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.
College used to be free in the 1950s in some US states. And it is free or close to free in many countries. And they have not had this problem. In addition people who hate school are not going to go to college just because it is free. Many people in my high school went on to be hair dressers, construction workers and had zero desire to get back in the classroom. Not everyone is suited for it and they know it. If high school was optional you know many people wouldn't bother going. In addition, free doesn't mean open enrollment.
It's "free" in WV as long as you get the grades to qualify (just like in Germany).
Devlaued, but make undergrad free and they are all essentially as worthless as a high school diploma. Then we'll repeat this cycle with graduate degrees, where everyone should be able to go to law/medical/grad school for free, making all those degrees worthless, and so on and so on.
And nothing will change. The folks who work harder/smarter/faster/better will keep getting ahead, and those who don't will keep bitching about unfair it all is.
Whether or not secondary education/vocational technical training (see what I did there?) is paid for by the government, there still needs to be an overall re-thinking done on the idea that everyone ought to have a bachelor's degree.
The answer is: No. The percentage of kids who should be led to get bachelor's degrees alone (that is, no further professional graduate work) is very, very small--especially right out of high school.
There is certainly an argument that those who intend to go on to higher level professions such as law or medicine need the undergraduate bachelor's degree first. Obviously.
There is an argument to be made for persons already in technical careers going on to get management or business bachelor's degrees as they advance into management...but that would not be needed right out of high school, and only for the percentage aiming for management.
Both educators and employers need to get off this bachelor's degree kick.
The vast majority of kids ought to be pointed toward technical training because A. That's what society needs and B. Because that's what most kids are suited for.
The fact today is that only 30% of kids ever get bachelor's degrees, and most of them are non-STEM and practically useless ("practically" as in "not of practical use"). I'm not opposed to an education in "non-practical" studies, but those shouldn't be pushed as though they were necessary to have a good job, nor should employers require non-practical education when they actually need practical skills.
Sure why not! Can anyone argue that the vast majority of kids are NOT mature enough or ready for college? Military would fix that....or at least some kind of national civil service. Get the hell out of all these wars,close the bases overseas etc and that cuts down on 99% of the chance these kids die in any asinine wars for the military industrial complex.
Well, let's nip that idea in the bud. There are approximately 2 million new 18-year-olds every year. The DoD is scaled to handle about 120,000 new recruits every year. Nobody really wants to see the DoD scale up from 120,000 to 2,000,000.
Well, let's nip that idea in the bud. There are approximately 2 million new 18-year-olds every year. The DoD is scaled to handle about 120,000 new recruits every year. Nobody really wants to see the DoD scale up from 120,000 to 2,000,000.
Indeed, many in fact want to scale the military down from the 120k, not ramp it up. Non-hawk conservatives and libertarians both think that is a place to start.
using the military GI bill as an example for paying for college is absurd. The differences in the various GI bills are tied to a specific wartime period. What college student has put their life on the line to be entitled to some sort of "GI" Bill?
using the military GI bill as an example for paying for college is absurd. The differences in the various GI bills are tied to a specific wartime period. What college student has put their life on the line to be entitled to some sort of "GI" Bill?
That wasn't the question. The question was whether it's fair to people who paid for their own college to begin at "date x" making it free for new students. My point with the GI Bill is that such a thing has happened before. It also happened with Social Security, and it happens with every new program.
Why? Why should the tax payer pay for someone else's kid to go to college/university. It is certainly not my responsibility to pay for the education of someone else's kid!
no, common sense tells me that an educated population is good for any nation.
That would only be true "if" our education system were actually giving good education instead of the convoluted crap that does nothing to prepare for life ahead, encourages immorality...co-habitated dorms/bathrooms/booze and drug parties, etc., etc. ...and produces nothing that business can really hire unless they are willing to go to the expense of having to re-educate. Been there, done that so do know what I'm talking about!
Last edited by lorrysda; 05-19-2015 at 06:15 PM..
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.
