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, they don't. The funding for Pell Grants was slashed during or shortly after Bush II's last administration, so that students are getting much less than before, especially since there are many more applicants now than before. The level of award to each grantee has shrunk significantly. Pell grantees all require additional forms of financial aid. That's the result of the Bush tax cuts.
OMG, ditto for this ignorance around Pell Grants that im so tired of!! Thank you for pointing it out!
PELL GRANTS PAY FOR AN EXTREMELY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF POOR PEOPLE'S COLLEGE EDUCATION.
Real life case study:
I went to a state college that was something close to 5k per year, no housing, over 10 years ago. I graduated second in my hs class but it doesn't matter because PELL GRANTS ARE NOT BASED ON MERIT. THEY ARE BASED ON INCOME. And even if they were based on merit, I was told straight up by my guidance counselor at my underfunded/poor high school that "X town is not considered a competitive school. Our scores are always low so not too many places consider our students for merit scholarships." (??!!)
IDK if minority students would have gotten scholarships but I remember feeling very angry when I was filling out admission paperwork that I lived in this poor white trashy town almost my entire life. It was basically holding me back from scholarships that I suspected *would* go to a fellow salutatorians at a school of a same calibur if that person was a minority. So I definitely can somewhat relate to the anger people have over this issue.
ANYWAYS...... My mom was dirt poor with no assets and so was i by extension. Here I was going to a 5k+ a year college and how much do you think I got from my Pell Grant??
Seriously, just guess. 4.5k?.....4k?.....2k? ...... 1k?
If Bernard's free tuition plan makes it's way into law then my two years overseas become even less meaningful.
So much for "serving", so much for the stress, the sleepless nights, the divorce, etc. So much for our country's ruined credibility overseas and the fact that our quagmires should be counted in the loss column (but that was the plan all along wasn't it, oh politicians?).
I chose the route of NO STUDENT DEBT because I knew ahead of time how burdensome it would be.
And now whiny 20-somethings are demanding to have their worthless majors written off for them? I guess if all of us knew this was coming we'd have taken out the maximum number of loans possible and all gone for Ph.D's, and partied it up along the way.
Homeowners pay a property tax in most states and a large percentage of that tax goes towards funding your towns schools. This is all well and good for the kids but what if you don't have any kids yet you still have to pay this tax?
Will the same system be used on a federal level where a percentage of my hard earned dollars tax wise goes to a fund to give everyone free tuition?
Many say that Obama care is a mess because it is all encompassing and has everyone paying a great deal into services that they will never use.
Will we see the same type of structure with what I call Bernie Bucks ?
I don't believe a second Senator Sanders would win the elections. Still, if he manages to put his system in place, I don't think Ivy league schools would be immediately impacted.
However, there could be some good out of it as well.
For instance, the brightest minds from "poor" families could decide to go for Berkeley instead of Stanford or any Ivy league school. And the competition would hugely increase the value of those degrees because everyone would be able to compete for it, regardless of money. Furthermore, those kids would be able to negotiate junior position salaries on par as done currently, but without any debt related to student loans. This could be huge for the consumption.
In the mid-term, wealthy families would also consider sending their kids to Berkeley to save that amount of money and provide this healthy buffer to them as well. At this point, it's a mystery. Would the current system simply be replaced with those wealthy kids going for the best degrees, and some rare exceptions from poorer families, or would the system still be sustainable and allow a greater social mix? It's very hard to tell.
One person mentioned the costs of books etc... of course, if the tuition becomes free, my guess is that either that part becomes free or is hugely subsidized in order to make sure the initial goal is fulfilled.
I wonder how valuable a degree from a "free" university would be?
There will always be the prestige of a degree from a Ivy League school but if public colleges become free I think a degree from one of them will be somewhat cheapened.
I am very proud that I was able to knuckle down in college to earn my degree and work my butt off when I wasn't in class to pay for it and graduate without a penny of student debt. I am very proud of that accomplishment.
People get so much for free now a days and anything given for free usually doesn't hold much value compared to something that had to be worked for.
The University of Phoenix is a running punchline for example and a degree from there doesn't seem to hold as much value or prestige.
I wonder if a degree from the "free" colleges of Bernies' dreams would hold much weight when going for a job interview?
I think it is important for people to work toward achieving something and then it is so much more valuable to them.
Don't compare a for profit, fraud school with public universities that are free. That is just ridiculous. And no a college degree from any non profit school is good. Paying and working jobs to get a degree or going into debt is not more prestigious than going to a college for free, you would still work hard and do the work.
To say that a degree from UCLA whether free or expensive, is the same. To think that if it becomes free that somehow it will be useless like University of Phoenix is laughable.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Socialist nations that have "free" tuition also have stricter admissions for colleges. Only the best high school students can get in. I do think we need to bring tuition back to levels it was in the 1980s and maybe increase grants but free tuition for all doesn't make sense. If they do that people will abuse the system, they will just perpetually go to college so their loans can be deferred until after they die. And remember the higher percent of the population that has a college degree the less valuable the degree is. I don't want McDonald's to start requiring some college to flip burgers.
I'd like to force colleges to release real time average salaries and employment rate for every degree program so students can make accurate choices the way calorie labels help people eat better.
Colleges are a huge scam, and student loans are the newest form of slavery. Everything one needs to know in order to acquire a degree is available for free, online. Instruction, reading materials and testing, all there and all free. The fact that we have not moved to this 100% is proof of how corrupt the entire system is. College students are ignorant suckers and free college means free money for thieves, con artists and shysters.
In 2012, it was 41%. You will notice the growth rate is steadily growing. You could accelerate it, but not by the massive numbers free tuition would cause. That's naive to think it would be simple.
It would be more effective to greatly increase the number of PELL grants given out, and make college affordable to the students who actually need the help. I have a child, and I would love free tuition, but it's just not feasible. It's too complicated. Why pay for school for families who can afford it?
Look at the German "free tuition" for college. It's only available for the graduates from their top tier "gymnasium" students. The students who are on the lower tracks are not elegible. That would never fly in the states.
Percentage of kids 18-24 in college is going to be lower than the percentage of graduating high school seniors who go to college, so I suspect that our numbers jive. I don't think there's any resolution to this -- I think the college system could handle the increase, and you don't. I'm not sure there's any good evidence to favor either of our opinions.
I do think Pell grants would probably be a better idea, but our discussion wasn't about Sander's proposal generally -- it was about whether the college system could handle the increase.
This is a common misconception. It's often cheaper to attend a high quality private institution than it is to attend a public school.
For example, in NJ, a family making $70,000/yr will find it cheaper to attend Princeton University than Rutgers University thanks to financial aid.
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.
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.
