would be held directly accountable to the ones paying their salaries. As for those parents/students who wouldn't work hard or support the system, they would--unfortunately--bear the consequences of their own actions. I do believe others would support any child who truly wanted to learn regardless of parental influences. And, if parents absolutely refuse to let their children participate, how would that outcome be any different from what we are seeing today in schools where the parents won't hold their children accountable and/or the children have no desire to learn? Even if the parents won't allow their children to attend school, a child who really wants to learn will find a way (friends/neighbors/community member/teacher) even if that means waiting until he is older.
Many colleges already have handsome endowments and there are a myriad of privately funded grants available, so we know that there are philanthropists who see the value of helping others with their educational expenses. If a student proves his/her worth during the secondary education process and/or through community involvement, philanthropists could step up to the plate, help fund or entirely fund a post-secondary education for candidates they feel would benefit the community or greater society. There could even be contractual obligations to ensure the student returned to the community. In the meantime, the bloated bureaucracy and lavish expenditures on unnecessary items would greatly lessen as the educational establishment is held acountable by those funding it.
But, most importantly in my opinion, both parents and students would take education more seriously if they actually had some of their own money involved. Being taxed isn't the same as consciously having to decide how much money one can afford and writing that check. It's also very easy to vote to spend other people's money, but it is another thing altogether to write the check yourself or paint the building yourself.
-------
When it comes to higher education, costs skyrocketed when college loans became easily accessible. The variables associated with educating an individual didn't change, so there was no need for the drastic increase in college expenses except for the greed of the educational establishment.
Back in the dark ages when I went to school, I could afford my private college on my low paying, part-time salary. There is no way in the world today the average student could do the same for a private education, and it would be difficult--but not impossible--for a public education. Not all students have easy access to a college campus and can live at home, plus many (most?) of the grants and scholarships are needs/gender/race based. Furthermore, unless one is unusually computer savvy or has an extremely good scholarship counselor, it can be extremely difficult to find information on grants and scholarship for which one is qualified, especially for the non-traditional student.
Your aim is perhaps intellectually consistent, even if it would be a dystopian nightmare in practice. While federally-backed college loans have contributed to the cost increases, your simplistic explanation does not hold water. The federal government has been involved in backing student loans since the 1960s (1950s for some students). I suspect that federal loans' impact on the cost of college is outweighed by the growth in the number of students who enroll in college. In 2010 there were over 21 million students enrolled in post-secondary, degree-granting institutions, compared to 8.5 million in 1970. That type of growth required a great deal of capital investment on the part universities to keep up with demand.
The dark ages of your university years are not comparable with contemporary post-secondary education. College cost an awful lot less back then, even adjusted for inflation. It was also likely less necessary in the job market.
Some students today are able to acquire non-loan aid that covers the cost of their education, but that is rare. Most students take out loans to pay for school. It is a rational decision, given one's prospects as a college grad versus those as a high school grad. But it places tremendous burdens upon our young adults entering the marketplace.
It's probably be bad cause more stackers could get in unless they were stricter on letting you in. I definitely think it should be a lot cheaper though!
Where I live we have the College of the Ozarks where students WORK to pay their tuition. It is only one of three or four colleges in the US who have this business model and it works very well. I would like to see many colleges like this all over the country. Not only does it provide a sound education, but it also provides valuable work experience and the campus provides an atmosphere of honor, respect and integrity (yes it is a Christian school, but as far as I know you do not have to be Christian to go there). Here is a link.
We pretty much free tuition to anyone who wants it. You just need to care enough to work hard in high school and you'll get a free ride or close to it..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
