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.
Well put. You've brought up the problem quite eloquently. Somehow, higher academia is being translated into a job requirement. This is the kind of nonsense that has brought us to a state of students in debt with little or no employability. You go to college to join academia and/or master a subject. Your intent is to further a field of study or practice in a specialized field. It is not simply to go out and get a job. That's what vocational schools and apprenticeships (more popular in Europe) are for. Somehow, people think that a bachelors degree gets you a skillset.
There are other intangibles that a college education provides. If you graduate with some science and math literacy, skills in critical thinking, and becoming a more tolerant and open-minded person, that also has benefits for society.
I'm all for increasing community college training programs also, and trying to make them specific to what employer's needs are.
So only those that can afford to go to college should go?
Once again, I didnt say that at all. Hell, government alrady funds higher education for those who cant afford to go. The fact that so many individuals feel the need to go and saddle themself with debt going to ivy league colleges is a sad state of this nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
So you are against the poor trying to better themselves if they can't afford college?
Once again, you have to lie about what others believe, and then wonder why you cant have a civil conversation with others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Also, flaw in your argument, this program would allow people to afford college because they would pay for it through the career they achieve with their degree.
There is no flaw in my argument, I actually said it sounds like a good idea in theory.. I asked whats to stop the schools from jacking up their prices or enticing students through non educational means to go to their school since the student will no longer be obligated for the expenses incurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
I applaud Oregon for this bold move and I hope more states take notice.
Of course you do.. You havent met a government program you havent loved.
Skills that are in demand. Financial skills, computer/IT skills, translation skills, customer service skills, branding skills, etc.... these do not require study in academia to do the job. They just require some sort of training.
Actually a number of those skills do require some form of academia, and is reflected by the college demands of the employers.
what happens if you leave oregon after you graduate? i dont think for example minnesota is going to recognize an oregon tax.
I think the 3 % would still be paid forward to Oregon.
It's not a tax, it's paying forward for your tuition. You're not escaping paying tuition, this plan just makes it slightly more tied to your income, and what's wrong with that? No one is penalized. The person paying 3 % of $200,000 a year, is still going to be a high income earner, and the person paying 3 % of $40,000 a year will still be a middle-class income earner.
This way though, some really brilliant students might be more willing to go into non-profit work or teaching, because their student loan debt won't be such a enormous factor in what kind of job they seek.
Once again, I didnt say that at all. Hell, government alrady funds higher education for those who cant afford to go. The fact that so many individuals feel the need to go and saddle themself with debt going to ivy league colleges is a sad state of this nation.
Once again, you have to lie about what others believe, and then wonder why you cant have a civil conversation with others.
There is no flaw in my argument, I actually said it sounds like a good idea in theory.. I asked whats to stop the schools from jacking up their prices or enticing students through non educational means to go to their school since the student will no longer be obligated for the expenses incurred.
Of course you do.. You havent met a government program you havent loved.
The government is not necessarily paying any more or any less with this program. Who knows,with enough high income earners, the schools might come out ahead! It's win win for everyone.
Once again, I didnt say that at all. Hell, government alrady funds higher education for those who cant afford to go. The fact that so many individuals feel the need to go and saddle themself with debt going to ivy league colleges is a sad state of this nation.
Once again, you have to lie about what others believe, and then wonder why you cant have a civil conversation with others.
There is no flaw in my argument, I actually said it sounds like a good idea in theory.. I asked whats to stop the schools from jacking up their prices or enticing students through non educational means to go to their school since the student will no longer be obligated for the expenses incurred.
Of course you do.. You havent met a government program you havent loved.
Public colleges belong to the state of Oregon, the cost of college would be regulated through the state, the percentage wouldn't change for those paying it forward. Also, paying it forward eliminates the need for debt upfront.
So your argument is still flawed, you just can't see it.
So only those that can afford to go to college should go? So you are against the poor trying to better themselves if they can't afford college? Also, flaw in your argument, this program would allow people to afford college because they would pay for it through the career they achieve with their degree.
I applaud Oregon for this bold move and I hope more states take notice.
And obviously some conservatives just can't stand this idea.
But, but, but then we can't blame poor people for being good-for-nothings who "make bad choices" and do nothing to better themselves......
The school has no incentive to have the students contribute more to the fund..
Yes they do. They will want to provide the highest-quality education they can so that their graduates will do as well as possible in their chosen fields.
And the students have an incentive to contribute more to the fund, because no one is going to seek a lower income just so their 3 % is less than a high income earner--most people seek to maximize their pay no matter what field they are in!
Public colleges belong to the state of Oregon, the cost of college would be regulated through the state, the percentage wouldn't change for those paying it forward. Also, paying it forward eliminates the need for debt upfront.
So your argument is still flawed, you just can't see it.
What the hell stops the growth in the cost under this program? Simply changing how its paid for, doesnt stop the need to pay for 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.
I asked whats to stop the schools from jacking up their prices or enticing students through non educational means to go to their school since the student will no longer be obligated for the expenses incurred.
But, but, but then we can't blame poor people for being good-for-nothings who "make bad choices" and do nothing to better themselves......
