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.
This is mostly only true for very elite private universities. On the whole, it is typically cheaper to attend public schools in most states. Schools like Princeton and Harvard have huge endowments and pride themselves on allowing well-qualified students to attend even if they have little money. They are the exception among private schools.
This is a better and proven model to support education. We don't need to make thousands of schools free. We need to focus on top quality schools and making more of them.
Successful colleges earn money though research and patents. They use this money to invest in higher education in several ways including funding of their best students.
This is a better and proven model to support education. We don't need to make thousands of schools free. We need to focus on top quality schools and making more of them.
Successful colleges earn money though research and patents. They use this money to invest in higher education in several ways including funding of their best students.
What does that have to do with what we were talking about? We were discussing whether private schools are actually cheaper due to an abundance of financial aid, not what the best model for universities is.
I doubt it is possible to create enough Harvards and Princetons to support the educational needs of the entire country. In fact, I don't just doubt it's possible; I know it isn't possible.
The question here is not how the best students get funding. There are already avenues for incredibly bright kids to go to college regardless of resources. The question is how to average kids who lack resources get a decent education.
What does that have to do with what we were talking about? We were discussing whether private schools are actually cheaper due to an abundance of financial aid, not what the best model for universities is.
I doubt it is possible to create enough Harvards and Princetons to support the educational needs of the entire country. In fact, I don't just doubt it's possible; I know it isn't possible.
I was tying it back to the actual debate of free tuition.
Funding of higher education should be tied to the purpose of higher education. That means research and innovation. The problem right now is that we have schools that focus on high school style classroom instruction instead of higher education. Fix the higher education problem and tie funding back to research and patents and the schools will be able to afford generous tuition aid for their students just like they have for thousands of years.
I suggested in another thread that colleges can provide tuition funding based on the number of papers a student has published during attendance.
I was tying it back to the actual debate of free tuition.
Funding of higher education should be tied to the purpose of higher education. That means research and innovation. The problem right now is that we have schools that focus on high school style classroom instruction instead of higher education. Fix the higher education problem and tie funding back to research and patents and the schools will be able to afford generous tuition aid for their students just like they have for thousands of years.
The reason schools like Princeton and Harvard can give generous scholarships is not because those school produce so much revenue through innovation and patents. It is because they have massive endowments.
The reason schools like Princeton and Harvard can give generous scholarships is not because those school produce so much revenue through innovation and patents. It is because they have massive endowments.
Right... and their endowments were funded by donors who had financial gains through research and innovation performed with the universities. The vast majority was donated by royalty and academics.
Right... and their endowments were funded by donors who had financial gains through research and innovation performed with the universities. The vast majority was donated by royalty and academics.
Do you have a source for that claim? I find it highly doubtful that the majority of the endowments for these schools have come from proceeds of innovation that was undertaken, even jointly, by the school. These schools often get vary large ($20 MM+) donations from alumni who have gone on to have great success in life. I may be unaware of things, but it seems unlikely that graduate students or faculty members are creating enough innovation while tied to the school that the school is getting a significant return.
Do you have a source for that claim? I find it highly doubtful that the majority of the endowments for these schools have come from proceeds of innovation that was undertaken, even jointly, by the school. These schools often get vary large ($20 MM+) donations from alumni who have gone on to have great success in life. I may be unaware of things, but it seems unlikely that graduate students or faculty members are creating enough innovation while tied to the school that the school is getting a significant return.
I can see if I can grab a copy of the biggest donors next time I'm on campus. There's a book that sits in the library.
Btw, it's not graduate students. It's researchers that have commercialized their research into products.
The better question is, what if the student fails? Do the taxpayers just eat the tuition or, will the student have to pay it back. We ARE talking about billions here.....
I know you're talking about students who do not finish school, but there are plenty who do but never use their degrees. A couple of years ago, I met a young woman who had an MS in Civil Engineering. I didn't get to know her too well, but she told me she went to college on a grant or scholarship. As far as know, she got a full boat, but I can't say for sure. Once I asked why someone who was fortunate enough to get a college education would settle for working for Domino's. She said she was offered an engineering job after college, but she just didn't fit into that world and had been delivering pizza for a couple of years.
So you are asking a valid question. Even if a drop-out needs to pay back any financial aid, what about a graduate who doesn't apply his degree or decides to backpack through Europe?
All of the people so offended and outraged are not ta into running the numbers right. They can't seem to hear beyond "free for someone OTHER THAN ME w my taxes!" And have a gut response of "this is unjust and is taking away my financial freedom, I object!" But this would actually be saving you and your offspring money down the road. Here's why:
1. We need graduates to fill the need for college trained STEM grads anyways. Let's stop importing white collar labor and train our own. No one ever talks about this issue but it is very real.
2. It's not as though any idiots will be able to get into state universities. People are confusing free tuition with open enrollment.
* **3. The biggest benifits of this plan would be: more applicants = more selective admissions. This helps funnel in the intelligent students who perhaps don't go to college now because they are more afraid of debt.
I don't have the stats but I've known many bright students who have grown up poor and are so afraid of debt that they want to get out of hs and work ASAP. And/or they just do it because they think they are "supposed to." Its what their fam and peers do. Even for min wage. Even if it means them dropping out of hs.
4. We're going to pay one way or another. I estimate that for a certain percentage of student who otherwise would not have gone to college, investing 4 years of tuition on them is NO WHERE NEAR the amount of lifetime welfare we could be paying for the rest of their lives PLUS their kids. *In general,* the more education you have, the less kids you have.
(* **There's a great chapter in one of the Freakanomics books about when women started to be "allowed" to be something other than a nurse, teacher or social worker. Females migrated into different fields so education was no longer attracting the best and brightest now that the exceptional had more than just 3 career options.
I suspect this would happen with those who are unemployed or under employed. Now that they could see themselves going to college, a mindset set at a young age, they may work towards this in HS. Currently, most kids stay in the same SES as their family and peers. How amazing would it be to make sure the truly recognize the talented ones rise to the top?! The key is that we need them to see it as a possibility from a young age. So that many/ most who are truly academically gifted, will hopefully be more encouraged to better develop that side of themselves since they will be able to see a clearer path to a better life. )
What if all the US students want to study psychology, the classics, or foreign languages?
What if all the US students want to study psychology, the classics, or foreign languages?
You can add to your list "Ancient Philosophy." I took some night classes after work one year just to feed my mind and commiserated with the instructor who told me she had a PhD in Ancient Philosophy.
..and then there's this:
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/07/business/dealbook/court-to-hear-suit-accusing-law-school-of-inflating-job-data.html"]Law Graduate Gets Her Day in Court, Suing Law School
[/URL]
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.
