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.
No, it would not hurt elite private institutions at all. It would probably make them more valuable than they already are.
People are confusing several issues:
1) Tuition-free =/= cost-free. Tuition is 35-50% of the costs at most public universities; look it up at the one closest to you. There would still be fees, books, room and board costs. My prediction is that all of those would rise. Tuition-free would save about 1/3rd to 2/5ths off of the typical student's bill. They would still be on the hook for the rest.
2) Tuition-free =/= open enrollment. If anything, Bernie's plan would probably enable the higher tiered public U's to curtail enrollment, not expand it. The rest of them would probably remain steady. I suspect that some expansion in the public university sector is primarily economically motivated - they need to bring student housing dollars in. If we made the funding source stable, they would probably streamline their operations.
3) We are not acknowledging restrictions. This does not mean every student can go to any college of their choice free of charge. I assume it means in-state residents only and dependent on admissions requirements. When you combine that with restricted enrollment, you are not talking about that much money or that big of a paradigm change. This may mean that only a handful of in-state public colleges would be available to students tuition-free.
4) We already have a funding model in place with community colleges. Some states are already moving towards tuition-free community college. Obama has proposed that since 2013 I think and Hillary has countered Bernie with a national tuition-free CC proposal. The difference is that CC's are open enrollment. Universities would have competitive enrollment.
Generally speaking, the student market for private colleges is distinct from public ones. It's a different kind of population that even considers private colleges. Everyone knows though common sense that they are more expensive. Private colleges exist precisely because some families want to pay for an education experience distinct from what the states already subsidize. It's already much cheaper to go public than to go private. Putting in place a tuition subsidy will not fundamentally change that. You go private because you want a more intimate education, a certain type of student peer to associate with, a religious influence to your education, etc... That will not change.
Last edited by redguard57; 03-23-2016 at 04:39 PM..
You really think the educational needs of 2016 are comparable to the educational needs of prior centuries?
Look up average lifetime earnings of college graduates compared to lifetime earnings of non-college grads. The fact that you know some anecdotes doesn't disprove the data.
Most of your statements here are just little maxims that don't actually further a coherent argument: "Want free college....join the military or get a scholarship," "Life isn't easy, you need to work hard for what you want and cant and should not rely on anyone but yourself to make things happen." Those statements don't say anything about why free public college is a bad idea. We currently have free public high school, and that has worked out tremendously well.
You mention that your kids (who are ten) already have a college fund, and that is an indication of responsibility. Responsibility on the part of whom? Surely not your kids. It's reflective of you, the parent. What are kids who don't have responsible parents supposed to do? The days of being able to put one's self through college waiting tables are gone. College is too expensive.
It always comes down to this: Nothing is free. Giving people "free" stuff means creating victims, and that is a bad policy and an immoral policy. College education needs to be private and for profit. The government should be out of the education business entirely, but at least the college level business for sure.
No one should want or expect free college. It's bad character to even want it.
I'm a bit lazy so I didn't read your previous posts, am I to understand that your position is that higher education should be pretty much unattainable to the average?
Higher education should be attainable for all those who want it and are willing to pay for it with their own money. Higher education should be unattainable for those who expect their fellow man to be victimized and stolen from so that they may take that money, which is not theirs, and utilize it for their own personal selfish purposes.
He's talking about state colleges. They are already subsidized by each state. It is really not that impossible to do. Already high schools have dual enrollment options with state colleges. I can see it as optional continuation of public school enrolment at end of high school to one of colleges of the state of that student. Under such program a smart high school student could move right on the college classes at readiness rather than age.
I doubt it would effect enrollment at private colleges and universities in any way.
It always comes down to this: Nothing is free. Giving people "free" stuff means creating victims, and that is a bad policy and an immoral policy. College education needs to be private and for profit. The government should be out of the education business entirely, but at least the college level business for sure.
No one should want or expect free college. It's bad character to even want it.
1. Of course nothing is free. No one is claiming that this proposal would be free. Obviously, there would be tax increases.
2. I don't think you know what "victim" means. Me driving on roads that are paid for by the public or benefiting from military protection that is paid for by the public doesn't make me a victim. Neither does going to free public school.
3. Colleges need to be for-profit? Are you kidding me? For-profit schools are notoriously a bad idea, which is why virtually every reputable institution in America is a non-profit -- including private schools. Get your facts straight.
4. Expanding educational access to the poorest members of society significantly improves their prospects in life. There is nothing immoral about that.
1. Of course nothing is free. No one is claiming that this proposal would be free. Obviously, there would be tax increases.
Oh, and how, you have no idea!
Quote:
2. I don't think you know what "victim" means. Me driving on roads that are paid for by the public or benefiting from military protection that is paid for by the public doesn't make me a victim.
There are private solutions for these applications, but it is not critical to address them yet as the level of immorality in receiving certain core services on a collectivist basis is much smaller than the problem and malignancy of redistributing private property.
Quote:
3. Colleges need to be for-profit? Are you kidding me? For-profit schools are notoriously a bad idea, which is why virtually every reputable institution in America is a non-profit -- including private schools. Get your facts straight.
It's not a matter of facts, this is about ideals and moving forward with new ideas. The reason that almost all universities are leftist-altruist-statist-collectivist in their philosophy and curriculum is that they are publicly funded. They are self-perpetuating at the expense of those they victimize. So I propose that we abolish the funding completely for all colleges and universities and make them totally free and totally private and totally for profit. This will enhance performance, change out the leftism, wash out the collectivism, and make the whole system much more healthy and moral.
Which brings up another interesting point. Not only should all colleges be for profit, all schools should be for profit. There should be no government provided school at all of any kind. They do a bad job, but that's not the core issue. The core issue is a moral one. If you are going to plan a family, that plan should include paying for the education of your children. On your dime. And selecting schools that agree with your philosophy with respect to curriculum and life training.
Public schools in all forms should be abolished. They represent a collectivist way of doing things that leads to a society of weak and ultimately uneducated people.
Quote:
4. Expanding educational access to the poorest members of society significantly improves their prospects in life. There is nothing immoral about that.
Nobody's prospects in life are enhanced by stealing the private property of others and using it for their own selfish personal interest. Education is not a right and not a guarantee and not something that we should be providing to anyone, poor or rich. Is an educated population better than an uneducated one? Yes, but only if that education comes on a moral basis. Stealing through redistributive taxation is not a benefit to anyone, and especially not to the recipients who never get better and never have better lives. We've seen generations of collectivist redistribution to the inner cities and what do we have? More crime and less education and more mysticism in the form of backward community based religion. What do we see in areas that have been on the end of the most intense redistribution? Check cashing stores, liquor stores, drug wars, abandoned housing, burned out strip malls, unsafe streets, families without fathers, and bullets flying into apartments killing children.
When you start with an immoral premise, and build a huge system around it, you get insurmountable and intractable problems that never improve. How could they? Victims are created on both ends. Those that are stolen from lose what they own. Those that receive the booty without earning it are weakened and destroyed by having their will to live productively short-circuited and destroyed.
We need to rid ourselves of this evil scourge. Freedom demands that we commit to a life of trading with each other and not stealing from each other. And that means no free services that require theft and booty reassignment. It's just bad and rotten from the core.
Higher education should be attainable for all those who want it and are willing to pay for it with their own money. Higher education should be unattainable for those who expect their fellow man to be victimized and stolen from so that they may take that money, which is not theirs, and utilize it for their own personal selfish purposes.
But then don't you have to extend the class of thieves to everyone who has a subsidized mortgage or takes a mortgage interest deduction? I think it costs us over 80 billion dollars every year for these benefits. By your argument aren't homeowners stealing from me? Aren't I being victimized? Shouldn't only those who can pay for real estate with their own money be allowed the privilege of home ownership? Aren't real estate agents de facto social workers enabling unearned "guberment" handouts?
I could be angry at McMansion owners enjoying subsidized central air while I swelter in the summer ........... But then, once again, I use what I learned through my affordable education. That is, affordable home ownership is a benefit to our society and is money well spent. I don't understand how you don't see subsidized education as a win/win for everyone.
But then don't you have to extend the class of thieves to everyone who has a subsidized mortgage or takes a mortgage interest deduction? I think it costs us over 80 billion dollars every year for these benefits. By your argument aren't homeowners stealing from me? Aren't I being victimized? Shouldn't only those who can pay for real estate with their own money be allowed the privilege of home ownership? Aren't real estate agents de facto social workers enabling unearned "guberment" handouts?
I could be angry at McMansion owners enjoying subsidized central air while I swelter in the summer ........... But then, once again, I use what I learned through my affordable education. That is, affordable home ownership is a benefit to our society and is money well spent. I don't understand how you don't see subsidized education as a win/win for everyone.
You are absolutely correct. A home is something to be purchased by someone who can afford it or can afford to convince a bank to finance it. There should be no "affordable" government assisted housing an any type or stripe. The government should not be in the housing business, either directly by building and maintaining slums, or indirectly by manipulating interest rates and assisting home buyers with purchases through redistributive programs.
Housing, home building, home financing, all of it, should be private, unregulated, and for-profit.
I disagree on interest deductibility however. Allowing people to deduct interest is a RETURN OF FUNDS IMMORALLY CONFISCATED IN THE FIRST PLACE. The interest deduction, and indeed all deductions, allow people to keep WHAT THEY ALREADY OWN.
There are private solutions for these applications, but it is not critical to address them yet as the level of immorality in receiving certain core services on a collectivist basis is much smaller than the problem and malignancy of redistributing private property.
You dodged my point. I wasn't discussing the best way to provide roads or defense. I was discussing your incorrect definition of "victim." Using a public service doesn't make me a victim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
It's not a matter of facts, this is about ideals and moving forward with new ideas. The reason that almost all universities are leftist-altruist-statist-collectivist in their philosophy and curriculum is that they are publicly funded. They are self-perpetuating at the expense of those they victimize. So I propose that we abolish the funding completely for all colleges and universities and make them totally free and totally private and totally for profit. This will enhance performance, change out the leftism, wash out the collectivism, and make the whole system much more healthy and moral.
Which brings up another interesting point. Not only should all colleges be for profit, all schools should be for profit. There should be no government provided school at all of any kind. They do a bad job, but that's not the core issue. The core issue is a moral one. If you are going to plan a family, that plan should include paying for the education of your children. On your dime. And selecting schools that agree with your philosophy with respect to curriculum and life training.
1. There are some for-profit schools. Guess what? They're terrible. The University of Phoenix is one example. The profit motive gives schools incentive to admit as many paying customers as possible while investing as little as possible into the education provided. There is a reason that for-profit schools, across the board, are worse than non-profit schools.
2. Your understanding of morality is incredibly elementary. You have yet to express an actual moral argument for why it is immoral for the government to provide public services. You hold private enterprise as a moral virtue, but you haven't actually articulated a defense for that view -- you take it as self-revealing, which it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Public schools in all forms should be abolished. They represent a collectivist way of doing things that leads to a society of weak and ultimately uneducated people.
That's funny, considering that public schools have resulted in a far more educated society that we had previously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Nobody's prospects in life are enhanced by stealing the private property of others and using it for their own selfish personal interest. Education is not a right and not a guarantee and not something that we should be providing to anyone, poor or rich. Is an educated population better than an uneducated one? Yes, but only if that education comes on a moral basis. Stealing through redistributive taxation is not a benefit to anyone, and especially not to the recipients who never get better and never have better lives. We've seen generations of collectivist redistribution to the inner cities and what do we have? More crime and less education and more mysticism in the form of backward community based religion. What do we see in areas that have been on the end of the most intense redistribution? Check cashing stores, liquor stores, drug wars, abandoned housing, burned out strip malls, unsafe streets, families without fathers, and bullets flying into apartments killing children.
You don't understand the definition of "stealing." The government taxing its citizens and then providing public services is not stealing.
Again, any moral philosopher would laugh at your understanding of morality.
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.
