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.
Car mechanic.....plumber.....HVAV technician.....LPNs.....plenty of marketable fields that don't require a 4-year degree. And, yes....it is cheap. Cheap enough to be covered by Pell Grants.
C students should not be going to college. Either they drop out or flunk out (what a waste of money) or college will be dumbed down to allow medicore students to earn what will then be a meaningless B.A.
Sorry, but college is not for everyone. For the so-so kids, they need to learn a trade.
I'm glad you are not in charge. Many a C high school student have went on to do amazing things.
It's been covered over and over and over and over.
He was going to enact a small fee on trades. So many would be financing their kids college that way. Once a person graduates the vast majority get into setting up for their futures also, so while they aren't paying while in college they would when they get out.
No different than with a loan. The banks simply can't hose you with inflated rates this way.
Oh c’mon.
You know it’s better if people graduate with tens of thousands of dollars of debt that precludes them being able to buy homes, cars, etc. and ever getting to whatever the magic income level is that would allow them to have kids.
We have to maintain and support the debt industry.
It’s the American way.
They can still go. But taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. They and their families need to.
And you can always find examples of medicore students who succeeded. But the B and above students are more likely to succeed. With debt at an all-time high, we should not have to pay for C students to squeak through college, if they can, and absorb the wasted college tuition dollars if they can't.
Sanders and his tuition free college, Kamala and her $500 monthly check proposal to families, Warren and her free universal childcare to families who make less than $50,000 and of course Medicare for All which they have no way to pay for it just a campaign statement to get liberals to go to the polls.
I am just so disgusted with so many people being led to believe that higher-income people should pay for the poor's bad choices. (And, as I have "always" said, YES, I do know that some low-income people are low-income due to bad luck beyond their control and NOT their own personal bad choices, and so I am not referring to those people.)
If the extreme liberals do not cease and desist, I can only hope that more conservatives will go to the polls.
"Marketable field" is a vague nothing of an answer and no it's not cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
Car mechanic.....plumber.....HVAV technician.....LPNs.....plenty of marketable fields that don't require a 4-year degree. And, yes....it is cheap. Cheap enough to be covered by Pell Grants.
C students should not be going to college. Either they drop out or flunk out (what a waste of money) or college will be dumbed down to allow medicore students to earn what will then be a meaningless B.A.
Sorry, but college is not for everyone. For the so-so kids, they need to learn a trade.
How about taking a more centrist approach. Germany identifies people suitable for trade education and people who are suitable for college education at an early age. The people get trade training for free and also get a small stipend while training ( and nursing there is a trade rather than college degree). Many trade costs are absorbed by employers who want a well trained future workforce. Only those suitable for college get free education. Those who are identified as not suitable for college but still want to g can pay for their own education.
Maybe a modified version of it can be used in USA. Make trade education free/ almost free or affordable so that people who are not suitable for college don't waste money and time and then drop out. And make college education in fields required here like computers, other STEM fields and healthcare related fields subsidized for those students below a certain a certain income threshold. But if you want to study in a field that is not in need but for your own pleasure, you can very well pay for it.
How about taking a more centrist approach. Germany identifies people suitable for trade education and people who are suitable for college education at an early age. The people get trade training for free and also get a small stipend while training ( and nursing there is a trade rather than college degree). Many trade costs are absorbed by employers who want a well trained future workforce. Only those suitable for college get free education. Those who are identified as not suitable for college but still want to g can pay for their own education.
Maybe a modified version of it can be used in USA. Make trade education free/ almost free or affordable so that people who are not suitable for college don't waste money and time and then drop out. And make college education in fields required here like computers, other STEM fields and healthcare related fields subsidized for those students below a certain a certain income threshold. But if you want to study in a field that is not in need but for your own pleasure, you can very well pay for it.
Trade education IS free! Pell Grants can be applied to a variety of post-high school training programs.
But it's cheap. You can go for a 2-year A.A, degree in a marketable field, and if your family is low income, Pell Grants cover it entirely.
Family income shouldn’t be a consideration for tuition funding any more than health insurance should be tied to employment.
If parents can assist with tuition, fine, but too many kids are burdened with debt because their families are just above the threshold for tuition assistance.
Not to mention, if an 18 year old can enlist in the military without parental permission why should their involvement, finances, etc. be required or considered for college or university enrollment?
In the first instance the 18 year old is considered an adult and in the second, not?
Makes absolutely no sense.
You are confusing individual anecdotes with large population studies.
Like the rare smoker who lived into his 90's with no lung problems or cancer or the rare non smoker who develops lung cancer, these are anecdotes. But the controlled population studies show that if you smoke you ar more likely to die early from emphysema or lung cancer than a non-smoker, plain and simple. We should not develop policies based on individual cases.
Family income shouldn’t be a consideration for tuition funding any more than health insurance should be tied to employment.
If parents can assist with tuition, fine, but too many kids are burdened with debt because their families are just above the threshold for tuition assistance.
Not to mention, if an 18 year old can enlist in the military without parental permission why should their involvement, finances, etc. be required or considered for college or university enrollment?
In the first instance the 18 year old is considered an adult and in the second, not?
Makes absolutely no sense.
So you're saying middle income people who could afford to send their C kids to community college should have other people pay for it anyway?
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.